Reform and Opening Up: Difference between revisions

The first economic reforms took place in 1972 with the implementation of the [https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/43_Plan 43 Plan] proposed by [[Zhou Enlai]].<ref>[https://archive.org/details/wen-tiejun-ten-crises-online-pdf-20210619-revised-1/page/193/mode/2up The Political Economy of China’s Development (1949–2020)] - Wen Tiejun, Page 194</ref> Roughly 4.24 billion US dollars worth of financial investment poured in from over 20 Capitalist countries, primarily Japan and the USA. However, in 1978, in accordance to the 82 Plan proposed by Hua Guofeng, 7.8 Billion US dollars worth of financial investment of roughly around 22 projects. The 43 Plan implemented under [[Mao Zedong]]  and the 82 Plan implemented under Hua Guofeng differed only in amount. The contents were consistent, even as early as the 1972, reform was the inevitable path forward for the CPC.

The 10 years of the Cultural Revolution caused the party, the country and the people to suffer the most serious setbacks and losses since the founding of the People's Republic. History has proved that the thesis of the "Cultural Revolution" did not conform to China's reality and did not conform to Marxism-Leninism. These theories were completely wrong in their estimation of the class situation in China and the political situation of the party and the country at that time. Practice has proved that the "Cultural Revolution" was not and could not be a revolution or social progress in any sense . It does not "disorder the enemy" at all, but disrupted China. Therefore, it was never been possible to achieve this supposed social progress in the first place. History has proven that the "Cultural Revolution" was a civil strife wrongly launched by leaders and exploited by counter-revolutionary groups, which brought serious disasters to the party, state and people of all ethnic groups. It was a social regression. In October 1976, the conspiracy of the Lin Biao and Jiang Qing Ultra-Leftist counter-revolutionary clique was smashed, the party was saved from danger, the revolution was saved, and China entered a new period of historical development.<ref>[https://www.hudong.com/page/reference_snapshot?wiki_doc_id=6969388908614735142&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.qstheory.cn%2Fllqikan%2F2019-01%2F08%2Fc_1123962603.htm&collect_params=%22%7B%5C%22search_query%5C%22%3A%5C%22%E6%94%B9%E9%9D%A9%E5%BC%80%E6%94%BE%5C%22%2C%5C%22search_id%5C%22%3A%5C%2218zaloe5xyyo00%5C%22%2C%5C%22source%5C%22%3A%5C%22homepage%5C%22%2C%5C%22doc_title%5C%22%3A%5C%22%E6%94%B9%E9%9D%A9%E5%BC%80%E6%94%BE%5C%22%2C%5C%22doc_id%5C%22%3A%5C%226969388908614735142%5C%22%2C%5C%22view_id%5C%22%3A%5C%223vcwd9vi02k000%5C%22%2C%5C%22first_classify%5C%22%3A%5C%22%E6%A6%82%E5%BF%B5%5C%22%2C%5C%22second_classify%5C%22%3A%5C%22%5C%22%2C%5C%22third_classify%5C%22%3A%5C%22%5C%22%2C%5C%22referer%5C%22%3A%5C%22https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hudong.com%2F%5C%22%7D%22 The Political Wisdom of the Party Central Committee to Solve the Evaluation Problem of the "Cultural Revolution" at the Beginning of the Reform and Opening Up. -] Qiushi.com</ref>

In 2012 the Food and Agriculture Organization found that China (-96 million) and Viet Nam (-24 million) amounts to 91 percent of the net numerical reduction in undernourished people since 1990-92. Scholars associate land reform with China’s advance against hunger (and SOFI12 acknowledges small farmer access to land in China as key); to understanding the progress of China and Viet Nam, experts cite egalitarian land reform as a key. In both countries, small holders secured access to land through state policies. SOFI12 also notes the “situation of relatively equal access to farmland and human capital” in China as important in China's striking progress against hunger.<ref>[https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/Framing%20Hunger.pdf '''FRAMING HUNGER,  A Response to The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012''' - May 22 2013] - FAO</ref>