If not Mao, who?

[Tingkai]

Switching Mao for Shih Huang-ti? Interesting trade. Both men can be praised for unifying China, but they can also be condemned.

Shih Huang-ti executed hundreds of Confucian scholars and ordered the burning of thousands of books that did not appeal to his tastes. Tens of thousands of people died building the Great Wall and his tomb, the famous terracotta soldiers in Xian.

There is no doubt that Mao was responsible for millions of people, although many would their deaths were the unforeseen results of poor policy decisions, as oppose to Hitler’s and Stalin’s deliberate acts of murder.

Before we condemn Mao, it should be remembered that he brought an end to a bloody civil war that had lasted about 20 years. As well, he brought an end to European rule in China and a 100-year period of unstable government during which more than 30 million people were killed, most of them before Mao arrived on the scene.

Despite the complaints on this list, Mao is not hated as much as Hitler and Stalin. Mao made mistakes, mistakes that were deadly for many people, but I don’t perceive him as having that sadistic streak that we see in Hitler and Stalin.

[kolpo]

The disadvantages of both systems (capitalism and communism) are well-known today. Communism lacks the creativity and flexibility to adapt to new situations. Coordination and responsibility, due to egoïsm are the weak points of capitalism. That's why both systems no longer exist today. Every mayor industrialized nation has a free market, but with government control and regulations, to preserve the best of both worlds.

I agree completely with you here, the best way is the middle way. Radicalism of any sort is dangerous(be it maoism,laise faire capitalism, nazism, fundamentalism they all are cruel because they are to radical)

[easy]

As a Chinese, I agree with Mao as the Chinese leader.
Though he did make many mistakes in his life, but I still view him as a hero. If you know Chinese history, you should know how miserable the China was during 19th century and begining of 20th century. Any country could sent a fleet and force China to sign a treaty, giving out huge amount of lands and money. Mao and his comrades found the new China, though it's still not rich, but at least independent and will not bow to other's power.
About other kingdoms, I don't like Qing, it's too cruel. Han and Tang are much better.

[Transcend]

Originally posted by easy
As a Chinese, I agree with Mao as the Chinese leader.
Though he did make many mistakes in his life, but I still view him as a hero. If you know Chinese history, you should know how miserable the China was during 19th century and begining of 20th century. Any country could sent a fleet and force China to sign a treaty, giving out huge amount of lands and money. Mao and his comrades found the new China, though it's still not rich, but at least independent and will not bow to other's power.
About other kingdoms, I don't like Qing, it's too cruel. Han and Tang are much better.

Qing was not the root cause for China's misery in late 19th century. China's decline began with the system Zhu Yuanzhang instituted in early Ming Dynasty. His economical policy was a huge step backward compared to the Song Dynasty and essentially stiffled competition and technological progress. On the political side, Ming system was the most oppressive and tyrannical in Chinese history, and also one of the least efficient one. Finally, Zhu's cultural policy destroyed basis for all progress by making Neo-confucianism the state philosophy.

When Manchus arrived in mid 17th century, Ming was morally, economically, militarily, and politically bankrupt. Qing gave China one last glory and trippled its territory. If it were not for Manchus, China couldn't possibly control Xinjiang, Tibet, Manchuria, and Inner Mongolia today.

Mao's role in history still has to be evaluated. It's too early to pass judgements on him now. His reorganization of Chinese peasantry was a brilliant accomplishment, finally eliminating a vicious cycle that plagued the peasants for a thousand years. But his economic policies of late 50s to 70s proved to be disastrous. Mao's personal belief in will power blinded him to the fact that economy has to be run by experts, and not by mobs. He instigated the "Giant Leap Forward" slogan in 1958 and tried to push the industrialization forward. That led to massive crop shortfalls in the coming years and death of at least 30 million people. Even though Mao beared responsibilities for these deaths, he came nowhere near the viciousness of Stalin and Hitler who intended to kill millions of people by starvation or murder.

However, I agree that there are other leaders in Chinese history that are better suited than Mao. Qin Shi-Huang-Di, Han Wu-Di, Tang Tai-Zong, Qing Sheng-Zu(Kangxi) all qualify.

[ancient]

i doubt that china would be advanced today as it is if it was not for mao, because of the conditions of peasants and the suffering in 1950 and compare them to even 1960 and you will see mass improvement, also mao despite the bad things he has done hereunited china and broke foreign oppresion. chinas agriculture and industry continuoulsy rose in his lead and yes there were famines, and yes there was oppression yet compared to what was before him its practically true democracy.

Mao Zedong is the only worthy leader of the chinese, and i think chinas golden age is now.

[Transcend]

Originally posted by ancient
i doubt that china would be advanced today as it is if it was not for mao, because of the conditions of peasants and the suffering in 1950 and compare them to even 1960 and you will see mass improvement, also mao despite the bad things he has done hereunited china and broke foreign oppresion. chinas agriculture and industry continuoulsy rose in his lead and yes there were famines, and yes there was oppression yet compared to what was before him its practically true democracy.

Mao Zedong is the only worthy leader of the chinese, and i think chinas golden age is now.

Hard to say. Mao reformed the Chinese peasantry, but screwed up the education for at least 10 years. Education is paramount important, too.

Another question: would Jiang Jieshi have done a better job? Taiwan is economically more successful than the mainland, but it is smaller and easier to govern, too.

[ancient]

You see how you blame famines on the countrys leaders, how is that fair? the reason why the famines have been increesing in intensity and will continue to increase is simple..

Industry and Aggriculture compete, urban vs rural compete. The more industry is increased the more your citys expand, which cause a) a decrease in farm workers b) a decrease in farm land. population will continue to increase farm land and workers will continue to decrease, so naturally there is going to be a problem since most of the world isnt able to grow food.

So famines will become more deadly, and india you pegged there leader as good yet india is poor and people are starving yet ghandi is really good, he has done nothing to decrease the indish peoples sufferings.

You dont blame the depression on capitalism (which was the reason why it happened) why do you blame famine on communism? mao increased food production and modernized it (as much as he could) but the results couldnt meet up with the amount he didnt import. i think the only reason they didnt import much things is because of theire untrust of other nations. all western nations had taken advantage of them same with russia and japan so who could they trust to give them good trade, no one...

[ancient]

Originally posted by Transcend


Hard to say. Mao reformed the Chinese peasantry, but screwed up the education for at least 10 years. Education is paramount important, too.

Another question: would Jiang Jieshi have done a better job? Taiwan is economically more successful than the mainland, but it is smaller and easier to govern, too.

'

how can you say that, before mao there was no public educastion, education was reserved for the rich before him now every one had a chance to become litterate..

and taiwans economy more successfull than the mainland is questionable, but per sq. mile it is true. and even so since the introduction of red capitialism into chinas economy, thatr will change very soon. chinas economy is booming and new buildings are being made all over..

[Transcend]

Originally posted by ancient
'

how can you say that, before mao there was no public educastion, education was reserved for the rich before him now every one had a chance to become litterate..

I agree that general education in China improved dramatically after Communists had taken the power. But is it fair to give all credits to Mao? If he was not solely responsible for the country's famine, then he certainly shouldn't take all credits for good actions. It was fact that Mao or the Gang of 4 trashed the higher education during the cultural revolution. Students were sent to villages and factories with the purpose of "being educated by peasants and workers". University and colleges were shut down completely for a 10 years! Can America today ever afford to have all its colleges shut down for 10 years and still stay competitive?

As I said before, Mao is a controversial figure. He followed his briliant starts with utmost disastrous policies. A final judgement can not be passed on him because it's still too early. One thing is clear: he was nowhere near the viciousness of either Stalin or Hitler.

[ancient]

i completely agree with you but some education is better then none at all and at that time china had little uses for coledge/universities, especially since the country was poor and they were all government run..

and yes you can blame somethings directly to mao but other things are out of their controll... in comunist china mao had indisputable power, and his takeover power was the only change..


however i find the most reason why people want to exclude mao is because of his being communist, you cant change history or the future more... back later..

ok where i left of the future is a definately going to be mostly demo/socialist extremeist governments will not exist, atleast i think..

Mao isnt that bad, sure he did do bad things but nothing bad enough to outway what good he did.. china was a mess now it isnt quite as much of a mess, howd they get there? staring with mao...

[BSH]

The Shih Huang that is criticized above for killing scholars and burning books is exactly the right comparison for Mao, because Mao did exactly those things. How can anyone whitewash the murder of an entire class of people? How can anyone say that because Mao was not genocidal (that I know of), only killing the educated regardless of race, that he is better than Hitler? How is it acceptable, even model behavior, to suppress learning and thought? And to kill, torture, and/or imprison those who resist having their thoughts suppressed? It doesn't even matter why the revolution occurred; communist totalitarianism in China has been no better for the people than the feudalism of the Warring States era. The communists did NOT improve education; that was the whole point of the cultural revolution, to suppress the people and make them serve the party.

As they say, history is recorded by the winners, therefore Mao can be a hero to some. Just like Hamas is working for peace in the middle east.

[JellyDonut]

How about Sun Yat-Sen? He was the Gandhi of India. Or that guy who ruled during the construction of the Great Wall. I forget his name but I think there was a "q" in there somewhere.

Mao is definitely a bad choice. He and the other pseudo-communists (Lenin, Stalin, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, and countless others) never supported/do not support the ideas set forth by Marx and Engels and give rise to stereotypes of us Marxists.

WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTIES, UNTIE! Hee hee hee, just a little joke my Marxist friends use to show how twisted Marxism is in the minds of those oppressed by capitalism.

WORKING MEN OF ALL COUNTRIES, UNITE!
PROLETARIEN ALLER LÄNDER, VEREINIGT EUCH!
PROLÉTAIRES DE TOUS LES PAYS , UNISSEZ-VOUS!
PROLETARII VSEX STRAN, SOEDINJAJTES'!
KAIKKIEN MAIDEN PROLETAARIT, LIITTYKÄÄ YHTEEN!
PROLETOJ DE CXIUJ NACIOJ, UNUIGXU!
PROLETÄRER I ALLA LÄNDER, FÖRENA ER!
¡PROLETARIOS DE TODOS LOS PAÍSES, UNÍOS!
PROLETÁRIOS DE TODOS OS PAÍSES, UNIDE-VOS!
PROLETARIËRS ALLER LANDEN, VEREINIGT U!

[Transcend]

Originally posted by BSH
The Shih Huang that is criticized above for killing scholars and burning books is exactly the right comparison for Mao, because Mao did exactly those things. How can anyone whitewash the murder of an entire class of people? How can anyone say that because Mao was not genocidal (that I know of), only killing the educated regardless of race, that he is better than Hitler? How is it acceptable, even model behavior, to suppress learning and thought? And to kill, torture, and/or imprison those who resist having their thoughts suppressed? It doesn't even matter why the revolution occurred; communist totalitarianism in China has been no better for the people than the feudalism of the Warring States era. The communists did NOT improve education; that was the whole point of the cultural revolution, to suppress the people and make them serve the party.

As they say, history is recorded by the winners, therefore Mao can be a hero to some. Just like Hamas is working for peace in the middle east.

Three things to clear:
First, Mao never introduced a policy of killing educated class. He merely wanted them to learn from farmers and peasants. You are confusing him with Pol Pot.
Second, surpressing learning and thought was common in ALL authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, from ancient into modern times. Mao was hardly the first one to practice it. Thought controls carried out by Ming and Qing emperors were magnitude worse than Mao's(Death by thousand cuts for writing something Emperors didn't like). Warring states was age long past in China, ever since the Empire began, though controls were prominent in every dynasty. It is hardly fair to only subject Mao to that criteria. Third, communists indeed improved the GENERAL education. Prior in 1949, 90% of Chinese population were illiterate. Until 1966, that number has already fallen to 40%. Cultural revolution did do its damage, but it would be unfair to say that Communists didn't do anything to improve the education. You could say that Nationalist might have done a better job.

Have you ever lived in China, or have you ever talked to any of eyewitnesses? Or do you derive your conclusions from American media and second hand account? If that's the case, you are hardly qualified to make any judgement about Mao.

[Chow Yun Fat]

I believe that Mao is the best known Chinese political leader for the westerners. If you are looking for more enlightened modern political leaders, I suggest Sun Yat-Sin(?) or Zhou Enlai(?). I think they are respected by the Chinese.

For a good replacement that signifies Chinese culture, I suggest

Bruce Lee or Chow Yun-Fat.

When I play Civ 2, I nearly always use my name as the Chinese leader.

[ancient]

hey so a (almost) real chinese is going to post in the topici don tthink they should be excepted, i like the revolutionary leader to be in, which is why i also want lenin for russia, and support joan of arc for france (she didnt lead it really but you need a girl leader..)