>>63811440By 1970s thirdie standards, they were doing okay. You don't know how bad it was out there in much of the world. Average Chinese food consumption had risen to be around the middle of all countries, and higher than 14 countries in the Americas, and well above India, Indonesia, and most of Africa. Life expectancy had roughly doubled, as did primary school enrollment which went from 50% to being nearly universal.
The famines were a catastrophic fuck-up and millions perished due to an unscientific and rushed attempt at industrialization, but that happened in the late 50s. This was nearly 20 years later.
One reason why Deng made those reforms is that communist-style central planning was inefficient. There were terrific amounts of waste and the stagnation that was setting in was increasingly evident in all socialist countries by the late 1970s/early 1980s. Also China's rate of economic growth wasn't great, less than Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan to name a few. But like I said, they were better off than the other half. But one reason China was struggling is because Mao launched an anarchic student movement / civil war which devastated China for some time (that's the constant-renewal-through-struggle stuff I was talking about):
https://youtu.be/imZDo_CjOSQ
It was messy, but on the other hand, there were certain aspects of communism that helped lay the foundation for industrial transformation in really poor countries. The kind of militarized discipline of it and mass education (but heavily influenced by propaganda of course) did create mass literacy, which made it possible to transform these backwater peasants into factory workers who need to be able to read the instructions on what they're manufacturing or the sign that says "don't stick your arm in that." (India still struggles with literacy.) Also it's good for women's rights which is necessary for industrialization and modernization. But other than that there's not much I'd recommend.
![gettyimages-527191268-copy[1]](/images/k/1749553651754102.jpg)
