People's Communes shed light on China past, present, future
- By Ni Tao
0 Comment(s)
Print
E-mail
Shanghai Daily, October 19, 2011
|
|
|
[By Zhou Tao/Shanghai Daily] |
Editor's note: History is a mirror of reality. But does the official mirror reflect things as they are or were? Not always, says Professor Zhang Letian of Fudan University, an expert on People's Communes. To present a lesser-known side of history, Zhang has been scouring rural Haining in northern Zhejiang Province for original documentation of agricultural life.
He spoke to Shanghai Daily reporter Ni Tao last week about what his studies can tell us about a China old and new. This is the first of a three-part interview.
Q: People's Communes turned out to be a costly utopia. Does this failed experiment have any implications for future reform?
A: I object to the simplistic categorization of commune as a success or failure. Its adoption was China's natural choice.
Urbanization worldwide picked up pace in the 1950s, when the countryside was turned into a market and purveyor of raw materials for cities.
It was impossible to maintain a rural feudal system in an industrialized world. The demise of the feudal system the world over meant the elimination of the land owner class. Land reforms are not unique in China.
The People's Commune is also key to understanding the ebbing of Chinese power in the 19th century. Many explanations are given. I subscribe to one school of thought.
It asserts that the waxing and waning of China's fortunes have roots in villages. In Chinese rural clans, every child got a share of the family estate. Chinese thus had no urge to explore the world.
In Europe the right of inheritance was exclusive to the eldest sons (right of primogeniture). So other sons had to earn their own bread by venturing outside the manors.
History took divergent paths here. In China, villages were a stabilizer since they encouraged people to remain unchanged and look inward. History was a cycle of abundance and penury for many; in the West, villages were a catalyst for enterprise, innovation and progress.
China was stagnant and woefully unprepared when Western powers arrived off its shores because of what historians sum up as "the pitfall of villages."
And that's where the commune made a difference. It thrust a stagnant China into an upward spiral through political intervention and ended the enslavement cycle. To some extent, it liberated Chinese peasants, though at a high cost.
What are "China characteristics" truly about? It's about the People's Commune. People's Communes enabled China to start from a higher base than others. One of its epochal legacies is the collectivization of land.
How could governments have built so many highways, industrial parks and public squares at breakneck speed if land were private and segmented?
Chinese were constrained by few traditions during the reformist 80s, since most were destroyed in the Commune years (1958-1982). With revolutionized spirits Chinese are open to all things Western, good or bad. This is hugely different from India, whose social strictures sometimes reject Western influence.
China's slow development during the times of villages was one of its original characteristics. The defunct Commune changed all that and laid the groundwork for an era of fast growth.
Go to Forum >>0 Comment(s)