Re: government, markets, and material well-being

[Alan G Isaac <aisaac@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 27 Aug 2002 23:26:07 -0400 "Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Rick Holt has taken the position that China, especially the political aspect of it, is
> not a proper subject for this list.

Since this has been a discussion of
i. the appropriateness of various approaches to fostering
economic development, and
ii. the plausibility of causal claims about the sources of
economic growth,
I am confident Ric will have no problem with it.  Indeed,
I am amused at your attempt to shut down this discussion.

> Suffice to point out that when China faced famine at the
> end of the Great Leap Forward, both Canada and Australia
> were ready to offer China unlimited credit for wheat, but
> the offers were vetoed by Washington. As a result many
> starved in China as a result of long range weather
> patterns that wiped out three consecutive years of
> harvest.

There are several claims in here that could be discussed at
length, but the most interesting moves are
i. the idea that China simply "faced famine" (passive) when
the weather changed (as it always does of course, and had
just been particularly good, I'm sure you recall)
ii. The slippery phrase "As a result", which raises the
question, what was Mao apologizing for (as he is on record
as doing).  Most analysts say it was for producing the
hellish chaos, failed communalization, and misguided
industrialization policies that produced such an inability
to respond to a couple years of bad weather that mass
starvation resulted.  This does not excuse the US for being
unwilling to aid the starving population of an enemy state,
but it is outrageous of you to suggest that the cause of the
famine lies anywhere but inside China.  (I might have at
least partly understood if you had blamed the USSR for
China's grain seizures that were used to raise exports to
the USSR, although that to is looking outward rather than
inward for blame.)

Even the little aspects of the GLF are a dead give away.
E.g., the 1959 dismantling of the State Statistical Bureau,
which was replaced by ?good news reporting stations?.

Some on this list may be interested in the links that have
been made between Mao's policies and the "small is
beautiful" movement. E.g.,
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/sgabriel/economics/china-essays/4.html
To quote from this article, which is rather sympathetic to
Mao, "The policy [i.e., the GLF] seems to have been an unmitigated
disaster."

> All this is now unclassifed as a result of the Freedom of
> Information Act. So please familiarized yourself with the
> facts before you foam in the month with your Cold War
> propaganda.

The Cold War is over Henry.  I'm not the one who needs
reminding of that, it seems.  History can no longer simply
be rewritten to cover the mistakes, excesses, and tragedies
of Mao's rule.

But again I invite you Henry to create a revolution in the
steel industry by assembling some fellow Maoists to engage
in backyard steel production.

> As for Mao policies resulted in slow growth, you simple
> are not dealing with facts.  From 1949 to 1960, economic
> growth in China was spectacular, before US containment
> policy went into effect. Many economists were celebrating
> the China model over the Indian model.

By referring to "Mao's policies" you point in too many
directions.  E.g., would it really surprise you that I would
support "self exploitation" by the farmers that was allowed
under Mao's original land reforms, or that I would indeed
expect productivity increases to result?  Would it surprise
you that I would support the expansion of educational
opportunites for the poor during the GLF (even while
decrying the persecution of intellectuals)?  But the GLF
brough tragic *changes* in policy.  E.g., land that had been
acquired by small farmers after the revolution was seized by
the state, communalization was imposed, ag workers were
urged en masse into small scale industrial projects so that
ag production was neglected, etc., etc.  In short, the
groundwork for famine was laid.

As for your growth claims, I find bizarre your inclusion of
1960, when the chaos had already started, the weather had
already changed, and famine was already raging.  Might we
notice that something happened in 1958?  Not to be coy about
it: the standard dates for the misnamed GLF are 1958-1960.
The standard dates for the great famine is 1959-61.  So no
sooner does this tragic experiment commence than China
experiences horrific disaster.  And you want to make this a
coincidence?

> Get real.

Indeed.

> This is the last response I will make on any further posts from Alan Isaac.

You keep promising that.  ;-)

Alan Isaac