why

     Communism has entered its second phase, in the form of the People�s Republic of China. It is the phase in which the Communist rulers deliberately reduce their power from total, positive control, to near total, but negative control. The Soviet Union collapsed attempting to enter this phase, but Beijing has succeeded where Moscow failed. In some ways the change is dramatic; proponents of �openness� with Beijing have seized upon those. However, in many areas, particularly human rights, economic liberty, and political freedom, the regime hasn�t changed at all.
     With the death of Mao, the Chinese Communists abandoned the Stalinist model of Communism. As Miloslav Djilas so brilliantly noted regarding Yugoslavian and other European Communists, the Chinese Party looked to other justifications for maintaining its control over all society, and its property, of course. Unlike European Communists, Beijing was more adept at finding alternate rationales.
     They started with economic development, as most European Communists did. Of course, with such a large economy, this worked well for a time. European Communists in the 1970s found they only had a few years of success with the strategy of placating their populations with sausages. With its vast resources, the PRC has been able to keep its economy growing for over two decades. However, the Communists saw that autarkic growth could only go so far. Like the Soviets, they realized the need for foreign capital, which required giving some ground to market forces. Furthermore, the Tiananmen Square massacre revealed to the world that economic growth of any kind would not be enough.
     This is where the Chinese Communists took a different path from the Soviets. To an extent they had a better opportunity. After all, when the Soviets tried this they were the enemy of the West. The PRC had managed to placate the West during the Nixon years, and so long as Cold War I raged, their geo-strategic position gave them greater breathing room. They used it to create their own version of Communist restructuring.

     The Chinese model for Communism involves these important points.

1. Total political control. No glasnost here. The Communists made sure it was known that whatever economic changes were coming, they would never be followed by political change. They ensured that the whole world was aware of that on June 4, 1989, with the Tiananmen Square massacre. They�ve spent every day since continuing to convince their own population of this � as well as anyone else who�d care to listen � through mass arrests, beatings, forced admissions into psychiatric hospitals, and if need be, murder. This was rarely challenged in Cold War I for the same reason Stalin was not criticized in World War II: the tyrant was on our side.

2. No real private economy. The PRC is more heavily criticized for its exertion of political control today, but never to the extent the Soviets were, largely because of the �reforms� that have convinced many that mainland China will change politically as well. Unfortunately, the economic reforms are far more shallow than they appear. State enterprises are subject to market forces, but they are still state enterprises. Company workers may win or lose; the state always wins. Property rights as we know them do not exist; all �entrepreneurs� are are dependent upon Communist patrons to survive, and even then they can lose everything in an instant, with no recourse because they never actually owned anything. Thus the people can dream of some wealth and achievement, but they still have no real economic power: no private companies, no real ownership, and no large concentrations of capital outside the government and/or the Party.

3. No majority control for foreigners in key industries. Foreigners may invest in Communist China, but the PRC must own at least half of every firm involved, even under the �breakthrough� agreement with the World Trade Organization. Thus the government and/or Party can veto any action the foreigners may take. This is the essence of negative power: the foreigners can do what they can to make a profit, unless the powers that be disapprove. Foreign companies transacting on the mainland feel it, too, with a myriad of private-public �partnerships� with the government, meant to ensure that nothing goes astray and leads to violating the first two points. In fact, by the PRC�s own admission, less than half of foreign investors make a profit in Communist China; outside observers believe it�s less than 10%.

4. Forcing firms to self-censor. In the cyberworld, this has the greatest impact. The Communists have taken the vision of the internet bringing freedom to China and, sadly, have turned it on its head. In order to do business in Communist China, those few firms that do not have to "partner" with a state-owned firm must ensure they say or do nothing to threating the grip of the Party. This means internet service providers are forced to censor their domains. In effect, they are forced to do the Communists' dirty work for them.

5. Appeal to nationalism. For obvious reasons, European Communists could not use this; even the Soviets ran into problems with it within the USSR. It is still necessary to try, however. At some point, people look beyond economic development as a justification for a dictatorial regime. This began for the Chinese people in 1989, and continues to this day. The options for the Communists are to give up power, or to provide an emotional reason to stick with the current despotism. The Soviets suffered from the fact that Russia, the nation they were �promoting,� was angrier at the Communists than at the outside. Before the 1980�s, the USSR had always sought to contain Russian nationalism. The switch to promoting it was an obviously hollow gesture with an ulterior motive.   PRC-fed nationalism has no such problem. The Chinese people have taken great pride in the reclaiming of Hong Kong and Macau. This is still true within Hong Kong itself, although Beijing�s rollback of democracy and freedom in the former British colony is leaving many disillusioned. The Chinese Communists know that by pushing nationalism they can find common ground with the people for a cause in which they actually believe. It should be no surprise that the only other surviving Communist elites in the world - Vietnam, Cuba, and North Korea - all used nationalism to achieve, and sustain, their rule. As nationalism may be more deeply felt in mainland China than anywhere else, it is an easy tool for the PRC to use.

     The result is a Communism that to many Americans does not look like Communism. Having spent fifty years opposing the European model in Cold War I, many have grown accustomed to assuming that it is the only �real� Communism in existence. This is not true. Chinese Communism has its roots in the Stalinist, Leninist way. They simply found a way to adapt to both the modern world and their own culture. That does not make them less Communist. It simply makes them more dangerous.

Back to the home page.