The introduction: Marxism vs. Neoliberalism
The political regime I want to begin my work with is Marxism. Generally, Marxism is considered to be the official ideology of China. However, any visitor who came to China can furnish evidence of “the burgeoning materialism and capitalism
of the city’s inhabitants” (Liao & Sohmen, 2001, p. 30). Most Chinese entrepreneurs prefer to rely on short-term strategies to succeed; as Liao & Sohmen (2001) state, “There is no long-term strategic planning because you don’t know what’s going to happen from one day to the next” (p. 30). Although the country moves towards technological modernization, there are political developments, which define the further success of large-scale projects.
For this reason, I doubt my decision to manufacture cars in China. Another point I keep in mind is that the type of business I am interested in is at variance with an ideologically Marxist state. As far as China became one of the members of the World Trade Organization, foreign competitors constantly come to its market. Contemporary Chinese Marxist philosophy is explained by Prof. Kang Ouyang (Ollman, 1999, p. 1).
I would like to list the disadvantages of Marxist philosophy, which influenced my decision to renounce doing business in China. “Distorted investment priorities, as wealth gets directed into what will earn the largest profit and not into what most people really need, growing social and economic inequality, worsening ecological degradation and periodic economic crises” (Ollman, p. 1) are the major disadvantages of Marxism in Chine. On the other hand, “worsening exploitation of workers, since the harder, faster, and longer people work—just as the less they get paid—the more profit is earned by their employer” (Ollman, p. 1) can’t be neglected.
The overproduction of goods is another disadvantage of Marxism in China. Unused industrial capacity and growing unemployment should also be considered. Bertell Ollman (1999) says that “with such a gap between the rich and the poor, egalitarian social relations become impossible” (p. 1).
A disproportional political influence is related to the activity of the rich; thus, every day, their desire to earn more money increases. Another substantial disadvantage Ollman (1999) points out is an “Increase in all kinds of economic crimes, with people trying to acquire money illegally when legal means are not available” (p. 1). Reduced social benefits, anti-social attitudes, serious country’s problems are all considered to be the consequences of Marxist philosophy. These disadvantages are the obstacles I can’t influence or overcome.
The advantages of the political regime are also to be considered. In my opinion, the major advantage is that “competition between different firms leads to increased efficiency” (Ollman, p. 1). The fact that people work for hand because they are afraid of poverty and don’t want to lose their job is recognized to the advantage. I am not sure it is; however, Ollman thinks that such fear is a really efficient motivator. “Foreign investment is attracted as word gets out about the new opportunities for earning profit” (Ollman, p. 1).
Another significant advantage I want to highlight is that the Chinese bureaucracy is reduced. People develop new technical skills to work in new conditions. “A great variety of consumer goods become available; large parts of the society take on a bright, merry and colorful air as everyone busies himself trying to sell something to someone else” (Ollman, p. 1). So, when analyzing the pros and cons of Marxist philosophy, I’ve understood that the disadvantages are more serious.
For empirical evidence, just look at how quickly and how thoroughly China fell victim to all the disadvantages of the market once it set out to avail itself of the market’s advantages. The Chinese government would have liked nothing better than to avoid these crippling disadvantages. It simply was not possible (Ollman, p. 1).
Neoliberalism is the political regime in the USA. It is mostly associated with the power of finance. The basic aspects of capital movement are “the right to enter and exit from a field of investment and the ensuing ability to move from one field to another” (Duménil & Lévi, 2001, p. 21). On the other hand, “Any holder of a security or currency must be allowed to sell or buy at any point in time. Neoliberalism pushed these mechanisms to the extreme, eliminating regulatory limitations” (Duménil & Lévi, 2001, p. 21). Ray Broomhill states, “Many commentators have observed the increasing adoption of the neoliberal values of competitiveness and individualism –
the individual manifestation of the culture of liberal productivism” (p. 133). Thus, one can make a conclusion that Neoliberalism is more unrestricted. According to the website Cuny.edu:
Neoliberalism reverses the welfare state model and makes everything
subservient to an absolutely free market – free of government regulation,
labor unions, social welfare, environmental laws, and ethical imperatives – as
the best way to secure human prosperity, health and happiness. (p. 1)
“In the US, income distribution shifted radically in favor of the wealthy under Reagan’s neo-liberalist policies” (Cuny.edu, p. 1).
The conclusion: the most suitable political ideology I rely on
Neoliberalism, as any other political ideology, is criticized. For instance, Burke and Puty (2004) state that “The unspoken mantra of liberalization is “capital mobility, labor immobility. This helps to ensure that the neoliberal vision of global unity is only for markets, not for people” (p. 1). I don’t agree with their opinion; to be objective, Marxism is also for markets. However, the critics didn’t notice that the main aim of the market functioning is to produce goods and services for people.
Andy Kilmister (2004) says:
Following the survival of capitalist regimes in Western Europe after the
revolutionary upsurge at the end of World War 1 the debate over how to
characterize contemporary capitalism in Marxist terms continued, and
intensified after World War 2, as Marxists tried to analyze the long post-war
the boom of the 1950s and 1960s. (p. 1)
In my opinion, Marxism recognizes Neoliberalism as such an awful political regime because Marxism theory associates an American political ideology with the influence of Stalinism. In other words, Marxism sees Neoliberalism as a totalitarian regime. David M. Kotz (2000) says that “Neoliberalism not only embodies the ideal of free individual choice but also achieves optimum economic performance with respect to efficiency, economic growth, technical progress, and distributional justice” (p. 2).
The political ideology of the USA is related to the free movement of the basic resources various organizations possess. In other words, there are issues the organizations, banks, companies, etc. produce, and the political ideology calls for free movement of the issues. Kotz (2000) says that “continuing dominance of neoliberalism can be explained, at least in part, by changes in the competitive structure of world capitalism, which have resulted in turn from the particular form of global economic integration that has developed in recent decades” (p. 2).
Reference List
Broomhill, R. (n.d.). Neoliberal Globalism and the Local State: A Regulation Approach. Web.
Burke, S., Puty, C. (2004). Perspectives on the Global Justice Movement. Web.
Cuny.edu. (n.d). Neoliberalism. The New Global Economic Order. Web.
Duménil, G., Lévy, D. (2001). Costs and Benefits of Neoliberalism. A Class Analysis. Web.
Kilmister, A. (2004). Understanding Neo-Liberalism. Web.
Kotz, D. (2000). Globalization and Neoliberalism. Web.
Liao, D., Sohmen, P. (2001). The Development of Modern Entrepreneurship in China. Web.
Ollman, B. (1999). Market Economy: Advantages and Disadvantages. Web.