Marxist Richard Wolff on China: Why no talk of class?

The Marxist economist Professor Richard Wolff just put out a half hour video on China called The Phenomenon of China, which has been widely viewed on KZbin. It's great that Wolff is talking about China. But, as a Marxist, why is he glossing over important questions about how capitalist class forces have shaped China's economy, with major impacts on millions of people's lives? In this video, I talk about what Wolff says about Chinese urbanization, and provide a very different perspective.
Related videos:
- China's hukou system: ‘Self-exploitation’ development strategy • China's hukou system: ...
- How did China’s economy grow so fast? (The other ‘Great Wall’) • How did China’s econom...
Sources:
Richard Wolff, Democracy at Work:
Economic Update: The Phenonemon of China • Economic Update: The P...
Shaohua Zhan, "Hukou reform and land politics in China: Rise of a tripartite alliance", The China Journal (2017): www.researchgate.net/profile/...

[@billyesomann]

That is exactly what he meant, Jane. He is a great Economist different from his classmate Janet Yellen

[@bluemarlin9110]

Yellen. The clown goblin

[@dontaskmewhy100]

China and the CPC has learnt huge lesson in the last 100 years in a castatrophic way: China being defeated NOT because the invaders too strong, BUT China being too weak. It may sounds stupid but its very different to the Chinese As the saying goes: 弱国无外交

[@blackknight4996]

落后就要挨打

[@clueless485]

I don't think Prof. Wolff was talking about migrant workers. He was talking about the large scale urbanization where rural areas were turned into urban centers. Shenzhen was a fishing village. Today it's a major city. Hundreds of cities now have millions of residents. This trend happened all around the country. Hundreds of millions of rural residents have become city dwellers.

[@alsetalokin88]

the cpc under deng formulated a long term strategy for china's national rejuvenation after the century of humiliation. it aimed to lift the urbanites first in order to form a concrete base. then it will trickle down and lift up the many/masses. china is a collective and inclusive society, unlike the west who use capitalism to enslave its own people and the world.

[@alsetalokin88]

@@pnc1358 what is crapitalism lol

[@hsingkao2024]

Neither socialism nor capitalism, it is China-ism owing to history and Confucianism.

[@hsingkao2024]

Confucianism believes in human-centered virtues for living a peaceful life. The golden rule of Confucianism is “Do not do unto others what you would not want others to do unto you.”

[@user-lg9ms8lp8i]

definitely

[@peaceleader7315]

As personal ambitions, peace never was the option.. Confucius says.

[@pkwong1940]

China haschanged and continue to change. China will create and design its own polity. What is the Marxist matrix? Define that and you cannot fit China into any matrix. China is trying for a more equal society for its people. Call it whatever you want. China is China and not like any other country.

[@TheKkpop1]

China has tried and learned a bit of feudalism, sectarian, imperialism, emperor system, Confucianism, Buddhism, war lords, democracy, communism, capitalism, Taoism but finally settled on socialism/communism. After all there's no absolute right or wrong to adopt one of those, the bottom line is the people are above all.

[@rap3208]

You don't believe that China managed to move hundreds of millions from the countryside to the cities? Why do you think beijing multiplied from about 9 million in the 80s to the 23 million of today? And all the other major cities did the same. Why do you think hundreds of brand new cities sprouted with about 110 cities of at least a million population?

[@leklektan1358]

There were corrupted local government officers grabing land for property development. But many people staying in very remote and hilly areas were moved to new villages with houses and,schools hospitals infrastructure built by the government for them.. it number in ten or hundred of million

[@loveblindhate9318]

Yes, the problem is Western thinkers only thinking in terms of capitalism. China has a mix economy but their govt. control the means of production. The over build housing unites were invested mostly by Western investors in which many have lost money due to the fall of Evergrande....

[@stevenliew2507]

​@@loveblindhate9318In addition the bond holders of Evergrande Loans were mostly Western Hedge Funds with their offices in Hong Kong and surely lost their bets.😂😂

[@loveblindhate9318]

@@stevenliew2507 I think is good that Chinese govt. didn't subside Evergrande as now they say 'houses are for living not for speculation' - that sounds very socialistic. Their govt. I think going to just take over Evergrande from private to State owned.

[@user-tt7zd2bz3l]

Now, compare it to the US Capitalistic System, China got rid of Poverty, The US increased their Poverty !!!

[@TheKkpop1]

Capitalist is good in creating wealth for the country but not the poors. India achieves good economic growth but failing to lift the majority out of poverty. Whereas China had successfully lifted 800 million out of poverty according to the world bank.

[@carmenlajoie2719]

Prof Wolff was on RT US for awhile, now International. Great historians/journalists/documentaries...

[@koujhgloup]

I think Prof Wolff has far better understanding of the Chinese economy development and government’s poverty elimination in the last 40 years than what you have. Your simplistic claim that the capitalism was the main driver for the poverty elimination is simply not true. I don’t care which “scholar” had said that. The government had that goal in every of their 5 year planning in the past 40 years and kept making it better and more broadly. If it were so easy, India which is a capitalist society for as long as it became independent from Britain would have been in a much better shape than China economically. Last thing, calling Prof Wolff a Marxist appears to be cheap shots strategy by labeling someone first then discredit them.

[@pengsenglee5279]

Yes agree, this female is a wolf in sheep skin, with very shallow understanding of the subject matter but yet made such comments. Just like all Anglo-Saxon journalist. I wonder who the paymaster is?

[@user-od5sy3oq5i]

Professor Wolfe is entitled to his opinion just as you're allowed to make this podcast. Between you and him i would trust his opinion more. Thank you for calling him a great Marxist a believer of a system that looks like a winner.

[@sinic1978]

China is pragmatic. Doesn't engage in ideological fights and only focussing on getting things done. Talk less and do more. Also look at the Chinese diaspora. Same mindset as the mainland Chinese.

[@baljiangusa]

Chinese government has adopted an approach of trial and error in many social policies and handling the urbanization is one of them. It is built on the wave of migrant workers. So you are mostly making some distinction without a difference. Hokou is still used but largely changed if you actually lived in China. A resident without the hukou in the town largely has no difference or not significant enough to bare. Some big cities (tier one or two cities)may use it in favor of those who have the local hukou as policy tools like real state purchase and schools for children. The majority of the cities do not have a need.

[@Kentalot]

Been following wolff for a while now and he is definitely Marxist but not a purist imo. He's more pragmatic with an idealist streak. He sells the worker coop a little too much but also is aware that Marxism is still a work in progress. I think he's pretty balanced on China and the fact that he glossed over some aspects is probably legitimate based on the goals of his video. He never claimed that China was the ideal marxist country nor that he supports everything China does. As highlighted by your video, his goal was to increase balanced dialogue about China in an environment where there is too much propaganda against China. Now about your counterpoints, I i don't think he was implying that the urbanization was necessarily top down nor without major issues and flaws. I think your own previous video spoke about the fact that the hukou laws as written would actually not allow the mass movement but the government looked the other way to allow the urbanization to happen. If the central government was opposed to this they could've easily brought down the hammer, but they didn't. The fact that it was capitalist forces that caused the migration is also not a contradiction as the Chinese government was reforming purposely to try to take advantage of capitalist forces to improve the country (something like they were ok to allow some to get rich first before the others). On the contrary, I think the major point to be made about the capitalist forces on how they abused the land rights of peasants via real estate speculation is the fact that they eventually did pop that bubble and didn't bail out the abusive capitalists, which is something I'm sure professor wolff and other Marxists would really admire. Great discussion though.

[@janehaywardchina]

Thanks for your thoughtful comment @Kentalot. I get what you say about balance, but in my view, the public discourse we have on China is so divided, adding on to the binary of China-bashing versus idealism, on one side or the other, is not helpful.

[@sciagurrato1831]

I concur - once a theory or representation is asserted, it’s easy for others to take shots at it. It’s particular attractive for academics (in China and without) to micro criticize important decisions that were reached by a concensus that they were not part of.

[@pgarch88]

Professor Richard Wolff is a respectable great economist who 'dares' to speak his mind and should be an asset to the USA/Western nations, and China's achievements should likewise be acknowledged, respected and studied, and be an example to struggling 3rd world nations and also some developed nations now in economic despair!!! 🙏🙏🙏

[@SyTacLoc]

China did help 800 million people out rural high up mountains and clips to livable places.

[@alsetalokin88]

china brings new roads, hsr, bridges, tourism, enhanced agriculture, new markets and industries etc to the villages. no one is left behind. this is the second part of 'let the few get wealthy first, then the rest shall follow'.

[@TheKkpop1]

Thanks to capitalist, India achieved tremendous economic growth but failed to lift the majority out of poverty. The Chinese system allows capitalist to create wealth and fairer wealth distribution thru socialism/communism.

[@cogniktive1147]

Did I miss the part talking explicitly about class? Or is the “talk of class” about the real estate and agriculture “capitalist classes” doing their things to extract value from people’s labor and land? On a related note that I’ve long been pondering, it seems (to me, at least) that the Chinese government tends to not say “middle class” but rather “middle income.” 1) Is this a correct assessment? 2) If correct, then what might be the reason(s)? I haven’t looked into official govt documents but I want to get your input. One more thing… westerners particularly those who strive for some façade of impartiality and/or those just left of center tend to overly concern themselves with being “balanced.” Just be as fair and intellectually honest as possible given one’s knowledge and understanding of anything - information, news, opinion, etc. Balance will take care of itself.

[@khai96x]

The term "middle class" does not makes sense in Marxism. Class is what people do, either provide labour to earn a living, or using capital to exploit labour. Since "middle class" reference income, the term "middle income" is indeed more accurate.

[@thebuddhaheartsutra]

Hello Jane, I just returned from a month long trip to China and visited a student who is teaching at Xiamen University. About 17 years ago, I had first visited and was so charmed by the city of Xiamen that I considered purchasing a property there (which had since skyrocketed in price by nearly 20 times, alas ) but was consequently put off by the property leases of 70 years. Hailing from the west with our concept of freehold property, I found a 70 year old lease totally abhorrent and unreasonable. What I discovered from my student on this recent trip was that farm folk actually enjoy freehold status on their land and many agricultural folks have since built condos on their land and my student, whose new campus actually abuts one of these new residential compounds, now pays rent to these farmers by living in one of their apartment units. This fact was also confirmed by my travel agent there who lamented that urbanites with their 70 year old leases didn't have it as good as the rural folk. I was totally floored by this new nugget of info I never knew about China. Guess I am more ignorant than most people.

[@cantonold7014]

No. Industrialization moves people. You have no idea what you are talking about.

[@rocketsteel]

When your next generation lives a better life than the last generation. That is the test. Not be stuck in a cycle of rural life for your kids and grandchildren. How many countries could do that in 40 years.

[@user-nz8wm2ct4n]

Deng's dictum still stands: "It does not matters whether the cat us black or white so long as ut catches mice". That's to me the way to evaluate both 'capitalist and Marxist or any other practices that don't offend common moral sense.

[@lordlee6473]

I’m pretty sure Chinese can thrive in any systems as long as they don’t close their doors to the outside world and become isolated. Hukou does count how many people are in the urban system and how many rural system. When hundreds of millions people got reclassified from being rural to being urban, hundreds of millions of people got urbanized. Do you know how many tiers of cities there are in China? That alone should’ve blown most people’s minds

[@mongsengquek5810]

It’s been almost 40 years since the hukou straight jacket was loosened.

[@glumour3081]

As far as I remember, since the 2010 (I forget the exact year), hasn't the houkou system adapted to the times ? where village hukou holders can work in the city and get the same rights as employees who live in the city (such as health insurance, free education for their children up to the age of 15 years)

[@alsetalokin88]

the hukou system was absolutely necessary in its plans for modernisation to avoid confusion. china has so many people. let the few get wealthy first, then they will help the rest to get wealthy too. that's the plan.

[@hangonsnoop]

Thank you for this analysis. I believe that the official CPC position is that there's no class conflict in China. This clearly isn't the case.

[@michael511128]

Wow what a find, excellent channel. I think I will watch every video. I have been watching Prof. Wolff for 3 years. He has been talking about China in similar ways every other week or so in longer or shorter durations. “Moving rural population to urban” he meant industrialisation and economic development as general principles, lifting 800 million out of abject poverty, a process that took Europe centuries, his words. I think Prof. Wolff has been correct about China and accurate about many things except recently he brought up the issue of “questionable intent regarding future global dominance. Two roads, BRICS true multipolarity or another hegemony”. Given the fact that he doesn’t travel to China, not that he has mentioned, he may not be entirely surprising that he is not immune to the relentless propaganda against China. The popular Mearshimer is a prime mover with his so called “realist” trick to claim “yes US is imperial badass but so will China be, we will dominate them unless they can dominate us back.” The debates with Mahbubani and Yan Xuetong are examples. In his solo speeches, he would trick people with “Can China rise peacefully for the next 30 or 40 years?” Well, is he not helping military business legitimacy all this while?

[@idofdm7625]

Rearly see such an objective view on China development! What I always suspected was that counter to Western media portrayal of draconian measurement by the governments to move peoples to city! I've heard some Chinese stating that getting "rich" giving up their land. There're always sensational story a lone resistant where the road builds around a remaining house! I'm quite sure there are shady practices by developers like anywhere else! My point is overalls China development is inventive base!

[@MatthieuWu]

This is one of them relevantly smarter ones.

[@samsonlovesyou]

It would be really good to see you have this discussion with Prof Wolff to hear his response.

[@markc6140]

Woff on Chinese urbanization moving millions of Chinese from countryside to cities are correct and he's not talking about migrants moving to cities to work.

[@madsam0320]

China urban population doubled from around 40% to 80%, that’s over half a billion migrations to the cities. And they managed that without slums or ghettos, thanks to the managed hukou system that is slowly relaxing. So please don’t knock it.

[@madsam0320]

Also there is no denying that big corporate farms are more efficient and productive than small household plots. Many rural lands are left fallow because the young people left for better work in the cities leaving their old folks behind to hold on to their land rights. The manic city property and infrastructure constructions may not be sustainable, but they are not meant to be. They are just tickets for attracting migrants into the cities, provide them housing and employment. Once the city grew larger, other forms of services in commerce, leisure, entertainment, food, utilities, sanitation, tourism etc will replace the construction jobs. There still will be developments, just at slower pace. I think UK urban population is over 90%, the same for the US, that means there is still scope for China to increase their urban development. But now the economy is shifting more to the smaller villages and rural areas. There is also a reverse migration of city folks downsizing to a more mellow lifestyle in some rustic environments.

[@fongponto]

China is a Teacher and a Student

[@user-xq8qx6bg2j]

❤❤Jane, Richard and you should have a live discussion on various topics🌹

[@user-dy1ft8bn6h]

great！！ both of youtuber my favorite

[@janehaywardchina]

Glad to hear it

[@limhong1095]

❤ incredible China 💪 🇨🇳 👏 😍 ❤️

[@krishnasamyvs9012]

Pl read Lenin's 'Left wing Communism; An infantile Disorder' in which everything about this is discussed in detail politically....

[@yttean98]

Prof. Wolff's info about China is Obsolete, he should really take an extended trip there, talk to the relevant people there and return fresh with CURRENT info and renew with fresh ideas. This had be suggested to him 3-4years ago but he declined, and he should rethink about it.

[@idofdm7625]

* incentive base

[@user-oo1oy8es6p]

Why no talk of class? Indeed, there was none in this video!!

[@stevenliew2507]

China CPC System is supposed to be classless and that is why only income level will be the classification of its people. Unlike India that still maintains its caste " Class " System and Malaysia. Countries that maintain a " class " system inevitably create their own " slow progress " and sometimes in regression.

[@yourenodaisy2391]

She didn't mention how this villagers living conditions are and their old crumbling wooden houses. no running waters, electricity and proper roads that lead to this villagers.

[@stanbimi]

(4:58) Anyone with some basic power of reasoning and management experience can see that to improve the living standard of 1.4 billion Chinese people, it is definitely not primarily through a bottom up movement driven by capitalism, free market and selfish interests . Besides, the external forces of colour revolution attacking China, aiming at "regime change", is a constant and ever present danger in China's 75 years history. China's leadership is the deciding factor, a team of experienced and intelligent technocrats balancing many conflicting demands and stresses, internal and external. That means the one-party political system plays a critical role. Not convinced? Look at China's neighbour India with comparable population size, both starting from the late 1940's as dirt poor nations.

[@Bmc19234]

Unfortunately, it seems reading Marx and understanding Capitalism is based on exploration really makes you a really good Capitalist.

[@janehaywardchina]

Yes, actually you might be right!

[@jaydee6268]

What if one understands China but just doesn’t like it? I agree with the idea different isn’t necessarily wrong, but it is difficult to reason with zealots unable to exist in a world with two “Chinas.”

[@janehaywardchina]

Astute point. It's a real problem that China scholars are dealing with at the moment.

[@user-vd5bo2ft5b]

Chinese people are extremely biased towards pragmatism and individualism, which means that Chinese people do have classes formed due to division of labor, but people from the same class will not form an imagined community. In addition, China has a very high level of class mobility, so in reality, discussing class in China is meaningless. This is also why c'c'p was not an orthodox Marxist political party from the very beginning

[@dontaskmewhy100]

i think China is a puzzle to a lot ot Marxists be it orthodox or revisionist or whatever you called them. Its Praxis CPC is and need to be utilistic same as majority of Chinese and heritage, crossing the river by feeling the stone. Video of Wolff is too short to say much at all as Marxist analysis, probably mever the intention of Wolff neither. Maybe people in MR or David Harvey has different opinion. People from Marxist camp may see China as too capitalist and people from the capitalist/liberal/neoliberal camp sees China as too socialist.

[@janehaywardchina]

On your last point, yes, you're probably right @dontaskmewhy100

[@dontaskmewhy100]

@@janehaywardchina Your short videos all great, doesnt matter one agrees with you opinions/views or not. Keep up the good work！ Greetings from Hong Kong.

[@janehaywardchina]

Thank you! Much appreciated. Greetings from the UK.

[@serriajohn]

Chinese system is hybrid, half socialism and half capitalism. Karl Marx is correct that naturally capitalism is to upgrade into socialism, esp, with the advancement of AI and robotic production, less labor workers will be required in production, the efficient production will force society into socialism. because production output is huge, while less employee are required, therefore, government has to update this and distribute goods to all human in relatively fair way, and this kind of government is socialism. China is half capitalism and half socialism, not a complete socialism system, because the technology development has not reached that higher level yet. and this hybrid system has proved itself more suitable for economy development and political stable environment. we now watch conflicts worldwide, that is because the old capitalism system( USA) can not accept this and try to stop this process which is wrong.

[@serriajohn]

socialism is to use state asset or resource to produce goods, and distribute goods or service to people in a fair way, the state use pre-planned policy to develop economy . for example, high speed rail system, powerstations, seaports or airports, for these public infrastructure projects, China is a typical socialism system. however, China has many private business, for example, Iphone assembling lines, Micron memory semiconduct chips, EVs, P&G healthcare, Unilevel, Starbucks, Walmart , they are all capitalism business mode, of course, China has its own private sector businese as well, that is why China is half capitalism.

[@dontaskmewhy100]

And Wolff not expert on China nor claimee to be one neither.

[@pad9x]

i don't think he's a Marxist. yes he is a 'Marxian economist' but politically he seems more of a social democrat.

[@janneyovertheocean9558]

Jane is absolutely correct when she points out the egregious mistakes that Professor Wolff made. He certainly ‘glossed over’ and totally neglected the tremendous human (life) costs in the order of 45-70 millions of Chinese people perished between 1949 & 1976, during which the multiples of radical political as well as agricultural + industrial policy implantation that the Chinese Communist regime under Mao implemented in an effort to move China past UK and the U.S. Those poor souls died of starvation, execution and persecution, plus another hundreds of millions went through hard labor rehab camps (even current Chinese president Xi and his father went through it), personal humiliation during public forums and political re-education sessions. All these failed so miserably that China became so poor in its economy and weak in military might, they were at risk and really feared of being invaded by USSR, which was why Mai & Chou En-Lao agreed to open up to the U.S. in circadian 1971-73. The massive movement of rural people into the cities, which Professor Wolff characterized it as if it was a well planned and smooth process, like a miracle - I get that impression from the way he described it. The reality was very CRUEL indeed, because as Jane explained in the later portion of this program, China always has a very strict Hukou system, which is that EVERYBODY must have his or her ‘Household Registration’ right after birth, and that location has to be the same as the parents’ locality. In other words, if you were born in the rural (village level) or in so-called 3rd to 5th line cities or townships, even if you go to big cities (2nd and 1st tier cities like Beijing, Shanghai, Canton, Sheng-zeng, Tianjin, etc. to find work, usually as manual laborers since these migrant workers have only very limited education, thus no marketable skill, so their income is low - but better than at home as farmers, or no work at all - but they are willing to work in the cities with a serious catch and sacrifice ! Because these migran workers do not have these work related cities’ [household registration] status, they cannot bring their children with them, as renters their kids can NOT go to the public school to get educated - unless the parents happen to make very good money and able to send the kids to private schools. Since greatest majority of them simply cannot afford that after paying for the rent and living expenses, they leave their kids in home villages or towns to the care of grand parents,sending some money to support them, till these kids become 18 or older and some will do the same, moving to big cities to find work that pays better than in their hometown. So these migrant workers’ families all pay a huge human price , esp the. children who often grow up seeing their parents once or twice a year in person. Some parent just disappeared from these kids’ life altogether! Worse thing is, the big local government like Beijing can forcibly send these people out of that city at any time for political reason. This actually happened a few years ago in cold month of December when Beijing major and communist party boss Tsai Chi 蔡奇 actually did that unconscionable order to several millions of such migrant workers to leave Beijing IMMEDIATELY - just because the Winter Olympics was coming in Feb 2022, and the communist government wanted to present their capital Beijing in the best possible form to the athletes and visitors from all over the world!! It is a shame that Professor Wolff either was totally ignorant about the price that 75-80% of Chinese people had to pay for that nation to be developed so rapidly (instead of the holistic, natural way of other societies and nations), or he chose to ignore these tragic facts about lower income migrant workers (around 300 millions in number, plus their families left in their hometown) paid in very personal sacrifices as described above. The communist society and countries are just a serial bunch of wrong, awful and detrimental policies, with NO respect of each or many human being’s rights and wellbeing. Shane on these Marxist dreamers and liars !

[@fengsunny5362]

first

[@janehaywardchina]

First? As in, first to comment? Yes - you won this week @fengsunny5362!

[@fengsunny5362]

@@janehaywardchina here we have to use vpn for youtube,sometimes the comments are baned, that is why tested it,maybe it is all because of IP of vpn or vpn service provider,I don't why.

[@janehaywardchina]

I see, understood. I'm glad they got through!

[@glenncbjones]

Hey Ms. Hayward! More excellent observations and commentary! I think both my politics and religion may be evolving to a radically new form of “Jane-ism!” Love the rose blouse! I think a dark kelly or forest green could also work very well for you, but your “wardrobe” is not at all what keeps me coming back! - With infinite LA “air kisses!”… Glenn

[@janehaywardchina]

My blouse is not rose, but thank you again for your engagement, @glenncbjones!

[@glenncbjones]

@@janehaywardchina Strange, deranged and colorblind, that would be me, at your service! Thanks for your wonderful and greatly appreciated response, Jane! Keep up the amazing work! Here, I’ll hold your beer and tether the horses… - XOXOXO!

[@glenncbjones]

@@janehaywardchina Hey Jane! In my own defense (bearing in mind that, as is well known in jurisprudence, “he who approaches the bench ‘pro se’ has a fool for counsel,” I have to say that I went to my “JHC” archive, and while you are indeed clad in your blue “uniform” blouse on the “thumbnail,” when I begin to rewatch, your blouse immediately morphs into a dusty rose color! I’ve checked a few others that I have watched before, and none of those do this curious “color change” thing! I realize that this in no way suggests or proves that I am not crazy, but I take some small comfort in it nonetheless! It might be Tim Cook and his imps and minions further “performance throttling” my antique and highly collectible iPhone 7+, as they do progressively with each iOS update (Shh! They’re listening!), but it puzzles me that, so far at least, it only occurs with this video… And so, with Salingerian “love and squalor,” I remain… - Your #1 JHC fanboy, Glenn