Mao

[red head]

i have mixed opinions of mao. he did improve living conditions, literacy, health care, and womens rights in china, but he also supressed those who felt differently and supported stalin. i respect what he did for china, but like castro, i cannot completely support anyone who imprisons people who disagree with them. any other opinions?

[DaNatural]

interesting question comrade, the problem with mao was that he was not what plato would call a philosopher king. he saw freedom through the barrel of a gun and didnt believe there was better ways to solve problems. he made several mistakes however i feel that his overal goal was a good one. his land reform didnt exactly turn out how he wanted it to as many people were killed. i do agree with jailing people who disagree cus often times people dont know whats good for them. if someone is trying to build towards a equal and just society, and in that process you have people who are trying to stop that, then u must imprison them. mao had good ideas but he wasnt balanced he also fell into the same trap that stalin did with being paranoid about everyone. peace

[CimSaint]

Wait a minute... You think that people who object to your beliefs should be imprisoned? And you're a communist? That's rich...

If a person's voice carries enough weight to make you take away their freedoms, then you have no right in forcing your ideals in the first place. If they were the only one among millions objecting, then their voice is drowned out, and they aren't much of a threat (sadly, like socialists and communists in the US). That kind of behavior towards those that object to our ways makes a society into another Soviet Union or China.

[Che Jexster]

I can't remember who said this originally
"If one person had a different opinion than everyone else in the world they would have as little right to silence that person than ther person would have in silencing everyone else."

[Vanadanglus]

I think Mao is the perfect example of why a revolution by the proletarians has a .1% chance of ever working. Because the proles are, in essence, not the brightest--due to disadvantages--and because they are typically the majority, and the majority of ppl are followers. Followers look to a strong person for guidance, and, as Abigail Adams said, "Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely."

Another reason why Mao shows us how communism won't work is b/c of a mix of nationalism & pride. He wanted the power, he didn't want to yield to anyone, that's why communism will never work. People are power hungry, and someone is bound to see the weakness of ppl and exploit it. The dissolving of nations will never occur, the fact that communism existed under different leaders showed this, if communism were truly put into practice, all of the countries under "communist" rule would've united, but, instead, they formed their own commy govs--mao, fidel, stalin, etc. People won't give up their status & power, it's just the way things work.

[red head]

i disagree with you van, i think a revolution could work, and mao and lack of education are two reasons why. the proletariat may be (largely) undereducated but he knows (or can be taught) that it and other problems are largely not his fault, but we need leaders to tell them about it. then, the proletariat will ask "but what about china and the ussr?" and those leaders will need to convince them that their way will solve those problems. mao isn't proof that a revolution can't work, but that there are problems that we need to work out. we have to learn from our mistakes, and there were definately some mistakes under mao.

[Vanadanglus]

I never said mao was "proof" i said a "good example" another "good example" would be Stalin. Communist governments lose their ideals once the revolution ends, only it's not just communists, it's EVERY revolution, in history, from America to France to Russia to China. They all lose their ideals in the quest for power.

[Zapatista]

Hey everybody, Mao's revolution wasn't particularly proletariate based. It was largely a peasant army that engaged in guerilla warfare following the long march. Mao was totalitarian, not good. Additionally, he supported a quasi-popular front policy in which he had solidarity with a number of groups that weren't nearly left enough. Some theorists say this was one of the root causes of the Cultural Revolution and of course the fact the man was kind of a wack job.

[maoist3]

CimSaint, where would you have stood in 1861 in
the united $tates?
Would you have supported violence to put down
slaveowners? After the Civil War would you have
supported disenfranchising plantation owners? Did you
know they weren't allowed to run for office and that
the South generally had to reapply for civil rights?

Like it or not, that's how change came about, through
organized violence to repress people. They didn't give
up their slaves then by people preaching about it.

Today there are those who won't
give up their rights to deprive others of food, shelter and clothing. The proletariat cannot comprise with these bourgeois, because compromise would mean death.
That's why "free speech" ain't free, anymore than
driving instructors should be allowed to teach others to drive by telling them red is go and green is stop.

That's what Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao all understood.
That's why Marx considered Lincoln the leader of the
only decent class struggle of his day.

Anti-slavery activists allowed to speak in the South
did not owe any gratitude to the slaveowners for letting
them speak.

The ONLY people who have a right to complain about
this are pacifist-anarchists. The rest of us who claim not to be pacifists and who claim to oppose slavery and other such injustices should be supporting, not opposing Mao.

[canikickit]

Mao tried to get everyone in his country to kill Sparrows. He was insane. This attack on the sparrows caused a higher than usual number of insects (a part of the sparrow diet) to destroy that years crops. This resulted in Famine which resulted in millions of deaths.
As well as that he made people melt their kitchen utensils for steel production, the steel was worthless because the Chineese people had no real idea about how to produce steel...he shut down schools and hospitals and turned them into steel factories...Mao was an idiot.

[Michael De Panama]

Van, Mao didn't have a proletarian revolution, he had a peasant revolution.

[Mazdak]

Once again, the Peasants ARE even lower than the proletarian. They should be important to the revolution as well(once educated, that is). II still dont see how a peasant revolution is so terrible. They Are the most oppressed of us all, are they not?!

[oki]

why are the pesants the most oppressed?as long as they have their own land,they are pretty mutch autonome.

[perception]

The Lumpenproletariat will lead the revolutions in 2g, the working class and the middle class are now too much a part of the system to free themselves from it.

As predicted by my man Huey P.

of course Howard Zinn says that it is the middle class(the "guards") who will revolt, I tend to agree with Huey.

[AL AASIM]

Whats a Lumpen-proletariat?