In the wake of the mid-Autumn Festival and the National Day holiday, the People’s Daily published a series of eight articles aimed at boosting economic confidence. The series, penned under the name “Zhong Caiwen”, is titled “China’s Economy Special Discussion Guided by Xi Jinping’s Economic Thought”.
However, what this series reflects is precisely the plight of the Chinese economy.
For example, an article titled “Taking a Scientific and Objective View of the Current Economic Development Situation in Our Country” acknowledges the current difficulties despite listing the country’s economic achievements. Even when described positively, a different result can be interpreted when viewed from another angle.
One passage reads: “At the beginning of this year, Chinese and American netizens engaged in a ‘large-scale comparison of living costs’ on social platforms, highlighting the high quality and low prices of goods and services in our country.” However, excessively high-quality and low-priced services may seem beneficial to service recipients, but they are detrimental to service providers, indicating severe internal competition and harsh living conditions at the grassroots level.
Take the example of food delivery services, where platforms and delivery riders compete for limited resources (such as orders and users) and exert more effort, leading to an “excessive competition” situation in which individual benefits decrease, and income efficiency declines. Delivery riders face increased work intensity but struggle to see an increase in income.
The article also points out that the sentiments of enterprises or individuals do not accurately reflect the true state of the economy, mentioning that some traditional industry enterprises and practitioners undergoing slow transformations might find life more difficult. It states: “We need to take a comprehensive view of this issue. We should not negate the overall economic situation simply because some operators are not feeling well. We must not focus solely on individual trees while ignoring the forest.” It goes on to cite examples such as the AI industry seeing a salary growth rate twice that of other industries, while the real estate sector witnesses reduced job opportunities and shrinking salaries.
Despite the fact that in China, as in any country, traditional industries always make the greatest economic contributions and employment absorption, not all traditional industries can transition to high-tech fields. Whose perceptions are more truthful about the economy, between the feelings of enterprises and national statistical data? Of course, it is the perceptions of enterprises, otherwise Li Keqiang would not have proposed the “Li Keqiang Index” as an economic measurement tool.
An article titled “Deeply Understanding the Inner Logic of China’s Long-Term Stable Economic Development” claims that there are six key elements supporting the Chinese economy, with the first element being the adherence to the leadership of the Party. It asserts that the Communist Party’s longstanding governance provides a stable anchor for China’s long-term economic development by avoiding the short-sighted policies and sudden changes common in Western multi-party systems.
However, the assumption put forth, that China’s long-term stable economic development is a reality, is debatable. Following the pandemic, economic recovery has been lackluster, with development lagging behind that of most Western countries.
Moreover, policy reversals are a hallmark of the Communist Party. Mature democratic countries in the West have checks and balances with the separation of powers, making it less likely for mistakes to become comprehensive and long-term directional errors. Due to holding absolute power, if the Communist Party’s leader makes a mistake, it is nearly impossible to correct it midway, leading to an eventual collapse or near-collapse. Even if corrections are made, errors are rarely acknowledged.
The so-called second theoretical system that keeps pace with the times and continuously innovates is merely self-deception. The Communist system has seen few theoretical developments since its inception. There have been a few iconic theories such as Marx establishing the Communist theory, requiring transition from developed capitalism worldwide to achieve Communism; Lenin’s contribution being that a single country can erect Communism first; and Mao Zedong’s stance that even an underdeveloped agricultural country can transition to socialism through rural encirclement of cities without passing through developed capitalism. The real breakthrough in theory is ongoing revolution.
After Mao Zedong, there has been no innovation in Communist theory. Deng Xiaoping’s “It doesn’t matter if a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice” epitomizes pragmatism, falling short of being classified as theory; Jiang Zemin’s “Three Represents” was criticized by the Communist Party as revisionism previously prevalent in the Soviet Union; while Hu Jintao’s “Keeping pace with the times” and Xi Jinping’s “Socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era” are essentially attempts to stitch together phrases, hardly amounting to packaging.
In summary, the entire economic reform and opening up process is about maintaining a delicate balance between limited effective market economy and inefficient planned economy under socialism, with oscillations and instability being the norm.
In fact, all these articles share a common flaw – not clearly identifying the subject and the target audience. The use of “we” throughout tends to be ambiguous – does it refer to the government or the people? It should be noted that, in any country, the government is not synonymous with the people. In China, the Communist government is in opposition to the people.
In essence, the economic state of a country is most accurately gauged by the firsthand experiences of the people and business owners; it does not necessitate confirmation through data and slogans. Data serves as a reference for economic development, encompassing government and corporate planning, yet the need to publicize it and assert that the economy is doing well actually indicates the opposite – that the economy is not doing well or is even in a dire situation.
Regarding the series title, “China’s Economy Special Discussion Guided by Xi Jinping’s Economic Thought,” it’s quite intriguing that Xi Jinping supposedly possesses economic thinking and can guide the Chinese economy. The Communist Party has the characteristic that once one becomes the leader, they immediately become all-powerful, able to guide in any field – be it political theory, economic thought, or military doctrine.
In reality, prior to and following assuming leadership, the leader undergoes minimal change in terms of capabilities – only their status shifts. This implies that guidance in economics, or any domain, is not based on expertise but simply on position, which may not fare well for the economy. Similarly, this applies to military matters – entrusting someone who has never even participated in combat scenario simulations to guide military affairs results in inevitable defeat.
The author of these articles, “Zhong Caiwen”, conveys the implication of the Central Finance and Economic Committee’s articles, with Xi Jinping coincidentally serving as the chairman of this committee. Hence, these articles are essentially self-promoting writings. It’s no wonder that netizens are skeptical of them.