Custom Search
CHINA'S DETERMINED MARCH Towards the Ecological Civilization
Andre Vltchek
5-9-18
Many who supported this goal, however, did not suppose that announcing it committed China to major changes in the present. Many argued that China’s first task was to modernize, meaning especially to industrialize, and become a wealthy nation. Then it would have the luxury of attending to the natural environment. Few, if any, thought it meant that China would turn away from the goal of economic growth to pursue something different.
However, Chinese leaders did recognize that simply postponing the work for clear skies and a healthy environment would not work. The nation needed to pursue economic growth and a healthy natural environment simultaneously. It began evaluating the success of provincial governments by their achievements in these two distinct realms. Goals for growth were set below what would be possible, so that it could be channeled in less environmentally harmful directions. Experiments with ecovillages received encouragement.
The talk of moving toward an ecological civilization also encouraged reflection about “civilization” alongside “market.” That supported those Chinese who saw that the narrow concern for wealth at all costs was not healthy for human society. Marxism had always emphasized economic matters, but it was concerned to move society away from competition toward cooperation. It was always concerned with the distribution of goods, so that the poor would be benefited, and workers would be empowered. The idea of recovering traditional Chinese civilizational values gained in acceptance.
The extent to which the health of the natural environment and cultural goals gained status as policy goals bothered some party members. For them China’s wealth and power were crucial. An observer could not be sure that the extent to which the goal of ecological civilization was broadening the aims of government would continue. Leadership is subject to change every five years.
However, the changes at the recent Party congress tended to strengthen commitment to ecological civilization. President Xi, who has been central to the moves toward ecological civilization was given another five years. He and others reiterated the goal and affirmed steps in its direction. Now it seems likely that in the next five years he will not be a “lame-duck” president since the limitation to two terms has been removed.
To reinforce the Chinese commitment, the Parliament has written the goal of ecological civilization into the national constitution. Since the national government is regularly guided by the Party, this may not seem to make much practical difference. But the way it occurred does make clear that the nation, on the whole, is not resentful. The Chinese people do not feel that the Party’s commitment to ecological civilization is oppressive or foolish. We can have considerable confidence that China as a nation is genuinely committed and that the people share the hope for becoming an ecological civilization. Predicting the future is never safe, but as these matters go, we can have confidence that China is committed. Given the likelihood that it will supersede the United States as the global leader, this can give us grounds for hope.”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/49398.htm
John Cobb’s Role in China
John Cobb is a well-known figure in the PRC. His thoughts are having great impact on an influential group of Chinese leaders. But how would he, personally, summarize his involvement in the “Ecological Civilization” project? What impact did he have, personally, on what is happening in China, in this particular field?
“Through most of my life, the last thing I anticipated was to have a role in China. As a Protestant theologian, any hope for influence went in quite different directions. Although my theology is deeply shaped by the prophetic tradition of ancient Judaism, and I understand Marx also to have been deeply informed by that tradition, I did not expect Chinese Communists to recognize that kinship. Yet in the end, I consider that, through a remarkable sequence of chances, my role in China has been the most important part of my life. I will first describe my trajectory, then the trajectory of China, and then the wholly “improbable” intersection.
In my studies at the University of Chicago in the late nineteen forties, made possible by the GI bill, I was introduced to Alfred North Whitehead. Over the years, I have been more and more impressed by the way his “philosophy of organism” answered my questions and provided me the holistic vision that I craved, one quite contrary to the mechanist and materialist thinking that dominated American education and culture.
In the late sixties, I was awakened to the fact that the dominant modern culture was leading the world to self-destruction, and my attachment to Whitehead, as one who offered a far more promising alternative, was confirmed and deepened. Meanwhile interest in any alternative to mechanism was fading in American universities. Together with David Griffin, I seized an opportunity in 1973 to create a center to keep Whitehead’s thought alive and display its relevance to the crises of our time. This Center for Process Studies has sponsored conferences and lectures and publications displaying how Whitehead’s organic and processive thought provides a more promising pattern of thinking in many fields. Ecological concerns played a large role throughout. Although many individual scientists and professionals worked with us, the universities tightened their commitment to the modern vision we were trying to get beyond. We sometimes called ourselves postmodernists, but when that term was given wide currency by French intellectual deconstruction of modernity, David Griffin began calling us “constructive postmodernists.”
By the opening of the twentieth century, thoughtful Chinese saw that the Western colonial powers together with Japan were nibbling away at China and that classical Chinese culture was unable to compete with the West in science, technology, and military power. To maintain Chinese independence, China must modernize. It adopted the dominant Western form of modernity, bourgeois capitalism. The suffering of the poor led many to seek a better form of modernity in Marxism, and during and after World War II the Marxists replaced bourgeois democracy with rule by the Communist Party.
Mao Tse Tung made a serious effort to end China’s class society in what is called then “Cultural Revolution.” This evoked so intense an opposition from the urban middle class, that it was a painful failure, never repeated. When the Communist Party gave up this Marxist goal, what was left was rule by the party and commitment to rapid modernization as the road to national wealth and power.
At a time when French intellectuals were engaged in impassioned deconstruction of modernity, Chinese intellectuals were not comfortable with China’s dedication to it. Some of them followed the French in calling themselves postmodernists, but the French postmodernists gave little guidance in relation to China’s biggest problem with modernization — the pollution and degradation of the environment. When they discovered that there was another form of “postmodernism” that gave a great deal of attention to the natural world and made positive proposals for change, many of them were interested. One Chinese postmodernist, Zhihe Wang, came to Claremont to complete his studies with David Griffin, and it was his leadership that led to the intersection of developments in China with my life. Dr. Wang decided that he could be most effective living in the United States and frequently visiting China. His wife, Meijun Fan left a prestigious professorship in Beijing to work with him. As a result of their effective introduction of “process thought” to China, thirty-five universities have established centers focusing on the relevance of Whitehead’s thought to a wide range of topics, such as education, psychology, economics, science and values, and the legal system.
Meanwhile, partly, I assume, to assuage the distress of many urbanites with the pollution of the air, the Communist Party wrote into its constitution the goal of becoming an “ecological civilization.” Because of their reputation, the Chinese leaders in Claremont were encouraged to hold conferences on this topic here, primarily for Chinese scholars. These gave me and other American “constructive postmodernists” an opportunity to participate in shaping the meaning of the initially rich and suggestive, but rather vague, term. This has probably been our major contribution.
There has been one very important shift in Chinese policy due to the commitment to “ecological civilization.” As part of its goal of modernization, China planned to industrialize agriculture. At many of the conferences here and at others in China, we argued that China could not build an ecological civilization on an industrial agriculture. The Communist Party was persuaded to shift its policies from the continuing depopulation of rural China to the development of the thousands of villages that were slated for destruction. Policies have changed, and in 2016, for the first time, more people moved from cities to countryside than from countryside to cities. Development of villages has been emphasized along with the goal of ecological civilization in last fall’s crucial meetings of the Communist Party. And I believe that the Chinese parliament’s writing the goal of ecological civilization into the national constitution implies its support of the changed rural policies. It seems highly probable that this important shift in Chinese society will endure.
Obviously, the shift was primarily due to the work of many Chinese. However, harsh criticism by Americans of the consequences of industrializing agriculture in the United States probably played a role. Again, my voice was only one of many. Partly, no doubt, because of my age, I am given far more credit than I deserve. But I am very proud of whatever contribution I made to this shift that affects hundreds of millions of Chinese and gives some concrete meaning to “ecological civilization”.
Centralized Power
In many ways, China became the leader, when it comes to ecology, as well as combining traditional culture with modernity. It is determined to build the entire civilization around its ecological and cultural concerns. It appears that in the future, the ‘markets’ and financial considerations may play important but secondary role. Is it mainly possible because of the centralized/Communist nature of the Chinese political and economic system (including the central planning)?
“I have neither study nor experience qualifying me to address this question. But I still have opinions; so, I’ll share them.
Clearly in China it has been the leadership of the central government that has set the course, done the planning, and implemented what it planned. For those of us who believe the world needs urgently to move toward ecological civilization, this has worked well. Prior to the meetings last fall, I remained unsure about whether everything depended on a particular leader who might be replaced. That he emerged from the fall events with increased power was reassuring, especially because he strongly expressed determination to continue implementing policies favoring the move toward ecological civilization.
There was still the possibility that representatives of other factions in the Communist Party, who sought to replace Xi, might treat him as a “lame duck.” Now that the impossibility of a third term has been removed, that danger also is gone. An extended period of leadership can probably make some policies so identified with the nation that they will continue even if a successor is not personally committed to the goal of ecological civilization.
All of this is to say that centralized power is currently working in a remarkably promising way not paralleled by other countries with less centralized political power.
Some European countries achieved a considerable move toward ecological civilization earlier than China. That they are not currently leading may be because they are already farther along on the needed trajectory. They have made significant desirable policy changes without centralized power. In these countries, the public as whole is well informed and capable of making wise decisions. Governments are sufficiently democratic that they express the public desires. In some cases, commitment to sustainable practices and meeting the basic needs of all citizens has become the “common sense” of the people sufficiently that it is likely not to be radically abandoned by changing officials. It was impressive that, when Trump withdrew the United States from the Paris Accords, there was very little interest in such withdrawal in Europe, even though the reasons for withdrawal applied equally there. Apparently, the corporate world in Europe has adjusted to new needs and expectations as it has not in the United States.
Even so, I have more confidence in endurance in China with its centralized control than in European countries more directly subject to popular opinion. Thus far, European countries have been fairly prosperous. Pollution control and other ecologically valuable policies have not led to unemployment or economic immiseration. Thus, the level of commitment to ecological needs has not been seriously tested.
In contrast, the need to accept large numbers of refugees has been sufficient to weaken consensus on a range of issues. It is not hard to imagine that corporations that have thus far been cooperative with good policies might take advantage of dissident public opinion to seek the kinds of changes that the United States is currently experiencing. These corporations often control the media and thus can shape public opinion to support their ends.
As I compare China’s success in giving serious attention to the well-being of its natural environment and needy citizens with that of European countries, my reason for betting on China is that I have some confidence that it will maintain governmental control of finance and of corporations generally. If it does this, it can also control the media. Thus, it has a chance of making financial and industrial corporations serve the national good as perceived by people not in their service. Less centralized governments are less able to control the financial and other corporations whose short-term interests may conflict with the common good.
Of course, the concentration of power in countries like China does not guarantee the continuation of governmental service of the common good. There is an old adage in the West: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. I think the Communist Party in China works hard to socialize its members to resist corruption. I think it has been largely successful. But if the government relaxes its anti-corruption efforts, there is a danger that Chinese policies will tend to support Chinese billionaires as happens in capitalist countries.
My hero, Jesus, asserted that no one can serve God and money. If we understand that God’s desire is for the common good, we can translate, no one can serve both money and the common good. I think that at the present time, the Chinese Communist Party is more successful in cultivating a commitment to the common good than are the churches in the West. That may be more important than the question of how centralized the power may be.
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are his tribute to “The Great October Socialist Revolution” a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter.