What If The Great Leap Forward Never Occurred?

The Actual History

The Great Leap Forward (1958-1962) was a socioeconomic campaign launched by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) under Chairman Mao Zedong's leadership. Following the First Five-Year Plan (1953-1957), which had established a Soviet-style centralized economic system, Mao sought to rapidly transform China from an agrarian economy into an industrialized communist society through rapid collectivization and industrialization.

The campaign began in 1958 with several key components. First was the establishment of people's communes, which consolidated the earlier agricultural cooperatives into massive communes averaging 5,000 households each. Private property was abolished, and communal living was enforced, with collective dining halls replacing family meals. The second component was a massive push for rural industrialization, epitomized by the infamous "backyard steel furnaces" campaign, where peasants were ordered to produce steel in small, homemade furnaces. Unrealistic production targets were set: Mao called for China to surpass Britain in steel production within 15 years.

The implementation was characterized by extreme coercion, fanaticism, and fabricated statistics. Local officials, fearing punishment for failing to meet impossible quotas, reported fictitious harvest numbers. These exaggerated figures led higher authorities to requisition grain based on these inflated numbers, leaving peasants with insufficient food. Meanwhile, millions of agricultural workers had been diverted to industrial production or massive construction projects, further reducing farm output.

The results were catastrophic. Between 1959 and 1962, China experienced the largest famine in recorded human history. Scholarly estimates of the death toll range from 15 to 55 million people, with most historians accepting a figure of 30-45 million deaths from starvation and related causes. Beyond the immediate human tragedy, the Great Leap Forward severely damaged China's economy, environment, and social fabric.

By late 1960, the failure was becoming apparent even to the Communist leadership. In early 1962, at the "Seven Thousand Cadres Conference," Liu Shaoqi, then China's head of state, called the famine "three parts natural disaster, seven parts human error." Mao was forced to retreat from his radical policies, allowing economic adjustments led by Liu Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping, and Chen Yun. Agricultural communes were scaled down, private plots were restored, and industrial targets were made more realistic.

However, Mao's response to this criticism was to launch the Socialist Education Movement in 1963 and ultimately the Cultural Revolution in 1966, which targeted many of those who had criticized the Great Leap Forward. The disaster of the Great Leap Forward also created lasting divides within the CCP leadership, contributing to the political turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s. The experience influenced later Chinese leaders, particularly Deng Xiaoping, who would eventually steer China toward market-oriented reforms after Mao's death in 1976, famously declaring that "it doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice."

The Great Leap Forward stands as one of history's most devastating economic policy failures, demonstrating the human cost of ideological extremism, personality cults, and disregard for economic reality and human welfare in favor of revolutionary zeal.

The Point of Divergence

What if the Great Leap Forward never occurred? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where Mao Zedong either chose or was persuaded to continue China's more moderate and pragmatic economic development path rather than launching the radical Great Leap Forward campaign in 1958.

Several plausible divergence points could have prevented the Great Leap Forward:

First, Mao might have been more receptive to the "opposing rightist" voices within the CCP leadership. In our timeline, at the 1957 Moscow Conference, Mao was emboldened by Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev's claim that the Soviet Union would surpass US steel production, inspiring his own radical leap. If Mao had instead been more influenced by pragmatic leaders like Chen Yun or Zhou Enlai, who favored balanced development, he might have continued with a modified version of the Soviet-style planned economy that had shown moderate success during the First Five-Year Plan.

Alternatively, if the Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957 had been less severe or avoided altogether, economic experts might have retained enough influence to counter Mao's more radical ideas. Economists like Sun Yefang and statisticians who understood the impossibility of Mao's production targets could have provided a necessary check on unrealistic planning.

A third possibility involves international relations. If the Sino-Soviet split had occurred earlier and more definitively, Mao might have been forced toward pragmatism rather than trying to outdo the Soviets with an even more radical form of communism. Or conversely, if relations with the USSR had remained stronger, Soviet advisors might have dissuaded Mao from departing so dramatically from orthodox Soviet economic models.

The most likely scenario combines several factors: At the crucial Nanning Conference (January 1958) and Chengdu Conference (March 1958), where Mao consolidated support for the Great Leap Forward, key figures like Liu Shaoqi, Zhou Enlai, and Chen Yun successfully argue for continuing the more balanced approach of the First Five-Year Plan with only moderate adjustments. Rather than being intimidated into supporting Mao's radical vision, they effectively advocate for agricultural mechanization before full collectivization and prioritize sustainable industrial development over impossible production targets.

In this alternate timeline, China continues with a modified Second Five-Year Plan focused on gradual industrialization, agricultural improvement, and sustainable growth rates without the disastrous communes, backyard furnaces, and fabricated statistics that characterized the Great Leap Forward.

Immediate Aftermath

Continued Economic Development (1958-1962)

In the absence of the Great Leap Forward, China's modified Second Five-Year Plan would have continued the economic progress achieved during the First Five-Year Plan (1953-1957), which had seen average annual industrial growth of 18% and agricultural growth of about 4.5%.

Under this alternate path, China would likely have maintained a Soviet-style centralized planning model, but with greater emphasis on balanced development between agriculture and industry. The People's Communes would not have been established, or would have been implemented on a much smaller, experimental scale. Instead, the existing Agricultural Producers' Cooperatives would have been gradually consolidated and mechanized, maintaining family units as the basic economic structure in rural areas.

Industrial development would have proceeded more steadily, focusing on building genuine industrial capacity rather than the illusory "achievements" of the backyard furnaces. The 156 major industrial projects started with Soviet assistance during the First Five-Year Plan would have been completed, creating a more solid foundation for China's industrial base.

Most critically, without the disruption of agricultural production and the excessive grain procurement that characterized the Great Leap Forward, China would have avoided the catastrophic famine of 1959-1962. The lives of 30-45 million people would have been spared, maintaining China's human capital and preventing the incalculable suffering that occurred in our timeline.

Political Stability and Leadership Dynamics (1958-1964)

The avoidance of the Great Leap Forward would have significantly altered CCP internal politics. Without the disastrous failure of his signature policy, Mao would not have been forced to retreat from day-to-day administration in 1962 as he was in our timeline. The "Seven Thousand Cadres Conference" that marked Mao's temporary eclipse within the party would never have occurred.

However, tensions would still have existed within the leadership. The fundamental divide between Mao's revolutionary idealism and the pragmatism of leaders like Liu Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping, and Chen Yun would have persisted, though it might have played out differently.

Several key developments might have unfolded:

Modified Power Structure: Without the Great Leap Forward's failure undermining his position, Mao would have maintained stronger day-to-day control over economic policy. However, the success of a more moderate approach might have strengthened the hand of pragmatists within the party.
Reduced Sino-Soviet Tensions: The Great Leap Forward was one factor that accelerated the Sino-Soviet split, as it represented China's rejection of the Soviet development model. Without this radical departure, relations might have cooled more gradually, potentially preserving Soviet technical assistance for longer and reducing China's diplomatic isolation.
Different Path to the Cultural Revolution: Without the humiliation of the Great Leap Forward's failure, Mao might not have felt the same urgent need to reassert his authority through the Cultural Revolution. If a Cultural Revolution-type movement still emerged, it might have come later and taken a different form, perhaps focusing more on ideological purity than on revenge against those who had criticized Mao's economic policies.

Social and Cultural Developments (1958-1964)

The social landscape of China would have evolved quite differently without the Great Leap Forward:

Preserved Rural Social Structures: The traditional family unit in rural China would not have been disrupted by the communal living experiments of the Great Leap Forward. Communal dining halls would not have replaced family meals, and the basic social fabric of village life would have remained more intact.
Gradual Urbanization: Without the chaotic industrial drives of the Great Leap Forward, urbanization would have proceeded more organically, driven by genuine industrial development rather than politically motivated campaigns.
Education and Intellectual Life: The Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957 had already damaged intellectual freedom in China, but without the Great Leap Forward's failures necessitating even more rigid ideological control, there might have been slightly more space for technical and economic debate within acceptable Marxist-Leninist parameters.
Public Health Improvements: One of the few positive aspects of the Great Leap Forward was its emphasis on public health campaigns and basic medical care in rural areas. In our alternate timeline, similar public health initiatives might still have been implemented, but without the counteracting negative effects of famine and social disruption, leading to more substantial improvements in health outcomes.

By 1964, this alternate China would have been poorer than the Western world but would have avoided the catastrophic setback of the Great Leap Forward. With its human capital intact and a more balanced development approach, it would have been positioned for more sustainable growth in the decades ahead, though still facing significant challenges as a developing communist state during the Cold War.

Long-term Impact

Economic Trajectory (1965-1985)

Without the Great Leap Forward, China's economic development would have followed a substantially different path through the critical decades of the late 20th century.

Modified Cultural Revolution or Its Absence

If some version of the Cultural Revolution still occurred, it would likely have been less extreme and potentially shorter in duration without the backdrop of the Great Leap Forward's failure. In a scenario where the Cultural Revolution was significantly moderated or avoided entirely, China could have experienced 25+ years of relatively consistent economic development from 1958 to the mid-1980s.

Under this trajectory, China might have evolved along lines somewhat similar to the Soviet Union's economic path during the same period—experiencing steady but gradually slowing growth under a centralized planning system. Without the economic chaos of the Great Leap Forward and a potentially milder Cultural Revolution, Chinese GDP per capita by 1976 (the year of Mao's death in our timeline) might have been 30-50% higher than it actually was.

Earlier and More Gradual Reforms

The most significant economic divergence would likely have occurred following Mao's death (whenever that happened in this timeline). Without the traumatic experience of the Great Leap Forward famine, post-Mao leaders might not have felt the same urgent need to fundamentally reform the economic system. The stark lesson from our timeline—that ideologically-driven economic policies could lead to disaster—would have been less vividly imprinted on the collective memory of China's leadership.

However, by the late 1970s, the limitations of Soviet-style planned economies were becoming apparent worldwide. In this alternate timeline, China might have begun implementing reforms similar to those of Deng Xiaoping, but perhaps:

Starting slightly earlier, without needing to overcome the chaos left by the Cultural Revolution
Proceeding more gradually and cautiously without the stark example of the Great Leap Forward showing the dangers of ideological extremism
Following a path more similar to Hungary's "goulash communism" or the Soviet Union's limited reforms under Kosygin, rather than the dramatic opening that occurred under Deng

By 1985, this alternate China would likely have had a higher per capita income than our timeline's China, but might not have yet implemented the full range of market-oriented reforms that transformed China in our world. The absence of the Great Leap Forward's trauma might have led to more incremental changes to the planned economy rather than the more fundamental shifts that Deng Xiaoping implemented.

Demographic and Social Impact (1965-Present)

Population Dynamics

Without the estimated 30-45 million deaths caused by the Great Leap Forward, China's population trajectory would have been significantly different. By 2025, China's population would likely be 70-100 million larger than in our timeline, accounting for the immediate lives saved and their descendants over three generations.

This larger population would have created different pressures and opportunities:

The One-Child Policy, implemented in 1979-1980 in our timeline, might have been introduced earlier or in a more stringent form to address population growth concerns
Alternatively, with greater economic development, birth rates might have declined more naturally through improved education and urbanization
China's current demographic challenges of an aging population would likely still exist but might have been balanced by the larger overall population base

Social Structure and Inequality

The Great Leap Forward disproportionately affected rural populations, with death rates in some rural provinces reaching 15-20% while urban areas were relatively protected. Without this disaster:

Rural-urban inequality might have been less pronounced in the initial decades
The devastation of rural social networks and knowledge transfer between generations would have been avoided
Traditional rural practices and cultural knowledge might have been better preserved

However, as economic development proceeded, patterns of inequality similar to those in other developing countries would likely have emerged, though perhaps without some of the extreme rural-urban divides characteristic of contemporary China.

Political Evolution (1976-Present)

CCP Legitimacy and Governance

In our timeline, the Communist Party's post-Mao legitimacy has been built substantially on economic performance and improving living standards, partly as a response to the failures of ideologically-driven campaigns like the Great Leap Forward. In this alternate timeline:

The CCP might have retained more of its ideological legitimacy longer without the stark demonstration of ideology's potential human costs
Economic performance would still have grown in importance as a source of legitimacy, but perhaps with less urgency
The balance between "red" (ideologically correct) and "expert" (technically competent) in government might have tilted toward "red" for longer without the clear lesson of the Great Leap Forward's ideological excesses

International Relations and China's Global Position

China's international position would have evolved differently:

The Sino-Soviet split might have been less severe or occurred later without the Great Leap Forward as an accelerating factor
The strategic triangle between China, the Soviet Union, and the United States might have developed differently, potentially delaying China's opening to the West
Without the Great Leap Forward demonstrating the failures of Maoist economics, China might have maintained a more prominent position as an alternative model of socialism to the Soviet version, potentially influencing other developing nations differently

By 2025, this alternate China would likely still be a major global power, but one that had followed a more evolutionary rather than revolutionary economic path. Its political system might be more similar to its current form, but with different justifications and possibly slightly more ideological elements preserved without the stark lesson of the Great Leap Forward's failure.

Technological and Environmental Developments

Scientific and Technological Progress

Without the disruptive effects of the Great Leap Forward and potentially a milder Cultural Revolution, China's scientific and technological development might have proceeded more steadily:

The scientific community would have suffered less disruption and might have maintained better international connections
Basic research capabilities might have developed earlier and more consistently
However, without the dramatic opening and reform of the 1980s in our timeline, the massive technology transfer and adaptation that characterized China's recent development might have proceeded more gradually

Environmental Impact

The environmental consequences would have been mixed:

The ecological damage caused by the Great Leap Forward's deforestation (for backyard furnaces) and ill-conceived agricultural practices would have been avoided
A more steady industrialization might have incorporated environmental considerations earlier, though likely still subordinating them to development goals
A larger population would have created greater resource demands, potentially accelerating some forms of environmental degradation

By 2025, this alternate China might have a slightly different environmental profile—having avoided some of the worst excesses of the Mao era but potentially experiencing more consistent pressure from a larger population and possibly earlier, more extensive industrialization.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Frank Dikötter, Chair Professor of Humanities at the University of Hong Kong and author of "Mao's Great Famine," offers this perspective: "The absence of the Great Leap Forward would have spared tens of millions of lives and prevented incalculable suffering, representing one of the most significant humanitarian improvements imaginable in modern history. However, we shouldn't assume that Communist China would have necessarily liberalized more quickly without this disaster. In fact, without the clear demonstration of the catastrophic potential of ideologically-driven economic policies, the pragmatic reforms championed by Deng Xiaoping might have faced stronger resistance from party ideologues. The tragedy of history is that sometimes progress requires learning from terrible mistakes."

Dr. Li Zhisui, former personal physician to Chairman Mao (speaking in a hypothetical interview before his death in 1995), offers this perspective: "Chairman Mao was fundamentally a revolutionary, not an administrator. Without the Great Leap Forward, he might have found other outlets for his revolutionary vision. I observed that Mao became increasingly isolated from reality as he aged, surrounded by yes-men who reinforced his beliefs. Even without the Great Leap Forward, this tendency likely would have manifested in some form of mass campaign. However, it's possible that without the failure of the Great Leap Forward pushing him further away from day-to-day governance, Mao might have remained more engaged with practical realities, potentially moderating his later tendencies toward ideological extremism."

Professor Rana Mitter, Professor of the History and Politics of Modern China at the University of Oxford, offers this perspective: "A China without the Great Leap Forward would still have faced fundamental tensions between competing visions of development—rapid versus balanced growth, ideological purity versus pragmatic effectiveness, and mass mobilization versus technical expertise. These tensions were inherent to the revolutionary state created in 1949. What would have been different is the human capital preserved—tens of millions of lives spared, including potentially significant numbers of skilled workers, intellectuals, and culturally knowledgeable rural elders who perished in the famine. This preserved human capital might have provided China with additional resources for development over the subsequent decades, potentially accelerating certain aspects of its modernization while still navigating the constraints of a planned economy and authoritarian political system."