30 years on...a tribute to Chairman Mao Zedong

[Chicom]

30 years on...a tribute to Chairman Mao Zedong
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Mao.jpg

On 9 September 1976, China's Great Helmsman, Mao Zedong passed away at the age of 82 years old, 10 minutes past midnight Beijing time. He was the founder of modern China, led China through its Communist revolution, and a great leader still remembered positively (though admitedly not unanimously) by Chinese people. He brought China out from foreign dominance, drug problems, prostitution problem, social inequality, and many other problems that have plagued China since imperial times and under incompetent rule of Kuomintang, and that almost destroy China. Most importantly, he unified China. As a normal human, Mao also makes some mistakes. A number of his economic policies that were meant to suddenly improve China's economy and people's lives failed, causing cultural destruction and people's sufferings. Nevertheless, his faults are outweighed by his contribution towards the founding of modern-day China. As the Chinese Communist Party correctly puts it, Mao was 70% right, 30% wrong.

Thirty years after Chairman Mao's death, Chinese people's love towards the Chairman remains deep and unmoved. Although Mao himself probably would be shocked and not approve of today's modern China, Mao remains popular among Chinese. His badge, his potrait, his imagery of all forms are all hung across important places in China and are well-respected. His books, his quotes, his poems are all of great interests among all classes of Chinese people whether they are businessmen, scholars, peasants, or just simple ordinary people. Ironically, most of his admirers today in China, are "not Communists" themselves, rather business entrepreneurs and business-oriented students and party members. Some people even miss the days that were during under Chairman Mao's rule. Those days of order and equality, where social services such as health and education are guaranteed are today virtually lost since the market reforms are launched in 1978. Many people in the West may now regard Chairman Mao with much hate, but the Chinese themselves nevertheless still held deep admiration and respect for the person who laid the basis for today's modern China.


Chairman Mao's childhood house in Shaoshan city, Hunan:
http://www.chinaetravel.com/attraction/images/att15k.jpg

Some great (translated) quotes from the Chairman himself:


1). "We should be modest and prudent, guard against arrogance and rashness, and serve the Chinese people heart and soul.... "
--- "China's Two Possible Destinies" (April 23, 1945), Selected Works, Vol. III p. 253.


2). "All our cadres, whatever their rank, are servants of the people, and whatever we do is to serve the people. How then can we be reluctant to discard any of our bad traits?"
--- "The Tasks for 1945" (December 15, 1944)

On Patriotism and Internationalism

3). "In the fight for complete liberation the oppressed people rely first of all on their own struggle and then, and only then, on international assistance. The people who have triumphed in their own revolution should help those still struggling for liberation. This is our internationalist duty."
--- Talk with African friends (August 8, 1963).


4). "We must never adopt an arrogant attitude of great-power chauvinism and become conceited because of the victory of our revolution and certain achievements in our construction. Every nation, big or small, has its strong and weak points."
--- "Opening Address at the Eighth National Congress of the Communist Party of China" (September 15, 1956).
On Socialism and Communism

5). "The People's democratic dictatorship needs the leadership of the working class. For it is only the working class that is most far-sighted, most selfless
and most thoroughly revolutionary. The entire history of revolution proves that without the leadership of the working class revolution fails and that with the leadership of the working class revolution triumphs."
--- "On the People's Democratic Dictatorship" (June 30, 1949), Selected Works, Vol. IV, p. 421.


6). ""Don't you want to abolish state power?" Yes, we do, but not right now. We cannot do it yet. Why? Because imperialism still exists, because domestic reaction still exists, because classes still exist in our country. Our present task is to strengthen the people's state apparatus - mainly the people's army, the people's police and the people's courts - in order to consolidate national defense and protect the people's interests."
--- "On the People's Democratic Dictatorship" (June 30, 1949), Selected Works, Vol. IV, p. 418.

On Criticism and Self-Criticism

7). "We have the Marxist-Leninist weapon of criticism and self-criticism. We can get rid of a bad style and keep the good"
--- "Report to the Second Plenary Session of the Seventh Central Committee of the Communist Party of China" (March 5, 1949), Selected Works, Vol. IV, p. 374.

8). "As for criticism, do it in good time; don't get into the habit of criticizing only after the event."
--- On the Question of Agricultural Co-operation (July 31, 1955), 3rd ed., p. 25.

On War and Peace

9). "We are advocates of the abolition of war, we do not want war; but war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun."
--- Ibid.

On Unity

10). "The unification of our country, the unity of our people and the unity of our various nationalities - these are the basic guarantees of the sure triumph of our cause."
--- On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People (February 27, 1957). 1st pocket ed., pp. 1-2.


Chairman Mao proclaiming the founding of the New China, 1 October 1949, in Tiananmen Square:
http://www.upf.es/materials/huma/central/historia/asiaweb/blocXXa/imatges/comunima/proclama.jpg

Slide show (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14718458/)

[Mesijs]

Is this serious? Are you still indoctrinated by this personal cult. It's not that this guy was a member of the Communist Party that he is our God.

Remember: communism is about the collective, not about one wise man proclaiming truth and everybody following him blindly.

And this guy killed tens of millions of people. He's disgusting.

[Wiesty]

Yea, we shouldn't be idolizing him as a god, like, he was an amazing communist, and did many things for the left, but like Stalin, on the backs of 10's of Millions of workers.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

I suggest reading "The Unknown Mao" by Jung Chang (Unless someone can discredit her), for I used to also believe in Mao's truth, (Not Personality Cult, but as a Lenin or such).

In this book she describes how Mao relentlessly pursues and executes fellow communists/revolutionaries in the goal of obtaining permanent power, in the greatest show of Machievellian style I have ever read of - during his rule:

he lived in over 150 richly adorned, nuke-proof/bomb-proof Villas, with drive-in halls and underground bunkers, all overlooking beutifuel landscapes with indoor/outdoor heated pools.

How more Bourgeois can you get?

[Leo]

Well, of course we shouldn't forget the greatest moment of Chairman Mao:

http://www.archives.nysed.gov/projects/legacies/Images/syrimages/syrCh_images/NixonMao.jpg

:lol: The day he met the president of the United States!

<_<

[Labor Shall Rule]

Mao was such a socialist that he had a in-ground pool, a cute little mansion within the Forbidden City, cuisine foods, while millions of his people were starving to death. :)

[Redmau5]

I&#39;m pretty curious about this. Could any of you please give sources detailing Mao&#39;s lavish lifestyle?

[CombatLiberalism]

Jung Chang is discredited. She isn&#39;t even taken seriously by bourgeois scholars. If you did five minutes of online research, you&#39;d know that.

Mao was a great leadr. He initiated the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the farthest advance toward communism in humyn history.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 04:54 PM
Jung Chang is discredited. She isn&#39;t even taken seriously by bourgeois scholars. If you did five minutes of online research, you&#39;d know that.

Mao was a great leadr. He initiated the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the farthest advance toward communism in humyn history.
You mean the mayhem that almost brought the country to earth.

Funny though that your God was big friends with the imperialist warmonger Richard Nixon.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 04:47 PM
I&#39;m pretty curious about this. Could any of you please give sources detailing Mao&#39;s lavish lifestyle?
Dr. Li Zhisui, Mao&#39;s personal physician, wrote about it. It was already a well-known fact that he lived in the Zhongnanhai, a place where Communist Party officials had perfect housing and a wonderful atmosphere to get by with ever since the declaration of the PRC in 1949. He ordered the construction of a indoor pool, which is already a well known fact. There has been pictures of him swimming in it, and Dr. Li Zhisui said it was one of his favorite places to do work also. He loved to read privately in quite casual lavish clothing, according to personal advisors.

http://en.chinabroadcast.cn/mmsource/image/2003-12-24/13.gif

That is Mao swimming in a wonderful pool. Keep in mind, many people were dying across China from malnutrition and drought.

[YSR]

Thank goodness he&#39;s dead.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Mesijs+Sep 10 2006, 07:31 PM--> (Mesijs @ Sep 10 2006, 07:31 PM)
[email protected] 10 2006, 04:54 PM
Jung Chang is discredited. She isn&#39;t even taken seriously by bourgeois scholars. If you did five minutes of online research, you&#39;d know that.

Mao was a great leadr. He initiated the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the farthest advance toward communism in humyn history.
You mean the mayhem that almost brought the country to earth.

Funny though that your God was big friends with the imperialist warmonger Richard Nixon. [/b]
=D

[Xiao Banfa]

suggest reading "The Unknown Mao" by Jung Chang
Jung chang is a barefaced liar who supports the Guomindang.

You&#39;re not going to find out anything much about Mao reading her.

[redhmong]

Great man.
He still shakes the earth.

He does a great contrubution to the oppressed and whole human being.

I think the importance is to continue, spread and improve the theories of communism, but not to vituperate and sneer.

[Ze]

He wasn&#39;t perfect, but he definitely is someone who&#39;s teachings and great achievements and fatal mistakes can be learned from. I believe he and his writings/actions did and is doing much more good than harm.

[The Author]

Originally posted by [email protected] Sep 10 2006, 03:46 PM
That is Mao swimming in a wonderful pool. Keep in mind, many people were dying across China from malnutrition and drought.

Did you witness this dying first-hand at the time such "malnutrition and drought" took place?

Tell me, from actually studying the conditions of the Chinese proletariat and peasantry and not relying on second-hand accounts, would you say that life for the Chinese people as a whole improved or worsened? And what comparisons and contrasts could you make between the state of being of the Chinese people in the period Mao Zedong and co. were in office and the state of being of the Chinese people at the present time?

[bcbm]

What happened to my badass tribute to Chairman Mao?&#33; :angry:

[CombatLiberalism]

Dr. Li Zhisui, Mao&#39;s personal physician...

Many of the outrageous claims in that book were added to a later draft in order to spice it up for publication. The original manuscript didn&#39;t contain many of the outrageous stories, they were added in order to increase sales -- which is the reason people don&#39;t take that book very seriously.

In a way it doesn&#39;t matter anyway. It isn&#39;t important what Mao did persynally, it is what his policies did for billions of people that counts. Your&#39;s is the typical approach of bourgeois individualism. You&#39;d rather talk about Mao&#39;s sex life or his smoking habit than talk about smashing feudalism and capitalism for a quarter of the world&#39;s population. Your&#39;s is the politics of Oprah Winfrey.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:11 PM

Dr. Li Zhisui, Mao&#39;s personal physician...

Many of the outrageous claims in that book were added to a later draft in order to spice it up for publication. The original manuscript didn&#39;t contain many of the outrageous stories, they were added in order to increase sales -- which is the reason people don&#39;t take that book very seriously.

In a way it doesn&#39;t matter anyway. It isn&#39;t important what Mao did persynally, it is what his policies did for billions of people that counts. Your&#39;s is the typical approach of bourgeois individualism. You&#39;d rather talk about Mao&#39;s sex life or his smoking habit than talk about smashing feudalism and capitalism for a quarter of the world&#39;s population. Your&#39;s is the politics of Oprah Winfrey.
Haha, that&#39;s a really dumb way of arguing. You&#39;re saying that Mao may live as an absolutist monarch, as long as he orders others to kill land-owners for him?

And what about he and his friendship with Nixon. That&#39;s rather communist, the guy who killed millions of Vietnamese&#33;

[Labor Shall Rule]

As we know, the CCP was always right&#33; Just to think, if I poked Mao&#39;s stomach with a stick during the Cultural Revolution, I could of easily been gun down by the Red Gaurds.

[Marukusu]

Just to think, if I poked Mao&#39;s stomach with a stick during the Cultural Revolution, I could of easily been gun down by the Red Gaurds.

And I bet that Lenin and/or Trotsky would order their Red Guards to execute you if you would poke them in their stomachs in during the Russian Revolution.

Seriously, you don&#39;t poke people with sticks. That&#39;s insulting and it may hurt.

[YSR]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2006, 08:32 PM

Just to think, if I poked Mao&#39;s stomach with a stick during the Cultural Revolution, I could of easily been gun down by the Red Gaurds.

And I bet that Lenin and/or Trotsky would order their Red Guards to execute you if you would poke them in their stomachs in during the Russian Revolution.

Seriously, you don&#39;t poke people with sticks. That&#39;s insulting and it may hurt.
Was that last bit a joke?

[Marukusu]

Was that last bit a joke?

No, really. If someone ever would try to poke me in the stomach with a stick, I would get very pissed-off.

What? You wouldn&#39;t?

[Janus]

I suggest reading "The Unknown Mao" by Jung Chang (Unless someone can discredit her), for I used to also believe in Mao&#39;s truth, (Not Personality Cult, but as a Lenin or such).

In this book she describes how Mao relentlessly pursues and executes fellow communists/revolutionaries in the goal of obtaining permanent power, in the greatest show of Machievellian style I have ever read of - during his rule:

he lived in over 150 richly adorned, nuke-proof/bomb-proof Villas, with drive-in halls and underground bunkers, all overlooking beutifuel landscapes with indoor/outdoor heated pools.

How more Bourgeois can you get?
That book is terrible because the author has a major problem with her sources. You can&#39;t list as credible sources random people you find along the side of the road.

Besides, Jung Chang has an agenda, she wants to spite Mao due to what happened to her during the Cultural Revolution. That makes her quite biased to begin with.

[Janus]

Funny though that your God was big friends with the imperialist warmonger Richard Nixon.
Mao met with Nixon at a time when he was facing some serious threats from the USSR, that does not make them "big friends". In fact, Nixon is probably as anti-communist as you can get.

[Janus]

would you say that life for the Chinese people as a whole improved or worsened
It improved a lot after the revolution but a socialism is generally expected to be better than feudalism. As for now, things have gotten a lot worse since Deng and Jiang helped to open up China.

[Janus]

He initiated the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, the farthest advance toward communism in humyn history.
:lol: Not really. But it was probably the farthest advance towards civil war in Chinese history since the previous one.

[CombatLiberalism]

Haha, that&#39;s a really dumb way of arguing. You&#39;re saying that Mao may live as an absolutist monarch, as long as he orders others to kill land-owners for him?

No, it is just trying to introduce a sense of proportion. It&#39;s typical of the bourgeoisie to focus on indiciduals instead of looking at systemic analysis. You want to look at the most trivial things, alleged corruption in one individual, rather than looking at a system that vastly improved life for a quarter of the world&#39;s population. It&#39;s typical bourgeois individualism. It&#39;s like liberals who think the main problem is that Bu&#036;h is corrupt; they fail to do Marxist material analysis and just get caught up in stupid pornographic gossip. It&#39;s not a communist approach at all.


And what about he and his friendship with Nixon. That&#39;s rather communist, the guy who killed millions of Vietnamese&#33;

This is just a lie. Mao had diplomatic relations with the u&#036;, big deal. Every socialist state that has ever existed has had diplomatic relationships with other nations.

[Janus]

Just to think, if I poked Mao&#39;s stomach with a stick during the Cultural Revolution, I could of easily been gun down by the Red Gaurds.
Chairman Mao was quite a stud back in his day, I don&#39;t think you could&#39;ve gotten close to him without being a little aggressive. :P

Seriously though, the personality cult and the turmoil that Mao created was a major detriment to China and was indeed a terrible tragedy but many Chinese today still respect him for what his positive accomplishments helped to achieve: a socialist state free from imperialist hegemony.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 09:55 PM
No, it is just trying to introduce a sense of proportion. It&#39;s typical of the bourgeoisie to focus on indiciduals instead of looking at systemic analysis. You want to look at the most trivial things, alleged corruption in one individual, rather than looking at a system that vastly improved life for a quarter of the world&#39;s population. It&#39;s typical bourgeois individualism. It&#39;s like liberals who think the main problem is that Bu&#036;h is corrupt; they fail to do Marxist material analysis and just get caught up in stupid pornographic gossip. It&#39;s not a communist approach at all.

This is just a lie. Mao had diplomatic relations with the u&#036;, big deal. Every socialist state that has ever existed has had diplomatic relationships with other nations.
"It&#39;s typical of the bourgeoisie to focus on indiciduals instead of looking at systemic analysis."

Well, I am comparing Mao&#39;s personal life with that of the average Chinese citizen. I am not conscious, nor are any of us, of the amount of people that truly died as a result of the Great Leap Foward, or other various forms of rushed industrializaiton and vast collectivization. But most people would come to the conclusion that living conditions were terrible for the people involved (peasants and workers), and that famine was rampant. The fact that ruling CCP officials were living a autocratic lifestyle while millions die and live in misery is very disgusting. The CCP formed a strange form of modern-day Asiatic feudalism, in which the "vangaurd" party dominated all aspects of the average citizen&#39;s life: Breaking up families, forcing peasants onto communes, accumulating all wealth for their own greedy self-interests, and conquering foreign lands of Tibet, Xinjiang, snd other various places.

"You want to look at the most trivial things, alleged corruption in one individual, rather than looking at a system that vastly improved life for a quarter of the world&#39;s population."

It might of, but at what cost? Even if it "vastly improved life for a quarter of the world&#39;s population", does that imply that he [Mao] was legitimately producing socialism? Through the centralization of the means of production into the hands of the state, instead of the democratic hands of the labourers, what do you think was the main reason for the degeneration of the China to capitalism? Revisionism? I think not.

"This is just a lie. Mao had diplomatic relations with the u&#036;, big deal."

Yeah, but I don&#39;t recall Lenin or Stalin inviting presidents to eat, sleep, drink, and live lavishly on their large estates.

[CombatLiberalism]

It might of, but at what cost? Even if it "vastly improved life for a quarter of the world&#39;s population", does that imply that he [Mao] was legitimately producing socialism? Through the centralization of the means of production into the hands of the state, instead of the democratic hands of the labourers, what do you think was the main reason for the degeneration of the China to capitalism? Revisionism? I think not.

You don&#39;t think. You are just repeating anti-communist nonsense. There are plenty of serious works on what the Chinese economy was like in the GPCR. Not all of them are written by Maoists, or even leftists. Instead, you cite books that aren&#39;t even taken seriously among the bourgeois academics. Why don&#39;t you investigate something for once? You are set in your anti-communist dogma, so, you go looking for the worst gossipy dirt you can find. You don&#39;t know a thing about the Maoist economy.


Yeah, but I don&#39;t recall Lenin or Stalin inviting presidents to eat, sleep, drink, and live lavishly on their large estates.

This is beyond stupid. Stalin met with Roosevelt and Churchill after WW2. Big deal. Mao met with Nixon. Big Deal. The amerikan report of the meetings are online, anyone can go and read them. The amerikans mention that an alliance isn&#39;t possible because of China&#39;s anti-imperialist stand -- to paraphrase.

[Marukusu]

Yeah, but I don&#39;t recall Lenin or Stalin inviting presidents to eat, sleep, drink, and live lavishly on their large estates.

Actually, Lenin made deals with the Kaiser Wilhelm II to travel back to Russia (from Switzerland) to join the revolution there in 1917.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 09:55 PM

Haha, that&#39;s a really dumb way of arguing. You&#39;re saying that Mao may live as an absolutist monarch, as long as he orders others to kill land-owners for him?

No, it is just trying to introduce a sense of proportion. It&#39;s typical of the bourgeoisie to focus on indiciduals instead of looking at systemic analysis. You want to look at the most trivial things, alleged corruption in one individual, rather than looking at a system that vastly improved life for a quarter of the world&#39;s population. It&#39;s typical bourgeois individualism. It&#39;s like liberals who think the main problem is that Bu&#036;h is corrupt; they fail to do Marxist material analysis and just get caught up in stupid pornographic gossip. It&#39;s not a communist approach at all.


And what about he and his friendship with Nixon. That&#39;s rather communist, the guy who killed millions of Vietnamese&#33;

This is just a lie. Mao had diplomatic relations with the u&#036;, big deal. Every socialist state that has ever existed has had diplomatic relationships with other nations.
The point is that, in building socialism, the state should consist of a democratically elected representation of the working class. Mao did not represent any working class at all. How can you call it socialism when undemocratic leaders are living like a true upper class. The target of socialism is to eradicate class differences and redistribute wealth. It&#39;s a fact that this did not happen, as you can see with for example Mao&#39;s living conditions.

[Darth Revan]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 10 2006, 04:24 PM
Well, of course we shouldn&#39;t forget the greatest moment of Chairman Mao:

http://www.archives.nysed.gov/projects/legacies/Images/syrimages/syrCh_images/NixonMao.jpg

:lol: The day he met the president of the United States&#33;

<_<
bah he wasn&#39;t a communist he was an Ruthless toltalitarion mad man just like Stalin and Hitler im glad his dead :ph34r: ninja squirrel

[Leo]

Yeah, but I don&#39;t recall Lenin or Stalin inviting presidents to eat, sleep, drink, and live lavishly on their large estates.

Stalin actually got drunk with Churchill <_<

[Darth Revan]

Originally posted by Leo [email protected] 14 2006, 07:21 PM

Yeah, but I don&#39;t recall Lenin or Stalin inviting presidents to eat, sleep, drink, and live lavishly on their large estates.

Stalin actually got drunk with Churchill <_<
Surprise Surprise

[Wanted Man]

Aljazeera has a feature on Mao on their website:

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/59D...B8484A44114.htm (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/59D51DF5-8E80-4D0B-B78D-FB8484A44114.htm)

[MrDoom]

He made some errors, but for good or bad, he&#39;s worth learning from.

[ahab]

I hear they are restricting Zedong to a mere sentance in chinese history books

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by RedDali+Sep 10 2006, 07:46 PM--> (RedDali @ Sep 10 2006, 07:46 PM)
[email protected] 10 2006, 04:47 PM
I&#39;m pretty curious about this. Could any of you please give sources detailing Mao&#39;s lavish lifestyle?
Dr. Li Zhisui, Mao&#39;s personal physician, wrote about it. It was already a well-known fact that he lived in the Zhongnanhai, a place where Communist Party officials had perfect housing and a wonderful atmosphere to get by with ever since the declaration of the PRC in 1949. He ordered the construction of a indoor pool, which is already a well known fact. There has been pictures of him swimming in it, and Dr. Li Zhisui said it was one of his favorite places to do work also. He loved to read privately in quite casual lavish clothing, according to personal advisors.

http://en.chinabroadcast.cn/mmsource/image/2003-12-24/13.gif

That is Mao swimming in a wonderful pool. Keep in mind, many people were dying across China from malnutrition and drought. [/b]
It&#39;s also a well-known fact that Dr. Li Zhisui, the one who made these outrageous claims, was on the CIA payroll.

The fact that you all tote the line of the imperialists and the bourgeoisie is disgusting.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 10:57 AM
The point is that, in building socialism, the state should consist of a democratically elected representation of the working class. Mao did not represent any working class at all. How can you call it socialism when undemocratic leaders are living like a true upper class. The target of socialism is to eradicate class differences and redistribute wealth. It&#39;s a fact that this did not happen, as you can see with for example Mao&#39;s living conditions.
The inequalities between the party and people were largely broken down during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. In addition to that, the dependency upon the party by the proletariat and the peasantry was broken down too. The peasants formed revolutionary councils, and the proletarians increasingly took part in the management of the production process.

Party leaders who were trying to take society back to capitalism, leaders who were living lavishly off the back of the proeltariat, etc. were criticized and brought forward before the people. This was the highest expression of socialism in human history.

As for Mao, this thread has cited nothing more than vicious reactionaries such as Dr. Li Zhisui and Jung Chang, who are reknowned liars. Dr. Li Zhisui was a CIA stooge, and Jung Chang is no better&#33;

Here is an analysis of her book:

New Mao Biography: Not Historical Scholarship but Hysterical Rant (http://revcom.us/a/021/mao-biography-hysterical-rant.htm)

[Janus]

I hear they are restricting Zedong to a mere sentance in chinese history books
That is obviously impossible especially when you get to Party History.

[emokid08]

This HAS to be one of this movements BIGGEST problems&#33; We have people worshipping Mao or Lenin or some other disgusting tyrant&#33; Most Communist (in fact, I think all) Parties have done one thing: replace the elite parasitic ruling class with another group of tyrannical parasites. That&#39;s not what our movement is supposed to be about.

Murray Bookchin asked a great question (and I&#39;m paraphrasing): Are Leninism, Maoism, Stalinism and the like really liberatory movements? Do they really lift the yolk of Capitalist oppression? Do they break the chains of wage slavery?

We are supposed to liberate the world from Capitalist oppression and exploitation. Not re-enslave them in the name of the state or "The People". We can&#39;t rely on a Party either.

We have to all help liberate each other. From the bottom up. The only truely liberatory movement is Anarchism. It liberates us from everything keeping us down. FRom Capitalism to the state to sexism and patriarchy and everything in between. Anarchism is the only thing (as an ideology) that can free us from Capitalist and State tyranny. Spain 1936





:banner: :star: :AO: :A: :redstar:

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 07:48 PM
This HAS to be one of this movements BIGGEST problems&#33; We have people worshipping Mao or Lenin or some other disgusting tyrant&#33; Most Communist (in fact, I think all) Parties have done one thing: replace the elite parasitic ruling class with another group of tyrannical parasites. That&#39;s not what our movement is supposed to be about.

Murray Bookchin asked a great question (and I&#39;m paraphrasing): Are Leninism, Maoism, Stalinism and the like really liberatory movements? Do they really lift the yolk of Capitalist oppression? Do they break the chains of wage slavery?

We are supposed to liberate the world from Capitalist oppression and exploitation. Not re-enslave them in the name of the state or "The People". We can&#39;t rely on a Party either.

We have to all help liberate each other. From the bottom up. The only truely liberatory movement is Anarchism. It liberates us from everything keeping us down. FRom Capitalism to the state to sexism and patriarchy and everything in between. Anarchism is the only thing (as an ideology) that can free us from Capitalist and State tyranny. Spain 1936





:banner: :star: :AO: :A: :redstar:
Except for the anarchism thing, great post.

I just disgust people who worship leaders, no matter what leader. Communism isn&#39;t about leaders. You can&#39;t say that someone is the leader of the working class or leading the Cultural Revolution, or leading the country into socialism, because this is all about the masses, not about the individual. It isn&#39;t even about whether a leader does goed things or not, because this leader-like position should be eliminated.

[Marukusu]

...so just because I call myself a communist, I&#39;m not allowed to respect other human beings at all?
You libertarians should not oppose my individual rights to express my respect to long-dead leaders. If I want to do so and if it is not to any harm of someone else, then you guys should just shut the hell up and let me do whatever I wish.

And no, communism is IMHO not all about liberty, it&#39;s more about equality (as discussed in another thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52705)), though many would say that it&#39;s quite the same thing.

[Mesijs]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 09:17 PM
...so just because I call myself a communist, I&#39;m not allowed to respect other human beings at all?
You libertarians should not oppose my individual rights to express my respect to long-dead leaders. If I want to do so and if it is not to any harm of someone else, then you guys should just shut the hell up and let me do whatever I wish.

And no, communism is IMHO not all about liberty, it&#39;s more about equality (as discussed in another thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52705)), though many would say that it&#39;s quite the same thing.
Yes, of course you have that right, but I disgust personal cultus and their worshippers, and I also have that right.

And I think ultimately liberty and equality go along with each other: that&#39;s the end of history when it&#39;s achieved.

[Janus]

Do they break the chains of wage slavery?
There is no longer a capitalist class rather the state now appropriates the surplus value gained from the wage system.


As for Mao, this thread has cited nothing more than vicious reactionaries such as Dr. Li Zhisui and Jung Chang
The main problem with Jung Chang&#39;s book was that it was biased from the very beginning due to her motives in writing the book; that is getting revenge at Mao for what happened to her and her family during the Cultural Revolution. This is why she goes so hard to try to bash Mao and sees no problem with using random people found along the street as valid sources. :lol:


The inequalities between the party and people were largely broken down during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.
They still existed particularly between the masses and the top leaders. One could say that they were reduced to a certain degree as it opened up party leaders to strong criticism and attacks and got rid of their protection.

In addition to that, the dependency upon the party by the proletariat and the peasantry was broken down too. The peasants formed revolutionary councils, and the proletarians increasingly took part in the management of the production process.
But these councils still answered to the Party and produced what the state required.


Yes, of course you have that right, but I disgust personal cultus and their worshippers, and I also have that right.
And you definitely should. However, Mao&#39;s life was not just one big personality cult trip and one needs to recognize that.

[emokid08]

I absolutely refuse to believe that people like Stalin, Hoxa, or Mao actually did anything constructive or productive in realtion to liberating the people of thier respective nations.

Progress will never be achieved by sacraficing millions of people "for the cause". Mao was a ruthless megalomanic, Stalin turned the USSR into a slaughter house, and the Ils are brutally starving thier people to death&#33;

I refuse to be a lemur and follow "THE GREAT LEADER" off the side of the cliff.

The only thing that resulted from thier reigns was death, violence, terror, and backwardsness.

:AO: :star:

[Wanted Man]

Who are the Ils?

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 09:22 AM
Great man.
He still shakes the earth.

He does a great contrubution to the oppressed and whole human being.

I think the importance is to continue, spread and improve the theories of communism, but not to vituperate and sneer.
Fuck off, all o ya bastard statist demagogues&#33; China was NOT READY for a proletarian revolution because there was NO PROLETARIAT&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33; And you tell me modern day China&#39;s in anyway whatever a communist country. They&#39;re not even state capitalists, they&#39;re privately run industry, full of vulgar rich people, and the only thing that remains of Mao is the totalitarian state.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 09:47 PM

Funny though that your God was big friends with the imperialist warmonger Richard Nixon.
Mao met with Nixon at a time when he was facing some serious threats from the USSR, that does not make them "big friends". In fact, Nixon is probably as anti-communist as you can get.
After Mao

[Janus]

Fuck off, all o ya bastard statist demagogues
Stop flaming.


China was NOT READY for a proletarian revolution because there was NO PROLETARIAT&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;
China may not have been truly "ready" (but then again, no state really has) but there was a proletariat in China though it was not all that significant. The CCP was not always centered around the peasants.


After Mao
No. Nixon originally gained prominence for being a die-hard anti-communist and heading the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

[Messiah]

We can learn something from everyone, and we should, be they capitalist or communist. The point though is, to in the end, call a spade a spade. Mao was a self absorbed tyrant. He did a few good things, but that&#39;s greatly over shadowed by the harm he did to the Chinese people.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

What about Mao&#39;s hundred flower campaign where he encouraged people to speak their mind...





















Then when they did, he rounded them up and killed them

[Janus]

Then when they did, he rounded them up and killed them
There were definitely some executions but most people were simply criticized and maybe even thrown in jail. There were simply too many people who had spoken out to actually massacre them all; they had been actively encouraged to do it after all by Zhou Enlai.

[Angry Young Man]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 10:03 PM
What about Mao&#39;s hundred flower campaign where he encouraged people to speak their mind...





















Then when they did, he rounded them up and killed them
Bloody ell, mate you had me worried there for a sec&#33; It&#39;d be a shame to lose you from the true left to the LWF&#39;s

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 02:09 AM

Then when they did, he rounded them up and killed them
There were definitely some executions but most people were simply criticized and maybe even thrown in jail. There were simply too many people who had spoken out to actually massacre them all; they had been actively encouraged to do it after all by Zhou Enlai.
oh only jail...

[Cryotank Screams]

I personally find this thread to be incredibly disappointing, not the initial post, the tribute was alright, not the best but short, and simple; however the reaction towards the tribute and the people whom deemed it fit to throw a fit because a member posted a simple tribute to Comrade Mao, claiming that they were buying into some personality cult, or seeing Mao as a god, which I find hard to believe, why?

BEACUSE IT WAS JUST A SIMPLE TRIBUTE&#33;

Jesus people, calm down.

I mean if it had been about Che I highly doubt the tribute would have sparked so much negative feedback, :rolleyes:

[Lenin's Law]

I aqree.

I don&#39;t believe in shying away from communist heroes.

Was there a personality cult in China? I assume one could say so, however, it is far more complicated than that. One important aspect to consider is that many of the Chinese people TRULY loved Mao Zedong, they viewed him as their liberator from both Japanese imperialism, Western imperialism, and the reaactionary Nationalists.

Much of what was called a "personality cult" was really the exuberance of the Chinese people. I am not denying that the government did not make efforts to propagandize this, but again it is more complicated than that.

Mao is still viewed as a great Communist leader and for greatly adding to the communist theory by including methods for achieving socialism in large, peasant states like China.

Mao was not a dictator, nor was he some mythical monster. Much of the deaths attributed to Mao have been from the plagues, famines and Red Guards who roamed all over the country and some of whom committed excesses. Mao could not have been in direct control over all of them and they were punished if it was proven that they were excessively violent.

All in all, appreciating both the mistakes and the contributions Mao Zedong made it is fair to say this - Mao Zedong was a great liberator for his people and I am proud to call him a Comrade.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

He did a few good things, but that&#39;s greatly over shadowed by the harm he did to the Chinese people.

I always wonder about statements like this. I&#39;m not a huge fan of Mao, and I know the "great man" theory many hold here is bullshit, but I just have to wonder if you realize that life expectancy more than doubled under Mao.

What kind of "harm" has to be done to double the life expectancy of millions of people?

[AlwaysAnarchy]

so the life expectancy doubled???

BIG DEAL&#33;

Many capitalist democracies can also claim that the life expectancy doubled during a given time period, that doesn&#39;t make it right.

Hitler expanded the economy and "modernized" Germany in a way, that doesn&#39;t mean we like Hitler.

Mao was an evil tyrant, a dictator who killed tens of millions of people. The workers were not in power but one vanguard party and when you have this terrible personality cult what happens? As soon as the personality goes down, as soon as the great leader falters, the system goes to bits and the capitalist take over.

Mao, Stalin are evil people, not progressive, not revolutionary and have blackened the good name of socialism for some time now. It is sad some people still believe in these monsters.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

so the life expectancy doubled???

BIG DEAL&#33;

Says you from behind your computer while sipping a latte and reading Noam&#39;s latest critically acclaimed piece.

Life expectancy more than doubled between 1949 and 1975; going from only 32 to 65 in 26 years&#33; That&#39;s absolutely amazing&#33;

I want to know what sort of "harm" causes a historical change like that.. whatever it is, we need some more of it.

[Leo]

Mao was an evil tyrant, a dictator who killed tens of millions of people.


It is sad some people still believe in these monsters.

Sigh...

Brecht said "Alexander the Great conquered Persia, all by himself?"

Remarks like this completely ignore the class based analysis and go to the analysis of "evil and monstrous individuals, nasty madmen, killing or making others kill millions", as if all would be fine without those evil individuals. Classes make history, and history makes leaders. In USSR, the "middle-cadre" capitalist class was making history, and history made a leader to serve this bureaocratic capitalist ruling classes interests: Stalin. In China, it was also similar: Mao became that leader who servedChina&#39;s new bureaocratic ruling classes interests. Blaming individuals, single individuals, might be more innocent than creating cults of those individuals, but initially the same kind of analysis is used for both.

[Janus]

What kind of "harm" has to be done to double the life expectancy of millions of people?
Obviously there&#39;s no harm. Rather, it&#39;s a boon but one would expect socialist states to have better conditions than the feudalistic system which they replace.

[Vinny Rafarino]

I&#39;m fairly certain that Mao, like Stalin, most certainly "meant well" and followed what they thought was in the best interest of creating Socialism.

It&#39;s just plain dumb to believe all of the a-historical rants attributed to them both however it does not change the fact that both of them ended up being completely wrong in the end.

Socialism didn&#39;t pave the way to Communism and the Socialist "leaders" that followed them didn&#39;t ever agree on time that was right to begin "withering" the state.

What we can all agree on that did happen was the reinstatement of capitalism in both of these countries.

All in all, the policies of both of these men are completely irrelevent in creating the necessary conditions to create Communism in the modern era; therefore who really gives a fuck about the anniversary of Mao&#39;s death.

[Joseph Ball]

There seem to be a lot of anarchists or Trotskyists on this discussion forum. I haven&#39;t got a problem with that but they need to expect their ideas will be challenged. Mao made a revolution in the real world rather than a disneyland where revoution has to occur everywhere, virtually simultaneously, to be allowed to be called socialism. Or a world where only the affluent workers of the developed countries can make revolution, where one day strikes over pensions are a stepping stone to revolution. Or a world where people who participate in class struggle are always &#39;evil&#39; because this involves suppressing people, even if the people suppressed are the bourgeoisie. It&#39;s a world where the moralist can always accuse both sides of &#39;being as bad as each other&#39; and end up de facto going along with imperialism because all serious alternatives to it are rejected.

I would like to take this opportunity to celebrate the memory of Mao in the year that marks the thirtieth anniversary of his death and the fortieth anniversary of the start of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.

[TupacAndChe4Eva]

Originally posted by Joseph [email protected] 29 2006, 06:39 AM
There seem to be a lot of anarchists or Trotskyists on this discussion forum. I haven&#39;t got a problem with that but they need to expect their ideas will be challenged. Mao made a revolution in the real world rather than a disneyland where revoution has to occur everywhere, virtually simultaneously, to be allowed to be called socialism. Or a world where only the affluent workers of the developed countries can make revolution, where one day strikes over pensions are a stepping stone to revolution. Or a world where people who participate in class struggle are always &#39;evil&#39; because this involves suppressing people, even if the people suppressed are the bourgeoisie. It&#39;s a world where the moralist can always accuse both sides of &#39;being as bad as each other&#39; and end up de facto going along with imperialism because all serious alternatives to it are rejected.

I would like to take this opportunity to celebrate the memory of Mao in the year that marks the thirtieth anniversary of his death and the fortieth anniversary of the start of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution.
Excellent post.