USAID and “Daguofan”

Anyone who knows a little about China’s recent history may have heard of “daguofan” — a meal cooked in a big, communal pot. Since the pot is huge, everyone gets a share. Over the years, it’s come to symbolize the socialist egalitarianism and humanitarianism advocated by Marxists.

The foundation of this idea is the Marxist belief that the world can be divided into two classes: the oppressors (the rich) and the oppressed (the poor). To achieve equality, the rich must give up their wealth and let the socialist government redistribute funds.

This is exactly what the Chinese Communist Party did after gaining power in 1949: It seized the assets of the rich and took control by reallocating resources. The central government paid each state-owned company a fixed amount of money, without considering its performance. On the lower level, state-owned companies would pay their employees a fixed salary irrespective of their performance or competence. The goal was to achieve true equality, with everyone eating from one big, communal pot.

As “daguofan” was in the early stages of implementation, even those whose wealth was confiscated by the government embraced the idea, believing this practice could bring equality and eradicate poverty in China. But reality did not turn out as well as they had hoped.

Promoting Laziness

This practice was predicated on false assumptions. It presumed that the CCP officials, who held the power to distribute wealth, possessed such a high political consciousness — the equivalent of today’s wokeness — that they were immune to corruption (unlike the dishonest officials under Jiang Kai-shek’s government before Mao took the power). The CCP also believed that workers in a socialist society could be educated to improve their political consciousness, which would inspire them to spare no effort in helping build a new China.

Both assumptions proved to be false.

Without accountability to regulate their behavior, those CCP officials did not hesitate to fatten their own wallets through corruption. They often came from poor backgrounds and felt entitled to embezzle funds and take bribes, becoming even more corrupt than the Kai-shek officials they had replaced.

At the outset, eating from a common pot sounded like a noble idea, creating true equality in a harmonious society. Soon, however, its underlying flaws became evident: “Daguofan” guaranteed job security, and there was no reward or punishment for how hard or how much one worked. Everyone got the same thing from the same pot. Therefore, it promoted laziness. Besides, who would want to work hard after watching the powerful get fattened by the system while common folks got only a minimum serving from the pot? Each did their best to devise ingenious ways of doing less.

Eventually, even Marxists could not escape the law of economics: Everything has a price, and money does not just drop from sky. As time went by, the meal in the big pot looked more and more pathetic, so that eventually, even the powerful could not find anything tasty to grab. By the end of the Cultural Revolution, China’s economy was collapsing quickly, forcing “daguofan” to come to an end.

After luring you in, every Marxist idea will rob you from head to toe, leaving you completely naked — and “daguofan” was no different. In the end, it neither achieved equality nor eliminated poverty, but created the worse destitution in Chinese history. Today “daguofan” is used as a derogatory expression mocking the old day’s Marxist socialism.

However, though “daguofan” has disappeared in China, its ghost lingers on.

USAID: America’s Communal Pot

Marxism has possessed the American Left for years, manifesting itself in many areas of our society. Over the past month, as the Department of Government Efficiency has uncovered the truth about the “fourth” government branch, the administrative state, it dawned on me that the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has been functioning as a global “daguofan” provider.

Like their Chinese counterparts, the American Left flies the banners of humanitarianism and egalitarianism to establish their legitimacy and support. Who wants to look like they don’t care about the poor by opposing such benevolent causes?

USAID has spent billions of American taxpayers’ money to provide “daguofan” around the world, dwarfing the CCP’s efforts in the process. However, if we have learned anything from history, it’s not difficult to see how effective USAID must have been if all that money had been used for its stated purpose. Instead, we must ask: How many dollars have been siphoned off by corrupt officials? Has our money helped improve the lives of the poor — or has it destroyed their sense of independence and work ethic?

DOGE’s findings so far have largely confirmed our suspicion.

Here’s a difference: The CCP’s “daguofan” was practiced within its national boundaries. Why has the American Left extended its tentacles to faraway lands?

Like its Chinese counterparts, the American Left divides people into the oppressor and the oppressed. But unlike the Chinese, who viewed rich men as the cause of poverty, the American Left does not just single out one group to blame (though they have done that many times). Instead, the Left considers America herself to be the worst oppressor in history, responsible for all the misfortune and tragedy in the world. Therefore, the leftists running USAID felt justified in squandering her wealth by spreading “daguofan” across the globe.

Their real intention is to obliterate America from history because they genuinely hate what she stands for.

We’re thankful that the Trump administration is terminating much of the waste spread through USAID channels before it’s too late. Nonetheless, we cannot afford to let our guard down: As long as Marxism exists, there will always be another “daguofan.”

Chenyuan Snider was raised in Communist China and majored in Chinese language and literature in college. After immigrating to the U.S. and studying at Assemblies of God Theological Seminary and Duke Divinity School, she became a professor at Christian colleges and seminary. She and her husband live in northern California and have two grown children.