Indeed, the real issue ahead is the battle for trade and investment globally between China and the US. The US is out to curb and control China’s ability to expand domestically and globally as an economic power. At the workshop, Jude Woodward, author of The US vs China: Asia’s new cold war?, outlined the desperate measures that the US is taking to try to isolate China, block its economic progress and surround it militarily. But this policy is failing. Trump may have launched his tariff hikes, but what really worries the Americans is China’s progress in technology. China, under Xi, aims not just to be the manufacturing centre of the global economy but also to take a lead in innovation and technology that will rival that of the US and other advanced capitalist economies within a generation.China's options.
There was a theoretical debate at the workshop about whether China was heading towards capitalism (if not already there) or towards socialism (in a gradual way). Marx’s view of socialism and communism was cited (from Marx’s famous Critique of Gotha Programme) with different interpretations. For me, I reckon Marx’s view of socialism and/or communism starts from two realistic premises; 1) that communism as a society of super-abundance where toil, exploitation and class struggle have been eliminated to free the individual, is technically possible now – especially with the 21st technology of AI, robots, internet etc; and 2) socialism and/or any transition to communism cannot even start until the capitalist mode of production is no longer dominant globally and instead workers’ power and planned democratically-run (not dictatorships) economies dominate. That means China on its own cannot move (even gradually) to socialism (even as the first stage towards communism) unless the dominant power of imperialism is ended in the so-called West. Remember China may be the second-largest economy in the world in dollar terms but its labour productivity is less than one-third of the US.In my view, Michael Roberts gets both of these issues right and together they from the basis of the geopolitical dynamic that is driving geopolitics at this stage of the great game.
His conclusion.
There is a (permanent) struggle going on within the political elite in China over which way to go – towards the Western capitalist model; or to sustain “socialism with Chinese characteristics”. After the experience of the Great Recession and the ensuing Long Depression in the West, the pro-capitalist factions have been partially discredited for now. President for Life Xi now looks to promote ‘Marxism’ and says state control (through party control) is here to stay. But the only real way to guarantee China’s progress, to reduce the growing inequalities and to avoid the risk of a swing to capitalism in the future will be to establish working class control over Chinese political and economic institutions and adopt an internationalist policy a la Marx. That is something that Xi and the current political elite will not do.Time will tell.
China faces a dilemma. It needs the capitalist means of production to grow commensurably with capitalist countries and capitalism entails imperialism (think China's BRI). But for a peaceful transition to socialism when capitalism runs its course, China has to moderate its level of capitalism, while maintaining a balancing level of socialism. This is the aim of socialism with Chinese characteristics as it stands, and one can expect a flexible approach in the face of change.
A fundamental 19th century point of Marx & Engels is that societies are complex adaptive systems subject to reflexivity and emergence, which implies that economies are dynamic and subject to the historical dialectic. This stands in contrast to to the 18th century bourgeois liberalism based on static "natural law" that Marx criticized but which is held as convention in the West. So it is more likely that the Chinese leadership can be more agile and adaptive than Western leaders. Whether they will be able to rise to the occasion is another question. Moreover, there is a strong possibility that if Western leaders perceive that the West is falling behind, they will initiate war (think Thucydides trap).
Michael Roberts Blog
China workshop: challenging the misconceptions
Michael Roberts
See also
"The [Chinese] Poet Who Died For Your Phone"
ReplyDeleteHundreds of thousands of people travel from China’s countryside to its cities to work in factories, building devices for international consumers and trying to assemble better lives for themselves. Xu Lizhi left behind a haunting record of that life
http://time.com/chinapoet/
h/t: @MaggieNYT (Haberman) :)
Off topic... For the family vacation destination this August wife asks, "Virginia or Prince Edward Island?" The reply: "Virginia? Have you forgotten the American invasion and looting of York in 1813?"
ReplyDeleteSo, PEI it is!
https://www.tourismpei.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_York
In my opinion, discussions of whether China shall become more capitalist or more socialist are secondary to the issue of banking and finance. When bankers control a nation, that nation ceases to be capitalist or socialist. Everything and everyone directly or indirectly exists to serve the banker-cancer.
ReplyDeleteUp until now, the Chinese government has controlled Chinese banks (some of which are privately owned). This is changing. On 10 Nov 2017 China’s deputy finance minister Zhu Guangyao announced that foreign banks (Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, etc) could own 51 per cent of their joint operations in China. By 2020, foreign banks will be allowed own 100% of their operations. This will let bankers gradually gain control of all China, as they have everywhere else.
This might not be so bad if the Chinese government passed laws to protect itself from the bankers’ predations. However the banker-cancer always destroys it host nations, as it has destroyed Western nations.
Michael Hudson and others have been giving speeches in China, warning them of the danger, but the Chinese are too stupid to listen.
So be it.
@ Konrad
ReplyDeleteContemporary capitalism is all about control by financial capital, aka FIRE sector. The other aspect is monopoly capital in industrial capital. Intellectual property plays a huge role in the latter, but also economies of scale.
These are traps that China needs to avoid, as Michael Hudson has explained.
@ Tom Hickey:
ReplyDeleteI believe I said that. Contemporary "capitalism" (i.e. control by the FIRE sector) is not capitalism. It is parasitism. This is what China doomed itself to by allowing the foreign bankers to enter China.
I suppose this was inevitable. The Chinese mass-abuse tobacco products, and therefore have mass rates of cancer.
The Chinese might as well have the FIRE cancer too.
The political correlate of capitalism is plutonomy, that is, oligarchy based on wealth.
ReplyDeleteThe political correlate of socialism is democracy as governance of the people, by the people and for the people.
Lincoln got this as he stated in his lFirst Inaugura2
It is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.
Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them are groundless.
Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families--wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.
Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.
Oligarchy - rule based on wealth - is the historical norm in human society. It is a deep-rooted genetic fault.
ReplyDelete@ Noah Way: This is true regardless of what model of society we live with. In medieval society, kings ruled by “divine right,” and therefore had enough capital to order everyone around. In communist societies, party bosses rule by “divine right” (ostensibly on behalf of workers) and hence they can order everyone around. In Western societies, the rich rule by “divine right,” since most people treat the rich as superior beings.
ReplyDeleteWhy does this happen? The way I see it, most people (not all) are selfish, and are therefore insecure. To assuage their insecurity, most people (not all) envy everyone above them on the ladder of wealth and power, and condemn everyone below them. This creates and sustains stratification, which arises in every social group. The larger the social group, the greater the gap between those at the top, and those at the bottom. Those at the top become more and more parasitical until they eat away the foundations of the entire pyramid, which then collapses. Then a new pyramid sprouts somewhere else, and the cycle repeats.
In short, societies collapse because of cowardice and stupidity. We cannot change this. We can only work on overcoming our own personal cowardice and stupidity.
Oligarchy - rule based on wealth - is the historical norm in human society. It is a deep-rooted genetic fault.
ReplyDeleteMarx & Engles recognized that private property and oligarchy go hand it hand.
Private property is not a natural phenomenon, as the natural world makes clear.
Privatization (enclosure) of the commons the commons for the benefit of a few, and the value that workers produced was expropriated by slavery, serfdom, and after the transition to capital, by wage labor..
Karl Marx. Capital Volume One, Part VIII: Primitive Accumulation
This necessitates that control of property be in the hands of the few in capitalism, just as it was in feudalism and despotism but with the bourgeoisie in charge.
“Private property is not a natural phenomenon, as the natural world makes clear.
ReplyDeleteThat’s a strange statement, given that countless animal species defend their territory; sometimes with lethal force. Likewise, many animals battle for mating rights -- i.e. for possession of the harem.
Of course, we humans need not succumb to this “way on nature.” We can work together if we wish.
Along these lines, there’s an interesting video on YouTube titled “Empire of the Ants.” In it, David Attenborough discusses how wood ant colonies regularly go to war to defend their territory from other ant colonies. These wars produce extreme casualties.
However there is one group of wood ants whose colonies never go to war with each other. Each colony accepts members of all other colonies. Consequently this particular wood ant “civilization” has become the largest of all, and is gradually edging out all the warlike ant colonies.
Why did this happen? What caused the radical change? Scientists do not know.
Incidentally I called the change radical because the warlike ant colonies have only one queen. Hence all of a colony’s members are one large family.
ReplyDeleteHowever the non-warlike ant colonies have many queens; sometimes hundreds. Life in those colonies is far less savage than is life in the warlike colonies. They have essentially overcome racism and other issues of division.
How did the second type of ants arise? Unknown. The important thing is that it's possible. We have proof.
While it is true that some animals including humans are territorial by nature and that this may be an evolutionary trait which later becomes the concept of private property, private property is fundamentally different in that it is human concept that is the basis for an institution replete with customs initially, which were later codified and formalized legally.
ReplyDeletePrimitive tribes are territory and they have a notion of personal property based on use, they have no concept of ownership that can be transferred, which is fundamental to the legal and economic concept of private property.
This is where Locke's just-so story "analysis" of private property excluded from the commons that supposedly grows out of primitive use goes wrong, for example. The question about how use becomes transferable title protected by force of law is waved away.
“While it is true that some animals including humans are territorial by nature and that this may be an evolutionary trait which later becomes the concept of private property, private property is fundamentally different in that it is human concept that is the basis for an institution replete with customs initially, which were later codified and formalized legally.”
ReplyDeleteIt sounds to me like you’re saying, “Yes, humans and other animals have a sense of ‘mine’ as in ‘my property,’ but the difference is that humans add layers of mumbo jumbo to this basic instinct.”
Granted. So what’s your basic point? I will hazard a guess below.
“Primitive tribes are territory (a typo?) and they have a notion of personal property based on use, they have no concept of ownership that can be transferred, which is fundamental to the legal and economic concept of private property.”
I do not understand. A parent cannot leave his house or his spear to his child, and thereby transfer ownership? A tribal member cannot give a cow to a friend? I cannot let my friends squat in my hut?
“This is where Locke's just-so story ‘analysis’ of private property excluded from the commons that supposedly grows out of primitive use goes wrong, for example. The question about how use becomes transferable title protected by force of law is waved away.”
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that in primitive societies, people own personal items like a house or a cow, but that the tribe considers the commons to be the property of the whole tribe. Yes? Only in more developed societies do the commons become the personal property of one individual, who collects rent and fees from everyone who uses the commons. Yes?
When you speak of “private property,” you mean private ownership of land and resources, yes? If that is what you mean, then we are on the same page.
As for John Locke, he wrote that governments are instituted to secure people's rights to “life liberty, and property.” When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he changed “property” to “the pursuit of happiness” (a phrase borrowed from Samuel Johnson). Why the change? That is a matter of some debate.
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that in primitive societies, people own personal items like a house or a cow, but that the tribe considers the commons to be the property of the whole tribe. Yes? Only in more developed societies do the commons become the personal property of one individual, who collects rent and fees from everyone who uses the commons. Yes?
ReplyDeleteWhen you speak of “private property,” you mean private ownership of land and resources, yes? If that is what you mean, then we are on the same page.
Yes. Land and resources. Private property in this sense is different from personal.
"Nature" in a broad sense of land and what is on it. Private property is essentially exclusion from the commons (enclosure of the commons).
Eventually this was applied to "capital" as the means of production other than land and its resources, as Marx describes in the section on private accumulation.
Locke's just-so story is about acquisition of ownership of land through use.
Anthropology tells a different story based on evidence.
Private property doesn't come into existence until it is defined as such institutionally. This is actually a fairly recent development. Previously, everything belonged to the state, which was embodied in the ruler.
The ruler then conveyed title, or more limited permission of use, at his pleasure and he could revoke it, too. The aristocracy was "titled," which means that they where granted control of certain lands. Land was the chief means of production during the Agricultural Age. Land "title" is the basis of feudalism.
This persists in the legal concept of "eminent domain," where the state can take private property and commit it to public use, now usually with fair compensation. It also survives in legal confiscation with due process.
Anarchism and Marxism were not about property as personal "stuff" including dwellings, but rather about enclosing the commons and ownership/control of the means of production by a few through control of the state.
Utilitarianism defines utility in terms of maximizing happiness, which is defined as pleasure and absence of pain. Since humans are embodied, utility requires property to satisfy desire and avoid suffering.
ReplyDeleteUtilitarianism is form of propertarianism, based on Locke and Bentham.
The US founding fathers were influenced by Locke's Treatises on Government. The result was a democratic republic based on Lockean bourgeois (propertarian) liberalism .
Rodman is in:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.marketwatch.com/story/dennis-rodman-will-be-in-singapore-during-trump-kim-summit-2018-06-05