Shane Mage wrote: > What is wrong with it is that it describes the emergence and flourishing > of Chinese capitalism in its present form as a movement *away from* > socialism. It is the opposite--a movement from a backward bureaucratic > state capitalism, which reflected the semi-feudal and dependent colonial > structures inherited by the CCP, towards a modern, globalized capitalism > in which the proletariat is growing by leaps and bounds, in numbers, > strength, and confidence. It is then, within the capitalist mode of > production, an enormous step *toward* [the possibility of] socialism.
It doesn't matter to me if we call the old system in China "state capitalism" or "bureaucratic socialism" or "bureaucratic collectivism" or whatever. However, I think "backward" is off. the PRC under Mao, etc., was a developmental dictatorship, trying to develop the national economy in a way that involved collective solutions (and sometimes collective disasters, such as the Great Leap Forward). That is, the CCP was trying to make China rich, while getting rid of semi-"feudal" and dependent colonial structures. In other words, it was trying to getting rid of "backwardness" as part of a nationalist program. It built the basis for the new capitalist China we now see. Also, at some stages, this government leaned toward helping the peasants and embracing a relatively egalitarian growth process, because the peasants were a major political basis for the CCP. Even developmental dictatorships need to be legitimized. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante.
