PRC and surviving KMT China?

I've seen people state that Chiang Kai-Shek would've liked to see the state that China currently is in and that a surviving KMT China wouldn't have been that different from the People's Republic which made me wanna ask - how similar would a surviving RoC be to current-day China?
 
The political and administrative apparatus would be different, but the economy could be broadly similar. Expect a society that is more overtly Han chauvinist though, and possibly more religious. The dalai lama might live in the Tibet of nationalist China, but he'll still be watched.
 
The economy would be similar but not the exact same. The KMT land reform would make landowners shareholders of state owned enterprises. Expect more mixed owned enterprises right from the outset and earlier liberalization. Chiang would consider the CCP economy too statist despite their shared structures. I wonder if China may have its own Chaebols (family business). As you know, the KMT was dominated by the four families (Chiang, Soong, Chen, and Kung). What if each of the families sets up their own industrial conglomerate.

The KMT and CCP represent different embodiments of China. The KMT (if they do not screw China up big time) will represent a mellowed version of China. The CCP represents China in the most extreme form possible. Both forms of China share commonalities but both are vastly different too. From a human rights perspective, Chiang would consider the CCP to be very extreme and too controlling. Even though the KMT and CCP shared some similarities, they will not produce the same China. There will be differences in the political, economic, and administrative structures.

The CCP is a left wing authoritarian regime. Notice how they like to assimilate as many functions under their control as possible. You have business people in China who are party members, you have approved unions and social groups under party control, etc.

The KMT is a right wing government (mix of authoritarianism and democracy) with possible liberalization later on due to further pressures. The KMT will not let business people join the party. They, in a post war, environment will continue to deny capitalists a voice in internal party discussions and tell them to do business instead.

MOST IMPORTANT POINT: When does the KMT export. OTL PRC came at the right time and got more open markets from the US, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, EU, Africa, Latin America, and the rest of Asia. KMT, in a post war world, will face protectionism and constraints everywhere. Post war western europe is protectionist (unless they make an exception for KMT China), US may or may not give you full market access, Japan was industrializing and protectionist, South Korea was doing what Japan was doing, Latin America is practicing import substitution, India is doing License Raj, Africa is practicing import substitution, Eastern Europe is under the iron curtain, engagement with the USSR will be limited, and the developing world in general from the 40s to 70s was practicing import substitution, etc. You can only do export oriented industrialization when somebody else is willing to let you export.

MY THEORY: KMT will develop better than OTL PRC in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. By 1980, land reform will be gradually finished and China will be more developed and urbanized. Starting from 1980, KMT will start to manufacture and export. In this case, the Coast will be too expensive for lots of manufacturing. There will be some factories there but the bulk of industry will start in the interior. Instead of OTL PRC booming from the Coast, KMT China will have a smaller boom from the inner provinces. The KMT boom will be helped by infrastructure that allows the goods to be transported to the coasts.

The export oriented industrialization was a post world war 2 phenomenon. Japan did NOT become developed by solely using this model. They were already industrialized before world war 2. Japan had 2 rounds of development (Meiji 1868 - 1945 and post 1945 export boom). South Korea is the only real country that got rich through exports alone (agricultural to modern). Taiwan was developed into a modern place by Japan and exports carried them the rest of the way.

There is a common saying that modern China (economically) is closer to Chiang's vision that Mao's. This does not mean that modern China economically is 100% what Chiang or the KMT wanted. Its just that Mao was too radical and his economic vision too idealistic and delusional that any developing country would deviate from this beliefs.
 
Last edited:
The problem in this scenario is that there would not be a united China like now.

The KMT would probably never do a land reform, they only did it when they were driven of the mainland. If they stay in power then it never happens and you have 100s of millions landless peasants and lots of internal pressure, there would not be 1 China but 50 different Chinas.

And the economy in my opinion would not be the same, there would probably be a few rich families then a layer of bureaucrats and a small middle class and a huge group of poor and very poor. The KMT was until it was driven off the mainland a party for those of wealth and power.
 
The problem in this scenario is that there would not be a united China like now.

The KMT would probably never do a land reform, they only did it when they were driven of the mainland. If they stay in power then it never happens and you have 100s of millions landless peasants and lots of internal pressure, there would not be 1 China but 50 different Chinas.

And the economy in my opinion would not be the same, there would probably be a few rich families then a layer of bureaucrats and a small middle class and a huge group of poor and very poor. The KMT was until it was driven off the mainland a party for those of wealth and power.


This is the million dollar question. Chiang knew land reform was important. Chen Cheng, one of his generals, did land reform in Hubei quite well using the mixed shareholder model. The trick is for the KMT to do the entire operation all over China. This will require will, promising landlords better deals, and hamfisting some to follow the government.
 
This is the million dollar question. Chiang knew land reform was important. Chen Cheng, one of his generals, did land reform in Hubei quite well using the mixed shareholder model. The trick is for the KMT to do the entire operation all over China. This will require will, promising landlords better deals, and hamfisting some to follow the government.

I do not believe it would have been done, people who have power and wealth rarely want to give it up freely. I think there may have been a lot of talk, but just like in Latin America it would never happen, just talk and more talk.
 
I do not believe it would have been done, people who have power and wealth rarely want to give it up freely. I think there may have been a lot of talk, but just like in Latin America it would never happen, just talk and more talk.

There have been some posts comparing KMT China to Latin America. I still think KMT China will have more industrial capacity than Latin America. Even if land reform is not done, eventual mechanisation of agriculture will free up the labour.
 
There have been some posts comparing KMT China to Latin America. I still think KMT China will have more industrial capacity than Latin America. Even if land reform is not done, eventual mechanisation of agriculture will free up the labour.

More industry yes maybe, but not anywhere close to what is now.

And as I wrote I do not think there would be 1 China but many different Chinas, the internal pressure would be too high with so many landless peasants and so much poverty.
 
More industry yes maybe, but not anywhere close to what is now.

And as I wrote I do not think there would be 1 China but many different Chinas, the internal pressure would be too high with so many landless peasants and so much poverty.

Yeah but I believe the KMT government will know that this is happening. They would prioritize stability and push through some land reforms. US agricultural experts were in China and would suggest land reform. Whether the KMT did it or not is up for debate. In Japan, the US implemented land reform since they occupied the island. In the philippines, the US were friendly with the filipino elites, who did not want land reform. In order to avoid angering them, the US did not suggest the Philippines to do land reform. KMT China could find itself in a Filipino type situation without the Western style plantations.
 
Yeah but I believe the KMT government will know that this is happening. They would prioritize stability and push through some land reforms. US agricultural experts were in China and would suggest land reform. Whether the KMT did it or not is up for debate. In Japan, the US implemented land reform since they occupied the island. In the philippines, the US were friendly with the filipino elites, who did not want land reform. In order to avoid angering them, the US did not suggest the Philippines to do land reform. KMT China could find itself in a Filipino type situation without the Western style plantations.

You contradict yourself a bit first you say you think KMT would do land reform then you say you think they would not as in the Philippines.

Either way my oppinion is that they would not, there would be internal pressure and you would have many different Chinas and not one China.
 
You contradict yourself a bit first you say you think KMT would do land reform then you say you think they would not as in the Philippines.

Either way my oppinion is that they would not, there would be internal pressure and you would have many different Chinas and not one China.

I'm not contracting myself. I believe that the KMT would try land reform and if they succeeded, they would have a mixed shareholder model. If the KMT fail, then it could look similar to the Philippines. I always like to believe in the KMTs success.
 
Top