CitizenTed:

Hipster Stalin was a good looking guy. The world would probably be a better place if he'd just been banging hot chicks with all his free time.

RexTalionis: I don't think Mao is a hipster icon. Why? Because Mao is very popular in China in general (I just got back less than 20 hours ago). True hipsters wouldn't embrace something that's already popular.

FWIW, when I was in college in the late 70s, in Los Angeles, the Little Red Book could be purchased in the bookstore and nearby were Chairman Mao caps



It seemed sort of an LA / college / 70s hipster thing even then (in the US).

And I guess I am somewhat taken aback by that given the cultural revolution had only ended a few years earlier.

Wow, was I ignorant then. And now. :(

/old vulcan sayings....

Bonzo_1116: CitizenTed:

Hipster Stalin was a good looking guy. The world would probably be a better place if he'd just been banging hot chicks with all his free time.

He was fine when he was bangin' chicks, but after his first wife died, he allegedly said:

"This creature softened my heart of stone. She died and with her died my last warm feelings for humanity."

He, too, smokes to reach his thoughts. His pants are hiply rolled up; he wears those cool, large plastic eyeglasses.

Cheap, rose colored, plastic glasses are now retro cool in China? Noted.

The Chinese tendency for revisionist or purged histories make this almost inevitable along with that deep need for a strong authoritarian leader that some mindsets tend to gravitate to.

You can still find cab drivers in Russia with ikon-like pictures of Stalin hanging from their rear view mirror.

So does that mean Che Guevara is no longer cool and trendy?

He's sexy and you know it.

Hedonism breeds contempt.
Ignorance inspires worship.

olderbudnoweiser: [cdn2.mog.com image 320x240]

Disapprove.

/carried around hot

Indeed, I got a lot more action after I took his picture out of my wallet.

I think a lot of this is because the PRC does not have much to be proud of politically, so they choose a leader who is extreme or extraordinary. Since the death of Mao in 1976, China's most notable leaders, like Hua Guofeng, Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, and Hu Jintao, have been technocrats...very intelligent and capable leaders, but absolutely uninspiring (think Gore/Kerry/even Romney, although the intelligence of these three is debatable). Jiang and Hu have been trying desperately to create a legacy for themselves to compete with the Mao cult (e.g. the "Three Represents" and the "Eight whatevers-Hu-came-up-with"), but frankly, no one in China gets excited about them.

People gravitate to those who stand out...granted Mao's extraordinary qualities resulted in the death of 10% of his country, but nevertheless, he stood out. Think of the enthusiasm people have for Islamic extremists in the Middle East, or the enthusiasm people have to the Tea Party and the Religious Right in the USA. They all hold positions that contrast greatly with the norm. Why were so many people enthusiastic about Obama in 2008? He was different; not like the others. Since then, he has proven to be the norm...just like everyone else, and much of the enthusiasm has died down.

Mao, because the terrible things he did (in terms of number of kills, Hitler and Stalin were mere grasshoppers), because the PRC was all but a failed state under his rule, has become a symbol of the PRC to the world, and I think many Chinese are trying to co-opt that symbol and make it their own as a way to try to reaffirm for themselves the PRC's greatness, however misguided.

Mao was a power hungry megalomaniac that was only kept in check up until the death of Stalin, after which he had free reign to treat his common man like ants.

It boggles my mind how people can idolize someone who honestly did not value human life.

Kim Jong-il: I think a lot of this is because the PRC does not have much to be proud of politically,

That's not entirely true. The PRC has done a remarkable job transitioning from a centrally planned economy to market economy. The problem is that while they have liberalized economically, their political system has not. This is creating a tension between the authoritarian rulers and the emerging middle-class, particularly the large amounts of "princelings" in the government who really have no legitimate right to govern aside from the fact that their parents were party officials. To compound this, there is the fact that the economic development has been concentrated largely in the East and Southeast coastal areas of China, yet the interior remains greatly underdeveloped. This has created both unrest on the interior and large internal migration. To further add to these problems, you have the fact that one of the tactics the CCP is using to protect its legitimacy is nationalism, which is almost entirely based on Han culture, so while it helps them with the majority of China's population it creates problems in Xinjiang and Tibet, and makes the Taiwan issue even less resolvable.

The point is not that CCP doesn't have anything to be proud of, it's that they have an enormous amount of problems to deal with. It's true that they have not dealt with them as effectively as they could, but look at our government, are we a shining example of political rationality? It's true that they have to start addressing these problems, especially corruption and unequal development, but that will start happening after the elections party changes later this year. Xi Jinping looks like he will be a reformer, at least moderately, and will work for good relations with the U.S., but like all politics it will rely heavily on who else comes to power.

As for Mao, he was a personality and did have a lot of charisma, but he won China for the same reason most Communists did; he was less corrupt than the official government, he fought foreign enemies (in this case the Japanese), and he didn't tell people what he was actually going to do once in power, he just told them how great everything would be. Oh, and it helped that he was able to kill 150,000 people in the Korean war, most of whom were considered not-loyal to the CCP. His brutality and cunning got him power, not personality.

"he is on the frontier of 'things.' "
Spoken like every hipster I've ever encountered.

Chairman Obama loves Mao

Can't wait to match his record

elchip: [0.asset.soup.io image 500x500]

Putting either Mao or Che in the same bucket as Hitler demonstrates a breathtaking ignorance of history.

Joseph Stalin, on the other hand, can out-Hitler Hitler any day of the week. The holodomor was probably humanity's low point, but it never makes American-made history books because we were allied with the Soviet Union during WW2.

udhq: elchip: [0.asset.soup.io image 500x500]

Putting either Mao or Che in the same bucket as Hitler demonstrates a breathtaking ignorance of history.

Joseph Stalin, on the other hand, can out-Hitler Hitler any day of the week. The holodomor was probably humanity's low point, but it never makes American-made history books because we were allied with the Soviet Union during WW2.

Its funny how socialism kills more folks than any other movement in history

Also, is there some kind of filter that automatically greens every headline with the word "hipster" in it?

udhq: Putting either Mao or Che in the same bucket as Hitler demonstrates a breathtaking ignorance of history.

? Mao killed at least 18 million people during the Great Leap Forward famine alone. That doesn't include executions of dissidents/party "enemies", the civil war, Korean war, or Cultural Revolution. Depending on casualty estimates, he ranges from slightly less than Hitler to much worse. Even the highest estimates of Holodomor are lower than the lowest estimates of the Great Leap Forward famine. The only difference, possibly, is the amount of intent.

winterwhile: udhq: elchip: [0.asset.soup.io image 500x500]

Putting either Mao or Che in the same bucket as Hitler demonstrates a breathtaking ignorance of history.

Joseph Stalin, on the other hand, can out-Hitler Hitler any day of the week. The holodomor was probably humanity's low point, but it never makes American-made history books because we were allied with the Soviet Union during WW2.

Its funny how socialism kills more folks than any other movement in history

The 1 billion Africans killed by extractive capitalism would like to politely disagree.

NINDroog: That's not entirely true. The PRC has done a remarkable job transitioning from a centrally planned economy to market economy. The problem is that while they have liberalized economically, their political system has not.

This is why I said they have little to be proud of politically. I've lived in China for 5 years, and it seems that much of the pride is based on the economic growth, not the political development. The leaders of China since Mao have been very intelligent, and recognized that abandoning the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist model was the way to prosperity. When you get Chinese behind closed doors, they admit that the political system is still extremely unstable, and with the lack of checks and balances, if you get the right leader in power, an economic crisis could result in another Great Leap Forward or Cultural Revolution again.

NINDroog: you have the fact that one of the tactics the CCP is using to protect its legitimacy is nationalism, which is almost entirely based on Han culture, so while it helps them with the majority of China's population it creates problems in Xinjiang and Tibet, and makes the Taiwan issue even less resolvable.

100% dead-on. China's most pressing problem is that it is a multi-cultural state, yet the Han ethnicity is about 90% of the population, and China's cultural identity is based on Han history and culture. While most of China's minority ethnic groups have been almost completely Sinicized, Tibetans, Uygurs, and maybe Mongolians, don't share Han culture, language, or mostly religion. In fact, one of China's most prominent symbols, the Great Wall, was built to keep people like them OUT, and protect Han areas. I'm not as sure about Taiwan, though, as Taiwan also has a very Han-centric identity...it seems more like a political difference that is evolving into a cultural difference as time goes on.

NINDroog: but look at our government, are we a shining example of political rationality?

Nope, absolutely not. But, at least the US system is set up so that a potential dictator will have an extremely difficult time putting the pieces in place in order to have the power to do the things Mao did. China's system, under the "harmonious society" policy makes that very easy. Also, US national identity is based more on ideas, rather than culture or history (although, I do think that is changing as more Americans want religion to play a larger role in US national identity).

NINDroog: Xi Jinping looks like he will be a reformer, at least moderately, and will work for good relations with the U.S., but like all politics it will rely heavily on who else comes to power.

Xi Jinping is a product of the Shanghai political machine, and probably won't be much different from Hu Jintao, or especially Jiang Zemin. Don't expect any major changes in national policy. He is intelligent, and also a pragmatist, yet also a Chinese. He will fight to keep China stable, yet fight for China's interests.

NINDroog: As for Mao, he was a personality and did have a lot of charisma, but he won China for the same reason most Communists did; he was less corrupt than the official government, he fought foreign enemies (in this case the Japanese), and he didn't tell people what he was actually going to do once in power, he just told them how great everything would be. Oh, and it helped that he was able to kill 150,000 people in the Korean war, most of whom were considered not-loyal to the CCP. His brutality and cunning got him power, not personality.

I agree. While Mao was bad, Chiang Kai-shek was at least as bad. He was a poor leader, and orchestrated a disastrous defense against Japan in WWII. In the late 1940s, China truly had a choice between a douchebag and turd sandwich.

winterwhile: Its funny how socialism kills more folks than any other movement in history

Really? I thought it was Communist dictatorship and sociopathic narcissism combined with absolute control of the military and state apparatus. But hey, it says "socialism" in U.S.S.R and Nazi, so that must be the reason. That would explain why there has been so much genocide and hardship in Switzerland, Norway, Denmark, and Holland.

udhq: winterwhile: udhq: elchip: [0.asset.soup.io image 500x500]

Putting either Mao or Che in the same bucket as Hitler demonstrates a breathtaking ignorance of history.

Joseph Stalin, on the other hand, can out-Hitler Hitler any day of the week. The holodomor was probably humanity's low point, but it never makes American-made history books because we were allied with the Soviet Union during WW2.

Its funny how socialism kills more folks than any other movement in history

The 1 billion Africans killed by extractive capitalism would like to politely disagree.

Also, this comment makes no sense in response to a list of 3 totalitarians inspired most by (right-wing) nationalism, and 1 lefty activist who never actually held even a shred of political powerin his life.

But you already knew that...

Since it's Caturday...

NINDroog: udhq: Putting either Mao or Che in the same bucket as Hitler demonstrates a breathtaking ignorance of history.

? Mao killed at least 18 million people during the Great Leap Forward famine alone. That doesn't include executions of dissidents/party "enemies", the civil war, Korean war, or Cultural Revolution. Depending on casualty estimates, he ranges from slightly less than Hitler to much worse. Even the highest estimates of Holodomor are lower than the lowest estimates of the Great Leap Forward famine. The only difference, possibly, is the amount of intent.

That's a pretty big difference. The question is whether we are talking about actual crimes against humanity or just measuring body counts? If it's the latter, Reagan's refusal to respond to AIDs could very well put him at the top of that list, but I wouldn't put him in the same bucket or even on the same planet as Stalin or Hitler.

Mao was a brutal dictator, I'm not defending him. But the Chinese famine was not an engineered attempt to wipe out an entire class of people like the holocaust or holodomor. I tend to put Mao in a class with King George and Napolean, not with the wholesale, industrial mass-murderers with political power.

winterwhile: udhq: elchip: [0.asset.soup.io image 500x500]

Putting either Mao or Che in the same bucket as Hitler demonstrates a breathtaking ignorance of history.

Joseph Stalin, on the other hand, can out-Hitler Hitler any day of the week. The holodomor was probably humanity's low point, but it never makes American-made history books because we were allied with the Soviet Union during WW2.

Its funny how socialism kills more folks than any other movement in history

It's not just funny. It's roflmao funny.

Kim Jong-il: This is why I said they have little to be proud of politically.

My apologies, I thought you were speaking in the broad context of politics, not just political reform, so I misinterpreted your statement.

Kim Jong-il: Xi Jinping is a product of the Shanghai political machine, and probably won't be much different from Hu Jintao, or especially Jiang Zemin

I know that, but he does (at least from an outsiders point of view) have a little more charisma and personality. I mean, I don't think I've ever come across something Hu Jintao has written or said that has a definitive position in it. Seriously, the guy is a master of talking without saying anything (Hu, that is).

Kim Jong-il: He is intelligent, and also a pragmatist, yet also a Chinese. He will fight to keep China stable, yet fight for China's interests.

And it is that stability that makes me hope he will push for some real reforms, if only because the party is so fragile. I fear it will either be reforms or a war, and the South China Sea ain't looking so good. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that it will easy, and with such a large turnover of the entire government (I believe it's around 60% of all state, local, and municipal officials) there is a whole lot of uncertainty. It could go very wrong very quickly. I'm only tentatively optimistic because Xi looks like he is energized (as much as a Chinese politician does, anyways) and because most of the existing party seem to be just trying to keep things stable until they can leave. I guess I'm hoping he will be more Wen Jiabao than Hu Jintao. That said, if the Bo scandal has demonstrated anything, it's that there is a lot of behind the scenes maneuvering, and there are a lot of forces competing for influence. I worry about the military and the princelings supplanting the reformers within the technocrats and Quinghua clique.

The line I tend to draw is that I think it's fair to say that Stalin would have been a serial killer if he never had political power. The same is probably true for Hitler and Pol Pot.

I've read a couple Mao biographies, and he was not a nice guy, and his political theory is debatable, but if Mao Zedong managed an Arbys in modern-day Davenport, Iowa, I don't see him cutting up prostitutes in his basement on weekends.

udhq: The question is whether we are talking about actual crimes against humanity or just measuring body counts?

Point taken.

@NINDroog and Kim Jong-Il

I don't have much to add, but I enjoy reading your conversation. You both seem very well-informed.

As for whether Mao was on the same level as Hitler (the fact that I'm even plunging into this debate shows that I'm pretty stupid), it depends on how you're looking at it. In terms of body-count, Mao was worse, but much of the deaths tie into his ineptitude at statesmanship (though plenty were killed for explicitly political reasons). Hitler focused more on the killing.

So it's willful manslaughter vs. murder, basically (though Mao was guilty of the latter as well, just not as often).

Erebus1954: Since it's Caturday...

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 640x191]

All hail Mousey Tongue!

udhq: I don't see him cutting up prostitutes in his basement on weekends.

Maybe not, but they would have been virginal and 12 years old.

NINDroog: My apologies, I thought you were speaking in the broad context of politics, not just political reform, so I misinterpreted your statement.

No need to apologize...I did not intend my statement to be condescending or anything like that...just that the PRC's political history is not been stellar, while the economic performance of the past 30 years has been pretty remarkable.

NINDroog: Seriously, the guy is a master of talking without saying anything (Hu, that is).

Yeah, you're right, and I just don't see anything more happening under Xi. I see PRC relations with the USA under Xi continuing to be "cordial", with the occasional complaining about Taiwan and PRC human rights, but when the EU pisses off China, the PRC will scramble back to Seattle to buy some more Boeings, just to piss off Toulouse, and vice-versa when the USA pisses off China.

NINDroog: And it is that stability that makes me hope he will push for some real reforms, if only because the party is so fragile. I fear it will either be reforms or a war, and the South China Sea ain't looking so good.

Yikes! The South China Sea isn't looking so good, especially with the Philippines stepping up its military posture. Relations with Vietnam have already been pretty sour because of the S. China Sea (few countries hate China more than Vietnam!). Again, though, I don't see any big changes under Xi...the occasional conflict involving the respective Coast Guards and "fishermen", with some hand-wringing and face-saving statements afterwards.

Yeah, the Bo Xilai scandal has caused some waves, but I don't see any big changes in the future, even under Xi Jinping. What worries me is what happens after Xi Jinping, especially if China's economy proves to be as fragile as some economists say it is and it sh*ts the bed.

optional: As for whether Mao was on the same level as Hitler (the fact that I'm even plunging into this debate shows that I'm pretty stupid), it depends on how you're looking at it. In terms of body-count, Mao was worse, but much of the deaths tie into his ineptitude at statesmanship (though plenty were killed for explicitly political reasons). Hitler focused more on the killing.

So it's willful manslaughter vs. murder, basically (though Mao was guilty of the latter as well, just not as often).

Yeah, I agree with you here...I don't think Mao really had any intent to kill as many people as he did. Mao was a historian (and a reasonably good one at that...his history of the Ming dynasty is reasonably well received), but he was not in any way an economist nor a statesman, two skills necessary to lead a nation as large as China. Many of the millions of deaths that occurred were because of his inability to interpret economic data, and his inability to accept criticism and receive advice from his advisors (e.g. the Peng Dehuai debacle at Lushan back in 1957(58?)).

Yeah, Mao did deliberately cause the deaths of many, but if you want to talk about murder, yeah, Hitler still outranks him.