Chairman Mao reminisced on 127th birthday

[vi-va]

Mao's achievement ended in 1958. After that, he brought more destruction than construction. Great Leap forward weakest his power so he started culture revolution to bring back the power. In this sense he was more like what Donald Trump is doing to USA deep State. Culture revolution did nothing than dividing people and destroying economy. The most anti-China and anti-CPC Chinese are those growing up during culture revolution. They saw what human beings can do terrible things to others. Mao was an idealist but he was not good in economics development. He had the vision but China was not fit for communism at that time.

I agree with your point. 我也认为文革跟党内权力斗争有关。不过我认为这是列宁斯大林体制的病根。

毛从来都没有绝对的权威。这是中共承袭苏联确切说列宁斯大林体制的一个弱点。这个弱点就是权力实际上掌握在政治局和中央军委手中，更具体地说掌握在开国功臣尤其是那些老将军手中。这是集体领导体制。

这种集体领导造成结构性的不稳定，导致领导集体内部权力倾轧极为惨烈，权力交接充满了不确定性和巨大风险。

举几个例子：

1. 在江西根据地的时候，毛是井冈山革命根据地创始人，但是上海中共中央派人来，轻易就剥夺了毛的权力。
2. 要不是第五次反围剿失败，红军被迫长征，毛是不是能被委以重任很难说。
3. 共产国际留学生王明和共产国际顾问李德轻易主导了中共中央，导致第五次反围剿失败。
4. 革命早期中共受到苏共第三国际的领导和制约，是一个分支机构。
5. 江西苏区肃反，肃AB团，富田事变中，可以看出革命路线斗争极为惨烈，动辄肉体消灭。
6. 延安整风运动彻底肃清了苏联通过第三国际和王明等国际派对中共的影响，保证了中共独立运作，确立了毛泽东为核心的权力架构。
7. 整风运动树立了毛泽东思想，思想上让中共摆脱对苏联革命经验和理论的崇拜和服从。让中共在思想上独立开来。

参看《红太阳是怎样升起的：延安整风运动的来龙去脉》

可见，由于列宁斯大林政党体制过于新颖和不完善，在早期阶段无法赋予领导集体稳定性，导致内部权力斗争极为惨烈。

看看苏联党史，赫鲁晓夫否定斯大林，勃列日涅夫否定赫鲁晓夫，内部权力斗争以军事政变为主要手段，以肉体消灭失败者为结果，导致失败者没有妥协空间，斗争无所不用其极，任何高大上的理想都架不住权力斗争失败的恐惧。

那么从毛的角度来看，毛也是一个人，也会担忧自己的命运，必然会想尽一切办法消除潜在的竞争对手。从革命领袖的角度看，毛希望自己的政治遗产能够得到继承，不希望党内出现赫鲁晓夫这种修正主义者，不希望自己一辈子的革命果实被赫鲁晓夫这种修正主义者篡夺。

我想这是毛发动文化大革命的一个重要考量。当然，文革失败了。毛的目的没有达到不说，反而陷入了政治、经济、文化多重困境。

文革对党的名誉影响极大，教训深刻。

另外，我同意你的观点，大跃进失败了，当年赫鲁晓夫是劝过我们不要搞的。赫鲁晓夫是乌克兰人，深深知道斯大林的集体农场对乌克兰的巨大伤害，导致百万人饿死。我们冒进了。这导致毛的权威受损，不得不进一步通过铁腕维护权力。

 

[TaiShang]

I agree with your point. 我也认为文革跟党内权力斗争有关。不过我认为这是列宁斯大林体制的病根。

毛从来都没有绝对的权威。这是中共承袭苏联确切说列宁斯大林体制的一个弱点。这个弱点就是权力实际上掌握在政治局和中央军委手中，更具体地说掌握在开国功臣尤其是那些老将军手中。这是集体领导体制。

这种集体领导造成结构性的不稳定，导致领导集体内部权力倾轧极为惨烈，权力交接充满了不确定性和巨大风险。

举几个例子：

1. 在江西根据地的时候，毛是井冈山革命根据地创始人，但是上海中共中央派人来，轻易就剥夺了毛的权力。
2. 要不是第五次反围剿失败，红军被迫长征，毛是不是能被委以重任很难说。
3. 共产国际留学生王明和共产国际顾问李德轻易主导了中共中央，导致第五次反围剿失败。
4. 革命早期中共受到苏共第三国际的领导和制约，是一个分支机构。
5. 江西苏区肃反，肃AB团，富田事变中，可以看出革命路线斗争极为惨烈，动辄肉体消灭。
6. 延安整风运动彻底肃清了苏联通过第三国际和王明等国际派对中共的影响，保证了中共独立运作，确立了毛泽东为核心的权力架构。
7. 整风运动树立了毛泽东思想，思想上让中共摆脱对苏联革命经验和理论的崇拜和服从。让中共在思想上独立开来。

参看《红太阳是怎样升起的：延安整风运动的来龙去脉》

可见，由于列宁斯大林政党体制过于新颖和不完善，在早期阶段无法赋予领导集体稳定性，导致内部权力斗争极为惨烈。

看看苏联党史，赫鲁晓夫否定斯大林，勃列日涅夫否定赫鲁晓夫，内部权力斗争以军事政变为主要手段，以肉体消灭失败者为结果，导致失败者没有妥协空间，斗争无所不用其极，任何高大上的理想都架不住权力斗争失败的恐惧。

那么从毛的角度来看，毛也是一个人，也会担忧自己的命运，必然会想尽一切办法消除潜在的竞争对手。从革命领袖的角度看，毛希望自己的政治遗产能够得到继承，不希望党内出现赫鲁晓夫这种修正主义者，不希望自己一辈子的革命果实被赫鲁晓夫这种修正主义者篡夺。

我想这是毛发动文化大革命的一个重要考量。当然，文革失败了。毛的目的没有达到不说，反而陷入了政治、经济、文化多重困境。

文革对党的名誉影响极大，教训深刻。

另外，我同意你的观点，大跃进失败了，当年赫鲁晓夫是劝过我们不要搞的。赫鲁晓夫是乌克兰人，深深知道斯大林的集体农场对乌克兰的巨大伤害，导致百万人饿死。我们冒进了。这导致毛的权威受损，不得不进一步通过铁腕维护权力。

Agree. Decisions such as large scale industrial production were collective decisions, not made by Chairman Mao himself only.

We need to think in historical context: The country was poor, much less coordinated due to poor infrastructure and communication. There was serious loss of vital information.

The questions related to culture and education, too, must be seen in their contexts: Sure, they created a group of (Well educated, Western migrated) anti-China diaspora. Because, those policies stripped them of their upper class advantages.

But, villagers experience was different: For the first time, they received some healthcare and education. Hence, for the overwhelming majority, Cultural Revolution was not a bad thing. It, basically, discomforted extreme privileged minority for the basic rights of majority.

If KMT stayed in power, the privileged class would rain supreme, China would end up a second India today.

We should well understand the Western elite hatred of Mao Zedong.

 

[vi-va]

Agree. Decisions such as large scale industrial production were collective decisions, not made by Chairman Mao himself only.

We need to think in historical context: The country was poor, much less coordinated due to poor infrastructure and communication. There was serious loss of vital information.

The questions related to culture and education, too, must be seen in their contexts: Sure, they created a group of (Well educated, Western migrated) anti-China diaspora. Because, those policies stripped them of their upper class advantages.

But, villagers experience was different: For the first time, they received some healthcare and education. Hence, for the overwhelming majority, Cultural Revolution was not a bad thing. It, basically, discomforted extreme privileged minority for the basic rights of majority.

If KMT stayed in power, the privileged class would rain supreme, China would end up a second India today.

We should well understand the Western elite hatred of Mao Zedong.

There are two books I recommend:

1. 《从独裁到民主: 解放运动的概念框架/ From Dictatorship To Democracy》-吉恩·夏普 (Gene Sharp) from 阿尔伯特‧爱因斯坦研究所 The Albert Einstein Institution
2. 《党员、党权与党争： 1924～1949年中国国民党的组织形态》-王奇生 this is KMT party history, the best one I found

I think to understand Mao's political and cultural legacy, we have to dig deep into the old China society and economy, as well as the comparison of both PARTIES.

The KMT is a top down model politically, relies on oligarchs, landlord, foreign aids, has quite a lot of similarity with India today.

The CCP is top down organized politically, but it's bottom-up originated culturally and economically.

第一本是冷战以及后冷战时期，美国针对列宁斯大林体制的文化攻防战圣经。
第二本是国民党党史，但是由于国、共是一根藤上两个瓜，本身国共创立都脱胎于苏共，只不过由于经济基础，社会基础的不同走上了截然不同的两条道路，研究国民党党史就犹如一面镜子可以看到共产党的方方面面。

王奇生是一个奇人，仅仅通过公开出版的资料就可以写出这本大作，由于过于优秀，后来被组织拉去研究中共党史去了，我估计终于有机会阅读中央档案馆的文献了。不过哪些能发表就难说了。

毛本身性格复杂，历史选择了毛，也塑造了毛。没有毛，革命不可能成功。没有毛也许我们不过是一个大号印度，甚至连印度都不如。印度可以偏安一隅是因为印度北方没有超级大国苏联，海上没有美帝的第一岛链，印度自身在文化上，政治制度上向西方屈服不构成足够的威胁。而我们没有条件和可能偏安一隅。

我认为，中国是一个四战之地，强则扩张，弱则挨打。中国革命有毛来带领是我们的大幸，毛是一个极为敢于斗争，善于斗争的领袖。只有毛能够领导长征杀出重围，四渡赤水。也只有毛能够摆脱苏共和第三国际的遥控。更是只有毛敢于在朝鲜跟美国正面决战（苏联摆了我们一道）。

没有朝鲜战争的胜利，新中国就犹如宋开国之初就燕云十六州失守，那么中国必然长久面对美国在边境上的挑衅、讹诈。犹如鸡脖子被卡住。

没有越南战争的胜利，我们的腿上就被插上一刀。

现在我们仍然在肚子上被台湾被困扰。

毛时代的局限性，我觉得不能让毛一个人背这口黑锅。不能因为人走了，领袖过于伟大，就只让他一个人背锅，而当时参与决策的其他人则成为所谓的“拨乱反正”的圣人。

自古以来，要成大事者，无不被后人唾骂。从秦始皇，到汉武帝，隋炀帝。毛的功过我觉得一定要放在当时的历史背景，文化背景，社会土壤等等因素中考量。

 

[zectech]

If KMT stayed in power, the privileged class would reign supreme, China would end up a second India today.

China would have been South Korea or Taiwan. Economically rich because of connection to easy money of West. However, there would be no freedom in China. China would not be for the benefit of Chinese, they would serve wall street and oligarch connected to the KMT rich.

KMT would approve US military bases where US goons rape Chinese women and girls. Think Japan and the rest of the weaker East Asians who are afraid of US and serve US interests. There would be no Chinese space industry, military industry, etc like there is today. China would be spending money to develop a 5th gen fighter with Western technology and make the fighter by 2040. Think Indonesia, Korea, Turkey who are taking years and years to develop this even with access to some Western technology. China would not make their own jet engines, SAM defenses. China would pay for THAAD.

Chinese are very smart, however, efforts of self-reliance and made in China for important stuff would be quashed by Western demands. Huawei would have Western backdoors to spy on Merkel and KMT.

Mao's legacy is China is a free country.

 

[nahtanbob]

You have no clue. The west need Mandela to destroy South Africa from inside. He did it.

It does not change the fact -- China does more business with South Africa than the West

Agree. Decisions such as large scale industrial production were collective decisions, not made by Chairman Mao himself only.

We need to think in historical context: The country was poor, much less coordinated due to poor infrastructure and communication. There was serious loss of vital information.

The questions related to culture and education, too, must be seen in their contexts: Sure, they created a group of (Well educated, Western migrated) anti-China diaspora. Because, those policies stripped them of their upper class advantages.

But, villagers experience was different: For the first time, they received some healthcare and education. Hence, for the overwhelming majority, Cultural Revolution was not a bad thing. It, basically, discomforted extreme privileged minority for the basic rights of majority.

If KMT stayed in power, the privileged class would rain supreme, China would end up a second India today.

We should well understand the Western elite hatred of Mao Zedong.

Even with a corrupt KMT China would have outperformed India. China would be valuable ally in confronting the USSR

 

[TaiShang]

It does not change the fact -- China does more business with South Africa than the West


Even with a corrupt KMT China would have outperformed India. China would be valuable ally in confronting the USSR

China was extremely poor at the time. KMT took to Taiwan islands the best and the brightest - mostly the educated. We also took along wealth - money, gold and precious documents.

Taiwan also happened to be geopolitically lucky due to the Cold War.

It is hard to believe KMT ruling the entire poor nation would be as successful, especially if, having positive signals to his overtures from Comrade Stalin, Jiang Jieshi had sided with Russians. Then, KMT in a large poor country would have be on the wrong side of Cold War equation.

KMT would continue to rule as it did 40 years prior: Developed coastal areas, rich happy elite class, decrepit, hungry, uneducated inner areas. That's India right there.

 

[Indos]

Mao Zedong and his son, 毛岸英, who died in the Korean War as a volunteer (PVA) soldier.

Actually who is the one in CCP who become the main reason for China to let go cultural revolution policy and communist economic system ? I think this guy or faction has more contribution for China current success than Mao Zedong.

 

[zectech]

It is hard to believe KMT ruling the entire poor nation would be as successful, especially if, having positive signals to his overtures from Comrade Stalin, Jiang Jieshi had sided with Russians. Then, KMT in a large poor country would have be on the wrong side of Cold War equation.

South Korea was less developed than North Korea in industry for some time. If my memory serves me correct. South Korea was poor. South Korea rose with growth in technology industries and manufacturing, same as Taiwan. If China aligned with not the West, but with the USSR, then China would have been left behind.

Jiang Jieshi did not side with the Russians when leader of Taiwan. He was a nationalist. He was suspicious of the US when in Taiwan. Chinese are smart people and figure out things. However, easy money and economic growth would be promised for favours to the West.

China would have rose economically in the same way as Taiwan did with the Nationalists. It would have been the same leaders.

 

[nahtanbob]

China was extremely poor at the time. KMT took to Taiwan islands the best and the brightest - mostly the educated. We also took along wealth - money, gold and precious documents.

Taiwan also happened to be geopolitically lucky due to the Cold War.

It is hard to believe KMT ruling the entire poor nation would be as successful, especially if, having positive signals to his overtures from Comrade Stalin, Jiang Jieshi had sided with Russians. Then, KMT in a large poor country would have be on the wrong side of Cold War equation.

KMT would continue to rule as it did 40 years prior: Developed coastal areas, rich happy elite class, decrepit, hungry, uneducated inner areas. That's India right there.

The Current China has same situation - Developed coastal areas, rich happy elite class. The inner areas are not great. I see CCP and KMT achieving similar goals in maybe different routes. The big difference is whether the KMT does not have the resolve to impose 1 child family like the CCP does.

 

[vi-va]

China was extremely poor at the time. KMT took to Taiwan islands the best and the brightest - mostly the educated. We also took along wealth - money, gold and precious documents.

Taiwan also happened to be geopolitically lucky due to the Cold War.

It is hard to believe KMT ruling the entire poor nation would be as successful, especially if, having positive signals to his overtures from Comrade Stalin, Jiang Jieshi had sided with Russians. Then, KMT in a large poor country would have be on the wrong side of Cold War equation.

KMT would continue to rule as it did 40 years prior: Developed coastal areas, rich happy elite class, decrepit, hungry, uneducated inner areas. That's India right there.

@nahtanbob is American, all he knew comes from distorted English media and books about China.

The ground reality of China is very much different from the English narrative which designed for culture and political war during Cold War era.

Just look at what neo liberal narrative did to US, very destructive.

The nowadays Americans were brainwashed so badly in past 70 years, they don't see things rationally, they are much more ideological than Chinese. The old Americans back in 1930s, -1950s era are much more practical, and have better sense on geopolitics.

Nowadays Americans talk high, full of over confidence, has little sense of other countries history and ground reality.

I blame the neo-liberal ideology which was manipulated by capitalists.

 

[nahtanbob]

@nahtanbob is American, all he knew comes from distorted English media and books about China.

The ground reality of China is very much different from the English narrative which designed for culture and political war during Cold War era.

Just look at what neo liberal narrative did to US, very destructive.

The nowadays Americans were brainwashed so badly in past 70 years, they don't see things rationally, they are much more ideological than Chinese. The old Americans back in 1930s, -1950s era are much more practical, and have better sense on geopolitics.

Nowadays Americans talk high, full of over confidence, has little sense of other countries history and ground reality.

I blame the neo-liberal ideology which was manipulated by capitalists.

My worldview about China is from practical observations about Chinese immigrants (PRC, Taiwan & Hong Kong) to USA and Canada over the past 40 years. I see ideology making little difference with respect to China in the long run. I have not read any academic books on China other than History of the World by Susan Weiss Bauer.

I am under no illusions about the current crowd running Washington.

 

[vi-va]

South Korea was less developed than North Korea in industry for some time. If my memory serves me correct. South Korea was poor. South Korea rose with growth in technology industries and manufacturing, same as Taiwan. If China aligned with not the West, but with the USSR, then China would have been left behind.

Jiang Jieshi did not side with the Russians when leader of Taiwan. He was a nationalist. He was suspicious of the US when in Taiwan. Chinese are smart people and figure out things. However, easy money and economic growth would be promised for favours to the West.

China would have rose economically in the same way as Taiwan did with the Nationalists. It would have been the same leaders.

Jiang Jieshi was communist, but only on paper. He is a opportunist, has no faith. He knew the old tricks of party politics, as well as how to grab power, but he lack of the capability to run his party.

Jiang Jieshi's son was graduated in Moscow, married with a Russian - Фаина Ипатьевна Вахрева, yep. That's her.

The KMT has a lot of connections with USSR as well.
KMT and CCP are two sides of the same coin.

 

[vi-va]

My worldview about China is from practical observations about Chinese immigrants (PRC, Taiwan & Hong Kong) to USA and Canada over the past 40 years. I see ideology making little difference with respect to China in the long run. I have not read any academic books on China other than History of the World by Susan Weiss Bauer.

I am under no illusions about the current crowd running Washington.

You are about my age.
The difference between us is how you see things.
When I talk about Mao's legacy, economy outcome, performance at most 1/3 of his contribution. Mao is revolutionist, he saved China from the status of India which is still colonized mentally.

China can be US friend under KMT, maybe neutral between USSR and US during Cold War, just like India. But China will not be independent under KMT. The KMT is as rotten as India Congress, as weak as India Congress.

By and large, KMT is a stooge, inner divided, penetrated.

Bad luck for US and USSR, KMT is now dying in Taiwan, while CCP is still in charge.

 

[vi-va]

Actually who is the one in CCP who become the main reason for China to let go cultural revolution policy and communist economic system ? I think this guy or faction has more contribution for China current success than Mao Zedong.

You mean Deng Xiaoping?
Deng Xiaoping is lucky. He seized the opportunities during Cold War.

Mao is not lucky, he lead China went through all the toughest dark period, lead the Long March, reformed and shaped the CCP, beat the Japanese, defeated KMT. Driven Americans out of North Korea, assisted Vietnamese to defeat Americans. Built most dams of nowadays China, most railways, eliminate illiteracy, eliminate AIDS, schistosomiasis and many others.

The tasks of Mao and Deng are completely different. Mao's challenge is much harder.

Without Deng, there are many other Chinese leader who can still do Deng's job. But no one can do Mao's job, literally no one.

Long March - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[TaiShang]

Jiang Jieshi was communist, but only on paper. He is a opportunist, has no faith. He knew the old tricks of party politics, as well as how to grab power, but he lack of the capability to run his party.

Jiang Jieshi's son was graduated in Moscow, married with a Russian - Фаина Ипатьевна Вахрева, yep. That's her.
View attachment 700636

The KMT has a lot of connections with USSR as well.
KMT and CCP is two side of one coin.

Jiang Jieshi loved power. But, he was not a good strategist. Opportunism does not always imply good tactical ability. He was ready to side with anyone; he did not have a clear ideology. He ended up becoming a US stooge, although he could have been a Soviet one. China's inner area development, rise in literacy, healthcare, innovation could have never hapened under that KMT opportunism. For instance, we would never see a similar infrastructure development of inner areas. We would not see land reforms, tax reforms. China would be a second India.

As you say, KMT is dying even here in Taiwan. Perhaps the only real KMT is now the one represented in the NPC in Mainland China.

I do not care about small unhappy residues of reactionaries in the West or HK. I prefer the happiness of the mass to their well-being. Eventually, they are a dying group due to old age.

You mean Deng Xiaoping?
Deng Xiaoping is lucky. He seized the opportunities during Cold War.

Mao is not lucky, he lead China went through all the toughest dark period, lead the Long March, reformed and shaped the CCP, beat the Japanese, defeated KMT. Driven Americans out of North Korea, assisted Vietnamese to defeat Americans. Built most dams of nowadays China, most railways, eliminate illiteracy, eliminate AIDS, schistosomiasis and many others.

The tasks of Mao and Deng are completely different. Mao's challenge is much harder.

Without Deng, there are many other Chinese leader who can still do Deng's job. But no one can do Mao's job, literally no one.

Long March - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

View attachment 700641

Some people never understand revolutions since they are essentially reactionaries.