Mao Semaj Flaunting-Dentist ([info]comrade_xan) wrote in [info]marxism,

A Defense for Mao

the_pr0letariat told me to post this, here you go:

A Defense for Mao

This thread is dedicated to discuss what Mao and what he did in his life, weather you find him good or evil. I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but I must post A Defense for Mao, as I truly think he wasn't purely "evil."

There are four main atrocities people tie Mao Tse-Tung in with, The Invasion of Tibet, The Hundred Flowers Campaign, The Great Leap Forward, and The Cultural Revolution; which happened in that order. I wish to present a case in Mao's defense for each.

1) The Invasion of Tibet: In 1950, the Red Army invaded Tibet, a British colonial possession, Mao Tse-Tung was widely blamed for the destruction of  Buddhist temples and crack down of religious practices as well as the thousands of deaths during the invasion.
On the contrary, the Red Army was democratic at this point, as was Mao’s wish, so Mao himself had no authority over when the Chinese army invaded the colony. He merely pretended to as to not appear weak to the western imperialists, which would have taken such opportunity to fund a counter revolutionary operation to remove the new communist government.
As for the invasion itself and atrocities which occurred, since Mao had little control over the red army at the time, he obviously didn’t control when soldiers went out of line and torched a Buddhist temple, which were actually rare occurrences. Besides the deaths, which were mostly those of enemy combatants anyways, the Invasion actually liberated Tibet from harsh British rule, healed the poverty of the region, and promoted further rebellion against the British on the continent.

2) The Hundred Flowers Campaign: Once Mao had a firm grip on party policy, he launched the Hundred flowers campaign 50 years ago in 1956. It was started by Mao as an attempt to liberalize party policy and allow multi ideal practices in China. The hardliners of the party, which also held some influence, saw Mao as trying to restore capitalism, failing that a loose socialism, and aimed to stop him.
Mao was forced to step back from full power because of bombardment by his enemies, and during this time, those who expressed their ideals to the party were attacked because of their "reactionary" thinking, and as a matter of fact, the failure to liberalize party policy and the deaths of those attacks in truth, greatly grieved Mao.

3) The Great Leap Forward: In the late 50's and early 60's Mao noticed that the Nationalists failure to commercialize the Agricultural network in China and the booming population would soon lead to a disaster. Noticing the coming problems, Mao launched a series of Industrial and Agricultural reforms to combat the coming starvation.
In any other scenario, Mao would have prevented many deaths except for one problem; drought. During the middle of his agricultural reform, drought struck China and many died from Famine, a famine which Mao is widely blamed for. It can be noted and seriously debated however, that without the Great Leap forward, many more, as much as three times as recorded, could have died from starvation. Despite US propaganda at the time, the Great Leap Forward was actually a big success and saved many lives.

4) The Cultural Revolution: The Cultural Revolution, affectionately called "The Time China went mad" by anti-communists, is the major folly Mao is remembered for, that being that the atrocities of the failures in this campaign were actually Mao's fault... at least partly that is.
Before Mao died in 1976, he launched his final campaign which he called the Cultural Revolution. Mao saw reactionary capitalists gaining ground in the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) as well as external forces demonizing the party’s actions (Including attempts to overthrow the Congolese government, end Pol-Pot’s primitive reign over Cambodia, and send economical aid to Albania during the Sino-Soviet Split).
Mao called upon the masses for a second revolution and for the proletariat and farmers alike to besiege party headquarters and end the reactionary threat.  The people applied and formed the Red Guard which went beyond Mao's plans and attacked religious sites of worship, immigrants that were thought to be working for reactionaries, and even each other. Mao, foreseeing the coming anarchy, quickly moved to restore order in China and called the Cultural Revolution a "success" and asked the Red Guard to dismantle.
Shortly after, Mao died of illness and China was left in a power struggle. In truth, had the Red Guard not gone out of hand and the Cultural Revolution been truly successful, China could have been on its way to a true communist utopia. Arguably, it was the Cultural Revolution that was the closest period in time in which a nation was the closest to reaching true communism.

~Comrade Xan

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 50 comments

[info]communismnow

November 19 2006, 22:43:43 UTC 5 years ago

Mao wasn't a communist. He was a capitalist mass murderer.

[info]gillen

November 19 2006, 22:54:05 UTC 5 years ago

Care to unpack how Mao was a capitalist, o brother, or would you prefer to sit back and claim that every communist leader was not a "real" communist. How about Lenin, Uncle Ho, Fidel? Also capitalists?

[info]communismnow

November 19 2006, 23:12:24 UTC 5 years ago

Did Ze-dong, Lenin, Minh and Castro abolish wage labor or money? No. So, they really were capitalist.

[info]gillen

November 19 2006, 23:37:55 UTC 5 years ago

While I agree that that is the goal, it is for all practical purposes impossible until the Revolution has encompassed all the world and the last generations to know capitalism have died. If it happens as quickly as possible, your communism cannot occur until a century after a global communist revolution - unless of course you think to put this into play on some deserted island somewhere with no resources, economic or strategic value to recommend it. To argue that such notions must be stage two of the Revolution is to make the Revolution itself impossible. And to make the Revolution impossible, that is capitalist.

[info]communismnow

November 20 2006, 00:08:18 UTC 5 years ago

Abolishing wage labor and money should be stage one of the revolution. If it isn't, the revolution is capitalist.

[info]gillen

November 20 2006, 00:17:25 UTC 5 years ago

Then your revolution is an impossibility. So I guess we're back to mine then.

[info]comrade_xan

November 20 2006, 00:21:51 UTC 5 years ago

are you an anarchist or something?

[info]gillen

November 20 2006, 00:35:11 UTC 5 years ago

Hah!

[info]communismnow

November 20 2006, 00:22:22 UTC 5 years ago

Communism is always possible if the vanguardists and the bourgeoisies don't mess it up.

[info]gillen

5 years ago

[info]gillen

5 years ago

[info]gillen

5 years ago

[info]gillen

5 years ago

[info]gillen

5 years ago

[info]gillen

5 years ago

[info]gillen

5 years ago

[info]gillen

5 years ago

[info]vexedminor

5 years ago

[info]gillen

5 years ago

[info]gillen

5 years ago

[info]sophiaserpentia

November 20 2006, 15:36:59 UTC 5 years ago

I agree with [info]communismnow on this, actually. The revolution must involve a widespread change of thought and attitude about labor, property, and wealth, or it is doomed to become yet another permutation of the classist, elitist, cannibalistic society.

The revolution is not men with guns storming the state house and taking over the television station. Armed rebellion is an attempt to take the easy way out which will never work.

[info]gillen

5 years ago

[info]comrade_xan

November 20 2006, 00:21:09 UTC 5 years ago

Doing this whilst there is external attack can harm the revolution, the revolution must come first with the overthrow of all bourgeois, only then can we build a communist utopia. It is like a rebel soldier who tries to do land reform without overthrowing the government, he will fail because he is not focusing on the primary step, violent overthrow.

[info]communismnow

November 20 2006, 00:35:34 UTC 5 years ago

Not doing this (abolishing wage labor and money) means the revolution has failed already. If it has failed, who cares about external attack?

[info]gillen

November 19 2006, 22:50:02 UTC 5 years ago

The only thing I blame Mao for is exiling the traitor Deng to a tractor factory. The Cultural Revolution never went far enough and Mao's unwillingness to deal decisively with the corruption that had crept into the Party (and yes, I realize there were mitigating factors, but in the end the only victorious path clearly lay through the fire - a place Mao was unwilling to go) and this unwillingness led directly to the power struggle after his death and the faux-Communist regime currently running China.

[info]vexedminor

November 20 2006, 03:15:32 UTC 5 years ago

Downplaying the extent of the atrocities brought about by Maoism is akin to denying or skimming over any other ones. Be aware.

[info]chriswaugh_bj

November 20 2006, 05:36:53 UTC 5 years ago

Since when was Tibet a British colony? Before 1911 it was a part of the Qing Empire, at least nominally. With the revolution of 1911 the Qing emissary was withdrawn from Tibet, as was the practice. The Kuomintang government of the Republic of China failed to send its emissary to Lhasa, so Tibet fell into some kind of de facto (but certainly not de jure) independence until Liberation. Sure, Liberation was far more peaceful than the Free Tibet wankers and Hollywood idiots would have us believe, and most of the destruction did not happen until the arrival of the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution. And sure, Britain had its interest in Tibet, but I never heard of Britain ever having had any kind of power over Tibet.

The Hundred Flowers was a carefully thought out plan by Mao to get his potential opponents to identify themselves so they could be weeded out. Simple.

The Great Leap Forward was an unmitigated disaster and Mao bears total blame for everything that happened. Droughts, like floods, have happened throughout Chinese history, but never have China's peasants been forced to melt down scrap metal to make piss-poor quality steel when they should have been tending the fields, and then had all their food supplies taken off to the cities to feed the cadres and intellectuals.

Mao didn't deal adequately with corruption? Mao and his Gang of Four were the prime sources of it.

As for the Cultural Revolution, there was absolutely nothing communist about it. It was simply a grab for absolute power through a creative use of utter chaos.

But obviously any knowledge of Chinese history is not needed for such a discussion in such a forum.

"Did Ze-dong, Lenin, Minh and Castro abolish wage labor or money?"

Obviously the same applies to any knowledge of Chinese language or culture.

And when you all start talking about the peasants (or pheasants, in the case of the less literate posters) being stupid you reveal your true colours for all to see. You're not Marxists or Communists of any stripe. At best you're a bunch of Chardonnay Socialists, content to sit around and argue meaningless theory (while pretending, of course, that you're arguing practice) in the comfort of your first world lives, but the moment anybody actually attempts to change the order that keeps you so comfortable, you'll be the first to leap to its defence.

I suppose it would be asking to much to invite you out to the real world to learn what Mao (or any other "Communist leader") really did before you start your next ill-informed, childish rant on issues you don't understand.

Still, this community is good for its comedy value. Thanks for providing me with a good laugh, comrades.

[info]communismnow

November 20 2006, 05:58:05 UTC 5 years ago

No need for the insults, comrade. Let's be civil.

But, thanks for backing up what I already said: Ze-dong was a capitalist mass murderer and not a communist. He was also a leader of peasants, not workers, and we know what Marx wrote about them (that they are idiots).

[info]vexedminor

November 20 2006, 06:10:07 UTC 5 years ago

Granted, Marx said a lot of stupid things. And racist too. Marx was in a lot of ways a total ass. Marx still had a lot of good ideas, and he was thorough about it.

It would probably be a bad idea to write off peasants as idiots or whatnot. It would be more correct to say that peasants, while often living in some of the worst conditions, often have far different needs and goals. Arguably, because the peasantry still has a more direct connection with providing for themselves, they have more of a connection, at least ideologically to the bourgois insofar as not being dependant on an employer for their means. However, the peasants are usually on the downside of this whole environment, and get completely torn apart. Sort of like how the stock market requires small time investors to get easily sucked up in order to work. Rural living does however breed a kind of disconnectedness and likely a sense of isolation from the goings-on of other more urbane places.

[info]communismnow

November 20 2006, 19:49:08 UTC 5 years ago

Rural living breeds idiocy. That's why, under communism, the workers must rule the peasants and the First World must lead the Third World.

[info]lindsay40k

November 20 2006, 19:56:27 UTC 5 years ago

Whilst you correctly identify the fact that, whilst their participation in the revolution is necessary, the peasantry are unable to play a leading role in the revolution, your use of derogatory language towards them is uncalled for.

[info]ex_radicald

November 21 2006, 01:54:37 UTC 5 years ago

I don't think that he's trying to insult the the peasantry, thought it is a harsh way to put it. The peasants are for the most part subsistence farmers, many I fear politically unmotivated and highly uneducated. Their condition, like [info]vexedminor said, leaves them disconnected.


I have to disagree with the part about workers ruling the peasants, rather I envision working hand in hand with them. After all, the needs of the peasantry are the same as the needs of the labor force; guarantees of healthcare, education, housing, food, water... the list goes on. Rather than seeing them as a teeming mass that needs to be controlled and indoctrinated, they should be viewed as an essential part of a functioning socialist society, as they one day will be.

[info]communismnow

November 21 2006, 07:28:42 UTC 5 years ago

Idiot is a Scientific Term

Exactly. No insult was intended. I was saying that peasants are the idiots of rural life (as Marx wrote) because of social conditions, which are the result of combined and uneven development. Idiot is a scientific term and a recognition that peasants have never played an important role in history.

[info]lindsay40k

November 22 2006, 18:11:41 UTC 5 years ago

Re: Idiot is a Scientific Term

"A bunch of dumb Third World peasants"? The issue of whether or not any insult is intended by this phrase is separate from the fact that one can easily be perceived.

A racist one, at that.

All I'm saying is let's try to be a little more repectful to the people we're trying to persuade to join us...?

After all, it is the explosion of their anger that can form the spark of revolution.

[info]adrunkencadence

November 20 2006, 20:03:23 UTC 5 years ago

Apologist.

[info]comrade_xan

November 20 2006, 21:21:01 UTC 5 years ago

absolutist

[info]rouchambeau

November 21 2006, 22:58:24 UTC 5 years ago

An argument by assertion without any sources to back it up. Do you really expect anyone to change their mind over this?
Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Facebook Twitter More login options
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…