I don’t just mean personal property, I mean private ownership of the means of production and distribution. This is the germ of capitalism, but is not capitalism itself. Socialism and capitalism are systems, you cannot slice up parts of the system and identify some as capitalist and some as socialist.
Regarding Mao’s significance in liberating China, I already agree with you. However, I sincerely disagree with your underplaying of Mao’s contributions towards the buildup of socialism in China.
As for the Great Leap Forward, during 1949 and 1978, the per hectare yield of land sown with food crops increased by 145.9% and total food production rose 169.6%. During this period China’s population grew by 77.7%. On these figures, China’s per capita food production grew from 204 kilograms to 328 kilograms in the period in question.
In 1952, industry was 36% of gross value of national output in China. By 1975, industry was 72% and agriculture was 28%. It is quite obvious that Mao’s supposedly disastrous socialist economic policies paved the way for the rapid economic and industrial development of Reform and Opening Up.
Official Chinese statistics show that after the end of the Leap in 1962, industrial output value had doubled; the gross value of agricultural products increased by 35 percent; steel production in 1962 was between 10.6 million tons or 12 million tons; investment in capital construction rose to 40 percent from 35 percent in the First Five-Year Plan period; the investment in capital construction was doubled; and the average income of workers and farmers increased by up to 30 percent. Additionally, there was significant capital construction (especially in iron, steel, mining and textile enterprises) that ultimately contributed greatly to China’s industrialization.
Heavy industry grew a great deal in this period too. Developments such as the establishment of the Taching oil field during the Great Leap Forward provided a great boost to the development of heavy industry. A massive oil field was developed in China. This was developed after 1960 using indigenous techniques, rather than Soviet or western techniques. (Specifically the workers used pressure from below to help extract the oil. They did not rely on constructing a multitude of derricks, as is the usual practice in oil fields).
See the original link for sources. Of course, there were mistakes, such as relying on the peasantry for the creation of steel in backyard furnaces. However, it is also undeniable that industrialization was rapidly achieved.
I have given my arguments as for why China is socialist, and the term “real socialism” is more religious and sentimental than logical. China is under a dictatorship of the proletariat, and has public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. This is true.
I don’t just mean personal property, I mean private ownership of the means of production and distribution. This is the germ of capitalism, but is not capitalism itself. Socialism and capitalism are systems, you cannot slice up parts of the system and identify some as capitalist and some as socialist.
I understand all of that, but I’m getting at something slightly different.
I hope you’ll agree with me that socialism in China is not yet fully built—that it is still in a raw, unfinished state.
In your view, what will socialism in China look like once it reaches its completed form?
How will people be induced—through the use of “soft power”—to give up private property? Or will they be compelled to give it up at all?
However, I sincerely disagree with your underplaying of Mao’s contributions towards the buildup of socialism in China.
Yes, Mao did lay the industrial and agrarian foundations over the course of several decades—I agree with that.
However, don’t forget that by the 1940s, the USSR had risen to second place in the world in terms of industrial capacity! Stalin even appeared on the cover of Time. The entire world acknowledged it. And this wasn’t merely a foundation, but a fully operational industrial sector. Furthermore, you can scarcely imagine the destitute state the country was in back in 1930.
Now, perhaps, you understand why I consider something else entirely to be truly remarkable.
the term “real socialism” is more religious and sentimental than logical.
You’re trying to take a jab at me again with this “incorrect socialism” argument.
Okay, let me be more precise, then. In that video, the host referred to Chinese socialism as Maoism—specifically stating that Maoism is a distorted superstructure built upon Marxism and Leninism. That is precisely—word for word—how it was viewed in the USSR back then.
And let me reiterate: I didn’t say this to you; the USSR said it. Every single film in the Soviet Union was subjected to rigorous censorship before being aired on television.
China is under a dictatorship of the proletariat
Yes—except that the term “dictatorship of the proletariat” was struck from the CPC Charter in the early 80s… in case you didn’t know.
Socialism in China is already existing, just in a primary stage, rather than advanced. As production and distribution advances, private ownership will continue to be gradually appropriated and folded into the public sector, creating a fully planned economy. Here’s Cheng Enfu’s diagram explaining it:
I’m aware that the USSR had critique of Chinese socialism. China also criticized Soviet socialism, and in many cases I agree with the Soviets over the Chinese socialists. However, this does not mean Mao Zedong Thought is a “distorted superstructure,” Mao Zedong Thought is the learned experience and theory from China’s specific socialist construction process. Functionally, the PRC remains a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Socialism in China is already existing, just in a primary stage, rather than advanced.
Yes, I completely agree with you and have never denied that. I merely pointed out China’s current shortcomings—issues that need to be addressed, rather than denied as if they didn’t exist.
As production and distribution advances, private ownership will continue to be gradually appropriated and folded into the public sector, creating a fully planned economy.
Yes, the ultimate goal is clear to me as well.
Here’s Cheng Enfu’s diagram explaining it:
Yes, I have a rough idea—but, Comrade, I don’t know English quite as well as I’d like. And Google doesn’t translate tables…
I’m aware that the USSR had critique of Chinese socialism.
That’s putting it very mildly… The thawing of relations didn’t begin until the Gorbachev era. Finally, the Chinese leadership liked what was happening in the USSR… ))) But in reality, it was all very simple: the USSR admitted defeat.
China also criticized Soviet socialism
(What was written in Smena magazine, February 1–3, 1967)
“Red Guards” (紅衛兵) Block the Way
“For the sixth day, the Soviet Embassy in Beijing has been besieged by frenzied mobs of Red Guards. Anti-Soviet speeches are being broadcast via loudspeakers. Announcers read out ‘death sentences’ issued by the Red Guards against embassy staff members. A welcoming ceremony for Chinese students arriving in Beijing—students who had participated in hooliganistic disturbances on Red Square in Moscow on January 25—was turned into an anti-Soviet demonstration. Speeches delivered at the event contained crude invective and calls for violent reprisals against Soviet citizens. On the streets, Soviet citizens—including diplomats leaving the embassy—are surrounded by crowds of Red Guards who block their path, hold them in place for hours on end, and subject them to humiliation, intimidation, and blackmail.”
Mao Zedong Thought is the learned experience and theory from China’s specific socialist construction process.
…very specific, to put it mildly…
Functionally, the PRC remains a dictatorship of the proletariat.
This question should be directed at Ma—and at those who buy luxury cars. China is the global leader in luxury car purchases.
I’m curious: when China makes its full transition to socialism, what will become of all those cars, yachts, and villas? Or will every Chinese person be able to afford them? … )))
I’m not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels.
As for Cheng Enfu’s diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy.
As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People’s War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn’t universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam.
As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It’s a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China’s socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker.
I’m not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels.
In case you hadn’t noticed, I am basing my arguments exclusively on historical facts—the vast majority of which have been verified against sources from both the West and the East.
If you have any specific questions regarding this, please point them out to me.
As for me, watching documentary footage of the events that took place in China during those years sometimes makes my hair stand on end…
We are not discussing modern Chinese history right now; we are talking about the post-war era in China.
Oh, I also forgot to add something. The USSR handed over complete technical documentation for 1,500 major industrial enterprises to Mao. The USSR provided all of this free of charge. Can you imagine what Mao would have managed to build there without it? He probably would have forced peasants to engage in mechanical engineering and metal rolling right in their vegetable gardens.
I recall you claiming that Mao built things—or something to that effect—without any involvement from the USSR… yeah, right.
To me, Mao is akin to Castro or Che Guevara—certainly not to Stalin in the 1930s. Mao was a professional, iron-willed revolutionary; Mao was a warrior. He succeeded in uniting the Chinese people and leading them. Mao established a robust state system—one that subsequently withstood the onslaught of capitalism.
As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People’s War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn’t universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam.
This is the first I’ve heard of the Line of Masses—very interesting.
This is the first I’ve heard of the “Line of the Masses”—very interesting.
Is this connected to those leaflets that were pasted on the wall? I’ve forgotten what those walls are called.
Excessive luxury is being cracked down on
I would like to understand the mechanisms of this process.
I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree.
Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China’s experience.
As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually.
Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China’s experience.
Yes, I’ve familiarized myself a bit with the mass line; yes, I agree, it’s a very good idea.
While looking into it, I came across this:
“But the socialist system in our country has been established only recently; its formation is not yet complete, and it has not yet fully consolidated itself. In joint state-private industrial and commercial enterprises, capitalists still receive a fixed percentage—that is, exploitation still exists; in terms of ownership, enterprises of this type are not yet fully socialist in character. Some agricultural and handicraft production cooperatives still retain a semi-socialist character; even in fully socialist cooperatives, certain specific issues regarding ownership still need to be resolved.”
No, Comrade, it wasn’t Xi who said that; it was Mao in 1957… ))) I hope you catch the hint, Comrade.
I decided to explore Mao’s writings a bit and chose this book:
“On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People”
the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media
This is likely not an attempt to combat ostentatious displays of wealth, but rather a move to temper public resentment—to keep it out of the public eye.
and punishing those found guilty of corruption
By the way, a fierce crackdown on corruption is currently underway in Russia. This began after the war started, when it turned out that everyone had been pulling the wool over Putin’s eyes with inflated reports. A great many generals are currently in prison, and the same applies to local officials; Putin has given them a bit of a shake-up.
Corruption is dangerous and harmful under any political system.
China, the number of billionaires is decreasing
Yes, I heard that the number of billionaires has decreased slightly.
I don’t just mean personal property, I mean private ownership of the means of production and distribution. This is the germ of capitalism, but is not capitalism itself. Socialism and capitalism are systems, you cannot slice up parts of the system and identify some as capitalist and some as socialist.
Regarding Mao’s significance in liberating China, I already agree with you. However, I sincerely disagree with your underplaying of Mao’s contributions towards the buildup of socialism in China.
As for the Great Leap Forward, during 1949 and 1978, the per hectare yield of land sown with food crops increased by 145.9% and total food production rose 169.6%. During this period China’s population grew by 77.7%. On these figures, China’s per capita food production grew from 204 kilograms to 328 kilograms in the period in question.
See the original link for sources. Of course, there were mistakes, such as relying on the peasantry for the creation of steel in backyard furnaces. However, it is also undeniable that industrialization was rapidly achieved.
I have given my arguments as for why China is socialist, and the term “real socialism” is more religious and sentimental than logical. China is under a dictatorship of the proletariat, and has public ownership as the principal aspect of the economy. This is true.
I understand all of that, but I’m getting at something slightly different.
I hope you’ll agree with me that socialism in China is not yet fully built—that it is still in a raw, unfinished state.
In your view, what will socialism in China look like once it reaches its completed form?
How will people be induced—through the use of “soft power”—to give up private property? Or will they be compelled to give it up at all?
Yes, Mao did lay the industrial and agrarian foundations over the course of several decades—I agree with that.
However, don’t forget that by the 1940s, the USSR had risen to second place in the world in terms of industrial capacity! Stalin even appeared on the cover of Time. The entire world acknowledged it. And this wasn’t merely a foundation, but a fully operational industrial sector. Furthermore, you can scarcely imagine the destitute state the country was in back in 1930.
Now, perhaps, you understand why I consider something else entirely to be truly remarkable.
You’re trying to take a jab at me again with this “incorrect socialism” argument.
Okay, let me be more precise, then. In that video, the host referred to Chinese socialism as Maoism—specifically stating that Maoism is a distorted superstructure built upon Marxism and Leninism. That is precisely—word for word—how it was viewed in the USSR back then.
And let me reiterate: I didn’t say this to you; the USSR said it. Every single film in the Soviet Union was subjected to rigorous censorship before being aired on television.
Yes—except that the term “dictatorship of the proletariat” was struck from the CPC Charter in the early 80s… in case you didn’t know.
Socialism in China is already existing, just in a primary stage, rather than advanced. As production and distribution advances, private ownership will continue to be gradually appropriated and folded into the public sector, creating a fully planned economy. Here’s Cheng Enfu’s diagram explaining it:
I’m aware that the USSR had critique of Chinese socialism. China also criticized Soviet socialism, and in many cases I agree with the Soviets over the Chinese socialists. However, this does not mean Mao Zedong Thought is a “distorted superstructure,” Mao Zedong Thought is the learned experience and theory from China’s specific socialist construction process. Functionally, the PRC remains a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Yes, I completely agree with you and have never denied that. I merely pointed out China’s current shortcomings—issues that need to be addressed, rather than denied as if they didn’t exist.
Yes, the ultimate goal is clear to me as well.
Yes, I have a rough idea—but, Comrade, I don’t know English quite as well as I’d like. And Google doesn’t translate tables…
That’s putting it very mildly… The thawing of relations didn’t begin until the Gorbachev era. Finally, the Chinese leadership liked what was happening in the USSR… ))) But in reality, it was all very simple: the USSR admitted defeat.
(What was written in Smena magazine, February 1–3, 1967)
“Red Guards” (紅衛兵) Block the Way
“For the sixth day, the Soviet Embassy in Beijing has been besieged by frenzied mobs of Red Guards. Anti-Soviet speeches are being broadcast via loudspeakers. Announcers read out ‘death sentences’ issued by the Red Guards against embassy staff members. A welcoming ceremony for Chinese students arriving in Beijing—students who had participated in hooliganistic disturbances on Red Square in Moscow on January 25—was turned into an anti-Soviet demonstration. Speeches delivered at the event contained crude invective and calls for violent reprisals against Soviet citizens. On the streets, Soviet citizens—including diplomats leaving the embassy—are surrounded by crowds of Red Guards who block their path, hold them in place for hours on end, and subject them to humiliation, intimidation, and blackmail.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embassy_of_Russia,_Beijing
…very specific, to put it mildly…
This question should be directed at Ma—and at those who buy luxury cars. China is the global leader in luxury car purchases.
I’m curious: when China makes its full transition to socialism, what will become of all those cars, yachts, and villas? Or will every Chinese person be able to afford them? … )))
I’m not denying that China has shortcomings. I believe you are magnifying them beyond their actual levels.
As for Cheng Enfu’s diagram, it essentially describes increasing planning and decreasing marketization over time. Marketization helps socialize production, and over time this is reigned in, creating a fully planned economy.
As for Mao Zedong Thought, some aspects have applicability elsewhere. The Mass Line is a generally useful tactic, Protracted People’s War can be useful in largely agrarian countries with high peasant populations and smaller urban centers, and so forth. It isn’t universal, but Mao Zedong Thought works well for China and tactics from it have seen success in the global south, including in Vietnam.
As for your insinuation that there are privledged people in China, yes, this is true. This is a side-effect of the socialist market economy. It’s a tradeoff, an inefficiency that serves as a sort of price for the positive aspects of the socialist market economy. Excessive luxury is being cracked down on, and as China’s socialist system develops, obscene wealth is being diminished while absolute wealth rises for the average worker.
In case you hadn’t noticed, I am basing my arguments exclusively on historical facts—the vast majority of which have been verified against sources from both the West and the East.
If you have any specific questions regarding this, please point them out to me.
As for me, watching documentary footage of the events that took place in China during those years sometimes makes my hair stand on end…
We are not discussing modern Chinese history right now; we are talking about the post-war era in China.
Oh, I also forgot to add something. The USSR handed over complete technical documentation for 1,500 major industrial enterprises to Mao. The USSR provided all of this free of charge. Can you imagine what Mao would have managed to build there without it? He probably would have forced peasants to engage in mechanical engineering and metal rolling right in their vegetable gardens.
I recall you claiming that Mao built things—or something to that effect—without any involvement from the USSR… yeah, right.
To me, Mao is akin to Castro or Che Guevara—certainly not to Stalin in the 1930s. Mao was a professional, iron-willed revolutionary; Mao was a warrior. He succeeded in uniting the Chinese people and leading them. Mao established a robust state system—one that subsequently withstood the onslaught of capitalism.
This is the first I’ve heard of the Line of Masses—very interesting.
This is the first I’ve heard of the “Line of the Masses”—very interesting.
Is this connected to those leaflets that were pasted on the wall? I’ve forgotten what those walls are called.
I would like to understand the mechanisms of this process.
I never said Mao did not rely heavily on the USSR, so I will largely ignore those points as we do not really disagree.
Regarding the Mass Line, it is essentially the tactic of taking policy from the people, and having the party reinterpret it and enact it accordingly. It is a way to avoid commandism and tailism, and has been applied by various ML or Maoist parties. Maoists tend to believe it is universal, while MLs tend to believe it is particular to certain conditions similar to China’s experience.
As for cracking down on excessive luxury, one example is the censorship of flaunting wealth on social media, and punishing those found guilty of corruption, taking bribes, etc. In China, the number of billionaires is decreasing, as the NEP-style economy is transitioning to a more advanced planned economy gradually.
Yes, I’ve familiarized myself a bit with the mass line; yes, I agree, it’s a very good idea.
While looking into it, I came across this:
“But the socialist system in our country has been established only recently; its formation is not yet complete, and it has not yet fully consolidated itself. In joint state-private industrial and commercial enterprises, capitalists still receive a fixed percentage—that is, exploitation still exists; in terms of ownership, enterprises of this type are not yet fully socialist in character. Some agricultural and handicraft production cooperatives still retain a semi-socialist character; even in fully socialist cooperatives, certain specific issues regarding ownership still need to be resolved.”
No, Comrade, it wasn’t Xi who said that; it was Mao in 1957… ))) I hope you catch the hint, Comrade.
I decided to explore Mao’s writings a bit and chose this book:
“On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People”
This is likely not an attempt to combat ostentatious displays of wealth, but rather a move to temper public resentment—to keep it out of the public eye.
By the way, a fierce crackdown on corruption is currently underway in Russia. This began after the war started, when it turned out that everyone had been pulling the wool over Putin’s eyes with inflated reports. A great many generals are currently in prison, and the same applies to local officials; Putin has given them a bit of a shake-up.
Corruption is dangerous and harmful under any political system.
Yes, I heard that the number of billionaires has decreased slightly.