China.*

A Kuhnian paradigm shift accurately applies to China's change under Deng. Characteristic Chinese obedience substitutes for rational consensus reached among scientists to make the shift happen. What of the other political changes in Chinese history?  Does shift just happen in China? What of the 1949 change to communism?  I don’t think we need reach over to the history of science to explain the 1949 change, or if we do it is a “reach.”  The change under Deng was unusual; 1949 seems pretty garden variety for the 20^th century, a Marxist victory after a pretty garden variety civil war following a half-century of “chaos” following the breakup of an old imperial order. That all sounds pretty familiar.

Does shift happen to communism?  Is that what happened to communism in the former Soviet Union under Gorbachev?  No…but why not? Why does that not sound right? Communism, communism; Deng, Gorby; capitalist, capitalist. One difference is in the names, the communist “People’s Republic of China” stayed, the communist “Soviet Union” didn’t. What’s in a name?  Lenin is still entombed in Red Square (Is it still called Red Square?...It is.), Mao is still entombed in Tienanmen Square. The Chinese flag stayed the same; the old Soviet flag didn’t.  This symbolism, if that’s what it is, or all that it is, is different.  Chinese leaders don’t dress in Mao suits anymore though, they wear the standard-issue Western suit…probably made in Hong Kong. Gorby wore a suit, but Brezhnev did too, I think; Poot-poot wears a suit…probably Savile Row though.  Castro doesn’t wear a suit!  And he was, is, a sure-enough, garden variety 20^th century Marxist. The Soviet “Union” ceased to exist—the Eastern satellite states were freed, the “Greater Russian” republics of Georgia, Ukraine, etc. were freed. That is a big difference. China became fascist, Russia became a democracy…sort of. That’s a difference. The Soviet crackup was accompanied by more of the imagery, the symbolism, we expect of a crackup, people dancing in the streets, walls falling, leaders changing, names and flags changing. Deng…Did Deng change suits? Wasn’t he wearing a Mao suit in Texas?  He was!...Deng was brought back from (his second) exile by Mao himself. If Mao had known that Deng was to say “to be rich is glorious” do you think Mao would have brought him back?  I think not. But Mao knew what Deng said about cats. It’s not a Great Leap from cats to glorious riches. Didn’t Mao bring Deng back as a check on his own wife and the Gang of Four Maoist radicals?  Yes, he did. Had Mao gone “pink” in his dotage?  No, he had not. Then why did he bring back that rich cat Deng, huh?   Mao certainly intended a “correction” in bringing back Deng; Mao brought back other old cats along with him.  Did Mao intend a paradigm shift?  No. Absolutely not did Mao intend Coca-Cola and Starbucks and the capitalism that Deng’s fascism brought. Did Mao intend “tinkering?”  When Mao brought Deng back was it Mao’s intent to tinker with communism the way FDR tinkered with capitalism? Yes, I think so. Mao intended to tinker, and tinker toward the “right.”  Mao had a history of tinkering; all those goddamned campaigns: “Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom” (so he could chop of their heads), the Anti-Rightist campaign, the Cultural Revolution. Tinker, tinker, tinker. Those campaigns were violent though, intended by Mao to be violent. Bringing Deng back wasn’t violent, it wasn’t a campaign. It was non-violent tinkering.

Mao’s violent campaigns produced less change in China than his non-violent tinkering with Deng produced. 

Tinker, Tailor,

Soldier, Sailor,

Rich Man, Poor Man,

Beggarman, Thief.  

Mao intended to tinker; China got rich men, poor men, beggarmen, and thieves. In between Mao’s intent and the result for China lies Deng’s intent. I find it indisputable that Deng intended market capitalism.  That is a paradigm shift. Indisputable.

Then why did Deng continue to wear Mao suits?

Deng intended, and wrought, a paradigm shift in economics.  He did not intend a paradigm shift in politics. Nor of course did Mao Zedong.  Politics means economics to a lot of people. Americans “vote with our pocketbooks” it is said. Mao however said “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”  Mao voted with his rifle. Well Mao didn’t vote but if he had voted it would have been with a rifle.

Politics is about power. 

In democracies political power is shared among millions of voters.  China has never had shared political power, it has had emperors, communists, and now fascists. Deng Xiaoping never intended a political paradigm shift in China; he intended political power to remain in the hands of the Chinese Communist Party. And it has.

The most important word in “Chinese Communist Party” is “Chinese,” not “Communist.”

*This essay originated in email correspondence with Dr. Weimin Mo in May, proof that a muddy stream can still have snow at its source.  Any credit goes to Dr. Mo. The faults are mine.