The Legacy of Mao Zedong is Mass Murder

[FairAndUnbiased]

I tend to agree with you here.

This great tradition of esteem of knowledge has almost gone in today's China. People no longer respect honest intellectual, not respect cultures. It's all about pragmatism, about so called "progress," so called "economic success."

How about scientific progress? Are you sure that no one respects science? You think that only liberal arts count as "intellectual"? How much intellect do you need to write a legal brief, how much intellect do you need to understand aerodynamics or semiconductor physics?

It's curious that you would mention Mao and educated populace in the same sentence. How would an entire generation with no secondary or tertiary education factor into your economic growth projections? Even though China was largely agrarian, the Cultural Revolution eliminated the educational opportunities for tens of millions of people - people that are alive today and that still contribute to China's economy. Imagine if they were formally educated.

You can't get secondary education if you don't have primary education and you can't get primary education if you can't be literate. Just look at India - for all the "fame" of IITs and IIMs, 1/4 of their population can't even read. After all the IIT and IIM people graduate - where do they get work? Their skills are useless in an agrarian society and India's state owned enterprises, bureaucracies and institutes are all full. They must go overseas. Basically, IITs are subsidizing developed countries education. Force them to stay in India? Then they'll either be unemployed or doing work below their skill level, whether as a small entrepreneur or as an employee. Selling shoes doesn't need training in semiconductor physics, regardless if that training means you are smarter than the average shoe salesman.

Also note that the GLF famine was equally bad as famines that occured almost on a decade basis in the late Qing and KMT eras - they were just not recorded as official famines. The birth/death statistics of 1930's Jiangsu were actually slightly worse than the worst year of the GLF.

 

[bolo]

Chinese even exported genocide to Cambodia.

Maybe in ten years, China can export genocide to vietnam. it will help increase Vietnam's GDP per capita,

@Desertfalcon please give me a positive rating for awesome comment.

I myself have trouble judging Mao's life, but I do believe if India had a Mao, the country would be better,at least stronger than it is now.

They have a Mao-Stalin-Hitler wannabe in Modi. The only thing Modi is better than Mao is he can bore you to death with hindoo ultra right wing cliches.

 

[Nan Yang]

First picture is of Pushpakumar Dahal Prachanda, the maoist leader of Nepal and I can't understand what's your point by posting the second picture. Communism brought anarchy in China during Mao's rule, Nehru has much better legacy as a prime Minister of India during 1947-1964 where he brought more stability to India internally.

I know Indian are poor readers. So I will post again. Errrr read ....s l o w l y.
Mao gives inspiration to all the poor and the oppress. ALL AROUND THE WORLD.
Nehru is nothing.

 

[Zsari]

Since you are putting this way, I'm doubting this picture is from 1950, could be Japanese prison labor camp.

Yes, the picture is definitely not from the 50's. It's more likely from ROC or even late Qing era where you can see the pattern of shaved heads that matches the period. It is said that under the ROC government, famine was a yearly event with an average of 3 to 7 million death each year and an estimated cumulative death reaching 200 million. Alot of attention was given on Mao's three year of famine during the GLF, but few outside sources have examine the state of the nation pre-Mao to put things into perspective.

 

[INDIC]

I know Indian are poor readers. So I will post again. Errrr read ....s l o w l y.
Mao gives inspiration to all the poor and the oppress. ALL AROUND THE WORLD.
Nehru is nothing.

Yes, inspiration for communist militant groups.

 

[TaiShang]

Chinese politics is just pragmatic throughout the socialist era when a different style of leadership has been called for as the domestic and global economic-political conditions change. The success of the combined leadership in each phase can be discussed individually in a comparative setting, but, if not taken within the context of the global and local conditions, we will arrive at only arbitrary conclusions.

Take Mustapha Kamal Ataturk, who are denounced and called as a brutal leader by the current government and reactionary religious zealots of Turkey. In my view, he did what he had to at the time and, thanks to his heavy-handed approach, the nation learned modern and secular life style, getting rid of ages old traditionalism, backwardness and hatred against development. Without his policies and reforms (such as banning Islamic dress that indicate class, pushing women hard into the social and economic life, mandatory, secular education for all) Turkey would be a sectarian hell hole with Madrassas producing radicals like nothing. (Thanks to the current radical Islamist/Ikhvanist zealot government, the country is being shaped as a second coming of Pakistan, but, that's another issue. Too bad their military has not been proactive -- unlike the Egyptian military who saved the country from Islamic Brotherhood lunatics and caged all its leadership).

Hence, historical stuff and personalities must be considered within the greater perspective. I tend to judge the success of the past by comparing it with contemporary conditions -- as a believer of historical dialectic. You cannot skip certain phases of development and suddenly achieve a greater status. At best, you become India. At worst, you cannot even become India.

To judge whether Indian leadership 60 years past was better than the Chinese leadership or not, all we can do is to comparatively analyze the two countries current conditions. Otherwise, like some Indians like to do, all you can do is to spit against the wind. You cannot judge a dead person-gone era in isolation from the contemporary conditions which are the reflections/extensions of those dead people-gone eras.

Generally, those who live in the past are those who have little success in and hope for present.

 

[xesy]

Maybe in ten years, China can export genocide to vietnam. it will help increase Vietnam's GDP per capita,

China tried once, but VN did not buy it.

 

[55100864]

Mao was a great leader in general, yes he had no idea about economic and science，but the whole country was turned from a backward feudalism shit hole into a progressing society all because of him, in a brutal way, yes, but i'm afraid it's the only way. he freed the woman, land reform, etc..... he was also a military genius and good strategist. if wasn't mao, china now is just like the shit hole countries like india, where women and untouchables have no right despite democracy, but everyone are free to shit on the streets. All the third world countries can NEVER become developed by the so called democracy, to fundamentally change a society, bloody revolution is the ONLY way.

Those funny naive protestors human right fanatics and liberal terrorists all around the world are the barriers of The progress of human civilisation, cancer of the world, they believe they can change the world, but actually, they change nothing, no one give a shit about their "freedom", they are olding, dying and will soon be forgotten by the world like their ex GF, they are nothing in front of the nature, society and country. Democracy only works in small unambitious countries like Swiss, Luxembourg, china has never been a communist country and will never be, china is social darwinist country, people dies, whether it's fair or not, this actually apply to all countries.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Mao is generally a great leader, yes he had no idea about economic and science，but the whole country was turned from a backward feudalism shit hole into a progressing society all because of him, in a brutal way, yes, but i'm afraid it's the only way. he freed the woman, land reform, etc..... he was also a military genius and good strategist. if wasn't mao, china now is just like the shit hole countries like india, where women and untouchables have no right despite democracy, but everyone are free to shit on the streets. All the third world countries can NEVER become developed by the so called democracy, to fundamentally change a society, bloody revolution is the ONLY way.

Those funny naive protestors and liberal terrorists all around the world are the barriers of The progress of human civilisation, they believe they can change the world, but actually, they change nothing, no one give a shit about their "freedom", they are olding, dying and will soon be forgotten by the world, they are nothing in front of the nature, society and country. Democracy only works in small unambitious countries like Swiss, Luxembourg, china has never been a communist country and will never be, china is social darwinist country, people dies, whether it's fair or not, this actually apply to all countries.

He was too much of idealist, this was true.

But without any doubt, the greatest leader in China's history, although Deng was more pragmatic, but Mao was a greater leader overall.

 

[Sonyuke_Songpaisan]

instead of bull$hit communist ideology, china needed patriotic nationalism, every chinese should have lived for china and died for china. patriotic nationalism should have been the only ideology and total militarization of society should have been there. a militarized society is the most stable, discipline and protected society. chinese society should have been like spartan society.

we live for ourselves and die for ourselves, I dont know if Indians live and die for Gantt family or Sophia

 

[tranquilium]

I have to disagree with you there. I don't Mao would have helped at all. Deng Xiou Ping would have made a difference. But Mao would have lead Indian Union to a complete collapse. How do the Chinese feel about Mao? Do they attribute their success today to him or to Deng?

Both, the achievement of China is consecutive effort of several generation people. They certainly made mistake in the past, but they got the general direction right from the very beginning. BTW, now that a decade has passed since Jiang Zemin's time, we begin to see some of things that he has to deal with. If I have to use one word to describe Jiang, it would be tenacity. You'd be hard press to find a leader throughout history that possess Jiang's raw patience. He ran China in a time where both Chinese economic and military strength are still fledgling. Yet, due to collapse of USSR, China is forced to face an entire world of pressure by itself. Coupled with rapid social and economic change, Jiang's time called for a leader that will endure and he answered it with excellency.

In my personal opinion, if Mao is born in India, he certainly won't be able to achieve the same thing. The core of Mao's school of thought is that any political theory must be modified and adapt the background of the nation. The idea and practice dominant central leadership coordinating and organizing the overall nation has been in Chinese culture before Jesus Christ is even born. The country is also secular and has an homogeneous culture for two millennium before Karl Marx is born. This is why China adapted so well to the idea. For Chinese, unity is in our culture and blood.

India, on the other hand, is simply too diverse for such unity to exist. Whether in religion, culture, language, India is a completely different animal to China.

 

[INDIC]

The fact that he was prepared to join a federation disregards all his previous actions. I could take his beliefs on Hindu-Muslim cooperation during the Lucknow Pact to show that he didn't want partition, but that's not right since it was 30 years before he began arguing for a separate state.



If Jinnah showed flexibility regarding partition and the two-nation theory (which was extremely important to the ML), then I'm sure he could show flexibility regarding safeguard for Muslims.

Why bringing 1916, you were talking about 1946, that happened after Lahore resolution of 1940. The flexibility you talking about just apologists talks. Although I don't endorse to two nation theory, nor I believe Congress was responsible, partition allowed us to live in peace. BTW, we are now three countries, only our grandpa generation seems emotional with the pre-partition India, rest of us don't care.

 

[Joeblow]

Mao was a great leader in general, yes he had no idea about economic and science，but the whole country was turned from a backward feudalism shit hole into a progressing society all because of him, in a brutal way, yes, but i'm afraid it's the only way. he freed the woman, land reform, etc..... he was also a military genius and good strategist. if wasn't mao, china now is just like the shit hole countries like india, where women and untouchables have no right despite democracy, but everyone are free to shit on the streets. All the third world countries can NEVER become developed by the so called democracy, to fundamentally change a society, bloody revolution is the ONLY way.

Those funny naive protestors human right fanatics and liberal terrorists all around the world are the barriers of The progress of human civilisation, cancer of the world, they believe they can change the world, but actually, they change nothing, no one give a shit about their "freedom", they are olding, dying and will soon be forgotten by the world like my ex GF, they are nothing in front of the nature, society and country. Democracy only works in small unambitious countries like Swiss, Luxembourg, china has never been a communist country and will never be, china is social darwinist country, people dies, whether it's fair or not, this actually apply to all countries.

That's a bit harsh. I think China has been pretty lucky so far. Unlike the other countries that dabbled with communism, its leaders at least tried to make things better instead of just lining their pockets. I'm sure there were corrupt people in the party but at least as a whole they tried to make things better and they've succeeded to a large extent. They could easily gone the Cuba or North Korea way or collapsed like the USSR. A single party system is perfect as long as that party is looking out for the best interests of its people, be it a king, a dictator or whoever. However, we all know from history that every king eventually has a idiot son who's stupidity ends the empire. That's where democracy come in. It allows the people to change the leadership without bloody revolutions and wars that can set a country back decades. Now I know you thing of India as "shithole" country and you may be right to an extent. However, each nation has to choose its own path to its bliss. Trying to force a system on people with the expection that they will adapt to it, hasn't worked too well in human history.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

That's a bit harsh. I think China has been pretty lucky so far. Unlike the other countries that dabbled with communism, its leaders at least tried to make things better instead of just lining their pockets. I'm sure they're corrupt people in the party but at least as a whole they tried to make things better and they've succeeded to a large extent. They could easily gone the Cuba or North Korea way or collapsed like the USSR. A single party system is perfect as long as that party is looking out for the best interests of its people, be it a king, a dictator or whoever. However, we all know from history that every king eventually has a idiot son who's stupidity ends the empire. That's where democracy come in. It allows the people to change the leadership without bloody revolutions and wars that can set a country back decades.

There's no luck in leadership selection in China though - it isn't hereditary. To become leader is to be elected *by your peers*. If it was hereditary, you would already know who is the next leader. After all, the next transition is 8 years away. But do you? No. The race for 2022 is wide open.

Kings and dictators are different from one party systems. The key lies in person vs. organization. Just as the path of one particle is inherently unpredictable - thermal fluctuations, for instance - the thoughts of one person are unstable. Anything can happen in a monarchy. A real world material, however - has well defined equilibrium behaviors, just as a single organization does. And while some applications require composites, others require single crystals - just as some countries are better served by multiple parties and others are better served by a single one.

 

[TaiShang]

Unlike the other countries that dabbled with communism, its leaders at least tried to make things better instead of just lining their pockets. I'm sure they're corrupt people in the party but at least as a whole they tried to make things better and they've succeeded to a large extent. They could easily gone the Cuba or North Korea way or collapsed like the USSR.

Similar threats do exist for democracies, as well. They may also suffer from corruption and civil unrest/war. How to ensure good leadership, I am not sure. The answer does not lie in democracy or socialism, altogether. I guess it is historical and cultural. It must be in the nation's genes -- the ambition for revival, longevity and common purpose.You may have it or not have it. China to a great extent has had it over the past six decades. India, I do not know, it is the Indians to decide.

What most of the posters here are trying to convey is that people in China are not really so eager to give their state ideology a certain name -- and it is not academically possible, either, since it is at best an eclectic model that is constantly evolving. Frankly, we do not care. Really.

China is not an ideologically rigid society, so, most of our Western and Indian partners are surprised when they see that China "still" does not fit their compartmentalized world view.

However, we all know from history that every king eventually has a idiot son who's stupidity ends the empire.

Exactly. Hence you have to make sure that meritocracy (not populism or bloodline) decides who is to be the next leader..

However, each nation has to choose its own path to it bliss. Trying to force a system on people with the expection that they will adapt to it, hasn't worked too well in human history

I agree on this. Besides, certain countries have already gone way ahead of the stage where they would be "imposed upon" anything at all. China is one of them.

That's where democracy come in. It allows the people to change the leadership without bloody revolutions and wars that can set a country back decades.

Democracy is just a mold -- out of a million others. Worshiping a human creation is the worst form of idolatry. Just get over this passion and look at the things like a pragmatist. Adopt what you think is the best for your country and have the right to name it the way as you wish. It is no one else's business to give you names or labels. Indian democracy is really unique, just as every system in this world is unique as no two are the same.

Just because you call yourself democracy does not make you a prosperous country like UK. Or, say, you name yourself "socialist," I doubt you will become as efficient and successful as China. You just need to be yourself and you are who you are. You deserve the fruits of your own hands as well as the bitter taste of your failures.