Do you think that the retreating Communists' policy to pay for goods they wanted during the Long March was a good idea?Do you think that the retreating Communists' policy to pay for goods they...

Do you think that the retreating Communists' policy to pay for goods they wanted during the Long March was a good idea?

Do you think that the retreating Communists' policy to pay for goods they wanted during the Long March was a good idea?

Asked on by magnotta

5 Answers | Add Yours

litteacher8's profile pic

litteacher8 | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

It's an example of compromise. It is good to have ideals, but you can't eat ideals. In order to avoid the last poster's charge of hypocrisy, they might have found a way to produce what they needed without resorting to compromise. It depends n how important it is to the people. Sometimes it's worse to cling futilely to a plan that won't work.
enotechris's profile pic

enotechris | College Teacher | (Level 2) Senior Educator

Posted on

For Communists to propose and adhere to a policy of purchasing goods and services seems to be their ultimate hypocrisy. Far afield from "Each according to his ability; each according to his needs,"  they embraced certain Western economic principles that granted a certain reverence between supplier and consumer, but which still today strangely remain long-maligned world-wide.

 

 

brettd's profile pic

brettd | High School Teacher | (Level 2) Educator Emeritus

Posted on

It was a peoples' army, made up almost exclusively of the Chinese peasantry.  It only made sense, both practically and philosophically, that every effort would be made to maintain the support of the people in any way possible.  It also made it clear, rightly or wrongly, that the communists were fighting "for the people", and this was a pretty powerful message among a population that had suffered greatly at the hands of warlords and dictators.

accessteacher's profile pic

accessteacher | High School Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

As others have pointed out, it was a very smart move of the Communists to pay for goods. They recognised that their weakened position meant that they needed the goodwill of the people. If they had to face the opposition in addition to a disgruntled populace from which they were robbing, it could have been a very different story.

amy-lepore's profile pic

amy-lepore | High School Teacher | (Level 1) Educator Emeritus

Posted on

Yes.  Any time there is war, there is discontent and malice.  People don't really need much reason to channel that malice toward the government when they are hungry, cold, improperly housed and clothed.  If the troops had stolen or seized the goods they needed instead of paying the people from them, there would have been war on two fronts--at home and abroad.

We’ve answered 318,915 questions. We can answer yours, too.

Ask a question