Out of Mao's Shadow
First of all, I'd like to thank Lila Shapiro and the folks at TPM for organizing what I hope will be a lively and substantive discussion of Out of Mao's Shadow: The Struggle for the Soul of a New China. I also want to apologize right away for starting the chat behind schedule. As Lila mentioned, I'm moving to Moscow this week, earlier than expected because of the situation in Georgia. The past few days have been a blur of book events, Russian studies and packing. But I'm excited to be finishing the book tour here on TPM, and I think it will be fun to post my final observations on China later this week from my new home in Moscow.
For more than seven years, from the end of 2000 to the beginning of 2008, I made my home in Beijing, trying to understand China and explain it to readers of the Washington Post. This book is the culmination of those years of reporting, and I'm pleased I was able to finish it and get it into bookstores in time to join the public conversation about China that has unfolded around the Olympic Games. For links to interviews with me -- as well as reviews of the book -- please visit its website. While promoting the book over the past few weeks, I have tried to emphasize two of its major themes:
First, I have tried to debunk the common assumption that market reforms and economic growth will inevitably result in political liberalization in China. On the contrary, the Communist Party's embrace of capitalism and the prosperity it has brought to the country have strengthened its hold on power. In effect, a vast experiment in authoritarian capitalism is in progress -- and so far, the results have been terrific for the party, if not necessarily for all the people of China.
Second, I have argued that a momentous struggle is under way for China's future. I described the battles lines thus in the book: "On one side is the venal party-state, an entrenched elite fighting to preserve the country's authoritarian political system and its privileged place within it. On the other is a ragtag collection of lawyers, journalists, entrepreneurs, artists, hustlers, and dreamers striving to build a more tolerant, open and democratic China." And in the middle, I would add, is the vast majority of the Chinese people, sometimes indifferent, sometimes ambivalent, sometimes afraid.
I watched this struggle unfold on a number of battlegrounds -- over the party's control of history, of the economy, of the media, of the law, etc. -- and I have tried to describe it in the book through the eyes of several individuals who found themselves at the center of it. They include, among many others, a documentary filmmaker, an Internet entrepreneur, a rural party boss, a laid-off factory worker, a crusading newspaper editor, and one of the richest women in China. I chose to write the book this way because I like telling people's stories, but also because I hoped to underscore the idea that political change is not automatic. We sometimes hear people argue that democratization is inevitable in China, that when average incomes rise above a certain level, the nation will magically follow South Korea, Taiwan, and other authoritarian countries that evolved into democracies as their economies boomed. But in reality, political change is a difficult, messy and heartbreaking process, and it happens only because of remarkable individuals who fight, take risks, and sacrifice for it.
These people are often forced to make very difficult decisions, about how when to stand up for what they think is right and when to retreat in silence -- choices that might result in violence and police action against themselves or, perhaps even more agonizing to consider, against their friends and relatives. As we kick off this discussion, I would suggest that you think about what you might have done if you were in the position of some of the characters in the book. Would you have bothered to try to preserve the Cultural Revolution cemetery in Chongqing, as the former Red Guard Xi Qinsheng did? Would you have blown the whistle on the SARS epidemic, as the elderly surgeon Jiang Yanyong did? Would you have challenged the abuses of the one-child policy the way the blind legal activist Chen Guangcheng did? And what would you do if you were one of the lawyers trying to get Chen out of prison? When the government started hiring thugs to beat up the lawyers, would you have stood your ground and perhaps put your client at greater risk? Or would you have backed down and abandoned Chen? Believe me, I've asked myself that last question many times.
I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts about the book, as well as the comments from the distinguished group of guests that Lila has invited to join us. I'll be reading -- and posting -- as often as I can between packing and studying Russian verbs of motion!
It is our fervent hope and firm expectation that all authoritarian governments act to promote their own demise.
In the end why should China be different?
August 19, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is our fervent hope and firm expectation that all authoritarian governments act to promote their own demise.
Remove the word "authoritarian" and this sentence retains its validity.
August 19, 2008 10:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
From our resident anarcho-libertarian.
August 19, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Heck, I was really hoping to provoke a discussion of my character rather than my political philosophy. Didn't you actually mean to impugn my honesty or the level of my intelligence? That would have been more on-topic and meaningful, don't you think?
But OK, I'll settle for what I can get and play it your way. To call me either an anarchist or a libertarian displays a breathtaking lack of understanding either of my thinking processes or the terms you used to describe me. Would you be so kind as to inform us -- the huge crowd that has gathered in this thread to discuss something substantive -- as to which it is?
August 19, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone really dispute the second theme of your book? The belief that economic liberalization leads to political liberalization seems to have been thoroughly debunked.
What's messed up about China, as far as I can tell, is that their authoritarianism and capitalism are mutually reinforcing. The regime restricts freedom of speech and the press in order to remove any counterarguments. Meanwhile, capitalist reforms enrich the populace, and the regime gains legitimacy from improving the economic situation of the people.
China isn't going to collapse due to economic reforms, it's going to survive because of them. Money can't by happiness, but it does make it easier to overlook massive human rights violations.
August 19, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
First theme, rather.
August 19, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Although I agree with Phil Pan's basic argument that economic modernization does not necessarily lead to political liberalization, as China's experience has shown since 1989, I still believe that the complex relationship is not well understood. The key variable here is the time frame. Most people make the mistake of assuming a parallel process of economic development and political liberalization, which is seldom the case. Economic development can occur in a more linear fashion, but political liberalization tends to take place in a non-linear fashion. This process can stall for some time, but take a giant leap forward suddenly without any warning. That's because politics changes due to the build-up of pressures on the governing system itself. But it is impossible to predict the breaking point beforehand for two reasons. First, the rulers can adjust, tactically, thus defusing the pressure a bit. Second, and more importantly, the tolerance level of the people is a fluid psychological variable. Nobody knows, really, how bad a government can get before it is overthrown by the people. If you think along these lines, you can definitely see that the Chinese government may be a repressive authoritarian one, but it is far more capable and responsive than most of its peers in developing countries. What this means is that it is too early to give up on the prospects of democratic change in China. This process has been stagnant since 1989 and the Communist Party has shown no signs of changing it. But when you read Phil's book carefully, you will see that the pressures for change are accumulating within the system. Although at the moment the Party can contain such pressure through selective repression and co-optation, this strategy will not work indefinitely.
August 19, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah, a new member commenter with an interesting on-topic opinion. I googled you, I hope you don't mind if I share the results with others:
http://www.carnegieendowment.org/experts/index.cfm?fa=expert_view&expert_id=27
August 19, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I once read somewhere that 200 years or so is the average life expectancy of your regular, every day Mandate of Heaven.
Wonder where we are in the current cycle.
August 19, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really agree with your point of view - China is a much more complex nation state and society than what most Americans perceive, usually with a dichotomous lens - authoritarianism vs. rag-tag dreamers, etc. I've visited China on many occasions over the years and it is a seriously amorphous entity - the Chinese are opinionated, aware and far more pragmatic than ideological.
My sense is that most Chinese would prefer that social reform precede political reform, i.e. a more complete and coherent judiciary system to ensure rights and protections under the law, healthcare and education infrastructure, a viable and functioning economy, etc., and they are using the authoritarian political structure to build and impose these social and physical infrastructure. The greatest obstruction to their development is corruption and cronyism, but isn't the American political class as corrupt if not worse than theirs?
Further, they have serious natural and man-made disasters to contend with, this isn't a country that can afford to wallow in its angst. The Olympics means so much to them as it is one bright spot
The Chinese are extremely *cynical* about politics, particularly wrt geopolitics and the judgment of others re "human rights", "Tibet" etc. It is not that they're cold-blooded genocidal maniacs that some Americans believe them to be - one really needs to be there - in China and Tibet - to see for oneself the middle and rather grey areas, and to realize that Tibet's problem is made worse by the support of the CIA, not unlike the situation of Russia and a NATO-backed Georgia at its flank. The more feted the Dalai Lama by India, America and Europe, the more China sees him as a subversive working for its strategic rivals.
I'm curious about Philip Pan's book, but I wonder if it reinforces or debunks the prevailing myths and perceptions about China. It would have succeeded if it makes the reality of China more compelling.
August 20, 2008 5:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Firstly, I wonder what other form of government could possibly contend with both the geographic and population size of China.
Second, as stated in other posts, the idea that capitalism brings or leads to freedom is naive at best, but more likely self-serving. Unfortunately the communism and enterprise practiced in China today is, by any definition, fascism, just as in the US of A. That any amount of time would bring more democracy to either country is not realistic, as the ruling class have the money and muscle, but most importantly, status quo, to remain in power.
August 19, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Firstly, I wonder what other form of government could possibly contend with both the geographic and population size of China.
Personally, I wonder if any form of government could possibly contend with both the geographic and population size of China.
the communism and enterprise practiced in China today is, by any definition, fascism, just as in the US of A.
Despite the highlighted phrase, we'll need your definition of "facism" to respond appropriately. If you simply mean a repressive central regime, that's one thing. If you're talking about a socio-economic system, that's something else.
But if either of those cases pertain, I disagree. The United States government exercises nowhere nearly the level of control that the Chinese leaders enjoy. And our system has a lot of evolving to do until in achieves the political/industrial integration of "Red" China.
August 19, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is impossible in this country to separate the political/industrial integration. That appears to be a done deal.
August 19, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. The big corps may own the government, but not yet the other way around. Till then, the ChiComs top us in centralized efficiency.
August 19, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Point taken.
August 19, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for making consider the term fascism more carefully.
I found the context that I believe the USA and PRC meet the definition at http://www.rense.com/general37/char.htm as follows:
Fourteen Defining
Characteristics Of Fascism
By Dr. Lawrence Britt
Source Free Inquiry.co
5-28-3
Dr. Lawrence Britt has examined the fascist regimes of Hitler (Germany), Mussolini (Italy), Franco (Spain), Suharto (Indonesia) and several Latin American regimes. Britt found 14 defining characteristics common to each:
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.
4. Supremacy of the Military - Even when there are widespread
domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.
5. Rampant Sexism - The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Divorce, abortion and homosexuality are suppressed and the state is represented as the ultimate guardian of the family institution.
6. Controlled Mass Media - Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.
7. Obsession with National Security - Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.
8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions.
9. Corporate Power is Protected - The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.
10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed.
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.
14. Fraudulent Elections - Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.
From Liberty Forum
August 19, 2008 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I would say that these points describe just about any repressive state. If you are simply equating fascism with totalitarianism, one of these terms is superfluous.
August 20, 2008 9:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
This book is excellent. China is the most perplexing nation on this earth today and it is impossible to predict its political trajectory. What do the Chinese people want? After decades of reading about China, I still do not have any kind of answer to this question.
August 19, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
"On one side is the venal party-state, an entrenched elite fighting to preserve the country's authoritarian political system and its privileged place within it. On the other is a ragtag collection of lawyers, journalists, entrepreneurs, artists, hustlers, and dreamers striving to build a more tolerant, open and democratic China."
This sounds very much like our system here, if you replace "party-state" with "Corporatists" or "Plutocracy"
August 19, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Pan - I read about your new book in a review in the Int'l Herald-Tribune while traveling abroad last month. I clipped the review as a reminder to pick up the book and I look forward to reading it! Thanks for spending some time with TPM and its readers, it's essential for Americans to better understand China in the years to come.
August 19, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Pan,
"On the other is a ragtag collection of lawyers, journalists, entrepreneurs, artists, hustlers, and dreamers striving..."
These sound like the very same people that make up the millions of new Communist Youth League members? If the last party is an indication they may already be co-opted into the "venal party state." For example, the highest number ever of under 45 delegates, around 70% under 55 overall. And the Communist Youth League members are the ones most likely to be not only younger and more educated by independent professionals.
August 19, 2008 3:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I remain bemused with the notion that just because China has opened up their markets to capitalists that it means that their form of government will change to one the west prefers and/or the Chinese people will enjoy a higher level of freedom. But it is the same narrative that we hear in the west when capitalists try to make their case for less economic regulation of their money making operations...free market capitalism will solve all of socities ills. It is lies.
China is no more free than it was under Mao. And Western capitalists are rewarding the totalitarian rulers of China by enriching their regime and giving them a level of credbility they in no way deserve by doing business with them. But for the capitalists and the Chinese rulers it is a win-win.
August 19, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"China is no more free than it was under Mao."
This statement is false. China indisputably has considerably more freedom for intellectuals now than it did thirty years ago in art, journalism, and academia and for ordinary people in terms of personal opinion, blogs, etc.... Just pick up any copy of the Guangzhou paper Southern Metropolis Daily and you'll find articles that would have brought some pretty stiff sentences under most of the Mao era and go to any art gallery and you'll find paintings that might have brought the end of a career in the past.
But that is not to say that the political system has changed fundamentally. Perhaps in reaction to the chaos of the Mao years, the government (still composed of many who personally suffered under Mao) has LESS tolerance for the idea that politics is naturally a tug of war, that protests are natural, than it used to. Where "class struggle" was once the watchword and labor strikes were a right, "harmony" now rules and strikes have ambiguous legality.
The strange thing--strange at least if one's starting point is the idea, debunked by Pan, that capitalism brings democracy--is that the Mao era, while a barrier to internal Party reform, is a source of strength for a lot of disenfranchised people, who use its rhetoric in their activism.
The idea that workers are the "masters of their house" is a powerful one. Memories of worker committees on shop floors, pressure on managers to not follow the "capitalist road," etc. are held onto by out-of-work SOE employees in the Northeast. Even farmers, who suffered under the Mao years, still use old, pre-reform social contracts to pressure local officials.
So, I think the idea of China as the same, monochrome authoritarianism for 50 years (or in the words of Cafferty, the same "goons") is a bit misleading.
China still has severe restrictions on the freedom of its people. But the nature of those restrictions has changed.
August 24, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink