' The poorer the people, the more revolutionary they are?
Getting to know the unknown story of Mao Zedong

----

?Mao Zedong held absolute power over the lives of one-quarter of the world?s population was also responsible the deaths of well over 70 million deaths. This is more than any other twentieth-century leader.? That is how Jung Chang, author of the best-seller Wild Swans and her husband Jon Halliday, expert of the Kremlin-archives, start their biography of the Great Chairman and Helmsman.

Even after his death in 1976 when all truth about the disastrous Cultural Revolution had become evident, he was still seen as a great revolutionary who with his peasant army defeated the Japanese and chased out the nationalist regime of Chiang Kai-shek.

Even today, there are movements across the world which claim to be the real heirs and successors of Mao Zedong. There are self-styled Maoists in India and in a vanguard movement in Nepal. Since 1996 Nepali Maoists have been waging a fierce Mao-style ?people?s war? to overthrow the monarchy, establish a people?s republic and finish Mao Zedong?s ?incomplete? revolution in his homeland where the Chinese communists have in the view of their Nepali comrades have betrayed the Great Helmsman.

This biography unveils the existing myths about Mao and the Chinese revolution. Right from the beginning, the authors say, Mao was not only a cruel and pitiless ?party emperor? but they argue the Chinese revolution never actually took place.

For Henry Kissinger, till as recently as 1997, Mao was a ?philosopher? pursuing a ?quest for egalitarian virtue?. This is a rather macabre and cynical way of describing the man, whose policy? supported by the majority of Chinese Communist Party (CCP) leadership of that time?of the Great Leap Forward (1958-1961) to a ?brilliant communist future? resulted in the most devastating man-made famine in human history leaving over 30 million people dead.
Mao also played a vital part in installing the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia in 1975 and once told his soulmate Pol Pot: ?You have scored a splendid victory. Just a single blow and no more classes.?

Born in 1893 into a well-off peasant family Mao stopped at nothing. His main intention was to destroy with force and violence the old system and to create a new huge Chinese Empire, outdoing all the power and the glory of former dynasties.

Before converting to Marxism he said in 1917-1918 that he did not ?agree with the view that to be moral, the motive of one?s action has to be benefiting others?. And how to change China? ?The country must be destroyed and then reformed?this applies to the country, to the nation and to mankind...?

Both views fitted very well into his later Marxist-Leninist views of class struggle (?no mercy for class enemies?), protracted revolution even under the proletarian dictatorship and permanent ?ideological remoulding?. Chang and Halliday show very convincingly that Mao used this pitilessness as his ?most formidable weapon? towards peasants and intellectuals, in his civil war against Chiang Kai-shek (as a dictator quite a novice compared to Mao) in his power struggles and in his relationships with other CCP-leaders. Unforgiving and vindictive, Mao had two concerns: himself and his power.

The authors subtitle their biography ?Unknown Story?. This isn?t quite true, quite a lot of the facts are already known. But there hasn?t yet been such a consistent, well-researched biography which presents a lot of new details and information. The authors spent more than 10 years on the book, poring through Russian archives (the CCP?s archives are still top secret) and conducted innumerable interviews with witnesses of the times.

Some of their main theses: the CCP was a product of Soviet communism, through his intimate and intricate links with Stalin, Mao worked his way up to the top of the CCP, denouncing, scheming, blackmailing, looting and poisoning, the legendary Long March in 1934-35 was mainly the result of a power deal between Stalin and Chiang Kai-shek, whose son was held as a de facto hostage in Moscow (to get him free, Chiang gave his consent to the Red Army moving its military bases closer to Soviet Russia).

Mao welcomed the Japanese invasion of China as a chance to seize the power. It was not Mao who wanted a united front against Japan, it was Chiang. To undermine him, Mao even collaborated with the Japanese intelligentsia. Mao did not seize power by revolution, there was no uprising anywhere in favour of the communists. His victory was mainly due to the help of foreign powers, especially Soviet Russia which occupied northeast China with its key industrial bases after 1945 and handed over Japanese arms to the Chinese communists and POW?s to fill up the ranks of the Red Army. The Americans underestimated the Communists and provided them with a decisive break by ordering Chiang not to send his troops into action for four months.

Once in control Mao was seized with the ambition of turning China into a superpower. After Korea and Vietnam, Mao was obsessed by the idea that after a nuclear war with the USA only China would survive simply because of its huge population. So he got the Soviets to give him nuclear weapons. Even after Stalin had been replaced by Khruschev, he still held onto Stalinism by promoting armed struggle as the only way to revolution in the Third World and used a lot of money to try to undermine the influence of Soviet ?revisionism?. The money came from the Chinese peasantry through military socialist state slavery, the peoples communes and labour camps.

Mao had a pet theory about poverty: ?People say that poverty is bad, but in fact poverty is good. The poorer the people are, the more revolutionary they are. It is dreadful to imagine a time when everyone will be rich...? Mao?s last wife Jiang Qing (?I was Chairman Mao?s dog. Whoever Chairman Mao asked me to bite, I bit.?) always warned her staff: ?To serve me is to serve the people.?


Mao
The Unknown Story
by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday
Jonathan Cape
814 pages
25 pounds
The authors rightly claim that Mao?s rule was mainly built on terror with the Chinese characteristics of the endless campaigns during the 1950s and 1970s to denounce and destroy all kinds of ?class enemies?. The biggest of these campaigns was the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution from 1966-1976 with the sole aim to purge the party of high-ranking ?capitalist-roaders? like Liu Shaoqi (No 2) and Marshall Peng Dehuai, who had shown human sympathy towards the victims of Mao?s policy, especially the impoverished peasants.

This book paints the frightening picture of an emperor, who in his last years, being ill and half blind and in premonition that after his death his achievements would be abolished, showed the only human emotion he was capable of: self pity. One month after his death, on 9 September 1976, the Gang of Four around his wife Jiang Qing was deprived of power and Deng Xiaoping cancelled the people?s communes and the collectivisation and began the process of opening China?s doors to the outside world.

What is left until today of Mao?s totalitarian rule for Chinese society is a deficit of ethics and morals. In the epilogue the authors write: ?Today, Mao?s portrait and his corpse still dominate Tiananmen Square in the heart of the Chinese capital. The current communist regime declares itself to be Mao?s heir and fiercely perpetuates the myth of Mao.? China is no longer a Maoist-style totalitarian state, it resemble a dot.com.capitalist-leninist state, which is no longer interested in world revolution and Maoist movements elsewhere but in money. Lots of it.

China still hasn?t made a radical review of the Mao period and the history of the CCP. The Chinese authorities have banned this biography. Maybe Chang and Halliday focus too much on Mao as a lonesome monster, perhaps they really do neglect a deeper social and political context. But this biography was mainly written to deconstruct once and for all the myth of Mao the Great Helmsman? one of the most totalitarian rulers of the 20th century. With this masterly and thrilling book the discussion about Mao Zedong, the history of communism in China in the 20th century and of Maoism enters a new era.

The authors subtitle their biography ?Unknown Story?. This isn?t quite true, quite a lot of the facts are already known. But there hasn?t yet been such a consistent, well-researched biography that presents a lot of new details and information. The authors spent more than 10 years on the book, poring through Russian archives (the CCP?s archives are still top secret) and did innumerable interviews with witnesses of the times.

Some of their main theses: the CCP was a product of Soviet communism? through his intimate and intricate links with Stalin, Mao worked his way up to the top of the CCP, denouncing, scheming, blackmailing, looting and poisoning.

Mao welcomed the Japanese invasion of China as a chance to seize power. It was not Mao who wanted a united front against Japan, it was Chiang. To undermine him, Mao even collaborated with the Japanese intelligentsia. Mao did not seize power by revolution, there was no uprising anywhere in favour of the communists. His victory was mainly due to the help of foreign powers, especially Soviet Russia, which occupied northeast China with its key industrial bases after 1945 and handed over Japanese arms to the Chinese communists and POWs to fill up the ranks of the Red Army.

Once in control Mao was seized with the ambition of turning China into a superpower. He was obsessed by the idea that after a nuclear war with the USA only China would survive simply because of its huge population.
So he got the Soviets to give him nuclear weapons. Even after Stalin had been replaced by Khruschev, Mao still held onto Stalinism by promoting armed struggle as the only way to revolution in the Third World and used a lot of money to try to undermine the influence of Soviet ?revisionism?.

Mao had a pet theory about poverty: ?People say that poverty is bad, but in fact poverty is good. The poorer the people are, the more revolutionary they are. It is dreadful to imagine a time when everyone will be rich...? Mao?s last wife Jiang Qing (?I was Chairman Mao?s dog. Whoever Chairman Mao asked me to bite, I bit.?) always warned her staff: ?To serve me is to serve the people.?

This book paints the frightening picture of an emperor, who in his last years, being ill and half blind and with a premonition that after his death his achievements would be abolished, showed the only human emotion he was capable of: self pity. One month after his death, on 9 Sept. 1976, the Gang of Four around his wife Jiang Qing was deprived of power and Deng Xiaoping cancelled the people?s communes and collectivisation and began the process of opening China?s doors to the outside world.

What is left today of Mao?s totalitarian rule is a deficit of ethics and morals in Chinese society. In the epilogue, the authors write: ?Today, Mao?s portrait and his corpse still dominate Tiananmen Square in the heart of the Chinese capital. The current communist regime declares itself to be Mao?s heir and fiercely perpetuates the myth of Mao.?

China still hasn?t made a radical review of the Mao period and the history of the CCP. The Chinese authorities have banned this biography. Maybe Chang and Halliday focus too much on Mao as a lonesome monster, perhaps they really do neglect a deeper social and political context. But this biography was mainly written to deconstruct once and for all the myth of Mao the Great Helmsman? one of the most totalitarian rulers of the 20th century. With this masterly and thrilling book the discussion about Mao Zedong, the history of communism in China in the 20th century and of Maoism enters a new era.

Helmut Forster-Latsch is a German sinologist, translator and author who spent 1977-81 in Beijing where he studied Maoism and became disillusioned with it.

i have a couple of mao tse tung's biography if that helps anybody..besides it's not the main idea of who the person was but the matter of what he did when he did..the bottom line..he kicked out Chinese Imperialism, feudalism and turned it into the country for the commons...more than that he ensured 100 years of devoted followers..Now that's what I call leadership, where people follow your principles long after you die..

Freak-versioned (un?)biased report by an unbiased newspaper(???):

http://www.gorkhapatra.org.np/pageloader.php?file=2005/08/01/topstories/main8

Malicious statements distort Nepal's image

By A Staff Reporter
KATHMANDU, July 31: The concern for Nepal, rightly or wrongly, by the global media and big countries has caused more distress to this country than ease its plights. Reports and statements that are one-sided, biased, based on hearsay, erroneous and even malicious have distorted the real situation of Nepal and misled the outside world. The global community must be given an accurate account and a truthful picture of Nepal if it is make an honest opinion about this country.

The recent statement of Senator Patrick Leahy in the United States Senate on July 28, and published in full by a Kathmandu-based newspaper, has recounted Nepal?s tale that is far from reality and half truth at the most.

He started his statement saying ?Nepal is facing a ruthless Maoist insurgency (which is true) and a political crisis instigated by King Gyanendra which together threaten to turn Nepal into a failed state (which is completely false). The political crises that the country is reeling now was not brought by His Majesty the King but the political parties in the last 12 years. The senator, however, failed to see the particulars and the circumstances that led the country to the present situation. It is useless here to describe the political imbroglio both in the parliament and the street, the horse-trading in the making and breaking of the governments, the party governments?Eincapacity and inability to better the political and economic situations of the country. One can flip back to any newspaper of those days to see the state of our politics. It would be na?Ee to think that Senator Leahy, who keeps an elaborate knowledge of this country, is not unaware about the situation of those 12 years.

Senator Leahy also knows that the international community and the donor countries had talked about Nepal sliding towards becoming a failed state long before February 1. The Senator seems to have misread the situation when he said that the King, with the backing of the security forces dissolved the multi-party government. Everybody is well aware that it was Sher Bahadur Deuba, the then prime minister, had recommended for the dissolution of the parliament and it were the other political parties which had orchestrated the downfall of the government.

It is known to all that the political parties because of their differences and the ?rush?Eto become prime minister could not strike a consensus on forming a government when the King gave them a chance. The pleadings for ?peace now?Erather than for democracy, was there for everyone to see when the King visited the nook and corner, including the areas infested by the Maoists. Like all Americans, Senator Leahy is so much concerned about the human rights violations in Nepal. This is welcomed by all who believe in the rule of law and democracy. There is no denying that there have been violations of human rights by the security forces and the Royal Nepalese Army had investigated into the charges and jailed, fined, demoted security personnel for violating human rights. But the Senator has failed to include even a single line on the human rights violations by the Maoists and their continuing murder, looting and abduction of the party workers and even school children and innocent apolitical people.

He thinks that it was worthy to mention the journalists who were detained for a few hours for encroaching the restricted area announced under the law, but completely forgot those journalists who were slit and hacked to death in broad daylight in front of their family members and others. Is it an oversight of him not to mention the security forces heli-lifting the injured Maoists for medical treatment and giving them beds in the hospital alongside the army personnel?

The Senator has been misinformed when he said that he was concerned about the security forces summarily executing the prisoners. How could the Senator draw this conclusion just because the National Human Rights Commission did not find any prisoners in the detention centres? Everyone is aware of the several hundred names that were released by the government disclosing their whereabouts? One is forced to think that the senator could be badly misinformed about the real situation of Nepal.

The Senator?s pre-conceived notion about Nepal could be gauged when he sounded very unhappy at the US Embassy in Kathmandu for taking a ?nuanced?Eapproach of ?giving consideration and validity to the views and action of His Majesty the King and the political parties?E He might have wanted that the US Embassy in Kathmandu to blindly toe his line of ?Nepal bashing?E It is hard to believe how the Senator could have doubted the National Human Rights Commission saying it had been getting better access to places of detention.

What makes the Senator?s views a little hard to digest is when he said that press freedom has been totally curbed. One example is enough. If it were true, the Senator?s statement would not have been published in a newspaper in Nepal or the publisher would have been ?handcuffed?Ethe next day.

The Senator has gone a long way in defending Deuba saying the former prime minister was jailed for corruption by an extrajudicial anti-corruption committee. This observation does not hold any rationale as the RCCC was formed under a provision of the constitution, which is still functional. At least the Senator does not seem to deny that Deuba was involved in the corruption. What is dismaying is that the Senator appears to have found no fault in the political parties for their misdeeds, infighting and wrangling that led the country to this state. He was not surprised when political parties here were involved in all kinds of transgression. It is so easy to sermonize from the safety of political stability and economic prosperity.

How wrong is the Senator to suggest the political solution for the restoration of the parliament, which the political parties themselves had demised, or the formation of an constituent assembly, which is the main demand of the Maoists? How could a Senator of the greatest democracy of the world, omit the most viable option of election, which the King has been repeatedly pledging to hold in three years? How could he disregard the government?s announcement to hold the election of the municipalities in about nine months to start the political process of letting the people?s representatives take over in a gradual manner? Does it mean calling the political parties to reject the people?s right to chose their representatives?

When the US Senator endorses the solution to an end to hostilities and inclusive national dialogue towards a negotiated solution to the underlying causes of conflict, he is serious about seeing an end to the ongoing conflict in the country, which is appreciable. The concerns for this country showed by the Vermont Senator must be taken in a positive light. But his recommendation to the US Senate to curb aid, military and economic, could do more harm than good to this beleaguered country, which is fighting for its survival. It will be the people and even the political parties who will be suffering if friends like the US fail to understand the real situation. By stopping aid, the US and other countries will be helping the Maoists, who are hell-bent on destabilizing the country, than the people, who want peace at the foremost.