Why Is Chinese Governance Better?

Recently, Martin Jacques observed that Chinese governance under the CPC is a better, more efficient and higher form of governance than we have seen thus far. To begin with, Jacques is correct. This is particularly obvious if we compare it with bourgeois (liberal) democracy, which is now obsolete and quite clumsy. The latter arose in a specific context, in eighteenth and nineteenth century Western Europe, and may have been appropriate in that part of the world in the wake of the bourgeois revolutions. It has also been transplanted to some former colonies in North America, Australia and New Zealand. But the system is rather crude, with nearly every feature of public life politicised, with antagonistic political engagement in which one policy is promulgated by a particular political party only to be undone by the next. Chaotic, clumsy and outdated.

As is usually the case with Martin Jacques, he tries to explain this reality by going back into China’s more distant past. Strangely, he skips past the central role of Marxism in shaping the current practice of governance in China. So let us see what such a focus indicates (this article is also useful).

Here I draw on a book I am writing on Engels, for it is precisely Engels (more than Marx) who provides the philosophical basis for socialist governance. The book has taken longer than expected, since I need to work carefully through material few consider. In the final chapter, I examine Engels’s ideas concerning what a socialist form of governance might be.

There are two main points.

First, the organs of governance ‘stand in the midst of society’. Engels draws this insight from his careful study in the 1870s and 1880s of what he calls ‘pre-state’ societies, but which may also be called ‘base communism’ and ‘base democracy’. Why ‘pre-state’? For Engels, the state is a ‘separated public power’, which arises from class conflict and stands over against society. By contrast, base communism does not have this separation. All the various organs of governance – and there are many – stand in the midst of society. They are woven within social structures, being part and parcel of society as a whole. In my book, I have developed the category of ‘enmeshment’ to understand how this might work: society, state and economy are not separated from one another, but rather enmeshed within one another.

One might respond: but Engels is dealing with ancient societies, in a historical and anthropological way, so these insights are not relevant for how socialism today functions. The answer: in a crucial but under-studied piece called ‘The Mark’, Engels points out that this type of base communism would be dialectically transformed under socialism, so as to become the type of society and governance that would be appropriate.

This point I have realised for some time, but the second is relatively new: ‘public functions will lose their political character and be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society’. This text is quoted from Engels’s 1873 piece, ‘On Authority’, in which he castigates the impractical proposals of the Anarchists, especially under Bakunin’s leadership. But the core idea of political character disappearing and being replaced by an efficient administration focused on the public good is crucial (it appears elsewhere in Engels’s work and is voiced by Marx).

Let us begin with political character. Under bourgeois democracies, a whole spate of areas are political footballs: education, health, environment, public transport, immigration and refugees, economic policy, and so on. They are the subject of election campaigns, of bewildering changes in policy with changes in the party in power, of implementation and winding back. But if they lose their political character, they cease to be tossed back and forth depending on the whims of political parties.

In place of this political character is efficient administration focused on the public good. Let me give three examples drawn from China. In education, the long-term plan is to improve the already impressive educational system in all respects. This entails careful research, significant funding, trials of new methods in some areas before extending them to the rest of the country, and so on. For this reason, people with whom I speak in China find it unbelievable that the Australian government – as one example – has been reducing funding for education for quite some time now.

Another example concerns public transport, which is reasonably well-known internationally. Simply put, the Chinese rail system is now the best in the world. Three levels of high-speed train operate across the country, while the slower ‘green skin’ trains ply local routes. In cities across China, world-leading metro systems are being implemented at a breath-taking pace. One that I know well is in Beijing, where they are working towards increasing the total kilometres covered from about 500 km to 1,000 km. Currently, it caters for 6 billion passenger trips per year, but this will increase. Again, this is seen as a public good, requiring long-term planning and efficient implementation.

Finally, environmental policy and action, which is called in China ‘ecological civilisation [shengtai wenming]’. The term refers to the modes of life and their relation to the environment: only when this is sorted out can we speak of wenming, which is not so much ‘citification’ (as the Latin origins of ‘civilisation’ suggest) but the just, peaceful, healthy and stable nature of culture. In China, the realities of climate change are not politicised; instead, they needs to be addressed directly. I have seen this with my own eyes, in what may be called the greening of China. The country leads the world in reafforestation, the water, plants and air of major cities have been improving year on year, and green technologies are leaping ahead. Again, this is efficient administration for the public good.

So yes, Chinese governance is clearly the highest form we have seen thus far, precisely because of the CPC and the socialist road. We should of course be careful: Engels’s formulations are not the final word on the matter. He had never experienced the actual process of constructing socialism, let alone a successful communist revolution. But it is rather striking how he and Marx provide the philosophical basis of socialist governance in terms of the disappearance of its political character and the development of efficient and careful administration for the public good. That the Chinese have developed these much further, in light of their conditions and the actual experience of constructing socialist governance, should be clear.

9 thoughts on “Why Is Chinese Governance Better?

  1. Dear Roland,

    I recently came across this interesting and adorable children’s book which I think my find cute.

    Perhaps you know a small child who’s learning how to read who might enjoy this.



    P.S. I don’t know why, but the pirate get-up really works on Marx.

  2. Dr. Boer,

    Long-time reader, first time commenting. Love the blog.

    Based on what you’ve quoted Engels saying concerning “enmeshment”, and how the state evolves over time from an entity standing above society into one of public self-governance and administration, I can’t help but think that this validates the Soviet formulation of the dictatorship of the proletariat transforming into a state of the whole people (общенародное государство) as antagonistic class conflict is overcome, socialist society has been constructed in the main and the remaining non-antagonistic social strata of workers, peasants and socialist intellectuals work collaboratively to develop the new society further. While the Chinese once fiercely excoriated this idea, they now seem to have embraced it.

    You also seem to acknowledge that socialism itself has lower and higher forms, and that lower forms include not only vestigial contradictions between town and country as well as mental and manual labor but also private property and commodity production. A higher form of socialism, or “developed/mature” socialism (развитой социализм), would resemble more the idea of a single economic complex directing the production and distribution of resources and the remuneration workers with labor vouchers – the sort of arrangement envisioned by Marx in Critique of the Gotha Programme and modern thinkers such as Paul Cockshott.

    As you can see, I have included the Russian terminology for purposes of reference.

    I am interested in your thoughts on these observations.

    Nathaniel Adams

    1. Nathaniel, many thanks for the observations. My assessment is that analogies with the Soviet Union work up to a certain point, but that Chinese socialism has also developed well beyond, not least due to a different context. One example is the shift already in Mao from proletarian dictatroship to democratic dictatorship, although it is quite notable that antagonistic terminology has disappeared from Chinese assessments and that non-antagonistic contradictions are key today (from Mao, with Soviet influences, and developed further in light of Chinese philosophy).
      As for mature socialism, we will need to wait and see what the xiaokang soviety entails – an ancient Confucian term claimed by Deng Xiaoping and reinterpreted in light of Marxism. It will begin in 2021.
      One aspect that is not yet clear is how the breakthrough in the 1980s to a socialist market economy (see an earlier post) will work out. This is clearly not a capitalist market economy, nor a relic in the transitional stage. My argument (in a chapter in a book I am writing) is that today we find the beginnings of the breakdown between the private-public distinction, which is a distinctly Chinese Marxist distinction and which may in fact lead to new deifnition of the collective economy (and society). To get a sense of how this might work, we may well need to go back to Marx’s notes on Hegel’s Philosophy of Right rather than his Critique of the Gotha Program (which Engels published as part of his struggles against the German moderates).
      All that said, the category of enmeshment would indeed also describe what took place in the Soviet Union, although the specifics may differ. Finally, in regard to the state, it is worth noting that Xi Jinping’s two volumes on politics are called ‘The Governance of China [Tan zhiguo lizheng]’ and not ‘The Chinese State’. My sense is that this is a clear acknowledgement that it is better to speak of governance (enmeshed) rather than a state, which in the Marxist tradition refers to a separated public power.

  3. Dr. Boer,

    Thank you for your response. I of course defer to your expertise on this subject and you are entirely correct that the Chinese theorists have utilized their own terminology to describe the processes occurring in China, and – as you’ve emphasized numerous times on your blog – they must be understood on their own terms within their own context and not through the prism of Western liberalism or older, dogmatic notions of socialism that are no longer applicable to the modern world. I find that this is a mistake Western leftists in particular often make when accusing China of “revisionism” and it ultimately comes down to (in my opinion) a failure to think dialectically about the issue, albeit that’s another subject altogether. Ironically, right-wingers quite readily refer to China as communist, as oversimplified as their conception of that subject is.

    Nathaniel Adams

    P.S. On a different note, are you familiar with Caleb Maupin?

  4. Nathaniel, I didn’t want to come across as the ‘all-knowing one’, since not enough people study the rich history of the construction of socialism in the Soviet Union (the Chinese do, of course, also to learn from mistakes made there).
    As for right-wingers, it seems to me that they subscribe to the myth of the CPA (or any communist party for that matter) as a paranoid, secretive outfit, terribly afraid of the Chinese people and bent on world domination.
    And on Caleb Maupin – I have not heard of him.

Leave a Reply to Jackson Trout Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.