NationStates Jolt Archive

I've noticed something curious in society, which appears to be a relaxed attitude to Mao's regieme of horror which cost China 70 Million lives, gutted the economy and wasted countless resources just to fuel one man's dreams of supremacy over the entire planet.

Stalinism and Nazism are now rightly viewed as evil and flawed systems, why not Maoism?

The fact that we have bands such as "The Gang of Four" and Billy Bragg songs singing about "Waiting for the next Great Leap Forwards" would suggest a critical lack of understanding in popular culture about the true hideousness of Mao's tyranny.

Why does the public not properly realise just how cruel this man was? Is there bias, a lack of understanding, or something else? :confused:

Bush and Republicanism are more evil that all others combined!

Stalin and Mao are equal in evil. They were both without any kind of human quality. At least Hitler was fighting for something.

I'm reading the books too. :)

It´s the sort of leftist bias that one sees every day...still, you would be a little hasty to say that Staline has been put in the same echelon as Hitler...to this day, many still part of the french filosopher jean paul sartre´s view on stalinism, claiming that the ends justified the means...

It´s the sort of leftist bias that one sees every day...still, you would be a little hasty to say that Staline has been put in the same echelon as Hitler...to this day, many still part of the french filosopher jean paul sartre´s view on stalinism, claiming that the ends justified the means... I think Maoism went beyond left or right wing. Auto-wing, possibly.

I've noticed something curious in society, which appears to be a relaxed attitude to Mao's regieme of horror which cost China 70 Million lives, gutted the economy and wasted countless resources just to fuel one man's dreams of supremacy over the entire planet.

Stalinism and Nazism are now rightly viewed as evil and flawed systems, why not Maoism?

The fact that we have bands such as "The Gang of Four" and Billy Bragg songs singing about "Waiting for the next Great Leap Forwards" would suggest a critical lack of understanding in popular culture about the true hideousness of Mao's tyranny.

Why does the public not properly realise just how cruel this man was? Is there bias, a lack of understanding, or something else? :confused:

People do understand the extent of Mao's evil, just as they understad the extent of Hitler's and there are far more Neo-Nazis than Neo-Maoists. Your two examples, compared to the thousands of neonazi groups...yeah, there's a relaxed attitude to Mao compared to Hitler.

It´s the sort of leftist bias that one sees every day...still, you would be a little hasty to say that Staline has been put in the same echelon as Hitler...to this day, many still part of the french filosopher jean paul sartre´s view on stalinism, claiming that the ends justified the means... Sartre was a genius when it came to philosophy, but an absolute moron when it came to anything else. He called Mao "An excellent human being."

I think Maoism went beyond left or right wing. Auto-wing, possibly.
Isnt it equally curious that when some leftist dictator carries out a all-out attempt to reduce his countrymen to utter poverty he is no longer truly communist or left-wing, but instead an autocrat which uses ideology to gain support?

Isnt it equally curious that when some leftist dictator carries out a all-out attempt to reduce his countrymen to utter poverty he is no longer truly communist or left-wing, but instead an autocrat which uses ideology to gain support?

That's because that's how it works. It's like saying someone has stopped being pro-democracy when they outlaw elections.

Isnt it equally curious that when some leftist dictator carries out a all-out attempt to reduce his countrymen to utter poverty he is no longer truly communist or left-wing, but instead an autocrat which uses ideology to gain support? In my mind, not really. I class Hitler as beyond fascism as well, since he went a lot further than Mussolini. Many people in Mao's China were punished for being "egalitarian".

Oh and btw, I'm not a communist, nor a socialist… nor am I very right wing.

Isnt it equally curious that when some leftist dictator carries out a all-out attempt to reduce his countrymen to utter poverty he is no longer truly communist or left-wing, but instead an autocrat which uses ideology to gain support? What he is, in that case, is a hideous mix between aslave-society and fascist dictatorship, neither of which are values that most Western leftists would espouse as their own, I know I wouldn't.

Basically, Mao's dictatorship has given me many ideas and inspiration for the bad guys in the thing I'm writing.

What he is, in that case, is a hideous mix between aslave-society and fascist dictatorship, neither of which are values that most Western leftists would espouse as their own, I know I wouldn't.
There we go again, claiming that a communist eperience which followed faithfully all the guidelines in Marx´s gospel was at its core "fascist"...

There we go again, claiming that a communist eperience which followed faithfully all the guidelines in Marx´s gospel was at its core "fascist"... It certainly wasn't fascist, and it certainly wasn't Marxist. Mao didn't even read many of Marx's books, and his system was nothing like fascism.

In my mind, not really. I class Hitler as beyond fascism as well, since he went a lot further than Mussolini. Many people in Mao's China were punished for being "egalitarian".

Oh and btw, I'm not a communist, nor a socialist… nor am I very right wing.
Hiler went balistic because his particular branda of fascism got turned upside down by racial determinism, something that was never a tenement of fascist ideology...you must be confusing "egalitarian" with "enemy of the working class"

There we go again, claiming that a communist eperience which followed faithfully all the guidelines in Marx´s gospel was at its core "fascist"... *sigh* I don't really like doing this as I'm not a big fan of Communists personally, but no regieme on Earth has ever "faithfully followed" Marx's gospel. Communism has been useful for those who want power by appealing to the sensibilities of the poor and allowing them to be twisted however the tyrannical leader wishes. I'd love to see a non-violent communist revolution, at least then I could morally support it, but worldwide, Communism has been misrepresented, abused and ultimately demonised by the actions of the selfish and the corrupt.

Hiler went balistic because his particular branda of fascism got turned upside down by racial determinism, something that was never a tenement of fascist ideology...you must be confusing "egalitarian" with "enemy of the working class" No, I'm not. Have you heard about the "theory of blood-lines"? People from the upper and middle classes were automatically enemies, and therefore treated far worse than even ordinary Chinese… not exactly "everyone is equal", is it?

It certainly wasn't fascist, and it certainly wasn't Marxist. Mao didn't even read many of Marx's books, and his system was nothing like fascism.
All the megalomania of the marxist central planning was there...and China and the USSR became bitter enemies over the issue´of who was the rightful heir to Marx´s ideological heritage...no one could ever make a decisive judgement on that one.

All the megalomania of the marxist central planning was there...and China and the USSR became bitter enemies over the issue´of who was the rightful heir to Marx´s ideological heritage...no one could ever make a decisive judgement on that one. Stalin wasn't very nice either. :) They were both traitors to the revolution, to their comrades, to their benefactors, and to their family. (not sure about Stalin on that one, actually)

*sigh* I don't really like doing this as I'm not a big fan of Communists personally, but no regieme on Earth has ever "faithfully followed" Marx's gospel. Communism has been useful for those who want power by appealing to the sensibilities of the poor and allowing them to be twisted however the tyrannical leader wishes. I'd love to see a non-violent communist revolution, at least then I could morally support it, but worldwide, Communism has been misrepresented, abused and ultimately demonised by the actions of the selfish and the corrupt.
Well, a non-violent marxit revolution?! That would have marx rolling in his grave, as he always thought that violence was a driving force of history and throughout his life always purported the violent downfall of the burgeois State...so, i suppose Lenin wasn´t a communist, too...with that kind of reasoning, i can say that Hitler and Mussolini werent fascists either, cant i?

Bush and Republicanism are more evil that all others combined!

I think this sort of thinking makes light of what happened to those people under Mao's rule, the victims of Nazi Germany, and all other victims of mass murder.

I don't agree with much of what our government has done over the last four years or so...but to make this comment, and mean it, is really going off the deep end. Again, I am not agreeing with Bush or the lies, just that this comment is reactionary to the point of being disrespectful to the millions and millions of innocent people that were coralled and executed to suit the needs of the likes of Hitler and Mao.

Isnt it equally curious that when some leftist dictator carries out a all-out attempt to reduce his countrymen to utter poverty he is no longer truly communist or left-wing, but instead an autocrat which uses ideology to gain support?
Isn't it equally curious that when some right wing democracy invades a country and replaces it's democracy with a dictator, that is not evil, beacuse the democratically elected leftist is "evil"? Didn't you think that it's curious that by it's very definition Socialism and Communism cannot be a dictatorship, which is why they are no longer leftists?
See, this is why your point is stupid and moot.

Isn't it equally curious that when you don't like something, you propagandise it with the word evil to make people hate it?

Well, a non-violent marxit revolution?! That would have marx rolling in his grave, as he always thought that violence was a driving force of history and throughout his life always purported the violent downfall of the burgeois State...so, i suppose Lenin wasn´t a communist, too...with that kind of reasoning, i can say that Hitler and Mussolini werent fascists either, cant i? Marx did not propose the violent oppression of the working class… the working class were supposed to be the rulers, how can the rulers be oppressed?

The worst story I read about Mao was this. During the Long March mao was also doing a great deal of political deals...however to stall for time he made his men march 2000km south through horrible terrain and then north again just os he could do better within the party. Nearly 10,000 people died on that leg.

Hilter = Nazi
Mussolini = Fascist
Stalin = Fascist
Mao = Fascist

I think Mao( although ruthless) atleast had a generally good vision for China but he did'nt not know how to do it right. Famines caused most of the deaths the deaths under Maos belt. He did not mean for these people to die. Unlike Hilter who ordered most of his victims to death and planned to kill millions more.

Isn't it equally curious that when some right wing democracy invades a country and replaces it's democracy with a dictator, that is not evil, beacuse the democratically elected leftist is "evil"? Didn't you think that it's curious that by it's very definition Socialism and Communism cannot be a dictatorship, which is why they are no longer leftists?
See, this is why your point is stupid and moot.

Isn't it equally curious that when you don't like something, you propagandise it with the word evil to make people hate it?
First of all,i didn´t say that Mao was evil,,i, if you havent noticed, didn´t start this thread.
When it comes to definitions of socialism and communism, you should really take the trouble and do some reading. Marx purported that to install a communist state, the revolutionares would have to wage warfare on the upper-classes...then, after suceding, they would set up a "dictatorship of the proletariat"...dictatorship being the operative word here, since all other political parties would be abolished and all free speech surpressed...exactaly the roadmap followed in Russia in 1917...by its own definition, communism not only can, but must forcibly be a dictatorship.

Marx did not propose the violent oppression of the working class… the working class were supposed to be the rulers, how can the rulers be oppressed?
Maybe i didnt make myself clear...Marx advocated the destruction of the capitalist state and total war on capitalists everywhere..."class warfare"familiar with the term?thats why i said that ther could never have been anything like a peaceful communist revolution.

hi

just to get back to mao for a moment.

although i wouldn't deny that he oversaw the deaths and sufferings of millions i would highlight the fact that that was not all he did. in fact many of the people his reign did see starve to death or executed his reign also saw elevated to previously unimagined standards of living. that these two facts, and they are facts, seem contradictory simply illustrates the facts that mao and the maoist years were complex. not all of its crimes were perpetrated by mao, even if, as head of a popular state he bears ultimate responsibilty, and to call him simply evil is a gross and misleading generalisation.

john gittings wrote a short article on such things in the guardian a few months ago, heres a taste

"By 1955 five years of communist rule had, in spite of the Korean war, greatly improved the life of the majority of Chinese. Even if not quite the "golden era" that many older Chinese recall with nostalgia, it was a huge transformation. The crude death rate fell by nearly half in eight years; except for the worst year of the Great Leap (1960), it would remain well below the comparable figure for India."

if you would like to read more take a look at the website.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1534674,00.html

First of all,i didn´t say that Mao was evil,,i, if you havent noticed, didn´t start this thread.
When it comes to definitions of socialism and communism, you should really take the trouble and do some reading. Marx purported that to install a communist state, the revolutionares would have to wage warfare on the upper-classes...then, after suceding, they would set up a "dictatorship of the proletariat"...dictatorship being the operative word here, since all other political parties would be abolished and all free speech surpressed...exactaly the roadmap followed in Russia in 1917...by its own definition, communism not only can, but must forcibly be a dictatorship.

The Dictatorship of the proletariat is not a 'dictatorship' as we know it today. Marx argued that we are ruled by a 'Dictatorship of the bourgeois' meaning the rich control the government, means of production, media and propaganda. Since more people live in the proletariat class( which would include the poor and middle classes) a democracy in socialism would be truely a goverment of the people for the people. Unfortunately that never happened in Russia for various reasons.

Bush and Republicanism are more evil that all others combined!
Please tell me that you're joking and you're honestly not a pure blooded moron.

Now, as for the discussion, Mao did kill quite a few people. Hitler killed around six million, Stalin around twenty million. What are the numbers for Mao? That's honestly not something that I can say I've ever read or heard.

On the subject of Nazism being beyond Fascism, that's true. Nazism is an extreme form of Fascism. Just like Communism is an extreme form of Socialism.

Stalin and Mao, however, were not Fascist. They were what I like to call, Practical Communists. Why Practical Communist instead of just Communist or True Communist? Because true Communism can't work. Not on a large scale. It's against basic Human nature. All nations that attempt to go Communist, or even further down the Socialist road, end up turning into a corrupt, cruel dictatorship that would make one long for a Fascist leader in comparison.

Now, as for the discussion, Mao did kill quite a few people. Hitler killed around six million, Stalin around twenty million. What are the numbers for Mao? That's honestly not something that I can say I've ever read or heard. Over 70 Million, I can't recall the exact number.

I've never been all that comfortable trying to quantify evil. Hitler was evil, Stalin was evil, Mao was evil. That's all that really matters, and I don't feel any particular need to award a prize for "Most Evil."

First of all,i didn´t say that Mao was evil,,i, if you havent noticed, didn´t start this thread.
When it comes to definitions of socialism and communism, you should really take the trouble and do some reading. Marx purported that to install a communist state, the revolutionares would have to wage warfare on the upper-classes...then, after suceding, they would set up a "dictatorship of the proletariat"...dictatorship being the operative word here, since all other political parties would be abolished and all free speech surpressed...exactaly the roadmap followed in Russia in 1917...by its own definition, communism not only can, but must forcibly be a dictatorship.

Yeah, see, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was Socialism, the gap stage before Communism could be reached. Socialism was meant to stay around until the whole world was Socialist. It was never defined whether it should be a dictatorship or not. Communism would come into power when everyone was Socialist, and Communism=anarchy..not a dictatorship. The reason all other political parties would be abolished is because that would only delay the inevitable process of Communism.

You lose.

lol..........Wow........did any of you even go to china?......lol........some people (or maybe most) still admired Mao for his aggressive stance against America and giving China nukes......plus......the annual normal death rate in China is around 2 million or more in the 50s.....3 to 4 million in the 70s.......and increase even more after going into the 80s and 90s......lol.........70 million dead?...... more ppl died a normal deaths in China during these 40 or 50 years......lol......

The Dictatorship of the proletariat is not a 'dictatorship' as we know it today. Marx argued that we are ruled by a 'Dictatorship of the bourgeois' meaning the rich control the government, means of production, media and propaganda. Since more people live in the proletariat class( which would include the poor and middle classes) a democracy in socialism would be truely a goverment of the people for the people. Unfortunately that never happened in Russia for various reasons.
Im afraid that isnt entirely correct...Marx envisioned the dictatorship of the proletaiat as a full blown dictatotrship, where all political parties, (besides the communist single party) would be outlawed...he could never mix burgeois "dictattorship" with proletariat dicatorship. because, even in marx´s day communist parties were allowed in european burgeois states...

Wait.......aren't we talking about Mao???...since when did it turn into a discussion about the rights and wrongs of the Communist ideology and Marxism???...........

Yeah, see, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was Socialism, the gap stage before Communism could be reached. Socialism was meant to stay around until the whole world was Socialist. It was never defined whether it should be a dictatorship or not. Communism would come into power when everyone was Socialist, and Communism=anarchy..not a dictatorship. The reason all other political parties would be abolished is because that would only delay the inevitable process of Communism.

You lose.
Of course Marx purported socialism as a dictatorship...what do you call a state of affairs where a "enlightened vanguard" of intelectuals lead the single party? That would only delay the inevitable process of communism? Then the spanish and italian communists parties were undoutbelly traitors to the cause, as they accepted electoral process in the second half of the 20th century...Mussolini and hitler defend the abolition of political parties because they were a nuisance on the path of the New Order...what´s so different?All supression of free speech equals dictatorship.

Wait.......aren't we talking about Mao???...since when did it turn into a discussion about the rights and wrongs of the Communist ideology and Marxism???...........
Quite right, and i for one apologize. ;)

Bump.

Hitler killed around six million,
Hitler killed far more than that. It wasn't just Jews who Hitler targeted. (Plus, Hitler's directly responsible for WWII.)

You're all very misinformed. Mao was one the greatest leaders of modern China. He brought China out of the mess that we were in in the 1930s and 1940s.

Of course he made grave and terrible mistakes in his later years, and he would have been better off dead in 1950 than 1976, but we need to balance our historical judgements of leaders.

Well, you could argue that Hitler is responsible for the deaths of 50 million, as that was the number dead due to WWII which prob wouldn't have happened if not for Adolf.
Stalin's responsible for 5-10 million, depending on the sources.
Mao is responsible for at 60+ million who died during the 'Great leap forward' back in the 60's, as well several million more during the rest of his reign.

So if using just numbers, Mao comes out on top.

In terms of evil, that's a toughie. First we'd need to define the word 'Evil'. Does it mean complete absence of good intentions or delighting in the suffering of others? I would view evil as an extremely selfish act.

Hitler did what he did, obsessed that he was doing right for the German people (ends justifying the means and all that). I don't think Hitler ever stopped to consider what he was doing was wrong.
Stalin was paranoid about being deposed, so went out of his way to control and scare the populace. And he seemed to delight in doing so, which makes him more evil than Hitler. I don't think Hitler ever delighted in torturing people - it was more that if done, he viewed it as a necessity to help achieve his aims which weren't selfish in themselves. Stalin's aims were to stay in power as long as possible. Nothing else.
I would go for Mao though, because he wanted nothing else but to stay in power. So made up pogroms and policies that he surely knew would lead to the deaths of millions just to maintain his grip on power. He knew, because when people started questioning and protesting, he accused his wife and others (the 'Gang of four') of doing it all and had them take the blame.


I think the main reasons Mao has been ignored has been because China has yet to face up to it (the millions of deaths in the 60's aren't covered in most school history texts or are glossed over as 'mistakes'), so the true enormity of it hasn't really been told to the rest of the World.
Also, it happened in a country far removed from Western World where they look different to us, so we find it more difficult to empathise and understand - unlike WWII where we probably know of people who were either caught up in it or their parents/grandparents were. Even with Russia, we can relate to them as they look like us. How many of you NS'ers know any Chinese who went through the Mao times? (Dragon's bay, don't answer this!)
It's a matter of empathy.
Another reason is that it occurred in just one country, whereas WWII affected dozens. So more people from different cultures were affected and thus the whole world interest in it was greater.

And finally, I'd suggest that it's been in the Western world's economic interests not to bring it up, as they're more than happy to deal with China's massively growing economy. China would certainly get in a tiff, sulk and refuse to do business with a country if it started educating it's citizens just how evil Mao was and the damage he did.

lol..........Wow........did any of you even go to china?......lol........some people (or maybe most) still admired Mao for his aggressive stance against America and giving China nukes......plus......the annual normal death rate in China is around 2 million or more in the 50s.....3 to 4 million in the 70s.......and increase even more after going into the 80s and 90s......lol.........70 million dead?...... more ppl died a normal deaths in China during these 40 or 50 years......lol......
Could someone translate this for me? I understand the words, but not the sentences. Methinks CE is in the 'up' phase of a Manic-Depressive episode, hence the 'lol' scattered throughout.

You're all very misinformed. Mao was one the greatest leaders of modern China. He brought China out of the mess that we were in in the 1930s and 1940s.

Of course he made grave and terrible mistakes in his later years, and he would have been better off dead in 1950 than 1976, but we need to balance our historical judgements of leaders.
Aren’t you a Christian? Mao persecuted Christians.
Modern China has no great leaders who were not killed by their own government.

Hitler killed far more than that. It wasn't just Jews who Hitler targeted. (Plus, Hitler's directly responsible for WWII.)
You're right. It most likely comes out around 10 million

Well, you could argue that Hitler is responsible for the deaths of 50 million, as that was the number dead due to WWII which prob wouldn't have happened if not for Adolf.
No? If there wasn't Hitler, there would have been someone else. The numbers of dictators and warmongers were quickly growing in the screwed over nations of WWI. Even Stalin would have more than likely attempted to invade Europe. Would have been a far bloodier war.

Either way, you can't count losses due to actual war. It's a different situation entirely. Besides, France invaded Germany first. Didn't they declare war on Germany first as well?

Stalin's responsible for 5-10 million, depending on the sources.
More like 15-50 million, depending on the sources. Most of these were directly ordering them. Hell, he was orderingt he death of plane designers for wanting swept back wings on planned fighter jets!

Mao is responsible for at 60+ million who died during the 'Great leap forward' back in the 60's, as well several million more during the rest of his reign.
Yeah. Definately gets the medal for most brutal leader.

Aren’t you a Christian? Mao persecuted Christians.
Modern China has no great leaders who were not killed by their own government.

Yes, but I'm Chinese too. You can't exactly blame Mao. Christianity - at least Catholicism didn't make a good start in China. Some missionaries were spies for the Western powers. Christianity was often confused with Christianity.

Christianity is now making a major comeback in China! :)

Yes, but I'm Chinese too. You can't exactly blame Mao. Christianity - at least Catholicism didn't make a good start in China. Some missionaries were spies for the Western powers. Christianity was often confused with Christianity.

Christianity is now making a major comeback in China! :) You're right, Mao didn't specifically persecute Christians much more than other groups. He persecuted the entire population instead. The Chinese government still spreads the myths about Mao, because Mao as the "great revolutionary" is the only way they can justify their power.

Yes, but I'm Chinese too. You can't exactly blame Mao. Christianity - at least Catholicism didn't make a good start in China. Some missionaries were spies for the Western powers. Christianity was often confused with Christianity.

Christianity is now making a major comeback in China! :)
Yes, of course it is, straight into police´s detention cells and prisons.

Yes, of course it is, straight into police´s detention cells and prisons. It's mostly successful in the South. Foolish Chinese government, they should see what happened to Rome when it persecuted Christians… if you persecute any religion it bounces back.

The west shunned Moa and the mainland China because he was for Communism, without outside trade China had to tend itself (probably that's why you hardly hear china being dependant on other countries for resources, except oil, even though it has the largest population in the world) those hard times where China had to endure sanctions and non recognition from the international community is where all these deaths and turmoil had occurred. Western nations only recognized Taiwan (the tiny island off of mainland China to represent the whole Chinese people) that was ridiculous and America only started that the mainland China represented the whole of China. It was these arrogances by the West towards China that led to the hardship of China. Now look what's happening to China as the world opens up trade and many other things look how its people prosper.

I've noticed something curious in society, which appears to be a relaxed attitude to Mao's regieme of horror which cost China 70 Million lives, gutted the economy and wasted countless resources just to fuel one man's dreams of supremacy over the entire planet.

Stalinism and Nazism are now rightly viewed as evil and flawed systems, why not Maoism?

The fact that we have bands such as "The Gang of Four" and Billy Bragg songs singing about "Waiting for the next Great Leap Forwards" would suggest a critical lack of understanding in popular culture about the true hideousness of Mao's tyranny.

Why does the public not properly realise just how cruel this man was? Is there bias, a lack of understanding, or something else? :confused:

I totally agree that he was just as bad. But at that time everything was focused on the west..so pretty much everything in Asia..except Japan went un noticed.

You're all very misinformed. Mao was one the greatest leaders of modern China. He brought China out of the mess that we were in in the 1930s and 1940s.

Of course he made grave and terrible mistakes in his later years, and he would have been better off dead in 1950 than 1976, but we need to balance our historical judgements of leaders.
Well Mao being one of the greatest modern Chinese leaders is hardly a toughie. Not much competition there at all.
The book 'Great Modern Chinese Leaders' rates up along side 'Ethiopian tips on World dominantion' and 'Different ways to spell "Bob"' in the shortest-books stakes.

One good thing about Stalin and Hitler compared to Mao - Not paedophiles.

12 year old virgins for Mr Mao.

Twisted bastard.

You're right, Mao didn't specifically persecute Christians much more than other groups. He persecuted the entire population instead. The Chinese government still spreads the myths about Mao, because Mao as the "great revolutionary" is the only way they can justify their power.

There are indeed crazy myths about Mao, but one cannot discount the foundation he laid for China to become a rising superpower today. Yes, there's a lot of catching up in the areas of civil liberties and individual rights, but the ground of the economy, government and military were laid down by Mao. At least he ended the period of disunity, warlordism and foreign occupation. Without a integral nation, where goes democracy and liberty? We have a proper nation today thanks to Mao. Nobody can dispute that.

Yes, of course it is, straight into police´s detention cells and prisons.
That's why Christianity is growing faster and stronger in China, different to the softie Christians living in their lives of muddled standards in the West. In China Christians take their religion very seriously, not the kind Westerners take it.

Anyone here read 'Mao' by Jung Chang yet? I was thinking about buying it and wanted to know if it's worth it. Or should I just get it out of the library?

There are indeed crazy myths about Mao, but one cannot discount the foundation he laid for China to become a rising superpower today. Yes, there's a lot of catching up in the areas of civil liberties and individual rights, but the ground of the economy, government and military were laid down by Mao. At least he ended the period of disunity, warlordism and foreign occupation. Without a integral nation, where goes democracy and liberty? We have a proper nation today thanks to Mao. Nobody can dispute that. You do indeed have a proper nation, but at a terrible, somewhat Faustian price, and your government is untrustworthy.

One good thing about Stalin and Hitler compared to Mao - Not paedophiles.

12 year old virgins for Mr Mao.

Twisted bastard. 12 year olds? :eek: I knew that he liked young girls, but not that young!

Anyone here read 'Mao' by Jung Chang yet? I was thinking about buying it and wanted to know if it's worth it. Or should I just get it out of the library? You should read it… it's a big book, so you'll need to either read solidly (and it's not easy reading, it's not nice at all) or get it out of the library a few times.

You do indeed have a proper nation, but at a terrible, somewhat Faustian price, and your government is untrustworthy.

Heh. All nations come at a cost and no government is totally trustworthy.

Heh. All nations come at a cost and no government is totally trustworthy. Mao forged China out of the blood of his people. His actions may have made China into a superpower, but they were at a cost of 70 million lives. Make no mistake, he wasn't doing it for altruism.

I tend to be distrustful of any government that shoots its own students. :)

I've noticed something curious in society, which appears to be a relaxed attitude to Mao's regieme of horror which cost China 70 Million lives, gutted the economy and wasted countless resources just to fuel one man's dreams of supremacy over the entire planet.

Stalinism and Nazism are now rightly viewed as evil and flawed systems, why not Maoism?

The fact that we have bands such as "The Gang of Four" and Billy Bragg songs singing about "Waiting for the next Great Leap Forwards" would suggest a critical lack of understanding in popular culture about the true hideousness of Mao's tyranny.

Why does the public not properly realise just how cruel this man was? Is there bias, a lack of understanding, or something else? :confused:

There is definitely a misunderstanding about Mao...both from his idolisers, and his detractors. Mao didn't just want to be a bastard and cause the deaths of millions; he had a grandiose vision but was sadly too much of a fool to see it carried out properly - a fool, because he established a system which, if his plans were to have any hope of success, would need his direct personal intervention. Many of the people acting under his control were horrible bastards, but not so much Mao himself...have a look at Mao's granting of power to the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution. He sat back, after giving them the power to run their own vigilante justice system (and prevented the police from interfering with it), believing that they would spread socialism among the population (and squash unrest, as all dictators do - but as long as he wasn't involved himself, this wasn't a problem for Mao.). This is in contrast to Stalin, who used his position of power to order such things himself (the infamous signing of the gulag lists, for example). Mao simply didn't like getting his hands dirty after he had dug holes to plant trees in - and when the pressure got too much, he allowed his position to be sidelined and was reduced to the role of a mere figurehead.

The deaths during the great leap forward, etc. weren't in my opinion deliberate. They had no idea how many people were in China. Census figures weren't accurate. How can you have central planning if you don't know what exactly you are planning? His plans failed dismally and the result was millions of dead. It was nothing more than incompetence.

He was a dictator (and thus bad, of course), but he was a weak one...as for being one of the most brutal, no, he wasn't. As for being one of the biggest failures, yes - but even then, he wasn't the only man that was incompetent - he didn't do the planning himself.

Right, I've got the book beside me.

Did you know that Mao could easily have rescued his second wife Kai-Hui from the nationalists, but chose not to? He just abandoned her.
President Liu Shao-Chi visited peasants in his home village Hunan, and tried to halt the great leap forward. Mao then humiliated him and his wife, and killed him in captibity.
Mao invaded Tibet and assimilated its culture and humiliated the Panchen Lama.
Mao had luxurious cottages and surroundings, which he prevented the people from seeing; he killed people for having any kind of luxury.
He wrote his philosophies when he was 24, saying: "I do not agree with the view that to be moral, the motive of one's action has to be benefiting others. Morality does not have to be defined in relation to others… people like me want to… satisfy our hearts to the full, and in doing so we automatically have the most valuable moral codes. Of course there are people and objects in the world, but they are only for me."

Mao forged China out of the blood of his people. His actions may have made China into a superpower, but they were at a cost of 70 million lives. Make no mistake, he wasn't doing it for altruism.

I tend to be distrustful of any government that shoots its own students. :)

If the people aren't willing to put blood (not the oozing ooze sense, but the metaphorical sense) into their nation, then don't be part of it.

I understand what you mean, but to Mao at the time he was not only concerned about his power, but he firmly believed - and a little forced by political reality - that socialism was the only way out for China.

Yes, like how the National Guard opened fire on American students in protest of the Vietnam War. It really is sad. :(

If the people aren't willing to put blood (not the oozing ooze sense, but the metaphorical sense) into their nation, then don't be part of it.

I understand what you mean, but to Mao at the time he was not only concerned about his power, but he firmly believed - and a little forced by political reality - that socialism was the only way out for China.

Yes, like how the National Guard opened fire on American students in protest of the Vietnam War. It really is sad. :( Who said I trusted the American government? Or the British after Bloody Sunday?

People ought to be willing to put blood into their nation… but maybe the nation blood service is being a little overzealous when 70 million die from blood loss, don't you think?

Right, I've got the book beside me.

Did you know that Mao could easily have rescued his second wife Kai-Hui from the nationalists, but chose not to? He just abandoned her.
President Liu Shao-Chi visited peasants in his home village Hunan, and tried to halt the great leap forward. Mao then humiliated him and his wife, and killed him in captibity.
Mao invaded Tibet and assimilated its culture and humiliated the Panchen Lama.
Mao had luxurious cottages and surroundings, which he prevented the people from seeing; he killed people for having any kind of luxury.
He wrote his philosophies when he was 24, saying: "I do not agree with the view that to be moral, the motive of one's action has to be benefiting others. Morality does not have to be defined in relation to others… people like me want to… satisfy our hearts to the full, and in doing so we automatically have the most valuable moral codes. Of course there are people and objects in the world, but they are only for me."

I never said he was a good guy. I don't make any apology for him. It's important to note that a lot of failures and crimes attributed to Mao weren't his doing, though. It wasn't he that killed people for having any kind of luxury; it was the Red Guards who ran around and dispensed their own vigilante justice, for example. Mao had nothing to do with it directly.

Who said I trusted the American government? Or the British after Bloody Sunday?

People ought to be willing to put blood into their nation… but maybe the nation blood service is being a little overzealous when 70 million die from blood loss, don't you think?

Not blood loss, starvation. The famines were as a result of incompetence.

I never said he was a good guy. I don't make any apology for him. It's important to note that a lot of failures and crimes attributed to Mao weren't his doing, though. It wasn't he that killed people for having any kind of luxury; it was the Red Guards who ran around and dispensed their own vigilante justice, for example. Mao had nothing to do with it directly. He did encourage it, though… he didn't like to be constrained by law. He once referred to himself as "a man without law or limit" (which somehow got mistranslated as "a lone monk".

Who said I trusted the American government? Or the British after Bloody Sunday?

People ought to be willing to put blood into their nation… but maybe the nation blood service is being a little overzealous when 70 million die from blood loss, don't you think?

So it's not just Chairman Mao, eh?

Every nation has its share of bloody and dark history. It is tragic that 70 million? died of famine - but the famine was coupled by natural disasters - in other words, not all that 70 million was caused by Mao. Also, Mao himself often had no control over the regions - not surprising if communications had been damaged by years of war and corruption, and many a time his name ruled, not his power. To put all the deaths on one name is rather oversimplified.

So it's not just Chairman Mao, eh?

Every nation has its share of bloody and dark history. It is tragic that 70 million? died of famine - but the famine was coupled by natural disasters - in other words, not all that 70 million was caused by Mao. Also, Mao himself often had no control over the regions - not surprising if communications had been damaged by years of war and corruption, and many a time his name ruled, not his power. To put all the deaths on one name is rather oversimplified. I'm not blaming all of the deaths on him directly, but he was the man behind the policies. Btw, in 1962, the time his leadership was weakened by the other members of his party (who really thought the famine was a bit much, and didn't like the idea of banning the classics), China was the most liberal in his reign.

I'm not blaming all of the deaths on him directly, but he was the man behind the policies. Btw, in 1962, the time his leadership was weakened by the other members of his party (who really thought the famine was a bit much, and didn't like the idea of banning the classics), China was the most liberal in his reign.

Actually, there is alternate evidence that Mao never really intended to initiate the Great Leap Forward. It is said that he was riding on a train in the Chinese countryside and read from a propaganda sign that said "Great Leap Forward", and some reporters took down what he read as what he said. And thus the beginning of the GLF - and its undisputed disastrous policies.

We did learn the lesson, though. Deng Xiaoping opened China's economy in the 1980s.

Is Mao evil? Hmm...
But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
The Beatles say he's bad, so I'll have to assume he is.

Actually, there is alternate evidence that Mao never really intended to initiate the Great Leap Forward. It is said that he was riding on a train in the Chinese countryside and read from a propaganda sign that said "Great Leap Forward", and some reporters took down what he read as what he said. And thus the beginning of the GLF - and its undisputed disastrous policies. Nope, Mao really did want to initiate the Great Leap Forwards, and was extremely aware that his policies would have disasterous consequences for the Chinese people, so were people within the CCP, many of whom halted Mao's first attempt in the mid-fifties and paid dearly for their sense of morality.

As he once famously said; "Half of China may well have to die."

Nope, Mao really did want to initiate the Great Leap Forwards, and was extremely aware that his policies would have disasterous consequences for the Chinese people, so were people within the CCP, many of whom halted Mao's first attempt in the mid-fifties and paid dearly for their sense of morality.

As he once famously said; "Half of China may well have to die."

Now let's put ourselves into Mao's position. If I was to rule my nation, it is my interest to keep the population of my nation alive, or I would have nobody to rule, right? Everybody is concerned for their own power, but Mao also had an ideology that he believed firmly and adhered to.

You mean a little like all the other leaders saying: "some of us have to sacrifice for our nation?"

Now let's put ourselves into Mao's position. If I was to rule my nation, it is my interest to keep the population of my nation alive, or I would have nobody to rule, right? Everybody is concerned for their own power, but Mao also had an ideology that he believed firmly and adhered to. Of course he had an ideology, Mao first, all else is irrelevant. He pretty clearly stated this in his younger years.

Mao considered that half of the population of China could die and he would find that an acceptable loss. You do realise what the Great Leap was, right? A massive scale re-armament and militarisation, intended to grant China the status of a super-power and give Mao the ability to be a world player. Mao dreamed of conquering the planet, and told his staff during the leap; "We must control the Earth!"

To Mao, people were nothing, black dots, husks of wheat. He terrorised, brainwashed and starved his population into submission, intending them to be nothing else but "Good little cogs", ie, mindless parts in an insane machine. If a person did not suit Mao, that person was eliminated.

Mao was a revolutionary. As such, he suffered from the same sort of delusionary fixation as most revolutionaries. He was completely captivated by his ideas and his ideology. One cannot invest so much effort and energy into an idea, especially one like communism, and not try and apply its tenets to everything one does. But really, you can see similar behaviors in France, Russia, Great Britain, and even in the United States at the times of their various revolutions.
Mao led a rag-tag group of communists into battle against the overwhelming odds of a corrupt nationalist government (read fascist... there is an argument here), led a guerilla campaign against a powerful Japanese army, faced down overwhelming political and economic presure from the Russian, and pushed the remnants of American hegemony out of China. You have to understand Mao first and foremost as a natioalist leader who used marxist-leninism as an ideology to unite people.
He didn't create a communist state, nor did he create the sort of psychotic dictatorship that many would acuse him of having done. He took a broken and battered China, forced it to stand up, and turned it from a victimised and fallen empire (check out China's history from the 18th century on...), and dragged it kicking and screaming into the modern age. I guess what is being overlooked in this debate so far, is the historical context that Mao was coming from. China was a geographic expression when he allowed it to become a nation again. This push for national pride and modernity defines Mao's early career.
It wouldn't be a revolution without phases though, so lets keep going. After all, despite the progress made by the commies in the 50's (healthcare, industry, trade, oh my!), we can't really have a discussion of Maoism without talking about the Great Leap Forward. After all, this is where it all falls down right? Some huge, and undetermined number of people died of starvation as crops failed and industry fell apart. Lets look at how it came about though, and maybe you will understand how Mao was no kind of Hilter, and far removed from Stalin.
The Great Leap Forward was intended to serve two important functions. The first, was to increase the industrial and agricultural output of China by rationalizing the mean of production. The second was to send a message to the Soviet Union, that China was not going to be a backwards puppet by using interpretations of "True" communism, by quite literally, turning over the means of production to the peasants and workers. Sounds pretty doesn't it? All this came about because these communes were already established and running in various parts of China, albeit on a small scale, and showing a great deal of promise. During one of travels to the countryside, Mao was shown one, and like the good communist that he was, liked what he saw. So the program was expanded.
It is in here somewhere that everything falls down. Mao, living in Beijing, was not often out in the country to see what was happening. The way the system worked, is that every commune was supposed to produce 'X' amount of surplus grain in order to feed the cities. The rest would stay at home and be used to feed the people there. If the quota came up short, your village leader was supposed to account for why, and try to improve productivity. Well, you can see where this is going. They lied. A lot. The grain quotas were usually met, and the reposrts coming in suggested to the central party that everything was going far better than they could have dreamed. So they did what was natural when things are going well, they upped the quotas (after all, most villages were aparently experiencing massive surplusses). Compounding this situation was the general lack of expertise in the communes; most backwater peasants I know, don't know a whole lot about steel smelting and engine production. Industry began to cave as well, behind a sea of smiles from functionaries that didn't want to admit that things were not going well, and that they needed help.
Like Russia's struggling transition to capitalism from state centered socialism, the Chinese tried to make the shift to communism far to quickly. Perhaps, had things been conducted honestly, without so much kow-towing around the issues, the GLF would have worked. We have no way of knowing. I can tell you, when the situation got so far out of hand, that there was no way of hiding the truth any longer, the project was scrapped. Some of these communes still exist though, and do rather well (so I'm told). There's one that manufatures bricks, and another that produces bicycles I guess... The Great Leap forward was suggested by Mao, but was a failure on the part of the beurocracy and not the convoluted scheme of a power hungry madman. He got his chance to do that during the cultural revolution. By then though, he was very old, effectively out of power, and desperate to bring back the notion of permanent revolution. That and his wife was doing most of the talking for him, since he had lost much of his powers of speech.

I guess my point is that, Mao can be evaluated more kindly by history. Any major political figure has to be viewed through the lenses of what they intended to do, what they actually did, and what the results of their actions were. Hitler intended to make Germany great again, Hilter intended to slaughter millions in order to do this, Hilter weakened Germany, and succeeded in slaughtering millions. All and all, his is a wretched legacy.
Stalin, usurped the Soviet revolution, intended to steal power from the Bolsheviks, intended to modernize Russia, intended to safeguard it against future invasion, intended to become a benevolent dictator, intended to "build solialism." He did usurp power, he did make Russia a powerful nation, he did safeguard it from future invasion, and he became an iron-fisted jerk (though you could argue that he always was). All and all, he wasn't great guy, but to call him evil on the same level as Hitler? I think that is a bit unfair.
Mao's greatest crime? I'd say being naive more that anything else. He believed in his cause, and in his methods. He believed people when they told him that everything was just great, and as such oversaw one of the most horrible catastrophies of mismanagement in history. I believe that Lenin was much the same way, but he had the good sense to die before everything went to hell...

I guess thats my $.02, or $1.50... I am paid by the hour, maybe I should find out what this was worth ;-)

Of course he had an ideology, Mao first, all else is irrelevant. He pretty clearly stated this in his younger years.

Mao considered that half of the population of China could die and he would find that an acceptable loss. You do realise what the Great Leap was, right? A massive scale re-armament and militarisation, intended to grant China the status of a super-power and give Mao the ability to be a world player. Mao dreamed of conquering the planet, and told his staff during the leap; "We must control the Earth!"

To Mao, people were nothing, black dots, husks of wheat. He terrorised, brainwashed and starved his population into submission, intending them to be nothing else but "Good little cogs", ie, mindless parts in an insane machine. If a person did not suit Mao, that person was eliminated.

What you've said can be applied to about every other nation built upon an ideology. What's so bad about Mao aspiring China to become a world power? Doesn't every nation want to become a world power? What's so insane about Mao aspiring to spread communism everywhere? Doesn't every American president since Truman want to spread democracy everywhere?

The only problem was that Mao would kill his own people he tried to tear down the great wall of China because it wasn't modern

But I agree with you China rocks!!! heehehe

What you've said can be applied to about every other nation built upon an ideology. What's so bad about Mao aspiring China to become a world power? Doesn't every nation want to become a world power? No, I'm pretty sure most other world leaders would not be willing to sacrifice half their population just to get some guns delivered faster, not even Stalin was that insane.

The problem is the way Mao did it, and the extent to wish he wished for control. In other nations, re-armament was done in realistic terms and supplied by a strong industrial base. Mao had neither and so instead relied on selling food his people desperately needed to other nations in exchange for money or weapons. Many of the pieces of military hardware made by the Chinese either did not work or were extremely dangerous due to shoddy workmanship and inferior resources. China could not support a militarisation without massive losses and even when that militarisation was forced to halt and Mao's "Super-power Programme" was finally slowed, China gained little.

Mao's intent was not to spread an ideology for the people, but for himself. He wanted nations to bow to his will and serve his cruel purposes. Mao, in the end, was nothing but an amoral sadist who robbed China blind and forced it to its knees.

By the way, Australia has no desire to become a world power.

In my opinion, none of them were evil.

The only reason that they're being branded as 'evil' is because what they felt was right, is thought of as 'wrong' by us.

They were doing what they felt was right for their country.

And I'm not saying that killing millions of people was right, but they made their countries great and powerful, everything they weren't before.

I agree. Evil is just a kind of fairy tale...

I agree. Evil is just a kind of fairy tale... Some Russians might like to disagree. And some Zimbabweans. And…

No, I'm pretty sure most other world leaders would not be willing to sacrifice half their population just to get some guns delivered faster, not even Stalin was that insane.

The problem is the way Mao did it, and the extent to wish he wished for control. In other nations, re-armament was done in realistic terms and supplied by a strong industrial base. Mao had neither and so instead relied on selling food his people desperately needed to other nations in exchange for money or weapons. Many of the pieces of military hardware made by the Chinese either did not work or were extremely dangerous due to shoddy workmanship and inferior resources. China could not support a militarisation without massive losses and even when that militarisation was forced to halt and Mao's "Super-power Programme" was finally slowed, China gained little.

Mao's intent was not to spread an ideology for the people, but for himself. He wanted nations to bow to his will and serve his cruel purposes. Mao, in the end, was nothing but an amoral sadist who robbed China blind and forced it to its knees.

By the way, Australia has no desire to become a world power.
Fine. True. Mao may have commited grevious crimes against humanity at the latter stage of his rule - but that still does not discount the fact that he laid the foundations of China's success today.

Who says Australia doesn't want to be a world power? East Timor and Papua New Guinea are the first steps!! :mad:

Some Russians might like to disagree. And some Zimbabweans. And…

What he(she) meant, or at least what I believe he(she) meant, was that Evil is a strong word, and a matter of opinion.

Who's to say what is right and what is wrong, surely you've done something that you've thought was right, and have it blow up in your face.

Mao was a revolutionary. As such, he suffered from the same sort of delusionary fixation as most revolutionaries....

You have spoken what was on my mind, and for that, I salute you.

Fine. True. Mao may have commited grevious crimes against humanity at the latter stage of his rule - but that still does not discount the fact that he laid the foundations of China's success today. No, China's success today has come about by doing the exact opposite of what China wanted, the introduction of capitalism and allowing free enterprise. Plus, I wouldn't bet on the current success lasting.

Also, Mao committed grevious crimes against humanity all throughout his rule, and even before he came to power. The Long March and the RK purges being notable examples.

Who says Australia doesn't want to be a world power? East Timor and Papua New Guinea are the first steps!! Uh, you do realise why we went to East Timor, right? As for Papua New Guinea, we were sent there by the UN for observational purposes. The New Guineans have had independence from us for thirty years.

Mao committed grevious crimes against humanity all throughout his rule, and even before he came to power. The Long March and the RK purges being notable examples.

The Long March was hardly a crime against humanity. It was a tactical retreat and relocation. The nationalist government forced the communists to change their base of operations from the south of China to the Northwestern provinces (I can't remember the names now, and wouldn't trust myself to spell them right if I did...), and the long march was the result. There are a couple facinating books on the subject, talking about how the Long March made the party virtual legends among the people of China, and solidified the comraderie of that group. No one was chased through the mountains with whips, and while a good number of fighters died, they ended the Long March with greater numbers and a popular power base.

I'm not familiar with the RK purges though. It is possible that I know them under a different name. Could you elaborate?

Fine. True. Mao may have commited grevious crimes against humanity at the latter stage of his rule - but that still does not discount the fact that he laid the foundations of China's success today.

Who says Australia doesn't want to be a world power? East Timor and Papua New Guinea are the first steps!! :mad:
You should catch up on your knowledge of current events...East Timor was a portuguese colony up to 1975, when it was invaded by Indonesia...it remained under the latter´s brutal rule up till 2001, when a referendum was held on the matter of independence or extended autonomy...the people voted overwelmingly for the former, and the pro-indonesian militias waged a savage campaign of terror on the population..Indonesia acepted the will of the electorate and a multinational peacekeeping team with a UN-mandate took over the territory...a main contributor to this force was, because of its position as a regional power, Australia...the Australians acted out of humanitarian imperatives (although i grant that in the past they behaved less nobly endorsing Indonesian ilegal ocupation) and, not considering some issues regarding oil in the common sea basin, Australia has been a worthy neighbour of East-timor.

The Long March was hardly a crime against humanity. It was a tactical retreat and relocation. It was a retreat alright. The communist state they formed collapsed after they left like a pack of cards, people hated living under the reds.

The nationalist government forced the communists to change their base of operations from the south of China to the Northwestern provinces (I can't remember the names now, and wouldn't trust myself to spell them right if I did...), and the long march was the result. Chiang Kai-sheck was forced to allow the Reds to exist even though he could have easily crushed them, because he was being held hostage by Russia. The Soviets held Chiang by a short leash and wanted the Communists to survive, so Chiang instead forced the Communists into the barren north, hoping they would then cease to be a nuisance, unfortuantely for Chiang, Mao went to Yenan instead and Chiang was not allowed to strike, for fear of his son's life (who was a hostage of the Russians at this time).

There are a couple facinating books on the subject, talking about how the Long March made the party virtual legends among the people of China, and solidified the comraderie of that group. All of which was nothing more than lies cooked up by the Communists to make them appear greater than what they were, Mao particularly exploited the "Long March", claiming it had been a hard battle. The Long March was a sham, one that still exists to this day.

No one was chased through the mountains with whips, and while a good number of fighters died, they ended the Long March with greater numbers and a popular power base. Ahahahahahaha! No one was chased through the mountains with whips?!

I view Mao as being on a par with Stalin.

I view Mao as being on a par with Stalin. Except Stalin didn't repeatedly violate girls, and at least looked like a proper evil warlord.

Except Stalin didn't repeatedly violate girls, and at least looked like a proper evil warlord.

How do you know he didn't violate girls huh

How do you know he didn't violate girls huh Russian girls aren't near anything as good-looking as Chinese girls. ;) j/k (I think).

There's no record of him doing anything like that, whereas everyone knew what Mao was up to. Peng De-Huai got fecked over for commenting on it.

QUOTE:"All of which was nothing more than lies cooked up by the Communists to make them appear greater than what they were, Mao particularly exploited the "Long March", claiming it had been a hard battle. The Long March was a sham, one that still exists to this day"


I was thinking of the Salisbury book <i>The Long March</i>, which was written by an American or British historian (its been a little while, and I'm at work so I can't look it up). But unless McCarthy missed him as a child, I doubt he was a complete tool of the Chinese Communist conspiracy.

You take an interesting position on the subject of the Chinese Revolution, Chiang really petrified of the Russian reprisal to his actions against the communists, why would he attack them so blatantly and repeatedly? The fact that the Americans were opposed to Chiang investing to much efforts in destroying them will hopefully remind you that the Chinese were also engaged with Imperial Japan, and they needed not only the industrial support of the American and the Russians, but the popular support that the reds had in the countryside. Mao's movement was, for better or worse, supported by large chunks of the population. It was an abberation for a communist movement to be so strongly supported by the peasantry to be sure, but this was the case. Chiang held the popular sentiment in the cities (somewhat... the guy was never really all that loved... Sun Yat Sen was the good guy and was another victim of the Nationalists), but the peasantry didn't like him. Mao was a legitimante threat to his power, and he simultaneously needed his help to get the country out from under the regional warlords and to face off the Japanese. Real Politik meets idealism... its an interesting clash.

The Long March is to well documented to be anything than what it was. The myths that surround it are based in fact. It gave the communists a chance to solidify their core dynamic and spread their message around China. They were viewed as heros, and rightly so. Communist revolutionaries have always started with legimate grievences and aims. They have built popular support by doing honestly good things (Educational campaigns, development of industry, healthcare reforms, etc.). I freely admit that it falls down in the end, but Mao opened his revolution intending the best. He didn't set out by rallying people to him under the banner of "lets fuck up China, kill millions of children, and maybe kick some puppies for good measure." The nationalists made it clear that any power sharing arrangement between the two groups was not going to happen (Mao demonstrated a willingness to do this on several occasions... all ending badly). When the Japanese launched the full scale invasion of China, Chiang had no choice but to accept the help of the Reds, and he turned on them AGAIN when it was over. The war allowed Mao the chance to really solidify his power base (now extended to the cities). You cannot, even as a dictator, win popular support by being an asshole. Not if the people have the choice to follow someone else, as is the case in a civil conflict.
Chiang was a brutal facist who squandered every opportunity to change the direction of China. Mao brought it together under the red banner and made it possible for it to move forward. He was breaking new ground, and in a country that had been ruled by backwards thinking emperors for hundreds of years, he took dictatorship in a whole new direction. The reforms that we see today would not have been possible without his interverntion, because he made China proud to be China again.

Except Stalin didn't repeatedly violate girls, and at least looked like a proper evil warlord.

I dunno dude... mouse gray seems pretty evil overlordish to me... think Dr. Evil, or Goldfinger. Stalin just wore brown and smoked cigars. Mao had that whole creepy aestetic thing going... his outfit said "I'm a simple man who will horribly slaughter all of you." Stalin needed that moustache to intimidate his political foes...

The Long March is to well documented to be anything than what it was. The myths that surround it are based in fact. It gave the communists a chance to solidify their core dynamic and spread their message around China. They were viewed as heros, and rightly so. For doing what? Running away? Exploiting the masses? Let's not forget the intentionally horrendous military decisions on Mao's part which sacrificed thousands of lives in order to grant him better control of the CCP.

The Long March was an over-glorified retreat, facilitated by Chiang to the point that Reds were often left supplies and armaments by the Nationalists in order to bait them in certain directions. There was nothing "heroic" about their actions, the soldiers often had no choice. Desertions were massive. The leadership of the CCP were carried around on pedastals, Mao himself never walked more than a kilometre of the Long March. I pray that one day the Chinese people might learn of how they have been duped into believing the raw propaganda of the communists for so long.

Communist revolutionaries have always started with legimate grievences and aims. They have built popular support by doing honestly good things (Educational campaigns, development of industry, healthcare reforms, etc.). I freely admit that it falls down in the end, but Mao opened his revolution intending the best. Mao never gave a thought to those who suffered unless it somehow inconvenienced his own goals. His campaign from the very beginning was nothing but a bald-faced grab for power, hiding behind marxist rhetoric to justify monsterous policies. The industry was developed almost entirely for military purposes and healthcare/education (laughable education at that) were given almost nothing.

He didn't set out by rallying people to him under the banner of "lets fuck up China, kill millions of children, and maybe kick some puppies for good measure." Of course he didn't, neither did Hitler. I fail to see your point.

The nationalists made it clear that any power sharing arrangement between the two groups was not going to happen (Mao demonstrated a willingness to do this on several occasions... all ending badly). Ahahahahaha! You are being sarcastic, I'm sure.

When the Japanese launched the full scale invasion of China, Chiang had no choice but to accept the help of the Reds, and he turned on them AGAIN when it was over. The war allowed Mao the chance to really solidify his power base (now extended to the cities). You cannot, even as a dictator, win popular support by being an asshole. Not if the people have the choice to follow someone else, as is the case in a civil conflict. The Japanese full-scale invasion, curiously enough, was almost entirely encouraged by the actions of a Communist mole in Chiang's army. The nationalists were rife with spies and moles which severely weakened them.

Do you know how Mao "won" many of these cities? By starving the populations to death.

And Mao was the one who turned on the Nationalists, Chiang repeatedly attempted to secure a peace deal "Fight Japan First", he said. But Mao wasn't interested in the Japanese.

The people had a choice during a civil conflict?! Dude do you know what you're saying? Are you aware of how difficult it was to go anywhere during the war in China? If you were a civilian, you had to shut up and take it. Worse, Mao's policies of terrorisation made certain that the only escape was death for most people.

Mao brought it together under the red banner and made it possible for it to move forward. He was breaking new ground, and in a country that had been ruled by backwards thinking emperors for hundreds of years, he took dictatorship in a whole new direction. Certainly, one where people were utterly irrelevent and expendable. Where "half of China" was expendable.

Actually, Hitler did set out to wipe out the jews and conquer Europe... but thats niether here nor there.

I can appreciate your position, and while we can no doubt sit here tossing figures back and forth, what we've got here is a ideological argument. Let me clear this up by saying that I'm niether in favor of, nor opposed to the revolution in China. It was an important event, what needs to be dealt with in the context of our conversation is WHY it happened. If you honestly believe that Mao managed to take complete control of a nation on nearly a billion (at the time), that was divided into numerous political camps, rife with civil conflict, chopped up by warlords who were all espousing different ideas and policy aims, being tugged in different directions by foriegn powers in the span of under 20 years without doing ANYTHING that was at all noble and decent, thats fair. But the country was not lacking on dictators, so why did Mao come out on top? Why did people like him? He didn't do it by being nothing but a bully... he was a little guy anyways... not very threatening (though he might have been a ninja... I'm not sure, but I have a theory) He did it by legitimately reaching out to people and welcoming them in. Of course he used what power he had to solidify control, so does every leader in the history of mankind. You pay taxes so George Bush won't lock you up or have you executed. Gaining political power is always a compromise between force and honey. My argument is that Mao relied more on honey during his career than on blind unreasoning force.

I dunno dude... mouse gray seems pretty evil overlordish to me... think Dr. Evil, or Goldfinger. Stalin just wore brown and smoked cigars. Mao had that whole creepy aestetic thing going... his outfit said "I'm a simple man who will horribly slaughter all of you." Stalin needed that moustache to intimidate his political foes...


BUT, what a moustache it was

It's true that both stalin and Mao were on the same level as far as tyrants go, but seeing as how Russia is now recovering --however slowly-- fronm stalin's shit, and Cina is still digging mass graves and murdering babies, i'm gonna say that Mao was worse than Stalin. add to that the fact that It was Mao who held/holds the world record for Mass Genocide...


I have this theory, the worse the tyrant, the longer his regime lasts after he dies.


Thing is, Mao was a briliant fellow, I won't deny this. but the concept of Communism seems to be championed by the "educated elite." I feel this is because, although they grasp the principles easily, they have no idea of the practical application. I like to call this Book smart and world stupid. the peasants just hear "equality for all" and are all "okay, 'bout friggin' time."

This is what makes communism so prevalent. a lack of critical thinking.


But i digress, on the grand scale of evil, Mao clearly surpasses Stalin. Hitler is beneath both, but he was like that terrier that bites your leg while a big pissed off black dude named "Zeus" comes after you from down the street. you need to deal with the terrier first if you want to get away.

Bumpzors.