Property Rights In China

21 Pages 5343 Words

Since the end of the Cold War, no single ideology has been able to challenge the political, economic and especially intellectual domination of neo-classical liberalism – it is today the sole hegemonic discourse to rule over the world system. Yet, columnist Thomas Friedman has observed that despite the triumph of neo-classical liberalism, a new form of bipolarity has emerged: the World of Order vs. the World of Disorder. The World of Disorder is not unified under the umbrella of a single ideology the way the Communist Block once was under various local interpretations of Marxism. Rather, disorder finds expression into the lack of coherent ideology that has the power to organize peoples and societies into organic wholes. If we carry Friedman’s vision of the new bipolarity further, from the realm of international relations to the realm of economics, the clash between the World of Disorder and the World of Order manifests itself not in the clash between savage capitalism and socialism as it is popular to argue. Rather, the clash that takes place is between rational and regulated capitalism and irrational capitalism - the survival or the ultimate failure of national production is at stake (Friedman, 2003).

Today, China represents one of the most contested battlefields between organized capitalism and the chaotic plundering of assets. While two decades ago the question asked about China was whether private space, activities, and interests have a future in a socialist country, today the situation has reversed, and the question is whether public space, activities, and interests have any future in a country ridden by corruption. This discursive trend has produced a startling discrepancy: while pundits and commentators of the neo-liberal establishment in the West continue to criticize the insufficiency of reforms in the Mainland and to threaten an impeding social, economic, or political disaster, the Chinese economy continues to grow ...