From what I understand Mao was a chairman of china. I also know he was the main force driving the cultrual revolution. He is thought by some as the greatest but yet others think he was a devil. Can someone give me a abrided or regular biograghy of Mao and tell my about him?

Actually Mao was the Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and not the Chairman of China, which usually meant the Chairman of the People's National Congress. Chairman of CCP is the highest ranking official of the CCP. Chairman of the People's National Congress is the third highest ranking official (after President and Premier) of the People's Republic of China (PRC) after the government reforms of the 80's. Back when Mao was alive, Chairman of the People's Congress was the highest ranking official of the PRC since there was no office of the President back then.

Mao was also State President until 1959, when he voluntarily resigned the post and was succeded Liu Shaoqi. (How voluntary this move was is a matter of dispute amongst historians). My own view is the resignation of this title (at that stage largely honorific) had no material affect on his actual power, although many historians, eg Maurice Meisner, would argue the opposite is true.

Actually (I know this is "off-topic," so sorry to the administrators) the title of leaders in Communist China has often not been that important. I read a book by some journalists who had worked for an extended period in China in the 1990s, and they recalled how they often ran into difficulties in referring to Deng Xiaoping, since Deng had no formal titles at the time, despite the fact that he was clearly the dominant figure in Chinese politics.

In fact, the highest title Deng held in the '90s (I'm not sure about the '80s) was President of the Chinese Bridge Society, since he was apparently an avid card player! As the authors of the book wrote (and I'm paraphrasing), they could hardly write something like "Deng Xiaoping, the President of the Chinese Bridge Society, decreed today that the Special Economic Zones of the east coast are to be expanded." So they usually settled for something like "supreme leader Deng Xiaoping" in order to convey Deng's political standing.

Just thought I would mention this to illustrate that formal titles do not always tell the entire story in Chinese politics. Certainly, if you were to just regard Mao as the Chairman of the CCP (his only title post-1959), I don't think you would get a full picture of the influence he had in China.

As to your original question: If you simply want a basic overview of Mao (with basic biographical data), I would suggest starting with something like Wikipedia. If you want to go further, there is an amazing and vast variety of biographies of Mao and political histories of his rule, as befits an individual who had such a massive impact (for better or worse, depending on what you read) on Chinese society, politics, culture and history. A lot of what is written, unfortunately, is polemical. You will find many hagiographic accounts of his rule, and, at the other end of the spectrum, works which simply demonize Mao without a view to the historical context he was operating in. Neither of these two extremes are particularly useful; try and find something balanced, which explains both the strengths and weaknesses of the Maoist period in a critical and objective fashion. Maybe other forum users have suggestions for such books/articles?

A great short biography of Mao is 'Mao' by J.Clements- this gives the basic information but allows you to develop your knowledge further. The wikipedia article is comprehensive but not exhaustive, but there are literally hundreds of biographies to choose from. I'd tread carefully when reading Chang/Halliday's 'Mao, the Unknown Story'. Harrison E Salisbury's 'Mao and Deng: A Dual Biography' gives a nice running life history of these two men, and traces ther similarities and differences.

My assessment of Mao


Mao successfully created the first modern Chinese state that was not under the influence of any foreign power. In this sense he can be considered the culmination of a long series of leaders dating back to Sun Yat-Sen, who dreamed of uniting China and making her once again the power of the world. Mao was a mastermind strategist but a poor ruler of his country. Like all men with power, Mao indulged in maintaining absolute control, and that caused him to committ numerous mistakes after he united China, the Culture revolution being the most grievious of them. Mao was at once the liberator and destroyer of China. Before 1949 he was the liberator; after 1949 he was the destroyer who made China lag behind the West for decades and caused irrecoverable damage to Chinese culture.

Good assessment. The CR wasn't a mistake for Mao, as he was able to tighten his grip on the reigns of power, but for China it was certainly a disaster. It is very impressive how Mao managed to create a PRC that was able to stand alone in the world- as you say, it was not under any influence from foreign powers [even the USSR lost its input in the 1958 Sino-Soviet Split]. This is partly why he his still revered in China today.

You sounds like a Russian who attempted to distance yourself from Mao.

"not under the influence of any foreign power"

That must be Arabian Nights.

Care to do some research into the Sino-Soviet Treaty of 1950? And tell me about the 50-50 joint ventures of all mines, and industries of Chinese Turkistan and Manchuria? And what about the naval bases leased to Russians on top of the concessions sold out by Roosevelt at Yalta?

I was wondering if you'd weigh in onto this subject ahxiang- welcome to the discussion Maybe the bit about 'not being under the influence of any foreign power' needs the crucial condition of 'eventually'- you mentioned the Sino-Soviet treaty of 1950, but this was then followed by the Sino-Soviet split of the later 1950s.

Sure Mao did make some concessions to the Russians after he gained control of China as part of his thanks to Russia. But his foreign policy after that was never in line with the Russians, and I don't need to go into all the details of the Sino-Soviet split need I? Russia, along with the West, was labeled the enemy of "Maoism" during the Cultural Revolution. Russians were called 蘇修 (Russian Revisionists) and hated by most Chinese for their role in the starvation of their country. In addition there had been several border clashes during the 60s between China and Russia. Yeah, like a puppet state would do any of the above.
It's funny because you sound like one of these misled American policy makers during the Cold War who always thought that China was a puppet state run by Moscow, when the opposite was true.





How would the above prove that China was greatly under the influence of the Soviets? Even you said it, joint cooperation. In the Republican era China wouldn't even have a voice in others coming in.

Ok, maybe my lone opinion won't convince you. Then just ask any Chinese who had lived through Mao's era if they think their country was under the control of any power under Mao's rule. Probably most of them, even Mao's haters, would say no. Mao might have dehumanized, decivilized, and screwed up China for good, but he definitely had not made her a vassal of Russia or any other power. If you want to attack Mao, at least attack him from some other perspectives, like his domestic policy and murdering of his political opponents. It is a general trend in the West to portray Mao as a completely evil ruler having no positive achievements, but I do believe as a Chinese that Mao had done some positive things, his foreign policy being one of them.

I must say that i agree with you. After a century of imperialist ravaging, China started to stand proud post-1949. For example, both communist and anti-communist in China were heartened to see when Chinese forces defeated General MacArther's 'UN' force in the Korean War...

Agreed. Due to Mao - China was able to break the hold that the West and Westernized (Japan) countries had on it. Although it was a bloody affair that did injure and kill many - all civil wars are quite often the bloodiest - it did bring China out of its feudalistic trappings under the late Qing and Warlordism. Chiang had not been willing to go through the 'bloody revolution' that was called for to create a new China from the ashes........just my two cents....

This isn't a volte face exactly here, but i have just had a thought; what do people wreckon as to whether somebody else could have broken the hold of imperialist powers over China? Basically, how much of an effect did Mao's personality have? I would have to say alot- it took a strong character to be prepared to stand up to the Russians personally [i.e on Mao's first visit to Moscow from the 16th December 1949]. Its all about the idea of 'personal government'. The thought of other people?

Obviously it was Mao's personality that drove the Revolution - sources to back that up - the successful revolution with Mao at the head of it. Consequently, Mao stood up to the Russians way before Moscow 1949 - he broke with the Russians when he drew up the Maoist idea of leading a Communist Revolution via the peasants and not the urban workers. From that point, USSR constantly attempted to drive him from leadership - the thirteen Bolsheviks, Lin Lin, etc. - yet Mao always found a way back on top - usually when the Russian Soviet led leadership had botched things up to such a degree that begged for new leadership - the Shanghai Massacre and the Long March. Mao had established his credibility early on and had the ability to bring rival factions - the intellectuals, the military leaders and the peasants - to the table have each work with the other. Mao was at his greatest when he was striving for power - it was after he gained his power over the nation that his personal corruption began to shine through............

Nice assessment, but a couple of points. There is evidence that Mao's personality had a big part to play in driving the revolution, but it could be argued that Mao played on exisiting nationalist and anti-imperialist attitudes in china-these attitudes drove the communist revolution, with Mao at its head. And the failure of modern capitalist ideology in china made the conditions right for the revolution to succeed- this failure was a catalyst to Maoist ideology. Also, i'd question whether the revolution was entirely successful, looking at some parts of PRC history.

I like to see Mao from a more dynastic perspective, in which he is just another "first" emperor of any given dynasty(so not jsut Qin ShiHuang) put into modern shoes and given modern technology. In fact his ruling style is much similar to the first emperors of most dynasties, but with improved technology that allowed him to go a step further than other emperors were capable of. His preference of equal land distribution was something that many first emperors did in order to win over the populace(Zhu YuanZhang comes into mind). The difference is that Mao, with modern technology, was eventually able to put into effect a state monopoly of farming/land that previous emperors never did, a part of what we call the Great Leap Forward (but considering how the emperor's viewed things, they probably would have had they had the technology to do so). The series of purges Mao placed was what a first emperor would naturally do to generals as well, considering that once "all under heaven" is united, generals are the next biggest threat in dynastic power. Another similarity is the importance Mao and all emperors place in the strength of a country due to population size. All wanted the population to expand as fast as possible. And, if you chose to believe "the Private Life of Chairman Mao", both Mao and most emperors had lots of sex, with lots of women. The difference is that, according to the book I mentioned, Mao would start hitting on males when there's no females around. I don't think any Chinese emperor did that. The only NOTABLE difference I can see was that Mao chose Lin Biao as his successor rather than one of his offspring. Basically, Chinese "first" emperors of major dynasties tend to have economic ideas that are heavily "communist" if put into a modern perspective. In fact that's probably the reason that they were able to become emperors in the first place, since falling dynasties tend to have a disproportionate amount of land in the hands of the wealthy.

The idea of 'emporer mao' is a good one- he had his court in the CCP, he exercised supreme personal power and he aimed to have the Maoist dynasty in china continue after his death, through the selection of Maoist revolutionaries. And, like any ruler, he couldn't stand to lose his power...

I would not argue that Mao played on nationalist and anti-imperialist attitudes - these attitudes did help the revolution but by no means were they tied to this revolution uniquely - remember the Tai Ping Rebellion - and thus it can also be said that China was ripe for revolution before Chiang entered the picture with his modern capitalist ideology - therefore the revolution was merely waiting for the right person to come along - Mao.

As far as the revolution being successful or not - it is hard to argue against it when peering up at the magnificent rise of the dragon......

Oh China is definitely on the rise, but is China really a communist country anymore? Mao envisioned a Socialist revolution and a Communist China, a far cry from today's China- for example where private retailers sell 'mao-themed' merchandise outside the place where he was born.

I had ignored Mao-related "hype and pump" topics. So I did not get a chance to take a look at what you replied till today.

You had, in my opinion, mistaken the effect as the cause and the cause as the effect. The Sino-Soviet split was not because Mao was so upset with Russian chauvinism that he wanted to be out of it. Now, even after the split, China remained on orbit and track that was laid out by the Russians.

Even today, China was no friend to non-Russian-affiliated countries, and this should be construed as a success of Stalin's genius design. - By the way, US, Britain and Japan etc don't give a DAM* about where China stands today as long as someone played the role of harnessing China's billion as obedient and docile sheep and coolie. Docility was one of three commonly-acknowledged Chinese qualities, that was written all over the place in western books.

The Sino-Soviet split was the result of Mao's fear about the loss of his own position within the Chinese communist apparatus when the Russians totally discarded Stalin's cult at the 20th congress. What happened was that Mao and CCP began to "pick bones out of eggs" during the Soviet 21st congress of 1959. While Mao and CCP had completely written off all unequal treaties between China and Czar Russia and between China and the Soviet Union in the 1950 friendship treaty, Mao and CCP then pretended to be "patriotic" and began to raise the concern about China's lost territories in 1959, which culminated in the border clashes on the Amur River and along Turkistan border. The border clash with India was a pick out of convenience to send a message to the Russians, by the way.

Got the cause and effect?

Now, who was more nationalist, KMT or CCP?

According to Ledovsky, the Chinese nationalist government adamantly refused to back down from the 51% ownership in any joint ventures with Russians in 1945, which resulted in Stalin's wholesale support for the CCP and the flareup of the civil war. Should you spend time reading Sino-Soviet treaty of 1950, you would know why there was 51-49 dispute in 1945 and why Mao and CCP agreed wholeheartedly to 50-50. And, you wanted to know at what price China sold tungsten, rubber, led, zinc and copper, led, etc to Russians to repay the 1.3 billion USD equivalent of loan Stalin gave to Mao in the 1950s. (All Russian aid before 1950 was on paper "free" and unreimbursed -whereas the truth was that China's resources in Manchuria and elsewhere were shipped to Soviet Union as barter goods.)

Whether you consider PRC a puppet of the Soviet Union or not, you would need to look at this from two perspectives, i) PRC and USSR were sharing the same standgrounds, at least till 1959 and a few years after; and ii) China's one-sided standing with Russians and breakaway from the "open door" policy, i.e., the equal access to the Chinese market - which means China being Russians' monopolized market.

Only after the death of Mao - it is hard to control things once you pass....though not impossible. It was Mao's led revolution that allowed for China to be were it is today - Communism, hybrid or what not........

I will reply to your quote piece by piece.



Just what do you mean by "friend?" You mean, like the relationship between UK and US, or Japan and US? Let me tell you why they are "friends." UK and US are friends only because they are puppets of the US. "Friendship to countries" is the most ambigous statement ever. How friendly can a country be? As far as I see it, China is friendly to every country in the world. Going by your definition of "friendship," for two countries to be "friends" one has to suck up to the other's policies?


Stereotype my friend is dangerous. MacArthur thought the Chinese wouldn't dare attack Americans during the Korean War because he had believed, like you, that China is "docile." We all know the results. Don't apply such generaliaztion too hastily.



I did. And sir I think you are focusing too much on the cause rather the effect.



To the eyes of a normal citizen, which is more important, the cause or the effect? Does the general public (ah yes, they are the people who have the last say on history, not you and I. Hundreds of years later it will be their view that is printed in the textbook) really focus on what Mao's initial intention was? The facts (yes, facts) are: Mao did join the Korean war, did break relations and have border clash with Russians, and did defeat India under his rule. Now you are bringing all these supposed unpatriotic and selfish reasons that compelled Mao to do the above things. Ok, sure, I admit they are true. So what? You speak as if the cause were the ultimate factor in assessing a historical figure. I disagree with your method because the effect should be put before the cause in such assessment. Mao was a selfish dictator. But if you put aside his motives and only look at his foreign achievements, you would agree that Mao did make China more independent than she was before, regardless of his intentions.

That's a fair point- maybe the China of today does not demonstrate the success of the Maoist theory of revolution, but of the Chinese revolution as a whole....

I think this is a fair assessment Kscnoko- your examples of Korea, India and the Sino-Soviet Split show the way in which Mao a gave china the freedom to act alone of its own initiative, rather than at the whim of other countries. The days of imperialist dominated China were well and truly gone under Mao by the time of Nixon's arrival in 1972.

"imperialists"

I haven't seen any "non-Chinese" American purpotedly used "imperialists" for self-designation.

The last American to use such a word would probably be Patrick Hurley. He did not believe Americans to be so. He meant the term for the British.

You seem to be indulging in the so-called GREATness of China that was the accomplishment of Mao without a thought on the economic bankruptcy of China that was made by Mao and the fragility of China that was the underlying reason that led to Mao's alliance with the US in face of Russian threat of [nuclear] war.

Should Mao have so much bravado, then he would not be so scared as to dig caves and shelters all over the country and move factories and plants to the mountains, nor would he forge an alliance with the American "imperialists".

Now, about today's China.

What you don't know about today's China is that it is controlled not by the CCP, not by the Chinese people, but by the compradors, the broker-dealers, and multinational corporations. Every Chinese financial and economic policy was designed with the interest of those above-mentioned people and groups [the compradors, the broker-dealers, and multinational corporations] in mind, not the one billion sheep. You called Mao's spending the sheep in front of field-to-air guns in Korean battlefields as a demonstration of non-docility. The true "non-Chinese" in the United States would only sign how pitiful the fate of the sheep in China was, i.e., fodder.

Having doubt about the real Chinese policy? You would need to read some post at
http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...view=getnewpost (告诉你另外一个真实的中国)
to cool off a bit of your mind.

Interesting statement there. What's do you have to back up this statement?

Just another conspicay theory. Some people hate Mao and his China with such a passion they cannot or are incapable of participating in a rational discussion on the matter.

Civilty is very important if forums are to work Changsham, so please avoid such provacative statements.

Thanks,

Matt

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=27208
(告诉你另外一个真实的中国)

This article entitled "Telling you another side of Chna - the real China) was done by a Ph.D. from Nankai University.

That link doesn't seem to open when i click on it.

Anxiang you are constantly dodging my point. I already conceded that your facts and information are true. Ok. Now, I'm asking "so? so what?" You keep bringing up facts that show how much of a coward Mao was. We know that and accept that ahxiang. No one is disputing with you here. But do your facts erase Mao's record and all his legacy? No, your facts only revealed Mao's personal motivations. Mao still did what he did regardless of what he thought. Unlike you who seem to have put Mao's personal motivation above his real accomplishment, I evaluate him based on what he did, not on what he thought or on his character.




The same thing (I am not being disrespectful to American soldiers here, just applying reverse logic.) could be said of Americans. They are just "fodders" of the American policy. Every soldier of the world is the fodder of his country. Every citizen is a sheep. I am not sure why are you singling China out in this. Americans leaders have also lied to and manipulated the public many times. But of course you won't call America "evil" like Mao won't you?

Conspiracy did exist beyond your imagination. Didn't Taiwan's president just fall from grace for the bribery? Didn't China's governors and parliament members get imprisoned for similar crimes? In today's world, you have the giant corporations bribing their way to change a country's policy. In US, it's called lobbyists; and in China, they were called people who had "guan xi"- connections. United States government policy was certainly hijacked at one time or other. Obama's policy, for example, is to be determined by some thinktanks and strategic reserach institute, which would sooner or later disappoint the Americans who elected him for 'change' the Americans want'. In the old days, 1930s and 1940s, the United States [China] policies were hijacked by the Institute of Pacific Relations where Russian and Chinese communists conspired to make sure China was to be lost.

Kscnoko, I agree with you on the sheep and fodder points. And, I believe you do have the capacity for seeking the truth. Stay tuned for my continuous work. Once China's history is to be straightened up, our people in the future would have a better guide, and hopefully they not be screwed up again.

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php?showtopic=27208

I can't read Chinese unfortunately, any chance of a summary of the thread?

And conspiracy there is. When it comes to history it is the conspiracy of rewriting history. The winners write the history to suit themselves. The losers or those that cannot accept the mandate of the winners will counter with their own version.


And Goverments will be always influenced by the rich, powerfull and influential. Be they individuals, corporations. lobby groups and others with the skills to pull strings for whatever reason. There is nothing remarkable about this.

As for Guangxi, it does exist in the West. Perhaps a more highly developed invisible version masqueraded with liberal doses of hypocrisy.

Alex Haley was definitely right.