|
|
|
|
|
|
by 0xdeadfa65
1155 days ago
|
|
|
You can commit atrocious evil without reaping rewards. It is extremely doubtful that Mao contributed any good. Read any book like Mao’s Great Famine or any other book detailing Maos life and exploits. He was a psychopath who refused to admit he did anything wrong. He was also an ephebophile, sleeping with girls as young as 14. Did that contribute any good? |
|
|
Agenda driven Mao books don't highlight how Great Leap Foreward and Cultural Revolution both indispensible net good for PRC state building by actual relevant metrics. In 1980s Worldbank summary of PRC progress from post WW2 to 1970s (significantly overlapping Mao's reign) concluded relative to low-income peers PRC was significantly more industrialized - national production share 35/40/25 in agriculture/industry/services vs 40/25/40 average in low income bracket. 40 industrial share around middle income levels, supported via higher per capita energy consumption i.e. 3x India). State provided services were also assessed to be far more effective in meeting basic needs vs low income counterparts, with life expectancy in mid ~65 vs 50 for low income. PRC's 65, was again high end of middle income despite being PRC growing from low income. That's +10 bonus years x 900M lives. WB remark was "outstandingly high" and PRC's "most remarkable achievement during the past three decades". Meanwhile Mao bios: he slept with teens, GLF, CR bad. Mao trading lives in the 50s to front load industrialization/workforce development, and then drag masses into modernity by beating out the 4 olds was excessively executed, but not wrong. Right enough that it's better to be overzealous than conservative/not at all. Again, see India. The ledger on Mao doing net good is pretty clear to me - significantly more good than most other leaders who nation build in other low income countries fraction the size of PRC with better starting and operating conditions. Maybe Mao's an unrepentant psychopath, but nobel prizes have given to people whose done less.
IMO Mao is "successful" BECAUSE he's a psychopath. Like he's not a great statesmen - a great statesment would still want to industrialize and normalize culture like Mao, but they'd opt for the peaceful, 50+ year marathon. It takes a psychopath to think, naw, we'll sprint it in half and deal with the bodies. And use that psychopath energy to new regime in line to execute vision. Utlimately, it worked out, and ironically why he's bad statesmen = great founder.