Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Mao Zedong and earlier Chinese history

Expand Messages
  • thekoba@aztecfreenet.org
    ... Dear Eric, I have on occasion met Americans who are of the view that the uprising of the 1770s was a mistake and that George III wasn t really a bad fellow
    Message 1 of 2 , Dec 28, 2003
      >
      >Dear Kevin,
      >
      >Interesting. Well, there were lots of peasant
      >rebellions in Chinese history. Admittedly they are
      >frequently put down to "excessive taxation", which is
      >interesting in that it places the onus on class rule
      >rather than natural disasters. It's quite possible
      >that in times of natural disasters, the feudal rulers
      >would increase taxes to make up for a shortfall in
      >their earnings from people who couldn't cough up the
      >usual funds. And then that in turn would be seen by
      >the peasants as gross injustice (reasonably enough)
      >and a cause for them to rise in rebellion. In fact
      >some of China's dynasties were founded by peasant
      >rebellions, I believe, but then the new kings (just
      >like all our reformist presidents) once in office, did
      >precisely what the class nature of feudal kingship
      >demanded of them.
      >
      >I don't know per se of famines in pre-1840 China, but
      >like you, I have trouble believing there were no such
      >things. It's funny how people pick up odd pieces of
      >information and then digest them completely wrong in
      >any case.
      >
      >As you said, the argument that famine begain with the
      >Opium War would only indict the colonialists and
      >capitalist world market, letting both socialism and
      >feudalism off the hook. That would appear to be a
      >strange argument, unless the guy is one of those
      >monarchists who seem to be cropping up in various
      >places around the world.

      Dear Eric,

      I have on occasion met Americans who are of the view
      that the uprising of the 1770s was a mistake and that
      George III wasn't really a bad fellow (and it must be
      admitted that he was a lot less tyrannical than some
      of his contemporary monarchs, like Catherine the Great,
      Louis XVI or the Ottoman Sultan), but I haven't met
      anyone who seriously suggests imposing a royal family
      here. I suppose the closest thing to a monarchist I've
      met was an Apache co-worker who went around with a
      shirt bearing a picture of Geronimo, whom he called
      "grandpa" (which I suspect may be the phenomenon that
      Ibrahim describes as a "flying elephant").

      >Indeed there were terrible famines in China up to
      >Liberation, one of them in the 1940s killed many and
      >Chiang Kai-shek was blamed for doing absolutely
      >nothing about it, except to jail people who wanted to
      >do some sort of charity work as "communists." Chiang
      >is a much better candidate for "mass murderer" than
      >Mao, who, as you said presided over the end of such
      >things, at least largely.
      >
      >When that Black Book of Communism first came out,
      >somebody in India noted that many of the millions of
      >"Communist victims" were in fact victims of natural
      >disasters of various types that were blamed on the
      >socialist governments because they, supposedly, were
      >inept and failed to cope with the situation. (And I
      >would venture to say, if one ever really went into
      >that book, he would find that many of those natural
      >disasters as well as political killings existed only
      >in the minds of the western media - the famous
      >Ukrainian famine comes to mind, for example, and also
      >Robert Conquest's silly figure of 20 million Soviet
      >purge victims that still seems to be the operative
      >figure that people work with.)
      >
      >That Indian researcher then compared the record of
      >India with China in dealing with natural disasters and
      >found, not surprisingly, that the Indian calamities
      >regularly took a considerably higher death toll than
      >similar events in China. One could quibble about this
      >or that comparison, but his point was valid and if
      >we're going to blame all such things on "inept"
      >socialist regimes, it is even more justified to blame
      >deaths in natural disasters on indifferent and even
      >anti-people capitalist regimes.

      A lot of the difference in ability to withstand natural
      disasters isn't so much whether the government really
      cares about the welfare of the people, but national wealth.
      In that sense, of course, Mao was absolutely right to
      go full speed ahead with the industrialization of
      China and the advancement of technology. For example,
      the recent earthquake in southeastern Iran was not, in
      terms of raw power, among the very strongest of quakes.
      Were a similar earthquake to strike a city of similar
      size in the USA or western Europe, it's doubtful there
      would even be 100 fatalities. The estimated 20,000
      fatalities are simply because the society is too poor
      to afford stronger buildings than they have. That's
      the same reason storms and landslides are much more
      deadly in Mexico or the Philippines than here.

      >The Black Book of capitalism's murders would thus have
      >to come out in a long series of black volumes. I
      >would actually like to see that very much.

      Unfortunately I don't think we can count on David Irving
      to write it :-(

      >Too bad your niece will miss your Anne Frank lecture
      >series. I'm not sure how old she is now, but it's
      >possible that your sister and her husband will have
      >reason to fear your ability to raise serious doubts in
      >her mind about "orthodox thinking" once she gets old
      >enough to know what all that is.

      Casey is seven years old now, so she is getting old enough
      to start learning critical thinking. Their parental
      responsibility, as they see it, is to keep away people
      who might encourage that.

      >It would be nice if some of these people with "Jewish
      >blood" could get it through their heads that debunking
      >the holohoax and the legends around Anne Frank and all
      >the rest is not some plot against their individual
      >persons, but against the system of zionist capitalism
      >that the Jewish people as a whole have identified
      >themselves with and now uphold with rare unanimity.
      >Each individual is free to reject such an
      >identification, however, and join the ranks of the
      >people, and the sooner that some of them realize this
      >and really act upon it, the sooner things will improve
      >for their descendants even if it's too late for the
      >present generation of Jewish supremacists.

      David Irving said something similar when he spoke in
      Phoenix. He said that if he were Jewish, he would want
      one of his own people to gently break the news to the world
      that the Hollowcause was a gross exaggeration, rather than
      promote the myth to the bitter end, getting the goyim
      angrier and angrier as it is continually exploited.
      As to the Jewish branch of my family, only my brother-in-
      law is descended from other Jews. My sister converted
      from Catholicism, and having been found to be barren,
      they adopted Casey from a non-Jewish family. That's why
      David Irving's nursery rhyme "I am a baby Aryan" is
      particularly appropriate for her. I'd love to teach her
      that to recite before her rabbi whenever he tries to
      teach her any nonsense about Jewish "heritage" :-)

      Comradely,

      Kevin

      --
      "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor
      to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread."

      --Anatole France
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.