because the Great Leap Forward was ideologically driven and an eco-
nomic disaster; the latter because leaders in Southeast Asia were still
fearful of Chinese intentions, given Beijing’s continuing support for
revolutionary movements.
Complications and setbacks
The Great Leap Forward can only be understood in the context of
Marxism–Leninist ideology, flavoured with a powerful dash of Mao
Zedong thought. Ideologically driven, it sought to telescope the tran-
sition to a socialist mode of production in order to move directly to
communism with the least possible delay. This, it was believed, would
catapult the Chinese economy ahead of capitalist economies by
releasing communism’s greater productive potential. Not only was
this theoretically naïve, but it relied to an impossible extent upon
Maoist voluntarism. Agricultural communes were formed at a time
when decentralised industry was absorbing an inordinate amount of
labour. The result was plummeting production and an appalling
famine in which tens of millions died. The Great Leap Forward set
the Chinese economy back a decade and, with it, Chinese dreams of
building influence in Asia, though it would take time for this lesson
to sink in.
Nowhere did the Great Leap Forward encounter more doubt and
hostility than in Moscow. An ideological gulf had been growing
between China and the Soviet Union ever since Nikita Khrushchev’s
denunciation of Stalin in 1956. Thereafter, while the Soviet Union
sought détentewith the West, Chinese rhetoric became more radical.
By 1960, the Russians were becoming increasingly annoyed at contin-
uing Chinese criticism, and the decision was taken to terminate Soviet
economic aid, including vital assistance for China’s nuclear program.
This was a devastating blow for Beijing, and one the Chinese never
forgave. Not only did the Soviet action set back Chinese recovery after
A Short History of China and Southeast Asia