> Contrary hot take. PRC post WW2 traded lives for progress was net good for long-term outcomes.
"You have to break a few eggs to make an omelette."
"One death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic."
"By all means necessary."
"The ends justify the means."
Disgusting.
Yes, but effective. Manifest some destiny. Future generations reap reward. All of sudden it's 5% bad and 95% good. Maybe 10% bad and 90% good during periods of introspection. The sins of founding father(s) are easy to cleanse.
Agenda driven Mao books don't highlight how Great Leap Foreward and Cultural Revolution both indispensible net good for PRC state building by actual relevant metrics. In 1980s Worldbank summary of PRC progress from post WW2 to 1970s (significantly overlapping Mao's reign) concluded relative to low-income peers PRC was significantly more industrialized - national production share 35/40/25 in agriculture/industry/services vs 40/25/40 average in low income bracket. 40 industrial share around middle income levels, supported via higher per capita energy consumption i.e. 3x India). State provided services were also assessed to be far more effective in meeting basic needs vs low income counterparts, with life expectancy in mid ~65 vs 50 for low income. PRC's 65, was again high end of middle income despite being PRC growing from low income. That's +10 bonus years x 900M lives. WB remark was "outstandingly high" and PRC's "most remarkable achievement during the past three decades". Meanwhile Mao bios: he slept with teens, GLF, CR bad. Mao trading lives in the 50s to front load industrialization/workforce development, and then drag masses into modernity by beating out the 4 olds was excessively executed, but not wrong. Right enough that it's better to be overzealous than conservative/not at all. Again, see India. The ledger on Mao doing net good is pretty clear to me - significantly more good than most other leaders who nation build in other low income countries fraction the size of PRC with better starting and operating conditions. Maybe Mao's an unrepentant psychopath, but nobel prizes have given to people whose done less.
IMO Mao is "successful" BECAUSE he's a psychopath. Like he's not a great statesmen - a great statesment would still want to industrialize and normalize culture like Mao, but they'd opt for the peaceful, 50+ year marathon. It takes a psychopath to think, naw, we'll sprint it in half and deal with the bodies. And use that psychopath energy to new regime in line to execute vision. Utlimately, it worked out, and ironically why he's bad statesmen = great founder.
These books are not "agenda driven" but honest and compelling historiography of the account of Mao's life. You have not even read them so how would you know that they are biased in anyway? Tell me, what is a book that is not "Agenda driven" that you would recommend then?
You are engaging in a very weak line of argumentation. The Great Leap Forward was a failed disaster. It was not planned with any intelligence in mind and without understanding of economics. Collectivized industries, but especially farming failed. Mao was not a economist and did not organize labor accordingly. Setting up backyard furnaces caused massive famines. He pathetic policies lead to not just starving to death of millions of Chinese peasants but rape, torture and cannibalism in the countryside. The Cultural Revolution was him attempting to save face and purge top brass from pointing out his stupid failed policies. Collectivized farming produced weak-incentive structures for productive farms. The most productive farms were those where the most productive workers were allowed to reap rewards from their efforts. Deng Xiaoping, an actual great man, knew this and set China up for success. In fact Xiaoping is infinitely better a person in just about every way than the genocidal, psychotic dullard that was Mao.
In fact, if you're looking to champion a Chinese leader, Deng Xiaoping is your man. China only started befitting from authoritarian rule once they got an actual smart person that knew what they were doing. He was great because he was able to release his grip and let China adopt more liberal-market reforms. It was only then that China started seeing economic growth.
Mao was not great because he was a psychopath. He was just a psychopath. He was a net loss for humanity and the Chinese people. His death was the greatest thing that happened for China.
I understand Maos historiography and drama around it fine. Read many Mao bios, data simply stacks against them, and hence your argumentation. Mao bad, Deng good meme is peak misunderstanding from evaluating from such broken frame. Go read something useful like World Bank China report on Socialist Economic Development Vol1 1983. Again, Mao massively overdelivered relative to peers with same/better/easier starting conditions. That comes from overall intelligent planning. Any argument that gets lost in moralism and fixating on minutae of some bad policy that in aggregate DRAMATICALLY out preformed against expectations is so weak to as be "not even wrong". Deng's hard work was contingent on Mao doing the even harder work. Deng is only great, because he had Mao's base to build from. PRC compound overperforming under Deng due to base effect of PRC under Mao ALDREADY overperforming. Also comparing a psychopath running largest country in the world for decades to rando "just a psychopath" is frankly absurd. Data on Mao being net good for PRC is as clear as it gets, fiddling kids, the purges and killings are small demerits relative to Mao's reign.
Apparently you do not understand Mao that well. You admitted that you don't read books about him because the authors supposed have an agenda. And supposed all biographers of Mao share this agenda? I have read one, remember? I listed one you said it was not reliable. Name a book I can read. Do it. Stop playing the "selective historiography" card you keep playing. Pick a book you think provides an honest account of this failed statesmen.
Please link the "World Bank China report on Socialist Economic Development Vol1 1983" so I can read it then.
"Mao massively overdelivered relative to peers with same/better/easier starting conditions" This is laughably wrong I don't even know where to start. I'm starting to think you will keep making excuses for this wreck of a man no matter what. He's responsible for more deaths than Hitler and somehow you worship the man. Again, what changes to the economy did he make that explains your line: "PRC compound overperforming under Deng due to base effect of PRC under Mao"
"Deng good meme is peak misunderstanding" Very weak argument. Calling something a meme does not dismiss it. Actually cite evidence.
"Deng's hard work was contingent on Mao doing the even harder work" I can't believe someone believes this. Again, cite evidence.
Deng was responsible for making market reforms that did not exist under Mao. Do you understand that? Are you claiming he did not do that? What is your argument. Besides dismissing Deng so easily, you have not provided any substantive argument against Deng being superior.
Are you just some Mao fanboy? Because if you are, then I am wasting my time. Ostensibly, you will not listen to reason since you are too busy worshiping a genocidal psychopath.
"small demerits" Lol. Tell me, what is a big demerit then? Is killing millions of Jews also a "small demerit?"
In the interest of fairness, I will naturally cite any provide for any argument I have argued here WITH evidence, something you have failed to do. Let me know so I can provide it and put this sorry discussion to rest.
I said owning slaves and other vices don't matter much. I'm not disagreeing that personal vices are bad/net negative. I'm asserting they aren't weighed significantly when assessing significant historic leadership performance.
And lol where did I say I didn't read mao bios. Literally said "read many Mao bios". I'm familiar / read with many. They're simply bad narratives in light of data. Fact that you don't know WB report while latching on the "one" book you've read is reflection on poor understanding of subject matter. Go dig it up WB report at your reference library. I've quoted actual credible data on Mao's performance, which again are pre Deng indicators where under Mao policies in aggregate massively out performs relevant peers. With actual numbers in reply that you pretend do not exist. I've explicitly highlighted level of industrialization and life expectancy. Again, pre Deng because I know how time works.
Deng's market reforms not possible without Mao's industrial/cultural reforms. Without Mao whipping up industrial base first and people into common national identity Deng would not have appropriate human capita to harness. They build off each other. Their policies work in tandem, not one superior to other. That's the argument that Mao bad Deng good memes miss. See India who couldn't violently reform traditions spinning wheels while PRC exploded. Or most other developing countries stuck in internecine nightmares because leadership couldn't do hard things to jump start conditions for growth.
And yes killing fuckload of people is pretty much small demerit with respect to human history, especially China's. Big demerit is Mao losing Mongolia. Stuff that reverberates throughout time, not fungible bodies replaced within a generation.
And no, not Mao fanboy. Just someone actually familiar with PRC development history and agrees with 30/70 assessment. Learn to read better and find data, i.e. actual economic / HDI indicators of appropriate time period to show Mao's PRC underperformed relative to peers and we'll talk.
>So what you’re saying is, India is badly in need of a cultural revolution?
Maybe 50/60 years ago post partition. But too late now, IMO India system finally built up some momentum + favourable external conditions while starting very precarious transition period. IN trending towards 1.7B medium term with weaker state capacity than PRC dealing with 2/3 that amount. 1/3 of PRC household still medium income developing poor. Worst thing they can do is try massive restructuring that reduces state capacity further, they're best course is to be doomed to continue muddle along which at India scale might still mean great things for fraction of population. Unfortunately, my guess is that means 40%+ of workforce trapped in subsistence farming and weak female labour participation bordering on repressive Islamic country level. Too much people = demographic curse, India likely not going to maintain growth to keep up with even new (male) job demand, will get old before rich, basically the worst case scenario for PRC demographers that slammed through family planning / one child policy. On the other hand 1/3 of India doing well + geography makes her a formidable power.
E: One useful socially disruptive thing India can do is massively incentivize inter cast marriages to demolish cast within a couple generations. Basically open limited pool of tier1 / high income opportunities to more candidates and select for the best. Also prevent brain drain.
Deng Xiaoping regeared the nation apparatus toward a non-antagonistic way in the "hide your strenght, bide your time fashion", kicking the economic boom.
Obviously the chinese top-down approach is showing its shortcomings with the impendent economic & demographic collapse.
India is already at a sustainable demographics growth, only its (muslim) minorities are prospected to grow at unsustainable rates
>PRC collapse
Still top performing economy in it's class, enviable growth in real terms while moving up value chain. Meanwhile US labels PRC most serious systemtic competitor with capability to displace, while pouring inordinate resourses and adopting PRC style industrial/tech policies to compete. That suggest it's showing it's strength more than ever. Imitation most sincere form of flattery
>demographic collapse ... >India
PRC is in process of exploiting THE greatest high skilled demographic divident in human history. The kind of divident actually involved in building advanced power. Like of all areas CCP top down approach is showing it's strength, it's demographic planning. Reduced birth rate higher than expected but the TLDR is PRC demographers did rub their 2 brain cells together when projecting family planning in 50 years ago and right now PRC is in roughly on course in terms of predicted development phase -> fear get too old before getting rich with too much people, limit births, peasant parents have mobility to work in factories, concentrate wealth to educate/upskill 1-2 kids, educated generation move up value chain.
India is not at sustainable demographic growth. India is trending toward basically the NIGHTMARE scenario that made PRC implement family planning in the first place. PRC system with much more state capacity than India wanted less people because it knew uplifting 1B+ was going to be monumental / impossible task. PRC still dealing with 500M (skew old and resigned) people that got left behind with 5x GDP per capita, with high savings and home ownership rate. India is going to end up twice+ as much unproductive workforce (skew young and rebellious) with fraction of state resources/power to support. Demographics is more than pyramid and TFR. Like the only benefit of Indian population is they're vegetarian (because that's what prolonged poverty ingrains in culture) which is good for food security.
>worse outcomes long-term
Contrary hot take. PRC post WW2 traded lives for progress was net good for long-term outcomes. Mao was bad statesman for right goals, he was excessive and did the hard things sometimes poorly, but it was important to do them none the less. The great leap forward killed millions, but ensured PRC also had the highest industrial capacity amongst developing peers after. Cultural revolution broke traditional social structures = 90%+ unified polity, speaking one language. Purging intelligentsia also overkill, but still had STEM priorities right, both nukes + first satellite developed in this era. In aggregate, disruptions setup/enabled PRC to exploit mass modernization efforts, established industrial base, and plenty of fungible bodies within a few generations instead of century+. Add oil on cramming developement atrocities to develop. Incidentally this is why pluralism of India and old practices (caste) etc is holding up development, India systemically couldn't destroy to renew, now it’s dragged down by the baggage causing 100s of millions of avoidable deaths and even more bodies with stunted development - a few decades of prolonged developing world infant mortality and food insecurity adds up. Treating human capital as actual capital is not nice, but it's effective.
Hard to say if this was actually his thinking at the time, but he's also known for declaring: "I’m not afraid of nuclear war ... China has a population of 600 million; even if half of them are killed, there are still 300 million people left."