British media：China's young people to cherish the memory of Mao

[China studen]

East is Red is the siren song of China's new generation

The East is Red, a bombastic hymn glorifying Chairman Mao Tse-tung and the Chinese Communist revolution, is topping a Chinese-government run internet poll to find the nation's favourite patriotic song.

By Peter Foster in Beijing
Last Updated: 2:15PM BST 10 May 2009


The Communist anthem was once ubiquitous, blaring out of speakers at dawn and dusk in towns and villages across China during the Cultural Revolution. The song, which glorifies Mao as 'the people's saviour', was so totemic that it was first sound broadcast back to earth when China successfully placed a satellite into orbit in 1970.
Nostalgia for the era of Chairman Mao has renewed its popularity in a modern China where lives have been transformed by economic and social but not political reforms.

An internet poll conducted across several leading Chinese websites as part of a propaganda campaign to mark the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the People's Republic has drawn a patriotic response. "We need to remember what the old generation revolutionaries have done for us," said one voter. "Without their sacrifice, there would be no 'new China'. We should pass on these revolutionary songs!"

Despite being responsible for the deaths of up to 70 million Chinese(Note: This is a ridiculous rumor!), the 'Great Helmsman', retains considerable public affection in China as a charismatic leader who, for all his 'mistakes', liberated China from humiliating imperial subjugation. He is more often remembered as a peasant-statesman who dared to take on the world and has been adopted as a talisman for modern nationalists who hunger for a more assertive nation.

China's current rulers, who espouse a 'peaceful rise', are not always deemed worthy successors to the Chairman by those who hanker after the 'glories' of the Mao era. "Widespread political corruption, repression of freedom of speech and press and the economic uncertainties brought by two decades of embracing market reform all contribute to nostalgia for the Mao era.

Comments on the websites conducting the poll also reflected some of the difficulties faced by middle class urban Chinese. "I really love my country, but I can't afford an apartment. Can you tell me what should I do?" wrote one mischievous Beijing voter, reflecting middle class anger at China's spiralling property prices.

The apparent failure of Western market capitalism during the current financial crisis has also deepened the influence left-wing economic theorists who argue that China should take a more 'socialist' path of economic development.
Cai Chonguo, a philosopher and editor of a newsletter about Chinese trade unionism, attributes the Mao revival to economic pressures combined with a carefully managed propaganda campaign by the Chinese state.

Works which show Mao in an unflattering light, such as the account The Private Life of Chairman Mao by his doctor, Li Zhisui, continue to be banned in China, shielding ordinary Chinese from the personal failings of their former leader.
The Communist anthem was once ubiquitous, blaring out of speakers at dawn and dusk in towns and villages across China during the Cultural Revolution. The hymn, which glorifies Mao as 'the people's saviour', was so totemic that it was first sound broadcast back to earth when China successfully placed a satellite into orbit in 1970.

An internet poll conducted across several leading Chinese websites as part of a propaganda campaign to mark the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the People's Republic has drawn a patriotic response. "We need to remember what the old generation revolutionaries have done for us," said one voter. "Without their sacrifice, there would be no 'new China'. We should pass on these revolutionary songs!"

Despite being responsible for the deaths of up to 70 million Chinese, the 'Great Helmsman', retains considerable public affection in China as a charismatic leader who, for all his 'mistakes', liberated China from humiliating imperial subjugation. He is more often remembered as a peasant-statesman who dared to take on the world and has been adopted as a talisman for modern nationalists who hunger for a more assertive nation.

China's current rulers, who espouse a 'peaceful rise', are not always deemed worthy successors to the Chairman by those who hanker after the 'glories' of the Mao era. "Widespread political corruption, repression of freedom of speech and press and the economic uncertainties brought by two decades of embracing market reform all contribute to nostalgia for the Mao era.

Comments on the websites conducting the poll also reflected some of the difficulties faced by middle class urban Chinese. "I really love my country, but I can't afford an apartment. Can you tell me what should I do?" wrote one mischievous Beijing voter, reflecting middle class anger at China's spiralling property prices.

The apparent failure of Western market capitalism during the current financial crisis has also deepened the influence left-wing economic theorists who argue that China should take a more 'socialist' path of economic development.
Cai Chonguo, a philosopher and editor of a newsletter about Chinese trade unionism, attributes the Mao revival to economic pressures combined with a carefully managed propaganda campaign by the Chinese state.
Works which show Mao in an unflattering light, such as the account The Private Life of Chairman Mao by his doctor, Li Zhisui, continue to be banned in China, shielding ordinary Chinese from the personal failings of their former leader.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/5303764/East-is-Red-is-the-siren-song-of-Chinas-new-generation.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/5303764/East-is-Red-is-the-siren-song-of-Chinas-new-generation.html)

http://songchangzhi.blshe.com/post/10205/379957 (http://songchangzhi.blshe.com/post/10205/379957)


The past few days, the Western mass media reported the case of the Chinese left. Among them:


the British "Financial Times": patriotic people singing "The East Is Red.


" Hong Kong's "Asia Times": Mao Zedong was still living in the hearts of many Chinese people.


Radio France Internationale: China's new Maoist red spring.

[L.J.Solidarity]

The fact that many Chinese feel nostalgia for the times of Mao (I don't think that makes them actual maoists) illustrates what a terrible effect the re-introduction of capitalism to China has brought for the working class. Apparently opposition is on the rise, with more and more strikes and protests taking place all over the country. (http://chinaworker.org/en/content/news/722/)

[STJ]

You want to tell me whats the diffirence between state capitalism which they practiced under Mao and the capitalism they practice today?

[L.J.Solidarity]

You can see the difference by the very topic of this thread. Many people want Mao back despite the cultural revolution, the re-education camps and all because under capitalism their material conditions are obviously worse than they were in Mao's bureaucratic planned economy.

[STJ]

Ya right they want Mao's economy back its growth rate sucked compared to what it is today. Im sure you have a few nutters who want Mao back but thats it. State capitalism sucks it is inefficient.

[BobKKKindle$]

You want to tell me whats the diffirence between state capitalism which they practiced under Mao and the capitalism they practice today? Sure - before the reforms that were implemented under Deng Xiao-Ping each and every Chinese worker was entitled to a job for the whole of their life so they would never be faced with the threat of not having an income or being forced to rely on government support for survival, and as part of their work unit each worker also had access to healthcare and cultural facilities, as well as a range of other important services - otherwise known as the "Iron Ricebowl" system. It is clear that this system did not involve workers control and so could not be described as socialism but it is simply false to assume that there are no meaningful differences between the system that China has now, and the system that operated under Mao, as the latter exhibited many features that were worth defending from the viewpoint of the working class. The privatization process and the absence of economic development in the interior has resulted in millions of Chinese workers being pressured to move away from rural areas and small towns to cities like Beijing and Guangzhou in order to work as temporary labourers for multinational firms and construction companies. Many of these workers live in their destination cities illegally because the government operates an internal passport system whereby workers need to pay a fee and fill out paperwork in order to obtain temporary resident status, and as a result there is inadequate healthcare and education coverage, and managers can use the threat of reporting their workers to the authorities as a way of maintaining downwards pressure on working conditions and wages, and discouraging the formation of independent trade unions. It is also common for workers to be fired at short notice with no compensation if the economy slows down or a major project comes to an end, again due to their illegal or semi-legal status. From this it is quite clear to see that the market reforms are not insignificant to the working class, and the damaging effects that these reforms have had is evident from the mass participation of workers in the Tienanmen Square protests of 1989, as well as the strikes that become bigger and more numerous with each passing year.


Ya right they want Mao's economy back its growth rate sucked compared to what it is today. Im sure you have a few nutters who want Mao back but thats it. State capitalism sucks it is inefficientThis is such a simplistic argument. Firstly, the PRC's growth rate under Mao was much higher than most other developing countries at that point in time. Over the 1950-76 period the average annual growth rate was 6.7% compared to 4.7% for the entire world and 4.6% for east and south Asia as a region, which is especially impressive when we consider that the Chinese economy had been devastated by decades of civil war, foreign occupation, and warlordism. It is true that growth rates have rise to more than 10% in the post-Mao era but this does not mean that these higher growth rates are solely the result of the policies that were implemented under Deng, as development economists recognize that any underdeveloped economy has to undergo a certain period of "preparation work" in the form of constructing infrastructure and increasing agricultural yields before higher rates of growth become feasible. More to the point, however, growth rates on their own do not actually tell us very much about whether a given economic process or set of policies is progressive from the viewpoint of the working class, and the growth that has occurred in the past two decades in China has benefited only a small part of the population, mainly the ruling bureaucracy and emerging bourgeoisie, whereas workers and peasants have had to put up with rapidly increasing prices, and enhanced economic insecurity. The fact that you describe those who admire the Mao era as "nutters" is horrendously anti-worker because, whether rightly or wrongly, most of the radical left in China is Maoist in orientation, and look back on the Mao era as a period in which China was much more progressive and equal than it is today.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Great points Bob.

It should also be noted that much of the "growth" during the 80's was merely selling off public infrastructure, factories and food reserves to private interests.

It's easy to bash China and Mao sitting from the comfort of a developed country. But STJ, would you do me a favor and not sound so ignorant while doing it. Like I said, it's easy to make an informed criticism of China and Mao, but first you actually have to read a book about it or something and you'know- get informed.

[STJ]

China has had double digit growth rates for the last 15 years. Read a book yourself.

[Jia]

China has had double digit growth rates for the last 15 years. Read a book yourself.

13% was the best it ever was. And its nowhere close now. I would rather centuries of slow, steady growth rather then big booms followed by collapsing and revolts.

[BobKKKindle$]

During the period 1959-1975, Spain under the rule of Franco had one of the highest growth rates in the whole world, and underwent rapid industrialization - does that mean that we should endorse the political and economic system that was in place then to a greater extent than what was achieved during the Spanish Civil War, simply on the grounds that the growth rate was higher? Of course not - because, as I mentioned in my previous post, simply looking at a growth rate does not tell us much about who is benefiting from the growth and what the costs of the growth are. In many cases a high rate of growth has been achieved through the intense exploitation of the working class, by means of political oppression, and/or investment in unproductive sectors of the economy such as the military and financial services. If implementing a set of economic policies results in a lower growth rate but protects the working class from economic insecurity then we should endorse those policies or at least defend them against market reforms if they have been introduced by a bourgeois government, because as socialists our first concern is what is in the interests of the international proletariat.

If you make a one-line post again instead of saying something substantive, I will delete your post.

[REDSOX]

The chinese revolution of 1949 was one of the great revolutions of our time. It overthrew imperialism and nationalism and capitalism. It made great strides in eliminating the caste system massive redistribution of land nationalisation of the economy and great strides in health care and education. However it also made massive errors such as forced collectivisation of agriculture, an ideological misunderstanding of imperialism, supporting reactionary forces in angola and afghanistan. Ganging up with the yanks against the soviets. Its errors and an emerging monstrous bureacracy in the Chinese communist party led it inevitably into the hands of reactionaries like deng and well on the road to state capitalism. How sad!!!

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

The fact that many Chinese feel nostalgia for the times of Mao (I don't think that makes them actual maoists) illustrates what a terrible effect the re-introduction of capitalism to China has brought for the working class. Apparently opposition is on the rise, with more and more strikes and protests taking place all over the country. (http://chinaworker.org/en/content/news/722/)

A lot of people cherish Jesus, but I don't think they want to revert to the politics of biblical times. It doesn't illustrate a desire throughout the christian community to reinstate stoning and crucifixion.

If people are indoctrinated to revere a figure (especially if they're told he died for their sins or ignited the glorious revolution) a lot of people, funnily enough, will believe it.

[BobKKKindle$]

A lot of people cherish Jesus, but I don't think they want to revert to the politics of biblical times. It doesn't illustrate a desire throughout the christian community to reinstate stoning and crucifixion.

If people are indoctrinated to revere a figure (especially if they're told he died for their sins or ignited the glorious revolution) a lot of people, funnily enough, will believe it.

This is very demeaning. The current line of the Chinese government is not to praise Mao as the leader of the revolution or to celebrate the achievements of the Mao era - instead, they acknowledge Mao's capabilities as a military leader and as a political strategist, but then condemn him as having made poor policy choices once the CPC had taken power, especially with regard to the Cultural Revolution, completely ignoring the difficulties that China was faced with in 1949, as well as the ability of Mao's government to overcome those difficulties and implement real changes, such as the world's most impressive increase in life expectancy, the abolition of a whole range of reactionary and outdated practices such as footbinding, not to mention the reform of the Chinese language. In this context, the fact that people are still showing interest in Mao and his ideas despite being told that he was incompetent and power-hungry indicates that this is not just a case of people passively accepting what they are being told, or falling under the influence of a brainwashing process. There is genuine ideological engagement and debate here, which has arisen from genuine opposition to the current government. If you accept the narrative of passive consumption, you're assuming that the Chinese left, and more broadly the Chinese working class, is incapable of recognizing what is in their own interests, and acting on those interests, which is fortunately not the case.

[ls]

This is very demeaning. The current line of the Chinese government is not to praise Mao as the leader of the revolution or to celebrate the achievements of the Mao era - instead, they acknowledge Mao's capabilities as a military leader and as a political strategist, but then condemn him as having made poor policy choices once the CPC had taken power, especially with regard to the Cultural Revolution, completely ignoring the difficulties that China was faced with in 1949, as well as the ability of Mao's government to overcome those difficulties and implement real changes, such as the world's most impressive increase in life expectancy, the abolition of a whole range of reactionary and outdated practices such as footbinding, not to mention the reform of the Chinese language.

Demeaning? What's demeaning is trying to say that the government's line =/= the people's line.


In this context, the fact that people are still showing interest in Mao and his ideas despite being told that he was incompetent and power-hungry indicates that this is not just a case of people passively accepting what they are being told. .. There is genuine ideological engagement and debate here, which has arisen from genuine opposition to the current government. If you accept the narrative of passive consumption, you're assuming that ..the Chinese working class, is incapable of recognizing what is in their own interests

Saying that a government trying to indoctrinate people might succeed =/= saying the proletariat is incapable of recognising what's in its own interests? That is ridiculous. You said yourself that's the government's line, not the people's. With governments that have continuously praised Mao, yeah ok even critical of some of his policies, of course there is going to be a noticeable effect on people in some way, why would you mention the fact that the current government are critical of some of Mao's policies if you didn't believe that yourself?

[Sugar Hill Kevis]

The hymn, which glorifies Mao as 'the people's saviour'

Doesn't really sound like critical analysis of Mao

[BobKKKindle$]

Demeaning? What's demeaning is trying to say that the government's line =/= the people's line.That's the point. The current government's line is to downplay the importance of Mao as a leader and the positive aspects of the Mao era, that's why I questioned KE's characterization of the Chinese people as being passive recipients of ideas that are being handed down to them by the government. If the Chinese people really were being brainwashed then you would expect them to hold the same views as the government on the Mao era, but this article as well as other developments show that this is not the case. Instead, people are turning to Mao and learning about the ways in which the Mao period was better for the working class than the current policies of the government as a way of showing their opposition to the status quo. I think this article really downplays the level of hostility that the government has shown towards Mao as well as its reasons for doing so - it doesn't mention the fact, for example, that Deng's government initiated a campaign to diminish the positive achievements of the Cultural Revolution by encouraging intellectuals and bureaucrats who had been challenged or "persecuted" during that event to contribute "scar literature", or shānghén wénxué, i.e. accounts of all the bad things that happened to them, and these accounts have since been presented as applicable to the whole of the Chinese population, despite the fact that, as a complex event, the Cultural Revolution involved a range of different experiences depending on class, locality, and gender, many of which were very positive. In addition to the Cultural Revolution, the current government has also tried to hold Mao responsible for other things that went "wrong" during the course of China's post-war history even when the evidence shows that Mao was not responsible by any objective standard. For example, when the speeches of Liu Shaoqi were published in volume form under Deng's government in the 1980s by the CCP Central Office of Documentary Research all of the speeches that he had made between 1958 and 1960 were not included, because these speeches clearly show that it was Liu who was advocating reckless policies during the Great Leap Forward, and that it was Mao who was urging restraint as he was aware of the bad consequences that would result from trying to push collectivization too fast and hard, whereas the dominant narrative teaches the younger generations that it was all Mao's fault.

If you want to learn more about the way history has been written in China, I would recommend Gao's 'The Battle for China's Past' (2008) particularly the chapter entitled 'Constructing History'.


Doesn't really sound like critical analysis of Mao 'The East is Red' is never broadcast in China now, ostensibly because it relates to the Cultural Revolution - or if it is broadcast it is only for historical reasons and not because it is actually a reflection of contemporary politics.

[STJ]

During the period 1959-1975, Spain under the rule of Franco had one of the highest growth rates in the whole world, and underwent rapid industrialization - does that mean that we should endorse the political and economic system that was in place then to a greater extent than what was achieved during the Spanish Civil War, simply on the grounds that the growth rate was higher? Of course not - because, as I mentioned in my previous post, simply looking at a growth rate does not tell us much about who is benefiting from the growth and what the costs of the growth are. In many cases a high rate of growth has been achieved through the intense exploitation of the working class, by means of political oppression, and/or investment in unproductive sectors of the economy such as the military and financial services. If implementing a set of economic policies results in a lower growth rate but protects the working class from economic insecurity then we should endorse those policies or at least defend them against market reforms if they have been introduced by a bourgeois government, because as socialists our first concern is what is in the interests of the international proletariat.

If you make a one-line post again instead of saying something substantive, I will delete your post.

Bob i prefer real Marxism over any kind of capitalism. State capitalism is not Marxism in any way shape or form.

[BobKKKindle$]

Bob i prefer real Marxism over any kind of capitalism. State capitalism is not Marxism in any way shape or form. Firstly, Marxism is a way of understanding the world and not a mode of production or political system. More importantly, if you are oppossed to all kinds of capitalism then why would you criticize the Mao era on the basis that the current policies have led to a higher economic growth, especially in light of the fact that economic growth is not an effective way to judge different sets of policies for progressives? There are many fair and informed ways to criticize Mao, you don't have to resort to bourgeois economics to do so. The fact of the matter is that the victory of Deng Xiao-Ping did mark a defeat for the Chinese working class. If you're going to say that policy differences don't matter because it was capitalism regardless, unfortunately politics doesn't work like that - adjustments in the way capitalism is run such as a transition from state capitalism to market capitalism do impact the conditions and confidence of the proletariat, which is why Marxists in capitalist countries such as the UK fight against the privatization of the NHS and other public services that have been won through pressure and struggle from the working class, even though whether the NHS is privately or publicly owned will have no impact on whether the British economy is capitalist.

[Glenn Beck]

Demeaning? What's demeaning is trying to say that the government's line =/= the people's line.



Saying that a government trying to indoctrinate people might succeed =/= saying the proletariat is incapable of recognising what's in its own interests? That is ridiculous. You said yourself that's the government's line, not the people's. With governments that have continuously praised Mao, yeah ok even critical of some of his policies, of course there is going to be a noticeable effect on people in some way, why would you mention the fact that the current government are critical of some of Mao's policies if you didn't believe that yourself?

You've missed the point entirely. Governments since Mao have not continuously praised him. He has been reduced to more of a mythical founding figure and a character in history, his views and ideas are barely engaged at all. Where they are engaged they are attacked. The Chinese government pays lip service to the Chinese Revolution because they name themselves Communist and claim continuity with the previous government, to entirely jettison Mao would send much of their legitimacy with him. As Bob says, the fact that despite this historical treatment of Mao many Chinese still have a positive view of him as a political figure and as a leader rather than just a member of the national pantheon (I wouldn't presume to know much about culture and history in the UK but I would imagine Cromwell might be viewed similarly) shows an active political engagement and an awareness and dissatisfaction with the ways which the government of China since the late 1970s has deviated from what came before.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Bob i prefer real Marxism over any kind of capitalism. State capitalism is not Marxism in any way shape or form.

Even easier than trying you understand through study historical attempts to construct socialism, is writing off these attempts in favor of an imagined 'real marxism.'

Your arguments are juvenile. You should observe and ask more questions, and state your opinions only when they are based off a fuller understanding of the given topic.

[Yazman]

Doesn't really sound like critical analysis of Mao

What? This is a very strange thing to say. Its from a song, a song that is meant to be patriotic and anthemic - these sorts of songs aren't meant to include 'critical analysis' and furthemore, the news sources are from the mainstream media which generally include little if any critical analysis (thats not what they're for).

I don't know why you're looking to an anthemic/patriotic song or a news report for critical analysis..?

[ls]

You've missed the point entirely. Governments since Mao have not continuously praised him. He has been reduced to more of a mythical founding figure and a character in history

But this is common knowledge though.


his views and ideas are barely engaged at all. Where they are engaged they are attacked.

Even Bob said himself:
The current line of the Chinese government is not to praise Mao as the leader of the revolution or to celebrate the achievements of the Mao era - instead, they acknowledge Mao's capabilities as a military leader and as a political strategist, but then condemn him as having made poor policy choices once the CPC had taken power, especially with regard to the Cultural Revolution, completely ignoring the difficulties that China was faced with in 1949, as well as the ability of Mao's government to overcome those difficulties and implement real changes


The Chinese government pays lip service to the Chinese Revolution because they name themselves Communist and claim continuity with the previous government, to entirely jettison Mao would send much of their legitimacy with him.

Yes this is true.


(I wouldn't presume to know much about culture and history in the UK but I would imagine Cromwell might be viewed similarly)


Cromwell brutally oppressed the Irish people, in my opinion he should not be celebrated in any way.


As Bob says, the fact that despite this historical treatment of Mao many Chinese still have a positive view of him as a political figure and as a leader rather than just a member of the national pantheon .. shows an active political engagement and an awareness and dissatisfaction with the ways which the government of China since the late 1970s has deviated from what came before.

You're right, but let's be honest, any kind of mass appraisal or dismissal of him - in any aspect is going to make people ask question what he did, people do not inherently trust a government to lead their intellectual development every step of the way, that is the way the world works. It isn't specific to the Chinese people.

[redarmyfaction38]

You've missed the point entirely. Governments since Mao have not continuously praised him. He has been reduced to more of a mythical founding figure and a character in history, his views and ideas are barely engaged at all. Where they are engaged they are attacked. The Chinese government pays lip service to the Chinese Revolution because they name themselves Communist and claim continuity with the previous government, to entirely jettison Mao would send much of their legitimacy with him. As Bob says, the fact that despite this historical treatment of Mao many Chinese still have a positive view of him as a political figure and as a leader rather than just a member of the national pantheon (I wouldn't presume to know much about culture and history in the UK but I would imagine Cromwell might be viewed similarly) shows an active political engagement and an awareness and dissatisfaction with the ways which the government of China since the late 1970s has deviated from what came before.
damn right.
interestingly, polls across the former soviet union and "eastern bloc" show a similar "nostalgia".
ordinary working people don't like "free market capitalism" in any shape or form, it fcuks their life up,
given the rampant uncertainties of "market forces", the former "state capitalist"? or deformed workers states are an attractive proposition.

[redarmyfaction38]

But this is common knowledge though.



Even Bob said himself:



Yes this is true.




Cromwell brutally oppressed the Irish people, in my opinion he should not be celebrated in any way.



You're right, but let's be honest, any kind of mass appraisal or dismissal of him - in any aspect is going to make people ask question what he did, people do not inherently trust a government to lead their intellectual development every step of the way, that is the way the world works. It isn't specific to the Chinese people.
cromwell was the capitalist revolution, without cromwells capitalist workers party there couldn't be a socialist workers party, marx observed, in every revolution, elements of the next revolution exist and are repressed, that's cromwell executing the levellers and trotsky shooting anarchists.......

[ls]

cromwell was the capitalist revolution, without cromwells capitalist workers party there couldn't be a socialist workers party, marx observed, in every revolution, elements of the next revolution exist and are repressed, that's cromwell executing the levellers and trotsky shooting anarchists.......

That doesn't mean we should do the typical thing your lot seem to which is "celebrate their achievements but discard their problems", we can measure a person by their overall input in every aspect. If someone brutally oppresses entire peoples but is the first instance of republican rebellion, it doesn't automatically make them a person to be 'admired' (not that we should be focusing on heroes really).

[redarmyfaction38]

That doesn't mean we should do the typical thing your lot seem to which is "celebrate their achievements but discard their problems", we can measure a person by their overall input in every aspect. If someone brutally oppresses entire peoples but is the first instance of republican rebellion, it doesn't automatically make them a person to be 'admired' (not that we should be focusing on heroes really).
"my lot"?
what "lot" have you straight jacketed me into i wonder?
politically aware people with a wicked sense of humour, i hope.......
or are you too preoccupied with your own political correctness to recognise a sardonic side swipe at the ridiculous contradictions ensconced in human political, social and political belief systems?
i wonder......

[Guerrilla22]

The largest amount of economic growth in the history of China occured during the cultural revolution. This was in part due to the fact that China was previously so underdeveloped, but the fact remains china has not seen that amount of economic growth ever since.

[Sendo]

unbelievable that that hack of a "doctor" gets so much attention. The Chinese are not being shielded, WE ARE. Go to China and speak to the 900 million and up people who have gotten poorer and live in a capitalist wasteland what they think. Hell, go to China and interview the people that these anti-Mao puff pieces "quote".

Typical Western media. Ridiculous double think.

"China is evil and communist but now it's capitalist but of course the government worships Mao even though they have undone everything socialist he has done. Oh and even though massacres like Tianenmen happened well AFTER Mao, he is still the greatest mass murderer. [Note: the famine was minor in comparison to China's history] China is the dirtiest, most polluted, unsustainable sweatshop of a country, but for some reason those dumb slopes are nostalgic for Mao? WTF?"


Sickening...all the implied racism in these articles. The assumption we must make in light of NO analysis is that the Chinese are dumb, unthinking, hordes of lookalikes and thinkalikes.

When the Germans had Hitler the west was like "Oh my god, how could white people do that? We should know better, how COULD THIS HAPPEN?????" but with the Cultural Revolution we have "those damn Chinese are destroying their beautiful trinkets and shrines. I want an Oriental paradise for my vacation, not a developed country!! I hate the Chinese because of their culture. But I hate their culture because it destroys the culture I like which is also Chinese." It is accepted as an evil project and the fact that most Chinese supported the GPCR shows that the Chinese masses are dumb. A non-racist might look and say that the GPCR may have benefited working people and rural communities, hence the widespread support and nostalgia.

[ls]

"my lot"?
what "lot" have you straight jacketed me into i wonder?

:confused: Your name kind of says it all?


politically aware people with a wicked sense of humour, i hope.......

"New leftist anti-imperialist guerillas" might sound good on paper...


or are you too preoccupied with your own political correctness

You might find Mao invented the modern term "political correctness" if you took your head out your arse for three seconds. And no I do not believe in political correctness at all.



to recognise a sardonic side swipe at the ridiculous contradictions ensconced in human political, social and political belief systems?
i wonder......

I just find it odd coming from you to be honest.

[RedHal]

http://www.dissident.info/c-quiz.pdf

-During the Mao years, life expectancy doubled from 32 to 65 years
-Before the revolution literacy rate was 15%, it soared to 80% when Mao died
-Since the restoration of capitalism after 1976, the percentage of the Chinese population covered by public health programs dropped from 90% to 4%

but I guess some believe it when the beourgious cry that China was a paradise before Mao fucked it up.

[ckaihatsu]

cromwell was the capitalist revolution, without cromwells capitalist workers party there couldn't be a socialist workers party, marx observed, in every revolution, elements of the next revolution exist and are repressed, that's cromwell executing the levellers and trotsky shooting anarchists.......


This is obviously going off-topic, but you're making far too simplistic an argument here -- I *don't* see how you can draw a parallel between the two historical periods so blithely when they're really not similar at all to each other.

The Levellers had just cause given the circumstances while the Kronstadt rebellion did *not* have just cause, given the objective economic situation in Russia after the Red Army fought off the Allied military invasion.





Economic background

Red Army troops attack Kronstadt

At the end of the Civil War, Bolshevik Russia was exhausted and ruined. The droughts of 1920 and 1921 and the frightful famine during the latter year added the final chapter to the disaster. In the years following the October Revolution, epidemics, starvation, fighting, executions, and the general economic and social breakdown, worsened by the Allied military intervention and the Civil war had taken many lives. Another million people had left Russia — with General Wrangel, through the Far East, or in numerous other ways — either to escape the ravages of the war or because they had supported one of the defeated sides. A large proportion of the émigrés were educated and skilled.

The economic policy war communism assisted the Soviet government in achieving victories in the Russian Civil War,[citation needed] but it damaged the nation's economy. With private industry and trade proscribed and the newly-constructed state unable to adequately perform these functions, much of the Russian economy ground to a standstill. It is estimated that the total output of mines and factories fell in 1921 to 20 percent of the pre-World War I level, with many crucial items experiencing an even more drastic decline. Production of cotton, for example, fell to 5 percent, and iron to 2 percent, of the prewar level. The peasants responded to requisitioning by refusing to till their land. By 1921 cultivated land had shrunk to some 62 percent of the prewar area, and the harvest yield was only 37 percent of normal. The number of horses declined from 35 million in 1916 to 24 million in 1920, and cattle fell from 58 to 37 million during the same span. The exchange rate of the US dollar, which had been two rubles in 1914, rose to 1,200 in 1920.

This situation led to uprisings in the countryside, such as the Tambov rebellion, and to strikes and violent unrest in the factories. In some urban areas, a wave of spontaneous strikes occurred.





At the end of January 1649, Charles I of England was tried and executed for treason against the people. In February, the Grandees banned petitions to Parliament by soldiers. In March, eight Leveller troopers went to the Commander-in-Chief of the New Model Army, Thomas Fairfax, and demanded the restoration of the right to petition. Five of them were cashiered out of the army.

In April, 300 infantrymen of Colonel John Hewson's regiment, who declared that they would not serve in Ireland until the Levellers' programme had been realised, were cashiered without arrears of pay. This was the threat that had been used to quell the mutiny at the Corkbush Field rendezvous. Later the same month, in the Bishopsgate mutiny, soldiers of the regiment of Colonel Edward Whalley stationed in Bishopsgate London made demands similar to those of Hewson's regiment; they were ordered out of London. When they refused to go, 15 soldiers were arrested and court martialled, of whom 6 were sentenced to death. Of these 5 were later pardoned, while Robert Lockyer (or Lockier), a former Levellers agitator, was hanged April 27, 1649. "At his burial a thousand men, in files, preceded the corpse, which was adorned with bunches of rosemary dipped in blood; on each side rode three trumpeters, and behind was led the trooper’s horse, covered with mourning; some thousands of men and women followed with black and green ribbons on their heads and breasts, and were received at the grave by a numerous crowd of the inhabitants of London and Westminster."[17]

In 1649, Lieutenant-Colonel John Lilburne, William Walwyn, Thomas Prince, and Richard Overton were imprisoned in the Tower of London by the Council of State (see above). It was while the leaders of the Levellers were being held in the Tower that they wrote an outline of the reforms the Levellers wanted, in a pamphlet entitled "An Agreement Of The Free People Of England" (written on May 1, 1649). It includes reforms that have since been made law in England, such as the right to silence, and others that have not been, such as an elected judiciary.[18]
Commemoration plaque for two Levellers in Gloucester Green, Oxford.

Shortly afterwards, Cromwell attacked the "Banbury mutineers", 400 troopers who supported the Levellers and who were commanded by Captain William Thompson.[19][20] Several mutineers were killed in the skirmish, Captain Thompson escaped only to be killed a few days later in another skirmish near the Diggers community at Wellingborough. The three other leaders—William Thompson's brother, Corporal Perkins, and John Church—were shot May 17, 1649. This destroyed the Leveller's support base in the New Model Army, which by then was the major power in the land. Although Walwyn and Overton were released from the Tower, and Lilburne was tried and acquitted, the Leveller cause had effectively been crushed.






--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.dissident.info/c-quiz.pdf

-During the Mao years, life expectancy doubled from 32 to 65 years
-Before the revolution literacy rate was 15%, it soared to 80% when Mao died
-Since the restoration of capitalism after 1976, the percentage of the Chinese population covered by public health programs dropped from 90% to 4%

but I guess some believe it when the beourgious cry that China was a paradise before Mao fucked it up.


I agree here, but I'd also like to note that virtually *all* countries were industrializing and/or modernizing during these decades of the 20th century. Whether that process was taking place under * advanced imperialist rulership * or * bureaucratic elite rulership * makes no difference -- it was an inevitable step for the world's productive forces, so we shouldn't get too caught up into a debate on which type of ruling class we like better....





I would argue that the past century or so was about four top-level developments in modern civilization which the bourgeoisie used to ensnare millions and then fight over in their world wars: industrialization, modernization, standardization, and digitization. Could these developments have been enacted in less destructive ways, without the bourgeoisie? Absolutely.