Capitalist China

“Cut and past, cuss the link may change quickly:


China demonstrates that capitalism no longer needs democracy.

By Robert B. Reich
Web Exclusive: 01.09.06

Print Friendly | Email Article

You may remember when the world was divided between communism and capitalism, and when the Chinese were communists. The Chinese still call themselves communists, but now they’re also capitalists.

In fact, visit China today and you find the most dynamic capitalist nation in the world. In 2005, it had the distinction of being the world’s fastest-growing major economy.

China is the manufacturing hub of the globe. It’s is also moving quickly into the highest of high technologies. It already graduates more computer engineers every year than the United States.

Its cities are booming. There are more building cranes in use today in China than in all of the United States. China's super-highways are filled with modern cars. Its deep-water ports and airports are world class. Its research and development centers are state of the art. At the rate it’s growing, in three decades China will be the largest economy in the world.

Communist, as in communal? Are you kidding? The gap between China's rich and poor is turning into a chasm. China's innovators, investors, and captains of industry are richly rewarded. They live in luxury housing developments whose streets are lined with McMansions. They dine in fancy restaurants, and relax in five-star hotels and resorts. China's poor live in a different world. Mao Tse Tung would turn in his grave.

So where are the Chinese communists? They’re in government. The communist party is the only party there is. China doesn’t have freedom of speech or freedom of the press. It doesn’t tolerate dissent. Authorities can arrest and imprison people who threaten stability, as the party defines it. Any group that dares to protest is treated brutally. There are no civil liberties, no labor unions, no centers of political power outside the communist party.

China shows that when it comes to economics, the dividing line among the world’s nations is no longer between communism and capitalism. Capitalism has won hands down. The real dividing line is no longer economic. It’s political. And that divide is between democracy and authoritarianism. China is a capitalist economy with an authoritarian government.

For years, we’ve assumed that capitalism and democracy fit hand in glove. We took it as an article of faith that you can’t have one without the other. That’s why a key element of American policy toward China has been to encourage free trade, direct investment, and open markets. As China becomes more prosperous and integrated into the global market -- so American policy makers have thought -- China will also become more democratic.

Well, maybe we’ve been a bit naive. It’s true that democracy needs capitalism. Try to come up with the name of a single democracy in the world that doesn’t have a capitalist economy. For democracy to function there must be centers of power outside of government. Capitalism decentralizes economic power, and thereby provides the private ground in which democracy can take root.

But China shows that the reverse may not be true -- capitalism doesn’t need democracy. Capitalism’s wide diffusion of economic power offers enough incentive for investors to take risks with their money. But, as China shows, capitalism doesn’t necessarily provide enough protection for individuals to take risks with their opinions.

Robert B. Reich is co-founder of The American Prospect. A version of this column originally appeared on Marketplace.
© 2006 by The American Prospect, Inc.

http://www.prospect.org/web/printfriendly-view.ww?id=10804”

“I think it's been apparent for years now that the ChiComs have perfected communism.”

“LOL! So perfectr communism = authoritarian crony capitalism!?

From today news, China's trade surplus up again. China also surpassed Japan to become the worlds third largest trading nation.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060111/ap_on_bi_ge/china_trade
last edited: 1/11/06 8:13:35 AM”

“double post
last edited: 1/11/06 8:12:56 AM”

“Don't be obtuse, pedxing. The concept of Authoritarian Communism coupled with Capitalism is what I was referring to. Clearly, while China has nominally achieved this, it still has big problems. The question is, can Hu and subsequent leaders sustain economic growth while fixing the problems created under Jiang's rule before China's WTO commitments undermine its banking system? The biggest hurdle for Hu is arguably the central government's inability to effectively allocate capital. The regional lords who grew rich under Jiang are going to be fighting tooth and nail to prevent change. And the coastal boom zone is going to resist allocation to the economically deprived inland.

Can Hu handle it without a popular uprising and without the capital elites reaching out to antagonistic powers? Who knows, but if he does, the reality of a perfected communism will become much more tangible.”

“Perhaps you are using the the term 'communism' in a new way mutt. China has a large number of privately owned firms that are driving it's economy. Those are capitalist in the generally accepted terminology. The large state-owned industries are generally a drag on the economy while some of the enterprises owned by small communities are doing well.

I think we are witnessing the evolution of a authoritarian communist economy into a fascist capitalistic economy.”

“How do you define "Communism" Mutt?

I was overwhelmed when I was in China two years ago, with how much it reminded me of Hong Kong when I was a kid: desperate panhandlers, savage inequalities, tea shops selling gormet teas for 50 dollars a pound to an almost all Chinese clientelle around the corner from ragged malnourished Mom's who teach their toddlers to grab on to people's clothing while the Mom's beg for money.

Most of the things people claim are Socialistic in the US economy are not present in China.”

“Eh, I think you may be using the term 'fascist' in a new way. But, I take your point.”

“Are you more comfortable with "market socialism" or "state capitalism" pedxing? China still exhibits many traits of communism: unrestricted state power, state police, censorship, blah blah blah, all under the guise of representing the working class.”

“And while we are at it, Violin - how about defining "fascism"?
last edited: 1/11/06 9:43:43 AM”

“I can't see how China is Communist any more.”

“Ugh! boring!”

“"Unrestricted state power, state police, censorship, blah blah blah " - none of these distinguish communism from any other form of authoritarianism - as is most of the pretense of representing the working class.

If we take the hallmarks of the communist program - that differentiated it from other authoritarian programs, these are mostly gone.”

“Marx, Lenin - even Stalin and Mao would be apopleptic. They would see a total abandonment of communism (I'm not sure if Marx would have been comfortable with the USSR under Lenin, let alone Stalin, or China under Mao - but that is another issue).
last edited: 1/11/06 9:50:42 AM”

“Okay, let's drop the use of communism then.”

“I guess by fascism I mean state control over all aspects of life. The Chinese central government still regulates private enterprise quite closely but does not extend to ownership of the means of production as is necessary under communism.”

“So Violin - it seems like your definition is roughly non-communist totalitarianism. To me, that ommits elements that are unique to fascism. Aside from that specifier, this doesn't distinguish fascism from from any other form of authoritarianism.

It's consistent with common definition of fascism, but I don't find it that useful

At present there is far less State control over personal life than there once was. People wear what they like, eat what they like and can voice all kinds of anti-government views so long as they remain in the personal sphere (i.e. out of the press and they don't try to organize).”

“Here's one definition consistent with yours. I note it says "and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."
1. often Fascism
1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
2. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.”

“For me, fascism includes the belligerent -ethnically or religiously based nationalism is an important characteristic as is something along the lines of "unlike Communism, fascism abhors the idea of a classless society and sees desirable order only in a state in which each class has its distinct place and function. Representation by classes (i.e., capital, labor, farmers, and professionals) is substituted for representation by parties, and the corporative state is a part of fascist dogma."

I'm not trying to say you are wrong. It's a matter of definition, not fact - and your definition isn't idiosyncratic. I do think yours is a definition which loses the historical sense of what the fascist movements and ideology was about and what gives facist movements their particular flavor. For me, the spirit and ideology of hierarchy is an essential ingredient in fascism.

The material I quoted from was here:

http://www.answers.com/topic/fascism”

“I don't know if they are still as nationalistic as they once were. I used to get a Chinese newspaper delivered to my apartment at Rutgers. I guess it was for a former tenant. I couldn't read it but I was struck by the huige militaristic photos in every paper. That was maybe 25 years ago though.”

“Capitalist countries don't stay communist for very long.”

“I think China will have a significant collapse at some point in the next 20 years that will stifle this growth.”

“Getting back to your original article, I think Pinochet demonstrated some time ago that capitalism could do quite well without democracy.”

“Good point on Pinochet.


I think China has big problems and will have to walk a tight-rope to avoid some big potential falls. One issue is polution and the environment. There are regions where everything is covered in coal dust. At some point public health and public anger will cause major problems - and alleviating them will be difficult and exteremely expensive.”

“See how fast this thread dropped? I told you - arguing about terminology is BORING!”

“Still trying to fit all the new parts into the ancient pigeon holes?”

“The only termonogy I am concered with is General Tso's chicken. Give me Tso's chicken and they can have all the jobs the unions send to them.”

“Falun Gong/Epoch Times has published a scathing critique/history of the Chinese Communist Party and have been trying to circulate amongst both Chinese and non-Chinese communities:

http://ninecommentaries.com/

(I also started and Epoch Times thread)”

“3 hours ago

WASHINGTON - Four U.S. Internet companies eager for a foothold in China face hard questions from lawmakers worried that the communist regime is using American technology to crush political dissent.

Rep. Chris Smith said Microsoft Corp., Yahoo Inc., Cisco Systems Inc. and Google Inc. are "enabling dictatorship" by helping China censor the Internet.

"Cooperation with tyranny should not be embraced for the sake of profits," said Smith, R-N.J., chairman of the House International Relations subcommittee on global human rights.

Smith was among several lawmakers from both political parties who said they would use a congressional hearing Wednesday to convey their qualms to executives of the four companies, which have drawn strong criticism for their operations in China.

U.S. tech companies eyeing China face a dilemma, analysts say: While keen to tap a market that could soon eclipse America's, they must also worry about the perception they're helping China harass dissidents.

"They are in an extremely dicey position," said John Palfrey, a Harvard Law School professor who studies the Internet.

The potential for profit is great. China is estimated to have more than 100 million Internet users.

But to do business, U.S. companies must satisfy a government that fiercely polices Internet content. Filters block objectionable foreign Web sites and regulations ban what the Chinese consider subversive and pornographic content, requiring service providers to enforce censorship.

A survey by the Committee to Protect Journalists called China's efforts to control its media "unique in the world's history."

"Never have so many lines of communication in the hands of so many people been met with such obsessive resistance from a central authority," the report said.

China says its aims are benign _ to protect its citizens, and especially children, from "the immoral and harmful content" of the Internet.

Critics say the limits China imposes go further and are aided by U.S. companies. They point to a new Google search engine that censors some results. Yahoo!, they say, helped police identify and convict a journalist who had criticized human rights abuses.

U.S. businesses that have adopted Chinese Internet standards say they must obey local laws. They lack the leverage, they say, to influence world governments.

Lawmakers and observers have a different view.

"The hugely successful businesses that come before Congress ... will have to account for their complicity in China's culture of repression, and to begin to make amends," Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., said Tuesday.

Robert Dietz, who monitors Asia for the Committee to Protect Journalists, said other repressive regimes are closely watching the way the U.S. Internet companies act in China. What happens with China's Internet, he said, probably will serve as a model elsewhere.

"We sense that people are standing back, watching the technology evolve, watching the attitude evolve, seeing how far countries can go in pushing their ... Internet censorship," he said. "We don't think this will end in China."

What I want to know is how the hell anyone over there has time to surf the internet when they are so busy making everything we own.”

“There are a lot of them.... Maybe you hadn't heard.”