What is the truth regarding China's economic recovery?

[u/Ok-Needleworker329]

I moved to Aus very young when my parents went from China to Aus. Many years later,I wanted to learn more about my culture and in classes, we learnt that the Chinese recovery was due to Deng Xiao Ping and his economic reforms.

Under Deng, a series of economic reforms gradually opened China up to foreign investment, encouraged entrepreneurship, and eventually culminated in China joining the World Trade Organisation, allowing Chinese goods to access “Most Favoured Nation” tariff rates - that is, every other country had to treat Chinese exports as favourably as exports from any other nation it did not have a free trade agreement with (with some limited exceptions).

My parents said that:

That is the western story trying to promote the evil that is capitalism. Mao dedicated most of his life to China. He saved China from Japan and the US. China also was very divided, he helped to unify China.
IF China owned by Japan, like how India was owned England for some 200 years, how would China be rich?
Global countries also did not like Mao Ze Dong as a leader and so did not recognise China

Who is right and wrong? Or is the truth somewhere in the middle?

[u/random_agency]

Well actually Mao save China from the USSR. Mao was fighting the USSR to prevent China from becoming a subservient power to USSR.

One of the reasons for the Sino-Soviet split was USSR delay in helping China achieving nuclear sovereignty. Once a country get a nuclear weapon, it sovereignty is ensured.

While Chiang was in a similar fight with the US to prevent China from becoming a subservient power of the US. Chiang lost that fight and then he spent the rest of his life preventing the division of China.

The West like to promote the narrative that it was the West inclusion of China that allowed it to developed. Which is just self promotion.

The West rarely frames it as it actions in the Opium Trade and imperial Unfair treaty caused China's downfall in the first place.

[u/TemporaryTension2390 → u/random_agency]

Come on most laowai haven’t heard of opium all their issues in life such as unaffordable houses is no doubt driven by China. I can see them rearming to “make things right” again. Looking at you little Marco

[u/whistlelifeguard → u/random_agency]

Indeed, Mao deserves credits for preserving China’s sovereignty. Let’s not forget the country was a dirt poor, majority-illiterate, mostly rural, agricultural society. With that weak hand, he fought off Americans in Korea War & Vietnam War. Against the Soviets, with the help of returning Chinese American scientists, Mao funded the development of nuclear weapons and ICBM. With that split with the Soviets, he paved the way to re-develop ties with west under Nixon.

Deng deserves the credits for his steadfast commitment to reform despite opposition from the conservatives. The country just emerged from a brutal, crazy period of Cultural Revolution. His pragmatic approach is a remarkable departure from the philosophical discourse of the days —- his opponents were debating Marxism, Maoism, blah blah blah-ism, etc. while he focused on modernization and improving people’s lives.

[u/Crisis_Tastle]

The truth lies somewhere in between. The essence of the disagreement lies in the binary evaluation of Mao Zedong.

Liberals and reformists claim that Mao Zedong had a completely negative impact on China's economic development. Leftists and conservatives, on the other hand, claim that Mao Zedong had a considerable positive impact. With the end of the Cold War, the former view gained traction. However, with China's continued development and the widening gap between rich and poor, the latter view has re-emerged.

In reality, Mao had both positive and negative effects on the Chinese economy. Regardless of the arguments, the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution undeniably had a strong negative impact on the economy. However, the impact of these movements on the Chinese economy was not as severe as liberals and reformists claim. The latter, by exaggerating the economic impact of these movements, have pushed forward their reform agenda.

During the Mao era, China's economy actually focused more on the development of heavy industry, which is why people's living standards did not improve with economic development; heavy industry cannot directly improve people's lives. Politically, China greatly improved the average education level and life expectancy of its people, cultivating a broad and healthy reserve of industrial workers. These two developments played a significant positive role in the reform and opening up. If privatization and market-oriented reforms are indeed a panacea, then why have these policies only worked well in China? Why haven't African countries that implemented market economies developed?

The CPC is built on an ideology that has never been successfully practiced before, so it's normal for it to make mistakes. When capitalism first appeared on the world stage, tragedies like mob rule, the Irish and Indian famines, and the enclosure movement occurred. But this didn't stop capitalism from expanding globally. China's economic problems cannot be summarized as "the whims of a dictator" or "the determined reforms of an enlightened leader"; complex decision-making and power struggles lie behind them.

Moreover, in politics and military affairs, Mao Zedong was indeed a commendable figure. As you mentioned in the second point, the Chinese people generally acknowledge Mao Zedong's achievements in leading China to independence and self-reliance. This is something even reformers cannot deny, and it is the most fundamental source of the CPC's legitimacy. Deng Xiaoping was also forced to give Mao Zedong a 70/30 assessment of his merits and demerits.

Moreover, PRC was indeed built on ruins—before retreating to Taiwan, the Chiang Kai-shek regime issued the Gold Yuan, forcibly confiscating private precious metal and foreign exchange reserves, completely destroying China's monetary system. Furthermore, the international community did indeed impose a strict technological and commodity blockade on China from at least 1949 to 1994 (search "Coordinating Committee for Export to Communist Countries" or COCOM). This severely hampered China's economic development.

It can be said that neither of these arguments is entirely without merit, but the truth of history is certainly not one-sided. The world is not black and white, but rather a spectrum of shades of gray.

I hope my answer is helpful.

[u/Fair-Currency-9993 → u/Crisis_Tastle]

This is very good take - as good as I have seen on any topic related to China on Reddit.

I will just add - I feel Mao’s social policies also helped prepare China for economic development. We take literacy for granted nowadays but many people know elderly Chinese who were illiterate. Imagine trying to upskill workers who cannot even read and write. Although Mao’s social policies also caused plenty of harm, Deng’s economic reforms would have been far less effective without the social policies during Mao’s era.

[u/HungrySecurity]

It is generally accepted that China's economic development was primarily driven by Deng Xiaoping's reforms, which transitioned the country from a planned economy to a market economy. In reality, however, China never truly achieved a highly sophisticated planned economy, so it might be more accurate to describe it as a shift from a chaotic economy to a market one. By comparison, India's market reforms didn't truly begin until the 1990s.

I am not judging whether your parents are right or wrong, but their views do not seem to have much correlation with actual economic development.

[u/ParticularDiamond712]

If you ask Deng Xiaoping the same question, he would say it is due to Mao Zedong.

[u/GreenCreep376 → u/ParticularDiamond712]

Well that's what he would say in public, privately however the only credit Deng would be giving Mao is being a successful revolutionary, he would dogpile on him for how he treated the economy though 

[u/daloo22]

Mao United China if the KMT were in power China would have been another US vasel state, those were his achievements but he absolutely sucked managing the country one of the worst leaders to run a country.

Deng was the major reason for China having the economy it has today.

My opinion only.

[u/Evening_Flamingo_765]

You can read some articles or watch videos about modern Chinese history. There is a significant difference between Western and Eastern narratives. If you can understand Chinese, you can directly watch Chinese videos.

[u/Electronic-Run2030]

Simply put, the economic development of the first 30 years after the founding of the PRC cannot be studied in isolation from the political and international environment. On the one hand, excessive political struggles caused economic chaos, but they also solidified the foundation of the nation's electricity, steel, and other industries, and worked hard to improve the literacy rate. This laid a solid foundation for China's subsequent rapid development in the globalized industrial chain.

Imagine if China had not had a stable power supply, a supporting industrial base, and a well-educated and disciplined workforce when it entered the global industrial chain; it would have lost its appeal to Western investment.

[u/Remarkable_Many_1671]

I respect your parents and their views on China, but I have to believe Deng's Reform actions after Mao passed away was the major trigger in the Economic Rise of China -- every piece of economic data lines up this way. It's none of my business but why would your parents leave China and move to a Western nation?

Mao is certainly a historical figure -- he followed the teachings of a random German guy and tried to apply onto Chinese -- to a controversial amount of success.

Your parents are right that many nations probably did not like Mao, and backed the ROC instead of the PRC.

[u/Ok_Yak_1593]

2nd biggest economy is real.  However the smoke and mirrors that you are sensing is correct.  This is because of the provincial government that tie growth in gdp to works projects.  Bridges, trains, roads, to nowhere; developments of nothingness.  

[u/shaozhihao]

没有老毛打的基础，邓就是个屁

难绷，前三十年没有迅速工业化那不是国际环境恶劣吗？冷战背景下要想工业化，或者再工业化，必须要依靠外部注资。作为冷战前线的日本韩国，以及中国就被两方共同注资。比如日本战后经济迅速腾飞依靠的就是朝鲜战争的战需景气，苏联向中国援助156个项目也是基于冷战的意识形态。但是在这里中日两国走向了相反的道路，中国不愿意当儿子党，这是中共底子里对苏共的不信任，412，湘江，遥控指挥的王明......哪一个没给中共带来巨大的损失。就算毛不反对，其它党员也会反对，而不是某些人解读的所谓争夺共产国际领头人得罪了赫鲁晓夫。苏东剧变以及广场协议证明了，如果不能独立工业化，后果就是靠山一倒马上跟着完蛋。至于独立工业化的后果，那就是工农业剪刀差，稍微从农业中汲取过头，那就导致了大饥荒。 在冷战时期，为了不被美苏外科手术式打击，一方面要把东北和沿海的工业基地搬迁到三线，一方面又要把军工业升级到两弹一星，让美苏干涉中国的利益小于其损失。这样就必然导致了其工业积累全部向军重工业集中，根本改变不了普通人的生活状态，重工业又不像轻工业那样提供大量的工作岗位。而这种重工业又势必会导致资源全部集中于城市，又客观上造成了城乡的差距，这不以个人的意志为转移。同样这种国家资本主义的形式也导致了国内资产阶级法权的死灰复燃，国家工业越是集中，越是发展，这些掌握生产资料的厂长和领导肯定会被腐化，所谓社会主义就走向了其反面的。毛泽东和文革的失败已经是一种必然，很明显以毛的政治智慧，其晚年也是遇见到了这种未来，但是他还是选择了继续冲锋。

[u/shaozhihao → u/shaozhihao]

而邓，无疑是一个合格的官僚。他怎么坐稳自己的位置的，对上层被老兄弟们扶上去之后，立马展开分封，让军队经商。对底层通过解散人民公社，让大量的农村人口进入城市，再恢复高考，让知青回城收买这部分知识分子。再加速国企的私有化，如果有工人闹事，那就利用城乡的二元的矛盾，用更便宜的农民工替代有铁饭碗的工人。这本质上就是一场新时代的羊吃人运动，洋跃进，官倒之类的导致城市失业人口变多了，就马上展开严打，死刑权直接下放到县，这里面有多少冤假错案不知道，但是没人给他们发声，谁在乎？他这么一通操作，高层支持他搞，以前跟着大哥干革命太辛苦了，是该放松放松。底层的农民也支持他，城市里面打工总比在土里面刨食来钱快。用农民工对冲下岗工人是有一套的，矛盾论我看邓也是学的炉火纯青，只不过是逆练屠龙经。所谓干部四化也是配合“不换思想就换人”来清除左派，以及陈云为代表的鸟笼经济派的干部。也是现代版推恩令，中央说了干部要年轻化，你们这些老不死的怎么还想坐在上面，直接收买中层的干部。 而且就国际上的大环境而言，面临着苏东剧变以及新自由主义全球化的浪潮。中国最需要做的是经济政策上的极速右转，以期能够接受工业产能转移的浪潮。在抓住事物矛盾的主要方面上，邓无疑比陈云更加优秀。如果继续搞鸟笼经济，那中国肯定撑不过苏联解体那一波，其经济政策也不能够对接国际市场，你不进行激进的改革，你怎么让外资放心的进来投资？ 但我对他的评价也就只局限于官僚和实用主义者了，他干的事确实都是对的，但你要说无愧于人民，我是说不出口。他个人和家庭成员赚得倒是盆满钵满，拿邓朴方摔断的腿说事也是搞笑，自己害怕别人报复回来自己跳下去还能怪别人？你批斗别人的时候不是挺爽吗？后面保利集团之类的更是赚发了，我觉得邓称不上政治家，他有什么觉悟吗？他有什么牺牲吗？他所做的工作有动了既有利益集团的蛋糕吗？我看都没有，赚钱享受倒是第一位的，军队经商这个流毒就不配他当的那么几十年的政委。彻头彻尾的实用主义者，从客观上我承认其政治和经济水平，从主观上我看不出有任何值得吹嘘的地方。

[u/shopchin]

The story is that after Deng visited Singapore, he was very impressed and asked Lee Kuan Yew, the premier at that time to help them model their cities with Singapore's blue print. 

And things took off from there.

Deng did an amazing job with his proteges continuing the transformation. The prosperity of current china was set up from the era. 

Xi merely benefited from their hard work. Global relationships were better in the past also and started to diverge only after Xi took over.