What do you think?
Rate this book
Cultural revolution and industrial organization in China;: Changes in management and the division of labor
Book by Bettelheim, Charles
128 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 1974
3 people are currently reading
198 people want to read
About the author
Charles Bettelheim
53 books22 followersEconomist and historian, founder of the Center for the Study of Modes of Industrialization (CEMI : Centre pour l'Étude des Modes d'Industrialisation) at the Sorbonne), economic advisor to the governments of several developing countries during the period of decolonization. He was very influential in France's New Left, and considered one of "the most visible Marxists in the capitalist world" (Le Monde, April 4, 1972), in France as well as in Spain, Italy, Latin America, and India.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
February 23, 2025
Bettelheim was a French Marxist academic. He traveled to China several times in the early 1970s as the Cultural Revolution was winding down. There he briefly studied the labor practices and microeconomics of several locals-areas, specifically a large Beijing textile factory.
Bettelheim was as sympathetic a Marxist as only a French academic could be. He asked questions, probed and was told mostly what he wanted to hear by a number of workers (all of whom were rigorously monitored by state security).
They told him what he wanted to hear- and he faithfully reported it and analyzed his experiences through the strong filter of Maoist flavored Euro- Communism ( influenced by Gramsci).
The result is dense, Maoist theoretical propaganda of the dullest kind.
To give one a flavor of Bettleheims’ prose:
“In the production units (“Danwhei) the Cultural Revolution pursued the objectives of correcting the role of work of the cadres, strengthening the relations between cadres and workers, changing the style of management and promoting a socialist outlook in everyday life-a proletarian morality based upon a proletarian world outlook (in family life, production etc.) . Central to this vision is the will to subordinate individual and particular interests to the overall interests of the revolution”. (p.20)
“one aspect of this activity was the mass movement of criticism directed against the errors of the factory cadres. Its aim was not to eliminate these cadres, except when they had made serious errors, but to help them learn from their mistakes and assimilate revolutionary ideas and the (correct) revolutionary line. (p.20)
…”The substitution of personal attacks for ideological class struggle corresponds to a bourgeois and petit- bourgeois practice and therefore pursues political ends. In resorting to these practices the ultra left sought to achieve two complementary ends: the replacement of experienced and dedicated revolutionary cadres with its own people and the preservation of existing ( capitalist road) social relationships”…etc.etc.
The book should be viewed as what it is- a Marxist propaganda piece, sympathetic to the “ anti elitist” vision of Maoist thought and condemning “ Russian style” managerial (technocratic/professional) organization.
(page 116):” …opposition between the proletarian orientation of the (then) revolutionary line and the petit- bourgeois orientation of the ultra-left was evident in regard to the question of wages. For the adherents of the proletarian line the basic task is the most thorough possible elimination of material incentives - for they strengthen the worker’s ( individualist/revisionist) bourgeois relationships to their work. For the ultra-left, on the contrary, the basic task was the restructuring of the entire wage system.
Although the revolutionary line also poses the question of restructuring the wage system (a concern which led to decisive changes via the elimination of the material incentive denounced by the masses, the simplification of a complex wage structure which divided the workers) , it does not view this as a basic and immediate problem. Proceeding from a Marxist viewpoint, it holds that , as Marx said, distribution relations are always,” the reverse side of the production relationships coin”.
It very much captures a moment of time:1970-1977, where Euro Communists especially thought “ the masses” could and would lead to an invigorated socialist work place and Leninism (and self enriching Soviet style party leadership) had ossified.
Now we know it was mostly all a lie. Millions died in the Cultural Revolution, often the best and most capable people and Chinas’ economy declined to levels not seen since the 1920s.
So great was the social misery and dislocation that the CCP reformed and nowadays is about as Capitalist as the British Labour Party- or even the German SDP.
Only a French academic could be so brilliant- and so stupid.
Bettelheim was as sympathetic a Marxist as only a French academic could be. He asked questions, probed and was told mostly what he wanted to hear by a number of workers (all of whom were rigorously monitored by state security).
They told him what he wanted to hear- and he faithfully reported it and analyzed his experiences through the strong filter of Maoist flavored Euro- Communism ( influenced by Gramsci).
The result is dense, Maoist theoretical propaganda of the dullest kind.
To give one a flavor of Bettleheims’ prose:
“In the production units (“Danwhei) the Cultural Revolution pursued the objectives of correcting the role of work of the cadres, strengthening the relations between cadres and workers, changing the style of management and promoting a socialist outlook in everyday life-a proletarian morality based upon a proletarian world outlook (in family life, production etc.) . Central to this vision is the will to subordinate individual and particular interests to the overall interests of the revolution”. (p.20)
“one aspect of this activity was the mass movement of criticism directed against the errors of the factory cadres. Its aim was not to eliminate these cadres, except when they had made serious errors, but to help them learn from their mistakes and assimilate revolutionary ideas and the (correct) revolutionary line. (p.20)
…”The substitution of personal attacks for ideological class struggle corresponds to a bourgeois and petit- bourgeois practice and therefore pursues political ends. In resorting to these practices the ultra left sought to achieve two complementary ends: the replacement of experienced and dedicated revolutionary cadres with its own people and the preservation of existing ( capitalist road) social relationships”…etc.etc.
The book should be viewed as what it is- a Marxist propaganda piece, sympathetic to the “ anti elitist” vision of Maoist thought and condemning “ Russian style” managerial (technocratic/professional) organization.
(page 116):” …opposition between the proletarian orientation of the (then) revolutionary line and the petit- bourgeois orientation of the ultra-left was evident in regard to the question of wages. For the adherents of the proletarian line the basic task is the most thorough possible elimination of material incentives - for they strengthen the worker’s ( individualist/revisionist) bourgeois relationships to their work. For the ultra-left, on the contrary, the basic task was the restructuring of the entire wage system.
Although the revolutionary line also poses the question of restructuring the wage system (a concern which led to decisive changes via the elimination of the material incentive denounced by the masses, the simplification of a complex wage structure which divided the workers) , it does not view this as a basic and immediate problem. Proceeding from a Marxist viewpoint, it holds that , as Marx said, distribution relations are always,” the reverse side of the production relationships coin”.
It very much captures a moment of time:1970-1977, where Euro Communists especially thought “ the masses” could and would lead to an invigorated socialist work place and Leninism (and self enriching Soviet style party leadership) had ossified.
Now we know it was mostly all a lie. Millions died in the Cultural Revolution, often the best and most capable people and Chinas’ economy declined to levels not seen since the 1920s.
So great was the social misery and dislocation that the CCP reformed and nowadays is about as Capitalist as the British Labour Party- or even the German SDP.
Only a French academic could be so brilliant- and so stupid.
January 13, 2025
aunq es un poco corto aporta buenos ejemplos de como se organizaba la industria y la sociedad en gral en la china de la revolución cultural
December 15, 2024
This book can be found here, and here, and likely on Library Genesis.
I would recommend reading it, especially if you are a Maoist. It discusses what is found in the title: industrial organization in China (chapter 1. Principally, of few factories as case studies)—as well as industrial economic planning (chapter 2), de-urbanization/decentralization, the narrowing of the division of labour and the division between town (industry) and country (agriculture) (chapter 3), and the theoretical background and method to "revolutionizing the relations of production" (chapter 4).
The post-script discusses the nature of ultra-left tendencies in the cultural revolution and after.
I would recommend reading it, especially if you are a Maoist. It discusses what is found in the title: industrial organization in China (chapter 1. Principally, of few factories as case studies)—as well as industrial economic planning (chapter 2), de-urbanization/decentralization, the narrowing of the division of labour and the division between town (industry) and country (agriculture) (chapter 3), and the theoretical background and method to "revolutionizing the relations of production" (chapter 4).
The post-script discusses the nature of ultra-left tendencies in the cultural revolution and after.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews