free forum make a forum for free message boards free forum hosting free phpbb forum phpbb create free forum

abhatia · Joined: 26 Jan 2011 Posts: 37

The 'new' China could only have been created by a peasant revolt

Free Forum

jaehyouk · Joined: 19 Oct 2010 Posts: 6

The birth of new china was possible because of multiple revolutions and rebellion that happened in china. China was an ancient country that it cleaved to the "closed door" policy. So most of time because of the closed door the idea of foreign could not enter the land of china. However when the idea entered through small gaps, the idea strongly impacted many Chinese people, who felt sick of china's old tradition of absolute monarch. At the end period Qing, the mood touched climax and the atmosphere surrounding the country made people enter the way of revolution, even if they might not know what is truly going on at the moment. As more and more rebellion took place, the ultimate goal became more apparent. Rewinding the history of modern china, it demonstrates that the country's current ideology came from the revolution.

Ikrieger2012 · Joined: 03 Jan 2012 Posts: 18

I think that in a way, Mao based the uprising of the “new” China off of his own rising up into the world. He was born to a peasant family in the countryside, but due to his hard work and persistence, he landed himself in the capital being heavily involved with politics. Mao adopted his own for of communism, because it him the Soviets’ model seemed “too boring.” The combination of organized, factory-like labor was the result of masses of peasants who previously had not been a strong suit in China’s economy. “The great leap forward” however was not completely to the credit of peasant farming, but of other forms of labor such as mining and building (bridges, canals, railroads). But these jobs were no doubt also held by the lower class, so it does end up being yet another example of new China’s low/middle class kicking it into gear so to say.

shwang2012 · Joined: 05 Jan 2012 Posts: 6

I think that it would have been impossible for the peasants revolt to have created a new China. First of all, it already has been proved through history that the revolutions from the peasant level never successfully overthrew the current government in China. For example, Taiping Rebellion, the rebellion that took place in Nanjin in order to create a new country failed because Qing dynasty was able to quell its resistance easily with the foreign help; it had to fail because it never convinced people in large-scale ---like Comminists did. In short, peasant rebellions always have ended miserably because there weren't major support from the majority of the people.
However, in case of Communist movement, the leaders were able to convince commoners or peasants to join them in order to accomplish Marxist society in China. This idea of Marxism was brought to China through educational institutions like Beijin University, and was led by those who actively studied it.
Had there been books about Marxism all over the place in rural China no communism movement would have occured in order to form a new China because not a single person who finds it would be able to understand this philosophy. Thus, I think that peasant revolt would never have created new China.

Alex Bair · Joined: 04 Jan 2012 Posts: 6 Location: Deadfield, MA

jaehyouk is right because one peasant rebellion could not have possibly changed China. All the rebellions going on around China effectively got China to the right place. Absolute monarchy was bound to fall apart because the idea of the entire nation trusting one person to run it was growing old and of course people would want more say. This is something that has been repeated throughout history. Every country in the world has gone through something like this where a high emperor or king is taken out of power. All the rebellions happened because they didn't like what was in place.
_________________
"If you're not violating the honor code at BYU, it's not worth doing"- Daniel Tosh

dsachs2013 · Joined: 04 Jan 2012 Posts: 6

The peasants aided the creation of the new China but it could have been done without them. The peasants were the masses; by getting all of them to support an idea, Mao was able to get the population behind him. Mao went among the peasants and learned from them. This was the way he gained their support since they just wanted a government to help them. Having them support the move to communism meant he had the support of the people. Whatever new government is trying to form it needs the support of its people. Having the peasants revolt simply helped gain the support of the people because it united them and it allowed them to accept the new ideas that they were fed. The peasant revolt increased the chance that a new government in China could be formed.

meisler2013 · Joined: 04 Jan 2012 Posts: 6

I agree, I think Mao's life definitely played a big role in the creation of his new kind of communism. The Communist Party was also highly strategic in targeting rural areas with peasants who had never played a role in government. It also seems that the party tactically avoided wasting focus on urban areas where nationalism was popular. The reading also says that "Mao cam more and more to glorify the peasants as the true masses and elaborate the theory of the 'mass line'." It says he also required that members of the party, sent to spread enthusiasm towards communism, study vocabulary and concepts that would help unite the people. Mao knew (in the quote above) that the peasants, because there were many of them, were key in 'new' China's development. Mao was also aware that promoting a deep sense of community among peasants, opposed to individualism, would aid eagerness among Communist Party's supporters. I also agree with what Isaiah said surrounding “the great leap forward,” and just wanted to add that the reading said even Mao eventually realized they needed to slow down. This did happen I believe, but the government was mislead as to how efficiently and as to how much was being produced, that was what lead to the famine.

mkim · Joined: 14 Feb 2011 Posts: 14

I think in order to creat the 'new' China, Mao needed the peasants, as it says in the Reader that "the Communists had failed in the cities, Mao needed to reinterpret Marxist theory in such a way that the peasants could be seen as the vanguard of the revolution." (84) Glorifying the peasants Mao was "successful in gaining control of the social, political, and economic life in villages because they gave peasants what they wanted: an army of friendly troops who not only did not steal their crops but helped them bring in the harvest and who implemented popular but gradual economic reforms." (85) It further helped the Communists to win popular support and brought Communist's victory in the Civil War, defeating the Nationalists whose "unpopularity" (86) soon became apparent.

Eric von Hippel · Joined: 19 Oct 2010 Posts: 23

i think the peasants played an itergal role in changing china as they were the main fighting force of the communists. but i think that Mao was the key factor, without Mao there would have been no peasant rebellion it would have had no leadership or direction. saying that peasants have all ways been a key force in any rebellion because they make up the fighting force, you must convince them to win, surely a rebellion of 300 scholars would have been put down quite easily if they did not have the backing of at least some of the people. all the rebellions in china's or anywhere on earth's history have had peasants as their main bulwark.

kandice simmons · Joined: 15 Nov 2010 Posts: 21

I don't believe that a "new" China would have existed without the help of a peasant revolt. Because Mao was a former peasant, he was able to teach his people the beauty of communism and how one could rise above their class in a hierarchical class system. As seen in the Taiping Rebellion and the Boxer Rebellion, China has had a history of peasant revolting against the government by any means necessary. Although these revolts proved to be unsuccessful, I believe the leaders of these revolts learned from their mistakes, which allowed them to produce a solution to their problem with foreign influence and a corrupted government e.g. Communism.

JasonJeong · Joined: 20 Oct 2011 Posts: 13

I think China definitely could have reformed itself without peasant revolts. Although it is true that such revolts helped establish the Communist China, the nation could certainly take a different path. The peasants, who took up largest portion of the entire population, could have been persuaded by Jiang Jeshi's nationalist army. However, because Mao prioritized the peasants over anything else, he could gain the support from the population and thus could take over China in his ways.

efitzpatrick · Joined: 02 Nov 2011 Posts: 7 Location: United States

The revolt of peasants wasn't the reason for the revolution, it was that the primary portion of the population was peasants. While many originally thought the best way to get a point across was the spread it amongst the elite, this new idea was to spread it amongst the lesser people because they took up the primary portion of the population. The power of numbers would overwhelm the power of status and eventually the elite would either join in on the idea or would fall in the process. As it can be seen in nearly any revolution, if the great majority of the population joins forces against the law makers, kings, dictators, etc, it's a nearly impossible force to fight agaisnt

Free Forum