Share

The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World Economy

by: Seth Sandronsky, t r u t h o u t | Book Review

photo
In Beijing, a paramilitary policeman raises the Chinese flag in front of the portrait of Mao Zedong. Minqi Li's new book details China's rise. (Photo: Reuters)

"The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World Economy"
by Minqi Li
240 pages, Monthly Review Press, (January 2009)

    A bit like Malcom X, author Minqi Li used prison time to read widely. The latter studied radical political economy for two years when Chinese leaders locked him up for a critical public speech after the Tiananmen upsurge in 1989. That was then. He is an author and assistant professor of economics at the University of Utah now. Li's "The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World Economy" is a must-read for all concerned with the future of the earth and its people.

    Throughout the book, Li employs a term from world-system theorist Immanuel Wallerstein, the "endless accumulation of capital." That process has spread outward from Western Europe over the past four-plus centuries. Formed by distinct historical conditions, this social system encompasses the entire globe now with the entry of China and India, the two most populous nations on earth. Together, they function as "strategic reserves" of land, labor and resources, Li argues. Crucially, this phase of growth places potentially fatal strains on "the requirements of ecological sustainability." That is the case due to the links between industrial production and environmental degradation. To drill down on these points, Li devotes no small effort to an accounting of the "hard facts" around modern industry and ecology.

    To improve our understanding of the present conjuncture, Li details China's rise in the modern era. For US readers especially, the sections on the Chinese revolution are quite useful. To this end, he lays out how and why that revolution under Mao and the Chinese Communist Party paved the path for the transition to capitalist industrialization. His is not the conventional wisdom. In this way, the book in part helps to deconstruct the anti-Chinese ideology that has shaped the US's political culture from the post-Civil War era through the cold war and to the present.

    Global capitalism, as its backers and detractors maintain, must expand to continue. Within this context, Li holds that the rapid growth of the Chinese economy has stabilized a world system sunk into slow growth since the US-led post-World War II period of prosperity and stability ended in the early 1970s. The rub is that China's development provides a short-term solution only. There is a looming possibility of reversal to world instability, ecologically and economically. An example of the latter is the fragility of US borrowing from China. Its currency surplus helps to fund US deficits. The American penchant for borrowing could well spark a fall in the value of the dollar, the leading reserve currency in the world. Li marshals figures and tables from China, the OECD, US and the World Bank on exchange rates, growth, income, prices, profits and wages to make clear the constraints of each nation in world capitalism for the short and long term.

    Li argues that the rise of China heralds the "autumn" of the current global system. He draws on Wallerstein's framework of core, semi-peripheral and peripheral nations locked in competition. The stabilizing role of a core, imperial power such as the US since the end of World War II and Great Britain before it, is to maintain that competitive forward motion. This trend requires nations of the core, periphery and semi-periphery to strike a delicate balance to continue the accumulation of capital for investors. That balancing act is due to the built-in creation and destruction of market relations among and between nations, whose internal class structures are thus in constant flux. By definition, this clash and conflict paves the way for instability. Look no further than the US wage stagnation for the past 35 years. That process propelled the widening gap in income between Main Street and Wall Street and set off repeated asset bubbles, harming working people with job losses state side and abroad.

    Li's critique of "sustainable capitalism" is devastating in its breadth and depth. He argues, persuasively, against that notion with proof that requires no more than high school math. His clear prose lays out the costs and benefits for the planet and people under the current social system with respect to nonrenewable and renewable energy, minerals, water, food and climate change. Li reveals, layer by layer, the "laws of motion" of an extractive system of producing and exchanging commodities that is fast careening towards an unsafe future.

    To be clear, this book is much more than a compendium of dire analysis, data and statistics. Li analyzes the current crises as the outcomes of history that women and men make under conditions they do not choose. Thus, he offers no hard and fast blueprint for a post-capitalist tomorrow. Li does favor labor internationalism and a shorter working day. Both developments, in his view, are basic to a more rational way of organizing people to sustain themselves and the natural world.

    A brief look at Malthusian economics that blames the victims of the system for their poverty would have strengthened the book. That quibble aside, I recommend "The Rise of China and the Demise of the Capitalist World Economy" as a vital work of radical political economy. Li furthers our understanding of the vast challenges before us in these troubled and troubling times. Be aware.

  

»


Seth Sandronsky lives and writes in Sacramento. Contact him at ssandronsky@yahoo.com.

Comments

This is a moderated forum.  It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

I agree with Sandronsky’s

I agree with Sandronsky’s review. I found this book a big help in understanding what is going on in the world. A minor point — his explaining Wallerstein’s theory of the core, semi-periphery and periphery states that is also analogous to class structure within countries. Thus, the obsession with the middle-class that we saw by candidates during the campaign and see now in Washington. Easy to read, too.

Ever since it got its start

Ever since it got its start trading slaves capitalism has required the theft of resources from the natives. Or the theft of the natives themselves. Now it threatens nature itself. Chris Herz

The only stabilizing role of

The only stabilizing role of the US: murder and steal, from its own underclass or from the rest of the world.

China practices fascism not

China practices fascism not 'socialism'. State-run corporations direct the flows of goods and services. In the end resource limitations and overpopulation, the same limiting factors as in the United States and the European Union or anywhere else in the world, will require a steady-state ecology conscious economy. This will possibly be a new kind of economy. Or it could be what causes the United States to retain its preeminence as a world power. China seems to be unaware of ecology it seems to me, much to its coming disadvantage.

Doesn't Li reverse Marx's

Doesn't Li reverse Marx's theory of dialectical materialism in overturning the Hegelian progression from capitalism to scientific socialism here? According to Marx, in "Das Capital" and other works, capitalism was a necessary pre-requisite to scientific socialism! What we are seeing here is the succession of new "capitalist powers," following the decline of others! Just as the British Empire declined following World War II, to be succeeded by the United States, the United States is now in decline and is being succeeded by the "new capitalists" of China and India! These new capitalist powers are giving rise to vast new middle-class populations, modern technologies, and yes environmental degradation, just as they did in the British and American industrial revolutions! "Plus ca change, plus cest la meme chose!"

China is not "really"

China is not "really" socialist but IS ... "fascist" ? Because the country's economic system is run by a ruthless top-down command-management system ? Hello ? This is EXACTLY how Communist countries work, folks. China is the same type of thugocracy as the USSR was and how every other Marxist country was. No surprise.

Let's get the facts

Let's get the facts straight. The same wrong conclusion that China isn't Fascist is probably being made by those suggesting Obama is a Fascist. Fascism would require huge corporations, especially those who make weapons or are engaged in finance, to have a strong foothold on the government and its policies, but also in the mix would be police-state type surveillance of the population, xenophobia, militarism, extreme nationalism, religiosity to the point of having some sort of state religion (evangelicalism with Bush) . That's not to say that the US has not been like that since the end of World War Two at times, especially recently under Bush/Cheney. Obama's ability to limit vestiges of Corporate Fascism might be weakened by having the likes of Summers and Geithner helping to bail out banks (started by Bush and Paulson), but also having Repugs and Dems wearing donkey jackets vote against bills to help those under foreclosure. However, he's not about to let firms like Halliburton have no-bid contracts, and he does want to end the police-state mentality, militarism and extreme mationalism that is also part of Fascism and that flourished for a time under Bush/Cheney. China is a country not promoting religion, but in many other ways is meeting the classic definition of Fascism ( it is a police state). They threw off the anti-corporate, anti Capitalist, anti-private business concepts of Communism long ago.

It is not an either or of a

It is not an either or of a oligarchical elite running a country and trying to dictate its economic practices and a neo-liberal capitalism with a lassie faire approach that rewards greed and avarice with a winner take all and ends justify the means immorality. Europe and Scandinavia have demonstrated a third path of enlightened socialism. Governments in charge of those aspects of civil society where the goal should be the welfare of the people and not the enrichment of a few at the expense of many as it is in the USA with our transportation, utility, water, communications, and health care in the hands of people whose primary concern is profit maximization regardless of the overall cost to the country, now or for future generations. The fathers of our country were not the Huntington's or the Carnegies or the Rockefellers or the Gates. , but men with a belief in protecting men from the abuses of government and religious organizations, not anticipating the even greater abuse brought about by the unbridled greed of corporations and their executives. Sandrosky like the neocons, equates economic gains with a superior system and both ignores the full consequences and begs the question as to whether either the Chinese or US approaches a really in the long term interests of the people of the world.

The one main problem I see

The one main problem I see with prognostications in Mr M.LI's book and others (even as well written and spot on) is the lack of the element of 'time' incorporated into the previsis. Most scientists that have studied the earth's ecological decay problem tend to agree that we are in a shrinking time frame that requires bold total comprehensive action INSIDE a 20 year span ( roughly 2030) before irreversible damage is done that no political system, however active and enlightened, will be able to reverse. The theories of political sciences expounded in these and other essays require a much longer and larger time frame...Question begs that no matter how accurate the analysis is, how do we get from point A to point B within such a short historical period?

In the late 1960s, like Bill

In the late 1960s, like Bill Clinton I was a student of Prof. Carroll Quigley at Georgetown. Quigley was a disciple of Spengler and Toynbee, in espousing a cyclical theory of history. His particular contribution was the definition of an "instrument of expansion" that propelled the development of a civilization on many levels. I recall quite clearly Quigley talking about the possible future ebb of the then-current western powers, and his predication that the greatest threat to our supremacy would come not from the USSR but from China, and that the threat was likely not to be military but economic. I am sure going to have to read this book.

It seems only Mary bothered

It seems only Mary bothered to read Li's book before commenting. I am reading it now, and it is a very important work. The world systems approach is out-of-date, but his economics, ecology and class analysis are right on target. As he says, it is imperative to destroy capitalism if there is any hope of saving Earth.