Global Learning
  • Home
  • Defenders of Cuban Socialism
    • UN Charter
    • Declaration of Human Rights
    • Bandung
    • New International Economic Order
    • Non-Aligned Movement
  • Substack editorial column
  • New Cold War articles
  • Friends of Socialist China articles
  • Global Research articles
  • Counterpunch articles
  • Cuba and the world-system
    • Table of Contents and chapter summaries
    • About the author
    • Endorsements
    • Obtaining your copy
  • Blog ¨The View from the South¨
    • Blog Index
    • Posts in reverse chronological order
  • The Voice of Third World Leaders
    • Asia >
      • Ho Chi Minh
      • Xi Jinping, President of China
    • Africa >
      • Kwame Nkrumah
      • Julius Nyerere
    • Latin America >
      • Fidel Castro
      • Hugo Chávez
      • Raúl Castro >
        • 55th anniversary speech, January 1, 1914
        • Opening Speech, CELAC
        • Address at G-77, June 15, 2014
        • Address to National Assembly, July 5, 2014
        • Address to National Assembly, December 20, 2014
        • Speech on Venezuela at ALBA, 3-17-2015
        • Declaration of December 18, 2015 on USA-Cuba relations
        • Speech at ALBA, March 5, 2018
      • Miguel Díaz-Canel >
        • UN address, September 26, 2018
        • 100th annivesary, CP of China
      • Evo Morales >
        • About Evo Morales
        • Address to G-77 plus China, January 8, 2014
        • Address to UN General Assembly, September 24, 2014
      • Rafael Correa >
        • About Rafael Correa
        • Speech at CELAC 1/29/2015
        • Speech at Summit of the Americas 2015
      • Nicolás Maduro
      • Cristina Fernández
      • Cuban Ministry of Foreign Relations >
        • Statement at re-opening of Cuban Embassy in USA, June 20, 2015
        • The visit of Barack Obama to Cuba
        • Declaration on parliamentary coup in Brazil, August 31, 2016
        • Declaration of the Revolutionary Government of Cuba on Venezuela, April 13, 2019
      • ALBA >
        • Declaration of ALBA Political Council, May 21, 2019
        • Declaration on Venezuela, March 17, 2015
        • Declaration on Venezuela, April 10, 2017
      • Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) >
        • Havana Declaration 2014
        • Declaration on Venezuela, March 26
    • Martin Luther King, Jr.
    • International >
      • Peoples’ Summit 2015
      • The Group of 77 >
        • Declaration on a New World Order 2014
        • Declaration on Venezuela 3/26/2015
      • BRICS
      • Non-Aligned Movement
  • Readings
    • Charles McKelvey, Cuba in Global Context
    • Piero Gleijeses, Cuba and Africa
    • Charles McKelvey, Chávez and the Revolution in Venezuela
    • Charles McKelvey, The unfinished agenda of race in USA
    • Charles McKelvey, Marxist-Leninist-Fidelist-Chavist Revolutionary
  • Recommended Books
  • Contact

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Recommended books on Amazon.com; click on image of book to connect

The Chinese “bureaucratic elite”

1/16/2018

0 Comments

 
     Maurice Meisner, in Mao’s China and After, maintains that the commitment of the Chinese Revolution to industrialization led to the bureaucratization of the state, the economy, and the Party.  He notes that industrial factories required technological and administrative specialists, and they required labor discipline and managerial control.  In addition, as industrialization proceeded, the bureaucratic apparatus of the state had to expand in order to control the development of the economy and to respond to the social problems that are consequences of economic development.  As a result, many members of the Party became specialists and administrators in industry or the state.  Moreover, as the Party expanded, it increasingly recruited from the growing industrial and state bureaucratic apparatus, and the Party itself increasingly had to develop bureaucratic structures, requiring discipline from its cadres (Meisner, 1999:114-15, 119-20).

      As a consequence of the process of bureaucratization, a new bureaucratic elite emerged, according to Meisner.  He writes:
​The imperatives of rapid industrial development . . . gave rise to two new bureaucratic elites . . . exercising increasingly formal control on the basis of their respective spheres of expertise.  One was a political elite of Communist leaders and cadres rapidly becoming administrators and functionaries in the growing state apparatus that presided over the industrialization process; the second was a technological elite of engineers, scientists, and managers responsible for the operation of the expanding modern economic sector.  These newly emerging social groups tended to become increasingly motivated by professional and vocational ethics, rather than by Marxist goals and communist values, and increasingly separated from the masses of workers and peasants by virtue of status, power, and material benefits (Meisner, 1999:124-25).
​Thus, new forms of inequality emerged, involving inequality in political power as well as inequality in income and material rewards.  “For China’s rapidly growing proletariat, “socialist transformation” brought increasingly repressive social and political controls over their lives and an increasingly harsh labor discipline in the factories” (Meisner, 1999:157).

      Meisner sees the problem of the emergence of a bureaucratic elite as a general problem in socialism, in that it occurred in both the Soviet Union and socialist China (1999:55, 157).  He writes:
​The problem of bureaucracy was a reflection of a larger and more general phenomenon, the growing cleavage between state and society.  Socialism, according to Marxist theory, is a historical process whereby the social powers usurped by the state are restored to society.  But in the People’s Republic, as in the Soviet Union, “the transition to socialism” had produced precisely the opposite historic result: the growth of a vast bureaucratic state apparatus that was increasingly alienated from society (Meisner, 1999:157).
     Writing in the early twentieth century, the German scholar Max Weber defined bureaucracy as a form of social organization characterized by a hierarchy of positions, in which each position has its defined duties.  He maintained that bureaucracy is a relatively efficient form of organization, in that it facilitates the coordinated action of a large number of people in the carrying out of tasks and the implementation of goals.  He considered that bureaucracy flourishes and has its most advanced expression in modern industrial capitalism (Gerth and Mills 1946:66-68, 196-99, 214-16).

       The leaders of the Chinese Revolution were committed to economic modernization and development, because economic development would be necessary to protect China from foreign imperialism and to provide for the social and economic needs of its immense and growing population.  Although Weber focused on the greater efficiency of bureaucratic organization in a capitalist market economy, it is reasonable to think that a revolutionary socialist state, committed to the efficient production and distribution of goods and services, also would find advantages to bureaucratic organization in the implementation of its goals.  In the context of the development of socialist theory, one could view the growth of bureaucracy as capitalist penetration that undermines the socialist project, as did Mao.  Alternatively, one could see it as a necessary and integral dimension of the advance of the revolution in the implementation of its goal of economic modernization and development, as did the Central Committee majority.  In casting the expansion of bureaucracy as a violation of Marxist theory, Meisner is taking sides in this difficult question, and he does so from a social context removed from the real struggle to construct socialism in the context of determined national political, economic, and social conditions.  From 1949 to the present day, the Chinese Revolution has maintained that it seeks to develop socialism with Chinese characteristics.

      There cannot be doubt that, as a modern bureaucracy displaced the traditional Chinese bureaucracy during the 1950s, a new bureaucratic class came into being, composed of high and upper-level officials in the state, the Party, and industry.  It follows that the members of the new bureaucratic class have interests different from those of peasants, industrial workers, and small-scale capitalists, even though there is a consensus within each and among all of these sectors with respect to affirmation of the basic principles and achievements of the revolution.  The new bureaucratic class cannot be understood as having an economic and social position analogous to the power elite and capitalist class in the powerful nations and advanced economies of the modern world-system, inasmuch as the Chinese bureaucratic class manages a system that is controlled not by transnational corporations but by the Chinese state.  

      But who controls the state in China?  Meisner maintains that the Party controls the state.  However, he does not provide evidence in support of this central claim.  He mentions in passing that the National People’s Congress elects the Chairman of the People’s Republic, which is the highest office in the state, but he considers this a mere formality (Meisner, 1999:68, 267, 395).  He does not describe the actual structures of political power.  He does not explain how the National People’s Congress is formed, if it is elected by the people or by elected delegates of the people, or if the Party selects its members.  Yet such questions are central to the validity of Meisner’s claim that the Party controls the state.  In this regard, I should note that Tian Yingkui, Department of Economic Sciences of the Central School of the Communist Party of China, writes that China today has a system of indirect elections, in which elected representatives elect representatives from level to level, until finally the deputies of the National Popular Assembly, the highest political authority of the country, are decided (Tian, 2008:182-83).  If the acceptance of the recommendations of the Party is a formality, it may be a result of the fact that a solid majority of the National Popular Assembly supports the recommendation of the Party.  I also should note that a similar process of indirect elections is used to constitute the National Assembly of Popular Power in Cuba, and the system enjoys legitimacy and exceptionally high levels of voter participation.  (For more on the Cuban political process, see The Evolution and Significance of the Cuban Revolution, Pp. 130-42).

     At the same time, Meisner blurs the distinction between the Party and the state, thus further mystifying the reader with respect to the actual structures of political power in China.  He notes that there is a distinction between the Party organization and the administrative organs of the state, but he believes that “the distinction is a thin one” (1999:63), because Party leaders also hold key positions in the state.  He refers to “Party bureaucrats,” by which he apparently means high officials of the Party or Party members who are high officials in the state (1999:123).  Accordingly, he refers to the “Party-state apparatus” (1999:245) and the “Party-state bureaucracy” (1999:267).  On the other hand, at one point he implicitly recognizes that the distinction between Party and state is more than a thin line or a formality, when he observes that factory managers who are Party members are primarily responsible to the economic demands of the state ministries rather than to the demands of the Party (Meisner, 1999:117).

      Meisner also maintains that the high bureaucracy in China enjoys privileges, and that the bureaucratization of the revolution has led to levels of economic and status inequality that are similar to the major capitalist powers of the world-system.  He describes economic inequalities between managers and workers, city and country, state workers and contracted workers, and rich peasants and poor peasants.  However, his book does not describe efforts by workers, rural residents, contract workers, and poor peasants to demand and obtain greater materials rewards for themselves, giving the impression that such struggles have not emerged.  The book describes two types of radical Maoist movements: students seeking to discredit and purge “capitalist roaders” in the high ranks of the Party and the state; and movements by workers in three cities to develop alternative structures of city and industrial management, in accordance with Marx’s interpretation of the Paris commune.  And his account describes critiques from the Right by intellectuals, demanding bourgeois reforms with respect to freedom of speech.  But he does not describe efforts by the people to utilize mass organizations and structures of popular power to seek reforms with respect to unequal distribution of rewards, as one would expect in conditions in which the majority feel that the distribution of rewards is unjust, and that the country is dominated by a materially privileged bureaucratic elite.  The absence of such discussion of dynamics within the mass organizations and the assemblies of popular power is a manifestation of the invisibility of these political structures when the process is viewed from a vantage shaped by the assumptions of bourgeois representative democracy.  

      The issues that divided Chinese communists are complex and important, and there have been debates in socialist Cuba from 1959 to the present on these themes, taking the form of discussions of “moral incentives” versus “material incentives,” acceptable levels of inequality, and the relative weight in the economy of state ownership, cooperatives, private capital, and foreign capital.  In Cuba, the Party listens to the people, who express themselves in mass organizations, formalized popular consultations, and assemblies of popular power.  However, on the basis of the debate, the Party forms a consensus, and presents its recommendations to the National Assembly of Popular Power and the people.  There never has occurred in socialist Cuba what happened in China from 1958 to 1967, when the historical leader of the revolution waged ideological battle with the Party leadership, with both sides seeking to mobilize the people, especially students.  We will look at this social and political conflict between Maoists ideologues and pragmatic modernizers in the next two posts.


​References
 
Gerth, H. H. and C. Wright Mills, Eds.  1946.  From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology.  Translated by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills.  New York: Oxford University Press
 
Meisner, Maurice.  1999.  Mao’s China and After: A History of the People’s Republic, Third Edition.  New York: The Free Press.
 
Tian Yingkui.  2008.  Camino Chino: Concepción científica del desarrollo.  Beijing: Ediciones en Lenguas Extranjeras.
 
0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Author: Charles McKelvey

    Retired professor, writer,  and Marxist-Leninist-Fidelist-Chavist revolutionary

    Categories

    All
    American Revolution
    Blog Index
    Bolivia
    Charismatic Leaders
    China
    Critique Of The Left
    Cuban History
    Cuba Today
    Ecuador
    Environment
    French Revolution
    Gay Rights
    Haitian Revolution
    Knowledge
    Latin American History
    Latin American Right
    Latin American Unity
    Marx
    Marxism-Leninism
    Mexican Revolution
    Miscellaneous
    Neocolonialism
    Neoliberalism
    Nicaragua
    North-South Cooperation
    Presidential Elections 2016
    Press
    Public Debate In USA
    Race
    Religion And Revolution
    Revolution
    Russian Revolution
    South-South Cooperation
    Third World
    Trump
    US Ascent
    US Imperialism
    Vanguard
    Venezuela
    Vietnam
    Wallerstein
    Women And Revolution
    World History
    World-System
    World-System Crisis

    Archives

    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    December 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    January 2013

    RSS Feed

    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture
    Picture

More Ads


website by Sierra Creation