<< . . . Mao took over and established a much tighter controll than the Japaneese did >>
How did you measure the tightness of the control? By what measure or standard does Mao's come out tighter than the Japanese? (And BTW it was not "Mao" but the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party that exercised control in those days, in the name of the working class.)
<< . . . resistance was put down with greater violence>>
Greater violence than the Rape of Nanking? Wow that's a pretty heavy charge. Too bad you don't have a shred of evidence to support it.
<< . . . and from time to time food would be withheld from regions that would have otherwise have been self suficient.>>
And you know this because . . . ?
<<Outkilling Imperial Japan is a real accomplishment . . .>>
Well, it probably would be, if anyone ever did.
<< . . . and Mao should be seen in the light of this as his greatest work.>>
Yeah, maybe he'll be seen that way when somebody proves that's how it was.
<<Admiration of Mao is inspiring rediculous killing in India as we speak . . .>>
And it's "ridiculous" for the workers' army to attack the Indian national army because . . . ?
<<. . . lets hope that the Maoists of India learn better before they earn accomplishments comprable in scope to Maos total of kills in China.>>
"Learning better," I presume, means learning to bend over so that the capitalists who run their country can fuck them up the ass? I don't think so.
<<How do you credit Communism for advances made since Maos death and paid with American Dollars?>>
How? That's real simple. They started managing their own resources for their own benefit and not for the benefit of the foreign exploiters, who they threw out with Chiang Kai-Shek. They organized better and more efficiently and produced stuff on their own account which could outsell anything made by their former masters. They organized their economy on the basis of what the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party felt made sense, not on whatever made money for whatever capitalist or group of capitalists happened to have the government in his pocket from one day to the next.
<< Without a supportive West there would be no such advances . . . >>
That's like saying that without guys like me to buy his products, Bill Gates would still be programming traffic computers for the City of Seattle. Won't work for Bill and it won't work for China. Sorry.
<< without real anti-communism there would be no such advances >>
Yeah? How do you figure that "real anti-communism" is behind the Chinese success story?
<< without reversal of Maoist economic principals there would be no such advances.>>
Listen, plane, Mao did NOT write the book on Marxist economics. He was one leader at one time and his accomplishments are enormous. Whether he fucked up on the famine issue or not, and you are still thousands of miles away from proving that he did. The Communists did not stick rigidly to outmoded theories and out-dated practices, they tacked to the winds as they blew and they remained true to the basic principles of Marxist economics - - public ownership of the means of production and maintaining the dictatorship of the proletariat rather than opting for the dictatorship of the marketplace. Mao's ideas were great for Mao's time (even allowing for some that didn't work out as planned) and today's Party leaders' ideas are great for today. Throughout the sixty years that followed the Revolution, the CCP maintained firm control and brought the country to the illustrious position that it occupies today and out of the mire that it occupied under the domination of foreigners. Your principal beef seems to be that the progress did not follow a straight line - - well, in an ideal world, it would have. This world not being ideal, the progress hit bumps in the road, took some wrong turns, but despite it all, the net result of communist rule, the progress made by the end of the day, is breath-taking. Way more impressive than anything the U.S.A. has done in the same period. They're on the way down, China's on the way up.
<<Without Nixon there would be no such advances >>
Nixon had nothing to do with it. He was trapped by the exigencies of an advancing communist world and had to do what he could to split it, to play one end off against the other. Mao, sensing the need Nixon had, took advantage of it to slip out from the burdens that until then the U.S.A. had placed upon China, lack of diplomatic recognition, trade embargos, etc. With Nixon or without, the Chinese advance was inevitable. All Nixon did was to recognize the unsustainability of US efforts to hold down China, and tried to reap some petty advantages while he still could.
<<Mao deserves credit only for letting Nixon in to do his thing and promptly dieing to get out of the way.>>
Mao deserves ALL the credit for organizing the party that drove the foreigners and their puppets from China forever, and building the core of the nation that others following him built into the colossus that we see today.
<<Maos replacement Zhou Enlai started the process of reforming, remakeing Communism in China such that it isn't a communism that owes anything to Marx at all . . . >>
Don't be ridiculous, the people still own the national resources and the means of production and the Party as the vanguard of the proletariat still exercises the dictatorship of the proletariat exactly as Marxist-Leninist principle demands. They have loosened state control for entrepreneurs to operate under their aegis, as did Lenin during the NEP in the USSR, but this is a long way from abandoning basic Marxist principle.
<<Chineese success has finally been found in the mode of Gorden Gecko. Greed has been Good for China and withthe incredable energy produced by entrepenurism their lagging has been converted to surgeing. Crediting Communism with the reversal of Communism is fantastic.>>
As I said, the CCP is harnessing greed for the benefit of the Revolution and the nation, but any "reversal of communism" is happening only in your own brain.
,,....suppose that Mao were to live to be 150 or that his wife had fulfilled her ambition to be his successor , they would still be pure Communists and still be worse off under the thumb of a Chineese person than they had been under British Hegemony, as it is they still have an overweening government as a legacy problem , but the way forward seems clear , as they depend on Hong Kong for citizens who understand finance , they will learn from some of the best capitolists on Earth how to make their "Communism" even more freindly to entrepenures. Perhaps they will discover the virtues of Democracy and Individual rights , stranger things have happened...
No, sorry, I'm not going to SUPPOSE any such thing. That is just part and parcel of the insanity of your way of thinking, ignoring the actual facts which of course make nonsense of your theories, and choosing instead to take your fantasies and speculations as facts instead. Back to earth, my friend. There is no escape in fantasy from the reality of the success of communism or the failure of capitalism.
