Labor has also been a contentious issue throughout the modern history of China. One must realize that under socialism, one of the most vital aspects of the Chinese labor economy was that there was the guarantee of employment to anyone who wanted, and was able to work. There were no fears of lay-offs or other negative job-related issues one encounters in a market economy and for this reason, it was a fairly successful idea—at least in theory. The problem came when the Chinese government, trying to hold true its socialist goal of providing employment to all, ended up with far too many employees and a low productivity rate to boot. There was little desire of many to actually work at the jobs provided since everyone knew that there were not in dangerof being let go, thus the term “iron rice bowl” came to be used to describe the environment. In essence, the government was paying for the subsistence of many employees who did nothing but take resources while not helping the economy progress.
For those workers of the “iron rice bowl” period, the transitions that came as a result of the reforms were likely quite shocking. “Before the reform, the party-state was engaged in a process of making the ‘socialist man,’ but this practice has been recycled; the new task is to introduce the labor market to old socialist workers who originially received jobs through planned arrangement, and therefore never had to compete in a labor market prior to reform. This new task aims to promote free, individualistic activities and to make unemployed individuals self-reliant” (Won 76). To create a hypothetical case, imagine a middle-aged man who has labored under socialist rule all his life and does not feel the need to stay competitive in his industry because he knows he is guaranteed employment. He is able to provide for his family while not putting in a great deal of effort but all of this changes abruptly with the coming of the reforms. Now this man must strive to maintain a spot in the job market and must become desirable to the labor market ratehr simply another body to fill the quotas that has been set forth by the previous socialist government. This is a huge shift in labor and although the economy has benefitted greatly from this (and it especially showed in the 1990s) it is fair to suggest that there were a large number of former state smployees who were frustrated and felt left behind.
One of the greatest indicators of China’s changed economy can easily be witnessed in looking at its trade policies, capabilities, and history. According to World Bank, China’s trade surplus was over 30 billion dollars, which a remarkable feat. The fact that China is home to one of the world’s largest ports is also worth mentioning because it makes China a very hospitable climate for a capital and market-driven economy as opposed to one rooted in socialism. As part of the reform efforts, China has attempted to restructure their trade system in order to make it better suited to outside trade organizations such as APEC and the WTO. These adjustments involved the removal of import restrictins on certain products as well as other liberalizing efforts. “As part of the far-reaching trade liberalization agreement, the PRC (People’s Republic of China) agreed to lower tariffs and abolish market impediments after it joins the world trading body. Chinese and foreign businessmen, for example, will gain the right to import and export on their own—and to sell their products without going through a government middleman” (Silver 102). Much unlike the Soviet-style government influence on even the smallest business transactions, these new policies allowed for a market that is not only more “mixed” but not recognizably socialist in any clear sense. Although the shift from socialism to a mixed economy is clear in some other senses (such as in labor and agriculture, for example) the story of how trad policies and China’s place within the world in terms of international trade is one that sounds more like that of an economy that has decided to shed all ties to a socialist past and abandon it completely in exchange for capitalism. As a result of these policies, China’s place in the international marketplace has allowed it to emerge as a leader and a force for the European and American economies to contend with.
To summarize China’s shift from socialism to a mixed economy, it is clear that there are differences in the ideal of the Chinese state and the reality of the growing market influences and policy changes. “From the moment of its founding, the Communist Party of China has viewed Marxism as the ideological and theoretical foundation for its actions. For a very long time, it has consistently upheld the thesis of the inevitability of socialism coming to replace capitalism, unveiled the brilliant prospects of socialism, and preached high humanitarian ideals” (Deping 99). This grandiose idea of socialism has changed so much since 1978 that one has to wonder whether those who believed this are now feeling as though they did not speak correctly. In any case, it is obvious that China’s shift from a socialist to a mixed economy presents a number of paradoxes. For instance, since the economy is barely recognizable as socialist, in what ways can China still be considered a socialist state and if it is considered such, in what ways? “Although people called the centralized and unified organization system “socialism,” its real function was to enable the early stages of primitive accumulation of capital for the early stages of industrialization. The essential socialist characteristics of collectivization were mainly demonstrated in the areas involving necessary social security: education, medical care, retirement, and so forth” (Wen 43).
The idea seems to be that China is certainly no longer essentially socialist, nor does it even seem to be “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” Instead, although the moniker might not be as creative, it is simply a former socialist state that is quickly and steadily becoming a capitalist state. Although this may seem easy to doubt when one looks at focused areas such as simply labor or agriculture, the trade policies and general trend of the economy indicates that the traces of socialism are being slowly phased out. One gets the sense that Chinese leadership is unwilling to let their ideals of socialism go easily and that they desperately want to maintain at least the semblance of socialism. Eventually, at least at this rate, they are going to have to come to terms with the idea that their ideals of socialism are quickly being turned around and are being replaced by capitalism. While it does not seem likely that they will name themselves “capitalist” for a long time, it will be interesting to see the changes in rhetoric as the Chinese government attempts the appearance and tradition of socialism with the growing reality of capitalism.
It is vital to give a condensed version of the history of Yugoslavia before any attempt can be made to define its economy and government under socialism and after it. Yugoslavia’s history is complex and involves a long history of shifting borders and a constant struggle towards self-definition. After the First World War, Yugoslavia was united and termed the “Kingdom of Serbs Croats and Slovenes” and this very complicated name reflects its attempt to bring together a set of various ethnic, religious, and politically minded groups under a single form of government. Unlike China, its history was not long and involved, partly because of the problem of self-definition that plagued its history. The “Kingdom” that was supposed to unite various groups of citizens eventually became tyrannical and after the passage of an unpopular constitution, more serious changes came about. New divisions among the many ethnic and social groups became state mandated and only those recognized as “Yugoslavs” were accepted as citizens. At this point, Yugoslavia began building up a military as groups now outside of the new laws began building up their own private militias. In 1934, one of these militants assassinated the unpopular king and his son took control of the throne. Things might have continued in the same vein for Yugoslavia; internal violence, especially, if it were not for the coming of the Second World War. Both sides vied for the support of Yugoslavia realizing its strategic importance. The new King did not wish to enter into war and instead held out from signing any agreements. Unfortunately, they were attacked by Germany, which led to one of the worst periods in the history of the country. The result of the invasion by Germany still carries on impact on the region today. The Axis forces occupied Yugoslavia and carved it up, installing corrupt local leaders in power over certain small districts. From this action came the individual states of the newly created Croatia, Serbia, and Slovenia as entirely separate states. Eventually, near the close of the war, Yugoslavia was restored, at least partially, although the old divisions remained. Needless to say, the war caused a great deal of loss, both in human and economic terms and it was difficult for the country to recover without serious governmental changes.
Yugoslavia after the war permitted the conditions necessary for a major economic and social overhaul. “The post-war Yugoslav political system was a variant of the Leninist non-competitive system, in which the political elite formally (according to the constitution) and informally affirmed the state’s monopolistic position in society. The political elite, therefore, also adapted and subordinated the economic system. The market, its objective crtieria and private ownership, were not compatible with the non-competitive system. For this reason, the economic system was arranged so that decisions were imposed from the top political hierarchy cia social ownership of the means of production” (Zizmond 104). Although the idea of the Soviet system is important factor, the economy of Yugoslavia under socialism was not at all like the economy and social structure in actual Soviet regions after the dismantling of the Yugslavia and Soviet relationship in 1948. For instance, companies were not owned by the government were instead owned cooperatively by the people and run by the workers. Although industry in this region was never a main issue before World War Two, what little remained was in tatters. Like China, there were large gaps between the rural and urban population and the there was a great deal of damage done to each as a result of the war.
Other essays and articles in the Main Archives related to this topic include : Marx and Locke: Comparison of Views on Government, Property and Labor • Summary and Analysis of Das Kapital by Karl Marx • Analysis and Summary ofPrinciples of Political Economy by John Stuart Mill • Profile of Tokyo in the Context of Globalization • North Korea’s Nuclear Path: A Historical Look at U.S. Involvement
Sources
Bell, Daniel. The Cultural Contradictions of Capitalism: 20th Anniversary Edition. 2nd ed. New Haven: Harper-Collins, 1996.
Cole, G.D.H. Fabianism: From the Encyclopedia of Social Sciences ed. Edwin R.A. Seligman London, 1932
Hu Deping. “Thoughts on the Theory and Practice of Reform in China.” Far Eastern Affairs 31.2 (2003): 96
Einstein, Albert. Ideas and Opinions. Reprint ed. New York: Wings, 1998
Lerner. “Economic Theory and Socialist Economy.” Review Of Economic Studies 2.1 (1934): 51
Marx, Karl, and Eds. Earnest Mandel. Das Kapital. Reprint ed. New York: Penguin Classics, 1998.
Mises, Ludwig Von. Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. 4th Revised ed. London: Fox & Wilkes, 1996.
Wen Tiejun. “Chinese Strategic Transformation and Its Relationship to Industrialization and Capitalization.” Chinese Economy36.3 (2003): 43
Wilshire, H.G. Fabian Essays in Socialism.. The Humboldt Publishing Co. New York, 1891. First edition: 1889
Jaeyoun Won. “Withering Away of the Iron Rice Bowl? The Reemployment Project of Post-Socialist China.” Studies in Comparative International Development 39.2 (2004): 71
Yaskina, Galina. “On the History of Socialism in the Countries of Asia.” Far Eastern Affairs 33.2 (2005): 21
Zizmond. “The Collapse of the Yugoslav Economy.” Soviet Studies 44.1 (1992): 101
