Mao ZeDong

[southside]

What do yo guys think of him? he liberated China but also caused cultural revolution. obviously he did good things as well as bad things for the people. do yo americans think his good outweights his bad or vice versa?

 

[Eternal]

I think he brought a lot of unnecessary problems to the Chinese people particularly in the realms of culture, society and foreign relations.

 

[palerider]

Between the years of 1920 to 1976, the man was responsible for the deaths of over 70 million of his own people. That is more death than hitler and stalin combined dealt out. What possible good could be gleaned from such a life?

 

[The_Giver]

What's your take on this southside?

 

[Dave]

I dont know that I would say he "liberated" China. If you were anything more than a poor farmer during Mao's time in power then your life certainly got much worse. Chiang Kia-sheck was most definately corrupt, but Mao was willing to kill anyone that didn't embrace poverty. Mao was a pragmatic at heart, and that lead to some good things for China. It is why their form of Communism worked better than the Soviet Union. But it also lead to Mao taking many drastic steps to ensure that his vision was the only vision. My opinion is that reform would have been much better than a revolution for China.

 

[southside]

What possible good could be gleaned from such a life?

First of all, I do not myself consider Mao as a heroic figure because he has done many wrongs to the Chinese people. However, I certainly would not make a bold statement such that "what possible good could Mao have?" First of all, I think he definitely saved China during and after World War II. By looking at statistics, during Chiang Kai-Shek's rule 87% of the Chinese people were under the standard poverty line, and this did not improve at all as the times changes. However, only three years after Mao's takeover, China's poverty rate reduced to 58%. Back in Chiang Kai-Shek's time, the government officials and soldiers frequently take over peasant's food, rape their woman, even kill many of them without being properly punished. This certainly did not happen after Mao's takeover. My friend Zhang, who is studying Chinese history, totally agrees with me the notion that Mao indeed "liberated China" in the sense that he made most Chinese, especially the poor ones, a much better life. How can you, Palerider, compare Mao's story to that of Hitler?

Again, do not lecture me on how many people Mao indirectly killed during the later years, because I never said that Mao is a good leader. He indeed committed many terrible wrongs in his later years. But my point is, Mao did contribute significantly to the Chinese people.

 

[Dave]

Back in Chiang Kai-Shek's time, the government officials and soldiers frequently take over peasant's food, rape their woman, even kill many of them without being properly punished. This certainly did not happen after Mao's takeover.

Mao's soldiers did the same things. The only differences are that they did it to land owners, and the mass killings were government sanctioned.

 

[Grounded]

I do think that his good outweighs his bad side.

I mean, there has to be blood if there is ever something that'll change the country.

 

[usaisthegreatest]

Southside, I can see where your arguement is coming from, but I am afraid that I cannot agree with them. First of all, as you probably know this yourself, statistics can be quite misleading. While China did make progress after Mao's takeover, many historians (even the Chinese ones) believe that this is a mere coincidence. China was plunged by WWII, and just like everyother warring countries, China suffered economic decline during the war. Just like everyother post-war countries, China is destined to recover from the injury at some point in time. It just happened that China was ripe for progress when Mao took over and Mao's taking over triggered the whole economic recovery. Looking at the numbers, I believe that number of jobs available was increasing even before Mao's reign. This clearly suggest that Mao should not be credited for China's economic progress.

Do people blame 9-11 on George Bush? No, people do not. This is because Bush simply chose the wrong time to become a president. If it is Al Gore ruling during 9-11, 9-11 is still bound to happen. Similarly, Mao simply chose the right time to take over China. If someone else took over China instead of Mao, he/(she?) would achieve the same success.

And Dave was right, look at the number of innocent people Mao prosecuted. Hard working middle class families who want nothing but a peaceful and comfortable life were tortured and broken by Mao's regime. This happened not just to one family, but hundreds and thousands. Mao, in short, is a tyranny, and he does not deserve to be praised.

 

[palerider]

First of all, I do not myself consider Mao as a heroic figure because he has done many wrongs to the Chinese people. However, I certainly would not make a bold statement such that "what possible good could Mao have?" First of all, I think he definitely saved China during and after World War II. By looking at statistics, during Chiang Kai-Shek's rule 87% of the Chinese people were under the standard poverty line, and this did not improve at all as the times changes. However, only three years after Mao's takeover, China's poverty rate reduced to 58%. Back in Chiang Kai-Shek's time, the government officials and soldiers frequently take over peasant's food, rape their woman, even kill many of them without being properly punished. This certainly did not happen after Mao's takeover. My friend Zhang, who is studying Chinese history, totally agrees with me the notion that Mao indeed "liberated China" in the sense that he made most Chinese, especially the poor ones, a much better life. How can you, Palerider, compare Mao's story to that of Hitler?

Again, do not lecture me on how many people Mao indirectly killed during the later years, because I never said that Mao is a good leader. He indeed committed many terrible wrongs in his later years. But my point is, Mao did contribute significantly to the Chinese people.

Do the math. If the man was responsible for the deaths of 70 million and nearly all of them were the poor, doesn't it stand to reason that the poverty statistics would improve? He didn't improve life for the poor, he just killed them.

 

[southside]

Do the math. If the man was responsible for the deaths of 70 million and nearly all of them were the poor, doesn't it stand to reason that the poverty statistics would improve? He didn't improve life for the poor, he just killed them.

i don't know if i should answer this, because this is a rather ridiculous statement. okay, i'll do the math. there are 1.2 billion chinese, and i think (correct me if i am mistaken), that means 1200 million chinese. and more than 80% were under poverty rate before Mao's takeover (let's just say 80%), then there were 960 million people under the poverty. after mao's takeover, there were only less than 60% (let's say 60%), so that's 720 million. 240 millino people therefore were liberated from poverty by Mao's government, there are still 170 million people who benefited even if 70 million were killed by Mao (which is a very untrue statement, given many were killed not by Mao, but by guerrila warfare, Japanese invasion, and natural disaster. where did yo get this number anyways? but i am not even going to argue with you).

yo wanna me do the math, i did. now i think yo should do some history. Mao's policy benefits the poor. So yo say the majority of the 70 million were middle or even upper class, then i would probably agree. but yo said "the deaths of 70 million and nearly all of them were the poor." this is totally incorrect and i think whoever said that should seriously go back to the elementary school and learn some history.

 

[hellopolitics]

this is totally incorrect and i think whoever said that should seriously go back to the elementary school and learn some history.

excuse me? I think you should watch your language, southside. Some people may not know as much history as you, but you should never use that kind of language to anyone. Respect. Maybe some people have inferior education, but that doesn't mean they cannot speak out their views.

 

[palerider]

yo wanna me do the math, i did. now i think yo should do some history. Mao's policy benefits the poor. So yo say the majority of the 70 million were middle or even upper class, then i would probably agree. but yo said "the deaths of 70 million and nearly all of them were the poor." this is totally incorrect and i think whoever said that should seriously go back to the elementary school and learn some history.

Yeah, I wanted you to do the math and right off the bat you screwed it up. Considering the very basic level at which you made your mistake, you, bucko, are the very last person who should be suggesting that I go back to elementary school and learn some history.

To begin with, the population in china is 1.2 billion today. In case, you are unaware of the fact, the population was considerably smaller way back in 1949 when mao began his little party. In fact, the population in 1949 was 540 million. Doing the math by your methods, (which are also incorrect because they they don't compensate for the steadily decreasing population during mao's rule) he killed double the number that managed to get out of poverty. One must also question how poverty was defined pre mao and post mao.

 

[palerider]

excuse me? I think you should watch your language, southside. Some people may not know as much history as you, but you should never use that kind of language to anyone. Respect. Maybe some people have inferior education, but that doesn't mean they cannot speak out their views.

There is an inferior education at work here but alas, it isn't mine. The population of china in 1949 was only 540 million, not the 1.2 billion that southside incorrectly assumed.

And it is true that some people may not know as much history as southside, but by the same token, some obviously know far more.

 

[vyo476]

I seem to remember hearing the number of deaths attributed to Mao Zedong actually broke the 100 million mark, but I'm at a loss as to where I heard it. 70, 100...either way, you cannot justify the indifferent slaughter of 70 million to benefit 170 million. By that token the Nazi genocides in WWII which accompanied the Nazi revitalization of Germany's economy was not only acceptable but a wonderful innovation which should be followed today.