When the Qing dynasty collapsed in 1912 the great majority of Chinese—perhaps 80 percent of the population—lived in the countryside. Farms were quite small by Western standards, averaging from three to five acres (compared with about 150 acres in the United States). Perhaps a third of the rural population was landless; peasants without their own land were forced to rent plots from prosperous landowners, often at very high rates. Many other peasants owned plots that were too small for them to survive on; they too were compelled to rent land.During the 1930s and 1940s conditions worsened for Chinese peasants in significant ways. The worldwide Great Depression of the 1930s hit the Chinese economy hard and drove down the living standards of both urban and rural dwellers. World War II, which began for the Chinese with the Japanese invasion of 1937, devastated much of the rural economy. Most of the 10 million Chinese who died in the fighting were peasants. In the subsequent Civil War of 1946 to 1949 between the Communists and the Nationalists, the farming economy was battered once again, bringing the suffering of the peasants to a new low.
The question of how Chinese peasants—who remain today the majority of the population—have fared under Communist rule is addressed in the first document I would like you to read (you can read all of the documents by clicking here), the brief 1984 memoir of Wang Xin. A peasant who was born near Beijing in 1941, Wang’s recollections are somewhat propagandistic, but they nonetheless help us to see how circumstances changed for hundreds of millions of Chinese peasants during the era of Mao and then changed again as a result of the sweeping economic reforms introduced by Mao’s successor Deng Xiaoping during the late 1970s and early 1980s.
Deng’s economic reforms, which essentially de-collectivized the economy, restored private ownership, and established a good deal of market freedom, triggered a surge of rapid growth that has continued into the 21st century. One of the consequences of the resulting dramatic rise in living standards—which for millions of Chinese now far exceed the level enjoyed by Wang Xin in the early 1980s—was the growth of pressure for political reform and a democratic political system. The most dramatic illustration of the desire for political change in the post-Mao era occurred in the spring of 1989 when university students organized and led a powerful movement for democracy.
In April of that year students from leading universities in Beijing conducted peaceful demonstrations following the death of a Party official who had been sympathetic to the cause of reform. Confused by the demonstrations and frightened by the possibility that the students might find allies among the broader population, Party leaders dithered for several weeks while the protests grew and spread across the country. In May thousands of students occupied Tiananmen (Heavenly Peace) Square, the vast space that has symbolized political authority in China since the 15th century and the site of famous student protests on May 4, 1919. A speech given on the anniversary of the 1919 demonstrations by Wuer Kaixi, one of the best-known student leaders in 1989, is the second document I would like you to read. One month after Wuer’s speech, on the night of June 3-4, the authorities crushed the demonstrations. Since June 1989, China has been politically quiescent, although the recent huge demonstrations for reform in Hong Kong, which the British returned to China in 1997, echo many of the goals of the students in Tiananmen.
After reading both documents, I would like you to consider and discuss the following: How did Wang Xin and his family benefit from policies introduced by the Communists after 1949? What evidence is there in Wang’s memoir of problems in China during the period of Communist rule? How did Chinese agricultural policies of the 1980s differ from those of the Mao period? What hints does Wang’s memoir contain regarding the continuing importance of Confucian values in China? Why does Wuer Kaixi think China needs democracy? Is he correct about the connection between science and democracy, or is this wishful thinking? How does Wuer define “modernization?” Does a society require democracy in order to be modern? Do you think Wang Xin was a likely supporter of the 1989 democracy movement? How do Wuer Kaixi’s ideas compare with those of Sun Yat-sen and Mao Zedong? Why did Communism collapse in Russia but not in China? Your thoughts…
7 comments:
When land was redistributed the peasants were made "casters of the country". land reform made the peasants very happy. It seems that collectivization was at first succesful in some ways. "We got more than enough wheat that year (1951)" The problems show up in 1958 when the Great Leap Forward initiated. People ate in the same canteen free of charge, but all of the potatoes rotted in the fields. It is clear that Wang Xin's suffering in th GLF was mild compared to other cases. Something that must be noted is the note that the peasants claimed that a field would yield 100,000 kg. This is important because this is what caused much poverty. In order to meet unreasonable quotas... people lied and cheated their figures. So while it was recorded that much was harvested, the figures were stretched. This was a big problem. In the 1980s agriculture was less collective and was a more capitilist venture. Confucianism is sseen in the focus on peasants and their standard of living. Wang Xin had it easy in the Cultural Revolution as well. Although, the radical nature is seen when he is accused of being a reactionary capitalist when he sold chicken eggs. What would happen to Western educated people who did much more than sell eggs?
Wuer Keixi claims that democracy is the embodiment of a scientific society. Keixi stresses that the New CHina has neglected building a democracy. He makes the conclusion that the students' interest is the same of the government: to modernize. The connection between science and democracy seems reasonable due to the fact that Communism fell in the Soviet Union and the U.S. continued with advanced technology, although this spirit of technology goes farther back than the cold war. The West was known for superior and technology and democracy for a long while. I don't think Wang Xin would support the 1989 movement because he is content with the constantly rising standard of living for peasants. He was thrilled with his chicken business venture, but I don't think he is urging for democracy. Wuer Kaixi's ideas are very similar to Sun Yat Sen's and the complete opposite of Mao's. Sun Yat Sen fought fro a democratic China, with Chinese charecteristics. Perhaps the reason China continued t be Communist was the rising standards of living. In China it was an issue that came with foreign education while in the Soviet Union it was an issue that came with a failing economy.
I think that the people of china do deserve Democracy. Communism will backfire one day, it actually is already, you know that Mr. Prill. You've heard of the countless stories the chinese have to tell us about the way companies treat them. When they loose a limb on the job, they wont get compensated or paid, because it still is communism. Trust me one day it will fall in China! Looking on the past, no matter how good capitalism works in China, it cant live hand in hand with communism. One day, China will no more be Communism!!!
For a long time they were able to maintain their own style of wealth distribution in their community, the government was willing to help them during rough times, and Wang Xin was able to attend schools after a family history of illiteracy...I can't resist...
Wang Xin, You bring honor to your family!
What evidence is there in Wang’s memoir of problems in China during the period of Communist rule? There were times where the communes tried to help, but ended up damaging their farming communities. Their potatoes became surplus and were left to rot in the soil, and the changes between crops caused sizable losses, when the areas for specific crops were being changed for different crops.
They were more open to other forms of business and systems. Wang Xin was allowed to open up a sort of chicken-raising business that he made a large profit of, and eventually sharing his secret to success with his villagers, invested with them to spread the chicken-raising businesses throughout his village. More open to styles of making money on the people's own accord, not as much government interference as with Mao's Communist system.
I suppose there wasn't a real mention with him about any type of disrespect with him and his family. He seemed like a very neighborly person, and very helpful and supportive in his community.
To advance scientifically and to modernize, Wuer says that this path is set my a democratic gov't, without which China is doomed to remain behind in advancement. He believes Democracy is necessary to develop further beyond the "feudal" bonds of Communism and break into a sense of freedom, and promote human rights, and for rule by law.
Is he correct about the connection between science and democracy, or is this wishful thinking? This is more wishful thinking on his part. Scientific advancement is not a direct byproduct of Democracy. It is understandable that with human rights, and freedom, people are more open to discovering and inventing more advanced science and technology, but when you look at the Soviet Union who had promoted advancement in weapons technology could keep up with the US, and at times surpass them, and therefore anything a Democracy can do, a Communist government can also put its mind to it and do it just as well. It's understandable the logic he puts into the connection of freedom to the advance in science, but China doesn't need a Democracy to match the scientific capabilities of the US.
He kind of defines it as the advancement of a country scientifically and economically. To rise in power both of a level of technology, industry, and wealth. To rise to the norm. To match the power of countries like the former Imperialist Powers(They're not necessarily all not imperialist anymore, but the era of imperialistic world domination is over).
No, I don't believe a society demands a democracy to become a more modern country. All that is required is cooperation between citizens and the government to make such changes occur. If a Communist China focused on modernizing China, they could surely put into that type of development.
Wang Xin likely wasn't, because things available to him unlike his family were land distributions, collectivization of agriculture, a chance at an education, government help. I think even though certain communes during Mao's rule didn't do things perfectly, Wang Xin's taste of Communist style government would probably convince him to lean farther left than a Democratic movement...
Sun Yat-sen was a democratic style thinker with some socialist twists thrown into his hopes of building a stronger China. Wuer was a believer and a full Democratic China, and Mao, like Stalin, was a strict Communist.
Why did Communism collapse in Russia but not in China? Russia was demanding larger economic reforms after the blows suffered during the Cold War. Under the joined states of the Soviet Union, Russia, by extension was becoming less stable, and when Perestroika was failing at economic reforms, and Glasnost was providing strong criticism to pour in after the Soviet Union was falling, Communism sharply declined and Russia couldn't hold onto it's Communist economy under the pressure of resistance and a failing economy. China was not suffering from any sort of unstable union or expenses from any war. China began as a reform to re-establish an independent government, Communists being the ones who prevailed. Communism was having tough times during the 5-year power vacuum and Mao's failed policies and admittably crazy Revolution and the Sino-Sparrow War made Communism seem a little shakey until Deng Xiaoping came in with his magic trick where he pulls the Communist off his hand and he's holding a perfect Communist China and doves fly out and everything is so peaceful. But Deng met little resistance, besides from Tiananmen Square, and tanks and troops firing on unarmed civilians is going to convince people otherwise if they want mention the word "Democracy." Other than that, Deng's policies provided a successful China on an economic front, and if money's good, and people have money, people are good, and noone really cares to change their governemnt. So underlying cause really was...Russia had a bad economic situation after the Cold War was "over," and China began a comeback through Deng and so that's why Communist Russia died, and Communist China still lives. I actually didn't realize what I was getting at until I got to the end. So I'll leave up my thought process to see if you wanna make the other connections too.
Wow, I think I just wrote a document...By the way, Deng pulled the Communist FLAG off his hand, if you caught that...
Just quick response to your post Matthew, you didn't read the documents and spread the American idea that Democracy is best in the minds of everyone. They don't think the same way with us. We have this Democracy so you would think that those things would bother them. But they don't have any other idea of what working is like if that is the case. They will continue to think that way as long as China is communist(With a hint of Capitalism), just like you have these Democratic ideals. The truth is, people only care about the economy, whether it's for their own sake, like most Americans, or their country's sake, like Japan's case. As long as China continues to have their economy increase at, well, the highest rate in human history, people will not complain. Also, as far as it can be seen China's system of Communist and Capitalist policies combining seems to work well. I don't know the full mechanics of it but Capitalism works to an extent, but people have most of the control, especially under our stock market, where the way people react will ultimately affect our economy's state of being. With Communism, it provides a government control that is designed to benefit the people. By the people for the people in our case, By the Government, for the people in China's. It would seem to me that China's idea of an open market system that is under the control of the government and used to benefit the people is a smart system to use. Feel free to criticize if you think I'm wrong. This is only what I can grasp.
China deserves a democracy, no doubt about it! Students are nonviolently protesting and they get their heads blown off in the Tianamin Square incident. It was a terrible jolt, that shook us back to reality.
Land redistribution was a great thing until programs like the great leap forward set china back. the rich got richer and the poor got less. just like the old days!
When land reform started, it is notable that the communiy as a whole was profiting rather than jut one family. People seemed quite pleased up until the quotas of the farmers were raised to unbelievable amounts that were impossible to reach (higher than the soviet union). They became impovrished. The results of the great leap forward and the cultural revolution weren't too great and seemed to just cause more problems. A democracy seems to be needed in china to improve the incredible down turn from the GLF and the cultural revolution.
Post a Comment