“Not Some Other -ism”—On Some Western Marxist Misrepresentations of Chinese Socialism

ABSTRACT

This study tackles four Western Marxist misrepresentations of socialism with Chinese characteristics, particularly as it has developed with the reform and opening-up. Each of these misrepresentations sets in opposition the economy and the state, with the former being seen as “capitalist” (in some form) and the latter as variously “authoritarian,” “bureaucratic” or simply as “interventionist.” In other words, “Chinese characteristics” designates the superstructural feature that determines—incorrectly in light of Marxist analysis—the economic base, which is mistakenly seen as capitalist. While each misrepresentation has its own distinct problems, they also have common problems: a voluntarist position on political decisions, which fails to provide any reason for a “capitalist turn”; the assumption that a “market economy,” wherever and whenever it appears, is by definition capitalist; the deployment of neocolonial and “Orientalist” assumptions coupled with a Western “betrayal narrative”; and a systemic neglect of Chinese language research. The conclusion provides a summarising assessment that focuses on the empirical flaws and methodological presuppositions of these misrepresentations. We emphasise that our focus is primarily on the internal problems and inconsistencies of these misrepresentations, although we also offer—where needed—some constructive alternatives.

KEYWORDS:

• Socialism with Chinese characteristics
• Western misrepresentations
• neoliberalism
• bureaucratic capitalism
• state capitalism

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Many are the potential references, of which a few can be cited (Vanek 1972; Dubey 1975; Rusinow 1977; Szamuely 1982, 1984; Lydall 1984; Brus and Laski 1989, 87–101; Kozma 1989; Mencinger 2000). The CMEA included all Eastern European countries, along with Mongolia, Cuba, Vietnam, and Yugoslavia as an equal trading partner in 1964.

2 The most extreme expression of this assumption appears in Buick and Crump (1986, viii): “given the nature of both capitalism and socialism, their coexistence is an impossibility. In the conditions of the twentieth century, what both capitalism and socialism have in common is their all-or-nothing quality.”

3 As Kula (1976, 17) points out: “in the pre-capitalist economy, market phenomena are governed by completely different laws in many cases, and … these phenomena have an altogether different effect on the remaining sectors of the economy.”

4 As Horvat (1989, 234) already observed some years ago, without markets you cannot have socialism, for “a market is a planning device; without planning a market cannot operate efficiently.”

5 A fashionable variation is to speak of “red capitalism,” with even more apocalyptic warnings of China's imminent “collapse” (Lin 1997; Walter and Howie 2011).

6 Lin (2013) comes close to this approach.

7 Lenin ([1921] 1965b, 334) also argued that many approaches first developed under capitalism would also have a proper function under socialism.

8 For example, James (1986, 18–22) ignores the transition argument in Lenin and emphasises an intensification of crisis in state capitalism; by contrast, Buick and Crump (1986, 111–117) suggest that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were not socialists and undertook a state capitalist “revolution.”

9 Deng Xiaoping hints at this influence in 1985: “What, after all, is socialism? The Soviet Union has been building socialism for so many years and yet is still not quite clear what it is. Perhaps Lenin had a good idea when he adopted the New Economic Policy” (Deng [1985] 2008, 139; see Losurdo 2017a, 27).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Roland Boer

Roland Boer is a professor in the School of Marxism, Dalian University of Technology in China. Among numerous works on Marxism and philosophy, he has published the five-volume work, The Criticism of Heaven and Earth (Leiden: Brill, 2007–2014). In 2014, it was awarded the Isaac and Tamara Deutscher Memorial Prize. He has recently published a monograph entitled Socialism with Chinese Characteristics—A Guide for Foreigners (Singapore: Springer, 2021).

Ping Yan

Ping Yan is a lecturer in the School of Marxism, Dalian University of Technology, where she teaches in the area of the philosophy of technology. She received her PhD in philosophy of science and technology in June 2017. Her research focuses on ethics of technology, responsible research and innovation (RRI), and engineering ethics. She has published several papers on responsible innovation and education of ethics of science and technology, especially on responsible innovation in port development.