---

---

Capitalists in 1949 effectively faced three choices: to follow the Nationalist government to Taiwan; to depart for Hong Kong or other destinations outside China, excluding Taiwan, although most countries, mainly in Europe and America, had strict immigration controls; or to remain on the mainland. Reliable data on the social composition or numbers choosing each option are unavailable, but certain patterns are plausible. A relatively small group of “comprador” or bureaucratic capitalists—those closely tied to the Nationalist state—likely opted for Taiwan. A larger cohort of “big capitalists,” seeking to distance themselves from both the GMD and the CCP, chose Hong Kong. Nevertheless, the majority remained on the mainland for a range of practical reasons, including the difficulty of relocating equipment overseas, the absence of overseas social networks, uncertainty about life in unfamiliar environments, and lack of support from family members. With the exception of the first group, which clearly understood itself to be an enemy of the Communists, most capitalists in the latter two categories had only limited knowledge of the CCP, though they were aware that Communist ideology was broadly hostile to their interests.
In January 1949, Mao informed his senior leadership that managing relations between the CCP and representatives of the capitalist class would constitute the regime’s most significant political challenge. The guiding principle, he emphasized, was strict adherence to class analysis:

"Whenever we write an article or a news report, the question of class standing is important. We shouldn’t forget it at any time. Any article that deals with the class problem is profound by definition; any article that is unclear on this question should be labelled shallow’"

In the standard official historiography, policy toward the private sector after 1949 has been summarized as a triad of “use” (liyong), “restriction” (xianzhi), and “transformation” (gaizao), a formulation widely adopted in Western scholarship. “Use” referred to employing the private economy as a means to promote overall economic development, while “restriction” signified confining its growth to a scope that would not threaten the leading position of the state sector. “Transformation,” understood as socialist transformation, denoted the gradual alteration of private ownership itself.
By contrast, more recent Chinese historical studies drawing on newly available materials indicate that prior to 1952–53, the officially sanctioned policy toward the private economy consisted only of “use” and “restriction.” The concept of “transformation” was formally introduced in 1953, and the revised policy was subsequently endorsed retrospectively as if it had been established in 1949.
The private business sector in the early PRC was characterized by its micro-scale. The vast majority of owners were small-scale operators rather than industrial titans. The distribution of 130.000 privately owned factories highlights this fragmentation. There were 90.000 factories which employed fewer than 10 people each and only 5.000 larger enterprises across the entire country which employed more than 50 people. Before 1949, the main industries focused on cotton textiles, food processing, paper manufacturing, and printing. Machine tools, metallurgy, mining, utilities were of minor importance.
Outside of manufacturing, the commercial sector was even more decentralized. Millions of small wholesale and retail merchants were scattered throughout China. Many of these individuals did not own storefronts at all, operating solely as individual peddlers. This widespread fragmentation presented a significant administrative challenge for the state, as it was far more difficult to regulate and tax millions of mobile peddlers and tiny workshops than a few large-scale industries. Because small firms were largely independent of one another, they were perceived as posing less of a threat to the new government than, for example, the large secret societies that existed among transport workers. Traditional trade associations therefore, provided a foundation on which the Party could begin to organize the small-enterprise sector. Cadre manpower, however, was severely limited, and the regulation of small businesses was both costly and a relatively low priority in the early post-Liberation period.
Yet as the new regime confronted declining production, contracting markets, widespread business closures and bankruptcies, and hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers, Mao began to criticize his comrades for having treated capitalists too rigidly as class enemies. In Tianjin, roughly two-thirds of capitalists ceased operations, with some relocating to other cities or leaving the country altogether. Mao and Liu Shaoqi learned that many departures were prompted by Communist encouragement of workers to seize capitalists’ personal property, leaving nearly 70 percent of capitalist enterprises in the city defunct.
Against this backdrop, Liu Shaoqi visited Tianjin and delivered a widely known and controversial speech intended to ease tensions between workers and capitalists. He urged workers to refrain from confiscating capitalist property, arguing that the moment was not yet ripe. At the same time, he reassured capitalists and explicitly encouraged them to continue exploiting labour, contending that without such exploitation factories could not operate and workers would lose their jobs. As Liu bluntly stated, “Today, capitalist exploitation is not a crime; on the contrary, it deserves credit.”
By 1949, China's market systems had long been dysfunctional. Therefore, most factory owners didn't ideologically or practically embrace or rejected the CCP's ideology. Their views were ambivalent, which was understandable given the recent chaos and uncertain future. This led to diverse attitudes among capitalists regarding a transition to socialism in China and their own businesses. Rather than the expected hardline resistance, this reflected a widespread ambivalence among China's "national capitalists" about the socialist future and their place in it. Chinese capitalism seemed to have failed by the late 1940s, and the Communist's socialist transformation may have offered a better solution for these struggling businesses.
Traditional accounts of the Chinese revolution often portray China's capitalists as "passive" or "submissive" in the face of the Communist Party. However, new research, drawing on richer archival resources, aims to create a more nuanced and human narrative. This research explores the diverse incentives and interests that led to varying processes and outcomes during this period.
The CCP's New Democracy policies, implemented immediately after they took power in 1949, initially seemed to extend the previous regime's efforts to restore private production and healthy markets. Even in 1951, Chen Yun advocated expansion of the private sector.

"To encourage the expansion of those privately owned industrial and commercial enterprises that benefit the national economy and help to improve the people's lives. This expansion will be useful not only in developing the new -democratic economy now, but also in building socialism in future. It would be wrong to fear it. "

However, it proved an unworkable compromise between state economic planning and the revival of private industry and commerce. Communist leaders tended to assume that capitalist development rested solely on the extraction of surplus value, failing to recognize the central relationship between market mechanisms and the growth of the private economy. Beyond private ownership, a functioning market is an indispensable component of capitalism. The Party thus attempted to “utilize” the private economy while severing it from the market structures on which it fundamentally depended.
The inherent problems of New Democracy's dual economy pushed party leaders to accelerate socialist planning and state administration, sooner than anticipated at the start of the First Five-Year Plan in 1953. As China's socialist planned economy developed in the mid-1950s, it became clear to both party leaders and business circles that maintaining private production in an increasingly socialist economy would be impossible—even though the private economy continued to grow in both relative and absolute terms between 1950 and 1953.
It's important to note that varying conditions produced different results and experiences. What held true for large-scale, modern industries in Shanghai might not have applied to smaller, decentralized producers even within the same city, let alone those in other cities, regions, and industries.

Socialist transformation involved a two-pronged approach: politically debasing the bourgeoisie while simultaneously leveraging their economic contributions. However, "bourgeoisie" was a politically ambiguous term given the vast diversity among China's millions of manufacturers and merchants, both large and small. The government promised to employ all staff from private management, aiming to utilize their skills and experience. Yet, at the same time, it labelled them as capitalists subject to class transformation. This created controversy, as official paternalistic measures failed to meet the diverse needs and expectations of these so-called capitalists. The arbitrary designation and stigmatization of bourgeois status were hardly welcomed by industrialists and businessmen.
In 1953, the CCP adopted the principle of peaceful redemption for private businesses. This compensation was never intended as a payment equal to value lost, but to confirm that the capitalists would retain their place within the category of the people and be included in the socialist project. This policy was influenced by Lenin's theory of state capitalism and the Soviet Union's New Economic Policy. It also aligned with Chinese nationalism and the urgent need to establish an independent and comprehensive industrial system. Globally, it was common for governments in developing nations to play a dominant role in economic resource integration and industrialization. This objective resonated with most Chinese industrialists and businessmen, many of whom actively participated in the debate and supported the national goal of industrialization. With their technical expertise and rich managerial experience, many entrepreneurs were eager to contribute to economic construction.
However, CCP policy toward these groups was also fundamentally instrumental. Politically, it sought to delegitimize and weaken the bourgeoisie, while economically it aimed to “win them over” in order to harness the technical knowledge, managerial expertise, and commercial skills of capitalists, as well as of democrats and intellectuals connected to them. This ostensibly revolutionary approach produced a narrow conceptual framework and a routinized practice of labelling, through which all those engaged in industry and commerce were indiscriminately classified as members of the “bourgeois camp.”

Figure 30.3 illustrates the shift in the share of total production value driven by state-led mechanisms (such as state orders, sales, purchases, and processing) versus independent private sector activities.

---

January 27, 1952, the Five Antis Campaign (Wufan) started as a companion to and largely merged with the Three Antis (Sanfan see Article 18) , creating the Three Antis–Five Antis. While the Three Antis was more about government officials, the Five Antis focused more on businesses. The Five Antis campaign targeted bribery, tax evasion, lax work discipline, embezzlement, and the theft of economic information. Mao articulated eight objectives for the campaign, many of which overlapped with those of the earlier Three Antis movement and further advanced the CCP’s penetration of urban society and regulation of city-based economic activity. These objectives included conducting thorough investigations into private industry and commerce, clearly defining the boundary between the working class and the bourgeoisie, rectifying the “five antis” while eliminating speculative practices, and establishing Party branches as well as strengthening Party work among workers and employees in large and medium-sized private enterprises.
The Five-Anti campaign was directed against the industrial and commercial bourgeoisie who were asserted to be responsible for the rapid spread of corruption in government. The Five-Antis campaign transcended mere bureaucratic problem-solving, instead creating a powerful symbolic contrast. It juxtaposed the unethical pursuit of private gain against actions that prioritized public and national interests. By classifying five distinct offenses together, the campaign forged a cohesive mental image with significant practical repercussions. On January 5, 1952, Zhou Enlai stated

"Where private enterprise benefits the national economy and people’s livelihood, it is allowed to develop; where it does not, it is forbidden. Key sectors affecting the national economy and people’s livelihood must be operated by the state. This is clearly laid out in the Common Program. Only under such conditions can China’s economic path proceed from New Democracy to socialism. Otherwise, unregulated capitalist development would revert China to a semi-colonial economy dominated by imperialism."

This grouping meant that relatively lesser wrongdoings, such as "bribery" and "stealing or cheating government property," were addressed with the same severity as more serious offenses like "stealing or cheating economic information." This symbolic linkage implied that a crime like bribery could be connected to an international or even counterrevolutionary context, justifying severe penalties, including the "deposition" of offenders.
To avoid such grave associations, many private companies opted for incorporation, or significantly donated or sold off their profits to the government, thereby transferring the means of production to the state. The remaining private enterprises subsequently became far more cautious and subdued in their approaches to profit-making, information gathering, risk-taking, and politicking. For instance, the incentive to trade with foreign or internally "suspect" partners were diminished, given the potential for such activities to be symbolically linked to "assisting others in stealing the nation's economic information."
The most frequent form of corruption in the private sector might be tax evasion. It followed the Three-Anti Campaign of 1951, which targeted CCP and state officials, and together they formed part of a broader movement to consolidate socialist control, suppress bourgeois influence, and discipline both the public and private sectors. The Five Antis Campaign in 1952 shouldn't be seen as a planned progression to socialism. Rather, it was an ad hoc effort designed to rectify issues in the New Democracy's dual economy and bring China's business community in line with the law, discarding the problematic business practices that had taken root during and after the Japanese occupation. Excessive government intervention in the economy often fuels political corruption. In the early years of the PRC, as regulations and control over the private economy tightened, it became more 'necessary' and profitable for capitalists to illicitly influence public power for personal gain. Businessmen commonly employed two tactics to secure their partners or agents within the bureaucracy: Pulling Over: This tactic involved corrupting government officials through bribes, lavish dinner parties, commissions, and even women. Sending In: This method focused on introducing their own people into public enterprises and government bodies. The Five-Anti campaign was overseen by the newly established Federation of Industry and Commerce, which all entrepreneurs had to join. The pursuit of political favour within the party catalysed a widespread campaign of denunciation. This initiative saw workers condemn not only entrepreneurs but also other members of the business community, with some extending accusations to family members perceived as potential traitors.
The profound societal impact of this campaign was evidenced by a dramatic increase in suicides, notably 644 reported in Shanghai over a two-month period. Furthermore, the financial penalties imposed served as a valuable resource for the Korean War effort, resulting in a budget surplus for 1952. Simultaneously signalling the systemic decline of the capitalist class in China. Furthermore, improvements in the tax-collection system bolstered the state's financial capacity.
The campaign wasn't just about the government demanding economic savings; it was also a powerful political education tool, aiming to mobilize ordinary people to eliminate perceived "evil" in their daily lives. A notable and unsettling aspect of the Five-Antis campaign in Shanghai was the Communist Youth League's extensive reporting of students exposing their parents' misconduct. These children, mostly ten years or older and often members or activists of the Communist Youth League or the Young Pioneers, saw their denunciations highly prized. In fact, their record of reporting others was a significant factor in the screening process for joining the Communist Youth League. The CCP issued several central directives during 1952 to guide the implementation, intensification, and conclusion of the "Five-Anti" campaign against bribery, tax evasion, theft of state assets, cheating on government contracts, and stealing state economic information. These directives reveal a dynamic and evolving policy, adjusting to practical outcomes and internal contradictions as the campaign progressed. The Five-Anti Campaign officially began in January 1952 and lasted through much of that year. Party leaders took measures to shield a small number of high-profile United Front figures from the violence unleashed by the mass movement. After receiving a letter from an old acquaintance alarmed by the house raids, Mao instructed Zhou Enlai to compile a list of senior members of the democratic parties who were to receive special protection. Although the premier’s intervention did little to curb the raids themselves, it was nevertheless significant as an effort by the Party leadership to confront and manage the movement’s more radical manifestations. Six phases can be noticed in the campaign.
1) Preparatory work. Mao Zedong and other CCP leaders discussed the need for a large-scale campaign targeting corruption and bourgeois elements in cities.
2) Official start in January 1952: The campaign was formally launched by the CCP Central Committee.  26-01-1952 Directive of the CC on First Launching the "Five-Anti" Campaign in Large and Medium Cities The main characteristics are:
● Mobilize mass organizations (unions, cadres, clerks)
● Emphasize “distinguishing enemy from friend”
● Encourage public reporting and active participation
●Stress 'strict struggle, lenient handling'"
● Strong mobilization and class-struggle tone
●Begins applying the mass line to capitalist management
●Heavy reliance on mass campaigns and political pressure, using fear and exposure to isolate capitalist offenders
3) The Spring to Summer 1952 period was an episode of intensification. It peaked with intense investigations, public denunciations, and legal actions against private business owners and officials. Party committees at all levels began investigations, mass denunciation meetings, and mobilization of workers. Many private business owners were accused of "economic crimes." However, despite its harshness, the Five Antis campaign did not fundamentally change how the Communist Party viewed the bourgeoisie or alter the state's relationship with the capitalist class. The perception of the capitalist as having a "dual character"—both progressive and reactionary—persisted. In March 1952, Mao Zedong criticized the editors of the periodical Study for articles that claimed the bourgeoisie had become entirely reactionary. Later that June, at a United Front officials' convention, Zhou Enlai echoed this sentiment. He warned against interpreting the Five Antis as proof that the bourgeoisie had "swayed" completely to their reactionary side. While the campaign had uncovered some unlawful behaviour, Zhou emphasized that many industrialists and merchants—a population he estimated at over two million—had shown a willingness to reform.
4) Campaign reaches maximum intensity. Major cities like Shanghai, Beijing, Tianjin, and Guangzhou lead in organizing show trials, publishing confessions, and extracting fines.
Shanghai, as China's preeminent commercial hub, served as the pilot city for the Five-Anti Campaign's aggressive implementation. Under the stringent leadership of Mayor Chen Yi, enforcement was particularly robust. Key tactics included the widespread deployment of "accusation boxes" to facilitate denunciations by workers, the mobilization of thousands of labourers in comprehensive business audits, and the systematic imposition of substantial fines alongside coercive "voluntary" confessions. The outcomes in Shanghai were profound: hundreds of business owners were compelled to confess or faced severe penalties, with tragic instances of suicide reported due to intense pressure. By the end of March 1952, the campaign had broadened to mobilize workers to investigate and publicly denounce their employers, whether in mass meetings or through loudspeakers installed along city streets. In many cases, these investigations escalated beyond official control, as workers pursued violent retaliation or used the opportunity to press their own demands, including calls for higher wages.
In Shanghai’s silk-weaving industry, however, factory accounts had already been examined in 1951 by joint teams of workers and accountants from local silk mills, at a time when the political atmosphere was considerably less charged. Moreover, many silk factories had established democratic management committees that functioned relatively effectively. As a result, violence during the Five-Anti campaign in this sector was limited in most cases.
Critically, the campaign enabled the CCP to consolidate control over urban capital and commercial enterprises, establishing a foundational prototype for subsequent national campaigns.
Beijing, the nation's political and symbolic capital, the Five-Anti Campaign adopted a strategically focused approach. The primary institutions targeted included significant construction and transport firms, as well as crucial trade networks engaged in government contracts. The campaign was heavily slogan-driven, epitomized by the popular phrase "Strike the Tigers and Flies Alike" (打老虎，拍苍蝇), signifying an indiscriminate assault on both major and minor instances of perceived corruption. The direct results in Beijing involved extensive confiscation of private property and a comprehensive reorganization of business operations under direct Party oversight, reinforcing the CCP's political authority over economic structures.
Tianjin, a vital industrial centre with a concentration in textiles and heavy industry, exhibited a distinctive approach within the Five-Anti Campaign. A defining feature was the close collaboration between labour unions and Party officials, which was instrumental in identifying and addressing corruption among business owners. This cooperative strategy led to a significant transformation of employer-employee relations, fundamentally altering the power dynamics within industrial enterprises. Furthermore, the campaign in Tianjin notably accelerated the formation of joint state-private firms, signifying a crucial step towards the socialization of private capital.
Guangzhou, the implementation of the Five-Anti Campaign in Guangzhou commenced relatively late compared to its northern counterparts, allowing for the incorporation of lessons learned from earlier campaigns, particularly from Shanghai. The primary target areas in Guangzhou included import-export traders and merchants accused of bribery and tax evasion, reflecting the city's role as a key international trade nexus. Unique tactics employed here involved a robust public propaganda drive, meticulously combined with the use of People's Court-style trials. These public adjudications served both as punitive measures and as powerful deterrents, effectively demonstrating the Party's resolve and control in a crucial economic gateway.
Collectively, the Five-Anti Campaign across these diverse urban centres represents a pivotal period in the consolidation of CCP power. It not only fundamentally restructured China's private economic sector but also established enduring mechanisms of state control over commercial and industrial activities, laying the groundwork for subsequent economic transformations.
The implementation of the Five-Anti Campaign profoundly impacted various sectors of the Chinese economy, with targeted enforcement measures tailored to address specific perceived malpractices within each industry.
a) In the Construction and Engineering sector, the primary concerns centred on instances of cheating on state contracts and the reporting of inflated costs. In response, the Party initiated rigorous, Party-directed audits of construction firms. This was often coupled with the suspension of private sector projects, effectively halting operations for businesses under investigation and allowing the state to scrutinize their financial dealings and contractual adherence.
b) The Import-Export Trade sector, crucial for China's external economic relations, was scrutinized for bribery and the illicit acquisition of economic intelligence. Enforcement here focused on intensifying border and customs investigations. This measure aimed to disrupt clandestine networks and prevent the outflow of state secrets or the inflow of illicit payments, thereby asserting greater state control over international commercial transactions.
c) Within the Textiles & Light Industry, the campaign addressed prevalent issues such as wage suppression and widespread tax evasion. The Party leveraged worker-initiated denunciations as a key enforcement mechanism, empowering employees to report their employers' perceived transgressions. Furthermore, mandated price reductions were imposed on goods, a measure designed to curb excessive profits and ensure compliance with state economic policies.
d) The Transportation and Logistics sector faced scrutiny for the theft of state property, a critical concern given its role in facilitating the movement of goods and resources. Enforcement in this area included the confiscation of assets from implicated firms and individuals. This was often followed by comprehensive management restructuring, bringing these vital operations under tighter state supervision and control.
e) Finally, the Finance and Accounting sector was targeted for practices such as the concealment of funds and engaging in fraudulent accounting practices. To combat this, the Party deployed specialized Party-led forensic accounting teams to meticulously scrutinize financial records. These investigations frequently culminated in the initiation of criminal proceedings against those found in violation, underscoring the severity with which the state viewed financial malfeasance during this period.
Through these sector-specific interventions, the Five-Anti Campaign systematically dismantled perceived capitalist malpractices, consolidated state control over key economic sectors, and laid the groundwork for a more centrally planned economy.
5) The campaign begins tapering off. Focus shifts from mass mobilization to follow-up regulation and socialist transformation of business. Recognizes excesses and local deviations, calls for correction to avoid damaging production or alienating productive capitalists. On May 30, 1952, Zhou Enlai presided over the 138th Executive Meeting of the GAC. When discussing Bo Yibo's report on the "Five Antis" campaign, he announced that the campaign would end in June on the basis of achieving significant results.
6) Late 1952: The campaign wound down, though its impact continued in political and economic spheres. Some local campaigns continued. The CCP evaluated the results and began drafting policies for state-private joint ventures as part of the transition to socialism. Moving toward normalization and integration, using administrative and financial mechanisms (shares, promissory notes) to resolve conflicts and reintegrate private businesses under state oversight. On 25 October, 1952, the CCP circulated the report by the Political Research Office on the issue of ending the wufan movement. The report pointed out that: based on statistics from 67 cities in the five major regions of North China, Northeast, East, Northwest and Mid-South, as well as from the overall Southwest region, the number of industrialists and merchants involved in the wufan movement totalled 999,707 enterprises. Criminal sentences were given to 1,509 persons and 19 people got death or suspended death sentences.

Despite its financial gains, the campaign also generated a series of problems. Routine work was sidelined in favour of the campaign's priorities, leading to a decrease in production quantity and quality, an increase in accidents, and even the halt of production in some urban and rural areas. The Chinese economy, still heavily reliant on the private sector, suffered a severe downturn. Both private and state-owned businesses were impacted, leading to widespread closures and operational cutbacks in urban private enterprises. This slowdown was evident in a 13% drop in monetary flow in spring 1952 compared to the previous year.
Regional economic indicators further highlighted the crisis: North China's tax revenues plummeted by 50% in February 1952, and in Tianjin, 4,000 private businesses closed, affecting 400,000 people. Deng Xiaoping, then military governor of Southwest China, reported a near-crisis in his Region on February 22, 1952, anticipating a 50% decrease in first-quarter tax revenues and widespread unemployment among tax agencies. This recession, triggered by political pressure on the private sector, led to mass unemployment and worsened the plight of already impoverished urban dwellers. In one Chongqing district alone, 20,000 residents—a third of its population—faced starvation and resisted the Sanfan and Wufan campaigns.
Within government agencies, widespread dismissals of cadres created numerous vacancies, necessitating replacements from higher levels to resume daily operations. Additionally, the use of radical strategies, such as "tiger hunting" quotas and an overzealous pursuit of major cases, led to instances of extortion and inducement for confessions, resulting in a number of wrongful and false accusations.
The Three-Antis and Five-Antis campaigns were implemented with regional variations, but consistently featured top-down control, ad hoc organizational structures, extensive mobilization of party members and the public, and pervasive propaganda. Upon receiving directives from the central government, regional and local authorities established organizations to spearhead the campaigns in their respective areas. Production and Austerity Committees (PACs) and Austerity and Inspection Committees (AICs) were formed at various governmental levels, complemented by numerous subcommittees, inspection teams, and work teams. These PACs, their subordinate bodies, and specially constituted courts wielded broad authority to investigate, fine, arrest, and punish officials. Existing "regular institutions" at the same governmental level were compelled to cede authority to these newly formed entities. For instance, Nanjing's PAC alone organized 30 inspection supervision teams. In Shanghai, approximately 81,000 individuals participating in the Five-Antis Campaign were organized into thousands of local committees, alongside small, medium inspection teams, and work teams.
Consistent with other campaigns of the era, party cadres recruited activists from the general populace to further mobilize the public and to lead denunciations and investigations against designated targets (In some places directly changed the land reform work teams into tiger-hunting teams). In Shenyang, Liaoning Province, for example, over 40,000 activists were selected for this purpose. While mass mobilization might seem to suggest bottom-up enforcement, the centre remained in control. Lower-level reports to the central government detailed the phased implementation of the cleanup. While the exact sequence and content of these typically three to five phases varied, the core objectives remained consistent:
● Organizing campaign leadership and personnel.
● Facilitating study of the campaign's goals.
● Mobilizing public participation.
● Guiding self-criticism and reflection.
● Investigating misconduct accusations and recovering illicitly gained assets.
● Establishing new standards and practices to institutionalize positive changes.

The CCP's directives on the "Five-Anti" campaign reflected a dialectical adjustment between revolutionary zeal and economic necessity. While initially framed in sharp class struggle terms, by May 1952, the campaign had shifted toward stabilizing relations with the capitalist class and embedding them into a state-supervised economy. The evolving policy trajectory shows the Party's willingness to correct missteps, balance ideological imperatives with practical outcomes, and lay groundwork for the broader socialist transformation of industry. In the CCP's anti-corruption movement, CCP leaders remained untouched, a clear indication of their privileged status. This shifted the campaign's focus from the "Three Antis" to the "Five Antis" in its later phase. While ostensibly targeting bourgeois elements as the root of corruption within the party, this shift also served to absolve party members.
Similarly, during the "Five Antis" movement, the public hoped to see more high-profile corrupt officials brought down. However, the movement's primary goal was to stabilize the financial market. Consequently, top capitalists were largely spared. As the movement progressed, larger capitalists received lighter penalties. For instance, after Shanghai classified prominent capitalists like Rong Yiren basically law-abiding," it became clear that despite its anti-corruption rhetoric, the movement primarily targeted minor infractions, effectively "swatting flies" rather than "hitting tigers." The Three-anti and Five-anti campaigns were not judicial processes in the traditional sense, but forms of campaign-style governance, where administrative, legal, and ideological work were merged. The emphasis on mass enthusiasm and the directive to "seize the opportunity" to settle cases mirrors the logic of rectification campaigns and Yan’an-style struggle sessions, the so-called face-to-face and back-to-back reporting and exposing were also the most commonly used tricks in the Yan'an Rectification Movement. This method was retooled for urban, bureaucratic, and economic contexts in the early 1950s. The CCP is instrumentalizing that enthusiasm for administrative and ideological objectives. This is central to understanding how the CCP governed through campaigns in this period.
The Five Antis Campaign didn't solve issues like government contract fraud or the discrepancy between state and market prices. This was because it failed to fundamentally reform China's economic institutions or the incentives offered to factory owners. For China to move towards a successful socialist economy, more radical reforms were necessary. See Article 31.
On June 6, 1952, after the Three Antis and Five Antis were ended, Mao Zedong made a strong claim:

"With the overthrow of the landlord class and the bureaucrat-capitalist class, the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie has become the principal contradiction in China; therefore, the national bourgeoisie should no longer be defined as an intermediate class."

One principal factor preventing segments of private commerce from recovering after the “Five-Antis” campaign was the consolidation of pervasive “vertical linkages” within the public commercial sector—that is, institutional and hierarchical relationships embedded in Party–state administrative structures (ministries, bureaus, and state enterprises). These vertical structures effectively occupied the market space that had previously been available to private business. At the same time, “horizontal linkages”—the market-based, peer-to-peer, network relationships among private firms— were disrupted or dismantled through political campaigns and administrative intervention. By contrast, only when the Chinese Communist Party on November 15, 1953 moved to “apply the brakes” to the expansion of public commerce did private trade experience a renewed phase of growth. With adjustments to policies governing the free market, private merchants and “underground workshops” reemerged. Taken together, these developments demonstrate that, under the historical conditions of the early 1950s, both the continued existence of the private economy and the broader level of societal economic dynamism (the overall level of commercial activity, entrepreneurship, and private initiative in urban society) were contingent upon the orientation and reach of the public sector’s vertical linkages. Wherever those vertical linkages receded or failed to extend, new private commercial actors appeared, reconstructing or creating fresh horizontal linkages in their place.
The November 15 directive specified several concrete measures for this adjustment. First, in the sphere of pricing, it called for adjustments to the margins between wholesale and retail prices, regional price differentials, and seasonal price differentials. Second, it proposed a clearer delineation of the respective spheres of operation between state and private commerce. Third, in order to enhance the initiative of private merchants, it required the removal of various inappropriate restrictions imposed on private business in different localities, the prohibition of monopolistic practices by local trading agencies, and the provision of opportunities for legitimate private merchants to operate. At the same time, it emphasized the need to prevent speculative and profiteering activities by private merchants, strengthen industrial and commercial administration, and rationalize relations between state and private commerce.

---

In the early years of the PRC, despite the turmoil of war, a few large-scale private industries endured. However, it was primarily the local, traditional handicraft industry that formed the backbone of the economy, supplying essential everyday goods to the Chinese populace. Clearly, the survival and resurgence of capitalism in this period significantly bolstered national economic growth. More importantly, it offered a crucial transitional platform. This allowed economic activities to continue, and vital managerial and technical expertise to be preserved, before their gradual transformation and integration into a socialist economic system. February 7, 1952, the Renmin Ribao wrote

"We must never tolerate the bourgeoisie's attack on the leadership of the working class. We fully recognize that the bourgeoisie's management of industry and commerce in the interests of the country and the people's livelihood is what our people need at the current stage; however, the characteristics of the bourgeoisie's management methods, which harm others for their own benefit, harm the public for their own benefit, and seek profit, often drive them to adopt means that are harmful to the country and the people's livelihood, and often drive them to use the anarchy and free competition of capitalist production to resist, destroy and replace the leadership and planning of the working class and the state-owned economy."

After wufan, many industrialists and businessmen began to retreat. Everyone understood that the current release was just a temporary use. Everyone clearly felt that the transitional period of new democracy originally promised by the CCP was no longer reliable. Some capitalists believed that the only way out in the future was public-private partnership. The Five Antis” movement paved the way politically for the subsequent transformation of capitalist industry and commerce, and objectively enabled the CCP to change the originally scheduled 15-year transition period and accelerate the transition to socialism. During the early 1950s, the CCP imposed two primary methods of control. on October 25th, 1952 Zhou Enlai, in a discussion with some capitalist representatives, said:

"The method for entering socialism in the future cannot be fully described at present, but generally speaking, it will be a peaceful transition. Having undergone the bloody revolution against imperialism and feudalism, China will not shed blood a second time. Peaceful transition will take a considerable amount of time and must be natural, a "successful outcome." This could be achieved through various forms of state capitalism, leading to class elimination and individual well-being. Discussing "factory donations" now is unnecessary. Some people think this is a good way to get rid of burdens, but this is a negative attitude. Today, some people are enduring difficulties and actively engaging in production, and the state and the All-China Federation of Industry and Commerce should encourage them. China's industrialization is a matter of ten or twenty years. Haste makes waste; we must move forward steadily. Talking about "donating factories" now is not only impossible, but will also lead to major deviations. In the future, to peacefully, happily, and healthily enter socialism, so that everyone can get what they deserve, we need to make good arrangements."

First, the government severely curtailed management prerogatives. It became illegal for business owners to independently raise wages or withdraw capital funds. As early as 1950, a decree limited dividends to a maximum of 8% of invested capital. By 1953, all pre-tax profits of private organizations were subject to state control and divided into four mandatory categories:
▉ Income tax: A 30% rate applied to profits exceeding 10,000 yuan.
▉ Enterprise reserve funds: These funds were exclusively for reinvestment within the firm.
▉ Enterprise reward funds: Designated solely for employee welfare.
▉ Dividends to shareholders: These were capped at 25% of pre-tax profits.
Second, the government tightened its grip on the private sector by requiring private firms to conduct business primarily with the government. Factory owners' complaints about the state contracting system in China were less about the imposition of state controls and market restrictions, and more about the system's own deficiencies. Indeed, state-contracted production was largely perceived as a benefit rather than an onerous burden. For instance, silk-reeling and silk-weaving factories gained crucial advantages such as access to capital, materials, and fuel, along with favourable purchasing prices that offset inflated production costs and wages. State purchases also offered greater reliability compared to volatile domestic and export markets.
Crucially, the revival of state-contracted silk cloth production in November 1949 was essential for restoring production and employment through the challenging period of 1949 to 1951. During these years, Shanghai's main power plant was destroyed, the United States and its allies imposed a strict economic embargo, inflation subsided, and the economy slowly recovered. Considering the extreme crisis faced by the silk industry in 1950, state contracting was a veritable lifesaver, leading silk producers to actively advocate for the government to expand weaving contracts among smaller factories.
During the early years of the PRC, from 1949 to 1954, the government implemented a transitional economic policy that included provisions for dividend payments to private shareholders. This approach aimed to integrate private capital into the new socialist economy while gradually moving towards full state ownership. In the period following the establishment of the PRC, private industrialists and businessmen were encouraged to participate in joint state-private enterprises. (see Article 31) To facilitate this, the government offered fixed dividends to private shareholders based on the assets they contributed to these joint ventures. Notably, after 1955, when most industry and commerce had been socialized, former private businessmen continued to receive "fixed dividends" on the assets they had contributed to joint state-private enterprises. In this nationwide system, 810,000 business owners and their representatives were receiving regular "fixed interest" payments. However, by that time, the label of "capitalist" had become such a political burden under the communist class system that many small business owners likely would have given up these payments if it meant shedding the "capitalist" designation and being recognized as working individuals instead.
While fixed dividends and interest payments were part of the transitional economic policies, the government's long-term goal was to achieve full state ownership of industry and commerce. By the mid-1950s, the process of transforming private enterprises into state-owned entities was largely complete, and the system of fixed dividends was phased out accordingly. The government decided not simply to confiscate private firms and banks, but rather to "buy them out." The government let the private bankers convert their banking assets into shares and offered fixed interest for a ten-year period in return for buying these shares from bankers and private stockholders and was very different from the policy adopted by the SU to confiscate all private enterprises and banks without offering them any compensation.

---

The main reasons for relocation were
▉ Fear of Nationalization: The Communist government in mainland China took control of major industries and banks. Many owners fled to retain control of their companies.
▉ Political Alignment with the GMD: Many of these companies had ties to the Republic of China (ROC) government, which relocated to Taiwan.
▉ Political Persecution: Business owners with ties to the GMD or Western countries feared political retaliation.
▉ Strategic Interests: Some state-owned enterprises (SOEs) like oil, shipping, and banking were essential for the ROC’s survival in Taiwan.
▉ Gold Reserves Transfer: The Central Bank of China and other financial institutions moved much of China’s gold reserves to Taiwan, helping stabilize the island’s economy.
▉ Better Economic Opportunities: Hong Kong and Taiwan remained open-market economies, allowing businesses to grow without government restrictions.
▉ Business Continuity – Hong Kong and Taiwan provided a more stable economic environment and fearing political instability on the mainland. Most relocated to Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Southeast Asia, where they could continue operating in a capitalist environment. Below are several examples.
Banks & Financial Institutions
These institutions were heavily affected by the Communist takeover, as the PRC nationalized the banking system in 1949.
● Kincheng Banking Corporation (金城銀行) → Nationalized in 1949 by the PRC, absorbed into the new state-controlled banking system. Partly relocated to Taiwan.
● The Shanghai Commercial & Savings Bank (上海商業儲蓄銀行), one of the largest private banks in pre-1949 China → Moved to Taiwan in 1949 and re-established itself, later expanding into Hong Kong.
● Bank of China (中國銀行) → Split in 1949: the mainland branches became state-owned under the PRC, while the Taiwan branch continued under the ROC government.
● Central Trust of China (中央信託局) → Relocated to Taiwan with the GMD government in 1949, managing government assets and foreign trade.
● Central Bank of China (中国中央银行) the official central bank of the Republic of China, controlling monetary policy. → Moved to Taiwan in 1949, bringing gold reserves and key financial assets with it and became the foundation of Taiwan’s modern banking system.
● Bank of Communications (交通银行, Partial Relocation). A major commercial bank involved in infrastructure financing. → Some branches moved to Taiwan, but the mainland headquarters were taken over by the Communist government.
● China Merchants Bank (招商局), a state-owned company from the Qing dynasty, it had extensive shipping and trade operations. → Moved its headquarters to Hong Kong while some assets remained in mainland China.
● Central Trust of China (中国信托), was a government-backed institution that handled many overseas investments. → Relocated to Taiwan
● Yien Yieh Commercial Bank (盐业银行), focused on trade and industry financing → Moved to Taiwan
Insurance Companies
Most private insurance companies were either nationalized or relocated to Hong Kong/Taiwan.
● China Insurance Co. (中國保險公司) → Mainland operations nationalized; its Hong Kong branch continued independently.
● Pacific Insurance Co. (太平保險公司) → Hong Kong branch survived; mainland operations were nationalized.
● The China United Assurance Society, Ltd. (華安保險) → Operations in China were nationalized; some assets moved to Taiwan.
Trading & Retail Companies
Many trading firms and department stores either relocated to Taiwan or were nationalized.
● China Merchants Steam Navigation Co. (輪船招商局) → Partially relocated to Hong Kong; the mainland operations were nationalized and became part of China's state shipping sector.
● China Travel Service (中國旅行社) → Mainland operations taken over by the Communist government; the Hong Kong branch remained independent.
● Tong Ji Department Store (同記百貨) → Nationalized in 1949 and became part of the state-run retail network.
● Da Ye Trading Co., Ltd. (大業貿易有限公司) → Relocated to Taiwan in 1949.
● The Sincere Company (先施公司), a major department store chain in pre-Communist China. Originally based in Shanghai → Moved to Hong Kong
● The Wing On Company (永安公司), a leading Shanghai-based department store chain. → Moved to Hong Kong
● Dah Chong Hong (大昌行), a major trading company that dealt with imports and exports. → Relocated to Hong Kong
Industrial & Manufacturing Companies
Most large manufacturers were nationalized, while some private firms relocated to Taiwan or Hong Kong.
● Sichuan Animal Byproduct Trading Co., Ltd. (四川畜產公司) → Nationalized in 1949 and merged into a state-run trading company.
● Sheng De Chemical Works (勝德賽珍廠) → Nationalized and merged into state chemical industries.
● Zhen Hua Painting Co., Ltd. (振華油漆公司) → In 1955, it became a joint state-private enterprise, and absorbed into China’s state-owned sector (Shanghai Zhenhua Paint Factory).
● China Can Co., Ltd. (康元制罐廠) → Nationalized and became part of China's packaging industry.
● Huachang Antimony Smeltery (華昌煉銻公司) → Nationalized, as antimony mining was deemed a strategic resource.
● New Asiatic Chemical Co., Ltd. (新亞制藥股份有限公司) → Relocated to Taiwan in 1949.
● Sine Labouratories & Co., Ltd. (信誼制藥公司) → Nationalized; today, Sine Pharma (信誼製藥) remains a major state-owned pharmaceutical company in China.
● Ming Sung Industrial Co. (民生實業股份有限公司) → Relocated to Taiwan; continued operations there.
● Nanyang Brothers Tobacco Co. (南洋兄弟煙草公司), nationalized but continued under government ownership. Hong Kong operations survived independently.
● Chinese Egg Produce Co. (茂昌蛋業股份有限公司) → Nationalized, as food processing industries were absorbed by state-controlled firms.
● Tian Yuan Industrial Co., Ltd. (天元實業公司) → Relocated to Taiwan in 1949.
● China Petroleum Corporation (中国石油公司), a state-owned petroleum company of the Republic of China, responsible for oil and gas supply. → Moved to Taiwan in 1949, along with much of the Republic of China’s oil reserves.
● China Shipbuilding Corporation (中国造船公司), originally a state-run shipbuilding company in mainland China. → Moved its headquarters to Taiwan in 1949.
● China Telecommunications Corporation (中国电信), a state-owned telecommunications company in mainland China. → Some infrastructure and key personnel moved to Taiwan in 1949.
● China State Construction Engineering Corporation (中国建筑工程公司), a major construction company responsible for large infrastructure projects in China. → Some offices and engineers moved to Taiwan in 1949.
● China Publishing House (中国出版公司), a publishing company specializing in government and educational materials. → Moved to Taiwan with the GMD government.
● China Sugar Corporation (中国糖业公司), a state-owned sugar production company in mainland China. → Moved to Taiwan in 1949, along with government-controlled sugar assets.
● China Motor Bus (中国汽车公司), a transportation company → Moved to Hong Kong
● Mei Ah Electronics (美亞電子), a Shanghai-based electronics and appliance company. → Moved to Hong Kong
● Kiu Kwang Motor Bus (九龙巴士), major transport company → Moved to Hong Kong
Textiles & Silk Companies
Some textile companies relocated, while others were nationalized and became part of China's state-owned textile industry.
● Nantong Silk Product Co. (南通繡品公司) → Nationalized and merged into state-owned textile enterprises.
● Yung Tai Silk Co. (永泰剿絲廠) → Relocated to Taiwan.
● Mayar Silk Mills, Ltd. (美亞織綢股份有限公司) → Relocated to Hong Kong in 1949.
● Shen Xin Cotton Co. (申新紡織集團) → Nationalized in 1949, became part of China's textile SOEs.
● South Sea Textile Manufacturing Co. (南洋纺织公司), a leading textile company that was originally based in Shanghai. → Shifted operations to Hong Kong.
● Yung Kee Industrial Co. (荣记工业公司), a large textile and industrial company. → Moved to Hong Kong.
Food & Specialty Stores
Some smaller businesses closed, moved, or were absorbed into state-owned enterprises.
● Chinese Tea Corporation (中國茶公司) → Nationalized; later became part of China’s state-owned tea industry.
● Taikoo Sugar Refinery (太古糖厂), operated in Shanghai → Moved to Hong Kong
Other companies
● Cathay Pacific Airways (国泰航空), originally founded in Shanghai. → Relocated Operations to Hong Kong
● Wah Kiu Yat Po (华侨日报), a major Chinese-language newspaper in Shanghai. → Relocated to Hong Kong

---