Skip to main content

Mao Zedong's Birth Was Indeed, a Christmas Season Disaster

Yes, disasters can happen during the Christmas Season. Google "Christmas Day disasters" and you will find that Christmas isn't immune to disasters. One of the worst Christmas season disasters aside from the December 26, 2004, Indian Ocean tsunami would be the birth of Mao Zedong on December 26, 1893. Yes, he was born during the Christmas Season. He wasn't there to spread Christmas cheer. Instead, he was born to cause disaster even beyond the Christmas Season!

The Christmas season disaster that heralded a series of disasters

It's amazing how some people still idolize this monster. Some victims of Christmas Season disasters may have gotten over and celebrated Christmas a few years later. However, Mao's rule caused one disaster after the other. A review of history would reveal the disastrous results of his dictatorship. 

How Stuff Works reveals this detail on Mao's rule:
His Controversial Rule 
After solidifying his grasp on power, and winning over the people by taking land from the wealthy and giving it to workers, Mao aimed to pull China forward into the 20th century with two notable plans. Both were disasters.

The Great Leap Forward aimed to use peasants in rural areas to jump-start an economic revolution through increased grain production. At the same time, the CPC urged peasants in newly formed communes and in city neighborhoods to take the first steps toward industrialization, forging steel through the building and use of backyard blast furnaces.

Many farmers moved into steel production, which didn't prove economically sound. And due to several other factors, grain production fell and was not nearly enough for a growing population. The result was a famine of unconscionable severity; the Great Leap Forward was responsible for tens of millions of Chinese deaths — maybe as many as 45 million — from the time it started in 1958 through the early 1960s. Several million of those numbers were executed for various crimes against the party.

"It is better to let half of the people die," Mao said during a secret meeting in Shanghai in March 1959, "so that the other half can eat their fill."

The failure of the Great Leap Forward enabled some other powerful people in the CPC to wrest control of some aspects of the government from Mao, at least for a short time. But in 1966, Mao launched another deadly program destined for failure.

The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, or simply the Cultural Revolution, was designed to shrug off the effects of the Great Leap Forward, rid the CPC and the country of those people who didn't agree with his vision, and move forward toward a stronger China. Mao had a simple plan: He called for rebellion against the party as a way of purging the elements that bucked his way of thinking.

Millions were driven from their homes, beaten, tortured or thrown into prison. Many millions were massacred across the country. Many thousands more committed suicide.

Armed students — the Red Guard — fought each other and killed others they deemed to be enemies of Mao and communism. They destroyed historic artifacts that symbolized the "old" China. Libraries were closed. Books were burned.

"Mao was above the law. In that sense, he was like a dictator," Lu says. "He was also seeking control of methods of controlling people's minds, brainwashing them through fear, through intimidation, through force. He [saw] himself as a savior of the nation and its people."

The Cultural Revolution threw the entire country into economic and social chaos. By its end, in 1969, at least 500,000 Chinese, maybe as many as 8 million, died in the uprising.

The Cultural Revolution and the Great Leap Forward, remain inerasable stains on Mao's rule. Tens of millions were murdered and starved to death in the name of communism.

Some people may have moved forward from whatever Christmas disasters hit. Some Communist hippies try to exonerate Mao from the blame. However, history has proven, including Chinese survivors of the Great Leap Forward, that Mao was also to blame. Mao was like the irresponsible chairman of a corporation that mismanaged the company. One may Google "Liu Shaoqi" and find out about his sad fate, resulting from a kangaroo court. The Great Leap Forward's unrealistic aim of self-industrialization fueled the disasters that were to follow.

The Investopedia (a material hated by commie hippies) also cites this unbearable truth of the Great Leap Forward:

Understanding the Great Leap Forward

In 1958, Mao announced his plan for the Great Leap Forward, which he laid out as a five-year plan to improve the economic prosperity of the People’s Republic of China. He devised the plan after touring China and concluding that he felt the Chinese people were capable of anything.

Overall, the plan was centered around two primary goals, collectivizing agriculture, and widespread industrialization, with two main targets, increasing grain and steel production.

Agriculture

Private plot farming was abolished and rural farmers were forced to work on collective farms where all production, resource allocation, and food distribution was centrally controlled by the Communist Party. Large-scale irrigation projects, with little input from trained engineers, were initiated, and experimental, unproven new agricultural techniques were quickly introduced around the country. 

These innovations resulted in declining crop yields from failed experiments and improperly constructed water projects. A nationwide campaign to exterminate sparrows, which Mao believed incorrectly were a major pest on grain crops, resulted in massive locust swarms in the absence of natural predation by the sparrows. Grain production fell sharply, and hundreds of thousands died from forced labor and exposure to the elements on irrigation construction projects and communal farming. 

Famine quickly set in across the countryside, resulting in millions more deaths.

People resorted to eating tree bark and dirt, and in some areas to cannibalism. Farmers who failed to meet grain quotas, tried to get more food, or attempted to escape were tortured and killed along with their family members via beating, public mutilation, being buried alive, scalding with boiling water, and other methods.

Industrialization

Large-scale state projects to increase industrial production were introduced in urban areas, and backyard steel furnaces were built on farms and in urban neighborhoods. Steel production was targeted to double in the first year of the Great Leap Forward, and Mao forecast that Chinese industrial output would exceed Britain’s within 15 years. The backyard steel industry produced largely useless, low-quality pig iron. Existing metal equipment, tools, and household goods were confiscated and melted down to fuel additional production.

Due to the failures in planning and coordination, and resulting materials shortages, which are common to central economic planning, the massive increase in industrial investment and reallocation of resources resulted in no corresponding increase in manufacturing output.

Millions of “surplus” laborers were moved from farms to steel making. Most were men, breaking up families and leaving the forced agricultural labor force for the collective farms consisting of mostly women, children, and older adults. The increase in urban populations placed additional strain on the food distribution system and demand on collective farms to increase grain production for urban consumption. Collective farm officials falsified harvest figures, resulting in much of what grain was produced being shipped to the cities as requisitions were based on the official figures.

Mao used faulty methods that destroyed families and workers. He believed that China could progress on its own. His pride only caused China to suffer insufferably for decades to come during his rule. The impact of his power-hungry behavior only caused severe criticism later. Amazingly, his body is still preserved in Tiananmen Square--the site where the infamous massacre happened during Deng Xiaoping's tenure as chairman. He shouldn't even be an icon. China still suffers from the effects of Mao's ideology of the use of totalitarian methods, proves Communism is just 100% ideology and 0% application. 

Popular posts from this blog

What's the Use of Complaining About Celebrities and Political Dynasties Running for Politics While DEFENDING Presidential and Rejecting Parliamentary?

2025 is just around the corner for the midterm elections . People keep emphasizing the need to "defend the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines" for any amendments whatsoever. If that were true then we really need to remove Article XVII entirely if the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines was meant to be set in stone (read here ). Several camps whether it's PDP-Laban supporters, Liberal Party of the Philippines supporters, Uniteam supporters, etc.--I can expect social media mudslinging at its finest . I keep talking about the need to amend or even replace the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines. However, they keep acting like it's the best constitution in the world, they cite Atty. Hilario G. Davide Jr. (and others like the Monsods) to idolatrous levels , and when I talk about the parliamentary system--I can expect the whole, "Boohoo! It will never work because we already tried it under Marcos! The proof was Cesar Virata!" However, I wrote a refute on that ...

The EDSA Revolution of 1986 Would've Never Happened if People were Stuck in Nostalgia

  It's something that I read crybaby comments online where people are saying, "Making EDSA a special working day is making us forget the glory of EDSA." Please, let me remind people that even 10 years later , neither the late Lee Kuan Yew's birthday nor his death anniversary has become a national holiday in Singapore! Singapore simply honored LKY's birthday by working on that day. I was laughing at the toxic Facebook page called We Are Millennials. What truly made me think that these people are stuck in nostalgia is that EDSA 1986 would never have been possible if the Filipinos were stuck in nostalgia . I remember talks about how the first Marcos administration was built on these two pillars. The first pillar was information control . The other pillar was toxic positivity. I remember back in 1995 when the social studies teacher talked about how he thought that Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. was a "good president" due to the long holidays. However, the holidays ...

No to Cha Cha Because of EDSA?

Back when I was in elementary, we were told that EDSA 1986 was a good thing. I don't want to deny the well-documented human rights abuses of the first Marcos Administration . The repeated call to amend or reform the constitution has unfortunately been demonized as if it's always a bad thing. I guess that's a result of people with poor reading (and listening) comprehension for so long . If only people started to read in-between the details of Philippine history, if only people read through the book From Third World to First and not just quote the late Lee Kuan Yew about the Marcoses, they'll see that using EDSA to demonize charter change is really a bad move. Startling facts during the Marcos Years that may have been ignored by anti-charter change proponents What happened during EDSA was practically a revolutionary government . Above is a video of the late Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. aka Ninoy. I confess that I do tend to admire Ninoy, especially with his Los Angeles sp...

[OPINION] Why Do Some Filipino Boomers Insist that the Marcos Years Were Under a "Parliamentary System"

  This is a screenshot I got on Facebook. The Tweet is courtesy of Raissa Espinosa-Robles, who I hear is a marites or a gossiper. I'm not denying that there are some truths in what she said. It's true that the Marcos Years have their well-documented human rights abuses. However, Mrs. Robles still continues to insist in the myth of a parliamentary system under Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr.'s regime. It's not just Mrs. Robles but also some Filipino boomers who keep saying, "Are you crazy? We had a parliamentary system under Marcos."  I could show them some evidence like Marcos' severe lack of legitimacy to disprove the parliamentary systme. I even wrote about the snap elections because Marcos was a president with powers (read here ). Under a parliamentary system, the president is purely ceremonial. The president is just a door opener and credentials receiver! Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. and Salvador "Doy" Laurel both challenged the legitimacy of Marcos...

Why EDSA Should Be a Reason to Support, NOT Oppose Cha Cha

  I don't doubt that the EDSA Revolution left a legacy to the world. Yesterday, I wrote a piece where I asked if EDSA should be a reason to say no to cha-cha . It was a peaceful revolution though it's often argued that the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. didn't want to further ruin his already  tarnished image  in front of the world. How true was it that President Ferdinand R. Marcos Jr., in his younger days, wanted to run over the protestors? However, consider EDSA wasn't really one of a kind. The Indian pacifist Mohandas Karamchand "Mahatma" Gandhi, and his  writings inspired the late Benigno Simeon A. Aquino Jr. aka Ninoy . also led a similar revolution against the  unjust  British occupation of India during that time. Gandhi may have been dead by the time Ninoy read about Gandhi. However, Gandhi's peaceful protests left a legacy that was probably not so well-known before. Today, the Indian economy has been doing better than the Philippines. I even consult...