More figures from the Maoists on the Real Violence
by MC5, posted on USENET, approx. August 26, 1992

Before we go further, we would like to refute the claim that the Third World would be worse off if it had more Maoist revolutions. While Third World countries often endure tragic conditions of famine or medical neglect, Maoism has proved to be a superior solution in a less-than-perfect world.

In previous posts we explained why it is not fair to compare Mao's China with the United States, which was richer than China before Mao ever took power. Maoists only had state power for 27 years in a country that had been very poor relative to the West for hundreds of years. (The fact that it was the richest civilization 800 years ago is hardly relevant here.)

To judge Maoism, we suggest making real world comparisons. Then we will find that Maoism made up for a lot of poverty. Countries starting in a similar position as China's did not do as well as China after 27 years of Maoism, because Maoism was indeed superior.

In this post we will make use of facts from a bourgeois, anti- Mao book by Martin Whyte and William Parish. The facts generally collected by the World Bank show that Maoism's accomplishments were so great that China's masses had better social services than countries several times richer on a per capita income basis.

In 1979, China's infant mortality was 49 per 1,000 live births, compared with 48 for countries averaged in the "middle income" category. It also compared with 134 for India in the "low income" category that China was in. (Urban Life in Contemporary China,(Chicago,IL: University of Chicago Press, 1984), p. 63) The bourgeois scholars found that free market societies with China's level of income were vastly inferior in this regard and China came out on top.

The life expectancy story was the same. It was 68 in China, 60 in the "middle income" countries and 50 in the "low income" (Talk about violence--50 is 73.5% of 68. If a poor country does not have Maoist revolution, you can count a quarter of its population dead.) capitalist countries averaged together.

In earlier posts we showed readers that China started behind India in income and life expectancy and surged ahead under Mao, which is not to say that China ever left the "low income" category in Mao's mere 27 years of rule. When it comes to population per Western doctor, population per secondary doctor (like barefoot doctors) and population per hospital bed, China outdid the average of both the "middle income" capitalist countries and "low income" capitalist countries. Only the most advanced free-market, capitalist countries did better than China on average when it came to health care issues. These are exceptions in the world, not the majority of capitalist countries or countries with more free market than China. (Ibid.) Only by making the unfair comparison of China with very rich countries, countries that were much richer than China even before Maoism took power, only then could you make the distorted conclusion that Maoism was not a good strategy for health care in the Third World.

The same is true when it comes to education. China surpassed the averages of "middle income" countries in the world only because it had the Maoist strategy. Adult literacy was 70% in China, 71% in "middle income countries" and 38% in the average of "low income countries." China surpassed both the middle and low income country averages in primary school enrollment, secondary school enrollment and pupil-teacher ratios. (Urban Life in Contemporary China, p. 60) (It had lower pupil-teacher ratios.)

Even in Maoist China's weakest area--housing--China surpassed the average of the developing countries in rooms per house, smallest number of people per room, electricity and piped water available. (Ibid., p. 78)

We realize that all these gains, especially in health care and enrollments, started to erode under Hua Guofeng/Deng Xiaoping capitalist-restoration. We don't support what happened after the arrest of the Gang of Four.

In conclusion, capitalism is an international sweepstakes. A handful of countries that have been exploiting other countries for a long time are rich and getting richer. The vast majority of countries like China in 1949 are poor. If you live in a Third World country, you should definitely support Maoism, because Maoism brings better health care, education and housing in a very short period of time. We won't claim it brings industrialization in a mere 27 years, but no system does, especially in a world where the imperialists take the precious surplus and resources from the poor countries.