Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

nfe wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you get drunk, drive drunk and unintentionally kill people in an ensuring car wreck, you're responsible for those deaths, you're a criminal, and people will judge you accordingly. If you deliberately plot the murder of people and commit those murder then you are responsible for the murders, you are a criminal and people will judge you accordingly. Intent doesn't make people be less dead or the perpetrators less responsible for their willful actions that caused those deaths.

Certainly, but whilst people will judge you accordingly in both cases, it is highly unlikely that many objective persons will accord the same judgement in both cases.

This. Killing millions of people in a misguided attempt to increase living standards makes you incompetent and a complete failure. Killing millions of people because you wanted them dead makes you a sociopathic monster. The first emphasizes the need for humility, honest self-reflection before undertaking massive societal upheaval and being able to realize the incredible complexity involved. The second emphasizes the need to avoid putting sociopaths in power. Neither of them absolves the person(s) responsible from the consequences of their actions.

If processes of getting to an end result were irrelevant scientific methodology wouldn't be a huge deal. It is, no matter how much you try to explain them away.

 Big Mac wrote:
Mao is a SOB farmer, who is way over his head trying to govern a nation of billions. He is dumb MF, in order to make himself look competent, he kills and lower others who are much more competent down to his level, those around him are in fear, loyal to a fault and won't dare to disagree with him. I hope he suffers every single moment in the afterlife and bad omen to all of his decedents.

Yes, I am bitter to the extreme as his policies diectly affected me, my parents. My mom never got to finish HS and was sent to the country side to farm; my dad too but he later finished school and overcame that gak and became a professor. I lost a potential sibling when they force abortion on my mom. My grandfather on my dad side was a high official and the family lost a lot of wealth due to that debacle.

Feels like you are holding back. Sorry for your losses.

I think that Mao probably did have good intentions at first, even if one of his motivations was megalomania. The biography of him in his later life doesn't paint a very good picture of him though.

Perhaps he lost touch once he had distanced himself from living in the dirt like everyone else. He was also clearly foolish for giving the go-ahead for the 4-evils campaign despite ecologist's objections and the cultural revolution in general clearly lacked a lot of forethought or any compassion. Dragging people out into the street and publicly humiliating them before executing them speaks miles not just about leaders, but the culture of the people following them.

From the eye of pragmatism - Mao likely saved more lives than he cost in the long run and China's defensive stance since has kept them fairly free from Western invasion for decades.

I think if someone else was in Mao's place in history - perhaps someone with the same zeal, but perhaps more ability to listen to the suggestions of others or not be swept up in his own rhetoric, the results may have been better for China. If the country had continued to follow his economic policies today, they country would also be in a much worse position. Nowadays, I've heard that schools in China don't really teach students much about Mao other than the fact that he was the founder. Even in his own time, they tried to push him out of power.

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Big Mac wrote:
Mao is a SOB farmer, who is way over his head trying to govern a nation of billions. He is dumb MF, in order to make himself look competent, he kills and lower others who are much more competent down to his level, those around him are in fear, loyal to a fault and won't dare to disagree with him. I hope he suffers every single moment in the afterlife and bad omen to all of his decedents.

Yes, I am bitter to the extreme as his policies diectly affected me, my parents. My mom never got to finish HS and was sent to the country side to farm; my dad too but he later finished school and overcame that gak and became a professor. I lost a potential sibling when they force abortion on my mom. My grandfather on my dad side was a high official and the family lost a lot of wealth due to that debacle.

Feels like you are holding back. Sorry for your losses.

I love my birth country of China, but I hated Mao. I was visiting my relatives a few years back and were chatting about Mao in public, my aunt sha-shhhed me as if she is afraid of Mao sympathizers spying. I'm happy that China is a world power, the living conditions has rise comparable to that of the US since last I lived there as a child. The lost and sacrifices were great, don't tell me Mao should take a pass for his actions/accidentally caused disasters due to incompetence unless you are affected by it. Its like saying to a addict/alcoholic, 'I understand what you're going through', no you Fing don't unless you were in the same shoes.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

nfe wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you get drunk, drive drunk and unintentionally kill people in an ensuring car wreck, you're responsible for those deaths, you're a criminal, and people will judge you accordingly. If you deliberately plot the murder of people and commit those murder then you are responsible for the murders, you are a criminal and people will judge you accordingly. Intent doesn't make people be less dead or the perpetrators less responsible for their willful actions that caused those deaths.

Certainly, but whilst people will judge you accordingly in both cases, it is highly unlikely that many objective persons will accord the same judgement in both cases.

This. Killing millions of people in a misguided attempt to increase living standards makes you incompetent and a complete failure. Killing millions of people because you wanted them dead makes you a sociopathic monster. The first emphasizes the need for humility, honest self-reflection before undertaking massive societal upheaval and being able to realize the incredible complexity involved. The second emphasizes the need to avoid putting sociopaths in power. Neither of them absolves the person(s) responsible from the consequences of their actions.

If processes of getting to an end result were irrelevant scientific methodology wouldn't be a huge deal. It is, no matter how much you try to explain them away.

Process =/= intentions. Mao caused millions of deaths by starvation because he made bad decisions and implemented bad policies. If he didn't intend to cause a famine, that's irrelevant to the historical fact that he did and history holds him accountable for his actions. If we're in agreement that Mao is responsible for the demonstrably bad policies he implemented that killed millions then in what way do his intentions absolve him of that responsibility? How is history doing a disservice to Mao by holding him accountable for his actions?

My point wasn't that drunk drivers and serial killers are the same, the point was that people are held accountable for the consequences of their actions regardless of whether or not the consequences were intended or unintended. Is academia flooded with textbooks that teach that the Four Pests campaign during the Great Leap Forward was just like Stalin's holodomor against the Ukraine? Again, how is history judging Mao too harshly? Either he didn't care enough to properly vet his policy ideas or he dismissed all the research that showed exterminating sparrows was a terrible idea, either way he chose to do it and caused the deaths of millions. Being responsible for millions of people starving to death is going to cause the world to have a low opinion of you and that is a perfectly valid, rational and supportable opinion. Nobody is being unfair to Mao.

Put it this way then: Hitler was evil because his entire ideology was based on exterminating people. Mao was evil because he didn't give a gak if he killed a bunch of people to get China to where he wanted it to be, but the famines weren't the end goal in themselves. They're both evil, but different kinds of evil: negligent or incompetent versus truly malevolent.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

nfe wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you get drunk, drive drunk and unintentionally kill people in an ensuring car wreck, you're responsible for those deaths, you're a criminal, and people will judge you accordingly. If you deliberately plot the murder of people and commit those murder then you are responsible for the murders, you are a criminal and people will judge you accordingly. Intent doesn't make people be less dead or the perpetrators less responsible for their willful actions that caused those deaths.

Certainly, but whilst people will judge you accordingly in both cases, it is highly unlikely that many objective persons will accord the same judgement in both cases.

This. Killing millions of people in a misguided attempt to increase living standards makes you incompetent and a complete failure. Killing millions of people because you wanted them dead makes you a sociopathic monster. The first emphasizes the need for humility, honest self-reflection before undertaking massive societal upheaval and being able to realize the incredible complexity involved. The second emphasizes the need to avoid putting sociopaths in power. Neither of them absolves the person(s) responsible from the consequences of their actions.

If processes of getting to an end result were irrelevant scientific methodology wouldn't be a huge deal. It is, no matter how much you try to explain them away.

Process =/= intentions. Mao caused millions of deaths by starvation because he made bad decisions and implemented bad policies. If he didn't intend to cause a famine, that's irrelevant to the historical fact that he did and history holds him accountable for his actions. If we're in agreement that Mao is responsible for the demonstrably bad policies he implemented that killed millions then in what way do his intentions absolve him of that responsibility? How is history doing a disservice to Mao by holding him accountable for his actions?

My point wasn't that drunk drivers and serial killers are the same, the point was that people are held accountable for the consequences of their actions regardless of whether or not the consequences were intended or unintended. Is academia flooded with textbooks that teach that the Four Pests campaign during the Great Leap Forward was just like Stalin's holodomor against the Ukraine? Again, how is history judging Mao too harshly? Either he didn't care enough to properly vet his policy ideas or he dismissed all the research that showed exterminating sparrows was a terrible idea, either way he chose to do it and caused the deaths of millions. Being responsible for millions of people starving to death is going to cause the world to have a low opinion of you and that is a perfectly valid, rational and supportable opinion. Nobody is being unfair to Mao.

Neither I nor AlmightyWalrus have given you reason to ask these questions nor implied that he is judged unfairly. Both of us said that intentions are important when judging a persons actions - this is quite distinct from saying that someone is guiltless if a given crime was not their intention.

There's an awful lot of politics here for a place with a no politics rule... Or does that only mean modern day politics?

Mao was a mass murderer and he ordered such for nothing more than personal advantage. He is similar in many ways to other great dictators of the twentieth century.
Even if error can be forgiven such as the famines caused by mismanagement, the general disregard of human life in favour of dogma cannot be forgiven.

Rethinking chairman Mao however is an interesting topic and I would like to know exactly why it was chosen. Where did the OP get this from? If a specific site or article I would like to know.

There is heavy revisionism going on in China right now, and a return to the bad old days. Some words phrases or memes are banned or otherwise disappear

Some will understand.


After a long respite and an opening the current leader hos now abolished the term limit and stepped up Communist party rhetoric and the contruction of propaganda edifices. Cleansing the internet is no small part of that. While seeding the idea that Mao 'wasn't so bad' is as ignorant about saying same about Pol Pot or Stalin, it is interesting that it is happening anyway. This thread deserves to get attention if only to find out what is behind it.

nfe wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:

nfe wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Chairman Mao is the greatest person to ever have lived.

-This message was sponsored by the People's Republic of China.

Jokes aside, in my opinion Mao fits in with other 20th century communist leaders like Lenin, Stalin, Fidel Castro or Ho Chi Minh as a mixed blessing. They achieved great feats and lifted their country to new heights as they went from being backwards third-world gakholes to regional or even world powers, fought off foreign imperialists and capitalists, massively improved the life of their people, introduced widespread education and literacy which brought their country into the modern era, built up widespread industry and infrastructure, encouraged the development of science and introduced electricity and other modern technologies until then only available to elites, etc. etc. etc. [handwaving qualification removed]

This message sponsored by Failed 20th Century 'Communist' Regimes.

It's a bit disappointing to see someone studying archaeology describe any place or society as backwards.

That is a dishonest distortion of my argument.

How so?

On the same note it is incredibly disappointing to see someone who has studied archaeology describe any place or society as 'failed'.

Yet, ironically, you describe 'the numerous capitalist regimes across Africa, Asia, the Middle East and South America that have and continue to fail' later in the post.

However, I didn't describe places or societies as failed. I described regimes as failed (as you went on to do). This is a very important distinction. Lenin, Stalin, Fidel Castro and Ho Chi Minh all failed to establish communist regimes and their attempts eventually collapsed into (or deliberately adopted) state-capitalism or simply disintegrated.

Only a blind man could deny that Russia in 1917 or China in 1927 were lagging far behind the industrialised West in terms of economy and standards of living. Communism changed that. Before the Revolution, in 1917, almost no one in Russia could read and write. Only a total fool would not describe that as backwards when in comparison almost everyone in Western Europe could read by that point in time.

If it's not a big part of your course it could be worth having a bit of a look at some of the last few decades of anthropological and archaeological theory before you call them all fools - because we stopped describing communities only in opposition to the society in which the author resides, or against an evolutionary scale, decades ago. Hell, it was out of fashion by the New Archaeology. In the 60s. It's only the echo-chamber philologist-historians that are still throwing that stuff around, and even most of them have gotten beyond it!

I'm not ignoring the rest, but it's a waste of time because you're arguing the validity of communism with me. I'm a sort-of anarcho-communist. I presume you've made the assumption that I'm calling those regimes failed because of an innate opposition to communism, but you are actually preaching to the converted.

OK anotber good point, american technical and help boost Chinese lifestyles.

Sees when I posted thks I was not advocating rethinking Mao, I was asking if we should rethink Mao. That piece I quoted from my fb feed certainly made a case for its but when it was reported here with the question of how valid itwas a lot of useful and informative replies were generated. That's what I wanted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Voss wrote:
Please don't copypasta Facebook trash apolgias as history or reasons to 'reconsider' history.

I didn't and don't consider it trash. Apologia, , maybe. That's why I wanted to see what peolle would say to it. Some useful replies here.

 Big Mac wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Big Mac wrote:
Mao is a SOB farmer, who is way over his head trying to govern a nation of billions. He is dumb MF, in order to make himself look competent, he kills and lower others who are much more competent down to his level, those around him are in fear, loyal to a fault and won't dare to disagree with him. I hope he suffers every single moment in the afterlife and bad omen to all of his decedents.

Yes, I am bitter to the extreme as his policies diectly affected me, my parents. My mom never got to finish HS and was sent to the country side to farm; my dad too but he later finished school and overcame that gak and became a professor. I lost a potential sibling when they force abortion on my mom. My grandfather on my dad side was a high official and the family lost a lot of wealth due to that debacle.

Feels like you are holding back. Sorry for your losses.

I love my birth country of China, but I hated Mao. I was visiting my relatives a few years back and were chatting about Mao in public, my aunt sha-shhhed me as if she is afraid of Mao sympathizers spying. I'm happy that China is a world power, the living conditions has rise comparable to that of the US since last I lived there as a child. The lost and sacrifices were great, don't tell me Mao should take a pass for his actions/accidentally caused disasters due to incompetence unless you are affected by it. Its like saying to a addict/alcoholic, 'I understand what you're going through', no you Fing don't unless you were in the same shoes.

Correct me if I am wrong but the alternative to Mao was chiang kei shek.
Now chiang himself is someone i'd consider just as bad in an ideological sense since he took the kuomintang over as a military dictator after Sun yat sen's death.

Would you consider in hindsight chiang the" better" option?

(probably the lesser evil, would've been a better formulation?)

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
OK anotber good point, american technical and help boost Chinese lifestyles.

Sees when I posted thks I was not advocating rethinking Mao, I was asking if we should rethink Mao. That piece I quoted from my fb feed certainly made a case for its but when it was reported here with the question of how valid itwas a lot of useful and informative replies were generated. That's what I wanted.

I get what you are saying, don't mistake the replies for personal criticism. There's a difference between advocating for rethinking Mao and suggesting that perhaps we should rethink Mao. Totally different concepts.

I personally get a lot of flack for suggesting that perhaps we should rethink Freddy Kreuger. Contextually, his retribution was justified against members of a class that treated janitors and other service workers cruelly. When you stop to consider his actions, we all benefited from his acts to remove suppressives standing in the way of a more just and equitable society.

Again, that's not the same as saying it's time to rethink Freddy, it means we should talk about the outcomes associated with his actions and consider whether or not it's time to rethink Freddy. BIG difference.

I think I should review this

Even if we use the highest exaggerated and very inaccurate count of 35 - 42 million, that was around 5 - 6% of China’s then total population of 654 million.

• US invasion and carpet bombing of North Korea in 1950 killed 20% of population.

• French colonialists in Vietnam caused two million or 7% of the population to starve to death in 1945 during an episode of drought.

• The United States massacred 7% of the Filipinos, starting in 1898, when it colonised that island country.

• Ireland lost 25% of its population during the British-legislated Great Potato Famine Genocide 1845-1853.

• European settler colonists mass slaughtered something like 99% of native Australian populations.

• Murder, war, and disease from colonisation caused the deaths of 80 - 90% of native American populations.

• Countless massacres and genocide in Australia, Oceania, Middle East, India, Asia, Africa, the Americas, and Europe during the last 500 years often killed much higher percentages of populations.

"The point is, in historical perspective, yes, 5 - 6% of the Chinese population lost during the Great Leap Forward period was a tragedy, which Beijing officially accepts. But it is by no means unusual, as an event nor in its magnitude." –– Jeff J. Brown

• US invasion and carpet bombing of North Korea in 1950 killed 20% of population.
- This was a UN not a US operation, even though McArthur was operational commander.

• Ireland lost 25% of its population during the British-legislated Great Potato Famine Genocide 1845-1853.
- That was NOT a genocide, the famine was caused by over-reliance on one crop and was entirely natural. It was also the source of the largest governmental relief operation in the 19th century with large volumes of imported maize purchased by the Peel government as food aid. This was promptly organised politically but hampered by distribution problems caused mostly by bad weather and the sourcing of corn from the US.

• European settler colonists mass slaughtered something like 99% of native Australian populations.
- We do not know if those figures are even remotely true. We have little idea of pre colonial population levels in Australia, or the primary cause of death. Lack of immunity to common diseases will be a major factors as with the Americas.

• Murder, war, and disease from colonisation caused the deaths of 80 - 90% of native American populations.
Likewise.

• Countless massacres and genocide in Australia, Oceania, Middle East, India, Asia, Africa, the Americas, and Europe during the last 500 years often killed much higher percentages of populations.
To which we should be sure to include the occupation and ethnic cleansing of Tibet. However in Tibet's case it was an established recognised people and nation state. Most of the tribes dislodged by colonialism occurred in a time when native rights were not recognised and global society saw nothing wrong in claiming those lands. The 'race for Africa' for instance was an understanding that those who got their first took the land. This understood that existing territories were not up for grabs. So for instance Liberia and Sierra Leone were not colonised because they were set up as free territories. Ethiopia was also recognised as a sovereign state by the colonial powers and not taken over. Which is why Mussolini mistook it for unclaimed territory in the late 1920's.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Techpriestsupport wrote:
OK anotber good point, american technical and help boost Chinese lifestyles.

Sees when I posted thks I was not advocating rethinking Mao, I was asking if we should rethink Mao. That piece I quoted from my fb feed certainly made a case for its but when it was reported here with the question of how valid itwas a lot of useful and informative replies were generated. That's what I wanted.

I get what you are saying, don't mistake the replies for personal criticism. There's a difference between advocating for rethinking Mao and suggesting that perhaps we should rethink Mao. Totally different concepts.

Tjis is true, the OP has every right to have the hypothesis looked at on its own merit.

An incompetent leader and poor environmental policy his hardly damning to the fundamentals of a political philosophy.

We're trashing the planet, we have Trump* but that isn't to say democracy, capitalism (or hey, even socialism) don't have redeemable qualities.

You have to temper the flaws in an idea, not throw away the baby with the bath water.


* for the sake of example, obviously substitute this name for another world leader if you feel Trump is competent.

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Big Mac wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Big Mac wrote:
Mao is a SOB farmer, who is way over his head trying to govern a nation of billions. He is dumb MF, in order to make himself look competent, he kills and lower others who are much more competent down to his level, those around him are in fear, loyal to a fault and won't dare to disagree with him. I hope he suffers every single moment in the afterlife and bad omen to all of his decedents.

Yes, I am bitter to the extreme as his policies diectly affected me, my parents. My mom never got to finish HS and was sent to the country side to farm; my dad too but he later finished school and overcame that gak and became a professor. I lost a potential sibling when they force abortion on my mom. My grandfather on my dad side was a high official and the family lost a lot of wealth due to that debacle.

Feels like you are holding back. Sorry for your losses.

I love my birth country of China, but I hated Mao. I was visiting my relatives a few years back and were chatting about Mao in public, my aunt sha-shhhed me as if she is afraid of Mao sympathizers spying. I'm happy that China is a world power, the living conditions has rise comparable to that of the US since last I lived there as a child. The lost and sacrifices were great, don't tell me Mao should take a pass for his actions/accidentally caused disasters due to incompetence unless you are affected by it. Its like saying to a addict/alcoholic, 'I understand what you're going through', no you Fing don't unless you were in the same shoes.

Correct me if I am wrong but the alternative to Mao was chiang kei shek.
Now chiang himself is someone i'd consider just as bad in an ideological sense since he took the kuomintang over as a military dictator after Sun yat sen's death.

Would you consider in hindsight chiang the" better" option?

(probably the lesser evil, would've been a better formulation?)

That's a Q I don't have an answer, I'd like to think Chiang is the lesser evil/evil we know, but history is not something we can change. It might have been a necessary step backward to advance China to their global power today, I feel that to 'rethink Mao's actions'= cheapens the sacrifice/suffering of those affected.

Chiang Kei-Shek or Mao Tse-Sung. Yikes!

The problem with Chiang Kei-Shek was... let's be honest, he was a warlord. He was in it for power for himself. Building up China (and later Taiwan) to be a powerful nation was nothing more than a means to the end of getting more power for himself.

He wasn't exactly a bit supporter of capitalism either. More than once prior to losing to Mao he nationalized foreign assets. And there were quite a few mass deaths under his reign too.

I wonder if choice difference between the two is... well, 5-6 and pick 'em.

 Big Mac wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:

 Big Mac wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

 Big Mac wrote:
Mao is a SOB farmer, who is way over his head trying to govern a nation of billions. He is dumb MF, in order to make himself look competent, he kills and lower others who are much more competent down to his level, those around him are in fear, loyal to a fault and won't dare to disagree with him. I hope he suffers every single moment in the afterlife and bad omen to all of his decedents.

Yes, I am bitter to the extreme as his policies diectly affected me, my parents. My mom never got to finish HS and was sent to the country side to farm; my dad too but he later finished school and overcame that gak and became a professor. I lost a potential sibling when they force abortion on my mom. My grandfather on my dad side was a high official and the family lost a lot of wealth due to that debacle.

Feels like you are holding back. Sorry for your losses.

I love my birth country of China, but I hated Mao. I was visiting my relatives a few years back and were chatting about Mao in public, my aunt sha-shhhed me as if she is afraid of Mao sympathizers spying. I'm happy that China is a world power, the living conditions has rise comparable to that of the US since last I lived there as a child. The lost and sacrifices were great, don't tell me Mao should take a pass for his actions/accidentally caused disasters due to incompetence unless you are affected by it. Its like saying to a addict/alcoholic, 'I understand what you're going through', no you Fing don't unless you were in the same shoes.

Correct me if I am wrong but the alternative to Mao was chiang kei shek.
Now chiang himself is someone i'd consider just as bad in an ideological sense since he took the kuomintang over as a military dictator after Sun yat sen's death.

Would you consider in hindsight chiang the" better" option?

(probably the lesser evil, would've been a better formulation?)

That's a Q I don't have an answer, I'd like to think Chiang is the lesser evil/evil we know, but history is not something we can change. It might have been a necessary step backward to advance China to their global power today, I feel that to 'rethink Mao's actions'= cheapens the sacrifice/suffering of those affected.

I think the ironic part is that what China became after Mao, especially once Deng Xiaoping came to power, was far from Mao's idea of what China should have been and more in line with what Chiang Kai-Shek would have wanted, at least economically speaking.

nfe wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

nfe wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
If you get drunk, drive drunk and unintentionally kill people in an ensuring car wreck, you're responsible for those deaths, you're a criminal, and people will judge you accordingly. If you deliberately plot the murder of people and commit those murder then you are responsible for the murders, you are a criminal and people will judge you accordingly. Intent doesn't make people be less dead or the perpetrators less responsible for their willful actions that caused those deaths.

Certainly, but whilst people will judge you accordingly in both cases, it is highly unlikely that many objective persons will accord the same judgement in both cases.

This. Killing millions of people in a misguided attempt to increase living standards makes you incompetent and a complete failure. Killing millions of people because you wanted them dead makes you a sociopathic monster. The first emphasizes the need for humility, honest self-reflection before undertaking massive societal upheaval and being able to realize the incredible complexity involved. The second emphasizes the need to avoid putting sociopaths in power. Neither of them absolves the person(s) responsible from the consequences of their actions.

If processes of getting to an end result were irrelevant scientific methodology wouldn't be a huge deal. It is, no matter how much you try to explain them away.

Process =/= intentions. Mao caused millions of deaths by starvation because he made bad decisions and implemented bad policies. If he didn't intend to cause a famine, that's irrelevant to the historical fact that he did and history holds him accountable for his actions. If we're in agreement that Mao is responsible for the demonstrably bad policies he implemented that killed millions then in what way do his intentions absolve him of that responsibility? How is history doing a disservice to Mao by holding him accountable for his actions?

My point wasn't that drunk drivers and serial killers are the same, the point was that people are held accountable for the consequences of their actions regardless of whether or not the consequences were intended or unintended. Is academia flooded with textbooks that teach that the Four Pests campaign during the Great Leap Forward was just like Stalin's holodomor against the Ukraine? Again, how is history judging Mao too harshly? Either he didn't care enough to properly vet his policy ideas or he dismissed all the research that showed exterminating sparrows was a terrible idea, either way he chose to do it and caused the deaths of millions. Being responsible for millions of people starving to death is going to cause the world to have a low opinion of you and that is a perfectly valid, rational and supportable opinion. Nobody is being unfair to Mao.

Neither I nor AlmightyWalrus have given you reason to ask these questions nor implied that he is judged unfairly. Both of us said that intentions are important when judging a persons actions - this is quite distinct from saying that someone is guiltless if a given crime was not their intention.

I directly responded to the OP poster and stated that Mao’s intentions are irrelevant. You and AlmightyWalrus then proceeded to comment on my post without putting it in the context of the purpose of this thread, should we rethink our view on Mao? Mao is historically viewed as a flawed person who made bad decisions and implemented bad policies that led to the deaths of millions as leader of China. Mao may not have intended to starve millions to death but his sparrow eradication policy had predictable horrible consequences and in fact caused those terrible consequences and as such Mao is responsible for this deaths and his performance as a leader is judged accordingly. The lack of intent doesn’t change the view of Mao, nobody was claiming that Mao wanted to kill sparrows and starve people because he was evil incarnate. Being incompetent instead of malevolent still makes him a bad leader and I don’t see anything in the OP that is new information that would cause anyone to rethink their opinion of Mao.

Did Brett Farve intend to throw a bad interception that kept the Vikings from going to the Super Bowl? No he didn’t. Did he still throw a bad pass that let the Saints win the game? Yes. Was it still a bad decision by Farve? Yes. Is that decision properly weighted in terms of its impact on Farve’s legacy as a qb? Yes. Same thing with Mao and the sparrows. There are situations where intent matters but this isn’t one of them.

 Orlanth wrote:
Mao was a mass murderer and he ordered such for nothing more than personal advantage. He is similar in many ways to other great dictators of the twentieth century.
Even if error can be forgiven such as the famines caused by mismanagement, the general disregard of human life in favour of dogma cannot be forgiven.

Rethinking chairman Mao however is an interesting topic and I would like to know exactly why it was chosen. Where did the OP get this from? If a specific site or article I would like to know.

There is heavy revisionism going on in China right now, and a return to the bad old days. Some words phrases or memes are banned or otherwise disappear

Some will understand.


After a long respite and an opening the current leader hos now abolished the term limit and stepped up Communist party rhetoric and the contruction of propaganda edifices. Cleansing the internet is no small part of that. While seeding the idea that Mao 'wasn't so bad' is as ignorant about saying same about Pol Pot or Stalin, it is interesting that it is happening anyway. This thread deserves to get attention if only to find out what is behind it.

Ok, you asked a fair question in a non belligerant way,m and it desrrves an answer.

This did turn up on my fb feed and being somewhat contrarian, or at least open to other interpretations of commonly held beliefs, I looked at it.

I had been told since childhood that "So many millions died under Mao!" I'd acepted that mao was responsible for them. The article then pointed out that the number included ALL people in china who died while mao was in power. ANd suddenly I realized I'd accepted a 'fact" taught to me before I developed critical thinking skills, and that the fact had a clear flaw I'd not bothered to recognize.

So I read the rest after the first part established at least some validity.

I realized, of course, this was propaganda or a certain persuasion, but even so, can't propaganda contain truths? It had started out with a valid point, which makes it possibly the most powerful and dangerous form of propaganda.

Now I know some people here like debating historical issues, like could a pre ww1 german plan have worked, was england forced to fight in ww2, could the germans have ever won at jutland, etc, so I decided this topic was fair game here.

Some think it's a terrible idea and should not have been posted here but simply ignored. I disagree. Some people think you can simply ignore a bad idea to death, but this doesn't alkways work. Soimetimes ignoring a bad idea lets it grow and spread, especially if it's well written and comes with a veneer of reasonability and plausibility.

Ignoring a bad idea in the age of mass communications can let it become entrenched and very powerful, which leads...nowhere good.

So I posted it here because sometimes the best thing to do with a bad idea is haul it up on stage, expose it fully and fairly and let people critique and debunk it.

I make so claims to liking mao, I don't, But if he could not be held responsible for every death that occurred on his watch despite children beinmg throw the figure of chinese deaths while mao was in power and left to assume he was responsible for them all, then shouldn't the rest be examined, reviewd and,. if wrong, debunked?

So that's why I posted the idea here, a form of public review not to endorse it but to let it be reviewd and commented on, because that's often a good way of killing a bad meme if it is one.

It's like seeing the first person in history argue that Hitler was actually an ok guy.

Took a semester long course on "revolutionary china" during undergrad. . . . Short answer: No. Chairman Mao was gak, and should continue to be viewed as such.

After his utterly failed policies during the Great Leap Forward (lol), he then encouraged students and younger people to riot, planting the Cultural Revolution of the 60s-70s. When that brought him back fully into power, he said somewhere that he thought (paraphrasing) "we should do that again ever 20 years or so, to keep the revolutionary spirit alive!"



Automatically Appended Next Post:

SirWeeble wrote:

I think if someone else was in Mao's place in history - perhaps someone with the same zeal, but perhaps more ability to listen to the suggestions of others or not be swept up in his own rhetoric, the results may have been better for China. If the country had continued to follow his economic policies today, they country would also be in a much worse position. Nowadays, I've heard that schools in China don't really teach students much about Mao other than the fact that he was the founder. Even in his own time, they tried to push him out of power.

You mean someone like Chiang Kai-Shek?

 Frazzled wrote:
It's like seeing the first person in history argue that Hitler was actually an ok guy.

That was my reaction....

Let's not try to gaslight each other either.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

Ok, you asked a fair question in a non belligerant way,m and it desrrves an answer.

Thank you.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

This did turn up on my fb feed and being somewhat contrarian, or at least open to other interpretations of commonly held beliefs, I looked at it.

Facebook fair enough. Sounds like the 50 cent party is hard at work.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

I had been told since childhood that "So many millions died under Mao!" I'd acepted that mao was responsible for them. The article then pointed out that the number included ALL people in china who died while mao was in power. ANd suddenly I realized I'd accepted a 'fact" taught to me before I developed critical thinking skills, and that the fact had a clear flaw I'd not bothered to recognize.

Ok, I can go with that up to a point. Critical thinking is good. However beware of revisionism. We can validly argue if any dictator or regime was as bad as people are taught. i do not think you are adding a positive value judgement here, but I do think it was why the topic has been raised.
There is a lot of sanitisation of Maoism, and while the current regime in China is not strictly Maoist, the control structures of previous generations of the Party is looked at favourably and freedoms are on the decline.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

I realized, of course, this was propaganda or a certain persuasion, but even so, can't propaganda contain truths? It had started out with a valid point, which makes it possibly the most powerful and dangerous form of propaganda.

The best lie is the truth twisted.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

Now I know some people here like debating historical issues, like could a pre ww1 german plan have worked, was england forced to fight in ww2, could the germans have ever won at jutland, etc, so I decided this topic was fair game here.

I agree your question is entirely valid. Had someone said the same about Brezhnev we could have a very interesting time here. But while there is some looking back at the glory days of the Soviet Union in Russia there isnothing like the same social dynamic as Chinese revisionism, especially not on the internet.
Ask your questions, but be aware that the topic was very likely highlighted on Facebook as part of an agenda.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

Ignoring a bad idea in the age of mass communications can let it become entrenched and very powerful, which leads...nowhere good.
So I posted it here because sometimes the best thing to do with a bad idea is haul it up on stage, expose it fully and fairly and let people critique and debunk it.

Dakka is maturing a little, we are getting no-politics lite. Most forms of history are inherently political if there is any connexion to the present day. Its not like you are spouting anything party political or race political, at least not consciously anyway.

 Techpriestsupport wrote:

I make so claims to liking mao, I don't, But if he could not be held responsible for every death that occurred on his watch despite children beinmg throw the figure of chinese deaths while mao was in power and left to assume he was responsible for them all, then shouldn't the rest be examined, reviewed and,. if wrong, debunked?

I would argue that as Mao had a centralised control apparatus, made conscious decisions on a large scale based on doctrine and also eliminated rivals and those who would try to rein him in, yes he is responsible for what went on in China under his tenure. Far more so than a comparable term of office of an elected representative with some form of accountability. Mao was in the position to de facto do as he pleased, he decided to initiate and continue policies that resulted in millions of deaths, and continued those policies while the horrors were ongoing. We cannot divorce him from responisbility any more than we can with Stalin. I will admit that he didn't eliminate vast numbers of people due to a personal grudge or paranoia as Stalin did, but a lot of nasty events happened and people were targeted by the state for various reasons.

There is a partial return to this. Chinas moslem population are disappearing into concentration camps, and freedoms are being curtailed everywhere and foreigners have noticed big changes in the country and many if not most are wanting out. Critique of the party has always been taken seriously in China, but what counts as critique of the party has expanded, words and phrases have been banned, lampooning Xi Jinping has been criminalised, even if indirect, and he has been frequently negatively associated with Mao, which is also now banned. So I can see sanitising Mao as an alternative step forward.

Well, I agree about modem China and itcs new orwellian digital dictatorship. It's up to the chinese peopel to stop this and if they don't itcs up to peolle in other nations to censure sndostracise China to limit it's influence.

Back to the orignal post I quoted here, if it is revisionists propaganda sponsored by the brutally repressive and totalitarian Chinese government, as it may very well be, they we really should be resisting it and crippling it as much as we can. Just remember, itcs better to attack an idea than the people pushing it. Just screaming names at them and throwing abuse and insults is not a good way to defeat a toxic meme, attack the meme itself, like peolle here have dome an admirable job of doing a ready. Take the points this meme is pushing and calmly, clearly refute and disprove them one by one. Cite facts, don't throw names. Demonstrate the falseness of the claims as calmly as they make the claims.

Or, instead of throwing up a wall of text with REFUTE THIS OR I WIN you could understand that you have the burden of proof and provide some facts to support your position. But I doubt you will.

 Peregrine wrote:
Or, instead of throwing up a wall of text with REFUTE THIS OR I WIN you could understand that you have the burden of proof and provide some facts to support your position. But I doubt you will.

In fairness the OP doesnt have to present a position, just the question.
Agreement is not required, nor has the OP publically declarted a position just some background as to why it might be reasonable to rethink history of Mao.

Do we need to rethink chairman Mao?
You say NO, as do most others, some have given more reasons than others, personal or historical.

The comments in the OP are just enough to support the question of whether rethinking is plausible and can be considered part of the question and are there to prevent an automatic 'no' reply and encourage critical thinking of our own. I do not thing Techpriestsupport is a pro Mao revisionist but just someone who wants debate on the issue.

If pro-Mao revisionism is a current agenda, which of itself makes a lot of sense to me, and some have been exposed to the doctrine, it is not unwise to air the topic here on Dakka and let the Off Topic regulars take a bite out of the issue. To this end Dakka has been performing admirably with various commentators giving rational input, including yourself.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Or, instead of throwing up a wall of text with REFUTE THIS OR I WIN you could understand that you have the burden of proof and provide some facts to support your position. But I doubt you will.

In fairness the OP doesnt have to present a position, just the question.
Agreement is not required, nor has the OP publically declarted a position just some background as to why it might be reasonable to rethink history of Mao.

Do we need to rethink chairman Mao?
You say NO, as do most others, some have given more reasons than others, personal or historical.

The comments in the OP are just enough to support the question of whether rethinking is plausible and can be considered part of the question and are there to prevent an automatic 'no' reply and encourage critical thinking of our own. I do not thing Techpriestsupport is a pro Mao revisionist but just someone who wants debate on the issue.

If pro-Mao revisionism is a current agenda, which of itself makes a lot of sense to me, and some have been exposed to the doctrine, it is not unwise to air the topic here on Dakka and let the Off Topic regulars take a bite out of the issue. To this end Dakka has been performing admirably with various commentators giving rational input, including yourself.

This pretty much sums things up.

If Mao deserves a re evaluation, so be it. If this is modern Chinese government propaganda I want to run it thru a stump shredder, in a precise, dispassionate and meticulous manner.

What I've learned reading the replies and critiques of this here is Mao may not be on he same level of raving insane evil as Hitler but was arrogant and domineering enough to cause massive death tolls with little apparent regret. So he's not Hitler, but if there's a hell he probably belongs in one of the worse parts of it.

One thing I do criticize is the way some people view any change in the status quo whatsoever as "Communism!" and start waving around mao, hitler, stalin, etc whenever anyone calls for any sort of reform or change to the SQ.

Part of the reason I looked at the original article was to see it it might help defuse some of the automatic, reductio ad absuredum invocations on the dreaded specter of Mao by some people anytime anyone called for any change or reform in a system that grows more imbalanced and unjust every day.

While even if we acknowledge mao was not responsible for every death that occurred in china during his tenure he is still a horrible person and leader.

I think when new information comes to you, it's always a good idea to re-think your position.

In this case, the new information is that the common number thrown about as 'people Mao had killed' is not accurate. It's the number of people who died in China from all causes - presumably including old age - and not just people who died because of actions Mao undertook. In fact the number of people who died because of Mao's actions is significantly lower... but still in the millions.

So after re-thinking, Mao remains a dictator whose policies killed millions. Just not as many millions as previously thought.

So, now that we have established Mao as 0.00000000000001% less evil than before, are we good?