There is the desire by many anti-socialists to see a child's lemonade stand in socialist countries and to run away screaming: "They've gone capitalist!" Such absurdity is only in the self-interest of capitalism promoters, of course, but I will deal with this later. There is also a tendency among the most ardent pro-socialists to view any minor regression as proof that socialist has been betrayed and murdered.
The CR had Han undoubtedly proves via statistics, anecdotes and analysis brought such incredible life, power, hope and success to China's rural areas, and the end of collectivization was a negative societal shock. Yes, the collectives had never developed evenly that's to be expected but Han relates that the collectives had indeed worked for Jimo County, and that Jimo citizens opposed disbanding them in favor of the "household responsibility" system. Jimo's county officials, along with 17 other neighboring counties, had their officials removed for dragging their feet in implementing this change.
Thus, what happened during the Deng era was very similar to the end of the USSR in that it was unexpected, unwanted and not voted on. "There was no state-sanctioned public debate about the merits or shortcomings of either collective farming or the household responsibility system."
It should be unsurprising that data shows how rural production fell after 1983, when land was divided among Jimo County farmers: what good are huge farming machines on small family plots? How can the use of such machines be effectively coordinated among hundreds of farmers? In some villages they decided it was better to break up the machinery and sell it for scrap. Fights broke out among farmers over who could use the irrigation system, as there was no more collective solidarity. Draft animals were slaughtered to avoid arguments, further decreasing farming productivity. This is all obviously quite sad and a regression in Jimo County and across rural China.
Tiny individual plots instead of socialist solidarity naturally led to the need for more manual labor, which meant more children withheld from school to work on the farm: The number of teachers and staff remained the same, but high school students in Jimo County went from 20,000 in 1977 to 5,700 in 1987. This is also due to the reforms of 1978, which re-established key/magnet schools. Many schools were closed in the name of "efficiency": Han shows how from 1976 to 1987 Jimo's middle schools went from 249 to 106; they had 89 high schools in 1976, but just 7 in 1993. This is what happens anywhere when the guiding value is not "equality" but "efficiency"; "efficiency", especially in Western nations, is usually a code-word for, "Because we want to give more tax cuts to the wealthy and corporations."
Han relates how Jimo's experience mirrors that of the rest of rural China since the education "reforms". Textbooks again became standardized nationwide, and were urban-focused (of course). In 1977 the national college entrance exam was reintroduced, and Han relates --it has once again systematically drained talent from China's rural areas, in the same manner as before the Cultural Revolution. Talented rural children leave home to go to college and few return. " Instead of being oriented to serve rural development, schools became an avenue to joining the urban elite. " The divorce of school curriculum from rural life has put rural children in a disadvantaged position because it is harder to study subjects that have no connections with their lives."
Some readers will assume that such trends are inevitable they have not read Part 6: The repatriation of young educated people back to their home villages to serve those who had truly funded their education in the first place was a huge factor in training up the human capital which led to the incredible exponential economic growth in rural areas during the CR decade.
The rural enterprises, which had been collectively owned, were now often rented to party officials or managers for a fixed rent or sold outright to them. The CR was designed to benefit the People and the Party the post-CR reforms benefitted the Party and then the People. This is not terrible, because at least "the Party" is not Western 1%ers, but neither is it superb, egalitarian socialism. Make no mistake: the Chinese Communist Party is alive, well, thriving, secure and economically impregnable it seems certain they are the most powerful economic force in the world and much of their wealth was produced during the CR decade.
But, clearly, what the end of the CR meant was: a return to the pre-CR era and Party norms.
But the biggest way it was a "return to the pre-CR era" is not in the economic redistribution, but in a decaying of the other of socialism's two pillars: political power redistribution.
"During the Cultural Revolution decade, village party secretaries had to share decision making power with a number of production team leaders, and their power was checked by a cohesive village population bound together by common public interests".The village party secretaries have gained most from the changes in power relations resulting from the division of land. During the Cultural Revolution decade, village party secretaries had to share decision making power with a number of production team leaders, and their power was also checked by a cohesive village population bound together by common public interests. The division of land eliminated the production team leaders the most important check on village party secretaries and also fragmented the village population, concentrating power in the hands of the village party secretaries."
This is the counter-revolution I am referring to. However, it is a counter-revolution within an already revolutionary society, therefore it is not so very terrible just as a "right-winger" in a socialist system is still far to the left of a leftist in a Western capitalist system.
Forget about your complaints of the inadequacies of the global political spectrum the fortunate difference for the Chinese was: a socialist system is fundamentally not predatory in a capitalist sense, and the CR's gains meant the Party had even more to redistribute than prior to the CR; a regression within a socialist system is infinitely less societally-damaging than regression in a capitalist system.
Han provides proof of this easily-understandable reality and logic: even though rural per capita grain consumption decreased 8% from 1975 to 1985, income increased 700%, far more than inflation (keep in mind that is per capita, not a median). Why? Because economic planning led by a vanguard party is a hell of a lot more effective and sane than relying solely on the "magic of market forces" of the modern neoliberal West (which are really just oligarchical forces). It was only comprehended by relatively few in 1849, but it should be crystal clear to the majority in 2019: management of an industry, factory or business by a socialist party secretary is far, far qualitatively different in terms of planning, goals, national benefit, etc. than management by an isolated and self-interested capitalist entrepreneur (not to mention a foreign and self-interested capitalist entrepreneur).
Is there is no freedom without economic freedom: first comes the money, then the democratic empowerment at your job and home? The CR proves rather otherwise first comes the democratic empowerment then the economic freedom? Frankly, I am not interested in re-arguing if the chicken or the egg came first, because in socialism BOTH ideals are strived for and operate in a dialectic.
On a practical level: Obviously, going from a collective ownership to individual ownership drastically changed the nature of work in terms of job security and safe working conditions. The fragmentation of the collectives has of course fragmented the power of farmers; they have the freedom to sell whatever they want, but they lack stability, cohesiveness and solidarity because they are more capitalist.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
1
1
1
