What is China: capitalist or socialist? China calls itself socialist. It always has.
Russia always call itself socialist. Let's remember USSR stands for Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics. Only in the West are these countries referred to
as communist countries. They never refer to themselves that way. They have communist parties,
but they don't call themselves communist. Why not? Because for them, communism is, at best, a long
in the future goal, something they're moving toward (they hope), but the reality they have now
isn't. That it is socialism, and in China it's called socialism with Chinese characteristics,
and there what they're referring to is this mixture, this complicated mixture
of state-owned and operated enterprises together with privately owned and operated.
And let's be clear, the state sector is still a very large part of the Chinese economy,
much larger than what you would have even in European countries that call themselves socialist
or social democratic. So, yes, socialism with Chinese characteristics is a precise and clear
name for what they think they are and by their definition, if you mean by socialism a very large
influence of the government, then they deserve the title because that's what the words mean.
But I would like to introduce another thought, not as a criticism and not as a disagreement,
just another way to look at it. You can look at the difference between socialism and capitalism
not so much by focusing on the role of the government ("Is it large? Is it very invasive? Is
it not? Is it laissez-faire? Backing away...). You don't have to do it that way. There's another way
you can think about capitalism and socialism: as different ways of organizing the workplace,
the enterprise, the factory, the office, the store. The capitalist way has a tiny group of
people at the top -the owner of the business, the board of directors if it's a corporation. A very
small group who decide what to produce how to produce, where to produce and what to do with the
profits that everybody helps to produce. You could go and call that capitalist, as many of us do,
and you could contrast it with something else: with a democratized workplace, a place where the
decisions are made democratically, one worker, one vote whether you're a supervisory worker or
a line on the assembly line, or you clerk in the office, whatever you are: one person, one vote,
majority rules. You decide together what to produce, how to produce, where to produce
and what to do with the profits you all helped to generate. You could call that socialism.
If you did, then you would disagree with those who call China socialist because you have a different
definition. It's not a question of right or wrong; it's a question of different definitions.
So, if you define socialism in terms of the organization of the workplace,
then the People's Republic of China hasn't got there yet. Then the question is "Would/will the
People's Republic of China move in the direction of democratizing their enterprises: state-owned,
private, domestic, foreign or not. Will they hold on to socialism with Chinese characteristics, in
terms of what they have now, or will they move to a different definition?" That's an open question
for the People's Republic of China, but let me be clear, it's an open question for everybody
in all capitalist countries, with all socialist political organizations. Which way are you going
to go depends on what definition of capitalism versus socialism you work with, and you may
not be conscious about it, but you're making that choice whether you're aware of it or not.