(f) The move towards agricultural co-operation

Moves towards agricultural co-operation: reasons for the move towards collectivisation

The Party never intended the peasantry to become established as a new class of landowners, and therefore moves towards collectivisation began rapidly.

Moves towards agricultural co-operation: Why did Mao hope to avoid the Russian experience with collectivisation?

• Stalin faced massive resistance from peasants, leading to the elimination of the kulaks as a class

• In Russia, peasants had owned land for 10 years under the NEP, so they resisted change

• Mao aimed to introduce collectivisation more smoothly to prevent such violent backlash in China

Moves towards agricultural co-operation: How did collectivisation proceed under Mao, and how long was it expected to take?

• The process passed through several stages, improvised by the Party according to circumstances

• Mao estimated it would take about 15 years to complete full collectivisation

Moves towards agricultural co-operation: What were Mutual Aid Teams (MATs) in early 1950s China, and how did they function?

• Formed from 10 or so families, pooling labor, animals, and equipment

• Private ownership remained, but resources were shared

• Voluntary in theory, but staying out made it difficult to access resources and risked persecution

• Managed by peasant associations to coordinate and enforce participation

Moves towards agricultural co-operation: What were Agricultural Producers’ Co-operatives (APCs) in 1952 China, and how did they operate?

• Formed by combining successful MATs, with 40–50 families per APC

• Land could be pooled and consolidated for more efficient farming

• Larger landholders could keep some land for personal use and rent the rest to the APC, incentivizing participation

• Profits shared at the end of the year based on resources contributed and output produced

The change from voluntary to enforced collectivisation: How widespread were Agricultural Producers’ Co-operatives (APCs) in China by March 1955, and what was Mao’s approach to collectivisation at that time?

• Only 14% of rural households were members of APCs by March 1955

• Mao followed a cautious, flexible approach, adjusting policies in response to circumstances and frequently changing tactics

The change from voluntary to enforced collectivisation: Why did Mao call for a slowdown in the creation of APCs in the spring of 1953?

• Many local officials rushed to form APCs to meet Mao’s demand for faster change

• Poor planning meant APCs went into debt from borrowing money to buy equipment

• Mao responded by slowing down the collectivisation process to address these issues

The change from voluntary to enforced collectivisation: What happened after the 1954 slowdown in APC development and how did Mao respond?

• Peasants resumed buying and selling land and food, seemingly rejecting revolutionary values

• Mao condemned the previous slowdown as a “rash retreat” and renewed pressure on peasants to join APCs

• Many wealthier peasants resisted by slaughtering animals rather than contributing to APCs

• Poor 1954 harvest → government requisitioned grain to feed cities, causing rural protest

• January 1955: Mao introduced “Stop, Contract and Develop”, halting APC expansion for 18 months

The change from voluntary to enforced collectivisation: What decision did Mao make regarding collectivisation in July 1955?

• Announced to a Conference of Local Party Secretaries that full-scale collectivisation would begin immediately

• Declared that there would be no turning back this time

• Signaled a shift from cautious, phased approaches to all-out, rapid implementation of collectivisation

The change from voluntary to enforced collectivisation: How rapidly did collectivisation progress after Mao’s July 1955 decision?

• July 1955: 17 million households in Agricultural Producers’ Co-operatives (APCs)

• January 1956: 75 million households in APCs

• End of 1956: Only 3% of peasants were still farming individually

• Demonstrated the speed and scale of Mao’s all-out collectivisation drive

The change from voluntary to enforced collectivisation: What were the official and real reasons for Mao’s drive to collectivisation?

• Official reason: Claimed to be in response to peasant demand; promoted through publications like Socialist Upsurge in the Countryside.

• Real reason: Mao feared unreliable food supplies and believed peasants were instinctively reactionary; forcing them into collectives ensured state control over land and production.

• Mao’s summary: “The peasants want freedom, but we want socialism.”

The change from voluntary to enforced collectivisation: What were Higher Agricultural Producers’ Co-operatives (HPCs) and how did they operate?

• Comprised 200–300 households.

• Peasants no longer owned land or equipment; everything was collective.

• Profits were shared according to work points, not previous contributions of land or assets.

• This meant those who contributed the most might receive the same rewards as those who contributed the least.

The change from voluntary to enforced collectivisation: Why was collectivisation considered an ideological success for Mao?

• The state now owned the means of food production (land).

• 90% of the population worked on this land.

• This strengthened state control over agriculture and aligned with Mao’s socialist vision.

This was Chinese Marxism in action.

The change from voluntary to enforced collectivisation: What were the political consequences of collectivisation for Mao and the CCP?

• Demonstrated Mao’s authority and ability to outmanoeuvre conservatives like Zhou Enlai.

• Increased Party control over local people at the grassroots level.

• Changed the CCP–peasant relationship: peasants became servants of the Party rather than loyal allies.

• The rapid pace of collectivisation made Mao overconfident, setting the stage for mistakes in the Great Leap Forward.

The change from voluntary to enforced collectivisation: What was the economic impact of collectivisation in China during the First Five-Year Plan?

• Food production increased by 3.8% per year, but this was insufficient for the growing industrial workforce.

• High yields per hectare, but low labour productivity meant surpluses were hard to generate.

• Lack of state investment in agriculture limited growth.

• Demotivation: peasants no longer owned land, so they did not directly benefit from their labour.