The development of capitalism in China today is only the result of a Western transplant, as most observers think ? Marie-Claire Bergère’s book calls into question this common representation by starting in search of the various Chinese experiences in the matter …
Marie-Claire Bergère is a well-known historian of China of XXe century. Its major contribution, among multiple work that is authoritative, is devoted to the Shanghaian bourgeoisie of the first half of XXe century. Already a decade ago, she had ventured out of this field of expertise to look at contemporary reality. In an essay, she tried to read the economic crisis – but also social and political – of large -scale that had just crossed the whole of Asia (South Asia excluded) to the test of a tension that traverses the whole history of China: competition between a cosmopolitan and merchant civilization of the coasts on the one hand, and a national and bureaucratic civilization of the interior spaces on the other hand on the other hand ; Two civilizations embodied in the figures of Compradore and Mandarin. In her latest work, Marie-Claire Bergère renews this type of questioning about what recent developments owe to the more or less close past. The starting point is this time the spectacularly rapid development of the continental Chinese economy (Overseas China excluded) for a quarter of a century, and the observation of its apparent conversion to capitalism (even if, in the political sphere, the regime is still proclaimed communist). Capitalism is included not in the sense of a doctrine to apply, but of a system implemented with pragmatism and whose performance proves efficiency.
The book therefore connects the most recent economic dynamics with the other previous episodes of growth that China has known in modern times, considering that the State and society have been able to find models and references, and that their own history has offered Chinese actors “ a vast repertoire of development ideologies and strategies (P. 38). It is not a question for Marie-Claire Bergère to suggest that Maoist communism (1949-1979) was a simple parenthesis, but that “ Current modernizers are often confronted with problems already encountered by the pioneers of the pre-revolutionary time and that the strength of the historical preceding or the simple cultural weights give rise to practices comparable to those of a not so distant past (P. 223). From a historical perspective, the analysis is focused on capitalist institutions (companies) and their agents (entrepreneurs).
To do this, Marie-Claire Bergère is based on the works she herself devoted to the golden age of the Chinese bourgeoisie, under the conditions of the transition to socialism in the early 1950s, and on a survey conducted in the most advanced provinces in 2005. In addition, it mobilizes a very wide and complete secondary bibliography in Western languages as in Chinese language. It is not one of the smallest merits of this work to provide its readers with work whose dissemination remains confined to a circle of specialists. The disciplines practiced vary. This is macroeconomic history when the text assesses the quantitative development of the Chinese economy or its progressive insertion in the global economy. It is Business History when the author returns to the strategy of this or that company. It is a social history when it analyzes the status of merchants in imperial China, the formation of the first Chinese bourgeoisie or paints a portrait of a particular entrepreneur (or his family). Sociology is also requested in connection with the upset emergence of a class of entrepreneurs or the abilities of influence of professional associations. We will have understood, Marie-Claire Bergère brews the long time (from the XVe At XXIe century), mobilizes the results of all the disciplines of the social sciences, and practices a very Braudelian history where it is a question of both technological and economic development, evolution of social configurations and relation to politics.
The progression of the work is chronological. The first chapter returns to the traditional Chinese economy (XVe–XIXe century) marked by strong quantitative growth and based on agricultural and craft expansion and marketing, but which does not lead to industrial capitalism. The second chapter recalls the first modernization of the economy conducted under the authority of provincial governments (and not of the central government) in the second half of XIXe century and the reasons for its failure. Chapter 3 is devoted to the golden age of Chinese capitalism (1911-1927), an industrialization period “ bottom »Ported by an autonomous, patriotic and confugee business bourgeoisie. Chapters 4 and 5 come back to the return of bureaucratic capitalism (1927-1949) then to the communist period (1949-1979), mining the importance of revolutionary rupture. Chapter 6 is a general presentation of the policy of reform and openness conducted since 1979. The last three chapters are devoted to the Renaissance of the private sector in contemporary China: the characteristics of its institutions (chapter 7), its entrepreneurs (chapter 8) and finally their relations with power (chapter 9).
These different chapters are echoed because from one time to another the questions asked are close. Marie-Claire Bergère wonders about the role of the State, whether central or local, in economic development and its ability to create the conditions for the possibility of growth. The author details how families (and more broadly the networks of relations) are mobilized in entrepreneurial adventures, without the imperatives of economic rationality are neglected. She is interested in the emergence of a social identity of entrepreneurs, defined by an ideology, beliefs or a lifestyle that are their own. It still highlights the characteristics of professional associations and in particular their relationship with political power. This synthetic work is therefore very rich because it suggests the economic trajectory of contemporary China with regard to its own history and not in terms of importing foreign models, as we think too often.
No doubt the author could have gone even further in this perspective. Everything happens as if Marie-Claire Bergère sought to find in China today the dynamics of the first XXe A century of which it is so familiar: entrepreneurs which are structured in a business bourgeoisie carrying an ideology modernizing, conquering and autonomous vis-à-vis the State and taking advantage of the weakness of the latter. However, she notes, today’s private entrepreneurs are unable to assert an identity or their own ideology, and the cohesion and stability of the regime prevent the mutation that occurred at the start of XXe century (p. 329). This assertion calls two remarks. Firstly, we are not so convinced of the strength of the current regime (how to explain its intolerance to any form of criticism especially when they are formulated by actors – the dissidents – which we know are marginalized and have no relays within society ?) ; This is undeniably more and more porous to the interests of money (this is one of the conclusions of Chapter 9). Secondly, it is perhaps too early to judge the inability of entrepreneurs to promote new values: a certain number of them requires more competition and the equal treatment of all by law ; Others are important actors in rediscovery of traditional Chinese culture (we think of the renewal of private art collections).
In search of this unwanted bourgeoisie conquering, Marie-Claire Bergère fishes, perhaps without her knowledge, by Europeanocentrism. Doesn’t she try to find in China the sequence that was that of the economic, social and political modernization of the West ? We follow the author when she shows, to regret it, that the Chinese middle classes, made for a good part of small and means entrepreneurs, have no democratic demand (Marie-Claire Bergère speaks with accuracy of “ consenting bourgeoisie ») ; They indeed share with the power in place the concern for social stability, a condition for the continuation of their enrichment in a growing country. Certainly, the Chinese capitalists today are a “ invention From the party-state, and extend a proven practice of social engineering from the mobilization of the peasantry in the revolutionary epic until the manipulation of youth during the cultural revolution. But it is necessary to infer conclusions on the possibility of a democratic evolution ? The question of social forces likely to disrupt the current status quo deserves to be asked.
These remarks are not a question of the originality and the quality of this work which delivers the most sharp results of research on this boom in capitalist China which upsets geopolitical balances. It is by focusing our attention to the dynamics of change and innovation specific to this continent country, without mechanically refer them to proven models elsewhere, that one can try to imagine its possible becoming.