Main Edition
US
FR
Mao in a Sixties poster (Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty Images)
Ever since he eliminated China’s two-term limit in 2018, Xi Jinping’s rule has produced a proliferation of articles and studies that compare his rule with Mao’s. The comparison is true only at a very superficial level, relating to the cult of personality that surrounds Xi and the increased inclusion of his name in the official documents of the Communist Party of China (CPC). Thus, in its 2021 resolution “on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party over the Past Century”, Xi is mentioned 25 times, Mao 18 times, Deng Xiaoping six times, and previous presidents Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao just once.
These similarities may be useful to gauge the internal party power of Xi, but they tell us nothing about his economic policies or ideology. While Mao’s ideology during the Cultural Revolution was directly anti-Confucian, Xi’s is pro-Confucian. While Mao’s great economic turns — “the Great Leap Forward” and the Cultural Revolution — were motivated by ideology and disregarded stability, Xi’s policies are motivated by the opposite desire: to produce a more stable society.
This reflects evolution over the past 40 years. Following Deng’s sharp pro-market turn that placed economic growth centre stage, first after Mao’s death in 1976, and then even more decisively after the Tiananmen crackdown, China grew tremendously (at an average annual rate of more than 6% per capita between 1992 and 2012), while inequality increased (measured by the Gini index, from 36 to 47 points over the same period). The new China made many people rich, reduced poverty, changed the structure of the elite by having it much more private-sector oriented, and made the country “moderately prosperous”.
This trend was overseen by Jiang Zemin, the General Secretary of the Party from 1989 to 2002, and then by Hu Jintao, who held the two highest offices (head of the Party and head of the state) during the following 10 years. The embourgeoisement of the Chinese elite had to be given an ideological veneer — and Jiang Zemin provided this in 2000, when he introduced the policy of the “Three Represents” which allowed rich entrepreneurs to be more easily accepted in the nation’s governing bodies. Thus, somewhat paradoxically, the Chinese People’s Congress became the richest legislative body in the world, exceeding even the US Congress in the number of dollar millionaires in its ranks.
Both in personnel and ideology, then, a party whose claim to legitimacy was largely rooted in equalising chances and outcomes for most Chinese was gradually becoming the party of the rich. Based on micro data from household surveys, one paper I worked on with Li Yang and Filip Novokmet found that the top 5% of Chinese society had dramatically changed: in 1988, less than one quarter of the elite was linked with the private sector; by 2013, the year after Xi’s ascent to power, that share was close to 60%. We also found an increasing split between the social composition of the party overall and the party’s own elite: while the Party in 2013 still had a majority membership of the “old” (state-related) social groups, the top 5% was increasingly dominated by the “new” social groups (private-sector entrepreneurs and professionals).
The rich not only became more important, but were more visible too. Conspicuous consumption and disregard of public modesty — recall the story of the black Ferrari crashed in Beijing by a son of one of Hu Jintao’s top allies in 2012 — added to the perception of the Party as condoning many of the worst displays of nouveau-riche arrogance. And it seemed very possible, whether for better or worse, that the CPC might continue to evolve into an outwardly pro-rich party, defending the interests of a monied oligarchy, stimulating capitalist development, and holding power similar to the ruling South Korean party during the period of General Park’s rule. The term “communist” in the name of the Chinese party should not make us think such an evolution is impossible: North Korea’s communist party runs a monarchy.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeNo mention of the massive real estate bubble? No mention of the rapid ageing of society, or the very high youth unemployment which stopped being reported when it hit 20%?
Sure. But those problems are not unique to China.
But the legitimation crisis that will ensue is rather unique – given the geographical scale of the country ( although the EU is in for a rough ride for similar reason)
But the scale of the problems in China, particularly the real estate bubble and aging populace, is unmatched.
Germany and the UK have the same problem
No, Germany and the UK have a rather different set of problems. And nothing as severe as China’s.
Unlike the GFC?
They’re not unique to China but the scale of the problem there is much worse. China hasn’t managed to become rich before it becomes old
But they are on a unique scale in China. 30% of their economy depends on real estate development, a multiple of most other countries. This is a level that in other economies has often preceeded a massive crash. And the only thing justifying the CCPs restrictions on freedom for the Chinese population has been economic growth.
Nor of the knock on effect on local governments in China since much of their revenue comes from real estate developments.
The real estate crisis is merely China’s fist capitalist business cycle. See Andrew Boughton with Michael West, ‘ Wanted: A New Economic Theory’ or ‘Three Cheers for the Ideals of Guided Capitalism’, in the Sydney Morning Herald and Melbourne Age. Written when China was busy lecturing tge US on fiscal responsibility in the GFC.
I find these negative votes hilarious. What, are you a gang of kids in the playground? Answer the observation.
Deleted.
No mention of China’s disastrous demographics? Not even in passing?
This article has all the hallmarks of the reportage of a court insider, a bit like some guy pronouncing on politics and intrigues from within the The Hall of Mirrors, with no mention of, um, Cake.
Ah, the old demographic thing, fondest hope of every neocon. “I hope my neighbour’s cow dies.”
Another interpretation is that Xi brought private industry under the thumb of the government because he could not abide anyone having a base of power outside the purview of government, and thus himself. He established that private industry must serve the interests of the state as much as the citizens and the bureaucracy. He didn’t abolish capitalism or even limit it to any great degree, only demand that the oligarchs bow to him and help him further his geopolitical, social, and military objectives.
The author is quite correct. Xi is not Mao, nor is he a communist. He’s a nationalist whose primary obsession appears to be China taking its rightful place among the great powers of the world and achieving regional hegemony comparable to China’s other great imperial eras. Everything, from the people to the military to the business community, must serve towards the glorification and ascendance of China. China must take its rightful place among the world’s great civilizations and achieve the dominance that is their historic birthright. No, Xi is most assuredly not like Mao at all. He bears far more resemblance to another dictator of that era who promised his country glory and global preeminence only to lead it to war and ruin. People forget that Nazi was a shortened form of national socialism and people praised Hitler for some of the same things they now praise Xi.
Excellent article that provides a realistic assessment of Xi and his social-economic goals, imo.
A bit of a straw man, it seems to me.
For sure Xi’s economic policies are not Maoist – he isn’t about to starve half his people to death in an insane attempt to have peasant farms turned into steel foundries.
But he still has the cult of personality and centralisation of power according to the whims of one man, which is not conducive to long term stability.
Idealistically, “the whims of one man” should not lead to long-term stability” but recent history has shown that the entrepreneurial communist states (China and Russia) fair better than democracies where there is a need (every four or five years) to curry favour with voters to get elected.
I wish that was not so but fear it is!
Russia? Eh? Russia is not a Communist state of any flavour.
I guess the author is trying to be balanced. However in trying to analyse Xi’s philosophy being rooted in Confucian precepts, he forgets the other strand of ancient philosophy that accounts for present day Chinese ambitions. It’s called the ” Middle Kingdom Complex” which sees the globe as a Chinese Empire.
The crucial aspect the author overlooks is the complete opacity in Chinese economic data. Does he realise that even the GDP growth figures maybe inflated, beyond the normal levels of usual window- dressing which almost every economy engaged in?
The second last paragraph is particularly contradictory. If a ” Governed State” led by a Party clique loyal to Xi is leading the process, how is this “capitalism” ? Then Stalinist Sovietism was also capitalism was it not?
He perhaps forgets the old Chinese adage” Look strong when you are weak”. From war- mongering in its latest round of water- cannoning the Philippines ships to threats to Japan to a general tone of wolf- warrior diplomacy, this may well be due to the need to distract from a strained economy.
I do hope these are errors of omission rather than commision on the author’s part.
Errors of commission? You sound ideological in a very big way. As for yiur thesis, the “Middle Kingdom Complex” did see China as the centre of the world. Only they only ever sent one fleet on a voyage of discovery, and none on voyages of conquest, unlike the European powers or their true Asian reactionary state, Japan. So, a worldwide empire in theory only, torn to pieces by the Western states and their Asian analogue. Pretty weak stuff.
On the contrary, I am more inclined towards Alistair Ian Johnston’s ” Strategic Culture” paradigms on Chinese foreign policy. If you are familiar with that line of thought, you would realise that CCP under Xi sees the present context as very much fertile ground for world domination. In fact one can take a ” longue duree” approach in consonance and trace Chinese policy since Deng to the same motivation. Especially with regard to Asia.
It’s fine. My view of political people is that they are all on a false mission, an illegitimte one. The real world is never enough. Uninvited by humanity, they set themselves the mission of turning life into a grand operatic fable. When these fables inevitably clash with reality, they use force to insist.
The idea that the Chinese have rarely embarked on wars of conquest is poor history. Xinxiang, Tibet, Inner Mongolia, enormous areas, none of them ethnically Chinese (at least to start with) were all conquered by the Qing dynasty in the 18th century.
They have also been rather more successful in holding on to their conquest than the Europeans.
“Expand the role of the State and the Party” and “Keep Growth Going” strike me as being mutually exclusive to some extent. Plus, although there is much “capitalism” in China nowadays, I am unconvinced that the CCP truly understands capitalism.
“I am unconvinced that the CCP understands capitalism.” Do you believe our career politicians understand or care much for business more so? Not in my experience.
How do you write this article and not mention the massively oppressive, techno-surveillance state that Xi has built? Social credit scores anyone?
The UK is a failing depressive techno-surveillance state that Westminster has built.
And never ever forget the totalitarian thuggery in 2020, 2021 and 2022 (championed by the MSM, academia and the medics) that showed the hypocrisy of claiming the UK is a liberal democratic state.
At least Xi isn’t a hypocrite – he doesn’t make claim to being other than he is.
The point is, Xi doesn’t care about anything except total control.
You know nothing about China. The scale is entirely different.
Yes, but all those excessive amounts of control were in a totally misguided attempt to control the spread of a virus, and have been abandoned everywhere in Europe now. “Thuggery” is completely over the top. Are you aware of any case where the police beat people up?
In fact the main reason they were adopted in my view was that the Chinese did so.
There is a still an enormous difference between the degree of freedom living in the UK and that in China.
A nothing burger of a commentary, completely lacking in economic analysis. No word on the debt overhang which dwarfs by an order of magnitude that previously faced by Japan, nothing on the malinvestment in unproductive infrastructure including real estate, some of which is coming apart at the seams already, not a word on the decoupling/derisking by the West in response to the supply chain shock caused by covid lockdowns, nothing on Xi’s ruinous Wolf Warrior foreign policy and aggression against Taiwan and in the South China Sea that has put rocker boosters under that decoupling, nothing on China’s collapsing demographics. Quite pathetic really.
It seemed a pretty good article to me. It saddens me to say so, but it appears the West’s problems are very much more fundamental than China’s.
Chairman xi has killed China’s golden goose. He also has terrorized China’s customers who buy all that China makes. America is frantically trying to cut supply lines away from China since the USA fears war with China is imminent. Xi is making moves that indicate that he plans a nuclear Pearl Harbor against the USA. With America in ashes, how will China sell anything.
This is completely hysterical. Of course the Chinese don’t want war with the US, or vice versa. Which doesn’t preclude one arising, perhaps over Taiwan.
Maybe, we do not know. Time will tell, in ten years time we shall be wiser.
“If we look at Xi’s “Common Prosperity” programme in a realistic way, and not fantasize that it represents some vague return to Maoism, it makes perfect sense: it is the overdue readjustment of excessively pro-capitalist policies, which, while perhaps good for growth, threatened to produce social anomie.”
This is the main proposition…. Hmm… I will think about it. Counter-factuals are all about alternatives, many of which amount to nothing more than “magical thinking.”
But China is not doing very well at the moment.
On my last visit, people sleeping on the street.
I know that’s common in London, but certainly it was not in Chinese cities.
What a brilliant analysis. So nice to see facts in place of Cold War reflex.
“As in every country, economic growth and social stability have to be balanced.”
Yes, but “who whom?” to coin a phrase. Who will do the balancing? The politicians, the administrators, the intellectuals, the capitalists, the consumers?
Do tell.
Xi Jinping is a fastidious studier of Zen Buddhism and Confucianism in particular
So I strongly recommend that in order to
Comprehend Xi please go and partake of
The Analects Chapter 12
This Chapter deals with the Importance of good governance
Where Confucius says ‘ The Character of the ruler is like the wind and that of the people is like the grass ‘
Which basically says, requires a leader aspires towards moral perfection and puts the interests of the people first
So few in the West understand Chinese thinking which is firmly anchored in the ancient wisdom of Buddhism, Zen and Confucianism
Once you even begin to comprehend such a myriad of doors open up in your mind
If not attempt,s in dealing with China will be akin Trying to wrap a fire in Paper
“Chairman” Xi is a devoted disciple of Lenin and all that he stood for. Best understand that.
Complete and Utter nonsense
You will rarely be told this
You patently know little of China and its history,far less how they function
In a rapidly changing evolving World
Today
China during WW 2 Fought against
36% of the Total Japanese Imperial forces
How do you think matters would have evolved if such forces were added to Japanese fighting USA and The UK
Thank you. That rather succinctly explains China’s lamentable history over the last two millennia. It probably also goes for Japan, until 1853 at least.
You completely misunderstand how Colonialism altered and held back the development of the East
By the way care to inform us all with a update on Little England,s progress
With regards HS 2
If so and not too embarrassing for you then I shall gladly update you on China’s HS railways
I do believe in colonial days it was not unusual to refer to the Chinese as
‘ Coolies ‘
But me thinks and certainly with regards HS railways Tis Little Englander’s that may be referred to as ‘ Coolies ‘ after all you penned such nomenclature did you not
You’re drivelling
You are havering
Do the ‘interests of the people’ include running a massive surveillance state, welding the doors of their apartments shut during the world’s most severe and long lasting COVID lockdown and forcing them into ideological servitude through a social credit system? You sound like Muslims who claim no one can begin to understand their holy book unless they read it in Arabic.
Pearls before swine, as regards this particular commentariat, Branco.
I can tell you how to get there, but I wouldn’t start from here
And no mention of the abject cruelty to dogs and cats for their meat, and stealing pets from their distressed owners’ arms? If this is Xi’s attempt at a ‘stable society’ I’ll be boycotting Chinese goods forever. Barbarians.