MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT POSITION PAPER ON STATE OWNERSHIP Last edit: 8/26/92 We Maoists often hear from Chinese students that the Third World is held back by too much state ownership. A lot of students even tell us that countries like India and most of Africa are socialist. This belief stems from Western economic "theories" and simplistic textbook descriptions that divide the world into "planned" and "market" economies. We Maoists do not believe like Deng Xiaoping or the other revisionist "Marxists" that state ownership is the same thing as socialism. Worker and peasant control of the means of production is the key. In China bureaucratic capitalists rule just as surely as they did under Chiang Kai-shek or in Peru today. If a class other than the workers themselves appropriates the workers' labor, the system is capitalist, not socialist. The workers certainly do not run production in China today as demonstrated by the many changes allowed in state-capitalist China from the days of Maoist revolution--unemployment, firing, inflation and the end of mass mobilization campaigns in which workers sought to gain administrative and political experience. As it turns out though, state ownership does not hold back development. According to the bourgeois economists attached to the Harvard Institute for International Development, which is mostly funded by the U.S. government, state-owned enterprises are responsible for a LARGER share of production in the industrialized countries than in the developing countries. Below are the facts: % of production from state-owned firms countries 0-3% Nepal, Philippines, Guatemala 3.1-6% Columbia, Thailand, Argentina, Paraguay, Bangladesh, 6.1-10% Benin, Botswana, Kenya, Liberia, Mali, Sierra Leone, Korea, Sri Lanka 10.1-15% Ivory Coast, Tanzania, India Taiwan, Bolivia, Chile 15.1-20% Senegal 20.1-30% Guinea, Tunisia Above 30.1% Zambia, Guyana (Gillis, Perkins, Roemer, Snodgrass,Economics of Development, 3rd ed. (NY: WW Norton, 1992), p. 299. Recalling that Hitler Germany, apartheid South Africa and European countries like France have had a state role in the economy exceeding one-half of all investment made, we see that the "command" versus "market" distinction is pretty useless, except to promote the myth that an elite makes economic decisions only in "command" economies. Lest anyone wants to argue that Nepal, Philippines and Guatemala are the most developed countries economically, we should drop the idea that private ownership brings about development. Those three countries have the highest share of private ownership in the economy. >From this list, we should also see that for other purposes, it is misleading to refer to very many Third World countries as socialist. Only a tiny handful have state-ownership of even more than half the economy. The vast majority of the world's population, which is poor, LIVES UNDER CAPITALISM. To compare capitalism with socialism, we must include what happens in those countries that still allow private ownership to predominate in production. That means we must count what happens in most Third World countries as capitalism, often with semi-feudal remnants of the kind Mao did the whole world the favor of leading struggle against. As we argued in previous posts, without arduous and violent communist struggles, Taiwan and Korea never would have had land reform. It was the communist movement that broke the landed classes in those countries, which were then able to serve as lynchpins in the U.S. sweepstakes-development strategy. The United States opened its import market to the Taiwanese and Koreans and made sure it could point to as "winners" in the sweepstakes of general imperialist exploitation and "development." _____________________________________________________________ If you had been reading MIM Notes, the newspaper of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, you would know all this already. Subscriptions: Send $12 for 12 issues of MIM Notes MIM Distributors PO Box 3576 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-3576 Make checks out to "ABS" or send cash.