derelictspaces making some space

I’m reading Arrighi’s new book Adam Smith in Beijing. I have only gotten halfway through, but its re-focused my attention on China, and China’s role as the savior of capitalism. The examination of China’s technological-labour history is interesting, and outlines the shape of what could be a new configuration of Capital - labour intensive technological capitalism founded not on liberal representative democracy but an authoritarian state. It’s far from clear that we will end up there though. As the latest edition of prol-position points out, the future for China is far from certain.

The modern history of China is both a history of a change of political strategy in China itself (’socialist markets’) and of the search for a new spatial-fix for surplus capital (from the over-accumulation crisis of the 70’s onwards - Arrighi, Midnight Notes and David Harvey). It is also part of the history of the dollar and the role of the dollar in the current financial crisis (Goldner).

Harvey points out, in The Right to the City, that the city has been the main site for the reinvestment of surplus capital since the 70’s. Over 50% of the worlds population now live in cities, and many of them in the Global South performing informal or precarious labour. Even in the North, increasingly the city houses a surplus population - both under and over educated for the available employment. In China, we have seen a huge explosion in urban growth since the 1980’s (Prop-Position, Harvey) with around 150-200 million migrant workers (’floating workers’) alone. The city remains the focus for the time being, but increasingly we are seeing the global collapse of construction, and China has not escaped this collapse. One of the three key question for China’s future is the fate of these migrant workers and the city - will they stay when work is disappearing, or will they return to the country side where there isn’t sufficient land or money to live? This floating population is central to the question of social unrest in China.

The question of unrest is far from resolved - many commentators point out that unrest - strikes, demonstrations, etc are all ‘growth industries’ in China, and that it would only take a small ‘disaster’ for China to explode into social struggle. Others point out that social decay is more likely that social unrest. But what is social decay? At the dawn of capitalism in Europe, social decay was located amongst the free labourers - young men wandering from town to town in search of work. A mass of young under or un employed men seems to be the very definition of ’social decay’ (its also worth noting that ‘transitional workers’ - people moving from one labour configuration to another - have also tended to be some of the most explosive and combative workers. See Silver’s Forces of Labour or Wright’s Storming Heaven). Add resurgent student, minority population  and women’s movements demanding ‘non-traditional’ rights and you have the current situation. I would suspect that this devolving to atomised disorder and imploding communities (like, say, poor UK society) and it would be decay. Add organisation and resistance and it is unrest. The signs are towards organisation so far, and that puts China’s future as the centre of a new round of Capitalist accumulation at risk.

The second big factor for China is global demand. China cannot achieve the growth it needs without global demand, and that demand has disappeared. The over-accumulation crisis of the 70’s has never been resolved and now we are seeing the short term fix of financialisation unravel. The disparity of wealth, the collapse of credit as a substitute for wage growth, and the generalised disintegration of fictitious markets have all brought neo-liberalism to an end.  Which is not to say that it failed - neo-liberalism as a strategy succeeded (Harvey) but as a project for the refounding of capitalism on the circulation of capital in place of production it failed. It also failed to deliver on a new productive base for financial speculation. There are also other factors at play. China needs to reinvest internally to ensure social stability - new jobs, social security and stability projects, etc. This means less money to prop up the US economy. The tension at work here can been seen by recent Chinese warnings to the US to mange its economy better. Further evidence of the end of US hegemony. China’s slowed growth also threatens other countries prospects - mining countries like Australia, and corporate investment arms based in Chinese production.

The third crisis in China is the ecological crisis. The worlds largest tree planting program is just the tip of the iceberg. The Chinese government recognises it is at the brink of a catastrophe - desertfication, water loss, pollution, etc, all threaten social reproduction. This, in what promises to now be a 4 degree world, will only get worse. Any refounding of capitalism will have to be ‘green’. So, is this where we will see a green new deal, and is the green new deal an authoritarian socialist market response?Is green authoritarianism the way of the future and have we just got it wrong by assuming EU/USA is where the deal will start? What would a green state-capitalism look like in China, and could it work?