Pictures

Mao Zedong’s 12 Time Magazine Covers

by on Monday, January 11, 2010 177 comments

Last month, we reported an internet post about Chiang Kai-Shek’s 10 Time Magazine Covers. Now, NetEase has a special feature titled: “Mao Zedong appeared on the cover of Time 12x”. I have included links to the contents of each issue of Time magazine that is shown here. Mao Zedong learned tyranny as a boy?

Time Magazine – February 7, 1949 – “The Communist Boss learned tyranny as a boy.”

Time Magazine – December 11, 1950 – “New war, old warlord.”

Time Magazine – December 1, 1958 – “Let China sleep. When she awakens, the world will be sorry. — Napoleon”

Time Magazine – August 8, 1960 – “Communism’s Western Beachead”

Time Magazine – November 30, 1962 – “India’s Lost Illusions”

Time Magazine – September 13, 1963 – “Red China: The Arrogant Outcast”

Time Magazine – January 13, 1967 – “China In Chaos”

Time Magazine – June 13, 1969 – “Communist Summit: Trying To Pick Up The Pieces”

Time Magazine – March 6, 1972 – “Nixon’s China Odyssey”

Time Magazine – September 20, 1976 – “After Mao”

Time Magazine – March 21, 1977 – “Mao’s Wife Tells Her Story: From Actress to Empress”

Time Magazine – June 27, 2005 – “China’s New Revolution: Remaking our world, one deal at a time.”

Comments from NetEase:

网易浙江宁波网友:

The people’s leader, the people’s love. Mao Zedong was truly a theorist, strategist, and thinker. But even immortals make mistakes sometimes, much less humans, but what who is as selfless and fearless a leader as he was in today’s China?

网易陕西西安网友:

The People’s Chairman loves the People, and the Chairman’s People love the Chairman. The Chinese nation only produces one national son like the Chairman every one thousand years. Like everyone, presently bitterly struggling in society, tiny and angry. But it cannot be denied that without the Chairman, we wouldn’t even have the tiny opportunities. Everyone can go take a look at the present Taiwan, do they live on this planet with national pride/honor/dignity? Without the Chairman, how would we dare yell towards England: If you had the balls, let’s have another Opium War? Who gave you these guts??? It was the Chairman. The intention of the Great Revolution [Cultural Revolution] the Chairman started was good, only he was too idealistic and it was made a mess by the people below him.  Take a look at the present embezzlement and corruption, the stratified society, and you will know why the Chairman had to start the Great Revolution. With any gain there is loss,  and I believe the souls of those people who were suppressed/cracked down upon as a result of the Great Revolution would understand/be forgiving. The only thing I don’t understand are these SBs who appear are highly-educated/cultured and appear to make well-reasoned comments. You guys should truly be ashamed. ///Sons would not call their mothers ugly.///

网易浙江杭州网友:

At least when he was around, no one could bully us like this!

网易北京网友:

We must look at a person in his entirety, as those from different positions with different perspectives will have different results. This is the impression of his opponents, and it can be seen how much those who were defeated by him feared him, so for him being drawn a bit uglier, a bit eviler, can be understood. Just like little children writing this or that on the walls, it is the same idea. No one is perfect, but as for whether he did more good or bad for the entire country helped or hurt, he definitely did far more good. This is also a unanimous understanding after the Cultural Revolution. As to private or public, this is unimportant. His self-reliance is something that must be inherited [learned from]. Such a large country should have some stuff to call its own, whether it is its own spirit, its own technology, or its own system.

网易四川网友:

Mao Zedong used 20 some years to create a new country, tearing up all of the unfair treaties, removed all of the leases, and helped American and United Nation military forces taste their one and only failure, declared the only “long live the People” in China’s history, the only national leader to have given the youth and students unlimited powers, and most importantly, he liberated the entire country’s peasants and workers.

网易北京网友:

To you I express sympathy.

网易欧洲网友:

What is there to be proud of with 12 times [on the cover of Time]? Upon being hung up at Tiananmen Square, he’s been there for decades.

网易北京网友:

TMD Time Magazine, how did they make our Grandpa Mao look so ugly? Slander, pure slander!

网易广东广州网友:

Being able to curse England, curse America, curse this, curse that, what does this all tell us? It tells us that society has improved, and we should learn to be thankful.

网易江苏徐州网友:

Mao Zedong was definitely a great man, but he wasn’t without mistakes.

网易广东佛山网友:

Chairman Mao was very great. Without him, Chinese people would still not have been able to stand up.

网易辽宁本溪网友:

History is a a mirror, it can show us ugly things that happened as well as the beautiful present and future.

It was difficult to find strongly critical comments in this post. Although many Chinese like Mao Zedong, this is still a little unusual. I suspect it is because NetEase knows this can be a sensitive topic and actively harmonized the comments to avoid trouble.

Time Magazine – November 30, 1962 – “India’s Lost Illusions”

Share This Article

177 Comments

  • Some HTML can be used to format your comment.
  • Add a picture to your comments with Gravatar.
  • Our Comment Policy.
  1. yang
    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 7:14 pm

    I like Louis Vuitton Mao.

    Reply
  2. ZerostarLouhu
    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 7:18 pm

    the red sun at the center of my heart

    Reply
  3. Ranger_Lost_in_Mordor
    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 7:28 pm

    Mao:The Untold Truth

    Reply
    • Hongjian
      Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 12:30 am

      I’ve read that book.

      First I thought it’s nice and all, but then, when she ripped through the military history-part, I realized that the author made shit up to spread her crybaby-propaganda.
      She should have included an ad for the ‘nine-commentaries of the communist party’ at the end of the book. And maybe a ticket for a free Falun-Gong meditation/brainwashing/druggie session as bonus.

      Oh, and dont forget a coupon for a free Tibet-flag at your nearest Wal-Mart.

      Reply
      • incidental-witness
        Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 12:16 pm

        Brain washing? You mean you have read those books you mentioned and picked out the brain washing sessions? Or just saying it because that’s what’s the commies newspaper told you.

        Under Mao, there are more Chinese deaths during “peaceful time” then both the WW1 and WW2 combined. Thanks, but no thanks.

        Reply
      • kedafu
        Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 4:42 pm

        Mao:The Untold Truth Jon Halliday,

        Mao A life: Phillip Short, (read that one in Chinese)

        The Private Life of Chairman Mao, Li Zhisui his personal doctor

        not to forget the little red bible written for him, by Lin Biao another classic…

        great books, if you want to know about the Man in Red

        that other commentary,

        best not to mention that here,

        we dont want to be “actively harmonized”

        Reply
      • Ranger_lost_in_Mordor
        Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 7:39 pm

        Congratulations, Hongjian. You have won your 50 cents replying my comment today. Keep going, you are on the way to be a mighty truculent glorifying 50 cents director. Drop me a line when you get there, will ya ?!

        Reply
    • ST
      Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 2:18 am

      I am not familiar with that book but I did read “The Private Life of Chairman Mao” and found it to be interesting. I don’t know how much was true and how much came from author Li Zhisui’s imagination but it was enlightening nonetheless.

      Reply
  4. VeerLeft
    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 7:38 pm

    Wow… the people that have no recollection of the era in question should have more circumspect opinions. This is like a 25 year old German talking about how great Hitler was…’because he made the Germans important again’. The man was among things a far greater killer of CHINESE than the entire Japanese Army, Ghenghis Khans Army or any other foreign.
    A peasant megalomaniac of the highest order. In an era of weakness there was of course a power gap that needed filling and as usual, Communism filled it.

    Reply
    • G
      Monday, January 11, 2010 at 11:14 pm

      In my view, such insane tyrant as Hitler ,is also pushing history ahead ..He and the Second world war just let those Europe countries be aware of an simple fact: stand each other or the industrialize war will ruin all.People only learn lesson from what they suffered.Such lessons cost expensively,but it make effect:for all these six decades,nobody ever want way again in Europe.In history it is not like this .Do they suddenly love each other? Of cause not.
      Hitler do start the war, but he is just happen to be there and Pulled the trigger.The long collision and hate are the powder.since the powder is there ,it will sooner or later explode if people are busy make more power.

      Reply
    • LOLZ
      Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 12:20 am

      I am no fan of Mao but I don’t get the whole “he killed millions of Chinese” logic. For one, his intention was not to kill the Chinese people, but rather to transform China’s agricultural landscape. The millions of Chinese people died from famine were as the result of both natural drought and bad domestic policies. To say that’s the same as the result from foreign invasions is silly.

      By applying your logic you can say that GWBush or the head of the Army Engineers killed a thousand people during Katrina. Or that the capitalism killed the three thousand people during 9/11.

      Reply
      • ralphrepo
        Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 2:08 am

        Mao may not have killed millions of Chinese directly, but it was his direct, personal and unyielding control of national policy, lack of technical grasp, and fostering of a background of political fear that then directly resulted in the famine that killed millions (some say 5 million, others claim 50 million, but I’m not quibbling; lets just say he caused the deaths of a lot of Chinese). Further, this effort to transform China’s agrarian culture wasn’t for the benefit of the masses; he did this primarily for personal political aggrandizement. But when the plan fell flat, he immediately looked for scapegoats to lay blame and set about to murderously silence his critics (Hundred Flowers Campaign). When that didn’t go far enough, he instituted the Cultural Revolution to further dispose of not only enemies but anyone smart enough to question his assertions (Pol Pot used a similar strategy rationale in Cambodia). He did this purely to reassert political and personal control on the nation. Inotherwords, he didn’t rule China for for the benefit of China, he ruled China for the benefit of himself. The terminology may be different, but Chairman Mao behaved more so like “Emperor” Mao. If you dropped his Curriculum Vitae and Modus Operandi into the imperial history stream, he looks remarkably similar to many previous despotic Chinese rulers.

        Strikingly, China didn’t begin its rise in the world economy until AFTER his death. This alone bespeaks volumes. By locking China away, he actually prevented several generations of post war progress and advancement (which then took place alternatively in other Asian nations like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, HK) that could have easily been had by the Chinese populace which had a tremendous manpower base sitting idled. So he not only harmed China with the Great Leap Forward (starving them to death), he stifled China by his intransigent insistence on “self reliance” and refusal to trade with the west (which BTW is the same failed policy still in effect in the DPRK toda). This closed door policy effectly ensured that the Chinese populace had no real opportunity for gainful employment.

        But, the fact of the matter is, similar to how the Japanese are not yet willing to face up to and villify emperor Hirohito for his involvment in the start of the Showa war (WW2), many Chinese remain prey to Mao’s propaganda, insisting that he was a good thing for China. He wasn’t, not by a long shot. IMHO, he’s in the same class as Hitler and Stalin.

        Reply
        • LOLZ
          Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 2:34 am

          You can spare me the talk about how bad Mao is. My parents were pulled from Fudan University during the Cultural Revolution and had to become farmers for a decade. Many Chinese from what is equivalent of the baby boomers generation do not have fond memories of Mao.

          But my question still stands: How do you equate someone whose policies were not meant to kill, with people like Hitler whose policies were to kill? Intent plays a huge factor in deciding a crime in just about every country. In the US you are talking about charge of negligence vs. murder. To imply that they are the same is disingenuous at best.

          The Japanese not standing up to vilify their emperor also has a subplot; under McAuthor the US did not want to vilify the Hirohito in exchange for his cooperation with the American force occupying Japan after WWII. Unlike what they did with Iraq, Americans at that time actually understood the danger of power vacuum shortly after foreign occupation. The criticisms of the emperor and his role in WWII were muted not only by the Japanese but also the Americans. The result was that Americans and their influence were a lot better accepted in Japan.

          Reply
          • ralphrepo
            Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 9:27 am

            Yes, I too, have friends and relations that suffered immensely during that period of self induced national madness. I also understand your point about murder versus negligence; however, please consider that there are some behaviors that are classified as “criminally” negligent.

            This is from wiki:

            “In the criminal law, criminal negligence is one of the three general classes of mens rea (Latin for “guilty mind”) element required to constitute a conventional as opposed to strict liability offense. It is defined[by whom?] as:

            careless, inattentive, neglectful, willfully blind, or in the case of gross negligence what would have been reckless in any other defendant…”

            Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_negligence

            Mao just didn’t care about the lives of others, even knowing that many people would die. In another quote:

            “In Hungry Ghosts, Jasper Becker notes that Mao was dismissive of reports he received of food shortages in the countryside and refused to change course, believing that peasants were lying and that rightists and kulaks were hoarding grain. He refused to open state granaries, and instead launched a series of “anti-grain concealment” drives that resulted in numerous purges and suicides. Other violent campaigns followed in which party leaders went from village to village in search of hidden food reserves, and not only grain, as Mao issued quotas for pigs, chickens, ducks and eggs. Many peasants accused of hiding food were tortured and beaten to death.”

            Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong#Great_Leap_Forward

            So was this purely innocent (gee whiz, I had no idea…) negligence or did it rise to one of a criminal nature (yeah, but who cares about a few lousy peasants; I know they’re holding out on me so they get what they deserve…)? I think it was more so the latter, as any reasonable man would have easily foreseen the outcome. As a matter of history, reasonable men, did try to warn Mao. He just didn’t want to listen. Is it still so “disingenuous” to classify him in the same league as Hitler? I think he fits there rather like a hand into a glove.

            I also agree that there were unique US contributions and complicity for Japanese failure to recognize the misdeeds of their emperor. This was especially so in the war crimes trial, where Tojo (who had plenty of guilt himself) essentially became the fall guy for Hirohito. I concur that it was American post war political expedience that fostered a present day Japanese culture of denial.

            However, the denial used in Mao’s treatment is rather different, as he is almost a cult figure because of Chinese national inability to seriously look at their history. This IMHO, remains because many historically sensitive issues could be damning to the CCP of today. Despite China (Deng) having to quietly undo generations of Mao’s policies that crippled China, there is almost no desire for any in depth look or review of Mao within China itself, other than to say that he was a “Great Helmsman.” Inotherwords, while the Japanese can lay blame on the Americans for the historical blinders, we Chinese can only blame ourselves.

          • tway
            Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 12:49 pm

            The difference between Hitler and Mao is the difference between 1st degree murder and manslaughter (still a seriously punishable OFFENCE). Though maybe not quite as bad as Hitler in intention, Mao’s actions directly resulted in the deaths of Millions of Chinese. I think that for me the goal is not to villainize Mao as much as to de-deify him in China’s eyes.

        • akbar lo
          Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 7:53 am

          and most russians still think of stalin highly.

          Reply
    • Comrade Kim
      Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 4:01 pm

      Bullshit – there’s far more enthusiasm for Mao among the older generation who lived through those days than there is among young urbanites. You might have seen the old folks gathering in the parks to sing revolutionary songs or the cabbies with Mao medallions hung off their rear-view mirror.

      Reply
  5. VeerLeft
    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 7:49 pm

    The Rise in living standards that are enjoyed by many in this country are due to DENG undoing much of Mao’s lunacy. I’d say that the KMT would have been a much faster route to prosperity.

    Reply
    • G
      Monday, January 11, 2010 at 10:55 pm

      You have gain benifit from Deng’s reformation,so you sing for Deng,and many other chinese people today,but as you happily enjoy your “achievement” you never consider Deng’s active send seeds of today’s seriously corrupt and incompetent ,promise today’s extre inbalance between rich and poor ,the huge unfair of common people and aristocrat.
      Yes ,you may sing for your “achievement ” while others are suffering .

      I

      Reply
    • LOLZ
      Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 12:27 am

      “I’d say that the KMT would have been a much faster route to prosperity.”

      KMT after WWII was just as ruthless as the Communists under Mao. The first thing they did when they arrive Taiwan was to squash the locals.

      There are three reasons why KMT did well with Taiwan 1)It had US support financially and militarily 2)KMT stole a lot of money from China when they left for Taiwan 3)it’s a lot easier to manage a nation of 20 million people than 1.5 billion.

      Reply
      • bleah
        Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 3:07 am

        3)it’s a lot easier to manage a nation of 20 million people than 1.5 billion.

        This calls for divide et impera, ie. a federal state like the USA, Canada, Australia, Russia and Germany.

        Reply
      • VeerLeft
        Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 5:14 am

        This support would have been given to CHINA….had it not have been COMMUNIST. Heck, much military support was given to CHINA prior to Americas direct involvement in the PAcific Theatre.
        Mao and the CCP are directly responsible for the LACK of assistance.

        And yes, I know logistics of Mainland and Taiwan are different, but much of it is due to ideology…not just bulk.

        Reply
        • Hongjian
          Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 6:30 am

          getting western ‘support’ in exchange for sovereignty and independence, like in Taiwan’s case?

          lolno. Luckily Mao made us starve in ‘self-reliance’, rather than to subscribe another unfair treaty with ‘benelovend’ western powers.

          I can hardly imagine an US base in Hainandao or Qingdao, full of faggot-sailors, child-raping Marines and unsecured nuclear warheads. It’s like the 8 alllied nations are all over again – of course only for China’s own ‘security’.

          And; the US would’ve been involved into the pacific anyway, without China being communist. There was the soviet union after all.

          Reply
          • Xav
            Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 8:01 am

            Man words!
            Couldn’t agree more!
            Now get te hell out of Okinawa and go home. Nobody wants you here in Japan.
            Fuck Hatoyama san for betraying us again…It’s time to stand against uncle sam.

          • Mike Fish
            Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 9:05 am

            Even though eventually, several times, like some bickering couple, China wisley split from their relationship with the Soviets, wasn’t communist China supported by them, on and off, for a long time? Aren’t the Soviets/Russians a “Western” power?

      • PUSAN PLAYA
        Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 8:47 am

        “There are three reasons why KMT did well with Taiwan 1)It had US support financially and militarily 2)KMT stole a lot of money from China when they left for Taiwan 3)it’s a lot easier to manage a nation of 20 million people than 1.5 billion.”

        You are so full of shit, why are people up-voting you? I can’t believe there are still people who think that a Marxist planned economy doesn’t fuck everything. North Korea received far more foreign development aid than South Korea did, they skillfully played China and the USSR off against each other to get free or heavily subsidised cash, fuel, food, etc. Thanks to all this free shit they even had a higher standard of living than we did well into the 70′s but as soon as the Cold War ended they stopped receiving foreign support and their economy collapsed.

        Marxism doesn’t work very well to begin with and China under Mao was the worst run Marxist state besides Khmer Rouge Cambodia or modern day North Korea. Mao’s reign brought not only economic stagnation but mass starvation. If the Chinese really, honestly think that the only reasons for Taiwan’s success were the ones you outlined here, why not go back to the way things were, crush the Capitalists, nationalise all property and trying to build heaven on earth?

        Reply
        • B. Prichard
          Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 11:23 am

          Not really the issue here. What’s being argued is whether the KMT could have had the same success if they had taken over the mainland rather than the CCP.

          There is a huge difference between governing a small, well-educated population in a compact geographic area with a rather large treasury relative to the population and governing a huge, sprawling, largely illiterate, impoverished nation.

          In my opinion, Mao was near sociopathic, but I do think his one legitimate accomplishment was casting aside the imperialists who had been the abusing China. (Not to say that I agree with the standard Chinese curriculum that emphasizes the “Century of Humiliation” above all others. Things are always a little more complex than that empty slogan.)

          Reply
          • PUSAN PLAYA
            Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 12:02 pm

            You have an English sounding user name so I’m going to assume you’re the only Laowai in China fucking stupid enough to believe CCTV9.

            I never said that China’s average standard of living would be as high as Taiwan’s is today if the KMT had won but it would certainly be much higher for reasons I’ve clearly outlined.

            Mao did what exactly to fight imperialists? He basically made a separate peace with the Japs and hid in the mountains while real men who didn’t get aroused by fantasies of stroking Engels’s beard by a warm fireplace did the dirty work. If the KMT had won in 1949 they’d have certainly ended foreign concessions in Shanghai if for no other reason because it would be popular and because in the context of the Cold War the Western powers who held the concessions would really have no other choice than to try and keep China friendly.

            When Chiang Kai-shek landed in Taiwan he no longer had to worry about keeping the warlords on his side and he tried successfully to dramatically reduce government corruption. A victorious KMT in 1949 would have had both the opportunity and the political will to do the same.

          • Kai
            Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 1:04 pm

            I don’t think B. Prichard said you said that China’s average standard of living would be as high as Taiwan’s? I also don’t see how anything he said there suggests he’s “the only Laowai in China fucking stupid enough to believe CCTV9″.

            What he said about the relative advantages the KMT enjoyed governing Taiwan (relative governing the mainland) isn’t false. Likewise, what you said about communism sucking dick economically isn’t false either. I don’t understand why you’re giving him such a hard time.

            Furthermore, arguing that the KMT would’ve cast out the imperialists doesn’t change the fact that Mao was the one who actually did it and is recognized for doing it, which is all B. Prichard is saying. How is that CCTV9?

            I agree with you that Mao benefitted from hiding out during the Japanese invasion while the KMT suffered for taking the brunt of it. I strongly agree. But that still doesn’t change that Mao successfully won enough of the people over to take over the country, where he subsequently locked them all away and made China an uncomfortable place for foreign imperialists. To the extent that many Chinese see that as what was desirable, as the solution to the problems they resented, Mao was the one who succeeded.

            I personaly want to believe China under the KMT would be substantially better today in many more areas, but I recognize enough of the incredibly huge and complex problems facing China to not be so certain of it.

            Again, not sure why you nailed B. Prichard’s balls to the wall like that. Maybe there’s a backstory about him I’m not familiar with?

          • Not Pusan Playa (AKA FOARP)
            Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 6:18 am

            Who ‘cast out the imperialists’? If you look at history (I know this is a funny idea, but you can try it) you will see that it was the KMT which ended the concessions in Weihaiwei, Nanjing, Shanghai, Guangzhouwan etc. in the negotiations during and following WWII. It was also the KMT government which regained Taiwan, in fact it was Mao Zedong who lost Taiwan. I’m actually having a hard time thinking what Mao actually did that ‘cast aside the imperialists’ – do you mean ‘ran foreign businesses out of the country’? Strange that China’s economic rise only began after they allowed back in. Do you mean ‘expelled foreign missionaries’? The idea that these people might be ‘imperialists’ is somewhat bizarre. Do you mean ‘expelled US advisors and rejected US aid’? Well, since the first thing he did after that was to allow in Soviet advisors and aid, this is hardly a grand acheivement. So what exactly are you talking about?

            As for the Chinese ‘victory’ in the Korean war, whilst the ambush of UN forces in the mountains of North Korea in the winter of 1950 was certainly a reverse, people somehow forget that Chinese forces launched two offensives designed to conquer South Korea in 1950-51, and both were defeated with horrendous loss of life on the Chinese side. Whilst the war may have ended as a stalemate, all you need do is look at the GDP stats for North and South Korea to know who won in the long-term.

          • FOARP
            Thursday, January 14, 2010 at 6:33 am

            @Jones – I guess that must make the Japanese invasion a good thing then, right? I mean, if people can celebrate a government which was an unmitigated failure merely because it made China “stand up” (a strange kind of ‘standing up’ which involves lying down with zero blood pressure/pulse) then isn’t it time that people recognised that the Japanese invaders were only 100% wrong?

            I mean, let’s look at all the other former rulers of China who can be given the Mao treatment. Cao Cao “made foreigners afraid”, so he really couldn’t have been all that bad. Qing Shihuang built the entirely-useless Great Wall at great expense in lives and money, that counts as “making China stand up”, so he really must have been one of the greatest rulers China ever had. Cixi “expelled imperialists” during the Boxer Revolution so, rather than being the senile old bat and failure that everyone makes her out to be, I guess she must have been a veritable Red Sun.

            It’s terrible rulers like Mao, Cixi, and yes, the KMT, who make the current CCP look so good by comparison. It probably is true that the CCP right now are the best rulers that China has ever had, the problem is that this doesn’t actually say much.

        • LOLZ
          Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 10:55 pm

          “You are so full of shit, why are people up-voting you?”

          LOL. Why the hell are you butt hurt others vote me up? Only losers and camwhores care about votes on internet message boards. You are definitely the former and I would not be surprised if you are the later type either.

          “I can’t believe there are still people who think that a Marxist planned economy doesn’t fuck everything. ”

          I can’t believe how shitty your reading comprehension is. Read the part which you copy&pasted for gods sake, from where can you conclude that I think a Marxist Planned economy is good?

          Methinks you project way too much. Here is a cure for ya.

          http://images.whatport80.com/images/8/86/Technoviking.jpg

          Reply
        • DavidPaulBuckley
          Friday, January 15, 2010 at 10:40 pm

          Actually quite ironic that the main reason the KMT were more popular in Taiwan was that they weren’t beholden to landowners and therefore parcelled out land to the common people, just like the commies.

          And I think you’ll find the DPRK would love to trade with the west, that’s what they r always negotiating for. Not some policy to avoid trade with the west. the opposite is true, but as always capitalist governments sanction/ embargo them to
          a – try and encourage their overthrow
          b – ensure they dont look like a viable economic system as they did till the 1980s

          Reply
          • NinKenDo
            Wednesday, April 18, 2012 at 1:35 pm

            I don’t think you’ve researched this issue enough.

            There is only one tiny area within North Korea where trade is actually allowed at all.

            It’s a tiny island, probably only allowed to exist because its remote location keeps the benefits of trade away from most North Koreans beyond Officers, High-ranking Government officials and their families.

            I don’t understand what gave you any idea that there are “foreign sanctions” on the DPRK, considering its only still sanding because of an extensive and heavily corrupt aid program from the U.N. and individual countries with active interests in maintaining its regime (e.g., China – the Chinese government not wanting to have to deal with the refugee crisis which would follow).

  6. Mike Fish
    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 8:46 pm

    Anyone notice that in the first one he looks alot like the actor Ge You???

    Reply
  7. PUSAN PLAYA
    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 8:46 pm

    “Mao Zedong was truly a theorist, strategist, and thinker.

    He forgot sociopathic, power-hungry and hedonist

    “At least when he was around, no one could bully us like this!”

    China under Mao was perfectly capable of bullying itself

    “Mao Zedong used 20 some years to create a new country, tearing up all of the unfair treaties, removed all of the leases, and helped American and United Nation military forces taste their one and only failure”

    Ohh the Korean War, that sure worked out well for China didn’t it? Have fun dealing with 25 million starving, brainwashed refugees at some point in the near future.

    PS: Time Magazine is The Economist for idiots

    Reply
    • bleah
      Monday, January 11, 2010 at 9:53 pm

      Ohh the Korean War,

      The Korean war? Not the Vietnam war?

      Reply
    • Wastemans
      Monday, January 11, 2010 at 10:09 pm

      Pusan Playa is deep.

      Always making a cogent point, and always at the expense of the Chinese or Japanese.

      Troll or not, PusanPlaya is by far the most interesting poster here. I would surmise that a percentage of the readers come for PP’s posts alone.

      Reply
      • Hongjian
        Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 1:17 am

        Do you mean that he is deep, or that he is DEEP?

        There’s a fine, but critical difference between those two attributes.

        One describes intelligence and the other one is just pretentiousness.

        I guess the latter in this case.

        Reply
    • FYIADragoon
      Monday, January 11, 2010 at 11:46 pm

      Damn PUSAN, you’re on a roll lately. I actually agree with this post, and I’m not trolling…

      Reply
    • ralphrepo
      Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 2:22 am

      Actually, IMHO, Mao got royally played by Stalin. The DPRK was primarily a Soviet misadventure, except that Stalin got Mao to foot the bill in terms of blood and treasure, by dangling the atomic carrot in front of him. Mao wanted Stalin’s bomb, so he pretended to be like a good little communist and invested close to a million Chinese lives fighting the Soviet cause (mostly from captured KMT troops; see, Mao sent troops that he didn’t really trust to die first, a pattern he learned from his struggle for power in the CCP from the very beginning). Short version; Stalin went out for a night on the town on Mao’s dime.

      The funny thing about it is, in regards to your comment about 25 Million starving refugees, is that this is one part of the Mao era that even China now, does not want to touch. I personally think that China is secreting hoping that the Americans step in and take care of the problem, while the Americans are probably wishing for the Chinese to do exactly the same thing, LOL…

      Reply
      • Hongjian
        Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 2:30 am

        That’s just like your opinion, man.

        The Korean War wasnt a ‘soviet-war’ for the Chinese. They involved themselves into it because the American forces where threatening to march into China, after the destruction of the KPA.
        At that time, they could as well invaded Taiwan with their troops, if the Korean War wouldnt turn so bad.
        And if Mao wanted to get rid of his ‘unreliable’ troops, then why the hell did he send his only healthy son to the front, only to be burned to death by American Napalm?

        Reply
        • ralphrepo
          Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 10:13 am

          I actually agree with you regarding Chinese perceptions of the Korean war. The war was sold to the average Chinese as an important national defense strategy, in preemptively striking against the imperialist threatening both China and their Korean communist brothers. A recent analogy to this would be the rationale for the US invasion of Iraq, and seeking weapons of mass destruction and furthering the war on terror. While the American people really did believe Bush, et al, and the reasons why the US went in the first place, the actual political reasons were different and much shadier. From my experience, we Chinese are generally quite intelligent, but then at times we could be just as stupidly blind as Americans too. I would imagine that in China during 1950, with no internet, and news being strictly controlled by the government, the Chinese could have little option in being able to see the world situation except by what they were told by their leaders.

          Hence, what Mao told the Chinese people and nation, and what he actually thought, and his reasons for going to war, were separate and distinct from one another.

          As for Mao sending his son to die? He didn’t really. He thought that Mao AnYing would get political bonifides in Korea; ie. to become a “combat veteran” much like how Al Gore went to Vietnam (who worked as a reporter for the American military newspaper). Both were sons of politicians so their respective military went to great lengths to ensure their safety. Mao AnYing was stationed inside caves, which normally offered great protection from American bombs, except that on the night he was killed, he happened to have had the misfortune of being outside the cave in an adjoining house, when it was struck by a bomb. He was killed along with several high ranking soviet advisors.

          Thus, Mao AnYing was not a front line soldier and was expected to survive. He was in a well protected rear area, where high ranking Soviet officers frequented. It was a fluke that no one really expected, and at the time the General who was responsible for his welfare, was afraid to even report his death until three months later. In other words, Mao’s son was never expected to actually be in danger or die. On the other hand, roughly three quarters of the people’s “volunteer” army sent into Korea were former KMT troops. These were the ones that did the heavy fighting AND dying.

          Reply
        • Mike Fish
          Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 3:19 pm

          According to newly released archive data, likely one third of the troops in the Korean War were Mao’s illegitimate spawn.

          Reply
      • bleah
        Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 2:47 am

        I personally think that China is secreting hoping that the Americans step in and take care of the problem

        Many old Chinese still feel ‘bound through blood’ to the DPRK and the PRC is also its greatest ally, go read up KCNA (they host on a Japanese web host and have a Japanese domain BTW, LOL) and see which state is all the time sending delegations to the DPRK and praising ‘partnership’.

        Reply
    • Mike Fish
      Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 9:33 am

      PUSAN PLAYA,

      The word hedonist is really inappropriate for a person like Mao. Hedonism makes me think of sensual oils, spa treatments, and sexy dances… then I think about Mao and him kissing his ladies, and when he goes to French them, those poor girls get a mouthful of his rotten teeth and have to spit them out like watermelon seeds… and that’s sick.

      Reply
    • Bob Chippens
      Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 12:51 pm

      I get your point. Unfortunately, the Economist is full of it’s own propaganda. Not so much in your face, but it’s there. Look closely.

      Reply
  8. krdr
    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 9:01 pm

    It is interesting retrospective how USA saws Mao and China. As uneducated peasants, as locusts that will eat everything on earth, as tyrant, as someone that doesn’t obey west supremacy, quarrelsome. Also it shows fear and deep misunderstanding from USA.

    Reply
  9. SnowMin
    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 10:30 pm

    1st time comment on chinasmack

    cheers

    ps. those pix seem wired to me
    im mainlander

    Reply
  10. Hongjian
    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 10:31 pm

    Mao was practically like Qin Shihuang to China’s History and Development. A Tyrant and Massmurder without question, but one that laid the foundation of nearly everything to be build upon by Deng and later rulers.
    His greatest contribution to China is, without question, the restoration of independence and sovereignity, without every economic reform and every attempt at ‘democratization’ would be in vain.

    Reply
    • Ruimeng
      Tuesday, January 19, 2010 at 3:41 am

      Hongjian,

      What I think is one of your key misconceptions is that the Japanese invasion was brought about by KMT weakness. To illustrate this you mention a wolf attacking only the weakest prey. This would make sense, except it is false. Why? Japan attacked the USA, which was the most powerful country on Earth. This is akin to a very strong wolf taking on a massive, powerful elephant. The degree to which Japanese imperialism and aggressiveness was ideologically motivated by hatred of foreigners and an ardent nationalism wishful for the old political ideals (much like the new China today restoring “ancient history” and “prestige”) is a huge blow to your way of thinking.

      Nations do not act rationally, they are aggregations of individuals who can be swayed by emotion, racism, pride, fear, anxiety, and greed.

      Mao, through mismanagement, kept back the development of China for generations. We didn’t need Mao to kick out the foreigners, and he would never be able to defeat them. The only reason the West doesn’t rule the world is because they self-destructed in those little events called WWI and WWII. India got away from uber-imperialist Britain through CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE. If they can get independence by SITTING AROUND, I am sure Mao didn’t do that much post WWII.

      Reply
  11. G
    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 10:36 pm

    When talking about persons such as Mao,before you make comment you should try to leap your judge over time and the surface of history.
    I am a mainland chinese,and my father was persecuted in Mao’s age ,so when I was a little boy,I just thought he is an unforgiven

    Reply
    • G
      Monday, January 11, 2010 at 10:41 pm

      (sorry )
      ….he is an inexcusable tyrant,but as i grow up,the more I think,the more truth I see,the less I hate him.He is a tyrant in many things he do,but it is not all he is .

      Reply
  12. Cat ZeDong
    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 11:26 pm

    Let the brainwashing shine through.

    I dont know why, but bringing up the subject of Mao and I start thinking about that cinema scene in Clockwork Orange.

    Reply
  13. quq
    Monday, January 11, 2010 at 11:50 pm

    Methinks the poster from Xi’an (second from top) shows a well developed sense of irony.

    Reply
  14. gud
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 2:26 am

    A truly terrible man!

    Reply
  15. Goodness
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 3:24 am

    So it is okay to oppress the masses just so long as you:

    1 – Capture their imagination.
    2 – Control the flow of information which might be detrimental to you.
    3 – Have a successor able to undo the damage you inflicted on them by reversing much of what you trumped. Except point number two obviously.

    Tremendous wealth aside, how much as China changed?

    Reply
    • Goodness
      Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 3:27 am

      “much of what you TRUMPETED.”

      Reply
    • Kai
      Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 12:43 pm

      Goodness,

      Who are you responding to exactly? I don’t think many people are suggesting that oppressing the masses is ever a really good thing, much less for those three things. Sounds like you’re beating a straw man here.

      Every power structure, especially national governments, are based on those three things.

      1 – Capturing their imagination is the story that is told about why your government exists and what it ostensibly stands for.
      2 – Controlling the flow of information is the process of political education. Public relations management is just a blatant censorship evolved. Both are meant to deal with information deterimental to you.
      3 – Pretty much every nation has had changes and reversals in policy, whether executed by the same leader or a successor.

      On these three things, China hasn’t changed, but neither has the rest of the world. You’re describing what is true for everyone but making it sound like it is unique to China. Come on.

      Reply
      • Goodness
        Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 2:11 pm

        Not responding to anybody, I didn’t click on reply Kai. Just commenting on the story and the subsequent comments that were translated.

        “Every power structure, especially national governments, are based on those three things”

        - No many governments are based on a constitution. Public imagination is besides the point.

        “Controlling the flow of information is the process of political education.”

        - I’ll have to take your word for it Kai since I’ve never received a “political education” in my life. My best teachers challenged political assumption and they craved the free flow of information.

        “Public relations management is just a blatant censorship evolved”

        – If you have “blatant censorship”, why do you need to “manage” public relations?

        “Pretty much every nation has had changes and reversals in policy, whether executed by the same leader or a successor”

        - Did Mao reverse any of his stated policies? If so which ones? Wasn’t this thread is about Mao.

        “You’re describing what is true for everyone but making it sound like it is unique to China”

        - Your making it sound like every nation operates like China. I’m afraid not.

        I look forward to your next exasperated reply. :)

        Reply
        • Kai
          Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 2:42 pm

          Goodness, here’s my next exasperated reply ;)

          Just commenting on the story and the subsequent comments that were translated.

          Ah, okay, just wanted to be sure I wasn’t missing something, perhaps something a previous commenter said or something. Thanks for the clarification.

          - No many governments are based on a constitution. Public imagination is besides the point.

          Can you elaborate on this more? I want to make sure if there’s a substantive disagreement here or if we’re just referring to different things with similar words, because I frankly find it really hard to argue that all power structures and governments are indeed based on these three things you mentioned. I don’t see how “public imagination” is beside the point and, specifically, what “point” are you talking about?

          - I’ll have to take your word for it Kai since I’ve never received a “political education” in my life. My best teachers challenged political assumption and they craved the free flow of information.

          Maybe your definition of “political education” is a bit narrow. The things you described your best teachers teaching you are certainly political education, as well as the things your less-than-best teachers taught you.

          – If you have “blatant censorship”, why do you need to “manage” public relations?

          They’re not mutually exclusive. Doctors use both saws and scalpels.

          - Did Mao reverse any of his stated policies? If so which ones? Wasn’t this thread is about Mao.

          1. This thread is about Mao. Your comment was about how some people think its okay for Mao to have oppressed the masses as long as three things are given, and that China hasn’t changed much. My response to you was about your comment. Correct me if I’m wrong.

          2. Actually, yes, Mao did reverse his own policies many times. It was a source of consternation for many Chinese, particularly the educated. Which one? Let’s try the most obvious for starters, the Hundred Flowers Campaign, where Mao first encouraged everyone, especially the educated, to speak out openly on political discussion, confident he’d be vindicated, only to crack down on everyone when he realized it wasn’t going the way he thought it would.

          - Your making it sound like every nation operates like China. I’m afraid not.

          My intention was to demonstrate how your comment was false, that these things are somehow unique or largely unique to China and then saying things haven’t changed. I’m not making it sound like every nation operates like China because every nation DOES operate like China. No, not exactly alike, but there are many things that are indeed common and similar, specifically the three things you cited in your initial comment. I stand by my initial response to you.

          There are better things to cite about how China is different from other nations and capturing the public’s imagination, manipulating information, and having policy reversals are NOT those things. But is this thread about Mao or is it about how China hasn’t changed? ;)

          Reply
          • Kai
            Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 2:48 pm

            This part of my previous reply might be more clear:

            “because I frankly find it really hard to argue that all power structures and governments aren’t indeed based on these three things you mentioned.”

          • Goodness
            Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 3:55 pm

            If its okay with you I’ll just leave all my links as the bottom from now on. Makes things simpler.

            1 – Many leaders have implemented policies that were very unpopular at the time. Woodrow Mann asked President Eisenhower to send federal troops to enforce an unpopular supreme court ruling. Why the need for 101st airborne if integration captured the public imagination?
            Tax hikes never capture public imagination but happen from time to time. Why? Because the leaders see a need for it and they have to power to implement it.
            I’m curious as to know why you think public imagination is so important?

            2- If you think that my teachers CHALLENGING my assumptions is also a political education, then I think your definition of political education might be a bit too broad.

            3- Public relations management is about spinning what is out in the open. If you have achieved the censorship, then what is there for you to manage? The former renders the latter redundant no? What is with the doctors and saws answer?

            - Mao reversed some things. Good to know.

            Every nation operates like China? How so?

            Indeed I could cite more favorable things about China on this thread. Heck I could do that on every thread. But are we just here to sing the praises of glorious China?

            Woodrow Mann
            http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAlittlerock.htm

          • Kai
            Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 4:16 pm

            Goodness,

            1. I think you need to elaborate on what you mean by “public imagination” because I don’t understand how you’re using it. I already gave an idea of what I meant when I first responded to you.

            2. Heh, yes, you could argue that, but doesn’t make me wrong that you still received political education. Promoting the ideal of questioning assumptions is as much political education as abiding by Confuscian hiearchies. Moreover, political education in different countries often share similar tenets, just to differing degrees and in different applications. I think what you’re trying to say is that the Chinese are brainwashed and you aren’t. That, I think, can be a philosophical question. Either way, I still maintain that governments control information and one example is political education.

            3. Public relations and censorship are both methods of controlling information. I never said one is used in sequence with the other. The doctor’s saw and scalpal answer was to demonstrate how they’re both tools that can be selectively used by the doctor. Likewise, the government can selectively use censorship and public relations. Most of the time, it uses both. Take, for example, the Green Dam debacle. It not only sought to censor pornography, it also promoted pornography as unhealthy.

            Every nation operates like China? How so?

            By capturing the public’s imagination, controlling information, and having policy reversals. Come on, man, that was what this conversation started on!

            But are we just here to sing the praises of glorious China?

            Who is asking you to?

          • Kai
            Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 4:57 pm

            Jones,

            My point is, though, that the definition of “control” being used here is way too broad.

            Kind of hard to argue with the definition of the word, Jones. It isn’t that the definition being used is too broad, it’s the the wrong word was used. It isn’t that I’m applying the wrong definition, it’s that Goodness didn’t use the right word to get the agreement Goodness wants.

            I don’t think it is intentional, but I do feel like you’re laying the blame at my feet when, as far as I can tell, everything I’ve said about “control” is true and not in some esoteric academic sense, either.

            So different, that I really don’t think you can compare these two even remotely to being similar. It’s like comparing a cup to a lake based solely on the fact that they both hold water.

            I respectfully disagree. I don’t think they are so different that they aren’t remotely similar. To me, I consider a difference of sophistication. I think China’s “control” is largely and blatantly ham-fisted, whereas I see, for example, America’s “control” to be far more sophisticated and persuasive…which, you have to admit, could actually be a lot more dangerous in certain ways.

            I personally believe, for example, America’s government to seek to control far fewer things and far less information than the Chinese government. I think that could be a reasonable discussion to have. I do NOT, however, see anything to suggest that America’s government, or any government’s, control of information to be so different from China’s in principle that the word “control” can no longer be applied to them and can only be applied to the Chinese. Control is control.

            Again, Jones, I’m not saying China and, for example, America are one and the same or that they operate in exactly the same way. I’m just saying it is undeniable that they do similar things, controlling information being one of them. Why did I sai that? Because Goodness wanted to say it was only applicable to China and I think that’s a dangerous way of thinking.

          • Goodness
            Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 5:38 pm

            1-Dude I’ve elaborated a lot. I’ve already provided two examples of things that were implemented without public imagination. Why don’t you provide your definition of public imagination for a change.

            2-While your at it look up red herring. I expected better from you Kai. :)

            3-”Public relations and censorship are both methods of controlling information. I never said one is used in sequence with the other”

            - Great cause neither did I. I just said other was redundant.

            Every nation operates like China? How so?

            By capturing the public’s imagination, controlling information, and having policy reversals. Come on, man, that was what this conversation started on!

            -Care to elaborate? Please? I mean specific examples of how every nation operates like China. Not just reiterating your position again.

            -Does China have a Freedom of Information Act? hyperlink-1

            -In China, has a member of a minority ever overturned a standing law? hyperlink-2

            If every nation operates like China, why the contrasts? Are these examples of contrasts? I don’t know cause ya keep stonewalling. :)

            Freedom of Information Act
            http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/foia.html

            Brown vs Board of Education
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

          • Kai
            Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 8:34 pm

            Jones, man, good job with replying to the wrong thread, this is becoming a doozy to find the “Reply” button for. ;)

            And, sigh, no I am not laying blame at your feet.

            Come now, Jones, it’s kinda hard to say “control” being the wrong word was “obviously” your point when you were replying specifically to my comment and addressing me with your language. You weren’t replying to Goodness, were you? You were taking issue with the definition of “control” you felt I was using in my comment so of course I’m going to feel you’re laying the blame at my feet when you say to me that the definition of “control” I used in replying to Goodness was “too broad”.

            Your obvious point was that there are different types of control, such as promoting certain information or banning certain information, and that such differences are appreciable. I agreed with this and in our discussion, we both agreed that no, “control” of information isn’t unique to China, but there are definitely certain things China does that other countries arguably don’t when it comes to “control” of information.

            Look, I’d rather not descend into a discussion of whether or not you are being a bit disingeneous or whether or not I failed to see what was obvious to you. Let’s instead celebrate the fact that we both understood each other’s points and agreed on them, ultimately agreeing that Goodness shouldn’t have used the word “control” if Goodness wanted to make a criticism specific to China.

          • Kai
            Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 9:32 pm

            Goodness,

            1-Dude I’ve elaborated a lot. I’ve already provided two examples of things that were implemented without public imagination.

            I’m asking you to elaborate on what you mean by “public imagination” so I can UNDERSTAND the point you’re trying to make with the two examples you provided. Wouldn’t you prefer that I’m humbly ask you to explain and elaborate a key part of your argument before responding to it, possibly misunderstanding you, and causing needless grief for us all? Isn’t it respectful of me to stop a discussion to make sure we’re on the same page instead of pushing forward attacking your position?

            Why don’t you provide your definition of public imagination for a change.

            This is ironic because that was the first thing I did. Granted, it wasn’t explicit (“This is my definition of…”) but you can at least infer from my first reply to you:

            “1 – Capturing their imagination is the story that is told about why your government exists and what it ostensibly stands for.”

            …that I believe public imagination to have something to do with what people believe with regards to why their government exists and what it stands for. If this was NOT what you meant, wouldn’t it have been nice and honest of you to have clarified that my understanding was wrong and explained what you meant?

            Instead, you replied with:

            - No many governments are based on a constitution. Public imagination is besides the point.

            Huh? That doesn’t tell me that my understanding of your use of “public imagination” was different from what you meant. You even then say “public imagination is beside the point”? And when I ask you to explain your point, you refuse to do so either, insisting that I magically understand the examples you give that are supposed to represent your point?

            You can think me stupid for not getting what you’re saying immediately, but you can’t say I’m not being honest and humble in asking you to explain your side to me.

            2-While your at it look up red herring. I expected better from you Kai. :)

            Something isn’t a red herring just because you accuse it of such. Demonstrating that you were exposed to political education is part and parcel of our original discussion.

            1. You suggested in your first comment that control of information is unique to China.
            2. I said no, that’s not true, as all countries control information. Political education being one example.
            3. You said no, you’ve never received political education and that my definition was too broad.
            4. I said, oh yes you have and explained what political education encompasses.
            5. Now you accuse me of all of this being a red herring.

            I think that’s you not having anything else to reply with. Let’s make it painfully obvious how this entire point ties back to the main topic (your initial comment):

            a) Have you received political education?
            b) Is political education an example of information control?
            c) Is control of information evident amongst countries other than China?

            I argue that the answers to all three are “yes”, which demonstrates that point 2 of your initial comment cannot be limited to China alone. What do you argue?

            - Great cause neither did I. I just said other was redundant.

            And I already explained how it isn’t. More importantly, if you want an example of a red herring, trying to argue that public relations is not necessary with censorship is a diversion trying to distract attention from the main issue, which is that countries, governments, and power structures other than China control information, thus rending your initial comment suggesting that this was endemic to specifically China false. Consequently, this substantiates my disagreement with your initial comment.

            -Care to elaborate? Please? I mean specific examples of how every nation operates like China. Not just reiterating your position again.

            Dude, THIS is stonewalling. My position INCLUDES the specific examples relevant to our discussion. Maybe you’re asking for specific sub-examples? Fine, let’s use America (sorry, Jones):

            1. Capturing the public’s imagination: What every American child is taught about 1776 and the American Revolution. Yeah, it was about getting out from under the yoke of British “tyranny”, nevermind that American colonies just didn’t want to pay taxes anymore.

            2. Controlling information: Are you able to access any information you want in America? Using your own example, how far does the Freedom of Information Act get you? Do you think having an act that outlines how you can access information isn’t control?

            3. Policy Reversals: Let’s use an easy one: slavery. Or your own example, Brown V. Board of Education. What policy did Brown overturn? Separate but equal.

            -Does China have a Freedom of Information Act? hyperlink-1

            -In China, has a member of a minority ever overturned a standing law? hyperlink-2

            These would be good questions if I were arguing that China and the United States were exactly the same. But I didn’t argue that, did I?

            If every nation operates like China, why the contrasts?

            What part of:

            “…every nation DOES operate like China. No, not exactly alike, but there are many things that are indeed common and similar, specifically the three things you cited in your initial comment.”

            …didn’t you understand? Before you trot out accusations of red herrings and stonewalling, please be sure you actually:

            a) understand your opponent’s position and argument,
            b) know how to accurately represent it, and
            c) don’t make arguments demonstrating that you failed a and b.

          • Goodness
            Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 1:06 am

            cap·tur·ing (verb)
            1. To take captive, as by force or craft; seize.
            2. To gain possession or control of, as in a game or contest: capture the queen in chess; captured the liberal vote.
            3. To attract and hold

            pub·lic (noun)
            1. The community or the people as a whole.
            2. A group of people sharing a common interest: the reading public.
            3. Admirers or followers, especially of a famous person. See Usage Note

            i·mag·i·na·tion (noun)

            a. The formation of a mental image of something that is neither perceived as real nor present to the senses.
            b. The mental image so formed.
            c. The ability or tendency to form such images.
            2. The ability to confront and deal with reality by using the creative power of the mind; resourcefulness: handled the problems with great imagination.
            3. A traditional or widely held belief or opinion.

            See the verb. All you had to do was look at the word captur – ing. How can you possibly throw up a noun as a definition of a verb?

            Kai is capturing a fish. What does that mean? The story of why Kai exsictes and what he stands for? Doesn’t make sense.

            “Many governments are based on a constitution”

            What I wrote the first time was pretty fair and explicit. I put that in as evidence that not:

            “Every power structure, especially national governments, are BASED on those three things.” as you implied the first time.

            I offered it up as proof that not every entitiy is BASED on
            1 – a romantisized moduis operandai or mission statement. That seemed to be what you are stating.

            2 – the “control” of information. Feel free to throw in a different word of your choice.

            3 – the autority to reverse previous desisions.

            A government is sometimes based on an IMPERSONAL set of statutes.
            “The system of fundamental laws and principles that prescribes the nature, functions, and limits of a government or another institution.”

            The US governement is not based on the preamble. Its based on the laws and amendments that follow. Your confusing the foundation of government (its base) with the tools it sometimes uses.

            Don’t turn this into China vs America thing. I use
            Those two hyperlinks are to show you that not every government operates like China.

            Something isn’t a red herring just because you accuse it of such.
            -Something is a red herring when you draw attention away from the central issue.

            “That all governments are BASED on the three mentioned things.”

            Demonstrating that you were exposed to political education is part and parcel of our original discussion.
            -No proving or disproving that “Every power structure, especially national governments, are based on those three things.” was the original discussion. That’s a fact.

            1. You suggested in your first comment that control of information is unique to China.

            -Umm no. I implied that Mao controlled information, then later posed the question “how much has China changed?” I can’t find the word unique anywhere in any of my original remarks. Your misinterpreting what I wrote to fit your assumptions.
            Tell me this. If something is not unique to China (corruption, pollution, murder) does that mean that those things don’t happen in China?

            2. I said no, that’s not true, as all countries control information. Political education being one example.

            - Again your the one throwing around the word unique. Not me. You argueing with yourself.

            3. You said no, you’ve never received political education and that my definition was too broad.
            -I stand by that and you have yet to disprove it except to impy “everybody does it” time and again. I’ll say it again “My best teachers challenged political assumption and they craved the free flow of information.” how is the questioning of political assupmtions and craving the free flow of information qualify as political education?

            4. I said, oh yes you have and explained what political education encompasses.
            -You wrote. “Promoting the ideal of questioning assumptions is as much political education as abiding by Confuscian hiearchies.”

            5. Now you accuse me of all of this being a red herring.
            -Yes for a while now.

            I think that’s you not having anything else to reply with. Let’s make it painfully obvious how this entire point ties back to the main topic (your initial comment):

            - My intial comment was

            So it is okay to oppress the masses just so long as you:

            1 – Capture their imagination.
            2 – Control the flow of information which might be detrimental to you.
            3 – Have a successor able to undo the damage you inflicted on them by reversing much of what you trumped. Except point number two obviously.

            Tremendous wealth aside, how much as China changed?

            Your the one taking the discussion away from that to:

            a) Have you received political education?
            b) Is political education an example of information control?
            c) Is control of information evident amongst countries other than China?

            Something isn’t a red herring just because you accuse it of such.
            -Something is a red herring when you draw attention away from the central issue. That all governments are BASED on the three mentioned things.

            Demonstrating that you were exposed to political education is part and parcel of our original discussion.
            -No proving or disproving that “Every power structure, especially national governments, are based on those three things.” was the original discussion. Til you side tracked us.

            red herring
            http://www.answers.com/topic/red-herring

          • Kai
            Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 6:04 pm

            Goodness,

            Okay, so my definition of “public imagination” is exactly consistent with the definitions offered. I understand your point about verbs and nouns but I think you fully understood what I was saying. The story of why a government exists and what it ostensibly stands for is something that is used to capture the public’s imagination. For America, for example, part of that story is overthrowing British tyranny and individual unalienable rights. For China, for example, part of that story is uplifting the downtrodden masses and resisting foreign imperialism. These stories capture the public’s imagination and underpin a government’s existence and legitimacy. I am definitely not using the phrase “capturing the public’s imagination” incorrectly.

            I still don’t quite get how you’re applying the phrase “capturing the public’s imagination” to the two examples you gave of integration and tax hikes. That’s why I asked you for elaboration.

            From my perspective, you asked why the leaders had to use the military to force integration if integration had captured the public’s imagination. Well, obviously because it didn’t capture the ENTIRE public’s imagination. A portion of the public supported it, another didn’t. Military force was necessary for those who supported integration to enforce it upon those who didn’t.

            From my perspective, capturing the public’s imagination on tax hikes is differentiated between what people prefer and what people assent to accept. People certainly don’t prefer tax hikes. It doesn’t capture their imagination in that way. However, they assented to the government having the power to do so as part of their social contract with the government. That social contact DOES capture their imagination.

            Then you ask: “I’m curious as to know why you think public imagination is so important?”

            Huh? What do you mean why I think public imagination is so important? You’re the one who invoked it as one of the three things specific to China to justify your comment that China hasn’t changed. It’s important because of the importance you ascribed to it to make your argument. Hence, it’s important to me in my disagreement and demonstration proving your argument and conclusion to be false.

            Let me repeat: All governments seek to capture the imagination of their public.

            It’s a major component of their legitimacy.

            “Many governments are based on a constitution”

            What I wrote the first time was pretty fair and explicit. I put that in as evidence that not:

            “Every power structure, especially national governments, are BASED on those three things.” as you implied the first time.

            Goodness, the constitution is the product of capturing the public’s imagination! The Constitution, especially America’s, outlines what the government ostensibly stands for! The constitution can only exist after the government writing it has captured the public’s imagination. It merely puts into words what the government promises the public. That a nation or government has a constitution does not contradict or invalidate my statement that “Every power structure, especially national governments” are based upon capturing the public’s imagination.

            Did you think a constitution pops out of thin air?

            I offered it up as proof that not every entitiy is BASED on

            I didn’t say every entity. I specified what I said.

            A constitution is usually, by definition, a modus operandi. Many constitutions do have provisions on the control of information. Many constitutions also specify how policy is made or changed (reversed)!

            Since you can’t find a better word to specify a form of information control unique to China, then you should at the very least agree that what I said about all governments control information is true.

            It is not my responsibility to make your argument for you, especially when I don’t agree with the thrust and intent of what you’re trying to say. If you believe so strongly, it behooves you to make your argument convincing against opposition. You obviously don’t like me tearing your argument apart, but are you so certain that you’re right that you’ll put your brain to work in making sure what you say is undeniably right?

            The US governement is not based on the preamble. Its based on the laws and amendments that follow. Your confusing the foundation of government (its base) with the tools it sometimes uses

            I didn’t say it was based on the preamble itself. The preamble, however, is yet another manifestation of the government being based upon it successfully capturing the public’s imagination. Actually, the preamble ALSO becomes a tool for maintaining control of the public’s imagination. As is political education in general.

            I’m not confusing the foundation of government with the tools it uses, but I’m seeing a semantic issue here with “based on”. I believe my usage is within thae definition of “base” but if it is clearer to you, let’s say all governments “oppress the masses so long as they” do the three things you listed.

            Don’t turn this into China vs America thing.

            I’m not. Can you show me how I’m doing such a thing instead of merely using America as an example, FOLLOWING you using America as an example? Don’t trot out such a red herring.

            Those two hyperlinks are to show you that not every government operates like China.

            And you’re making me repeat myself, which suggests you’re stonewalling. I never said every government operates exactly like China. This is like me saying, “every country has a leader”, and you replying, “not every country has a Mao Zedong!” when your first argument in fact recklessly specified nothing more than “China has a leader” before suggesting how this is different from other countries or shows how China hasn’t changed. Like WTF?

            -Something is a red herring when you draw attention away from the central issue.

            And what is the central issue, Goodness? I explained how what I was doing was precisely related to the central issue, the central issue of me replying to you being my disagreement with your comment. How is it a red herring for me to explain and prove my disagreement with you?

            A better example of a red herring is you ignoring what I’ve said and instead accusing me of making this a China vs. US thing when this is actually about the validity of your argument.

            -No proving or disproving that “Every power structure, especially national governments, are based on those three things.” was the original discussion. That’s a fact.

            Which is precisely what I was doing. You objected to a point that I used to prove the above statement, so I had to prove your objection wrong. How is that not “part and parcel” of our original discussion? You do understand that complex discussions involve many parts and subparts that can be discussed themselves, right?

            -Umm no. I implied that Mao controlled information, then later posed the question “how much has China changed?” I can’t find the word unique anywhere in any of my original remarks. Your misinterpreting what I wrote to fit your assumptions.

            No, I’m not. My first reply quite clearly said:

            “On these three things, China hasn’t changed, but neither has the rest of the world. You’re describing what is true for everyone but making it sound like it is unique to China.”

            In your reply to me, you reacted against what I bolded above. You didn’t say anything similar to “No, I’m not trying to make it sound like it is unique to China” and instead, you even accused me of “making it sound like every nation operates like China.” Instead of clarifying your position, you jumpted to attack mine. How can I misinterpret you when you do that? The thrust of your response was to say there was a difference, SOMETHING I didn’t and don’t deny. I’m not arguing that there are no differences, just that on the three things you mentioned, there are similarities and commonalities.

            If I made any wrong assumptions, shouldn’t you have defended yourself by clearing them up INSTEAD of reinforcing them?

            And about you implying Mao, I still stand by what I said because it doesn’t change what I said. Whether you say Mao or China, it remains that governments and power structures all exhibit the same three things you listed so…if China hasn’t changed because of those things, then neither has anyone else.

            Tell me this. If something is not unique to China (corruption, pollution, murder) does that mean that those things don’t happen in China?

            Tell me this. Where do I suggest such a thing?

            Knock if off with building straw men, Goodness.

            how is the questioning of political assupmtions and craving the free flow of information qualify as political education?

            Because challenging political assumptions and seeking free flow of information are tenets of a certain political philosophy. You were taught to value those. You were EDUCATED to believe in that being right and proper. And believe me, I personally agree with these tenets, but I also recognize that such believes are indeed political education. Contrary to what you disingeneously suggest, I have not just been implying that everyone does it, I’ve clearly cited how your beliefs about politics are beliefs instilled in just as Confucian hiearchies are beliefs installed in others.

            Being taught to question authority is the same as being taught to accept authority. No, the similarity is not the questioning and accepting, it’s the “taught”. Don’t you get it? This is why it is foolish to believe you did not receive political education. You most certainly did. Yes, your political education has different lessons than other people’s political education, but you would be ignorant to not see through it as political education nonetheless.

            I’m not here to tell you whether your political education is better or worse than other people’s political education, just pointing out how it IS. And since it IS, information was in fact controlled.

            Go beyond the superficial and go one step further.

            -You wrote. “Promoting the ideal of questioning assumptions is as much political education as abiding by Confuscian hiearchies.”

            So you did read it but just didn’t understand? Why didn’t you ask for elaboration if you didn’t understand? Don’t you understand the sentence? The ideal of questioning assumptions that you were taught is the same as the ideal of Confucian hiearchies that others were taught. In either example, something was taught and that teaching is political education. Hence, you cannot say you never received political education.

            Your the one taking the discussion away from that to:

            You’re confusing “taking the discussion away from” with “challenging your comment”. I’m challenging your comment and your beliefs about yourself.

          • Goodness
            Thursday, January 14, 2010 at 2:49 am

            Kai you wrote “I understand your point about verbs and nouns but I think you fully understood what I was saying.”

            That’s the problem Kai.

            I didn’t copy paste those definitions for my health.

            Kai wrote, “The story of why a government exists and what it ostensibly stands for is something that is used to capture the public’s imagination”.

            -YES! YES! THANK YOU FOR WRITING THAT! Now go back and reread the first point on your first response to me.

            Kai wrote, “1 – Capturing their imagination is the story that is told about why your government exists and what it ostensibly stands for.”

            -This was from your original reply to me.

            Kai Then – “Capturing their imagination “IS” the story that is told about why your government exists and what it ostensibly stands for”

            Kai Now – “The story of why a government exists and what it ostensibly stands for “IS SOMETHING THAT IS USED TO” capture the public’s imagination”

            -The quotes and capitalization’s are mine but the words are yours.
            -How can the definition of a thing be the instrument you used to acquire that same exact thing?
            -Do you even see a change? If so then you will see the difference between the TOOLS and BASIS of government are not the same.

            You can’t interchange words and their uses to fit how you want them to and then expect the other to understand you.

            Kai wrote “Every power structure, especially national governments, are BASED on those three things.”

            1 – Capturing their imagination is the story that is told about why your government exists and what it ostensibly stands for.

            -You contradicted yourself earlier.

            -The raising of taxes and integration were examples of things done WITHOUT public imagination, many would say DESPITE it. I cited them to prove to you that public imagination
            is NOT as important as you think in the U.S.

            2 – Controlling the flow of information is the process of political education. Public relations management is just a blatant censorship evolved. Both are meant to deal with information detrimental to you.

            Public relations: The methods and activities employed to establish and promote a favorable relationship with the public

            Blatant: completely obvious, conspicuous, or obtrusive especially in a crass or offensive manner

            Censor: to suppress or delete as objectionable

            -Both do deal with information detrimental to you. But the first tries to promote a favorable relationship the second obviously refuses to give certain info.
            -If I try to sway Jones opinion is that an evolved form of obviously denying him information? If the first did evolve, it evolved from a different animal.

            3 – Pretty much every nation has had changes and reversals in policy, whether executed by the same leader or a successor.
            - True but not what I wrote.

            After seeing all of the praise Mao was receiving in spite of the many bad things he did to his own people. I commented that it seemed to because he had achieved three things. Then asked how much China has changed. You offered up a b.s. definition of the first, an incorrect application of the word evolved for the second and stated the obvious for the third just so you can paint “Every power structure, especially national governments” with the same broad brush. To what end Kai?

            Public relations
            http://www.answers.com/topic/public-relations

            Blatant
            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blatant

            Censor
            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censorship

          • Kai
            Thursday, January 14, 2010 at 7:45 pm

            Goodness,

            -How can the definition of a thing be the instrument you used to acquire that same exact thing?

            Okay, this is what I meant by “I think you fully understood what I was saying.” With you replying “That’s the problem” and following it with the above, I now know the problem is that you actually didn’t fully understand what I was saying.

            Here’s your coup. You’re making good arguments about semantics, about me being sloppy with my wording.

            You “implied” that it is okay for a leader like Mao or a government to oppress the masses so long as they.

            1. capture the public’s imagination.

            The point of my response was to show how pretty much all leaders, governments, power structures, etc. capture the public’s imagination. To do this, I cite “the story” that the government tells and that the public believes to be evidence of this dynamic. The government telling that story is “capturing”, whereas the belief in that story by the public is them and their imagination being “captured.” My original reply was to say this. I personally think that even if you completely failed to understand this, literally reading my sentence instead of having any modicum of metaphorical comprehension, you should’ve understood with all of my explanations. You can press your semantic criticism of my first reply. I accept it. Now that I’ve accepted that I should’ve been more explicit with you now that I know you wouldn’t have understood, let’s get back to the point:

            So far, by your own criteria, I see other countries “oppressing the masses” and having “not changed”.

            -Do you even see a change? If so then you will see the difference between the TOOLS and BASIS of government are not the same.

            “Every power structure, especially national governments, are BASED on those three things.”

            You haven’t proven me wrong about this. Every government survives on successfully capturing and maintaining the public’s imagination. Likewise, governments necessarily control information detrimental to itself. You don’t think government by definition is about control? Finally, governments survive on their ability to make decisions, including decisions that change what was decided before.

            These three things are common to all governments, so are they all oppressing the masses? Have they all not changed?

            Our discussion involves tools because pointing out the tools to you was my hope that you’d recognize the above three as being applicable to other governments as well.

            -The raising of taxes and integration were examples of things done WITHOUT public imagination, many would say DESPITE it. I cited them to prove to you that public imagination
            is NOT as important as you think in the U.S.

            I think you’re totally wrong here. As I’ve explained before, they both involve having the public’s imagination. Moreover, even if you think it isn’t as important in the U.S., it still doesn’t invalidate my statement that governments capture the public’s imagination in countries other than China as well, right?

            -Both do deal with information detrimental to you. But the first tries to promote a favorable relationship the second obviously refuses to give certain info.

            I know the difference between public relations and censorship. You should know I know if you’ve been following along. You’re still not showing me how I’m wrong with my statement that other countries also control information deterimental to them. The whole idea behind mentioning public relations was to show you how other countries control information, and thus your second criteria applies to other countries as well.

            -If I try to sway Jones opinion is that an evolved form of obviously denying him information? If the first did evolve, it evolved from a different animal.

            Arguably, yes. When it comes to studies on the psychology of control and influence, many people see influencing someone to be evolved from controlling someone. Hence, swaying an opinion could be considered to have evolved from merely forbidding an opinion. Either way, the point, again, was that other countries clearly control information as well. Are they oppressing the masses? Have they not changed?

            - True but not what I wrote.

            Wow, thanks for acknowledging a point at last! As for what you wrote:

            3 – Have a successor able to undo the damage you inflicted on them by reversing much of what you trumped.

            I believe you’re referring to policy changes and reversals as being one of three things that makes it “okay” for a government to “oppress the masses”. My reply points out that all governments do this, so are they oppressing the masses? Have they not changed?

            After seeing all of the praise Mao was receiving in spite of the many bad things he did to his own people. I commented that it seemed to because he had achieved three things.

            Actually, you were strictly saying it is okay to “oppress the masses”, not that the reason behind Mao getting the above praises was because of these three things. Goodness, I can play the semantic game as well. What I don’t understand is why you’re only now clarifying what you “really” meant to say. Nowhere in your initial comment do you even hint that you’re just trying to explain why the Chinese commenters translated above say these things because the three things you listed were achieved. “Oppress the masses” is not the same as “why they will still think you’re cool”.

            If you want to retract your initial comment and substitute this one as what you were trying to say, please let me know.

            Then asked how much China has changed.

            Which is why I asked, if China hasn’t changed on those three things, then who else has? Governments still must capture the public’s imagination, still control information, and still change or reverse policies.

            You offered up a b.s. definition of the first

            I disagree but I think the only way we’re going to make any headway on understanding each other on this is if you actually try explaining what YOU think my definition is. I mean, I’ve already defined and explained what I meant by it, but you still think it is bullshit. You putting your understanding of my definition in your own words will help us figure out where the disconnect is.

            an incorrect application of the word evolved for the second

            Wow, you’re criticizing my use of the word “evolved?” And Jones says I’m nitpicking? Okay, first, again, I don’t think it was an incorrect application at all. Second, even if it were, it still doesn’t prove my reply to you as incorrect.

            You keep accsing me of red herrings, but in this case, successfully arguing that I used the word “evolved” incorrectly still doesn’t disprove the fact that all governments control information. So again, I ask you, are all governments oppressing the masses? Have they not changed?

            Do you even remember that your goal here is to prove my original response to you as incorrect? The goal is not to make semantic arguments about how I used a word, but to show how my disagreement with you is invalid.

            and stated the obvious for the third

            It apparently wasn’t obvious to you initially since your response wasn’t agreement but:

            - Did Mao reverse any of his stated policies? If so which ones?

            I find it hard that you can claim it was obvious to you given that reaction.

            just so you can paint “Every power structure, especially national governments” with the same broad brush.

            Sorry, you were giving me that brush. I wasn’t the one who wrote the three things. You did. My whole response to you was to show you how that’s a mighty fucking broad brush you’re painting Mao and China with.

            To what end Kai?

            See bolded.

          • Kai
            Thursday, January 14, 2010 at 9:43 pm

            Jones,

            Technically, you weren’t being brought back into this. It’s just that you’re still following along (which I might not recommend for your own sanity) and noticed us mentioning you. Moreover, to be fair, it was Goodness who mentioned you first! ;)

            You have to agree though, even with you saying I was nitpicking on “control”, Goodness is giving me a run for my money on nitpicking words right now. We’ve got “capture”, “public”, “imagination”, “blatant”, “is”, “evolved” …

          • Goodness
            Friday, January 15, 2010 at 1:42 am

            Last line of what I wrote:
            “Tremendous wealth aside, how much as China changed?”

            Kai, the last line of your original reply YOU wrote:

            “On these three things, China hasn’t changed, but neither has the rest of the world. You’re describing what is true for everyone but making it sound like it is unique to China. Come on.”

            - Umm Kai. Look at the the your first sentence. YOU answered that China hasn’t changed on the three things.

            Me – “Tremendous wealth aside, HOW MUCH HAS CHINA CHANGED?”

            You – “ON THESE THREE THINGS CHINA HASN’T CHANGED, but neither has the rest of the world.”

            *only the caps are mine

            If my question painted Mao and China with a mighty broad brush, then your answer stating that “China hasn’t changed” did the same thing. Please explain why you did that.

            You then went on to state that “the rest of the world” hasn’t changed either. But you have offered no evidence that the world hasn’t changed, only cynical generalities.

            These aren’t nitpicking or semantics.

          • Kai
            Friday, January 15, 2010 at 5:08 pm

            Goodness,

            Now you’re just being disingeneous.

            I’ll ask you again:

            1. Given that other nations do the same three things you listed, does this mean they think it is “okay to oppress the masses” as well?

            2. Insofar as China hasn’t changed with regards to those three things, “tremendous wealth aside”, have other nations changed with regards to those three things?

          • Kai
            Friday, January 15, 2010 at 6:23 pm

            Hey Jones,

            LoL, you reckon its time to just start a new nested comment thread? I’m personally thinking this discussion is nearing its end.

            Yeah, it does seem like you’re a bit intoxicated and feeling talkative. For what it’s worth, however, I agree with you on your sentiments that most nations have gotten more sophisticated in their control of information. We humans are clever little beasts.

          • Goodness
            Saturday, January 16, 2010 at 2:25 am

            No Kai I’m not. But I have been trying to keep you from twisting the argument around to fit your whim of the moment.

            You have gone from:

            “Every power structure, especially national governments, are BASED on those three things.”

            To:

            I’ll ask you again:

            1. Given that other nations do the same three things you listed, does this mean they think it is “okay to oppress the masses” as well?

            2. Insofar as China hasn’t changed with regards to those three things, “tremendous wealth aside”, have other nations changed with regards to those three things?

            1 – When did you ever asked me the first question at all? Please point out which prior response you asked me if I thought oppression was okay. And my answer is no.

            2 – Second of all, you still haven’t proven that “Every power structure, especially national governments, are BASED on those three things.”

            As I have already stated many governments are based on a constitution. A body of laws determining the basic principles of a government. They are NOT BASED on the three things.

            Your just trying to change the subject but acting like that is what we were arguing about when this started.

            Talk about disingenuous.

          • Kai
            Saturday, January 16, 2010 at 4:15 pm

            Goodness,

            1 – When did you ever asked me the first question at all? Please point out which prior response you asked me if I thought oppression was okay. And my answer is no.

            http://www.chinasmack.com/pictures/mao-zedong-twelve-time-magazine-covers/#comment-50263

            “I don’t think many people are suggesting that oppressing the masses is ever a really good thing, much less for those three things.“

            http://www.chinasmack.com/pictures/mao-zedong-twelve-time-magazine-covers/#comment-50276

            “Your comment was about how some people think its okay for Mao to have oppressed the masses as long as three things are given, and that China hasn’t changed much. My response to you was about your comment.”

            http://www.chinasmack.com/pictures/mao-zedong-twelve-time-magazine-covers/#comment-50581

            “So again, I ask you, are all governments oppressing the masses?“

            http://www.chinasmack.com/pictures/mao-zedong-twelve-time-magazine-covers/#comment-50808

            “by your own criteria, I see other countries “oppressing the masses”“

            “Every government survives on successfully capturing and maintaining the public’s imagination. Likewise, governments necessarily control information detrimental to itself. You don’t think government by definition is about control? Finally, governments survive on their ability to make decisions, including decisions that change what was decided before.

            These three things are common to all governments, so are they all oppressing the masses? Have they all not changed?”

            “I believe you’re referring to policy changes and reversals as being one of three things that makes it “okay” for a government to “oppress the masses”. My reply points out that all governments do this, so are they oppressing the masses?“

            “you were strictly saying it is okay to “oppress the masses”, not that the reason behind Mao getting the above praises was because of these three things. Goodness, I can play the semantic game as well….Nowhere in your initial comment do you even hint that you’re just trying to explain why the Chinese commenters translated above say these things because the three things you listed were achieved. “Oppress the masses” is not the same as “why they will still think you’re cool”.”

            “…so how does this support your assertion that ‘the extent of China’s censorship’ makes it okay to “oppress the masses?“

            http://www.chinasmack.com/pictures/mao-zedong-twelve-time-magazine-covers/#comment-50946

            “I’ll ask you again:

            1. Given that other nations do the same three things you listed, does this mean they think it is “okay to oppress the masses” as well?”

            So again…

            1 – When did you ever asked me the first question at all? Please point out which prior response you asked me if I thought oppression was okay. And my answer is no.

            The first question was the entire point of my initial reply to you. I never asked if you thought oppression was okay by itself. I said, if YOU think those three things YOU listed made it “okay” for Mao to “oppress the masses”, then it must make it “okay” for every country that does the same three things. I hoped in seeing that, you’d realize how broad your brush was.

            However, you initially resisted acknowledging that other countries and governments do the same three things. After lots of discussion on how other countries and governmetns do the same three things, are even founded upon and necesarily must do the same three things, you’ve abandoned that, changed track, and are now resisting the “if this, then that” causation in your initial comment.

            This is being disingeneous. You want others to accept that those three things can only apply to Mao or China and when others show that they apply to others, it makes you feel uncomfortable because you’re caught making too broad a statement. When you can’t disprove how broad it was, you’re now trying to broaden your original statement from “these three things made it okay to oppress the mass” to “oppression is not okay”.

            We wouldn’t be having this argument if you said “oppression is nt okay”. I would have agreed. Being disingeneous is lying about what you previously said. Do you want to make a semantic criticism of my use of “is” here or do you understand what I mean? For consistency sake, you should though.

            2 – Second of all, you still haven’t proven that “Every power structure, especially national governments, are BASED on those three things.”

            This was already addressed. You’re literally putting your hands over your ears and chanting “I can’t hear you” on this one. The crux of your objection here is on a semantic disagreement over the word “based”. I’ve acknowledged this and I’ve already clarified what I meant. Did you have any trouble with this?

            “Every government survives on successfully capturing and maintaining the public’s imagination. Likewise, governments necessarily control information detrimental to itself. You don’t think government by definition is about control? Finally, governments survive on their ability to make decisions, including decisions that change what was decided before.

            These three things are common to all governments”

            As I have already stated many governments are based on a constitution. A body of laws determining the basic principles of a government. They are NOT BASED on the three things.

            http://www.chinasmack.com/pictures/mao-zedong-twelve-time-magazine-covers/#comment-50552

            “Did you think a constitution pops out of thin air?”

            You read all of this yet didn’t reply. If you disagreed with what I said, why didn’t you address the points I brought up? Why are you still repeating something that was already responded to multiple times?

            “Other governments are based on constitutions.”

            “Yes, and they also capture the public imagination, control information, and change policies…”

            “Other governments are based on constitutions!”

            “Yes, but you must agree that they are also necessarily based on capturing the public imagination, controlling information, and the ability to change policies…”

            “OTHER GOVERNMENTS ARE BASED ON CONSTITUTIONS!”

            Repeating yourself is no way to have an honest discssion, Goodness. When you don’t object to what I’ve said, it suggests you agree and accept them, which thus makes it disingeneous when you repeat something that fails to take into account what has been addressed. If you didn’t agree to what I said, to what I explained as underpinning my disagreement with you, why didn’t you challenge them?

            “Did you think a constitution pops out of thin air?”

            Think one step further. Remember, China has a constitution also. What underpins the constitution, Goodness? Those three things. They’re part of the social contract. This is basic introductory course political science.

            Your just trying to change the subject but acting like that is what we were arguing about when this started

            No, I’m not. This is and always was about your initial comment and its ramifications.

          • Goodness
            Sunday, January 17, 2010 at 4:36 am

            Follow your own link:

            http://www.chinasmack.com/pictures/mao-zedong-twelve-time-magazine-covers/#comment-50263

            1 – The only question you asked me was in that entire reply was “who was I responding to?” Everything else you wrote, was just you stating your opinions. Did you notice that? Your hyperlink backs up my point.

            About this hyperlink.

            http://www.chinasmack.com/pictures/mao-zedong-twelve-time-magazine-covers/#comment-50581

            - This hyperlink is a comment addressed to Jones.
            Can you see where you wrote Jones at the top?
            Am I supposed to argue on behalf of Jones?

            JONES I AM NOT BRINGING YOU BACK INTO THIS. IGNORE THIS REPLY.

            JONES I AM NOT BRINGING YOU BACK INTO THIS. IGNORE THIS REPLY.

            But since you have already cited it, and it involves me. Lets talk about it.

            Kai “Oh, believe me, I personally think Chinese are MORE controlled in many ways than, for example, Americans.”

            -You said it not me. By the way you CONTRASTING the differences, not highlighting the similarities.

            Kai “I also know most Chinese will agree with this. They’re not idiots, they know in many ways there’s more “freedom” in America.”

            -Again not me but you are showing contrasts not similarities.

            Kai “But you get an intelligent Chinese person and he’s liable to point out what I did…and this is where Goodness offends:

            -This should be good(ness). :)

            Kai “Goodness denies an clear irrefutable example of likewise being subjected to controlled information.”

            -That’s funny because in all this time, you haven’t provided a “CLEAR IRREFUTABLE EXAMPLE being subjected to controlled information.”

            Funnier still, I haven’t denied EVER being subjected to “controlled information”. I have denied receiving a political education. Please get it right.

            You have provided me with clear irrefutable examples of broad generalizations. Here one:

            “EVERY power structure, especially national governments, are BASED ON those three things.” – You still haven’t proven this Kai.

            “On these three things, China hasn’t changed, but neither has the rest of the world.” – You generalize the whole rest of the world and China.

            You have provided me with clear irrefutable examples of changing your statements and not noticing the difference. Like this:

            Kai Then – “Capturing their imagination “IS” the story that is told about why your government exists and what it ostensibly stands for”

            Kai Now – “The story of why a government exists and what it ostensibly stands for “IS SOMETHING THAT IS USED TO” capture the public’s imagination”

            Kai “This makes me feel that Goodness is so intent on associating “control of information” with China and disassociating with China that Goodness will deny what cannot be denied…and that’s offensive, arrogant even.”

            -First of all, someone needs a hug.

            -Second, LOL! I keep coming back to China Smack because “I want to disassociate with China”. I’ve only refuted what can be refuted.

            -Third, why didn’t you just flat out ask me in your ORIGINAL REPLY TO ME:

            Kai – “Goodness, do you seriously think that Chinese politicians are unique in using those three things you cited to further their influence? What about Qaddafi, Jong Il, the grand Ayatollah?”

            Goodness – “Unique? no. Never stated that it was unique to China.”

            Kai – “Goodness are you trying to be arrogant?”

            Goodness – “No.”

            3 – I am not literally putting me hands over me ears and chanting “I can’t hear you”.

            -No I am literally shaking my head and chanting “I can’t believe Kai doesn’t know what a constitution is or where is comes from.”

            -Constitutions are written by a person or a small group of people. The general public doesn’t get to write the national or state constitution. At least I don’t know of any who do. It is not the strictly the product of public imagination.

            4- Semantics??

            Me- “Other governments are based on constitutions.”

            Kai- “Yes, and THEY ALSO capture the public imagination, control information, and change policies”

            - But are all constitutions BASED ON capturing the public imagination, control information, and change policies? No. They are based on the specific principles. Again you can’t seem to distinguish the difference between BASED ON and CAN BE USED FOR.

            - You know what your main problem is? You can’t tell the difference between a government and a cult of personality.

            Kai “The crux of your objection here is on a semantic disagreement over the word “based”. I’ve acknowledged this and I’ve already clarified what I meant.”

            -Its not a semantic disagreement its a crucial one. For example:

            1-Your marriage is BASED ON lies.

            2-Your marriage USES lies.

            Your telling me that those two examples are the same?

            Are you telling me that the only difference between the two is semantic?

            If I answer yes to the second, does that also mean I automatically answer yes to the first?

            They are not different ways of expressing the same idea. They are different ideas.

            Logic my boy. Logic.

          • Kai
            Monday, January 18, 2010 at 7:45 pm

            Goodness,

            Given that I would be repeating what I’ve already said multiple times in response to each and every point you’re attempting to make above, I think this discussion has reached it’s end. I had a good weekend. Hope you did too. Till next time.

  16. Cactus543
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 5:02 am

    ‘ Everyone can go take a look at the present Taiwan, do they live on this planet with national pride/honor/dignity? “

    I lol’d

    Reply
  17. Shanghairocks
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 9:48 am

    What Time covered was not Mao; but, loneliness *_*

    Reply
  18. 傻子（婊子也行）
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 9:56 am

    the time progression of him is quite funny. he begins thin and then turns into a cartoon. river crab. 3 watches. it’s a tarp.

    Reply
  19. Yin
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 10:06 am

    The problem with a figure like Mao is that he has exerted such a powerful influence upon China’s influence that you simply can’t deny him, fully, his due. Yes, it was Deng that led China out of the dark ages, but without Mao, where would Deng be? Probably a political prisoner of the KMT. And let’s face it: Chiang wasn’t much better. He was just as willing to throw Chinese lives away for his own gain. Great military leaders are seldom queasy about sacrificing their followers and there are skeletons in almost all their closets.

    Our modern sensibilities simply can’t handle this fact. It’s a cognitive dissonance.

    Reply
    • Dr. Jones Jr.
      Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 7:03 pm

      I would suggest that China under the KMT would not have needed a Deng, so it doesn’t matter whether he would have ended up languishing in a KMT prison or even executed: China under the KMT wouldn’t have had an ideological reason to dismantle its market economy, thus no need for some brave pragmatist (i.e., Deng) to reassemble it from scratch. Economically, we can then surmise that China would have followed a similar trajectory to what it has done following Deng’s reforms, just 20 – 30 years earlier in the time line and bypassing the national tragedies of the Hundred Flowers campaign, Great Leap Forward, and Cultural Revolution. I have a suspicion that the biggest difference in China’s appearance today, in a world without the Deng reforms, is that Shenzhen simply wouldn’t exist.

      Since neither China, now, nor the KMT, then, were particularly democratic, it’s hard to surmise what the political system of China would be today if the KMT had never lost power. Although I too would like to think the KMT would be more open to democratic reforms, I think we can’t ignore the possibility that progress in building democratic norms and institutions in Taiwan has been greatly affected by the precariousness of its international place following the end of the cold war, specifically the thaw of relations between the US and mainland China. Would a united China under the KMT feel the same sort of pressure to democratize in order to maintain/build international support? Or would it continue to play the USSR and US off each other, courting both when it saw fit, and maintaining a centralized, one-party regime quite similar to other US client regimes during the cold war?

      Let’s also not forget the role of government-gangster relations during KMT rule and the earlier years of Taiwan’s establishment–in many ways similar to the confluence of organized crime and government (deep state) to be found in the various regions of today’s mainland China. Does this suggest that a KMT China would be more likely to have strong democratic institutions today?

      As much as I’d like to imagine a united, democratic China and say, ‘What a nice place that would be!’, I think it’s improbable to expect that either the CCP or the KMT of the 20th century were the actors that would bring it about. Much more important (and realistic) to consider is whether the CCP, KMT, or as yet unknown Chinese group of the 21st century can finally bring about these reforms.

      Reply
  20. FangYao
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 12:47 pm

    in this world without a few people, it is much better,much more peace & respect….. unfortunately our chinese had Mao (one of the monsters), worst is chinese still recognize he is the god today….pathetic…

    Reply
  21. smatter
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 1:22 pm

    @PUSAN PLAYA
    If you try to understand China,watch the movie”To live” directed by Zhang Y.M

    If you try to understand S.Korea,watch the movie “Address unknown” directed by Ki duk Kim

    IF you try to understand E.Germany,watch the movie “The reader”,directed by “I dont know”

    I do like your comment “PS: Time Magazine is The Economist for idiots”

    Reply
  22. dirtywhiteboy
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 5:59 pm

    They should also be thanking Deng Xiao Ping. But I think Mao is was essential for China to become what it is today. Towards the end he definitely did some crazy shit, but if he didn’t play his part, China would’ve been lost to imperialists.

    Reply
  23. Elmo
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    Building a nation takes time…dealing with the problems of society are almost impossible to completely solve…why don’t the people arguing about, which party would make a better China, build a bridge and get the F**K over it.

    Is it not better just to focus on the present and attempt to fix it from there, rather than dredging the annals of history. At this rate, no wonder nothing gets solved, because dropping the past doesn’t seem a option.

    Reply
    • FangYao
      Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 12:01 pm

      you are right??? we are still biting with the Japanese about the pass history????…what is your logic…comes to china own problems (culture revolution, great leap forward,tian an men square..)please don’t look at the pass; the other hand go back to second war..Nanjing, Japanese…none stop biting more and more!!!
      if china don’t understand and look into our true history, i guess one day the same thing will be happen again and again….how can we prevent!!!!!!

      Reply
      • Elmo
        Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 2:20 pm

        My comments were fixed on the individuals arguing about, ‘what if the KMT were in control.’

        Should have been more clear about that…apologies =\

        However, it is true that we learn from history, but then again humans never do. In times of critical cooperation or a need to band up against a common cause, history shouldn’t be a factor, which interrupts this. Nor should we use history as a means to dictate, a contemporary society or country, since all countries and people are different from when they are written to the present time. A individual cannot be stereotyped to the mindset of a government.

        Since we’re living in such a globalised world, working as a whole regardless of history should be what we are moving towards. Otherwise, everyone will be trying to fend off each other, thus no cooperation occurs.

        Reply
  24. Zebadee
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 10:14 pm

    Well, I guess even one of history’s biggest mass-murderers deserves his own magazine cover.

    Reply
  25. FOARP
    Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 6:34 am

    Just how hard is this to work out:

    killed large numbers of people through incompetence + conceded the loss of Mongolia + lost Taiwan + failed to take Kinmen + lost large numbers of soldiers in a war which resulted in a stalemate + destroyed the national economy + shut down the education system for ten years + gutted his own party + brainwashed the public with pseudo-scientific nonsense + turned the country into an international pariah =

    BAD

    Reply
    • FangYao
      Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 12:07 pm

      such clearly facts…really dont understand why chinese still dont see it.
      i guess we like to select the information by the brainwash system, and the media in china is f*ked

      Reply
    • Comrade Kim
      Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 4:06 pm

      You’ve swallowed whole a cock-eyed cold war narrative and then can only imagine most Chinese people disagree with you because they’re less informed about their own history than your are. You’ll never make a useful critique of the Mao era, which is sorely needed, because despite your smug liberal arrogance you’re far more blinkered by ideology than those you presume to disparage.

      Reply
      • FOARP
        Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 7:25 pm

        Is even one of the things I wrote incorrect? Which one?

        Reply
        • Comrade Kim
          Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 9:43 pm

          It’s what you’ve not written and that every Chinese person knows full well, hence the uselessness of your critique.

          Reply
          • FOARP
            Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 10:29 pm

            . . .. . . that being? Almost none of the reforms he made has lasted – reform of the written language and the introduction of pinyin might be the exception. The judgement of even his CCP successors has been that his government was a failure, one based on incorrect theories and nonsense. So, whilst repeating empty cheer-leading phrases like “he made China stand up”, and “he made foreigners fear China” might give Chinese folk wistful for the old days a certain moral-boost, there is almost nothing in the historical record to recommend his government or its policies to anyone.

          • Comrade Kim
            Thursday, January 14, 2010 at 1:20 pm

            No reply link on your comment, so hope this doesn’t screw the formatting too much.
            The years between 49 and Mao’s death saw sustained year on year economic growth (including during disasters like the Great Leap and only stagnating somewhat even during the CR), doubling of life expectancy, massive drops in infant mortality and morbidity, the eradication of illiteracy, construction of essential national infrastructure and so on and so on. Even anti-communist hacks who love the current path China is taking concede that the boom of the “reform” years had its roots in the modernising work of the collective era. Do you not wonder why the post-78 leadership who effected a change in political line might want to condemn the iconic figure whose legacy they were explicitly rejecting? As I said, a useless analysis based on a far more troubling ignorance than Chinese people who may not have read every fabricated revelation about the old fucker’s supposed sexual peccadilloes.

          • FOARP
            Thursday, January 14, 2010 at 7:36 pm

            Some growth, 1949-78 GDP stats were largely either falsified or simply notional, as obviously everyone except yourself recognises – or do you think that a nation with a non-functioning government, inactive education system, debilitated military, and crack-pot economic system is really capable of such progress?

          • Comrade Kim
            Thursday, January 14, 2010 at 8:03 pm

            So there you have it. You believe the lies you’ve been told – “everybody recognises”, “non-functioning government” blah blah blah. Read some serious historians rather than your bookshelf of Cold War propaganda.

          • FOARP
            Thursday, January 14, 2010 at 9:51 pm

            Let’s have a look at what you’re saying here: that information published during the years 1949-1978 is accurate, despite the political turmoil of those years, despite being by all accounts false and misreported – just look at the food and steel production statistics during the GLF, and all reported using 1949 as a baseline – a year in which no proper statistics could possibly have been collected.

            And I’m the one who is stuck in the cold war era, apparently.

            Finally, for your information, I know quite a few Chinese people who would dispute what you think “every Chinese person knows full well”.

          • Comrade Kim
            Friday, January 15, 2010 at 1:08 pm

            No, you sad axe-grinder – everyone knows the Chinese state had reason to cook the figures – you can’t seem to accept that anyone else writing about the period might have some ideological motivations too. During the Col War. Stick ‘political economy of the PRC’ into Google books and read it yourself – serious historians aware of the issues broadly support my position. That’s because it’s a position, that unlike yours, doesn’t proceed from the farcical notion that the entire Chinese nation suffers from collective amnesia and only hence can respect Mao – even given the censorship of open historical debate. At least they have that excuse – you live in the ‘free world’ and choose the mental chains of your smug liberalism.

      • Comrade Kim
        Friday, January 15, 2010 at 3:53 pm

        Don’t see you bothering to provide any, you clown.

        Reply
        • Comrade Kim
          Friday, January 15, 2010 at 4:02 pm

          But considering you’ll trot out the obvious crimes and failings we both know about, I’ll give you a starter for free: http://www.cambridge.org/catalogue/catalogue.asp?ISBN=9780521696968

          Serious historians finding that the economy did grow, and alongside murdering people by diktat or neglect which is all you care to see, it was also an era when millions of lives were saved by the ending of endemic famine, reductions in infant mortality, in morbidity and all the rest.

          Reply
          • FangYao
            Friday, January 15, 2010 at 5:25 pm

            Mao died more than 30 years, pathetic still so many people recognize him as a hero, why??? Chinese still like to debate for him base on such facts….Guess
            everyone has been taught Mao’s honor = themselves’ by the education system, So as the individual’s own honor most people don’t want to admit the horror events.
            CCP worry about the large information of the truth it may hurt the party, people will lose their faith of the communist…..it will be deeply effective to their leadership….
            well, if you dont recognize the failure before, it is easy to make the same mistake again!!!!!!

        • FOARP
          Saturday, January 16, 2010 at 2:45 pm

          Tsk – If you’ve got nothing nice to say, don’t say nothing. Oh, you didn’t actually say anything, just, yet again, failed to actually make any kind of point.

          Have fun in your angry little world.

          Reply
          • Comrade Kim
            Saturday, January 16, 2010 at 3:08 pm

            My point that even you little self-justificatory list stands as evidence of you massively missing the point. No-one’s angry – having a good chuckle at your wounded “China expert” pride. Saw such a lot in your little ex-pat bubble, I’m sure. Bet you wrote a history of the Spanish Civil war after a package holiday in Benidorm too.
            The fact that you were born after events in question and the end of the Cold War in no way changes the political dynamics that have coloured a great deal of the lazier Western “scholarship” on China, and it’s again revealing that you even imagine that not personally having been engaged in the polemics of the time will have exempted you from their legacy in the debate.

  26. Gaz
    Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 6:35 pm

    Proof is in the pudding as they say. Mao spend 30 years kicking out foreign investment, slaughtering millions through famine, forcing the nation into an uneducated mass of trained monkeys, lead the nation to breed like rabbits and double the population (ironically the most used excuse by the CCP is ‘we have too many people’). The nation went backwards in EVERY aspect.

    Then the leaders after 1978 have to reverse 30 years of pure stupidity and fix all the problems, do the EXACT OPPOSITE of Mao. Yet, Chinese seem to think that Mao’s 30 years are just as great as the following 30 years, so what is it?? That just proves how effective the CCP is at manipulating people’s thoughts, they can convince people that black is white.

    Reply
    • Hongjian
      Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 8:59 pm

      People still like Mao, because in his time everyone was equally starving and there where no arrogant shanghainese radio-commentators, telling people to ‘roll into a ball and roll out of their city’. China nowadays is made of inequality, lots of poor people and some rich one’s. But back then under Mao’s reign, everyone was poor. People tend to like that.
      Another thing is the corruption. It is said by lots of old people, who lived through that time, that, under Mao, there was basically no corruption (since there was nothing left to steal for the officials), and even if there were any, the corruptors and their entire family will be tortured and killed by the Red-Guards. Nowadays, in the Capitalist Republic of China, Corruption is actually encouraged and regarded as a legit way to climp the social ladder. So, of course people tend to like that facist-styled sense of ‘justice’ of the old time.
      That’s why, when exploited labourers and repressed folks nowadays protests, they tend to raise images of Mao before them, saying; ‘during his time, our misery wouldnt have happened to us!’.

      So, Mao is still beloved by the people, because he is a social and political symbol of ‘justice and equality’ to them. No matter, if this image is actually true to his real personae, or not.

      Reply
  27. DavidPaulBuckley
    Friday, January 15, 2010 at 11:07 pm

    cud china really have been more of a shithole back then than it is today?
    cud the chinese people have been more lying cheating thieving shameless greedy selfish vile little rats than they are today?

    i doubt it

    Reply
    • Hongjian
      Friday, January 15, 2010 at 11:37 pm

      there’s a difference between the poverty back then, and today.
      Back then people know that their only fate is to die in poverty. And that gave them solace and made them actually more peaceful and non-confrontational than today. Everyone was poor and died of starvation, so why should you be jealous of your neighbor’s possession and try to lie and trick him to gain it, if he doesnt possess more than you (which means “nothing”, actually)?

      Nowadays, people see that it is possible to climb the social ladder and to escape from poverty. And so, the competition and social darwinism increases. This, of course leads to aggression, theft, cheating, dishonour, shamelessness and evil. But this is a sign of a society and nation, that is economically alive and kicking.

      I would prefere todays corrupted society, over the peaceful and harmonic shithole of hopelessness we had back then, to be honest.

      Reply
      • DavidPaulBuckley
        Saturday, January 16, 2010 at 2:25 am

        I hear ya but im not so sure

        from what ive read and heard. peeps say there was the same corrupt immoral thievery, same confucian selfish greedy ethics back then. only they’d be stealing a pencil or some bricks or acquiring things thru the backdoor or slightly more subtle at trying to get foreigners ot pay for sex with their female relatives.

        Reply
  28. karze
    Thursday, June 24, 2010 at 10:12 am

    Mao is the mother of all murder, mayhem and massacre. The number killed by Hitler is far too little to the maniac Mao.

    Reply
  29. ice
    Thursday, March 17, 2011 at 1:55 pm

    He is not saint, he also a human being. he made mistake at revolutionary culture, but he still a great man in Chinese history! Chinese people will not hate him just because the TIME post some ugly pictures and negative comments. we have own opinion and we made decision by myself.

    Reply
    • Rooboy
      Thursday, March 17, 2011 at 2:28 pm

      Not a saint ??? we have own opinion and we made decision by myself.?????

      Having lived in China now for over 9 years, 90% of chinese people dont think for themself, they just follow the party line like a bunch of headless chickens.

      Reply
  30. -____-
    Sunday, March 4, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    wow im amazed, china didnt block such posts like this? well obviously most commies dont care about mao anymor

    Reply
  31. Perieven
    Tuesday, March 6, 2012 at 10:57 pm

    Ironically and pathetically , four huge, conspicuous and well-marked charaters which mean Democracy and Unification , came to my sight as soon as I saw the first cover. However, nither Democracy nor Unification is achieved. Incidentally, it seems that the Emperor .Mao’s image on the first cover is far less attractive and charming than that on the PRC monetary note.

    Reply
  32. Hongjian
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 12:20 am

    Dont pretend to be stupid.

    Mao defeated the KMT, who where unable to defeat the Japs and end the Chaos in China. In terms of stability and sovereignity, the KMT was a far worse problem for China than the Japanese. The Japanese are about to loose the war and to end the occupation, but as long as the KMT remains, the weakness and corruption that resulted into the foreign Invasion in the first hand, wont go away.
    Mao, who defeated the weak dynasty of the KMT, had done China its greatest deed.

    Reply
  33. ralphrepo
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 2:33 am

    “…but as long as the KMT remains, the weakness and corruption that resulted into the foreign Invasion in the first hand, wont go away”

    Actually, the foreigners were there way before the KMT even came into existence. You can blame the KMT for a lot of things but foreign incursion into China wasn’t something that they had anything to do with. It was a problem the they inherited from the Qing. But at the time, Chinese were too busy fighting amongst themselves (warlords) to worry about foreigners. In the midst of all this chaos (from 1912 to 1937), the Japanese invaded, which then magically caused all Chinese to focus on their nation instead of themselves.

    And BTW, the KMT took the brunt of battle against the Japanese while Mao hid out in the hills. Mao purposely allowed the Japanese to drain KMT blood while he conserved CCP forces, coming out militarily only when he seemed assured of overwhelming victory. So if anything, Mao, even after the start of the war, acted for himself instead of for his nation. He did this repeatedly throughout his tenure as leader of China.

    Reply
  34. DavidPaulBuckley
    Friday, January 15, 2010 at 10:59 pm

    “On the other hand; the Communists-regime’s China was equally in bad condition. But in contrast to the KMT, they won wars against major powers, build the nuke, got into the UN as a full Veto-member and restored the full national sovereignty in the first 20 years, while people starved to death and the economy was in ruins”

    i agree the kmt r as bad as a tin-pot african dictatorship but
    a – china didnt win any wars except against india
    b – china was given the nuke
    c – the kmt got veto power at the un not ccp
    d – the ccp immediately gave russia extraterritorial rights at port arthur

    so…….. wrong on all counts

    Reply
  35. Hongjian
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 2:49 am

    Whatever you say.

    But the facts are standing tall: The KMT wasnt able to hold the country together and to maintain it’s sovereignity. No matter if the Qing-Dynasty or the communists, or japanese are at fault. The fact of every Chinese Dynasty is; If you are weak, outside tribes and internal rebels will bring your Nation down to the knees, until one warlord with ruthless ambitions unite it again. And this warlord was Mao.

    So the KMT just failed. It was a hard task and a very hard time, but this doesent change the fact that they failed. And if the US invade China tomorrow to free the shit out of it, or the 80 million Chinese christians rebel and bring down the government, the CCP also failed.
    During the long history of China, only the strongest and most ruthless Dynasty survives, while the weak die. China does not tolerate weakness.

    Reply
  36. Hongjian
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 3:07 am

    Also; by ‘foreign Invasion’ I also mean the Japanese Invasion, which happened well within the KMT-reign.

    Wolfes in the Nature arent attacking everyone they see; they will first analyse your health and your streght. If you are strong, they wont bother you, but if you are wounded and weak, they will attack you mercilessly.

    The KMT governed China during a hard time with catastophic conditions. Yes. But, to be honest, they didnt do any better job at changing this condition, while enjoying western ‘help’.
    The KMT-regime practically left China as a wounded animal for several decades, eyed by the wolf Japan to attack and to devour it.

    On the other hand; the Communists-regime’s China was equally in bad condition. But in contrast to the KMT, they won wars against major powers, build the nuke, got into the UN as a full Veto-member and restored the full national sovereignty in the first 20 years, while people starved to death and the economy was in ruins.

    So ‘KMT’ is just another word for FAILURE.

    Reply
  37. ralphrepo
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 3:45 pm

    At Hongjian; your distaste and dislike for the KMT is rather evident in your responses with what you term as their inability to stand against foreign, especially Japanese, invaders. You categorize the KMT as an organization that was a “failure” and blame them for practically inviting their invaders in. Your views are not supported by history.

    Historically, the establishment of the foreign concessions happened during the Qing, and expansions thereof during the post Boxer period (still within Qing purview). In 1912, Sun Yat-Sen became first president, but was forced to step down 2 months later as Yuan Shi-Kai (with a much stronger regional army) took control. After gaining control he disbanded or killed many KMT officials in order to consolidate his personal power base. During the start of WW1 in 1914, it was Yuan who then allowed for Japanese takeover of former German colonial holdings, giving Japan a tremendous inroad into Manchuria, and causing a national uproar. When Yuan then openly declared himself emperor in 1915, his opponents decided to revolt. This resulted in Yunnan and several other southern provinces declaring independence from China. Yuan finally rescinded his decision to become monarch, restoring the republic, but died later that year, dramatically altering the Chinese political landscape and leaving a vacuum. In 1917, China briefly reverted to the Qing, but this too, proved politically unpopular; the monarchy died once more and finally disappeared. During this period of national disunity (warlord), every political organization in China was back stabbing and double dealing one another. There was no effort whatsoever by any, to repel out foreign interests. Further, the KMT organization were rife with CCP spies and double agents, who actively fed false information to Chang Kai-Shek to undermine the KMT. But despite this the KMT was able to nominally consolidate the nation by the early 1930′s and would have been in firm control by the 1940′s. But luckily for Mao and the CCP, the Japanese invaded. If Japan had not invaded, or just waited a few more years, the CCP would have ceased to exist. The Japanese 1937 direct military incursion into the Chinese mainland forced the KMT to stop pursuing the CCP, which then had time to recuperate and rearm itself while the KMT was bled dry by the Japanese.

    In one particular battle (the battle of Shanghai) Chinese troops under KMT command successfully held out against overwhelming odds fighting IJA armor, naval, and air forces for three months. While not winning on the field of battle, it allowed time to move important Chinese military assets (both KMT and CCP) inland, letting China marshal its order of battle for the long fight. It also politically humiliated the Japanese, as they had declared their imminent takeover of China in only three days, but was fought to a standstill for just one city, by what was previously known only as sandaled spear and sword army. It was one of China’s finest political hours and it came at the expense of over 80,000 Chinese lives. Then after being bloodied for 8 more years by the Japanese but fighting them to a standstill, the KMT (at the war’s thankful end by the American A-bomb) was weakened and no longer able to withstand a rested, renewed, and powerful communist army.

    So, in essence, the best thing that ever happened insofar as the CCP was concerned, was the Japanese invasion. The KMT stood up heroically against the foreign invader, while the CCP cowered in the corner. And then after the hero defeats the national enemy, and stands exhausted, the coward sneaks out of the shadow and sticks a knife in the hero’s back, to claim the throne. While you may choose to glorify the CCP, I think it rather unpatriotic, and really un-Chinese of anyone who claims that the KMT was a failure. They stood for China when no one else did (not the CCP and certainly not Mao). Don’t let your partisan leanings ever blind you to the degee of sacrifice that the KMT did for China.

    Reply
  38. Kai
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 4:26 pm

    ralphrepo,

    At Hongjian; your distaste and dislike for the KMT is rather evident in your responses

    Bro, I think Hongjian has repeatedly made himself clear that he (or this persona of his) is very Machiavellian and he respects strength (because that’s what the real world actually respects). Insofar as the KMT failed to “win”, that is to him evidence of their weakness and ultimtely their failure. It’s not that hard to grasp. Perhaps you just want him to give more credit to the KMT? Good luck, I’m not sure Hongjian is in the business of dispensing sympathy and making people feel better. You can pretty much figure that out about him after reading just a few of his comments. :)

    Reply
  39. Hongjian
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 9:34 pm

    I do not ‘dislike’ the KMT as a ruling party of China. I dislike their weakness and incompetency in handling all the crisis that befell China at that time.
    I’ve already made myself clear, that the KMT itself is not at fault for the horrendous national weakness and disunity of China, but it was ‘inhertited’ from the fall of the Qing-Dynasty.
    But still, they’ve done a really, really bad job at handling anything after…
    And IMO their problem was the fixation upon Dr. Sun’s democratic political traditions.
    If the communists, who where nothing else than the left-wing of the KMT, are a problem, then why should one tolerate them untill they openly rebel? The attempt at political plurality harmed the KMT-regime badly. They should have installed a ‘though-police’ and killed off anyone with leftist thinking right from the start, before they can organize themselves into a ‘communist party’ – just like the commuists are doing today. The KMT should just have been hardcore fascist and militaristic for that matter. This would have been better for China’s stability and peace, than this half-baked military dictatorship with civil liberties they had back then, enabling dissents and rebels to freely agitating revolutions.

    Militarily speaking; the KMT was the last garbage. Six regular KMT divisions where worth just one IJA-division. And their elite german-trained Divisions where all sacrificed in that pointless battle of Shanghai, from which Jiang hoped to arouse the sympathy of western powers, who had their concessions there. Sure; this battle was a giant moral-boost for the Chinese, but it left the NRA undermanned with the lost of valuable assets, that could have been used for strategically valuable battles. And at that time; if the KMT had purged all leftist from the start with their Gestapo, there wouldnt have been any communists to backstab them.

    So, all in all, the KMT lost not because of the communist strenght, but because of their own stupidity and false sense of morality. A Jiang, who lived by the honour of a soldier, has no Chance against a Mao, who knew the rules of the streets.
    All this only contributed to their weakness. And it is good that the weak where killed off by the strong and merciless Communists, who where not that stupid to spare their external and internal enemies, or to waste valuable manpower for pointless PR-battles.

    Reply
  40. Hongjian
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 9:48 pm

    And also; ‘had the japanese not invaded…’

    like I stated in my wolf-analogy, the Japanese wouldnt invade a strong China, but only a weak one, that has no unity and is occupied with internal unrest. The Japanese are, like Jiang rightfully said, only an skin-disease, whereas the Communists are a disease of internal organs. But these diseases can only break out BECAUSE of the weakness of the nation.
    The internal disease of the communist could have been ‘cured’, by using the same methods the communists are using nowadays to kill dissents: fascism and censorship. The Warlords could have been assassinated and or have their families taken hostage, like in the good old imperial manner, to make them loyal to the central government. The country could have been united and strenghtened by a hardcore fascist KMT-regime, that crushes every dissent thought with a gestapo and concentration camps – they could have even get some real Nazi’s to help them with it from Germany.

    But somehow, the KMT did nothing right, and invited all diseases into their ‘body’ – something the Communists of today arent doing; if one see their crackdown on the Charta-08 intellectuals and Falun-Gong practicioners.

    They learned from the failures of the KMT, apparently: The toleration of dissent thought is a sign of weakness and invitation for misery.

    Reply
  41. bleah
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 2:52 am

    ultra laissez faire kapitalism

    I wouldn’t go this far. this time of capitalism would imply virtually no state.

    Reply
  42. Teacher in China
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 10:19 am

    “Sure the translations here are based on Fauna’s picks but the Chinese netizens baffle me. Sometimes they show all the traits of thinking, questioning and curious youngsters but then you see comments like for this article. I don’t get it. Is it because China lacks historical rolemodels that they always seem to pull Mao’s ghost out of the closet? ”

    If you read Fauna’s comment at the end, after the translated comments, she also says she’s unsure of why there aren’t any negative comments. Her suggestion is that the forum may have harmonized itself in order to prevent unwanted attention from some higher-ups. Makes sense to me.

    However, having talked to many people about it (including students) in the past 5 years, I’d have to say that my experience has been that more people are in favour of the “he was more good than bad” argument.

    On the other hand, I’ve also noticed that many Chinese are reluctant to even discuss this with a foreigner, since they think we all have an incomplete, biassed opinion of him; so, maybe my experiences are totally meaningless.

    Reply
  43. Kai
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    GuoBao,

    Why would anyone from mainland China bother to check an American magazine for pictures of Chinese leaders in the first place? Unless they have a serious inferiority complex of course as well as the apparantly genetic Chinese trait of trying to curse and blame everyone else around them for their problems.

    Serious inferiority complex and genetic trait of trying to blame everyone else? Were you asking a sincere sincere question or just paving the way for making an intentionally inflammatory comment?

    It’s normal and expected for Chinese people to still look up to America and American media. After all, America is still, by far, the world’s foremost super-power. Everyone watches America to some extent, whether they admit it or not. They watch America with a mixture of subconcious envy and resentment. It’s a natural extension of what we do individually as we admire those we perceive as being somehow better or more successful than ourselves. Chinese people noting how many times one of their own have appeared on Time or when they get mentioned in a movie like 2012 or Transoformers or whatever is a natural reaction because it gives them a sense of validation, that “OMIGOD, the Americans acknowlegded our existence! Sign my bra!”

    You can say it is an inferiority complex but I think that adds an unnecessary negative connotation to something that applies to the majority of the world.

    I can’t imagine some Newyorker sitting behind his computer trying to find out how many times Nixon was on the cover of Xinhuas publications.

    Because the New Yorker isn’t in the same situation as the Chinese person. He has the opposite of the “inferiority complex” you place on the Chinese person: “superiority complex”. See how that sounds? It isn’t necessary, but it does explain the attention-dynamic. The average American doesn’t care all that much about foreign media because many Americans are fittingly secure about their pecking order in the world. They’re at the top, so what does any other country have to offer them? This is a hyperbole, but I think you understand my point. Americans care about Xinhua as much as the Chinese dynasties of yore cared about the Western Dark Age barbarians’ campfire stories.

    Sure the translations here are based on Fauna’s picks but the Chinese netizens baffle me. Sometimes they show all the traits of thinking, questioning and curious youngsters but then you see comments like for this article. I don’t get it.

    Maybe because Chinese “netizens” is plural and they’re not all one monolithic entity or the same people being translated each time?

    Mao is unfortunately going to be celebrated as a founding father much in the same way Qin is celebrated. I think, over time, there will be increasing awareness and scrutiny of his mistakes and shortcomings, but he will still be seen as someone who had understandable and admirable ideals and did manage to take-over the basketcase that is mainland China. I agree that there’s still too much maddening irrational idol-worship around him for my own tastes as well, but I don’t think many of the reasons many Chinese still respect or admire him are wrong or necessarily the by-product of propaganda. We have to remember that for all of the horrible things that happened under Mao, the most important thing to look at for determining why a people still like him are the emotions he gave them.

    Humans are emotional creatures, and a lot of Chinese, especially the underclasses, felt a sense of belonging and validation under Mao they didn’t under the KMT or even Qing (depending how old they were when the CCP rose up). That kind of emotion sticks. That’s the kind of emotion patriotism and loyalty springs from. People starved for Mao because of how he made them feel about themselves.

    Again, time will dull these emotional connections over generations, but it really hasn’t been that long ago, only 60 years. There are still grandparents and parents passing down personal stories, creating similar, though weaker, emotional bonds in the children. That, and you still have a government with a vested interest in justifying its ideological legitimacy, but that the case everywhere, albeit with differing degrees.

    Reply
  44. Mike Fish
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 3:02 pm

    …comparing Time to Xinhua is like comparing Time to Reuters.. well wait… that doesn’t really work either… maybe bizarro Reuters

    Time, though really only good for letting primary school students make collages, has been a really iconic, popular magazine, recognized around the world, for a long time. China doesn’t have that. However, there are plenty of similar pop photo news magazines now, and they frequently have non-Chinese people on their covers, often American leaders. I wall-papered my entire white plaster apartment with different Chinese magazine covers of Obama!

    Reply
  45. Stimpy
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 3:34 pm

    Oh, that would be the Premier Zhou.

    Isn’t always the case that the Premier is well-thought of after the event, because it wasn’t him actually making the final choice?

    From what I have read, Zhou was a political man fully happy at his political status and not afraid to do what was needed to keep it. His wife was quite active to this end.

    This idea that he was the softer of the two is a myth, I believe. If he knew what was going on and was a better man, he would not have been there. A perfect fall-guy.

    Reply
  46. Hongjian
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 6:21 am

    The Japanese arent the problem, but rather the symptoms of a problem, just like the Communist. The problem itself was the inherited national weaknes of China, that let these symptoms to break out.
    Of course this weakness wasnt only the KMT’s doing, they inherited it from the trumoil of the early 20th Century, but the fact that warlordism rampages and communists can freely run around, agitating people and disruprting national unity is the proof that the KMT-regime failed at every possible front.
    The Japanese are only the greates epitome of that national weakness, self created and self nurtured by China throughout that century.

    Sure, the KMT fought couragous and hard, but this doesent change the fact that, practically, they are the one’s inviting them in the country in the first hand, because of their weakness.
    Even If Mao was killed by the japanese army, I doubt that any KMT-functional of that time had the ambition and strenght to throw around the rudder. Most probably, another ruthless warlord would have done it instead of Mao.

    Reply
  47. Kai
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 3:00 pm

    Jones, all good points, but I’m not arguing that they’re exactly the same, just that power structures and governments do indeed control information that is detrimental to themselves/itself. This isn’t a hair to split because doing so won’t change what I said. It would only change something I didn’t say. Wouldn’t you agree?

    Actually, as you probably already know, there’s plenty of information that can get you severely punished by law. The significant difference between China and, say, America here, is that the Chinese government quite openly and shamelessly abuses legal definitions to prosecute and persecute people. We all know the “states secrets” bullshit the government uses, right? The only thing I can think of off the top of my head from America that is similar, in modern times, would be the government’s definition of enemy combatants to justify what rights the subject has or doesn’t have. Maybe others can think of more, but for many people, the looseness of how Chinese “state secrets” is defined and applied is significantly different from what they see in their own countries.

    Reply
  48. Goodness
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 6:22 pm

    “Or, in Goodness’s case, be more specific about the type of control you’re saying is China-specific.”

    Was this aimed at me? If you guys don’t like that word how about offering up a better one and telling me why it’s better? I can’t find ONE plain english word that applies to one country alone to the exclusion of all other countries. If you can Jones or Kai, I’d be happy to listen. At best I can find a word that would applies to a country that would also describe others if we were talking about them. What was I thinking of when I used that word in my original comment? I listed two examples.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/world/asia/07beijing.html?_r=1

    Reply
  49. Kai
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 3:10 pm

    Mike Fish,

    I like Obama, but don’t you think you’d send a better message to those visiting your flat if you wall-papered with covers from this magazine? :P

    If not, my apologies in advance.

    Reply
  50. Kai
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 3:58 pm

    Jones,

    I understand what you’re trying to differentiate with “Promoting Information” and “Controlling Information”. It’s like the difference between astroturfing and censorship. When I said governments control information, I’m going by the definition of simple, basic, “control“. Astroturfing and censorship are just methods for controlling information.

    When I said it won’t change what I said, I’m saying your distinctions don’t invalidate what I said “Every power structure, especially national governments, are based on those three things”, the three things being what Goodness listed, of which included “controlling the flow of information”. I understand you’re trying to say that one is worse than the other, but I’m not arguing those distinctions because Goodness didn’t make those distinctions. As far as what Goodness said, I do think it is irrefutable that all governments control information that it perceives as detrimental to itself, whether that’s silencing or bullhorning.

    I agree the enemy combatants thing is largely not applicable to the average American citizen (unless they traveled overseas and joined Al Qaeda). That’s why I said it is similar in that a definition is being exploited, but also reiterated that the whole “states secrets” thing is significantly different for what many people see in their own countries.

    Reply
  51. luc
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 7:29 pm

    I think Kai’s posts have gotten better lately, way less semantics.

    This one was good Kai – keep it up man.

    I agree that mainlanders’ view of Mao will likely become less idealized in the future. I wonder if it won’t be a problem, though, that the vast majority of critical scholarship (the negative stuff anyway) comes from outside of China. I hope that future generations won’t also write off Mao’s critics as intentionally malicious ‘wild history’ writers or something.

    I also think that Americans (I’m american) could try to do more to see past the labels that we’ve heard put on Mao since some of us were kids… Regardless of anyone’s opinion, at least a cursory mention should be made of those early accomplishments of Mao’s that most Chinese seem to celebrate, i.e.: filling the power void with something that at least unified the masses, giving the country direction, hope, etc… I think it’s a great point (as I interpret Kai as saying above) that the mythologizing of Mao has been a huge contribution to China’s modern identity and unity – and maybe also to China’s current success.

    Even though it’s not my country (and I know that lots of people starved under him, and nobody thinks the CR was anything but a horrible disaster), I always feel defensive when somebody leads off with one of those “Mao was a murderer” comments. It almost seems like a petty, jealous attempt to undermine the foundation of everything China has accomplished since the republic was founded. So much of China’s success is built off the foundation that comes from fundamental faith in the CCP, which, in turn, comes from people’s idealized view of Mao.

    Reply
  52. Mike Fish
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 9:16 pm

    Walking around with a perpetual boner would be no good for anybody.

    Reply
  53. Kai
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 10:01 pm

    Goodness,

    So you agree that other countries, governments, and power structures are based on the three things you listed? And that if China hasn’t changed because of these things, then others haven’t either?

    Jones,

    You misunderstand. My point isn’t to argue for the broad definition of the word “control” itself. That isn’t my end goal. It’s merely a point that supports my disagreement with Goodness’s initial comment (see above).

    Goodness listed three things that are true for other countries as well as China but decided the criticism should only concern China. This is a no-brainer. If Goodness makes a sloppy argument, Goodness risks getting taken to task for it.

    This isn’t about nitpicking, it’s about challenging assumptions (!), namely that it’s perfectly fine to think and propagate that “control of information” is specific to China. It certainly happens in China as it does elsewhere. Yes, obviously to different degrees. But it can also be argued that whereas many Chinese know they’re subjected to censorship and propaganda, many Americans are likewise but THINK they aren’t. That’s sophistication. The most sophisticated control of information is to make the subject think they are free from control, that they are in control.

    This isn’t just pyschology, guys, this is political science as well.

    I disagree with people playing fast and loose with certain words but I recognize how common and natural it can be. The unfortunate thing is that the sloppiness of Goodness’s initial comment criticizing China is going to result in an educated Chinese person ripping it apart and concluding that Goodness is a hypocritical self-righteous jerk. Does Goodness care more about improving China or just having the freedom to criticize China as Goodness pleases, with whatever hypocritial liberties Goodness feels satsfies Goodness’s desire to point, blame, and disassociate from?

    If it’s the latter, I beg the same freedom of you, Jones, to point, blame, and diassociate from Goodness as well, without you saying I’m nitpicking.

    Jones, I’m disappointed that after all this, you say you don’t see my actual argument.

    Reply
  54. Kai
    Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 6:29 pm

    Jones,

    Goodness cited three things to make a point about China. The point of my disagreement was to show how, wait, those three things make a point about everyone. My replies are not about nitpicking semantics, it’s about substantiating my disagreement with Goodness’s point. I think Goodness’s point is shallow and Goodness’s argument was superficial.

    I disagree with the intention or intellectual laziness to use cheap arguments to advance a trite conclusion. When someone does this, they’re not constructively contributing to the overall discourse. Instead, they’re trotting out old banners for intellectually-lazy like-minded people to rally around.

    Do you know why some people think I’m a dick? Because I often challenge this intellectal laziness, these cheap arguments, and trite conclusions.

    Goodness said the best teachers taught him to question political assumptions. I’m questioning Goodness’s political assumptions. That is most evident in what Goodness thinks is political education or not, and whether Goodness received or didn’t receive political education. It is abject stupidity of the highest order to be so arrogant as to think we are not in large part socialized to believe what we believe.

    Goodness wants to say Chinese people are brainwashed by the information their leaders and governments control, but Goodness isn’t. (BTW, I keep using “Goodness” because I’m not really sure what gender Goodness is). Goodness says this, along with two other points, to show how China hasn’t changed. I simply said, wait a second, if that’s the case and China hasn’t changed, then arguably other countries haven’t changed either!

    Goodness didn’t like that, and proceeded to try to show how China is different from other countries, “unique” if you will, in being the only applicable target of the three things Goodness listed.

    Come on, I thought this was over? You didn’t like the gallon of beer thing? Not your thing? Would an over-sized flagon of bourbon help? Gin? Cranberry juice? Milk in a dirty glass? No?

    I’m disappointed because this isn’t the first time I feel you’ve completely missed the real, underlying, overall (whatever, the BIG) argument and points I’m making in response to you or others, and instead characterizing me as “nitpicking” a small inconsequential detail to be annoying. That said, I can’t force you to see everything I’m trying to show you, I can’t force you to recognize the larger argument I believe I’m making. That’s fine, but I can still feel disappointed by it. It means my communication ability isn’t good enough but I’m genuinely trying my best. Why do you think I spend my time writing so much?

    I didn’t reject the gallon of beer. But for future reference, I’m more of a vodka guy.

    Reply
  55. Kai
    Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 8:32 pm

    Jones,

    If the laziness had involved a word that could be taken offensively by people or groups of people, then yeah.

    I think in the context of what Goodness is trying to argue, it is indeed offensive to suggest Chinese people are controlled but, for example, Americans are not.

    Oh, believe me, I personally think Chinese are MORE controlled in many ways than, for example, Americans. I also know most Chinese will agree with this. They’re not idiots, they know in many ways there’s more “freedom” in America. But you get an intelligent Chinese person and he’s liable to point out what I did…and this is where Goodness offends:

    Goodness denies an clear irrefutable example of likewise being subjected to controlled information.

    This makes me feel that Goodness is so intent on associating “control of information” with China and disassociating with China that Goodness will deny what cannot be denied…and that’s offensive, arrogant even.

    What wouldn’t have been offensive was acknowledging the point made and clarifying. For example: “Yes, you’re right, so what I’m trying to say about ‘control of information’ is that China exercises censorship to an extent that is largely unimaginable in, for example, my own country.”

    Then I’d reply: “Okay, I agree fully, so how does this support your assertion that ‘the extent of China’s censorship’ makes it okay to “oppress the masses? And, can you elaborate on how this proves that China hasn’t changed?”

    If Goodness is saying the US or UK or Micronesia or wherever he/she is from is without any form of information control, then he/she is being ridiculous.

    Well, Goodness did suggest that in his/her adamant denial that he/she received political education, right? Goodness is maintaining that position. Isn’t that ridiculous?

    Overall, my point, to reiterate, is that I don’t quite get or agree with what Goodness first said or what Goodness is trying to say. I explain the problems I see and in response, Goodness tries arguing his/her original point by bringing out even more things I don’t agree with. Goodness’s use of the word “control” is not the main issue, and I never said it was. It is, however, evidence of the overall weakness and shallowness of his/her point.

    I see the appeal in what Goodness is saying. I see why people readily agree with it. But that’s the problem and what I’m responding to. People nod their heads with it because it alludes to, not proves, popularly held notions about China and their difference with China. People rally around it because it reinforces irrational feelings of superiority.

    Yeah, China captures the public’s imagination, but we’re based on a constitution so we’re better!”

    “Yeah, China controls information and we don’t so we’re better!”

    “Yeah, China’s policies were so bad they had to reverse them, haha, we’re better!”

    “Yeah, China hasn’t changed and we have so we’re better!”

    Goodness isn’t making an observation here, Jones. Goodness is making a judgement, and that judgement is poorly argued. That’s offensive.

    Reply
  56. Hongjian
    Tuesday, January 12, 2010 at 10:08 pm

    Chinese deserved what they got.
    Mao’s personae is pretty similiar to the founding Emperor of the Ming dynasty – Zhu Yuanzhang. He was a lowly beggar, who cunningly used all talented people around him to get his power (and killed them afterwards, when they are no use anymore). Also he was a giant massmurder and tyrant, but this is pretty normal for Chinese Emperors.

    So, nothing new happened – move along.

    Reply
  57. Kai
    Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 1:27 pm

    Except for your lucky gal and, by extension (!), yourself, Mike!

    Reply
  58. FOARP
    Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 8:59 pm

    Fair enough, but however you judge Mao, if you view his victory in the civil war as a good thing (which I don’t) then you have to view his failure to capture Taiwan as a bad thing. The truth is that once the communists had swept the mainland, they could still have brought Taiwan into the fold through compromise, but that Mao was incapable of this.

    Reply
  59. Comrade Kim
    Friday, January 15, 2010 at 4:28 pm

    Yes you are – you’re the one denying the actual history of China as it was lived and experienced. Since your critique isn’t the one shared by the people who actually lived through it, and you’re the one having trouble with the continuing popularity of Mao, the burden’s on you, Internet genius.
    I don’t have to prove anything – like the opinion of some useless twat like you matters one way or the other in the unfolding of Chinese history.

    Reply
  60. Comrade Kim
    Friday, January 15, 2010 at 4:46 pm

    Then look that book I linked up on Google books – you can read a fair bit of it there.
    For the shift in line post-78 there’s a whole host of other stuff – and it is relevant to bear in mind that since Deng and allies were explicitly rejecting Mao’s political line, they had to engage in a criticism of his era too, which colours other sources. But then they had a tricky game to play, because of course it was at the same time the source of any legitimacy they had.
    But let’s be honest, this is ChinaSmack, not a forum for serious debate. You can just call me a name and we’ll get back to the mud-slinging.

    Reply
  61. Comrade Kim
    Friday, January 15, 2010 at 6:23 pm

    The difficulty I have with a lot of Western discourse is it proceeds from anti-communism. Now, I’m no fan of Mao’s version of communism either, but if you look at the history of 1949-1978 with no ability to even imagine that the revolution actually did have some political appeal – you can find accounts of rural China during the CR where people were having the time of their lives, bypassing the bureaucrats and instituting collective health care – you’ll always end up with a version of Chinese history that jars with that of most people who lived it. This doesn’t mean that the victims weren’t there, or the failures didn’t happen, or that there are Chinese people who opposed it, hated it or have a more nuanced critique but the bottom line is that wasn’t the experience of the vast majority. There’s a whole political dynamic between the various factions and lines within the party that you’ll most likely misread if you can’t take China on its own terms. Doesn’t mean abandoning whatever your own principals might be, just my point much earlier as to why Western liberals are unlikely to produce a useful critique – once you’ve stated the obvious things like murder and repression are bad, which Chinese people know, you’ll probably end up wondering why those aren’t magic words that make the scales fall off the eyes of the ignorant Chinese masses. But actually it’d be you not seeing the whole picture.
    As for the human welfare metrics, which you rightly say are the measure of success (not launching satellites or getting the bomb, which they managed too) – the figures are again subject to the same issues but even on the most hostile reading you have life expectancy doubling, population growing rapidly and all those other things I’ve already mentioned about infant mortality and disease, the discourse on gender in a traditionally patriarchal society and so on. It really is the case that only in the worst years of the Great Leap famines did the death rate in certain parts of China surpass one that was endemic across vast swathes of rural India, which has never been painted in the same black and white terms in Western accounts

    Reply
  62. Comrade Kim
    Friday, January 15, 2010 at 7:34 pm

    From my point of view Mao was patently a wrong’un right back in Yan’an, if not before during the crackdown on the “AB团” (supposed counter-revolutionaries in the communist base areas) or up on Jinggangshan selling out the bandits who’d provided a fair chunk of his fighting force. But again, that doesn’t stop me wanting to read the history post-49 to some extent in its own terms.
    If you read Chinese you can find any number of articles on the New Left sites like 乌有之乡 that praise the Mao era. In amongst the frothing, nationalism and other assorted bullshit there’s accounts from people who lived through it which do offer the kind of insight rare in Western sources. Read them too if you can, is my advice.

    Reply
  63. FOARP
    Saturday, January 16, 2010 at 2:16 am

    Okay -

    1) Mao died 5 years before I was born.

    2) The cold war ended when I was nine years old.

    3) The books I have read about China I almost entirely read after I went to China.

    4) I formed my opinions based on what I saw in that country.

    5) Jonese is on the money. You haven’t actually said anything, just complained about waht others have said by claiming that ‘all Chinese’ share your opinion: NEWS FLASH – they don’t.

    Reply
  64. Comrade Kim
    Saturday, January 16, 2010 at 2:08 pm

    You’ve “said nothing” you twat – only a useless liberal tool like you could think a list of well-known charges could be a substitute for independent thought or substantive analysis. The fact you even think they might onyl stands as further evidence for the narrowness of your thinking. None so blind…
    I’ve said plenty, plus am in the happy position of being right, so I can sit back and watch events prove that to be true while you flail around failing to understand that while of course not every person in the world’s most populous nation sees things as I set it out, the vast majority do.

    Reply
  65. Hongjian
    Friday, January 15, 2010 at 11:28 pm

    Wat.

    a: China won against the US/UN/SK forces in Korean War. And NO. It wasnt a stalemate. China set the goal beforehand to push the US and SK-forces away from the Yalu, and out of North Korea; and they achived it at last. The war was a stalemate for North Korea, since it wanted to conquer the south, but it wasnt for China.

    b: WAT?! You gotta be shitting me. Given from whom?! The Soviet Union? If this was true, the sino-soviet split wasnt really a split after all, since the big brother from the north gave China a nuke and the quarrel between Mao and Stalin, that resulted into China paying everything baack to the USSR, was actually just a joke between friends. Sounds logic and historical sound, bro. Not.

    c: Learn your history. The KMT HAD the UN veto over China, but China pushed them out from it in the 70′s, with the help of third-world developing nations, whom China supported economically, even during the time when Chinese starved to death. This can be regarded as the largest and most glorious diplomatical victory in Chinese history.

    d: True; but in contrast to the KMT, who inherited the unequal treaties from the Qing-dynasty, the CCP did this out of a position of strenght, not by intimidation.
    And this is the biggest difference between KMT and CCP. The restoration of sovereignty that allows a country not to bow down in front of others and playing the role of a major political subject, with all the consequences of war and sanctions, and, in contrast, the castration of independence, that forces a country to submit into being a mere political object, a plaything for other, major powers.

    Reply
  66. DavidPaulBuckley
    Saturday, January 16, 2010 at 3:31 pm

    damn r u dumb. i wont waste too uch time

    korean war was a utter disaster for china internationally. thats when stalin decided to cut the worthless chinks loose.

    but he’d already passed on the bomb tech.

    u r so retarded u said the commies got the UN vote. obviously they didnt until 25 years later

    pure bulshit again. u know absolutely fuk all about history do u? u think western countries cud have maintained colonies in china whilst de-colonisation all over the world was taking place?

    ur just a fukin ‘tard man, why do u even argue about this shit when u cant tell ur arse from ur elbow?

    Reply
  67. Hongjian
    Saturday, January 16, 2010 at 11:56 pm

    *grin*

    butthurt much?

    truth hurts, bro.

    enjoy your nice cup of redneck-drivel.

    Reply
Personals @ chinaSMACK - Meet people, make friends, find lovers? Don't be so serious!»