波兰尼的《大转型》与中国社会转型现实
与欧洲学者有关卡尔.波兰尼与社会主义的对话
Polanyi’s The GreatTransformation and the Realities of Social Transformation in China
BothThe Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Timeby Karl Polanyi and The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich A. Hayek werepublished in 1944. We do not intend to compare the influence of these two bookson the world after their publication. The aim here is to discuss the relevanceof these two authors’ viewpoints and theories to the realities of the socialtransformation in China. Or to put it in another way: how the practice of socialtransformation in China is measuring the judgments of these two authors.
Inthe report “On the road to social reconstruction” (co-authored with othercolleagues in Tsinghua University, published in 2010 in Chinese), we highlightthe two faces of Society: civil society and active society. The former isrelative to the State while the latter is relative to the Market. I will skip theconcept of “civil society” by Gramsci and refer to Polanyi’s concept of “ActiveSociety” in the following.
Polanyicomes up with this concept “Active Society” in his observation of the 19thcentury England’s history. He points out that the economic life of human beingswas originally embedded in the non-economic institutions and social relations.But with the development of capitalism, the Market principle based on price mechanismhas expanded land, labor and currency has continued to be .The Market principle has penetrated all aspects of social life. A “marketsociety” has emerged. To balance the market expansion, the movement ofprotecting the society appears. In the face of market erosion, the societystarts to mobilize itself. To resist and regulate the market, various socialregulations and institutional arrangements emerge, such as the workers’ unions,cooperatives, factory organizations aiming to fight for shorter working hours,constitutional movements for more political rights and the preliminarydevelopment of political parties.
Thiskind of society that responds actively to the marketization process is called“Active Society”. Its core is based on a Utopian assumption: the “doublemovements” between market erosion and protecting society will ultimately leadto a “regulated market”,,the Market tamed by the Society. According to Polanyi, the definition ofsocialism goes that the society is of the ultimate importance and that thesociety should direct and control the market. From the point of Polanyi, onlywhen the “society” is viewed in relative to the market, can it be understoodproperly. It must be pointed out that the concept of “Active Society” does notnegate market economy. Instead, it opposes that the society to be infiltratedby marketization and commoditization and that the market economy become theonly organizational principle of human life.
We will focus on some the following “BigQuestions”:
1. for System of?
When we talk about Polanyi’s“redistribution”, we have to know its economic base, such as market economy orcentrally planned economy, and the regime such as democracy orauthoritarianism, even totalitarianism.
What is the opposite to or substitute of“market society”? Is it “socialist society”? If it is, then what is the definitionof socialism? Socialism and capitalism are two totally different regimes: includingdifferent economic systems, political systems, and social systems.
Just as prof. Chris Hann (2013, in Prefaceto the Chinese Collection) said: “The unifiedcurrency should be introduced along with a Eurasian Constitution to guaranteethe entitlements of all Eurasian citizens”.
If we can reach there, it would beunlikely that only the market, reciprocity and redistribution should beintegrated. But rather more likely, market economy, a democratic political system,and civil society should match and embed with each other.
Thecomplex modern economy and social life demands diversified ways of governing.It has to be a three-dimensioned structure consisting Market, Society, and Government.The current urgent issue is, both the society and market in China lackautonomy. In this context, the practical demand for stronger governing capacitycan easily turn out to be the call for violent and absolute government power.Both official and popular expectation of certain encompassing power is at workto deal with the complexity.
2. Taming Market or Taming State (government)
The question comes from Polanyi’sregulation of market. Polanyi (p.3 in Hann and Hart 2009) ----“considered ‘theself-regulating market’ to have been the principal cause of thetwentieth-century’s horrors”.
How can we understand this judgement? Therecent history and practice of Chinese society has proved the most terrible humandisaster comes from totalitarianism and communism, whose primary stage issocialism, according to Marx’s assumption. The human disaster does not comefrom market economy.
In Europe, scholars discuss and argue whetheror not, and how to regulate market under the constitutional democracy. ButChina is under the control of new-totalitarianism. There is no the so-calledmarket economy (or more precisely, a power-dictated market economy). If we simplytransplant Polanyi’s theory to the Chinese context, it will be in a way thatdefeats one's purpose.
This question comes from practicalconcern. In the reform process of the past three decades, market has graduallyseparated from the encompassing system. Some social force of relativeindependence has started to grow slowly. A social structure with more modernfeatures comes into being. However, in the past few years, following the worldfinancial crisis and a series of events around this crisis, a trend of oppositedirection is emerging: the CCP government seems to start again relying on thetotalitarian power in dealing with these new situations. Attempts are seen allthe time and on various occasions to employ the total power of the party-statein dealing with social conflicts and tensions.
3. About Marx, Lenin and Mao’s systematicexperiment, and attempts/efforts to adjust large-scale inequality in Eurasia.(Goody, 2003b: “The human driving force aiming at fair redistribution willultimately lead to attempts at building new types of societies: collectiveownership of property is a way to overcome inequalities in new societies”)
We have to consider these questions:
1) How do we understand equality? Equal rights? Equal opportunity?Or equality of distribution outcomes, or equality of wealth? Marx, Lenin andMao’s domination and ideology is the cause of the extreme injustice and widespread poverty.
2) The so-calledmade a promise of a perfect society to people, but brought about the mosttremendous disaster.
3) I disagree with the statement of experiment or trying. Thequestion is who has the power to do experiment with thousands of people’s life?Even God should not be allowed to do such an experiment. If it does not work,then it is not simply a mistake, but crime and evil.
4. We Should Start From Some–ism or FromReality? From Theories or From Practice?
The reality in China and some former socialistcountries has testified that the socialist road is the road to serfdom; furthermore,even today China cannot get out of the transformation pitfall, i.e. China’smarket orientation takes places in the context of a continuation of its former politicalsystem and ideology. This has led to the following specifically Chinesecharacteristics: 1) the party-state as the power center is the biggest andultimate one with little limit or constraint. 2) Abnormal market economy,because of the government constant intervention. 3) Claiming to be the best socialistcountry but without society. Today, the party-state is becoming theparty-society.
A good example is the issue of CivilSociety in China. In practice, there is little space for society, no matter howwe refer to it, “citizen society” “folk society” “civil society”. They are notallowed to exist. The so-called “civilsociety” in China is not something as if it is an illusion, a slogan or to bemocked as something idealistically copied from the West. It is a space that has not grown in China butit has immediate urgency for public life and for the autonomy of citizens. Thisis not an issue of academic theory. Rather, it is a matter of common sense andof recognizing basic reality. The Chinese Communist Party branch is set up inresidential communities, in professional and social organizations such asuniversities. On the so-called diversities of civil society, civil society inEuropean countries is probably a matter of “more or less, better or worse,virtual or real”. But in China, it is a matter of “to be or not to be”, amatter of presence or absence.
TheCCP General Secretary proposed the three supremes: the party’s leading is supreme;the people’s interest is supreme; and the constitution and law is supreme. According to this order, so called “govern thestate by law” becomes the rulers dominate people by law. The CCP is above thelaw. The fundamental issue is Rule of Law or Rule by Law.
In the case of China, the context is verydifferent from that of Europe: regime, system, and institution. Burawoy once said,“Don’t believe the myth of free market, unless you ever live there at thebottom of society”. Accordingly I would say: “Don’t believe the myth ofsocialism (communism), unless you ever live inside the system as an ordinaryperson”.
Ihope to get your advice that I think Polanyi’s most important contributionmaybe not his criticizing the “Market Society”, but his emphasizing the “ActiveSociety”, and Self-Protect of Society; for example, he mentioned workersself-organization to oppose sweatshop, and constitutional movement. Polanyisharply pointed out the problems of free market and industrial revolution, buthe directed the dangerous way, which was de-marketization and intensifyingcollective control to lead to lose energy and freedom. His contemporaryoutstanding thinkers predicted this danger, meanwhile, China and some formersocialist countries’ reality proved existence of the danger.