The Investopedia has these details about understanding the Great Leap Forward which some text be copied/pasted (with modifications) to explain the problems of the agenda:
- Mao's enterprise of "Chinese Pride" where he felt that the Chinese people can do ANYTHING is no better than today's "Pinoy Pride" agenda.
- Mao abolished private farming to which he seized the lands for himself. Farmers were then forced to work on collective farms where all production, resource allocation, and food distribution was centrally controlled by the Chinese Communist Party. Unproven techniques were immediately introduced without any real test. Not to mention, he was infamous for his order to kill all sparrows. Farmers who failed to meet grain quotas tried to get more food or attempted to escape were tortured and killed along with their family members via beating, public mutilation, being buried alive, scalding with boiling water, and other methods.
- Mao also wanted to introduce the national self-industrialization in the steel industry. He introduced large scale state projects to increase industrial production in urban areas, and backyard steel furnaces were built on farms and in urban neighborhoods. Steel production was targeted to double in the first year of the Great Leap Forward, and Mao forecast that Chinese industrial output would exceed Britain's within 15 years.
- Millions of "surplus" laborers were moved from farms to steel making. Most were the able-bodied male workers, breaking up families and leaving the forced agricultural labor force for the collective farms consisting of mostly women, children, and the elderly.
The results were actually disastrous proving protectionism DOESN'T work yet some people are still stupid enough to think it does:
- These innovations resulted in declining crop yields from failed experiments and improperly constructed water projects. Grain production fell sharply, and hundreds of thousands died from forced labor and exposure to the elements on irrigation construction projects and communal farming. It's also worth noting that the order to kill the sparrows has caused a lot of pests to multiply instead leading to the problem of grain production decline.
- Famine quickly set in across the countryside, resulting in millions of more deaths. People resorted to eating tree bark and dirt, and in some areas to cannibalism.
- The backyard steel industry produced largely useless, low-quality pig iron. Existing metal equipment, tools, and household goods were confiscated and melted down to fuel additional production as a result of poor planning. Due to the failures in planning and coordination, and resulting materials shortages, which are common to central economic planning, the massive increase in industrial investment and reallocation of resources resulted in no corresponding increase in manufacturing output.
- The increase in urban populations placed additional strain on the food distribution system and demand on collective farms to increase grain production for urban consumption. Collective farm officials falsified harvest figures, resulting in much of what grain was produced being shipped to the cities as requisitions were based on the official figures.
- Tens of millions died by starvation, exposure, overwork, and execution in just a few years. It broke families apart, sending men, women, and children to different locations, and destroyed traditional communities and ways of life. Farmland was damaged by nonsensical agricultural practices and the landscape denuded of trees to fuel the steel furnaces. 30–40% of the housing stock was demolished to obtain raw materials for collective projects. In industry, massive quantities of capital goods and raw materials were consumed in projects that yielded no additional output of final goods.
- Not to mention, it's noteworthy that Mao himself was actually exporting low-quality grain while refusing to accept international food aid to protect his ego.
What's so stupid is when you discovered the problems with "nationalism" here. Mao's "Chinese Pride" slogan and "nationalism" appeal really proved disastrous. His actions also proved that governments are usually very poor investors compared to private businesses. We can see the defects here are as follows with some possible key takeouts:
- Robbing away farmers of their private properties destroyed competition. His policy of forcing farmers on collective farms where everything was centralized also demotivated his workers. Not to mention, his only "motivation" was that farmers who failed to get their quotas were either you work or get tortured. With no motivation to do better meant the production output declined. His fear-based management system proved defective. What he could've done was to let the private farmers have a healthy competition with each other. If the farmers were allowed to keep their land then Mao would've had a high-quality grain output. Mao could've also encouraged the farmers to do better by paying them for their services such as reasonable tax deduction or by buying reserved grain from them. Foreign investors too could've benefited by buying agricultural products from farmers which they will use to manufacture in China.
- The "national industrialized" steel where Mao planned to make it outdo Britain within 15 years didn't work because of protectionism and "Chinese Pride". Britain is a country that is very friendly to foreign direct investments while China's Mao wasn't. Mao's aim for "pure Chinese steel" may have ignored that he might have needed to import steel and equipment if he wanted. Mao himself could've invited foreign investors to open manufacturing plants. He could've invited British steel companies and allowed the importation of materials to make steel. If he did then China would've probably had a really great leap forward with good Chinese steel which "pure Chinese steel" can't accomplish. What he could've done was also allow steel manufacturers to keep their companies while letting foreign investors in. Chinese steel manufacturers would've to be resourceful, get imported steel ore whenever necessary, and do better if Mao allowed foreign steel manufacturers from Britain to compete in China. He could've also gotten steel manufacturing businesses from other Asian countries to invest. If he wanted to prove that he would outdo Britain then he should've let the British steel manufacturers come in. Foreign construction companies and raw materials providers could've provided incentives for Chinese steel manufacturers to do better and beat the British!
- The allocation of healthy workers should've been more balanced. Half of the healthy workforce should've remained at the farms and the others in the steel mills. This could've been done better if Mao allowed private businesses to run.
- Families got torn apart as a result of "nationalism" when Mao transferred them to the city areas against their will. Today, we have it that OFWs are torn apart from their families looking for work in other countries. The key takeout was that if private businesses were allowed to flourish then fewer families will be torn apart by work. Instead, Mao himself decided to tear them apart in the "name of conquest" which ended up failing.
Meanwhile, Taiwan as the DEMOCRATIC Republic of China defeated the Republic of China economically during that time. Taiwan's economic success story may seldom be used by pro-foreign investment but against system change idiots but I'd still share it. You have to think of Taiwan's economic history would highlight that it emphasized on strengthening the farming sector through privatization, foreign investments, and trade relations. Taiwan was in shambles when it accepted foreign investment. It didn't wait until "everything was all right" before they did. Instead, Taiwan decided to accept American aid to help develop the economy. They also set a land reform program that gave farmers a chance to be private farmers. A far fetch from Mao's abolition of private farming. Taiwan's continued acceptance of foreign investors allowed it to beat China even if it was behind the birth of Modern Japan.
Lessons from Mao's FAILED legacy makes me wonder why do some people still believe protectionism is better? Then again, some communists study Mao's legacy in order to learn how to enrich themselves at the expense of others. Mao's "nationalism" was nothing more than his quest for power. The same goes for Filipino nationalists who promote Maoist idiotologies where their "nationalism" is nothing more than their quest for self-enrichment at the expense of others.
Comments
Post a Comment