(essay) China: Cities in the Transition to Capitalism

Modern China is undergoing a relentless process of transformation, from 
the forests of construction cranes in its coastal cities to the 
gargantuan infrastructure projects in its interior. Its economic 
trajectory has been equally dramatic: China is now ranked 4th in the 
world by gdp, rising from 11th in 1990. A range of developments testify 
to its rapid progress along the path to a capitalist economy: the 
commodification of land and labour, emergence of private firms, 
formation of finance capital, among many others. [1] Yet China scholars 
have been curiously reluctant to apply the classic Marxist idea of a 
transition to capitalism—and its corollary, primitive accumulation—to 
the Chinese case. Instead, they quite loosely use terms such as 
globalization, marketization, post-socialism, reform era and market 
socialism, seemingly unaware of how closely the transformations under 
way in China compare with the development of capitalism in Europe and 
North America—not to mention many other ‘late developers’ in Asia and 
Latin America.

Comparison with historical experience of the rise of capitalism in the 
West can act as a useful counterbalance to three shortcomings of 
contemporary China studies. The first common error is to exaggerate 
China’s uniqueness vis-à-vis the general process of capitalist 
transition. This does not mean adopting the flat-earth neoliberalism of 
Thomas Friedman or a unilinear Marxism in which the rest of the world 
must recapitulate the economic history of Britain or the United States. 
While capitalism has universal elements, the road to capitalism follows 
many routes, depending on history, geographic circumstance and politics. 
Like a virus, capitalism cannot survive without living hosts, whose dna 
it alters in order to reproduce. Therefore, one can certainly refer to 
‘capitalism with Chinese characteristics’.

A second pitfall for China watchers is an obsession with the socialist 
past. Certainly, the Maoist era shaped the country’s present course to 
an important degree, and China shares characteristics with other 
ex-socialist countries. But it differs profoundly from most post-Soviet 
and East European countries in that it did not undergo a sudden 
implosion of state, party and economy. Instead, an autocratic state has 
maintained a close hold on economic policy and the Communist Party 
continues to monopolize political life. Nonetheless, China in the 
twenty-first century can no longer sensibly be called ‘late’ or ‘market’ 
socialist.

cont'd....
http://www.newleftreview.org/?page=article&view=2678