Did Mao "murder millions of Chinese?"

[DOR]

The problem is the phrasing: was it murder?

First, murder is extra-judicial, and since Mao was the center of the legal system (such as it was), conduct as a matter of policy would not be extra-judicial.

Second, does it matter? Isn’t the real question – or, intent behind the question – “Was Mao a bad guy, causing the deaths of a number of people that is so large that it might make him the worst guy in history?”

Once we figure out why the “bad guy” question is being asked, we can proceed from there.

[Bigfella]

The problem is the phrasing: was it murder?

That appears to be the crux of the issue.

First, murder is extra-judicial, and since Mao was the center of the legal system (such as it was), conduct as a matter of policy would not be extra-judicial.

Disagree with this bit. I would argue that in this context murder is intentional killing of a person without a mitigating factor such as self defence ('class enemies' & the like do not provide such grounds). The legality of the act may change how it is treated, but making it legal doesn't stop it from being murder.

Second, does it matter? Isn’t the real question – or, intent behind the question – “Was Mao a bad guy, causing the deaths of a number of people that is so large that it might make him the worst guy in history?”

Once we figure out why the “bad guy” question is being asked, we can proceed from there.

It doesn't matter that much. In cases of mass murder on this scale it is often the case that many victims don't die directly at the hands of agents of the state, but as a result of conditions deliberately created by that state. Those conditions may not have been created with the intent to kill, but if the state creates such conditions or fails to ameliorate them when they arise then the state in question is responsible for those deaths.

To put it more directly, millions of Chinese were murdered by the state headed by Mao. Many times that number were killed because that state instituted policies that caused famine & then refused to do what it could have to address that famine.

Similar situations arose in Ireland under British rule, India under British rule, Russia under Stalin, Democratic Kampuchea under Pol Pot, East Timor under Indonesian occupation, Indochina under Japanese occupation & the DPRK under the Kims among many. Generally speaking the policies that led to famine were not intended to create famine, though in hindsight it is often clear that famine was a likely outcome. Often there were few attempts to address the famine or half-hearted attempts at best. Sometimes the famine was actually made worse by continuing or even worseing policies that were already causing deaths. it is entoirely fair to say that those people were 'killed' by the state or authority in question.

So, in shorthand form, Mao murdered millions of Chinese & killed millions upon millions more.

[cdude]

I don't see the logic in your conclusion at the end of your speech. What do Irish and Indian famine have anything to do with this discussion.

You only need to answer this question to yourself: did Mao know BEFOREHAND his policies would lead to millions of death?

That appears to be the crux of the issue.



Disagree with this bit. I would argue that in this context murder is intentional killing of a person without a mitigating factor such as self defence ('class enemies' & the like do not provide such grounds). The legality of the act may change how it is treated, but making it legal doesn't stop it from being murder.



It doesn't matter that much. In cases of mass murder on this scale it is often the case that many victims don't die directly at the hands of agents of the state, but as a result of conditions deliberately created by that state. Those conditions may not have been created with the intent to kill, but if the state creates such conditions or fails to ameliorate them when they arise then the state in question is responsible for those deaths.

To put it more directly, millions of Chinese were murdered by the state headed by Mao. Many times that number were killed because that state instituted policies that caused famine & then refused to do what it could have to address that famine.

Similar situations arose in Ireland under British rule, India under British rule, Russia under Stalin, Democratic Kampuchea under Pol Pot, East Timor under Indonesian occupation, Indochina under Japanese occupation & the DPRK under the Kims among many. Generally speaking the policies that led to famine were not intended to create famine, though in hindsight it is often clear that famine was a likely outcome. Often there were few attempts to address the famine or half-hearted attempts at best. Sometimes the famine was actually made worse by continuing or even worseing policies that were already causing deaths. it is entoirely fair to say that those people were 'killed' by the state or authority in question.

So, in shorthand form, Mao murdered millions of Chinese & killed millions upon millions more.

[Officer of Engineers]

did Mao know BEFOREHAND his policies would lead to millions of death?

Did Mao know DURING the GLF and the GPCR that his policies were killing people? Did he stop them? Or did he continue them?

[S2]

Fascinating that none of this discussion considers the millions alleged killed during the period of conquest and consolidation of the revolution during the late forties. Not an incidential by-product of societal/cultural disruption but, instead, deliberate and intentional. Kulakization (if you will) on a new and grand scale. Liu Shao Chi's Great Leap Forward was a good decade beyond the revolutionary consolidation.

[Bigfella]

Fascinating that none of this discussion considers the millions alleged killed during the period of conquest and consolidation of the revolution during the late forties. Not an incidential by-product of societal/cultural disruption but, instead, deliberate and intentional. Kulakization (if you will) on a new and grand scale. Liu Shao Chi's Great Leap Forward was a good decade beyond the revolutionary consolidation.

I think you are assuming too much - from my end at least. My figures for 'murdered included everyone mao had killed from the first 'landlord' to the last victim of the GPCR. To be fair, I dodn't make that explicit, but it was what I had in mind.

[Bigfella]

I don't see the logic in your conclusion at the end of your speech.

I am fascinated by the idea that if I disagree wiht you it is a 'speech'. Very telling.

What do Irish and Indian famine have anything to do with this discussion.

By far the biggest component of those Mao killed were as a result of famine - in particular thet relating to the 'Great leap forward'. Those measures weren't intended to produce mass starvation but they did. The failure of mao's government to either change policy or sct in a manner that would have saved lives led to those deaths. Similar issues arose in all the examples I listed including famines in Ireland & India. British policies in those cases either caused or dramatically exacerbated famine and continued to do so, in some cases, well after the famine was undeway.

You only need to answer this question to yourself: did Mao know BEFOREHAND his policies would lead to millions of death?

In some cases he did. In some cases he didn't. he was responsible for all those deaths, the only diffeence is whether they are classified as 'murdered' or 'killed'. I suspect that to those who died it is a pretty academic debating point.

[kyli]

First of all, Mao never went as far as Stalin in either the scale or the brutality. Secondly, either had Mao achieved and accomplished as much as Stalin to bring their nations forward.

You only need to answer this question to yourself: did Mao know BEFOREHAND his policies would lead to millions of death?

Mao knew what he was getting into with the GPCR. He might not know the extent of detruction of his policies would cause or how many people would be killed but he certainly knew that his policies would lead to many deaths. As for GLF, he probably didn't know beforehand that his policies would cause famine. However, in either cases he failed to stop the bad policies and allowed them to continue. As a leader, Mao should be held accountable.

To put it more directly, millions of Chinese were murdered by the state headed by Mao. Many times that number were killed because that state instituted policies that caused famine & then refused to do what it could have to address that famine.

If this is the standard to go by, I would say Millions of Chinese were also murdered by the state headed by Chiang and many emperors before the establishment of the republic. Probably, most world leaders in the short history of mankinds in both eastern or western nations should also be labeled as mass murderers.

From my perspective, the banana republic headed by Chiang had no hope to bring China forward. I know some people might argue against this but I just don't see how Chiang and his cronies would implement policies to modernize the nations. As much as the destructions that Mao had caused, Mao had sucessfully driven the imperial powers from the nation and implemented policies that destroyed the old system which laid the foundation of modern China. In the processes, many people espeically landlord(Some good landlord and some SOB landlord) suffered. If he stopped there, Mao might be considered one of the best gifted leader that China had for a century. But he decided to implement some very bad policies, these policies have not only caused many sufferes and deaths but had always completely destroyed the Chinese civilization.

In the end, the Chinese learned a lesson to never idolize anyone, any policies, or any ideologies. Although Mao is still worshipped in China, his policies would probably be never adopted again. As long as China is not moving backward to his failed policies, the debate that Mao is a murderer or a great leader is just an attempt to satisfy personal ego and belief that I am right and you are wrong for both the Chinese and Westerners. Because they viewed things at different angle and have different judgement on what considered good leaders and what considered mass murderer, I don't see how this debate would go any where.

[S2]

kyli Reply

"First of all, Mao never went as far as Stalin in either the scale or the brutality..."

After the first million or so it all gets lost in the wash.

"...Secondly, either had Mao achieved and accomplished as much as Stalin to bring their nations forward...."

Forward to what, exactly? The inexorable march of internat'l socialism has led...nowhere. It dead-ends at a swamp in a deep, dark forest.

You're attempting to equivocate the relative merits of the two greatest mass murderers in modern history. Comparatively, Adolph Hitler was a rank amateur.

A-P-O-L-O-G-I-S-T.

[cdude]

I don't think the GLF lasted forever, so at some point, he stopped it?

Not only that, he even apologized for the GLF (not that he's the only one responsible)

Speech At The Lushan Conference

Did Mao know DURING the GLF and the GPCR that his policies were killing people? Did he stop them? Or did he continue them?

[cdude]

I thought it was a civil war you are talking about.

Fascinating that none of this discussion considers the millions alleged killed during the period of conquest and consolidation of the revolution during the late forties. Not an incidential by-product of societal/cultural disruption but, instead, deliberate and intentional. Kulakization (if you will) on a new and grand scale. Liu Shao Chi's Great Leap Forward was a good decade beyond the revolutionary consolidation.

[kyli]

[B]
After the first million or so it all gets lost in the wash.

Why the first million? Why not the first hundred thousands, the first ten thousands, or even the first thousands? If there really were no difference, then you wouldn't have used the words such as the two grestest mass murderers and rank amateur. In the end of the day, there is a difference.

Forward to what, exactly? The inexorable march of internat'l socialism has led...nowhere. It dead-ends at a swamp in a deep, dark forest.
You're attempting to equivocate the relative merits of the two greatest mass murderers in modern history. Comparatively, Adolph Hitler was a rank amateur.
A-P-O-L-O-G-I-S-T.

The Nazi Genocide of the Jews is an act of rank amateur. Apologist

I don't deny that the socialist movement led to a dead end, because the ideology goes against human nature. However, the movement had a great impact on many countries. For Mao: Ended the civil war and fedual states of warlords. Moved forward to break the system of social stratification. Eradicated both western powers and soviet influence. Redistributed the land(controversially) to eliminate the sharecropping and undue injustice to many peasants. Bought equality to women which enable women to work. Destroyed the tribal system when some elderly from no where could dictate your life. Ended hereditary dynasty(maybe unintentionally).

Equally, I can name many disasters that Mao bought to China. GLf and GPCR are two of the greatest tradegies in China in second half of the 20th century. From your perspective, Mao = mass murderer = he can't do any goods. Socialism = bad system= all bads. I just disagree. If I would be accused as a apologist because of this, so be it.

[Officer of Engineers]

I don't think the GLF lasted forever, so at some point, he stopped it?

Not only that, he even apologized for the GLF (not that he's the only one responsible)

Speech At The Lushan Conference

It wasn't Mao. It was the rest of the CCP who finally had enough ... and Mao brought on the GPCR to destroy them.

[Doktor]

So we got to Godwin. Time to move on :)

[Triple C]

Well, what exactly is gained by the comparison of Mao and Stalin? Mao left China barely able to feed itself and industrially as well as economically underdeveloped. Didn't seem that the revolution had done much for China when Mao died.