Deng Xiaoping Didn't Make China Rich by Blaming Richer Neighbors

ResearchGate

August 22 is the birthday of the great economic reformer, the late Deng Xiaoping. Previously, I wrote about how the Philippines will never get richer by blaming its richer ASEAN neighbors. I decided to write this piece since some SJWs who associate with Communism tend to blame the rich. He was also the author of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. Instead of rich-shaming, he said what might be a very difficult pill to swallow by SJWs, "Poverty isn't socialism. To be rich is glorious." 

It's very easy to blame others, right? One of the follow-ups I wrote was how blaming the rich will never improve your situation. It's very easy to keep saying, "It's the fault of the rich that we are poor." It's the kind of reaction that I got in college after I told them something stinging like, "Your financial habits make you poor." I also said, "Do you ever wonder why, we, as a country don't improve?" Back then, I was still obsessed with disciplining every single Filipino even if I had to give in to any totalitarian school of thought. I felt like mentioning Deng since he's the man who got China out of the slumps.

I read From Third World to First and there was an entire chapter called "Deng Xiaoping's China". It was when the late Lee Kuan Yew met with Deng. LKY met with a Communist leader named the late Nguyen Duy Cong aka Do Muoi. In time, Vietnam became a progressive Communist state. Deng saw Vietnam, a bitter rival of China, become better. Deng would later go to the USA and later Singapore where he saw progress as it was. Deng even mentioned that before he'd join Karl Marx--he wanted visit America and Singapore. Deng visited America and Singapore soon enough in his 70s. For most people, it was a retirement trip. Not for Deng. Deng knew he had a big problem to solve. 

Deng finally saw the dumb plan that was Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward to disaster. Now, a real Great Leap Forward was about to happen. According to From Third World to First, Deng also said in a speech:

I went to Singapore to study how they utilized foreign capital. Singapore benefited from factories set up by foreigners in Singapore first, foreign enterprises paid 35 percent of their net profits in taxes which went to the state, second, labour income went to the workers, and third, it (foreign investment) generated the service sectors. All these were income [for the state]."

Hence came what would be commonly known as Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. Deng ended up saying these lines when he talked with Premier Lubomir Strougal of the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic on April 26, 1997:

In the past we stayed in a rut, engaging in construction behind closed doors, and many years of hard work did not produce the desired results. It is true that our economy was gradually expanding and that we succeeded in developing certain things, such as the atomic bomb, the hydrogen bomb and even intercontinental ballistic missiles. But on the whole, the economy grew slowly or remained at a standstill for long periods, and our people were still living in poverty. During the “cultural revolution” the Gang of Four raised the absurd slogan, “Better to be poor under socialism and communism than to be rich under capitalism.” It may sound reasonable to reject the goal of becoming rich under capitalism. But how can we advocate being poor under socialism and communism? It was that kind of thinking that brought China to a standstill. That situation forced us to re-examine the question.

Our first conclusion was that we had to uphold socialism and that to do that we had, above all, to eliminate poverty and backwardness, greatly expand the productive forces and demonstrate the superiority of socialism over capitalism. To this end, we had to shift the focus of our work to the drive for modernization and make that our goal for the next few decades. At the same time, experience has taught us that we must no longer keep the country closed to the outside world and that we must bring the initiative of our people into full play. Hence our policies of opening up and reform. Our open policy has two aspects: domestic and international. We began with the countryside, applying the open policy there, and we achieved results very quickly. In some places it took only one or two years to get rid of poverty. After accumulating the necessary experience in the countryside, we shifted the focus of reform to the cities. The urban reform has been under way for nearly three years, but much remains to be done. We also obtained quick results from the open policy internationally.

China lags behind in science and technology. We have quite a few problems to solve, especially the problem of our huge population, which already stands at 1.05 billion. This makes it very difficult for us to raise the people’s income and to eliminate poverty and backwardness in a short time. In everything we do we must proceed from reality, seeing to it that our targets are realistic and that enough time is allowed to fulfil them. In the last quarter of 1984 and throughout 1985 our economy grew at quite a rapid rate, and that caused us some problems. That’s why we needed some readjustment and contraction. But this had its good side too, because we learned from the experience.

On the whole, our goals are not too ambitious. We give ourselves 20 years — that is, from 1981 to the end of the century — to quadruple our GNP and achieve comparative prosperity, with an annual per capita GNP of US$800 to $1,000. Then we shall take that figure as a new starting point and try to quadruple it again, so as to reach a per capita GNP of $4,000 in another 50 years. What does this mean? It means that by the middle of the next century we hope to reach the level of the moderately developed countries. If we can achieve this goal, first, we shall have accomplished a tremendous task; second, we shall have made a real contribution to mankind; and third, we shall have demonstrated more convincingly the superiority of the socialist system. As our principle of distribution is a socialist one, our per capita GNP of $4,000 will be different from the equivalent amount in the capitalist countries. For one thing, China has a huge population. If we assume that by the mid-21st century our population will have reached 1.5 billion and that we shall have a per capita GNP of $4,000, then our total annual GNP will be $6 trillion, and that will place China in the front ranks of nations. When we reach that goal, we shall not only have blazed a new path for the peoples of the Third World, who represent three quarters of the world’s population, but also — and this is even more important — we shall have demonstrated to mankind that socialism is the only path and that it is superior to capitalism.

So, to build socialism it is necessary to develop the productive forces. Poverty is not socialism. To uphold socialism, a socialism that is to be superior to capitalism, it is imperative first and foremost to eliminate poverty. True, we are building socialism, but that doesn’t mean that what we have achieved so far is up to the socialist standard. Not until the middle of the next century, when we have reached the level of the moderately developed countries, shall we be able to say that we have really built socialism and to declare convincingly that it is superior to capitalism. We are advancing towards that goal.

Instead of playing the blame game like a certain someone who coughed a lot while he lived, Deng finally decided to man up and show why his socialist view would be superior to the capitalist view. Mao tried to prove it and failed miserably. Mao had nothing to back up especially when a famine hit. Some people try to cover up the failure of Mao's Great Leap Forward. Some may even want to blame America, Taiwan, etc. for Mao's failures. Maybe, some people still blame North Korea is poor because of South Korea and China. Some people even blame America that Cuba and Venezuela are poor. It's very easy to play the blame game than to do something about it, am I right, right? 

Deng would also choose to focus on science and technology as part of national development. He saw how FDIs would help advance farming instead of local farming with only local equipment. Here's an excerpt from Mao's speech at a National Conference on Work in Science and Technology, on March 7, 1985:

I have come here today to congratulate you on the success of your conference and to show my respect for science and technology and for knowledge.

Seven years ago, also in the month of March, we held another conference on science at which I spoke. I talked mainly about two points that can be summarized in two sentences. One was that science and technology constituted part of the productive forces. The other was that China’s intellectuals had become part of the working class. The reason I talked about those two points was that at the time they were controversial. Seven years have passed, and the controversy has been settled. How was it settled? Through practice and by the masses.

I am very pleased that nowadays even the peasants in mountainous areas know that science and technology are part of the productive forces. They may not have read my speech, but through their own practice they have come to realize that scientific and technological advances can help them expand production and become prosperous. Peasants regard scientists and engineers as brothers who help them shake off poverty; they refer to them as the “gods of wealth”. That term was invented not by me but by the peasants. But it means the same thing I was trying to say in my speech at the conference on science.

I am also happy that comrades in scientific and technological circles have done so much work over the past few years. Our country’s economic development is sound, and the prospects are getting better year by year. The people are pleased about that, and the whole world has recognized it. This includes your contribution. The Central Committee of the Party has called for the work in science and technology to be geared to the needs of economic development. You comrades have worked hard and scored many achievements. In addition, regarding yourselves as the masters of the country, you have put forward many good ideas for it. Whenever our scientists, professors and engineers visit a factory or a local area, they are warmly received and invited to offer advice on the country’s strategies, prospects and programmes. In our thousands of years of history it is unprecedented for scientists and engineers to take part in making decisions on economic and social policy. This shows that they enjoy much higher political and social status than ever before. The better you do your work and the more achievements you have to your credit, the better the people throughout the country will understand the value of knowledge and the more they will be encouraged to respect and acquire it. It is by your work that people judge the role of science and technology in the modernization programme and the importance of scientists and engineers.

We should go a step further to integrate science and technology with economic development. By this I mean that having established the principle of integrating them and come to a correct understanding of the importance of doing so, we should now tackle the system for managing science and technology. Last year the Central Committee adopted a decision on reform of the economic structure. The whole world is now commenting on that decision and thinks that is a bold invention by the Chinese Communist Party. Now the Central Committee will also adopt a decision on reform of the system for managing science and technology. Your conference has been a preparation for that decision. I think that the draft decision is a good document and that it has the same goal as the reform of the economic structure as a whole. The reform of the system for managing science and technology, like the reform of the economic structure, is designed to liberate the productive forces. The new economic structure should promote technological progress, and the new science and technology management system should promote economic development. When both reforms are carried out, we shall perhaps be able to solve the longstanding problem of the separation between science and technology and the economy.

In reforming the economic structure, what matters most is capable people, and that’s what I am most concerned about. The same is true in reforming the system for managing science and technology. In this connection I want to make just two points. First, every year we must solve some of the intellectuals’ problems, producing practical results. Second, we must create an environment that enables the brightest people to come to the fore. That is precisely the objective of our reform. We have no lack of talented people. We should not stifle their talents merely because they don’t know everything yet or are not Party members, or because they don’t have much education or a long record of service. The ability to identify capable people, unite with them and put their talents to best use is one of the chief signs of an experienced leader. I hope all units represented here will discuss these two points.

The purpose of our struggle over the last few decades has been to eliminate poverty. Our first objective is for our people to lead a fairly comfortable life by the end of this century, that is, to reach a level that is neither rich nor poor. Our second objective is to approach the economic level of the developed countries in another three to five decades, so that our people become relatively well-off. This is in the overall interest of the country. We should strive for a peaceful international environment and overcome all domestic obstacles. What people like us can do is to create favourable conditions for you. When you meet an obstacle, we should remove it. If anything is hobbling you in your work, we should find a way of freeing you from it. We rely on you to do the work. I hope that you will boldly push the economy ahead and expand the productive forces.

At a speech at a national conference on education on May 18, 1985, Deng also said:

My purpose in attending this conference today is primarily to show my support for education and to salute you and the other workers in education throughout the country.

I think the draft decision on reforming the educational structure is a good document. Now that we have the guiding principle and a plan, the main thing is to recognize their importance, take practical steps to implement them and to organize the work well.

We have stated on many occasions that China’s economy may approach the level of the developed countries by the centenary of the founding of the People’s Republic. One of the reasons we can say so is that in the meantime, we shall be able to develop education, raise the scientific and technological level of the country and train hundreds of millions of people in all disciplines and at all levels. Our national strength and sustained economic development depend more and more on the educational qualifications of the working people and on the quantity and quality of intellectuals. When China, a vast country with a billion people, has developed its education, it will enjoy an enormous superiority in intellectual resources that no other country can match. There is no doubt that when we have that superiority, together with an advanced socialist system, we shall be able to attain our goals. If the children now in the first grade of elementary school receive ten or more years of schooling, they will become a vital force for ushering in the 21st century. The Central Committee has called upon us to do our utmost to develop education, beginning with elementary and secondary education. This is a strategic move. If the Central Committee did not set this task for the Party now, major undertakings would be delayed and history would hold it responsible.

During recent years more and more comrades, from the central authorities down to local authorities and rural Party branches, have come to realize the importance of knowledge, trained people and education. This shows that our Party has made great progress in this respect. However, there are still a good many comrades, including some senior cadres, who do not fully understand the need to develop and reform education. They have no sense of urgency about it; they agree in words that education is important, but when it comes to solving practical problems, they don’t act as if it were important. Haven’t we shifted the focus of the work of the Party and the country to economic development? It goes without saying that the focus should also be on education. If a locality or a department pays attention only to the economy and not to education, it has failed to shift the focus of its work completely. Leaders who neglect education are neither far-sighted nor mature, and they are therefore unable to lead the drive for modernization. Leaders at all levels should try to make educational work a success just as they do economic work.

Party committees and governments at all levels should take educational work seriously and do it well. You should be strict with yourselves and spend less time on idle talk and more on real work. For example, how are you going to implement the decision on reform in your area or department? If there are not enough school buildings and teaching facilities, how are you going to solve the problem? If the schools are short of funds, how are you going to raise them? How are you going to improve the meals for teachers and students? How are you going to organize the training of teachers? How can you improve the ideological and political work in schools? And so on and so forth. Leading comrades of Party committees and governments at all levels should often visit schools, listen to what all the teachers and students have to say and help them overcome their difficulties. What is leadership? Leadership means service. I said a few years ago that I would like to be director of support services for the comrades working in the departments of education and science and technology. I still feel that way. Leaders must do more real work. The bad habit of doing nothing but issuing instructions and indulging in empty talk must be broken. People in all departments and localities, especially the chief leading comrades, should pay attention to this problem.

I am optimistic about the development of education in our country. We do face difficulties, but we should recognize that we have favourable conditions. In any event, the economy has developed rapidly in the last few years. The economy is the foundation. Economic development will inevitably promote educational development. In both urban and rural areas and in all sectors of society people are enthusiastic about running schools. Quite a number of patriotic overseas Chinese are eager to donate money for the purpose. Now we also have a correct guiding principle. Under these circumstances, I think that as long as the leaders at all levels work conscientiously, it will be easy to develop education. There is no reason for us to be pessimistic. If we do solid work for a few years, we shall surely create a new situation in which education flourishes as never before.

I am very pleased that since last October the Central Committee has made three decisions on reform. The general objectives of these measures are the same — they are all designed to enable our country to eliminate poverty, become strong and prosperous, overcome backwardness, modernize and build a socialism suited to Chinese conditions. In the past seven months, we have done some things that we had wanted to do for many years. This shows that our Party now has a better understanding of what needs to be done and that it can creatively use the basic tenets of Marxism to solve many new problems that arise in the course of building socialism in present-day China. The whole world is watching the reforms in our country. I hope that all Party comrades and the people of all our nationalities will march towards the goals set by the Central Committee and try to make a success of every reform!

Deng understood much of the problem and decided to learn from countries better than China. Sure, China is still a Communist country in some shape or form. However, under him, China had greatly improved as an economic power. New technology was accepted which helped even the peasants. A greater respect for the working class came by making China's intellectuals part of it. It was a respect for intellectualism and the working class. It isn't like the snobbery of Filipino credentialists and the working class. With his new move, he was really focused on improving China. By doing so, he became a great man as LKY would call him.