July 24, 2009
China: Neither Fish nor Fowl
I recently took part in “UK-China 400”, a programme organised by the British Council and the All China Youth Federation, a wing of the Chinese Communist Party. Whilst in China, the UK contingent was the subject of an extremely slick propaganda operation: the Party spared no expense in showing us the China they wanted us to see. Perhaps the most striking example was an official visit to the city development centre in the Haidian district of Beijing.
With the Chinese capital sprawling ever outwards, the authorities are permanently engaged in urban planning. In Haidian, a vast development project of residential, commercial and industrial zones is being masterminded. To be completed in just 5 years’ time and covering an area of several hundred square miles, what is being planned as a mere annex for Beijing would count as a fully-fledged city anywhere else in the world.
Our party was enthusiastically shown a huge scale-model of what the completed new district will look like. Science and industry parks were illuminated, alongside residential districts and a network of roads, highways and canals. But what caught my eye was the “affordable social housing”, to be offered on a “voluntary” basis to displaced farmers and migrant workers. Looking closely, I couldn’t help noticing that this affordable social housing consisted exclusively of enormous, concrete, multi-storey tower blocks of the sort the UK constructed in the 1960s, with disastrous results.
I asked the Chinese officials what measures were being taken to avoid the problems of crime, social deprivation and entrenched poverty the UK experiences with high-density social housing. As far as I could tell the question was translated accurately, as was the answer: “the people in the social housing will be able to use the same schools and leisure facilities as the other people, so the problems you had in the UK won’t be repeated here”.
The inadequacy of the reply was only exacerbated by what came next. The Chinese drove us to a semi-completed residential zone to see model apartments of what would soon be on sale. Our contingent gasped as we wandered around 4-bedroom luxury apartments, complete with marble bath-tubs and enormous American-style fridge freezers. These were flats being built “for the elite”, as the Chinese put it.
And they weren’t joking. With a price tag of RMB 3.8 million (£380,000), such apartments will be out of the reach of even top civil servants, who we were earlier told can hope to make RMB 10,000 (£1,000) a month at the peak of their careers. The Chinese were proudly showing us accommodation that only the very wealthiest business and political elites could afford – within minutes of declaring their intention to house their poorest in the kinds of social housing which have created endemic problems elsewhere.
Provision of social housing is of course a controversial issue in all countries. But this episode was instructive regarding China specifically. For given that we were being shown what the Communist Party wanted us to see, there seemed one obvious conclusion to draw: if China is communist, it is now so only in name.
China remains a one-party dictatorship, controlling the media and crushing dissent in established communist manner. And it has retained the communist mind-set towards development: vast projects are to be completed virtually over-night, regardless of the human or environmental costs (for example, 1000 year old Yancheng has been demolished so that it can be re-built in 5 years as a Chicago-style metropolis). Yet this is combined with a happy acceptance of vast social inequality; of luxury apartments built for minority elites, by workers without rights or representation, offered zero welfare protection and housed in giant concrete monstrosities. The proud and public display of such inequalities – and the urban planning which builds them into the very fabric of society – is simply incompatible with even a superficial commitment to communism.
In drawing such conclusions one must, of course, be careful. The exclusively state-controlled media pumps out incessant rhetoric about “harmony”, alongside boring Pravda-style statistics of national manufacturing output. Pictures of Chairman Mao are common (albeit many of them appearing on t-shirts bought by westerners). Yet this is merely an appearance of communism, as our official visit to the homes of the elite indicated.
Yet China isn’t truly capitalist either. The State’s finger in so many business pies – its retention of the control of the means of production, if you like a Marxist analysis – rules that out. (The best illustration of this was being told that despite a 25% fall in exports in Jiangsu province, manufacturing production would not decrease and jobs would not be shed. Why? Because Chinese industry will continue the state-directed over-production tried and tested in the 90’s and 00’s – regardless of global recession).
Ultimately, what is emerging in China is something altogether new. It is neither fish nor fowl – but it may nonetheless be the worst of both.
Saz said,
July 24, 2009 at 11:36 am
Very much looking forward to discussing this further. x
Left Outside said,
July 26, 2009 at 7:15 pm
A very interesting experience that propaganda exercise must have been! As creepy as I’m sure it was, I can’t help but be a little jealous.
I would disagree with some of your post though. The state is massively involved in the Economy but it still contains all the most dangerous bits of Capitalism.
I’m sure you were told that manufacturing jobs were not being shed but I’m confident that’s nonsense. China’s unemployment has been high all through it’s long boom but a lot is under reported.
In downturns, or even brief down-ticks in demand, there’s a trick which has long been used where workers are put on an extended sabbatical (I can’t remember the Chinese term, and I’ve too many articles and books to wade through to get it at the mo). These workers still count as “employed” by that private/state/cooperatively owned firm and not as official unemployed.
They receive a pittance in monthly payments as they are still officially contracted to that firm. Hence, no increase in unemployment.
I’m glad you seem to have the idea that a bit of Socialism and a bit of Capitalism has created something much worse. Too many people on the left and right see some sort of salvation in the nightmarish conditions of China’s workers.
Paul said,
July 26, 2009 at 9:37 pm
Left Outside,
“The state is massively involved in the Economy but it still contains all the most dangerous bits of Capitalism.”
Er, that was pretty much what I was trying to say…
“I’m sure you were told that manufacturing jobs were not being shed but I’m confident that’s nonsense. China’s unemployment has been high all through it’s long boom but a lot is under reported”
I’m aware that China has had long periods of sustained high unemployment. This is largely due to massive rural depopulisation as migrant workers move to cities looking for work, with the result that many people compete for few jobs. Indeed, this has helped the Chinese boom, rather perversely: no union or labour rights plus more workers than jobs = supressed wages = cheaper investment projects.
But what I was saying is that in specific manufacturing sectors the response to massive demand falls will not be – as it would be in the west – the shedding of those specific jobs. That’s different to saying that employment per se is not an issue in China, which seems to be how you’ve read me.
You are right about state manipulation of unemployment figures though. However, that method of manipulation is again not one we witness in our democratic capitalist societies.
“I’m glad you seem to have the idea that a bit of Socialism and a bit of Capitalism has created something much worse. Too many people on the left and right see some sort of salvation in the nightmarish conditions of China’s workers.”
Which is very depressing. Perhaps almost as depressing as the members of my party who thought China was fantastic because it had 5 star hotels, and stated (literally) that they “didn’t care” how the growth had come about or how many lives had been crushed in the process. It was amazing how easily the communist party was able to buy people off.
leftoutside said,
July 26, 2009 at 9:54 pm
I’m not trying to argue with you, you make a lot of good points. It is worrying how some people have reacted to China, it’s a nightmare for too many people. I can understand how alluring some parts of China must be, but you only have to scratch under the surface…
Anyway, I disagree about the shedding of Manufacturing jobs (although we really need to consult some reliable figures to settle it, I don’t think we’ll get far here). The Chinese state and especially Chinese Capitalists have not been squeamish about shedding jobs in the last couple of decades. It’s “no union or labour rights plus more workers than jobs = supressed wages = cheaper investment projects” which has seen China become the workshop of the world.
A large amount of the labour going into Chinese capitalism has been rural migrants. In the last couple of years it appeared as though this supply was finally running out, wages were even rising. In my view it would be out of character for the Party to waste a good opportunity to weaken labour, especially as it may have an opportunity to organise.
Paul said,
July 26, 2009 at 10:02 pm
Hmm, an interesting perspective.
I was going more with the thought that for 20 years Chinese state-associated industries continued to produce into saturated markets, regardless of the fact demand had falled off a cliff. Correspondingly, employment levels didn’t fall in those sectors because manufacturing remained constant (though we should both recall that sustained employment levels doesn’t mean sustained employment for individuals: the stable headline figure could be achieved by a high rate of worker “churn”, which would mean individuals would suffer unemployment without the headline figure falling).
In Jiangsu they appeared to be adopting this mentality of “production regardless of the market conditions”, which would explain their continued levels of employment. But as you say, the Party may be keen to use the manufacturing downturn to put workers back in their boxes (or rather, to keep them there).
Bad Conscience said,
January 30, 2010 at 11:55 pm
[...] way China grows is by doing what I observed last summer: going to places like 1000-year old Yancheng, raising it to the ground, and erecting a city the [...]
Liberal Conspiracy » China is a very bad model for the left said,
January 31, 2010 at 1:41 pm
[...] way China grows is by doing what I observed last summer: going to places like 1000-year old Yancheng, raising it to the ground, and erecting a city the [...]
You’ve Been Here Before « Max Dunbar said,
February 1, 2010 at 7:33 pm
[...] way China grows is by doing what I observed last summer: going to places like 1000-year old Yancheng, raising it to the ground, and erecting a city the [...]
You’ve Been Here Before « Shiraz Socialist said,
February 1, 2010 at 7:35 pm
[...] way China grows is by doing what I observed last summer: going to places like 1000-year old Yancheng, raising it to the ground, and erecting a city the [...]