Raymond Lotta reviews new Mao biography

[celticfire]

NEW--Raymond Lotta reviews new Mao biography:
"Not Historical Scholarship But Hysterical Rant" (http://www.thisiscommunism.org/pdf/review.pdf)

Read some TRUTH for a change!

From the THE PROJECT TO SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT (http://www.thisiscommunism.org/index.htm)

[Janus]

Although some of the accounts are correct, I have heard that the author Judith Chang uses many sources incorrectly. For example, she uses a 1st grade poem written by Mao to provide evidence that he was a cruel man. What kind of support is that? This book seems to be no more than a incomplete and incorrect biograph meant to destroy the reputation of Mao Zedong.

[celticfire]

I think you're right comrade. It has a politcal purpose aimed at exactly what you said...

[gilhyle]

This book is character assasination. I have no doubt it is a deeply flawed book. But its fundamental claims are three-fold:
- that Mao systematically sacrificed CCP resources and personel in pursuit of his personal power within the CCP;
- that Mao set out to brutalise the whole Nation as a method of political control by complex processes of terror unparralleled in any other country;
- that Mao systematically impoverished China in a vain attempt to transform it into a strategic Nuclear power.
These claims are broadly substantiated in the book - the first and third better than the second. You achieve little but self-satisfaction with rhetorical reponses based on spitting out the word 'propaganda' or reprinting abusive reviews with no substance. A bit of self-criticism might be in order.


(Heh, could we be repeating ourselves ?)

[SonofRage]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 21 2005, 06:39 PM
This book seems to be no more than a incomplete and incorrect biograph meant to destroy the reputation of Mao Zedong.
...as if he had a good reputation in the first place :D

[Janus]

I meant Mao's reputation in China not his reputation in the rest of the world. As a result of the major changes in China recently, the peasants have not benefited at all from the economic prosperity but rather, have been left in the dust. Therefore, Mao is still regarded highly by many Chinese because they lament the realatively good times and positive changes that he enacted for them and most particularly for the peasants.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 22 2005, 10:41 PM
As a result of the major changes in China recently, the peasants have not benefited at all from the economic prosperity but rather, have been left in the dust. Therefore, Mao is still regarded highly by many Chinese because they lament the realatively good times and positive changes that he enacted for them and most particularly for the peasants.
Sounds like Stalin.....actually sounds like the Tsar as well. Look hard enough and you may find some Cambodian peasants who pine for the good old days before the Vietnamese invaded. 'Pol Pot had his faults, but at least other people were worse off than us.'

[Severian]

Maoist mouthpieces like Lotta are in no position to say what is or is not "historical scholarship."

Not having read the book, I have no opinion myself. Here's what Publisher's Weekly has to say:

From Publishers Weekly
Jung Chang, author of the award-winning Wild Swans, grew up during the Cultural Revolution; Halliday is a research fellow at King's College, University of London. They join forces in this sweeping but flawed biography, which aims to uncover Mao's further cruelties (beyond those commonly known) by debunking claims made by the Communist Party in his service. For example, the authors argue that, far from Mao's humble peasant background shaping his sympathies for the downtrodden, he actually ruthlessly exploited the peasants' resources when he was based in regions such as Yenan, and cared about peasants only when it suited his political agenda. And far from having founded the Chinese Communist Party, the authors argue, Mao was merely at the right place at the right time. Importantly, the book argues that in most instances Mao was able to hold on to power thanks to his adroitness in appealing to and manipulating powerful allies and foes, such as Stalin and later Nixon; furthermore, almost every aspect of his career was motivated by a preternatural thirst for personal power, rather than political vision. Some of the book's claims rely on interviews and on primary material (such as the anguished letters Mao's second wife wrote after he abandoned her), though the book's use of sources is sometimes incompletely documented and at times heavy-handed (for example, using a school essay the young Mao wrote to show his lifelong ruthlessness). Illus., maps. (Oct. 21)
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Qiu wrote: " I meant Mao's reputation in China not his reputation in the rest of the world"

Considering the book is inevitably banned in China, I doubt it was aimed at affecting Mao's reputation there.

[celticfire]

Severian - Lining up with the bourgeoisie again!

Read the book, then post your Trot-dogma.

[Severian]

The more respectable bourgeois mouthpieces tell the truth most of the time...building up credibility so they can lie effectively when it's most important.

Stalinists, including especially Maoists, lie most of the time. More than any other political tendency.

So I'm not ashamed to prefer bourgeois to Maoist sources of information.

[celticfire]

I didn't say all bourgeois sources are lying, or that Maoist sources never lie.

My point is that without any investigation on your part you have predetermined that you agree with the bourgeoisie.

I have to wonder what someone whol calls themselves a Marxist has against an anti-fuedal movement? It makes me wonder.

The bourgeoisie point out our real shortcomings as well as false ones.

But you've junped into bed with the wealthy before you even looked at the facts.

That is completely un-Marxist.

[RedJacobin]

as i've mentioned before on this board, even bourgeois scholars on chinese history are calling jung chang's hatchet-job into question. santa claus has a message for chang: ho! ho! ho!


China scholars across the world are questioning the veracity of historical accounts in a controversial biography of Mao Zedong, writes Hamish McDonald.

A TINY widow aged 85, living in two rooms, an electric rice cooker her only modern appliance, may be a crucial witness to a key dispute involving wealthy Chinese author Jung Chang, who lives in great comfort in London's plush Notting Hill from the proceeds of her worldwide bestselling book Wild Swans.

The dispute is one of many being picked by some of the world's most eminent scholars of modern Chinese history, who say Chang's latest blockbuster book, Mao - The Unknown Story, co-authored with her British historian husband Jon Halliday, is a gross distortion of the records.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/books/throwi...8562936768.html (http://www.theage.com.au/news/books/throwing-the-book-at-mao/2005/10/06/1128562936768.html)


the history of actually-existing attempts to build socialism is precisely one of the areas where it's most important for bourgeois mouthpieces to lie. could we expect the southern slaveowning oligarchy to tell the truth about reconstruction? i don't think so.

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 06:56 PM
as i've mentioned before on this board, even bourgeois scholars on chinese history are calling jung chang's hatchet-job into question. santa claus has a message for chang: ho! ho! ho!


China scholars across the world are questioning the veracity of historical accounts in a controversial biography of Mao Zedong, writes Hamish McDonald.

A TINY widow aged 85, living in two rooms, an electric rice cooker her only modern appliance, may be a crucial witness to a key dispute involving wealthy Chinese author Jung Chang, who lives in great comfort in London's plush Notting Hill from the proceeds of her worldwide bestselling book Wild Swans.

The dispute is one of many being picked by some of the world's most eminent scholars of modern Chinese history, who say Chang's latest blockbuster book, Mao - The Unknown Story, co-authored with her British historian husband Jon Halliday, is a gross distortion of the records.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/books/throwi...8562936768.html (http://www.theage.com.au/news/books/throwing-the-book-at-mao/2005/10/06/1128562936768.html)


the history of actually-existing attempts to build socialism is precisely one of the areas where it's most important for bourgeois mouthpieces to lie. could we expect the southern slaveowning oligarchy to tell the truth about reconstruction? i don't think so.
Thats great. But if she got something (even lots) wrong, that doesn't eliminate the force of her arguments.

Engage with the substance, fine, but just abusing the book is no use.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 12:24 PM
My point is that without any investigation on your part you have predetermined that you agree with the bourgeoisie.
Sided with them on what? I wrote: "Not having read the book, I have no opinion myself." Which of my statements are you objecting to, exactly?

[Janus]

Either way, one has to suspect that the writer is seeking to gain revenge rather than trying to give a correct analysis.