Thursday, April 18, 2013
Mao's Party Mandate
We talked a little in class about how Mao, although not the perfect candidate, was emerging as the likely leader of the Communist Revolution by the late 1920s. Pay class attention to the middle of the reading (c. pp. 246-247) and comment on how it reveals more information about Mao--how is he the key personality to lead the Communists/what has he done to achieve this status?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The article revealed that Mao was a rather aggressive with the opposing party the sectarians who were anti-communism calling Mao's political strategies "Mao's equal distribution (communism) program to all persons, men and women, old and young, was an error." Despite this Moa fought that "The sectarians had 'violated the fundamental principle of democratic centralism, turned party discipline into mechanical regulations, fostered tendencies towards blind obedience.'"
ReplyDeleteWhen I read page 247, I was reminded immediately of our discussion on wednesday when we talked about the possiblity that Mao may not have been the strong leader people thought he was, rather that he was a marionette, a representative leader controlled by others. As Trent mentioned, his opposer walled his solution of equal distribution weak. It almost sounds as if they had pushed him to rob the kulaks violently from all their belongings and kill a lot of them. This was entirely new to me because in the first reading we read about the violence against the kulaks, it seemed that this motion came only from Mao himself.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting that Mao walked around and got to know the peasantry and make conversation with them, so much so that his original plan was considered an error and "soft." so perhaps he initially wanted to protect the people, his comrades (seeing as he was once in their shoes) if he could, but then proceeded to simply follow orders and work his way up. While it doesn't redeem him of his actions it shows that he was more human than i think we might picture him otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI think that when Trent describes how aggressive he is, he may have been reading the wrong section of the article. Moa (as trent would called him) was simply doing what he had to do to maintain power. And that was to drain out all other ideas of leadership from peoples mind.but reading pages 246 and 247, made me think of him as a marionette like what Hanna said. Maybe he was just doing what other people told him to do. He really had no control but rather was controlled by more powerful leaders in all aspects.
ReplyDeleteI am also struggling to see Trent's point, but I will agree about Mao's distribution of the Communist ideologies. I also agree with Sydney when she said that Mao appeared the be more 'human'. I believe it is very important, however, for a good leader to show no emotions or soft spots so that he can have a good reputation with the public.
ReplyDeleteMao ultimately was able to gain power by "rallying the people of China on the platform of resistance to foreign invasion" (244); he was not "aggressive" at all - in fact, after his downfall, the sectarians referred to Mao as "soft" (247) because of his equal distribution of power throughout his people. It seems to me that Mao was very manipulative, but not nearly as maliciously as previous dictators. In 1932, after he lost his connection with the Red Army, sectarians faced many problems gaining power because they "dud not know the people" like Mao did. Mao used to roam the villages, talking with the common folk/peasantry, and never directly countered orders given; he gradually brought down the "theoretical edifice".(247)
ReplyDeleteI think Mao's rise to power arose greatly from the support of the CHinese people. I thought it was interesting how the article stated the clear distinction that China was a "peoples republic" and not simply a "communist republic". Moreover the article continues to describe the people's jubilance during the ideological struggle as the waited for the verdict as to what was "in store for them". So whoever came out as even a potential leader from the Central Base campaigns would be greeted by the people's enthusiasm as described by the immense amount of "crowds, and cheers and fireworks". Another way that the people saw Mao as good personality for leadership was in the fact that he was one of the only Chairmans to actually "know the people". The article describes him often traveling to small villages and talking with the peasantry . This likely appealed to the masses so eventually they were more inclined to accept him as a leader, even if he was not perfect.
ReplyDeleteI think Mao's rise to power was the result of his "soft" personality. He was relatable, got to know people, and was fair. Pages 246-247 reveal that Mao "had no real voice any longer and political or military decisions". Also, sectarians refused to be "infected with reality" and did not care about peasants. This is the opposite of what Mao felt because he knew these people and he understood the struggle. When you can relate to people who are struggling, they find you appealing and that is how Mao rose to power.
ReplyDelete