Two sewing machines, a major consumption item in China more than 40 years ago, are exhibited on a creative cultural wall in Rizhao, Shandong Province. Photo: CFP

Chinese modernization represents a major theoretical innovation that has emerged from the long-term experience and exploration of the CPC and the Chinese people. It is not only a monumental and arduous undertaking, but also the most recent significant accomplishment of scientific socialism. In a recent interview with CSST, Karl Gerth, a professor from the UCSD Department of History, shared his academic understanding of Chinese modernization, and his research on the relationship between industrialization and consumption in the process of modernization.

Key aspects of Chinese modernization

Gerth is impressed by the remarkable speed and range of accomplishments of the CPC-led state and the Chinese people. After 1949, China underwent a rapid process of industrialization, witnessing a doubling of the average lifespan within a few decades. While Western historical studies on the PRC extensively document the substantial costs associated with China’s transformation, the benefits derived from its modernization are not given equal attention or frequency of discussion.

“I don’t think the newly established PRC had many good options,” said Gerth. Chinese leaders and people concluded that they had to modernize immediately, or risk even longer subordination to the imperialist powers and prolonged poverty for the population. 

While many Western scholars would point to the political differences between China and the West, Gerth focuses on the state-led aspects of Chinese modernization as both a key aspect of its transformation and a central part of the tension with capitalist countries.

Industrialization and consumption

While traditional research on modernization focuses on politics and industrial production, Gerth has centered his work on consumerism. Compared to identity, race, ethnicity, gender, and class, consumerism has been underappreciated in peoples’ understanding of the modern world, and not just with respect to China.

What Gerth calls “industrial consumerism” has three parts: the mass production of products; the mass circulation of meanings associated with mass produced goods; and the increasing use of mass-produced things, and the ideas associated with them to communicate hierarchical identities. All three of these combine to create a culture around consumption. As industrial consumption is the flipside of industrial production, Gerth also names this culture “industrial consumerism” or “mass consumerism.”

Gerth observed notable distinctions in Chinese consumerism when compared to more industrialized nations. As a latecomer to industrialization, the Chinese government realized it could not simply rely on markets and private capital to industrialize quickly. China needed to overcome its relative backwardness as fast as possible with state-led industrialization. The state had to set priorities rather than have markets allocate scarce resources. This role of the state extended deeply into the development of consumerism in China.

“Of course, other countries, including the United States, had also used the state to manage consumerism. But, in China, the CPC used the state much more widely, intensively, and openly,” Gerth said. “So, the role of the state in the development of Chinese consumerism is much more central and conspicuous.”

Powerful government coordination

In Gerth’s opinion, the similarities between China and other “latecomers” to industrialization are more pronounced than the differences. The PRC is frequently used as an example of successful state-led industrialization that other developing countries want to emulate. But the PRC also provides an example of the powerful coordination of both production and consumption.

“Consumerism is often an afterthought to studies of modernization,” Gerth remarked. Until a few decades ago, scholars assumed that whatever was produced would automatically be consumed, and demand for products was unlimited. But more recent scholarship on modernization focuses on how people needed to learn to desire more and more products. Along the way, they also needed to become willing to sacrifice more and more of their time and energy to try to acquire products. In short, without consumerism, there would be no industrialization. And vice-versa.

As mentioned, one distinct role of China’s modernization since 1949 is the central role of the state. What is less commonly noted is that the Chinese state not only prioritized what the country produced but also what and how Chinese people consumed, Gerth noted.

“State consumerism” is Gerth’s term to describe the state involvement in all three aspects of consumerism: what got produced and who got it, the ideas associated with mass produced products, and how possession of those things began to define people’s identities. People began to want specific branded products to communicate that they were a rich farmer, a successful manager, an intellectual, or a city-dweller. In the early years of the PRC, every urban household had stories of desiring and trying to acquire the “san da jian” [three big items].

As the country successfully industrialized, it also promoted consumption as a way to get people to work harder with material incentives. However, Gerth warns that inequality may follow industrialization. In industrial capitalist countries, the winners of industrialization were urban residents, those working in state factories, and white-collar workers, while rural farmers, women, and manual laborers were disadvantaged. Hence the Chinese government has introduced policies to address inequality.

Edited by CHEN MIRONG