What's your opinion on Mao Zedong?
Do you think he was merely incompetent, or was he a malicious and cruel man?
Personally, I'd consider him to be criminally negligent. Movements like the great leap forward weren't designed to kill people, but they killed people regardless. It could have been easily avoided if Mao had done enough research to understand that backyard steel was a bad idea. I think he is also at fault for forming the circle of yes men surrounding him that never questioned his decisions.If he didn't purge so many party members, more might have questioned him. I think his purging of Peng Duahai was definitely malicous. Rather than admitting he was wrong, he allowed his deadly economic failure to continue for a year in order to avoid admitting that Duahai was right.
Please correct me if I've made any factual errors.
He founded the greatest and most powerful nation in modern history. I like him.
>>786193
Mao didn't found America
What are you on about?
Mao "Make China Great Again" Zedong made China great again.
>>786187
Masterful guerrilla leader shiit peacetime leader..
>>786187
>I think his purging of Peng Duahai was definitely malicous
why? he and the chairman had been at odds since times at the jiangxi soviet. peng was also short and stubborn and didnt layer his criticism in a way that would get through to mao. people like li fuchun and liu shaoqui did correctly. it can then be speculated that the purging of peng was the fault of peng.
also i think his last name is spelled Dehuai, but maybe im wrong
> merely incompetent, or was he a malicious and cruel man?
neither, he just grew up in an environment where
1. there were a lot of casualties
2. he found success in this environment ^
so mao was neither, but he just thought that all the deaths/troubles would be outweighed by a greater payoff in a socialist utopia they were going to build
>>786187
>Rather than admitting he was wrong, he allowed his deadly economic failure to continue for a year in order to avoid admitting that Duahai was right.
no, Mao's officials (Peng included) continued to tell him he was right, Peng just said there have been some mistakes and we are all at fault (chairman included) and mao had had enough
it ALSO came at a time when Khrushchev criticized the communes, so mao was double mad in the moment
>>786187
Pure evil. What other conclusion is there?
>>786237
wow what a simple insight
>>786241
Thank you. I am a simple man.
>>786211
>you have to structure your critiscism the right way or we'll publically humiliate you and force you into self criticism
>he just thought that all the deaths/troubles would be outweighed by a greater payoff in a socialist utopia they were going to build
That's an interesting viewpoint though.
>>786270
Mao's famous metaphor was the 10 finger metaphor, it said that for every 1 problem with the great leap forward, the payoff would be 9 times as much
so problem to payoff ratio was promised as 1:9
also the way liu shaoqui managed to criticize it the same way peng did, is he made an emotionally charged speech and blamed the problems not on mao, but on everyone elses misunderstanding
so they realized THAT was how to approach mao
its not okay to just say, he was either stupid, or the devil, because neither is true and its just too simple for such a complex man
I believe he had some genuine sympathy towards the rural peasant masses, but he was incompetent at managing a nation to the point that it should've got him hanged. At least Deng Xiaoping salvaged things pretty well.
>>786193
China isn't the strongest modern country in terms of commerce, military strength or cultural influence and if a single person should be given the credit of founding the modern nation of China that would Sun Yat-sen.
>>786292
What was Maos rationale for thinking that the GLF would have any payoff though?
I understand the appeal of having collective industrial production, but it clearly wasn't producing anything useable.
>>786313
>Sun Yat-sen.
since Sun Yat-Sen never really DID anything, I think youre just crediting his ideas, which were mostly Western imports
>>786187
Incompetent in terms of what?
Running the country? Yeap.
As a politician? Fuck no. He survived two major fucking fuckup crises that ought to have ended his political career. His image is associated with the PRC so much that people who were against him kept his image just to ensure party legitimacy over China.
Guy was politico master.
>>786322
He literally had no knowledge of metallurgy. I assume he was trying to emulate stalins successful collectivization but didn't realize it couldn't work in a completely unindustrial country
>>786322
Well Mao judged countries based on how MUCH steel they had, not at all how they used it
And things like backyard furnaces, although they weren't producing anything usable and they devastated the environment, Mao thought that it would develop the country by getting larger quantities of steel, AND simultaneously develop the people by collectivising them into not only agriculture but also industry
So they would retain there virtuous agrarian peasant form, but would develop the characteristics of a strong industrial proletariat as well
And the rationale of the GLF was to show Khrushchev that he is not doing communism right and that after he proved that, he would be the senior partner in the Soviet bloc
But the rationale for believing there was payoff goes back to simultaneously developing the country with steel quantity as well as developing the peasantry
Maybe I didnt answer the last part completely right because theres a lot more to it
>>786328
You mean except overthrow the Manchus, the previous dynasty, which still had an iron grip on the country despite foreign colonization?
I think that's pretty significant, you uneducated monkey.
>>786342
>I assume he was trying to emulate stalins successful collectivization but didn't realize it couldn't work in a completely unindustrial country
nope, because
1. stalins collectivization wasnt successful
2. stalin developed industry and collectivized agriculture separately
Mao was trying to one up him by doing both at once ^
3. the whole point of Mao's communism was that it WAS going to work in an "unindustrial" (non industrialized) nation, and that the factory working class wouldn't embody revolution, but that the agrarian peasantry would
>>786360
>You mean except overthrow the Manchus
Oh yes I remember now how he completely did it himself
kys my man
if anything the manchus were overthrown in a response to so many more things, but you wouldnt understand
>>786342
Yeah Mao's ultimate goal was basically just to emulate/jerk off to Stalin's memory.
>successful colllectivization
In what world? Successful i guess that it happened at all but in no way was the collectivization itself successful. At any rate, Mao's agricultural policies were leagues better than Stalin's considering Mao actually had the genuine loyalty of his people and they were willing to work unlike the alienated Soviet peasants. The only reason they failed was because of the collective exaggeration of literally everyone's figures so they could get more goodies from the Party and Mao's refusal to fact check the inflated figures because of "how well things were going". Seriously i am in total awe of the fact that nobody bothered to fact check. Or go out and see things for themselves. Why?
>>786383
>Yeah Mao's ultimate goal was basically just to emulate/jerk off to Stalin's memory.
refer to mao one upping him >>786370
>they were willing to work
thats also a complete fucking joke
by the time of collectivisation in 1958, there was 0 incentive to do any work because people were put into work teams and were judged and rewarded based on a group effort
>>786383
>Or go out and see things for themselves.
People would arrange it so that things looked better than they were on inspection
>>786378
Yes, he did it all by himself. Thank you for understanding.
>>786199
What made him a good guerilla leader?
>>786187
there are wartime leaders and there are peacetime leaders
theres much to take from mao during war but jesus after 1949 just fuck my shit up senpaitachi
>>786199
Nice meme, he wouldn't even win if it wasn't for shills like Edgar Snow, Owen Lattimore and Brooks Atkinson liying about the Nationalists to make commies look good and get the US to support them.
>>787130
Well getting involved in Korean War was a good idea at first. Sadly his overblown ego and ambition dragged the war on for too long and it ended up with nothing to gain.
>>787210
>oskar schindler
>>786187
Two thirds good and one third bad.
>only sinologists will get this
>>786187
National China was the right direction. Asia needs an inhouse theatre war but the west fucked it all up.
"That's why the women look like men and the men like bitches" - Immortal Technique
