In 1957, Nikita Khrushchev bragged that the Soviet Union would overtake the United States in production of steel and other important products within 15 years. Not to be outdone, Mao Zedong immediately decided that China’s own steel industry would overtake Britain’s–then the world’s second-leading manufacturing country (14). Thus began the Great Leap Forward, one of the tragedies of modern history.
According to one estimate, the Great Leap Forward led to as many as 55 million “excess deaths” between 1958 through 1962 (334). That’s nearly as many as died as a result of World War II, which lasted longer and involved far more nations.
Historians have blamed most of the Chinese deaths on starvation. But Frank Dikötter, a Dutch historian who is equally fluent in English and Chinese, shows in his book, Mao’s Great Famine, that the real cause was central planning. Dikötter gathered his information from provincial archives, which had been made available to the public during a period of unusual openness that preceded the Beijing Olympics.
What he found is horrifying. The Chinese Communist Party, eager to create a socialist utopia ahead of the Russians, created instead a culture of violence equal to if not greater than that of Nazi Germany. To say “people starved” makes it appear to be an act of God; in fact, millions were deliberately starved by officials who considered some people uncooperative or “rightist.” Millions more were beaten to death, often for the crime of stealing or hoarding a few ounces of grain for themselves or their families. Most simply died because government planners got it wrong.
The Great Leap Forward began by collectivizing rural farms. Farmers were no longer allowed to grow food for themselves and for profit; instead, they grew it for the collective and the nation. Kitchens were also collectivized; in many places, people were not allowed to own pots and pans because they were required to take all their meals in community dining halls.
To boost crop production, planners took people who once grew grain and put them to work on new irrigation projects. Other farmers were told to work on community iron smelters, thousands of which were built in the campaign to overtake Britain. To produce “steel,” party leaders required many villages to melt down all metal in the community, including farm tools. The resulting pig iron was often of much poorer quality than the source metal.
The lack of incentives to work combined with the lack of people and, in some cases, the lack of farm implements led almost immediately to reduced crops. But provincial leaders who were rewarded for meeting targets didn’t want to admit declines to the central party, so they reported great successes. The national government appropriated 25 to 33 percent of the reported crops for export and to feed the cities. But with actual crops much less than reported, this didn’t leave enough to feed the villages, who in many cases were forced to eat the seed reserved for next year’s crops.
Female friends with uterine fibroid have a major symptom -dysfunctional menstruation periods, especially for having menstrual pains, this is also the best for erectile dysfunction is order cialis online robertrobb.com . Between male pump and male extender, which is a better idea tadalafil wholesale to substantiate what you expect to achieve as good health. Paloma Faith Good Girls, Kendrick Lamar, I Lived by OneRepublic and Listen to the Man by George Ezra In addition to the aforementioned hits, there are numerous others to fulfill your requirement that include No Good in Goodbye, Oh Cecilia (Breaking My Heart), Outside, Calvin Harris feat. robertrobb.com generic cialis samples Are you scared that you will not be able to point out whether cheap viagra http://robertrobb.com/three-ideas-to-improve-working-conditions-for-teachers/ or viagra suits you.
Given that collective farmers had no positive incentives to work, party officials quickly began using negative ones, namely violence against anyone not working hard enough. One county leader considered violence a “duty” and told people working for him, “having a campaign is not the same as doing embroidery; it is impossible not to beat people to death.” Another county leader told cadres, “There are so many people working, it doesn’t matter if you beat a few to death” (300).
The people who passed out food in the community dining halls knew who worked and who shirked; they would dip to the bottom of soup pots to provide the former with meat and vegetables while the latter would get a watery gruel skimmed from the top. Eventually, some people were denied access to food at all and beaten if they were found with food. One boy who stole a few ounces of grain was stripped, bound, and thrown into a pond where he eventually died of exposure (294). In some regions, as many as 10 percent of the deaths were due to violence, not food shortages.
If the steel mills were failures, the poorly engineered irrigation projects were no better, often actually reducing the productivity of the land. Within a few years, thousands of poorly built dams collapsed. The failure of one set of dams during a storm in 1975 led to floods that killed 230,000 people (183).
Dikötter shows that these were not isolated problems but were both systematic and known at all levels of the Communist Party. When confronted with stories about the famine, Mao himself said, “It is better to let half the people die so that the other half can eat their fill” (134). At the same time, Mao refused to take the blame or accept that collectivization and central planning had failed. When, by the mid 1960s, the evidence was incontrovertible, Mao’s response was to launch the Cultural Revolution, which purged anyone who dared to question Mao or the socialist ideal.
No one thinks American planners want to starve or beat people to death. Yet people who would be horrified by the idea of starving others to death because of political differences think nothing of creating artificial housing shortages in order to force the share of families living in single-family homes to fall from 65 to 41 percent (as proposed in the 2040 plan for Portland, Oregon). People who would be outraged by a government that beats people for not working hard enough think nothing of passing a law mandating a 50 percent reduction in per capita driving (as Washington state has done). People whose stomachs would turn at the idea of subjecting a young boy to a cold, painful death for stealing a few shafts of wheat still heartily approve of government controlling how everyone can use their property.
The same collectivist impulses that produced the Great Leap Forward are found in many of the ideas circulating today. There’s the idea that people would somehow be better citizens if only they lived in New Urban, mixed-income communities. There’s the similar idea that collective transportation is better than individual transportation because the former forces us to rub shoulders with people of other social classes.
There’s the idea that landowners should only be able to use their land in ways prescribed by a government plan written with full community participation. There’s the Occupy Wall Street idea of income redistribution and ending corporate “personhood,” which effectively means stripping property and other rights from the owners of those corporations.
These ideas and schemes may not lead to violent deaths or starvation. But the people who support these ideas are just as callous, in their own way, as the Chinese Communists. All of these ideas show that we need to learn from history before we make the same tragic mistakes.
These ideas and schemes may not lead to violent deaths or starvation. But the people who support these ideas are just as callous, in their own way, as the Chinese Communists.
Absolutely. It’s just degrees of difference that we’re talking about here. The ideas mostly all arise from the same rotten sources.
The same collectivist impulses that produced the Great Leap Forward are found in many of the ideas circulating today.
True. And who’s to say that violence, or the implied threat thereof, is not a part of today’s “enlightened” planner mentality? What happens when you decide to fill in a wetland area on “your” land, in defiance of government edicts? Maybe some fines, threats, and lawsuits, but eventually, barring your cooperation, the Sheriff and/or SWAT is going to be paying you a visit to inflict the planners’ desires on “your” land, and handcuffs on your wrists, with or without your consent. The veneer of civility is very thin, and rests on the implied consent given by the public, because they’ve bought planners’ lies that this time around, they really do know what they are doing.
But hey, at least Mao and the planners make the trains run on time, right?
No that was Benito Mussolini and he was anti-communist. Though right-wing extremism and left-wing extremism are pretty much the same, you end up with despotism and metrosucks you want despotism along with O’Toole & the Koch brothers.
‘There’s the Occupy Wall Street idea of income redistribution and ending corporate “personhood,†which effectively means stripping property and other rights from the owners of those corporations.’
The owners of these corporations should be the shareholders. However the effective owners appear to be upper management who frequently try to thwart shareholders rights and approve themselves large pay increases, even with contracts that require them to be paid millions of dollars to be forced to leave, for example HP see: http://money.cnn.com/2011/09/22/technology/hp_leo_apotheker_severance/index.htm
As modest shareholder I have been highly frustrated by getting letters assuring me I can vote by proxy but given not information on the position that my proxy representative holds.
In the last 30 years we have seen massive increases in productivity but most of this increase in wealth seems to have found its way to the top 1% of earners who have doubled their share of income form 12% to about 24%. To claim that these individuals should be able to use the corporate wealth they control by claiming they corporation is a “person” and then influence policy is troubling. I feel that instead they should return this income to the shareholders and petition the shareholders, who are individuals, to make the case for the firm.
This is certainly part of the position that the occupy Wall Street movement holds. I certainly sympathize with their frustration at the trillions of dollars of tax payers money handed out to banks “too big to fail” when the executives who made the bad business choices then turned around and paid themselves bonuses at tax payers expense. Should these individuals be able to then turn around and use this taxpayer funded corporate wealth to advertise and lobby for yet more tax payer money? The Antiplanner has very reasonably taken the position that government grants should not be used to pay for further lobbying. Certainly in the case of firms that were bailed out by taxpayers they should not be allowed to further lobby Congress and give to congress members as though they are individuals.
Yes I remember seeing many of the Chinese propaganda posters depicting melons the size of people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Great_Leap_forward_poster.jpg
The first phase of collectivization was not a great success and there was widespread famine in 1956, though the Party’s propaganda machine announced much higher harvests. Before the Shift, peasants farmed their own small pockets of land, and observed traditional practices connected to markets or festivals, various banquets, and paying homage to ancestors. By the early 50’s peasants were “persuaded” to form or join collectives, which would supposedly increase their efficiency without robbing them of their own land or restricting their livelihoods. By the late 50’s private ownership was entirely abolished and households all over China were forced into state operated communes. For early steel production they need to fuel the primitive furnaces; the local environment was cleared of trees leading to some of the worst soil erosion and landslides. They took wood taken from the doors and furniture of peasants’ houses. Pots, pans, and other metal junk were taken to supply the scrap for the furnaces. High quality steel required coal to run the furnaces, The program was only quietly abandoned it in secret. Ultimately the bans placed on private property ruined peasant life at nearly every level. Villagers were unable to secure enough food as their land as currency or collateral for loans; deprived of them by the commune system. Even during the famine, they were net exporters of grain to Africa and Cuba to keep up appearances of productivity. They were being taught outrageous agricultural practices based on the studies of (now discredited) Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko such as plowing as deep as 2 meters believing that the depth would allow plants to develop deep root systems making them very hardy and strong. In truth all it did was bring more rock and clay to the surface rendering the soil even worse.
I recall in the 70’s, my high school teacher (that was always telling us she was going to run for political office some day) told the class the Chinese communist were good for the people, because at least they were not starving anymore. Like they were before Mao and the communist took over!
I was young and dumb and believed her, back then.
Sprawl, you haven’t changed much.
Is this post hasty generalization, conflation, or guilt by association?
DS
Government planning of the economy…….
In the free market, loss is just as important as profit and gains. What distinguishes the private system from a government socialist system is the loss part. If an entrepreneur’s project doesn’t work, he closes it down. If it had been a government project, it would have been expanded, because there they don’t have the discipline of profit and loss element; instead they continue to spend money thinking the Beta version will succeed. Just look at the department of Energy….
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/science/earth/report-calls-for-broad-restructuring-of-energy-department.html?ref=earth
In any society where everyone holds equal wealth there can be no material incentive to work. Incentives increase productivity for all people; if an assembly line worker at Boeing earned on equal footing as a CEO of Boeing would we be flying in death traps. It’s the incentive to rise from assembly worker – manager – CEO….whatever that instills good work.
There’s a very big difference between collectivizing in practical ways and beating your citizens to death. The Interstate Highway system is a centrally planned collectivized system, and didn’t require starving or beating anyone. I think you managed to Godwin your own argument without invoking Nazis.
China and the Soviet Union both are cultures that implemented Communist ideals, but both had long and horrible track records of starving and beating their peasant class long before Communism came along. I’m not a huge fan of communism or central planning, but lets not confuse those with small-scale collectivism and small-scale urban planning. From my point of view, the modern suburban neighborhood is much more akin to Communism with its incredibly homogeneous rows of substandard block housing and overly extreme penalties for not adhering to “community standards”.
Dan asks:
“Is this post hasty generalization, conflation, or guilt by association?”
I’m voting for conflation. By using the same conflated logic we could claim truly horrific things about libertarians or the tea party (you know, the people that recently stood up and cheered at the thought of a poor sick person dying).
Hey I know, let’s all shout at each other and call each other communists and fascist. The will obviously make headway on effective land use and increased freedom. Mao! Stalin! Hitler! Yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
In reality, the zoning laws of today are more akin to central planning dictate that we must all live in large homes and visit large stores, both with excessive amounts of parking. The Antiplanner always talks about the high housing prices of Portland but never how strict zoning regulations that require large, expensive lots increase housing prices throughout the San Francisco Bay area. Centralized planning does not allow people of many different incomes to live in, say, San Carlos, CA because it does not allow the kind of housing they can afford to live in to be built. Centralized planning does not allow for the redevelopment of downtown areas, where some people may want to live, because abandoned buildings may not have enough parking to provide 2 spaces per bedroom. If the urban planners of today desire to reduce the amount of miles the average person drives, then it is merely an attempt to counteract years of central planning mandating that we have to drive a lot.
LazyReader said:
Government planning of the economy…….
In the free market, loss is just as important as profit and gains. What distinguishes the private system from a government socialist system is the loss part. If an entrepreneur’s project doesn’t work, he closes it down. If it had been a government project, it would have been expanded, because there they don’t have the discipline of profit and loss element; instead they continue to spend money thinking the Beta version will succeed.
THWM: Though an actual “free market” could only exist if there was absolute anarchy. No government, no property rights & no laws! If some one steals your stuff and rapes you, you’re on your own!
Yo Paul:
I’d rather be in the top 30% in the US with a substantially bigger pie than an economically unfree country in Africa.
Yo transit boy:
San Francisco
“Planning Code Section 121 requires each lot to have a minimum area of 2,500 square feet.”
http://www.sf-planning.org/index.aspx?page=2283
Los Altos
“…minimum lot size of one acre (4,000 m²)”
“The median home price in 2009, according to MLS data was $2,435,000.”
“…represented by Democrat Joe Simitian, and in the 21st Assembly District, represented by Democrat Rich Gordon.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Altos_Hills,_California
Certainly minimum lot sizes and parking requirements are not just a Republican thing – all parties like that aspect of planning. Even Donald Shoup, UCLA author of “The High Cost of Free Parking”, does not criticize residential permit parking districts even though they distort the free market in parking. My main argument is that central planning has caused the status quo – this argument is in response to the inference I get from this posting is that right now the free market is determining where we live but in the future the evil planners want to tell us where we can live.
If the urban planners of today desire to reduce the amount of miles the average person drives, then it is merely an attempt to counteract years of central planning mandating that we have to drive a lot.
You cannot counter the errors of central planning with more central planning.
Since this article proves that planning policies are supported by borderline communist murderistic famine makers, they need to go. It’s going to take a lot of work, planners include economic developers, zoning officers, preservationists, transportation coordinators … ugh the list goes on with these people and they work with the DNR, EPA , the Cities, the States … even private companies are hiring plan makers! But its worth it, without planners landowners will finally be free to do whatever they want with every inch of the property they rightfully paid for. Free at last! The first step is getting the idea passed the city council and anyone else who starts asking questions. Here’s what we should be prepared for:
1.) How will we protect our peaceful residential communities from landowners selling their lots above market value to factory developers?
2.) How will we protect the serenity of residential communities from adult use clubs, gun ranges, race tracks, and outdoor cult sacrifices?
3.) Is our citizenry tolerant enough to listen to daily Muslim prayer calls without rioting? In fact do we really need plans to stop riots? Is that really the cities responsibility?
4.) How will we protect our drivers from distracting signage, and our children from obscene signage?
5.) How will we pay for city service extensions into newly developed areas without development fees?
6.) Will we be protecting historic or architecturally significant community treasures and places, and if not, how do we sustain our town’s vital tourist industry?
7.) Exactly which environmental regulations are we lifting? Wetland protection, tree replacement, pollution controls?
8.) Who will make decisions regarding speed limits, stop light timing, sidewalk width, and main street decoration?
9.) How will we legally maintain utilities without easements?
10.) Is the community willing to accept a non-symmetrical, close to the road, highly flammable layout once setbacks are removed and developers instinctively build for profit?
11.) If any of these items turn out to be negotiable, who will do the job and what will we title the position?
Well if we can answer those we should be set to take on the Council! Freedom here we come!
You cannot counter the errors of central planning with more central planning.
Silly ‘socialism’ metaphors aside, I highly doubt American Dream-type ideologues who think everyone wants a suburban picket fence will be happy if Euclidean zoning goes away, as developers will be able to maximize return/sf and more density will result. Sure there will be people who will buy the American Dream, but those offerings will be less than today, reflecting actual market choice.
DS
“To boost crop production, planners took people who once grew grain and put them to work on new irrigation projects. ”
As the Khmer Rouge did (who ended up as allies of the UK and the USA – not our finest hour).
They also did a few other things to boost production – such as planting rice plants closer together than was traditionally the case. For the demonstration, they had electric fans running on the rice plants 24/7. Otherwise, as the peasants found out the hard way, the rice plants rot in the fields.
Also, they made war on the birds because the birds were eating the seedlings, banging cymbals night and day until the birds died. Then without birds to eat the insects, the crops were overwhelmed.
“To produce “steel,†party leaders required many villages to melt down all metal in the community, including farm tools. The resulting pig iron was often of much poorer quality than the source metal.”
I’m not sure where the ‘often’ comes from. In a low temperature kiln, all you will get is pig iron. When the demonstration was done to the party leadership, the demonstrators passed off modern steel as the pig iron they had just made.
“Most simply died because government planners got it wrong.”
As a connection to transport planning, land use planning, and so on, isn’t this analogy a little bit weak?
All economies are planned. Govermnet involvement in this planning is one of its foremost and primary responsibilities.
The question is not if economies and societies will be planned but who will be doing the planning.
In the American free enterprise system, it is a mixture of private initative and the democratic political process. In Communist China, it is an oligarchic despostism of the “most equal” in the Party. In the Randian Libertarian dystopia that some seem to strive towards, it would be a financial oligarchy of bankers and industrialists.
I personally prefer the American system where we allow a mixture of private initiative governed by market results, and political representation through our democratic institutions. This makes sure that every American has a chance at helping to shape the society we live in together, no matter how much money or power they hold.
It is as disingenuous to draw a parallel between democratically controlled planning laws and agenices and the brutal methods of communist dictatorships as many on the right seem wont to do, as it is to dismiss the power and utility of market forces and feedback and claim they are no different than giving total power to bankers and corporate management as many on the left might say.
The American system has long struck a balance between these two opposite poles and helped make us the wealthiest people in the world. Government needs to regulate private initiative for common good, and private citizens need to monitor and limit the power and scope of government to preserve our liberties.
Although, the balance is now being upset with a strong shift to government control of the economy, instead of merely oversight.
This is a really good conversation. I think Andrew summed the confusion up best: “The question is not if economies and societies will be planned but who will be doing the planning.”
Here’s where I get completely lost (and I sincerely want to understand the Antiplanner’s reasoning on this): “There’s the idea that landowners should only be able to use their land in ways prescribed by a government plan written with full community participation … the people who support these ideas are just as callous, in their own way, as the Chinese Communists.” Moving past the Antiplanner’s predictable insult (and correct me if I misinterpreted the separated quote connection)… how can the community expect their democratic will to trump Charles Montgomery Burns without the authority of government? Government authority, professional guidance, and stakeholder participation seem like 3 things that should never be separated. Is there a better planning model, and why does this planning model make planners so controversial? Seriously what on Earth is the Antiplanners future vision after the sunset of government planning?
Also, I wanted to make sure its communicated to anyone who may not realize that the planning process is carried out by the community, not just planners. There are safeguards in the system against evil communist planners. “American” planners, practicing right now, are not making decisions on their own. Planners are trained (not to mention bound by law) to encourage, organize, collect, and consider without bias all community input. Once the planner has all of this input, that planner doesn’t make any final decisions anyway (in fact planners tend to be the least powerful people in the negotiating room, power comes only from their experience and the level of quality in their proposals). Planners are professional advisers to the community: studying mistakes from the past so they aren’t made again … protecting the livelihood of every living thing within the jurisdiction … balancing every interest in the community without discrimination. Does the community really want to eliminate that kind of position?
The point is that it is the community, not the planner, that makes plans a reality … and it is the intervention of government that provides authority so community inspired plans are protected and realized.
Sustainer said: “The point is that it is the community, not the planner, that makes plans a reality … and it is the intervention of government that provides authority so community inspired plans are protected and realized.”
Bingo! And, while this is the 4 gazillionth time I’ve harped on this, Mr. O’Toole doesn’t actually want the sun to sent on government planning, he just wants it to stop resulting in outcomes he doesn’t like. Of course when government planning results in something he prefers (see: US interstate system) the result is somehow credited to the “free market” or at the vary least the choices of free individuals.
To many antiplanners, when government planning results in NU style developments it’s that “…the people who support these ideas are just as callous, in their own way, as the Chinese Communists.†When government planning results in Euclidean zoning with big lots or massive highway expansion it’s magically not government planning anymore, but just what Americans want and choose. It’s the ultimate two-faced intellectual, have your cake and eat it too, ideology.
The point is that it is the community, not the planner, that makes plans a reality … and it is the intervention of government that provides authority so community inspired plans are protected and realized.
It’s the community bit that’s so bad among certain ideologies.
DS
Dan said: “It’s the community bit that’s so bad among certain ideologies.”
Yet the same folks have stated they support the idea of HOA’s. Collectivism for them, not for you.
I personally feel advocating widespread amateur government is just another way to take people’s money.
DS