This book is a series of five independent but (closely) interrelated essays focusing on debates in the 1930s–40s and then again in the 1980s–90s about China's economy and society, by Chinese and other scholars. The author eschews any specific judgment as to which theories most closely reflected reality, though her sympathies are clear. The first substantive chapter addresses the debate over China's economy in the late imperial period and its relationship to the global economy, examining works such as those by Kenneth Pomeranz and Philip Huang and arguing that, despite their differences, both scholars share a normative view that industrial modernization is the sole relevant form of internal social development (p. 30). Chapters two and four analyse the use of the concepts of the Asiatic Mode of Production and semicolonialism in relation to Chinese society. In between a chapter deals with the attraction for Chinese scholars of the Austrian school of economics and specifically of Friedrich Hayek. A final, and somewhat different, chapter examines two films portraying Shanghai around 1949 – Zheng Junli's Crows and Sparrows (Wuya yu maque, 1948–49) and Peng Xiaolian's Once Upon a Time in Shanghai (Shanghai jishi, 1998).
Running throughout the book is a comparison between the 1930s–40s (approached mainly through the work of the independent Marxist economic philosopher Wang Yanan, on whom Karl is writing a separate monograph) and the 1980s–90s. The author strongly refutes the common view that there was a direct link between Chinese society in the two periods, with the intervening Maoist period an aberrant interlude. A fundamental argument is that concepts – such as the Asiatic Mode of Production or semicolonialism – were used in the earlier period in an open-ended sense, leaving open a range of alternative outcomes (including and particularly socialism). When superficially similar views were advanced in the reform period, however, it was in a much more closed way – in that there was a largely unquestioning commitment to capitalist modernization. Similarly, Zheng Junli's 1948–49 film portrayed a painful struggle over economic life with an uncertain outcome (though Karl admits that a more orthodox CCP interpretation is possible), while in 1998 Peng Xiaolian presented a picture of nostalgia and continuity in the context of capitalist modernization and consumerism. One might well accept some of these contrasts while still believing that it was the widely perceived failure of the intervening Maoist experiment that led to the closing off of alternatives.
Another important theme is the relationship between “the Chinese” and “the global.” The author argues that it is impossible to understand either China's pre-war economy and society or the adoption by Chinese scholars of orthodox theories of social science and economics except in the context of the global expansion of imperialist capitalism. Taking the lead from Wang Yanan in this as well as other respects, she strongly rejects nativist views stressing the uniqueness of Chinese society, whether those are framed in the form of an ahistorical and unchanging “national essence” or in that of the Asiatic Mode of Production as a basis for a national cultural and historical difference in a way that suits the needs of present day China's modernization.
The book's concern for “the economic” emphasizes the need to locate any understanding of the economy and society of China or elsewhere in the specific historical conditions of the time. It designates as “pure ideology” the seeming ahistoricity of the Austrian School, which promotes economic individualism and holds that individual desires and needs are independent of any specific economic formation. The attraction of Austrian ideas in the 1980s was closely connected to the legitimation of the re-establishment of capitalism in China. The contention that the spread of modern social sciences and economics cannot be separated from the global expansion of capitalism might well have considerable merit, but here as well as elsewhere the author's critique of other views is more strongly advanced than is any alternative she is offering in their place.
Economists and many historians need to be aware that the book's terminology and vocabulary are mainly taken from neo-Marxist philosophy and cultural studies, and those not familiar with these fields may find some of the arguments difficult to follow. Even those outsiders who accept that orthodox economics plays an ideological role might find the use of the term “magic” in reference to economics less than helpful. Of course, every discipline (and economics is no exception) has its own terminology and mode of discourse, but there is a danger that this book will be preaching to the converted in the case of those who are sympathetic to the language, while those not comfortable with that vocabulary will be unwilling to put in the effort to grapple with the important arguments the book puts forward.
In sum, this is a stimulating though idiosyncratic book. The author places it firmly in the context of her own political activism and her opposition to “noxious neoliberal trends” (pp. ix–x). Those who share her views (and her approach) will often be carried along by her rhetoric, while those who are less committed can nevertheless find – though not without effort – interesting ideas worthy of consideration.
