Hi all,
I’ve been a longtime lurker here and this is my first real post—I wanted to ask folks about the liberalization and subsequent destruction of the USSR versus Deng’s reforms in the PRC.
I know the USSR’s politburo was largely calcified near the end of its existence (with a lot of politicians being in their 60s-70s, lots of corruption, etc.) and the choice to both politically and economically liberalize is what put the last nail in the coffin for the USSR. From what I have read, the party basically gave its power away, let other parties run, and many old party members became part of the new bourgeois class. Most takes I see from other communists these days seem to be of the opinion that it’s the political liberalization that really killed the USSR, not necessarily just the economic opening up.
Which brings us to China: I think it’s an understatement to call the PRC’s development a miracle, and it seems like they’re going to continue a progressive path for the foreseeable future. Deng also opened things up, but in a much more controlled manner, with no political liberalization—it seems this is what has really contributed to the PRC’s success. Using the developmental ability of capital, while ensuring power remains in the hands of a state ideologically committed to improving material conditions, has worked well.
So my question then is: what allowed China’s political system to be adept at managing their economy without caving to bourgeois interests, compared to the USSR’s? What caused the USSR’s political system to fail compared to China’s? Does it have to do with policies made as far back as Stalin or Khrushchev? And what can a revolutionary socialist movement take away from this contrast to ensure it wouldn’t happen again in a (hypothetical) future?
Any responses or resources are greatly appreciated! Thank you.
The Bretton Woods System failed 1971 and Nixon traveled to China 1972.
Not a complete answer, but a question like this shouldn't forget the global context. As it is, the question implies, that the answer can only lie in the organization of national party politics or national economic politics. I agree, that these are important and this is still a great question. But missing the context would obviously be wrong.
This is too abstract. It wasn't just any capital, but huge amounts of US-Dollars from the global hegemon. They kept flowing in for decades in exchange for China saving US (and thereby global) capitalism after the gold standard failed. This was done by enabling the so called Walmart economy with "made in China", the mountains of US national debt with China holding dollars and state bonds and indirectly the petro dollar system.
It's a very different situation from the Soviet Union having to fight a cold war with the global empire to China becoming the main reason capitalism can live on and integrating into the world economic system as a vital part of it.
China continued to prop up global capitalism for decades. Every four to seven years a periodic crisis occurs and while production slumps in the imperial core, the continuous growth of China provides a solid rock for capital to lean on:
From 1989 to the 1990s, it fueled neoliberalism, allowing the outsourcing boom by becoming the low wage workshop of the world. We can't talk about neo liberalism without talking about China. In 2001 China initiated a boom of foreign investment by joining the WTO and started to accumulate huge amounts of US-Dollars, propping up the national US economy and the global dollar system, by becoming the global engine of growth. When the whole system threatened to crash down burning, in the mortgage crisis of 2008/09, China alone acted anti-cyclical and initiated the largest ever stimulus program(relative to GDP). Commodity prices rebounded, saving many economies in Latin America and Africa (and Australia). Again during the COVID crisis, locking down hard and recovering quickly meant Chinas demand could rescue resource heavy economies.
Not making moral judgments here, just talking about economic facts. I'm all for multi-polarity, the fall of the US empire and also remain hopeful about the very peaceful, non hegemonic rise of the Chinese one. Also the main task of leftists in the imperial core is not to critique China, but to remember "the main enemy is at home". To fight US and European imperialism where ever possible. But since this question was explicitly about comparing the Soviet Union with China, center of the discussion really should be the alignment with or against the global hegemon, who's decisions have a big impact on who is allowed to rise and who isn't.
I hope this discussion doesn't devolve into normative arguments about whether this is seen as a betrayal (as maoists see it) or a brilliant (or the only viable) strategy. I find it more helpful to look at the big picture of the ebb and flow of capital and how it really is influenced by policy instead of the question what political leaders might have privately thought or intended.