Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars

ISSN: 0007-4810 (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcra19

Review essay: Western Marxists in flux over

Chinese Marxism

Robert Ware

To cite this article: Robert Ware (1987) Review essay: Western Marxists in flux
over Chinese Marxism, Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 19:4, 65-71, DOI:
10.1080/14672715.1987.10409798

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14672715.1987.10409798

Published online: 05 Jul 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 62

View related articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rcra20
Review Essay: Western Marxists
in Flux Over Chinese Marxism
by Robert Ware*
Where is Marxism going in China? Not far, according to
Chinese Marxism in Flux (1978-84). A prominent claim
throughout this collection of essays is that Marxism has been
used as an ideological club rather than a liberating theory and
that this misuse of Marxism can be traced to metatheoretical
mistakes. The result, the authors seem to claim, is that re-
volutionary change has been restricted to economic reforms.
There is "constant stress on the reality of Marxist [and some-
times Althusserian] categories" (p. 9), and "some [most?]
contributors.., are quite sympathetic to aspects of the 'left'
thinking of previous years" (p. 2).
In one way or another, the essays grapple with the im-
portant question of what has happened to socialism in China
since the Third Plenary of the Eleventh Central Committee of
the Communist Party of China in 1978. That meeting shifted
the focus from class struggle to socialist modernization and
called for the household responsibility system in the country-
side. Economic reforms have continued since then with the
emphasis on the cities since 1984 (after these papers were
written).
Disagreements among western Marxists abound about
what road(s) socialist countries have taken. Some conclusions
are now widely held but still subjects of debate: there is more
than one road, the market can (or should) have a role, de-
centralization and workers' participation are important. How-
ever, this book concentrates on some of the areas where there
* I was helped in the preparation of this review by Jude Carlson and by
referees for this journal.
65
C H I N E S E M A R X I S M IN F L U X (1978-84): ES-
SAYS O N E P I S T E M O L O G Y , I D E O L O G Y
A N D P O L I T I C A L E C O N O M Y , Bill Brugger,
ed. A r m o n k , N.Y.: M. E. S h a r p e , 1985. Hard-
cover $30.00, paper $14.95.
is less agreement: the role of ideology, the nature of socialist
politics, and the economics of socialist transition. The subtitle
is a better indication of the content of the book: Essays on
Epistemology, Ideology and Political Economy. There is not
very much on fluctuations in Chinese Marxism. It is more a
collection of metatheoretical investigations that reflects the
diversity of its conference origin. There is a tendency toward
the eclectic, technical, and sketchy. This is the most theoreti-
cal of the recent conference-based books on China, with the
attendant drawbacks of jargon and abstraction. But the persis-
tent reader is rewarded with interesting speculation about new
problems and alternative frameworks. It is a continuation of
the important and stimulating work in Australia on China.
The book was "produced in the spirit of 'letting a hun-
dred schools contend'" (p. 9), with the result of diversity and
disunity. The introduction by Bill Brugger as editor (pp. 1-12)
serves some of the function of clarifying disagreements and
unifying the debate. Moreover, much of the debate centers on
Brugger's influential ideas. There seems to be general agree-
ment in rejecting what Dutton and Healy call "reductionist
epistemology" and in accepting Brugger's claim that social-
ism is a process. There are important differences about the
very nature of Marxism, with Brugger and Hannan arguing
that it is teleological, contrary to the view of Dutton and Healy.
McCarthy differs with Brugger, and most others, in claiming
that there is a socialist mode of production. Reglar and Brug-
ger debate the existence of objective economic laws in social-
ist societies and the need for a law of value in planning.
In the introduction, Brugger says that the contributors
"agree that the limits of official ideology are too tightly
drawn" in China (p. 10), although such agreement is not clear
 from the essays published here. It is a theme in the introduction
that the unacceptable ideological role of Marxism has replaced
its critical dimension, presumably a role illegitimately im-
posed by the state or the party (p. 12). He fears that the critical
dimension of Marxism has been silenced in the past and will be
in the future by denunciations (p. 11) and official attacks (p.
12).
I think Brugger has missed the politics of theory for fear
of functionalism and instrumentalism. Ideas have functions in
social struggles and are instrumental when taken up by the
masses, as Marx would say. This is almost truistic, and (with
all due respect to Brugger) it does not lead to the implausible
sociological and metaphysical theories known as "functional-
ism" and "instrumentalism" (cf. p. 12). I agree with Brugger
that ideas about alienation should be discussed, particularly in
view of the persistence and strength of alienation in existing
socialist societies, but the ideas about alienation must be put to
good use and not lead society away from its goals. In the
Marxist view, that requires communist leadership. Later I
return to this and its relevance to China.
The first, the longest, and the most philosophical essay is
Michael Dutton and Paul Healy's "Marxist Theory and So-
cialist Transition: The Construction of an Epistemological
Relation" (pp. 13-66). It is an Althusserian critique of epis-
temology, especially in its empiricist forms. I find their state-
ments of theories either vague or misleading and without
real-life adherents. I try to substantiate this in the discussion
later. Although I think the issues that they discuss are enor-
mous and complex, I doubt that the plausible contending
positions will differ much in their implications for political
economy.
Brugger commends (p. 2) Dutton and Healy's essay for
undermining the ideological use of the concept of 'reality' in
the Marxist tradition by criticizing all theories of knowledge.
The concern is that unjustified claims about 'the real world' are
used to rationalize ruling interests rather than to critically
understand the world. Dutton and Healy set up the problem so
that anyone who talks about the real world is creating another
world unconnected with the world we think about, the world of
concepts. Another unusual claim is that all epistemologies are
reductionist in taking one part of their theory, for example
economics or politics, as central and to which all other parts
can be reduced. In the second part I discuss some of my
criticisms of their rejection of reductionism and of episte-
mology.
Basically, and contrary to Dutton and Healy, I contend
that if people make ideological claims about the real world that
ignore class struggle and the political interests of others, then
we should just show that they are wrong about the real world
and not that they have the wrong epistemology. To show that
they are wrong, we must discover what is fight and convince
others on the basis of evidence and argument. Among other
things, this involves practice, technology, and politics. Dutton
and Healy have some interesting remarks on these issues in
their discussion of Marx, Lenin, Bogdanov, and Stalin, al-
though I think they sometimes miss the mark in their accusa-
tions of positivism and technicism.
Dutton and Healy's section on Mao is the most interest-
ing, despite their confusions about reduction and their Althus-
serian rejection of a knowing subject. "Mao might well have
criticised the individualised subject of humanism, but the
category of subject was not displaced, merely collectivised"
66
(p. 42). I think these obscure ideas tum on earlier confusions
about epistemology, which I criticize in the second part below.
Still, there are many pertinent remarks about Mao's over-
emphasis on class struggle and about the rejection of class
struggle and the downplaying of politics in current theories.
There are also remarks (pp. 52ff.) that are relevant to current
claims in China about productive growth itself being political
and revolutionary. They criticize both Mao and the current
leaders for making the same mistake of using epistemology in
taking one specific practice or another as fundamental to which
all else is reduced. Their conclusion is dissatisfying in its mere
appeal to an autonomous theoretical practice that is specific in
its calculations but irreducible (p. 62). They give no content to
this proposal that even indicates an alternative to views of
those who do not reject epistemology.
Disagreements among western Marxists abound
about what road(s) socialist countries have taken.
Some conclusions are now widely held but still
subjects of debate: there is more than one road, the
market can (or should) have a role, decentraliza-
tion and workers' participation are important.
However, this book concentrates on some of the
areas where there is less agreement: the role of
ideology, the nature of socialist politics, and the
economics of socialist transition.
Michael Sullivan, in the second essay, "The Ideology of
the Chinese Communist Party Since the Third Plenum" (pp.
67-97), gives a good historical account of the rise and fall of
the theory of class struggle from the Eighth Party Congress of
1956 to the current debates about socialism in China. It is a
useful account of the subtle changes in Mao's view of the
centrality of class struggle "'between the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie, between the socialist road and the capitalist
road'" (p. 70, quoting Mao). Sullivan then suggests ways in
which these notions along with those of the dictatorship of the
proletariat and of socialist society have been drained of con-
tent, leaving an almost unanswerable question of how to dis-
tinguish socialism from capitalism ~ (pp. 94ff.). If the only
distinction is in terms of state ownership, then there is "no
guide as to just how far the reforms ought to go" (p. 89). He
ends by giving a number of quotations showing the quandary
i I
1. The relevance of this claim can be seen in the light of remarks by
Su Shaozhi, Director of the Institute of Marxism-Leninism and Mao
Zedong Thought in Beijing. See his "Prospects for Socialism:
China's Experience and Lessons" in Milo~ Nikoli(:, ed., Socialism on
the Threshold of the Twenty-first Century (London: Verso, 1985) and
the interview with him inMonthly Review, Vol. 38, No. 4 (September
1986).
 cs::
'"
0()
'<t:
~
~
'l
::::
.-:::
s::
><:
-::'"
!:::
c
-l:;
2
c
.-:::
I:).

Students and staff of

of Quinghua University,
University, Beijing,
Beijing, "struggle
"struggle against the right deviationist w i n d .. ...
wind , by writing big character posters
posters and holding
criticism meetings."
meetings." This
This was in March 1976, just
just before Deng Xiaoping was removed from from his positions.

that
that Chinese
Chinese theorists
theorists are
are in over
over the
the stages
stages ofof socialism
socialism and and terms of
terms of costly
costly inputs.
inputs. The
The twofold
twofold result
result has
has been
been ineffective
ineffective
the
the process
process of of development.
development. He He attributes
attributes the the problems
problems to planning and
planning and thethe absence
absence of of guiding
guiding ideals.
ideals. What
What isis needed
needed is is aa
reductionism
reductionism and and to
to taking
taking socialism
socialism as as aa system
system rather
rather than
than aa clearer understanding, and thereby more effective
clearer understanding, and thereby more effective control, of control, of
process,
process, but but hehe has
has shown
shown only only the
the lack
lack of of clarity
clarity inin thethe the telos-governed
the advance. II am
telos-governed advance. am not
not convinced
convinced thatthat the
the prob-
prob-
theories
theories of of socialism.
socialism. Against
Against the the fear
fear ofof the
the restoration
restoration of of lems the
lems the Chinese
Chinese have have lie
lie mainly
mainly with
with their
their ignoring
ignoring goals
goals and
and
capitalism,
capitalism, he he ends
ends with
with thethe hope
hope "that
"that questions
questions of of class
class regarding socialism
regarding socialism as as static.
static. ItIt seems
seems to to me
me that
that thethe real
real
struggle
struggle might
might become
become important
important onceonce again"
again" (p. (p. 97).
97). disagreements are
disagreements elsewhere-over the
are elsewhere--over the appropriate
appropriate socialist
socialist
In
In "Undeveloped
"Undeveloped Socialism
Socialism and and Intensive
Intensive Develop-
Develop- goals and
goals and the
the existence
existence of of political
political alternatives
alternatives rather
rather than
than
ment"
ment" Bill Bill Brugger
Brugger pursues
pursues the the subject
subject of of socialism
socialism as as aa objective economic laws. (See below for
objective economic laws. (See below for Reglar's discussionReglar's discussion
process
process (pp.
(pp. 98-118).
98-118). To To his
his earlier
earlier view
view that
that the
the process
process must
must of the
of the disagreement
disagreement over over thethe latter.)
latter.) Still
Still Brugger
Brugger has has indi-
indi-
involve
involve the the negation
negation of of capitalist
capitalist relations,
relations, he he now
now adds
adds thethe cated some
cated some new new lines of inquiry
lines of inquiry about
about the
the socialist
socialist roadroad of of
necessity
necessity of of aa telos
telos (p.
(p. 98),
98), which
which requires
requires somesome "utopian
"utopian development.
development.
thinking"
thinking" (p. (p. 118).
118). HeHe asks
asks the
the question:
question: Does Does thethe move
move The themes
The themes of of Kate
Kate Hannan's
Hannan's "Economic
"Economic Reform:Refonn: Le- Le-
towards
towards advanced
advanced socialism
socialism require
require aa temporary
temporary abandonment
abandonment gitimacy, Efficiency
gitimacy, Efficiency and and Rationality"
Rationality" (pp. (pp. 119-141)
119-141) are are
of
ofthe
the socialist
socialist telos?"
telos?" (p.
(p. 117).
117). His
His answer
answerseems
seems to to be
be yes
yes forfor Weberian. She
Weberian. She claims
claims that
that thethe reforms
refonns inin China
Chinaareare the
the party'
party's s
China,
China, forfor various
various structural
structural reasons.
reasons. response to
response to its
its damaged
damaged legitimacy
legitimacy (p. 139) and
(p. 139) and have
have resulted
resulted
His
His argument
argument isis put
put (with
(with some
some reservations)
reservations) in in terms
tenns of of in the
in the goal
goal ofof aa classless
classless society
society being
being replaced
replaced byby the
the goal
goal ofof
M.
M. Kalecki's
Kalecki' s economic,
economic, technological,
technological, and and political
political cycles.
cycles. socialist modernization
socialist modernization (p. (p. 121).
121). This
This seems
seems to to me
me misleading
misleading
He
He presents
presents aa plausible
plausible case
case for
for saying
saying thatthat the
the Chinese
Chinese havehave both about
both about thethe past
past and
and about
about thethe present.
present. Since
Since liberation,
liberation,
failed
failed toto develop
develop aa historical
historical and
and cyclical
cyclical account
account of ofthe
the inten-
inten- China has
China has had
had both
both goals
goals to to some
some extent.
extent. Still,
Still, she
she recounts
recounts
sive
si ve development
development of of technology
technology as as opposed
opposed to to expansion
expansion in in numerous difficulties,
numerous difficulties, including
including systemic
systemic ones,
ones, that
that arise
arise inin
67
67
using state administrative and economic methods. The force of
her worries is not clear to me. She says that "central planners
are beset with a myriad of routine control problems" (p. 139),
but it is not clear whether that is meant as a fundamental
obstacle. Are they control tasks or barriers to control? It may
just be that there are a lot of things to think about and that a lot
of people at various levels (from bottom to top) will have to
think about them. It is best, of course, if the problems are
routine.
I wish Hannan had said more about some of the theoreti-
cal difficulties. There is a tendency in her article (and in
literature elsewhere) to draw a sharp line between the eco-
nomic mechanisms of the market and the political mechanisms
of the state. Marx himself called for the administration (virtu-
ally the opposite of Weber's and Hannan's use of that term) of
things rather than the governing of people, which also suggests
a separation of economics and politics. On the other hand, in
Grundrisse Marx foresaw wealth being measured by dispos-
able time rather than labor time. Decisions about production in
an advanced socialist society would be based on time available
for needs to be satisfied. These are decisions of political
economy that require both political and economic mechan-
isms. We need to know more about how the two might mix.
A central claim is that bureaucracy cannot be dealt with
by bureaucracy (see pp. 135 and 140). As usual, more needs to
be said about bureaucracy, as Brugger remarks in the introduc-
tion (p. 8), but anyway I am not convinced. At least I see no
reason why some administrative problems cannot be dealt with
by administrative officers. All of these are important issues for
further study, and in any case I may have missed what Hannan
was trying to do. The argument seems to be that the shift in
goals has resulted in either the inefficiencies from violating the
law of value or the problems of the old mandatory planning.
How serious the "irrationalities" are depend on the alterna-
tives, which are not indicated.
Greg McCarthy begins his article, "The Socialist Transi-
tion and the Socialist Mode of Production" (pp. 142-170),
with a short account of the reforms since 1978, with reference
to, among others, Xue Muqiao, who gets less credit than he
deserves. The bulk of McCarthy's article is the development of
his claim that "China is not in a state of transition to com-
munism, but has established a socialist mode of production"
(p. 170). His statements of the abstract issues of metatheory
are excellent and accurate, but the crucial details of theory are
absent. What are the characteristics that distinguish the rela-
tions of production? Just what must a group of people do with
surplus value and for what reasons in order to constitute a
unique class? These and other questions are left unanswered.
(The same criticism is made by Reglar, pp. 193f.) McCarthy
seems to think that state and party decisions show that a
separate mode of state socialism has been established, without
considering whether it might be a combination of conflicting
relations or a type of state capitalism.
In trying to establish his point, McCarthy does go through
a lot of interesting material on changes and problems of pro-
ductivity and on developments and conflicts in relations of
production. The suggestion is that any conflict or contradiction
shows class differences (pp. 149, 165f., and 169), but this is
surely not the case. The dictatorship of the proletariat or even
the administration of things is not the heavenly Jerusalem,
although it is important to analyze the relations and forces that
prevail. The possibility of a socialist mode of production
68
cannot be rejected out of hand, and China, among other coun-
tries, gives a good opportunity to reconsider that possibility.
But McCarthy has not given us the evidence. 2 In these days of
Chinese emphasis on the dominance of state ownership, it is
interesting to consider the fact that just previous to liberation
the Guomindang state-owned industries "constituted approxi-
mately two-thirds of total industrial capital" (p. 156).
There is a tendency in her article (and in literature
elsewhere) to draw a sharp line between the eco-
nomic mechanisms of the market and the political
mechanisms of the state. Marx himself caUed for
the administration (virtually the opposite of
Weber's and Hannan's use of that term) of things
rather than the governing of people, which also
suggests a separation of economics and politics.
On the other hand, in Grundrisse Marx foresaw
wealth being measured by disposable time rather
than labor time. Decisions about production in an
advanced socialist society would be based on time
available for needs to be satisfied. These are deci-
sions of political economy that require both politi-
cal and economic mechanisms. We need to know
more about how the two might mix.
The last essay, "The Law of Value D e b a t e J A Tribute to
the Late Sun Yefang" (pp. 171-203), by Steve Reglar,
deepens the debate about objective economic laws through a
discussion of the works of Sun Yefang and other Chinese
economists. He does show "the sophistication with which
contemporary Chinese political economists have approached
the problems" (p. 203). Reglar argues that the essential ele-
ments of socialist economics should be "expressed as objec-
tive economic laws" (p. 188), responding to some of Brug-
ger's criticisms of such a view. As Brugger says elsewhere, 3
there are natural laws of physics and biology that must be
observed, but not economic laws. It is frustrating that Reglar
does not give an explicit statement of the supposed laws. At
2. It would be worthwhile to pursue his line of argument using John
E. Roemer's A General Theory of Exploitation and Class (Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1982). Roemer gives a clear
exposition of a conception of socialist exploitation.
3. "Once Again, 'Making the Past Serve the Present'" in N. Max-
well and B. McFarlane, eds., China's ChangedRoad to Development
(Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1984). See also Harry Magdoff, "Are
There Economic Laws of Socialism?" in Nikoli~, ed., op. cit., which
was also printed in Monthly Review, Vol. 37, No. 3 (July-August
1985), and Michael Lebowitz, "Only Capitalist Laws of Motion?,"
Monthly Review, Vol. 38, No. 6 (November 1986).
 view presented
presented in serious discussions,
discussions, from those of of Marx and
Engels to that of G. A. Cohen
Engels Cohen (with all due respect
respect to
McCarthy,
McCarthy, 1~.p.. 144n.). Engels tried to develop a theory (and not
a logical relation that would allow a 'reading off') about the
'reading off')
way in which productive forces are the most important but not
the only forces determining interaction
interaction and change in society.
Without some such theory of of historical materialism, a
crucial Marxist category will have to be abandoned, with
crucial Marxist
widespread
widespread effect
effect on Marxism. Moreover,
Moreover, a simplistic under-
standing of
standing of primacy tends to restrict the accounts ofof the change
from the cultural revolution to contemporary reforms. Mao
Zedong is accused of thinking that politics determines
Zedong determines every-
* thing, while Deng Xiaoping is accused of of thinking that eco-
~
nomics determines everything.
nomics everything It is then difficult to see how
~<::l they might have strayed from a more sophisticated
sophisticated and accu-
~ rate account
account of the interrelation of of economic and political
£ forces. The The mistakes are in large part a matter of
of overemphasis
and misapplication.
and misapplication.
~ Dutton and Healy try to overcome
8~ eliminate
overcome reduction by trying to
eliminate epistemology. The cure is extreme for an affliction
questionable, although it comes at a time when the death
that is questionable,
of epistemology is a popular theme in philosophy.
of philosophy.44 They
claim, without argument, that "all
claim, "all epistemologies posit a
most it seems to me that there are truisms, prescriptions,
most prescriptions, and privileged level of discourse"
uniquely privileged discourse" (p. 27). In a sense this
recommendations. This is surely an important matter that will
recommendations. applied
applied to foundationalist theories of of knowledge that depend
depend
be debated
debated much more.
I think Reglar does give us an important reminder in
saying that there "are "are many different types of planning in
operation
operation around the world and in most circumstances
circumstances an
economy is neither fully planned nor fully integrated by the
economy 4. Richard Rorty proclaimed "the deathdeath of epistemology" in his
market" (p. In).
market" 172). A fundamental problem is that if social Philosophy and the Mirror of Princeton Univ.
of Nature (Princeton: Princeton
choices are "bounded
choices "bounded by objective laws"
laws" (p. 186) of econom- Press, 1979).
1979). Ironically, that book was followed
followed by many important
ics it is difficult to see what role there could be for politics. The books in epistemology, including F. I. Dretske, Knowledge and the
Flow of Information (198
of lnformation I), L. Bonjour, The Structure of
(1981), of Empirical
overemphasis on economics and economic laws in China is a
overemphasis
Knowledge (1985), and A. I. Goldman, Epistemology and Cognition
concern expressed frequently in this book. Reglar ends by
concern expressed (1986).
discussing
discussing some new programs in China involving guidance
planning
planning that call for "a "a greater separation of state and civil
society"
society" and involve a "different
"different concept ooff .... democracy"
. . democracy"
(p. 202). The
The political implications are not pursued.

II
II

A cluster
cluster of issues in these essays prompts further com-
ment from me, although others will find many other issues of
interest.
interest. My first concern is that the essays are overly theoreti-
cal in ways that are obscure, unnecessary, or misleading. For
one thing, the book makes me wish that the w
one word
o r d ""reduction"
reduction"
had been banned
had banned from our vocabulary. Every author uses the
word (or one of its cognates) in one vague way or another,
word
although
although some depend
depend upon it much more than others. In this ~
book
book (as elsewhere), "reduction" is used as a crude.
elsewhere), the word "reduction" ::::
~
stick to beat down a simplistic unilinear theory of the primacy .;:,
t~

of productive forces. It is thought that reductionists are com-

of productive ~
"could simply be read off"
mitted to the view that one thing "could
another (cf. pp. 3, 40, and elsewhere). No doubt some have
another
off"
~
naively held that the productive forces determine all else but
naively
£
§
unaffected themselves. This is certainly not the
are completely unaffected
~
k.

8
"Formalized political study group in full swing," a cartoon in the
China Daily, an English-language
English-language newspaper in Beijing, 23 February
cartoon is from China Now (London), No. 115 (Winter
*This cartoon (Winter 1985/ 1987.
86), p.l7.
p.17.
69
upon some beliefs being self-certifying, but in this sense they
are not necessarily beliefs to which all others could be re-
duced. Perhaps their view applies to classical logical posi-
tivism, but that school lost credibility decades ago. Their
claim does not, by definition, apply to coherentist epistemolo-
gies, for which all beliefs are certified by being part of a
coherent theory without a uniquely privileged level of any
sort.

In this book it is strongly suggested that the con-

flicts in China are class conflicts requiring class
struggle. Maybe some are, but even that still needs
to be shown. There are many political issues to be
discussed, but the discussion should not be bur-
dened with the view that politics is always class
struggle. Once again China provides excellent
material for investigation.

Nanjing University students make their opinions known on a seventy-

The basic problem in their essay is that they use an overly
restrictive and implausible distinction between empiricism
and rationalism (p. 26). Empiricism is taken as the view that all
thought is about concrete reality (but sometimes about the
given experience, as for a phenomenalist, like Mach) (pp. 21
and 23). Rationalism, on the other hand, "works on a thought
object" (p. 16). Knowledge is about concepts rather than the
real things. The result is a lame defense of Marx that makes his
view sound like the Hegelian position he attacked. With this
dichotomy, it will be true necessarily that "all epistemologies
posit both a distinction and a correspondence between the two
realms of being" (p. 26). The problem is that they use a
dichotomy between mind and reality that was only prominent
in our philosophical past, and they then seem to claim that the
mind can think only about matters of the mind. They forget
that we normally use our minds to think about real things
(structures, etc.), just as we use our eyes to see real things. The
images and concepts that are involved are not the real things
that we think about or see.
As I mentioned above, the issues in epistemology are
enormous and complex, but I think it is a mistake to think that
positions in political economy will be much affected by posi-
tions in epistemology. I have discussed these epistemological
issues at such length partly because I think Dutton and Healy's
discussion is an example of an all-too-common practice of
depending too much on solving contentious philosophical
problems. This tends to stultify or to dogmatize. I think
Chinese Marxism also suffers from this more than it should. It
is one way of drawing the limits too tightly.
Earlier I mentioned Brugger's concern that "the limits of
official ideology are too tightly drawn" (from Brugger' s intro-
duction, p. 10). He, and others in this book, think that open
debate has been stamped out except in a very limited area. His
example is of the limitation of debate about alienation, but
even the estimate he reports of "some 600 articles on aliena-
tion" between "1978 and 1983" does not indicate "a brief
70
five-foot-long blackboard.
moment" of discussion (p. 10; cf. p. 118, Hannan, p. 123, and
Reglar, p. 202). I can attest to lively debates on the subject
during the academic year 1984-85, and in 1986 Wang Ruoshui
(mentioned on p. 11) published a book on humanism and
alienation, which has been the topic of further debate.
The problem has not been the limitation of debate. The
censorship of ideas is much reduced in contemporary China
and even more so now than when Brugger was writing a few
years ago. With the "double hundreds" policy, many schools
of thought are contending, although attention is more on blos-
soming than contending. The problem is to give political
guidance and avoid the most detrimental effects of influential
ideas while fostering positive effects, rather than letting other
forces determine the effects where pluralism reigns. This is
still true in the recent criticism of bourgeois liberalization
(January 1987). No doubt discussion in the Communist party
of China supporting capitalism or alternative vanguard parties
has been stamped out. However, the emphasis is on criticism
(theoretical responses) rather than a movement. 5 The impor-
tant question is whether debate will now be more specific about
what socialism is and should be, and about what bourgeois
liberalization is. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences has
promised more work on these issues. And it is the responsibil-
ity of the party to give clearer theoretical guidance than it has
so far, for example guidance about political reforms. I have
5. There is an interesting discussion of these isssues by Deng Xiao-
ping in "Concerning Problems on the Ideological Front," Selected
Works of Deng Xiaoping (1975-1982) (Beijing: Foreign Languages
Press, 1984), pp. 367-371.
certainly heard far too much praise in China for the American
political and ideological systems, praise that has gone without
response. Certainly Hu Yaobang did not lead or even encour-
age a theoretical discussion about the socialist road versus the
capitalist road. Contrary to Brugger, I think the limits of
ideology are quite wide. The problem is that the party has not
sufficiently participated in the debates.
In this book there are various comments about decisions
and actions of the party and the state, but very little is said
about what their roles should be. When they are discussed,
there is a tendency to think that conflicts require a state, along
lines that Lenin encouraged. Certainly the planning of ad-
vanced production requires more administrative problems
(tasks) than Marx--and even more so, Lenin--foresaw.
(Marx did anticipate that accounting would and should become
more important in a planned economy.) In this book as else-
where, the problems are too often taken as reasons for aban-
doning planning and control. But Marx thought planning and
control would be performed by the society rather than by the
state, which would wither away. In many ways China's policy
of reducing state involvement and encouraging locally con-
trolled schools, collectives, and horizontal cooperation seems
to be just what Marx advocated in his "Critique of the Gotha
Program." More needs to be clarified about state and social
functions, and it is a pity that so little has been said about these
theoretical issues that are in the background of the discussions
in this book. 6
Another issue in the background that is of more direct
importance is that of the role of politics and the realm of the
political. As in other literature, politics is commonly taken as
nothing but class struggle, so that any political conflict is a
matter for contending classes. The result is either to extend
class struggle too far or to ignore the political conflicts and
difficulties in a free association of workers with social plan-
ning. The first was the mistake of the cultural revolution, and
the second is a mistake that is prevalent in studies on socialist
transition, including those here. Many of the authors (but not
Brugger) lament the abandonment of class struggle but point to
conflicts as indications of class differences.
The problems come partly from Mao and partly from
Marx. Mao did tell us about contradictions among the people,
but then he saw class struggle all around him and thought that
the struggle between the socialist road and the capitalist road is
always the same as class struggle (see p. 70, quoted in my
comments on Sullivan). Disagreements about whether a soci-
ety is keeping to the socialist road do not have to be disagree-
ments between class enemies. Recently there have been state-
ments in China about keeping to the socialist road without
taking that as involving class struggle. The authors here do not
consider the relation between politics and class struggle, and
those who conflate them have given no reason for doing so.
More needs to be said about politics without restricting it to
matters of class.
6. These issues are discussed in Victor Nee and David Mozingo,
eds., State and Society in Contemporary China (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
Univ. Press, 1983) and in Kjeld Erik Brodsgaard, "State, Party, and
Economy in the Transition to Socialism in China: A Review Essay,"
Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Jan.-March
1986), pp. 46-55.
71
A problem from Marx is that he used the word "political"
in a narrower sense than we do now. In his terminology, there
would no longer be power in the political sense under com-
munism. In our terms, political questions also arise in every-
day planning and administration. Marx neglected the difficult
problems of power in administrative control and coordination.
There is definitely no reason to think that all conflicts and
disagreements would fade away, although that seems to be the
message of Lenin' s State and Revolution and the suggestion of
many writings on the socialist transition. In this book it is
strongly suggested that the conflicts in China are class conflicts
requiring class struggle. Maybe some are, but even that still
needs to be shown. There are many political issues to be
discussed, but the discussion should not be burdened with the
view that politics is always class struggle. Once again China
provides excellent material for investigation.
Chinese Marxism in Flux, for all its difficulties, raises
many important theoretical issues in sophisticated ways. Other
readers will be prompted to reconsider and to speculate in ways
different from mine. This book helps confirm the view that (as
Brugger puts it, p. 10) "current debates on the role of the state
in China [and other matters] are more stimulating than they
have been for decades."
June 1987
M. E. Sharpe Inc.
Policy Conflicts in Post-Mao China
A Documentary Survey, with A n a l y s i s
Edited by JOHN P. BURNS and STANLEY ROSEN
"Burns and Rosen have provided us with the most up-to-date, comprehensive,
and accessible collection of materials on post-Mao China now available."
--Lowell Dittmer, University of California, Berkeley
An East Gate Book 360 pp. Cloth $39.95 Paper $14.95
China's Establishment Intellectuals
Edited by CAROL LEE HAMRIN and TIMOTHY CHEEK
" . . . one of the most absorbing and penetrating accounts to date of the fragile
tension-filled, often puzzling relationship between China's intellectuals and
the Chinese party/state." --Paul A. Cohen, Wellesley College
An East Gate Book 250 pp. Cloth $35.00 Paper $14.95
State and Society in the Taiwan Miracle
THOMAS B. GOLD
Thomas Gold utilizes the "historical structural approach" to offer the first
comprehensive sociological analysis of Taiwan's unquestioned success at rap-
id economic growth with stability and equity.
An East Gate Book 176 pp. Cloth $29.00 Paper $13.95
The Marginal World of Oe
Kenzaburo
MICHIKO WILSON
In this study of the writings of Japan's most prodi-
gious writer, Professor Wilson brings to bear a wide
range of contemporary critical techniques.
An East Gate Book 168 pp. Cloth $30.00
Media and the Chinese Public
Edited by BRANTLY WOMACK
This translation makes available an extensive survey
of the Beijing media audience carried out by the
Beijing Journalism Association. The poll is the first
large-scale media survey in China. (A special issue of
Chinese Sociology and Anthropology.)
200 pp. Paper $14.95
M. E. Sharpe, Inc.
80 Business Park Drive, Armonk, New York 10504