A dead divider
By Eucalyptus
at 2017-06-25 • 0人收藏 • 122人看过
While Mao indoctrinated the whole nation with one thought - Mao Zedong thought - when he was alive, he has now become a divider in death of the people all over the world, especially those with a keen interest in politics in China. Whenever and wherever his historical role is concerned, there will be a sharp division in opinions, ranging from the greatest Chinese who brought independence upon China and overpowered the West with his wisdom and courage, to a national hero who lead the anti-Japanese war and drove KMT to Taiwan, to an evil man with personal ambition to rule the whole world who used ruthless tactics to oppress the masses and manipulate the people around to him. Jong Zhang's latest book on Mao, the result of a ten-year research project, is said to reveal the evilness of Mao during his rule of China. In a radio interview this morning on the ABC, Zhang said that Mao was not an idealist; rather, he was an evil man aiming to rule the whole world. Collectivism was his way of imposing control over the masses and extracting as much as possible crops from the peasants to export to the Soviet Union, so that he could have the money to buy military technology and equipment. Zhang claims that this was carried out in spite of Mao’s awareness that the peasants were dying of starvation, i.e., Mao knowingly let 20-30 million people die during 1958-61.
I haven't read the book yet, but from the interview this morning Zhang gave me an impression of a sensationalist rather than a rigorous researcher. I would rather think that even as an emperor, which was essential what Mao had been, he could not have knowingly let that many people die, if only for the sake of his own regime. The more I think about it, the more I believe that Mao was a fanatic idealist who set out to implement his ideals at the expense of the suffering of many people; He was prepared to crush any resistance to his campaign because he believed that by enduring the temporary and localized sufferings, China would be transferred into a heaven on earth. It was this belief that gave him the determination to carry out campaign after campaign to defeat waves of resistance.
Mao was a failed politician. He missed the best opportunity China had of entering modern politics and becoming a democracy. Sun Yet-Sun established the foundation of a democratic China by drafting the Nation-Building Charter, but Mao ignored it. He chose Qin Shihuang instead.
I haven't read the book yet, but from the interview this morning Zhang gave me an impression of a sensationalist rather than a rigorous researcher. I would rather think that even as an emperor, which was essential what Mao had been, he could not have knowingly let that many people die, if only for the sake of his own regime. The more I think about it, the more I believe that Mao was a fanatic idealist who set out to implement his ideals at the expense of the suffering of many people; He was prepared to crush any resistance to his campaign because he believed that by enduring the temporary and localized sufferings, China would be transferred into a heaven on earth. It was this belief that gave him the determination to carry out campaign after campaign to defeat waves of resistance.
Mao was a failed politician. He missed the best opportunity China had of entering modern politics and becoming a democracy. Sun Yet-Sun established the foundation of a democratic China by drafting the Nation-Building Charter, but Mao ignored it. He chose Qin Shihuang instead.
18 个回复 | 最后更新于 2017-08-25
2017-06-28
#2
bulb:
No indoctrination? We didn't pray, but we did sing "东方红", "三大纪律八项注意", "大海航行靠舵手" at various hours of the day. We were also surrounded by slogans such as "统一思想、统一步调、统一行动" (there're four of them but I can't recall the other one at the moment), and various study sessions where one would do self-criticism if one did something not in accordance with Mao Zedong thought. Then there were loyaty dances. There were many many other ways of indoctrination, some subtle and some blatant.
一寸烟丝
If you use the cynical definition of a politician as a manipulator, then he didn't fail, but I was thinking about a politicians as someone who grabs power in order to implement his/her ideas about how a country should be run, to leave a mark in history.
硅谷艳阳天
It's a pity that the government is not doing anything to settle the dispute about the number of deaths by sponsoring a nation-wide survey. It's still not too late to do it now, but in another decade or so there won't be many people around to remember the truths. I thought it would be more important than survey people's private lives.
甜雅
Opportunities don't come easy. After the revolution, he was in a position to implement a complete new system of government. In fact, during the four-year civil war, his party advocated freedom and democracy fervanently. But it turned out to be a show.
untitled
I was citing/summarising different views when I mentioned that. I certainly don't think the civil war had anything to do with China's independence, but there are plenty of Chinese people who think that way. I'm not sure I agree with the label "bandits", as there was a very corruptive KMT government. Some one had to do something. It could have been a force of democracy (the ccp did use that as a weapon to appeal to the masses), except it wasn't it.
bluesea
Perhaps we'll never know the real truth about the Long March, just like about many political events in China. Look at the descriptions of the events of 1989, an era equiped with modern recording technologies, you could be listening to two completely different stories depending on the narrators. Which version will survive time? In the olden days, it would be the victor's version, but nowadays, perhaps both will. Those who controls the future controls the past.
No indoctrination? We didn't pray, but we did sing "东方红", "三大纪律八项注意", "大海航行靠舵手" at various hours of the day. We were also surrounded by slogans such as "统一思想、统一步调、统一行动" (there're four of them but I can't recall the other one at the moment), and various study sessions where one would do self-criticism if one did something not in accordance with Mao Zedong thought. Then there were loyaty dances. There were many many other ways of indoctrination, some subtle and some blatant.
一寸烟丝
If you use the cynical definition of a politician as a manipulator, then he didn't fail, but I was thinking about a politicians as someone who grabs power in order to implement his/her ideas about how a country should be run, to leave a mark in history.
硅谷艳阳天
It's a pity that the government is not doing anything to settle the dispute about the number of deaths by sponsoring a nation-wide survey. It's still not too late to do it now, but in another decade or so there won't be many people around to remember the truths. I thought it would be more important than survey people's private lives.
甜雅
Opportunities don't come easy. After the revolution, he was in a position to implement a complete new system of government. In fact, during the four-year civil war, his party advocated freedom and democracy fervanently. But it turned out to be a show.
untitled
I was citing/summarising different views when I mentioned that. I certainly don't think the civil war had anything to do with China's independence, but there are plenty of Chinese people who think that way. I'm not sure I agree with the label "bandits", as there was a very corruptive KMT government. Some one had to do something. It could have been a force of democracy (the ccp did use that as a weapon to appeal to the masses), except it wasn't it.
bluesea
Perhaps we'll never know the real truth about the Long March, just like about many political events in China. Look at the descriptions of the events of 1989, an era equiped with modern recording technologies, you could be listening to two completely different stories depending on the narrators. Which version will survive time? In the olden days, it would be the victor's version, but nowadays, perhaps both will. Those who controls the future controls the past.
2017-06-29
#3
Someone entered the discussion through personal messages, and emphasises the importance of establishing institutions in the present day China. I think that's a very good point. Why do we need to assess Mao, again and again, at different times and from different angles? Because he's symbolized, and he still has a halo around him as a saviour. He represented a means of social transformation - revolution. When faced with social injustice such as rampant corruption, the neglect of the disadvantaged, etc, a large proportion of the people still turn to Mao's image, Mao's thought, and shout for another Mao to emerge. It should be realized that Mao didn't solve the social problems; he just replaced one set of problems with another set. Politically, he didn't represent progress; he ruled like an emperor. Whatever problems China faces now, don't turn to Mao or his thought for solution.
In my opinion, this can only be achieved through dispassionate and objective research and discussion, rather than shocking and sensational revelations. In this respect, I don't quite agree with Jong Chang's approach.
norahy
Reading historical novels, we see many talented people emerge at the beginning of every dynasty. Those people were the cause rather than the effect of the new dynasty. It's the same with Mao and his comerades.
untitled
There were more similarities between them - how the generals were treated. However, just like the emergence of Li Zicheng, Mao had the historical opportunity to start a revolution, and in a revolution it's difficult to judge what ways are accetable and what are not. What we should do is to avoid revolution. Revolution is cruel by nature, but what Mao could have done after the revolution was to pick Sun Yet-sun's work.
bulb
I have a feeling that Mao was trying different ideas after taking power, to speed up the process of transforming from a very poor nation to a heaven on earth. But he didn't have the right to kidnap the whole nation to strive for his idea.
craigie
I have no idea.:)
In my opinion, this can only be achieved through dispassionate and objective research and discussion, rather than shocking and sensational revelations. In this respect, I don't quite agree with Jong Chang's approach.
norahy
Reading historical novels, we see many talented people emerge at the beginning of every dynasty. Those people were the cause rather than the effect of the new dynasty. It's the same with Mao and his comerades.
untitled
There were more similarities between them - how the generals were treated. However, just like the emergence of Li Zicheng, Mao had the historical opportunity to start a revolution, and in a revolution it's difficult to judge what ways are accetable and what are not. What we should do is to avoid revolution. Revolution is cruel by nature, but what Mao could have done after the revolution was to pick Sun Yet-sun's work.
bulb
I have a feeling that Mao was trying different ideas after taking power, to speed up the process of transforming from a very poor nation to a heaven on earth. But he didn't have the right to kidnap the whole nation to strive for his idea.
craigie
I have no idea.:)
"Mao knowingly let 20-30 million people die during 1958-61. "
The number varies everytime I read about it -- ranging from 10m to 100 million people. The (great leap forward) policy was bad and natural disaster didn't help things either. I have no doubt he knew of the situation, look at what happened to those who (Peng De Huai) made him aware of it.
Fault outweights his merit, a failed politician overall.
The number varies everytime I read about it -- ranging from 10m to 100 million people. The (great leap forward) policy was bad and natural disaster didn't help things either. I have no doubt he knew of the situation, look at what happened to those who (Peng De Huai) made him aware of it.
Fault outweights his merit, a failed politician overall.
what do you mean by "the greatest Chinese who brought independence upon China"?! i have been hoping that honor will belong to our beloved 小马哥. i don't think what Mao did, or what CCP did to chinese can be labeled as bringing "independence", at least not in my dictionary. PRC, as a shell, may be independence, but most chinese arn't. the slaves just had a new master to serve. that is all.
anyway, i don't think any reasonable person would accredit the survival of china during WWII to CPC. that honor belongs to the alliance of KMT, the US and USSR. Mao and CPC did more harm than good during anti-Japanese war. Mao and some of his fellow members are nothing more than bandits. as to their deeds after 1949, frankly i think they all should have been put to trial for crime against humanity.
anyway, i don't think any reasonable person would accredit the survival of china during WWII to CPC. that honor belongs to the alliance of KMT, the US and USSR. Mao and CPC did more harm than good during anti-Japanese war. Mao and some of his fellow members are nothing more than bandits. as to their deeds after 1949, frankly i think they all should have been put to trial for crime against humanity.
If you read Chang's book, you will know that Mao turned Yan'an into a massive opium trading centre, what he did then reminds me of what those warlords did in Afghanistan
==========================================
According to Chang's book, long march was dotted by fabricated storied. For example, the said battle at Lu Ding Bridge never actually took place. I was talking to my father about it the other day, he said he knew that already. He had the “privilege” to be drafted into a team working on a secret version of “Mao’s biography” for the central government. He was tasked to translate the Long March, it was said that what Mao told Snow later in Yan’an was a story largely based on his own imagination.
==========================================
According to Chang's book, long march was dotted by fabricated storied. For example, the said battle at Lu Ding Bridge never actually took place. I was talking to my father about it the other day, he said he knew that already. He had the “privilege” to be drafted into a team working on a secret version of “Mao’s biography” for the central government. He was tasked to translate the Long March, it was said that what Mao told Snow later in Yan’an was a story largely based on his own imagination.
Mao had his own agenda, his own issues and his ideas to push through, and he could do it and he did it.
He was a great man, as well as many other people in that era. It is really hard for us who have spent our entire lives in relative peace and quiet to understand the need that he had to get the nation armed, to have atom bombs even before he could feed the whole country. In a way, it is not fair for us to pass judgement without putting his actions into context.
He was a great man, as well as many other people in that era. It is really hard for us who have spent our entire lives in relative peace and quiet to understand the need that he had to get the nation armed, to have atom bombs even before he could feed the whole country. In a way, it is not fair for us to pass judgement without putting his actions into context.
when you compare Mao with 李自成, you will find history was been eeriely repeating itself. before entering Peking, Mao told his lieutenants that he would not become "李自成第二", but he ate his own words. both Mao and Li, leaders of the so-called 农民起义军, wouldn't give a damn about people under them. they cared nobody but themselves. they were both reckless sociopaths who valued chaos over order. on the way to their own madness, they forced whole populace to suffer miserably with them. to themselves, they were sociopaths; to their victims, they were bandits.
do you know Mao and Zhou, among other top dogs of CPC, were directly involved in many murders and slaughters, including innocent children, during the early days of CPC revolution (1927-1934)? after killing all family members of , including their servants, Zhou even indulged him a cigarette on the spot. what a cold blooded murderer!
do you know Mao and Zhou, among other top dogs of CPC, were directly involved in many murders and slaughters, including innocent children, during the early days of CPC revolution (1927-1934)? after killing all family members of , including their servants, Zhou even indulged him a cigarette on the spot. what a cold blooded murderer!
To Eucalyptus:
Mao tried different ideas because he had no idea which road to take himself, an obvious sign of political unwisdom. Perhaps the only thing Mao values is the realization of his own fantasies, the establishment of his own historical position, compared to which anything is dispensable and expendable, including lives of millions of people, even democracy, which I doubt is still a Utopian totem in China. When self-righteous and overly obstinate people come into power, Pandora just couldn't suppress her curiosity to open the box of evil...
Mao tried different ideas because he had no idea which road to take himself, an obvious sign of political unwisdom. Perhaps the only thing Mao values is the realization of his own fantasies, the establishment of his own historical position, compared to which anything is dispensable and expendable, including lives of millions of people, even democracy, which I doubt is still a Utopian totem in China. When self-righteous and overly obstinate people come into power, Pandora just couldn't suppress her curiosity to open the box of evil...
登录后方可回帖
"While Mao indoctrinated the whole nation with one thought - Mao Zedong thought..."
In effect, Mao Zedong thought was primarily propagated by people around him, then universally parroted among the masses. In a totalitarian regime like Mao's, this process appears to be involuntary, in which no willful indoctrination is needed. The masses are hysterically obsequious, spontaneously always, in "advocating" Mao Zedong thought, whereby "personal integrity" is manifested, and "security" achieved. We've seen enough of this in the Cultural Revolution.
"Mao was a failed politician."
Precisely so! Mao is a brilliant militarist and strategist, and he excels in poetizing, but hardly did he show any sign of a good politician, or statesman. Mao was largely misled by people around him, blurred the borderline between right and wrong, and lacked the perspicacity and discernment necessary for a politician.