The current direction of China is another issue which we have discussed at some legenth on this and other lists. This particularly debate is focused on an historical issue: whether Mao purposefully murdered 30 million of his countrymen with an egotistic policy of the Great Leap Forward. Professor DeLong, to substantiate his erroneous claim, produced Lin Biao's preface to the Quotations From Mao as evidence of uncritical thinking of Mao socialist thought. Please read my post: Mao in the Chinese context, on the Marxism list, if you are interested on the subject. Henry C.K. Liu Michael Keaney wrote: > Howdy y'all > > Please forgive me if I'm missing something, but a little clarification would > not go amiss. I have been following the discussions re Mao and Lin Biao et > al. I would like to know whether Charles and Henry believe that the present > government of China is at all representative of the kind of vision typical > of Mao and other Marxist revolutionaries, as has possibly been implied in > some of the exchanges. What about the struggle for power during the > caretakership of Hua Guo-Feng between the "Gang of Four" and Deng Xiao-Ping? > Did this not signify some significant sea change in the direction of Chinese > policy? I am under the impression that such a change (I assume it exists) > was away from the ostensibly socialist and towards a form of state > capitalism. In addition, how connected is the present administration to the > masses? > > I am also uncomfortable with the ease with which the Tiananmen Square > episode was brushed away, given the democratic aspirations so obviously > expressed by its participants and suppressed by its targets. To excuse tanks > rolling over citizens by means of attributing contamination of the > originally egalitarian purpose of the demonstration to the corrupting > influence of US television is a little too trite. That US TV, in typical > fashion, chose to sensationalise and make stars out of a few "lucky" > individuals hardly alters matters for the vast majority of those involved, > other than to provide the Chinese power elite with a few handy propaganda > weapons to discredit the demonstrators. It worries me that the Tiananmen > demonstrators can be so casually written off because of their obvious value > to US propagandiststhe same propagandists who cheerfully ignore the Al > Sharptons and Cesar Chavezes. > > I do appreciate the contributions of both Henry and Charles, and the > opportunity they provide for critical self-examination with regards to > implicit racism. I certainly do not want the above to be interpreted as > evidence of it, because it is not my intention to cast aspersions of that > kind on anyone. But let's not defend the otherwise indefensible because it > is somehow less ugly than a racism it is not entirely clear has manifested > itself in the list. > > In friendship, > > Michael
