162

p V. I. Akimov (USSR)

p When considering the substance of the so-called handicraft industry, one must emphasise that there is no consensus among scientists in defining the concept. The handicraft industry seems to mean chiefly small-commodity industrial production based on manual labour, where the producer owns some means of production in the form of private property, takes part in the work himself and sells his product to the consumer either himself or through a middleman. The handicraft commodity producer has his own workshop, where he works alone or with his family, employs a limited number of workers (assistants) or has several apprentices. Handicraftsmen, i.e., commodity producers working for the market, are closely linked with artisans, producing goods for custom. In the PRC the socio-economic distinctions between handicraftsmen and artisans have virtually disappeared.

p Some handicraftsmen are professionals, for whom production for sale is the sole or major source of livelihood, whereas others are basically farmers engaged in manufacture in their spare time. Thus, the individual handicraftsman or artisan is the leading figure in the handicraft industry (or, to be more precise, handicraft-artisan production). There is almost no division of labour in the workshops of individual handicraftsmen and artisans. Their production is poorly equipped and, being largely based on manual labour, it has a low productivity (3 to 5 per cent of that at the large enterprises), often turning out low-quality goods.

p The State Administrative Council’s decision of August 4, 1950 on the definition of classes in the countryside said that 163 to be classed as handicraftsman, a producer had to employ workers or apprentices only for auxiliary and subsidiary work, and do the basic work himself. These petty individual handicraftsmen were usually commodity producers employing no more than three hired workers or apprentices.

p Up to the massive 1956 co-operation campaign in the handicrafts, the category of individual handicraftsmen had a very uneven socio-economic complexion. It comprised the following groups, each subdivided into several other small groups: handicraftsmen who independently produced and sold their output; those who got their raw materials from state, co-operative or private enterprises and fulfilled their orders; those who sold their products and labour-power; handicraftsmen (or, more precisely, artisans) who processed raw materials, produced various goods and carried out repairs for private customers; itinerant handicraftsmen, who went from place to place in search of work. Thus, data for Heilungkiang Province show that in 1954 handicraftsmen who sold their wares and labour-power made up the largest group (44 per cent), followed by those who produced and sold their output independently (20 per cent).^^1^^

p Apart from the professionals, there was a large group of peasant handicraftsmen, who differed from the former in that farming was their main line and the handicrafts—an auxiliary. In contrast to the cottage trades, the peasant handicrafts produced goods for the market. In 1954, the peasant handicrafts accounted for about 27 per cent of total output in the individual handicraft industry.^^2^^

p Besides individual handicraftsmen, there was also a group known as capitalist handicraftsmen, whose enterprises were included in the system of capitalist industry. It often happened, however, that owners of workshops employing four or five wage-workers (like the owners of smithies) were also included in some categories of individual handicraftsmen. The criterion for distinguishing between individual and capitalist handicraftsmen was whether the owner took a personal part in the labour process. Capitalist handicraftsmen, who had large means of production, ruthlessly exploited their workers and apprentices. In 1953, China had more than 100,000 private industrial enterprises employing from four to ten wage-workers.

164

p In 1949, the individual handicraft industry employed 5.77 million, in 1952—7.14 million^^3^^ and in 1954—7.7 million’^^1^^. The co-operation campaign started in 1955 sharply decreased the number of individual handicraftsmen to only 544,000 in 1956.^^5^^ Still, in the years that followed, individual handicraftsmen continued to exist. Moreover, according to the Chinese and Western press, the “cultural revolution" gave fresh scope to private enterprise, individual handicraftsmen and artisans in particular. It is most likely that at the time their overall numbers increased as compared with 1956-57.

p After 1949, the individual handicraft industry reached a peak in 1954, when its gross product, including that of the peasant handicraftsmen, totalled 9,300 million yuans, which was 22 per cent above the highest prerevolutionary level. In 1954, its share in the gross industrial output was almost 18 per cent, and it numbered 3.33 million production units (workshops or establishments), averaging 2.3 employees and an annual output of some 1,000 yuans per person. Most handicraft workshops did not employ any wage-workers.

p In China, the handicraft industry includes the cottage trades, which are often closely connected with subsistence farming, and also individual small-commodity industry, small manufactories, and industrial co-operation, notably, some large and fairly well-equipped enterprises.

p Up to 1956, the handicraft industry in the PRC was largely made up of individual enterprises, and after 1955, of co-operative enterprises. It seems that producer (trades) cooperatives, or at any rate most of these (like enterprises with more than 100 employees, several dozen machine-tools, drives and other production equipment) should not be ranked among handicraft enterprises in the traditional sense of the word.

p Up to 1958, the handicraft industry had a specialised system of administration, organisation of production and distribution and independent supply-and-marketing agencies. During the “great leap forward" the system was largely disrupted to the detriment of national economic interests, but was restored in the “ordering” period. By the start of the “cultural revolution”, nationwide administration of the handicraft industry was carried on by the Second Ministry of the Light Industry, established early in 1965.

165

In the PRC’s early years, the main problem of the handicraft industry was its rehabilitation, since that was of vital importance for the overall improvement of the national economy and economic stabilisation. Bearing in mind the handicraft industry’s important role, the PRC Government made vigorous use of it in the effort to rehabilitate the economy. The first co-operative associations were established in the handicraft industry in 1949-50. The First National Conference on co-operation in handicraft production in June 1951 adopted draft Rules for Handicraft Co-operatives, defined their main goals and purposes and carried the decision to establish such co-operatives in the countryside, as well as in the towns.

Table 1 Growth of the Co-operative Sector in the Handicraft Industry in 1949-53* Year Number of co-operative units Membership (thous) Gross output (mill) 1949 311 88.9 15 1950 1,321 260 40 1951 1,066 139.6 134.4 1952 3,658 227.8 255.1 * Chao Yih-wen, Industry in the New China, p. 154.

p In 1951, there was a drop in the number of co-operatives and their membership (Table 1), which occurred upon the elimination of pseudo co-operatives, which had in fact provided a front for capitalist enterprises; the break-up or dissolution of co-operatives set up to eliminate urban unemployment; and the break-up of economically unviable units (as a result of their mottled make-up, poor organisation or inadequate material and technical basis).

p On the whole, co-operation in the handicrafts was just starting in 1949-52, for it required certain experience and also a testing of the various forms of co-operative association. It was necessary to make creative use of the experience of the USSR and other socialist countries, adapting it to 166 China’s specific conditions. In 1952, co-operation involved only 3.1 per cent of all handicraftsmen and artisans.^^6^^

p In 1953, the PRC launched its First Five-Year Plan for the development of the national economy which was a major stage in realising the goals of the transition period and socialist construction in the PRC. One of its basic targets was to “establish a primary basis for the socialist transformation of agriculture and the handicraft industry by developing agricultural producer co-operatives, based on partial collective property and handicraft producer co-operatives".^^7^^

p Over the five years (1953-57), gross production in the handicrafts was to go up by 60.9 per cent (from 7,310 million yuans in 1952 to 11,770 million in 1957), notably, in its un-co-operated sector—from 7,060 million to 7,220 million yuans. Gross production in the co-operated handicrafts was to go up 18-fold (to 4,550 million yuans in 1957), notably, 12.9-fold (up to 3,190 million yuans) in the producer co-operatives. By 1957, the membership of handicraft co-operatives was to go up to 2.1 million.

p The draft of the First Five-Year Plan emphasised that handicraftsmen should be involved in co-operation gradually, through persuasion, visual example and state assistance, and that co-operation should be voluntary, gradually moving from lower to higher forms.

p The Third National Conference of Workers in Handicraft Producer Co-operation (December 1953) played an important role in the spread of co-operation among handicraftsmen and artisans. It summed up the experience in co-operation over the preceding years and, on the basis of the CPC’s general line for the transition period, laid down various new measures. It also determined the three main forms of co-operation among handicraftsmen and artisans: supply-and-marketing producer groups (producer), supply-and-marketing producer co-operatives and producer co-operatives.

p From 1953 onwards, the state markedly increased its assistance to co-operation in the handicrafts, granting credits to co-operative associations throughout the country and concluding with them contracts for the processing of raw materials and production of goods. A resolute effort was made to prevent the establishment of pseudo-co-operatives and the 167 emergence and development of elements of capitalist exploitation within the co-operatives.

p In November 1954, a Central Board for the Handicraft Industry was set up under the PRC’s State Council so as further to strengthen the administration of co-operation in the handicrafts. A month later, the Fourth National Conference of Workers in Handicraft Producer Co-operation elected a preparatory committee for a National Union of Industrial Co-operation in the Handicrafts. At that time, a network of provincial, city and local administrative organs for the handicraft industry and industrial co-operation unions was established throughout the country.

The state’s correct policy and its assistance to co-operation, and also the visual advantages of co-operation helped to achieve a rapid increase in the number of co-operatives, their membership and gross annual production. Here are some figures for co-operation in the handicrafts:^^8^^

Number of co-operative units (thous) . Membership (thous) . Share of co-operated handicraftsmen in total (per cent) . . Gross output in handicraft industry (mill yuans)...... 1953 1954 [1955 (end of June) 5.78 301.5 41.6 1,213 over 50 1,460 3.9 13.6 over 16 506.4 1,169.4

p The figures are vivid proof of the successes in co-operation from January 1953 to June 1955.

p Despite the successes in co-operation, the handicraft industry also had various shortcomings, the most important of these being the fairly large number of spontaneous associations only some of which could be transformed into industrial co-operation units. Complicated paper-work prevented many handicraftsmen from joining industrial co-operatives.

p In 1953-54 and in 1955-57, co-operation in the handicrafts assumed three basic forms: handicraft producer groups, supply-and-marketing co-operatives and handicraft producer co-operatives. Producer groups were the lowest form of co-operation among individual handicraftsmen, since the 168 means of production remained in private hands. These groups included foremen and owners of small workshops and also heads of families, all of whom retained complete economic independence, getting together only to organise rawmaterial supplies and marketing, and to fulfil production orders from state or co-operative organisations. Having received their share of the order and raw materials, the foremen, owners of workshops and heads of families, together with members of their families, apprentices and assistants, worked on their own.

p The supply-and-marketing co-operative was a higher form of co-operative organisation, uniting individual handicraftsmen or producer groups for joint raw-material supply or marketing of goods. Overhead expenses in the supply-andmarketing co-operatives were covered mainly from social funds made up of regular dues and deductions from profits. In some supply-and-marketing co-operatives all involved were considered full and equal members, while in others only the foremen, owners of workshops and heads of families were such members.

p The higher-type producer co-operative was the highest form of union among individual handicraftsmen. All those working in it were considered members, all the means of production were held as collective property and all income was shared according to work. In joining the co-operative, the shareholders paid initiation dues and share contributions, which depended on the concrete conditions (the handicraftsman’s material well-being, the needs of the co-operative, the region). The share usually amounted to a member’s monthly earnings. Co-operatives in the services were often established without any share contribution. The general meeting was the highest ruling body, which elected a board and an auditing committee.

p Higher-type producer co-operatives established complete equality between all their members on the basis of socialisation of all the means of production, so creating favourable conditions for the improved organisation through deeper production specialisation and a more rational use of its members in the various production sectors.

p From the spring of 1955 onwards, there were increasing attempts to step up co-operation first in farming and then 169 in the handicrafts. These attempts were initiated by Mao Tse-tung. In his report on “Questions of Co-operation in Agriculture”, delivered at the conference of the secretaries of provincial, city and regional committees of the CPC on July 31, 1955, Mao Tse-tung came down on the Party workers who took a consistent stand for the basic principles of cooperation and came out in well-justified opposition to runaway co-operation. The Sixth (enlarged) Plenary Session of the Seventh CPC Central Committee in October 1955 in effect confirmed Mao Tse-tung’s main propositions set out on July 31, 1955 and adopted a decision to speed up cooperation.

p On December 27, 1955, Mao Tse-tung wrote in his Preface to a collection entitled Socialist Upsurge in China’s Countryside: “The socialist transformation of China’s handicrafts and capitalist industry and commerce should be speeded up.” The Fifth National Conference of Workers in Handicraft Co-operation, held in Peking in December 1955, concentrated on the working out of a plan for stepped-up co-operation in the spring of 1956. In the latter half of 1955, co-operation in the handicrafts sharply increased. Thus, in the first six months of 1955, about 9,000 co-operative associations were established throughout the country, whereas in the next six months the figure doubled to about 18,000, with membership increasing from about 250,000 in the first half to almost 750,000 in the second.

p In 1955 (for the first time since 1949), there was a drop in handicraft production (to 3.2 per cent below the 1954 level). The drop was largely due to the overhasty co-operation in the latter half of 1955. There was also the negative effect of the shrinking number of handicraftsmen, which in 1955 was down by 700,000, or 8 per cent as compared with 1954. This was due to their transfer to state enterprises, and also to the co-operation of agriculture^^9^^ (handicraft trades were not encouraged in many farming co-operatives).

p From the beginning of 1956, a crash campaign for sectoral co-operation among individual handicraftsmen was launched throughout the country. In January 1956 alone, the membership nearly doubled.^^10^^ By mid-1956, co-operatives involved about 90 per cent of the country’s handicraftsmen.^^11^^ So, the Mao group ignored one of the basic principles of 170 co-operation, that of gradual and consistent transformation of the small-commodity economy, a principle that was at the basis of the time-scheme for co-operation under the First Five-Year Plan. The crash co-operation campaign in the first half of 1956 was chiefly aimed at setting up higher-type producer co-operatives with the socialisation of the means of production. In laying down their line, Mao Tse-tung and his adherents ignored the fact that the millions of individual handicraftsmen involved in the co-operatives were still ideologically unprepared for going over to the higher form of cooperation. In the course of the campaign many supply-andmarketing co-operatives and producer groups were transformed into producer co-operatives, although the co-operation practice in 1953-55 had proved the effectiveness of the former.

p In the course of the headlong co-operation drive, there were also some breaches of the principle of free will, as indicated by Mao Tse-tung’s own admission that in 1956 there had been strikes and disturbances throughout the country, among the members of producer co-operatives in particular.^^12^^

p The crash campaign for token co-operation among the small-commodity producers, including individual handicraftsmen, was an attempt to carry out social changes without the technical re-equipment of production which clashed with Lenin’s co-operative plan and the experience in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries.

p The hasty and often haphazard social change in the handicraft industry in 1956 and the gross violation of co-operation principles had a bad effect on the economy and the handicraft industry itself. Despite the good crop in 1955, production in the handicraft industry in 1956 was only 0.9 per cent above the 1954 level, increasing less than in any of the three years from 1951 to 1953. The number of handicraftsmen fell sharply: according to official Chinese data, in 1956 there were 1.6 million handicraftsmen less than in 1955^^13^^—a drop of almost 20 per cent. The bulk of the former handicraftsmen, living mostly in the countryside, joined farming producer co-operatives and stopped making handicraft products. Since farming already had a manpower surplus, the fresh influx did not have any marked effect on 171 agricultural production, whereas the drop in the number of handicraftsmen narrowed the industry’s production potentialities.

p The negative economic aftereffects of the much too rapid co-operation in the handicrafts were even discussed at the Eighth National Congress of the CPC, where speakers pointed out that co-operation in the handicrafts was marked by the undue haste and general use of a uniform method of profit-and-loss accounting which did not meet the actual needs of the co-operatives. As a result, there was a drop in quality and the range of goods produced in some sectors of the handicrafts. The urge to set up giant co-operatives among handicraftsmen providing everyday services created many inconveniences both for the population and the handicraftsmen themselves. The headlong co-operation campaign in agriculture harmed the peasants’ cottage trades,^^14^^ thus reducing production and the peasants’ earnings.

p In July 1956, the PRC’s State Council in an attempt to redress the mistakes in the course of co-operation, issued its special “Directives on some problems emerged in the course of socialist transformations in private industry and trade, the handicrafts and private transport”. These shortcomings were then discussed at the National Conference on Co-operation in the Handicraft Industry in August 1956. These developments began a campaign, continued throughout 1957, to eliminate the harmful effects of the hasty co-operation in the handicrafts. The state’s material assistance to cooperatives somewhat increased, the management of the industrial co-operation system and individual co-operative outfits was improved whereas giant producer co-operatives were broken down into smaller ones.

p Although these measures added some stability to the development of the co-operative industry, many problems were yet to be solved, for many co-operatives were poorly managed and organised. Figures published in late 1957 showed that only 30 per cent of the co-operatives had a firm economic basis, whereas 55 per cent had a relatively weak management and 15 per cent—an extremely weak management.

p In 1957, gross production in the handicrafts totalled 13,400 million yuans, i.e., 9.6 per cent of the aggregate production 172 in industry and farming, and 17 per cent of gross industrial production.^^15^^ The handicraft industry employed 6.5 million people, with more than 1 million of these engaged in fishing and salt production. The number of co-operative organisations topped 110,000, so that only 640,000 handicraftsmen remained outside. The First National Congress of Industrial Co-operation, held in early December 1957, adopted draft Rules for handicraft producer co-operatives, established a National Industrial Co-operation Union and adopted its Rules, and determined the tasks for the development of industrial co-operation in the second five-year period.

p In 1958, the Mao group allowed more gross distortions in the socio-economic field and made some blunders in industrialisation, all of which had a dire effect on the national economy as a whole and the handicrafts in particular. In May 1958, the Second Session of the Eighth National Congress of the CPC adopted “the three red banners" line. The PRC’s leadership decided to press forward with the country’s industrialisation, and to switch to “people’s communes" in agriculture.

p In its plans for “superindustrialisation”, the Peking leaders chiefly relied on the small-scale handicraft industry and backward, so-called traditional, production methods. In the “great leap forward" drive the handicrafts were developed to a very large extent. After 1957, the Maoist “theorists” put forward their “walk on both feet" line, which urged equal attention to large-scale modern industry and smaller-scale production. In practice, however, much more attention was often devoted to the backward small-scale handicraft industry than to large-scale modern industry, something that was well out of line with the Marxist-Leninist doctrine of socialist industrialisation. The Chinese leaders came to regard the handicrafts as the prime basis for the development of small-scale local industry, notably state and “people’s communes’ " industry, on which the “great leap forward" policy was made to rely.

p The handicrafts proper (i.e., the industrial co-operation system) were being intensively switched to the production of metal, simple equipment (with some unsuccessful attempts to put out relatively complex machinery), extraction of 173 fire-proofs and coke. Under the 1958 plan, which soon after its adoption was seen as being well understated, the handicrafts were to produce annually more than 1 million tons of pag iron, 200,000 tons of steel, 18,000 metal-cutting lathes, over 21,000 electric-driven machines and 8,300 drives.^^16^^ But, as on other occasions, during the “great leap forward" the plan turned out to be an empty one.

p In pursuing its “great leap forward" policy, the Maoist leadership destroyed most of the established sectoral structure in the handicraft industry, the bulk of which was switched to the production of the means of production, whereas previously it had mostly produced consumer goods. Vast numbers of handicraftsmen from various branches were involved in the smelting of pig iron and steel. In 1957, the production of coal and ferrous and non-ferrous metals involved about 60,000 handicraftsmen, whereas by the end of 1958 the figure was over 1 million, apart from the numerous rural handicraftsmen and members of the “people’s communes".^^17^^ These unwarranted manpower switches reduced the production of traditional goods (like household metal, porcelain and ceramic goods, bricks and tiling for housing construction, sugar, paper, and arts and crafts objects).

p The “three red banners" line had a very bad effect on the handicraft industry in view of the ill-conceived break-up of the industrial co-operation system. Much of it was converted into local state and “people’s communes’ " industry, while handicraft producer co-operatives were reorganised into the so-called co-operative plants and factories.

p A major purpose of the speedy reorganisation of handicraft producer co-operatives into state enterprises was to muster and make what the Maoists considered to be better use of all the means and resources in carrying out the Peking leaders’ adventurist schemes. On May 8, 1959, Jenmin jihpao wrote quite frankly: “Practice shows that co-operative enterprises in the handicraft industry are a very good basis for the development of local industry. By making use of their manpower, material and financial resources to develop local state enterprises, it is possible to achieve high construction rates and other indicative figures with fairly small inputs.” The paper also said that the development of production in 174 the handicraft producer co-operatives was being held back by the collective form of property, so that the state had to “enlarge and reorganise" these co-operatives.

p The reorganisation of producer co-operatives into state enterprises and industrial co-operation factories was started by way of experiment in the winter of 1957. In the spring of 1958, the process was markedly accelerated embracing the reorganisation of industrial co-operation enterprises into industrial enterprises under the rural “people’s communes”. Throughout 1958 this process continued on a wider scale. In May 1959, 37.8 per cent of the 5 million members of industrial co-operative outfits worked at state enterprises, 35.3 per cent—in the “people’s communes’ " industry, 13.6 per cent—at industrial co-operative plants (factories) and 13.3 per cent—in handicraft producer co-operatives.^^18^^

p Producer co-operation was in effect eliminated before it became strong enough. It was reflected in the abolition of its administrative system: the Central Board for the Handicraft Industry under the State Council and most of the provincial, city and district boards or departments were wound up. The National Union of Industrial Co-operation was deprived of its leading and organising role.

p Nominally, the newly established co-operative plants and factories had a very high degree of socialisation in production, taking over all the property of the producer co-operatives they were reorganised from. This property was managed by the surviving local or sectoral industrial co-operation unions. The members of the reformed industrial co-operative outfits were now being paid wages according to work like workers at state enterprises, and were in effect turned into workers and employees. Instead of a board, a chairman and his deputies and an auditing committee elected from among the co-operative’s members, a co-operative plant now had a director appointed by the industrial co-operation union.

p The overintensive reorganisation of a part of the co-operated industry into state industry (usually coupled with a change in the enterprises’ line of production) and into the poorly managed industry of the “people’s communes" led to disruptions in the supply and marketing network, which was 175 not very well established under the industrial co-operation system as it was. As a result, handicraft and artisan production was gravely undermined, its work was disorganised and its output considerably cut back. In late 1958 and the first half of 1959, China was faced with an acute shortage of many goods that had previously been produced by the handicraft industry. There was a noticeable deterioration in the everyday services system, and a sharp drop in the supply to agriculture of the simple implements of labour and transport facilities. The output of export products was reduced and their quality worsened.

p In view of the catastrophic worsening of the country’s economic situation and the scarcity of goods, the Chinese leaders had to devote more attention to farming and the light and handicraft industries. In June 1959, the CPC Central Committee met in urgent conference in Shanghai to consider the development of the handicraft industry and the supply of the urban population with so-called secondary foodstuffs. According to the Chinese press, it adopted a decision for an all-round rehabilitation and development of the handicraft industry, an increase in the range of its goods and an improvement of their quality. The decision specially emphasised that for years to come the handicraft industry would be an important part of the country’s national economy. In this way, the Shanghai conference in effect recognised that the old policy on the handicraft industry had been wrong and took steps to remedy the situation. Accordingly, from the latter half of 1959 there was an attempt to restore the handicraft industry. The handicraftsmen and artisans who had earlier been diverted to other sectors were now being switched back to the handicrafts. Many local state plants and factories that had been reorganised from industrial co-operation enterprises during the “great leap forward" were going back to the production of handicraft goods.

p The work to restore the handicraft industry continued throughout the economic “ordering period”. The Ninth Plenary Session of the Eighth CPC Central Committee in January 1961, which dealt with various urgent problems of improving the country’s economic situation, devoted particular attention to the handicrafts. It demanded that the 176 departments concerned should provide immediate assistance to the urban and rural handicraft industry and the cottage trades so as to ensure an all-round increase in the output of consumer goods and foodstuffs. The handicrafts were also discussed at the Third Session of the National People’s Assembly in March and April 1962.

p The then Chinese leaders had, apparently, realised that it was still too early to fold up handicraft production, and so put its restoration on the economic priorities list of the “ordering” period. From 1961 to 1963 the handicraft industry was being strengthened in economic and organisational terms. The former administrative system and structure of the handicraft industry as a specialised sector of the national economy was restored. In October 1961, the Central Board for the Handicraft Industry under the PRC’s State Council was re-established. Later, in early 1965, the Central Board was reorganised into the Second Ministry of the Light Industry.

p The role and significance of the National Union of Industrial Co-operation was being gradually restored. According to the Chinese press, sectoral unions were re-established everywhere so as to strengthen the management of industrial enterprises in the sector, and thus help bring about production increases, quality improvement and lower costs. The Second National Congress of Handicraft Co-operation held in Peking in October 1963 played a positive part in the rehabilitation of the industry. The PRC Government had to act to improve the material and technical supply of the handicraft industry and to provide it with financial assistance.

p There were also some marked changes in the policy of socio-economic transformation in the handicraft industry. According to the Chinese press, there was some recognition of the erroneous nature of the “great leap forward" practice, in the course of which many industrial co-operative enterprises were too rashly reorganised into state enterprises and co-operative plants. Interestingly, the editorial in Jenmin jihpao on March 2, 1962 said: “It would be inexpedient from the standpoint of production to demand excessive and much too rapid transition of the handicraft industry to the property of the whole people.”

177

p At that time, as at the end of the First Five-Year Plan, handicraft producer co-operatives became the main form of co-operation. There were also handicraft supply-and-marketing producer co-operatives and producer groups, and also industrial co-operation plants and factories and handicraft producer units in the rural people’s communes. In contrast to the “great leap forward" period, individuals were now allowed to go in for repairs and domestic crafts.

p The egalitarian wage system introduced during the “great leap forward" with a very negative effect on labour activity among handicraftsmen was now abolished in favour of piecerate, hour-and-bonus and share schemes.

p In other words, in the first half of the 1960s, China’s policy in respect of the handicrafts, their co-operation in particular, reverted to a point from which it had started before the “great leap forward”. This means that Chinese propaganda of the 1956-60 period had been too quick to claim successful completion of “socialist transformation" of the handicraft industry. Much complicated work still lay ahead to complete the socio-economic reorganisation of small-commodity production, including its transition to large-scale modern production and a radical remoulding of the small commodity producers’ mentality.

p The handicraft industry has a fairly important role in China’s economy. Since its modern industry has yet to reach a proper level, the handicraft industry is a major supplement to the light industry and some branches of the heavy industry. It does a great deal to provide the population, the peasants in particular, with consumer goods. In 1956, it produced 37 per cent of the consumer goods put out in the country, and employed 68 per cent of the labour power in the consumer sectors.^^19^^ In the first five-year period, the handicraft industry produced more than 20 per cent of the country’s cotton prints, 30 per cent of paper, 45 per cent of leather footwear (1956) and 47 per cent of porcelain and ceramic goods (1956). The only figure available since then was reported by the Chinese press in 1963. According to those reports, handicraft products accounted for 17 per cent of nationwide sales.^^20^^

p Fragmentary data in the “cultural revolution" period show that in 1967, 1968 and, possibly, 1969, the handicrafts played 178 a greater role in supplying the population with consumer goods because the “cultural revolution" had a much lesser impact on the handicrafts than on the large-scale industry. Disruptions in centralised supply and also the “self-reliance" line enhanced the role of the local industry, the handicrafts in particular, in satisfying local demand in manufactured goods.

p The repair of household articles and the services are largely handled by the handicraft industry, individual handicraftsmen and artisans above all. The handicrafts also provide farming with large quantities of simple implements and tools. In 1956 and 1957, they put out more than 430 million farming implements.^^21^^ Handicraft manufacture of simple implements increased to about 1,000 million in 1961 and 1962.^^22^^

p An extensive network for repairing simple farming implements and other tools is also being serviced by the handicraft industry. In 1964, for instance, 144,000 handicraftsmen in the towns and villages of Anhwei Province were engaged in such repairs,^^23^^ with 8,100 specialised repair shops in the countryside alone. In this way, the absence of a broad enough network of specialised modern repair shops and factories is to some extent being compensated by handicraft repair establishments.

p Handicraftsmen have also been producing considerable amounts of some means of production for industry, capital construction and transport. In 1957, they produced 6.5 million tons of coal, 77 tons of pig iron, 280,000 of sulphuric ore, 568 million square decimetres of light leather and 7,000 tons of heavy leather. From 1956 to 1967, they provided construction sites with 7,900 million bricks and tiles, 3.2 million tons of lime and 38,000 tons of steel sections. Handicraftsmen also produce various spare parts, components, mountings, fixtures, simple devices, castings, forgings and some chemical products. The handicrafts play a considerable role in the building of small chemical fertiliser plants, providing these with the necessary equipment. Handicraftsmen have even been involved in the electronics industry. One report said that in 1969 Shanghai had 20,000 handicraftsmen working in that sector.

p An analysis of the Chinese press shows that over the past 179 10 or 12 years the handicrafts have been doing more to service large-scale industry, supplying it with various raw materials, semi-manufactures, metal products. The Chinese leadership has vigorously encouraged this tendency. This practice, however, tends to gear the handicrafts to the largescale industry, to the detriment of the production of consumer goods and the everyday services.

p The handicrafts also produce goods for export (handicraft art objects, silk fabrics, paper, objects for religious rites and ritual) and so help to increase China’s export and foreigncurrency resources. Thus, from 1950 to 1956, China’s annual exports of handicraft art objects totalled over 330 million yuans. The foreign-currency receipts from these exports could be used to buy something like 1 million tons of rails in the world market. But the “great leap forward" and the “cultural revolution" gravely undermined the handicrafts’ export sectors.

p The handicrafts are also a source of accumulation for the needs of economic construction and military purposes. Chinese press reports said that in the first five-year period the handicrafts paid 2,000 million yuans’ worth of taxes, many times over and above the state’s material and financial support for the sector.

p China’s handicraft industry had a specific role as a source of employment and accumulation of a part of the country’s surplus manpower resources. Thus, in the first five-year period it had 7-9 million professional handicraftsmen and artisans and 15-20 million peasant handicraftsmen. On the whole, the handicrafts provided the means of livelihood for 60-70 million people (including handicraftsmen’s families), or more than 10 per cent of the country’s population. By the end of the 1950s, the “great leap forward" policy had reduced that number.

p By the mid-1960s, however, that number had gone up again to somewhere around the level of the end of the first five-year period. In 1963, for instance, the handicrafts employed about 20 million, 6 million of these as permanent and the rest as seasonal workers.^^24^^

The Chinese leaders regard the handicraft industry as a basis for establishing new industrial enterprises and strengthening the existing plant and factory industry. The “great 180 leap forward" policy assigned a special role to the handicraft industry. During the cultural revolution and over the past few years, the Chinese leaders have displayed a fresh interest in the development of small-scale production, the handicrafts in particular.

_ - _ - _

p ^^1^^ Estimated from A Survey of the Individual Handicraft Industry in the Country in 1954, Peking, 1957, p. 64.

p ^^2^^ Chao Yih-wen, The Industry of the New China, Moscow, 1959, p. 14 (in Russian).

p ^^3^^ Estimated from Jenmin jihpao. September 17, 1959; Chao Yih-wen, The Industry of the New China, p. 154.

p ^^4^^ Fu Shi-hsia, Socialist Transformation of China’s Handicraft Industry, Peking, 1956, p. 10.

p ^^5^^ ’Ten Glorious Years, Peking, 1959, p. 30.

p ^^6^^ Ibid., p. 30.

p ^^7^^ Second Session of the National People’s Council, Moscow 1956, p. 17.

p ^^8^^ Compiled from Ten Glorious Years, p. 30 and Chao Yih-wen, The Industry of the New China, p. 154.

p ^^9^^ Ten Glorious Years, pp. 16, 30.

p ^^10^^ By the end of January 1956, co-operative organisations involved about 50 per cent of all the country’s handicraftsmen, as compared with 27 per cent at the end of 1955.

p ^^11^^ Chih Lung, Further Development and Transformation of the Handicraft Industry in This Country, Shanghai, 1957, p. 5.

p ^^12^^ Mao Tse-tung, On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People, Peking, 1957, pp. 61-62.

p ^^13^^ See Ten Glorious Years, pp. 16, 30.

p ^^14^^ Eighth National Congress of the CPC, Moscow, 1956, pp. 304, 39 (in Russian).

p ^^15^^ Ten Glorious Years, pp. 14-15.

p ^^16^^ Hsiao Chium, Boosting Metallurgy and Engineering, Peking, 1958, pp. 13-14.

p ^^17^^ Takung fiao, October 4, 1958.

p ^^18^^ Jenmin jihpao, September 17, 1959.

p ^^19^^ Takung pao, December 24, 1957.

p ^^20^^ Jenmin jihpao, October 27, 1963.

p ^^21^^ Kungjen jihpao, July 18, 1959.

p ^^22^^ Jenmin jihpao, June 30, 1964.

p ^^23^^ Ibid.

^^24^^ Ibid., April 19, 1968.