The total Sovietization to learn from Europe and the United States has come at a heavy price
Over the past four decades, we have experienced a period of unprecedented steady and high growth. Even in Chinese history, there is no such precedent. However, it is very dangerous if we only use the "successful experience" of the past to deal with the future.
Because these experiences themselves are a product of a special era, once missed, there is no second chance. In fact, this is not the first time this has happened.
The experience of the fifties of the last century cannot be applied to the sixties and seventies, and the experience of the sixties and seventies cannot keep up with the pace of reform and opening up. In this part of China, change is the norm.
The essential reason why New China is moving forward in the midst of "change" is that we pursue "independence" and cannot avoid "dependence". Since the Industrial Revolution, we have been lagging behind the world and have not been able to catch up no matter how hard we try.
Therefore, we have chosen the tortuous path of "learning from the Soviet Union - getting rid of Soviet influence - learning from Europe and the United States - getting rid of European and American influence". In the 50s, we won the aid of the Soviet Union's heavy industry system through the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea, and then in the 60s we made up our minds to get rid of dependence, and it took 20 years to digest the fruits of Soviet industry with great difficulty; Then, through reform and opening up, Europe and the United States obtained a more balanced industrial system in quality and a larger quantity in quantity, which achieved the most dazzling economic miracle in human history.
There are no shortcuts that can be taken without a cost, and the more shortcuts you take, the greater the price you pay. Although the modern civilization of the West is stained with blood, we cannot deny that they do have a lot of hardcore dry goods.
So, why do they unconditionally teach us the fruits of civilization that have been accumulated for hundreds of years? There must be a price for leveraging development; It is very dangerous to only enjoy the fruits of development and turn a blind eye to the "costs".
Only by being mentally prepared for the cost can we successfully complete a new round of historical turning points and break through the bottleneck and rush forward.
We have won the crisis of the total Sovietization period, and it took only one five-year plan to obtain the technological achievements accumulated by the West for more than 200 years.
For example, in 1956, we successfully developed the first domestic fighter J-5, which was at the same technical level as the most mature jet fighter in the United States at that time, the F86.
However, in the years before that, we even needed to import iron nails. From learning from the USSR to getting rid of it, the situation is not so complicated. The period of the overall Sovietization was less than ten years, and the Soviet Union's industrial aid was mainly concentrated in the military industry and heavy industry, with a narrow scope, and the two countries were originally in the same camp, and there was a rationality for mutual support, and the international market was also smooth.
Although many people saw the cost of total Sovietization at that time, our volunteers paid a huge amount of money on the Korean battlefield and firmly blocked the Soviets.
It was only after the end of the Korean War in 1953 that the Soviet Union's aid for 156 projects really landed, and it can be said that these industrial supports were exchanged for the lives of the volunteers. In addition, the aid that the USSR gave us was all paid, and in total it was close to 6.6 billion rubles.
In the late fifties, the Sino-Soviet Union broke up, and we used a large amount of agricultural products and raw materials to pay off this debt. For this comparison, ** and *** have always known in their hearts that it is never easy for a big country to seek independence.
At the end of the fifties, the new China made up its mind to get rid of the Soviet Union, and soon encountered various difficulties. In order to maintain the production lines of heavy industry, we carried out agricultural collectivization and the Great Leap Forward, and organized rural forces to consume a lot of stocks of heavy industrial products, but this affected the normal life of the peasants.
In order to repay the debt, the people of the whole country tightened their belts, and in the most difficult three years, Khrushchev tentatively offered aid of 1 million tons of grain and 500,000 tons of Cuban sugar, which was rejected by ***.
Some people will think, is it not good to follow Big Brother? This is naïve. The Soviet Union did have lofty ideals, and even thought about returning all the territories occupied by the Qing Dynasty during the Tsarist period, but when the Soviet Union formed a stable community of interests, it began to become a reality.
After World War II, the Soviet Union has been dominated by high technology, the economic system is seriously unbalanced, and the light industry and consumer market have been weak. Didn't the Soviets know this? They just want to keep the money-making industries for themselves through the so-called "international division of labor", and use the peripheral allies as raw material sources and dumping markets, so that we can work for them.
In the "Warsaw Economic Complex", Mongolia produced meat and milk, East Germany produced light industrial products and some unimportant heavy industrial products, Eastern European countries were light industrial bases, Central Asian countries were cotton bases, and the Soviet Union was responsible for the military industry, energy and cultural services.
If China were to join the system, we would probably be assigned the role of a consumer market and a labor-intensive processing base, as well as a long-term guard for the Soviet Union, taking on most of the military threats from the Pacific direction.
Where is such a "great future" in? If at that time we had chosen to follow the USSR completely, the sixties and seventies would have been fine, but what about after that? Neighboring North Korea has always adhered to total Sovietization, and from 1949 to 1975 industrial output increased by 467 times, surpassing South Korea and approaching Japan, but what about North Korea now?
History tells us that in dealing with the old powers, we must be mindful of each other's strengths, learn from each other's strengths, and leverage our strength to develop well, but it is not feasible to take "one-sidedness" for granted and fantasize about achieving "great rejuvenation" by hugging our thighs.
In those years, we made unremitting efforts to get rid of Soviet influence. In terms of personnel, we weakened the influence of the overall Sovietization period; On the economic front, we have started the construction of three large and small lines, and copied the production lines built with Soviet assistance to the mainland; Militarily, we protect ourselves from the US-Soviet threat by developing nuclear weapons.
After nearly 20 years of hard work, we have finally digested the fruits of industrialization during the Sovietization period while maintaining our independence. Since the reform and opening up, China has made unprecedented achievements and has become the largest manufacturing country.
But we paid a heavy price for it. In my opinion, there are four main costs in the process of learning from European and American countries. First of all, China's national economy is systematically embedded in the middle and lower layers of the Western "industrial food chain", resulting in industrial upgrading being suppressed by developed countries.
These capacities consume large resources, pollute the environment, have low profits, and are labor-intensive, such as basic chemicals, low-end textiles, and electronic product assembly. Therefore, developed countries are happy to see China become the world's factory, but if we want to develop further, we will face unprecedented pressure.
We relied too much on technological research and development to solve problems, and in fact, Germany's technological leadership during the interwar period did not help it climb to the top of the food chain. The United States is now at the top of the food chain, followed by Western Europe, Japan and South Korea, and then ** countries such as Australia and Canada, who take most of the profits of the industrial chain to maintain their own "development".
If China wants to upgrade its industry and obtain higher profits and benefits, it will not only offend the United States, but also face the joint suppression of the entire international economic system. The so-called "middle-income trap" is essentially because there are so many places at the top of the food chain, and if they don't get down, we can't go up.
If China, a country with a population of more than a billion people, succeeds in standing at the top of the industrial food chain, who will act as the base? Now the population of developed countries together is not as large as China, and even if they are willing to serve as a base for us, it will not be enough.
Therefore, it is theoretically impossible for us to complete a counterattack in the existing international economic system. We need to break down the system and rebuild the system, and this system must not be a pyramid structure.
Although there has been no absolute fairness in the distribution of wealth since the birth of the country, it should be based on the size of the contribution and take into account fairness in order to achieve long-term peace and stability. There are historical reasons for the supremacy of capital and the high status of capitalists in Western countries.
In China, peasants and patriotic intellectuals saved the country at a critical time and should be respected. Therefore, the term "common prosperity" was first proposed by *** in 1955.
After the reopening, China's distribution method has been influenced by the West, and the capital players have received the most cakes, which is unreasonable and unlasting. The fundamental reason for the ebb and flow of capital players in Chinese history is that the primitive accumulation of New China mainly depends on the working people's hard work, and its independence mainly depends on the selfless dedication of the working people.
Therefore, how to complete the redistribution of wealth between the "first rich" who have no merit and the "later rich" who have selflessly contributed is a major matter related to the well-being of the people. Chinese workers are hardworking and capable, leading the world in technology and management, and have created a large amount of wealth increase.
Part of the reason for some of the difficulties encountered so far is indeed that there is a problem with the allocation. We should adhere to the principle of "more work, more reward, and respect for labor".
All civilizations in the world have their own merits, and the path of development is mainly influenced by geographical conditions and cultural heritage. Historically, the Mongol Empire briefly conquered Eurasia, but this military conquest did not prove the universality of civilization.
A civilization may work in some areas, but not necessarily in another. For example, Western civilization claims to be Greco-Roman from the maritime civilization, but the history of Greco-Roman is the history of coastal robbery by pirates, and without the sea, their advantage no longer exists.
This shows that every civilization has its own uniqueness, and one cannot simply apply one model.
The predatory nature of maritime civilizations led to a long period of poverty and turmoil on the European continent, which did not change until they updated their seafaring technology and ushered in the "Age of Discovery".
The disadvantage of maritime civilization is that pirates are rarely engaged in production and do not create material wealth, but they have to occupy most of their resources and enjoy the best benefits. The fall of the Roman Empire was due to the long public holidays and the outsourcing of the army to the "northern barbarians".
However, maritime civilizations also have a significant advantage, that is, the development of technology and culture is relatively fast, because they have less leisure time and life pressure, and can concentrate more energy on creation.
For example, Athens in the Greek period flourished in science and technology, because its "citizens" were slave owners, and most of them were lazy and lazy, but there were always some people who had spiritual pursuits, and they devoted all their energy to scientific research and culture, so the science and technology culture flourished.
The predatory nature of maritime civilizations prevents them from penetrating inland, so they encourage the world's resources to converge to coastal areas. This has led to the rapid development and integration of the world's coastal areas into the global maritime civilization, and many cities have become the strongholds of the maritime civilization to harvest the world.
Although China is a complex country on land and sea, its sea power has been limited in modern times, and its navy has only begun to improve in recent years. Due to the predatory nature and superiority of maritime civilizations, they have succeeded in dominating the world.
However, for a large agrarian civilization like China, this is a challenge. China advocates hard work and prosperity, and almost all of the resources consumed over thousands of years have been created by itself.
Before the late Qing Dynasty, this situation was maintained because China had long been the world's largest power, and nomads had difficulty finding an opportunity to start. But now the situation has changed, the rules of the world are set by the great maritime civilizations, and the fruits of China's labor are concentrated in various ways and then constantly drained.
Due to the small number of people in China, it is difficult to support yourself, let alone feed those pirate lords who are lazy and lazy abroad.
There are two robbers in front of history, one is called France and the other is called England", this sentence is very accurate.
While the United States, the dominant maritime civilization, has achieved unprecedented success and its pirate culture has become mainstream, this does not mean that unsustainable cultural models should be encouraged and promoted.
On the contrary, our practice of agricultural civilization has shaped a more mature, stable and rational mentality, such as valuing labor, loving peace, serving the country loyally, and being diligent and thrifty.
Although many people will think that our culture is more secure, people will still choose to be "robbers" under the pressure of reality because the environment is like this. In this case, we need to ask questions, is there something wrong with our culture?
Our culture emphasizes self-reliance and lacks an infusion of external resources, which makes the total amount of resources relatively stable. Once there is one more person who does not work hard, it will dampen the enthusiasm of a group of people; One more traitor who eats inside and outside will make the fruits of the labor of the whole village go to waste; One more entrepreneur who blindly pursues overnight riches, and the entire industry will be involved in a whirlpool that cannot breathe.
Let's pay a little attention to it, and we will find that the development model of many enterprises around us is actually unsustainable. If we continue to encourage and tolerate this shoddy "pirate culture", it is the working people who will ultimately suffer.
Once he chooses to become a pirate, his ultimate destination is to find that "pirate den". If this kind of culture is rampant, it is actually tantamount to inflicting harm on itself.
The above four points are just the tip of the iceberg, but they are enough to reveal the cost. Compared with the sixties and seventies, the advantage now is that China has established a sound industrial base, and although there is a gap in the field of high and new technology, the basic facilities are available, and it can gradually catch up and surpass it through its own continuous improvement.
This means that even if the world changes dramatically, we can at least be self-sufficient and not worry too much.