China’s New Left vs. Neoliberalism
Posted by onehundredflowers on August 28, 2008
Modern China is built on the complex dual legacy of the Chinese Revolution. During the Mao years, 1949-1976, China developed a national infrastructure that the post-Mao leadership were able to appropriate for rapid capitalist development. It also engendered a culture of social justice and class struggle that is still reflected in the language of workers and peasants when they confront egregious employers or corrupt party officials. The persistence of Maoism was clearly evident during the Tiananmen Square protests.
As the human costs of China’s neoliberal system pile up with no credible solutions, broad sections of people have increasingly begun to draw on the legacy of Maoism for both critique and radical vision. Minqi Li discusses this process among China’s New Left.
This was edited from an interview that originally appeared on The Real News Network. Go here for Pt. 1 and Pt. 2.
The New Left in China
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR: Welcome back to the next segment in our interviews with Minqi Li about the current situation in China. Welcome, Minqi.
MINQI LI, PROFESSOR OF POLITICAL ECONOMY: Thank you.
JAY: The view we get, from the West, of China, we see to some extent the figures of the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party, we know a little bit in history, something called the democracy movement, but we know very little about it in terms of what the different trends are, and we don’t really hear about much else other than Chinese consumerism. But we know there’s a tremendously vigorous intellectual life in China. So can you talk about the intellectual and political trends as they exist today?
LI: There has been dramatic change in term of China’s intellectual life. Back through the 1980s, among most of the intellectuals who were politically conscious or politically active, among most of the university students, it was dominated by neoliberal ideas.
JAY: The ideas of open markets, independent capitalist enterprises, breaking down the sort of state-owned economy.
LI: That was also the case for, basically, virtually all of the leaders of the 1989 democratic movement. But things started to change by the mid-1990s.
JAY: Just to be clear, so you’re saying most of the leadership of the Tienanmen Square democracy type of movement were mostly connected to this neoliberal economic reform movement.
LI: Yeah. I would say probably all of them. And by the mid-1990s things started to change. You started to have some intellectuals who criticized the market-oriented reform, the neoliberal ideas, and so that by the late 1990s, early 2000s, you could say that a new trend that was referred to as the New Left emerged in China. In today’s Chinese context, this term New Left is used to refer to a very broad category that ranged from everyone from social democrat, nationalist, left nationalist, to Marxist. What they have in common is that they all are to different degrees critical of market-oriented reform, to a different degree critical of neoliberalism, and to a different degree have a generally positive view of the Maoist period, with different emphases.
JAY: They have a more positive view towards the Maoist period.
LI: Right. They are more positive. That’s right.
JAY: So you’re talking about things like there used to be more of a health care system for people than there is now and examples like that.
LI: In the Maoist period, for example, the people’s life expectancy increased from 35 years old around 1950s, and towards the end of Maoist period that’s increased to close to 70 years old. And so that’s a very dramatic change, probably the biggest increase in terms of life expectancy compared to other countries over the same length of period. And they also have developed some re-evaluation of the Cultural Revolution. So instead of the Chinese official point of view is that the Cultural Revolution has to be totally denied, it’s ten years of [inaudible] ten years of disaster, and they tend to emphasize that there have been many positive economic and social accomplishments.
JAY: For example? What are some of those positive examples? Because the picture that’s painted in the West of the Cultural Revolution is a sort of tyrannical, crazed period. That’s the way it’s painted for us.
LI: They actually cited the Chinese official statistics, population in the reform years. And so they used those statistically to argue that, in fact, China’s pace of industrialization had to be very rapid in the Cultural Revolution years. And, also, China had accomplished many technical achievements, including such as the hybridized rice. And China was not far behind the US at that time in term of computer development. And they also talk about the initial intention of Mao to start a Cultural Revolution had to do with trying to reverse the trends towards the emerging of a new, privileged bureaucratic caste, which would later lead to the development of capitalism. And they believe that has been, in fact, verified.
JAY: This trend that thinks the way you’re describing, this must be quite a small, in terms of population, a small segment of opinion. Is that true?
LI: It’s actually not true. Even among the intellectuals these days, and as well as among the politically conscious young students, I would say, you know, anywhere between one-quarter to one-third probably hold this kind of point of view. In terms of general population, not a small number of them have a quite favorable view about the Maoist period, especially, you know, for the workers, because of the negative social consequences of the market development.
JAY: What you’re calling the New Left critique of the current period, to what extent does that exist inside the party? Or is this mostly something that’s happening outside the Chinese Communist Party?
LI: Well, pretty much outside the Party. The Party itself, in terms of its view of the Cultural Revolution, its view of the Maoist period, it’s actually very close to the mainstream Western view, as well as what in China now is called a liberal approach, as opposed to a New Left.
JAY: You were talking about the left trend that makes a somewhat positive comparison about the Maoist period to the current period. But certainly we’re being told, in terms of popular opinion polls and such, that at least in the urban centers, people’s standard of living is much higher now than then. The Olympics and other indicators seems to show there’s been a tremendous leap in technology in China. Most people would kind of shake their heads at such a comparison. Can you speak to that?
LI: In terms of the rising income for the urban sector, and certainly some among urban sector has benefited a lot from the market-oriented reform, from the capitalist development. Recently it has been reported that now China has something like 100 new billionaires. So that’s very dramatic change. But on the other hand, of course, social and economic inequality has also increased a lot. And in one of the earlier segments we talked about between 1 to 5 percent of population controlled about 70 percent of China’s financial wealth—that’s in term of wealth. And there’s another set of data suggesting that the richest 10 percent of the Chinese population earn about 50 percent, half, of China’s total national income, while the poorest 10 percent only has access to about 1 percent. So despite China’s dramatic economic growth, you still have about 200 million people living on a daily income less than one purchasing-power-parity dollar a day. And if you take into account other aspects of social change, if we do not measure and adjust by material consumption, you have to also take into account access to health care, access to education, general social condition, personal safety, environmental conditions, I would say you could have the bottom 10, 20, or even 30 percent of the population, their quality of life has actually deteriorated since the beginning of the market-oriented reform.
JAY: And is this left trend pushing for a kind of European social democracy, or a return to a full-on state socialism?
LI: Well, that varies. And there are some of them who are in favor of social democracy, more or less in line with the official slogan of the current Chinese administration, the Harmonious Society, and there are some others who argue that for China to further develop, China must manage to upgrade China’s technology, must pursue high-tech development, and for that purpose you need a greater role of the state. And so you need to develop something like state capitalism. There are also some people who are in favor of the return to socialism. And so, in addition to intellectual development, another new development that is interesting is that in addition to the New Left intellectual trend I just talked about, you also have, outside of intellectuals, various Maoist activists, who are in favor of a kind of return to Maoist-style socialism.
JAY: I remember about ten years ago there was a small rural village that had refused to give up its Maoist economics, and it was telling the market reformers to stay out of the village. Is that a real trend that’s existing?
LI: Well, I would not say that’s a real trend right now in the countryside, although it’s not just one; in fact, you have several thousands of village that refused to privatize at the beginning of the reform period and continue to maintain some kind of collective form of organization or community ownership. And some of them continue to be prosperous until today. But I’m talking about separate trend. I’m talking about some Maoist activists who have been active in workers movement, who have been active in workers resistance to privatization. And that’s another quite challenging trend for China’s current regime.





Jose M said
thanks for posting this man. Very engaging and interesting.
Joseph Ball said
Actually, this trend does exist in the Communist Party of China. It’s not really a revolutionary trend. It’s based on the party’s assessment of the neo-liberal reform process in Latin America in the 1980s and 1990s. Not surprisingly, this trend decided that it would be a mistake for China to go down the same road. The Hu Jintao line reflects this somewhat. There seems to be some prevarication about further privatisation of industry (although the party does seem to want to privatise land, which is legally owned by villages at the moment but mainly farmed by families under the household responsibility system).
The state retains a strong role in the Chinese economy though this is not exactly highlighted in official statistics, as a condition for membership of the WTO is that the member country must have a market economy.
From my own, albeit very limited, experience and knowledge I am afraid that revolutionary Maoism hardly exists in China although there is a lot of nostalgia for the good old days among all sections of the population.
Jose M said
i find it interesting that revolutionary maoism, as ball says, does not exist to any serious extent in china? why is that?
why Nepal, Peru, India, Philippines, the US, etc., but not China?
Dont we all suffer and hear the same jibe against maoism they do?
Id be interested in learning this.
captain obvious said
It’s because China has lived it in practice where as the places you list are still dreaming of theoretical what-ifs…
Dennis said
History is practice. Practice precedes theory. Study history to understand practice and create theory. Don’t decry what is, change it.
entdinglichung said
see also the article Beijing attacks ’new left’ magazine from the Green Left Weekly 21/09/2007
Joseph Ball said
I just think there’s a whole load of issues about Maoism in China that would need to be gone into in a lot of detail to answer the point about why no revolutionary Maoist movement in China. I think there’s a big problem in China that you can appear to uphold Mao without being a revolutionary. The political area occupied by ‘Maoists’ in China tends to shade into the area occupied by ‘nationalists’ and certain (albeit very small) sections in the Communist Party. Basically, it is be very easy to get dragged into that mileu in China as a ‘Maoist’ unless there is an actual revolutionary struggle going on. This is especially due to the authoritarian nature of the state which makes some sort of accommodation with the system even more tempting for left-wing intellectuals than it is in the UK or the USA. That’s why I would say there are plenty of ‘Maoists’ in China but no revolutionary Maoist movement. In Britain or the USA it’s not that way at all. Once you declare yourself a Maoist you are very far outside any mainstream or even not so mainstream political current.
Jay Rothermel said
http://www.workers.org/2008/world/china_1023/
Millions of workers affected
Foreign businesses in China forced to unionize
By Sara Flounders
Published Oct 18, 2008 6:54 AM
China is forcing some of the biggest corporations in the world to immediately allow workers in their giant plants, offices and shops to unionize. In a widely publicized 100-day campaign, the Chinese government set a deadline of Sept. 30 for corporations doing business there to recognize unions.
The ruling benefits millions of Chinese workers, who will now have a say not only in their wages but in working conditions and health and safety issues.
This sweeping change impacts almost all the U.S. Fortune 500 companies doing business in China. Wang Ying, a senior official with the state-backed All-China Federation of Trade Unions, explained that there are holdouts, such as Microsoft and pharmaceutical giant Wyeth. But even they “don’t dare say they will not set up unions. They are finding all kinds of excuses to put it off.” (Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 29)
….
arthur said
The “unions” that the Chinese government requires are extensions of the State, even more openly so than in the West.
A lot of what gets described as “Maoist” tendencies within China is just officially permitted nostalgia for a Chinese icon, like the Lenin cult under Brezhnev. Some of it reflects oppositional views that have a degree of overlap with some of Mao’s views, but are still well within the capitalist roaders camp, like the widespread Stalin nostalgia that developed in Brezhnev’s Soviet Union and Putin’s Russia.
But claims that the absence of any visible revolutionary communist movement in China is due to the demonstrated failures of communism and success of the capitalist road omit something obvious.
Tens of thousands of supporters of the revolutionary line were summarily shot and hundreds of thousands subjected to severe repression when the capitalist roaders took over in the late 1970s.
Repression does force people to shut up until conditions permit and they have figured out ways to operate.
An interesting new trend in China is the combination of Mao nostalgia with over enthusiastic support for official campaigns against corruption. Make that too explicit, or too directly linked with open defiance of the authorities that is also developing in China and you get repressed.
But that “interesting” combination of ideas is developing side by side with more intense and mass based open defiance. It can only intensify as the Chinese boom gives way to the Chinese bust.