What would Mao Zedong think about modern China?

[Tammuz]

Consider modern China. Economically and even socially it is very different from the society that Mao Zedong established. Yes, the Communist Party of China retains power with an iron-fist, but it is arguably communist in name only, not really in practice. Mao appears to be someone that the Chinese political establishment pays lip-service to. In practice, the CPC accepts capitalism to run the economy, and indeed, the party has billionaires among its members. I think the CPC very carefully studied the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, the reforms it made, and the eventual collapse of the USSR, and really wanted to avoid making the same mistakes (from their point of view at least, as I think many others in the world would be happy to see the demise of the CPC).

Another thing that is a bit ironic, while the Communist Party of China defeated Chinese nationalists in a civil war, they seem quite happy to promote Chinese nationalism among the people.

It is clear that if China had never liberalized their economy, the country likely would have remained dirt-poor and not been the global power that it is today. Yet in order to do so, the CPC tacitly abandoned Maoist policies. What would the chairman think of modern China and his successors in the CPC?

 

[Politesse]

Oh, their current political position would make up for a multitude of disloyalties, I think. Mao would be very happy to see China on top of world affairs again. At least at first.

But if he got back into politics, heads would slowly begin to roll, at first behind the scenes and then a bit more openly. He was, when push came to shove, a true believer and not just an opportunist.

 

[ideologyhunter]

He would drink the tap water by accident and fall dead with smoke coming out of his mouth.

 

[PyramidHead]

Mao's principles were intended for the material conditions in which they were applied, when the peasantry had to be allied with in order to repel foreign invaders and establish a base of production that could meet the demands of China's growing population on its own terms. The China of today is in a different phase of development and is subjected to different conditions, so the tactics must also be different. Mao would not have wanted future leaders to take the same approach as he did simply because he was Mao, just as he didn't take the same approach as other communist leaders simply because they were successful in their own societies. Marxism is an applied science, not a one-size-fits-all rubric for every situation. Nobody was more keen on this than Mao himself, at least in the early years before the Sino-Soviet split.

 

[Trausti]

Marxism is an applied science,

Oh, my.

 

[Trausti]

Mao would be unhappy. It's as if everyone was just saying yes until he died. Then it's hello capitalism! Taiwan? Actually, we've come to an arrangement. What?! You arrested Jiang Qing? Deng Xiaoping, you son-of-a-bitch! Where's my cultural revolution?

 

[OLDMAN]

The fact that friends and family members of politicians are super rich because of laws allowing them to control licensing fees and payoffs for permits and regulations means that capitalism takes a back seat to government feudalism....then there is the whole lack of worker's rights that are missing. Mao would puke.

 

[Tammuz]

The fact that friends and family members of politicians are super rich because of laws allowing them to control licensing fees and payoffs for permits and regulations means that capitalism takes a back seat to government feudalism....then there is the whole lack of worker's rights that are missing. Mao would puke.

Were workers' right strong under Mao's rule? For all the poor working conditions in Chinese factories, the country was much poorer under Mao's rule than it is today.

We are talking about a repressive dictatorship after all. I would assume that any openly discontent worker during the Mao era would be labelled a "reactionary" or "enemy of the people" and subsequently eliminated.

 

[Tammuz]

Mao's principles were intended for the material conditions in which they were applied, when the peasantry had to be allied with in order to repel foreign invaders and establish a base of production that could meet the demands of China's growing population on its own terms. The China of today is in a different phase of development and is subjected to different conditions, so the tactics must also be different. Mao would not have wanted future leaders to take the same approach as he did simply because he was Mao, just as he didn't take the same approach as other communist leaders simply because they were successful in their own societies. Marxism is an applied science, not a one-size-fits-all rubric for every situation. Nobody was more keen on this than Mao himself, at least in the early years before the Sino-Soviet split.

How come that the East Bloc of Europe never made that realization? After the West German economy had outperformed the East German economy for decades, why, according to Marxism, was it not time for a change of ways?

 

[PyramidHead]

Mao's principles were intended for the material conditions in which they were applied, when the peasantry had to be allied with in order to repel foreign invaders and establish a base of production that could meet the demands of China's growing population on its own terms. The China of today is in a different phase of development and is subjected to different conditions, so the tactics must also be different. Mao would not have wanted future leaders to take the same approach as he did simply because he was Mao, just as he didn't take the same approach as other communist leaders simply because they were successful in their own societies. Marxism is an applied science, not a one-size-fits-all rubric for every situation. Nobody was more keen on this than Mao himself, at least in the early years before the Sino-Soviet split.

How come that the East Bloc of Europe never made that realization? After the West German economy had outperformed the East German economy for decades, why, according to Marxism, was it not time for a change of ways?

I haven't read much about the GDR, so I can't speak about it with any conviction. But it's facile to simply compare the economies of two places as if those are the only constraints operating on them, and just pick the system that makes the most money. Metrics as vague as "the economy of x outperformed y" are nearly always used to obfuscate the material conditions of people living in those places, what pressures they were subjected to externally and internally, and what they were trying to achieve.

 

[skepticalbip]

Mao's principles were intended for the material conditions in which they were applied, when the peasantry had to be allied with in order to repel foreign invaders and establish a base of production that could meet the demands of China's growing population on its own terms. The China of today is in a different phase of development and is subjected to different conditions, so the tactics must also be different. Mao would not have wanted future leaders to take the same approach as he did simply because he was Mao, just as he didn't take the same approach as other communist leaders simply because they were successful in their own societies. Marxism is an applied science, not a one-size-fits-all rubric for every situation. Nobody was more keen on this than Mao himself, at least in the early years before the Sino-Soviet split.

How come that the East Bloc of Europe never made that realization? After the West German economy had outperformed the East German economy for decades, why, according to Marxism, was it not time for a change of ways?

I haven't read much about the GDR, so I can't speak about it with any conviction. But it's facile to simply compare the economies of two places as if those are the only constraints operating on them, and just pick the system that makes the most money. Metrics as vague as "the economy of x outperformed y" are nearly always used to obfuscate the material conditions of people living in those places, what pressures they were subjected to externally and internally, and what they were trying to achieve.

I always considered that there was a fairly reliable metric for measuring how well a system serves the desires of its citizens. That metric being how much the citizenry wants to leave and the extent the system finds necessary to keep them from leaving. The controlling government in Worker's paradises like East Germany (pre-collapse), North Korea, and Cuba do not allow their citizens to leave except under very controlled conditions. Any citizen attempting to leave otherwise would be killed or imprisoned if caught. So far Venezuela hasn't resorted to such extreme measures to retain its population which has resulted in about 10% if its citizenry fleeing already, and more leaving daily.

Personally, I don't even like to enter any country that requires an exit visa to leave though I have had to go to a few because of my work.

 

[PyramidHead]

I haven't read much about the GDR, so I can't speak about it with any conviction. But it's facile to simply compare the economies of two places as if those are the only constraints operating on them, and just pick the system that makes the most money. Metrics as vague as "the economy of x outperformed y" are nearly always used to obfuscate the material conditions of people living in those places, what pressures they were subjected to externally and internally, and what they were trying to achieve.

I always considered that there was a fairly reliable metric for measuring how well a system serves the desires of its citizens. That metric being how much the citizenry wants to leave and the extent the system finds necessary to keep them from leaving. The controlling government in Worker's paradises like East Germany (pre-collapse), North Korea, and Cuba do not allow their citizens to leave except under very controlled conditions. Any citizen attempting to leave otherwise would be killed or imprisoned if caught. So far Venezuela hasn't resorted to such extreme measures to retain its population which has resulted in about 10% if its citizenry fleeing already, and more leaving daily.

Personally, I don't even like to enter any country that requires an exit visa to leave though I have had to go to a few because of my work.

That's a shitty metric, because there are many reasons to want to leave a country that have nothing to do with how well the system serves its citizens. The conditions within a country are as much a factor of how that country is treated by the rest of the world as they are reflective of its own governance.

 

[skepticalbip]

I haven't read much about the GDR, so I can't speak about it with any conviction. But it's facile to simply compare the economies of two places as if those are the only constraints operating on them, and just pick the system that makes the most money. Metrics as vague as "the economy of x outperformed y" are nearly always used to obfuscate the material conditions of people living in those places, what pressures they were subjected to externally and internally, and what they were trying to achieve.

I always considered that there was a fairly reliable metric for measuring how well a system serves the desires of its citizens. That metric being how much the citizenry wants to leave and the extent the system finds necessary to keep them from leaving. The controlling government in Worker's paradises like East Germany (pre-collapse), North Korea, and Cuba do not allow their citizens to leave except under very controlled conditions. Any citizen attempting to leave otherwise would be killed or imprisoned if caught. So far Venezuela hasn't resorted to such extreme measures to retain its population which has resulted in about 10% if its citizenry fleeing already, and more leaving daily.

Personally, I don't even like to enter any country that requires an exit visa to leave though I have had to go to a few because of my work.

That's a shitty metric, because there are many reasons to want to leave a country that have nothing to do with how well the system serves its citizens. The conditions within a country are as much a factor of how that country is treated by the rest of the world as they are reflective of its own governance.

That's quite humorous hand-waving bull shit. While there are many reasons that a person may want to leave a country, they can generally be boiled down to dissatisfaction with the country. More telling is that so many want to leave that the government resorts to 'imprisoning' its population by not allowing them freedom to leave and killing or jailing anyone who attempts to leave.

Desirable countries are those that have the problem of too many aliens trying to break into them.

 

[PyramidHead]

That's a shitty metric, because there are many reasons to want to leave a country that have nothing to do with how well the system serves its citizens. The conditions within a country are as much a factor of how that country is treated by the rest of the world as they are reflective of its own governance.

That's quite humorous hand-waving bull shit. While there are many reasons that a person may want to leave a country, they can generally be boiled down to dissatisfaction with the country. More telling is that so many want to leave that the government resorts to 'imprisoning' its population by not allowing them freedom to leave and killing or jailing anyone who attempts to leave.

Desirable countries are those that have the problem of too many aliens trying to break into them.

Like Libya before Gadaffi's overthrow, as compared to after. I agree

 

[Tammuz]

That's a shitty metric, because there are many reasons to want to leave a country that have nothing to do with how well the system serves its citizens. The conditions within a country are as much a factor of how that country is treated by the rest of the world as they are reflective of its own governance.

That's quite humorous hand-waving bull shit. While there are many reasons that a person may want to leave a country, they can generally be boiled down to dissatisfaction with the country. More telling is that so many want to leave that the government resorts to 'imprisoning' its population by not allowing them freedom to leave and killing or jailing anyone who attempts to leave.

Desirable countries are those that have the problem of too many aliens trying to break into them.

Like Libya before Gadaffi's overthrow, as compared to after. I agree

What is a red herring?

 

[steve_bank]

His actions led to mas starvation and anarchy with the Cultural Revolution. In the end he was an ignorant man in way over his head. Blind application of a rigid ideology based on his personality, a personality cult.

As to foreign invaders if it were not for the western allies in the pacific Japan would have held China. Before Pearl Harbor FDR was covertly supplying aid to China before Pearl Harbor. The American Volunteer Group or Flying Tigers provided a crucial delaying actions to the Japanese advance. General Chennault. The Brits. The Australians.

If it were not for the Allies in the Pacific Japan would have held China. Doubt if you see nay of that in Chinese history books.

Mao would have been unable to cope with the changing world. As it was there was a period of regime changes until finally some stability and an opening with the west. The rest is history.

The current Chinese lead4ership is still unable to publically acknowledge the modern reality and is acting in some ways ;lie pre war Japan. Ideology driven to conquest and acquisition in the face of an increasingly cooperative and interdependent industrialized west. Trump being an aberration.