We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected]
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
In the last decade a variety of local studies and more comprehensive works have shed light on basic-level Chinese politics and society, but Andrew Walder's book Communist Neo-Traditionalism has been the boldest and most influential in proposing a new paradigm for understanding the human realities of life and power in China. Although the empirical base of his study is the state industrial workplace in China, Walder claims that it is applicable to industrial relation in other communist countries, and his theory fits closely with Jean Oi's analysis of clientelism in rural areas.
It is a truism that in politics words often count for as much as deeds. What is surprising about politics in the People's Republic of China, given the Chinese Communist Party's professed commitment to materialism, is how often words count for more than deeds. Disputes concerning the proper order of things are resolved not by reference to what is, but to what ought to be. The right to affect political change is argued first of all on the basis of scriptural authority, and only secondly on the basis of empirical evidence. Acts that cannot be immediately sanctioned on the basis of arguments contained in canonical texts will be kept secret until the obstacles preventing such sanction have been eliminated.
Chen Duxiu (1879–1942) and Peng Shuzhi (1896–1983) were leading members of the early Chinese Communist Party (CCP); they were both expelled from it as Trotskyists in 1929 and were arrested together in 1932. Though the two men were quite different in temperament and appearance, today book after book on the Chinese Revolution uses a photograph of Peng, looking dashed and dazed at the time of his and Chen's trial by the Guomindang in 1932, in the belief that it is of Chen. The first instance I can find of this mix-up is in the Chinese translation published in Paris in 1973 of Harold Isaacs’ Tragedy of the Chinese Revolution; it was then repeated in more widely available form in a pictorial history of modern China brought out in Hong Kong in 1976 by the pro-Communist Seventies Publishing Company.
When Womack asserts that I present a picture of “the total power of local leadership” and “total dependence” of workers, he substitutes for the main thrust of my argument a quite different one. I did not argue that dependence breeds all-powerful leaders, but that it gives rise to a clientelist pattern of authority, in which the Party uses material and career rewards to build networks of loyal followers, dividing the Party's clients from rank and file workers, and helping to stimulate a thriving subculture of instrumental–personal ties (guanxi). The focus is upon how authority is exercised – not how much authority leaders have–and the main argument is that dependence breeds personal rule.