F e b r u a r y 14, 1959
THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY
People's Communes in China
A Study in Theory and Technique
B
T H E year 1958 — the year o f the
'Great Leap' in C h i n a — has
witnessed
the
l a u n c h i n g of
a
r e m a r k a b l e experiment i n r u r a l
reconstruction, viz, o r g a n i s a t i o n of
•People's Communes'.
Since 1949
C h i n a has t r a v e l l e d f r o m the .stage of
land redistribution to that of 'agric u l t u r a l producers' cooperatives' (of
the type of Soviet collective f a r m s )
after h a v i n g gone t h r o u g h the
intermediate phase of
m u t u a l aid
associations. F i v e
or six.
years
ago one expected, as I d i d (vide
m y hook 'Economic
Development
in N e w C h i n a ' ) t h a t the intermediate stage, at any rate in C e n t r a l
a n d South China,
could
not be
skipped easily. Therefore, the r a p i d
g r o w t h of more t h a n 740,000 cooperatives by 1958 appeared to me
to have been a s y m p t o m of economic s t r a i n caused by the exigency
of g e n e r a t i n g a larger m a r k e t a b l e
surplus of foodgrains and a g r i c u l t u r a l r a w m a t e r i a l s i n order t o
meet the e x p a n d i n g
requirements
of i n d u s t r i a l i s a t i o n and the h i g h
export targets w h i c h are becoming
steadily higher for compelling econ o m i c a n d p o l i t i c a l reasons. A t any
rate, the most that one could regard
as probable was t h a t the Chinese
peasants w o u l d settle d o w n to the
Soviet model of collective f a r m i n g ,
or some v a r i a n t of i t , depending on
local circumstances. It appears now,
however, t h a t one failed to notice
the solid fact t h a t the
collective
f a r m o r g a n i s a t i o n , as a stereotype,
has f a i l e d in eastern Europe and that
even in its homeland it has been g o i n g
t h r o u g h the process of re-organis a t i o n in t e r m s
of
loosening of
central
direction,
greater
local
i n i t i a t i v e a n d better economic i n centives
for
larger
agricultural
output. I t h i n k
t h a t the
sudden
switchover i n C h i n a last year f r o m
'producers' cooperatives' to People's
Communes' is a m a j o r t a c t i c a l
operation w h i c h has t a k e n account
of these developments.
W h y Communes'?
I t i s yet too early t o evaluate the
People's
Communes as an i n s t r u m e n t of r a p i d socio-economic change
in C o m m u n i s t
China.
What I
s h a l l t r y to assess in t h i s essay is
N
Ganguli
its ideological v a l i d i t y in terms of
o r t h o d o x socialist
doctrine. It is
clear t h a t the r u r a l C o m m u n e has
n o t been
u n k n o w n in the Soviet
U n i o n . B u t it has been an except i o n , the collective f a r m being the
rule.
The Chinese People's C o m munes seem to be the rule
rather
than
the
exception.
Moreover,
the collective
f a r m s so recently
organised in C h i n a in hundreds
and
thousands
have
now been
're-organised' i n t o Communes. W h y
is it t h a t w h a t has been recognised
as a n o r m f o r more t h a n a generation
in U S S R is being so
suddenly
discarded
in
China?
Is a lower, or perhaps an inappropriate, f o r m o f r u r a l o r g a n isation being q u i c k l y skipped in the
course of the 'Great Leap'? Several
other i n t r i g u i n g questions arise as
soon as we pose these questions. Is
o r g a n i s a t i o n of Communes consistent
with
orthodox
communist
doctrine? If it is,
are Communes
p a r t of the Chinese w a y to socialism? A r e the Chinese the correct
interpreters of the doctrine where
the Russians went
w r o n g ? Or,
is it a case of either ' r e v i s i o n i s m '
or 'left deviation', both of w h i c h
d o c t r i n n a i r e communists w i l l unhesit a t i n g l y condemn sooner or l a t e r ? '
T r y i n g to answer these questions
is an i n t e r e s t i n g academic exercise.
B u t I t h o u g h t the a t t e m p t w o r t h
while at the present m o m e n t for
other reasons. People's Communes
have aroused more t h a n mere curiosity i n I n d i a . A l r e a d y our p o l i t i c a l
leaders have been t h i n k i n g in t e r m s
of
Panchayat-based
cooperative
f a r m s preceded by the development
of a net w o r k of service cooperatives. The entire c o m m u n i t y development p r o g r a m m e is sought to be
geared to this broad line of development on the basis of 'democratic
decentralisation'. A f t e r a l l . C o m mune' a n d ' C o m m u n i t y ' are not v e r y
f a r apart in a b r o a d sense. M a y it
not be t h a t c o m m u n i t y development
i n I n d i a a n d development o f C o m munes i n C h i n a are r u n n i n g o n
' It is reported t h a t
Khrushchev
has described
the
Commune as
'reaction' a n d t h a t M i k o y a n spoke
in U S A of Chinese 'hotheads'.
253
parallel lines, w h i c h w i l l not meet
because I n d i a a n d C h i n a have different
socio-economic
systems,
but
w h i c h w i l l subserve a s i m i l a r basic
purpose?
C a u t i o n and Circumspection
It is not known to many that E n gels had defined the o r t h o d o x socialist a t t i t u d e t o the peasantry i n the
context of socialist t r a n s f o r m a t i o n
i n the f o l l o w i n g words w h i c h show
extreme circumspection a n d moderation and almost smack of liberali s m : " W e s t a n d decisively on the
side o f the s m a l l peasant; we w i l l
do e v e r y t h i n g
possible to
make
his lot more bearable, to f a c i l i t a t e
his t r a n s i t i o n t o the cooperative i f
he decides to t a k e t h i s step; if he
cannot as yet b r i n g h i m s e l f to t h i s
decision, w e w i l l give h i m plenty o f
t i m e to ponder over it on his holding." Lenin
followed
Engels i n
s t a t i n g t h a t "the representatives of
the Soviet
government
m u s t not
resort to the slightest
compulsion
in the creation of cooperative associations". Moreover, he l a i d d o w n
the principle t h a t methods of collective f a r m o r g a n i s a t i o n cannot be
identical in diverse regions of the
Soviet U n i o n . B u t L e n i n h a d no
illusions about the response of the
peasantry to socialist
agriculture.
He referred to "the
commodity capitalist tendency of the peasant r y " . " A s l o n g as we l i v e " , he said,
" i n a c o u n t r y where small-peasant
f a r m i n g predominates, there is a
f i r m e r economic basis f o r capital i s m i n Russia t h a n f o r c o m m u n i s m " . I t was difficult t o reconcile
Engels' circumspection w i t h t h i s objective statement o f fact. Y e t L e n i n
counselled caution a n d circumspection.
Stalin's i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
of
Engels' c a u t i o n
was t h a t
Engels
was t h i n k i n g i n the context o f
peasant p r o p r i e t o r s h i p in Western
countries as the result of w h i c h
the peasant was rooted to the soil.
I n the Soviet U n i o n since l a n d
belonged to the State the peasant's
a t t a c h m e n t to his h o l d i n g was n o t
a serious
matter and
therefore
land n a t i o n a l i s a t i o n facilitated the
t r a n s i t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l peasant
to collectivism. This
interpretat i o n is oversimplification of reality,
as the h i s t o r y of forced collective
254
THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY
lation under Stalin amply
rates.
February 14, 1959
demons-
Lenin thought that voluntaristie
cooperative
organisation
under a
regime of State ownership of the
means o f production w o u l d usher i n
socialism in a g r i c u l t u r e as w e l l as in
other spheres of economic life. Under
his
New
Economic
P o l i c y he
"made a concession to the peasant
as a
trader, to the
principle of
p r i v a t e trade". I t was precisely
f o r this t h a t he t h o u g h t t h a t the
"cooperative
movement
assumes
such importance", for the Soviet
regime h a d f o u n d " t h a t degree of
the c o m b i n a t i o n of p r i v a t e interest,
t r a d i n g interest, w i t h State supervision a n d c o n t r o l o f t h i s interest,
that
degree of its
subordination
to the c o m m o n interests t h a t was
f o r m e r l y the s t u m b l i n g block for
m a n y socialists". I n Lenin's opinion,
" b u i l d i n g a complete socialist society f r o m the cooperatives alone" was
possible. In the p a r t i c u l a r case of
the peasantry, cooperatives w o u l d
be a "means t h a t w i l l be simplest,
easiest a n d most i n t e l l i g i b l e for the
peasantry", L e n i n therefore, insisted
t h a t cooperatives must be g r a n t e d
State loans and
incentive bonuses.
T h i s means t h a t L e n i n was opposed
to v i o l e n t l y f o r c i n g the pace of cooper a t i v e or collective a g r i c u l t u r a l
o r g a n i s a t i o n . Because
he showed
such m o d e r a t i o n in his approach
to the peasant problem he realised
t h a t cooperatives.
to succeed in
the Soviet U n i o n , have to a w a i t
the spread of literacy, development
of efficiency a n d t r a i n i n g in cooper a t i v e practice as w e l l as the
safeguards against
bad harvests
a n d famine. He had, therefore, no
hesitation in s a y i n g ( i n 1923) t h a t
" i t w i l l t a k e a whole
historical
epoch to get the whole population
to t a k e part in the w o r k of cooperatives t h r o u g h the N E P , A t best
we can achieve
this in one
or
t w o decades".
F r o m Collectives to Communes
After
Lenin,
together
with
N E P , his a n d Engels' caution
and moderation, and their theory
of the gradualness of the developm e n t of cooperatives, disappeared.
There was violence
and forcing
o f the pace a l l r o u n d . E a r l i e r t h a n
t w o decades a f t e r L e n i n w r o t e his
a r t i c l e entitled "On Cooperation",
collective f a r m s became the p a t t e r n
In the a g r i c u l t u r a l sector of the
economy a n d p r i v a t e trade vanished.
On the
Ideological
plane S t a l i n
professed t o f o l l o w L e n i n . W e r e
not
collective f a r m s a f o r m
of
cooperatives, t h e "most s t r i k i n g
f o r m of producers' cooperatives"?
As S t a l i n said in reply to critics,
"Lenin's cooperative p l a n means to
raise the peasantry f r o m the level of
m a r k e t i n g a n d supply cooperatives
to the level of producers' cooperatives, of collective f a r m cooperatives, so to
speak". Supply a n d
m a r k e t i n g cooperatives had already
been developed and consolidated and,
therefore, conditions were ripe for
the next higher f o r m , the collective
farm.
In one of his polemical
essays S t a l i n quoted L e n i n to say
t h a t he favoured the "cooperative,
artel form of agriculture". In an
a r t e l the p r i n c i p a l means of prod u c t i o n are socialized, " w i t h the
exception of household l a n d ( s m a l l
vegetable gardens, s m a l l o r c h a r d s ) ,
dwellings, a certain
part of the
d a i r y cattle, small livestock, poult r y , etc." " I t is the most expedient
f o r m for solving the g r a i n prob l e m " -the problem of m a r k e t a b l e
surplus of foodgrains, so crucial in
a
rapidly
developing b a c k w a r d
economy. Thus under S t a l i n the
collective f a r m became the highest
form of agricultural organisation
and has
remained so d u r i n g the
whole period of socialist construction.
C h i n a has followed the a g r a r i a n
policy laid d o w n
by Engels and
L e n i n . There
was,
however, an
i m p o r t a n t difference in the objective
situation in
China. As
already
explained.
Stalin's
interpretation
o f Engels'
circumspection
with
regard to the peasantry was t h a t
LngeLs was t h i n k i n g in terms of
peasant proprietorship so characteristic o f Western Europe.
In
C h i n a o w i n g to the predominance
of the peasantry as a spearhead of
the Communist
revolution,
exp r o p r i a t i o n of the landlords was
followed by l a n d r e d i s t r i b u t i o n
a m o n g peasants and recognition
of peasant proprietorship. Caution,
circumspection,
education of the
peasantry in the ways of cooperative
f a r m i n g , special privileges accorded
to
cooperative
associations
and
pressure of public opinion have
characterised a g r a r i a n re-organisat i o n . F o r China, as for the Soviet
U n i o n , producers' cooperatives have
been
necessary to
combat
the
emergence o f c a p i t a l i s m
in agriculture, to ensure large-scale, efficient operation and to
solve the
'grain
problem'
as a
condition
255
precedent t o r a p i d I n d u s t r l a l i s a tion.
I t i s clear, however, t h a t
C h i n a has not needed Lenin's presc r i p t i o n of one or t w o decades of
N E P and education a n d t r a i n i n g
i n cooperation.
Not only that;
w h a t was achieved in the Soviet
U n i o n , t h r o u g h violence a n d pressure, by w a y of
development
of
collective
f a r m i n g on a g i g a n t i c
scale and has been the p a t t e r n so
long, has either not materialised
in China in the same f o r m or has
been
found inadequate. Otherwise
we cannot explain the large-scale
and quick 're o r g a n i s a t i o n ' of a g r i c u l t u r a l producers' cooperatives (the
Chinese a v o i d the expression 'collective f a r m s ' ) i n t o
People's
Communes'.
Skipped the Artel Form
Before 1 discuss the character
and significance of these "Communes'' on the basis of the statement of policy
issued o n l y last
m o n t h , let me dwell on the o r t h o d o x
communist t h i n k i n g o n r u r a l C o m munes. As already explained, L e n i n
l a i d great stress on the "cooperative, artel f o r m of a g r i c u l t u r e " ,
w h i c h emerged as the collective
f a r m under Stalin's dispensation.
B u t one comes across passages in
Lenin's essays in w h i c h he mentions
"Communes" in the context of
cooperative associations. It is not
clear whether "Communes" are an
advanced
form
of
organisation
beyond the stage of "cooperative,
artel f o r m of a g r i c u l t u r e " . For
example, he says
t h a t "the a g r i c u l t u r a l commune must be established v o l u n t a r i l y , the t r a n s i t i o n
to c o m m o n c u l t i v a t i o n of the l a n d
must be only v o l u n t a r y , there
must not be the slightest coercion in
this
respect on
the p a r t of the
W o r k e r s ' and
Peasants'
Government, nor is it p e r m i t t e d by l a w "
( emphasis m i n e ) . S t a l i n was. however, definite and categorical on this
point. In 1930 he w r o t e t h a t "the
conditions are not yet ripe f o r
m a k i n g the a g r i c u l t u r a l Communes,
in w h i c h not only production but
d i s t r i b u t i o n also is socialized, the
p r e d o m i n a n t f o r m " . " W e must not
a l l o w " , he said, "any attempts to
skip the a g r i c u l t u r a l
artel f o r m
a n d to pass s t r a i g h t to the
Commune". He added
that
"large,
well-established
Communes
can
exist a n d
develop
only if they
possess experienced cadres a n d
t r i e d leaders.
Only as the a g r i '
c u l t u r a l artels become strong and
consolidated
w i l l the
ground be
February 14, 1959
THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY
THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY
February 14, 1959
prepared f o r a m a n e m o v e m e n t o f
t h e peasants
towards the
Communes,"
H a v e t h e Chinese done precisely
w h a t S t a l i n f o r b a d e i n 1930? H a v e
they not "skipped the agricultural
a r t e l f o r m " a n d "passed s t r a i g h t
to the C o m m u n e ? "
I m u s t hasten
to p o i n t o u t
t h a t the
essence of
Stalin's
conception o f a n
agricult u r a l C o m m u n e w a s socialised dist r i b u t i o n ; whereas the Chinese have
accepted socialised d i s t r i b u t i o n in
the f o r m of the free supply s y s t e m '
only to a very limited
extent. In
s k i p p i n g the
Soviet
agricultural
artel form of agriculture
the C h i nese do not
propose to s k i p the
socialist
stage. T h i s
has been
e l a b o r a t e l y explained i n the " R e solution on Some Questions Conc o r n i n g the
People's
Communes"
adopted by the C e n t r a l C o m m i t t e e
o f t h e Chinese
Communist
Party
on December 10, 1958. " T h e r e w i l l
s t i l l be a considerable
distance to
go to r e a c h the
goals of a h i g h
degree of i n d u s t r i a l i s a t i o n of the
e n t i r e c o u n t r y a n d the mechanisation and
electrification
of
the
c o u n t r y ' s a g r i c u l t u r e ; a n d there w i l l
be an even longer distance to go to
reach
the goals of an
enormous
abundance of social products, of a
great l i g h t e n i n g of l a b o u r a n d of a
s h a r p r e d u c t i o n of w o r k i n g h o u r s ' ' .
T i l l t h e n they w i l l ' ' r e t a i n the system o f d i s t r i b u t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o w o r k
dore".
Communes—A Deviation
Is the Chinese 'People's C o m m u n e ' ,
t h e n , m e r e l y a v a r i a n t of the c o l lective f a r m i n g type o f a g r i c u l t u r a l
organisation?
Is
the purpose of
u s i n g t h i s expression to
repudiate
Stalinism and to whip up communist
a r d o u r ? Or does it embody a d i s t i n c tive Chinese experiment in the technique of b u i l d i n g up a
communist
society w i t h a n ideology a n d practice w h i c h t r a n s c e n d Soviet t h i n k i n g
a n d practice?
A n a n a l y s i s o f the
resolution t o
which
I
referred
above
clearly
shows t h a t the Chinese have s t r u c k
out new lines of t h i n k i n g a n d practice w h i c h are o n l y v e r y b r o a d l y i n
conformity w i t h orthodox doctrine.
W h e t h e r it is a ' r i g h t ' d e v i a t i o n or
a ' l e f t ' d e v i a t i o n depends upon the
temperament
and
background of
the person w h o i n t e r p r e t s t h e m . B u t ,
t h a t it is a d e v i a t i o n seems to be
borne out by a r a t i o n a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the R e s o l u t i o n .
In these
m a t t e r s n o t h i n g succeeds l i k e
suc-
cess. T h e 'deviation will become
t h e accepted P a r t y line i f i t succeeds.
W h a t is of interest, however, is t h e
n a t u r e of the d e v i a t i o n .
Democratic Decentralisation
T h e Chinese C o m m u n e is not
merely an agricultural Commune.
I t stands f o r " u n i f i e d management
a n d deployment o f l a b o u r power and
means of p r o d u c t i o n
on a l a r g e r
scale".
N a t u r a l ly
therefore,
it
ceases to be merely an o r g a n i s a t i o n
of peasants i n t o a collective f a r m ,
as in the Soviet U n i o n . It comprehends i n d u s t r y , a g r i c u l t u r e and its
a l l i e d side-occupations, t r a d e , e d u c a t i o n , c u l t u r a l and w e l f a r e a c t i v i t i e s
a n d m i l i t a r y a f f a i r s . The C o m m u n e
has to foster not only
agriculture
b u t also s m a l l factories a n d has to
r u n i n s t i t u t i o n s f o r collective
welf a r e l i k e c o m m u n i t y d i n i n g rooms,
nurseries, k i n d e r g a r t e n s , homes f o r
the aged, etc. It represents, therefore, the t r e n d t o w a r d s c o m m u n i t y
development
in a
comprehensive
sense, based on deployment of local
resources a n d local i n i t i a t i v e . In a
Chinese C o m m u n e
the means of
l i v e l i h o o d owned by members
(including
houses, c l o t h i n g
bedding
a n d f u r n i t u r e ) , and t h e i r
deposits
in b a n k s and credit cooperatives are
their own property after they join
the C o m m u n e and w i l l a l w a y s belong
to
them.
Members
retain
trees
a r o u n d t h e i r homesteads a n d s m a l l
tools a n d s m a l l numbers of domestic a n i m a l s a n d p o u l t r y . T h e y can
also engage in s m a l l domestic sideoccupations so l o n g as they do n o t
neglect collective w o r k .
Debts of
Individual
cooperative
farms
are
not cancelled a f t e r a C o m m u n e has
been established.
T h e Chinese conception of C o m munes, u n o r t h o d o x as it m a y seem
in the context of S t a l i n i s m ,
goes
back t o L e n i n i s m i n t w o i m p o r t a n t
respects. F i r s t , there is the accent
on democratic decentralisation.
In
the 1917 resolution on the a g r a r i a n
question d r a f t e d by L e n i n we read
a r e m a r k a b l e passage: " a n a g r a r i a n
r e f o r m can be successful a n d d u r a ble o n l y provided the whole State is
democratised, i c. p r o v i d e d , on the
one h a n d ,
that
the police, the
standing
a r m y a n d the
actually
privileged
bureaucracy
have been
abolished, and, on the other, t h a t
t h e r e exists a comprehensive system
o f local g o v e r n m e n t e n t i r e l y exempt
f r o m supervision a n d tutelage f r o m
a b o v e " . I h a v e no doubt t h a t L e n i n ' s
conception o f
democratisation
at
257
t h e base was n o t t h e g u i d i n g p r i n ciple o f S t a l i n i s m . I t i s perhaps n o w
t h a t there is a h e a l t h y t r e n d
tow a r d s d e c e n t r a l i s a t i o n a n d to quote
Lenin's prophetic phrase,
"exempt i o n f r o m supervision and tutelage
f r o m above", o f w h i c h
there has
been too l i t t l e in c o m m u n i s t c o u n tries.
It m a y be t h a t in C h i n a ret u r n to L e n i n i s m is d i c t a t e d by the
excesses of centralist
bureaucracy
out
of touch w i t h
the masses.
Secondly, there is another
charact e r i s t i c of Chinese Communes, w h i c h ,
t h o u g h seemingly u n o r t h o d o x , is a
throwback
to
Leninism.
"Militia
organisations
are to be set up at
corresponding levels of
production
o r g a n i s a t i o n s (in C o m m u n e s ) , the
l e a d i n g bodies of the m i l i t i a
and
production o r g a n i s a t i o n s
being sep a r a t e " , w i t h the result t h a t there
w i l l be dual leadership ( a r m s , l i k e
consumer goods,
to be
produced
locally).
One
w i l l infer, as
the
Chinese themselves say, t h a t t h i s is
a plan for m i l i t a r y preparedness for
defence on a mass basis.
But I
t h i n k the Chinese also realise w h y
Lenin
had
advocated
a r m i n g of
w o r k e r s d u r i n g the stage of socialism.
" T h e socialists d e m a n d " , he
said, 'the strictest c o n t r o l , by society
a n d by the S t a t e ' of the measure of
l a b o u r a n d the measure o f consumption.
B u t this control must be
c a r r i e d out not by a
S t a t e of b u reaucrats, b u t by a State of a r m e d
w o r k e r s " (emphasis m i n e ) . W a s n o t
Lenin
also
prophetic
about
the
"state of bureaucrats''
w h i c h has
g r o w n i n t o a L e v i a t h a n in the Soviet
U n i o n and threatens
to do so in
China?
Combining Agriculture with
Secondary and T e r t i a r y Industries
The ideological logic of t h e
Chinese Communes
m a y be explained
in o t h e r ways as w e l l .
As already
stated, a c c o r d i n g to the
orthodox
communist
doctrine
peasant
prop r i e t o r s h i p is the
potent base f o r
c a p i t a l i s m a n d not c o m m u n i s m . T o
neutralise
the
growth
of
petty
bourgeois m e n t a l i t y inherent in the
peasant's l a n d hunger,
his search
f o r i n d i v i d u a l profits a n d his a n x i e t y
to increase the size of his holdings,
it becomes necessary to dissociate
h i m f r o m his specific plot of land
by a s s u r i n g h i m a higher
income
t h r o u g h p o o l i n g of resources
and
better f a r m i n g on a l a r g e r o p e r a t i n g
u n i t such as a collective or a cooperative f a r m . There are, however,
t w o difficult problems for w h i c h no
THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY
s o l u t i o n seems to have been f o u n d
so f a r .
F i r s t , the incentive
for
better a n d l a r g e r p r o d u c t i o n c a n n o t
be keyed up to a h i g h p i t c h w i t h o u t
drastic
pressures.
On the o t h e r
hand, payment
according to w o r k
creates inequalities w h i c h , beyond a
c e r t a i n p o i n t , sap the s p i r i t of coo p e r a t i o n a n d generate class
conf l i c t s w i t h i n the cooperative o r the
collective f a r m .
There is also the
i n e v i t a b l e tendency f o r the collective
farm
to set
its own collective
interest above t h a t of the c o m m u n i ty as a whole and p a r t i c u l a r l y t h a t
of the u r b a n i n d u s t r i a l sector. The
conflict between t o w n a n d
country
is as real in a socialist .society in
its e a r l y stages as it is in a capit a l i s t economy.
The
second
problem, w h i c h is
m o r e serious in overcrowded
India
or C h i n a where m a n - l a n d r a t i o is
unfavourable for agriculture, is that
of finding employment
f o r hands
w h i c h m a y be rendered r e d u n d a n t
as the result of a p p l i c a t i o n of better,
l a b o u r - s a v i n g techniques on a large
agricultural unit.
I n C h i n a surplus
l a b o u r has, to
some
extent, been
absorbed i n l a n d i m p r o v e m e n t a n d
land
reclamation, in
rural transp o r t a t i o n . i n local h a n d i c r a f t s a n d
small
industries,
in fishing
and
v a r i o u s other side-occupations. B u t
the p r o b l e m has persisted, by and
large.
T h e Chinese feel t h a t the
broad-based Communes w i l l provide
a s o l u t i o n to those t w o problems. By
w i d e n i n g the bounds of c o l l e c t i v i t y
into
a large C o m m u n e
a n d by
c o m b i n i n g f a r m i n g w i t h other f o r m s
of economic a c t i v i t y , they hope to
n e u t r a l i s e the probable
anti-social
a t t i t u d e o f a n exclusively a g r i c u l t u r a l o r g a n i s a t i o n such as the collective f a r m . B y c o m b i n i n g a g r i c u l ture w i t h secondary and
tertiary
forms
o f economic a c t i v i t y
they
have
been d o i n g a w a y
w i t h the
u n s o u n d d i c h o t o m y between a g r i c u l ture a n d industry, which is apt to
generate economic tensions even in
a socialist society. T h u s there is now
a real p o s s i b i l i t y of c o m p l e m e n t a r i t y o f economic g r o w t h o n the
basis of broadbased i n d u s t r i a l i s a t i o n
in the v a s t r u r a l areas of the country.
I f t h i s possibility i s
realised,
the Chinese c o n f i d e n t l y expect t h a t
i t w i l l be) r e a l s o l u t i o n
m a y be
e v e n t u a l l y f o u n d to the p r o b l e m of
a g r a r i a n surplus p o p u l a t i o n .
' O w n e r ' h i p b y the W h o l e People'
T h e Chinese are f u l l y a w a r e t h a t
t h e logic Just analysed
m a y not
February 14, 1959
w o r k i n a c t u a l practice
according
t o the neat t h e o r e t i c a l design. T h e y
have emphasized in the
resolution
of December 10, 1958 the d i s t i n c t i o n between
"socialist
collective
ownership'' and "socialist ownernhip
by t h e whole people".
Collective
o w n e r s h i p in the case of collective
f a r m s is socialist to the extent t h a t
the peasant's i n d i v i d u a l self-interest
is s u b o r d i n a t e d to collective interest;
but collective f a r m s
o p e r a t i n g in
i s o l a t i o n f r o m one a n o t h e r
may
lead to exaggerated expression of
the self-interest of collective f a r m s
at the expense of the interest of
the " w h o l e people". T h i s is a f u n d a mental contradiction which comm u n i s t s have not yet resolved. T h e
Chinese t h i n k t h a t the
Commune
marks
the b e g i n n i n g of
progress
t o w a r d s the resolution of t h i s c o n tradiction.
But w i l l not
largely
self-sufficient Communes show fissi
parous tendencies a n d f a i l to
subserve the c o m m o n interest
of the
" w h o l e people"?
In practice one w a y of emphasising
"socialist ownership
o f the
w h o l e people" is to put the basic
i n s t r u m e n t s of State power, such as
the b a n k s , stores a n d other enterprises owned by the people
as a
whole, under the
m a n a g e m e n t of
Communes,
Thus i n d u s t r i a l
and
other u n d e r t a k i n g s , in the construct i o n of w h i c h members of a
Commune have t a k e n p a r t ,
have been
placed under
Commune
management.
There is r i s k in s t r e n g t h e n i n g large
Communes i n t h i s w a y ;
b u t the Chinese hope t h a t it w i l l be
m i n i m i s e d by the establishment of
federations of
Communes.
Nevertheless, they f r a n k l y a d m i t
that
"the
transition
from
collective
ownership
to
ownership
by
the
whole people" w i l l be realised on
a n a t i o n a l scale " o n l y
a f t e r the
lapse of a considerable t i m e " ,
depending upon economic development
a n d the g r o w t h of p o l i t i c a l
unders t a n d i n g . In any case, ideologically
speaking, the
Chinese are
quite
clear t h a t it is not enough to rely
on
merely
collective
ownership.
There
is danger "if the
existing
collective ownership be l e f t
intact
w i t h the result t h a t C o m m u n e m e m bers confine t h e i r a t t e n t i o n
to a
r e l a t i v e l y n a r r o w scope of collective
interests."
Adjustment of Economic Relations
T h e Chinese seem to be conscious
of a n o t h e r
difficulty
which
has
arisen in C h i n a as in other
com259
m u n i s t countries, a n d
which will
continue
to cause tension
in the
short
period, a l t h o u g h the
Comm u n e is expected
to remove it in
the l o n g r u n . T h i s i s the d i f f i c u l t y
of proper a d j u s t m e n t
of economic
r e l a t i o n s between the t o w n and the
countryside.
Wages a n d incomes
a n d levels of l i v i n g are h i g h e r in
the cities t h a n i n the r u r a l areas,
o w i n g , a m o n g o t h e r t h i n g s , t o the
increasing tempo of i n d u s t r i a l i s a t i o n
a n d the rise of m a n - h o u r output in
the cities, w h i l e the c o u n t r y s i d e lags
u n c o m f o r t a b l y behind. I n a n underdeveloped c o u n t r y like C h i n a since
i n d u s t r i a l i s a t i o n is s t i l l confined to
comparatively
isolated
pockets in
cities there is s t i l l the
"backwash
effect" (a la M y r d a l ) of industriali s a t i o n , w h i c h has not been e n t i r e l y
offset by the g r o w t h of output, and
e m p l o y m e n t i n the s u r r o u n d i n g r u r a l areas. One does not k n o w whether the economic a n d social distance between the t o w n a n d the
countryside has in the result, d i m i nished or increased in C h i n a .
But,
t h a t there is
economic d i s p a r i t y
c a n n o t be doubted. The resolution of
December 10, 1958 says t h a t
"the
policy
of running
industry
and
a g r i c u l t u r e simultaneously and combining them, carried
out by the
People's Communes, has opened up
a w a y to reduce the d i f f e r e n c e '
between t o w n and c o u n t r y s i d e and
between
worker
and
peasant"
(emphasis m i n e ) . We are t o l d t h a t
" t h e reasons t h a t w a g e levels in the
city are generally higher t h a n those
in the countryside are m a n y - s i d e d
a n d this is also a t e m p o r a r y s i t u a t i o n w h i c h should be
explained to
the peasants. Some C o m m u n e m e m bers, a p a r t f r o m w o r k i n g
i n the
villages, also reeeive m o n e y
sent
home by other f a m i l y members w h o
are a w a y in the cities. W o r k should
be done to dissuade other members
f r o m w r a n g l i n g about t h i s " . These
t w o e x t r a c t s clearly
underline the
reality
of the economic
disparity
between
the u r b a n and the
rural
sectors of the Chinese economy and
the tension t h a t it creates.
One m a y contend t h a t if People's
Communes are good enough for the
c o u n t r y s i d e , they
should also be
good enough f o r the towns. We are
t o l d , however, t h a t there. are certain
differences between t o w n a n d count r y s i d e . " C i t y conditions
are more
c o m p l e x . . . . Bourgeois ideology is
s t i l l f a i r l y prevalent
among many
of the capitalists a n d
intellectuals
in the cities. they s t i l l have m i s g i v -
THE ECONOMIC WEEKLY
February 14, 1959
ings
a b o u t the
establishment of
Communes- so we should w a i t a b i t
f o r t h e m " . Here is another problem
w h i c h the Chinese p l a n of People's
Communes
merely
b r i n g s out in
clear perspective but f o r w h i c h i t
can find no solution, at a n y rate in
the near f u t u r e .
Marketable Surplus
It w o u l d be i n s t r u c t i v e to specul a t e on Peoples Communes as p a r t ,
of the s t r a t e g y of economic development.
The C o m m u n e is designed to be the basic p l a n n i n g u n i t
like
a
Community
Development
Block i n I n d i a .
B u t the d i s t i n c t i v e
feature of a C o m m u n e is t h a t it
m u s t have its " o w n plan of product i o n , exchange, c o n s u m p t i o n and
accumulation".
I t must develop its
o w n special features a n d its o w n
i n i t i a t i v e , a l t h o u g h its o w n p l a n w i l l
be s u b o r d i n a t e d to the State plans.
A C o m m u n e has to develop both
i n d u s t r y a n d a g r i c u l t u r e , w i t h proper a d a p t a t i o n to local resources
a v a i l a b l e . I have already discussed
the r a t i o n a l e of the Chinese decision to go in f o r a g r o - i n d u s t r y in
a b i g w a y in t h e i r Communes. F o r
one t h i n g , t h e y desire broad based
i n d u s t r i a l i s a t i o n i n the p r e d o m i n a n t ly a g r i c u l t u r a l r u r a l areas to ensure
concurrent increase of employment
and output in both industry and
a g r i c u l t u r e in remote areas, so t h a t ,
on the one h a n d , there is more subs t a n t i a l a b s o r p t i o n o f surplus m a n power in a g r i c u l t u r e a n d , on the
o t h e r h a n d , there is better balanci n g of local supply a n d demand, as
f a r as possible on a local or regional basis, in respect of f o o d g r a i n s
a n d m a n u f a c t u r e d consumer goods.
The Chinese have realised t h a t to
m a i n t a i n c o m m o d i t y balances a n d
the
balance
between
purchasing
power and the supply of goods a n d
services
on
a continental
scale
requires too elaborate a m a c h i n e r y
of c o n t r o l s
designed to
even out
supplies, curb effective d e m a n d or
s t i m u l a t e production
In p a r t i c u l a r
lines.
T h i s does not mean t h a t the
Communes are g o i n g to be self-sufficient economic circuits,
for t h i s
w o u l d be disastrous.
T h a t is w h y
there is insistence on p l a n n i n g , on
the basis of an .extensive system
of c o n t r a c t s , of the exchange bet w e e n the State a n d Communes a n d
a m o n g the Communes themselves,
w h i c h " m u s t be g r e a t l y developed."
To the extent to w h i c h the proportion
of local
products
is thus
b r o u g h t w i t h i n the scope of unified
d i s t r i b u t i o n b y the
State t o
that
e x t e n t there is " m a r k e t a b l e s u r p l u s "
a v a i l a b l e f o r n a t i o n a l purposes. T h e
technique o f f o r m i n g federations o f
Communes a n d t h a t o f s u b o r d i n a t i n g the C o m m u n e p l a n t o the
n a t i o n a l p l a n a n d o f a n extensive
system o f c o n t r a c t s f o r stipulated
supplies is
perhaps designed
to
g u a r a n t e e the planned increase of
m a r k e t a b l e surplus needed in the
interest o f the n a t i o n a l p l a n .
But
how t h i n g s w i l l w o r k out i n practice is not clear on the face of It.
Rural Industrialisation
The resolution of December 10,
1958 t h r o w s i n t e r e s t i n g side-light on
Chinese t h i n k i n g o n r u r a l industrialisation.
W e are
told
that
"People's Communes m u s t g o i n f o r
industry in a big w a y ' .
H o w is
this possible in a vast a g r i c u l t u r a l
country?
The Communes have to
have
plans of ' a c c u m u l a t i o n ' or
c a p i t a l development. T h e emphasis
is on " i n d u s t r i a l p r o d u c t i o n closely
linked to agricultural production".
On the one h a n d , industries supplyi n g c a p i t a l goods
for agriculture
( f e r t i l i s e r s , insecticides, implements,
b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s , etc) m u s t be
located in Communes. It is understood
that
"Peoples'
Communes
should develop s e l f - s u p p o r t i n g prod u c t i o n w h i c h d i r e c t l y meet t h e i r
o w n needs". One m a y i n f e r , therefore, that production of these capital
goods w i l l be on
s m a l l scale. On
the other h a n d , " t h e processing a n d
many-sided use of a g r i c u l t u r a l prod u c e " ( m a n u f a c t u r e of sugar, textiles a n d paper, f o r example) w i l l
also be organised on s m a l l scale.
M e n t i o n is also made of m i n i n g ,
m e t a l l u r g y , electric power a n d other
l i g h t a n d h e a v y industries, a s f a l l i n g
w i t h i n the
p u r v i e w o f Communes.
It m a y be m e n t i o n e d t h a t c a p i t a l
goods a n d i n t e r m e d i a t e products are
being m a n u f a c t u r e d l o c a l l y a n d o n
s m a l l scale in C h i n a .
Self-supporti n g i n d u s t r i a l p r o d u c t i o n also means
t h a t as f a r as possible the prospect
of
obtaining
local r a w
materials
should be f u l l y t a k e n i n t o considerat i o n i n p l a n n i n g industries.
As regards techniques of product i o n , the Chinese p l a n n i n g philosophy shows commendable eclecticism w h i c h one does not come across
in usual o r t h o d o x c o m m u n i s t l i t e r a ture.
I t i s not c o m m o n l y k n o w n
t h a t M a r x was appreciative o f the
peculiar c o m b i n a t i o n o f s m a l l indust r y and agriculture in Indian village
c o m m u n i t i e s before the period of
the B r i t i s h rule.
B u t his f o l l o w e r s
260
i n the W e s t have not displayed h i s
b r o a d v i s i o n i n t h i s respect.
It is
t h e r e f o r e r e f r e s h i n g t o read the f o l l o w i n g e x t r a c t i n the R e s o l u t i o n o f
December 10, 1958: " W i t h r e g a r d to
p r o d u c t i o n techniques, the principle
should be c a r r i e d out of l i n k i n g
handicraft with
mechanised i n d u s t r y , a n d crude methods w i t h m o d e r n
methods.
A l l handicraft industries
w h i c h have good f o u n d a t i o n s a n d
prospects f o r expansion m u s t c o n t i nue to be developed, a n d g r a d u a l l y
c a r r y t h r o u g h the necessary
technical transformation.
The mechanised industries m u s t also m a k e f u l l
use of i r o n , steel, lathes a n d o t h e r
r a w m a t e r i a l s a n d equipment produced by n a t i v e methods a n d employ native methods themselves; a n d
gradually
advance f r o m
crude t o
m o d e r n industries, f r o m s m a l l t o
large enterprises a n d f r o m a l o w to
a h i g h level."