Hmm…..all these Chinese history books by non Chinese scholars, or exiled Chinese. Suppose Norway was a secular socialist country (well, we are a typical Nordic social democracy), would I not be sceptical if most Norwegian history books in English were written by non Norwegians, possibly devout Christians (or of any other conviction contrary to their subject matter, say the contemporary history of socialist Norway), residing and doing research in a private capitalist, non welfare state country on another continent, i.e. a country with very different cultural reference background from that of native Norwegians. Certainly, I would be very sceptical about their methodology, their research, their ability to be fair observers of my country’s history.
I am not a scholar, but I have learned Chinese, and have lived more than twenty years in China since the late seventies. I keep looking for history books written by Chinese scholars in Chinese, and then translated into English (or any other language); not expat Chinese who moved to the US (or any other country remote from China), and then wrote history books coloured by western academia.
"led initially by that witness of Kruschev’s Stalin speech, survivor of the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, architect of China’s capitalist road to become the world’s largest economy, Deng Xiaoping."
Not so sure about this analysis. Deng was a communist, a Marxist-Leninist, on his deathbed. He said his goal for the reforms was to make China a "rich communist country." I wouldn't call him a capitalist roader. He's much misunderstood.
Mao appears to have been 'the great opportunist'. He seems to have known that people will, sooner or later, be dissatisfied with the status quo and rallied to unite himself to emerging discontent to then turn the situation around in his favour, get rid of those who might attempt to grab power from his hands, and regain popularity in the process.
Your account brought this question to mind: had he been in power at the time of Hu Yaobang, would he have joined the dissenting voices leading to Tiananmen?
"Your account brought this question to mind: had he been in power at the time of Hu Yaobang, would he have joined the dissenting voices leading to Tiananmen?"
No those were contras leading a CIA cooked up "color revolution." The initial leaders were enamored of laissez faire libertarian economics and wanted a complete transformation of China along those lines. The leadership actually played along with it for some time until things got completely out of hand, and they started lynching soldiers in public. At the end there were no more students. Just misguided factory workers, many of them armed. They killed soldiers and fired on the army. The army fought back. The iconic photo of the man holding up the tank shows no such thing. He didn't know what he was doing. Bystanders were yelling at him to knock it off and get out of the way.
"The initial leaders were enamored of laissez faire libertarian economics and wanted a complete transformation of China along those lines"
Considering that the Tianmen capitalist roaders were the ultimate capitalist roaders, I don't think so.
"Mao appears to have been 'the great opportunist'."
I'm not sure this is correct. The problem was tryranny, hypocrisy, stupidity, and mostly just fanaticism. Mao had a point but he took it way too far. His attitude was that "continuous cultural revolution" was necessary because the reactionaries would always be forming in the party to try to restore capitalism. This analysis is correct as subsequent events show.
During the GRCR, there was massive expansion of education, especially in rural areas. Much of this was dismantled afterwards under Deng, when millions died as health care was cut back. The barefoot doctors was a great thing. The economy grew at 10% a year. Housing, education, and manufacturing went through the roof.
Life expectancy exploded. When Mao died, he had set a new record for doubling life expectancy in the shortest period of time, breaking Stalin's record. Yes he killed some people, but so many more lives were saved and more importantly people were gifted with years of more life in their lifespans. What else in life is more important? Your stuff? Really?
Mao was definitely a tyrant and he did a lot of stupid things. But he was not as bloodthirsty as he's portrayed. During the anti-landlord campaign, peasants had taken the law into their own hands and executed many feudal landlords, almost all of whom were terrible dirty criminals. Mao supported it at first but after a while he thought the killing was getting out of hand, and he shut it down.
Mao heard that after the revolution there was still a terrible ancient problem of rural Chinese men beating their wives. He ordered rural Chinese women who were sick and tired of the brutality to take matters into their owns, arm themselves with farm implements, and correct the problem. A number of these brutes were beaten to death by mobs of fired up women armed with pitchforks and shovels. Wife beating soon crashed to very low rates. I like that.
Mao's troops poured across the Yalu River and prevented an imperialist victory in Korea. Similarly, Mao halted imperialism with Chinese military assistance in Vietnam and elsewhere in SE Asia, although in Cambodia, things got very much out of hand very quickly. Class hatred was so thick in pre-revolutionary Cambodia that you could cut it with a knife. The urban and rural people hated each other. Even in the late 1980's, the Khmer Rogue still had the support of 1/3 of the country, mostly in the rural areas. That's how bad the class hatred was.
During the GLF, the death rate for every year but one was LOWER than a decade before in 1949. Yes people died due to Mao's idiocy and fanaticism, mostly because of lack of democracy in the party, but every years millions of MORE lives were saved. The Chinese looked around and saw that people were dying but there were a lot fewer people dying than before the revolution. You wonder why you go out to rural areas and people who lived in that time often speak fondly of it and Mao also.
A legacy of the Mao era only dismantled recently was that all Chinese workers actually owned the state enterprises where they worked. The more money the enterprise made, the more their paychecks went up. Of course the state deducted 95% off the top of every paycheck for upkeep, purchases, and reinvestment in the firm, but workers in prosperous firms did very well, motivating them to work harder.
Chinese see history in terms of centuries, not decades:
Nixon, meeting Deng in 1972: "What do you think of the French Revolution?"
Chou en Lai: "It's too soon to tell."
They don't do black and white. I think of Mao's statement about Stalin:
Hmm…..all these Chinese history books by non Chinese scholars, or exiled Chinese. Suppose Norway was a secular socialist country (well, we are a typical Nordic social democracy), would I not be sceptical if most Norwegian history books in English were written by non Norwegians, possibly devout Christians (or of any other conviction contrary to their subject matter, say the contemporary history of socialist Norway), residing and doing research in a private capitalist, non welfare state country on another continent, i.e. a country with very different cultural reference background from that of native Norwegians. Certainly, I would be very sceptical about their methodology, their research, their ability to be fair observers of my country’s history.
I am not a scholar, but I have learned Chinese, and have lived more than twenty years in China since the late seventies. I keep looking for history books written by Chinese scholars in Chinese, and then translated into English (or any other language); not expat Chinese who moved to the US (or any other country remote from China), and then wrote history books coloured by western academia.
Thanks for information abd taking the time to reply.
It sounds like you have a lot of ground experience in China.
"led initially by that witness of Kruschev’s Stalin speech, survivor of the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, architect of China’s capitalist road to become the world’s largest economy, Deng Xiaoping."
Not so sure about this analysis. Deng was a communist, a Marxist-Leninist, on his deathbed. He said his goal for the reforms was to make China a "rich communist country." I wouldn't call him a capitalist roader. He's much misunderstood.
Nice article though.
Thanks! So much has been swept under the carpet.
Mao appears to have been 'the great opportunist'. He seems to have known that people will, sooner or later, be dissatisfied with the status quo and rallied to unite himself to emerging discontent to then turn the situation around in his favour, get rid of those who might attempt to grab power from his hands, and regain popularity in the process.
Your account brought this question to mind: had he been in power at the time of Hu Yaobang, would he have joined the dissenting voices leading to Tiananmen?
Perhaps another Burning Archive topic.
"Your account brought this question to mind: had he been in power at the time of Hu Yaobang, would he have joined the dissenting voices leading to Tiananmen?"
No those were contras leading a CIA cooked up "color revolution." The initial leaders were enamored of laissez faire libertarian economics and wanted a complete transformation of China along those lines. The leadership actually played along with it for some time until things got completely out of hand, and they started lynching soldiers in public. At the end there were no more students. Just misguided factory workers, many of them armed. They killed soldiers and fired on the army. The army fought back. The iconic photo of the man holding up the tank shows no such thing. He didn't know what he was doing. Bystanders were yelling at him to knock it off and get out of the way.
"The initial leaders were enamored of laissez faire libertarian economics and wanted a complete transformation of China along those lines"
Considering that the Tianmen capitalist roaders were the ultimate capitalist roaders, I don't think so.
"Mao appears to have been 'the great opportunist'."
I'm not sure this is correct. The problem was tryranny, hypocrisy, stupidity, and mostly just fanaticism. Mao had a point but he took it way too far. His attitude was that "continuous cultural revolution" was necessary because the reactionaries would always be forming in the party to try to restore capitalism. This analysis is correct as subsequent events show.
During the GRCR, there was massive expansion of education, especially in rural areas. Much of this was dismantled afterwards under Deng, when millions died as health care was cut back. The barefoot doctors was a great thing. The economy grew at 10% a year. Housing, education, and manufacturing went through the roof.
Life expectancy exploded. When Mao died, he had set a new record for doubling life expectancy in the shortest period of time, breaking Stalin's record. Yes he killed some people, but so many more lives were saved and more importantly people were gifted with years of more life in their lifespans. What else in life is more important? Your stuff? Really?
Mao was definitely a tyrant and he did a lot of stupid things. But he was not as bloodthirsty as he's portrayed. During the anti-landlord campaign, peasants had taken the law into their own hands and executed many feudal landlords, almost all of whom were terrible dirty criminals. Mao supported it at first but after a while he thought the killing was getting out of hand, and he shut it down.
Mao heard that after the revolution there was still a terrible ancient problem of rural Chinese men beating their wives. He ordered rural Chinese women who were sick and tired of the brutality to take matters into their owns, arm themselves with farm implements, and correct the problem. A number of these brutes were beaten to death by mobs of fired up women armed with pitchforks and shovels. Wife beating soon crashed to very low rates. I like that.
Mao's troops poured across the Yalu River and prevented an imperialist victory in Korea. Similarly, Mao halted imperialism with Chinese military assistance in Vietnam and elsewhere in SE Asia, although in Cambodia, things got very much out of hand very quickly. Class hatred was so thick in pre-revolutionary Cambodia that you could cut it with a knife. The urban and rural people hated each other. Even in the late 1980's, the Khmer Rogue still had the support of 1/3 of the country, mostly in the rural areas. That's how bad the class hatred was.
During the GLF, the death rate for every year but one was LOWER than a decade before in 1949. Yes people died due to Mao's idiocy and fanaticism, mostly because of lack of democracy in the party, but every years millions of MORE lives were saved. The Chinese looked around and saw that people were dying but there were a lot fewer people dying than before the revolution. You wonder why you go out to rural areas and people who lived in that time often speak fondly of it and Mao also.
A legacy of the Mao era only dismantled recently was that all Chinese workers actually owned the state enterprises where they worked. The more money the enterprise made, the more their paychecks went up. Of course the state deducted 95% off the top of every paycheck for upkeep, purchases, and reinvestment in the firm, but workers in prosperous firms did very well, motivating them to work harder.
Chinese see history in terms of centuries, not decades:
Nixon, meeting Deng in 1972: "What do you think of the French Revolution?"
Chou en Lai: "It's too soon to tell."
They don't do black and white. I think of Mao's statement about Stalin:
Mao: "Stalin was 70% correct and 30% wrong."