The Secret Document That Transformed China

"Work hard, don't work hard — everyone gets the same," he says. "So people don't want to work."<p>Many people point to this idea as the main weakness (or stupidity, depending on whom you speak) of Socialism as originally proposed by Marx. However, AFAIK (and I'm definitely not an expert on this), Marx saw socialism as a post-industrial step, to be developed in countries like German, France and the UK. On the other hand, his ideas were instituted mainly in mostly feudal countries like Russia and China. His model of human nature and projections for capitalistic growth were also totally off.<p>Wikipedia says "Despite Marx's stress on critique of capitalism and discussion of the new communist society that should replace it, his explicit critique of capitalism is guarded, as he saw it as an improved society compared to the past ones (slavery and feudal)."

The article is well written but a little light on facts.<p>From my bad and distant memory;<p>The terms of the contract stated that you had to give X amount to the collective from your land, anything over and above this you kept. The X amount was originally set to be the same as the previous years harvest. The local collective had to raise the amount X a few times so it would appear that they where role models within the system.<p>It was only after other farmers in the region saw the results that they copied the process. It was eventually turned into the standard for a lot of China.<p>There are differing versions of the same story around depending on what the politics are for the writer. This version sticks to the American line of "The officials swore at him, treated him like he was on death row.". The Chinese version probably made the villagers look like model, conforming, hardworking and communist loving citizens.<p>I am neither American or Chinese, I am just fascinated by history and the differing ways it is represented. "History is written by the winners."

Interesting article, but I find this part a bit disingenuous:<p><i>Within a few years, farms all over China adopted the principles in that secret document. People could own what they grew. The government launched other economic reforms, and China's economy started to grow like crazy. Since 1978, something like 500 million people have risen out of poverty in China.</i><p>Though not explicitly stated, the passage seems to imply that the rise from poverty is wholly due to the capitalistic reforms, and a china without these reforms would not have seen any (at least major) similar change. Now this is a china that just decades earlier was destroyed by both the japanese and a civil war. Improvements take time, and these kind of cheap tricks ignore both that and a historical perspective. Sorry for the rant, but these tricks are all too common, and I think we can afford ourselves some more intellectual honesty rather then let things pass with these ideological slants, unintentional though they may be.

How in the world does the article end where it does? It finally gets interesting and then it cuts off.

What?! Right as that was getting good, it ended. I looked to see if there was a second page. How does it go from the changes in the 1970s to empty factories today?

&#62; "Each family agreed to turn over some of what they grew to the government, and to the collective"<p>Despite the articles pro-capitalist rhetoric, note that the 'collective' is also creating its own taxes (presumably to help those less well off) - though it unhelpfully doesnt say what these were.

For an interesting twist on the tired old communism vs capitalism debate, read Michel Bauwens of the p2p foundation philosophize on how aspects of Marxism were 'ill-conceived' while alternativley, the thriving p2p economy is a viable successor to capitalism.<p><a href="https://snuproject.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/and-the-debate-begins-peer-to-peer-and-marxism-analogies-and-differences-jean-lievens-interviewed-with-michel-bauwens/" rel="nofollow">https://snuproject.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/and-the-debate-b...</a>

I'm getting down voted to oblivion for this...<p>Even in the year 2012, after all these years, Americans still need to hear stories that directly outline why communism doesn't work, and good old competitive capitalism is the way of the future.<p>I wonder how many of you reading this in America even stopped to think about the message you're being fed.<p>I wonder how many of you reading this in America have absolutely no clue the rest of the developed world does not feed this kind of thing to it's citizens.<p>Stay clear of those evil commies...

It's interesting to revisit events like this in the present-day US. One can only wonder what sort of change might take place if rather than giving up 50% of what we make, we were allowed to reinvest it into our homes, businesses, and communities. Perhaps states like Texas and New Hampshire could be held up as the poster-children for a new direction in US policy? Unlikely, but one can dream, I suppose.

If everyone works hard, everyone gets to keep more. Because more is produced. If only some work hard, then the whole group cannot produce as much.<p>Perhaps every worker has a different threshhold for what they will settle for in terms of what amount of the harvest they would like to retain.<p>All the HR people reading HN know exactly what I'm talking about.

This was a Planet Money podcast. I don't know if it was any different (I just skimmed it), but I always really enjoy the presentation and style of Planet Money.<p><a href="http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast/podcast_detail.php?siteId=94411890" rel="nofollow">http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast/podcast_detail.php?siteId=944...</a>