Population explosion under Mao? = Doubled in 25 years

[CHE with an AK]

http://www.chinatour.com/countryinfo/culturalrevlution.jpg



Mao's "death toll" by capitalists is usually cited as 70 million - although 'guesstimates' go as low as 2 million.

HOWEVER, China's population exploded under Mao's total reign from around 550 million in 1950 when he began his time in power to 924 million by 1975 (the year before his death) according to the CIA (not the CCP).

Which begs the question how a nation which according to "popular Western opinion" is starving or outright killing most of their people - ends up almost doubling their total population in around 25 years?

In fact one could argue that regardless of death totals - Mao's policies (especially in the area of rural development, industrialization and creating access to basic healthcare) led to a net gain of hundreds of millions of people (i.e. for every 40 that died or were "killed", 400 were born in their place).

[Kassad]

China was ravaged by underdevelopment, illiteracy and starvation before the revolution in 1949. There were massive socialist campaigns that were enacted to combat these atrocities. I'd say that the campaign to overcome these aspects of Chinese society is probably unrivaled by any real developmental advancements in recent history. So basically, it's obvious why population exploded under Mao.

[bailey_187]

Yeah, life expectancy doubled and the crude death rate, even in the Great leap famine years was roughly the same as normal years before the revolution and normal years at the same time in India.

[Robocommie]

What I would really want to see though, before making conclusions, is the stats for birth rates in other parts of the world.

[Das war einmal]

Yes dont forget the fact that the Great Leap forward was the last big famine to hit China, whereas pre-Maoist China was suffering from famine all the time. Same goes for Soviet Russia.

[Proletarian Ultra]

http://www.linux-france.org/prj/jargonf/fig/ROFLMAO.jpg
capitalist-roaders pwned

[CHE with an AK]

Maybe Mao should be referred to as the man most responsible for new lives being born in the World (425 million in 25 years) - instead of histories "greatest murderer". :)

Capitalist Douche: "Mao killed 70 million people!"

Informed Marxist: "Actually, if anything he gave the world 400 million new people!"

[Kléber]

Maybe Mao should be referred to as the man most responsible for new lives being born in the World

Capitalist Douche: "Mao killed 70 million people!"

Informed Marxist: "Actually, if anything he gave the world 400 million new people!"

Actually, the baby-making prize goes to neoliberal imperialism, which encourages even higher birth rates by keeping rural families so impoverished that their only hope for social security is to have as many kids as possible, thus inflating the industrial reserve army.

But yes, who cares if 17 million people starved to death due to bureaucratic mismanagement in 1958-61? Mao created millions more in his own image to fill that gap.

[KC]

HOWEVER, China's population exploded under Mao's total reign from around 550 million in 1950 when he began his time in power to 924 million by 1975 (the year before his death) according to the CIA (not the CCP).

One of the greatest problems that China's economy faced was that its population growth was pacing its GDP growth so they never saw any significant increase in real per-capita GDP until the Deng reforms.

[Nolan]

Actually, the baby-making prize goes to neoliberal imperialism, which encourages even higher birth rates by keeping rural families so impoverished that their only hope for social security is to have as many kids as possible, thus inflating the industrial reserve army.

Everyone's living standards went up sharply during Mao's time, unlike in modern neoliberalist imperialism, where birth rates explode and living standards stay the same or drop and crime rises, typically leading to huge anti-free trade demonstrations in the streets.


But yes, who cares if 17 million people starved to death due to bureaucratic mismanagement in 1958-61? Mao created millions more in his own image to fill that gap.

You're an idiot to completely ignore the progress made by Mao's China, including ending famine in China forever and solving the food problem (things neoliberalism has yet to do), and make this kind of stupid comment. Furthermore it was far fewer than 17 million, and only part was due to the bureaucracy. Actually the Soviet Union is just as or more responsible than China.

Trot attempt at smartassery fail.

[pranabjyoti]

One of the greatest problems that China's economy faced was that its population growth was pacing its GDP growth so they never saw any significant increase in real per-capita GDP until the Deng reforms.
That's the worst kind of capitalist viewpoint.

[Kléber]

Trot attempt at smartassery fail. Thanks for the negrep, little troll. The food problem was already solved by 1958. Don't try to play the little blame everything on Khrushchev game because it was the PRC's decision to hand over their grain reserves to the USSR as debt repayment in a propaganda move, when an agricultural crisis actually lay under the over-reporting wind. Or you could try and read a fucking book. by the way, hipsters stopped saying fail a long time ago. stop emulating them.

[KC]

That's the worst kind of capitalist viewpoint.

What does this even mean?

[Nolan]

Thanks for the negrep, little troll.

Bullshit, you negrepped me first.

[FSL]

One of the greatest problems that China's economy faced was that its population growth was pacing its GDP growth so they never saw any significant increase in real per-capita GDP until the Deng reforms.

The only Deng reform that had any part in raising per capita income was the "one child policy". Other than that, GDP continued to grow at roughly the same pace it did in the years before the reforms.

[Red Commissar]

I wonder, did this population growth have anything to do with the agricultural "green revolution" that took place through much of the mid-century? I'm not attributing its growth purely to that, but I wonder if it played a part.

[KC]

The only Deng reform that had any part in raising per capita income was the "one child policy". Other than that, GDP continued to grow at roughly the same pace it did in the years before the reforms.

Since the opening up of China to capitalism (i.e. the Deng reforms) GDP has grown considerably, so I'm not sure what you mean by this.

[pranabjyoti]

Since the opening up of China to capitalism (i.e. the Deng reforms) GDP has grown considerably, so I'm not sure what you mean by this.
Can you explain why some countries, which has much less population density than China has much less per capita income than China. And vice versa, countries like Japan, which has much higher density of population has much more per capita income than China.

[Ol' Dirty]

Mao wasn't responsible for the births of those people: populations skyrocketed in other parts of the world at that time too. Assigning responsibility for China's growth in population to Mao would be ignoring the introduction of new means of production, distrubution and communication. Economic trends, not a few "great men," shape world history. At least, that's what I got from Marx. :confused: It might sound like crude determinism, but China's population would have exploded whether it was ruled by Mao or Chiang Kai-Shek.

[KC]

Can you explain why some countries, which has much less population density than China has much less per capita income than China. And vice versa, countries like Japan, which has much higher density of population has much more per capita income than China. Per-capita GDP has nothing to do with population density.

real per-capita GDP = real GDP / total population

When real GDP increases proportionately with population then the real per-capita GDP doesn't change.

[bailey_187]

Mao wasn't responsible for the births of those people: populations skyrocketed in other parts of the world at that time too. Assigning responsibility for China's growth in population to Mao would be ignoring the introduction of new means of production, distrubution and communication. Economic trends, not a few "great men," shape world history. At least, that's what I got from Marx. :confused: It might sound like crude determinism, but China's population would have exploded whether it was ruled by Mao or Chiang Kai-Shek.

When people refer to "Mao being responsible", what they mean is the economic system that China had when Mao was in power. Some call it socialism, others call it state-capitalism.

[pranabjyoti]

Per-capita GDP has nothing to do with population density.

real per-capita GDP = real GDP / total population

When real GDP increases proportionately with population then the real per-capita GDP doesn't change.
Actually, the question is why some country so far have been able to increase per-capita GDP despite having high population density and why some countries suffer while they have comparatively low population.

[KC]

Actually, the question is why some country so far have been able to increase per-capita GDP despite having high population density and why some countries suffer while they have comparatively low population.

There are only two variables that determine real per-capita GDP - real GDP and total population. I don't know why you keep referring to population density; it has nothing to do with population density.

Real per-capita GDP can only change if real GDP and/or total population changes.

[pranabjyoti]

There are only two variables that determine real per-capita GDP - real GDP and total population. I don't know why you keep referring to population density; it has nothing to do with population density.

Real per-capita GDP can only change if real GDP and/or total population changes.
Because, in my opinion, population density is the real factor. A country may be big or small, but how much populated it is can be determined by how much people it has in every square mile or kilometer of area. That means, instead of mentioning something is heavy or light, it would be far more scientific to say its density.
As per population density, Japan is still ahead of China but the population density has never been a barrier in the progress of Japan. Then why BIG CHINA'S HUGE POPULATION can be a barrier before its progress?

[FSL]

Since the opening up of China to capitalism (i.e. the Deng reforms) GDP has grown considerably, so I'm not sure what you mean by this.

GDP was growing at roughly 9-10% the decade before the reforms and continued to do so after them. The only thing that changed was less births which meant a higher ratio of capital/worker and thus increased productivity per worker.

Rapid population expansion is shown to be one of the causes of poverty -it could as well be one of its results- because it means "factories" need to expand at a faster rate as well for everyone to keep producing the same. In China before the one-child policy, this "faster rate" was unrealistically fast.

[Saorsa]

There are other factors here. For example, China had not had a unified bureaucracy under central command in some time, and certainly not an honest one. The warlods ravaged and disintegrated China, then the KMT lined their pockets for a while and it was only with the communist victory that China became unified again. What this means is that the census reports that began to come in following the revolution were actually truthful and accurate - the ones before them were not, due to a combination of apathy and in many cases deliberate distortion.

This is part of the reason why looking at population figures in the census is not a reliable way of working out how many people Mao personally murdered coz he wuz evil. You'll find large changes in population that defy predicted birth rates, and a bourgeois historian can then say 'aha! Inefficient central planning killed these people'. In reality things are far more complex.

[AK]

Mao's "death toll" by capitalists is
Wow. He and his party were only accountable for the deaths of 2 million people. What a great man to look up to. I see a real bright future for socialism ahead - what with all these "socialists" who revere Mao and most of his and the pre-Deng PRC's actions.

In fact, I'm going to take the time to reply to the predicted response of "that's all very well and nice, but capitalism has killed 1 billion people. SO are you on our side, or theirs?" by saying: I don't give a flying fuck - stop using capitalist tactics against us.

[chegitz guevara]

One of the most important things to consider is that prior to the revolution, the country had been ravaged by war for thirty years. Simply ending the conflicts was going to increase the life span of the population, and thus lead to a major population increase.

BTW, you can be responsible for mass death and a population increase at the same time. It's not an either or proposition.

[Kléber]

There are other factors here. For example, China had not had a unified bureaucracy under central command in some time, and certainly not an honest one.
Yes, but it's not simply a matter of having honest bureaucrats. There's only one way to keep them accountable, that's putting popular checks on their authority, recallability, freedom to criticize etc., in short, the principles of the commune. Mao toyed with these democratic ideas from time to time, but he repeatedly sided with the bureaucracy against leftists in the repressions of '52-53, '57 and '68.


This is part of the reason why looking at population figures in the census is not a reliable way of working out how many people Mao personally murdered coz he wuz evil. You'll find large changes in population that defy predicted birth rates, and a bourgeois historian can then say 'aha! Inefficient central planning killed these people'. In reality things are far more complex.Of course Mao didn't want the disaster to happen, but he did purge Peng Dehuai for bringing up the fact that people were starving to death. The combination of the over-reporting wind, handing of grain reserves to the USSR as debt repayment, and a bad harvest was what caused the famine.

[Uppercut]

Yes, but it's not simply a matter of having honest bureaucrats. There's only one way to keep them accountable, that's putting popular checks on their authority, recallability, freedom to criticize etc., in short, the principles of the commune. Mao toyed with these democratic ideas from time to time, but he repeatedly sided with the bureaucracy against leftists in the repressions of '52-53, '57 and '68.

The freedom to criticize, hold big debates, and hang up big character posters were written in the old PRC Constitution. There have been descriptions by workers in rural China on how they took part in these freedoms and engaged in direct participation in production on their communes.
How exactly did Mao side with the bureaucracy during the anti-rightist campaign and Cultural Revolution? It's true he wrote that the revolution needs the petty-bourgeoisie for a time afterwords, but the last time I checked the Cultural Revolution was a mass movement where the people were given the authority to kick bureaucrats out of office. True, the Red Guards were overly violent at times, and some people truly were physically hurt, but that's no reason to denounce the movement in its entirety.


he did purge Peng Dehuai for bringing up the fact that people were starving to death.

It was more than that. Unfortunately, I don't have my textbook with me so I don't have all the details. I'll comment on this at a later time.

[Kléber]

The freedom to criticize, hold big debates, and hang up big character posters were written in the old PRC Constitution. There have been descriptions by workers in rural China on how they took part in these freedoms and engaged in direct participation in production on their communes.
How exactly did Mao side with the bureaucracy during the anti-rightist campaign and Cultural Revolution?
The Hundred Flowers Campaign initially encouraged intellectuals to criticize the government and so long as they were the only ones raising a fuss, this was tolerated for a year. By 1957 as described in the article "Shanghai's Strike Wave of 1957 (http://www.jstor.org/pss/655685)" workers had started to articulate their own demands taking advantage of the relaxed political climate. This prompted the government to clamp down on dissent with the "Anti-Rightist" Campaign, which was really targeted at leftist authors.


It's true he wrote that the revolution needs the petty-bourgeoisie for a time afterwords, but the last time I checked the Cultural Revolution was a mass movement where the people were given the authority to kick bureaucrats out of office. True, the Red Guards were overly violent at times, and some people truly were physically hurt, but that's no reason to denounce the movement in its entirety.I wasn't talking about the Red Guards repressing people, I was talking about the Red Guards and other left-wing Maoist organizations (Shengwulian (http://www.marxists.de/china/sheng/index.htm), Shanghai People's Commune (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_People%27s_Commune), etc.) being repressed by the army under Mao. The Cultural Revolution was not so simple as "Mao & guardists vs. revisionists." From 1966, Mao initially used the Red Guards to start campaigns to publicly humiliate and beat, sometimes to death, his party rivals - who also set up their own Red Guard groups. In 1967 the left-wing groups were even encouraged by Jiang Qing to replace the PLA and take weapons from state armories. In 1968, that changed, Mao moved to disarm the guardists who had been armed. The PLA was deployed throughout the country to restore order. Power was theoretically now divided between the Party, the Army, and the (disarmed) Red Guards; in effect, power had been given back to the old bureaucrats, and regular PLA troops took over the theoretical role of Red Guard militants in carrying out the Cultural Revolution, which was now targeted against the extreme left. According to Chen Village the Cultural Revolution violence in Guangdong province alone led to 40,000 deaths, mostly workers and farmers from the poorly-armed "rebel" groups. Mao officially ended the whole thing in 1969. After 1971 a "Lin Biao clique" was angrily blamed for all the excesses.


It was more than that. Unfortunately, I don't have my textbook with me so I don't have all the details. I'll comment on this at a later time.Yes, it was because he publicly criticized Mao, which you weren't supposed to do..

[Uppercut]

Mao initially used the Red Guards to start campaigns to publicly humiliate and beat, sometimes to death, his party rivals - who also set up their own Red Guard groups.

One of the most notable points of the 16 articles, which were the main directives of the Cultural Revolution was "wage peaceful, not violent struggles" (yao yung wen-tou; pu yung wu-tou). Some were beaten up or hurt, others were merely put on house arrest or stripped of their position. I'm not denying that some red guards were more violent than others, but it's ridiculous to state that their main purpose was to kill and destroy.



In 1967 the left-wing groups were even encouraged by Jiang Qing to replace the PLA and take weapons from state armories.

Jiang Qing was responsible for rallying youth and red guards, yes, and some groups did attack armories to arm themselves. But I've never read anything stating that she explicitly wanted to destroy the army. In fact, her reputation was strong among the PLA.


In 1968, that changed, Mao moved to disarm the guardists who had been armed. The PLA was deployed throughout the country to restore order. Power was theoretically now divided between the Party, the Army, and the (disarmed) Red Guards

Not all red guards were disarmed, and the PLA was deployed to select areas where struggles were very intense between the red guards and the party. It's also important to note that Mao was not the one in charge of the PLA, and did not specifically point out areas where the guardists needed to be suppressed. That was the job of local party leaders who deployed specific units to specific areas.


in effect, power had been given back to the old bureaucrats, and regular PLA troops took over the theoretical role of Red Guard militants in carrying out the Cultural Revolution

Then how would you explain the revolutionary committees that sprung up all over the country? They were a three-way alliance between honest party members, local PLA units, and the red guards. Unfortunately, these committees were replaced by "people's governments" at all levels after Deng Xiaoping was rehabilitated.


Yes, it was because he publicly criticized Mao, which you weren't supposed to do..

The following is taken from The Battle for China's Past:

Recently there have been a number of contriubtions on the Wuyou zhixiang (Utopia) website that tries to revaluate the event. Wu Lengxi (2007) and Zhang Hengzhi (2007) have presented evidence that arguments that 1) for six months before the Lushan Conference started on July 2, 1959 Mao made continuous efforts to cool down the Great Leap hype, 2) the purpose of the Lushan Coference was to improve the situation, 3) initially Mao did not take too much notice of Peng's letter of criticism and inteded to conclude the conference as planned in spite of Peng's letter, and 4) it was some other CCP leaders who argued and persuaded Mao to extend the conference to 'struggle against Peng'.

Yung, Quoting Liu Shaoqi's speeches, argues that it was Liu, who hunted Peng down by accusing Peng of aiming to usurp power from the party. Liu specifically referred to Peng as a leading member of the Gao Gang and Rao Shushi anti-party cluque, an accusation with which Zhou Enlai concured. Liu also accused Peng of working with 'foreign influence', referring to Peng's visits to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe immediately before the Lushan Conference.
Wu confirms that during the Politburo meeting in Beijing on 12 to 13 June 1959, Mao criticized himself for the recklessness of the Great Leap Forward policies and admitted that Chen Yun had been right after all to be cautious. Wu recalls that Mao's personal secretary Tian Jianying was pleased that Mao made self-criticism and thought that it was then up to the party secretaries of various provinces to make self-criticisms at the planned Lushan Conference. When Peng's letter was circulated, Wu Lengxi, Hu Qiaomus and Tian Jianying all thought there was nothing particularly controversial about it. Except for one single reference to bourgeois fanaticism, Peng's letter was not even as sharply critical of the Great Leap Forward as the conference resolution that three of them had been instructed to draft. After a private conversation with Mao, Tian Jiaying was convinced that Mao was forced to agree to criticize Peng by the argument that if nothing was done the revolutionary left might as well be disbanded.

Zhang Hengzhi (2007) goes evern further. He argues that it was Liu Shaoqi and his lieutenants who encouraged the Great Leap Forward and Mao was the cautious one. But Mao was ready to shoulder the responsibility when the mistakes became obvious since he did not want to damp the revolutionary spirit of the radicals. Zhang further argues, by quoting Liu Shaoqi, that Peng's letter was directed at Liu. The fith between Liu and Peng left Mao with little choice: Liu had only recently been made Mao's official successor, and if he sided with Peng then the CCP would split.

It was Liu who wanted to get rid of Peng and it was Liu who said that Peng, like Wiyan, had a treacherous bone (fan gu), that he had the character of Zhukov and the hypocritical style of Feng Yuxiang. Mao was drawn into the Peng affair reluctantly and that was why Mao said on 24 Octover 1966 that Deng Xiaoping had never come to seek advice from him since 1959, and that he was not happy with the August 1959 Lushan Conference because the outcome was pushed though entirely by Liu and Deng and he was given no choice."

[RedStarOverChina]

I've been having debates with Chinese liberals about this all week. There's a on-going controversy in China because a middle school teacher compared Mao to Hitler and his students posted the video on the internet.

If you want to call Mao a "murderer" because of the failures of his economic policies, you'd also have to call him a "Saviour" for saving an overwhelming number of people.

China's average life expectancy in 1949 was 35 years old. In 1978, the number was 67. India had a head start in comparison to China---It had some industrial capacity, and it did not experience the total wars that China had to go through (Resistance War against Japan, Civil War, Korean War). Yet in 1978, India's average life expectancy was 54.

According to Amartya Sen, every 8 years since India's independence, the surplus death in India in comparison to that of China's amounts to a Indian "Great Leap Forward". Basically, India has experienced 7 or 8 more Great Leap Forwards than China.

Amartya Sen attributes this to "ideological differences" (paraphrasing, dont remember the exact words)


Personal example. My maternal grandmother (I like using her story as an example because its so shocking yet so prevalent) was born in early 1930s. Her mother, who was by no means a careless parent, gave birth 13 times. 7 survived past their infancies. 4 more died in their youths, most of them due to malaria(?) in the 1940s. This was happening everywhere.

My grandmother somehow survived past 1949, joined the communist Women's Federation(妇联) and became one of its cadre. According to her, infant deaths slowly disappeared since the 1950s, partly due to the efforts of the Women's Federation.

When a infant death does occur, the Women's Federation would send cadres such as my grandmother to investigate and take proper pre-cautions so that it would not happen again.

One infant death my grandma remembers most vividly was when a mother slept while her baby was attacked by rats. The baby cried loudly, but the mother was careless and ignored its cries. So the baby died. My grandma and other cadres were outraged and gave her lengthy lectures.

Of course, famine did occur in the late 50s. But that was not the permanent state of things as they were before 1949. There were famines and deaths ALL the time during the KMT and Japanese rule.

[pranabjyoti]

How worst was the condition of China during the "famines"? Worse than the Advasi populated region of present India? I am requesting Mao "critics(!)" to come to India and observe the condition of people here in a year, when the monsoon rain isn't good, like last year or years of extreme drought, which luckily India hasn't faced for a long time.