Scholarship on China seems to have accepted that the series of events that have occurred in that country after 1949 are to be regarded as the outcome of a sharp and protracted struggle within the Communist party leadership over the path China's efforts at socialist reconstruction ought to follow: the Maoist path with its stress on revolution, or the Liuist path with its stress on the development of the productive forces. Scholarship dealing with the post-Mao period again betrays the same conscious, or in some cases perhaps unconscious, acceptance of the 'two-line struggle' argument. Thus while one section of scholars is busy arguing that a 'capitalist restoration' has occurred in present-day China, another section is involved in defending the revolutionary credentials of the new regime.