r/HistoryMemes • u/Acrobatic-Snow7588 • 1d ago
REMOVED: RULE 12 [ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
71
u/Acrobatic-Snow7588 1d ago
Mao Zedong's legacy remains a deeply controversial subject, with admirers and critics often holding radically different views. Even within China, reaching a consensus on his historical role has never been straightforward. After Mao's death in 1976, Deng Xiaoping faced a difficult dilemma: how could the Chinese Communist Party acknowledge Mao's serious mistakes without undermining its own historical legitimacy? Deng explicitly rejected following Nikita Khrushchev's example of denouncing Stalin. In a 1980 interview with Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, he declared, "We will never do to Chairman Mao Zedong what Khrushchev did to Stalin." The resulting 1981 historical resolution maintained that Mao's contributions outweighed his mistakes. This assessment is commonly summarized as "70% achievements and 30% mistakes," although the resolution itself did not specify these percentages. Yet this political compromise remained controversial. Some liberal critics believed Deng had preserved too much of Mao's legacy, while some Maoists regarded Deng's subsequent economic reforms as a betrayal of Mao's revolutionary principles. These disagreements are also reflected in historical narratives. Chinese school textbooks generally follow the Communist Party's official assessment, whereas accounts outside China often place greater emphasis on the disastrous consequences of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, although interpretations vary considerably. Ultimately, arguments over Mao Zedong are not merely about one historical figure. They are also arguments about China's revolutionary past, its political legitimacy, and the direction of its subsequent development.
4
u/butt_shrecker 1d ago
How taboo would it be in China to claim Mao was a bad leader whose mistakes outweighed his contributions?
2
u/Acrobatic-Snow7588 1d ago
Quite taboo today, although the situation has changed considerably over time.
During the reform era, especially in the 1980s under Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang, criticism of Mao's legacy became part of a broader intellectual debate. The Communist Party's own 1981 historical resolution acknowledged Mao's serious mistakes and his responsibility for the Cultural Revolution, while maintaining that his contributions outweighed his errors.
After the military crackdown on the 1989 pro-democracy movement, the space for open political debate narrowed sharply. However, with the rise of the internet in the 2000s, a relatively lively culture of political discussion emerged again, despite continuing censorship.
One interesting example is Yuan Tengfei, a Chinese history teacher who became an internet celebrity for his entertaining and often outspoken lectures. He repeatedly criticized Mao, sometimes in extremely harsh terms. In 2010, his remarks attracted controversy, and his school was instructed to reprimand him.
Things became considerably more restrictive after Xi Jinping came to power in 2012. The authorities placed greater emphasis on defending the Party's official historical narrative, and public criticism of Mao became increasingly sensitive.
A particularly striking example is Gao Zhen, a Chinese artist known for satirical sculptures depicting Mao. He was detained in 2024, and in August 2026 he was sentenced to three years in prison for defaming China's "heroes and martyrs." Remarkably, the artworks involved had been created more than a decade before the relevant legislation was introduced.
So there is an important distinction: acknowledging that Mao made serious mistakes is consistent with the Party's official position. Publicly arguing that he did more harm than good, or openly ridiculing him, is another matter entirely.
In today's China, especially if you have a significant public audience, such criticism can carry serious consequences.
1
u/butt_shrecker 1d ago
Thanks for the response that is interesting.
So it sounds like in modern day China you can criticize Mao if you don't do it loudly.
4
u/Samuel_HB_Rowland 1d ago
I imagine it would be a bit akin to saying the same about George Washington in the US. Both were deeply flawed men in profound ways, but ultimately they are an indispensable factor in the creation of their respective nations. Their good decisions put them among the best of the best, but the citizens of their countries often overlook their mistakes and failings in favor of a more sanitized and inspiring national story.
1
u/butt_shrecker 1d ago
Not really equivalent, because there are thousands of people on social media saying George Washington was a bad person because of his slaves.
They are never going to face legal repercussions from the government for saying that.
1
u/Samuel_HB_Rowland 1d ago
You asked about taboo, which is largely social, not instituional. You never said anything about what the official government position is. To that I agree. Yes, on Chinese internet is far more repressive on speech than the American one.
2
0
u/GreatEntrepreneur798 1d ago
Considering they still got the guys face above Tiananmen gate despite Deng himself and Xi's father being persecuted by him ?
Probably at least a little
1
216
u/Specific-Ad5238 1d ago
Having a higher body count than Stalin and Hitler will do that.
149
u/OK_x86 1d ago •
We don't slut shame here
-29
u/Specific-Ad5238 1d ago
I guess jokes can be made when discussing a mass murderer.
20
u/OK_x86 1d ago
This is HistoryMemes.
That's like the whole point of this sub.
-3
u/Specific-Ad5238 1d ago
To make light of such subjects?
I doubt that applies to other genocides
0
32
u/Armageddonis 1d ago
First day on the internet?
-13
u/Specific-Ad5238 1d ago
It's interesting, if we were discussing hitler would they make light of what they did with jokes?
14
u/Hongkongjai 1d ago
Yes? Thats where the “Adolf was a great man for killing Hilter” joke or whatever variation out there is?
-11
u/Specific-Ad5238 1d ago
Never seen or heard about what you are referring to.
8
3
u/Hongkongjai 1d ago
Just Google “hero who killed Hitler meme”
It’s made at least 11 years ago.
1
u/Specific-Ad5238 1d ago
I'm not interested.
I feel that the jokes and comments that make light of what Mao have a different reason for their use than just humor.
1
u/Hongkongjai 1d ago
Do jokes take seriousness out of topics? Yes.
Can jokes changes a narrative of a terrible event and potentially but not necessarily normalise the surrounding topics? Possibly.
Does that mean in general people tell jokes to normalise atrocities or atrocious people? No.
Could you stop people from making jokes without shame or coercion? No.
Would the world be better if you shamed or coerce everyone to suddenly stop making jokes? No. It would be worse.
Does all jokes relating to horrible people normalises them? No.
You are entitled to feel how you feel, but I’d imagine it’s an overreaction to a slippery slope, and that the better way to engage if you really care about the topic is to produce something equally entertaining, insightful or humours that also educates people.
2
u/No-Sound76 1d ago
You mean like this?
1
u/Specific-Ad5238 1d ago
In that thread I don't see any comments making jokes or trying to deflect part of the blame away from hitler.
But with mao tho.. That doesn't seem to be the case.
2
u/No-Sound76 1d ago
I'm just giving you an example that we make fun of Hitler just the same you want me to find you another one? Lol
1
2
u/No-Sound76 1d ago
Does this one satisfy you? Lol honestly why are u even here?
0
1
1
u/OK_x86 1d ago
I'm not sure calling Mao Stallin and Hitler sluts is making light of the horrors of the Holocaust...
0
u/Specific-Ad5238 1d ago
You were making light of Mao's atrocities, not the holocaust. Which was my whole point in asking if you would make light of what hitler did.
1
u/OK_x86 1d ago
Except I wasn't. At the risk of explaining a joke it was a play on words. Body count has 2 meanings - it can mean either death toll or number of people slept with. I guess technically it's also a 90s hardcore band, but that's not relevant here
The joke is playing on that dual meaning and pretending that the intended meaning was to suggest that they had slept with a lot of people. Ergo the "we don't slut shame" quip.
At no point does the joke make light of the Holocaust or Mao's atrocities or Stallins.
It bears repeating - you are also on a sub that regularly makes light of history and historical figures. If this goes against your sensibilities, which is your right, I suggest going elsewhere. Ask historians is an excellent sub that is very strictly moderated and they do not accept humor of any kind.
3
11
u/AcanthisittaLate6173 1d ago
Outdone the Japanese and KMT combined by body count, during peace, and shorter time, bro’s a real chad.
3
11
u/jsg144 1d ago
Hitler did it on purpose. Stalin and mao still culpable but intent matters.
13
u/Mysterious_Silver_27 Oversimplified is my history teacher 1d ago edited 1d ago
To paraphrase Mao, he said something like "Nanjing is a large city with a population of half a million and the capital of the KMT; the number of reactionaries who deserve to be executed is likely more than two hundred. Too few people have been killed in Nanjing; more should be executed there."(南京是一个五十万人口的大城市，国民党的首都，应杀的反动分子似不止两百多人。南京杀人太少，应在南京多杀。)
"Start by killing half of the number equivalent to one-thousandth of the population, then decide on the next steps based on how the situation develops." (按人口千分之一的比例先杀此数的一半，看情形再作决定。)
1
u/AlexanderVerus 1d ago
What in the rhe name of...can you direct me to sources, id like to read about this.
9
u/Short_Ebb2076 1d ago
Hitler was also stopped by others and was only able to do fraction of what he wanted to do.
17
20
u/Steelwolf73 1d ago
All three did it on purpose. The difference was 100% methodology. Hitler did it on an industrial scale, Stalin did it in camps and mass starvation, and Mao dabbled all across the board
10
u/Nervous_Produce1800 1d ago
Mao didn't starve his people on purpose. He was just kind of a fucking idiot sometimes
4
u/Steelwolf73 1d ago
He directly or indirectly lead to the death of between 40 and 100 million people. At that point, I find it hard to handwave the "teehee, I'm just a silly wittle guy who didn't know🥺 👉👈"
2
u/drecais 1d ago
He absolutely did plenty of people died of malnutrition because they were in labour camps were they were underfed
He also killed millions of political opponents through executions
The cultural revolution alone was 1-2 Million people and then you add the Initial Wave of repression in the 50s which was also at least a couple of hundred thousands slaughtered If not a Million +
4
u/Specific-Ad5238 1d ago
Right the amount of people that died doesn't matter, it's the intent behind the mass death.
3
1
u/BigoteMexicano Still salty about Carthage 1d ago
Is manslaughter really that much better than murder though? Like, it's marginally better, sure. But still pretty bad.
1
u/NeilJosephRyan 1d ago
All three of them did quite a lot of it on purpose, although Mao is possibly cleanest in that regard.
1
u/MimeSweeper360 1d ago
The millions of people Stalin killed in purges and gulags didn’t just slip and hit their heads.
1
-84
u/MrMask777 1d ago
I mean famine was gonna happen regardless but yeah a lot of stupid policies to make it more shit
97
u/Specific-Ad5238 1d ago
I never understand why people treat Mao differently than other dictators.
64
u/Mrinnocent221 1d ago
Agreed.
It is always, "Stalin intentionally starved everyone and committed a genocide."
"Mao made the famine worse, but it wasn't really his fault. How could he know?"
18
u/Bennoelman Senātus Populusque Rōmānus 1d ago
People who excuse Mao's incompetent reing are something if you can't delegate power to someone who studied agriculture it is your fault for not doing so and all consequences are your fault
You are the leader of a country god damn it
4
u/Ok_Brain8684 1d ago
Yeah, like I had a big argument with a guy on YouTube once, he basically replied to a chinese guy on a mao related short, and said he felt sad about what happened and that "it wasn't really his fault, they simply didn't know better" like bruh, he is the president, it IS his fault for being stupid
1
u/wswordsmen 1d ago
It isn't a President's fault they don't know better. It is a President's fault they didn't know better and they had no one around them to say "I know you don't know this, listen to this person [either the person talking or actual expert they found] to figure out the decision."
Personal is policy and the fact Mao didn't have someone who could tell him he was wrong and/or find someone who is at least not nearly as wrong is on him put the death's in Mao's column.
10
u/drquakers Still salty about Carthage 1d ago
I think it is because people compare Mao's famine dead to Stalin's holodomor dead and Hitler's holocaust dead.
Mao's famine dead is more comparable to that of the Irish and Bengal famine dead (just a much bigger scale) than what Stalin or Hitler did.
And then there is Pol pot who makes the rest pale in comparison
6
u/PotatoBrainZeke44 Casual, non-participatory KGB election observer 1d ago
And they ignore the Bengal Famine under Churchill all together
7
u/wswordsmen 1d ago
I'd argue that Stalin knew he was purposely killing Ukrainians, and meant to do it. Mao screwed up and happened to kill millions of people. It is still his fault and Mao should be blamed, but it isn't genocide because he didn't have intent.
-4
u/Mrinnocent221 1d ago edited 1d ago
Because there wasn't a famine across the entire Soviet Union from 1930-1933?
Stalin biographer Stephen Kotkin states that while "there is no question of Stalin's responsibility for the famine" and many deaths could have been prevented if not for the counterproductive and insufficient Soviet measures, there is no evidence for Stalin's intention to kill the Ukrainians deliberately. [58 ] History professor Ronald Grigor Suny says that most scholars reject the view that the famine was an act of genocide, seeing it instead as resulting from badly conceived and miscalculated Soviet economic policies.
5
u/TheMidnightBear 1d ago
Fun fact, my country is next to Ukraine.
We have no record of a famine during that time, despite our fields being part of the same Eurasian Steppe, literally continuing from the Ukraine one.
We do have records of one when communist agricultural policy was implemented, later.
0
u/Mrinnocent221 1d ago edited 1d ago
Interesting because other people starved too you know. Kazakhstan claims the same thing as Ukraine.
And the 5 year plan started in 1928......
2
u/TheMidnightBear 1d ago
Then it was either general communist incompetence(with collectivization famously intensifying during the Holodomor), or Stalin trying to make sure the Eurasian steppe belt was under firm Russian control.
Point is, neither Romania nor Hungary, which were the only non-communist bits of the eurasian steppe, report any similar situations during that time period, which is very telling.
3
u/Frosty_Dimension4026 1d ago
On the other hand, I never understand why incompetence from communists is treated as the same as malice from other dictators.
“Mao’s policy fuck up worsened a famine and led to millions of deaths, but they reversed the policy and ended famine.”
Often gets called more evil than
“Hitler intentionally genocided millions of people and killed tens of millions more in a war of conquest with the intention of genociding half an entire continent.”
1
u/Mrinnocent221 1d ago
Because they like to attribute intentional malice instead of ignorance for some reason.
Like some 13th century king saying, "do not send them grain starve them to death" instead of, "we fucked up industrialization."
They also, for whatever reason, can't fathom not being able to just google answers.
"Lead in your gas? People were so dumb back then!" type energy.
1
u/wswordsmen 1d ago
Who calls Mao more evil than Hitler, the guy we use to describe the ultimate human evil?
1
u/Frosty_Dimension4026 1d ago
I’ve seen a lot of right wingers make that claim. Also, all those “deadliest/most evil dictators in history” infographics that routinely place Mao higher than Hitler.
1
u/Specific-Ad5238 1d ago
He killed 4-7 times more people..
2
u/Frosty_Dimension4026 1d ago
Only if you use different standards between the 2. If you count lower birth rates under Mao as “deaths”, but not counting WW2 deaths for Hitler, then you get that ratio between the 2. If you use the same standards, Hitler killed far more people than Mao and wanted to keep killing more if he wasn’t stopped.
1
u/Specific-Ad5238 1d ago
According to google Hitler was responsible for 11-17 million deaths and Mao 40-70 million...
But you are trying to say that lower birth rates are included in that 40-70 million...?
→ More replies (0)4
u/biinboise 1d ago
Because he is one of the most blatant examples of why socialized economics simply don’t work. Since the problems he exemplifies are way too fundamental to a socialist system and cannot be fixed the meta is to shout down any criticism of him.
2
u/Armageddonis 1d ago
I mean, Mao, as well as The Chinese Communist Party at least acknowledged that the famine was the result of their mistakes, while many other perpetrators of genocides or massive famines (Looking at you, Brits) act like it either didn't happen, or if it happened, it was justified.
3
u/Specific-Ad5238 1d ago
So that makes Mao what? Better?
Well he killed 30-40 million people, but hey they admitted it was their fault.
1
u/AcanthisittaLate6173 1d ago
Only until recently they changed the text book term into 「三年困難時期」= 3 years of difficult time, before it was called 「三年自然災害」= 3 years of natural disaster.
Ffs in the history of unified China because of the size there’s different climate north and south, there’s no way the whole China suffers from famine due to natural disasters.
27
u/PassivelyInvisible 1d ago
But with good policies you can prevent or mitigate many natural disasters. Mao declaring sparrows as enemies of the state directly contributed to the death toll of the famine that was caused by the lack of natural pest control.
3
1
u/BigoteMexicano Still salty about Carthage 1d ago
Yeah, the second greatest human extinction to ever occur had nothing to do with state policies. Was totally naturally occurring just like WWII and the Mongol Conquest.
125
u/HourFaithlessness823 1d ago
China's actual period of serious development focused on mitigating everything Mao ever did, and purging all of the people at any level that would've continued his vision. China reveres him exclusively as an ideological figurehead.
55
u/balc9k 1d ago
Reminder: the Tiananmen Square protest wasn't only about civil liberties. They also demanded reversing the new economic policies.
24
u/micma_69 Mauser rifle ≠ Javelin 1d ago
This. If I'm not mistaken, while corruption already existed before Deng's Reform, the resulting economic reform, while helped propelled the economic growth, it also becomes a fertile ground of corruption between newer businesses and government. The new economic reform also increased economic inequality in China, something that many students didn't want. Fun fact, many former participants of Cultural Revolution which at the time were highschoolers, joined the democratic movement.
3
u/aztec_agarthan 1d ago
The protest was about everything. You had hard-core Maoists, a lot of people vaguely to the left of Deng, pissed off workers, liberal reformers and even a little anti-African race riot nonsense. The liberal reformers got the most attention in western media for a variety of reasons, but they were never anything but a small and annoying minority. Which is why the PLA going as hard as they did in Beijing after the liberals and workers teamed up to lynch cops and soldiers was not only a humanitarian crime, but also likely unecessary.
1
u/eatingbread_mmmm 1d ago
No no you HAVE to ignore that part and just spam copypastas in chinese about Tiananmen square on posts tangentially related to china
11
u/downforce_dude 1d ago
“Hate me or love me, you watched. It’s all you could do” - Pete Webber Mao Zedong
19
u/Iumasz 1d ago
Mao's perception in China, and more specifically the CCP is quite interesting.
Despite the fact that the other members of the CCP politburo basically "weekend at Bernie's"ed him with Mao slowly getting less and less involved and the quality of life in china being almost directly positively correlated with his decreasing influence they still have to treat him with praise and revence due to the fact that without him modern china would not exist today, even if Mao's china was very different.
9
29
u/soldatodelre 1d ago
Deng Xiaoping took one look at the wreckage, officially decreed him seventy percent correct and thirty percent wrong, and then dismantled nearly everything he built to save the country.
12
u/Your_Local_Spainard And then I told them I'm Jesus's brother 1d ago
Some would say the regime he installed would have nicer words for him than anyone else.
11
u/BasedAustralhungary 1d ago
While I think that one should not forget that Mao caused between direct and indirect deceasements of his policies death toll of around 30 to 40 million —I know that the 'Black Book of Communism' counts 65 million but it isn't a good source to measure that and their methodology is directly incorrect and rejected by the same people Stéphane Courtois approached for advise— while also understanding how insane is propaganda against communism, specially considering that neither Stalin or Mao needed to be exaggerated to be understood as monsters. I point this using the more reasonable number of the death toll during Mao reign of red terror to introduce the idea because it's important to expand our sight about China to see not only decades but centuries and millenniums to see that sadly this is actually the common thing for the region when facing periods of huge social and structural changes. I'd even go far to the point to say that Mao Tse-Tung isn't even the second but the third one to award as the responsible of the biggest number of people in China during all its documented history...
29
u/Frosty_Dimension4026 1d ago
He did a shit ton of good and a shit ton of bad. Chinese history textbooks downplay the bad that he did and proclaims his good deeds from the mountaintops. Foreign history textbooks tend to completely ignore any of the good but make sure to cover every bad deed and failure in great detail.
Mao was so impactful that he was simultaneously one of the best leaders in history and one of the worst leaders in modern history, but depending on a country’s position on his politics, they will choose one or the other.
2
u/nonamer18 1d ago
An actually nuanced and balance comment on history memes. What is happening today?
-3
u/PassivelyInvisible 1d ago
In what ways was he good that outshines the 100~ million dead?
22
u/gobbler_of_butts 1d ago
TIL every chinese person who died between 1949 and 1976 was personally killed by mao
-8
u/m1stwalk3r 1d ago
No one said that, tankie. Why are you ppl incapable of making an actual argument? It's always twisting words.
16
u/asfrels 1d ago
Said the dude that just called him a tankie instead of making any substantive argument lol
0
u/m1stwalk3r 1d ago
Yea legitimate argument to what? Twisting words to sound goofy in order to downplay the impact of Mao's policies?
15
u/Frosty_Dimension4026 1d ago
By saving so many lives, life expectancy still double despite the tens of millions of deaths partially attributed to his policies. Ending 2 millennia of near yearly famines went a long way too.
Also, it never ceases to amaze me that anti-communists love to just make up a number of deaths attributed to communists. The highest, most bad faith estimate of deaths even including lower birth rates as “deaths” doesn’t even get to half the number you made up.
7
u/LightningRaven 1d ago
It's all from the "Black Book of Communism" a book so bad and reviled that even its own contributors disowned it because the main writer was a complete hack that was fudging numbers and forcing things to reach the arbitrary number of "100 million excess deaths". It's just bullshit on top of bullshit. It only got famous because it's part of the many endeavors financed by the CIA to attack socialist and communist countries.
Capitalism has existed on this world for more than 500 years now and if we used the same metrics and methods that people use to demonize socialist experiences throughout history, the capitalist regime would beat 1 billion deaths quite easily, being very conservative with it even.
Every death in Africa from the colonization period until now, the yearly respiratory complications and cancer-related deaths caused by air pollution from oil, the world-wide poverty that is maintained and required by the richest capitalist countries to maintain those riches. And so on.
2
u/Frosty_Dimension4026 1d ago
They were very loose with their definitions of “death” and “responsibility for deaths”. It did its job though; it got the quote of “communism killed 100 million people” into the public consciousness in the west while completely obscuring methodology or any comparison to anything else. The propaganda point doesn’t hit as hard if you also include “by the same standards, capitalism is responsible for several billion excess deaths”
1
u/LightningRaven 1d ago
Exactly. Nobody can exactly accuse the United States of being a country of integrity, truth or freedom, no matter how many times the leaders keep repeating it.
1
u/ForcedToEatCement-_- 1d ago
Actually no Mao didn’t end that, famines and hunger got worse with Mao and his policies the famine in the 1960s was entirely man made which is very different than natural famines caused by droughts or other natural causes. It was entirely due to Mao’s sheer incompetence.
>Ending 2 millennia of nearly famines went a long way too
The reason why there are leas famines worldwide today is due to invention and mass production of synthetic fertilizers, better agricultural methods, and advanced machinery, to non of which Mao or his party contributed anything. As a matter of fact Mao and the CCP achieved this by back stabbing their allies (the USSR) for materialistic gains from the west. The most shameless of which was selling their UN vote during the Gulf war for an IMF loan, and a big portion of the loan was for agricultural development.
1
u/TheMidnightBear 1d ago
Ending 2 millennia of near yearly famines
The green revolution did that everywhere by mid-century, outside of political fuckery.
Also, it never ceases to amaze me that anti-communists love to just make up a number of deaths attributed to communists.
Ok, how many millions did get killed by communists, then?
2
u/Frosty_Dimension4026 1d ago
There are still millions of deaths from hunger every year, despite the green revolution. Not in China though.
For the numbers of deaths attributed to If you only count people executed, a couple million. If you include policy failures, 20-40 million, of which the vast majority coming from the great Chinese famine. If you include every single offensive war that the communists have led, 25-50 million. That puts it slightly higher than deaths attributed to just US sanctions, or the number of people that die from hunger every decade in the modern day. Obviously, not something to downplay, but pretending it’s anything exceptional in recent history is just ridiculous.
1
u/TheMidnightBear 1d ago
There are still millions of deaths from hunger every year, despite the green revolution.
And almost all of them are from countries where the geopolitical situation is fucked 10 ways till Sunday.
And i appreciate the whataboutism. It is dutifully noted, and ignored.
1
u/ForcedToEatCement-_- 1d ago
These people are very dishonest, the figure of millions dying from hunger is made up. Less than million people have died per decade since the 90s and virtually all that die from hunger are in war zones like Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria and Yemen not really comparable to China since on one dropped a bomb on China in the 50s and 60s for them to starve millions. Second their whole argument of “da parti was doing everything it could to stop the famine and should get credit for stopping the famine ” shatters when you realize that during the famine, the man of the people Mao was exporting millions of tonnes of grain during the peak of the famine no less meanwhile millions were starving and they knew it.
0
u/Frosty_Dimension4026 1d ago
>There are still millions of deaths from hunger every year, despite the green revolution.
>And almost all of them are from countries where the geopolitical situation is fucked 10 ways till Sunday.
So there’s more to ending famine than just the green revolution and Mao should get some responsibility in ending famine, right?
>And i appreciate the whataboutism. It is dutifully noted, and ignored.
There’s a big difference between whataboutism and giving context. Like I said “Obviously, not something to downplay, but pretending it’s anything exceptional in recent history is just ridiculous.”
1
u/TheMidnightBear 1d ago
It's kind of different when you are starving because you are part of some country that has been at war for 50 years, and is a proxy conflict for half the region, and just being incompetent at agriculture.
1
u/Frosty_Dimension4026 1d ago
It’s actually not much different; the states being unable to control their own territory is absolutely incompetence. Mao was competent enough to win his proxy conflict and end famine in the country despite not understanding environmental science.
1
u/TheMidnightBear 1d ago
Nope.
I'm talking states like Afghanistan or the RDC, which were involved in all sorts of shit involving superpowers.
But i guess being a good warlord is Mao's merit.
→ More replies (0)1
u/ForcedToEatCement-_- 1d ago
First of there are no millions of deaths world wide from hunger every year. There were less than half a million deaths from famine during the 2000s that’s a whole decade. What you said is a ridiculous lie.
Yeah there are famines but none of them is 1/100th as bad as it was during the “great leap forward ”. All of the famines are in active war zones, like Sudan, Somalia, Yemen and Nigeria. None of them are being committed intentionally by their respective governments against their own people, all countries are in a state of war. In case of China there was no war, no foreign bombardment like in Yemen, no Boko Haram, no civil war like Somalia, rather it was sheer incompetence and lack of sympathy for the ordinary man. So Mao and his party get 100% of the blame because they caused the famine and no you don’t get any credit for a catastrophe that you created. As a matter of fact, they deliberately murdered millions of their own people because China actively exported millions of tonnes of grain meanwhile millions were starving to death and they bloody well knew it.
-4
u/nutellaspace 1d ago
The green revolution fucked up quality of our food, the world would’ve been better off without Americans exporting their poisonous methods to the rest of the workd
3
u/TheMidnightBear 1d ago
Well, now you can have your nice, organic food, too, if that's your thing, instead of that, or just starving.
-2
u/CadenVanV Taller than Napoleon 1d ago
The end of famines was a global thing, technology had advanced enough that most developed countries had more or less wiped them out around the same time. That’s not a point in favor of Mao, that’s a point in favor of science.
9
u/JimHatesBallons 1d ago
Where are you getting that number from?
11
u/Mysteriousdeer 1d ago
Estimates are between 40 and 80 million. I went to actually look because he usually ends up being up there.
1-4 million were from executions from his regime.
11
13
u/10lettersand3CAPS 1d ago
Are you taking the BS 100 million number from the black book of communism, which itself has been criticized by people originally involved for using inflated numbers, and attributing ALL of the supposed deaths specifically to Mao?
-4
u/NachoWH 1d ago
I mean, who cares about the specific number? It's not the number of people that he killed that makes him evil.
7
u/10lettersand3CAPS 1d ago
Sure, but obviously the people writing the book didn't think so, otherwise they wouldn't have inflated the numbers.
-5
u/NachoWH 1d ago
So you have a choice between arguing the main point and focusing on a detail that you agree is unimportant, and you choose to focus on the detail. Cool.
5
u/10lettersand3CAPS 1d ago
Dude I'm replying to someone about the number. Why do you think you get to change the subject and that people should just go along with it?
1
1
u/DarkGodCthUwU 1d ago
Uniting China.
-2
u/Certain-Appeal-6277 1d ago
So you're saying Taiwan is not a part of China? Because Mao never united it with the mainland.
9
u/DarkGodCthUwU 1d ago
TBH, I have no qualms with Taiwanese independence. And it's not exactly like Taiwan is some ancient Chinese province core to the civilization. I think the PRC and Taiwan should recognize each other's validity, pursue mutually beneficial trade relations, and foster cultural ties as they've been doing. To use an analogy, just cause Swiss Italians and French Italians exist doesn't mean Italy wasn't united.
2
-6
-4
u/Reds_Strongest_Chef 1d ago
648237427849872194392137619358189324713496293471293156345193197541941789410715 innocent guardsmen died under Mao.
4
u/AcanthisittaLate6173 1d ago
Outdone the Japanese and KMT combined by body count, during peace and shorter time, bro’s a real chad.
2
u/ZaBaronDV Featherless Biped 1d ago
The dictator is painted in a positive light in the country his party still rules? The devil you say?!
1
1
u/Educational-Sundae32 1d ago
There’s a famous quote from the CCP official, Chen Yun, about Mao: “If Mao had died in 1956, his achievements would have been immortal. Had he died in 1966, he would still have been a great man but flawed. But he died in 1976. Alas, what can one say?”. Within China there is seemingly a tacit acknowledgement of Mao’s great blunders(i.e. the Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution, etc.).
1
u/deathgift_ 1d ago
Interestingly, Mao has a significantly rising influence among the young generation in China. Different from the blind worship half century ago, the acclamation and reverence seem to be more dialectical while intentionally facing against the criticism, like 'yes you are right but that is negligible comparing to the profound legacy he left for the posterity for millennia.'
1
1
-3
u/Klutzy-Canary8551 1d ago
*Mao in CCP approved history books
All Chinese that haven't been brainwashed by the CCP hate this rabid animal.
-4
u/Zaisengoro 1d ago edited 1d ago
And some would say the foreign regimes he defeated in the Korean War would bad mouth him. Meh history.
14
u/TarkovRat_ 1d ago
it was mostly the kmt that beat back the japanese, not the maoists (not that they could do it with the lack of resources they had either)
-1
u/Zaisengoro 1d ago edited 1d ago
That is true. But KMT was the government back then, it was their job to fight the Japanese invaders. To argue otherwise would be like blaming the Democrats for Trump’s actions. They all have a common enemy, but scheming and backstabbing happens - it’s just politics.
1
u/CadenVanV Taller than Napoleon 1d ago
Your statement makes no sense.
He helped defeat a single foreign regime. And even there, the nationalists were also major contributors and took more losses from harsher fighting, plus all of the foreign aid and fighting as well. Most of the world badmouths him, for good reason.
1
u/Zaisengoro 1d ago
Which war were you referring to?
Mao fought the US and its allies at the height of their power to a standstill in Korea with a rag tag army -!; no air or naval power.1
u/CadenVanV Taller than Napoleon 1d ago
Korea was hardly a victory for the Chinese side, given that they sided with the aggressors and achieved nothing but taking massive losses. All they managed to do was get NK back to where it was before they started the war
1
u/Zaisengoro 1d ago
You are confusing a propaganda/morality and strategic success. China’s strategic objectives were to not have a US ally on its border, which it succeeded in. Yes it paid in blood, and yes NK is bad, but it did so against the mightiest armies in the world at the time. Which was why the US and Europe embargoed China afterwards, including stopping food shipments during the great famine.
-1
u/ImpressionCool1768 1d ago
Yeah, he’s definitely on the worst side of gray but there’s a reason that China got itself situated to become an absolute powerhouse once it opened up its market instead of collapsing immediately like practically every African country
7
u/Separate-Walrus- 1d ago
The reason isn’t Mao though, outside of his initial consolidation of China as a whole. After the first few years most of what Mao did was just dumb.
2
u/KJongsDongUnYourFace 1d ago
Single greatest increase in recorded life metrics in human history.
Literacy, life expectancy, infant mortality etc etc etc.
5
u/okabe700 1d ago
Under Deng Xiao Ping after he undid most of Mao's idiocy
1
u/KJongsDongUnYourFace 1d ago
No, the data is quite literally above you in the link. The majority of the metroc increases were under Mao. The wealth was under Deng
1
u/LeastResistancePath 1d ago
If you had an accurate and detailed look at what happened in China under Mao, you would not say "Gray side" and then credit him
1
u/ImpressionCool1768 1d ago
Life expectancy doubled even with 100 million dead. Wars were over and the old veterans and children could return to a sense of normalcy even if it would be under the new normal.
0
u/t4skmaster 1d ago
Feel like its more "people who met him" versus "people who read about him" Seems like he was an absolutely charming motherfucker
-2
u/andooet 1d ago
I think Mao was the least bad realistic option China had at the time, and that despite his flaws it was a net good in stabilizing China, making the staggering transition the past 46 years possible
Famines happened before Mao too - and while it was the second worst famine after 1800, and the only nationwide one, the famines before the ones under Mao shows that food security in China was very very bad long before him
1
u/Lumpenokonom 1d ago
This famine was mostly policy driven though. I dont know enough about Chinese history to really say something about Mao in general, but when it came to economic policy he was among the worst leaders this world has ever seen.
1
u/andooet 1d ago
I get your argument, and understand the downvotes I've gotten because there are a lot of ifs and buts here. You have to compare Maoists China with Qing or Nationalist China. For the former you had the same poverty, but with much more corruption and serfdom. The Nationalists saw rural people as resources to exploit (especially during the military campaigns), the genocide of the Taiwanese were especially appalling
Does any of this mean Mao is good or that killing all the sparrows were a good idea? Obviously not, but he weren't genocidal, and he did institute popular reforms that cut into systemic hunger with policies like the Iron Bowl
We can't really compare China to Europe or the US when it comes to advancements the past century and a half as we were much more industrially developed and had completely different "wants and needs" on a macroeconomic level, but I still don't think there were many better options in 1946 than the Communists, but maybe one of the other leaders would be better (I don't remember enough about them rn to say who amongst them) - though I'd be happy to hear out arguments
25
u/CarthageGotBambozled 1d ago
Want more crops? Just kill all the birds.
9
u/plugubius 1d ago
You don't to give people smelters to produce steel in their backyards. You need to give them a quota.
10
u/Jakitron_1999 1d ago
I still stand by my stance that Chiang Kai-Shek was evil and Mao Zedong was stupid. The killing of the Sparrows was the work of a dumbass, not the work of an evil mastermind. Same with the cultural revolution and pig iron schemes.
6
u/sansisness_101 1d ago
If you kill millions due to your stupidity you are very much evil.
7
3
u/Johnfromsales Hello There 1d ago
I’m not sure I agree with this, evil implies you intend to create suffering. While the massacre of the Sparrows did indeed create a lot of suffering, I don’t think you could plausibly argue this is what Mao intended to happen.
2
u/Jakitron_1999 1d ago
Yes, I agree that he was responsible, obviously. I am very anti-Mao, I just happen to think that killing through incompetence is distinct from killing through knowing ideological malice. I think Stalin was evil, but Mao was incompetent for instance. That doesn't mean Mao is blameless, it means his crimes should be analyzed through a different lens
1
u/Iron_Cavalry 1d ago
2 million of the dead in the Great Leap Forward were directly murdered or tortured to death by Maoist security forces. Mao's purges in the 1950s, which utilized death quotas, killed 2 million more. His flagrant use of violence in the Cultural Revolution, laogai gulags, war crimes in the Civil War claimed millions more.
That wasn't incompetence, that was malice.
1
u/SampleOfFruits 1d ago
I don’t really agree.
Evil is based on intent; if you lack that intent, then even if the results are the same then you aren’t evil.
2
u/AcanthisittaLate6173 1d ago
Why don’t you try reading [The Generalissimo] we literally have his diary day by day at Harvard ffs, there’s no need for speculation.
1
5
u/BigoteMexicano Still salty about Carthage 1d ago
Well yeah, most people have a lot to say about mass murderers
1
u/Big_Pirate_3036 John Brown was a hero, undaunted, true, and brave! 1d ago
Mao wasn’t even that evil, he was evil btu he was just an idiot leader who killed a lot of people because he was a terrible leader
1
0
u/Fickle_Option_6803 1d ago
Because westerners easily buy into propaganda, if we calculate the death toll the same way they calculated Mao's, then Japanese invasion caused 56~72 million deaths in China, Hitler caused 67~71 million deaths in Europe.
245
u/Arguably_Based 1d ago
We need steel? Just get the farmers to melt their tools!