[Potemkin]

And how did Mao achieve all that? With the tools of the state and government. Even his personality cult was basically created top to bottom.

Mao instigated the Cultural Revolution precisely to bypass the Party and the state apparatus. This was an act of desperation on his part, since he had already lost the political struggle within the corridors of power. Likewise, Trump only instigated the march on the Capitol after it became clear that he had lost the election, and therefore needed to bypass the traditional political avenues of power. Mao succeeded because he still controlled the PLA, and Trump failed because the leadership of the American armed forces loathe and despise him. It really is as simple as that.

[JohnRawls]

Mao instigated the Cultural Revolution precisely to bypass the Party and the state apparatus. This was an act of desperation on his part, since he had already lost the political struggle within the corridors of power. Likewise, Trump only instigated the march on the Capitol after it became clear that he had lost the election, and therefore needed to bypass the traditional political avenues of power. Mao succeeded because he still controlled the PLA, and Trump failed because the leadership of the American armed forces loathe and despise him. It really is as simple as that.

Then how you can claim that it is not a top to bottom affair. I am not disputing your facts but the argument here is that it is a bottom to top affair as if the people went out on their own which clearly is not the case because they somehow required Mao direct statements to do so and PLA assistance to permit this behaviour on top of the government giving them 6 months off to do their thing and providing transportation and the military/police to look the other way and so on.

Did the French revolution ask the military to step aside or for the king the permission to chop his head? Did the October revolution ask the Tsar and the provisional government if they can take power? They just did it. They didn't require assistance from any king or government to do so and then formed their own.

[Potemkin]

Then how you can claim that it is not a top to bottom affair. I am not disputing your facts but the argument here is that it is a bottom to top affair as if the people went out on their own which clearly is not the case because they somehow required Mao direct statements to do so and PLA assistance to permit this behaviour on top of the government giving them 6 months off to do their thing and providing transportation and the military/police to look the other way and so on.

Did the French revolution ask the military to step aside or for the king the permission to chop his head? Did the October revolution ask the Tsar and the provisional government if they can take power? They just did it. They didn't require assistance from any king or government to do so and then formed their own.

Both Mao's Cultural Revolutuion and Trump's MAGA march on the Capitol were attempted self-coups - that is, an attempted coup d'etat against their own government. Neither the French Revolution nor the Bolshevik Revolution were self-coups (and the Bolsheviks overthrew the Provisional Government, not the Tsar, btw). That's the difference. And, as with any attempted self-coup, both Mao and Trump needed the support of the armed forces if they were to succeed. Mao had that support, and Trump didn't.

[Rugoz]

Eh...it's only superficially comparable.

The Red Guards more or less took over the whole country. Universities, factories, government bodies. They also looted PLA armories. It was not a unified movement however. Different factions fought each other.

MAGA was a complete joke in comparison. The military wasn't needed at any point in time.

[Potemkin]

Eh...it's only superficially comparable.

The Red Guards more or less took over the whole country. Universities, factories, government bodies. They also looted PLA armories. It was not a unified movement however. Different factions fought each other.

MAGA was a complete joke in comparison. The military wasn't needed at any point in time.

A wise man once said that history always repeats itself - first as tragedy, and then as farce. Mao's Cultural Revolution was the tragedy, and Trump's MAGA march on the Capitol was the farce.

[Rugoz]

A wise man once said that history always repeats itself - first as tragedy, and then as farce. Mao's Cultural Revolution was the tragedy, and Trump's MAGA march on the Capitol was the farce.

I don't think that's the meaning of the term "farce" in that quote.

[Potemkin]

I don't think that's the meaning of the term "farce" in that quote.

I think it is precisely the meaning of the term "farce" in that quote. Marx was referring to Napoleon III, Boney's idiot nephew, who was a comic-opera version of his more famous uncle. And Trump is even more farcical a figure than Napoleon III ever was.

[annatar1914]

I think it is precisely the meaning of the term "farce" in that quote. Marx was referring to Napoleon III, Boney's idiot nephew, who was a comic-opera version of his more famous uncle. And Trump is even more farcical a figure than Napoleon III ever was.

@Potemkin ;

Both certainly were and are political adventurers, very finely tuned to opportunistically push for more success in their endeavors but equally finely tuned to political risk as well. Napoleon III was not well informed about the Prussian and allied forces quality during the Austro-Prussian war, even after the Hapsburg defeat at Sadowa, and so risked too much in declaring war on Prussia over the Spanish throne...

[Fasces]

This forum should be proof enough that commentators aren't always fair to real world "rationality".

[Patrickov]

It does not matter whether technically CR is top-down or bottom-up. The current movement of Xi is considered CR 2.0 because both blatantly denounce Rule of Law and impose Rule of Man.

However, Mao's followers effectively abandoned law altogether, while the current CCP imposes Rule by Law, through means like bad laws and selective enforcement.

At the end of the day, the China problem is that a country being inhabited / run by a race who only care hollow "national pride" (or any other kind of pride which do not involve individual freedom, mutual respect, procedural justice, etc.) could only bring Hell to the place, if not (ultimately) the world.

[Igor Antunov]

It does not matter whether technically CR is top-down or bottom-up. The current movement of Xi is considered CR 2.0 because both blatantly denounce Rule of Law and impose Rule of Man.

However, Mao's followers effectively abandoned law altogether, while the current CCP imposes Rule by Law, through means like bad laws and selective enforcement.

At the end of the day, the China problem is that a country being inhabited / run by a race who only care hollow "national pride" (or any other kind of pride which do not involve individual freedom, mutual respect, procedural justice, etc.) could only bring Hell to the place, if not (ultimately) the world.

In west rule of law means you can buy the law and it will treat you differently depending on how much you spend. It's a pipedream, aking to the 'freedom' mantra.

In China no amount of wealth or riches places you above the law.

[Beren]

In China no amount of wealth or riches places you above the law.

Sure, anyone can get cracked up any time.

[Patrickov]

In China no amount of wealth or riches places you above the law.

In China, power or affiliation of CCP places one above the law, which is 100 times worse.

[Igor Antunov]

In China, power or affiliation of CCP places one above the law, which is 100 times worse.

No it doesn't, the recent crackdown on corruption in the CCP proved that.

[Patrickov]

No it doesn't, the recent crackdown on corruption in the CCP proved that.

I think it's just that those people are not close to the current power core of CCP (i.e. Xi Jinping Gang) enough.

In Hong Kong, the police only persecutes anti-CCP people and turn a blind eye on most* pro-CCP violence.

(*: A few who crossed the line too far were punished to put up a façade of fairness, but I highly suspect they have been compensated in some way. There is a term in China called 安家費, which means those who do dirty job have his family compensated should the person perishes, gets caught, or needs to be "disposed" of in order to appease the victims)

[JohnRawls]

No it doesn't, the recent crackdown on corruption in the CCP proved that.

As somebody who lived in a communist society near its end or a bit after its end you should know how Communist parties operate in this regard. They do crank down on corruption but against people who is neutral to the party or against it. They don't actually touch their own.

If any of your grand parents or parents are alive then you can talk to them in that regard. At least this was the situation in the USSR and some other places that I am aware of. The core problem with a marxist-leninist party model that it is based on loyalty and control which prevents tackling corruption due to it providing absolute control over party members on top of scaring other members if such anti-corruption campaign begins against the pro-communist party officials. So on one hand the head leadership looses control via blackmail and on the other hand it looses support within the party because other understand that they might be next and more inclined to change the leaders for more passive ones. And CCP still uses the marxist-leninist party model and structure. The usual exception to this is a power struggle within the party which kinda helps.

[Rancid]

crackdown on corruption

More generally, this is code for "remove enemies of the strongman". Not really a crackdown on corruption per say.

The way these things tend to work is that the strongman in power, allows corruption to happen to some level. This way he has dirt on everyone under him. From lowly civil servants to his right hand man. This makes it easier to rid them once they fall out of favor. Classic technique used the world over, from governments to corporations. The more corrupt the nation is the more often these anti-corruption drives happen. The more corrupt the nation is, the more media/noise/propaganda is publicized about how great it is. A farce, to use a word from @Potemkin.

Rather than just constantly/consistently cracking down on corruption as it's discovered, it happens in waves/cycles. It happens this way because it allows for a way to redefine and cherry pick what "corrupt behavior" even means.

What is hilarious is your belief and naivety that "this is different". Then again.... you're igor.

[Fasces]

To be fair, public perception within China and even international studies suggest a night and day difference in public corruption between the Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin eras and Xi. It was very, very bad in the 2000s-2014 or so, even if its far from perfect now (and to be honest, the West, or at least USA, is hardly in a position to criticize low level public corruption today).

[Igor Antunov]

As somebody who lived in a communist society near its end or a bit after its end you should know how Communist parties operate in this regard. They do crank down on corruption but against people who is neutral to the party or against it. They don't actually touch their own.

If any of your grand parents or parents are alive then you can talk to them in that regard. At least this was the situation in the USSR and some other places that I am aware of. The core problem with a marxist-leninist party model that it is based on loyalty and control which prevents tackling corruption due to it providing absolute control over party members on top of scaring other members if such anti-corruption campaign begins against the pro-communist party officials. So on one hand the head leadership looses control via blackmail and on the other hand it looses support within the party because other understand that they might be next and more inclined to change the leaders for more passive ones. And CCP still uses the marxist-leninist party model and structure. The usual exception to this is a power struggle within the party which kinda helps.

A key mistake is to equate China's system with the USSR or many other highly (in their later years) dysfunctional socialist states. It's simply not the same. China's socioeconomic success post reform is a blindingly obvious testament to that. It's very grounded in meritocracy and runs like a company. The CEO is absolutely not going to tolerate mediocrity on the board of directors and they in turn will not tolerate mediocrity in the CEO. Xi is not a dictator, and his underlings are not reliant on him to stay in power.

More generally, this is code for "remove enemies of the strongman". Not really a crackdown on corruption per say.

Once again I'm seeing just more of the China = Socialist therefore China = Venezuela. It's a completely different power structure. Doubly so because given its massive demographic scale the positive results are even more profound. Everybody just assumes Xi is massively corrupt because corruption is an institution in the west and China bad so must be even worse there. Eh, no.

[annatar1914]

@Igor Antunov , the CCP model could also be compared to the German General Staff from 1870-1918. Wouldn't you agree?