Defending Mao in a mock trial

[ChangeAndChance]

I'm in my senior year of high school and being the history nut that I am have taken the role of Mao Zedong for an "ICC mock trial". The thing is, this is bound to be a difficult task. I mean, how do I defend a person which such a huge stigma against them from the charge of "crimes against humanity"? The famines, labour camps etc. will probably be brought up. Any advisable strategies or evidence I can use in defense of myself?

[Hrafn]

Ooh, this is an interesting one!

(Note: I am not a Maoist, and do not hold the views written below.)

Some tips:

* Blame others. Always blame others, and paint Mao as a sheep surrounded by wolves. Accuse other CCP officials of guilt in regards to various atrocities - Peng Dehuai (purged), Deng Xiaoping (purged), Liu Shaoqi (purged), Lin Biao (purged over coup accusations), the Gang of Four (all of them were said to have "misled" Mao, especially his wife)

* Not only the malevolence of subordinates and co-leaders should be pointed out, but also how many atrocities were not carried out on Mao's orders, but as the result of hyper-enthusiastic people taking it all a bit too far. Case in point, the youths in the Red Guards misinterpreting Mao's directions and going haywire during the Cultural Revolution. Point out that Zhou Enlai, Mao's closest associate, has his adopted daughter brutally tortured and murdered by the Red Guards, and that he deployed troops to deploy cultural treasures such as the Forbidden City from being ransacked. (Naturally, completely ignore the subsequent fallout between Mao and Zhou, focusing only on their previous closeness.)

* If necessary, attribute any deaths actually caused by Mao's policies to poor planing. To say that he "murdered" X millions by famine is a bit weird - at most, claim that gross negligence is what he's guilty of, not mass murder. For example, the metallurgic investments during the "Great Leap Forward" were well-intentioned, but the way it was handled caused famine completely by accident / because of mismanagement by low-level officials, not Mao. The "Four Pests" campaign was well-intentioned, but the CCP - failing to understand ecosystems - completely fucked themselves over by killing sparrows. Etc.

* Point out the terrible conditions that China had been in, with centuries of corruption and decades of completely civil war, and the fact that famines are not a Mao-era-only occurrence, but a regularly happening event throughout Chinese history.

* If possible, point out Mao's positive personal characsteristics, and cite some of the more favourable quotes (ignoring the "negative" ones). Also quote various foreign leaders commenting on Mao - that is, foreign leaders that the West likes! Example: "Mao was like a father to me." - Dalai Lama, 2012.

[Bala Perdida]

If the KMT is brought up, point out their failures during WW2. Also, I think China suffered a famine under their rule. I just now they also suffered a famine right before the Mao era.

[The Feral Underclass]

I'm in my senior year of high school and being the history nut that I am have taken the role of Mao Zedong for an "ICC mock trial". The thing is, this is bound to be a difficult task. I mean, how do I defend a person which such a huge stigma against them from the charge of "crimes against humanity"? The famines, labour camps etc. will probably be brought up. Any advisable strategies or evidence I can use in defense of myself?

This is how "crimes against humanity" is legally defined by the ICC:


For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Murder;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(i) Enforced disappearance of persons;
(j) The crime of apartheid;
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity

In order for there to be a legitimate charge the prosecution would have to establish intent to cause suffering, i.e. prove that Mao intentionally wanted to kill people. Like Hrafn suggests, you could argue that the consequences of Mao's policies were simply the result of incompetence and not of pre-meditated malice -- Mao didn't want people to die, they just did as a result of mismanagement. You can also bring up examples of Western governments doing the same thing. There is plenty of precedence of policies that capitalist governments implement that result in the deaths of thousands of people. The invasion of Iraq for example. The US and the UK didn't want millions of Iraqis to die, but they did as a result of their policies.

I think that's the strongest line of defence: Millions of people died and that's a terrible thing, but as a result of incompetence and not because of some intent for "widespread or systematic attack."

[consuming negativity]

the one-child policy came about only three years after mao's death and is a highly unpopular policy that you can use to slander his political opponents and reinforce that he was a victim of circumstance

say that the great leap forward wasn't actually mao's fault but instead resulted because the people over-reported how much grain they had and mao's government planned according to those numbers. you can also talk about how mao made several self-criticisms of his own policies and thoughts in the GLF that you can use to back up your saying that everything was based on mistakes and ignorance rather than maliciousness

talk about how mao put a stop to the murdering in the cultural revolution and how none of it was actually directed by him. (this was already said itt, but i am seconding it)

place a heavy emphasis on the massive gains in women's rights, the environmental protection for panda bears and other endangered species who were hit hard by WWII, and also on mao's later talking with the nixon administration and opening up relations between the two countries. you should also talk about how mao and his government laid the foundations for china becoming a global economic power today, dragging it from feudalism into the capitalism that makes america and the west so lovely and wonderful.

oh, and you can also talk about how the people massacred in tiananmen square were maoists/real supporters of mao against the bureaucratic administration, and how actually researching marxism and shit in china will get you smashed by the great firewall. #may35th

[The Feral Underclass]

You need a unifying argument. Just making random arguments to defend certain aspects of his regime isn't really a coherent defence. You need to find one argument that you can unite all of these things to.

[rylasasin]

Honestly, I wouldn't really bother that much with this. Because odds are no matter what you do you are going to get a guilty verdict no matter how good your case is or how good your evidence is.

You are talking about a mock up of a bourgeois "trial" using bourgeois methods in a system of bourgeois "education" which has never been about learning and has always been about reinforcing obedience more than anything.

Honestly, this whole mock trail isn't really about debating or finding the truth, it's about reinforcing capitalist propaganda and nothing more. The verdict was pretty much already decided before the trail even began.

Seriously, if I was in your shoes, my statement would probably be "fine, I'm guilty, since we all know how this is going to turn out anyway. Can we move on now please?" Don't even give them the dignity of spewing the rest of their garbage, just end it as quickly as possible.

[Tim Cornelis]

Sure :rolleyes:
That's what lawyers do as well when they're convinced it'll not be a fair trial. And obviously it'll land OP an F.

[The Disillusionist]

Well, obviously it's going to end in a guilty verdict, history has shown that Mao was guilty (though to what extent is still debated). That's not the point of the trial (or at least it shouldn't be). I would advise that you stay historically correct, and try to think the way that Mao himself would have. Think about how a trial would have gone during Mao's time, and stick with the facts and demonstrable circumstances, like a real lawyer would. Bringing in a bunch of modern apologies won't help you any, and will just make you look like a sympathizer with ulterior motives, rather than someone trying to participate in a fair and unbiased trial.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, obviously it's going to end in a guilty verdict, history has shown that Mao was guilty (though to what extent is still debated). That's not the point of the trial (or at least it shouldn't be). I would advise that you stay historically correct, and try to think the way that Mao himself would have. Think about how a trial would have gone during Mao's time, and stick with the facts and demonstrable circumstances, like a real lawyer would. Bringing in a bunch of modern apologies won't help you any, and will just make you look like a sympathizer with ulterior motives, rather than someone trying to participate in a fair and unbiased trial.

I'm not sure how this is helpful.

[The Disillusionist]

I'm not sure how this is helpful.

Telling him to take the assignment seriously isn't helpful? Treating this whole thing like an opportunity to spew as much propaganda as possible onto as many people as possible isn't going to get him taken seriously. The best thing he's got is facts, and facts are the only thing that should really hold any weight in a trial.

[consuming negativity]

defending someone like mao for an assignment is way easier to get an A on than defending something easy to defend: all you've got to do is make them think and actually make some good points in his defense.

even if you lose you still win; whereas if you're defending something easy, they'll be certain to think of some arguments you didn't consider and will think you didn't do your due diligence.

but if you come out with something that seems impossible and even manage to bring it to be considered seriously by a jury of "guilty" voters, it makes you look a lot better and you'll probably get praised just for dispelling bullshit and making people think about someone who they've never thought of before

they will think it is an easy victory, so if it isn't easy, you look good. that simple. the point isn't to actually defend mao or educate people but to get an A. being able to respond to criticisms from a variety of fronts, intelligently, and with facts, will make you look like you did your homework and that's the battle. because they aren't going to look that deeply into it. just bring a bunch of counters and ripostes, then sell the character with a few good things and slandering of the people around him. if i can defend creationism in college and get an A from a democratic-voting professor, mao should be even easier, because mao is actually defensible and has the actual facts on his side in many cases.

[The Feral Underclass]

Telling him to take the assignment seriously isn't helpful? Treating this whole thing like an opportunity to spew as much propaganda as possible onto as many people as possible isn't going to get him taken seriously. The best thing he's got is facts, and facts are the only thing that should really hold any weight in a trial.

Well telling them to take their assignment seriously is a fairly redundant piece of advice, but no, I'm referring to the way in which you're advising them to take it seriously.

No one here is actually "spewing" propaganda, what's being suggested is that a defence is formed. I don't know what experience you have with the law, but from my limited knowledge it is usually helpful to actually have a defence; one that specifically consists of a mitigating argument or what amounts to an "apology" for the crime. What else is a defence if it is not the act of defending oneself? And what is defending oneself if it is not giving a mitigating account of one's actions?

Suggesting that someone "sticks to the facts" is not really very helpful when the facts are that you killed loads of people. How is "sticking to the facts" and not making some kind of apologetic argument that mitigates them any kind of defence? Defence lawyers are hired to find weaknesses in a prosecution argument and exploit those weaknesses by casting doubt and by mitigating. The idea that it is best for a defence lawyer to "stick to the facts" and "demonstrable circumstances" is just wrong. How many defence lawyers do you know that "stick to the facts" of their client's case? If they did that how would they keep them out of prison or on reduced charges? Take OJ's trial for example. He was guilty as sin, but the defence lawyers were able to create an argument that challenged the veracity of the prosecution's case so that a reasonable doubt was created -- that's how defence lawyers win cases. If he'd "stuck to the facts" that would mean that OJ Simpson stabbed his wife and her lover, and then fled from police...

Also, I'm not sure how trying to think like Mao is really helpful. You don't want to think like your client when your client's thoughts were responsible for millions of people's deaths in the first place. The person needs to think like a defence lawyer who can present an argument that mitigates the prosecution's and/or casts doubt on their case. To do that you need a unifying argument that only uses facts as and when they're appropriate and/or distorts those facts to mitigate or change their significance.

[The Disillusionist]

Well telling them to take their assignment seriously is a fairly redundant piece of advice, but no, I'm referring to the way in which you're advising them to take it seriously.

No one here is actually "spewing" propaganda, what's being suggested is that a defence is formed. I don't know what experience you have with the law, but from my limited knowledge it is usually helpful to actually have a defence; one that specifically consists of a mitigating argument or what amounts to an "apology" for the crime. What else is a defence if it is not the act of defending oneself? And what is defending oneself if it is not giving a mitigating account of one's actions?

Suggesting that someone "sticks to the facts" is not really very helpful when the facts are that you killed loads of people. How is "sticking to the facts" and not making some kind of apologetic argument that mitigates them any kind of defence? Defence lawyers are hired to find weaknesses in a prosecution argument and exploit those weaknesses by casting doubt and by mitigating. The idea that it is best for a defence lawyer to "stick to the facts" and "demonstrable circumstances" is just wrong. How many defence lawyers do you know that "stick to the facts" of their client's case? If they did that how would they keep them out of prison or on reduced charges? Take OJ's trial for example. He was guilty as sin, but the defence lawyers were able to create an argument that challenged the veracity of the prosecutions case so that a reasonable doubt was created -- that's how defence lawyers win cases. If he'd "stuck to the facts" that would mean that OJ Simpson stabbed his wife and her lover and then fled from police...

Also, I'm not sure how trying to think like Mao is really helpful. You don't want to think like your client when your client's thoughts were responsible for millions of people's deaths in the first place. The person needs to think like a defence lawyer who can present an argument that mitigates the prosecution's and/or casts doubt on their case. To do that you need a unifying argument that only uses facts as and when they're appropriate.

No offense, but I think you've been watching too many legal dramas. All that character and personality oriented stuff is really only relevant in small-time civil suits, and sometimes in sentencing after the defendant's guilt has been determined. It is the defense's job to examine the facts and evaluate their truthfulness, to examine the methods used to obtain the facts and evaluate their legality, and to question the conclusions drawn from those facts.

Your mindset, a very common mindset, is the result of a broken circus of a legal system that values money and showmanship over truth and justice.

[The Feral Underclass]

No offense, but I think you've been watching too many legal dramas. All that character and personality oriented stuff is really only relevant in small-time civil suits, and sometimes in sentencing after the defendant's guilt has been determined.

None taken, but I'm fairly certain you've not understood me. This has nothing to do with character or personality. It has to do with constructing a defence argument based on the best possible way to mitigate the crime, distort the significance of the facts and achieve the best possible outcome.


It is the defense's job to examine the facts and evaluate their truthfulness, to examine the methods used to obtain the facts and evaluate their legality, and to question the conclusions drawn from those facts.

And what happens when the conclusion of those evaluations and facts is that the person is guilty?


Your mindset, a very common mindset, is the result of a broken circus of a legal system that values money and showmanship over truth and justice.

Defence law has nothing to do with truth except in those cases when the defendant is innocent and even then it's not always about the truth. I can only infer from what you're saying that you think only innocent people get acquitted. That's both naive and ridiculous.

[Tim Cornelis]

The Great chinese Famine was caused by a multitude of reasons, both man-made and natural, generally these are seen as:
1. Drought and floodings at the same time
2. Kill a Sparrow Campaign resulted in locust plague
3. Mao wanted the become the world's number 1 steel producer so peasants were forced into steel manufacturing jobs.
4. The Chinese government adopted psuedo-scientific theories by a Soviet biologist leading to a drop in agricultural production
5. Bureaucratic mismanagement of resources.

1 = not Mao's fault (resulted in millions of deaths before Mao as well)
2 = not intentionally geared toward killing people, gross negligence
3 = not intentionally geared toward killing people, gross negligence
4 = not intentionally geared toward killing people, gross negligence
5 = not intentionally geared toward killing people, gross negligence

So the Great Leap Forward toward the Great Famine was not a crime against humanity.

[The Disillusionist]

None taken, but I'm fairly certain you've not understood me. This has nothing to do with character or personality. It has to do with constructing a defence argument based on the best possible way to mitigate the crime, distort the significance of the facts and achieve the best possible outcome.



And what happens when the conclusion of those evaluations and facts is that the person is guilty?



Defence law has nothing to do with truth except in those cases when the defendant is innocent and even then it's not always about the truth. I can only infer from what you're saying that you think only innocent people get acquitted. That's both naive and ridiculous.

In the context of the modern legal system, I agree, you have described the situation correctly. However, what I'm saying is that the system is broken. It should not be that way. I'm not being naive, I'm being idealistic.

[Illegalitarian]

Defending Mao wouldn't be so hard.

As Tim correctly pointed out, the Great Leap Forward was not some intentional starvation method. It was a combination of poor yields, the flooding of the yellow river (one of the most deadly and ecologically devastating natural disasters of the 20th century) and the negligence of the agricultural sector with the goal of making great advancements in industrialization.

That and the USSR pulling out a lot of its farming equipment after the great split left China high and dry, it wasn't exactly Mao's fault and it's important to remember that while it was a terrible famine, the advancements made after and even during this period made sure that it would be the last great famine ever faced for the region.


The Cultural Revolution might be harder to defend, but most of the mass deaths and attacks during this period were not encouraged by Mao, but arose as a result of random violence from the red guards, who were given too much power and far too vague directions, and these excesses were curbed in only about five years despite the misrepresentation of these events by the generally accepted timeline of the cultural revolution lasting ten years.

Also as others have said don't forget to point out the massive strides his regime made in women's rights, industrial and agricultural advancement, irrigation systems, dams and many other projects that brought about more workable farmland, the huge leaps in life expectancy and healthcare, the almost complete obliteration of illiteracy, the massive spikes in standard of living despite having very little funding from the outside world and the fact that when Mao died, China was one of the world's leading super powers, despite it being a rural war torn land still haunted by the vestiges of feudal life whenever he came to power.


Also don't forget to mention that it was his brilliant military theories and guerrilla tactics that lead to the Chinese defeat of the invading Japanese forces and the brutal warlords that controlled China for several years.


Ham it up as much as you can.

[Tim Cornelis]

Also as others have said don't forget to point out the massive strides his regime made in women's rights, industrial and agricultural advancement, irrigation systems, dams and many other projects that brought about more workable farmland, the huge leaps in life expectancy and healthcare, the almost complete obliteration of illiteracy, the massive spikes in standard of living despite having very little funding from the outside world and the fact that when Mao died, China was one of the world's leading super powers, despite it being a rural war torn land still haunted by the vestiges of feudal life whenever he came to power.


Also don't forget to mention that it was his brilliant military theories and guerrilla tactics that lead to the Chinese defeat of the invading Japanese forces and the brutal warlords that controlled China for several years.


Ham it up as much as you can.

At that point it would become 'propagandising' as these have nothing to do with what Mao is on trial for. So it's a red herring. I suppose the accusing lawyer would go 'objection' and the judge 'sustained' or something..... ;)

[Illegalitarian]

At that point it would become 'propagandising' as these have nothing to do with what Mao is on trial for. So it's a red herring. I suppose the accusing lawyer would go 'objection' and the judge 'sustained' or something..... ;)

If he's on trial for being a shitty leader it's important, for the sake of the jury, to highlight the positives of his leadership, all of the lives he saved and helped thrive etc.

It's all about theatrics. All of the great lawyers, defense and prosecution, have always been great orators and were especially good at tugging on the heart strings of those they need to convince. These details need to be slipped into both opening and closing statements.



I'm guessing if there is a prosecution in this case they'll probably just glean what info they can from wikipedia and be done with it, unless you're going up against an overachiever. Just remember the counter arguments to those accusations we've brought up ITT, research them further and be ready, OP.

[Tim Cornelis]

He's not on trial for being a shitty leader though, he's on trial for crimes against humanity. All else is irrelevant.

[Illegalitarian]

To the layman, maybe, to the do-gooder who actually cares about the sanctity of the system.


But he's a lawyer working in the confines of the US legal system, so forget all of that nonsense. It's all about sensationalist hype and convincing the Jury that Mao is not only not a criminal, but a swell chap.


You gotta work it, honey!

[The Feral Underclass]

I don't think any jury would ever think Mao was a swell chap. Maybe a hapless fool, but not a swell chap.

[The Disillusionist]

To the layman, maybe, to the do-gooder who actually cares about the sanctity of the system.


But he's a lawyer working in the confines of the US legal system, so forget all of that nonsense. It's all about sensationalist hype and convincing the Jury that Mao is not only not a criminal, but a swell chap.


You gotta work it, honey!

It's not a secret that the US legal system is a joke, it's common knowledge. The US media might not see that, but a bunch of highschool students would likely see right through it in a second. Sensationalist hype might cut it on Fox News, but in a setting where a person is trying to be taken seriously, it's not a good idea.

[Illegalitarian]

I don't think any jury would ever think Mao was a swell chap. Maybe a hapless fool, but not a swell chap.

A jury of US high school kids, most of whom probably think Mao Tse-Tung is the name of the sushi place that just opened up in the mostly abandoned strip mall? Oh I beg to differ lmfao

@Lantz eh, the media and the vast majority of people are easy to fool by not high school kids? Nah

[John Nada]

Among these problems comprehensiveness and balance and the mass line are most important. We prefer to produce less but of better quality and greater variety. We need all kinds and all varieties. In agriculture, we need grain, cotton, oils, hemp, silk, tobacco, tea, sugar, vegetables, fruits, insecticides and miscellaneous items; in industries, we also need all types of light and heavy industry products. Last year we concentrated our attention on production from small-sized blast furnaces, neglecting other forms of production. This won’t do.Source: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-8/mswv8_33.htm

I could be wrong, but I think I've read Mao mention insecticides before. I can't find it now, he might have not have distinguished it from fertilizers, but it stood out. It stood out because of DDT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT That was the most popular pesticide at the time of the famine. It's just a theory, but the Chinese famine may have been the worst disaster caused in part by pesticides. It probably killed more sparrows than pots and pans, though that probably didn't help. Here's the Party's call to exterminate pests: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_49.htm

What Mao said about building up agriculture and industry:
1. Ample planning for satisfactory decisions. In this phrase the emphasis is on “planning.” We have to plan a great deal; lack of planning will not do. We should discuss with all sides and oppose insufficient planning and arbitrary decisions. In the past, we often did a great deal of planning with people of the same opinion but little with people of differing opinions; we planned much with the cadres but little with the production personnel. Inadequate discussion and arbitrary decision means that affairs will not be managed well. Planning is fundamental and only with ample planning can we have satisfactory decisions. There are many methods for ample planning, for instance fact-finding meetings or forums. The goal of planning is deciding and it is undesirable to make arbitrary decisions on the basis of inadequate planning as some comrades do.

2. Make allowances. This is not only a matter of work methods, but a political one as well. When we are arranging work plans we need to make some allowances to give subordinates some initiative. If you don’t give subordinates some leeway, you don’t leave any leeway for yourself. Making allowances has advantages for both superiors and subordinates. For example, if in a rural area production contract, the target figure is set at 2,000 catties, there is no leeway for subordinates or superiors. In the past when we were waging war we held troops in reserve, but now in managing production we have forgotten that. Economic work cannot be attacked in a haphazard way and production work cannot come to a stop. Allowances must be made in planning work. It is essential to insure the central point; if you lack a central point you lack a policy. We operate in accordance with a policy. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-8/mswv8_31.htm
This year there should be a little more accumulation wherever a good harvest has been reaped or natural disasters have not occurred. It is most necessary to make up for possible shortages with surpluses. In co-operatives in some provinces, in addition to the accumulation fund (5 per cent), the public welfare fund (5 per cent) and management expenses, production costs account for 20 per cent of the total value of output and capital construction expenditures in turn account for 20 per cent of production costs. I discussed the matter with comrades from other provinces, who said these capital construction expenditures were probably a bit too high. What I am saying today is to be taken as suggestions, which you may carry out if feasible, otherwise not. Moreover, it is not necessary for all provinces and counties to act in exactly the same way, and I leave the matter to you for consideration. The management expenses of co-operatives in some places have so far assumed too large a proportion and should therefore be reduced to 1 per cent. They consist of allowances to cadres of co-operatives plus administrative expenses. They should be cut and capital expenditures on farmlands increased. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-5/mswv5_67.htm

Here's a discussion on opposition that existed at the time, note how Mao often has debates and arguments, often with people named "XXX":
Chairman: The Communist party is a prestigious party. Let’s not mention strata which involve too many people who have been scared and offended. Let’s discuss party committees only! The local committee is a party committee; so are county committees, commune committees, brigade committees, as well as party branches. They belong to the left, center or right. I believe the rightists are a minority, and those who are ultra right constitute only a small portion. The left is also a minority. The middle-of-the-roaders are more numerous and they must be won over. You should single out these people. X X X has said: Utilize contradictions, strive to secure the majority, oppose the minority, and break them up one by one. It is necessary to rally and to fight, to fight while rallying, and vice versa. We should develop progressive forces, strive to win over middle-of-the-road forces, and isolate the stubborn forces. We haven’t discussed these tactics for many years.

XX: This is the tactic of the united front.

Chairman: I think this is still useful; there is Nationalist-Communist coalition even in this party now. There is also a united front.

XX: This is practically so, but we mustn’t mention it outside.

Chairman: A few have become rotten, and some provincial committees have also become rotten, such as your committee in Anhwei, yours in Kweichow, yours in Tsinghai and yours in Kansu! (Some said Yunnan also.) Yunnan is an “individual” case, and has not reached this point, yet. Wu Chih-fu[11] of Honan is so extremely “leftist!”

XX: We need not mention the rich class, but call them new exploitative and oppressive elements, or mention them only as the so-called corrupt and theft elements, or speculative and profiteering elements. If they should form into an entity, they may also be called a clique.

Chairman: Don’t mention strata; it suffices to call them elements or cliques. You should study them. Elements may also have cliques, or cliques elements. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-9/mswv9_32.htm Mao on democracy:
Without democracy there cannot be any correct centralism because people’s ideas differ, and if their understanding of things lacks unity then centralism cannot be established. What is centralism? First of all it is a centralization of correct ideas, on the basis of which unity of understanding, policy, planning, command and action are achieved. This is called centralized unification. If people still do not understand problems, if they have ideas but have not expressed them, or are angry but still have not vented their anger, how can centralized unification be established? If there is no democracy we cannot possibly summarize experience correctly. If there is no democracy, if ideas are not coming from the masses, it is impossible to establish a good line, good general and specific policies and methods. Our leading organs merely play the role of a processing plant in the establishment of a good line and good general and specific policies and methods. Everyone knows that if a factory has no raw material it cannot do any processing. If the raw material is not adequate in quantity and quality it cannot produce good finished products. Without democracy, you have no understanding of what is happening down below; the situation will be unclear; you will be unable to collect sufficient opinions from all sides; there can be no communication between top and bottom; top-level organs of leadership will depend on one-sided and incorrect material to decide issues, thus you will find it difficult to avoid being subjectivist; it will be impossible to achieve unity of understanding and unity of action, and impossible to achieve true centralism. Is not the main item for discussion at this session of our conference opposition to dispersionism and the strengthening of centralized unification? If we fail to promote democracy in full measure, then will this centralism and this unification be true or false? Will it be real or empty? Will it be correct or incorrect? Of course it must be false, empty and incorrect. Perhaps the most damning evidence against Mao:
I have committed two crimes, one of which is calling for 10,700,000 tons of steel and the mass smelting of steel. If you agreed with this, you should share some of the blame. But since I was the inventor of burial puppets, I cannot pass on the blame: the main responsibility is mine. As for the people’s communes, the whole world opposed them; the Soviet Union opposed them. There is also the General Line. Whether it has any substance or not, you can share some of the responsibility for this. The proof is to be seen in its implementation in industry and agriculture. As for the other big guns, other people should also take some of the responsibility. Boss T’an[25], you have fired a lot of big shots, but your shooting was inaccurate, you had a rush of blood to the head and did not take enough care. You communized too quickly. It was talked about first in Honan, then accounts of it spread rapidly in Kiangsu and Chekiang. If you are careless in your speech, you will not keep control of things. You must be more cautious. Your strength is that you are energetic and willing to take responsibility; much better than those who are sad and dismal. But when you fire big guns on important questions, you should take care. I have also fired three big shots: the people’s communes, the steel smelting, and the General Line. P’eng Te-huai said that he was a coarse fellow with no refinement. I am like Chang Fei who, though rough, had a certain delicacy.[26] About the people’s communes, I said that they were a system of collective ownership. I said that for the transition to be completed from collective ownership to communist ownership by the whole people, two five-year plans was too short a period. Maybe it will take twenty five-year plans!:ohmy:

Source:http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-8/mswv8_34.htm

And now China is the largest producer of steel, and AFAIK hasn't had any more famines, which were a regular occurrence for centuries.

If you look at Mao's work, you see that he's not the only one calling the shots. He was important, definitely, but if we are to suppose that Mao killed 100000 trillion people, who were his co-conspirators? Who is this "XXX" that turns up so often?

Just start quote-mining from hear: http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/index.htm

Mao fucked up a lot. However, much of the criticism is some Hayekian,"Socialism is evil, totalitarian, genocidal, and impossible"(even though, by his own admission, there was still capitalist market mechanisms that had to be done away with). Use this as a platform for education, even if you have a different tendency!:grin:

[John Nada]

Also there's a book called The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia(there's also an updated edition The Politics of Heroin that covers US's involvement with the narcotics trade up to Afghanistan). Look it up. It describes how the US was aiding anti-Communist Chinese insurgents from the Kuomintang. They were financing the war against China and other Communist by make and selling heroin.

At the time, the US accused the PRC of being the main source of heroin in the US. In reality, the Communist nearly eradicated heroin and opium in areas they controlled. Heroin addiction was so bad in China that before the Communist campaign against it, 1/5 of Chinese men were addicts! It was the US's ally the Kuomintang who were supplying the US and much of the world with heroin, with the backing of the CIA.

[The Feral Underclass]

How did this work out, I'd be interested to know.

[ChangeAndChance]

Thanks for the advice everyone. The debate's happening my first week back from winter break in January: I'll post back here to tell how it went! :lol:

[consuming negativity]

you started preparing for a debate in january in november of the preceding year?

either i was an absolutely terrible student or you need to stop working so hard

[ChangeAndChance]

Thanks so much for your help, it helped me win the trial. The blaming everything on everyone else tactic was way more effective than I thought it would be. I, as Mao, was accompanied by a fantastic peer who played Zhou Enlai as my primary witness. By blaming the famine on corrupt lower party officials and the Cultural Revolution on Jiang Qing and Lin Biao, we wiped the floor with the prosecution. :grin: Thanks again.

[BIXX]

The blaming everything on everyone else tactic was way more effective than I thought it would be

Top kek

Always is

[Hrafn]

So proud, so proud. Good work.

[motion denied]

#CommunismWinsYetAgain

[John Nada]

By blaming the famine on corrupt lower party officials and the Cultural Revolution on Jiang Qing and Lin Biao, we wiped the floor with the prosecution. Thanks again.DAMN! Even putting it on your wife. Ruthless.

Good Job.:thumbup1: