https://uldemir-711.livejournal.com/87468.htmlThe author is Evgeny Gusev, a member of the Russian Communist Party (b)
It's just humiliating for the tech giants of the West - the Chinese Huawei artel, having registered as a private company, squeezed these mega-corporations out of their own markets for several decades, while playing by their own rules. Wait, what kind of private artel? Yes, Huawei is actually listed as private both in China itself and in the rest of the world. But after all, there is collective ownership in China, and cooperative ownership is present, someone will even say that there are microscopically few companies with this type of ownership compared to private ones, and they will be completely right. The share of collective and cooperative ownership in China is constantly decreasing, which cannot be said about the share of private companies. Has China betrayed the ideals for which its people have been fighting for so long by practically destroying collective and cooperative property? For those who seriously tell such fables, after reading this article, many uncomfortable questions will appear. Let's start with a little historical background, and leave the main conclusions for the end.
With the formation of the People's Republic of China, small traders and artisans across the country began to join cooperatives, the creation of which was initiated by local authorities. These associations, under the wing of local committees, solved an important problem - providing the population with household items. The task is no less important, in fact, than producing tanks and airplanes. The means of production in these associations belonged to the workers, but often the same local authorities had their influence in them. Such companies had their own “collective" status. At that time, State-owned enterprises often set up collective companies to provide employment for family members of their employees. For example, a state-owned factory could create a collective canteen while maintaining its influence as one of the participants in its development.
That's how collective ownership came about in China, we figured it out. We are approaching 1978, the year of the development of the reforms proposed by Zhou Enlai, which were initiated under Mao Zedong and later received the name “openness reforms” under his disciple Deng Xiaoping.
Collective ownership in towns and villages also exists at this point, but interesting processes are beginning with state-owned companies. In 1979, the State Council of the People's Republic of China selected 8 state-owned enterprises, including Shougang (the largest steel company), in Beijing, Tianjin and Shanghai, for a pilot project of "transfer of authority and benefits." Businesses were allowed to keep a portion of their profits for self-management. This approach showed excellent results and soon began to spread to other state-owned companies.
At the third plenum of the CPC Central Committee of the 12th convocation, the "Decision on the reform of the economic system" was adopted, in which the reform of state-owned enterprises was identified as a key element of urban reform. A policy of "separation of power and enterprises, separation of ownership and management rights" was implemented, the dependence of enterprises on the state decreased, and workers began to receive their percentage of profits. In fact, former state-owned enterprises, in the course of decentralization, in a sense began to become artels, because their employees:
a) got the opportunity to elect the leadership;
b) they began to receive a percentage of the profit.
Even if the government's share in such a company is maintained, the overall picture does not change. Accordingly, the status of such former state-owned companies has become a new one - “collective” or “cooperative" instead of state-owned. From 1978 to 1983, the number of collective enterprises and cooperatives decreased numerically, but their revenue doubled (from 20.8 billion to 40.8 billion yuan), and the number of employees increased to 32.35 million people. This gave an impetus to the development of light industry and improved the balance of the structure of industries. China's collective sector was flourishing.
In 1993, the law “On Companies" was published, which opened a new type of ownership in China. By that time, the vast majority of the non-governmental sector of the PRC was represented by collective companies and cooperatives, and in 1991 their status was finally consolidated by the "Regulations on Urban Collective Enterprises". But with the release of the law “On Companies”, almost the entire mass of collective and cooperative enterprises joined a new type of ownership, taking the form of joint-stock companies. What for?
This is an opportunity to enter the international market. Bourgeois law does not know the concept of a “collective company.” And if such a company uses a signboard with the word “private”, while retaining all the signs of a collective company in the form of distribution of labor and elective leadership, then it will easily enter the international market. But it was not only those collective enterprises that needed to enter the international market that re-registered as private companies. By that time, many companies had difficulties with accurately determining all the shares, which had developed over the years, so it was easier to adopt a new legal framework to get rid of such a “tail”. Only rare exceptions have not been re-registered. For example, the enterprises of Nanjie commune, one of the richest villages in the world, remained in cooperative ownership. The situation is similar with the Yonggang Group cooperative in Yonglian village, in which 25% of shares are distributed directly to residents.
What do we have as a result? There is so little collective and cooperative ownership in China only because in the 90s the vast majority of companies with this type of ownership adopted a new legal framework, becoming known as “private” companies, although it would be more correct to call them “individual”, because such companies have nothing in common with private property in capitalist countries. They retained the distribution of labor and the elective leadership, simply adopting a more appropriate look in modern conditions. Therefore, for example, in Huawei, which is registered as a private enterprise, 99% of the shares belong to its employees. When an employee is dismissed, his share is returned back to the company. It is simply impossible not to notice the process of forming collective companies into private joint-stock companies while preserving all the signs of an artel. If we do not ignore this fact, it turns out that Chinese artels have not only not died out, but have continued to develop successfully, demonstrating significantly higher efficiency indicators compared to capitalist enterprises.