Mao Morals?

[Kaelin]

Hi,

I've just started reading Mao's writings and I find a great deal there that I agree with in relation to socialism, communism and the world he was trying to create. However, the man was a mass murderer who knowingly (or possibly unknowingly) led millions of people to their deaths through botched planning and implementation. Is it morally justifiable to appreciate Mao's thoughts in writing but be utterly against the way he implemented them?

What does everyone else think?

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Mao was a mass murderer but I guess something good can be found in his writings, just take it with a major grain of salt that the good that was found in his writings was probably not put to practice.

[More Fire for the People]

Actually, Mao's 'botched planning and implementation' reduced China's death rate. Most of the people killed by Mao, and trust me Mao obviously did this all by himself, is calculated by adding up all the number of deaths in a year. That means Mao is responsible for mudslides, traffic accidents, epidemics, swimming pool accidents, and even worst — death by old age!

I think when looking at Mao we should look at his background and the theoretical framework in which he is working. As a student Mao was a member of group of Chinese students who opposed Chinese orthodoxy and traditionalism [especially Confucianism]. They turned to the West as a source of inspiration to overcome oppression by the West. Mao came in contact with a lot of Chinese nationalists, anti-Confucian, and Marxist circles.

Mao also writes from the perpsective of Leninism which is riddled with flaws and errors but I think he does a decent job of tackling some of the problems within Leninism but he doesn't go far enough as to reject the whole Leninist framework.

[RNK]

I'm enjoying this completely baseless trash-talking of Mao. Really, I am. I like fiction.

Mao contributed a lot to Marxist theory concerning the role of peasantry in a proletarian revolution. Unlike Russia, China had no sizable industrial proletariat that could push forward the revolution, and instead had to rely mainly on the peasantry. Although Russia was largely peasantry itself, it had a proletariat strong enough to do the job. China did not.

Don't be turned off by reactionaries like AA. Read up on the man yourself, figure out his successes and mistakes yourself, etc etc.

[Leo]

China had no sizable industrial proletariat that could push forward the revolution

Oh yes, 20,000,000 pure industrial workers and 160,000,000 workers working outside of agriculture are nothing!

Source:

http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/compro/liqe/liqemcicue.html

Also, a thread about actual communists in China:

http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=58452

[AlwaysAnarchy]

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill+February 24, 2007 04:54 pm--> (Hopscotch Anthill @ February 24, 2007 04:54 pm) Most of the people killed by Mao, and trust me Mao obviously did this all by himself, is calculated by adding up all the number of deaths in a year. That means Mao is responsible for mudslides, traffic accidents, epidemics, swimming pool accidents, and even worst — death by old age!


[/b]
Actually Mao himself admitted to killing 700,000 people, though most historians claim a much higher number, in the millions.


Mao himself claimed a total of 700,000 killed during these early years (1949–53).[10] However, because there was a policy to select at least one landlord, and usually several, in virtually every village for public execution,[11] 1 million deaths seems to be an absolute minimum, and many authors agree on a figure of between 2 million and 5 million dead.[12][13] In addition, at least a million-and-a-half more disappeared into ‘reform through labor’ camps(laogai).[14] Mao’s personal role in ordering mass executions is undeniable.[15][16] He defended these killings as necessary for the securing of power.

Even the pro-Mao MIM admits that:


MIM
Mao did claim government responsibility for 800,000 executions between 1949 and 1954

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 04:39 pm
Hi,

I've just started reading Mao's writings and I find a great deal there that I agree with in relation to socialism, communism and the world he was trying to create. However, the man was a mass murderer who knowingly (or possibly unknowingly) led millions of people to their deaths through botched planning and implementation. Is it morally justifiable to appreciate Mao's thoughts in writing but be utterly against the way he implemented them?

What does everyone else think?
I would look into the so called "mass murderer" aspect of Mao. Be specific.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

AA,

look at the anti-mao thread you started for a rebuttel to that.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Leo,

the "International Left Communist Library" is hardly a reliable source on mao it immediatly shows its bias with in the first few sentences.

Mao had been organizing workers and uprisings throughout the early 20s but realized there weren't enough urban proletariat to achieve a real revolution without the support of the rural proletariat, so he left to organize them.

He did, and the result, was a seizure of state power 2 decades later.

[Leo]

the "International Left Communist Library" is hardly a reliable source on mao

Your bourgeois sectarianism is showing up; I gave it as a source for numbers. :rolleyes:

Also, an independent communist foundation is much more reliable on anything than a nationalist bourgeois state's propaganda.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 10:39 am
Is it morally justifiable to appreciate Mao's thoughts in writing but be utterly against the way he implemented them?
It's possible to assess ideas regardless of who expresses them, yes. Anything else is the logical fallacy called "ad hominem."

But Mao's stated ideas are certainly not unrelated to his actions, in power and out of it.

His writings aimed to excuse and rationalize those actions. That's why so much of it is vague platitudes, which always give him an out on either side.


The question of suppressing counterrevolutionaries is one of a struggle between us and the enemy, a contradiction between us and the enemy. Among the people, some see this question in a somewhat different light. Two kinds of persons hold views different from ours. Those with a Rightist way of thinking make no distinction between the enemy and us and take the enemy for our own people. They regard as friends the very persons whom the broad masses regard as enemies. Those with a "Left" way of thinking magnify contradictions between ourselves and the enemy to such an extent that they take certain contradictions among the people for contradictions with the enemy and regard as counter-revolutionary persons who are actually not counter-revolutionaries. Both these views are wrong. Neither can lead to the correct handling of the question of suppressing counter-revolutionaries or to a correct assessment of this work.
The Red Book (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/red-book/ch04.htm)

Now, what is there to "appreciate" in that? On the one hand, don't take too many people as friends. On the other hand, don't take too many people as enemies. What's the correct middle course? Only Mao can say. It's so incredibly vague that he gives him total wiggle room to do anything required to retain or magnify his personal power.

Or:

To understand these two different types of contradictions correctly, we must first be clear on what is meant by "the people" and what is meant by "the enemy" . . . At the present stage, the period of building socialism, the classes, strata and social groups which favour, support and work for the cause of socialist construction all come within the category of the people, while the social forces and groups which resist the socialist revolution and are hostile to or sabotage socialist construction are all enemies of the people.

In other words, anyone who supports Mao are "the people" and anyone who doesn't are "enemies of the people."

In some of his writings, he said something more specific. For example, in 1940 he wrote an article about what a bright future the Guomindang had before it. Most Mao writings like this were later suppressed or re-edited. Some Chinese or Maoist publications of Mao are modified from what he originally wrote.

There's really nothing to learn from Mao's writings, except maybe bullshit recognition.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

I've just started reading Mao's writings and I find a great deal there that I agree with in relation to socialism, communism and the world he was trying to create.

Good. Keep reading, comrade.


However, the man was a mass murderer who knowingly (or possibly unknowingly) led millions of people to their deaths through botched planning and implementation.

Those are merely fairy tales unless you can prove that Mao was responsible for famines that occured every year in China.


Is it morally justifiable to appreciate Mao's thoughts in writing but be utterly against the way he implemented them?

What does everyone else think?

Don't fall for bourgeois propaganda. They WANT you to throw away Mao's writings before you read them, that's why they demonize him.

Ask the bourgies for proof of Mao's culpability. Don't take their word for anything.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by Severian
There's really nothing to learn from Mao's writings,

Well I don't agree on this completely. His political writings and the Little Joke book are really stupid and he himself never followed in practice what he wrote, but his military writings are worth learning (purely from a military POV).

[Severian]

OK, you have a point on the military side.

[Hiero]

You people can be so stupid. You start to agree with what Mao said, yet continue to believe he was a "mass murderer". Maybe if you begin to see some good in Mao's theory you might want to change you perspective on the man.

[apathy maybe]

The thing about the Little Red Book that you have to remember, is that while everything in it was written by Mao, the quotes were selected by others. They systematically went through he writings and took out anything that sounded good and put it in to a "Bible" like book. The removed context from the majority of the quotes.

So whatever else you can blame Mao for, you can't blame him for the Little Red Book.

[RNK]

Hence why I haven't read any of Mao's Little Red Book (oddly, as I consider myself a Maoist). I don't like the fact that others have chosen what it is exactly the readers get to see of Mao.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by g.ram+February 25, 2007 08:06 am--> (g.ram @ February 25, 2007 08:06 am)
Severian
There's really nothing to learn from Mao's writings,

Well I don't agree on this completely. His political writings and the Little Joke book are really stupid and he himself never followed in practice what he wrote, but his military writings are worth learning (purely from a military POV). [/b]
that's a matter of opinion. You should do what Severian did and bring up specific critiscism, no?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 26, 2007 02:05 pm
The thing about the Little Red Book that you have to remember, is that while everything in it was written by Mao, the quotes were selected by others. They systematically went through he writings and took out anything that sounded good and put it in to a "Bible" like book. The removed context from the majority of the quotes.

So whatever else you can blame Mao for, you can't blame him for the Little Red Book.
It was nothing like the "bible." Have you even read the bible or the Quotations??? And they actually weren't taken out of context. Maybe a few times, but alot of quotes in a section come from the same work. For example, in the chapter "On the correct handling of contradictions among the people" alot, if not most, of what is cited is from an earlier work "On contradicions."

Mao did follow the red book pretty well. Please remember when reading the read book that it was meant to be a handheld constitution style document for youth who had trouble reading, and peasants and workers who had grown up with out an acces to an education and who were mostly illiterate. The Red Book acted as an informative and easy read about the government and what it stood for. It is also, a really good read for people new to communism because of this.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

His writings aimed to excuse and rationalize those actions. That's why so much of it is vague platitudes, which always give him an out on either side.

not sure what you mean by "excuse" and "rationalize" but this is what all revolutionaries have done when their actions come under attack no? What better example than Rosa Luxemberg's critiscism of Trotsky's actions in Kronsdadt and Trotsky's response?

Was that an "excuse" or "rationalization"?


Now, what is there to "appreciate" in that? On the one hand, don't take too many people as friends. On the other hand, don't take too many people as enemies. What's the correct middle course? Only Mao can say. It's so incredibly vague that he gives him total wiggle room to do anything required to retain or magnify his personal power.

when Mao was talking about "enemies" he meant the imperialists and fuedalists. When he was talking about the people he meant the nationalists and communists. He said that the contradictions between the people and the enemies could be accomplished through a new democratic revolution while the contradictions between the nationalist bourgieousie and the proletariat and rural proletariat could only be solved through a violent insurrcetion; socialist revolution


In some of his writings, he said something more specific. For example, in 1940 he wrote an article about what a bright future the Guomindang had before it.

What article is this? I am curious to see it could you please post it here? I am pretty much sure this is out of context considering they were fighting the people's war. I would assume that this refers to the prospect of what would happen if the people didn't revolt against the KMT.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 11:48 pm
What better example than Rosa Luxemberg's critiscism of Trotsky's actions in Kronsdadt and Trotsky's response?

Was that an "excuse" or "rationalization"?
I get your point, LeftyHenry, but wasn't Luxembourg killed long before Kronstadt? I thought she was killed in 1919. Just checking.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by manic expression+February 27, 2007 12:09 am--> (manic expression @ February 27, 2007 12:09 am)
[email protected] 26, 2007 11:48 pm
What better example than Rosa Luxemberg's critiscism of Trotsky's actions in Kronsdadt and Trotsky's response?

Was that an "excuse" or "rationalization"?
I get your point, LeftyHenry, but wasn't Luxembourg killed long before Kronstadt? I thought she was killed in 1919. Just checking. [/b]
Whoops my bad. I guess I made a mistake. Maybe it was someone else but I remember reading some where else that someone (I thought was Rosa Luxemburg) critiscized Trotsky for his role in Kronsdadt and then Trotsky replied that the Kronsdadt rebels were of petty-bourgieousie fascist orgin. I'll check again.

[Janus]

Is it morally justifiable to appreciate Mao's thoughts in writing but be utterly against the way he implemented them?
Morals are ultimately subjective and based on personal views rather than objective ones. Thus, asking for other's opinions is more or less pointless in this context. From a theoretical standpoint, much of Mao's ideas are obsolete but the lessons we can still learn from his political and military practices still remain important.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 08:04 am
Hence why I haven't read any of Mao's Little Red Book (oddly, as I consider myself a Maoist). I don't like the fact that others have chosen what it is exactly the readers get to see of Mao.
Mao would have had give his approval for the book. This wasn't some little event from the grass roots. Lin Biao (head of the military and leader of the cultural revolution), an important ally of Mao for some time created the book. He would have checked with Mao numerous times over the proccess.

[Soviet Stanimir]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 04:39 pm
Hi,

I've just started reading Mao's writings and I find a great deal there that I agree with in relation to socialism, communism and the world he was trying to create. However, the man was a mass murderer who knowingly (or possibly unknowingly) led millions of people to their deaths through botched planning and implementation. Is it morally justifiable to appreciate Mao's thoughts in writing but be utterly against the way he implemented them?

What does everyone else think?
I think it is perfectly fine to read his revolutionary writings.

You just have to realize where he and his state went wrong.

[Liberal Kid]

Interesting the justification of Mao by referring to histories of Mao's famines as bourgeois lies. And you wonder why no one takes you seriously... but thats besides the point.

Well, proof of the famines, well the weather was fine, but the Great Leap Forward wasn't.

Okay all you Maoist heres how it the Great Leap Forward came about.

Mao being the epic visionary that he was dreamed up the idea that he could make China into a superpower in the space of 2-4 years. To do this he set outrageous goals for grain, steel, and coal production. Now I hear a bunch of don't believe what you read because its lies.

EVEN CHINA accepts that Mao was 70% right and 30% wrong... Now for a communist country that sings the praises of Mao this in itself shows you that Mao messed up at some point in time.

At any rate I don't feel like arguing about the Great Leap Forward anymore since you'll dismiss me as a reactionary or w/e, even though compared to my peer group I'm quite the liberal.

Answer me this instead at the beginning of the cultural revolution that Mao spearheaded with Lin Bao (interesting fact about Lin Bao he planned a coup against Mao, but instead fled in a plane which crashed), Mao had the president Liu Shao-ch'i killed. Please defend this, tell me how Liu's attempt at defending culture was so horrible.

[Janus]

Now for a communist country that sings the praises of Mao this in itself shows you that Mao messed up at some point in time.
Though the CCP's official ideology may still be Mao Zedong Thought, they rarely ever discuss or praise Mao. The only reason that they haven't actually denounced Mao is because it would be criticizing themselves and the Party itself. The main reason for the Party's later criticism was that it was necessary in order to demystify Mao so that Deng could afford to move away from Maoist ideology through his reforms.