Chairman Mao

[mahlertitan]

Recently i am reading this book on Chairman Mao, all i can say is: what a horrible leader! one of worst leaders in human history. Some revisionist historians justify the atrocities  committed under his rule as mere "blunders", but can anyone in their right conscience to say that Mao wasn't responsible for the death of millions during the early decades of the Chinese People's Republic?

to name a few of his accomplishments:

the Great Leap forward, outrageous, even hilarious attempts at catching up to the west using unrealistic plans

the so called "Three years of Natural disasters" during the early 60's, which was partially caused by the Collectivization of farms.

The infamous "Cultural Revolution", where his toleration of the Gang of four lead to persecution of so many able-minded Chinese literati, the imprisonment of the innocent.

I am sure there are so much more to talk about.

[Bonehelm]

Chairman Mao was a very good student and scholar. But since communism is too ideal for the society, his regime quickly failed and collasped.

[mahlertitan]

Chairman Mao was a very good student and scholar.

Correct, a wonderful poet, a talented writer, a great military leader, a great orator.... the list goes on and on, but his many qualities shouldn't make any of his mistakes less severe.

But since communism is too ideal for the society, his regime quickly failed and collasped.

um, i don't know what you are talking about, last time i checked, The People's Republic of China is still very much intact, Hu Jintao is the guy who is running the show i think.

[Bonehelm]

Correct, a wonderful poet, a talented writer, a great military leader, a great speaker.... the list go on and on, but one of his qualities make his mistakes any less severe.

um, i don't know what you are talking about, last time i checked, The People's Republic of China is still very much intact, Hu Jintao is the guy who is running the show i think.

I said communism at Mao's era didn't work. The PRC right now isn't nearly as harsh as it was when Mao was on the chair.

[mahlertitan]

I said communism at Mao's era didn't work. The PRC right now isn't nearly as harsh as it was when Mao was on the chair.

The way i see it, PRC is much better than before, but in a dictatorship, you know that the difference between order and chaos is only one life a way.

[Bonehelm]

Yes PRC is much better than before. It's improving, too. Just look at the economy...

[mahlertitan]

Yes PRC is much better than before. It's improving, too. Just look at the economy...

yes it is, i don't know if you do, i still remember the days when you can exchange 1 dollar for 10 RMB, today it's more like 1 dollar for 7.57 RMB.

[Sean]

A dilettante philosopher who had no idea about how an economy worked. The biggest sad joke today though is how the Chinese government continue perpetuating the idea of him as (quoting I believe) '70% right and 30% wrong': his tomb is in Tiananmen square and the people still revere him. Regardless of the West's prejudice against non-capitalist systems, the guy was one more waste of time of a leader.

[PerfectWagnerite]

Correct, a wonderful poet, a talented writer, a great military leader, a great orator.... the list goes on and on, but his many qualities shouldn't make any of his mistakes less severe.

You think he's a wonderful poet? I think his prose is awkward at best.

[Kullervo]

Chairman Mao was a very good student and scholar. But since communism is too ideal for the society, his regime quickly failed and collasped.

Too ideal, right. Then why has every communist regime of the past proven itself to be an utter disaster?

[Haffner]

Too ideal, right. Then why has every communist regime of the past proven itself to be an utter disaster?

Bonehelm's posts made me wonder as well. Though (at least from an outsider's view), it does appear as though China is doing pretty darn good today!


I might sound less than fully informed (so please forgive in advance), but I read the Communist Manifesto and it seemed like a bunch of far-flung Hegel; practically none of it sounded good either as a political system or philopsophy. And last I checked, Mao was a horrible person responsible for the deaths of more people than Hitler and Stalin combined.

[m_gigena]

yes it is, i don't know if you do, i still remember the days when you can exchange 1 dollar for 10 RMB, today it's more like 1 dollar for 7.57 RMB.

I don't know too much about China. But I do know that's a primary effect of growing: Appreciation of your currency. Think of it this way: with 10RMB you can now purchase more dollars than before. (However, this is not only a chinese goal, but the result of the USA not controlling their printer; it's a way they have to kindly share their debt with the rest of the world).

[Lethevich]

Too ideal, right. Then why has every communist regime of the past proven itself to be an utter disaster?

Cuba seems to be doing fine - even Vietnam isn't a shithole compared to its non-"red" nearby neighbours.

(I don't care about or idealise communism personally btw.)

[Kullervo]

Bonehelm's posts made me wonder as well. Though (at least from an outsider's view), it does appear as though China is doing pretty darn good today!

You're right, but it was only when the state began to loosen it's grip on the market that China's economy started booming.

[Kullervo]

Cuba seems to be doing fine - even Vietnam isn't a shithole compared to its non-"red" nearby neighbours.

(I don't care about or idealise communism personally btw.)

Cuba would be doing much better if the US would lift the laughably anachronistic trade embargo it's had since the early 60s.

I'm not well-versed on modern Vietnamese economics so I can't really say if I agree or not. I'm sure they're better off than Myanmar, though.

[m_gigena]

You're right, but it was only when the state began to loosen it's grip on the market that China's economy started booming.

The problem is the political grip is not to be loosen.

[Bonehelm]

OK let me clarify - communism was too ideal for any society (It sounds like it can solve so many problems and achieve equality, but in reality it turns into military dictatorship)...so it didn't work. Just think about it, everybody shares their wealth and power? It's too good to be true...because everybody is greedy in the inside.

[mahlertitan]

OK let me clarify - communism was too ideal for any society (It sounds like it can solve so many problems and achieve equality, but in reality it turns into military dictatorship)...so it didn't work. Just think about it, everybody shares their wealth and power? It's too good to be true...because everybody is greedy in the inside.

I am not greedy...

[PSmith08]

Recently i am reading this book on Chairman Mao, all i can say is: what a horrible leader! one of worst leaders in human history. Some revisionist historians justify the atrocities  committed under his rule as mere "blunders", but can anyone in their right conscience to say that Mao wasn't responsible for the death of millions during the early decades of the Chinese People's Republic?

to name a few of his accomplishments:

the Great Leap forward, outrageous, even hilarious attempts at catching up to the west using unrealistic plans

the so called "Three years of Natural disasters" during the early 60's, which was partially caused by the Collectivization of farms.

The infamous "Cultural Revolution", where his toleration of the Gang of four lead to persecution of so many able-minded Chinese literati, the imprisonment of the innocent.

I am sure there are so much more to talk about.

You do realize that none of this is unique to Mao, right? Stalin's Five Year Plans, so admirably run by Gosplan (or not, though Voznesensky seemed to be more competent than usual), led to massive amounts of industrial waste and unacceptably high levels of accidents (under the brutal and staunchly Stalinist Lazar Kaganovich and Sergo Ordzhonikidze, if we're talking about the industrial fronts). His Great Famine (look up the "Holodomor"), centered in the Ukraine - under the "reformer" Khrushchev, was largely the product of his collectivization programs and the persecution of the peasantry. As for "Cultural Revolutions," you can take your pick: the Zhdanovschina comes pretty darned close to a genuine "Cultural Revolution," as it was responsible for the forcible state imposition of Stalin's "Socialist Realism" on the arts. The formalized and aggressive Terror, started under NKVD chief Genrikh Yagoda and pursued to the Yezhovschina under the eponymous Nikolai Yezhov, and finally to Beria's dominance, was a pretty aggressive attempt at remaking the state and the party in a new image.

All the things which happened first under Stalin, and later under Mao, seem to be pretty standard byproducts of totalitarian communism. To my mind, had Stalin not been so good at killing the people who might let the cat out of the bag, and had the Soviets been generally less secretive, all of Mao's failures could and would have been predicted at the time of the revolution. There is rarely anything new.

[Florestan]

Speaking of Communism, here are three very true "jokes".

1. A person can simultaneously be only 2 things out of the following 3: intelligent, honest and Communist.

2. Q: What will happen if Communism takes over Sahara?
    A: In the first year you'll still be able to buy sand.

3. Q: Who invented Communism, scientists or philosophers?
    A: Philosophers.
    Q: How do you know?
    A: Had it been invented by scientists, it would have been tested firstly on rats.