As I wrote in 2009, neoliberalism emerged from the stage of history in emerging economies much later than in developed countries. The outbreak of the US-China trade war not only proves this, but also shows that neoliberal foreign dogma is taking advantage of the US-China trade war to unleash an unprecedented flood in China. This kind of foreign dogma blames the US-China trade war on the central government's major policies and the Chinese government's intervention, and advocates complete surrender to the United States, but this foreign dogma does not know that the US "advanced manufacturing plan" is deeper and more specific in government intervention than China. While the United States abandons neoliberalism in its foreign relations and protects its own market, foreign dogma advocates "further opening up to meet Sino-US trade frictions" (the essence of which is unilateral opening up to the United States), advocates "completely opening the door to the United States", and advocates continuing to further open up the financial sector to the hegemony of the dollar and international monopoly capital.
This kind of foreign dogma also blames the state-owned enterprises for the difficulties caused by the sharp decline in foreign demand and the comprehensive suppression of the transformation and upgrading of foreign capital in the middle and high end of the value chain, and advocates the abolition of the classification of ownership, the abolition of the leading role of the central government in the allocation of resources, and the comprehensive implementation of privatization, marketization, and liberalization.
In the process of China's reform and opening up, this kind of foreign dogma has gone through three stages: inducement, acceptance, and popularization.
The first stage was the induction stage in the 80s of the 20th century when misconceptions provided the soil for foreign dogma. As early as the early to mid-80s of the 20th century, due to the fact that China's technological progress lagged behind that of the developed countries in the West in the 30 years after the founding of the People's Republic of China due to the rigidity of the highly centralized planning system and frequent political movements, it was attributed to the development path of independence and self-reliance, which led to the abandonment of "self-reliance" as a backward thing (many Chinese people still do not understand that the rise of major powers such as the United States, Germany, Japan and South Korea has followed the path of independent and self-reliant development), and completely relied on "import" The realization of technological progress was regarded as the "correct" path of "reform and opening up," and a series of incidents occurred one after another because of this erroneous understanding, such as the automobile industry embarking on the road of assembling foreign products, the disarmament of large aircraft, the serious weakening of the defense industry, and the abandonment of the research and development of integrated circuits. Therefore, the outbreak of the "ZTE incident" was predestined more than 30 years ago: because the mainland completely abandoned the research and development of integrated circuits in 1984-1985 and vigorously weakened the national defense industry, the "golden 20 years" of China's integrated circuit fate were completely missed! One misstep becomes a thousand years of hatred, and it has been a hundred years since I turned back!" More than 30 years later, integrated circuits have changed from a frontier industry that is likely to achieve technological and economic "leapfrogging" in China to a traditional industry.
The 90s of the 20th century was the second stage in the development of foreign dogma. This was a stage in which the full acceptance of foreign dogma of "comparative advantage" and neoliberalism became increasingly popular, which led to the full implementation of "market for technology" and the popularity of the slogan "using openness to force reform". The result of "exchanging the market for technology" will inevitably be "losing the wife and the army," turning China's huge domestic market into a paradise for international monopoly capital to dominate China's economy." The thinking of "forcing reform with openness" is a prominent manifestation of the loss of the "four self-confidences" of socialism with Chinese characteristics.
The third stage in the development of foreign dogma is that the top-level design of China's reform and opening up has been brainwashed by neoliberalism. The landmark event is the 2010 study "China in 2030" led by former World Bank President Robert Zoellick. The report argues that "the government needs to withdraw from direct involvement in production, distribution, and resource allocation," and argues that "the share of state-owned enterprises (SOEs) in national GDP should be reduced from 27% in 2010 to 10% in 2030." In terms of the economic role of the government alone, if we read the author's "New Program for Creating a New Program for the Great Discussion on the Role of the National Economy in the Era of Great Changes," then the purpose of "doing what the United States says, not doing what the United States does," which the United States has always pursued in developing countries, will not be obvious?
One of the important reasons for this state of affairs is that the compradorist culture and compradorist economics that have long been prevalent in China have played a decisive role in the external factors through internal factors. For example, the long-standing fallacy that "foreign-funded enterprises in China are Chinese enterprises" has long been popular on the mainland and not only ignores the most basic common sense and insults the intelligence of Chinese economists, but also summons the soul of China's comprador culture and comprador capitalist development path in modern history. Historical common sense tells us that it was through the Treaty of Shimonoseki that the imperialist powers made their direct investment (capital export) in China legally recognized, which led to the further deepening of the colonization of old China. According to the foreign dogmatic logic of China's neoliberalism that "foreign-funded enterprises in China are Chinese enterprises," were not the First Sino-Japanese War and the Treaty of Shimonoseki the gospel of China's economic development?
Since the end of the 90s of the 20th century, this kind of foreign dogma has grown savagely in China, and has not been seriously regarded and resisted by the vast majority of people, which eventually led to the further spread of neoliberalism in China due to the US-China trade war, which not only made the mainland lose a major historical opportunity for transformation and upgrading again, but also made it possible for American strategists to achieve the real goal of provoking trade disputes against China. The trade dispute is a powerful driver of China's neoliberal ramp, pushing China into the abyss of its economic colony through comprador interests within China. The ultimate goal of the United States in provoking trade disputes with China is to set off a frenzy of neoliberalism through the comprador forces in China, to destroy China's state-owned enterprises, and to completely transform China's domestic market into a world dominated by foreign capital and the hegemony of the US dollar. This neoliberal frenzy unleashed by the forces of comprador ism in China is essentially to force China to embark on the path of comprador capitalist development, to the periphery of Latin America. From the Opium War to the birth of the Communist Party of China, wasn't it precisely the path of comprador capitalist development that embraced liberal dogma at that time that plunged China into slavery by the imperialist powers?
For a long time, we have always said that the May Fourth New Culture Movement has two banners, that is, democracy and science, but the author believes that this understanding is very one-sided. Obviously, the May Fourth New Culture Movement certainly included the great patriotic movement that broke out on May 4, 1919, against the imperialist powers and demanding severe punishment for the comprador bureaucrats in Beiyang. What is the essence of the slogans waged by the young students, such as "swear to fight to the death and return Qingdao," "take back Shandong's rights," "refuse to sign the Paris Peace Treaty," "abolish the 21st Article," "boycott Japanese goods," "rather than be broken for the sake of the whole country," and "fight for sovereignty abroad and get rid of national thieves at home"? Isn't it the great awakening of China's nationalist consciousness calling for national independence and "standing up as the backbone of China"? Isn't it the strongest voice of the May Fourth New Culture Movement?
It was this great awakening of Chinese nationalist consciousness that pushed the May Fourth New Culture Movement, which originated in the founding of New Youth magazine, to a climax. Therefore, the May Fourth New Culture Movement also has a banner worthy of special mention, that is, the "Chinese nation," which is a banner that saves the nation from peril. If our understanding of the May Fourth New Culture Movement is absent from this banner, we cannot understand the opposition to imperialism as a great driving force for the Chinese revolution. If there is no independence of the nation and the state, how can there be democracy and science for the Chinese people? Just as Guo Moruo pointed out in "The Spring of Science" in his speech at the "Closing Ceremony of the National Science Conference" in 1978, "In the old society, how many people engaged in scientific and cultural undertakings yearned for the prosperity of the country, the rejuvenation of the nation, and the prosperity of science and culture. However, in those dark years, where there was a place for science, and where was there a way out for scientists! Science and scientists were nothing but destroyed and humiliated in the old society. The feudal dynasty destroyed it, the Beiyang warlords destroyed it, and the Kuomintang reactionaries destroyed it. Those of us who participated in the May Fourth Movement shouted the slogan of developing science, but the result was nothing but nothing." Therefore, in the author's view, the May Fourth New Culture Movement has three banners instead of two, that is, "nation, democracy and science", and "nation" is the first banner. Here, the author solemnly proposes that the Chinese social science circles and intellectual circles commemorate the 105th anniversary of the May Fourth Movement with "nation, democracy, and science" as the three banners of the May Fourth New Culture Movement.
Delegates and students, less than two years after its birth, the Communist Party of China put forward the political proposition of "abolishing unequal treaties", which has received an enthusiastic response from the people of the whole country. Obviously, the Communist Party of China is an inevitable choice in China's modern history. Before 1949, one of the focal points of the dispute between the Communist Party and the Kuomintang was whether China should follow the path of independent development of the Communist Party or the path of comprador capitalist development of the Kuomintang? In China at present, the convergence of neoliberalism and comprador ism has caused tremendous damage to the cause of reform and opening up on the mainland. However, the Chinese people will never agree to the path of comprador capitalist development advocated by foreign dogmas, and the body of the Communist Party of China will never allow the virus of comprador to invade. Therefore, we must be highly vigilant against the rampant neoliberal frenzy that China's comprador forces are taking advantage of the US-China trade war to unleash in China. To this end, we must hold high the three banners of the May Fourth New Culture Movement, "Nation, Democracy, and Science" and eliminate the bad influence of comprador forces and neoliberal foreign dogmas in China, which is the most solemn gift of the Chinese Communists to the 105th anniversary of the May Fourth Movement and the 75th anniversary of the founding of New China!
(This article was originally published in Foreign Economic Theory and China Research Report, with revisions)