It’s certainly true that mistakes in work and management exaggerated the impacts of natural disaster.

If you’ve lived in the countryside, you must understand that a natural disaster cannot drag on for four years.

again, similar to the 1930s soviet famine

It was just the 1933–34 season—a single season. Yes, there were miscalculations at the local level as well; much depended on the collective farm chairman and how he handled the problems. One collective farm might get by just fine in '33, while right next door, people in another were dying of starvation. People began fleeing the starving farms for the ones that weren't starving—and that, too, became a problem. The issue wasn't systemic, but rather structural or localized. Under such harsh conditions, many leaders simply couldn't cope with their responsibilities.

I had two grandmothers—my own flesh and blood—with whom I spoke back then. One grandmother was from the Kyiv region; they didn't go hungry in '33 because they owned a cow. My other grandmother was from the Kursk region—the area where the Ukrainians recently advanced. People did go hungry there, but it wasn't a mortal famine. Both of my grandfathers perished in the summer of 1941. After the war, my father arrived in the city barefoot because he had no shoes. He got a job at a factory as a rigger. Decades later, he was wearing a suit and tie, putting on a fresh shirt every day; he held a PhD... and served as the factory's Chief Engineer.

When I spoke to you about raising a generation of young people—that is the kind of generation we need to raise: a generation like my father's.

Ultimately, however, Perestroika began; science became something nobody needed anymore, and my father found himself out of work. As it turned out, he didn't know how to trade.

My point is this: in exchange for the fact that my ancestors went hungry on the collective farms in the 1930s, their children—the children of destitute and starving peasants—lived the high life for the rest of their days... right up until Perestroika. It was a generous recompense for their suffering and starvation. None of it was in vain!

The outcome of the famines is a positive rather than a negative one—namely, that new reforms and shake-ups are once again needed in their wake.

But alright, have it your way: Mao... tried... to do something similar.

private ownership under socialism is not capitalism.

Private property and the means of production are two different kinds of property. I hope Dialectics will overcome this obstacle.

And I agree with you that China has a unique government system, unlike any other in the world.

The struggle and unity of opposites. When class struggle rages, socialism is being built; when the struggle ceases, communism begins.

But we mustn't forget, as Stalin would probably say in my place, the NEP is a swamp: the further you go, the deeper you sink, and the harder it is to get out.

However, you’re giving Mao practically none of the credit for overseeing the same tumultuous period Stalin oversaw

I fully give Mao his due for having governed during the same era that Lenin did. Furthermore—with the assistance of the USSR—Mao laid the foundation for the China of the future. However, those things he attempted to accomplish on his own—or believed he could accomplish single-handedly—did not turn out particularly well.

For Reference:

Under Mao Zedong, the foundations of heavy industry were established in China. While the exact number of small-scale enterprises (specifically, backyard furnaces) ran into the hundreds of thousands, there were 154 major industrial facilities of primary importance. These were constructed during the 1950s with active technological and financial support from the USSR.

Soviet Assistance (1950s): The USSR transferred technology to China and built 154 major industrial enterprises from the ground up. These included giants such as the First Automobile Works (FAW) in Changchun, metallurgical complexes in Anshan and Wuhan, as well as aircraft and machine-building plants.

The "Great Leap Forward" Campaign (1958–1960): Mao Zedong attempted to accelerate industrialization using artisanal methods. Approximately 600,000 small, makeshift blast furnaces for smelting steel were constructed across the country. The attempt failed: the resulting steel was of poor quality, and the campaign triggered a massive economic crisis and famine.

The "Third Front" Program (1960s): Following the rupture in relations with the USSR, China began constructing military, heavy industrial, and machine-building plants in the country's interior—specifically in the mountainous and hard-to-reach western provinces—in preparation for a potential war. Several hundred such facilities were erected, although their economic efficiency proved to be extremely low.

Now, pay particular attention to the years 1958–1960. This was precisely when Mao began "hunting sparrows," scapegoating them as the cause of all the nation's failures. In reality, the true culprit was the disastrous failure of his project involving the backyard blast furnaces operated by the peasantry. I spoke about this earlier.

Now, just judge for yourself: how much simpler it would have been to simply turn to Soviet specialists—who, at the time, were world leaders in steel production—rather than embarking on that monstrous gamble, which ultimately led to the starvation of the peasantry.

How do you assess such a decision coming from a man who was the leader of a vast nation? I call it a reckless decision! He didn't want to invest money in large-scale industrial enterprises—the way Stalin did over the course of a decade; he wanted to achieve it faster, and solely at the expense of the peasants.

Just think about how absurd that sounds: becoming the world leader in steel production on the backs of the peasants.

How does that even make sense, Comrade? There is only one explanation: Mao confused steel with rice cakes.

We had a similar "corn tycoon" of our own... Khrushchev, who thought the U.S. had built its wealth on corn... the moron!

And mind you, I’m not drawing my data from books by modern Russian authors; I’m drawing it from old Soviet films.

If you could actually understand what is being said in them, your ears would shrivel up, and all your dialectical musings would hit a brick wall. This is a subject you know absolutely nothing about.

But I won't translate it for you—I wouldn't want to kill the poet inside you.

https://youtu.be/Ny28m_9TSDM

Most importantly, the man narrating the clip states that he created this film for one specific reason.

He is a writer, and he had a falling-out with his colleagues—fellow socialist writers from the GDR and France.

Do you know why they fell out?

Now, take a deep breath, Comrade.

Because he argues that the socialism practiced in China isn't real socialism...

I’m not making any assertions here myself; I’m simply showing you archival footage from the 1970s.

Neither Mao nor Stalin were perfect.

I completely agree with you.