Generally, a person's morality can be defined by his supporters and detractors, even enemies. Mao is generally appreciated by the oppressed and vilified by the establishment and the wishing-to-be establishment, the "sophisticated" and the "liberals". The fact was there were three factors affecting the disastrous outcome of the Great Leap Forward. 1) Program implementation errors 2) Cyclical natural disasters, floods and droughts 3) US embargo The number of deaths would be greatly reduced without the third factor. Death from starvation is very hard to count. Certainly the indiscriminate throwing around of the 30 million figure is more polemic than scientific. At any rate, the damage was from error rather than intent. The same cannot be said about neo-liberal globalization, with which a certain economist active in this debate not only is closely identified and persistently defends. Neo-liberal economics around the world has caused over the decades more deaths through poverty induced malnutrition and pollution than the Great Leap Forward ever did. And the economic genocide is not only still continuing, but being celebrates as the best alternative. We are asked to treat such violent distortive smear of revolutionary heros with civility and humor. That request itself is an act of violence. When a symbol of liberation and struggle is vilified, indignation is natural and justified. Ridicule and forced suppression of such psychological tools of resistance should be recognized as acts of cultural oppression. We are forced to learn to be "good" Indians, "good" Blacks or "good" Chinese, the academic house slave. Such is the stuff of cultural imperialism. Not only should the leaders of the oppressed be eliminated physically, they should be branded evil to remove any possible symbolic value. The oppressed should be left with no icons except uncle toms, tamed scouts and meek compradors working for the Great White Father. I do not post to seek approval from liberal academics. I post most defiantly to express the collective voice of my people. The clumsy taunting from a few declared enemies is of little importance. Henry C.K. Liu "Craven, Jim" wrote: > In my classes, I try to explore the "great personality" theory of history > versus "masses make history" and variants in-between. One thing for sure, is > that any event, any crime, any policy cannot be fully or meaningfully > understood in isolation--without reference to contextual forces, conditions, > imperatives, contraints contradictions etc. This is not to "excuse", but to > understand. > > The Chinese people suffered untold horrors: being carved up like a turkey > and partitioned by "extraterritorial" imperialist powers; being ripped apart > by warlordism and other factions/contradictions exacerbated by imperialist > powers; being threatened repeatedly with nuclear weapons and subjected to > repeated isolation, destabilization, imperialist machinations etc; grotesque > legacies of extreme poverty, drug addiction, mass prostitution, conflicting > national minorities, different languages, shifting centers of power etc; > imperialist-sanctioned/conducted isolation from trade, commerce,,, diplomacy > etc with significant portions of the community of nations; massive > destruction from WWII and after coupled with repeated provocations/attacks > from many fronts: Kuomintang, Japanese Imperialists, American Imperialists > etc; a long history with foreign commodities, "aid", trade, ideas, religions > and machinations used as instruments of penetration, plunder and imperial > control. > > In the context of all of the above and much more not listed, making > revolution, dealing with counter-revolution, pulling up the weeds of > capitalism (what socialism is supposed to be about), dealing with > imperialist encirclement, dealing with massive poverty and destruction etc > is not some parlor exercise and some kind of abstract game for parlor > academic debate. You are dealing with very ugly, very dangerous, very > determined imperial and genocidal forces that can only be dealt with by very > ruthless--often self-damaging--means. Indeed SOME ends do justify--even > demand--SOME means. (My mother used to call "bleeding heart liberals" those > who sit in their parlors and "bleed" with other people's blood). > > I have read the stuff about Mao and young girls and supposedly VD and all of > that. But as I survey what little I know about Mao's life and contributions, > what I see is essentially an honest servant of the Chinese oppressed; a > resolute fighter against fascism and imperialism; someone who made some > unique contributions to the development and application of Marxism and > Leninism > to the concrete conditions of China; someone who was very bright and could > have made millions had he sold out and yet remained relatively poor for his > station and who refused to sell out his core ideals; someone who was > tactically compromising in order to be strategically uncompromising; someone > who said himself that he didn't have all of the answers and who urged the > opposite of the Cult of Personality and who repeatedly write and said that > the masses not great "leaders" are the true makers of history; someone who > had to juggle myriad contradicitions, pressures, contending factions, > national survival imperatives etc. > > Whatever mistakes or even crimes Mao may have committed (I say may because > crime is often a relative thing) should be seen contextually and in balance > with all that he sacrificed and accomplished. In many ways, I would disagree > with Mao for being sometimes too soft. Sometimes he forged alliances with > elements of the national bourgeoisie and petit-bourgeoisie that only in some > theoretical sense could have been objectively progressive, but in a concrete > sense those forces were incapable of doing anything progressive and should > have been seen as such. > > I know among my mother's people, we didn't kill enough missionaries, white > racists, colonizers, developers, BIA types, imperialists etc. that is why > Blackfoot are almost extinct. Blackfoot were simply not ruthless enough and > now they are suffering and almost gone as a People. But whatever Mao did or > didn't do, he was a resolte fighter against fascism who made concrete > contributions--alone and with many other heros--against the forces and evils > of fascism and for some petit-bourgeois scribbler/parlor dilettante who has > obviously never seen or experienced the horrors of fascism, racism or the > horrors the Chinese people faced/face to utter Mao's name to be compared > with Hitler is disgusting, a/anti-historical and typical of the > ultra-rightist filth that passes for/defines bourgeois "scholarship". > > That is my opinion with less invective. > > Jim Craven
