David Seaton's picture

    Where is China headed?

    By David Seaton on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 11:08am |

    I heard a talk over a year ago at a meeting of the Madrid Fulbright association: the speaker was professor Fisac, the head of Chinese studies at Madrid University.

    She said that in the course of conversation with an official of the Chinese Communist Party, she had asked him what he considered "socialism".  

    He replied that Western Europe was an example of socialism with its good, free public schools and universities and its good, free public health systems.  

    Some people listening to professor Fisac thought this Tea Partyish formulation was a joke. I didn't.

    I remembered that before becoming head of the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev and his wife Raisa visited France, invited by the PCF. They were impressed by the quality of French education and health services and at the same time dazzled by how well the French ate and dressed. Gorbachev decided that he wanted the same for the USSR: thus was Perestroika born.

    Here is how Gorbachev defined it:

    Perestroika means overcoming the stagnation process, breaking down the braking mechanism, creating a dependable and effective mechanism for acceleration of social and economic progress and giving it greater dynamism.

    Perestroika means mass initiative. It is the conference of development of democracy, socialist self-government, encouragement of initiative and creative endeavor, improved water and disciplined, more glasnost, criticism and self-criticism in all spheres of our society. It is utmost respect for the individual and consideration for personal dignity.

    Perestroika is the all-round intensification of the Soviet economy, the revival and development of the principles of democratic centralism in running the national economy, the universal introduction of economic methods, the renunciation of management by injunction and by administrative methods, and the overall encouragement of innovation and socialist enterprise.

    Perestroika means a resolute shift to scientific methods, an ability to provide a solid scientific basis for every new initiative. It means the combination of the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution with a planned economy

    Perestroika means priority development of the social sphere aimed at ever better satisfaction of the Soviet people's requirements for good living and working conditions, for good rest and recreation, education and health care. It means unceasing concern for cultural and spiritual wealth, for the culture of every individual and society as a whole.

    He got into trouble when he combined it with Glasnost (transparency). Everything fell apart. Now the Soviet Union no longer exists,  education and health have deteriorated, the economy is in the hands of gangsters and the democracy (what there is of it) is of very poor quality.

    My reading of the Chinese Communist Party is that they want Perestroika without the Glasnost, and I think they are going to pull it off. They saw what happened to Russia and have taken steps to avoid that outcome.

    Of course Western Europe is the model of development that the Chinese are after. Any country that took the USA, with its paralyzed political system, deteriorating infrastructures, withering public education and uneven health  coverage for a model would be foolish.

    Our problem is how we can have our own Perestroika without everything falling apart.

     

    Crossposted from: http://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/

    Comments

    Our problem is how we can have our own Perestroika without everything falling apart.

    Aye ! Now that be the trick. And exactly what the right does not want.


    by cmaukonen on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 12:12pm

    I think China wants to test the notion that an emerging middle class will necessarily demand democracy or even a semblance of self rule.  I wonder if people would consider their commercial freedom, without cultural and political freedom to be free enough?


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 12:27pm

    Projecting our cultural assumptions on the Chinese might lead us astray. I wrote a lot about this yesterday. One of the Chinese traditions of governance that I wasn't aware of before Professor Fisac's talk was "Legalism"... you might want to have a look at that, as you'll see a lot of today's China's rulers in it. I am not at all sure that the Chinese of China are as much interested in political expression as in the freedom to buy and sell stuff, which is a great village  tradition. It seems to me that the Chinese have a certain fear of chaos and a ruler who isn't corrupt and dissolute, one who defends China's sovereignty against "foreign devils", can usually count on the people's loyalty. The "rule of heaven", I think it is called.

    One idea that keeps coming back to me is that because of the Cold War's ideological struggle, we tend to identify capitalism with democracy and even God... This is really a propaganda construction, one which clouds our understanding. I doubt if the Chinese were ever really seduced by our propaganda any more than we were by theirs. I think they were impressed by our former ability to build good washing machines and TV sets. They imitate what they find useful.


    by David Seaton on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 12:58pm

    The Chinese were Chinese and Buddhist and Taoist long before they were communist.


    by cmaukonen on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 1:35pm

    Exactly: What I think distinguishes the Chinese most is their effort at a synthesis of their own philosophy with what they find useful in western thought --->Confucius/Tao/Hegel/Marx/Lenin/Mao. Apparently the western philosopher that the Chinese can't understand at all is Kant, with his Categorical Imperatives... Everything in Chinese thought is relativist, that's where they connect with Hegel, Marx and Lenin,  I think.


    by David Seaton on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 2:07pm

    I definitely agree with you.  We've tended to assume that because American style republican democracy and capitalism can work together that they need each other.  But even within our own society we see the severe tensions between the two and capitalism does not necesarily need or even tolerate democracy.


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 1:46pm

    I think that the emerging middle class was "firmly" put in its place in 1989 resulting in the Tiananmen Square debacle.  The Chinese leaders wanted the fruits of capitalism without offering-up societal freedoms.


    by chucktrotter on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 5:32pm

    Interesting problem especially seeing how the GOPer's have become what they hate most...the American equivalent of the old Soviet regime.


    by Beetlejuice on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 1:25pm

    If true, why did they privatize their entire health care system? And why do the reforms to it since then still provide incentives for wasteful ineffective care that preserve the profit motive for many providers and industries and still leaves much of the population with catastrophic risk?

    see here

    http://takingnote.tcf.org/2008/04/chinas-health-c.html

    and here:

    http://journal.shouxi.net/qikan/article.php?id=216829


    by artappraiser on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 2:55pm

    They are doing it because they consider that the "primary contradiction" is producing wealth so that China is independent and that health care is a "secondary contradiction": that China must become rich, before they can share the wealth. You may be aware that there is a significant difference between a social democrat and a Leninist, much less a Maoist. You have to imagine how frightened they were for their sovereignty when they found themselves alone facing the USA.


    by David Seaton on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 4:22pm

    Our problem is how we can have our own Perestroika without everything falling apart.

    We have a shining examples of publicly funded, privately administered services to our north, but for some reason we choose to completely ignore that possibility. That is not simply a reference to health care. Take a look at British Columbia's ferry system.

    It's appropriate that they have the tagline "Experience the Difference." The WA state ferry system is a shell of that of its northern neighbor. 

    Crumbling infrastructure is right. Washington state should have identical services to BC. They both are host to a conglomeration of small towns and a bustling metropolis at its center. A look at the two disparaging websites shows the different mentalities. With gift certificates, bookstores and a cruise ship atmosphere, Canadians seem open to the concept of commoditizing public services, whereas public services and works in the United States are treated as welfare obligations. The top update on WA state's ferry website is "Wi-Fi is back up. Thank you for your patience."

    Yeah. America is a real Mickey Mouse operation.


    by Orion on Tue, 12/07/2010 - 6:05pm

    Latest Comments