If you believe a person cannot be an individual and stay true to the collective, then you purge dissent. When you purge dissent, you crush the revolution. Revolution is dissent.
@TheRevolutionaryBob: This essay has nothing to do with purging dissent. Mao was absolutely in agreement that revolution is dissent and that differences in views should be given space in the revolutionary movement. This is why he put forward slogans such as "It is right to rebel" and "Bombard the headquarters". You should actually listen to the video.
all people is not equal under the communism china,most of people is so poor,but major communist has so many privilege,car house food etc etc,,,,,,major communist in china just want to keep those privilege,so that why they killed historical amount of their citizen,its typical characteristic of communism,communist kill their against people without any permission necessary,china is perfectly lawless zone,chinese communist party killed historical amount of people for keep major communist`s privilege
Comrades: Mao is certainly the savior of of freedom human right and socialism in China and the fight against facist capitalism. Also is important to remember he is our inspiracion for many revolusions in Latinoamerica like in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela world capital of Maoism!!!! Long live glorios Chairman Mao memory!!! Long live Comander Chavez!!! Fatherland maoism or DEATH!!!
@CajunCommie Thank you freind Comrade!!! By the wil of God our Supreme Comander recuperates better every day and will soon join us leadering the combat against many oligarchs facists and imperialists still exist in Venezuela. Do not doubt they will be wiped out!!! With renewed force the enemies of the People will feel and be crushed by our Comanders "Fist of Steel"!!!
@hugocaracas2021 Same Here, SOy Maoist Boriqua, and I and a Anti-Bourgeios peoples war for all of my 3rd world Latinos, Black africans, Arabs, South, East, and South east asians, Eastern european,s and Australian aboriginie,
@kaleo183rd Venezuela send thanks to all patriot marxist leninist stalinist maoist who solidarize with our noble Bolivarian Proletariat our glorios Bolivarian Revolusion and glorios Supreme Comander Chavez. Soon comes the moment of the worlds Proletariat will rise up to follow Supreme Cmadner Chavez and give the Final Battle against the oligarchs and capitalists!!! Pray for Health for the Comander!! God and the Virgen be with the Comander!!
@AntifaUSA I agree, but I live in NYC, but am of Latino decent,( Puerto Rican), which are a oppresed nationality still suffereing from colonialism, I have many friends who are left of different backgrounds, and I see where you get your assumptions from, many 1st world marxists, don't understand struggle, so their theory, opions, and assumptions, are flawed, still a least their heart is in the right place,
Mao believes "the masses" must be enslaved for their own good. If not they will "work half heartedly without a definite plan or direction..." and society will suffer. Superficial generalizations with a poor understanding of... basically liberalism in terms of lifestyle and free markets. And a complete denial of the concept of natural rights. Eh.
@dombon6 But it seems to me that here Mao is talking about social democrats who propose a political alternative to violent revolution, no? That's pretty much liberals today. If the liberal reformers had been allowed to do their work in tsarist Russia the Bolsheviks would have never come to power.
@jack5051525354 Just for the sake of clarification, by social democrats, are you referring to something similar to Fabian socialists or American progressives? I think his use of the term "liberal" is "liberal" in the old sense because he refers to liberals valuing the individual over the collective and this predates Hayek's book by 7 years. Hayek refers to liberalism not in the Progressive sense or what we would consider liberalism today but in the classic sense of free markets and free minds.
@jack5051525354 "Liberalism stems from petty bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political, and organizational liberalism. [paraphrase: liberals think marxism is too abstract / approve of it in theory / don't desire implementation]" -- sounds like Marx' critique of capitalism extended to people's personal lives, and a nutjob trying to rationalize why others don't want to bring about communism.
@dombon6 I am referring to those who see a welfare state alongside mostly free markets as a way to better society. Communists favored the abolition of all markets and (at least in practice) the creation of a slave state. Hence Moa calling social democrats 'selfish bourgeois'. One example of this difference is when the liberals wanted the Russian state to provide aid during the 1890s famine. Lenin opposed this because he wanted the peasants to become desperate enough to rebel.
@dombon6 Also in this speech Mao was referring to liberals within his own communist party so he could not have been talking about t libertarians. It seems to me he was criticizing party members who were more moderate then him and did not want to implement his insane economic programs of mass mobilization and complete state control.
Socialism is little more than a failed political experiment from the last century and is now in its final death throws.
The specter of religious fascism from Islam is now upon the free world- and it too shall be faced and destroyed.
Maos words ring hollow nowadays- anyone who has visited China in recent years would have seen how the Chinese clamor for money and higher living standards.
@TheDanbristol uh huh...? Who the hell are you to sign up all Americans to your delusional war? Joe McCarthy is calling, he wants his paranoid delusions back.
TheDan, they don't hate liberals, they simply don't give shit for them. Genuine "liberals" are called from Lenin and Mao: USEFUL IDIOTS. They are the people which will kill themself and their kids, with smile... they are sick, and they are USEFUL for the cause of Maoists/Communists. Communism have not a single "liberal" idea, but they know that "Liberals" can help them (in west, Liberals in Commie Regimes like Cuba are KILLED, not tolerated).
Dass Mao soviele Menschen umgebracht hat ist eine Lüge der imperialistischen Propagandamaschinerie und der amerikanischen Papiertiger. Mao war ein Humanist und hat seinem Volk dem er ein väterliches Vorbild war Wohlstand und Freiheit beschert. Dass eine Revolution kein Schmusen mit dem Feind ist dürfte allen klar sein. Er bleibt unvergesslich
No... it's nearly 70 million. I've been to the interior, small towns of China. Life is unimaginable. It's easy to create thoughts in your head, here in America, about a land far away you know nothing about. China has been a total, catastrophic failure.
I don't think Mao was a good man at all, but to say that he killed 40 million people is horribly inaccurate. True, 40 million people did die under his reign, but this was mostly due to famine and disease, which you can't really blame Mao for. It'd be like saying Obama killed millions if something got in the US water supply by accident and killed millions. Mao had plenty of people detained and executed to be sure, but it didn't reach the millions, let alone 40 million.
@TheoreticChaos I see what your saying about crediting Mao for all the deaths in the country. However I do feel that he was responsible for more than just those he directly ordered killed. His policies and reign attributed to the poor quality of life, and lack of ability to care for his own people. While all the deaths weren't his fault. He does reap the title of one of the world worst and deadliest leaders. If not through violence then through stupidity.
@danielkirk1 ---------For the people Liberalism should be the only way.---------->Thing is liberalism on the backdrop of corporatism gives u neo-liberalism which is just a fancily worded term 4 mercantilism. War industrialization and national unity is a tough task if u look @ societies like China, Russia.
Cultural revolution wasn't pretty but in the end it unified the people, so u have Chinese workin 4 China today. In "Liberal" India u have situation where states won't share resources!
Wooo hooo! Great Leap Forward! Cultural revolution! Cult of Personailty! Teabag the Teabaggers in DC!
Onward comrades, bombard the headquarters of the Liberals and capitalist Roaders! Comrade Beck will lead the way!... er... I mean Comrade Limbaugh... no wait, I mean, yeah! Mao! Comrade Mao! To the Barricades!
Mao just have trouble managing a country thats why some people die because of his lack of knowledge to manage a country, but Mao is very good at military strategy thats why he is much better at uniting china.
@badblackguy Mao Tse-Tung fought corageously against the greatest mass murderer in history, while simultaneosly dragging the most populace nation on earth from the grips of fuedalism and imperialism. the life expectancy in China under Mao went from 34 to 61, an average of 25 years of life added to every person in the country(literally ,at the time, hundreds of millions) literacy rate from the teens to the 80's. Long Live Mao Tse-Tung Thought
Such good logic applied to a false premise. If the political left wants to have any credibility they need to recognize that centralized economic planning failed to be as effective as Marx had thought and that personal financial freedom is the only means of protecting power distribution so that centralized authorities do not wield unquestionable power.
Personal financial "freedom" is only the right of those who already have wealth to do whatever they want with almost no accountability or repayment to society. It guarantees that hundreds of millions will live in terrible poverty and die at an early age - while having no say in who controls what.
I thought we all lived in 'terrible poverty' until commerce allowed for enough specialization to raise standards of living. Even Marx recognized that the market system was necessary to create the initial wealth for Communism to work. And millions will always die of lack of resources unless you cap birth rates. Any species (in the absence of predation) increases in number to its environment's carrying capacity. Humanity is no different.
At one time capitalism was more progressive, but it ultimately becomes stagnant as is happening right now. Worst depression since the 1930s, perhaps you've noticed? Things are getting better for the rich because we bailed them out, but not for the poor.
But they weren't bailed out by capitalism. They were bailed out by federal government, and the bail out was justified as needed to save us all from a horrible economic collapse. That sounds like it was ripped right out of Animal Farm or Atlas Shrugged. After a certain point form becomes function, and Von Mises appears wiser ever day.
Von Mises who thought fascism was noble and necessary? I think you have more effectively destroyed your credibility by revealing your fascist tendencies than I could by a long rebuttal.
Fascism was truly the biggest fail in history, and your sympathy with fascists just shows you have no grasp of the real world at all.
Thing I like about Mao is that he pulls ideas out this grand body of Marxist theory with its remote, universal concepts about social change, and he breaks them down into these very simple but insightful parables that can easily be put into practice a day to day basis. He reminds me more of a traditional Chinese philosopher than a typical Marxist.
omg cmon. the tyrants and warlords of today cause much more damage as a whole than mao did in china. i dont feel as though you can make those comparisons because you should look at the long term consequences of what we are doing now.
Mao was a hero to the people of China for good reason. aside from the outlandish exagerations on his death tolls, nobody ever want to talk about the fact that life expectancy under mao went from 35 to 60 and the literacy rat went from the 30's to the 80's. It just seems any time people who have made thier living off the exploitation of others, when some uses thier own lactics against them all they want to do is wine.
So, what was it they were reading under Mao? The Little Red Book? How do we know that they didn't just have it memorised? Or maybe they were reading the signs at the bread/meat/rice lines...e.g."you don't need bread today." What good is the ability to read when you could be excecuted on the spot? Dead men have no use for reading. Mao was an expert at "living off the exploitation of others." No one in the capitalist/democratic world could even come close to using such tactics.
Mao killed a ridiculous number of people. Whether it was 70 million or, a more conservative estimate of 30 million, what he did was sinister and barbaric. Under Mao, the life expectancy went up for members of the elite ruling class. The masses were likely to meet an early, preventable death from starvation, lack of proper medical treatment, or execution. I highly doubt the literacy rate you've quoted. Bibles and Western literature were banned. Pre-Revolutionary Chinese books were burned.
"under Mao life expectancy went up for members of the elite ruling class" just causs you say it doesnt make it true, Mobo gao the battle for china's past is written by an anti maoist college proffesor who teaches in the united states. If you want legitamate facts read it. OIr you could go on spouting ignorance which seems to be okay to you however i like to base my ideals on factual information, rather than ridiculous opinions which you have no information to back up
how clever. I'm sure your superb spelling skills came from the same genius that no doubt instructed you in your extensive knowledge of Mao and "the human history". Did that person teach you English as well, or do you speak this way in spite of it being a first language?
Congratulations on your peace-loving nature. Keep up the racial slurs and all youtube will get to know and love you for it.
@MartinHall612 I don't believe planned economies work. What is wrong with private companies? Microsoft, Google, Sony and so on cause no problem to anybody and so I don't think there is anything wrong with owning a company. Conditions were different in Marx times which is why I believe in aspects the Communist Manifesto is out of date. We need to move forward and where a planned economy may benefit a third world country I don't think this can be applied to a 1st world nation.
Socialism doesn't work... I've never claimed otherwise!
And the thing is, the modern left-wing knows this.
But they don't want to let go of their old principles. Which is why they're finding new ways to express the same, original opinions. What you called "incorporating capitalism".
Anyway - I'm a critic of socialism myself.
I'm not defending the left-wing, I'm only saying that you can't connect socialism to liberalism. It just doesn't add up.
@MartinHall612 You have to explain what you mean by "Socialism". The term is WAY too broad to sum up without explaining. Maoist Socialism and Democratic Socialism for example are totally different. And just because you allow private property I wouldn't describe it as conforming to Capitalism.
@SupremePenguinTone You have to take into consideration the limited length of our comments. I can't sum up all forms of socialism and give a detailed explanation about them - because it would require far more space than the youtube comments allows us.
And I would prefer not to use more than one comment to answer you.
If you want a more deep and more detailed ideological discussion, that's fine by me. But then I suggest we use a different form of communication.
@MartinHall612 Liberal back then is basically libertarian now. On a one dimensional spectrum, it would be more to the center, but if you add a second dimension measuring state control (perpendicular to the "left-right" dimension) you would have an authoritarian-libertarian dimenion. Mao's idea of the ideal society is on the authoritarian side while the liberal society he despises is on the libertarian side.
@MartinHall612 That's what liberal meant in the US years ago, but it gradually changed. Especially with the help of the progressive movement. Modern liberals still "stand" for individual freedoms in a sense, but they are also in favor of state control of much. Goes back to there being a political plane vs political spectrum and then liberal and conservative just become different flavors of libertarian and authoritarian. Collectivist ideas precede expansion of state: ITS FOR THE GREATER GOOD
America has very little experience from socialism. Compare the most left-wing party in america, to the various socialist parties of Europe - and you're not even close.
I don't claim to know more about American politics than you do...
But I do know, that there are (and have been) democratic countries with way more state control than the US has ever experienced.
Just look at my country some 30-40 years back.
THAT was socialism. On a scale far greater than it has ever been in the US
Mao doesn't address liberalism as a socioeconomic doctrine in this work, but as an approach that favors toleration and coexistence of different contradicting opinions instead of engaging them in an open discussion. Political liberalism, obviously, can't exist within the communist party.
Liberalism isn't always synonymous with being left-wing, but a left philosophy can embody both liberalism and socialism. "Left-wing" is more of a category of different beliefs than a pure doctrine per se, but typically has strands of liberalism (i.e. individual freedom) in social policy, and strands of socialism/collectivism (though collectivism can be both left or right) in economic policy.
Liberalism stands for individual freedom and rights as long as one's rights does not inflict with another's rights.
The pursue and aim for happiness and success in life (traditional capitalist theories) is an idea that liberalism supports, as long as your freedom does not violate anybody else's freedom.
mmmm no im sorry kinginyellow7 wins. It is really on what your idea of freedom is. you will get the odd retard thinking nto paying taxes is freedom. freedom of speech and thought is seen as freedom but so is peace. So its all down to what you think freedom is
Most of the things that Chinese people take for granted today- modern infrastructure, near universal education, reasonable sexual equality- are all because of Mao. In his 26 years of rule he increase life expectancy from 40 to 60, increased literacy from 20% to 70%, and caused continuous (not counting 1958-60) growth in industrial production of 10-13% annually. He reunified China and brought solidarity to his people that has never been seen before. His reign was an enormous success.
Of course production can go up when you have a country full of slaves. Chinese people lack basic human rights that even aren't denied them in the most barren wastelands of some African countries. The sad part is that his principles still exist there today...
The increase in production was exactly what was needed to modernize the country. I've lived in China and will be moving back there in a few months, the "rights" they lack are just luxuries. What is truly needed is jobs, education, modern infrastructure, and health care. The CCP provides those things and virtually everyone I talked to think it is worth the trade. Especially since human rights have never existed in China and are incompatible with Chinese philosophy and ethics.
If people don't have basic human rights, then what is the purpose of living. These rights aren't luxuries, like freedom of speech, right to a fair trial, right to privacy, right to disagree with the government, rights that recently the US gov't has infringed upon...
That is the type of thinking that no person I talked to in China could even begin to understand. They'd say the point of living is to raise a family, have fun, eat good food, help your community, learn about the world, try to gain power (in socially sanctioned ways), get nice things (which Mao interfered with), and help your children do the same. They can disagree with the government, I met CCP members who told me in public that communism doesn't work. They just can't write angry editorials.
You have to understand, in Confucianism (which a LOT of people in China still follow and which the government now supports) freedom is defined as achieving internal harmony with social rules and expectations. Once you have completely internalized all of the rules and norms you can do whatever you want because there will be no disagreement between you and your society or government. Most of them still seem to think that way.
The huge problem there is that China's society isn't a free one in which is tolerant of every person's beliefs, as long as they don't intrude on other people's. China is a stagnant society that teaches their people not to think for themselves, but to think a certain way(Confucianism) and is intolerant of other people, that is the reason that the founding came to found the US, England wanted control and power over people, that's bad. Power and control are bad.... They lead to tyranny...
Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism are all common in China. They also have millions of Christians and Muslims. In America we like to think we are islands unto ourselves and our neighborhoods consist of succinct squares. In rural China I could never tell where one person's yard ended and another's began (I doubt they kept track). They value community over autonomy. A strong community needs common values. Liberalism, and to a lesser extent Christianity, serves that role in America.
I agree with you on the fundamentals, but China's ways are intolerant of people, examples, gays. There is no allowance of gay marriage in China, there isn't much tolerance of this in America. China chooses what it's people should think isn't of teaching them how to think and letting them choose for themselves...
That surprised me since homosexuality /seemed/ to have less stigma there then here. We don't allow gay marriage either. But I think that will gradually change in both countries. After all, a hundred years ago women in China were all feet bound and kept away from education and politics and today they have many female professors, government officials, and military officers.
That is the point of liberalism, trying to be as inclusive as can be without being invasive to others. China is actually adopting these principles not from ancient teachings and philosophies, but from western civilizations, and are slowly becoming more like a democracy...
They gained the gender equality from communism and Mao's personal convictions (which were obviously not liberal); you can even find that Taoism. They are definitely seeking to be more inclusive (with affirmative action, etc.) but you don't need to be a liberal to want every citizen to take part in society. But while they are less invasive now then under Mao, they seem to be no less invasive now then 20 years. Msg me to argue instead of continuing under this video for sake of others.
U seem well aware of American wisdom , but not the same of Chinese religions and so, life.
Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism not only are not the same lot (it is like to say that as Ipazia is as much westerner as Saint Cirrillo they are twins), but on opposite sides. Conf. is a big school of conformism, Taoism a big anarchy for free minds, Buddhism overcomes all the polarities and is a peak.
It is so true that the last struggle of a dying Mao was against pol&social conform. ( fight Linbiao and Cnf)
But liberalism is foreign to China and has never been popular and it has always been the government's responsibility to be the final arbiter of values. In America, more than any other country in the world, we think the government is a necessary evil. In east Asia, government has always been considered purely positive and expected to play a parental role. You might call that tyranny, but I think they'll keep believing and acting in accordance with their own values and not ours.
They both are the same in philosophy, they both wanted to eliminate a group of people that they deem as evil, who have done nothing really, but claim to do so for the good of the many, Mao isn't looked at like hitler because what he stood for still exists today, as opposed to what hitler stands for, actually hitler may have been more admirable than mao...
so your saying in the mao era, it is wrong to look at whites as evil? and you say whites done nothing? go study the Opium war and understand how western greedy Businessmens come in and fuck everything up.
it's obvious that every race has committed atrocities but to try to eliminate a certain group based on the actions of some is exactly what hitler tried to do, it is called genocide.
no one in this world has done anything worse than what white bastards do, the truth is, we asians dislike you white people, so white people can fuck off, whites are racist fuckers, should all be dead, have enough of white people putting down asians, making them look like weak people in their retarded stupid media, whites are the biggest hipocrite of all time, stupid white people!, now we will see what its like when everyone else treat those white fags the same
You are probably from China, I know that your country will never understand what it is like to be free...
China will exist in a Communist state and be too conservative to understand that its people suffer because it's inability to understand human rights...
Then you must not understand that Mao and Hitler did the exact same thing, genocide. They took a group of people that had something in common and tried to eliminate that group through government violence. I talk to many Chinese people everyday about this and other issues, so I guess all of them are wrong...
Mao did not try to eliminate any group of people. A lot of landlords were killed by peasants and low officials, but most (80%+) survived. The cultural revolution killed less than a million and the victims weren't selected by the government. The only organized killings that happened during Mao's reign were the execution of gangsters, drug dealers, warlords, and KMT loyalists in the early 1950's. 700,000 were killed.
Don't quote wikipedia. It is not useful for controversial subjects. Read some books by sinologists or historians or political scientists that specialize in China. Numbers vary, I've generally seen numbers between 40,000 and 400,000 for the cultural revolution. What you need to do is compare China before Mao and after Mao instead of comparing it to an imaginary ideal. If you do the research and analyze it, like I have, you will see that his impact was positive.
And yes they were killed by the government, not all, but some were - "disturbing picture of official compliance in the systematic killing and cannibalization of individuals in the name of political revolution and 'class struggle.'"[24] Senior party historians acknowledge that "In a few places, it even happened that 'counterrevolutionaries' were beaten to death and in the most beastly fashion had their flesh and liver consumed [by their killers].
Hell, I visited his hometown while I was in China. Thousands of people visit it every day. I've talked to people who lived during his reign- including one who received a master's degree in the U.K.- who believe him to have been a god. Objective analysis of the numbers and the general perception of the Chinese people both show him to have been a good leader (except for the Great Leap Forward). He certainly wasn't a good democrat; but he was an excellent emperor.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Mao is a waste of an excuse of a human being, he was, fortunately he died, a close-minded conservative who wanted everyone to conform to his ways and had extreme intolerance for non-conformers. He is probably the worst thing that has happened to China and that is why they haven't been able to fully develop as a country intellectually, he killed off all of the intellects and left nothing but laborers. What a worthless P.O.S.!
"no investigation, no right to speak" -mao tsetung
you obviously haven't studied revolutionary china at all. mao was the strongest voice in china against commandism and regularly encouraged and motivated people to stand up for themselves against the corruption in the government and to question and challenge the party, including questioning him. you seem to think that mao was this omnipotent, evil leader overseeing everything with uninterrupted power from 1949-1976. this is far from the truth.
Mao was the same thing Hitler was, a bad man that came in at a weak point with a hope mask on and got China to dump what was a step in the right direction, although yes it was corrupt. He threw out one bad guy and replaced him with someone worse, himself. This was pulling a Hitler 101. If you didn't agree with Mao you were against him and were executed, and in some cases cannibalized. That is almost exactly what Hitler wanted, the whole country to act like him, he is a disappointment as a human.
LMAO!!!! Cannibalized? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard hahahaha. Wow. Anyway, moving on.
Mao didn't come in at a "weak point", he led the working people of China to liberate themselves from Japanese imperialism and from feudal landlords and oppression. The Cultural Revolution was partially about encouraging people to challenge the Communist Party, and Mao wrote extensively asking people to question authority.
Don't believe the hype man, you sound like a sensationalist.
Some of the most extreme violence took place in Guangxi,[23] where a Chinese journalist found a "disturbing picture of official compliance in the systematic killing and cannibalization of individuals in the name of political revolution and 'class struggle.'"[24] Senior party historians acknowledge that "In a few places, it even happened that 'counterrevolutionaries' were beaten to death and in the most beastly fashion had their flesh and liver consumed [by their killers].
I am not saying that communism is good or anything, I STAY NEUTRAL! all i want to prove is how little knowledge you know!, so my conclusion is, all your comments is bullshit, i would rather go read a book publish by university or something more credible.
Yes it was a weak point, the Japanese were at war w/ China and he stepped in, just like Hitler did. It's Hitler 101. Also Communism in China, and even to this day, is about making eveyone the 'government's way' and literally imprisons you if you publicly think otherwise. That is true to a T. That is how most all communist governments work, it's a great idea, but was never meant to be actually used, Marx knew that it would never work, but Socialism works. Anyways, Mao was and is a loser...
TheManinTheMasks, if you think Mao is same as Hitler then your obviously wrong, this just shows how ignorant and how much you havent study! dont give your opinions if you havent even spent any damned time doing research! smart people will never give in to this bullshit! China communism back then has some Confucianism in it, China Communism is not the same as Russia Communism or Germany Communism, its different! be a little more open minded, and understand that system could have some different
Millions of dead with Mao, Lenine, Staline, Castro, Tito and Trotsky.
Communists and Fascists; Stalinists and Nazists are the same.
Fuck the Revolution ! Fuck Kim Jong Il, Chavez, Lukachenkoand all those bastards.
newdelta3 1 month ago
@newdelta3 are you retarded? because you sound it ;)
thatkindofguy234 1 month ago
Mao was fat, that itself is sign of a character flaw.
lostwisdom100 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@AntifaUSA
I was thinking why i still haven't slap on your plump face!
LordSanu 5 months ago
If you believe a person cannot be an individual and stay true to the collective, then you purge dissent. When you purge dissent, you crush the revolution. Revolution is dissent.
TheRevolutionaryBob 6 months ago
@TheRevolutionaryBob: This essay has nothing to do with purging dissent. Mao was absolutely in agreement that revolution is dissent and that differences in views should be given space in the revolutionary movement. This is why he put forward slogans such as "It is right to rebel" and "Bombard the headquarters". You should actually listen to the video.
eodell48 3 months ago
Wait! Isn't the word today that liberal = communist? Ya mean isn't so? Who woulda thunk it!
richardhutnik 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
all people is not equal under the communism china,most of people is so poor,but major communist has so many privilege,car house food etc etc,,,,,,major communist in china just want to keep those privilege,so that why they killed historical amount of their citizen,its typical characteristic of communism,communist kill their against people without any permission necessary,china is perfectly lawless zone,chinese communist party killed historical amount of people for keep major communist`s privilege
77777XYZ 7 months ago
Great video my comrade!
AtheismCentral 8 months ago
Comrades: Mao is certainly the savior of of freedom human right and socialism in China and the fight against facist capitalism. Also is important to remember he is our inspiracion for many revolusions in Latinoamerica like in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela world capital of Maoism!!!! Long live glorios Chairman Mao memory!!! Long live Comander Chavez!!! Fatherland maoism or DEATH!!!
hugocaracas2021 9 months ago 2
@hugocaracas2021 wish chavez the best of health, and the same to the bolivarian revolution
CajunCommie 7 months ago
@CajunCommie Thank you freind Comrade!!! By the wil of God our Supreme Comander recuperates better every day and will soon join us leadering the combat against many oligarchs facists and imperialists still exist in Venezuela. Do not doubt they will be wiped out!!! With renewed force the enemies of the People will feel and be crushed by our Comanders "Fist of Steel"!!!
hugocaracas2021 7 months ago
@hugocaracas2021 Same Here, SOy Maoist Boriqua, and I and a Anti-Bourgeios peoples war for all of my 3rd world Latinos, Black africans, Arabs, South, East, and South east asians, Eastern european,s and Australian aboriginie,
Viva La Revolucion!
kaleo183rd 7 months ago
@kaleo183rd Venezuela send thanks to all patriot marxist leninist stalinist maoist who solidarize with our noble Bolivarian Proletariat our glorios Bolivarian Revolusion and glorios Supreme Comander Chavez. Soon comes the moment of the worlds Proletariat will rise up to follow Supreme Cmadner Chavez and give the Final Battle against the oligarchs and capitalists!!! Pray for Health for the Comander!! God and the Virgen be with the Comander!!
hugocaracas2021 7 months ago
I didn't know Jackie Chan was such a historical figure.
cmonty72 10 months ago 2
Communists outside the Western World = True Nationalists and Patriots
"Communists" inside the Western Worlds = Useful Idiots/Sheeps for Slaughter/capitalist goons
AntifaUSA 10 months ago 2
@AntifaUSA I agree, but I live in NYC, but am of Latino decent,( Puerto Rican), which are a oppresed nationality still suffereing from colonialism, I have many friends who are left of different backgrounds, and I see where you get your assumptions from, many 1st world marxists, don't understand struggle, so their theory, opions, and assumptions, are flawed, still a least their heart is in the right place,
Viva La Revolucion!, 3rd world Maosim!
kaleo183rd 7 months ago
@kaleo183rd "1st world Marxists" = Useful Idiots for Brown Imperialists
Don't be useful idiot, slap black kid on the face today
AntifaUSA 7 months ago
Mao believes "the masses" must be enslaved for their own good. If not they will "work half heartedly without a definite plan or direction..." and society will suffer. Superficial generalizations with a poor understanding of... basically liberalism in terms of lifestyle and free markets. And a complete denial of the concept of natural rights. Eh.
dombon6 10 months ago
@dombon6 But it seems to me that here Mao is talking about social democrats who propose a political alternative to violent revolution, no? That's pretty much liberals today. If the liberal reformers had been allowed to do their work in tsarist Russia the Bolsheviks would have never come to power.
jack5051525354 10 months ago
@jack5051525354 Just for the sake of clarification, by social democrats, are you referring to something similar to Fabian socialists or American progressives? I think his use of the term "liberal" is "liberal" in the old sense because he refers to liberals valuing the individual over the collective and this predates Hayek's book by 7 years. Hayek refers to liberalism not in the Progressive sense or what we would consider liberalism today but in the classic sense of free markets and free minds.
dombon6 10 months ago
@jack5051525354 "Liberalism stems from petty bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interests first and the interests of the revolution second, and this gives rise to ideological, political, and organizational liberalism. [paraphrase: liberals think marxism is too abstract / approve of it in theory / don't desire implementation]" -- sounds like Marx' critique of capitalism extended to people's personal lives, and a nutjob trying to rationalize why others don't want to bring about communism.
dombon6 10 months ago
@dombon6 I am referring to those who see a welfare state alongside mostly free markets as a way to better society. Communists favored the abolition of all markets and (at least in practice) the creation of a slave state. Hence Moa calling social democrats 'selfish bourgeois'. One example of this difference is when the liberals wanted the Russian state to provide aid during the 1890s famine. Lenin opposed this because he wanted the peasants to become desperate enough to rebel.
jack5051525354 10 months ago
@jack5051525354 you are so poorly informed i don't even know where to begin. google grover furr as opposed to ron paul next time, brah
CajunCommie 7 months ago
@dombon6 Also in this speech Mao was referring to liberals within his own communist party so he could not have been talking about t libertarians. It seems to me he was criticizing party members who were more moderate then him and did not want to implement his insane economic programs of mass mobilization and complete state control.
jack5051525354 10 months ago
Without Mao 60million+ chinese would still be alive. He was worse than Stalin, and like him a disgusting stain on the banner of Socialism
xxksaoXX 10 months ago
Please shows this to every teabagger who thinks liberalism=communism.
jack5051525354 11 months ago
@jack5051525354 "liberal" back then is "libertarian" now. Read "The Road to Serfdom".
dombon6 10 months ago
@jack5051525354 Read "The Road to Serfdom". Liberal back then basically translates to libertarian today.
dombon6 10 months ago
yea mao killed 78,000,000 people
xHippieHunter 1 year ago
@xHippieHunter obvious retard is obvious.
FIFA07Addicted 11 months ago
because i am greek and i know what socrates said ... just dont put stalin and mao next to him... because socrates wanted democracy !
Stalin and mao , didnt want democracy... like Lenin did, supporting worker's democracy
Cran1988 1 year ago
Socialism is little more than a failed political experiment from the last century and is now in its final death throws.
The specter of religious fascism from Islam is now upon the free world- and it too shall be faced and destroyed.
Maos words ring hollow nowadays- anyone who has visited China in recent years would have seen how the Chinese clamor for money and higher living standards.
notmemate 1 year ago
@TheDanbristol uh huh...? Who the hell are you to sign up all Americans to your delusional war? Joe McCarthy is calling, he wants his paranoid delusions back.
rounder421 1 year ago
Long live Mao in hell !!
wanggok 1 year ago
TheDan, they don't hate liberals, they simply don't give shit for them. Genuine "liberals" are called from Lenin and Mao: USEFUL IDIOTS. They are the people which will kill themself and their kids, with smile... they are sick, and they are USEFUL for the cause of Maoists/Communists. Communism have not a single "liberal" idea, but they know that "Liberals" can help them (in west, Liberals in Commie Regimes like Cuba are KILLED, not tolerated).
LeviathanOrb 1 year ago
Most of the thing Mao says about liberalism can be applied directly to him; what a corrupt old hypocrite.
VitalSigns1 1 year ago
Dass Mao soviele Menschen umgebracht hat ist eine Lüge der imperialistischen Propagandamaschinerie und der amerikanischen Papiertiger. Mao war ein Humanist und hat seinem Volk dem er ein väterliches Vorbild war Wohlstand und Freiheit beschert. Dass eine Revolution kein Schmusen mit dem Feind ist dürfte allen klar sein. Er bleibt unvergesslich
Konklavius 1 year ago
How funny it is to hear how Mao Tse Tung defines liberalism.
He really means bourgeois.
Think about it either the definition of liberalism has changed vastly in 70 years or I am correct.
jimbojamesIV 1 year ago
No... it's nearly 70 million. I've been to the interior, small towns of China. Life is unimaginable. It's easy to create thoughts in your head, here in America, about a land far away you know nothing about. China has been a total, catastrophic failure.
laughingtiger123 1 year ago
Liberalism disgusts me.
ZLUGGO 1 year ago
I don't think Mao was a good man at all, but to say that he killed 40 million people is horribly inaccurate. True, 40 million people did die under his reign, but this was mostly due to famine and disease, which you can't really blame Mao for. It'd be like saying Obama killed millions if something got in the US water supply by accident and killed millions. Mao had plenty of people detained and executed to be sure, but it didn't reach the millions, let alone 40 million.
TheoreticChaos 1 year ago
@TheoreticChaos I see what your saying about crediting Mao for all the deaths in the country. However I do feel that he was responsible for more than just those he directly ordered killed. His policies and reign attributed to the poor quality of life, and lack of ability to care for his own people. While all the deaths weren't his fault. He does reap the title of one of the world worst and deadliest leaders. If not through violence then through stupidity.
sarahejryan 1 year ago
Chairman Mao. The greatest mass murderer in all of human history.
MrRobinMurphy 1 year ago
@MrRobinMurphy No, that goes to either the british empire or any US president
xXLoneWolfXv 1 year ago
@xXLoneWolfXv
I am talking volume of people. Its hard to beat Mao's 40 million
MrRobinMurphy 1 year ago
@MrRobinMurphy
Stalin.
60+, counting non-Russians as well.
CRAPCANNONS 1 year ago
Mao was a brilliant man, but this guy's wooden dull voice does NOT do the great chairman's words justice at all.
ComradeLenin1289 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We all hate communism. If you think it was 'cool' you must be truly an idiot. communism killed more than 100 mln people.
BGFGR 1 year ago
Hail Mao!
Aryanissupreme 1 year ago
I can't believe this guy liked tobbaco so much, that he traded opium to his rivals at the time for more tobacco supplies LOL.
danielkirk1 1 year ago
I wonder what's better: Liberalism or Communism??? Hmmmmmmm, someone help me out here
Marmalade000000 1 year ago
@Marmalade000000 For the people Liberalism should be the only way. Communism has been so cruel to milliuons of people all over the world. Fuck it.
danielkirk1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@danielkirk1 ---------For the people Liberalism should be the only way.---------->Thing is liberalism on the backdrop of corporatism gives u neo-liberalism which is just a fancily worded term 4 mercantilism. War industrialization and national unity is a tough task if u look @ societies like China, Russia.
Cultural revolution wasn't pretty but in the end it unified the people, so u have Chinese workin 4 China today. In "Liberal" India u have situation where states won't share resources!
xxxdieselyyy 1 year ago
Wooo hooo! Great Leap Forward! Cultural revolution! Cult of Personailty! Teabag the Teabaggers in DC!
Onward comrades, bombard the headquarters of the Liberals and capitalist Roaders! Comrade Beck will lead the way!... er... I mean Comrade Limbaugh... no wait, I mean, yeah! Mao! Comrade Mao! To the Barricades!
Diosibundo 1 year ago 2
@Diosibundo what in the hell was that all about? comrade limbaugh? LOL... moron
sarahejryan 1 year ago
What does Mao mean by "unprincipled peace" here?
AntidoteY 1 year ago
@AntidoteY bipartisinship for the sake of. "why cant we all just get along!"
callingcox 1 year ago
@AntidoteY
'What' kind of peace is this? What does "unprincipled" mean? Look for the adjective and the definition. This is logical grammar.
rsgrcg 1 year ago
Comment removed
1945Panzerfaust 2 years ago
refreshing... I learned something everyday ! Thanks !! Keep up the good work.
Respect !
AzerChristians 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Mao Zedong was a mass murder. How can people glorify a mass murder? Sorry, do you think Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City bombing) is a good person?
badblackguy 2 years ago
Mao just have trouble managing a country thats why some people die because of his lack of knowledge to manage a country, but Mao is very good at military strategy thats why he is much better at uniting china.
m0rttal 2 years ago
he killed 3 Times more Chinese then Hitler did Jews in the holocaust W T F is wrong with you.
65,000,000,000 Lives Tortured TILL DEATH GO TO HELL ANYONE WHO DEFENDS CHINA.
Dave9309 2 years ago
@Dave9309 Source?
Eddyking5 1 year ago
China was the first country to synthetise insulin , whole country has rapidly advanced economically , culturally and educationally !
Guevarist 2 years ago
@badblackguy Mao Tse-Tung fought corageously against the greatest mass murderer in history, while simultaneosly dragging the most populace nation on earth from the grips of fuedalism and imperialism. the life expectancy in China under Mao went from 34 to 61, an average of 25 years of life added to every person in the country(literally ,at the time, hundreds of millions) literacy rate from the teens to the 80's. Long Live Mao Tse-Tung Thought
RedStarOverFlorida 2 years ago 2
@RedStarOverFlorida
Was this caused by Mao one might ask yourself.
YellowMagi 1 year ago
Such good logic applied to a false premise. If the political left wants to have any credibility they need to recognize that centralized economic planning failed to be as effective as Marx had thought and that personal financial freedom is the only means of protecting power distribution so that centralized authorities do not wield unquestionable power.
andrewclunn 2 years ago
Personal financial "freedom" is only the right of those who already have wealth to do whatever they want with almost no accountability or repayment to society. It guarantees that hundreds of millions will live in terrible poverty and die at an early age - while having no say in who controls what.
borbo23 2 years ago
I thought we all lived in 'terrible poverty' until commerce allowed for enough specialization to raise standards of living. Even Marx recognized that the market system was necessary to create the initial wealth for Communism to work. And millions will always die of lack of resources unless you cap birth rates. Any species (in the absence of predation) increases in number to its environment's carrying capacity. Humanity is no different.
andrewclunn 2 years ago
At one time capitalism was more progressive, but it ultimately becomes stagnant as is happening right now. Worst depression since the 1930s, perhaps you've noticed? Things are getting better for the rich because we bailed them out, but not for the poor.
borbo23 2 years ago
But they weren't bailed out by capitalism. They were bailed out by federal government, and the bail out was justified as needed to save us all from a horrible economic collapse. That sounds like it was ripped right out of Animal Farm or Atlas Shrugged. After a certain point form becomes function, and Von Mises appears wiser ever day.
andrewclunn 2 years ago
Von Mises who thought fascism was noble and necessary? I think you have more effectively destroyed your credibility by revealing your fascist tendencies than I could by a long rebuttal.
Fascism was truly the biggest fail in history, and your sympathy with fascists just shows you have no grasp of the real world at all.
borbo23 2 years ago
Godwin's law strikes again!
andrewclunn 2 years ago
What is fascism for you?
Imhornydadcomeinside 2 years ago
Wow h has more blood on his hands than Hitler. Fact.
reallysecretusername 2 years ago
Thing I like about Mao is that he pulls ideas out this grand body of Marxist theory with its remote, universal concepts about social change, and he breaks them down into these very simple but insightful parables that can easily be put into practice a day to day basis. He reminds me more of a traditional Chinese philosopher than a typical Marxist.
DMPineau 2 years ago
Comment removed
beatlemaniacforever 2 years ago
Comment removed
beatlemaniacforever 2 years ago
Mao was an evil man...responsible for many deaths. In comparison to Mao, George W. Bush is a saint.
SophiaJaneAndrews 2 years ago
omg cmon. the tyrants and warlords of today cause much more damage as a whole than mao did in china. i dont feel as though you can make those comparisons because you should look at the long term consequences of what we are doing now.
Liberatis911 2 years ago
Mao was a hero to the people of China for good reason. aside from the outlandish exagerations on his death tolls, nobody ever want to talk about the fact that life expectancy under mao went from 35 to 60 and the literacy rat went from the 30's to the 80's. It just seems any time people who have made thier living off the exploitation of others, when some uses thier own lactics against them all they want to do is wine.
RedStarOverFlorida 2 years ago
Long Live Chairman Mao
RedStarOverFlorida 2 years ago 2
So, what was it they were reading under Mao? The Little Red Book? How do we know that they didn't just have it memorised? Or maybe they were reading the signs at the bread/meat/rice lines...e.g."you don't need bread today." What good is the ability to read when you could be excecuted on the spot? Dead men have no use for reading. Mao was an expert at "living off the exploitation of others." No one in the capitalist/democratic world could even come close to using such tactics.
SophiaJaneAndrews 2 years ago
Mao killed a ridiculous number of people. Whether it was 70 million or, a more conservative estimate of 30 million, what he did was sinister and barbaric. Under Mao, the life expectancy went up for members of the elite ruling class. The masses were likely to meet an early, preventable death from starvation, lack of proper medical treatment, or execution. I highly doubt the literacy rate you've quoted. Bibles and Western literature were banned. Pre-Revolutionary Chinese books were burned.
SophiaJaneAndrews 2 years ago
"under Mao life expectancy went up for members of the elite ruling class" just causs you say it doesnt make it true, Mobo gao the battle for china's past is written by an anti maoist college proffesor who teaches in the united states. If you want legitamate facts read it. OIr you could go on spouting ignorance which seems to be okay to you however i like to base my ideals on factual information, rather than ridiculous opinions which you have no information to back up
RedStarOverFlorida 2 years ago
Imperialism and capitalism have been responsible for the deaths of more people than communism ever has! Let us Rise!!!
peacefrog1916 2 years ago
Hard to believe that some people will worship this biggest slaughter in the human history.
Even Taliban or Al Queda are much closer to the sense of "peace-loving" than this chink swine Mao.
josserif556 2 years ago
"al queda"
how clever. I'm sure your superb spelling skills came from the same genius that no doubt instructed you in your extensive knowledge of Mao and "the human history". Did that person teach you English as well, or do you speak this way in spite of it being a first language?
Congratulations on your peace-loving nature. Keep up the racial slurs and all youtube will get to know and love you for it.
Peace! and Viva la Revolucion.
:)
theirresistableE 2 years ago
What do conservatives and commies have in common? They hate liberals!
Haha
ajua25 2 years ago
So where do the liberals really belong?
Not to the left, not to the right... but to the center.
MartinHall612 2 years ago 12
Exactly correct.
ajua25 2 years ago
@MartinHall612 I'd say Liberals were centre-left , whereas Commies are far-left and Socialists are left-wing.
SupremePenguinTone 1 year ago
@SupremePenguinTone
No, not really.
I do admit there might be slight left-wing factions within liberalism.
However, there are many sides within liberalism that simply can't be compared with left-wing ideals. They just contradict eachother too much.
I would say liberalism is more close to capitalism than it is to socialism.
And at the same time... it can be both. As well as neither.
It's an ideology of it's own, like conservatism and socialism. It doesn't have to be more complicated than that.
MartinHall612 1 year ago
@MartinHall612 then again some forms of socialism can incorporate capitalism like that of denmark, finland etc.
SupremePenguinTone 1 year ago
@SupremePenguinTone Oh, but have they?
Or are they merley adapting their ideas to modern times? When less people believes in things like planned economy and the "soclialist model"?
I recognize the pattern you are describing. They do the same in my country (Sweden).
But this doesn't mean that they're giving up their old ideas, on the contrary, they're just finding a new way to express them.
So, basically, they're still on the left - inspite of slight "modernization".
And the difference remains...
MartinHall612 1 year ago
@MartinHall612 I don't believe planned economies work. What is wrong with private companies? Microsoft, Google, Sony and so on cause no problem to anybody and so I don't think there is anything wrong with owning a company. Conditions were different in Marx times which is why I believe in aspects the Communist Manifesto is out of date. We need to move forward and where a planned economy may benefit a third world country I don't think this can be applied to a 1st world nation.
SupremePenguinTone 1 year ago
@SupremePenguinTone That's exactley what I'm saying!
Socialism doesn't work... I've never claimed otherwise!
And the thing is, the modern left-wing knows this.
But they don't want to let go of their old principles. Which is why they're finding new ways to express the same, original opinions. What you called "incorporating capitalism".
Anyway - I'm a critic of socialism myself.
I'm not defending the left-wing, I'm only saying that you can't connect socialism to liberalism. It just doesn't add up.
MartinHall612 1 year ago
@MartinHall612 You have to explain what you mean by "Socialism". The term is WAY too broad to sum up without explaining. Maoist Socialism and Democratic Socialism for example are totally different. And just because you allow private property I wouldn't describe it as conforming to Capitalism.
SupremePenguinTone 1 year ago
@SupremePenguinTone You have to take into consideration the limited length of our comments. I can't sum up all forms of socialism and give a detailed explanation about them - because it would require far more space than the youtube comments allows us.
And I would prefer not to use more than one comment to answer you.
If you want a more deep and more detailed ideological discussion, that's fine by me. But then I suggest we use a different form of communication.
E-mail or something...
MartinHall612 1 year ago
@MartinHall612 sure thing. drop me an email on here.
SupremePenguinTone 1 year ago
@MartinHall612 to the trash heap of history.
marcelthemaoist 1 year ago
@MartinHall612 Liberal back then is basically libertarian now. On a one dimensional spectrum, it would be more to the center, but if you add a second dimension measuring state control (perpendicular to the "left-right" dimension) you would have an authoritarian-libertarian dimenion. Mao's idea of the ideal society is on the authoritarian side while the liberal society he despises is on the libertarian side.
dombon6 10 months ago
@dombon6 The thing is, that varies depending on what country we're talking about.
In some countries - it's like you say. But elsewhere, like my country, liberals have for many years taken a stand "against" increased state control.
Liberalism is about individual freedom. And that kind of freedom very often contradicts the collectivism that follows with increased state control.
Socialists are OK with this... but not liberals. At least, not the same way.
MartinHall612 10 months ago
@MartinHall612 That's what liberal meant in the US years ago, but it gradually changed. Especially with the help of the progressive movement. Modern liberals still "stand" for individual freedoms in a sense, but they are also in favor of state control of much. Goes back to there being a political plane vs political spectrum and then liberal and conservative just become different flavors of libertarian and authoritarian. Collectivist ideas precede expansion of state: ITS FOR THE GREATER GOOD
dombon6 10 months ago
@dombon6 Again, that varies from country to country.
I'm sure you know a lot about liberalism in the US.
But I am talking about liberalism worldwide. There are many other ways of liberalism than what you've got in America, you know.
Sure, liberalism does differ from conservatism - but they are not socialists.
Liberalism and socialism are two seperate ideas built on very different principles. They have very little in common (if anything at all)...
MartinHall612 10 months ago
One more thing:
America has very little experience from socialism. Compare the most left-wing party in america, to the various socialist parties of Europe - and you're not even close.
I don't claim to know more about American politics than you do...
But I do know, that there are (and have been) democratic countries with way more state control than the US has ever experienced.
Just look at my country some 30-40 years back.
THAT was socialism. On a scale far greater than it has ever been in the US
MartinHall612 10 months ago
@MartinHall612
Mao doesn't address liberalism as a socioeconomic doctrine in this work, but as an approach that favors toleration and coexistence of different contradicting opinions instead of engaging them in an open discussion. Political liberalism, obviously, can't exist within the communist party.
timfidotru 8 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Mao was the biggest asshole in the 20th century.
Thank God this swine was burn in hell.
josserif556 2 years ago
Same to you imperial scum
Song476 2 years ago
Hell doesn't exist.
leethal59 2 years ago 12
@leethal59 hell exists, it's capitalism
mistarcraw 1 year ago
Clearly you've never visited Birmingham.
G0IFI 1 year ago
@leethal59
Bet you're wrong.
TheCrystalRiver 1 year ago
This is a good example, proving that liberalism is "not" left-wing, as many people seems to think.
It's just as Mao says:
Liberalism goes against the socialist ideas of collectivism etc.
And thus, liberalism and socialism can't possibly be the same, having completley different foundations.
This is not the worst kind of criticism from socialism; In some countries, people even think of liberalism as "evil capitalism"...
And so... liberalism can't mean left-wing.
MartinHall612 2 years ago
Liberalism isn't always synonymous with being left-wing, but a left philosophy can embody both liberalism and socialism. "Left-wing" is more of a category of different beliefs than a pure doctrine per se, but typically has strands of liberalism (i.e. individual freedom) in social policy, and strands of socialism/collectivism (though collectivism can be both left or right) in economic policy.
democrat10 2 years ago
Right-wing philosophies could embody liberalism as well. Yet you never hear anyone saying that liberalism is right-wing.
Anyway... you know, I wouldn't say that the term 'left-wing' has stands of liberalism.
Because they have both got completley different foundations.
MartinHall612 2 years ago
Liberalism stands for individual freedom and rights as long as one's rights does not inflict with another's rights.
The pursue and aim for happiness and success in life (traditional capitalist theories) is an idea that liberalism supports, as long as your freedom does not violate anybody else's freedom.
MartinHall612 2 years ago
However socialism, seeks to abolish all kinds of differences between people.
Their way of liberty and equality is putting people into collectives and establishing "indifference" in the society they govern.
Their view on justice is that each person remains on the same level in life, as everybody else.
Sorry for writing so much - but as you can see, the differences are quite big and obvious.
MartinHall612 2 years ago
shut up, englishmen!
qujohn88 2 years ago
Friendship? Peace? Freedom? Liberalism? Ask the victims of the cultural revolution how China and Mao where liberal to them.
TheMalar 2 years ago
Fuck Zedong. That's all I have to say.
ballaboy5000 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Mao is a typical chinese pig. Only stupid chiese pigs love this pig.
1939est 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Agreed!
ballaboy5000 2 years ago
mmmm no im sorry kinginyellow7 wins. It is really on what your idea of freedom is. you will get the odd retard thinking nto paying taxes is freedom. freedom of speech and thought is seen as freedom but so is peace. So its all down to what you think freedom is
ComradePiez 2 years ago
Most of the things that Chinese people take for granted today- modern infrastructure, near universal education, reasonable sexual equality- are all because of Mao. In his 26 years of rule he increase life expectancy from 40 to 60, increased literacy from 20% to 70%, and caused continuous (not counting 1958-60) growth in industrial production of 10-13% annually. He reunified China and brought solidarity to his people that has never been seen before. His reign was an enormous success.
kinginyellow7 2 years ago
Of course production can go up when you have a country full of slaves. Chinese people lack basic human rights that even aren't denied them in the most barren wastelands of some African countries. The sad part is that his principles still exist there today...
TheManInTheMasks 2 years ago
The increase in production was exactly what was needed to modernize the country. I've lived in China and will be moving back there in a few months, the "rights" they lack are just luxuries. What is truly needed is jobs, education, modern infrastructure, and health care. The CCP provides those things and virtually everyone I talked to think it is worth the trade. Especially since human rights have never existed in China and are incompatible with Chinese philosophy and ethics.
kinginyellow7 2 years ago
If people don't have basic human rights, then what is the purpose of living. These rights aren't luxuries, like freedom of speech, right to a fair trial, right to privacy, right to disagree with the government, rights that recently the US gov't has infringed upon...
TheManInTheMasks 2 years ago
That is the type of thinking that no person I talked to in China could even begin to understand. They'd say the point of living is to raise a family, have fun, eat good food, help your community, learn about the world, try to gain power (in socially sanctioned ways), get nice things (which Mao interfered with), and help your children do the same. They can disagree with the government, I met CCP members who told me in public that communism doesn't work. They just can't write angry editorials.
kinginyellow7 2 years ago
You have to understand, in Confucianism (which a LOT of people in China still follow and which the government now supports) freedom is defined as achieving internal harmony with social rules and expectations. Once you have completely internalized all of the rules and norms you can do whatever you want because there will be no disagreement between you and your society or government. Most of them still seem to think that way.
kinginyellow7 2 years ago
The huge problem there is that China's society isn't a free one in which is tolerant of every person's beliefs, as long as they don't intrude on other people's. China is a stagnant society that teaches their people not to think for themselves, but to think a certain way(Confucianism) and is intolerant of other people, that is the reason that the founding came to found the US, England wanted control and power over people, that's bad. Power and control are bad.... They lead to tyranny...
TheManInTheMasks 2 years ago
Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism are all common in China. They also have millions of Christians and Muslims. In America we like to think we are islands unto ourselves and our neighborhoods consist of succinct squares. In rural China I could never tell where one person's yard ended and another's began (I doubt they kept track). They value community over autonomy. A strong community needs common values. Liberalism, and to a lesser extent Christianity, serves that role in America.
kinginyellow7 2 years ago 2
I agree with you on the fundamentals, but China's ways are intolerant of people, examples, gays. There is no allowance of gay marriage in China, there isn't much tolerance of this in America. China chooses what it's people should think isn't of teaching them how to think and letting them choose for themselves...
TheManInTheMasks 2 years ago
That surprised me since homosexuality /seemed/ to have less stigma there then here. We don't allow gay marriage either. But I think that will gradually change in both countries. After all, a hundred years ago women in China were all feet bound and kept away from education and politics and today they have many female professors, government officials, and military officers.
kinginyellow7 2 years ago
That is the point of liberalism, trying to be as inclusive as can be without being invasive to others. China is actually adopting these principles not from ancient teachings and philosophies, but from western civilizations, and are slowly becoming more like a democracy...
TheManInTheMasks 2 years ago
They gained the gender equality from communism and Mao's personal convictions (which were obviously not liberal); you can even find that Taoism. They are definitely seeking to be more inclusive (with affirmative action, etc.) but you don't need to be a liberal to want every citizen to take part in society. But while they are less invasive now then under Mao, they seem to be no less invasive now then 20 years. Msg me to argue instead of continuing under this video for sake of others.
kinginyellow7 2 years ago
U seem well aware of American wisdom , but not the same of Chinese religions and so, life.
Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism not only are not the same lot (it is like to say that as Ipazia is as much westerner as Saint Cirrillo they are twins), but on opposite sides. Conf. is a big school of conformism, Taoism a big anarchy for free minds, Buddhism overcomes all the polarities and is a peak.
It is so true that the last struggle of a dying Mao was against pol&social conform. ( fight Linbiao and Cnf)
griparbelli 2 years ago
But liberalism is foreign to China and has never been popular and it has always been the government's responsibility to be the final arbiter of values. In America, more than any other country in the world, we think the government is a necessary evil. In east Asia, government has always been considered purely positive and expected to play a parental role. You might call that tyranny, but I think they'll keep believing and acting in accordance with their own values and not ours.
kinginyellow7 2 years ago
China communism is a different communism from germany and russia communism.
asd23sd3 2 years ago
They both are the same in philosophy, they both wanted to eliminate a group of people that they deem as evil, who have done nothing really, but claim to do so for the good of the many, Mao isn't looked at like hitler because what he stood for still exists today, as opposed to what hitler stands for, actually hitler may have been more admirable than mao...
TheManInTheMasks 2 years ago
so your saying in the mao era, it is wrong to look at whites as evil? and you say whites done nothing? go study the Opium war and understand how western greedy Businessmens come in and fuck everything up.
asd23sd3 2 years ago
it's obvious that every race has committed atrocities but to try to eliminate a certain group based on the actions of some is exactly what hitler tried to do, it is called genocide.
TheManInTheMasks 2 years ago
no one in this world has done anything worse than what white bastards do, the truth is, we asians dislike you white people, so white people can fuck off, whites are racist fuckers, should all be dead, have enough of white people putting down asians, making them look like weak people in their retarded stupid media, whites are the biggest hipocrite of all time, stupid white people!, now we will see what its like when everyone else treat those white fags the same
asd23sd3 2 years ago
You are probably from China, I know that your country will never understand what it is like to be free...
China will exist in a Communist state and be too conservative to understand that its people suffer because it's inability to understand human rights...
You are also unhappy, and I am happy...
I have already won...
TheManInTheMasks 2 years ago
um sorry dumbfuck, but i grew up in the west, and have you live in china for 2 or 4 years? if you havent, dont even comment, dumbass.
asd23sd3 2 years ago
Then you must not understand that Mao and Hitler did the exact same thing, genocide. They took a group of people that had something in common and tried to eliminate that group through government violence. I talk to many Chinese people everyday about this and other issues, so I guess all of them are wrong...
TheManInTheMasks 2 years ago
Mao did not try to eliminate any group of people. A lot of landlords were killed by peasants and low officials, but most (80%+) survived. The cultural revolution killed less than a million and the victims weren't selected by the government. The only organized killings that happened during Mao's reign were the execution of gangsters, drug dealers, warlords, and KMT loyalists in the early 1950's. 700,000 were killed.
kinginyellow7 2 years ago
The cultural revolution actually existed from 66-76, and to quote "as many as 3 million people died in the violence of the Cultural Revolution."
TheManInTheMasks 2 years ago
Don't quote wikipedia. It is not useful for controversial subjects. Read some books by sinologists or historians or political scientists that specialize in China. Numbers vary, I've generally seen numbers between 40,000 and 400,000 for the cultural revolution. What you need to do is compare China before Mao and after Mao instead of comparing it to an imaginary ideal. If you do the research and analyze it, like I have, you will see that his impact was positive.
kinginyellow7 2 years ago
And yes they were killed by the government, not all, but some were - "disturbing picture of official compliance in the systematic killing and cannibalization of individuals in the name of political revolution and 'class struggle.'"[24] Senior party historians acknowledge that "In a few places, it even happened that 'counterrevolutionaries' were beaten to death and in the most beastly fashion had their flesh and liver consumed [by their killers].
TheManInTheMasks 2 years ago
Hell, I visited his hometown while I was in China. Thousands of people visit it every day. I've talked to people who lived during his reign- including one who received a master's degree in the U.K.- who believe him to have been a god. Objective analysis of the numbers and the general perception of the Chinese people both show him to have been a good leader (except for the Great Leap Forward). He certainly wasn't a good democrat; but he was an excellent emperor.
kinginyellow7 2 years ago
btw...what is the name of the song in the beginning?
shininglight007 2 years ago
Internationale
mazhouma 2 years ago
thx 4 reply. tried to find it on some torrent pages, couldn't find it? do u know where i can download it?
shininglight007 2 years ago
Great video!!! Keep up the good work!
shininglight007 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Mao is a waste of an excuse of a human being, he was, fortunately he died, a close-minded conservative who wanted everyone to conform to his ways and had extreme intolerance for non-conformers. He is probably the worst thing that has happened to China and that is why they haven't been able to fully develop as a country intellectually, he killed off all of the intellects and left nothing but laborers. What a worthless P.O.S.!
TheManInTheMasks 3 years ago
"no investigation, no right to speak" -mao tsetung
you obviously haven't studied revolutionary china at all. mao was the strongest voice in china against commandism and regularly encouraged and motivated people to stand up for themselves against the corruption in the government and to question and challenge the party, including questioning him. you seem to think that mao was this omnipotent, evil leader overseeing everything with uninterrupted power from 1949-1976. this is far from the truth.
chicorazon 2 years ago
Mao was the same thing Hitler was, a bad man that came in at a weak point with a hope mask on and got China to dump what was a step in the right direction, although yes it was corrupt. He threw out one bad guy and replaced him with someone worse, himself. This was pulling a Hitler 101. If you didn't agree with Mao you were against him and were executed, and in some cases cannibalized. That is almost exactly what Hitler wanted, the whole country to act like him, he is a disappointment as a human.
TheManInTheMasks 2 years ago
LMAO!!!! Cannibalized? That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard hahahaha. Wow. Anyway, moving on.
Mao didn't come in at a "weak point", he led the working people of China to liberate themselves from Japanese imperialism and from feudal landlords and oppression. The Cultural Revolution was partially about encouraging people to challenge the Communist Party, and Mao wrote extensively asking people to question authority.
Don't believe the hype man, you sound like a sensationalist.
chicorazon 2 years ago
Some of the most extreme violence took place in Guangxi,[23] where a Chinese journalist found a "disturbing picture of official compliance in the systematic killing and cannibalization of individuals in the name of political revolution and 'class struggle.'"[24] Senior party historians acknowledge that "In a few places, it even happened that 'counterrevolutionaries' were beaten to death and in the most beastly fashion had their flesh and liver consumed [by their killers].
Yes, cannibalism...
TheManInTheMasks 2 years ago
I am not saying that communism is good or anything, I STAY NEUTRAL! all i want to prove is how little knowledge you know!, so my conclusion is, all your comments is bullshit, i would rather go read a book publish by university or something more credible.
asd23sd3 2 years ago
Yes it was a weak point, the Japanese were at war w/ China and he stepped in, just like Hitler did. It's Hitler 101. Also Communism in China, and even to this day, is about making eveyone the 'government's way' and literally imprisons you if you publicly think otherwise. That is true to a T. That is how most all communist governments work, it's a great idea, but was never meant to be actually used, Marx knew that it would never work, but Socialism works. Anyways, Mao was and is a loser...
TheManInTheMasks 2 years ago
TheManinTheMasks, if you think Mao is same as Hitler then your obviously wrong, this just shows how ignorant and how much you havent study! dont give your opinions if you havent even spent any damned time doing research! smart people will never give in to this bullshit! China communism back then has some Confucianism in it, China Communism is not the same as Russia Communism or Germany Communism, its different! be a little more open minded, and understand that system could have some different
asd23sd3 2 years ago