The Dropout Tide Of The Agricultural Cooperation In China

At the beginning of the founding of the Republic, the movement of agricultural cooperation was a profound social change in the countryside. Great changes took place in the rural areas. Historically, this transformation had achievements and on the other hand, some mistakes were made. How to draw a lesson from the transformation, and then to instruct current rural development appears quite important. The later period of the movement of the cooperative dropout tide is worth study. With the aid of the historical synthesis analytic method and other relevant theories, this article primarily explores the social reasons, carries out the historical explanation to this special phenomenon at the beginning of the founding of the Republic, and probes into the unrest social motive and the reality enlightenment.As a great social transformation, the movement of Chinese agricultural cooperative was successful. But in the later period of the movement, the tempest way of collectivization brought setback to China's countryside and caused some farmers to lose confidence in the movement to organize cooperatives. At that time the cooperative dropout tide of farmers in some areas was an important manifestation. From 1956, around the fall harvest many places in China started to appear the phenomenon of cooperative disturbance and cooperative dropout, then they formed a tide and spread very quickly to the Agricultural Producers' Cooperatives all over the country. Although the unrest was not the mainstream of the cooperative climax, it involved the wide scope. Almost every province appeared the phenomena of different size of cooperative dropout, moreover, a few local cooperatives even collapsed. The differences were very big as far as the number of the agricultural cooperatives, the member of cooperative dropout and its behavior performances were concerned.There are some reasons for this phenomenon. Firstly, after 1955 the movement of agricultural cooperative developed excessively quickly, which caused some farmers unable to adapt themselves to the cooperative life-style. In most places, where the speed of constructing cooperatives was quite fast and the scale of cooperatives was generally very large, which led to the serious separation from the actual production environment. Productive relations, which changed excessively quickly, surmounted people's level of understanding and receptivity. The farmers were unable to understand fully the superiority of socialism. Therefore their enthusiasm to run cooperatives suffered great setbacks. Secondly, along with the sharp growth of agricultural cooperatives, some cooperatives management was chaotic, in addition to the serious bureaucracy on all levels of cadres. All these made the farmers dissatisfaction surge upward. At that time the shortage of production tool, technology and funds was the prominent difficult problems for the cooperatives. And the insufficiency of leaders then increased the difficulties. The serious bureaucracy caused the farmers in many places to be compelled to join the cooperatives rather than voluntarily. Thirdly, with the occurrence of the problem of production and management, some farmers'income reduced and their living standard dropped. This was the most direct reason for farmers'dropout. Actually, whether the high-level cooperatives were successful or not, or whether they could be consolidated, lied in whether they could increase the production and the income of farmers. The main hope of farmers'requests to transfer to the advanced agricultural producers' cooperative was in this aspect. On the other hand, certain farmers'biggest worries to transfer to the advanced agricultural producers' cooperative were also in this aspect. In 1956, quite a lot of cooperatives had few increase of production and income, or did not have the increase of production and income, even the production and income reduced. As the matter stands, the desire of some well-off peasants of"increasing the family fortunes and becoming rich"was disillusioned. Therefore, the dropout of cooperatives became the ideal choice of some farmers.The cooperative dropout caused the movement of agricultural cooperation in some places to suffer the setback .It affected the agricultural production, which had damaged the image of cooperatives. The dropout also initiated the contradiction of cadres and masses, which harmed the prestige of our party and government."Left"deviation multiplied within the Party.The lesson and the enlightenment which the dropout tide left behind to us are profound: it is a basic principle that to transform the countryside productive relations, we have to follow the law that productive relations must adapt themselves to the productive forces. Each of the transforms surmounting productive forces level will encounter the historical elimination. Besides, the countryside reform must respect the farmers' wish, enhance democracy, and prevent coercion and commandism. Also farmer's hardships must be cared about in the process of countryside reform and construction,whose goal lies in raising the farmer living standard. Lastly, to transform the small peasant economy is a long-term arduous duty.