But did Mao's policies made China a better, a stronger state?
His unification war/struggle arguably did. But he should have retired right after like Washington did...and let more technocrats take over (who could quickly adapt even communist/socialism to some basic realities on the ground without letting emotional feelz dictate way too strongly).
His peacetime policies were atrocious if you factor in the clear opportunity cost of how the Chinese did in Taiwan, SEA etc.
It took a reset by Deng to fix that mess.
Have you seen the Chinese classic movie
Hero? It narrates the story of the Qin(an ancient kingdom of China) taking over other Chinese states. It tries to give a message that the suffering of few is nothing when compared to greater good for all..This movie was well in line with Communist Party's principles...but still a classic nonetheless.
I am well aware of the movie....and the scene you are talking about. But the Qin emperor clearly poses it as more of a question than full on assertion (to me).....how much evil can be done with the interest of the greater good? Something Robert McNamara analyses in the "Fog of War" as well.
Mao never posed that question (clearly if you read deeply about the Great Leap Forward and then the Cultural Revolution), much less introspected on it. He simply believed Economics/culture/society works like the War he fought earlier against CKS.....similar in grander concept to the two other main 20th century despots....but arguably way worse w.r.t the grander political inheritance/inertial forces of those two (and he exceeded them by quite a fair margin in the final death count as a result).
In Bangla, China is called Chin/Cheen which came from this word 'Qin'.
Same in Tamil....Cheena. The word Bharat also comes from the namesake of the Emperor to unify a large portion of the Vedic iron age kingdoms.
We don't know how things will be interpreted later....To Pakistan and Bangladesh Babur and Aurangzeb are good guys. But in India they are villains. What were they actually?
The issue is Mao is far more relevant to a certain complex (still being perpetuated in a massive central political edifice) given he is vastly more recent in history, and there are clear statistics (even at the low end) to more accurately measure/debate what happened under his rule.
Hitler was totally vilified for what he did inside and out, more than any other despot has been and since. Khrushchev condemned Stalin and de-Stalinised as soon as he could. Mao sits gleefully there, staring down at Tianenmen square....watching the grass being spray painted green and all the goose stepping going on too. That in itself says a large deal.
When you have a portrait of Aurangzeb, Clive, Mir Jafar or whichever historical relevant figure to Bengal that you want adorning your squares for whatever purpose....then we can being to talk (putting aside the issue of elapsed time and fuzziness that affords).
But you have picked SMR largely is it not (who certainly was nowhere near tyrant status, wasnt really given the time in the first place for it to happen anyway, I personally don't think he had it in him anyway given what he fought for)....and culturally the great Bengal poets and reformers. Its a big big upgrade from the outset from what China has done with Mao....though there are now some disturbing similar undercurrents taking place in BD too.
for all the blood spilled, because of Mao's cultural revolution did it bring positive change to China.
Nope it certainly did not. Wanglaokan already has talked about how a large part of the current technocrat leadership faced terrible hardship and suffering and even complete purging, on the whims of Mao seeing that whole ideology (pragmatic socialism) competing with unfettered ideological revolutionary socialism that he espoused (as part of a grand war inertia he wanted to keep continuing).
Chinese culture suffered terribly on the ground. Growing up in HK, I know the elder people dear to me still and always, that saw the bodies first hand flooding down the pearl river delta, washing up on the gentle shores and beaches. The stories they have are horrid (after all they have kinship and often origins in the larger Canton area). What is the scale and depth of the horrors that happened further inside? Who can really know. Really you can murder lots of people, but when you try strip them away from the culture of their ancestors (ancestor worship in China is still big in many places btw) that has carried them this far....it creates a huge dissonance and inherent moral void....and that is really the longer term painful consequence to a society (whether they have deluded themselves into thinking otherwise or not) This is why Communism will always fail....and always utterly.
You know, whether 3 million or 300 died in 1971, doesn't matter to me. For me it was worth. Bangladesh is better of as an independent country. Future generations will judge you on the impact you've had. Your methods are secondary.
Again thats more equivalent to what Mao did earlier in his history. BD in 1971 was fighting AGAINST what it didn't want, fighting for its very identity (as
judged by its entire population or at least large majority, which is morally very important standard), like the US did, like early Mao did to some extent, like Russians have done again and again, India did in the early-mid 20th century etc.......not fighting against it (towards some goal concocted by foreigners and elite cabal)....at such scale during internal political stability/establishment.
There was no popular calling/desire for the great leap forward and cultural revolution.
The people were never asked, they were just tested in the most atrocious way possible to see what strain and death they could take before they had to all out revolt again, this time against their own former saviour (just read up how and why Mao was sidelined eventually as the GLF results finally came pouring in and how and why he formed the Red Guard for the Cultural revolution later).
Dead people don't look down from above..They are just dead.
You are free to believe that. I believe something else entirely. There is always a consequence and karma in this world. You don't unlock negative energy at vast scale and just wish it all away....the equilibrium is upset and will get its pound of flesh right back long term.
Germany learned that lesson quite terribly and short term. China will learn it much more drawn out and slowly (given its vast scale and the insulation that affords)....Russia learning at a rate somewhere in between.
Actually most of them remain buried in ground..If they were to look they would look up. Chinese are pragmatic people. I don't think they care about what dead people would think.
They (CPC trolls + nationalist propaganda projection) seem to have deluded you on the matter (since they have deluded themselves too in the first place). Its not really surprising, you have not been to the rural villages of China where tucked away is still a deep reverence of their ancestors, continuing in the large corollary that is elder China past the authoritarian over-reach....along with a plethora of rituals continuing....and explaining why Buddhism ingrained itself in a Confucian society that predated it.
You have to go there and see it firsthand I am afraid....rather than lap up the Pravda feelz. Since you are an atheist, stripped from your own culture largely and feeling good about that....I do not expect you to really get why thats significant. But don't talk in assertive tones on the matters of faith please. I do not exactly want to go into why Atheism is a poison for larger society either (there are moral, well functioned Atheists but they are outliers in the larger social fabric that evolves from such philosophy)....given what inevitably replaces the spiritual/moral void created....and the already terrible results on the ground we have seen regarding that.
Humans psychologically need an absolute reference as a whole for the grander direction/structure, we dont function well without it, never will. It's just the way we are. The grand leftist strategy is to constantly attack that, undermine it and failing that, deny it ever was there inside us.
Rather China was pretty much a chaotic hellhole and the because it was that way Communist party could came to power. Mao's policy stabilized China. Did it through too much chaos..but end result his policies resulted in China becoming a stable state.
Again I have little issue with Early Mao (pre -1949). Later Mao is what I am talking about....and later Mao demerits definitely eclipses Early Mao merits by a vast vast stretch (Qin emperor would not approve, far far excess of the bad to justify the greater good). There was absolutely no (even relative, forget moral) need to wage war on his own people for the simple purpose of having a war at all times....and/or simply to protect and enshrine his deified cult status.....like the Kim dynasty have perfected in North Korea.
Again you are not very well read on the topic I am afraid to begin with.
it is unfair for any of us to judge the actions of Mao....because we can't comprehend what China as a country or Chinese poeple as a community went through. I try to see the results. And I see positive result.
The positive result is ironically crafted by those Mao punished and would probably have killed given the choice. You really don't know what he did and had planned for Deng do you?
Another Despot would have just filled his shoes in context of China's unification. Heck even CKS would have done it perfectly well (and he did to large extent till the Japs showed up, affording Mao a route for escape and cooperation with CKS which afforded Mao much time). Waging a large war of unification among a homogeneous population (esp against just one other major contender) is the relatively easy part (its a coin flip from the ouset, there are only two, one has to win and prevail, fight the good fight and see)....its what you then do with that, that matters the most. Its really best to retire while you are ahead, and let the smarter people (in the disciplines/fields that arise after war) take over. Washington got that (he refused to even join a political party fearing it would use his name/legacy long term).....Mao certainly didn't....the equivalent is really Sun Yat Sen anyway (founding father of modern China).....Mao was just an impulsive arrogant egotist. They never do well when the guns go silent.....because that is the clamour they get addicted to. China suffered massively as a result....by its own hand (worst part of all).
Noted...I will check it out.
Well worth it. The CGI is good for back then, but mileage varies in context of today etc....there are weak episodes (even TNG has them)...but the overall plot and philosophy exploration is really good.
.
