http://rrp.sagepub.com/
Economics
Review of Radical Political
http://rrp.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/03/07/0486613412475183
The online version of this article can be found at:
DOI: 10.1177/0486613412475183
published online 8 March 2013Review of Radical Political Economics
Fusheng Xie, An Li and Zhongjin Li
Can the Socialist Market Economy in China Adhere to Socialism?
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Union for Radical Political Economics
can be found at:Review of Radical Political EconomicsAdditional services and information for
http://rrp.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:
http://rrp.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:
What is This?
- Mar 8, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record >>
by guest on July 14, 2013rrp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Review of Radical Political Economics
XX(X) 1 –9
© 2013 Union for Radical
Political Economics
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0486613412475183
http://rrpe.sagepub.com
475183 RRPXXX10.1177/0486613412475183Review of
Radical Political EconomicsXie et al.
1School of Economics, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China
2Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, USA
Date accepted: July 17, 2012
Corresponding Author:
Zhongjin Li, Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts, Thompson Hall, 200 Hicks Way, Amherst, MA
01003, USA.
Email: zhongjin@econs.umass.edu
Can the Socialist Market
Economy in China Adhere
to Socialism?
Fusheng Xie1, An Li2, and Zhongjin Li2
Abstract
The recent round of debate over China’s state and private economy has fundamentally touched
upon whether or not China should abandon or strengthen the socialist elements within the
market economy. In this paper, we argue that the debate is, in essence, a continued class struggle
in the political and ideological superstructure. Then we discuss the foreseeable future of state-
owned enterprises (SOEs) under current political and economic conditions. We will further
propose the necessary reforms for the SOEs to move towards a truly socialist form of public
ownership.
JEL classification: P21, P26, P31
Keywords
market economy, socialism, Chinese economy, state-owned enterprises
1. Introduction
In 2009, two large cases of business reconstruction caught much attention in China. One was
the takeover of the private Rizhao Iron and Steel Mill by the state-owned Shandong Iron and
Steel Group; the other was the nationalization of small private coal mines in Shanxi Province.
At the same time, while the recent global crisis heavily hit China’s private economy, China’s
four-trillion-yuan ($585 billion) stimulus package has focused almost exclusively on the state
sector. These events triggered a new round of attacks from the rightist elites on the state econ-
omy, followed by a wide-ranging debate among Chinese intellectuals, policy advisors, and
government officials (Xie et al. 2012). The most sensational arguments against state-owned
enterprises (SOEs) were put forward in a 2011 report on China’s SOEs published by the Unirule
Institute of Economics, China’s most influential non-governmental economic think tank. The
issues of contention were whether or not SOEs are efficient, monopolistic, and/or deteriorating
the income distribution. People were sharply divided between the right and the left.
The debate intensified in early 2012, when the World Bank and a Chinese Cabinet think tank
published a new report titled “China 2030,” which called for further downsizing the share of
by guest on July 14, 2013rrp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
2 Review of Radical Political Economics XX(X)
SOEs in industrial output from twenty-seven percent in 2010 to around ten percent in 2030
(World Bank 2012). This was, by no means, a new prescription. Fifteen years ago, along with the
report titled “China 2020” also from the World Bank, China witnessed a full-scale privatization
of SOEs and market liberalization. However, today the resistance against privatization has
become much stronger than before. At the “China 2030” press conference, Du Jianguo, an inde-
pendent scholar, stood up and denounced the World Bank policy with his leaflets titled “World
Bank, Go Home with Your Poison.” This open protest has so far received enormous support from
the left as well as denouncements from the right.
In what follows, we will consider the implications of the debate by focusing on three sets of
questions. First, what is the nature of the debate, and how can we understand it in the context of
Chinese reform? Second, what are the likely changes for SOEs considering the current political
and economic situation? Third, how can we transform SOEs towards socialism so they can better
represent the people’s interests?
2. The Debate as Continued Class Struggle in the Political and
Ideological Superstructure
When Chinese leaders initiated the reform towards marketization in 1978, they claimed that the
goal was to rejuvenate and improve the socialist system in China. Some important steps of the
reform were developing private enterprises, attracting foreign investment, and offering private
and foreign enterprises conditions more favorable than those given to SOEs and domestic enter-
prises. In the process of dismantling the planned economy—especially in price reforms, the
establishment of capital and land markets, and SOE reforms—some party members and cadres
in enterprises and government started to accumulate capital through both legal and illegal
means. The weakening of central planning made the national economy increasingly reliant on
market expansion and monetary incentives; various contradictions springing up during the
reform were expected to be solved by further marketization. Under the name of reform, educa-
tion, health care, housing, and the social security system, which were operated publicly as rep-
resentatives of socialism before the reform, have been marketized continuously.
The objective of the reform was declared to be the creation of a socialist market economy.
However, in the 1990s, the key issue changed into being the transition to a generally market-
based economy. While the path and means of this transition became a priority of theoretical
discussions and policy designs, the aftermath of this transition—the resulting economic model
and its nature - was largely absent from discussions, consciously or unconsciously. In the thirty
years since 1978, time has revealed that China’s “crossing the river by touching stones” was
actually a move towards an American-style market economy. In this process, the socialist ele-
ments of the Chinese economy have been reduced only to SOEs and macroeconomic control.
The state-owned economy has largely been regarded as the basis for state intervention, but has
not functioned as models for other parts of the economy to follow (Song and Sun 2010). Worse,
many SOEs were privatized or simply shut down.
During the mid-1990s, massive privatization of SOEs took the form of “grasping the large and
letting go of the small” (zhuada fangxiao), under which all medium- and small-scale SOEs and
part of large-scale SOEs were privatized. The beneficiaries included governmental officials, for-
mer SOE managers, private capitalists connected with government, and transnational corpora-
tions (Li 2011). From this process has emerged, unsurprisingly, a new capitalist class composed
mainly of private proprietors and multinational capital and its related interest groups. As the size
and wealth of this emerging capitalist class grew larger and their power grew stronger, they
would necessarily demand abandoning the socialist legacy which might impede their further
accumulation of wealth (Kotz 2009). Meanwhile, tens of millions of former state-owned and
by guest on July 14, 2013rrp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Xie et al. 3
collective unit workers were laid off and impoverished. Besides the urban labor force, migrant
workers from China’s rural belly have been the dominant source of labor supply for industrial
sectors. The rising working class has organized a significant amount of petitions, protests, and
strikes against the new capitalist class (Lee 2007).
However, so far direct and violent capital-labor conflict has not been the dominant form of
class struggle in China. First, the proletarianization of rural migrant workers is yet to be com-
plete, because despite working in cities, the reproduction of their labor power still highly relies
on the countryside where they own use rights of land and other productive resources (Pun et al.
2009). Second, although a rising tide of strikes has been conspicuous recently, most of them have
been sporadic, localized, and focusing on immediate economic demands such as higher wages
and better working conditions, hoping to draw attention and help from the government. These
labor protests have shown that China’s new working class is still largely a class-in-itself, not a
class-for-itself.
Instead, class struggle in the ideological sphere has been very significant. As Marx writes,
“theory … becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses” (Marx 1978: 1843). In
the top-down reform led by the Communist Party, society was successfully inculcated with the
reform ideology which soon became hegemonic in discourse. Moreover, because the economic
structure is the basis of politics and ideology, the changes in ownership structure and class struc-
ture that have accompanied the rise of capitalist private enterprises have been inevitably reflected
in theoretical, ideological, and policy levels. The capitalist class has also taken advantage of
ideological tools, like higher education and new media, to advance their interests.
First, as the national economy has been geared to the American style, economics education in
China has also been “Americanized.” Many economists trained in neoliberal economics in the
United States have been invited to China and granted the power to reform economics education in
top academic institutions. The popularization of neoliberal economics has worked along with the
marginalization of Marxist economics, and a generation of young scholars with blind faith in neolib-
eralism has also been brought up (Cohn 2011). For them, the inefficiency of SOEs has become a
tenet of faith, which indirectly negates the socialist elements in the market economy. In this process,
socialism has been theoretically weakened and further reduced to abstract concepts such as “equal-
ity” or “fairness,” whilst capitalist features of the reform have been significantly strengthened.
Second, before 1978 socialism in China was generally equivalent to a combination of public
ownership, a planned economy, and distribution according to work. As reform proceeds, a
planned economy and distribution according to work have been replaced with a market economy
and distribution according to factor (mainly capital) contribution; and the dominant position of
public ownership has been replaced with the controlling power of state ownership. As a result,
SOEs have become the last resort for socialist elements of the market economy. This is why
denouncing or defending SOEs has become the focal point of theoretical and ideological debates
in China since 2004.
Third, Chinese rightist elites are already experienced in transforming a topic into a public con-
sensus via the media under their control. In this way, they have pressured the government to re-
design policies in their favor. For instance, during the 2000s and 2010s, the rightist elites started a
series of debates like the debate on SOE management buy-outs in 2004, on Chinese economics
education in 2005, on the orientation of Chinese reform in 2006, on democratic socialism in 2007,
on universal values and the “08 Charter” in 2008. Although topics differed, these debates all
revolved around whether China should persevere with or give up socialism. Moreover, each was
halted by party and state officials out of fear of challenging the legitimacy of the economic system
too much; each was ended by the authority as a compromise to balance the left and the right.
However, the way of compromise, in fact, always leaves the door open for further ideological
manipulations by rightist elites who oppose socialism and embrace privatization.
by guest on July 14, 2013rrp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
4 Review of Radical Political Economics XX(X)
As Michael Burawoy argues, “when struggle takes place on the terrain of ideology, the con-
sequences of struggle must be understood through an examination of the actual relations behind
ideology….Where interests are taken as given, ideology becomes a resource that people manipu-
late to advance their ‘interests’ or a cement that contains conflict or minimizes strain” (1979).
Also as Marx suggests, through ideological forms people become conscious of the conflict
between the productive forces and the superstructure, and fight it out (Marx 1978: 1859). At
present, the debates on SOEs reveal the continuation of privatization and ongoing class struggle
in China. Rightist intellectuals, policy advisors, and government officials, as well as the media,
initiated these debates in order to influence the next leadership of the central government
and policy making in general. Their ultimate goal is to eliminate public ownership, legitimize
managers’ embezzlement of public wealth by privatizing SOEs, allow transnational capitals to
control the Chinese economy, and thus eliminate all remaining socialist elements.
3. The Foreseeable Future of the SOEs
The serial debates have greatly influenced government policies on SOE reform. For example, in
March 2010 the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC) of the
State Council required 78 central SOEs to quit the real estate sector if real estate was not their
major business. Two hundred and twenty-seven enterprises were affected and state-owned assets
involved totaled 99.1 billion yuan ($15.2 billion). In The Proposals of the State Council on
Encouraging and Leading Private Investment to Develop Healthily (May 2010), it was suggested
that the government should enlarge the scope and scale of private investment; encourage and guide
private investment in basic industries, infrastructure, and financial sectors; and allow privately-
owned real estate corporations to build affordable housing, public rental housing, and other policy-
based housing. The proposals were largely accepted in Premier Wen’s government work report in
March 2012 and thus became the target of future reform (People’s Daily, March 16, 2012).
It is undeniable that, under current conditions, socialism with Chinese characteristics tends to
develop into capitalism. As the Chinese market economy develops, economic interests have been
increasingly diversified, and thus the ideological discourses are also changing. There will be
further theoretical and policy-related debates over whether or not China should adhere to social-
ism. Rightist elites will undoubtedly wage new wars against SOEs and propose furthering priva-
tization. How, then, will the position and function of the state-owned economy change in the
foreseeable future?
We argue that, in the relatively longer term, as long as the CPC remains the ruling party,
socialist legacies and rhetoric will not become extinct, and some socialist elements will still be
functioning, such as giant SOEs, the state-owned banking system, public ownership of land in
the Constitution, and the implementation of national economic plans. In general, without radical
policy changes, the proportion of the economy under state ownership, in spite of some fluctua-
tions, will remain relatively stable over time.
First, the CPC continually insists on maintaining the dominant role of the state-owned econ-
omy in the socialist system with Chinese characteristics, the necessity of which has already been
realized among the top leaders. Jinping Xi, the Chinese vice president, pointed out that SOEs
were strong forces for building a moderately prosperous society in all respects, the major pillars
for building socialism with Chinese characteristics, an important basis on which the CPC can
retain leadership, and an important area where the CPC’s basic theories can be implemented and
put into practice (Xi 2009). In the Fourth Session of the 11th National People’s Congress in 2011,
Bangguo Wu, chairperson of the Standing Committee, stated firmly that China would not adopt
a system of multiple parties holding office in rotation or adopt pluralization of the guiding
dogma. He ruled out the possibility of separating powers among the executive, legislature, and
by guest on July 14, 2013rrp.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Xie et al. 5
judiciary or adopting a bicameral or federal system, and also clearly declared that further priva-
tization was not under consideration (Wu 2011). Serial reports published in Guangming Daily
recently emphasized the importance of SOEs in consolidating and developing public ownership,
promoting advantages of the socialist system, strengthening economic and defense power,
increasing national coherence, curbing income inequality, maintaining social fairness and jus-
tice, promoting general prosperity, consolidating the state’s political power, and increasing social
harmony.1
Second, it is unreasonable and also difficult to further privatize the current state-owned econ-
omy. Most of the SOEs either have already gone through an initial public offering (IPO) or are
huge in scale. Their major businesses involve capital- and/or technology-intensive industries.
Eighty percent of the central SOEs’ quality assets are concentrated in listed companies and are of
high market value. The property-rights exchanges of the unlisted ones must be conducted through
a designated special market by public auction. In practice, Chinese private investors so far cannot
afford to buy out or operate these SOEs. Also, since the debate over SOE management buy-outs
in 2004, the whole society has been cautious about the complex manipulations through which
managers of SOEs turned public assets into private ones, thus the state-owned assets cannot be
grabbed as easily as before.
Third, public attention, social pressures, and rising economic nationalism have made further
privatization more difficult. First of all, the Chinese state-sector working class has accumulated
class experiences in the pre-reform era and has developed a substantial degree of socialist con-
sciousness. Once they realized that their class interests were invaded by the new capitalist class
and its supporting government officials, they strongly opposed further privatization of SOEs (Li
2011). For instance, in July 2009, the proposal for privatizing Jilin Tonghua Iron and Steel Group
triggered massive and violent self-organized worker protests, in which seven blast furnaces
stopped working and one high-ranking manager was beaten to death. This event forced the Jilin
provincial government to stop its initial plan of privatizing the enterprise. Similarly, the privatiza-
tion of Henan Linzhou Iron and Steel Group was halted due to massive worker protests, in which
Puyang SASAC’s vice director was placed under house arrest by workers for 90 hours. Both cases
imply that in order to avoid further capital-labor conflicts and maintain social stability, the govern-
ment will be more cautious on SOEs’ further reform. In addition, many nationalists argue for
SOEs because SOEs are the major force against foreign capital. One study has shown that among
twenty-seven major industri