Political Theory

Re: Could China evolve from Market-Leninism to Market-Anarchy

haghenick — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 04:27:49 GMT

I think Rothbard outline brilliantly all the way back in 1965, a reasonable program by which Communist states would eventually be forced towards marketization, and yes even de-statification.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard16.html

For only liberty, only a free market, can organize and maintain an industrial system, and the more that population expands and explodes, the more necessary is the unfettered working of such an industrial economy. Laissez-faire and the free market become more and more evidently necessary as an industrial system develops; radical deviations cause breakdowns and economic crises. This crisis of statism becomes particularly dramatic and acute in a fully socialist society; and hence the inevitable breakdown of statism has first become strikingly apparent in the countries of the socialist (i.e., Communist) camp. For socialism confronts its inner contradiction most starkly. Desperately, it tries to fulfill its proclaimed goals of industrial growth, higher standards of living for the masses, and eventual withering away of the State, and is increasingly unable to do so with its collectivist means. Hence the inevitable breakdown of socialism. This progressive breakdown of socialist planning was at first partially obscured. For, in every instance the Leninists took power not in a developed capitalist country as Marx had wrongly predicted, but in a country suffering from the oppression of feudalism. Secondly, the Communists did not attempt to impose socialism upon the economy for many years after taking power: in Soviet Russia until Stalin's forced collectivization of the early 1930's reversed the wisdom of Lenin's New Economic Policy, which Lenin's favorite theoretician Bukharin would have extended onward towards a free market. Even the supposedly rabid Communist leaders of China did not impose a socialist economy on that country until the late 1950's. In every case, growing industrialization has imposed a series of economic breakdowns so severe that the Communist countries, against their ideological principles, have had to retreat step by step from central planning and return to various degrees and forms of a free market. The Liberman Plan for the Soviet Union has gained a great deal of publicity; but the inevitable process of de-socialization has proceeded much further in Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia. Most advanced of all is Yugoslavia, which, freed from Stalinist rigidity earlier than its fellows, in only a dozen years has desocialized so fast and so far that its economy is now hardly more socialistic than that of France. The fact that people calling themselves "Communists" are still governing the country is irrelevant to the basic social and economic facts. Central planning in Yugoslavia has virtually disappeared; the private sector not only predominates in agriculture but is even strong in industry, and the public sector itself has been so radically decentralized and placed under free pricing, profit-and-loss tests, and a cooperative worker ownership of each plant that true socialism hardly exists any longer. Only the final step of converting workers' syndical control to individual shares of ownership remains on the path toward outright capitalism. Communist China and the able Marxist theoreticians of Monthly Review have clearly discerned the situation and have raised the alarm that Yugoslavia is no longer a socialist country.

One would think that free-market economists would hail the confirmation and increasing relevance of the notable insight of Professor Ludwig von Mises a half-century ago: that socialist States, being necessarily devoid of a genuine price system could not calculate economically and therefore could not plan their economy with any success. Indeed, one follower of Mises in effect predicted this process of de-socialization in a novel some years ago. Yet neither this author nor other free-market economists have given the slightest indication of even recognizing, let alone saluting this process in the Communist countries – perhaps because their almost hysterical view of the alleged threat of Communism prevents them from acknowledging any dissolution in the supposed monolith of menace. [20]

Communist countries, therefore, are increasingly and ineradicably forced to de-socialize, and will therefore eventually reach the free market. The state of the undeveloped countries is also cause for sustained libertarian optimism. For all over the world, the peoples of the undeveloped nations are engaged in revolution to throw off their feudal Old Order. It is true that the United States is doing its mightiest to suppress the very revolutionary process that once brought it and Western Europe out of the shackles of the Old Order; but it is increasingly clear that even overwhelming armed might cannot suppress the desire of the masses to break through into the modern world.

Re: Could China evolve from Market-Leninism to Market-Anarchy

Caley McKibbin — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 00:57:56 GMT

Seph:

Caley McKibbin:

I don't buy that hokey about the CPC combining "stateless communism" and "the market". There's a saying that you shouldn't be so open minded that your brain falls out. When access to things like Freedomain Radio and YouTube is permitted in China I will begin to take this remotely seriously.

It is allowed.

But still, I basically agree with you.

I was told that the player on the site is blocked and has to be hacked around.

Re: Could China evolve from Market-Leninism to Market-Anarchy

Conza88 — Wed, 17 Feb 2010 02:57:52 GMT

Merlin:

Conza88:
but hadn't blocked lewrockwell or LvMI,

Does the government believe the Chinese to be too stupid to get LvMI or what?

I was talking about Vietnam, but no doubt it would also apply to the Chinese.

That would be because it is in English?

When there is a Vietnamese or Chinese version / translation of LRC or LvMI.. then I'd imagine the government would start cracking down.

And by cracking down, I mean going to the register of the sites house and making him literally disappear. No joke.

In Vietnam, there is one party - the Communist party. About 10% of the population are in the party. To be a major, run a town etc, you need to be vetted, etc much like mentioned in the Chinese thread. Corruption in Vietnam is still rampant.

A major of a village was corrupt, except that he essentially took all the money for himself. The villagers rose up and declared themselves independent of Vietnam. The party quickly surrounded the village with troops, riot squad etc. then made everyone in the village "disappear".

If there is hope for the future, it is to install the intellectual ideas for property and freedom. They already get the voluntary transactions part, they live in constantly - everyone tries to sell eachother stuff, most have 4 jobs - teacher by day, selling clothes in the market at night. They all understand inflation as well, 30%... it cost a guy I talked to, 150 to build his house 3 years ago. Now it's 400. (billion? VND)

There is a black market in currency. All the banks are "commercial", but state owned. They close for the weekend and ATM's are sparse. So people come to several spots to exchange whatever amount of currency, there is no limit. Dude in front of me exchanged 2g $US. They don't seem to understand the US dollar is going to tank soon too.

Re: Could China evolve from Market-Leninism to Market-Anarchy

Merlin — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 21:51:13 GMT

Conza88:
but hadn't blocked lewrockwell or LvMI,

Does the government believe the Chinese to be too stupid to get LvMI or what?

Re: Could China evolve from Market-Leninism to Market-Anarchy

Conza88 — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:58:23 GMT

Seph:

Caley McKibbin:

I don't buy that hokey about the CPC combining "stateless communism" and "the market". There's a saying that you shouldn't be so open minded that your brain falls out. When access to things like Freedomain Radio and YouTube is permitted in China I will begin to take this remotely seriously.

It is allowed.

Non-censored google? ..

Ok, wait a second..

Seph:
But still, I basically agree with you.

I was suprised / and also disappointed the Communist Party / Government of Vietnam were doing their best to block facebook, (and stop the student revolution? to stop them from talking politics, and since the avg age of the country being 25 years old), but hadn't blocked lewrockwell or LvMI, lol..

Re: Could China evolve from Market-Leninism to Market-Anarchy

Seph — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 16:35:45 GMT

Caley McKibbin:

I don't buy that hokey about the CPC combining "stateless communism" and "the market". There's a saying that you shouldn't be so open minded that your brain falls out. When access to things like Freedomain Radio and YouTube is permitted in China I will begin to take this remotely seriously.

It is allowed.

But still, I basically agree with you.

Re: Could China evolve from Market-Leninism to Market-Anarchy?

Merlin — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 15:20:53 GMT

nandnor:

I think a lot of ya'll might be getting ahead of yourselves with the chinese worshipping capitalism and all - first lets see their reaction when their current bubble bursts.

If they manage to free the Yuan gradually and relax regulation again gradually there will be no visible burst: unneeded investment will just be quietly replaced. Of course this policy would prolong inefficiency for the sake of avoiding bad publicity (Shock Therapy rules!), but still it is far from necessary that Chine go through a recession.

Re: Could China evolve from Market-Leninism to Market-Anarchy?

nandnor — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:53:50 GMT

I think a lot of ya'll might be getting ahead of yourselves with the chinese worshipping capitalism and all - first lets see their reaction when their current bubble bursts.

Re: Could China evolve from Market-Leninism to Market-Anarchy

Andrew Cain — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:48:20 GMT

haghenick:
And that Marx was neutral about private property so Robert Coase can be used to fill in the gaps and provide the CPC with a property theory

Well that is false. Marx wasn't neutral on private property.

haghenick:
Would it be such a leap from going from that to changing the end goal of "communism" to markets and private property without the state?

Well...yes because the revolution towards communism is composed of the realization of alienation as pertaining to the proletariat and the dismal of secondary phenomena specifically private property which is a result of the division of labor. In essence future history will bring about consciousness of alienation that the proletariat experience not only their surrounding environment and each other but also themselves. This alienation stems from the division of labor which also produces the concept of private property. So by destroying the division of labor, you stop private property thus allowing the individual to actualize their control over their environment and themselves. The individual becomes a species-being in which collective interest and individual self-interest are merged into one.

Re: Could China evolve from Market-Leninism to Market-Anarchy

haghenick — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:29:30 GMT

Well yes, none of this is possible if Marxism is taken seriously. But that ship has already sailed in China.

The CPC's concept of socialism has evolved from central planning and collective property under Party dictatorship to private property and markets under dictatorship. If you read the Monthly Review article I linked you'll see that top CPC leaders claim that the USA is more socialist than China because the people own corporations through joint-stock companies. And that Marx was neutral about private property so Robert Coase can be used to fill in the gaps and provide the CPC with a property theory.

Would it be such a leap from going from that to changing the end goal of "communism" to markets and private property without the state?

It is a logical progression from socialism= markets and dictatorship to communism = markets and withering away of the state.

I'm not so naive to think any of this would happen out of the benevolence of CPC leaders. Rather they would pragmatically adapt a vision of Communism similar to AnCap, simply to legitimize their hold on power, and to fuel further economic growth. They would probably drag their feet on any move towards genuine stateless society, claiming it was for the distant future. But unlike vague stateless communism, stateless capitalism is very concrete on what steps need to be taken to reach it. And so once the momentum began building, the CPC would be forced out of pure self-preservation, to either speed up or get out of the way. That is in essence what really did happen with the 1980s market reforms.

These are the debates taking place within the TOP leadership of the CPC:

http://www.monthlyreview.org/0907kotz.php

Statements and Themes from the Conference

When an SOE is turned into a joint stock corporation with many shareholders, it represents socialization of ownership as Marx and Engels described it, since ownership goes from a single owner to a large number of owners [among others, this was stated by someone from the Central Party School].
If SOEs are turned into joint stock corporations and the employees are given some shares of the stock, then this would achieve “Marx’s objective of private ownership of property.”
In dealing with the SOEs, we must follow “international norms” and establish a “modern property rights system.” [As in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe at the end of the 1980s, the terms in quotes were euphemisms for capitalist norms and capitalist property rights.]
Enterprises can be efficient in our socialist market economy only if they are privately owned. [This statement, voiced by several people, comes directly from Western “neoclassical” economic theory.]
SOEs exploit their workers and are state capitalist institutions, and SOEs often have a very high rate of exploitation. [The point was that privatizing SOEs will not introduce exploitation or capitalist relations since both are already present in SOEs.]
The nature of ownership of the enterprises has no bearing on whether a country is capitalist or socialist. Enterprises should always be privately owned and operated for profit. What makes a country socialist is that the government taxes the surplus value and uses the proceeds to benefit the people through pensions and other social programs. [Along with justifying privatization, this implies that, as China’s economy becomes much like those of the United States and Western Europe, China is not abandoning socialism since, by this definition, all of the industrialized capitalist countries are actually socialist.]
The United States has companies with millions of shareholders, which is a far more socialized form of ownership than anything that exists in China.
“[After the Second World War] Capitalism not only gave up its fierce antagonism to labor, but even began combining with labor....Modern capitalism...is gradually creating a new type of capitalism that is more like socialism.”
The CCP followed the correct approach, in line with classical Marxism, during the period of New Democracy [i.e., the period directly following the 1949 liberation, when the party said it was completing the bourgeois democratic revolution but not yet trying to build socialism]. The change in policy after that period [when the party shifted its aim to building socialism] was an error, and instead the New Democracy policy should have been continued. [This was spookily similar to the widespread argument in Moscow in 1989–91 that the Soviet Communist Party should have stayed with the New Economic Policy of 1921–27, which called for a mixed economy with a significant role for private business and with market forces playing the main coordinating role.]
Besides current labor and past labor [the latter the Marxist term for the labor required to produce the means of production], there is a third type of labor, namely “risk labor.” Marxist theory should take account of this third type of labor, which is expended by those who take risks through entrepreneurship. [The obvious point was that “entrepreneurs,” i.e., capitalists, are a type of worker, and hence it is correct that they are allowed to join the Communist Party.]
The many Chinese economists who support the theories of Ronald Coase [a rightwing British property-rights theorist who is known for opposing any significant state regulation of private business] are mistaken. The Chinese followers of Coase claim that Marx had no theory of property rights and that Coase supplies the property rights theory that China needs. On the contrary, property rights are the legal manifestation of production relations, a relationship which Marx analyzes at some length. Contrary to Coase’s view, private property is not necessary for efficiency. Public ownership should be primary. [This older leftist academic economist cited at some length statements by the well-known U.S. left-of-center economist Joseph Stiglitz condemning the work of Coase. The reliance by a leftist Chinese economist on the pro-capitalist—yet somewhat heretical—U.S. economist Stiglitz to make a criticism of Coase reminded me of 1991 in Moscow, when the few leftist Soviet economists struggled to criticize free market theory by citing people such as John Kenneth Galbraith.]

Re: Could China evolve from Market-Leninism to Market-Anarchy

Andrew Cain — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:19:09 GMT

haghenick:
Since Marx never talked at all about what stateless communism would look like, it is entirely orthodox to claim it would be in-line with Proudhon's voluntary mutualism.

Well Proudhon never wanted to abolish private property, he just wanted to eliminate unjust acquisitions of wages from non-labor. Things like rent, interest and capital.

haghenick:
The CPC could afford to be agnostic about whether Rothbard or Proudhon would ultimately predominate their outline of a stateless society so long as it was voluntary.

Well not necessarily.

haghenick:
So when I speak of left-Rothbardianism and market mutualism, it is only from the standpoint of how a Marxist-Leninist party could save face while in reality embracing AnCap.

Well it would be a contradiction to be both a Marxist and an Anarcho-capitalist. Marxism has a totally different eschatology concerning the future development of human interaction. Capitalism, which is basically summed up as the division of labor according to Marxism, will be obliterated from society because it causes alienation / the concept of private property and class antagonism. Even under mutualism, I believe you still have some semblance of division of labor.

Re: Could China evolve from Market-Leninism to Market-Anarchy

haghenick — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 14:04:53 GMT

Well I see voluntary mutualism as the "noble lie", that the CPC could use to claim that anarcho-capitalism is somehow the realization of stateless Communism. Yes thats a big leap, but compared to the verbal gymnastics the CPC has already done in order to justify their market policies in terms of Marxism, this wouldn't be their biggest semantic leap.

Since Marx never talked at all about what stateless communism would look like, it is entirely orthodox to claim it would be in-line with Proudhon's voluntary mutualism.

Now in actual practice of an ancap society, there might indeed be a portion of the population living in cooperatives because they value egalitarian lifestyle over X% gain in productivity.

But in reality most people might prefer to live in a way outlined in Market for Liberty and Chaos Theory.

Robert Nozick certainly believed that people would chose to embrace right-libertarianism, but he said it was entirely feasible for a libertarian society to be entirely communistic so long as it was voluntary and the nonaggression axiom was not violated.

The CPC could afford to be agnostic about whether Rothbard or Proudhon would ultimately predominate their outline of a stateless society so long as it was voluntary.

So when I speak of left-Rothbardianism and market mutualism, it is only from the standpoint of how a Marxist-Leninist party could save face while in reality embracing AnCap.

Its a long shot but not historically unprecedented. The SEZs started off as experiments in market economics. They were very strictly regulated at first. Barbed wire was even put off seperating them from the rest of China. But they WORKED. Soon the entire coast was one big SEZ, and now the whole country is. Hong Kong is the closest thing in the world to ancap. Yet it is part of PRC territory. It is basically a new SEZ on a larger scale. But instead of having just economic freedom, there is a relatively liberterian state as well. With the economic success of HK and Macao, the CPC may very well want to experiment with other large cities purely for the sake of economic growth. There is the added incentive of "proving" to Taiwan that the one country, two systems policy really works, and that freedom will be preserved in Taiwan in event of reunification. Since reunification with Taiwan is the PRC's #1 objective, anything that makes the case for them, will be carefully considered.

Re: Could China evolve from Market-Leninism to Market-Anarchy

Andrew Cain — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:46:21 GMT

haghenick:
There are some who interpret Rothbard in a "leftist" voluntary mutualist manner. I'm not defending this as a correct interpretation, only pointing out that it is possible to do so, and would form a more natural basis of evolution from Marxist orthodoxy.

I think one could try to do that but it will always be a fictitious claim in terms of thinking Rothbard a mutualist. He mingled with the new left but didn't become a Proudhonist.

Re: Could China evolve from Market-Leninism to Market-Anarchy

Merlin — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:24:18 GMT

To further my previously made point, I hold that China is by far the most probable area from which anarchy could spring because of:

1) heavy Marxist indoctrination: the crushing majority of people have been raised regarding Marxian doctrine as god given and would sooner suffer a nervous breakdown than toss it out. Still the present state of the country, and the immeasurable wealth that markets brought about, can’t be denied. Hence, if something in communist doctrine can be found to explain China’s newfound market wealth, people will flock to it en masse.

2) Contains the freest piece of land on earth: Hong-Kong

3) Has a long tradition of freedom-loving philosophers, and boosts the first anarchist movement.

4) Chinese are intensely practical, and soon emulate what is found to work

5) China is a multiethnic society: every attempt at democratizing the state will bring about collapse. Hence democracy cannot be implement to a decent extent.

6) Chinese are getting used to a very dynamic economy, and could come to expect rapid growth and paradigm shifts. What happens when state-led capitalism no longer provides those?

7)Chinese are intensely nationalistic and will try everything just to divert form the West. So, if the west is social-democratic, Chinese will try to go as far from that as practically possible.

8) Very active, immensely powerful and globally spread Chinese organized crime, with a long and “proud” history of organizing black markets. Enforcing unpopular decrees is much more difficult when people can find such a powerful ally in circumventing it.

For all these reason, I too agree that China is a unique case in modern history, well worth keeping an eye on.

Re: Could China evolve from Market-Leninism to Market-Anarchy

Conza88 — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:13:14 GMT

haghenick:
Well framing laissez-faire in terms of the Marxist law of value is just semantics. The fact is what the textbooks were advocating was for the state to lay off the economy and let the invisible hand work. The Marxist law of value, at least as interpreted in this context, is nothing more than supply and demand.

Black = white I guess.

haghenick:
If you read Rothbard's analysis of Leninism above, I see no sign that he is simply pandering to the Left. He is exploring its own internal contradictions while attacking sharply what he considers the "conservatism" of Marxism.

Yeah, I understand that.

haghenick:
There are some who interpret Rothbard in a "leftist" voluntary mutualist manner.

It's easy to do when you ignore every other work & article by the author.

haghenick:
I'm not saying that this is a correct interpretation, only that it is possible to do so, and would form a natural basis of evolution from Marxist orthodoxy.

Have you actually read the other thread on China in the forums? What exactly gives you the impression any of the myriad of special interest groups, and the entire political class - would want to give up their golden goose?