From Reform to Revolution: The Demise of Communism in China and the Soviet Union (review)

Reviews 237 Minxin Pei. From Reform to Revolution: The Demise ofCommunism in China and the Soviet Union. Cambridge (Massachusetts) and London: Harvard University Press, 1994. 210 pp. Hardcover $39.95, isbn 0-674-32563-x. This is a closely argued work ofsystematic comparison that seeks to explain variations in the patterns oftransition from communism and poses the questions of why and how initially limited reforms in communist states turned into revolutions . The author compares economic reform in China, 1979-1992, and political reform in the Soviet Union, 1985-1991. He provides two sets of case studies, one set comparing the emergence of the private sector and the other the liberalization of the mass media in the two countries. The author develops two arguments: (1) transitions from communism involve a twin process ofmarketization and democratization, different sequences ofwhich constitute distinct routes oftransition, and (2) limited reforms in communist states became revolutions when the balance ofpower between state and society shifted in favor ofthe latter. The shift resulted from "accelerated institutional decay of the state" along with the rapid mobilization ofpreviously excluded social groups. This analysis leads the author to advance some propositions about the revolutionary significance of developments in China in the 1980s and 1990s, the present nature of the regime (and society), and the causes ofits transformation that do, in fact, qualify as "provocative" (as the book jacket announces). Pei maintains that "analogous process dynamics" are to be found in the Soviet and Chinese cases (p. 8). He considers China as well as the Soviet Union to be a "postcommunist" regime as a result of these analogous processes. Pei acknowledges that some might bridle at the notion that China's economic reforms have produced a Gorbachev-like revolution (or collapse), but maintains that the two cases are in fact comparable: "Few may disagree that Gorbachev's limited reforms unleashed a political-nationalist revolution in the Soviet Union, but many may question whether China's economic reforms had triggered a similar revolution. In fact, a capitalist revolution did break out in China in the 1980s, and it destroyed orthodox communist rule in that country" (p. 43). Two more controversial propositions are linked widi the first one—one analytical /explanatory and die otiier evaluative. First, the author argues that in China, "societal forces" by way of the market, and not the state, accomplished the transformation ofcommunism. Except for the agricultural reforms, "the govern-© 1996 by University ment neither explicidy endorsed nor actively pursued a comprehensive and conofHawai 'i Presssistent program oftransforming China's planned economy into a full market economy," but the private sector burgeoned anyway (by 1991, over half of China's GSP came from the private and "quasi-private sectors, and 61 percent ofvalue 238 China Review International: Vol. 3, No. 1, Spring 1996 added, with rural industry taking die lead" [pp. 43-44]). These developments, he asserts, add up to a "societal revolution" comparable in terms ofits revolutionary character to the Soviet Union's "nationalist democratic" revolution. Second, having set up this analytical framework of the comparative dynamics of communist transitions by way of "societal takeovers," the author reflects on whether China's "neoauthoritarian" model oftransition is better than Gorbachev's "failed experiment ." He contrasts the "stability and tranquillity" of China with "catastrophe" in Russia (p. 9), and concludes that on balance, it is better. The author's themes and arguments are painstakingly developed. He posits two actually existing paths of exit from communism: the "evolutionary authoritarian ," ofwhich China and Vietnam are the representatives, and the "revolutionary double breakthrough" (meaning democratic revolution followed by radical marketization), which encompasses the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. In the latter pattern, the democratic forces "originated in society" and achieved a "dazzling " democratic phase. Following this, "shock therapy" policies were introduced . This pattern produces an unusual regime type—a "non-market economy polyarchy." By contrast, in the evolutionary-authoritarian pattern, the leadership opposed democratization while favoring an economic reform based on gradualism , agriculture reform first, and integration into the world economy. Economic growth provides a "cushion effect" against regime delegitimation, to a point. At the same time, there are pluralizing effects from the introduction of market forces, and resources begin to shift from...