Log in

View Full Version : Was Mao a dictator?



celticfire
29th September 2005, 02:45
"The national election in 1953 was a great and unprecedented event in China. It indicated the participation in the administration of state affairs of hundreds of millions of Chinese, and their enthusiasm for building new China into a beautiful and prosperous country. The following article, written by Jin Zhonghua, first chairman of the editorial board of China Reconstructs, presents vividly to readers this great event.

In the elections, hundreds of millions of people have already begun to go to the polls. They will choose their own representatives to over 280 thousand people's congresses of the basic level mainly in the hsiang (villages) in which there is a deputy for every one or two hundred inhabitants. In subsequent rounds, deputies will be elected for the people's congresses of the 2,037 hsien (counties), the 30 provinces, the 153 major municipalities, the various national autonomous areas -- and finally for the National People's Congress.

The people's congresses will in turn elect the people's government of corresponding grades. The National People's Congress will adopt a national constitution, approve the outline of the first five-year plan and elect a new Central People's Government.

When the process is completed, organs of state power in China will become fully elective. The popular saying that gained currency after liberation, "We people have risen from our knees and are running our own house", will be truer than ever before. This will be the greatest extension of democracy, in terms of the number of people involved, ever to have occurred in human history."

(From "World's Biggest Election" by Ching Chung-hwa [Jin Zhonghua], China Today, July-August, 1953.)

Many outlets of the bourgeois media spend a lot of effort and money spreading the "Mao the Monster" myth - but why? And does it really match up with reality?

Did Mao personally kill 20 million people? No. Was there starvation and problems? Yes. China was advancing out the chains fuedalism at a rapid rate, creating a lot of victories and new problems.

Paraphrased from Social and Economic Achievements Under Mao (http://rwor.org/a/1248/mao_china_setting_record_straight.htm)

China's socialist revolution of 1949-76 resulted in a vast improvement in life for the Chinese people. Between 1949 and 1975, life expectancy in socialist China more than doubled, from about 32 to 65 years. By the early 1970s, infant mortality rates in Shanghai were lower than in New York City!1 All this reveals a profound reduction in the violence of everyday life. The extent of literacy swelled in the span of one generation--from about 15 percent in 1949 to some 80 to 90 percent in the mid-1970s.2

Before the revolution came to power in 1949, China had been dominated by foreign imperialist powers. By practically all available measures, the economy was near the bottom of the world development scale. It had little industry. Agriculture was brutal serfdom. China had the most ruinous inflation in modern world history. It had a vast criminal underworld of gangsters and secret societies, and almost 90 million opium addicts. For women, it was a living hell: foot binding, arranged marriages, and child brides were widespread social practices. Prostitution was rampant in the cities.

These kinds of social evils and the extreme polarization of wealth that existed before 1949 were eradicated by the revolution: through the establishment of proletarian state power and the creation of a just social and economic order that unleashed the masses of people and served their interests.

Only a revolution could, and did, uproot the feudal economic system in the countryside. The land reform and repudiation of peasant debt carried out under the leadership of the Communist Party in the late 1940s and early 1950s represented the most massive expropriation and redistribution of wealth from rich to poor in world history.3

The 1950 Marriage Law of revolutionary China established marriage by mutual consent, right to divorce, and outlawed the sale of children and infanticide. A new women's movement, larger and more sweeping in vision than any in history, set out to break down the subordinating division of labor between men and women and to break down the walls of domestic life.4

But I've read that the economy was a disaster under Mao.
You've been lied to. In reality, China's industrial economy under Mao grew impressively--at an average rate of 10 percent per year, even during the Cultural Revolution. China, the former "sick man of Asia," transformed itself into a major industrial power in the quarter century between 1949 and 1976--a rate of development comparable only to the greatest surges of growth in history.5 And it achieved this without relying on exploitation or foreign assistance, and in the face of a hostile international environment.

Agriculture grew by some 3 percent a year, slightly exceeding population growth. By 1970, the problem of adequately feeding China's population had been solved. This was accomplished through integrated economic planning, a system of collective agriculture that promoted grass-roots mobilization, flood control, steady investment in rural infrastructure, and the equitable distribution of food to peasants and rationing of essential foods so that all people were guaranteed their minimal requirements.6 This was a radical break with China's past in which floods, droughts, and feudal oppression caused routine mass starvation--a condition common today in many Third World countries. And keep in mind that the amount of arable (farmable) land in China is only 70 percent of that in the U.S.-- but had to provide for four times as many people.

China under Mao accomplished what the U.S. has never done. It established a system of universal health care. Health services were provided free or at low cost, and the health system was guided by the principles of cooperation and egalitarianism. Maoist China integrated Western and traditional medicine. Some 1.3 million peasants were trained as health care providers ("barefoot doctors") to meet basic health needs in the countryside.7

To conclude.
Not only is the real record of Maoist China light years apart from what you've been told.

It is also completely different from the polarized and sweatshop-ridden China of today, which has nothing in common with socialism or Mao.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

On the Role of Mao Zedong (http://www.monthlyreview.org/0904hinton.htm) by William Hinton is a fascinating article. Check it out.

Nothing Human Is Alien
29th September 2005, 07:15
And it achieved this without relying on exploitation or foreign assistance, and in the face of a hostile international environment.

I hear this from Maoists alot, typically when criticizing socialist (or on the path to) countries for trading in the world market. Of course it should be more than obvious that while China may have had most of the material resources it needs, most other countries don't/didn't.

谢梓唯
29th September 2005, 09:34
Come to China and I'll show ya the truth, if you believe there's any truth in this world!

Karl Marx's Camel
29th September 2005, 14:11
Would someone tell us more about the national election in 1953?

Were there other elections in China?

RedStarOverChina
29th September 2005, 15:07
I hear this from Maoists alot, typically when criticizing socialist (or on the path to) countries for trading in the world market. Of course it should be more than obvious that while China may have had most of the material resources it needs, most other countries don't/didn't.


Mind you that there were 400 MILLION people in China in 1949. Harry Truman said that no government in the world is able to solve Chinas food problem. No other country on earth managed to feed so many people with so little arable land.

Severian
29th September 2005, 19:28
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 07:42 AM
Would someone tell us more about the national election in 1953?

Were there other elections in China?
Sure. They weren't contested or in any way meaningful, however. The "elected" bodies functioned wholly as rubber stamps for decisions already made.

Control of the regime remained in the hands of the CCP Politburo...or, between the Cultural Revolution and the purge of Lin Piao, in the hands of Mao and his closest associates relying heavily on the army.

A fair bit of the other stuff Celticfire pasted is true; there were and are major social and economic advances as a result of the Chinese Revolution. There was also a major downside which that presentation glosses over or ignores. For example, policy lurches like the Great Leap Forward and forced collectivization which were costly in human life and suffering.

CdeL wrote:

I hear this from Maoists alot, typically when criticizing socialist (or on the path to) countries for trading in the world market. Of course it should be more than obvious that while China may have had most of the material resources it needs, most other countries don't/didn't.

Well, yeah. But even in China, national autarky is a reactionary utopia which is 1)unrealizable and 2) points in the opposite direction from revolutionary internationalism and the construction of socialism and communism as world systems.

Nothing Human Is Alien
29th September 2005, 21:01
Well, yeah. But even in China, national autarky is a reactionary utopia which is 1)unrealizable and 2) points in the opposite direction from revolutionary internationalism and the construction of socialism and communism as world systems.

Who needs internationalism when you've got "socialism in one country" :lol:

celticfire
30th September 2005, 02:55
Originally posted by Severian+Sep 29 2005, 06:59 PM--> (Severian @ Sep 29 2005, 06:59 PM)
[email protected] 29 2005, 07:42 AM
Would someone tell us more about the national election in 1953?

Were there other elections in China?
Sure. They weren't contested or in any way meaningful, however. The "elected" bodies functioned wholly as rubber stamps for decisions already made.
[/b]
Why were the 54 elections meaningless severian - because Mao wasn't a Trotskyist? You know a few years ago I was active with some British Trots and I was expelled for advocating "gay rights" on the action platform. It wasn't an epiphany, but it did eventually open my eyes why Trotskyist sectarian-dogma would never bring about a real socialist revolution. Go work in your trade unions and leave the revolution to the revolutionaries! ;)

But to your point: No they were not contested elections. And I would agree that is a real short coming, but that doesn't mean the experience wasn't democratic or meaningful, it just means it doesn't align with your dogma. I think there should be contested elections under socialism - but do contested elections reflect the class struggle at any given point?

Here are some links about a clock factory in China

(sorry about the MIM source though, but the article is from Beijing Review and I can't find it anywhere else!)

The Workers Are The Masters [part 1] (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/br/br062973workersmasters.html) [Part 2] (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/br/br070673workersmasters.html)

Severian
30th September 2005, 08:15
Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 08:26 PM
Trotskyist sectarian-dogma
Y'know, if I was you I wouldn't accuse other people of having dogma. That is, if I was a devotee of an openly acknowledged cult of personality, who never cited anything in support of the truth of Maoist propaganda....except more Maoist propaganda.

It makes you look even more ridiculous than you do otherwise.

Just a bit of friendly advice. Well, not friendly exactly, but still sincere.


But to your point: No they were not contested elections. And I would agree that is a real short coming, but that doesn't mean the experience wasn't democratic or meaningful,

How? If an election isn't contested, then its outcome is determined in advance by whoever picks the candidates. It's just for show. You must have a unique definition of both meaning and democracy. As well as dogma.


I think there should be contested elections under socialism

You do? In an earlier thread - which I can find if you're going to dispute this - you were ridiculing the idea of disputed questions being resolved by vote of the population, or even the party membership. And pointing out that's not how Mao did things.

And in fact when a major dispute broke out within the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party - the so-called Cultural Revolution - it wasn't settled by vote. Neither a vote of the Congress chosen in any of these non-contested elections or a vote of anyone else. It was settled with heavy weapons.

celticfire
1st October 2005, 02:27
Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2005, 07:46 AM
Y'know, if I was you I wouldn't accuse other people of having dogma. That is, if I was a devotee of an openly acknowledged cult of personality, who never cited anything in support of the truth of Maoist propaganda....except more Maoist propaganda.

It makes you look even more ridiculous than you do otherwise.

Just a bit of friendly advice. Well, not friendly exactly, but still sincere.


I think there should be contested elections under socialism

You do? In an earlier thread - which I can find if you're going to dispute this - you were ridiculing the idea of disputed questions being resolved by vote of the population, or even the party membership. And pointing out that's not how Mao did things.

And in fact when a major dispute broke out within the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party - the so-called Cultural Revolution - it wasn't settled by vote. Neither a vote of the Congress chosen in any of these non-contested elections or a vote of anyone else. It was settled with heavy weapons.
severian: I promote a leader, you can call it "cult" of an individual, I don't really care. I think it is an important part of bringing into being a revolution is rallying around leadership. Not uncritically accepting leadership, but struggling with what requires struggle and defending what is right. Do you not promote Trotsky?

But your petty insults aside, the Cultural Revolution was a lot more then just internal disputes inside the CCP (although there was that aspect of it.) It was a struggle over line and ultimately over the survival of socialism. As we have discussed, certain party leaders like Liu and Deng were actively promoting a line that would lead back to capitalism. And Mao was the first to call upon the masses to strike out capitalists out of the government and party.

You mentioned that the Cultural Revolution was never voted on. That's true - and did the capitalist roaders put "going back to capitalism" up to a vote?

What do you think Trotsky meant when he said "We have never been idol-worshippers of formal democracy"?

Why do you think Lenin dismissed the Consituent Assembly?

Because communists are tyrants opposed to "democracy"?

Have you actually read Lenin?

The Cultural Revolution was a mass revolutionary upsurge that involved hundreds of millions of people. It was a "revolution within the revolution."

Mao called on the masses to "bombard the headquarters" and overthrow the handful of capitalist- roaders who were trying to lead society back into the clutches of capitalism.

These were overwhelmingly political uprisings. Mass debate, mass criticism, and mass political mobilization—these were the main forms of class struggle during the Cultural Revolution. Party and administrative officials at all levels were given the opportunity to reform and participate in the struggle.

I can list lots of sources....but I suggest you start by critically examining what the bourgeois denounces and not (which seems to be your method) just accepting them!