Skip to main content

View Diary: Massive Protests Rocking Israel as Over 300,000 (4% Population) Angrily March | Analysis & LiveBlog (231 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No? (0+ / 0-)

    Just going to throw out the charge and see if it sticks, eh?

    "It's not a question of worrying or of hoping for the best, but of finding new weapons." -- Gilles Deleuze, Postscript on Control Societies

    by GiveNoQuarter on Sat Aug 06, 2011 at 08:08:10 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Dear stupid, (3+ / 0-)

      The famines happened. My son's great-grandmother was one of those who starved, along with virtually her entire village. I was told the "16 to 40 million" figure twenty-five years ago by a couple of Beijing University professors, who added "but no one was really counting."

      Mao is directly responsible for the famine deaths. It was his insane agricultural and industrial policies that made it inevitable. When it began, he had a choice: seek outside aid or not. And as it happened, there was a good Communist precedent at hand: Lenin had accepted outside aid to fight famine in Russia in the 1920s. Mao refused to learn from this precedent and simply let the people starve.

      Mao was also directly and solely responsible for the Cultural Revolution. I suppose you've heard about that show? Again, the product of a single man's insanity and egoism.

      What Mao was NOT solely responsible for was the liberation and unification of China. His policy of relying on the peasantry was not original with him and would have been continued by others if, say, the Japanese had killed him. He worked hard for it, true, but it would have happened without him. To declare otherwise is an insult to the Chinese people. Their fate did not lie in the hands of one man, not ever.

      So, Holocaust denier? Hmm.... the shoe fits better than you might think. The peculiar horror of the Holocaust is absent, the hunting down of one particular variety of people for no coherent reason and even against one's own interests. But the numbers involved are two or three times greater, at the very least, and the decision that resulted in their deaths was made by one man in both cases.

      I think I'll settle for just really, really stupid.

      I dance to Tom Paine's bones.

      by sagesource on Sat Aug 06, 2011 at 10:07:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think I'll (0+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Hidden by:
        charliehall2

        settle for really, really reactionary.  

        The famines happened. My son's great-grandmother was one of those who starved, along with virtually her entire village. I was told the "16 to 40 million" figure twenty-five years ago by a couple of Beijing University professors, who added "but no one was really counting."

        The evidence suggests that your number is wildly overinflated.  

        Yes, there was famine in parts of China during the period in question.  As there had been for centuries.  No, it was not all Mao's fault.  And anybody who has a basic understanding of the weather during those years knows you're wrong.  

        Mao is directly responsible for the famine deaths. It was his insane agricultural and industrial policies that made it inevitable. When it began, he had a choice: seek outside aid or not. And as it happened, there was a good Communist precedent at hand: Lenin had accepted outside aid to fight famine in Russia in the 1920s. Mao refused to learn from this precedent and simply let the people starve.

        Here you demonstrate a total lack of understanding of the purpose and historical context of the Great Leap.   And the idea that he simply "let the people starve" is belied by the actual facts.  

        Mao was also directly and solely responsible for the Cultural Revolution. I suppose you've heard about that show? Again, the product of a single man's insanity and egoism.

        What this demonstrates is a child's understanding of the CCP and Mao's role, as well as a total lack of knowledge of Maoism and its synthesis between mass initiative and party leadership.   It relies on a very simplistic (and very wrong!) notion of Mao as The Red Emperor.  

        These are ridiculous, hackneyed anticommunist cliches that you might be able to pass off on people who don't know any better, but it doesn't work with me.  

        You've got a lot of studying to do.  Start here.

        What Mao was NOT solely responsible for was the liberation and unification of China. His policy of relying on the peasantry was not original with him and would have been continued by others if, say, the Japanese had killed him. He worked hard for it, true, but it would have happened without him. To declare otherwise is an insult to the Chinese people. Their fate did not lie in the hands of one man, not ever.

        Who claimed that Mao was solely responsible for China's liberation?! lol!  You really love those straw men, right?  

        But it is interesting that you breathlessly inform me that Mao wasn't solely responsible for liberation of China (giant duh!) and that "their fate did not lie in the hands of one man, not ever," while having spent the previous 3 paragraphs telling me how he was in fact solely responsible for their fate during the Great Leap and the Cultural Revolution!  LMFAO!  Now that's some quality thinking there!

        Surely a sign of superior intellect!  

        "It's not a question of worrying or of hoping for the best, but of finding new weapons." -- Gilles Deleuze, Postscript on Control Societies

        by GiveNoQuarter on Sun Aug 07, 2011 at 12:15:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site