can someone explain chairman mao is still praised in china instead of condemnation?

[liuzhou]

I'd quibble with efficiency here

I doubt very much that any other country could have dealt more efficiently with SARS in 2003. They just switched the country off - in one day. Closed public venues, restricted travel, quarantined every college in the country etc.

It would have taken weeks anywhere else, if it could be done at all.

[WestTexas]

There are plenty of articles online, completely independent of my own experience, documenting the personality cult around Mao. I remain convinced that a large number, if not a majority, of Chinese people do revere Mao as the founder of their current country and a war leader, and I have nothing further to say on the subject.

[Guest realmayo]

I'm sticking to my quibble! First as you say the execution may be very inefficient. Plus there are reports that all the vested interests of the chronic embezzlers that run the country might impede their ability to make correct policy decisions.

Edit: just seen the Sars comment. Once the centre makes a decision, sure, the country tends to respond powerfully. But ... did they react to Sars as quickly as they should have? Did they react to baby milk scandal as quickly as they should have? etc etc inefficient etc!

[imron]

Did they react to baby milk scandal as quickly as they should have? etc etc inefficient etc!

It depends on the definition of inefficient. Actually if you look at it, the melamine scandal was efficiently kept under wraps until after the end of the Olympics, and I've no doubt that was the plan. And that's the problem with such a system, it's more efficient, however the power is wielded by a small few and is not always used in the general public's best interest, unless you consider avoiding a major scandal in the lead up to the Olympics more important than the health of the general populance.

[roddy]

Once the centre makes a decision, sure, the country tends to respond powerfully.

All decisions are not created equal. New environmental law? Meh, pay it lip service. We're getting fired if anyone catches SARS? Close the train station!

[liuzhou]

did they react to Sars as quickly as they should have? Did they react to baby milk scandal as quickly as they should have?

Obviously not.

But when they did something, they did it with ruthless efficiency. Which shows they can.

And China's government is far from the only one to do nothing in the face of great need to do something. I still maintain that, once they made their mind up, rightly or wrongly, only China could have closed the country down in one day.

[Outofin]

My father has five brothers and sisters. They all have very different opinions on Mao, all depending on their own experience. The oldest sister grew up in the "old society", governed by KMT. It wasn't uncommon when you walked in Beijing and found a dead body on the street side. The youngest sister didn't go to college because the cultural revolution. The 2 sisters understandingly have opposite opinions on Mao.

Today's China, I estimate, 80% is Deng's China, and 5% is still Mao's China. However speaking of people's minds, they're half Deng and half Mao. That's the 2 men's legacy. To most people, they're no longer hurt by Mao's wrong decisions, but they benefits from Mao's achievements. He built a nation that become us. That's why people praise him.

I have an earlier post when some one asked "There's always a queue to get into the Mao mausoleum in tiananmen square, and George Washington was a slave owner and the white house and capitol building were built by slaves but they're 'worshiped' as part of the civic religion in the united states. " My answer was "That's a good point. Great politicians have both positive and negative impact on us, sometime tremendous. Admiring Mao or Washington doesn't mean that we support cultural revolution or slave system."

[Guest realmayo]

Imron, I'd say first the info channels to the leadership will be inefficient -- i.e. some lower-level dude will be nervous about reporting a screw-up to Beijing. Second a decision to reform, say, the gas industry will be made inefficient because one member of the politburo might have his finger firmly in that particular pie and won't allow any reform to spoil his fun.

I agree that the execution of decisions can be stunningly efficient, e.g. Sars. And grotesquely inefficient, e.g. food safety.

And as you say, it's all because of the nature of the system. If mid-level officials are above the law, then plenty of them will only act in their own interests. It's in their own interests to implement orders from the centre about containing a Sars epidemic. It's not in their interest to shut down their brother's arsenic mine.

[imron]

I don't really think we're in disagreement. I'm not saying that the system is always efficient, or that it is always beneficial for the people, just that when there is sufficient motivation then decisions and policies (whether good or bad) can be made and implemented at a speed and scale that would be difficult to achieve in a modern democracy, because democracies have checks and balances to prevent any one group/person from wielding such power. These checks and balances cause certain (and sometimes debilitating) inefficiencies in the process, but such is the very worthwhile cost democracies pay to prevent large scale abuses that can occur with such power.

[Guest realmayo]

Sure, I agree with that, I just wouldn't want to downplay the checks and balances inherent in the Chinese system, namely venality and the competing powerbases at local and national levels. It's been tiresome the last few years to read of people going to China, seeing some great project, being told that six months ago this was all paddy fields, and then going back home all wowed-up saying China is the future because they can actually get stuff done. Probably the same people 15 years ago saying development in China must and can only lead to western-style democracy in the next decade. (Certainly not saying this applies to anyone on this thread!) For me, the reasons that China has these great governmental strengths are the same reasons it has colossal weakness too -- two sides of the same coin.

[imron]

these great governmental strengths are the same reasons it has colossal weakness too -- two sides of the same coin.

I'm fully aware and agree with that too. My initial comment was in response to the OP saying you could get the same positives of the Chinese system in a western democracy but without the negatives. I don't think you can, because democracies are by their very nature designed to prevent a system that has the concentration of power required to get those positives - and with good reason, because it also prevents abuse of that power. In other words, you can't just have one side of that coin.

[xiaocai]

To most people, they're no longer hurt by Mao's wrong decisions

Maybe emotionally not any more but physically the whole country is still paying the price though, and it's not a small one.

[rfv14]

Hi. I have a question. I know that chinese people worship Mao, but do they believe in maoism/marxism/leninism? Do they hate rich, clergy, entrepreneurs and other bourgeoisie? Is Mao's ideology still important in China?

[Tianjin42]

It’s a really interesting topic for sure.

In regards to some content we see on here, it is positive that weak arguments are dispatched and much of the debate here is lively. I do hope that by dismissing occasional weak prejudice against China, no-one crosses the line to become something of an apologist. We should remember that many here have had a chance to consider the darkest hours in China’s modern history that they simply wouldn’t have received inside China. This to me suggests that there is an element of responsibility.

I always admired Orwell’s concept of keeping one’s own corner clean (as an Englisher – to use the favoured term of Sun Yatsen, there is no shortage of material to consider – Churchill’s responsibilities for India come to mind, for example) but this concept should not leave us hamstrung to be boldly critical of other systems, in other countries, during other periods.

There are a few topics that have branched out from the original question and I would like to try and grasp a few.

My own experience suggests that whilst Mao isn’t considered a major part of people’s lives by most, he is a formidable presence and during my first year in China, I encountered that seed of support amongst students when speaking of “heroes”. I am not sure that I agree with this notion that Mao is loved by the government and loathed by the people. Indeed, I’d wager that there are many in government who would like to cool the use of his image and words but while other politicians are willing to use them, and while China is, ostensibly at least, ruled by his heirs, this simply won’t happen. Also, this idea depends upon whose China you want to talk about. Away from the top tier and second tier cities there places where Mao’s words are still held in extremely high regard and his icon a source of strength to those who have little. In places where increasing knowledge (and its cousin– cynicism) have developed somewhat, direct praise of Mao is sometimes replaced with (also misguided) praise of Lei Feng.

In reaching for a better understanding of China and its context I would not want to in any way drown out the voices of many Chinese who have bravely shone a light on to the less well known aspects of recent history. Take for an example Yang Jisheng杨继绳 and his work “Tombstone”. I haven’t read the English copy yet but I am aware of the dialogue to which it contributed and also read the sharp “Mao’s Great Famine” by Dikotter (which is well worth a read by the way) that was part of this field.

To illustrate better what I am trying to communicate take a look at Martin Jacques recent commentary for the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20178655). He argues that China as a Civilisation-State trumps the so called Nation-States and that because Chinese don’t want China to fail, they are willing to back the government. He even goes on to quote studies suggesting high levels of satisfaction with the government in China. I was aghast to see that he didn’t mention that the body responsible for running the country is the same body that controls directly the education and media – something that really should be mentioned if you are going to deal in satisfaction quotas. I felt that for an academic of such standing this is nothing short of dangerous. I am not endorsing the “western model” of government but to claim that the Chinese model is simply better would be a mistake. When teaching in university in the U.K. I received Chinese students who were shocked to see news reports that painted a very different picture to the one they were used to.

The thread has also veered toward governmental effectiveness. I agree that the current system in place means that there have been some monumental achievements in a short space of time. I am not sure though that I would venture into the “good for some things, bad for others” territory. Any government will always do things that you personally agree and disagree with. I would argue that the issue is whether that process has adequate checks and balances and how many of these checks people are willing to forgo for speed of development (regardless of direction). It seems that it’s fruitless to suggest that it’s good for infrastructure but bad for food safety because I might as well say that in China it is good for when the government do things with which I agree with but bad for when they do things that I don’t like. So in the U.K. where the process is slow I could say that it is bad for when the government do things I like but good that it prevents them from implementing too much that I hate. I think that this collapses under the weight of its own baggage.

I was surprised to see SARS and the SanLu milk scandal used as examples to demonstrate the efficacy of the Chinese system. With SanLu in particular a number of journalists were aware of what was happening but it eventually took direct intervention by the New Zealand government after SanLu’s New Zealand business partner informed (see: McGregor “The Party”).

Liuzhou, as a man who has read a few of your posts and agrees with a good deal, I think that the Mao/ Ripper comparison is something of a Chewbacca defence. The ripper himself represents a phenomenon where gore and blood are the selling points in a time and place that are regarded as something of a theme park.

On the theme of the thread, wouldn’t much more interesting comparison be between Mao/ Napoleon? A Glorious reformer who seemingly deemed it nothing to send good men to their deaths. You could paint Napoleon any number of colours (and many do) but as the situation stands we are left with a possibility that the man responsible for some of the most brutal military campaigns of his age might just be honoured with a theme park. France or China?

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/14/french-mp-napoleonland-theme-park).

From my perspective I think that had Mao died before 1958, the perception of him inside China and beyond China might have been fairly similar and fairly positive– an Asian Napoleon, if you like. Certainly his story is up to that point almost biblical in its nature and contains no small amount of courage and well-meaning. As it is he went on to preside over one of the worst man-made disasters in history and then instigated the Cultural Revolution in a proud foolhardy bid to hold onto the last vestiges of power.

Mao avoided the ignominy of a Khrushchev’s secret speech after Liu Shaoqi died imprisoned without his medication during the Cultural Revolution. To come back full circle, it would be a shame if in rightfully attacking intolerant views of China we backed up Mao and protected his legacy that really ought to be in the spotlight.

That has turned into a much longer post than I anticipated. My apologies to anyone who gets to the end or fails trying!

[Outofin]

I know that chinese people worship Mao, but do they believe in maoism/marxism/leninism?

Only my answer. No, I don't think the Chinese believe in Marxism or Leninism. I don't know what Maoism exactly is.

Do they hate rich, clergy, entrepreneurs and other bourgeoisie? Is Mao's ideology still important in China?

I think they hate rich more than Americans. The reason is not Maoism however. It's because they believe many rich people got rich in an illegal and immoral way, and many rich people are not good models and don't take their responsibility for the people.

I only skimmed tianjin42's long post. "his icon a source of strength to those who have little." That is very true. Mao's story didn't end when he died. His story will outlast our lives. People continue using Mao in their own cause. When people urge strong leadership, on corruption, or on territory disputes, etc., they'll use Mao's name. On the other side, those who advocate small government, private property rights, etc., try to remove Mao's influence. In popular culture, Mao is an icon of strength.