Date: 	Thu, 2 Jan 1997 10:28:31 -1000
From: Stephen E Philion <philion-AT-hawaii.edu>
Subject: Re: M-I: Is China socialist?


Barkely,

I believe the other person who responded to your post noted that if we are
looking at state ownership as the measuring tool for whether a
nation-state is socialist or not, then is there much in the way of
difference between present day China and Taiwan (during its 40 yrs. of
martial law, when the state owned major sectors of the industrial
economy).  Especially when we take into consideration your remark below
that the working conditions in the state enterprises are "awful," the
point of calling present day China "socialist" seems to be missing the
point.

Steve

On Thu, 2 Jan 1997, Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote:

>      I thank Steve for his constructive comments.  I have 
> said all along that the details of what is going on in the 
> TVE sector is what is important, and that there is enormous 
> diversity there, with some enterprises effectively 
> capitalist in one form or another.  I also have said before 
> that working conditions in many of the SEZ enterprises are 
> awful.
>      Certainly the trend is such that at some point, Doug 
> Henwood's claim will be correct, but it is not yet.  The 
> state still retains formal ownership of the land; official 
> SOEs retain a substantial share of the capital stock, and a 
> majority of the TVEs are actually locally privately  owned, 
> although not all.  This all easily adds up to a majority of 
> the means of production.
> Barkley Rosser
> On Wed, 1 Jan 1997 20:13:24 -1000 Stephen E Philion 
> <philion-AT-hawaii.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> > 
> > 
> > On Wed, 1 Jan 1997, Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote:
> > 
> > >      Recently Doug Henwood stated here that China is 
> > > capitalist.  I beg to differ.  It is certainly a mixed 
> > > economy that is "capitalist roading," to use that good old 
> > > Maoist term.  But, as of now, based on crude statistics, 
> > > the sort for which Doug has a healthy respect (not my 
> > > current condition), the overwhelming majority of China's 
> > > means of production remains state-owned
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ---From Susan Young, "Wealth But Not Security: Attitudes Towards Private
> > Business in China in the 1980's," In *The Australian Journal of Chinese
> > Affairs, no. 25, January 1991:
> > 
> > "The private enterprise (siying qiye) had first begun to emerge illicitly
> > in 1981, developing from the getihu (small individual or family
> > enterprises), from the investment of capital accumulated in rural areas
> > after the introduction of the household responsibility system, or from
> > collectively-owned enterprises which were leased and gradually taken over
> > by individuals.  About 80% of these larger enterprises are in rural areas.
> > Since their existence was not officially recognized until 1987-88, they
> > were registered under various guises and included in the statistics on
> > individual or collective enterprises.  According to the Bureau of Industry
> > and Commerce, of the 225,000 siying qiye in 1988, 115,000 were registered
> > as getihu, 60,000 were registered as joint household or joint share
> > enterprises, and 50,000 were registered as collectives.  This figure is
> > probably much too small, sicne it was difficult for the Bureau to
> > determine how many "collective enterprises" which may not have come under
> > its direct jurisdiction were in fact private.  Private entrepreneurs have
> > been able to register their enterprises as collectives by paying a fee to
> > a state collective unit to get its stamp on their registration form or by
> > claiming they indeed run on a collective basis."  (Pages 117-188)
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > From the same journal, same edition, an article by Pat Howard, "Rice Bowls
> > and Job Security: The Urban Contract Labour System.":
> > 
> > "Analysis of the content of the (labor contract) temporary regulations (in
> > the State Owned Enterprises and Collectively Owned Enterprises) can give
> > us some idea of the likely character of the contract relationship...The
> > regulations stipulate t	hat contract workers covered by the labor contract
> > system should experience the smae rights as permanent workers hired under
> > the old sysetm.  Working conditions, access to training programs, trade
> > union membership, and the right to vote and run in electins for workers'
> > congress representatives should all apply equally to both permanent and
> > contract system employees.  However, despite such regulations, *Workers'
> > Daily* reported receiving in the first six months of 1987, more than one
> > hundred letters from contract workers complaining of discriminatory
> > treatment. There were complaints of discriminatory pay despite being
> > allocated the most difficult, dirty, dangerous, and undesirable jobs.
> > There were accounts of breaches of contract and of workers being denied
> > promotions after serving apprenticeships with minimal remuneration.  There
> > were reprots of workers being excluded from membership in the trade union
> > and the workers' congress in 'many' units.  There were reprots of workers
> > being fired when they became ill, injured, or were admitted into full time
> > post secondary schools.....These letters were written in 1987, 4 years
> > after the Ministry of Labor issued its circular calling for enthusiastic
> > implementation of the labour contract system' and eventual universal
> > application of the system to all urban workers." (pp. 100-1)
> > 
> > "There is an acute shortage of skilled labor in China.  Highly qualified
> > workers and technical personnel gernerally welcome the introduction of the
> > labor contract system because it opens a loophole to enable them to win
> > concessions in the form of better wages, working conditions....On the
> > other hand, there is an acute surplus of unskilled workers.  They face a
> > situation in which management will be able to demand higher livels of
> > labor intensity and to hold down wages simply because of its newly-won
> > power to refuse to renew labor contracts. The decision to fire or lay off
> > workers must be approved by the workers' congress, unlike the decision not
> > to renew a contract..(P. 192)
> > 
> > "In visits to new factories in Shenzhen and Xiamen, as early as 1983, I
> > was struck by the much greater managerial control and supervision, the
> > more rapid pace of assembly lines, the much higher labor turnover, the
> > amount of overtime, and the reports of layoffs due to slack demand.  The
> > workforce was often from out of town...the entire workforce were contract
> > workers.... (pp. 106-107)
> > 
> > The implications of such reports, which are to be found in detail in
> > numerous journal articles that deal with changes in laboring conditions in
> > state and collectively owned firms seem to throw into doubt the utility of
> > such statistics on ownership as those that Barkley cites.  The picture is
> > a tad more complicated once we look at the changes occuring in the lives
> > of the people who actually work in "state owned" enterprises...
> > 
> > Steve
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >      --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 
> -- 
> Rosser Jr, John Barkley
> rosserjb-AT-jmu.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 



     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---