Log in

View Full Version : Great Leap Forward



Saint-Just
5th January 2004, 14:48
Recently it was said in another thread that this is rarely discussed. Some also said that Mao was 'naive' and responsible for many deaths in relation to the Great Leap Forward. This is the story of the Great Leap Forward.

The CPPRC and Mao Zedong had great success with the first Five Year Plan (1952-57). The primary target of the plan was to industrialise China. Mao’s China was a powerful nation on the international stage, although less economically developed than the USA and USSR, its vast population meant it had the potential to match the two superpowers. In the first five year plan 4 of the 6 main industrial production targets (Iron, Oil, Steel, Coal Cement and Fertiliser) were met or exceeded, 2 reached 3/4 of the target (Cement and Oil).

In 1958 the Second Five Year Plan began. Mao states that in 30 years China could be as economically powerful as the United States. This 2nd economic plan was known as the Great Leap Forward. The purpose was to further industrialise China. Mao said that China must first pay close attention to agriculture so that enough food could be produced to deed the many peasants who would have to become industrial workers. Equally, industry would have to develop at the same time to produce machines to modernise farming and to produce enough fertiliser.

Peasant families formed big communes of thousands of people where machinery and land would be pooled together to increase efficiency. Political work was also carried out in the commune, people could hear political speeches as they worked from many loudspeakers. Health care and education was provided for children. There were 700 million people in Communes.

In the first year it was a massive success, production skyrocketed in both industry and agricultural production. However, a number of things began to fail. Famously, there were about 600,000 furnaces for various industrial tasks set up in communes. However, the metal these furnaces produced was done poorly and often not fit for construction of the machinery required. The furnaces used coal which should was needed for the rail network, meaning materials were left in the wrong place unable to be transported. In addition to this, the operation of these furnaces removed people from agricultural work. The furnaces served little purpose and only damaged the harvest and industrial production.

Most importantly, massive droughts and floods hit China in 1959 and 1960. In 1960 they abondoned this particular plan to reconstruct the economic and begin once more. By 1962 they had recovered. However, Mao was removed from his post as Head of State and the economy came fully under control of others.

Soviet power supreme
5th January 2004, 19:04
What naive was in that?The anti-maoists says that Maoism cannot succeed because there is no industrialization happened in countries where it is popular.Should Mao have allowed the capitalism come in China and then make another revolution?That sounds stupid, because the first one would have been unnecessary.

Saint-Just
6th January 2004, 13:07
No capitalist revolution is needed. Feudalism can make a transition to socialism as the DoP uses capitalist economic policies in the transition, this is what both China and USSR did.

Yazman
11th January 2004, 05:40
Some degree of capitalism may be needed, I believe, but it is not necessary if the people involved in the revolution are truly dedicated to keeping revolution alive.

ComradeRed
11th January 2004, 06:22
interesting, one wuick question u said
4 of the 6 main industrial production targets (Iron, Oil, Steel, Coal Cement and Fertiliser) were met or exceeded, 2 reached 3/4 of the target (Cement and Oil).
in china were there 2 seperate oil industries or was it a misprint? otherwise it was interesting...

Saint-Just
11th January 2004, 13:57
That is my mistake. 1957 target for oil production was 2 million tonnes, actual output was 1.4 million tonnes. Take oil out of the list of industries that achieved their targets and it is correct.

ComradeRobertRiley
15th January 2004, 20:21
Very interesting post mao. Made good reading.