The Great Leap Forward (1958–1962) marked a dramatic attempt by Mao Zedong to transform China’s agrarian economy into a socialist society through rapid industrialisation and collectivisation.

The Great Leap Forward: A Radical Break with the Past

Origins and Ideological Foundations

The Great Leap Forward (GLF) was launched in 1958 as part of Mao’s ambition to overtake Western industrial powers within a few decades. Rooted in Maoist ideology, it emphasised mass mobilisation, self-reliance, and the transformative power of the peasantry rather than reliance on technical expertise or foreign models. Mao believed that “man’s will could conquer nature,” and that revolutionary enthusiasm could compensate for material and technical deficiencies.

The campaign was also shaped by domestic political factors. After the successes of the First Five-Year Plan (1953–1957), Mao sought to accelerate growth and reduce dependence on the Soviet Union, whose model he saw as overly bureaucratic. The GLF aimed to demonstrate the superiority of Chinese socialism and assert Mao’s leadership within the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

Organisation of Agriculture: The People’s Communes

Collectivisation Intensified

The cornerstone of the GLF was the creation of People’s Communes.

By 1958, 740,000 agricultural cooperatives were merged into about 26,000 communes, reorganising the countryside into self-sufficient units that would pool labour and resources. Communes abolished private plots, replacing individual farming with collective labour. They also aimed to integrate agriculture and light industry, such as backyard iron smelting, to achieve Mao’s vision of rural industrialisation.

Consequences of Communalisation

The commune system disrupted traditional agricultural practices:

• Private incentives disappeared, reducing productivity as peasants had little reason to work harder.

• Work points replaced wages, rewarding collective labour but often distributed unfairly.

• Local cadres exaggerated production figures to please superiors, leading to inflated state grain requisitions.

• Grain was exported or diverted to cities, leaving rural populations short of food.

The combination of poor planning, natural disasters (notably droughts and floods), and state over-extraction of grain led to the Great Famine (1959–1962), in which an estimated 20–30 million people died.

Industrial Policy: Backyard Furnaces and Steel Targets

Rapid Industrialisation Drive

Industrialisation was the second major pillar of the GLF. Mao rejected reliance on urban-based heavy industry and instead encouraged “walking on two legs” — simultaneously developing heavy industry and small-scale rural production. The most notorious policy was the establishment of backyard furnaces, where peasants were instructed to produce steel locally.

A period photograph of backyard ‘soil blast furnaces’ in Henan (1958), emblematic of the GLF’s push to boost steel output through mass mobilisation in the countryside. The low-quality pig iron and labour diversion this entailed mirrored the quantity-over-quality problem noted in the campaign. The image precisely illustrates the policy mechanism discussed in the text. Source

• By late 1958, over 100 million people were engaged in steel production.

• The quality of steel was often poor, and the diversion of labour from farming exacerbated food shortages.

• Large infrastructure projects (dams, irrigation schemes, roads) were launched, but many were poorly planned and constructed, leading to inefficiency and environmental damage.

The industrial output initially appeared to rise, but much of it was unusable. The obsession with quantity over quality undermined real industrial growth.

Retreat and Reassessment: 1961–1965

Leadership Shifts and Policy Reversal

The catastrophic consequences of the GLF led to a crisis within the CCP. Mao faced criticism from more pragmatic leaders like Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping, who assumed greater control of policy from 1959 onwards. Liu famously described the famine as “30% natural disaster, 70% human error.”

Reforms were introduced to reverse the excesses of the GLF:

• Communes were scaled back, and some private plots were reinstated to boost food production.

• The state grain procurement system was relaxed to reduce pressure on rural communities.

• Emphasis shifted from ideological zeal to economic pragmatism and expert planning.

This period, often called the “Three Red Banners” retreat, saw a partial recovery of agricultural output and a stabilisation of the economy.

Later Maoist Policy: From Recovery to Cultural Revolution

Socialist Education Movement and the Push Against “Capitalist Roaders”

By the mid-1960s, Mao grew concerned that China was drifting away from his revolutionary ideals under more moderate leadership. He launched the Socialist Education Movement (1963–1965) to reassert ideological purity and combat what he saw as the rise of a “new bourgeoisie” within the party.

This laid the groundwork for the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976), a political and social campaign designed to revive revolutionary fervour, purge perceived enemies, and restore Mao’s dominance. It profoundly affected the economy and society, disrupting education, production, and governance.

Economic Strategy After the Great Leap Forward

Balancing Ideology and Pragmatism

Although Mao never renounced the goals of the GLF, subsequent economic policies attempted to balance ideological ambition with practical needs:

• Agricultural reforms focused on improving yields with better techniques and limited use of incentives.

• Industrial policy prioritised key sectors (steel, coal, machinery) under central plans but avoided the chaotic decentralisation of the GLF.

• Self-reliance remained a guiding principle, especially after the Sino-Soviet split (1960), which cut off Soviet aid and technology.

A museum photograph of a propaganda poster promoting “Learn from Dazhai in agriculture,” a hallmark of later Maoist rural policy that valorised collective effort, terracing, and endurance. It visualises the ideological continuity from the GLF’s mobilising ethos to subsequent campaigns. Note: as a museum display, the image includes framing and gallery context beyond syllabus essentials. Source

By the late 1960s, China’s economy had largely stabilised, but growth remained uneven and constrained by ideological campaigns and political upheaval.

Long-Term Consequences of the Great Leap Forward

The GLF had profound and lasting effects on China’s economy, politics, and society:

• Agricultural production declined dramatically, leading to famine and rural devastation.

• Trust in Mao’s leadership weakened, though he retained ultimate authority.

• Policy-making shifted temporarily toward pragmatism, with figures like Liu and Deng emphasising recovery over ideology.

• The disaster highlighted the dangers of overcentralisation, falsified data, and mass mobilisation without expertise.

• Later Maoist policies, including the Cultural Revolution, reflected Mao’s attempt to reassert revolutionary control in the wake of the GLF’s failure.

The Great Leap Forward stands as a pivotal moment in modern Chinese history. Its ambitious aims to reshape agriculture and industry through mass mobilisation and ideological fervour resulted in human catastrophe and economic collapse. Yet, its legacy influenced subsequent Maoist policies and debates over the balance between revolutionary zeal and economic pragmatism that continued to shape China until Mao’s death in 1976.