They were attempting to not let the Depression occur in America (and only not in America), by screwing other nations with tariffs and embargoes, but that made things even worst and inevitable.
Like nuking two major Japanese cities full of innocent civilizans to end the war earlier? Or completely carpet bombing entire cities into nothing but rubble, to break the will of the German people so they wouldn’t resist invasion and occupation (i.e. not a repeat of Stalingrad in Germany).
In the long term though, things generally turned out okay. Not saying I disagree with ya though…
EDIT
I don’t think Mao imagined the Great Leap would be a failure. He thought it would be successful and make China a superpower overnight. We look back on it, then point and laugh how communisim is broken - but had it worked, the Cold War might have been a three way contest. Mao did it for more power, but he also did it because he was tired of being a puppet for the Soviets and Americans.
I think he deluded himself way too much and refused to listen to those who were against it - but is that any different than President Bush? About a million have died under his watch - and hundreds more die each month under the collateral duties of Obama.
Not trying to justify Mao - merely pointing out that he wasn’t doing it purely for conquest: mostly defense. That it failed is why we call it evil.
I suppose the real problem is the question of what’s more important in judging evil, intentions or results? I believe it’s intentions, but it’s very difficult for us to evaluate another person’s intentions as opposed to the results of their actions.
I only really remembered the agricultural and industrial aspects of the Great Leap; I wasn’t aware of those other, positive aspects. I would have ranked the Cultural Revolution as worse in any case, though. I don’t think there any positive aspects to that, or at least, nothing on the scale of promoting women’s rights.
The difference between the Depression and the Great Leap is that the latter was a deliberate government policy, while the former was not, (although government policies certainly exacerbated it). I can’t call Hoover evil, especially given his pre-presidency involvement in famine relief and other humanitarian causes in China and post-WWI Europe. He was an incompetent leader, not a wicked one.
Not to dissuade you all from your discussions, but I have a random comment that is somewhat of a response to someone who questioned my trying to take on untranslated games: I found out today that the mock JLPT level 3 test I had to take last Tuesday (which is actually an old version of the real test) for my Japanese III class came out in total to about 54% (just six points off of the international standard of 60% for passing).
We call it evil not because it failed. Plenty of times in the past, decisions with a heavy cost have had to be made, and after the fact have turned out to be wrong. That alone does not automatically make the decision evil.
What makes it evil is that it was sustained for so long, even after it should have been apparent to anyone that it hadn’t worked, and a change of direction was needed.
Ah. Gottcha. Well even considering all this, I don’t see Mao as a first tier evil… wicked to be sure, but not on the level of Hitler, Stalin, or Khan. Second tier I think.
I’d say Mao is on the same level as President Andrew Jackson. Jackson not only supported slavery, but despite seeing the writing on the wall that slavery was wicked and outdated, instituted policies to promote it’s longevity to cement his power and deny slaves voting power (leading to the inevitable Civil War). He also ignored Supreme Court rulings that gave Native American rights, violated treaties with Indian Nations, and initiated practice of relocation, concentration camps, and genocide (disease blankets) - some accounts state he is responsible for the deaths of 30% of the eastern seaboard Cherokee population. Jackson also reveled in political machinations, and was notorious for creating situations just to cause havoc and discord in Washington for no other reason than just cause havoc and discord ¬ñ with friends and foes alike (even his own VP). Jackson also committed war crimes in the guise of patriotism. Also did illegal transfers of government funds into personal bank accounts.
They both had a twisted sense of patriotism… although Mao did get the delusional godhood thing after awhile. If Hitler/Stalin/Khan are level 10 or 9-ish evil, I’d put Mao on level 7. His actions were certainly evil, but considering how frequently China got screwed by the British, Japanese, Americans, and Russians. If it wasn’t for him, China probably be an American puppet state against the Russian manipulated India.
Seems like a pretty good comparison to me, although Jackson’s damage was limited by being in control of only one branch of government and only holding power for eight years. And you do have to give him some credit for standing up to South Carolina on Nullification. I do wonder sometimes why he’s still on the $20. I’d dump him for someone else, probably James Madison. There’s a guy who’s underappreciated these days.
I wonder. If Mao had lost the civil war, would the US have been able to maintain China as a puppet any longer than the USSR did historically? China is just such a large country that I’m not sure it would have been feasible once China started to get back on its feet at all. I do think China would be better off today if it had followed the trajectory of America’s other post-WWII East Asian satellites, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea. It would probably be at least as economically powerful, but with a less repressive government, which would be a real relief to those of us watching China’s rise to dominance with concern.
Not so certain on that. The US has pulled off some magnificent failures in Asia: Cambodia, Philippines, and Thailand (none of which are stable; all of them are in some form of martial law as of this posting). China could have turned out like them. China has waaaay to many people too feed and support - isn’t 60% of the population in poverty? It follows the same general model as the poor Southeast Asian nations. Taiwan wouldn’t exist. Korea would have been unified. Japan probably would have turned out the same (we were there more for Russia than China).
No one fucks with Mongolia.
Plus if China was a puppet-ally through the Cold War, they wouldn’t be in the “almost richer than America” position they are in now. We would have bought their currency during the post-WW2 years, then flood the market with it when they got too big (devaluing the currency), like we did Germany and Japan during the 80’s and 90’s. Today China is threatening to do that to America. Corporations would have also exploited the hell out of them for cheap labor sooner, and in the 1950’s it was okay to screw them out of the profits.
In the long term, I think China being communist was a good thing for them (in way of being a political world power): their society needed the centralized authority to make sweeping changes with such a vast and diverse population. Plus it kept greedy Americans out. We do good in the world; but only if it services our needs. US has screwed countries without ointment many a time. Kinda fucked up things are that way…
But was the price worth it? I guess history will tell…
It’s hard to say. I don’t see America occupying China like we did South Korea or Japan, (for the better), or Vietnam (for the worse). I suppose we would probably want troops along the Soviet border, although the climate there is seriously nasty. I think it would really come down to whether our puppet, presumably Chiang, could keep any serious insurgencies from springing up, which is at best questionable.
I won’t deny that the US has been responsible for a lot of shit in the world, but I can’t see how anything we did to a non-Communist China could possibly be as bad (for its people, not necessarily for its geopolitical power) as what Mao did. Japan and Korea became modern, industrialized countries despite being exploited by American corporations in the '50s and '60s. The question is whether that could have happened on the much vaster Chinese scale.
I am deeply fearful of the effect on the world of a Chinese hegemony. So far there have been two global hegemons since technology advanced far enough to make such a thing possible: Britain and America. Both powers have committed terrible crimes, up to and including genocide, but they always professed noble ideals. Even when they failed to live up to those ideals, people were inspired by them. People within those countries were inspired to try to make their governments adhere more closely to those ideals, and people outside were inspired to fight for those ideals in their own countries, even if that meant fighting against the hegemonic power itself. A Chinese hegemon would seem to me to have all of the negative qualities of past hegemons and none of the positive. I’m not even sure what Chinese ideals are. Communism is clearly a joke at this point. Does the Chinese government even pretend to believe in anything other than money and power?
Unchecked democracy is always a very dangerous thing. There’s nothing undemocratic about a majority voting to wipe out a minority. This is why constitutional protection of minorities and limitations on government power are so important.
I note that this law lumps in lesbians with gay men as deserving of execution, even though HIV transmission rates through lesbian sex are far, far lower than rates of transmission through heterosexual sex. Shows you what the true motivation behind these laws is.
I hold that monarchy is better than anyother form of government, provided you have a strong leader. Democracy is great in principles, but it rarely gets incorporated properly.
No gov’t does. Power corrupts people, maybe not as universally as some people would like you to believe… but still such power will corrupt enough and attract those already corrupted. Hence no gov’t really “works”, it is just less fucked up than the others.
That may be true; the problem is that people who are both capable enough to be an effective monarch and ethical enough not to abuse their power are very, very, very rare, and are almost inevitably succeeded by less competent and less ethical people.
I read a quote once, I forget who said it, “It’s all very well to have rule by the perfect man, but what do you do when the perfect man gets a stomachache?”
Not only the insults, trolling, and flaming… o, no there is much more… actually arguing that voice acting quality, musical quality, and that an ending being climactic or not, are objective facts just to simply defend his opinion on a video game… why does ignorant stupidity rage so openly in this world?
Well, that’s all well and good, but here is proof that penguins rule the universe. And I don’t think penguins really go yandere very often. I guess … I should be thankful for that.
I can’t believe I have to actually agree with Narg… ack, the world is coming to an end!
I met this woman, got along well enough, but then she started on about finding a rich man to bleed dry… I mean, really? And this isn’t that uncommon, at least with the women I’ve known. Money or status is everything… love and trust means absolutely nothing it seems. Are women really this shallow? Or do I just have the worst luck?
I don’t think it is just you Kabraxal. Looking at it as though humans were any other animal, it is simply trying to find a mate that offers the most secure and stable situation in which to raise young. With other species, this is shown in the biggest and strongest male ending up with the most mates. In humans, since we are basically considered to be the dominant species, the shift has turned more towards who can provide for offspring than who can physically protect offspring. While I believe in what I just stated, that doesn’t mean that I don’t think that emotion can sometimes overcome the subconscious or conscious logical calculation of who is the better mate. There is also the factor of the research that shows you can tell by scent who is a better genetic match for creating offspring, which can conflict with the logical calculation. I seem to recall a postulation that this conflict is part of why a woman may cheat on a husband (i.e. she married the provider, but bore the children of the better genetic match). In short, it is a complicated subject, but from a cold scientific analysis of the situation, it makes sense that many women are that way. For being portrayed as the sex which is more in to emotions, it is kind of sad, isn’t it?
Thanks for that link Nandemonai. I quite enjoyed reading up on what Curry’s Paradox is after going there.
