Socialism

A group of volunteers wave green handkerchiefs as they ride their bicycles in Beijing on November 21, 2012 for the launch of a world-tour to promote low-carbon lifestyles. The activity, which will see volunteers set off on a global tour from Libo County in Guizhou Province, was launched under the themes of bringing back the handkerchief, using less tissue paper, travelling by environmentally friendly means, and living a low-carbon lifestyle. / Xinhua (Photo by Zhao Jing)

Creating an Ecological Civilization

By Jiang Chunyun

From: English Edition of Qiushi Journal. a publication of the CCP  Central Committee

Vol.5 No.1 January 1, 2013

As the old Chinese proverb goes, “To return a kindness with gratitude is a good deed, the act of an upright man; to treat a kindness with ingratitude is a bad deed, the act of a petty man.” These words, “good” and “bad,” “gratitude” and “ingratitude,” have long been the most fundamental criteria for judging the morality and action of an individual. Do children treat their parents with respect out of gratitude for the loving care their parents have given them? Do countrymen serve their motherland wholeheartedly out of gratitude for everything their motherland has afforded them? And do human beings have awe for and cherish their green home out of gratitude for the life that nature has granted them? Everybody on earth, individuals and groups alike, must find rational answers to these questions, regardless of their nationality, race, gender, class, and occupation, and must require both themselves and others to act in accordance with a just code of speaking out for good and doing good instead of evil.

Life on earth began as early as several hundred million years ago, while the story of human evolution started only several million years ago. This means that humans are latecomers. At every step of human evolution—from our transformation from Australopithecus to Homo erectus, and again from archaic Homo sapiens to Homo sapiens—we have been cared for by nature, which, like a great and holy mother, has allowed humankind to grow from a species with few members to one with several billion members. In comparison with family and country, the care that nature has bestowed on us is more fundamental, more worthy of our gratitude. Yet how have we treated nature? This may be a difficult question to answer, but it is one that we must answer as a matter of conscience.

Frankly speaking, there are many people who are able to show appreciation towards nature. These people have made active contributions to ecological protection and the improvement of the environment. But at the same time, there are also people who have no sense of gratitude towards nature. These people are indifferent towards the changes that are affecting nature and the environment. Moreover, there are even people who are so ungrateful towards nature that they would wantonly damage the environment. These people are by no means few in number, and their violations against nature are on the increase. This is the root cause of the ecological degradation and environmental deterioration that has plunged the human race into a survival crisis.

Ecological and environmental issues began to emerge with the advent of agricultural society, although at that time the impact of human activities on the environment was gradual and relatively minor. However, with the arrival of the Industrial Revolution and the rapid development of science and technology, human beings began to deal serious damage to the environment as they created great material wealth and cultural achievements. This damage has become increasingly serious in modern times. Air pollution, water pollution, soil pollution, desertification, global warming, the melting of the glaciers, the depletion of the ozone, the spread of acid rain, the sharp drop in biodiversity, and the frequent occurrence of fatal diseases and natural disasters—these startling facts are a warning that the earth’s biosphere, which mankind relies on for its survival, is damaged. They tell us that the major ecological systems supporting the earth’s biosphere, such as forests, grasslands, wetlands, rivers, lakes, farmlands, mountains, the atmosphere, and oceans, are bruised all over, weakened, and that untold dangers lurk amongst them. The biosphere is like a cracked fish tank which is losing its water. As the water seeps out of the tank at an increasing rate, the survival of the fish inside is coming under threat. Therefore, if we are unable to repair the biosphere quickly, the damage will only become worse and worse. This will continue until the biosphere eventually ceases to function, being no longer able to operate, and when that happens humankind will descend into a desperate struggle for its survival. This is not alarmist talk, but a real depiction of a hidden crisis that will threaten the survival of the human race.

In an effort to address the human crisis that has been triggered by environmental deterioration, the international community and the countries of the world have frequently convened meetings, signed conventions and accords, issued declarations, made commitments, and taken action. While in some cases these efforts have led to positive results, in overall terms our efforts to restore ecosystems and rectify environments have yielded few results. At most we can say that there has been partial improvement. The trend of environmental deterioration on a global scale is yet to be reversed, and there are even signs that it is becoming more serious. James Speth, the Dean of the School of Forestry and Environmental Studies at Yale University and former Administrator of the United Nations Development Program, says that the trend of environmental decline, which has made the international community uneasy, is yet to be fundamentally mitigated. Ill omens still exist, and these problems are becoming more ingrained, bringing about immediate danger. Speth believes that problems such as global warming, environmental pollution, resource depletion, ecological degradation, and the loss of biodiversity are much worse than we are able to understand, willing to admit, or tend to estimate.

The reasons for global environmental deterioration are deep-seated. Though we cannot rule out the influence of reverse ecological succession, the fact remains that the most fundamental cause of global environmental deterioration is humankind’s failure to treat nature correctly. Human beings have made irreparable mistakes due to their biased understanding of the relationship between humans and nature. The predatory exploitation of resources and irrational modes of production and lifestyles that came with the Industrial Revolution have had a devastating impact on ecosystems and the environment. Traditional industrial civilization was undoubtedly a revolutionary step forward from agricultural civilization, creating much higher productivity, huge material wealth, as well as technological and cultural achievements. However, the shortcomings of industrial civilization are not difficult to see: it is extremely profit-driven, greedy, predatory, aggressive, and even crazy in nature, its values and approach to development being the rapid accumulation of wealth and capital at any cost. In recent centuries, under the influence of these ideas, developed industrial countries in the West engaged in an unprecedented campaign to conquer, plunder, and destroy nature. With this came a long succession of colonial wars which not only saw millions die and hundreds of millions become slaves, but also caused the world’s ecological environments to suffer on an unprecedented scale. Many of those who plundered the world’s natural resources were proponents of anthropocentrism, the view that human beings are the masters of nature and that all other things in the natural world are mankind’s possessions, consumables, and servants. Guided by these notions, they robbed, seized and destroyed without restraint, and led extravagant, luxurious, and extremely wasteful lifestyles. In more than 200 years of industrial history, developed countries in the West have consumed around half of the world’s non-renewable resources, which took billions of years to form.

Fact has repeatedly warned us that we cannot rely on traditional industrial civilization to correct its own mistakes when it comes to the environment. Traditional industrial civilization has therefore come to a dead end. Despite this, however, certain developing countries have failed to break away from the developmental mode of traditional industrial civilization as they have sought to industrialize. As a result, within the space of just decades, they have encountered the kind of environmental pollution and ecological degradation that took one or two hundred years to emerge in the West. These countries must now meet the challenge of maintaining a balance between economic development and environmental protection.

Since the latter half of the last century, we have come to the profound realization that industrial civilization is unsustainable. Drawing from the lessons of the past, we have proposed the creation of an ecological civilization, which is characterized by sustainable development and harmony between mankind and nature. Ecological civilization provides us with broader prospects for resolving the environmental crisis and maintaining balance between development and the environment. It represents a substantive step forward from industrial civilization, because it not only embodies the strengths of industrial civilization, but is also able to address its weaknesses and failings by applying brand new ideas. The basic features of ecological civilization can be summarized as follows.

First, human beings are a part of nature. The relationship between human beings and other creatures should be one of equality, friendship, and mutual reliance, as opposed to a relationship in which humans are supreme.

Second, since it is nature that has given us life, we should feel gratitude towards nature, repay nature, and treat nature well. We should not forget the debt that we owe to nature, or treat nature and other creatures violently.

Third, humans are entitled to exploit natural resources, but we must take the tolerance of ecosystems and the environment into account when doing so in order to avoid overexploitation.

Fourth, human beings must follow the moral principles of ensuring equity between people, between countries and between generations in resource exploitation. We should refrain from violating the rights and interests of other people, other countries, and future generations.

Fifth, we should advocate conservation, efficiency, and recycling in the utilization of resources so as to maximize efficiency whilst keeping consumption and the impact on nature to a minimum.

Sixth, we should view sustainable development as our highest goal, rejecting the overexploitation of resources and short-sighted acts aimed at gaining quick results.

Seventh, the fruits of development must be enjoyed by all members of society and not monopolized by a small minority.

It is essential that we correct the way we treat nature and assume our rightful position in nature. As the wisest of all creatures, we should give full play to our intelligence and capacity for thought by shouldering the responsibility of caring for, protecting, guiding, and strengthening nature, and ensuring that all of nature’s creatures are able to live in harmony and develop in a balanced, orderly, and continuous fashion.

It must be noted that while China has made remarkable achievements in socialist modernization during more than 30 years of reform and opening up, it has also encountered serious environmental problems that are undermining its sustainable development. Fact has demonstrated and will continue to demonstrate that we must take Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, and the theories of socialism with Chinese characteristics as our guide, commit to the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, implement the Scientific Outlook on Development, which puts people first and seeks to promote comprehensive, balanced, and sustainable development, and build a resource-conserving and environmentally friendly society. These are not only the essence for promoting ecological progress and realizing the transformation of human civilization, but also a prerequisite and solid foundation for ensuring the sound and rapid development of economy and society, the balancing of economic development and environmental protection, the establishment of a harmonious society, and the improvement of people’s wellbeing.

There are two old Chinese sayings which, through their dialectical materialism, reveal to us the key to success in any undertaking. The first is: to go undefeated in a hundred battles, you must know both the enemy and yourself. The second is: success belongs to those who are prepared, and failure to those who are not. If we are to reverse the trend of environmental degradation and save the biosphere, we must correctly assess the state of our living environment, face up to environmental problems instead of trying to conceal them, use scientific means to anticipate dangers that lurk ahead, and sincerely reflect on our maltreatment of nature. Once we have acknowledged our errors we must take action to correct them. To do this, we must enhance our sense of mission, danger, and responsibility, and take the necessary measures to turn a precarious situation into a favorable one, so as to realize a sound balance between development and the environment.

It is about time that we changed our way of thinking and discarded our concept of a traditional industrial civilization in favor of a modern ecological one. It is about time that we put an end to our irrational modes of development and consumption, and made efforts to save the earth’s biosphere.

The struggle to save the biosphere and transform our civilization from a traditional industrial civilization to a modern ecological civilization will be an endeavor more magnificent than any seen before in human history, and a complex social undertaking of huge proportions. It will require that we humans carefully consider, correctly understand, and answer a series of questions, some of which are as follows: What is the relationship between human beings and nature? Is it one of the conqueror and the conquered, the dominator and the dominated, and the ruler and the ruled? Or is it one of equality, friendship, harmony, coexistence, and mutual flourishing? Why is earth the only cradle of life among the vast number of celestial bodies in universe? What is the earth’s biosphere, and how will ordinal or reversed ecological succession affect the survival and development of human beings? Which biological systems support and maintain the earth’s biosphere? Is it inevitable that the survival and development of the human race will come at the expense of ecosystems and the environment? How should we understand the relationship between promoting an ecological civilization and transforming our modes of development and consumption? How should we deal with the contradiction between limited natural resources and limitless human desire? Should we make up for the huge damage caused to nature by long-term overexploitation? If so, how do we repay this debt? Should we let nature rest and regain its strength like humans do when they become old or ill? What is the role of science and technology in saving the biosphere? What is the relationship between population growth and resources, environment and sustainable development? What do the constant wars of human beings mean to nature? How do we give full play to the role of law and ethics as effective means of guaranteeing environmental protection and the salvation of the biosphere? Why must we improve our methods and standards for evaluating economic and social development? How should the countries of the world cooperate and coordinate with one another in saving the earth’s biosphere and developing ecological civilization?

Drawing lessons from both our successes and failures in interacting with nature, we must see the global environmental crisis for what it is, and work out the relevant theories, ways of thinking, and countermeasures as we commit ourselves to the path of promoting ecological civilization.

Author: Former Vice Chairman of the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress of China

Note: This article is a slightly abridged version of the preface of the book Saving the Earth’s Biosphere—Concerning the Transformation of Human Civilization, which was edited by the author and published by Xinhua Press in September 2012.

Collective Ownership Won’t Narrow Wealth Gap

A system that accelerates social disparity must be reformed before problems with resource allocation and social justice can be addressed

By Liu Shangxi

Caixin.com March 29, 2013

In theory, public ownership, including ownership by all the people and collective ownership, is conducive to narrowing the gap between the rich and the poor. In reality it’s not.

In the planned economy under public ownership, China appeared to have achieved social equity, but this was accompanied by low efficiency and slow development. After reform and opening up started in the late 1970s, China implemented a market economy, though one that was still dominated by public ownership. Economic efficiency improved, but the income distribution gap has exceeded that of many other market economies dominated by the private ownership system. Why has the public ownership system failed to close the gap between rich and poor and instead widened it?

In fact, whether a public ownership system can enhance social equity depends on whether there is a sound property rights system in place.

Under a planned economy, the system of ownership and the system of property rights are made one. Property rights, operating rights, usage rights and the right to financial gain are all of the same entity.

Under a market economy, however, the system of ownership and the property rights system are separated, and operating rights and usage rights fall under different entities. For instance, farmers have the right to use farmland but no ownership. Their financial gain is shared between farmers and the rural collective. All the land, mineral resources, forests, water, and other factors of production of the country are also split off into operating rights and use rights, forming independent property rights entities that share revenue rights with the ultimate owner – the state. In this way, public resources can be better allocated under the push of the market, and each property rights entity can obtain corresponding revenue. Then, revenue obtained from collective and state ownership can be shared by its members. In theory it looks good.

continue

‘Bombard Those in Power with Strategically Well-selected, Precise, Finite Demands…’

By Slavoj Žižek

London Review of Books

One of the clearest lessons of the last few decades is that capitalism is indestructible. Marx compared it to a vampire, and one of the salient points of comparison now appears to be that vampires always rise up again after being stabbed to death. Even Mao’s attempt, in the Cultural Revolution, to wipe out the traces of capitalism, ended up in its triumphant return.

Today’s Left reacts in a wide variety of ways to the hegemony of global capitalism and its political supplement, liberal democracy. It might, for example, accept the hegemony, but continue to fight for reform within its rules (this is Third Way social democracy).

Or, it accepts that the hegemony is here to stay, but should nonetheless be resisted from its ‘interstices’.

Or, it accepts the futility of all struggle, since the hegemony is so all-encompassing that nothing can really be done except wait for an outburst of ‘divine violence’ – a revolutionary version of Heidegger’s ‘only God can save us.’

Or, it recognises the temporary futility of the struggle. In today’s triumph of global capitalism, the argument goes, true resistance is not possible, so all we can do till the revolutionary spirit of the global working class is renewed is defend what remains of the welfare state, confronting those in power with demands we know they cannot fulfil, and otherwise withdraw into cultural studies, where one can quietly pursue the work of criticism.

continue

China 2013

By Samir Amin
Monthly Review

Samir Amin is director of the Third World Forum in Dakar, Senegal. His books include The Liberal Virus, The World We Wish to See, and The Law of Worldwide Value (all published by Monthly Review Press). This article was translated from the French by James Membrez.

The debates concerning the present and future of China—an “emerging” power—always leave me unconvinced. Some argue that China has chosen, once and for all, the “capitalist road” and intends even to accelerate its integration into contemporary capitalist globalization. They are quite pleased with this and hope only that this “return to normality” (capitalism being the “end of history”) is accompanied by development towards Western-style democracy (multiple parties, elections, human rights). They believe—or need to believe—in the possibility that China shall by this means “catch up” in terms of per capita income to the opulent societies of the West, even if gradually, which I do not believe is possible. The Chinese right shares this point of view. Others deplore this in the name of the values of a “betrayed socialism.” Some associate themselves with the dominant expressions of the practice of China bashing1 in the West. Still others—those in power in Beijing—describe the chosen path as “Chinese-style socialism,” without being more precise. However, one can discern its characteristics by reading official texts closely, particularly the Five-Year Plans, which are precise and taken quite seriously.

In fact the question, “Is China capitalist or socialist?” is badly posed, too general and abstract for any response to make sense in terms of this absolute alternative. In fact, China has actually been following an original path since 1950, and perhaps even since the Taiping Revolution in the nineteenth century. I shall attempt here to clarify the nature of this original path at each of the stages of its development from 1950 to today—2013.

The Agrarian Question

Mao described the nature of the revolution carried out in China by its Communist Party as an anti-imperialist/anti-feudal revolution looking toward socialism. Mao never assumed that, after having dealt with imperialism and feudalism, the Chinese people had “constructed” a socialist society. He always characterized this construction as the first phase of the long path to socialism.

I must emphasize the quite specific nature of the response given to the agrarian question by the Chinese Revolution. The distributed (agricultural) land was not privatized; it remained the property of the nation represented by village communes and only the use was given to rural families. That had not been the case in Russia where Lenin, faced with the fait accompli of the peasant insurrection in 1917, recognized the private property of the beneficiaries of land distribution.

Why was the implementation of the principle that agricultural land is not a commodity possible in China (and Vietnam)? It is constantly repeated that peasants around the world long for property and that alone. If such had been the case in China, the decision to nationalize the land would have led to an endless peasant war, as was the case when Stalin began forced collectivization in the Soviet Union.

The attitude of the peasants of China and Vietnam (and nowhere else) cannot be explained by a supposed “tradition” in which they are unaware of property. It is the product of an intelligent and exceptional political line implemented by the Communist Parties of these two countries.

continue

Historian Mark Solomon looks at the prospects for a new socialist left

By Mark Solomon

Published by Portside March 6, 2013

On February 4, 2010 The Gallop Poll released its latest data on the public’s political attitudes. The headline read: “Socialism Viewed Positively by 36% of Americans.” While the poll did not attempt the daunting task of exploring what a diverse public understood socialism to mean, it nevertheless revealed an unmistakably sympathetic image of a system that had been pilloried for generations by all of capitalism’s dominant instruments of learning and information as well as by its power to suppress and slander socialist ideas and organization.

In sheer numbers, that means a population at the teen- age level and above of tens of millions with a favorable view of socialism.

Why then is the organized socialist movement in the United States so small and so clearly wanting in light of the potential for building its numbers and influence?

That is a crucial question. At every major juncture in the history of the country, radical individuals and organizations in advance of the mainstream have played essential roles in influencing, guiding and consolidating broad currents for social change. In the revolution that birthed this country, radical activists articulated demands from the grass roots for an uncompromising and transforming revolution to crush colonial oppression. Black and white abolitionists fought to make the erasure of slavery the core objective of the Civil War while also linking that struggle to women’s suffrage and trade unionism. A mass Socialist Party in the early 20th century fought for state intervention to combat the ravages of an increasingly exploitative economic system while advancing the vision of a socialist commonwealth. In the Great Depression, the Communist Party and its allies fought the devastations of the crisis – helping to build popular movements to expand democracy, grow industrial unions and defend protections for labor embodied in the historic New Deal.

Small left and socialist organizations in the sixties supported a range of progressive struggles from peace to civil rights to women’s liberation to gay rights and beyond. The limited resources of those groups were effective in galvanizing massive peace demonstrations and in campaigns against racist and sexist oppression. But the Cold War and McCarthyism had eviscerated any hope for a major influential socialist current. Consequently, no large and impacting force existed to extend to the peace movement a coherent anti-imperial analysis that might have contributed to its continuity and readiness to confront the wars of the nineties and the new century. Nor was there a strong socialist organization to contribute to the civil rights struggle by advocating for reform joined to a commitment to deeper social transformation. Had such a current existed, it might have contributed to building a broad protective barrier against the devastating FBI and local police violence against sectors of the movement like the Black Panthers.

There should be little debate today on the left over the need for a strong socialist voice and movement in light of festering economic stagnation, war on the working class, looming environmental catastrophe, a widening chasm between the super-rich and the rest of us, massive joblessness and incarceration savaging African Americans and other oppressed nationalities, crises in health care, housing and education. Such a strong socialist presence could offer a searching analysis of the present situation, help stimulate a broad public debate on short term solutions and formulate a vision of a socialist future that could begin to reach the minds and hearts of the 36 percent who claim to be sympathetic to that vision.

continue

By Noam Chomsky
Alternet.org, March 5, 2013

There is “capitalism” and then there is “really existing capitalism.”

The term “capitalism” is commonly used to refer to the U.S. economic system, with substantial state intervention ranging from subsidies for creative innovation to the “too-big-to-fail” government insurance policy for banks.

The system is highly monopolized, further limiting reliance on the market, and increasingly so: In the past 20 years the share of profits of the 200 largest enterprises has risen sharply, reports scholar Robert W. McChesney in his new book “Digital Disconnect.”

“Capitalism” is a term now commonly used to describe systems in which there are no capitalists: for example, the worker-owned Mondragon conglomerate in the Basque region of Spain, or the worker-owned enterprises expanding in northern Ohio, often with conservative support – both are discussed in important work by the scholar Gar Alperovitz.

Some might even use the term “capitalism” to refer to the industrial democracy advocated by John Dewey, America’s leading social philosopher, in the late 19th century and early 20th century.

Dewey called for workers to be “masters of their own industrial fate” and for all institutions to be brought under public control, including the means of production, exchange, publicity, transportation and communication. Short of this, Dewey argued, politics will remain “the shadow cast on society by big business.”

The truncated democracy that Dewey condemned has been left in tatters in recent years. Now control of government is narrowly concentrated at the peak of the income scale, while the large majority “down below” has been virtually disenfranchised. The current political-economic system is a form of plutocracy, diverging sharply from democracy, if by that concept we mean political arrangements in which policy is significantly influenced by the public will.

There have been serious debates over the years about whether capitalism is compatible with democracy. If we keep to really existing capitalist democracy – RECD for short – the question is effectively answered: They are radically incompatible.

continue

‘Seek Truth from Facts’ carved in stone

By Hu Angang and Mao Jie

From: English Edition of Qiushi Journal

Vol.5 No.1 January 1, 2013 | Updated:2013-02-19 10:51

To understand a country as complicated as China, one must delve into China’s complex national conditions, history, and national policies, and seek to identify both the core elements affecting change in the country and the key forces influencing its long-term development.

China’s huge social progress is the result of constant efforts to understand China, to draw plans for China, to develop China, and to transform China. It is the result of a perpetual process of practice, policy-making, appraisal, and adjustment which has played out since the beginning of efforts to establish socialism in what was an underdeveloped Oriental nation. The history of the People’s Republic of China tells us that no success is greater than the formulation of a good overall strategy, while no failure is greater than the formulation of a bad one. Any attempt to identify the “China road” or summarize the “China experience” must begin with an examination into the success of China’s policy-making.

Deng Xiaoping once said, “Just as in the past we achieved all the victories in our revolution by following this principle (of seeking truth from facts), so today we must rely on it in our effort to accomplish the four modernizations.” Representing a major achievement in the adaptation of Marxism to suit conditions in China, and being the quintessence and soul of Mao Zedong Thought, seeking truth from facts is the ideology, the organizational line, the core values, and the paramount principle that the CPC adheres to in its policy-making activities.

In summarizing the experiences and lessons of China’s policy-making, Hu Jintao pointed out that above all else, the reason why we made mistakes at certain points in the past, and even encountered serious setbacks, was because the guiding principles we adhered to at those times were detached from the realities in China. In addition, he also pointed out that above all else, the reason why the Party, drawing on its own strength and that of the people, was able to correct its mistakes, overcome its setbacks, and forge ahead triumphantly, was because it reasserted its commitment to the principle of seeking truth from facts. Past experience clearly indicates that if we are able to uphold the principle of seeking truth from facts, the likelihood is that we will make the right policies; whereas if we are unable to uphold this principle, the likelihood is that we will make the wrong ones. Seeking truth from facts is the policy-making philosophy of the CPC, and the secret to the success of China’s policy-making.

Seeking truth from facts is the unique policy-making philosophy of the CPC

The Constitution of the CPC clearly states that the Party’s ideological line is to proceed from reality in handling all matters, to integrate theory with practice, to seek truth from facts, and to verify and develop the truth through practice. It says that all Party members are required to adhere to this ideological line, explore new approaches, boldly experiment with new methods, be enterprising and innovative, work creatively, constantly assess new developments, review new experiences, solve new problems, enrich and develop Marxism in practice, and advance the endeavor to adapt Marxism to Chinese conditions.

There is no governing political party in the West that has been able to do what the CPC has done: to define a policy-making philosophy in the form of a supreme political document. Taking the recently held national conventions of the Republican Party and Democratic Party of the United States for example, we can see that these events revolved around one thing: “running for the presidency.” That is to say, the purpose of each party’s convention was to present an “election program” for the presidency, and to choose a presidential nominee and his running mate (candidates for the vice-president). The only measure of success for a party’s convention is to have its candidates “elected.” This is a typical feature of bourgeois politicians. There is a saying in the West: “A politician thinks about the next elections—the statesman thinks about the next generations.”

No governing party in the world except the CPC has the experience of combining the most enduring search for a policy-making philosophy with the policy-making practice of the largest scale.

This dictates the uniqueness of seeking truth from facts as a policy-making philosophy. Being both unique and highly original, seeking truth from facts is a policy-making philosophy with distinctly Chinese characteristics. As a policy-making philosophy, it represents a meeting point between theory and practice, a vividly rendered epistemology and methodology, and an action guide for the CPC in policy-making. Moreover, seeking truth from facts is the theoretical sum of China’s experiences in policy-making, representing an original theoretical achievement. Western scholars are accustomed to interpreting China using Western conceptual models, with some even believing that seeking truth from facts is a localized form of Western pragmatism. This not only shows that they lack a clear understanding of themselves, but also demonstrates the bias with which they typically view China.

The policy-making philosophy of seeking truth from facts can be attributed to three sources

Mao Zedong classically defined seeking truth from facts as follows: “facts” refers to all things that exist objectively in the world; “truth” refers to the intrinsic links that exist between objective things, or in other words, objective laws; and “seeking” refers to the act of identifying these laws through the process of study.

The policy-making philosophy of seeking truth from facts has three important sources: classical Chinese philosophy, Marxism, and Mao Zedong Thought.

First, seeking truth from facts both draws from and transcends classical Chinese philosophy. In this sense, it is a historical concept. On one hand, seeking truth from facts has drawn from and remodeled the idea of “rule by the Tao” in classical Chinese philosophy. Advocating the grasping of objective laws during the process of development, seeking truth from facts has actively discarded the idealistic and metaphysical aspects of classical policy-making philosophies and clearly defined that the basis for “seeking truth” must be “facts.” In other words, decisions must be based on ample understanding and consideration of objective facts. This is an embodiment of the Marxist principle of proceeding from facts in everything, and it is able to avoid the randomness and misuse that are associated with “rule by the Tao.” On the other hand, seeking truth from facts has overhauled the explanatory philosophy of classical Chinese thought, which was attached to feudal politics, by freeing policy-making philosophy from the role of providing justification for feudal rule and safeguarding feudal authority, and turning it into an action philosophy and practice philosophy for contemporary China in its revolution, construction and reforms.

Second, seeking truth from facts has inherited and built on the principles of Marxism. In this sense, it is a scientific concept. Marxism is a science. Its historical materialism and materialist dialectics have laid down an epistemological and methodological foundation for seeking truth from facts. Marxism holds that the first nature of science is objectivity. Seeking truth from facts demands that policy makers respect objective national conditions, act according to local conditions, and do the right thing at the right time. In other words, it demands that policy makers adhere to the principle of scientific policy-making. In a certain sense, the process of adapting Marxism to suit Chinese conditions has revolved around the formation and development of the idea of seeking truth from facts. The very essence of adapting Marxism to suit Chinese conditions is to combine the universal truths of Marxism with China’s revolution, development, and reforms in an attempt to identify a scientific philosophy that can be used to guide China.

Third, seeking truth from facts is the quintessence and soul of Mao Zedong Thought. In this sense, it is a developing concept. The two basic principles of Mao Zedong Thought are the dialectic unity of theory and practice and the dialectic unity of subjectivity and objectivity. On one hand, seeking truth from facts is a policy-making philosophy that emphasizes retrospection, believing that in making policy decisions one must continuously study new conditions, summarize new experiences, and solve new problems along with the development of practice and objective changes. On the other hand, seeking truth from facts believes in the evolution of policy-making, holding that correct policy decisions are not made in one go, but through a continuously repeating process. On this basis it advocates that one must properly balance the dialectic relations between relative truth and absolute truth, and between the realm of necessity and the realm of freedom. Viewing truth as a developing concept dictates that policy-making must be viewed as a developing process. Meanwhile, seeking truth from facts is also a people-oriented policy-making philosophy. Mao Zedong pointed out that the most important aspect of Marxist philosophy does not lie in understanding the laws of the objective world, and thus being able to explain it, but in applying the knowledge of these laws actively to change the world. One of the greatest contributions to Marxism made in the adaption of Marxist theories to suit China has been to further emancipate the factor of “people” by stressing the significance of subjective initiative during the policy-making process. This transcends the basic principle of proceeding from reality alone in all endeavors. In Deng Xiaoping’s words, this is what we refer to as the “emancipation of the mind.” In order to give play to subjective activity, a policy maker is required to adhere to the principle of emancipating the mind. Emancipating the mind is a prerequisite for seeking truth from facts, and seeking truth from facts is an inherent requirement for emancipating the mind. To make a decision in line with the principle of seeking truth from facts does not mean that one is taking measures without considering changes in circumstances, nor does it mean that we can rest on our laurels once that decision has been made. On the contrary, seeking truth from facts is a concept that pertains to constant development and constant renewal.

How are policy decisions made according to the philosophy of seeking truth from facts?

Seeking truth from facts is a historical concept, a scientific concept, and a developing concept. Therefore, only by adhering to a historical, scientific and developing approach to decision making, and ensuring that we proceed from China’s realities in everything, can we make policy decisions that accord to the philosophy of seeking truth from facts. Then, what is the methodology for this kind of policy-making? The answer does not come from a text book, but from experience in policy-making, from the experience of the people, and from local experience. On this basis, we can sum up this methodology in three aspects:

First, true knowledge comes from practice. This refers to the fact that knowledge and theory come from practice, and must also be applied in practice. Mao Zedong said, “Knowledge begins with practice, and theoretical knowledge is acquired through practice and must then return to practice. The active function of knowledge manifests itself not only in the active leap from perceptual to rational knowledge, but—and this is more important—it must manifest itself in the leap from rational knowledge to revolutionary practice.” Practice is both the criterion for verifying truth and correctness and the criterion for verifying falsehoods and mistakes. Therefore, in the course of policy-making, we need to attach great importance to the application of policies/trials in practice. The success of contemporary China can primarily be attributed to the importance that has been attached to practice. China has become the most active and creative practitioner of policies in the world.

Second, policies come from the people. This refers to the fact that policy decisions come from the people, and must return to the people again. This was the basic method of leadership advocated by Mao Zedong. The policies of the Party are guidelines under which the Party leads the people in taking action. A good policy should reflect the social situation, comply with the aspirations of the people, and conform to popular will. Therefore, we need to fully listen to the opinions of the people during the decision making process. This is what we refer to as “consulting the people.” At the same time, we need to adapt to the needs of the people to the greatest extent. This is what we refer to as “asking the people what they need.” In its policy-making activities, the CPC strives to gather as much information as possible, channel as much wisdom as possible, and represent as many opinions as possible, so as to turn the aspirations, demands, and interests of the people into a means of action that can be put into practice. Unlike in the West, where policy-making power is yielded, democratic participation in China involves the all-round participation of the people in the policy-making process. China has developed brand new experience with regard to achieving a dialectic unity between scientific policy-making and democratic policy-making.

Third, decisions originate locally. This refers to the fact that policy decisions are made locally, and must be implemented locally. This was the methodology that Deng Xiaoping advocated for China’s reforms. Making policies in a country as large, as populous, and as developmentally unbalanced as China, one not only has to deal with the significant uncertainty, dissymmetry, and incompleteness of information and knowledge, but must also assume all manner of political, social, and economic risks. It is impossible to govern China with one kind of innovation, one model, one policy, or one standard. This dictates that local authorities, who have access to more information, are closer to the people, and who are more familiar with local conditions, should be given greater power and room to maneuver in policy-making. Local policy-making should become the “springhead” of policy-making by the central authorities, whose decisions should be made on the basis of having integrated local policies from around the country.

These three aspects constitute the methodology of seeking truth from facts. They are not only interlinking and interactive, but also embody an inherent logical relationship: a particular kind of social practice results in a particular kind of social theory; and a particular kind of social theory guides the development of a particular kind of social practice. All three of these aspects can be found throughout the process of historical, scientific, and developing policy-making, progressing constantly as the policy-making process goes on. Both theory and practice involve risks, and there is no such thing as automatic success. Under many circumstances failure is a common occurrence. This is very similar to the practice of repeated experimentation in natural science, in which new discoveries and new successes always come after many failures. Scientific policy-making is not about not making mistakes, but about making fewer mistakes, and learning from failures. In particular, it is about avoiding the repetition of past mistakes and blunders, and being good at achieving greater success from fewer failures.

A policy-making philosophy is a philosophy of making comprehensive policies. Seeking truth from facts is not an isolated policy-making philosophy, but a collection of ideas on policy-making. In order to be able to seek the truth from facts, we must perform a penetrating analysis of the ideological connotations of seeking truth from facts and strengthen the development of systems, mechanisms, and talent in policy-making. Then, how do we strengthen the development of systems and mechanisms in policy-making? And how do we guarantee successful policy-making whilst also ensuring that mistakes are able to be promptly corrected?

There are two foundations of seeking truth from facts: investigation and study; and democratic centralism. These are fine traditions that the Party has held to in its policy-making activities over a long period of time. They also constitute the basic method and the core mechanism of policy-making activities. Much like the policy-making philosophy of seeking truth from facts, they are also original approaches to policy-making that China has created, being the product of our long-term experiences in revolution, development, and reforms.

Firstly, investigation and study. Investigation and study embody the values of scientific policy-making. Deng Xiaoping said that one only has the right to speak after he has conducted investigation and study. We must proceed from objective realities in raising issues, summarizing experiences, and working out policies, regardless of whether we are in a meeting, making a proposal, or drafting a document. This is what seeking truth from facts is about. The CPC has always regarded investigation and study as the prerequisite for all policy-making efforts. In his essay “Oppose Book Worship,” Mao Zedong said, “Investigation may be likened to the long months of pregnancy, and solving a problem to the day of birth. To investigate a problem is, indeed, to solve it.” A correct strategy can only come from practical experience, and from investigation and study. Chen Yun said the hardest thing about making a decision is getting the facts straight first. Ninety percent of our time should be devoted to studying the situation, and ten percent to making a decision. Only then will a policy decision be well founded.

There are two basic characteristics of investigation and study:

First, investigation and study emphasize the mass line. In order to do a good job of investigation and study, we need to be truly in touch with the people. The people play the principal role in creating history and engaging in social practice. Seeking truth from facts is a historically materialistic policy-making philosophy that is based around the people. Only by recognizing the experiences of the people and channeling their wisdom is it possible to point out the right way forward. Where the experiences and opinions of the people are discarded, not even the most talented of leaders will be able to lead well. The mass line is an effective means of preventing dogmatism and subjectivism. Getting into communities, ascertaining the situation among the people, and “from the masses, to the masses” constitute the basic methods for investigation and study.

Second, investigation and study emphasize a developing approach to policy-making. Given that facts are constantly changing, developing, and progressing, the search for the truth must also keep up with the pace of progress. Seeking truth from facts is a policy-making philosophy that takes changing national conditions as its object of study. This means that it is a dialectical, materialist policy-making philosophy. Mao Zedong said that our investigation will be a long-term one. He also said that we are the ones conducting investigations today, but in the future, it will be our sons and our grandsons, and only this way will we be able to constantly understand new things and obtain new knowledge.

Secondly, democratic centralism. Democratic centralism embodies the values of democratic policy-making. It is the fundamental organizational principle of the CPC, as well as the fundamental organizational principle of the Party for policy-making. By establishing centralized policy-making on the basis of the mass line, China has created a model for driving scientific policy-making through democratic policy-making.

On one hand, democratic centralism requires that we follow the mass line. To do this, we must provide widespread opportunities for the public to express their views, bring the opinions (scattered, unsystematic) of the public together (and turn them into centralized, systematic opinions after studying them), relay these opinions back to the public by means of publicity and turn them into the opinions of the public, ensure that the public can adhere to these opinions, put them into practice, and test whether or not these opinions are correct. After this, we must gather together public opinions again, and see to it that the public continue adhering to these opinions. This is an endless repeating process. Each time the decisions we make will become more correct, more vivid, and richer than before. This is the Marxist theory of knowledge and a basic method of leadership. It is an important mechanism for collecting information for policy-making, and a channel which allows us to gain a grasp of facts.

On the other hand, democratic centralism requires that we implement collective policy-making with democratic supervision, and establish a leadership which not only has a core, but which is also a collective, so as to guard against the dangers of personality cults and patriarchal styles of work. The basic principle of policy-making under democratic centralism is that the individual is subordinate to the organization, the minority is subordinate to the majority, and the lower level is subordinate to the higher level. All major issues must be collectively discussed and concluded by Party committees on an issue by issue basis in accordance with the principles of collective leadership, democratic centralism, deliberation case by case and decision by meetings. This is an important mechanism for preventing and controlling risks in policy-making. It is a safety catch to ensure that the truth is sought.

Likewise, democratic centralism is also a repeating process that goes from democracy to centralism and then back again. This is conducive to both drawing on collective wisdom and reaching consensus, and conducive to both making the right policy decisions efficiently and correcting erroneous policy decisions promptly.

Seeking truth from facts is the secret to the success of China’s policy-making and the magic key to winning victories

Seeking truth from facts is the secret to the success of China’s policy-making. A country’s capacity and potential for policy-making are fundamentally determined by that country’s policy-making philosophy. The policy-making philosophy of seeking truth from facts has become China’s core soft power in national governance. We should fully uncover the theoretical connotations of seeking truth from facts, draw from historical experiences and lessons, continuously promote the improvement of China’s policy-making capacity, and enhance China’s ability to make strategic decisions as well as its ability to adjust and adapt.

The eruption and spread of the international financial crisis, for example, has fully exposed the fact that the political parties and governments of the West are unable to promptly correct erroneous policies, that they are unable to agree on counter proposals despite repeated discussions, that they are unable to take action even after a decision has been made, and that they are powerless to do anything at all. The result is that they are still in the midst of crisis. This has smashed the blind faith that people have long had in the West. Rarely do we see a better or more relevant example of how the West is powerless to cope with the onset of crisis.

In contrast, China’s performance in this global test has been the best. In 2007, before the international financial crisis erupted, the GDP of the United States was 4 times that of China. But by 2011, this gap had shrunk rapidly, with the GDP of the US being only 2.1 times that of China. In the same period, the number of employed people in the United States decreased from 146.1 million to 139.9 million, whereas the number of people employed in China’s urban areas increased from 309.5 million to 359.1 million. These figures reflect the uniqueness and superiority of China’s distinctive policy-making approach of seeking truth from facts.

In the past, China’s success depended on seeking truth from facts; in the future, China will continue to rely on seeking truth from facts to succeed. We must adhere to a historical, scientific, and developing approach to policy-making, proceed from reality in all endeavors, adhere only to the facts and refrain from blind faith in books, in higher authority, and in things foreign, continue to independently identify China’s experiences in scientific policy-making and democratic policy-making, and guide our great endeavors through our conscientious and confident application of theoretical achievements in adapting Marxism to suit Chinese conditions.

In a word, seeking truth from facts has always been the fundamental requirement of Chinese Communists in understanding and transforming the world, the basic method of thinking, working, and leadership adhered to by our Party, and the key that has allowed the Party to lead the people to constant victories in revolution, development, and reform.

(Originally appeared in Red Flag Manuscript, No.22, 2012)
Note: The authors are from Tsinghua University.

By Circles Robinson

Havana Times, Feb 26, 2013

Vicente Morin Aguado interviews non-Marxist US socialist Grady Ross Daugherty

HAVANA TIMES — Over several weeks of difficult back and forth emails (it’s hard to imagine the slow speed and high cost of Internet in Cuban hotels), I attempted to clarify the thinking of Grady Ross Daugherty ^[2], the leader and founder of the “modern cooperative socialist movement” in the United States and who is a regular reader of HT.

HT: What place do you see for cooperatives in the current reform process taking place within Cuba’s socialist experiment?

Grady Ross Daugherty: Thanks for characterizing Cuba’s half-century post-capitalist period as an “experiment.” An experiment is a way of testing a reasonable hypothesis. If we look at the Cuban model as an experiment, as a modifiable work in progress, its performance can be altered to achieve greater prosperity and progress.

In our discussion, we need to keep in mind that most types of cooperatives require a certain basis of legal private ownership, assuming we want them to be functional. For example, agricultural cooperatives require the ownership of cultivated land and the families homes — not usufruct rights — if we hope them to be effective and make Cuba self-sufficient in production.

HT: Regarding the issue of ownership, I began to understand your non-Marxist position prior to our exchange. It may seem like a digression, but it’s good to point out something as controversial as your self-declared non-Marxist yet socialist position.

GRD:  Since its origins in the nineteenth century, the socialist movement was mutual and cooperative. This was something notable in France and England, where workers and farmers were eager to own land and the instruments of production as their property. They didn’t want ownership in the hands of private capitalists or government officials.

I think that if Cuba’s political leaders can clear their minds about the theory of state monopoly and its consequent personality cult, typical of the founders of Marxism during the nineteenth century, Cuba will be a socialist country in the long term.

Marx and Engels instilled prejudice against private property, pointing to it as a cause of society’s ills and as something antithetical to their aim of “scientific” socialism. Nevertheless, for cooperatives to be real they require ownership, which supposedly would be “capitalist” – as opposed to state-run or scientific forms like “socialist” ones.

Despite this, harsh reality has led Cuban politicians to take a fresh look at cooperatives. They’re beginning to look at socialism as an ongoing experiment.

HT: Of course Marx criticized Proudhon, the father of French cooperative and mutualist socialism, considering him petty bourgeois for all his vacillation and wavering, which is typical of his social class.

continue

By Gar Alperovitz and Steve Dubb
Alternet, Jan 15, 2013

Most activists tend to approach progressive change from one of two perspectives: First, there’s the “reform” tradition that assumes corporate control is a constant and that “politics” acts to modify practices within that constraint. Liberalism in the United States is representative of this tradition. Then there’s the “revolutionary” tradition, which assumes change can come about only if the major institutions are largely eliminated or transcended, often by violence.

But what if neither revolution nor reform is viable?

Paradoxically, we believe the current stalemating of progressive reform may open up some unique strategic possibilities to transform institutions of the political economy over time. We call this third option evolutionary reconstruction. Like reform, evolutionary reconstruction involves step-by-step nonviolent change. But like revolution, evolutionary reconstruction changes the basic institutions of ownership of the economy, so that the broad public, rather than a narrow band of individuals (i.e., the “one percent”) owns more and more of the nation’s productive assets.

1. A People’s Bank

One area where this logic can be seen at work is in the financial industry. At the height of the financial crisis in early 2009, some kind of nationalization of the banks seemed possible. It was a moment, President Obama told banking CEOs, when his administration was “the only thing between you and the pitchforks.” The president opted for a soft bailout, but that was not the only possible decision.

When the next financial crisis occurs – and many experts think it will —a different resolution may well be possible. One option has already been put on the table. In 2010, 33 senators voted to break up large Wall Street investment banks that were “too big to fail.” Such a policy would not only reduce financial vulnerability, it would alter the structure of institutional power.

Nor is an effort to break up banks, even if successful, likely to be the end of the process. The modern history of anti-trust and finance suggests that the big banks, even if broken up, will ultimately regroup. So what can be done when breaking them up fails?

Traditional reforms have aimed at improved regulation, higher reserve requirements and the channeling of credit to key sectors. But future crises may bring into play a spectrum of sophisticated proposals for more radical change. For instance, a “Limited Purpose Banking” strategy put forward by conservative economist Laurence Kolticoff would impose a 100% reserve requirement on banks. Since banks typically provide loans in amounts many times their reserves, this would transform them into modest institutions with little or no capacity to finance speculation. It would also nationalize the creation of all new money as federal authorities, rather than bankers, directly control system-wide financial flows.

More striking is the argument of Willem Buiter, the chief economist of Citigroup, that if the public underwrites the costs of bailouts, “banks should be in public ownership.” In fact, had the taxpayer funds used to bail out major financial institutions in 2007-2010 been provided on condition that voting stock be issued in return for the investment, one or more major banks would have become essentially public banks.

Nor is this far from current political tradition. Unknown to most, there have been a large number of small and medium-sized public banking institutions for some time now. In fact, the federal government already operates 140 banks and quasi-banks that provide loans and loan guarantees for an extraordinary range of domestic and international economic activities.

The economic crisis has also produced widespread interest in the Bank of North Dakota, a highly successful state-owned bank founded in 1919. Between 1996 and 2008, the bank returned $340 million in profits to the state. The bank enjoys broad support in the business community, as well as among progressive activists. Legislative proposals to establish banks patterned in whole or in part on the North Dakota model have been put forward by activists and legislators in more than a dozen states.

2. Move to Universal Healthcare

That austerity and failing reform might open the way to "evolutionary reconstructive" institutional change is also suggested by emerging developments in healthcare.

Cost pressures are also building up—and, critically, in ways that will continue to undermine U.S. corporations facing global competitors, forcing them to seek new solutions. The federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services projects that healthcare costs will go up from the 2010 level of 17.5 percent of GDP to 19.6 percent in 2019. It has long been clear that over the long-haul cost pressures are ultimately likely to force development of some form of single-payer system —the only serious way to deal with the underlying problem. 

A national solution may come about either in response to a burst of pain-driven public outrage, or more slowly through a state-by-state build-up. Massachusetts already has a near universal plan. In Hawaii, health coverage (provided mostly by nonprofit insurers) reaches 91.8 percent of adults in part because of a 1970s law mandating low-cost insurance for anyone working 20 hours a week. In Vermont, Governor Peter Shumlin signed legislation in May 2011 creating “Green Mountain Care.” Universal coverage, dependent on a federal waiver, would begin in 2017 and possibly as early as 2014. In Connecticut, the legislature in 2011 authorized a “SustiNet” non-profit public health insurance program, which it aims to launch in 2014. In all, bills to create universal healthcare have been introduced in nearly 20 states.

3.  Build Community Wealth

“Social enterprises” that undertake businesses in order to support specific social missions now increasingly comprise what is sometimes called a "fourth sector” (different from the government, business and non-profit sectors). Roughly 4,500 not-for-profit community development corporations are largely devoted to housing development. There are now also more than 10,000 businesses owned in whole or part by their employees; nearly 3 million more individuals are involved in these enterprises than are members of private sector unions. Another 130 million Americans are members of various urban, agricultural and credit union cooperatives. In many cities, “land trusts” are underway using an institutional form of nonprofit or municipal ownership that develops and maintains low- and moderate-income housing.

In Cleveland, Ohio, an integrated group of worker-owned companies has been developed, supported in part by the purchasing power of large hospitals and universities. The Cleveland effort, which is partly modeled on the 85,000-person Mondragón cooperative network, based in the Basque region of Spain, is on track to create new businesses, year by year, as time goes on. The goal is not simply worker ownership, but the democratization of wealth and community building in general. Linked by a community-serving non-profit corporation and a revolving fund, the companies cannot be sold outside the network; they also return 10 percent of profits to help develop additional worker-owned firms.

A critical element of the strategy points to what is essentially a quasi-public sector planning model: Hospitals and universities in the area currently spend $3 billion on goods and services a year—none, until recently, from the immediately surrounding neighborhoods. The “Cleveland model” is supported in part by decisions of these substantially publically financed institutions to allocate part of their procurement to the worker-co-ops in support of a larger community-building agenda. Numerous other cities are now exploring efforts of this kind, including Atlanta; Pittsburgh; Amarillo, Texas; and Washington, DC. Related institutional work is now underway, too, through the leadership of United Steelworkers, a union that has put forward new proposals for a co-op-union model of ownership.

Another innovative enterprise is Market Creek Plaza in San Diego, a $23.5 million, mixed-use, commercial-retail-residential development. The project was conceived, planned and developed by teams of community members working with the Jacobs Center for Neighborhood Innovation. Market Creek Plaza is also a green project, and aims to expand to become a transit-oriented village with 800 units of affordable housing and extensive facilities for nonprofit organizations. The project has restored 1,400 linear feet of wetlands, while generating 200 permanent jobs (70 percent filled by local residents), provided 415 residents with a 20-percent ownership stake in the project, and generated $42 million in economic activity (in 2008).

4. Leverage City Assets

Yet another arena of institutional growth involves municipal development. By maintaining direct ownership of areas surrounding transit station exits, public agencies in Washington, DC, Atlanta and elsewhere earn millions, capturing the increased land values their transit investments create. The town of Riverview, Michigan has been a national leader in trapping methane from its landfills and using it to fuel electricity generation, thereby providing both revenue and jobs. There are roughly 500 similar projects nationwide. Many cities have established municipally owned hotels. There are also nearly 2,000 publicly owned utilities that provide power (and often broadband) to more than 45 million Americans, generating $50 billion in annual revenue. Significant public institutions are also common at the state level. CalPERS, California’s public pension authority, helps finance local community development needs; in Alaska, state oil revenues provide each citizen with dividends as a matter of right; in Alabama, public pension investing has long focused on state economic development.

5. Organize for the Long Haul

You can think of the slow buildup of democratizing strategies as the pre-historical developmental work needed to clarify new principles for larger scale application. Just as in the decades before the New Deal, state and local experiments in the “laboratories of democracy” may suggest new larger scale approaches. The new direction has four aspects; democratization of wealth; community, both locally and in general; decentralization in general; and substantial but not complete forms of democratic planning. Let’s take a look at each of these.

Democratization of Wealth: Institutions like public banks challenge the idea that private corporate enterprise offers the only possible way forward. They also help open new ways of thinking about how to get meaningful larger scale democratization. Historically, cooperatives and other federations also helped establish institutional and organizational support for explicit political efforts in support of specific policies. Critically, they also help stabilize local community economies, since such institutions tend to be anchored locally by virtue of their democratic ownership structure.

Rethinking Community: If you want to alter larger patterns of wealth and power, you have to build a culture that reconstructs “community.” In economic terms, building community means introducing and emphasizing practical forms of community ownership. In the Cleveland effort, for example, the central institution is a community-wide, neighborhood-encompassing non-profit corporation. The board of the non-profit institution includes representatives both of the worker cooperatives and of key community institutions. Worker co-ops are linked to this (and to a revolving fund at the center), and though independently owned and managed, they cannot be sold without permission from the founding community-wide institution. The basic principle is that the effort should benefit the broader community, not only or simply workers in one or another co-op.

Decentralization: Can there be meaningful democracy in a very large system without far more rigorous decentralization than is commonly assumed in the United States? It is a commonplace that Washington is “broken.” But part of the problem has to do with scale. We rarely confront the fact that the United States is a very large geographic polity: Germany could easily be tucked into Montana. The United States is also very large in population—currently more than 310 million, likely to reach 500 million shortly after mid-century.

Decentralization in these circumstances is nearly inevitable, and if the continental nation is too large and most states are too small to deal with economic matters, what remains is the intermediate scale we call the region— a unit of scale that is likely to become of increasing importance as time (and population growth) go on. The question is almost certainly how to regionalize, not whether to do so—what powers to maintain at the center and what powers to relegate to various smaller scale units. The principle of subsidiarity—keeping decision-making at the lowest feasible level, and only elevating to higher levels when absolutely necessary—is implicit as a guiding principle.

Democratic Planning: A well-designed planning system can change relationships between firms, the community and the market. Planning also needs to be democratic at all levels.

Take a look at Brazil’s innovations in participatory budgeting, where citizens determine major public expenditures – an idea that is gaining traction in Chicago. So far these experiments have definite limits since they are restricted to municipal budget decisions. But if the practice can be extended in scope and scale over time, it could provide an important mechanism for increasing meaningful democracy.

High-speed rail and mass transit are another area in which we can think about larger scale planning approaches. The United States has limited capacity to build equipment for any of this. But when the next crisis occurs in the auto or other industries, a public bail-out might restructure firms so that we could use public contracts needed to build mass transit and high-speed rail in ways that also help support the development of quasi-public national and community-based firms—both to produce what is needed and simultaneously to help stabilize local communities.

6. Cut Corporate Power Down to Size

To deal with economic issues, ecological challenges and local community stability, we must also come to terms with corporate power dynamics. Public corporations are subject to Wall Street’s first commandment: Grow or die!” You can’t just wish or regulate that idea away.

In addition to carbon emissions, countless studies have documented growing energy, mineral, water, arable land and other limits to unending growth. Yet the trends continue: The United States, with less than 5 percent of global population, consumes 22 percent of the world’s oil, 13 percent of world coal, and 21 percent of world natural gas. From 1940 to 1976, Americans used up as large a share of the earth’s mineral resources as did everyone in all previous history.

At some point, a society like the United States that already produces the equivalent of over $190,000 for every family of four must ask when enough is enough. As Juliet Schor has argued, one key change is to encourage less consumption and more leisure time. That means reforming unemployment insurance policy to encourage work sharing, changing government labor practices to model shorter working hours, and discouraging excessive overtime. We need to restore balance on a personal level, but we can’t ignore the big systemic challenges. As former presidential adviser James Gustav Speth has observed: “For the most part we have worked within this current system of political economy, but working within the system will not succeed in the end when what is needed is transformative change in the system itself.”

As a matter of cold logic, if some of the most important corporations have a massively disruptive and costly impact on the economy and environment—and if experience suggests that regulation and anti-trust laws are likely to be largely subverted by these corporations—a public takeover becomes the only logical answer. This general argument was put forward most forcefully not by liberals, but by the founders of the Chicago School of economics. Conservative Nobel Laureate George Stigler repeatedly observed that regulatory strategies were “designed and operated primarily for [the corporation’s] benefit.” Henry C. Simons, Milton Friedman’s mentor, was even more forceful. “Turned loose with inordinate powers, corporations have vastly over-organized most industries,” Simons held. The state “should face the necessity of actually taking over, owning, and managing directly…industries in which it is impossible to maintain effectively competitive conditions.”

For many decades, the only choices to many have seemed state socialism, or corporate capitalism. When traditional systems falter and fail, new ideas spring to life. Little noticed by most observers, handholds on processes of potentially important new forms of change have been quietly developing around the country. These changes build upon each other to create an evolutionary process that has the power to transform the way we live – for the better.

Under Construction

Our Historical Tasks at the Primary Stage of Socialism and Several Issues Concerning China’s Foreign Policy

By Wen Jiabao
Premier, PRC

China Daily, March 2007

I. Our Historical Tasks at the Primary Stage of Socialism

A keen appreciation of China’s national conditions and its historical stage is the basis for our Party to put forward theories in a scientific way and adopt correct principles and policies. It is also a key prerequisite for ensuring the success of all our endeavors.

China is at the primary stage of socialism, and will remain so for a long time to come. The primary stage means a stage of underdevelopment, which manifests itself, first and foremost, in the low level of the productive forces. Therefore, we must unswervingly take economic development as the central task and go all out to boost the productive forces. However, when we talk about the primary stage, we should not just think about the underdeveloped productive forces. We should also recognize that the socialist system still has room for improvement and that it is not yet a mature one. Comrade Deng Xiaoping pointed out that in essence, socialism is about liberating and developing the productive forces, eliminating exploitation and polarization, and ultimately, it is about achieving prosperity for all. This means that in consolidating and developing socialism, we must be clear about and focus on two major tasks: one is to liberate and develop the productive forces to vastly increase the material wealth of the whole society, and the other is to achieve social fairness and justice, fire the creativity of the whole nation and promote social harmony. The two tasks are interconnected and reinforce each other. As a holistic endeavor, they should be pursued throughout the historical course of all the development stages of socialism. Without the sustained and full development of productive forces, it will be impossible to achieve social fairness and justice, an essential requirement of socialism. Without gradual progress in social fairness and justice along with the growth of productive forces, it will be impossible to give full play to the initiative and creativity of all the people and ensure sustained and full development of productive forces. In implementing Deng Xiaoping Theory and the important thought of “Three Represents”, following the scientific thinking on development and building a socialist harmonious society, it is critical that we have a full and scientific understanding of the essence of socialism.

When China began to build socialism, it was way behind developed countries in terms of productive forces. It will take a fairly long historical period before China can achieve industrialization and modernization. Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, and particularly since the introduction of reform and opening-up policy, China has greatly enhanced social productive forces and its overall national strength, and markedly improved the well-being of its people. China has achieved a historic leap from meeting the basic living needs for its people to making life moderately prosperous for them. However, given China’s huge population, weak economic base and development imbalances between urban and rural areas and among different regions, its low level of productive forces remains basically unchanged. While continuing economic reform, we have steadily proceeded with reform in the political system. Socialist democracy and legal system are being enhanced, and the Chinese people are playing an increasingly active role in political affairs. People’s political, economic, cultural, social and other rights are duly protected. Nonetheless, China’s socialist market economy and its democracy and legal system are not yet fully developed. Social unfairness, graft and corruption still exist. The socialist system is not yet mature. Therefore, China still has a long way to go before it can move to a stage higher than the primary stage of socialism. It remains a developing country. Regarding the overall long-term development of socialism, Comrade Deng Xiaoping made a keen observation in 1992 in his remarks during his inspection tour to south China: It will take a very long historical period to consolidate and develop the socialist system, and it will require persistent struggle by many generations, a dozen or even several dozens. We can never rest on our oars.

In the process of reform, opening-up and modernization, we will gain a deeper understanding of what is socialism and how to develop socialism, and we will be able to enrich and advance socialism by adhering to the principle that practice is the only criterion for testing truth. In this connection, two points must be made clear: First, we need to have a full and profound understanding of the basic conditions of China at the primary stage of socialism. To build a country of more than one billion people into a prosperous, strong, democratic, civilized and harmonious modern socialist country is an unprecedented endeavor in human history. It is a historical mission that requires persistent and arduous efforts. Second, we must press ahead with reform and encourage innovation. Comrade Jiang Zemin pointed out, “The great progress our people have achieved under the leadership of our Party in reform, opening-up and modernization in the past more than 20 years has been possible because of the theoretical innovation, institutional innovation, scientific and technological innovation we have pursued.” In pursuing reform and innovation, we should not only benefit from and carry forward the inexhaustibly rich and valuable experience our Party has gained in the long years of socialist development and reform; we should also boldly draw upon all the progress of human civilization and all advanced business and managerial expertise that embody the laws governing modern social production. This is the only way for our socialist system to gain strength in competing with the capitalist system. It is with this in mind that we say that socialism is like an ocean which never runs dry as it admits hundreds of rivers. It will take a considerably long historical process for socialism to gain maturity in terms of both theory and practice. Therefore, we must unswervingly adhere to the basic lines of the Party for the primary stage of socialism for the next 100 years and persist in carrying out reform and innovation to ensure enduring vigor and vitality for socialism with Chinese characteristics.

Leading officials at all levels should develop historical and global perspectives and view things from an overall and strategic angle. Only with a full and deep appreciation of the long-term nature of the primary stage of socialism and our historic mission can we truly understand why we have adopted the policies we are pursuing today instead of any other policy and work with stronger commitment, determination and creativity.

II. The Period of Strategic Opportunities for China’s Development

The first 20 years of this century will be a period of important strategic opportunities for China. We must not miss it, and we must make full use of it. To embrace this period of strategic opportunities and make good use of it is of utmost importance to our goal of building a society of moderate prosperity in all respects and building socialism with Chinese characteristics.

China did not have many major opportunities for development in its history. In modern times, China closed itself and fell victim to imperialist aggressions. As a result, China lost an opportunity for development and fell behind. After the founding of New China, great achievements were made in its socialist development endeavors. However, we missed a major development opportunity because of some big policy mistakes, and particularly the disastrous ten-year-long “Cultural Revolution”. Opportunity is rare. When it presents itself, we must seize it, or it will be lost for good. In the past 28 years of reform and opening-up, China’s economy has maintained fast and sustainable growth. This is a miracle. Will China have another period of opportunity in the future? My answer is yes. How long will it last? This will depend on what domestic and foreign policies we follow and on our ability to respond to new developments.

Profound and complex changes are taking place in the world, and many new international developments deserve our close attention. But the overall international environment is a favorable one for China. Peace and development remain the general trend of the times and no major war is likely to break out. It is fully possible for us to have a fairly long-term peaceful international environment and a favorable neighborhood environment. History shows that those remaining backward are invariably despised and bullied by others. We must seize the favorable international opportunities to speed up our development. Achieving development is the overriding principle. It is the basis for solving all problems in China and for China to conduct effective diplomacy. Competition between states is based on strength. There are major principles and secondary principles, and the latter should be subjected to the former. Then what is the major principle? It is to accomplish the central goal of socialist modernization drive. People of all walks of life in China should recognize the larger interest of the modernization drive, comply with it and work to advance it.

III. Take the Path of Peaceful Development

China takes the path of peaceful development. This is made necessary by its national conditions, cultural traditions and its embracing of the global trend of development. And, in the final analysis, it is determined by the nature of China as a socialist country led by the Communist Party of China and by the goal of achieving socialist modernization in China. What is the essence of the path of peaceful development? It is to foster a peaceful international environment to develop itself and, in turn, promote world peace with its development. Taking the path of peaceful development is an initiative that has both external and domestic dimensions. Thus, we must keep firmly in mind our overall interests on two fronts, both internal and external.

Domestically, we need to rely mainly on our own effort in pursuing development. We should promote development by expanding the domestic demand to meet the people’s growing material and cultural needs. China is the most populous country with a vast territory, relatively rich resources and a market of huge potential. All this has made it possible for China to achieve development mainly through its own efforts. In the course of development, China is bound to encounter bottleneck constraints in areas such as natural resources, energy and the environment. But thanks to years of hard work, we have succeeded in embarking on a path leading to all-round, coordinated and sustainable development. Our goal is to foster and implement a scientific thinking on development and build a resource-conserving and environment-friendly society. At the same time, we must give a strong impetus to the modernization drive by continuing to deepen our reform, opening wider to the outside world and removing institutional obstacles to development. It is important that we send a clear message to the world that China will achieve its development mainly through its own efforts, and this will help fundamentally remove misgivings in the international community that China is bound to engage in external plundering and expansion when it reaches a certain stage of development. As China develops itself, it will make greater contribution to both the development of its neighborhood areas and that of the whole world.

Internationally, we should advocate peace, development and cooperation and pursue an independent foreign policy of peace. China works to uphold its independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity, makes judgment independently on the merit of each international issue and takes position accordingly. It does not use ideology and social system as a criterion in conducting diplomacy, nor does it impose its values on others. China does not enter into alliance with any country or country group. It does not interfere in other countries’ internal affairs, nor does it allow others to interfere in its internal affairs. China opposes hegemonism and power politics and will never seek hegemony. In conducting foreign exchanges, we should fully implement the independent foreign policy of peace. This means we should live in friendship with all other countries on the basis of the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence, and treat all countries, whether big or small, rich or poor, strong or weak, as equals. It means we should work for a just and equitable international political and economic order which is based on equality, respect and mutual benefit and whose ultimate goal is to build a harmonious world. It means we should follow the principle of mutual benefit and mutual respect in expanding overseas business ties and conducting cultural exchanges. And it means we should follow a defense policy that is defensive in nature and do not engage in arms race or military expansion. Since it suffered bitterly from imperialist aggression and oppression for more than a century after the Opium War (1840-1842), China knows just too well what foreign aggression and oppression will bring to a nation. We are sincere and firm in our commitment to taking a path of peaceful development.

To take a path of peaceful development is a strategy and foreign policy to which China is committed. It is definitely not an expediency. In following this guiding principle, we should seize opportunities, remain unswayed by provocations and concentrate on our development, and we will not seek a leadership role in the international arena. It is thanks to following this policy that we have been able to gain more room for the conduct of China’s diplomacy. As China’s overall national strength and international standing grow, the international community will have higher expectation on China. One might ask if it is still necessary for China to follow this policy. The answer is yes, as there is no reason whatsoever to change it. Of course, we should remain actively engaged in international affairs. China is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a member in other important international organizations. We should make full use of this favorable condition to uphold China’s fundamental interests. We should take an active part in the formulation of international rules to work for a fair and equitable international political and economic order. We should be actively involved in economic globalization and promote international and regional economic cooperation to achieve mutual benefit and win-win progress.

IV. Cultural Development and Exchanges

If China is to gain respect of the international community, we must grow our economy, advance science and technology and ensure that our people live a prosperous and happy life. We must also raise the educational level of our people, improve democracy and legal system and raise cultural and ethical standard. In recent years, at the same time of speeding up economic development, we have endeavored to promote political and cultural development and the building of a harmonious society, and we have given high priority to cultural exchanges with other countries. We have thus fostered an image of China as a country that is committed to reform and opening-up, a country of unity and dynamism, a country that upholds equality and values friendship, and a country that is sincere and responsible. As a result, China is increasingly viewed in an objective, rational and friendly light, and there is growing call for strengthening cooperation with China. All this has created a favorable external environment for China’s modernization program. Therefore, we should enhance cultural development and exchanges and view it as a key endeavor in building socialism with Chinese characteristics in all respects.

Cultural diversity should be respected. There are more than 2,000 ethnic groups in the world. Human civilization has evolved and enriched itself through interactions among different ethnic communities. Diversity of world culture and civilization has existed for centuries and will remain so in the future. Science, democracy, legal system, freedom and human rights are not something peculiar to capitalism. Rather, they are common values pursued by mankind in the long historical process and they are fruit of human civilization created by mankind. It is only that at different historical stages and in different countries, they are achieved through different means and in different forms. There is not just one model for the realization of these values. The diversity of civilization is a reality, whether you face it or not. It is the coexistence, interaction and convergence of different cultures that have promoted human progress. Cultural diversity in the world should be recognized. Different cultures should not discriminate against, be hostile to or exclude each other. They should respect and draw on each other’s strength, and this will make it possible to create a harmonious and colorful human culture.

China should take its own path in enhancing democracy. We never view socialism and democracy as something that is mutually exclusive. As a matter of fact, we see a high degree of democracy and well developed legal system as the inherent requirement of socialism and a key important feature of a mature socialist system. We are fully capable of building China into a country of democracy and rule of law under socialist conditions. We should explore ways to develop democracy with Chinese characteristics in light of China’s particular conditions. We should focus on efforts to promote economic development, protect lawful rights and interests of the people, fight corruption, increase public trust in government, strengthen government functions and enhance social harmony. And we should continue the reform in the political system by expanding democracy and improving the legal system. This will enable other members of the international community to better appreciate and accept the path of development taken by the Chinese people.

We should fully improve the educational level of the Chinese people. This means giving a high priority to the development of education. The government must work with a stronger sense of responsibility to extend and consolidate compulsory education. More efforts should be made to develop vocational education and improve higher education. The scientific and cultural level of the whole Chinese nation should be uplifted. That requires a major effort to foster values and ethics among the people and accelerate the establishment of a system of values and ethics which is in keeping with the socialist market economy and which carries forward the traditional virtues and values of the Chinese nation. In particular, high priority should be placed on fostering a sense of honesty and integrity so that the public will have greater sense of integrity and credibility. In international exchanges, we should be credible and trustworthy, act in good faith and honor commitment. Thus, we need to ask people to act in a civilized way in their contacts with foreigners, respect local laws, regulations and customs and behave properly in public places overseas so that they will contribute to promoting China’s culture and its image. As more Chinese are traveling overseas, we should strengthen foreign-affairs administration and crack down hard on crimes such as smuggling, human trafficking and drug trafficking to ensure order in people-to-people exchanges.

We should expand cultural exchanges with other countries. Cultural exchanges are a bridge connecting the hearts and minds of people of all countries and an important way to project a country’s image. The rich and profound Chinese culture, which has a time-honored history, has made significant contribution to the progress of human civilization. The traditional Chinese culture is noted for its many luminous ideas: the philosophical precept of “harmony without uniformity”, the political belief that “people is the foundation of the nation”, the educational guideline of “respecting teachers and valuing education”, and the moral ethic of “do not do to others what you would not have them do to you”. We should use various forms and means, including tour performance and exhibition, Chinese language teaching, academic exchange and sponsoring culture year activities, to promote Chinese culture and increase its appeal overseas. We should implement a “going global” cultural strategy, develop culture industry, improve the international competitiveness of Chinese cultural enterprises and products, increase the export of books, films, TV programs and other cultural products, so that these Chinese cultural products and particularly the best of them, will reach the rest of the world.

We should conduct public diplomacy in a more effective way. We should inform the outside world of the achievements we have made in reform, opening-up and modernization in a comprehensive, accurate and timely manner. At the same time, we should be frank about the problems we have. We should be good at using flexible and diversified ways in conducting public diplomacy programs. We should use persuasive ways to communicate with the international community to ensure that our message is effectively put across. We should work to enable the international community to develop an objective and balanced view on China’s development and international role, so as to foster an environment of friendly public opinion for China.