注意：此題目原是DSE歷屆試題，但為免侵犯版權，題目經過修改，同學可以按試題之年份及題號自行查閱原題目。以下內容乃K.W.Ho之補習教材，於課堂教授，內容乃配合K.W.Ho之答題方法及風格所製作，同時內容可能有錯誤之處以供在課堂上糾正。非補習學生在未有得到課堂教學的情況下錯誤使用，恕不負責，同學請敬請留意。
【Free】6000頁筆記及60份5**考卷免費使用：按此
Youtube教學：按此
_________________________________________________________________________
原題目題號：DSE-2016-Essay-02
「大躍進(1958-60年)和改革開放(1978-2000年)以不同的計劃內容達致相同的目標。」評論此說能否成立。
定義 大躍進(1958-60年)和改革開放(1978-2000年)均希望將中國打造成一個現代化國家，從封建、落後的環境走向先進、文明。 // 立場然而，兩次的努力卻有著截然不同的計劃，故題目所言確能成立。 // 架構以下，將從政治、經濟及外交方面討論。
主旨句 政治上，大躍進和改革開放均希望把中國打造成一個社會主義現代化國家。 // 目標(項目A) 大躍進方面，大躍進的總路線中清楚將「力爭上游，多快好省地建設社會主義」設為目標。// 目標(項目B) 至於改革開放時期，鄧小平亦強調中國正處於「社會主義初級階段」，需要用上百年時間才年把中國變為一社會主義國家。 // 小結可見，大躍進和改革開放的政治目標均希望是將中國變成為社會主義國家。
主旨句 為了實現上述目標，大躍進和改革開放實行了不同的計劃。 // 計劃內容(項目A) 大躍進希望透過提高集體化和公有化程度以令中國蛻變成為社會主義國家，例如在集體化方面，「人民公社」遍地開花，超過99%民眾已加入人民公社，並且設「生產隊」進行集體化生產：公有化方面，所有財產收歸國有，廢除財產私有制，有助中國成為社會主義國家。 // 計劃內容(項目B) 相反，改革開放是降低集體化和公有化程度。因鄧小平強調貧窮不是社會主義，其主張先讓經濟發展起來，再逐步實現中國社會主義現代化，故其允許財產私有制，同時廢止人民公社，並實行「家庭聯產承包責任制」(1979年)，准許農民個體化生產，以振興經濟發展從而推動中國成為社會主義國家。 // 對比(~20%) 相比之下，儘管大躍進和改革開放均希望將中國打造成一個社會主義國家，但大躍進急於求成，希望短期內提高集體化和公有化程度以實現，而改革開放則是訂立長遠目標，透過降低集體化和公有化程度以刺激經濟發展，從而按步就班地實現，可見兩次努力是殊途同歸。
經濟上，大躍進和改革開放同樣希望推動中國經濟發展，以實現現代化。大躍進方面，大躍進希望解決中國經濟落後的問題，提高工、農業的生產，例如在工業方面要求鋼產量在15年內「超英趕美」，短期內亦要求1958年的鋼產量較1957年的「翻一翻」。改革開放方面，改革開放訂立明確的經濟目標，要求1990年的國民生產總值比1980年翻一番，解決人民的溫飽問題；2000年再較1990年翻一番，達到小康水平；至2050年達到中等發達國家的水平。可見，大躍進和改革開放均希望推動中國經濟發展，目標相同。
為了實現上述目標，大躍進和改革開放進行了不同的計劃。大躍進的計劃是希望透過國內的自給自足工程，以群眾力量實行工業大躍進、農業大躍進，集體共同努力進行煉鋼及農業生產以推動經濟的發展。在工業方面，毛澤東號召「全民大煉鋼」，多達9000萬人共同參與土法煉鋼，以提高鋼產量；農業方面，中共鼓勵農民深耕密植，發展出「衛星田」。然而，改革開放的計劃則是逐步開放中國，例如於1980年正式在深圳、珠海、汕頭及廈門建立四大經濟特區，及後又陸續於1992年開放30多個長江沿岸和邊境城市，增加與外國的貿易，從而發展經濟。相比之下，大躍進是封閉的國內改革，依靠群眾力量以建設中國經濟，但改革開放則是開放的改革計劃，透過借助外國資金，再充分運用國內人力和資源以刺激經濟發展，可見兩次努力是以不同的計劃達致一樣的目標。
外交上，大躍進和改革開放均希望提高中國外交地位，以實現外交現代化。大躍進方面，由於一五計劃時期中國過於依賴蘇聯進行改革，故在大躍進時期，中國希望擺脫蘇聯的影響力，從而達致外交自主，提高外交地位。至於改革開放，中國經歷了達十年的文化大革命後，與大多國家關係交惡，包括與南韓、印度等，外交陷於孤立，故改革開放亦希望改善中、外關係，以提高中國外交地位，重返國際舞台。可見，大躍進和改革開放均希望提高中國外交地位。
為了實現外交地位提高的目標，大躍進和改革開放進行了不同的計劃。大躍進方面，大躍進減低了對蘇聯的依賴，在大躍進的大綱內，許多項目均以是獨立進行的國內項目，包括進行低技術的土法煉鋼，減低對蘇聯的技術依賴，從而希望增加中國在外交上的自主權，提高外交地位。相反，改革開放是計劃增加中國與外國的交流及接觸，從而提高外交地位，包括開放更多的港口和外國進行貿易，例如廣州、上海等。同時，中共實行多邊外交政策，一方面改善與資本主義國家關係，包括先後與美國、南韓及印度等多個國家重新建交，另一方面積極增加與非洲等第三世界國家的關係，令中國在外交上的影響力日愈提高。相比之下，儘管大躍進和改革開放均希望提高中國外交地位以實現現代化，但大躍進是透過減少對其他國家的依賴，藉此加強自主性，但改革開放則是增加與其他國家的接觸，從而加強影響力，可見兩段時期的目標雖然一樣，但計劃就截然不同。
總括而言，雖然大躍進和改革開放均希望為中國帶來蛻變，使中國走向現代化，但兩次努力的內容均有著極大的差別。因此，題目所言能夠成立。
‘The Great Leap Forward (1958-60) and the Reform and Opening Up (1978-2000) had different programmes to achieve similar aims.’ Comment on the validity of this statement.
The Great Leap Forward (1958-60) and the Reform and Opening Up (1978-2000) had the same goal of modernizing China and guiding it out of feudalism and backwardness towards advancement and civilization, but with completely different programmes. The statement concerned is therefore valid and this essay is going to discuss it in political, economic and diplomatic aspects.
Politically, both movements aimed at making China a socialist modernized country. As for the Great Leap Forward, the General Line for Socialist Construction clearly put down its goal as ‘aiming high and achieving greater, faster, better, and more economical results in building socialism力爭上游，多快好省地建設社會主義’. During the Reform and Opening Up period, Deng Xiaoping also emphasized that China was still in the ‘primary stage of socialism社會主義初級階段’ and it would take more than a hundred years to transform the country into a socialist one. Therefore, both movements had the same political goal of turning China into a socialist country.
To achieve the above goal, dissimilar programmes were implemented in the two movements. In the Great Leap Forward, the levels of collectivization and public ownership were raised in order to transform China into a socialist country. In terms of collectivization集體化, for example, the People’s Communes人民公社 were widely established and more than 99% of the people joined, within whom production teams生產隊were formed, for collectivized production. In terms of public ownership公有化, expropriating all properties for public use and abolishing private ownership helped make China a socialist country. On the contrary, the Reform and Opening Up was to reduce the levels of collectivization and public ownership because Deng believed poverty was not socialism and he proposed economic development should be put before socialist modernization. Therefore, there came permission of private ownership, abolishment of the People’s Communes and introduction of the Household Responsibility System家庭聯產承包責任制(1979), which allowed peasants to have individualized production, in order to boost China’s economic development and contribute to its socialist transformation. Relatively speaking, both movements aimed at developing China into a socialist country, but the Great Leap Forward sought quick success by increasing the levels of collectivization and public ownership rapidly, while the Reform and Opening Up had long-term goals and these levels were reduced to stimulate economic development and fulfill its objective step by step. It can be concluded that the two movements had different means for the same result.
Economically, both movements were intended to promote China’s economic development for the sake of modernization. Speaking of the Great Leap Forward, its intention was to deal with the economic backwardness of China by boosting industrial and agricultural production. In industrial aspect, for example, there were clear goals that the country’s steel output should ‘overtake Britain and catch up with the US超英趕美’ in fifteen years and, for the short term, the steel output in 1958 should double that of 1957. Concerning the Reform and Opening Up, there were also explicit economic goals that China’s GNP in 1990 should double that of 1980 to settle the people’s basic needs, the GNP in 2000 should again double that of 1990 to attain moderate prosperity, and the GNP in 2050 should reach a level close to that of certain developed countries. It is therefore understood that both movements had the same objective of promoting China’s economic development.
To achieve the above goal, different programmes were adopted in the two movements. The plan for the Great Leap Forward was to work on self-sufficiency and realize the Great Leap Forward in industry and agriculture with the power of the masses. Collective efforts were made regarding steel and agricultural production for the purpose of economic development. As for industry, Mao started the nationwide steel production campaign全民大煉鋼, under which more than 90 million people participated in steel refinement by indigenous methods土法煉鋼, to increase steel output; as for agriculture, the Party encouraged peasants to ‘plough deep and plant close深耕密植’ and developed ‘satellite farms衛星田’. Contrastively, the plan for the Reform and Opening Up was to open China up gradually. For example, four special economic zones經濟特區 were established in Shenzhen, Zhuhai, Shantou and Xiamen in 1980, and after that more than 30 cities along Yangtze River and China’s state border were opened up to facilitate foreign trade and, subsequently, economic development. Comparatively speaking, where the Great Leap Forward was an exclusive domestic reform where the power of the masses was employed to build China’s economy, the Reform and Opening Up was an inclusive reform programme which relied on foreign capital, together with manpower and resources within the nation, to stimulate economic development. Therefore, the two efforts achieved the same goal with different programmes.
Diplomatically, both movements were intended to improve China’s diplomatic status so as to achieve modernization in this aspect. Concerning the Great Leap Forward, in view of its over-reliance on the Soviet Union during the First Five-Year Plan, China was eager to get rid of Soviet influence and achieve diplomatic autonomy and higher international status. As for the Reform and Opening Up, China, after the ten-year Cultural Revolution, had bad relations with most countries, including South Korea and India, and suffered diplomatic isolation. The reform was therefore aimed at improving China’s foreign relations in order to enhance its diplomatic status and make a comeback to the international community. It is therefore understood that both movements were intended to improve the country’s diplomatic status.
For the goal of improving diplomatic status, different programmes were adopted during the two movements. As for the Great Leap Forward, the movement reduced China’s reliance on the Soviet Union. Projects under the movement were mostly domestic and executed independently, exemplified by steel refinement by indigenous methods土法煉鋼 that required low skills. This was to reduce the country’s reliance on Soviet technical support so as to enhance its diplomatic autonomy and international status. On the contrary, the Reform and Opening Up was intended to increase China’s interactions and connections with the outside in order to raise its diplomatic status. Its efforts included further opening its port cities up and trading with other countries. Meanwhile, multilateral diplomatic policy was adopted not only to improve China’s relationship with capitalist nations by resuming diplomatic relations with countries like the US, South Korea and India, but also to seek connections with third-world countries like those in Africa. China could therefore have greater influence over international affairs. Relatively speaking, both movements were intended to modernize China by boosting its diplomatic status, but the Great Leap Forward was to reduce its reliance on other countries and achieve greater autonomy, while the Reform and Opening Up was to increase connections with other countries and raise its diplomatic influence. It is clear that in the two periods there were similar goals but different programmes.
To conclude, although both movements were attempts to bring transformation and modernization to China, there were significant differences in their contents. The statement concerned is therefore proven valid.
Comments