China's Government Economy-The Most Bizarre Economy In The World

[Polly]

Tomorrow, I promise

[Polly]

In May 1959, Chen Yun was diagnosed with coronary disease and had to convalesce.  He handed over his job to Li Fu Chun.  Chen Yun, just as Deng Xiao Ping, did not attend that Lushang Conference.  The Conference was nothing but a fiasco in terms of the political and economic planning of China.  Mao Zedong, because of various psychological reasons, pressed ahead with his own will.  What should have been anti-left turned out to be anti-right. And the subsequent years saw the economy turning into a pot of porridge.

From the perspective of economic growth, negative growth had been recorded for a few years and growth did not return to the level of 1959 until 1964.  This is not to say that the planning was all for naught, worse, great havoc was created.  We have to understand that negative growth was nothing but a catastrophe for a country with very low base such as China.  As things currently stand, were we to have a growth of 6%, we will be getting ourselves massive economic difficulty. Taking Mao’s creation of negative growth all those years into perspective, although it would be an exaggeration to assert that 30 million were starved to death, it is almost certain that over 1 million had famished.  This can not be explained away by reasons such as complicity in circumstances, or confounding choices or wrong election of course to take or lapses in economic planning.  In fact the circumstances were far from complicated.  The catastrophe was entirely the result of ignorance of economic operations and left-leaning fervor.  The majority of the insiders knew what the problem was, they were just unable to go against the personal decision of Mao Zedong.

With the chaos getting out of hand, Mao Zedong could only turn around and clear up the mess.  He admitted failure out right and that he did not understand economics.  On 7th January, 1962 in the 7000-people conference, Mao said, “I am responsible for all of the direct mistakes and errors of the central government and I am partly responsible for all other indirect mistakes and errors, because I am the Chairman of the central government.  I am not asking others to shift responsibility though, because some other comrades are responsible as well, but I should be the first one to be made responsible.” “Take me for instance, there are a lot of issues in economic construction that I do not really know.  Industry and commerce are something I don’t really know.  In terms of agriculture, I know a little, but that is just relatively speaking, I can’t say I know a lot.”  To pick up the messes, he allowed others to carry out the adjustment.  Liu Shaoqi (Liu, young, unusual/weird/rare/strange, man on left in the previous picture) said, “We have gone left for so many years, let’s give the right a bit of a try.” Chen Yun, being an economics expert, captured the overall picture and drew up plans very quickly, making instructive contributions.

Unfortunately, Chen Yun and Mao were unable to agree on “Bao Chan Dao Hu” (note 1).  In September 1962, he was impugned on a nameless basis and had been given the cold shoulder ever since.  He had disappeared from the frontline of economic planning for 11 years and only worked again in 1973.  As a result Liu Shaoqi was mainly in charge of economic adjustment before the Cultural Revolution and he had made marked progress.

It should be quite evident from the above that Mao did not understand the nitty gritty of economic operations and even he admitted himself it.  His ignorance compounded with his willfulness caused great economic calamity, this is unimputable. Of course there were those further down the ladder who followed suit [in mob righteousness] and it was not his problem alone.  However Mao had to bear primary responsibility.

In respect of putting forward some cardinal economic construction principles, such as self-reliance and pressing with full force and determination, those would be his contribution.

These economic contribution did not require the kind of high originality he had demonstrated in organizing the army and the party cadre, commanding troops and warfare and directing social reform, nor was he irreplaceable in the role.  As a matter of fact, these instructive principles were common in the developing countries around the world.  Latin America which engaged in “import substitution” was aiming at industrialization and self-autonomy in manufacturing.  China was more successful in her endeavor because her social reform was more successful, landowners were abolished and done with by the strong government, education became universal, and there was large scale technological transfer from the USSR.  It was little wonder therefore that her industrialization was more successful.

This achievement of the Open Up and Reform Policy was no different.  The main reason is not that China had some magical economic policy that trumped those of other developing countries. It was simply because she was massively more powerful in the execution and operational prowess. As long as there is no big mistakes in the implementation, she would fare far better than her counterparts.  The Chinese talked about opening up and reform, when in fact they did not have the faintest clue of what to do or how to go about it, they have come this far only by fumbling along and by trial and error.  Were Deng Xiaoping the economic superman to reform India instead, he would have gone kaput.

Putting it another way, nowadays all countries know technology is the key, that it is the primary production force, that their countries must master technology and know how to make stuffs, that they must modernize themselves, that they must progress towards an intellectual type of economy.  All the educated citizens in the developing countries know the above.  Yet if they try to realize these goals, they will meet massive difficulties. Even Russia has gone off to sell raw material instead.  The issue turns on operational prowess.

Look at the above and we should be able to understand why Mao’s reputation in economic construction is far less impressive than his other achievements.  I believe if he refrained from meddling, concentrated on social reform and let his comrades-in-arms have a free hand instead, the achievement would be much higher.  In fact his comrades-in-arms were pretty good.  History has proven them to be a very combative team: Chen Yun, Liu Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping, Zhou Enlai all came up with good economic results.

Of course it is possible that Mao had more lofty and commendable goals, such as reforming the whole world, that went beyond economic construction.  But it is not a reason to exonerate his fault in bringing about the calamity, nor can it mitigate his culpability. 


Note 1. A new production system whereby households of farmers covenanted with the government to hand over an amount of produce in consideration for using the government’s land.  Any surplus would be retained by the farmers.  Below is such a covenant, signed by 15 Yans and 5 Guans.

[Art]

Whats a Yan and a Guan?

[Polly]

  Actually there are 16 Yans, I missed the one on top.  Yan is a surname and it also means severe, serious, Guan is a surname also and it means closure, pass, barrier, concern etc.  Because the contracting party came in the unit of a household, they had the same surnames.  You can see their finger prints and personal seals if you look carefully.

[Art]

so they are all 'seriously concerned' in that household then 

[Polly]

I will be black.

[chenjing]

Hello, Polly.  I am Chenjing, the author, and glad to read your translation of my two long articles.
You are very good in translation, quite impressive. I live in Hong Kong, are you also here?

[Polly]

X.X

I died.

 


OH MY GOD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Never in my wildest dream did I think you will be here Mr. Chen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Could I have your autograph please?!!!!!

I thought it was a prank, some kid took your name and registered!

I died again.

....

Yes yes yes, I live in Hong Kong.    You should write in English!  So that I could be spared from displaying my inadequacy, honestly.

  Nice to make your acquaintance, I am SO FLATTERED!

[alvraddegrot]

It seems rather to me that all this isn't very surprising and China's finally adopting the role it the it should have given its natural advantages. China is a large, reasonably resource-rich country with a largely temperate climate with a variety of climatic zones, good access to the sea, and has a large workforce with a good work ethic. Why didn't it develop earlier? Well, could have something to do with the idiotic governmental zenophobia and conservatism which dominated in the Imperial period, followed by equally dogmatic and reactionary Maoism.

I'm not by any means some kind of staunch neoconservative, but pragmatism and adaptability pays off - China's finally got a bit more 'with it', and it's getting results. It's just like evolutionary theory - the most adaptable do best if the environment changes, and that, in my opinion, is why the 'west' did so well for so long. They actually took onboard new ideas, changed socially and economically, and very much 'got out there' into the world, albeit in a rather vile way. Indeed they initiated 'environmental' (i.e. economic in this context) change to a great extent, and as they could adapt to this they did well but those that couldn't/didn't did badly.

Why did Britain, for example, do so well when Spain lagged in the 19th and 20th centuries? Because Spain didn't modernise - conservatism, i.e. lack of adaptability, was the problem. People worry endlessly about countries loosing their own 'culture' and becoming 'westernised', but what is 'westernisation'? Is it adoption of traditional European culture? Of course not, tradional European culture involved a hugely dominant (Catholic) church, an agrarian economy, often serfdom, and near constant military escapades. Today's 'western' culture is the result of adaptation, freedom for new ideas to be put into practice, and rational response to 'environmental' conditions - for a country to do well, it too must surely adopt such scope for adaptation?

...As a total aside, as this whoel thing is about China, but maybe this idea fo 'adaptability'  explains the fate of the Roman empire? Culturally it was remarkably adaptable and progressive for a long time, and this did rather better than a lot of more conservative cultures like the celts etc. Then it became rather complacent as it was doing so well and also adopted Christianity as a state religion, making it less culturally manoeuvrable. And then to top this off a load of warriors arrived in central Europe who wanted land and they ended up with some rather irrational Emperors etc. - goodbye!

[Polly]

It is easy with the benefit of hind sight and the fiasco of the USSR and Chinese emperiment with Communism to lose sight of the fact that Communism was a fantastic and entirely novel idea that caught everyone's imagination at the time, people genuinely believed it was a big fantastic entreprise that was worthy of a go.  And people did give it a go.  I don't think it is very fair to say well they were stupid because they embarked on something that was doomed to failure.

And there is a difference between the west and the east and the more I mingle with westerners I more acutely I feel it, and this is coming out from a life-long recipient of western colonial education.  To put it very very very broadly, the fundamental difference could be Asians (still) believe in the broad order of things, the Way, the macro-matrix, that men who violate the order either wittingly or not, will come to find unthinkable blowback, while Westerners believe the sky is the human limit. Good bye.

[alvraddegrot]

I absolutely understand what you're saying about communism, but it's the dogmaticness which was the flaw, not the trying of the idea in the first place - it was the failure to see when things weren't working and change policy, i.e. the failure to be pragmatic and adaptable (to clear up I wasn't saying anyone was stupid!). I'm not making a moral judgement here - of course morally pragmatism often isn't great, but it usually correlates to 'success' as far as I can see. As the article you posted above implies, this may have been just largely due to Mao's lack of knowledge, but whatever the reason the effect is the same.

Personally I'm pretty socialist and the idea of communism certainly appeals to me, though doesn't correlate in my opinion to historical reality, thus not being a good model of how society trully evolves. I should also point out that I was talking about specifically Maoism not communism per se, as Maosism seems to have a rather inward looking and conservative outlook with regards healthcare and development in general. Of course this was for the best of reasons - to be free of 'western' culture/influence and develop in their own way - but what was neglected was that what the 'west' had wasn't 'western' culture, it was rational, adaptable, flexible culture. Again, maybe this really was just down to Mao himself.

Very interesting what you say about the difference in outlook of 'westerns' and 'easterners' (do you mean Chinese people or other East Asians/Asians too?). Do you basically mean that 'you' still believe in fate/a right or moral way fo doing things? Can you give any examples of how these differences might affect everyday life/behaviour/attitudes?

[Polly]

You have to realize that Mao was very much idolised and deified at the time (for reasons explained below), he was the very epitome of charismatic leader, so much so that any rational and intelligent adjustment in economic policy that went against him would be unthinkable and unacceptable by a generation "educated" or brainwashed into worshipping him. But rational, intelligent, pragmatic, flexible economic policy was indeed implemented after his death and the collapse of the peons around him, the Gang of Four.

I wouldn't say Mao was inward-looking or conservative.  Mao was a man par excellence in military strategy and leading the Red Army to beat the KMT and the Japanese in the first place.  His strategy of closing up China (erecting a bamboo wall), sending millions of troop to N Korea to fight off the Americans and creating the nuclear bomb in the most impossible situation, was both necessary and brilliant given the geopolitical circumstances at the time.  Only then could he create mystery and intimidation in the minds of the Westerners and throw them off from any whimsical plans of  (further) invasion so that China could concentrate on all kinds of construction. 

The biggest difference between easterners and westerners is that if you assert karma is a fact of life, easterners will agree to varying degrees from agnostic indifference to blind acceptance and faith, while the westerners, apart from the very few exposed to the esoteric notions from the east, will look at you as if you are nuts.  I can honestly tell you the east has a lot of wonderful philosophical ideas and traditions to contribute to world peace and general improvement to human way of life, but we are constantly underrated and underestimated by the westerners (for various historical reasons of course).

[The Smoking Man]

Ummm ... The trouble with Communism ... any flavour including Maoism is that it can not exist.

Human nature will not allow it to exist.

As Orwell noted in Animal Farm ... 'Some are always more equal than others'.

As far as the mainland Chinese are concerned ... Polly, if you start to spout on about the Tao in this country, they TOO will look at you funny. History and esoteric religious philosophies have escaped the masses here due to the cultural purge.

Mainlanders lost the plot to this and most other 'Asian' concepts during the revolution.

As far as Asians being 'peace loving' ... ummm ... the JAPANESE are Asians too an I doubt if you are going to find a single nation in SE Asia who will make that claim. (Least of all the Chinese)

Then you have Kim Jong (severely mentally) Il who is about as peaceful as the Third Reich.

Asia also includes: India, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, Ceylon (Tamil Tigers), The Philippines and a host of other countries who have not gone without war for decades.

[Polly]

You are mistaking the belligerent self-interest of the ruling class/government with the cultural conditioning of the populace.

Take India for example, poverty for most of the common people has been a way of life.  Most toil for all their lives and die young while watching a small number of their compatriots flourish in wealth and lavish life style.  And yet India is the most stable, to the extent of static you may say, country in the world.  What accounts for that?

[The Smoking Man]

You are mistaking the belligerent self-interest of the ruling class/government with the cultural conditioning of the populace.

Take India for example, poverty for most of the common people has been a way of life.  Most toil for all their lives and die young while watching a small number of their compatriots flourish in wealth and lavish life style.  And yet India is the most stable, to the extent of static you may say, country in the world.  What accounts for that?

And you are not taking into account the deep divisions within the society that pits Sikh against Hindu and India against Bangladesh.

They have had internal conflicts that have lasted for years not to mention some of the worst assassinations in history.

Stable ... not on your life.

There have been hundreds of terrorist incidents in the last few years.

Follow this  link

Living in Canada for so many years, I watched trial after trial over things like flight 182 Air India and localized forms of terrorism.

Then maybe you should look at Sutee ... the practice of burning women when their husband dies.

Or Burning Women when a man wants a divorce. (Saves having to give back the dowery)

Then there are 'honour' murders where relatives go after people and murder because of an affront to honour.

Follow this link for an explanation: Link

India is one of the most violent countries on earth because they cling to Medieval practices that defy legislation and enforcement in one of the most densely populated countries on earth.