China is capitalist during the Cold War

Let's remember that Yugoslavia didn't start non-aligned. It started as Stalin's most loyal ally. KMT China won't be inert on the geostrategic landscape, they'll be active players shifting diplomatic stance according to their own interests and reacting to the moves of other states.

And I think that once the civil war was over, the KMT regime would stabilize greatly. After all, a big part of the instability they had in OTL was the success of the Communists, which made people reconsider their allegiances.

fasquardon
The issues that caused the communists to rise are not going to disappear. The Civil War might stretch on in parts of China for a decade after the communists no longer hold any significant territory. The problem is not the communists, but land reform, poverty and warlordism. And as long as those problems persist, China cannot afford to give up American support. And Chiang ain’t Tito, he will get
his brains blown out if he tries to cuddle up to the Soviets.
 
The issues that caused the communists to rise are not going to disappear. The Civil War might stretch on in parts of China for a decade after the communists no longer hold any significant territory. The problem is not the communists, but land reform, poverty and warlordism. And as long as those problems persist, China cannot afford to give up American support. And Chiang ain’t Tito, he will get
his brains blown out if he tries to cuddle up to the Soviets.

"Can't afford to give up American support"? Just how involved do you think the US was in the Chinese civil war? The answer is, "barely" until the Nationalists were driven back to Taiwan. In the late 40s, the indifference and contempt with which the US treated the KMT is a major reason why I see a strongly US-aligned China as unlikely. (Of course, there were reasons for American indifference and contempt. The KMT really was in a bad state after WW2 and US intervention in the Chinese civil war would have made Vietnam look like a triumphal march.)

And how do you imagine Chiang managed to avoid getting his brains blown out in the 1930s when the Soviets were backing the KMT against the ChiComs, Japanese and warlords? The KMT had no problem with using the Soviets and the Soviets had no problem using the KMT. Neither group really trusted the other, but each treated the other as "bastards we can deal with". Unlike the Japanese case, where certain factions of the KMT really were willing to kill Chiang if he tried to cut a deal with them.

As to the problems of the KMT, the warlords are really done for by the mid 30s. Yes, some warlords were still around afterwards and warlordish behavior still happened, but after about 1934 or so, it was pretty clear that China would soon return to the control of a strong regime (probably the KMT, but some bet on the Communists and the Japanese) and thus were jockying for a privileged position after the civil war ended. And the biggest reason for the Communists rising - WW2 - had already disappeared when Japan surrendered. If Chiang had not invaded Manchuria as soon as he was able, it's quite possible to imagine the KMT getting a grip on the problems that had multiplied during the Sino-Japanese war and then crushing the Communists.

fasquardon
 
Let's remember that Yugoslavia didn't start non-aligned. It started as Stalin's most loyal ally. KMT China won't be inert on the geostrategic landscape, they'll be active players shifting diplomatic stance according to their own interests and reacting to the moves of other states.

And I think that once the civil war was over, the KMT regime would stabilize greatly. After all, a big part of the instability they had in OTL was the success of the Communists, which made people reconsider their allegiances.

fasquardon

1911-1949 was a period of instability all over. The KMT was dealing with warlords, the CCP, and foreign interference. In a peacetime environment, I can see Chiang bringing things to heel and stabilizing China for development.
 
"Can't afford to give up American support"? Just how involved do you think the US was in the Chinese civil war? The answer is, "barely" until the Nationalists were driven back to Taiwan. In the late 40s, the indifference and contempt with which the US treated the KMT is a major reason why I see a strongly US-aligned China as unlikely. (Of course, there were reasons for American indifference and contempt. The KMT really was in a bad state after WW2 and US intervention in the Chinese civil war would have made Vietnam look like a triumphal march.)

And how do you imagine Chiang managed to avoid getting his brains blown out in the 1930s when the Soviets were backing the KMT against the ChiComs, Japanese and warlords? The KMT had no problem with using the Soviets and the Soviets had no problem using the KMT. Neither group really trusted the other, but each treated the other as "bastards we can deal with". Unlike the Japanese case, where certain factions of the KMT really were willing to kill Chiang if he tried to cut a deal with them.

As to the problems of the KMT, the warlords are really done for by the mid 30s. Yes, some warlords were still around afterwards and warlordish behavior still happened, but after about 1934 or so, it was pretty clear that China would soon return to the control of a strong regime (probably the KMT, but some bet on the Communists and the Japanese) and thus were jockying for a privileged position after the civil war ended. And the biggest reason for the Communists rising - WW2 - had already disappeared when Japan surrendered. If Chiang had not invaded Manchuria as soon as he was able, it's quite possible to imagine the KMT getting a grip on the problems that had multiplied during the Sino-Japanese war and then crushing the Communists.

fasquardon
The 1930s was not the Cold War, the US didn’t really care about communism to the point of negligence. And the Americans won’t have a problem finding more hardline anti communists to replace Chiang.

Well, how did they win the Civil War? I assumed it would have been through a greater amount of training and supplies from the US. And if not, his army is still American trained, supplied and uniformed. The Nationalists just won a massive war against Soviet backed rebels, and they’re going to go back to Pre-WW2 relations with the Soviets? That would be like Yugoslavia cozying up to Francoist Spain.

I think we’ve been talking about two different Nationalist victories, I was talking about that if they had won the Manchurian campaign.
 
The 1930s was not the Cold War, the US didn’t really care about communism to the point of negligence. And the Americans won’t have a problem finding more hardline anti communists to replace Chiang.

Well, how did they win the Civil War? I assumed it would have been through a greater amount of training and supplies from the US. And if not, his army is still American trained, supplied and uniformed. The Nationalists just won a massive war against Soviet backed rebels, and they’re going to go back to Pre-WW2 relations with the Soviets? That would be like Yugoslavia cozying up to Francoist Spain.

I think we’ve been talking about two different Nationalist victories, I was talking about that if they had won the Manchurian campaign.

During the interwar period, the West was still suspicious about Communism.

If Chiang, post WW2 gets too close to the Soviets, a CIA sponsored coup can oust him and replace him with Sun Liren, who had contacts in the US military.
 
The notion that a GMD China is going to be an ally of the US is by no means self-evident. Chiang tried to get along with the USSR as well as the US as long as he could. He only gave up when it was apparent that the Soviets were committed to a CCP victory. It seems to me perfectly plausible that a victorious Chiang Kai-shek would try to play the US and USSR off against each other in the hope of getting aid from both sides (as India did).

BTW, even calling a GMD China "capitalist" may be an oversimplification. Even after breaking with the Communists in 1927, the GMD in theory retained Sun Yat-sen's ideology, which while rejecting Marxism was hardly pro-capitalist. In practice, of course, this did not lead Chiang to socialism-- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_ideology_of_the_Kuomintang exaggerates the "socialist" nature of the post-1927 GMD--but the capitalists did not hold any real political power and were basically milked by the government. See Parks M. Coble, The Shanghai Capitalists and the Nationalist Government, 1927-1937:

"...Scholars, journalists, diplomats, and political writers alike, from the 1930s to the 1970s, have often held this generalization about the Kuomintang regime: that Nanking was closely allied with the new urban capitalists who, together with the rural landlords, formed the social class basis for Chiang's government. The alliance thesis clearly implies that the Nanking regime significantly represented the interests of the capitalists and that the latter were able to exercise considerable political influence on the government. This generalization is not tenable. The thesis of this study is that, in fact, relations between the two groups were characterized by government efforts to emasculate politically the urban capitalists and to milk the modern sector of the economy. Concern with revenue, not the welfare of the capitalists or the possibility of economic development, dominated Nanking's policies. The government's actions exacerbated the weaknesses of Chinese capitalism and tended to serve the economic interests of foreign powers. Politically, Nanking freely ignored the views of the capitalists as expressed through such organizations as the Shanghai General Chamber of Commerce and Shanghai Bankers Association and, in fact, attempted to bring these business groups under government control. The capitalists were stymied as a political force and, by 1937, had become an adjunct of the government. Nanking did not represent the interests of the capitalists, nor was that group able to exercise significant influence on government decision-making..." https://books.google.com/books?id=9nJF_19fnZ4C&pg=PA3

"After 1927, the party deleted or overlooked the pro-Communist elements in Sun's teachings and suppressed the worker and peasant movements. It retained, however, the anti-capitalist flavor of his pronouncements and persisted in characterizing the capitalists as a selfish, exploitive class. Journals connected with the Kuomintang were filled with articles that denounced capitalism and called for a system of state-controlled industry as specified under the principle of livelihood. This anti-capitalist rhetoric had almost no impact on governmental actions. Nanking evidenced neither systematic hostility toward the capitalists as a social group nor real interest in developing a socialist economy. Major government officials, in fact, made heavy private investments. Nanking found this anti-capitalist ideology useful as a tool for political control, however, because it prevented the capitalists from claiming legitimacy within the party or the society. Anti-capitalist ideology, thus, was not a determinant of Chiang 's policy so much as a tool to achieve his ends, the control of the capitalists and their wealth.

"In sum, the capitalists were denied a political role in the Nanking Government. What, then, accounts for the persistence of the thesis that the Shanghai capitalists formed the social class basis for the Kuomintang regime? Perhaps the fundamental reason why the relationship between the Nanking regime and the Shanghai capitalists has been so often misinterpreted is that many writers have begun with the Marxist assumption that all political regimes must represent the interests of one or more social classes. This premise, in turn, forces the conclusion that, as least in terms of the urban sector, the capitalists were the social base for the Kuomintang Government. Other important urban classes, such as the industrial proletariat, were even more repressed by the regime than the capitalists. Leftist writers have thus turned to the capitalists as the logical social base for the Nanking Government.

"There were factors that would seem to support their conclusion. The focus of so many commentators on the actual alliance between Chiang Kai-shek and the capitalists in March-April 1927 has obscured later relations between the two groups. The April 1927 coup was a pivotal event and has been vividly reported by such writers as Harold Isaacs. It has, therefore, loomed large in subsequent accounts of the Nanking period. The Shanghai capitalists did, in fact, give Chiang Kai-shek crucial support for his break with the Communists in April 1927. Both they and Chiang were frightened by the growth of the Communist-dominated labor unions, and both strongly opposed social revolution. Despite this agreement, however, the alliance broke down when Chiang turned his "reign of terror" against the capitalists themselves. By utilizing the Green Gang, Chiang was able to penetrate the sanctity of the International Settlement and compel the capitalists to continue their financial backing for his military organization..." https://books.google.com/books?id=9nJF_19fnZ4C&pg=PA263

I would prefer to phrase the subject of this thread as "what if Chiang (or the GMD) had defeated the Communists." To describe a GMD China as "capitalist" is a bit too oversimplified. (Not that other formulations like Joseph Fewsmith's characterization of the Nanking government as an "authoritarian-corporatist regime" don't have their own problems. "Kuomintang China, in Eastman's view, simply lacked the corporatist structures associated with such regimes as Franco's Spain or Mussolini's Italy. In Eastman's view, Fewsmith is 'straining the facts to fit his preconceived model.'" https://books.google.com/books?id=9nJF_19fnZ4C&pg=PR13)
 
Last edited:
BTW, even calling a GMD China "capitalist" may be an oversimplification. Even after breaking with the Communists in 1927, the GMD in theory retained Sun Yat-sen's ideology, which while rejecting Marxism was hardly pro-capitalist. In practice, of course, this did not lead Chiang to socialism--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_ideology_of_the_Kuomintang exaggerates the "socialist" nature of the post-1927 GMD--but the capitalists did not hold any real political power and were basically milked by the government. See Parks M. Coble, The Shanghai Capitalists and the Nationalist Government, 1927-1937:

"...Scholars, journalists, diplomats, and political writers alike, from the 1930s to the 1970s, have often held this generalization about the Kuomintang regime: that Nanking was closely allied with the new urban capitalists who, together with the rural landlords, formed the social class basis for Chiang's government. The alliance thesis clearly implies that the Nanking regime significantly represented the interests of the capitalists and that the latter were able to exercise considerable political influence on the government. This generalization is not tenable. The thesis of this study is that, in fact, relations between the two groups were characterized by government efforts to emasculate politically the urban capitalists and to milk the modern sector of the economy. Concern with revenue, not the welfare of the capitalists or the possibility of economic development, dominated Nanking's policies. The government's actions exacerbated the weaknesses of Chinese capitalism and tended to serve the economic interests of foreign powers. Politically, Nanking freely ignored the views of the capitalists as expressed through such organizations as the Shanghai General Chamber of Commerce and Shanghai Bankers Association and, in fact, attempted to bring these business groups under government control. The capitalists were stymied as a political force and, by 1937, had become an adjunct of the government. Nanking did not represent the interests of the capitalists, nor was that group able to exercise significant influence on government decision-making..." https://books.google.com/books?id=9nJF_19fnZ4C&pg=PA3

"After 1927, the party deleted or overlooked the pro-Communist elements in Sun's teachings and suppressed the worker and peasant movements. It retained, however, the anti-capitalist flavor of his pronouncements and persisted in characterizing the capitalists as a selfish, exploitive class. Journals connected with the Kuomintang were filled with articles that denounced capitalism and called for a system of state-controlled industry as specified under the principle of livelihood. This anti-capitalist rhetoric had almost no impact on governmental actions. Nanking evidenced neither systematic hostility toward the capitalists as a social group nor real interest in developing a socialist economy. Major government officials, in fact, made heavy private investments. Nanking found this anti-capitalist ideology useful as a tool for political control, however, because it prevented the capitalists from claiming legitimacy within the party or the society. Anti-capitalist ideology, thus, was not a determinant of Chiang 's policy so much as a tool to achieve his ends, the control of the capitalists and their wealth.

"In sum, the capitalists were denied a political role in the Nanking Government. What, then, accounts for the persistence of the thesis that the Shanghai capitalists formed the social class basis for the Kuomintang regime? Perhaps the fundamental reason why the relationship between the Nanking regime and the Shanghai capitalists has been so often misinterpreted is that many writers have begun with the Marxist assumption that all political regimes must represent the interests of one or more social classes. This premise, in turn, forces the conclusion that, as least in terms of the urban sector, the capitalists were the social base for the Kuomintang Government. Other important urban classes, such as the industrial proletariat, were even more repressed by the regime than the capitalists. Leftist writers have thus turned to the capitalists as the logical social base for the Nanking Government.

"There were factors that would seem to support their conclusion. The focus of so many commentators on the actual alliance between Chiang Kai-shek and the capitalists in March-April 1927 has obscured later relations between the two groups. The April 1927 coup was a pivotal event and has been vividly reported by such writers as Harold Isaacs. It has, therefore, loomed large in subsequent accounts of the Nanking period. The Shanghai capitalists did, in fact, give Chiang Kai-shek crucial support for his break with the Communists in April 1927. Both they and Chiang were frightened by the growth of the Communist-dominated labor unions, and both strongly opposed social revolution. Despite this agreement, however, the alliance broke down when Chiang turned his "reign of terror" against the capitalists themselves. By utilizing the Green Gang, Chiang was able to penetrate the sanctity of the International Settlement and compel the capitalists to continue their financial backing for his military organization..." https://books.google.com/books?id=9nJF_19fnZ4C&pg=PA263

I would prefer to phrase the subject of this thread as "what if Ching (or the GMD) had defeated the Communists." To describe a GMD China as "capitalist" is a bit too oversimplified. (Not that other formulations like Joseph Fewsmith's characterization of the Nanking government as an "authoritarian-corporatist regime" don't have their own problems. "Kuomintang China, in Eastman's view, simply lacked the corporatist structures associated with such regimes as Franco's Spain or Mussolini's Italy. In Eastman's view, Fewsmith is 'straining the facts to fit his preconceived model.'" https://books.google.com/books?id=9nJF_19fnZ4C&pg=PR13)

Prior to breaking with the CCP, the GMD were comprised of left and right wingers. After the 1927 attack on the CCP, the right wingers, led by Chiang, seized control of the party and started going after capitalists in Shanghai. The GMD were big fans of state owned industry. You could say that they were left wing oriented, but more right than the CCP. Based on what's written here, GMD China will have huge numbers of state owned enterprises.
 
Last edited:
Prior to breaking with the CCP, the GMD were comprised of left and right wingers. After the 1927 attack on the CCP, the right wingers, led by Chiang, seized control of the party and started going after capitalists in Shanghai. The GMD were big fans of state owned industry. You could say that they were left wing oriented, but more right than the CCP. Based on what's written here, GMD China will have huge numbers of state owned enterprises.
That could slow economic growth in the long run.
 
Well, how did they win the Civil War? I assumed it would have been through a greater amount of training and supplies from the US. And if not, his army is still American trained, supplied and uniformed. The Nationalists just won a massive war against Soviet backed rebels, and they’re going to go back to Pre-WW2 relations with the Soviets? That would be like Yugoslavia cozying up to Francoist Spain.

I think we’ve been talking about two different Nationalist victories, I was talking about that if they had won the Manchurian campaign.

While relations between the Soviets and the KMT had worsened over WW2, it was still several years before the Soviets reluctantly shifted to a pro-Mao status (I think it was about 1947 or 1948, but not completely certain). When the Soviets switched to Mao, Mao had already broken the KMT army beyond repair. In other words, the fighting wasn't done, but the KMT was doomed at the point where the Soviets abandoned them. So in a TL where the KMT wins, the Soviets will never break with the KMT to support what they saw as a doomed effort by Mao and the other ChiComs.

And Chiang's army was US trained, supplied and clothed because of WW2. When Japan was defeated, the US started to wind up their support effort. During the critical period, people thought the KMT would win the Civil War without US aid. And when the Manchurian expedition failed, it was already too late.

Perhaps if the US had pursued a policy of pumping aid into China even after Japan had fallen, Chiang could have had the material strength to survive his bad decisions when he re-opened the civil war against the ChiComs. However, that would take a very big PoD. In OTL, the US was only spurred into economic interventionism after 2 years in which it had become clear that the rest of the world was so war-torn that without continued US engagement and cheap loans, things would quickly fall into chaos. And even then, the US only acted in Europe, and was pulling back from Asia until the Korean War spurred the US to be engaged with both ends of Eurasia. The only way that I can really see significant US material support continuing for the KMT is if the US for some reason continued Lend-Lease in the immediate post-war years as a way to help ease its allies (and thus the world as a whole) back into a peacetime economy. This is of course a huge PoD, and would greatly change how the Soviet-American rivalry develops (I phrase it like that because it's possible to imagine the Cold War being avoided by such a radical change, though more likely it would only delay it).

So all of the more likely PoDs have to do with choices people in China make, chief among them Chiang and Mao.

fasquardon
 
Maybe have Chiang not blow up the Yellow River Dam. Not doing things like that would definitely help. That could strengthen the KMT to hold on till the US starts going head on against Communism.
 
I would prefer to phrase the subject of this thread as "what if Ching (or the GMD) had defeated the Communists." To describe a GMD China as "capitalist" is a bit too oversimplified. (Not that other formulations like Joseph Fewsmith's characterization of the Nanking government as an "authoritarian-corporatist regime" don't have their own problems. "Kuomintang China, in Eastman's view, simply lacked the corporatist structures associated with such regimes as Franco's Spain or Mussolini's Italy. In Eastman's view, Fewsmith is 'straining the facts to fit his preconceived model.'" https://books.google.com/books?id=9nJF_19fnZ4C&pg=PR13)

So we also need to think about what would lead the victorious KMT to embrace capitalism? Though... Really all that's needed is the regime to be either too weak or too disinterested to impose an alternate system. We'd get a capitalist China, just not one that was easy for capitalists to do business in.

And the references you quote are a great example of the Marxist obsession with class being often misleading.

fasquardon
 
In this scenario China would split, there would not be one China but several nations. The biggest problem China had was lack of land reform, relatively few landowners and 100s of millions of landless peasants. The nationalist government only addressed the issue in Taiwan after they had been driven off the mainland. So if that does not happen it is unlikely that the nationalist government will do any type of land reform.
 
So we also need to think about what would lead the victorious KMT to embrace capitalism? Though... Really all that's needed is the regime to be either too weak or too disinterested to impose an alternate system. We'd get a capitalist China, just not one that was easy for capitalists to do business in.

And the references you quote are a great example of the Marxist obsession with class being often misleading.

fasquardon
Depending on how American-leaning they are, but wouldn’t a capitalist China force the Soviets to have to have a much greater military presence in the East?
 
The biggest problem China had was lack of land reform, relatively few landowners and 100s of millions of landless peasants. The nationalist government only addressed the issue in Taiwan after they had been driven off the mainland. So if that does not happen it is unlikely that the nationalist government will do any type of land reform.

Are land reforms that important in improving agriculture especially export agriculture? A small farmer that lives a bit better because he pays less in rent is better but it does not help much the economy. In the Middle East, this study showed that land reform had little effect.

file:///C:/Users/Bernard/OneDrive/Torrent/Askari_Cummings_Harik_1977.pdf

We have seen the effect of land reforms in Zimbabwe and now we are looking at it in South Africa very wary, to say the least.

I know when I was a kid, the Australian government encouraged sugar farmers to increase the size of their farms as they felt that technological and machinery which was essential to competitive sugar production agriculture was expensive and so required large amounts of capital. Sugar production and efficiency did increase. This trend of larger farms seems a worldwide trend in all agriculture today for the same reason.
 
Last edited:
Are land reforms that important in improving agriculture especially export agriculture? A small farmer that lives a bit better because he pays less in rent is better but it does not help much the economy. In the Middle East, this study showed that land reform had little effect.

file:///C:/Users/Bernard/OneDrive/Torrent/Askari_Cummings_Harik_1977.pdf

We have seen the effect of land reforms in Zimbabwe and now we are looking at it in South Africa very wary, to say the least.

I know when I was a kid, the Australian government encouraged sugar farmers to increase the size of their farms as they felt that technological and machinery which was essential to competitive sugar production agriculture was expensive and so required large amounts of capital. Sugar production and efficiency did increase. This trend of larger farms seems a worldwide trend in all agriculture today for the same reason.

You are comparing different things, completely different things. You might as well say people had muskets during the 1700s therefore one can compare the performance of those black powder weapons with modern day assault rifles, because they all fire metal slugs at a speed faster than a person can throw. Completely different things.

In China there were a few thousand landowners who lived of the labor of the landless peasants, the landowners did not reinvest or operate it like a business, however the landowners in Zimbabwe did operate it like a business, so completely different. And the techniques in China were the same as they had always been for 100s of years, it is completely different.

Land reform in China would MASSIVELY help the economy because now the landless peasants work does not just go to a landowner who lives comfortably off it, the peasant can now support his family and purchase more things thereby creating demand. Some peasants will also use the money to reinvest. China in those days were much more closer to a feudal society. So completely different from your examples.
 
Last edited:
In China there were a few thousand landowners who lived of the labor of the landless peasants,


There must have been much more than that as the numbers ran into 15 million and most businesses run on the labor of others who are often landless.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Mass_killings_of_landlords_under_Mao_Zedong

plus included in Mao program was another 15 million rich peasants killed who probably were the best farmers.

the landowners did not reinvest or operate it like a business, however the landowners in Zimbabwe did operate it like a business, so completely different. And the techniques in China were the same as they had always been for 100s of years, it is completely different.

This is a communist myth before China was already a rapidly changing society

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/22473/1/wp18.pdf

money was being invested including in agriculture. If you think about it a landlord has a vested interest in increasing agricultural efficiency and has the capital to do it.


Land reform in China would MASSIVELY help the economy because now the landless peasants work does not just go to a landowner who lives comfortably off it, the peasant can now support his family and purchase more things thereby creating demand. Some peasants will also use the money to reinvest. China in those days were much more closer to a feudal society. So completely different from your examples.

No, it did not, the peasants were pushed into communes and the state took the wealth. This is similar to what happened in Russia.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/1951-07-01/maos-stratagem-land-reform
 
There must have been much more than that as the numbers ran into 15 million and most businesses run on the labor of others who are often landless.

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Mass_killings_of_landlords_under_Mao_Zedong

plus included in Mao program was another 15 million rich peasants killed who probably were the best farmers.



This is a communist myth before China was already a rapidly changing society

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/22473/1/wp18.pdf

money was being invested including in agriculture. If you think about it a landlord has a vested interest in increasing agricultural efficiency and has the capital to do it.




No, it did not, the peasants were pushed into communes and the state took the wealth. This is similar to what happened in Russia.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/1951-07-01/maos-stratagem-land-reform

You make several false assumptions here that lead you to the wrong conclusion

So let me repeat it again so that you understand it

MOST land owners in China at that time did NOT reinvest anything they ONLY lived of the labors of others, this is the main part you do not seem to understand. Some guy somewhere doing something is statistically insignificant. I am talking about major land owners not some small little guy who technically is also a landowner but also statistically insignificant.

And you seem to not read what I write THIS part here shows that you are not actually reading what i write.

No, it did not, the peasants were pushed into communes and the state took the wealth. This is similar to what happened in Russia.

My suggestions are a purposed version, they never happened, so you can not say "no it did not", because it never happened.

And even though it would have been more financially profitable to run the farms properly, almost all major landowners did not. THEREFORE giving the land to the people and removing the parasites would in THAT scenario increase output and economic growth.

And your major problems are that you see things that have not been written and you do not read what actually has been written. You both invent new items and do not see the actual items.
 
You make several false assumptions here that lead you to the wrong conclusion

So let me repeat it again so that you understand it

MOST land owners in China at that time did NOT reinvest anything they ONLY lived of the labors of others, this is the main part you do not seem to understand. Some guy somewhere doing something is statistically insignificant. I am talking about major land owners not some small little guy who technically is also a landowner but also statistically insignificant.

And you seem to not read what I write THIS part here shows that you are not actually reading what i write.



My suggestions are a purposed version, they never happened, so you can not say "no it did not", because it never happened.

And even though it would have been more financially profitable to run the farms properly, almost all major landowners did not. THEREFORE giving the land to the people and removing the parasites would in THAT scenario increase output and economic growth.

And your major problems are that you see things that have not been written and you do not read what actually has been written. You both invent new items and do not see the actual items.


What if landowners invested the money back and made farms more productive. Wouldn't that increase output and productivity up to the point where surplus farm labour would no longer required? This could free up labor to go work in industries while landowners continued to run farm businesses.
 
No McCarthyism

If there is no "Fall of China" Joseph McCarthy's attack on Secretary of State Marshall (Truman Administration) doesn't occur. McCarthy still plays the 'commie card' successfully to gets re-elected and Nixon still finds a pumpkin, but Truman does not look wanting and is trusted; 'McCarthyism' can't move a national audience. Subsequently there is no Hollywood Ten, no 'black-listing' no McCarthy-Army Hearings and downfall.
 
Last edited:
Top