[speaker001:] [clears throat]
[speaker002:] Okay....
[speaker001:] [reading] The rich peasant economy in paving the way for new China's industrialization... the economic impact of land reform.... Land reform had always been considered by the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party to be a means to an end, indeed it could provide a way forward for China on economic, social, communist and ideological grounds. It was therefore very useful a tool for the Party to adopt during this period of experimentation of how to achieve successful reconstruction of the countryside. It is also important to realize that the C C P had a range of objectives for power up until nineteen forty nine. These can be summarized as the desire to achieve mass mobilization and the disruption of feudalism through land reform which the Party believed would ensure their political stability in power as well as contributing to the eventual realization of socialism.... Although their short-term aims of land reform varied throughout, the Party had always strived to destroy feudalism. This is illustrated by examination of all their land documents. After the first of October nineteen forty nine, however, their political power was more or less secure due to. By this time the C C P had almost completed the destruction of feudalism in the countryside in the north of China. The Party now needed to come up with a longer term programme of how to pave the way towards socialism in China as a whole, paying particular attention to the different economic situation in the south which could indeed significantly influence their future strategy.... One of the most valuable lessons the Party had learnt during the initial twenty years of land reform was that socialism could only be achieved through stages. Land reform as outlined in the Agrarian Reform Bill of nineteen fifty was to provide a vital step forward for China through the preservation of the rich peasant economy in order to pave the way for industrialization which was seen as a prerequisite for collectivization. Absolute egalitarianism of nineteen forty six to forty eight had failed due to the limited amount of land available for redistribution. The Party now realized that a more moderate policy of land reform was the most appropriate one for China... thus there was a temporary change in emphasis away from land reform to a desire to increase production. To some, however, it merely appeared that the C C P were pragmatists and that by nineteen fifty were sacrificing ideological objectives for economic and political expediency. Though a case for this could be argued, it's important to realize that the longer term goal of socialism had not changed it was only that [] [clears throat] [reading] the rules to achieving it which had. It is necessary to take into account all these factors when evaluating the economic impact of land reform so that one can beg begin to understand why China did not achieve a more spectacular economic recovery during communist rule... the significance of the preservation of the rich peasant economy, and also why the Party decided to focus its new policy on industrialization. What then were then economic affects on land reform on the preservation of the rich peasant economy []?
[speaker002:] Can I just stop you there, just for a second?... Can we... you, you've said some quite important things i in this, can we just sort of clarify this before going on.... Can I just clarify, what, what you're saying is that in a sense... there is this overall aim of getting through to socialism... but the means of getting there have now changed so that we've gone from absolute egalitarianism, which is, is an immediate step tow towards socialism... you've gone away from that and the position is now to create a rich peasant economy in order to industrialize, in order to get through to collectivization, I E into socialism.... S s so socialism is a... is a long way off.... Right. Is... is, is that how it struck you?
[speaker001:] Tha that's my
[speaker002:] Yeah....
[speaker001:] So that rich [cough] peasant economy is only a short,i it's a means to an end essentially. Was that ever made explicit?... Did they ever sort of erm [clears throat] you know say this is just a temporary step for us?... Erm... no... I, I don't think, I think it's more implicit. [sniff] Erm... I'm, I'm not away of any documents.
[speaker002:] What, what do you mean? What are you going to?
[speaker001:] Well I, I just thought perhaps erm, you know, if there was any erm sort of up-front... to this idea of you know going through some sort of dialectical... model... career towards socialism....
[speaker002:] Ho how would you expect to see that expressed?
[speaker001:] Well I don't know somebody say Mao leading to such and a such a phase or [clears throat] here's what we intend to do in order to There's a usually a reason for their policy isn't there? Usually, like Mao usually gives some reason.... They were constrained by s I mean like what they wanted to do [clears throat] was constrained by the practical sort of necessities of the time and even if they had wanted to have a more vigorous policy of land reform
[speaker002:] Mm.
[speaker001:] it wasn't possible because there was a shortage of land and that how that absolute egalitarianism had shown that how that it couldn't work... if they wanted to raise everybody's level towards a middle peasant status. They, they did have the option that they could have had complete absolute egalitarianism and made everybody into a poor peasant, but the commun but the commun the Communist Party were progressive and they s saw that how that you needed to have industrialization in order to increase the welfare of peasants which was their ultimate aim, and... I mean it appears that how that they didn't actually care er what kinds of means they'd have to achieve that, as in capitalism was justified... in this longer term perspective. So do you, do you think erm this, this sort of movement towards the er cities and urban centres, this sort of gravity... focus, do you think that indicated any sort of... error sort of thing in, in land reforms? Well it's not, they're not saying it's solved they're saying it has to be delayed until it's actually possible. Ultimately they're still keeping land reform as a long term objective cos that's
[speaker002:] when you, you say land reform, do you mean land reform or do you mean... socialism collectives...?
[speaker001:] Erm [clears throat] I mean them both, they wanted... they thought that the only way you could get effective sociali socialism was through industrialization
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] and that how that once you've got socialism you would want to have erm absolute egalitarianism er to eliminate erm class distinction so it's probably a combination of the two.
[speaker002:] Right. W w w w we now have that reform, I mean thi this is... I mean what w
[speaker001:] Well you have land reform in the north but not in the south.
[speaker002:] Right. But we,w we... as of nineteen forty nine or early nineteen fifty, it's clear that we are, there, there, there's nothing to stop us now going ahead with land reforms, there is no question it's going to happen
[speaker001:] Right.
[speaker002:] but what they're saying,i i it's not going to be egalitarian land reform
[speaker001:] Mm.
[speaker002:] so there's, there's no question that feudalism is, is going to end, that, that's, that's no problem at all and we have land reform.... But it's non-egalitarian land reform.... So... you've, is there then a choice between... going for socialism now, going straight into collectivization... or delaying it and keeping that end product in sight? But as you say changing the means to the end, I E you go for the industrialization first and once you've got that you can then move forward to collectivization.
[speaker001:] Well I didn't think they could've gone straight into socialization because they didn't have the resources to.
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] They had to improve the productivity [cough] they, they had to improve the productivity from the land... and im well not productivity, just efficiency generally, and that how that it wouldn't have made economic sense for them to have gone straight for socialism.
[speaker002:] Right.... Yes. Would it have made... social or political sense to have done it?...
[speaker001:] It wouldn't have made political sense in that how the, they were deliberately choosing cautious policy which would enable them to stay in power.
[speaker002:] Right. So you'd support this policy, er th th th the strategy is right that, that, that you, you allow land reform to settle down, you allow the rich peasant economy to develop and out of that rich peasant economy will come the resources for industrialization and then you'll be able to collectivize?...
[speaker001:] Didn't it have this sort of political pattern to it
[speaker002:] when you said they could've done it...
[speaker001:] Well whatever they wanted to, whatever it was then [clears throat] they perhaps could've gone towards more [cough]
[speaker002:] You mean they could've, they could've gone for the Soviet style collectivization?
[speaker001:] I don't know. Erm I'm, I'm not sure.
[speaker002:] Mm.
[speaker001:] I'm just saying that they could've gone...
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] perhaps more egalitarian.
[speaker002:] Yes. Er er certainly in retrospect one, one might argue that... erm... [tut] politically there was nothing to stop them
[speaker001:] Mm.
[speaker002:] certainly going much further than they did, don't quite know how far you would go
[speaker001:] Mm.
[speaker002:] erm... well would,w w would anybody want to advocate that, yes, the option was to go for collectivization fairly quickly? Very quickly....
[speaker001:] In order to achieve what, just to fulfil their ideological objectives?... [clears throat] Well the Party was reaction of the sort of the peasants in the villages, if they we if they went straight for collectivization, straight er immediately after the peasants had received this wonderful gift of land in land reform
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] and if it was forced upon them that this land's going to have to be put into a, a kind of block
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] erm there'd be a bit of er an anti reaction from the villages towards that and I think that was what they worried about, and that's why they, they adopted a more careful policy of... more, more like suggesting, I E they, they introduced these mutual aid teams and suggested that it would be beneficial for the peasants to join together in these teams.
[speaker002:] Right. Th there, there's, there's nothing, I mean I, I the points so,i i i in a sense although the revolution had promised the peasant their own land
[speaker001:] Mm.
[speaker002:] er and that is what [clears throat] the peasants wanted... I mean th th that was what they thought they were gonna get out of revolution, that was what they wanted to get out of revolution
[speaker001:] That's what they'd been fighting for for twenty years.
[speaker002:] Right. So there certainly wouldn't, are you saying there, there would not have been a, a kind of... groundswell of
[speaker001:] [blowing nose]
[speaker002:] from the peasants themselves in order to go for collectivization
[speaker001:] No.
[speaker002:] and there would have been... not, not immediately
[speaker001:] collective ownership....
[speaker002:] Well things like sharing tools and animals.
[speaker001:] Yeah. sharing the plot of land.... Er... well I think some did and some didn't...
[speaker002:] But er as a, as a peasant would you have wanted to share land?
[speaker001:] ... [sigh] I think putting their, putting plots together and you know
[speaker002:] Mm.
[speaker001:] disseminating these square metres... and sort of plots and stuff like that. I mean if you your land I mean okay
[speaker002:] Yeah. What are you saying
[speaker001:] I'm saying the peasants wanted more land.
[speaker002:] Of, of their own?
[speaker001:] Of their own, yeah. Yeah. Is, is there a difference between owning ten acres of and owning ten acres of?... ... Erm yeah I If you work your own land you will work it until you're dead to the bone. If you've got ten people... I mean there's no guarantee they're gonna work as well you. . Exactly. [LAUGHTER]
[speaker002:] But, but wasn't the, the emphasis behind the, the communist approach at this time was that... er er up until nineteen fifty that, that... private enterprise in itself would, would be the means by which output increased. They said if you give the peasant the land it will give them the enthusiasm to work hard, they will increase their output. Now... that might be wrong but i surely that was the reality of the time, that was the expectation, that was the whole... idea that was coming over in terms of, of sort of propaganda and policy, whatever you want to, to call it.... And if, if, I think there, there was a very deep belief within the that they wanted to own their own land.... Now... if, if you take those bits... er wouldn't one have to argue that, that the move into capitalization was straight away
[speaker001:] Mm.
[speaker002:] was... w would not go down very well,i it, it would mean overturning the whole emphasis of policy and it would mean going against... So you, A you would have to change your policy, B you would have to force the process....
[speaker001:] Erm... but... didn't the peasant culture already have... erm sort of elements of collectivization alread I mean which the Communist Party could
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] build upon.
[speaker002:] Right. Fine. But w but th but that is, that is different to erm
[speaker001:] To having a policy
[speaker002:] to, to having a collectivization policy an and moving forward so that immediately into socialism.
[speaker001:] Mm. Also one would have to work out whether peasants were subsistence minded in that how that once they'd achieved their subsistence was that all they would want or would they really want to sort of erm work harder and start sharing all their tools and implements in order to gain an even higher productivity. Would they have a high leisure preference for example. In that how would they prefer not to work so hard
[speaker002:] yes right.
[speaker001:] they just keep a certain level of...
[speaker002:] Yes. Right. Which... that, that then gets you into the issue of whether you are deliberately going to being creating a rich peasant economy and s erm so using the rich peasant economy as the leading sector. Wi will you come on to talk about that at all?
[speaker001:] Mm not What was the erm what was the link between the rich peasant as the economy industrialization?
[speaker002:] Well what, what might have been?
[speaker001:] Well erm the creation of surplus for investment I suppose.
[speaker002:] Right, yes. Right.
[speaker001:] The Communist Party certainly thought, I mean the reason wh one of their justifications for preserving the rich peasant economy was that how that it's thought the middle peasants would want to try to rise up to br
[speaker002:] Yeah to be rich peasants.
[speaker001:] erm erm... yeah, to rich peasants and that how that that's how why they couldn't encroach their interests because then
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] it would erm... you know, alienate the middle peasants for
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] but whether that was true
[speaker002:] Right. Now I think that is true
[speaker001:] mm.
[speaker002:] erm and surely this, this is the implication that we were talking about last week, that erm if, if you are going to... promote industrialization which is now the aim... somebody's gotta produce a surplus for investment for that. Erm and... it's er within the countryside it's going to be a rich peasant who's going to do that. So you nee you've got to create or preserve a group who have a surplus over and above subsistence. They're a group that you can tax. They're a group which is able to save and invest.... Er so you promote that rich peasant economy. If you're pr promoting that rich peasant economy, you are hoping that middle peasants will be upwardly ambitious and mobile and, and will also move up to be, to be rich peasants.
[speaker001:] And erm... where's the labour supply going to come from? You couldn't just
[speaker002:] Well there's, there's still, as we've seen there's still a, a very big group of poor.
[speaker001:] Yeah rural poor [cough] sort of shift into the towns.
[speaker002:] Well yes you, you, you've got two, one is you've got erm the rural poor who will provide a labour force in the countryside for rich peasants... and you've, because you have got a labour market and because there are no limits on mobility, then presumably there will be some poor peasants who will decide... no I'll get out, I'll industry's going to get going, I will be able to earn more money in a town, or sons would go off and, and so, so there should be, you should provide a, have a supply of labour, whereas if you've got everybody, if everybody had been in middle peasant status... erm... there would have been no incentive to do that because everybody would have been self sufficient within the countryside.... So... so that the promotion of a rich peasant economy is the way to finance and support industrialization....
[speaker001:] This is what they thought?
[speaker002:] This is what they thought.
[speaker001:] Well I, I mean assumptions about rich peasant...... what's he gonna do, buy a factory or something? I mean Well they're investment themselves, if you take it off them in tax then
[speaker002:] Or, or, or you, you've got some... financial institutions through which savings.
[speaker001:] Mm. But if you had a rich peasant economy that you're gonna tax all the time, I mean he's not gonna much is he? Was er, was this industrialization envisaged being a sort of purely urban thing, or were they trying to encourage er rural industry as well?...
[speaker002:] Erm... rural industry is being encouraged in that no rural industrial commercial enterprises are being confiscated so, so you are, you are encouraging that and presumably if anybody sets anything up they're going to be able to keep it.... But if, if... if this is the strategy which is being adopted in... broadly it is being adopted... I mean I'm, I'm not just sort of arguing just for the sake [LAUGHTER] of arguing, it is []
[speaker001:] Yes. Mm. Mm. Yes.
[speaker002:] it is, is the policy... i i is, is... would you need to set this up as, as it being a long term... I E ho how quickly would you expect that kind of process to work through?
[speaker001:] Well it takes, I mean if... to start off with you've gotta get rich peasants to save some surplus and then see... he's not gonna invest every single surplus in one year cos the harvest next year might be no good so you've got the sort of vagaries of the Chinese weather situation so you've obviously gotta sort of stock up
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] and erm I imagine
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] so erm investing into industry which I don't know... much about, and I, I am suspicious that invest into industry anyway erm so... it's gonna have, to work it'll have to be quite a long term policy, well I imagine it wouldn't be a short-term policy.
[speaker002:] So in, rational grounds y y you would be arguing that, that if we're going to set this policy up we're going to have to accept that... i it's going, it is going to be a long term policy.
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] And, and therefore you, you... recognizing that, you would be seeking to make statements about... erm... sort of giving reassurances to the rich peasant that this is
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] that this is, is not something that's going to change.
[speaker001:] But in terms of industrialization itself I would, I would've thought it would take...
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] But they didn't give a didn't issue any documents of reassurance to the rich
[speaker002:] Mm. Mm. Wh what, why... how, how is this industrialization programme then working in terms of eventual collectivization?... What w i is there a relation between... industrialization and collectivization?...
[speaker001:] Not directly but you can make one in that how that once everybody gets, once you have the resources to raise everybody up to a certain sort of acceptable standard of living, then you can redistribute those resources and you are, you are,y you'll be able to eliminate... poverty
[speaker002:] Right, yes.
[speaker001:] well not totally but
[speaker002:] Right that, that bit of it is fine. But is, is collectivization just the reorganization of land? Or does collectivization imply mechanization?...
[speaker001:] Mm. Yeah. I think it implies mechanization and more control as well of the labour force
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] cos surely the quickest way to industrialize would be directives funds
[speaker002:] Yes, that, that bit of it is fine but surely... if collectivization implies that you mechanize as well, you need industrialization in order to be able to mechanize.
[speaker001:] So that you can have the resources to pay for it all.
[speaker002:] Well er er er the er the A the resources to pay for it, B... er the capacity to create mechanization. So you need a rich peasant economy to finance industrialization... to provide the mechanization... to enable you to go on to collectivization.... Now... that's going to be quite a long term process isn't it?... So if, if one is accepting that, that strategy... you would expect there to be statements along the lines of er ye yes this is going to be a long term process, etcetera....
[speaker001:] It's a long term process in order to achieve their... means so I mean
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] [clears throat] in the [cough] it's a short-term objective... would you say?
[speaker002:] Er... er... but, but
[speaker001:] Isn't it?
[speaker002:] th th th as you said the, the means to the end has changed
[speaker001:] Yes.
[speaker002:] and the end is lo is now further off
[speaker001:] Further off. Mm. What I can't reconcile is what was the rich peasant. I mean look at the chain of events which is bullshit. The rich peasant I'm gonna save some money right, I'm gotta finance industry so we mechanize so you collectivize and take it all of me. Stuff that....
[speaker002:] So, so as a rich peasant you've got doubts about this?
[speaker001:] Yes.
[speaker002:] So I've got to reassure you?
[speaker001:] But I mean if, if you know what the plan is, yeah.
[speaker002:] But I've got to reassure you?
[speaker001:] Certainly.
[speaker002:] Er er er my reassurance has got to be look this is a long way off.
[speaker001:] But would the peasants trust the Communist Party? I mean even if you did provide reassurances, just... because the peasants were well aware of the fact that hardl although they'd been given lands and their had been er the lan you know the previous been destroyed, the Communist Party could take back their land tomorrow if they wanted to.... So whatever reassurance the Party gives, what matters more is whether the peasants actually genuinely erm trusted the Communist Party and had...
[speaker002:] W w w er what alternative has the rich peasant got? Okay so he doesn't trust them
[speaker001:] But if he doesn't trust them then they're not... then the Communist Party isn't gonna be able to fulfil their expectations of trying to change the peasants' mentality to increase production....
[speaker002:] But isn't it in the, the rich peasant's interests to increase his production?
[speaker001:] Well not if he taxed. You can just say I'm gonna take this off you
[speaker002:] Yes, you could do that, so, so y you go for erm a very high rate of taxation or you go for a lower rate of taxation which is
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] will encourage income increases etcetera. But I mean th th the rich peasant hasn't got much to lose has he? I mean...
[speaker001:] But then he may not invest it, he may just consume.
[speaker002:] He may, he might just consume. Right. Th th th there is that danger
[speaker001:] money under the er might keep it under the floorboards.
[speaker002:] Yes. Right, yeah.
[speaker001:] Was there some sort of erm... financial institution created like a national bank or anything like that?
[speaker002:] Er... the banking sector is nationalized, yes.... And, and a bank is set up.... But w but we, we you were saying were there these, yes
[speaker001:] Mm.
[speaker002:] I think there were.
[speaker001:] Mm.
[speaker002:] Erm... the being [tut] nineteen fifty er... preserving, this is a quote, [reading] preserving a rich peasant economy is of course not a temporary but a long term policy. Only when the conditions mature for the wide use of mechanical farming for the organization of collective farms and for the socialist reform of rural areas er can the need for a rich peasant economy cease and this will take a somewhat lengthy time to achieve [].... So the
[speaker001:] Depends on
[speaker002:] Right.... And er would you be reass reassured by that?
[speaker001:] Mm. Yes and no that, you know, okay so alright my perhaps it won't change but... end of the day invest into industry and gonna lose some of your land.
[speaker002:] Right. But what, what more can the Party do to reassure? I it is saying look we're not gonna take any of your industrial commercial properties, those are, those,tho those are safe. But we're saying
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[speaker002:] we are, we are encouraging the rich peasant, I mean we want you to settle down and become rich... and, although we have this ultimate aim of socialization, collectivization, we've got to industrialize first... and that, that is a long time off.
[speaker001:] compensate....
[speaker002:] Perhaps. Well I'm not saying I'm not gonna compensate.... [sigh]
[speaker001:] I don't know, I mean if I was a rich peasant I would be
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] Especially with the past experience as well.
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] Mm.
[speaker002:] Yes. Yes. Right.
[speaker001:] Well you can't create stability, the Communist Party can't sort of I mean cos that's what, sort of hindering... long term investments and that how peasants don't feel that how that things are secure, they... and... it's difficult to see what the Communist Party could've done
[speaker002:] Yes. Th th th... if y if you're looking at this from the Communist Party perspective, I, I think one... i i i i it seems a reasonably sensible s s strategic choice t go for the kind of programme because the alternative would be collectivization. The only experience of collectivization there'd been was the Soviet one and... they seemed to have known at least something about the Soviet, they knew it involved a lot of force... they knew that if you were going to collect you were going to collectivize you needed the mechaniz well they thought that you needed the mechanization first... and they knew that they d A they didn't have the capacity for that mechanization... they didn't want to use force... I mean i it would,i it would have been very dangerous, wouldn't it, to go back to the countryside collectivization. I mean there, there would have been presumably enormous opposition to that and in the process output would have almost certainly fallen... an an and er there were no resources for mechanization so collectivization as a short-term option is really out.... But isn't then the only option to go for this longer term one creation of a rich peasant economy?...
[speaker001:] [blowing nose]
[speaker002:] Er in order to do that I've got to give you various reassurances.
[speaker001:] Mhm....
[speaker002:] And even then you're a bit dubious and then you say well I'm gonna wait and see about this. So I, I, I mean I, I... Well that's where the propaganda comes in isn't it? I think Yeah. But the kinds of things saying here are, are really very favourable towards a rich peasant economy
[speaker001:] ?
[speaker002:] Erm... I can't remember. Erm it's new in about May nineteen fifty....
[speaker001:] [clears throat] The Communist Party did though, through those taxation policies and that how that initially it was quite progressive, the taxation
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] when the need, when they depended upon the peasants' support and then
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] in between nineteen fifty one fifty two, once their position was more secure they could afford to actually favour the rich peasants more
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] low, by erm raising the sort of base rate from three percent to six percent and lowering the top
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] rate so that actually showed
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] their commitment towards it.
[speaker002:] Right. Right s s so, so part of... what we, we, we will er be looking for is a kind of policy which would seem to favour the rich peasant, would seem to reassure the rich peasant, that, that's
[speaker001:] You need some direct action. That's why I mean like
[speaker002:] Right right.
[speaker001:] Communist Party just to say things people aren't really going to erm... change
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] their attitudes, but if
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] they actually do something positive
[speaker002:] Right. Yeah.
[speaker001:] then that might make a difference.
[speaker002:] Yes. So if this is our strategy, we've clearly got to favour the rich peasant. Th th that we er we, we are moving a long way away from this egalitarian position, we've abandoned that and we've said right we, we are
[speaker001:] [cough]
[speaker002:] if we're going to industrialize the way has got to be through the promotion of a rich peasant economy. So in a sense you are, you are in a sense almost promoting ine sort of inequalities within the countryside.... And there's an economic rationale for that....
[speaker001:] Economic rationale in that how they're the most productive and the most efficient, mm.
[speaker002:] They are the most productive section. Yes.
[speaker001:] But you see the thing is that how, what complicates all this is that at the same time the Communist Party is trying to achieve greater equality and how that this isn't their, their sole objective. So that's why their policies might seem a little bit wishy-washy in that how that if they were going straight for a rich peasant economy then perhaps you would have expected... a more spectacular economic growth, but there wasn't and perhaps this was because they didn't actually go positively just for a rich peasant economy, they were trying to achieve a greater degree of erm egalitarianism in the countryside at the same time. How were they doing that? Well just through, I mean like land ref... land reform in itself isn't erm efficient. No it's more political than that because association you're still giving a landlord a bit of land which means
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] And they couldn't've well... for example with taxation, they could've erm not taxed the rich peasants at all and then just put all their erm... their sort of focus upon the poor peasants and got their income through them... and also with land, they could've just not given any land to poor peasants who were inefficient and given it all to the rich peasants and really gone for a capitalist state. What, would you say that would've helped the growth of the economy even more? So in some way they were making economy by not doing that? Mm. Yeah.
[speaker002:] Yes. There is... erm... the promotion of the rich peasant economy is, doesn't, er you're saying i it's not, it is an aim
[speaker001:] Mhm.
[speaker002:] it is not the only aim
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] that... at the same time you're actually trying to assume a policy... of equality?
[speaker001:] Greater equality.
[speaker002:] Greater equality. Right. Now on the face of it those two seem, they're gonna conflict aren't they?...
[speaker001:] I just have one qualification in that how that their main aim is erm to... erm... promote a rich peasant economy, that is their
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] most fundamental aim
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] because they see that in the long term benefiting, leading to greater equality.
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] So erm
[speaker002:] Er because er but only because that will... oh, no i i... er does, does the development of a rich peasant economy itself promote equality?
[speaker001:] No it doesn't, but it gives them the means to promote it.
[speaker002:] Ah. So, so y y y you're sort of inequality in order to get equality? That if, if you promote the rich peasant economy you can industrialize, you can then collectivize and it's collectivization
[speaker001:] Yes.
[speaker002:] which ultimately is going to provide your equalization.
[speaker001:] So they don't see it as... two conflicting aims, they see er the two sort of complementing one another.
[speaker002:] Bu bu but inequality is the means to equality?... And you, er that implies you're prepared to see inequalities widening... in the short, perhaps even the medium term.
[speaker001:] [sniff]
[speaker002:] And, because a as the rich peasant economy gets going... obviously there are going to be some rich getting richer and there are gonna be some poor getting poorer.
[speaker001:] [clears throat] But... that's fine as long as the Communist Party can control this sort of growth, and that's why they introduced the mutual aid teams to sort of counter the
[speaker002:] Ah right, yes.
[speaker001:] er the polarization of society. I mean it seems a bit ironic in that how that what the Communist Party had been striving to eliminate for the past twenty years, they're now going back to recreating differences in society, but the most fundamental change is that how feudalism has gone.
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] You have a different kind of
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] exploitation.
[speaker002:] So you, yes we, we've got the end of feudalism, and then we, we've got this promotion of the rich peasant economy, the promotion of inequalities but at the same time... you might need to come in to protect the ri the poor at the bottom... because you don't want those inequalities to get too great.
[speaker001:] Mhm.
[speaker002:] In fact wh wh wh what you want is the promotion of a rich peasant economy without equality, inequalities emerging.
[speaker001:] You can't can you?
[speaker002:] Which is going to be very difficult. Right. So there are, there are problems with this sort of policy in terms of, of the, like the economic logic of it is that yes you go for a rich peasant economy which creates inequalities which will provide you with industrialization, which will then enable you to get back to inequalities... but, in term back to equality
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER]
[speaker002:] the problem is that you've actually got inequalities being promoted in, in the meantime which you have, you might want to do something about.... So we might expect there to be a, a set of policies coming in to, to ease the creation of that inequality. Okay. Erm... is,i i i is this okay?... C c before we, we move on,c can I just ask if we c could look at this in a different way?... Er... where, where has class conflict gone in all of this?...
[speaker001:] of feudalism
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] and trying to get to socialism but it's, it's the government who are doing the work. Surely there should be no more class conflict [clears throat] it should be all class er cooperation, working together. [sniff]...
[speaker002:] But, but there, there, yes but there are still classes....
[speaker001:] Yes but then they're still to erm... to against each other....
[speaker002:] How do you make progress through socialism other than through class conflict?
[speaker001:] We've already had the class conflict though haven't we? Yes. You've got rid of the landlords who have been mainly exploiters and so
[speaker002:] But how do you make further progress without conflict?
[speaker001:] Er... Create a proletariat?... What?... Create a proletariat? Mhm. God. Starting again then.... I don't understand.... Well n n start, of course you're starting again because the processes of recreating a class struggle is the same in each phase. You're trying to do the same thing but whereas in feudal exploitation Ah. it's, even though you want to er if Ah yeah. you've got a real true capitalist economy and industrialization the proletariat is gonna be the vanguard of the revolution. Ah. But I can't see them setting up a situation where they're gonna exploit their own workers
[speaker002:] No they're not gonna exploit their own workers but surely the, the, the whole idea of the build up towards land reform is that you are making, I mean in a Marxist sense it's the only way in which you can do it... is, is you make progress through conflict. I mean we, we clearly do not have a socialist society even at the end of land reform as we, as we've seen in a sense we've created a, a private enterprise system which is based on equalities within capitalism.... But are inequalities needed... for class conflict, for progress?... What would've happened if... absolute egalitarianism had been pursued and absolute egalitarianism had worked... and there was enough land for everybody to come up to a middle peasant status... and you'd created an absolutely e equal society?...
[speaker001:] Everyone would be happy. I think it would be cool. [LAUGHTER]
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] I could've run with that....
[speaker002:] That would be okay would it?
[speaker001:] Yeah I think... No because what's stopping it from going on to any erm... what's stopping it from becoming capitalist and
[speaker002:] It is capitalist, and everybody will, would've been given their own land. Everybody would have enough land to reach subsistence level, everybody would be a capitalist
[speaker001:] I think
[speaker002:] would own the means of production there would be subsistence.
[speaker001:] er the communists wouldn't be very happy about that the ownership of production is... this is, this is the problem.
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] So they want collective ownership.
[speaker002:] So how are you gonna get out of that?...
[speaker001:] if you've already got successful... economy?
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] Well there's no out then.
[speaker002:] So you'd be stuck?
[speaker001:] Yeah, there's no, there's nowhere to go. Cos well you know why would, why would do that?
[speaker002:] Right. And where, where would be the, the forces from within the peasantry be coming from to, to change that?
[speaker001:] ...
[speaker002:] Right and there's no expl there's no exploitation, there's no classes, there's no conflict, no way forward....
[speaker001:] Don't know. Where would you go? Where would you go? Wh what, how can you progress more than, than you'd be equal, there'd be enough to eat? But that I mean what's what's a sort of better thing to happen than that?
[speaker002:] But that is not socialist.
[speaker001:] It isn't communism. What?
[speaker002:] It's not socialist....
[speaker001:] But, you know, what, what would be, what would be a rural socialist erm
[speaker002:] Well, see it's er er er er... w is it satisfactory to have a rural economy which is subsistence? I mean okay... all of you as, as middle, middle peasants were reaching subsistence level... how is that gonna help industrialization?...
[speaker001:] How, how is industrialization gonna help us? [LAUGHTER]
[speaker002:] I it won't i but it won't, it won't impinge on you at all.... I mean i i i if you were gonna sit there saying I'm okay, I'm, I can reach a reasonably comfortable business level, this is great, this is what I've always wanted to do
[speaker001:] Mm....
[speaker002:] y y y you've got no surplus so you can't save, you can't invest, you're not gonna buy any consumer goods.... Erm... productivity isn't gonna rise very much. You're stuck.
[speaker001:] You'd need to, that's why they nee er the Communist Party was going for progress in ord so that the peasants would see that socialism was a good sort of goal... isn't it?
[speaker002:] But social er er er pr precisely o o on, on Dave's point... that socialism would not be a goal for a middle peasant economy because you would be quite happy where you were....
[speaker001:] So you wouldn't have any idea of wanting to improve your lot further?...
[speaker002:] Well would, would you?...
[speaker001:] I think that [LAUGHTER] answer, I mean some people would be totally happy to yeah, fine... but I'm sure there'll be other people who, you know, I want some more er
[speaker002:] Yes.... But... there would be... i i in terms of a communist strategy, in terms of an ideology... there would be nothing within the countryside which would be promoting that... movement towards socialism, that, that change through class conflict would there? I mean if, if, if you create a society in which you have only one class... and it is a, an owner-occupation, in a sense, small scale subsistence capitalist class, everybody is roughly the same within that... there is no form of momentum is there?...
[speaker001:] Well I'm not entirely sure. I mean... you, you could argue that... inequalities give,pr provide momentum because then there's er introduce, introduce conflicts
[speaker002:] Yes but of necessity.
[speaker001:] but is, is it, is it therefore true that a system which does introduce conflicts therefore can progress? I mean I'm, I'm not sure it is.
[speaker002:] It can't progress through socialism?
[speaker001:] Through democracy.
[speaker002:] Or out of er... in terms of production can't progress. In a Marxist context it, it cannot because the only way in which you can make progress is through co class conflict.
[speaker001:] Yeah. But you might be able to do it some other way. Mm Sorry? The Communist Party You call them a communist party? [LAUGHTER] But you see China was different compared to erm places like Russia and wherever and so... you can't just strictly sort of use the Marxist model and apply it to China and what the Com Well you should be able to. Chinese Communist Party was doing, well why should you? Yeah so that's the classic claim of Marx's model innit? It's like the theory of history. You should be able to Well maybe the Communist Party realized that it wouldn't work. [LAUGHTER] Why are they a communist party then? I mean
[speaker002:] But is, is, is is it possible that... it is actually very useful to have classes, to, to have inequalities? I E
[speaker001:] Well yeah I there, there, there is, I'm not saying that this and er and I do see what you're saying, yeah.
[speaker002:] I E
[speaker001:] In what way? In the political sense in that how, yeah.
[speaker002:] Yes politically. I i in terms of mobilization, in terms of, of revolutionary struggle, in terms of revolutionary progress. Er it, it does seem to me it would've been an enormous problem for the Chinese Communist Party had absolute egalitarianism worked.... It would have left them with, with no mechanism to go forward. They actually had a vested interest in having inequality within the coun er er because it, it... retained classes and therefore potential class conflict within the countryside and therefore it offered a way forward to socialism.
[speaker001:] But isn't it sort of very much an view, you know this... that this is the theory for justification for the, their policy or was it theoretical erm? Er production.
[speaker002:] Yes. Erm... well e e I, I quite agree. Absolutely. Erm but one, one... one, I mean cl clearly... the policy which was pursued was one of inequality and there was a rich peasant economy... and either you say well yes there is, there is an economic imperative for that and that's the explanation... or you say well there might have been a political factor involved in this... that there was a recognition that progress was going to come through class conflict... and therefore... if you are actually promoting the kind of... you might realize it was happening and you might be more prepared to [something bangs]
[speaker001:] Mm.
[speaker002:] Because you would be saying well if we have classes this provides us with a way forward for the future... in a way that if we have absolute egalitarianism... that, how would we make progress through to socialism?
[speaker001:] But why did they go for absolute egalitarianism in the first place then? Was it just so that they could, for political means again to get peasant support?
[speaker002:] Erm, yes.... Yes if, if you go back forty six forty eight that was it.
[speaker001:] So you're saying that they were driven more by there political desire for power than by their ideology because had absolute egalitarianism worked then they should have been satisfied with that because then they were fulfilling their ideology.
[speaker002:] Yes. But it obviously hasn't worked.
[speaker001:] No but you were saying before that had it worked it would've given them a problem. The way I
[speaker002:] It would've done.
[speaker001:] I see it is that had it worked it would have fulfilled their ideology.... It would have fulfilled their ideological aims.
[speaker002:] Why is that?... W w w cos, cos one aim is... equality, the other aim is socialism.
[speaker001:] Mm. But don't you get equality through socialism? Isn't that the aim?
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] Rather than equality
[speaker002:] Absolutely, yes.
[speaker001:] And they're also looking for progress too, they want to increase
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] everybody's
[speaker002:] S s so we're looking for, in a sense, for three things, one is... is er paving the way for industrialization, one is equality, one is the ideological movement to socialism and somehow you've got to allow for all of those three. And I think in a way absolute equality would've provided a problem in terms of both... paving the way for industrialization because you would have created a subsistence economy and that would not have helped anybody. Secondly I think it would actually have created problems in terms of ideology.
[speaker001:] [clears throat] This whole idea of a subsistence economy... is something I'm not really, I'm not really sure about it because erm... what, what would exactly, you're saying that if everybody was the same then erm then you're somehow necessarily going to be producing at a subsistence level... so [clears throat]... erm... so er and so it's, so if you can only extract surplus by effectively taking it off something given to others.
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] So you're virtually condemning some people to operate below subsistence
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] in order to allow other people to extract a surplus which you then give
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] Yes. Right. So why, why, why can't you just erm... why can't they just take a bit off everybody in that case and, and inflict the same degree? Cos you're inflicting, you're inflicting or, or people at the very bottom of the scale, you're forced to operate below a level of subsistence because inequalities.
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] So why don't you just run a middle peasant economy but take what you need from everybody else? But surely state intervention should have been the best way of achieving both goals? But how could the, the s By taxing people. how, how would the state have the means to intervene? Just go give us your taxes, build a few factories. Where are they gonna get these, how can they impose taxes unless there's some kind of... a healthy economy? You know an economy that's Well I mean collapsing and is in such a state. there is, no, cos there's a surplus right?...
[speaker002:] But there's
[speaker001:] There will, I mean
[speaker002:] but, but would there? I mean is,
[speaker001:] Yes but how great is this surplus? Well look there's a finite amount of resource in the economy. You've got some rich people, you've got some poor people.
[speaker002:] Yeah right.
[speaker001:] Right? Now there's gonna be a surplus no matter who you give it to, no matter where, I mean...
[speaker002:] Why?
[speaker001:] Why? That surplus probably has Because those people on subsistence level are surviving right, and if they're surviving
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] it means that they're there and that if you take something away from the wealthy peasants and equalize
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] amongst your old'uns, whatever but it is gonna be
[speaker002:] But isn't there a, a different expenditure pattern between the rich and the poor? That
[speaker001:] Yeah yeah but erm what I'm saying is you can tax them... take that surplus, cream it off, create an equal society direct state intervention... invest it in factories, whatever.
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] I don't think it'll really help, I mean
[speaker002:] No. But, but i i i i if you went... yes I mean er in a sense that th there are... one possibility is to redistribute the land, and do that equally, but if, if there, there was not enough land to bring everybody up to subsistence level... er I mean some were, the, the argument is there wasn't enough land to bring everybody up to a landlord's subsistence level.... Or at best everybody could just come up to but nobody would be creating re er a surplus, nobody would have the resources to invest to enable them to come above subsistence
[speaker001:] Yes.
[speaker002:] and if you then taxed you would, you would pushing everybody down below. Right. And tha that is no way... then that is no way forward.
[speaker001:] What I'm
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] Yeah but as far as I can see there either is a surplus or there isn't, you know, that it shouldn't depend on where you organize the a aggregate. Why not? If y the way, if you Because any sur any surplus you're extracting from rich peasants is an artificial one because it's only based on, you know, basically imposed suffering of poor peasants. You're not allowing
[speaker002:] Bu but, but the rich... because they have more resources are more highly productive. So they have a higher income.
[speaker001:] Yes.
[speaker002:] Which you can then tax. And you will be able to,y y you, your tax revenue will rise because you've got a group that is rich....
[speaker001:] And then... but also with the poor peasants I mean you, you've given them a, enough land so that they, they still can't meet subsistence, given them some land but not enough, but you know because they're resourceful and they've got other things that they, they don't need to have enough land to give subsistence, they'd rather go and do something else and make it up. So that therefore in, I mean it's like a form... they just... they just get by. ... [clears throat] Yeah but I, but I cos I can see the arguments but then... I mean I'm just not, I'm not entirely sure whether i i it couldn't work, that it couldn't work being a middle peasant economy and that these erm these inequalities would er sort of
[speaker002:] Y y y you could certainly extract a sur er extract a surplus for the government
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] which the government would then have spent on the industrial sector... so agriculture would not have moved forward. And no middle peasant would have then had the investment resources to improve his own
[speaker001:] [sniff]
[speaker002:] I E the, the agricultural sector would, would not be left with enough resources to improve.... And...
[speaker001:] Why do say that? I mean... why, er with this surplus they've gathered, I mean what you're saying is that the rich peasant economy effectively are better investors
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] they're more productive
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] but that needn't be the case. I mean if the government is er taxing and pr channelled that money... properly... then it should be able to do the job of private investors [clears throat] so surely the arguments hinge upon the fact that perhaps the government is likely to be inefficient, corrupt, bureaucratic, whatever.
[speaker002:] Possibly but i i if, if you say it is a,i it's an honest government and er er the tax collection is, is straightforward and honest, the government is then deciding what it does with that tax revenue. I, I E you, you're saying in effect that the government is taking all of the surplus from the, from agriculture?
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] What little surplus, what little
[speaker001:] Yeah that's what I'm sa
[speaker002:] surplus there is, and then it redistributes that surplus and given that the, the, the priority is industrialization... most if not all of that surplus is going to go to the industrial sector. There will be no resources for the agricultural sector and agriculture probably will not be able to support the industrialization process. Whereas if you go for a degree of inequality within the countryside, A you will have, you might get the same, same tax yield because you, you have a higher rate of tax on the rich and their revenue's going up so that tax revenue will increase
[speaker001:] Mhm.
[speaker002:] and you've got a group, the rich within the agricultural sector who are going to invest and they are more likely to invest in agriculture.
[speaker001:] You have the problem of how much to tax because on the one hand you're trying to promote this rich peasant economy and not erm tax them too heavily because you don't want to, them to not invest with
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] and then you also need to have a surplus so that you can erm pay for industrialization, and you can't tax, tax the poor too much to fit into your ideology so at the end of the day, you know, well it's a matter of just balancing all these factors
[speaker002:] Exactly. Exactly.
[speaker001:] to get a compromise.
[speaker002:] Right. So the creation of a rich er along these lines of the creation of a rich peasant economy... is a necessity as the Communist Party see it in terms of paving the way for industrialization. It is a better strategy to create resources for industrialization to go for a rich peasant economy than to go for a middle peasant economy. What I'm also saying is that, that in terms of
[speaker001:] [sniff]
[speaker002:] sort of the context of ideology that, you know, from a Marxist perspective it is actually useful still to have rich and poor peasants because potentially you've got classes, you've got class conflict and you've got a means of making further progress towards socialism.... And the two come together. Wh what you're also saying is, is right though, that within that... the danger is that inequalities get too great and you would also need a set of policies which would stop that inequality. So you're trying to promote it, but you're trying to limit it.
[speaker001:] And what, well how do you do that, I mean if
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] that is totally inconsistent, if you're trying to create class struggle
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] then you're not gonna stop it, I mean if there's class struggle no one can stop it.
[speaker002:] Yes. Yes. That, that's gonna be a problem.
[speaker001:] that political argument seems, I mean you can't win in this game can you? If you've got inequalities and everything then you say ah yes, it's all very good, we need this, the Marxist class struggle, I mean that just seems like a ridiculous argument to me. But w was it, was it the size of China that made this necessary? You know the sort of uncontrollable nature of, of most of it... that, that meant they had to get on with it. [LAUGHTER]
[speaker002:] I'm not sure size is, is the reason....
[speaker001:] I still don't see why, why you're saying the government couldn't... use their erm... policies, fiscal policies with erm... and then actually take an active part in the economy. Why couldn't they create, improve the agricultural sector by
[speaker002:] I'm not saying, they, they could have done.
[speaker001:] Right, but they didn't. Cos... the various things you've been saying about the rich peasant economy, I mean
[speaker002:] Because, but you don't... you, you well if you've got a rich peasant economy you don't need to because you're saying the rich peasant
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] can do it themselves.
[speaker001:] But, but it's highly, I mean I don't, it doesn't follow to me that that... in any way is compliant with Marxist ideology... because surely you want to get to your socialist state
[speaker002:] Right. Mm.
[speaker001:] as quickly as possible.
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] So if you could create equality
[speaker002:] [clears throat]
[speaker001:] this er government intervention policy, you'd've achieved your goal.
[speaker002:] Erm right.
[speaker001:] And I don't see see why
[speaker002:] Yes, yes.
[speaker001:] they couldn't've invested in, in agriculture
[speaker002:] Sh sh
[speaker001:] all this in the private sector would've
[speaker002:] sure,th th th that is your other option... is, is that you go for a m a much more equal policy and the, the government takes money in taxation and puts it back into the, the agricultural sector. Right.
[speaker001:] I think the reason they probably did this because it's, it's, it was politically harder to do that, they would've had to taken a lot more responsibility. Yeah th that was, that was the that was my point about the size of the country, and I think
[speaker002:] Oh right. Yes.
[speaker001:] that so,th that sort of policy would be very, would've been difficult you'd have to have a huge sort of bureaucratic structure
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] to invest in.
[speaker002:] Right. So, so sort of technically, politically that would have been quite difficult to do because of the manpower involved etcetera
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] etcetera etcetera, yes. Whereas creating a rich peasant economy... will work immediately cos that's what... a significant number of people in, in the countryside will actually go along with and want.
[speaker001:] Mm.
[speaker002:] Because it is, it is en it is encouraging people to become rich and basically people want to become rich.
[speaker001:] But it seems to me like it's passing the buck a bit in the way they're just sort of taking responsibility
[speaker002:] Yes. Yes.
[speaker001:] and saying well you know that if we, if the sort of rich peasants were
[speaker002:] Mm. Yeah.
[speaker001:] gonna be pretty safe, it's gonna be pretty stable, we don't have to get our f hands dirty erm you know future cos if it doesn't work you can always economic about Taiwan and there's a great deal of irony in this because [clears throat] you know here you are in the nineteen fifties in China rich peasant economy which is accepting and preserving inequalities
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] and yet you go to Taiwan and there's some sort of, land reform which ends up in, in a very equal distribution Well exactly [LAUGHTER] what's happening.
[speaker002:] A and erm and I think it is being conducted by the government which has just left China
[speaker001:] Yeah, that's right.
[speaker002:] Yes.... Right.... This,bu but isn't that only because of what they learnt from
[speaker001:] Oh absolutely yes.
[speaker002:] their experience of China?
[speaker001:] But if erm, if they have learned that why, you know, why didn't the communists?... Perhaps they... So which is always are you saying that they actually deliberately were trying to... [break in recording]
[speaker002:] Right. Erm... right.... Zoe would you like to, to carry on from...
[speaker001:] [sigh]
[speaker002:] wherever you want see, see what you have.
[speaker001:] Alright. [reading] What then were the economic effects of land reform and the preservation of the rich peasant economy... and how successful was it in raising productivity? Land reform had profound impact on the distribution of rural wealth and income and through this on both the motivation and complicity of the rural population to invest, improve farming techniques and to increase production. The degree of the immediate impact of land reform however is a matter of debate. The spef specific impact of land reform is extremely difficult to evaluate. Land reform does not necessarily lead to an immediate rise in output, neither does it increase a physical supply of land, nor does it significantly alter the ratio of peasants for the amount of land available. Furthermore the exact economic impact of land distribution is difficult to identify in test because output is the function of many other factors besides land distribution per se. The scope of the economic analysis of the immediate impact of the land reform period is further limited by lack of statistics. Official economic data released prior to nineteen fifty two were confusing due to lack of standardization, contents and coverage of data. According to one, data especially on output for the immediate post land reform period were later corrected and adjusted by officials causing one to question its credibility. In addition statistical data from the pre land reform period is patchy. Most historians use Buck's land survey data and statistics erm work by the for the nineteen thirties to draw comparisons with official data which was collected for tax purposes from nineteen fifty two onwards but there's very little data from the period of land reform itself. In view of these factors my discussion can be confined to three inter-related aspects of the economic impact of land reform. Since the agrarian reform swept away the landlord tenant relationship it altered the claims to the output from land. These effects will be explored first. As a consequence of the abolition of the landlord tenant structure, reform to the tax structure was necessary. The second aspect considered here will be how the C C P structured their tax system as a means of both investment in industry and as an incentive to agricultural productivity. Finally an assessment will be made as to the effect of redistribution of land reform to agricultural productivity.... So what was the overall effect of rent transfer, of agricultural output as a result of the abolition of rent landlords? estimates that the rental land was thirty three percent of the total land area in ninetee in nineteen thirty and about thirteen percent of the total value of agricultural output was transferred amongst households as rent before land reform. Land reform primarily meant the diversion of rent payments. In addition to the redistribution of the actual rent payments the abolition of landlords meant the abolition of other charges, local taxes and surta cha surtaxes, rent deposits and interest payments to landlords. All of these further contributed to the post land reform potential o of the law set to maintain and increase its income, or for the Communist Party to tax. I'll now consider how much the peasants actually benefited from these gains and how much they paid in tax after land reform. Prior to land reform most agricultural taxes were levied to the land itself, assessment per unit of land being graduated according to the quality of land proportional to output. Land taxes were paid to the...? [] [reading] and provisional governments. Tax evasion and tax was widespread. maintains that the actual sums collected by these agents were sometimes as much as ten times what the government received. She explains that there were generally two stages to changes in the tax system, the tax system initiated by the Communist Party. There was expansion of the tax based levied on production per household assessed on the basis of nominal annual y yield. This was the harvest that could be reasonably be expected in an average year. The levy was set by cadres based in. Tax rates were applicable to the total household income derived from agricultural production divided by the number of members in the household who depended primarily on agricultural production. Commercial income was tax exempt. During this first stage tax rates were steeply progressive from three percent on a hundred and fifty per capita per annum to forty two percent. The C C P's aim was to gain peasant support for land reform and to emphasise class divisions. Once land reform was under way, the peasant support of the C C P regime was more secure, the C C P implemented a second stage of its tax programme in the newly liberated areas. From nineteen fifty one to fifty two it re-graduated the progressive tax rates, raising the bottom rate from six percent in the same threshold of a hundred and fifty per capita per annum, and lowering the top rate to twenty five percent. The main incentives to agricultural production embodied in the tax system [] [cough] [reading] First production over and above the nominal family unit was free of tax. Following from this there was thus an incentive for peasants to invest in large scale improvements without fear of tax on rises in productivity because the N A Y was fixed for at least three years. Further, because the N A Y was based on grain as a standard, this encouraged a switch to cash crops which were of a higher value relative to grain. The tax system extensively encouraged all peasant owners to settle down and get rich because the tax rate remained fixed on grain output from each household... but the adjustment of the tax rate was more advantageous to the rich peasant than the poor, especially in view of the fact that the rich peasant still owned proportionately more land than the poor peasant. According to it did not seem to make much difference to tax on income differentials, rich peasants were still about two and a half times better off than poor peasants. It appeared however that the Chinese Communist Party was rational in its tax policy, taxation was crucial to the C C P to control inflation and the supply of grain to the People's Liberation Army and the population as a whole. estimates that in nineteen fifty the tax amounted to nearly forty two percent of the national budget receipt which was clearly a significant contribution. Turning to the economic impact of land reform on productivity []
[speaker002:] Can I just, can I just stop you there for a minute. To ju and just take taxation bit of it. Do you understand what Zoe is, is talking about? Do, do you understand what the tax system is?
[speaker001:] No. No. [LAUGHTER]
[speaker002:] ... Right. Actually you're okay, it was extremely clear but it, it's a, I think it's a complicated issue.
[speaker001:] Mm.
[speaker002:] Is, is what you're saying that, that... the tax was on... a, a kind of expected yield... that cadres would, would, would go into a village and they would say look erm... that is the normal yield for that bit of land. On, on, on past experience that's roughly what the yield has been, on an average year you would expect to get that. And, and we are going to base our taxes on that normal yield.... [tut] if the yield is above that, we're gonna keep the tax base the same, so i if, if your yield goes up, if you work harder, if you're more productive... you, you're going to be much better off. We, we will not raise the taxes because your increment's gone up. So, so there's that, there's that kind of incentive behind it and, and, and, and that normal yield is, is gonna operate for three years, if there are improvements we're still gonna keep that... the normal yield tax based exactly the same. So there are significant incentives to improve the land.
[speaker001:] So what happens after three years, the er... the yields are sort of therefore reviewed and the reassessed?
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] How would they do that? So basically what you, you, what you would be likely to do is rip o rip off the system completely for two years at a time...
[speaker002:] Yes, but then... er you face the possibility that... er because your, your, if you like, your normal yield has risen
[speaker001:] Yeah, that's it.
[speaker002:] you will move into a different sort of tax bracket.
[speaker001:] it's a strange incentives aren't there? It's like in the first year... the first year of the three year period you've got an incentive,
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] the second year you increase about as much but the third year you're gonna bring it right down use hardly anything at all. Yeah but the point is did they actually... have to claim how much, I mean er you know they produced, cos all we're saying here is they're just taking a... a nominal amount which they stipulate at the beginning of a three year period, and they're just gonna take that. I mean they're not gonna have any information of how much you've produced over and above your tax. So how do they follow But er but at the same time I mean how do they go about reclassifying
[speaker002:] Ah. That's, that's going to be a problem but that's, that's three years off. And presumably
[speaker001:] No but
[speaker002:] by that time you've got the personnel and you've
[speaker001:] Oh I see.
[speaker002:] you've got much more information and, and, and you would
[speaker001:] But er what information? I don't see
[speaker002:] Well presumably would go back in the village and if you asked other villagers look how much has X grown on that bit of land they will tell you....
[speaker001:] Tax erm I can't remember where it was that, I think it might have been one of you saying that how that... a peasant of subsistence level erm would still have to pay eighteen percent of its income
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] in taxation but that still the peasant was, even though this might seem like quite a bit, the peasant was still in a better position than... he had been previous because rents were at least thirty percent.
[speaker002:] Yes. Yes.
[speaker001:] So it's a matter of ho I mean er greater equality was achieved, but they could've erm... I mean a hundred and fifty was a very low threshold
[speaker002:] okay let's just work around that. What, what you're saying is that... I mean broadly this is, is quite an incentive based system, at least on the face of it
[speaker001:] Mm.
[speaker002:] er in, in that you, you are, you, you're sort of fixing your taxes and then you're allowing, anybody who increases their output will keep, will benefit from that. So, so basically it's an incentive system for, to increase production. And it, it's clear that, that production was higher than, than normal expectation so it seems to have had a positive effect in terms of.... And you're also saying that, that there is some equalization going on because erm... the tax rate... erm and th th th the top tax rate, at least to begin with, is forty two percent, the bottom tax rate is only three percent. So there's, there's an equalization going on. But what you're then saying is that the taxes start at a very low threshold... I E you, you, you start to pay tax... at a hundred and fifty Cantonese per person.
[speaker001:] about eight hundred for subsistence.
[speaker002:] Exactly. So you are taxing peasants at well below subsistence level.... Now either, either we have,ei either you accept that and... y y you're saying n not only in terms of land reform is the Communist Party prepared to see poor peasants being allocated less than subsistence land... but even when they are allocated land they're being taxed on their income even though it's well below subsistence.... Now... ei either one sort of accepts that view
[speaker001:] Would that be because the Communist Party didn't want the rich peasant to think they'd be s they were being singled out? That how that their policies were being applied to the whole... society. Would that be
[speaker002:] Erm
[speaker001:] the justification for it?
[speaker002:] There's [clears throat] there was an element of that, yes, that
[speaker001:] Why should they be concerned about the rich peasants? Because they're promoting the rich peasant economy in the short run.... [LAUGHTER] Yeah but promoting the economy doesn't necessarily... mean It does if we wanna keep them happy. You have to keep them happy in order to I mean inconsistent with what we were saying about What? the objective of politically going for a class struggle
[speaker002:] yes, sure.
[speaker001:] Well, they're not gonna have any incentive to invest unless they know their interests are gonna be protected. You know Invest in what? Sorry? In industry? Yeah. [clears throat] Or whatever. I in increasing the surplus, agricultural surplus....
[speaker002:] But if, if, if that beginning, you know,i if you're going to go for a rich peasant economy, you've gotta convince them that it's, it's their advantage and it's gonna last. There's a sort of, I mean, it is a very favourable tax system in, in relation to the rich.... Okay there might be... in all sorts of ways, in terms of equality, in terms of socialism, it's, it's all a bit dubious... erm but the other reason for taxing down is that, let's face it, the majority of peasants as we, as we saw last week are still poor... and if the Communist Party is wanting to maximize its revenue, if it was gonna say okay we're not gonna tax anybody at under six or eight hundred... erm you, you're gonna take out er half the population... and you would have to get that income by taxing the rich even harder and that would be a disincentive.
[speaker001:] reasonable system wouldn't it?
[speaker002:] But it would have been a disincentive on the rich.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER] Erm... what proportion of the population was living at subsistence level roughly? Cos, as an idea.
[speaker002:] Erm well er er the figures we looked at, well i i i it, this is the problem... it depends how you define your subsistence level. Now
[speaker001:] It varies from village to village doesn't it?
[speaker002:] It's gonna vary from village but it's to an extent although the amount of grain you needed, the amount
[speaker001:] Yeah.
[speaker002:] of grain erm
[speaker001:] But if we say it's around eight hundred
[speaker002:] Now, yes I mean... i i in, in terms of two thousand calories a day... it, it s it seems to be six hundred and fifty, seven hundred calories, er seven hundred, right, now th th there are those who argue the hundred and fifty is starvation level.... I E it, it, it's... it's about a quarter so you, you're on five, six hundred calories a day....
[speaker001:] So they wouldn't be able to pay the tax would th they wouldn't.
[speaker002:] Well i i it implies that the Communist Party is actually taxing p taxing poor peasants at three percent of their income even though they are at starvation level.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER] But would they, wouldn't they just in practice overlook it?
[speaker002:] No. Erm I, I, there were provisions that where er... more than ten percent of the population for any area was at the level you would be able to tax at a higher rate.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER] Why, why? What!...
[speaker002:] Your revenue I guess, that, that you need the revenue.
[speaker001:] Were there, were there people starving? starving.
[speaker002:] Well [LAUGHTER]... I ca what I can't quite understand is, is that why anybody should have come through land reform and still only have that level of income. Erm it may be that the people who were right down at the bottom like that were people who were doing other things as well and were say blacksmiths or whatever
[speaker001:] Mm.
[speaker002:] a and, and that I think would not be taken into account, so we're just looking at agricultural income
[speaker001:] Oh I see yeah.
[speaker002:] and these people were not depending on agriculture alone. If they are people depending on agriculture along i i it seems an extraordinarily harsh...
[speaker001:] Well they'd be forced out wouldn't they?
[speaker002:] They would be forced out yes.
[speaker001:] and work in the factories of the, the rich peasants.
[speaker002:] The factories of the I think.
[speaker001:] Well you know what I mean, workshops or whatever.
[speaker002:] Yes. Yes. Erm but it might mean that in fact we do need to reconsider what we mean by subsistence income. I E bare subsistence might have been... three hundred, four hundred.... Now if, if one is arguing that... then the, the number of peasants who are really below a very basic subsistence level as a result of land reform is, is much lower.
[speaker001:] Mm.
[speaker002:] I mean if, if your cut-off point is six or eight hundred say six or eight hundred... yo you're gonna, you know, you're into a very large section of the population, if you will come to four hundred and fifty you are into a much, much smaller proportion. But you, you're right that if we stick to... somewhere between six hundred and seven hundred as, as a erm even a basic kind of subsistence... I E you've just got enough in just, you, you're just not using enough food to get yourself up to two hundred, two thousand calories a day... at that rate you were still being taxed on,a at a rate of almost twenty percent of your, of your income. Which meant that net of tax you would,y your, your yield would have to be about eight hundred... in order to, net of tax, give you just under seven hundred.
[speaker001:] How could they before pay rents then? Because that was even more.
[speaker002:] Right Yes.
[speaker001:] [LAUGHTER] just don't, you can't reconcile it. So had they put too high a sort of level for subsistence?... I mean what did peasants expect to live on, what were their expectations? That's what really matters.
[speaker002:] I mean this is... I er er there, there is a, a fundamental problem here I think th that i if you do the calculations in terms of how many calories per amount of grain it does seem that, that for what we regard as being an adequate diet... and then again it's a diet which is not being supplemented by meat... okay there will be some vegetables but basically it's grain, you, you do need somewhere between six and seven hundred.... And it is clear that there were, that a very significant proportion were not reaching that level and it's being taxed. But... they are still surviving... and they were surviving and still paying rent on land before nineteen forty nine.
[speaker001:] But were they? Because quite a lot of the peasants didn't
[speaker002:] Right.
[speaker001:] wa wasn't it when, when we were studying about landlord tenant relationships
[speaker002:] Yeah.
[speaker001:] that how that erm... landlords in practice had to reduce the level of taxation
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] have loans and stuff, so it just
[speaker002:] Right. Yes.
[speaker001:] prolonged
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] payments.
[speaker002:] Th th th there's all of that and there is obviously the, the option to borrow... and there is the opportunity to work as, as hired labour or handicrafts etcetera. But the assumption must have been that before nineteen forty nine there was a lot of that going on
[speaker001:] Mhm.
[speaker002:] more than seemed to be indicated in the figures that we've got, because Buck's figures for the extent of supplementary income are... I know they're significant but they're not enough to the kinds of levels people had been living at. But I, I, I think there is a conflict between what we would regard as being a, an acceptable subsistence level and what it would appear that the peasants could possibly have been achieving. I mean it's, it's difficult to bring those two close enough.
[speaker001:] It's, it's hard to, I think there is this erm... farmland I would imagine a very very hard
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] that may not have involved, been involved in a cash economy.
[speaker002:] Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Right.... But I think we, we, we do have to recognize that, that not only are we looking at a land reform process which is providing a lot of peasants with what
[speaker001:] [cough]
[speaker002:] subsistence land and the Communist Party was taxing them, they were on that below subsistence income. Now that would not be what one would expect... er two months ago if I'd said well look you know that's... that's what the revolution's gonna bring about you would've said I don't believe you....
[speaker001:] The only way you can justify it is by saying it's a means to an end. But it, you could equally say that well
[speaker002:] Yes. But at the same time the Party could argue that it was attempting to equalize things or at least limit inequalities in the sense that, that, that the tax rates were. What i what is really extraordinary I think is the way as you say that in nineteen fifty fifty one, fifty one fifty two, they actually, actually changed the tax schedules so it goes not from the three percent of the bottom, from six or seven percent of the bottom and only up to twenty five percent.
[speaker001:] But it could also mean that erm they were getti that it... they had been successful in getting taxation from what they'd done since the beginning of... cos they felt they could go even further.
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] It could apply to their original taxation policy
[speaker002:] Yes. But, but, but, but it's a it's a major concession to the rich.... A a at precisely the point where one one would expect them to be in the position to be able to encroach on the rich they are actually... this is, this is the promotion of the rich peasant economy....
[speaker001:] Mm. Could that stem from a problem like... sort of Marxism is really a theory developed from the g an industrialized, industrializing country
[speaker002:] Mm.
[speaker001:] [clears throat] and you've your idea from that... but then China is a completely backward country. Oh I see. But it's not only, it's not only There's, there's, there's, there's there's room for it in, in Marxist theory isn't there? Yeah there is. What about Asiatic methods of production and all that sort of thing
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] I think they were originally for it, I just think there's... it is just so backward
[speaker002:] Mm.
[speaker001:] that there haven't been any forces of change for a thousand years. I mean perhaps the forces of change that were normal were not inherent in the Chinese
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] so that they really had to be brought out.
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] Or created even.
[speaker002:] Yes. Absolutely. Yes I mean th th th th the fact that you've got a whole range of problems an an and you, you were bound to come up against those problems if you try and define Marxist in a strict sense, and therefore you, you were always seeking to... sort of make.... Can we just come back to
[speaker001:] Mm.
[speaker002:] Can you just go on with your productivity bit.
[speaker001:] Okay. What I'll do is I'll just quickly skim
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] through the stuff. Erm that offic regarding productivity from economic impact of land reform, official statistics claimed that between nineteen forty nine to fifty four gross output value of agriculture increased by fifty eight percent. Erm those are the only sort of figures we have and, but nineteen forty nine seemed to be a bad base state because it was about half so that meant that it exaggerate. Erm that had er most economic histor historians agree that between nineteen fifty two, nineteen fifty fifty two there was a healthy recovery and then a slackening off... and that erm another consequence of land reform was to decrease the output marketed by peasants and this was because, as we mentioned earlier, the peasants have a high propensity to consume and lower marketing land was rich peasants erm... and that... one says that there was a new air reported then in the countryside unleashing unprecedented wave of productive enthusiasm, initiative and creativeness but there was also evidence of instability and uncertainty which hindered erm the advance of erm productiv improving productivity and investment. Erm... and that how that but through land reform... it meant that how that you had erm credit difficulties and that how that landlords who prev previously provided the credit were no longer there and so that meant that how that erm... that exasperated problems of increasing productivity and also there was a severe shortage of farm implements and animals cos they weren't redistributed, there was only the surplus that was taken away from the rich peasants and landlords, it meant that how that the, the rich peasants erm... you know, got back er they sort of were a self-perpetuating elite in that how the poor peasants just didn't have the means to improving their production. Erm so the Communist Party, to try to counter this sort of erm advance of the rich peasant economy which they saw was getting a bit too far, tried to encourage the formation of mutual aid teams erm but they were very, there were problems in that... in erm the implementation of this because peasants were unwilling to share their tools, they weren't compensated for it. Also peasants joining the mutual aid teams feared that erm it would hinder their opportunities of working in other forms of erm er getting other forms of income and that says that only twelve point six percent of the total farming households in Penang, which was quite a progressive place for mutual aid erm teams, er erm [tut] were members of MATs in nineteen fifty two. [tut] erm... I, in m I... in my opinion that the Communist Party aim of increasing productivity wasn't actually achieved and because of all these problems erm could... that their policy of favour of erm promoting rich peasant economy didn't significantly contribute to industrialization erm I mean there was a little bit of an economic growth but that it wasn't particularly significant. However the agrarian reforms of nineteen fifty wasn't a complete failure and it did provi er play a vital step in socialist transformation of agriculture. It had got rid of this, the old order and new power relations had been established and so it shouldn't be regarded so much as an economic failure but as a profound political and social reform, which is an important step towards the Party's ultimate aim of communism, and going back to the beginning of my paper that how that they had always seen industrialization as a means to an end and that how that socialism and ultimately communism could only be achieved through stages and so that, although it was an economic failure, it was a sort of a social
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] success....
[speaker002:] Fine. S so the, the, the really important... outcome of land reform is the political and social changes not the economic changes
[speaker001:] Yes.
[speaker002:] and although it is being set up to promote a rich peasant economy in order to pave the way for Chinese industrialization, that has not been particularly successful... either in terms of the level of output and therefore the levels... or in terms of inequalities in that one of the, one of the worrying things that comes through, that comes through, despite the tax system there are still very substantial inequalities and... i is the promotion of mutual aid a means, a perceived means of reducing or containing those inequalities?
[speaker001:] Yes but in practice it, it didn't really work because the Communist Party didn't really... erm sort of make a concrete commitment to promoting them and just encouraged them
[speaker002:] And n u up until nineteen fifty two?
[speaker001:] Yes and then afterwards.
[speaker002:] Right. But what, when they do get going it is, it's clear that the mutual aid... process does reduce inequalities
[speaker001:] Erm
[speaker002:] in that productivity within mutual aid teams goes up. I, I mean
[speaker001:] But I mean... you see the problem is that how the rich... erm rich peasants two different mutual aid teams which meant that how that they didn't ha the resources they were sharing were pretty much the same.
[speaker002:] But, but their productivity still did rise within the mutual aid, of the poor. It, it's the poor that go into mutual aid teams
[speaker001:] Yes.
[speaker002:] their productivity rises
[speaker001:] Is it only marginally though?
[speaker002:] Well... but it comes up to closer to the productivity of the independent middle peasant.
[speaker001:] Mhm....
[speaker002:] Perhaps this is, this is something we could... we could, we could use to talk about in some revision seminar at the beginning of next term cos we, we, we've sort of got up to nineteen fifty two... erm maybe it would be helpful if, if sort of you know we just sat there over the vacation and then come back and sort of have look
[speaker001:] [clears throat]
[speaker002:] and see where this has got us.... Erm... is, is that acceptab
[speaker001:] Sorry yeah I, I
[speaker002:] It's, it's not your fault it's, I mean there are... once you get into this topic it becomes quite a big one. Erm but if, if you can have a look at, at some of the taxation stuff and about the mutual aid
[speaker001:] [cough]
[speaker002:] and, and pull the things together a bit.
[speaker001:] Well the mutual aid people should look at the
[speaker002:] Yes.
[speaker001:] and also for taxation is very sort of there's one chapter which quite sort of ? Yes. So the second one, yeah? The second one, yes. And that, I mean it's very very readable and I think if you just read those two books that should give you quite a good
[speaker002:] But doesn't talk, he does only talk about the economic
[speaker001:] Erm Wong, are you talking about Wong, that blue one? No it was the erm It does everything doesn't it? It does everything. Well Wong So basically if you read Wong you're laughing. Yeah but [LAUGHTER] You're laughing []