Mao Zedong: Greatest Humanitarian That Ever Lived

John UK asks:

It is said more people died in India than in China during Mao’s rule is this true?

Yes, between 1949-1979, there were 100 million excess deaths in India over and above the deaths in China. That is, 100 million deaths occurred in India due to not following the Chinese model. The excess deaths are continuing at a rate of 4 million/year and by now they should be about 170 million. So capitalism in India has killed 170 million over and above the deaths in China, by not following the Chinese model. We know this because China and India were at the same level in 1949 and now China has vastly surpassed India.
All this Mao was the biggest murderer of all time crap are nothing but lies. Indian capitalism killed many times more than Mao did. Instead of being the greatest murderer ever, Mao was the greatest humanitarian that ever lived. He doubled life expectancy from 32 in 1949 to 65 in 1980, setting a world record. Mao saved more lives than any human being that’s ever lived.
In only one year did the death rate exceed that of prerevolutionary China, in 1959 in the middle of Great Leap famine. Even most of the years of the Great Leap and during all of the Cultural Revolution, the death rate was below, typically far below, the rate of 1949.
Since China has headed to capitalism, schools and medical clinics have closed all over the land. Lack of health care is killing millions of Chinese people. Health care is now only available for pay, and most people can’t afford health care or medications, so when they get sick, they hope they get better, and if not, they just die.
The entire US media and both political parties have never stopped cheering for this miserable state of affairs.

Please follow and like us:
error0
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

33 thoughts on “Mao Zedong: Greatest Humanitarian That Ever Lived”

  1. Lindsay, I don’t care about your political ideology, though I disagree with you but don’t worship political leaders of your ideology. You shouldn’t be owe loyalty to anyone.

  2. Truth is we really know nothing about Mao and China the situation he inherited after WW2 and other things like CIA sponsored separatism and subversion and the continuation of the drug trade and organized crime is not even mention in research about Mao and what factor that might have had.
    The same can be said of Stalin and the pre WW2 Soviet era which thankfully despite the archives being edited to fit an anti-Stalin tone since the times of Kruschev onwards despite his 5 year plan and collectivisation program being a success which stopped sporadic famine outbreaks since the civil war which ended in 33 and if he had taken no action millions would have died anyway.
    The only problem is to vested interests that have a monopoly in the media and academia including the Trotskyite left we hear one side of the story as it suits current foreign policy objectives against Russia and China.
    The Republic of Taiwan is the major financier of the victims of Communism memorial in Washington DC.
    I wonder how Castro’s Cuba stacks up to that of Batista. I wouldn’t included the economic factor as US initiated an illegal economic blockade against when Castro came to power.
    What about John F Kennedy Robert do you like him?
    He is praised by the left and the Democrat party but looking at his foreign policy on Wikipedia it was pretty aggressive including approving a CIA coup that brought Saddam to power and laid the foundations for the Vietnam war.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy

    1. He’s a typical Cold War Democrat. You take what you can get in this world.
      Castro made things much much better for the majority than under Batista. A large % of the population were being seriously screwed under Batista, no matter what the macro figures indicate. Castro’s a hero.

      1. “A large % of the population were being seriously screwed under Batista, no matter what the macro figures indicate”
        I took a course on latin america since indepence a few years ago and I remember being told that at the time of the revolution over half of Cuba’s population still had homes with dirt floors. I’ll try to find the book.
        Incidentally, Castro is white and Batista was a mulatto. Just remember that when I run in the next presidential election.

  3. Ah, Robert, your posts on Stalin and Mao demonstrate that you share my Machiavellian views.
    I guess we both think that the ends justify the means. Even though Mao and Stalin both killed (or pushed policies that resulted in the deaths of) millions of people, the fact that they increased life expectancy/raised the standard of living or enabled them to defeat Hitler during WWII makes up for their brutal actions.
    I suppose the long-term benefits outweigh the short-term costs.

    1. I don’t know about Mao and the internal politics of China during his rule but Stalin’s actions saved millions of lives putting an end to famine outbreaks, introducing a system of law and due process although corrupt, disinfection programme to prevent outbreak of disease which was falsely labelled as a mobile gas chamber as part of anti-Soviet propaganda, massive infrastructure projects, pro natal programme, abolishing Trotskyite programmes (abortion, mass immigration, radical feminism, etc.), free housing and healthcare, etc.
      I don’t know why WN don’t do real research and do some revisionist work on Stalin and the pre WW2 Stalin era who successfully went against the Trotskyite programme (abortions, quick divorce, mass immigration, racism, feminism, open immigration, minority rule, denigration of national identity, etc) just like what happened in the US after WW2 lead by anti-Stalinist Trotskyite Communists instead of repeated Cold War propaganda and worshipping their hero Hitler.

  4. I think Mao’s greatest accomplishments were unifying China and dramatically improving people’s standard of living during the early 50s.
    Though I think he should have quit while he was ahead.
    There’s an inside saying within China (I heard this from a Chinese professor of Chinese history), that if you asked them about Mao in 1956, he would be the greatest man who ever lived. If you asked them about Mao in 1966, he would have made some bad mistakes, but he still would have been great. And if you ask them about Mao in 1976….
    Though generally, the Chinese still revere Mao, seeing him as a unifier, in spite of his various blunders (which even pro-Mao Chinese acknowledge), since they value order and stability above all else.

    1. Also, another thing.
      I think the history of Mao and Chinese Communists should be a lesson to the left.
      The Maoists focused primarily on ECONOMICS. Even though they pushed for progressive economic policies, they avoided shoving their social and cultural views down the throats of the peasants, because they knew that the peasants were socially conservative.
      (at least this was the case during their rise to power. After they took over, they started pushing for more social policies, particularly during the Cultural Revolution)
      Of course, most leftists in the U.S. have abandoned economics and focus on all this racial/cultural crap. Rather than ensuring that the average worker has a decent wage/standard of living, they suck up to blacks, Hispanics, and gays.
      To the extent that they do denounce outsourcing or open borders, it’s only to lament the exploitation of 3rd worlders.
      In other words, it seems that the left today has moved increasingly to the right on economic issues (and other important issues), but increasingly towards the left on cultural issues.
      Worst possible combination, in my book.
      The Chinese Communists were the exact opposite (economically progressive yet nationalistic), which enabled them to retain the loyalty of the people.

      1. Nope, it was Cultural Revolution from Day One in China. And the peasants went along with it too, because they supported most of the changes. A lot of the time they just used gentle persuasion to get rid of old habits and dumb superstitions. The Cultural Revolution started in 1949 and is still going on in some ways. The old system was so oppressive and horrible – basically feudalism, semi-feudalism or landlordism, that the masses just went along, often happily.

        1. They did change the script. That is the new simplified version. They also introduced a pinyin Roman system, but that has not gone over well. They need to get rid of the whole character-based system. It’s a failure. It doesn’t work.

        2. In some respects yes. One of the first things the communists did was pass the Marriage law – which made men and women equal, and gave women the right to initiate divorce, and have equal right to property. It also banned arranged marriages. This is why Chinese more or less date and marry as Westerners do today, and arranged marriages are basically unheard of (they may still happen in very remote areas), but I don’t know of any myself.

  5. Global capitalist imperialist faux one-world utopian Thomas PM Barnett wrote a widely published piece today from China. He said…
    http://globlogization.wikistrat.com/globlogization/2010/12/10/op-ed-in-china-daily-china-us-as-strategic-collaborators.html
    “For years I have written of Washington’s need to “lock in China at today’s prices”, meaning the cost of China’s cooperation would rise with time. Back then I believed that, without such cooperation, the US’ strategic choices would narrow considerably.
    That day has arrived, meaning the choice is now China’s: lock in US cooperation in safeguarding China’s vital global export and supply lines or watch your own strategic choices narrow.”

    Hmmmm, sounds like saying China should bail the US out for not
    “locking China in”…..
    China appears to be ignoring Tommy….
    http://counterpunch.org/whitney12102010.html

    The US wants China to show that it is a “responsible stakeholder” in the region, which means that it will comply with US foreign policy objectives. But China has other ideas and will not allow itself to be used as a stick to beat up on Washington’s enemies. In fact, on Thursday, a delegation of high-level Chinese officials met with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il in a public display of support. China has frustrated Obama’s plan to further isolate the North or to give the US a bigger role shaping regional policy. “

    1. US and Britain are trying to cut of independent sources of energy that the Chinese state is trying to acquire abroad in Africa, neighbouring Central Asian states and other Eurasian countries like Turkmenistan as well as in China itself supporting Uyghur separatists in Xinjing energy rich as well as Uranium for nuclear power plants so they can make billions of dollars and control China by supplying the energy sources needed to power there economy.
      Nathanial Rothschild son of Lord Jacob and heir to the Rothschild dynasty recently announced that he bought a coal mining company in the US to become the largest exporter of coal to China.
      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-01/nat-rothschild-plays-his-strongest-suit-with-3-billion-commodities-deal.html

  6. “Greatest humanitarian that ever lived”??
    Really? I don’t believe there’s any such thing as a humanitarian autocrat. Contrarians quickly find out how “humanitarian” they are when they make you “disappear” via instantaneous lead poisoning or prison.

    1. Be that as it may, the previous system was killing more. A humanitarian can kill people, as long as he saves more lives than he kills.
      The previous system that both US parties and the the entire US media love so much was far deadlier than Maoism. Mao saved tens of maybe hundreds of millions of lives and he doubled the life expectancy of those who were already alive. There are plenty of ways to kill a man. Capitalism has its own ways. You don’t need to use a bullet to kill a man. You can do it via starvation, famine and disease, the preferred method used by capitalists.

        1. Sorry to belabour the point, but here is an article about South Korea’s massacre of leftists in the 1950s.
          http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/5789134.html
          100,000 executions out of a population of 20,000,000 is equivalent to say 7 million executions in China today.
          The stuff above even dwarfs the horrendous Katyn massacre.
          And then you have of course the Argentine ‘dirty’ war, and of course Chiang Kai Shek’s famous 228 massacre on Taiwan (admitted to today), where 30,000 innocent people were shot outright. At the time Taiwan’s population was only 7 million, so this was the equivalent of 2 million executions on the Chinese mainland by Mao Tse Tung (I’d put the total number of direct killings by Mao, at around this number – but most of the communist executions actually were of KMT saboteurs and landlords who had committed terrible crimes against their former feudal serfs).

      1. As well as indirect killings such as starvation, and disease etc, Capitalism is just as capable of directly killing its victims as well, in fact I would say probably more capable than communism. Especially when the wealth and privilege of the ruling classes are threatened.
        From the supression of the Paris Commune, to the atrocities of White troops in the Russian Civil War, to Chiang Kai Shek’s 1927 massacre of communists (Chiang did not have any compunction over killing the entire clan of communist party members), capitalists are just as inclined to outright violence as communists.
        Note that Mao was never into executing family members of his enemies whatsoever, and in the aftermath of Lin Biao’s attempted assassination of Mao, not a single execution of anyone, family member or non-family member, was carried out (Hitler had thousands executed after the failure of the July Plot). Lin Biao’s children and relatives are alive and well in China today and even attend get togethers of the children of the old Red Army leaders. This is significant, because in the past the Emperors would exterminate the entire clan of a family member accused of treason.
        Mao lost half his family to execution at the hands of reactionary forces. His gentle second wife Yang Kaihui was beheaded, as were two or three of his siblings.
        Remember when the Bolsheviks first came to power one of the first things they did was abolish the death penalty.
        http://www.marxists.org/archive/martov/1918/07/death-penalty.htm
        But the ferocity of the White opposition led to them having to reinstate the death penalty.
        During the Russian Civil War, Leader of the White Russians Lavr Kornilov promised, “the greater the terror, the greater our victories.” He vowed that the goals of his forces must be fulfilled even if it was needed “to setfire to half the country and shed the blood of three-fourths of all Russians.
        The other famous White Leader, Admiral Kolchak was also just as blood thirsty. In a place called Ekaterinburg alone more than 25,000 people were shot or tortured to death.Kolchak himself demanded one of his generals to “follow the example of the Japanese who, in the Amur region, had exterminated the local population.” He used mass floggings and razed entire villages to the ground with artillery fire. 4,000 peasants became victims of field courts and punitive expeditions and that all dwellings of rebels were burned down.
        An excerpt from the order of the government of Yenisei county in Irkutsk province, General. S. Rozanov said:
        “Those villages whose population meets troops with arms, burn down the villages and shoot the adult males without exception. If hostages are taken in cases of resistance to government troops, shoot the hostages without mercy”
        (Wikipedia).
        Anti-communists, especially Russian and Chinese anti-communists were at least as brutal (I’d say more so) than the communists. For the communists it was often a case of kill or be killed.

        1. The stuff above even dwarfs the horrendous Katyn massacre.
          Even the Soviets did it evidence of the Katyn massacre is in doubt as the main evidence being documents found in the archive has signs of forgery.
          Until the Duma declared the Soviets killed Polish POW’s there was a growing movement with new revelations coming out that the documents are forgeries.
          http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/pol/truthaboutkatyn.html
          http://katynmassakern.blogspot.com/

      2. What? Robert I’m sorry to say but you are a crazy shithead Mao did kill millions of people, also there has never been a notable famine in America in the last 150 years except the Great Depression, which still didn’t kill a lot of people

  7. Interestingly Mr Lindsay’s claims, far from being an outlier, are backed up by a plethora of research by mainstream scholars. It’s just that much of this research does not get out to the public in the mainstream media.
    Lindsay’s claims on life expectancy are true. In fact the most dramatic increase in life expectancy in history happened under Mao, and there is an ongoing Stanford study on this:
    http://tinyurl.com/2gycydx
    Also this Harvard Study suggests that the reason why China’s economic performance is so far ahead of India’s today is because Maoist China prepared an excellent foundation of a healthy and literate (relatively) population for Deng’s reforms to take place (regardless of your view on the merits of those reforms themselves).
    “However, the authors note, China’s economy has exploded, expanding by 8.1 percent per capita per year on average between 1980 and 2000, while in the same time period India saw a sustained growth rate in income per capita of 3.6 percent–a rate that, while rapid by the standards of most developing economies, is modest compared to China’s.
    What accounts for the difference? Part of the answer, the HSPH team suggests, is that dramatic demographic changes in China began decades before those in India. After 1949, China’s Maoist government invested heavily in basic health care, creating communal village and township clinics for its huge rural population. That system produced enormous improvements in health: From 1952 to 1982, infant mortality in China dropped from 200 to 34 deaths per 1,000 live births. Life expectancy rose from 35 years to 68.”

    http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/review/rvw_summerfall06/rvwsf06_bloom.html
    Furthermore it is interesting to note that the Great Leap was a tragedy because it was actually a reversal of what had been achieved in the first decade of the PRC. But the death rate during the worst year of the Great Leap Forward, according to was actually around the same levels of India (and other developing countries at the same time) at the same time, according to Indian economist Utsa Patnaik.
    The excess mortality is measured relative to the low mortality rates the communists had achieved earlier on.
    Yet people use this one tragic period to paint Mao as a mass murderer. It’s just ridiculous.

    1. Despite the myths, Mao’s China had no universal healthcare. The statistics listed above are completely fabricated by westerners who were lead to see the good parts China. A majority of the Mao’s communal clinics were unstaffed, and westerners were only allowed to see the ones that are staffed.
      Chinese people today are more likely to get healthcare than during the Mao Era.
      Mao’s communal clinics are largely built for propaganda purposes.

  8. If Mao is a mass murderer, why not Yeltsin?
    David Satter wrote in the Wall Street Journal:
    “Between 1992 and 1994, the rise in the death rate in Russia was so dramatic that Western demographers did not believe the figures. The toll from murder, suicide, heart attacks and accidents gave Russia the death rate of a country at war; Western and Russian demographers now agree that between 1992 and 2000, the number of “surplus deaths” in Russia–deaths that cannot be explained on the basis of previous trends–was between five and six million persons.”
    http://tinyurl.com/284g5os
    This would equate to 60 million deaths in a country of China’s population.
    Does this make Yeltsin a mass murderer worse than even Mao or Stalin?

  9. They also introduced a pinyin Roman system, but that has not gone over well
    In spite of this China has literacy rates well over 90%, compared to India’s 60%. Half of Indian women cannot read or write.

      1. That was part of the reason for the Cultural Revolution. It was a mass movement to overthrow party functionaries inclined to elitism. Ordinary peasants and workers replaced elite party structures with revolutionary committees. The Cultural Revolution was a movement from the ground up. Jung Chang’s father was high up in the communist party. Her family lost a lot of its privileges in the Cultural Revolution. Hence her bitterness towards Mao.

  10. how do you explain the millions of people who starved to death in the famine following his ingenious ‘great leap'(which he blamed on sparrows) and the persecution of political opposers in rhr glorious cultural revolution you dumb cunt?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *