Category Archives: History

The Chukchi – A Glimpse into An Ancient Past?

Mike: Are the Chukchi actually Paleomongoloids?

Actually, I believe that they are Ancient NE Asians. This race lived from 10-20,000 YBP and gave strong inputs to NE Asians and also most Caucasians, even Europeans. The race seemed to have characteristics similar to what a precursor to the Caucasian and NE Asian races would look like.

The bizarre thing about Chukchis is that on autosomal DNA charts, they are actually all the way over into the Caucasian square! Just barely, but they are there all right. I tell this to people, and they flip out and say, “But they look Asian!” Indeed they do. It is with races like the Chukchis where racial terms like “Caucasian” and “Asian” lose their meaning. I believe that the Chukchi are ancient proto-Caucasian-NE Asians.

Another group that may well be remnants of the Ancient NE Asians may be the Ainu, but they only showed up 14,000 YBP, and by that time, the Ancient Northeast Race was well underway. However, the Ainuid types seem to have spread out quite a bit. Remains from Northern China from 9,000 YBP appear Ainuid. Ainuid or Australoid types were the first people to come to the Americas. There are a few tribes left who seem to be the remnants of these ancient people. One was an extinct tribe in Baja California called the Guaycuru. I am thinking that the Gilyak may also be part of this ancient race. In phenotype, the Gilyak look more Japanese to me than anything else.

The Ancient NE Asian Race may well have been an Australoid type race. Australoid inputs were significant in the formation of the Caucasoid race. An ancient Caucasoid skull from Southern Russia from 33,000 YBP has been classed “Australoid” based on skull type.

The Australoids were in a sense the original Out of Africa people. Yes, they are primitive, sure, but do you think our most ancient ancestors, the OOA people from 70,000 YBP, were not primitive?

3 Comments

Filed under Ainu, Anthropology, Asia, Asians, China, Eurasia, Europeans, History, Northeast Asians, Physical, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, Russia, The Americas

What Sort of Fascist Is Trump? A Berlusconist, a Francoist, or a Latin American Right type?

amspirational: Trump would be the first fascist without a core of street activists which even Oswald Moseley had. Why, he’s not even as authoritarian as Putin, who indeed has NASHI and other fascist-like groups.

He’s a fascist. And his supporters are thugs. But he doesn’t have a Brownshirt army running around doing his will. But did Franco? I am thinking that at the very least Trump is a Berlusconi fascist, and he may be as bad as a Francoist fascist. He is clearly not as bad as Moseley, who was a real deal fascist all right. I do think comparisons to Hitler and Nazis are not good and a comparison to Franco feels a lot better to me.

He may not have all of the accouterments of fascism to be a 100% pure fascist, but he sure has a lot of fascist tendencies. So maybe he’s Fascism-Lite. Trump is the most fascist President in US history. That’s so obvious. We have never had a President with so many fascist tendencies as this man.

97 Comments

Filed under Eurasia, Europe, European, Fascism, History, Italy, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Russia, Spain, US Politics, USA

Israelis, Islamists, Hindutvadis and Fascism

William: Robert- I suppose it may be splitting hairs, but isn’t Israel about the Jewish faith? I mean it’s not like they’re all secular Jews – they’re linked by faith as much as bloodline.

Jews by blood but who have never been religious are not granted citizenship to Israel, although they are allowed to immigrate/reside there (green card equivalent).

RL: So Israel’s about the Jewish faith? “So what,” I would say. What does that have to do with anything?

William: Lindsay- I’m just saying it makes it not blatantly fash. Just kind of crypto-fash. There is a pretense not about race/bloodline.

OK, I can go along with that. I have always worried that these Lefties people calling Christian fundies Christo-fascists and the Islamists Islamofascists were going too far.

But in India, those Hindutvadis, well, they are pretty close to real deal fascism. They are not racist fascists. I suppose they are religious fascists. But the Hindutvadis are far more fascist than the Israelis or Islamists are.

There is a real question and a good debate going on regarding whether a religiously based fascism is even possible. But there was something resembling that in Croatia under World War 2. There was a racist-fascist (Nazi) regime called the Ustashe that killed Serbs, Jews, and, well, anyone who was not a Croat. However, a number of Serbs were given opportunity to convert to Catholicism and become in effect Serbs. The opportunity was given at gunpoint. It was covert or die, just like the Muslims did and sometimes still do. This would seem to be a Nazi-like regime that seemed to be based on religion at least in part.

There were also Chetniks roaming around in the mountains. These were Serbian Far Right guerrillas, often with a Serbian Orthodox priest traveling with them in the bands, who killed everyone who was not a Serb – Catholics, Muslims, etc. I believe they also fought against the Nazis though. The Chetniks would seem to be a sort of religiously-based racist fascism. There were also much more numerous Communist guerrillas roaming around the countryside at the same time, and they and the Chetniks did not have good relations.

Some Leftist theorists have recently been suggesting that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan was actually fascist in a sense, and they laid out a theory on why that was. I am not sure if I bought it though.

63 Comments

Filed under Afghanistan, Asia, Catholicism, Christianity, Europe, European, Fascism, Hinduism, History, India, Islam, Israel, Judaism, Left, Marxism, Middle East, Modern, National Socialism, Nationalism, Nazism, Political Science, Racism, Radical Islam, Regional, Religion, Serbia, South Asia, Ultranationalism, War, World War 2

The Old “Arab Israelis Have It So Good” Argument

Malla: Well, I did some research on this and it seems the Mizrahi had a more realistic opinion about Arabs and non Whites in general, while the Ashkenazim (and maybe Sephardics), especially during the early days of Israel, had a more idealistic opinion of the Third World. But the Mizrahi themselves are non-Whites. If Arabs and non-Whites then so are Mizrahis because Mizrahis are just Arabs. Besides, many Ashkenazis came with socialistic ideas of kibbutz farming and hippieness, while the Mizrahi were more realistic.

Check this interesting video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f80NnYflDU8

Check out the Ashkenazi/Mizrahi couple at 6:52. So it seems more Mizrahi (Middle Eastern Jews) are more right wing and support predatory violent behavior towards Arabs and Palestinians, while the Ashkenazis (Euro Jews) vote more left and are friendlier to Arabs (idealistic mindset). I do not know how the Sephardics and Ethiopians Jews vote.

Besides, Israel has a massive poverty rate, one of the highest in OECD countries. No wonder they get pissed by migrants from Africa taking way their jobs.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SSd0rgTc1E

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPuQwFX2J2A

But Israel has an overall high standard of living. Arabs in Israel, in spite of whatever racism they face, have a higher standard of living and social freedoms than most other Arab countries. Only Tunisia and Christian-dominated Lebanon come close in social freedom, and the Gulf states are the only ones who have more income among Arabs.

This is similar to the case in Rhodesia and South Africa where the Blacks had a higher standard of living than Blacks in the rest of the African continent. Or Singapore, where the Indians and Malays have a higher standard of living than Malaysia and definitely (much, much, much) higher standard of living than India thanks to the huge Chinese population. Singapore’s quality of life is comparable to other Chinese majority developed places like Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan. One may ask that if Anglo-Celts and other Northern Euros never came to Australia would such an Australia (Australia full of only aborigines) be so developed as it is today or it would be more like Papua New Guinea.

It’s pretty bad to compare the surrounding Arabs with New Guineans and Aborigines. The whole Arab World is built up to Hell. They’re all modern countries over there. I have seen photos of Libya before the war, and it looks like Miami. I saw a recent photo of Casablanca, and it looked like LA. I have seen photos of the rest of the region, even war-torn Syria and Iraq, and they look like regular modern countries. There’s not a lot of difference between in the ordinary street scene between Amman, Beirut, Damascus or even Cairo and Tel Aviv. It all looks the same, like any modern built-up country.

There is none of the horrible poverty you see in India, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Latin America or Black Africa.

Arabs will not tolerate that sort of abject shantytown type poverty. They are basically socialist people who don’t care about money too much and believe that everyone should be well taken care of. Social safety nets are ordinary things in every Arab country. There’s no debate about this sort of thing. They are not individualists. They are collectivists. And they don’t think rich people are better than poor people. They are not particularly greedy, and they have a “We are all part of one village” mindset wherever they live.

Semi-feudalism came late to the Arab World via the Ottomans, and it never worked well. There were landed gentry and fellahin, or landless peasants. Nasser was the man who confiscated the land from the land barons and gave it to the landless peasants. If you went around the whole Arab World back then, even in say Yemen, there was a portrait of Nasser on every wall. Now in Western or Latin American culture, doing that is called Communism, and everyone hates it. But the Arabs love this sort of thing.

Baath nationalist parties came in in Syria and Iraq around 1960, a revolutionary socialist state arose in Libya in 1969, and another one was birthed in Algeria in 1964. Land was confiscated from feudal latifundiaists in all of these place and distributed to the peasants. The governments were all officially socialist, secularization was enforced even at gunpoint if it took that, huge safety nets were set up, and the state even got involved in quite a few of the larger industries and became a major employer. All of this was wildly popular all over the region.

US style radical individualism and Libertarian free market capitalism is totally anathema to all of those societies. For one thing, it goes against Islam, as Islam is a socialist religion. In feudal times, large Arab landowners enlisted the help of the local imams in interpreting parts of the Koran where it said, “Some are rich, and some are poor, and that’s all just fine” or something to that effect, but it never worked well. It ended up turning the local imams into hated figures like the priests of Catholic Church in the West and Latin America who always sided with the rich against the people.

So this whole idea that the Israeli Arabs have it good for having some extra money falls flat on Arab and even Arab Israeli ears. Standard of living is not number one on their list of the most important things in life.

If the Arabs are all so jealous of Israel, why are the non-oil Arabs are not jealous of the oil Arabs? Typical Jews to reduce everything down to money. Arabs don’t care that much about money. They don’t revolve their whole lives around money or sit around hating Jews for having more skyscrapers. That’s not important to your average Arab.

I have never in my life heard one Arab tell me they were jealous of Israel.

In Palestine, White European racist fascists invaded the region, started wars with everyone around them, and, being high IQ, produced a developed economy. So what? These jerks get brownie points because they are rich? I’m supposed to love them because they’re rich and hate those Arabs because they’re poor?

The commenter is an Indian, that’s why he thinks that way. We are socialists here; we don’t think like this. Actually I think the more money someone has, the worse of a person he tends to be, but that’s just me.

All of these arguments were used by the South Africans who practiced a very similar White settler-colonial project far after this stuff went out of style.

Arabs in Israel are not happy people. They’re angry, and they have no loyalty to the state at all. The Jewish fascists say the Arabs are traitors, and the Jews are actually correct on that score. Indeed they have no loyalty to the state and do not even see themselves as Israelis.

The similarities between Israel and apartheid South Africa are striking. It’s notable that Israel was long one of South Africa’s strongest allies, and towards the end, it was one of their only allies. Arab Israelis are are institutionally treated as second class citizens in exactly the same way the Blacks were under apartheid. 

Were those Blacks happier on their South African Nigger Plantation because they had a higher standard of living? They were not, but this was the argument that was used to show that they were happy Negroes toiling away cheerfully in the sun for their beloved White slavemasters. Similarly, South Africa moved into the neighborhood and in a matter of time, like Israel, it was soon also embroiled in wars with most if not all of its neighbors. Similarly, South Africa, like Israel, had zero friends in the region.

Blacks in South Africa and Arabs in Israel don’t want money and stuff. White Gentiles and Jews only care about money, and they don’t care about humans, so they think everyone else feels that way too. But they don’t. People want to be free, even if being free means not having as much stuff. Stuff doesn’t make people happy. You can keep giving your slave the latest gadgetry in his slave quarters, but he’s still not a free man.

Same with South Africa. Hey look, these White European racist fascists came in here and built up the region and made a big economy because they have higher IQ’s! So what. I am supposed to like them more because they are rich and hate those Africans because they are poor? I realize this is Indian thinking, but we socialists do not think that way.

Arabs have more political rights in all of the Arab World. In the Arab World, they are not systematically discriminated against due to their religion or ethnicity.

I would argue that those Arabs in Israel do not want all of those social freedoms. Freedom to do what?

And what social freedoms do they have there that they do not have in the rest of the region? How are the social freedoms of Arab Israeli Christians better than those of Arab Christians in Lebanon or Syria? Someone needs to clue me.

429 Comments

Filed under Aborigines, Africa, Algeria, Arab Nationalism, Arabs, Asia, Asians, Australia, Blacks, Chinese (Ethnic), Christianity, Colonialism, Culture, East Indians, Economics, Egypt, Europeans, Fascism, Government, History, India, Iraq, Islam, Israel, Jewish Racism, Jews, Lebanon, Libya, Malays, Malaysia, Middle East, Middle Eastern, Modern, Morocco, Nationalism, North Africa, Pacific, Palestine, Papua New Guinea, Political Science, Politics, Race Relations, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Religion, SE Asia, SE Asians, Settler-Colonialism, Singapore, Social Problems, Socialism, Sociology, South Africa, South Asia, South Asians, Syria, Taiwan, Tunisia, Whites

A Marxist Alt Left Critique on the Modern Left

From Facebook:

Well I’m basically Marxist myself, and I don’t really recall references to patriarchy or white supremacy in Marx’s writings. Patriarchy Theory was crapped out by one William Fourier, of whom Marx was a critic. Marx and Engels strayed into feminist territory a bit, with ideals the later would explore a bit more in The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State.

But forms of socialism that emphasized race or nationalism they would have considered “reactionary.” They said next to nothing about racial and sexual identity, and it came down to later “Marxist-feminist” theorists to hash out what has since become the dogma of the Far Left on those matters, which is generally inapplicable and puritanical. Marxist Feminism was very marginal in both feminist and Marxist circles well into the 1960s.

I chuckled at the guy who said that patriarchy and White supremacy were more effective impediments to revolution than police repression. I can’t help but wonder how many “angry white dudes” who are really angry at their economic prospects, or lack thereof, have been put off of Leftism in the last forty years due to how anti-White and anti-male it’s become.

Leftism today is exactly what Marx was critical of in his own time: romanticization of some idealized past or foreign culture. In a lot of ways, this is what the Alt-Right has become also, only it’s their own feudal past rather than some African or North American society onto which they’re projecting their own disdain for technological society. As to the Woman Question, idealization of women typifies repressive and puritanical eras like both Queen Victoria’s and our own.

Male feminism reeks of a desire for young male radicals to regress to a childlike state where Mommy knew best, and Mommy was revered as nurturer. This is basically what I was in my late teens and early 20s, and it’s attractions are for males who have not fully matured and still tend to project maternal archetypes onto women as a whole. Once such men start actually getting some tail, they move on into adult forms of sexual (yes, sexual) relations and leave feminism behind.

Historical materialism and scientific socialism were critiques of “socialists” who idealized either their own pasts or some other culture’s. Pretty much what the Left has been since 19th century Romanticism was resurrected on such a massive scale by the 1960’s Flower Power movement.

Immaculate.

57 Comments

Filed under Conservatism, Economics, Feminism, Gender Studies, History, Left, Marxism, Modern, Nationalism, Political Science, Politics, Race/Ethnicity, Revolution, Sex, Socialism

The “Jews Help Fund the Bolshevik Revolution” Canard

From the comments:

While it’s true that wealthy interests from America and Western Europe helped fund the Russian Revolution, this was not the BOLSHEVIK Revolution. True, Bolsheviks fought in the initial revolution to overthrow the Czar (the February Revolution), but after that the (Pro-Western) Provisional Government was set up (which is what the wealthy interests such as Jacob Schiff wanted), so the Bolsheviks initiated a second revolution (the October Revolution) against the Provisional Government.

Western forces from 21 different nations then invaded Russia to protect the Provisional Government but ultimately failed (to the Bolsheviks’ credit). If the Western elites wanted the Bolsheviks in power, why would they support such an invasion of Russia? Again, they funded the February Revolution to get rid of the Czar and open up Russia’s resources to Western capitalists, but the October (Bolshevik) Revolution was not at all part of the plan.

I always wondered about this odd charge which seemed so nonsensical to me. Why would very rich Jews want to fund a Communist revolution which was going to do away with most of their wealth? It never made any sense. Nevertheless, this has always been a favorite of rightwing antisemites, including Nazi types. This ties into the whole “Jews are Communists” thing which was one of the main reasons that Hitler wanted to kill them in first place. He was fighting a war against “Jewish Communism” remember?

The canard continues long past WW2, when Jews are charged with being behind every Communist movement that arose on Earth, including the Chinese one I suppose. “Jews are Communists”, “Jews push Communism”, “Jews push Leftism”, and “Jews are behind the Western Left.” It goes on and on. According to the Nazi types, this is one of the main reasons why Jews need to be killed – because they were and are behind Leftism in the West which is seen as corrosive.

\This Jewish-sponsored Leftism is purportedly a plot to destroy the White race in various ways, including by subverting the traditional institutions of the West and therefore undermining out moral culture and causing the decline of our civilization. This is what is behind the whole Frankfurt School and Cultural Marxism Theory, which I find a bit silly, though I would like to look  into it a lot deeper. A bunch of Jews screaming “conspiracy theory” and “It’s a lie – an anti-Semitic!” just doesn’t cut it for me as it does for most people. If it’s a big lie, how about proving it?

Now we have the answer to the riddle. The Jews only funded the initial revolution to get rid of the Czar because they hated the Royals so much. And this was not a Communist revolution in any way, shape or form. It was a democratic revolution, and it had some progressive and even socialist elements about it, but this government did not want to seize private property or anything like that. Another one of the reasons behind it of course was the desire of these very rich Jews to open up Russia’s resources to these capitalists so they could make money off of them.

19 Comments

Filed under Anti-Semitism, Capitalism, Conservatism, Conspiracy Theories, Economics, Eurasia, European, Government, History, Jews, Left, Marxism, Modern, Nazism, Political Science, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Revolution, Russia, Sociology, The Jewish Conspiracy To Subject Humankind, The Jewish Question, White Nationalism, Whites

Africans Are Not “Stone Age” People

Now I am not defending the United States. It’s actually inferior to Canada, New Zealand or Australian white settler colonies in many ways.

But this is mostly because a great deal of stone-age people were imported as slaves or Spanish soldiers raped Red Women in the Southwest 5 times a day back in the 1700’s to create a vast Mixed underclass.

Please do not call African Blacks “Stone Age people.” That is how the White Nationalists talk. Africans had had agriculture for 12,000 years when they were imported to the US. Stone Age people don’t have agriculture. I get so tired of listening to White Nationalists call Africans Stone Age people.

Agriculture itself rose in Africa. Africans were probably the first humans to practice agriculture.

There was little if any breeding between Spaniards and Indians in the US Southwest. That was all happening south of the border.

171 Comments

Filed under Africa, African, Agricutlure, Amerindians, Anthropology, Blacks, Cultural, History, North America, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, Spaniards, The Americas, USA, West, White Nationalism

The “Taiwan Miracle” Nonsense

The people who ran Taiwan were the same folks who had completely run China into the ground by 1949, resulting in a life expectancy of 1949. Their legacy was repeated famines, foot-binding, murder of female children, epidemic wife-beating and more or less feudal relations in the countryside. Most Chinese peasants were little more than slaves or serfs. They were serfs on a landlord’s feudal estate.

The landlord or his buddies could go visit the serfs at any time and do whatever he wanted to with them? He had the power of life and death over them. He could kill or beat up any serf he wanted to at any time. He could steal any of their property. And especially he could rape the wives and daughters of the peasants, which he did in epidemic form.

When the Communists took over, in the first few years, they did a land reform, dissolved the feudal estates and distributed the landlords’ land to peasants with no compensation. The Communists simply stole the landlords’ land. And in same time  period, the Communists decided to  put the landlords on trial. The trials were held in the villages and towns and the peasants were to serve as judge and jury. These were wild raucous public trials and in most cases, the peasants convicted the landlords of many of the crimes above and sentenced them to death. Up to 3 million landlords were executed by the peasants themselves.

This is what happens in peasant uprisings under feudalism. Study the subject of peasant uprisings down through time, and this is how they always end up. For centuries before feudalism was dismantled, there were peasant uprisings the world over. They even occurred in Peru under Inca rule! Usually they were horrifically bloody and if the peasants won, typically they simply killed all the feudal lords and everyone who helped them. The Chmielnicki Uprising in the 1500’s in Poland resulted in all the landlords and half the Jews because they were tax collectors for the landlords. But it also caused the deaths of 1/3 of the population of the country!

Under the Nationalists, feudalism and warlordism was the way in China. There was almost no state at all. Feudal landlords also served as warlords. Their warlord armies held sway in the countryside.

Go read The Good Earth by Pearl Buck sometime. That is what life was like in China under the Nationalists and that was the same way it had been for centuries. The Nationalists did not give a damn about anyone who was not rich. It was a feudal party of landlords and warlords.

The Taiwan miracle happened because when the Nationalists fled China, they took almost every nickel in the country with them. That’s why Mao had such a hard time at first. He was starting with more or less nothing. Also they completely dismantled the feudal landlord-warlord system under severe pressure from the US. Then they did a land reform under heavy pressure from the US also. Then the US flooded money into Taiwan for decades in an effort to make Taiwan an anti-Communist showcase, sort of a propaganda exhibit to compare it with China.

Sure the Nationalists turned around Taiwan. Taiwan has a population of what? 50 million? Try doing that with 1.3 million. And the only reason Taiwan junked warlordism, landlordism and feudalism and did a land reform was because Mao won the war. If Mao would have lost the war, China would have just continued with their landlordism, warlordism and feudalism because that was how the Nationalists had governed for decades before and how their predecessors had governed for centuries before that.

If Mao wouldn’t have won, why would the Nationalists have dismantled the system? And don’t forget that 4% of the population left the country and took almost every dime in the place with them when they left. If they would have stayed the money would have stayed in China, so the nationalists would have had 96% less money. Show me how they do their miracle now? And if there had been no revolution, why would the Nationalists have made those massive economic changes they did when they went to Taiwan. Getting rid of landlordism, feudalism and warlordism was a response to the threat of Communism. If they would have continued on with the system the Nationalists were running in China on Taiwan, they would have had another Communist uprising on the island for sure.

Oh and one more thing. When the Nationalists fled to Taiwan, one of the first things they did was to kill 300,000 Communists in Taiwan.

4 Comments

Filed under Asia, Asian, China, Chinese, Economics, European, Geopolitics, History, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Nationalism, Poland, Political Science, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asian, Sociology, Taiwan, USA

Why Mao Is Still a Hero to So Many Chinese

As for your Central Planning, it led to famine, but of course Russians are basically white so the argument against Communism is universal.

Do you know how many famines China had before Mao or how often they occurred?

“Central planning” didn’t cause those famines. They did the transition to collectivized agriculture too fast and the whole thing was such a mess there was a famine for a few years. And in the USSR, a lot of the famine was due to wheat rust epidemic. Also the kulaks set their fields on fire of harvested the crops and piled them in their fields until they got rained on so they got moldy. Also the kulaks killed 50% of the livestock in the several years before the famine. So they destroyed a lot of their crops on purpose and they killed half the livestock in the country. You wonder why there was a famine?

Do you realize that even during the Great Leap in 1958-1961, the death rate in China was still lower than it was in 1949?

The death rate in China collapsed under Mao. Sure, he killed some people, but he saved way more.

Failure of central planning to feed people? China and India were at the same place in 1949. That’s how screwed up China was before Mao. It was as bad as India! Can you imagine? If it wouldn’t have been for Mao, China would be like India right now? India?! Can you visualize that?

After Mao, the malnutrition rate in China is 7%.
After Indian capitalism, the malnutrition rate in India is 51%.

If you wonder why so many Chinese still revere Mao, it’s because of things like that. Chinese people are not idiots.

49 Comments

Filed under Agricutlure, Asia, Asian, Capitalism, China, Chinese, Death, Economics, Government, Health, History, India, Left, Livestock Production, Maoism, Marxism, Nutrition, Regional, Socialism, South Asia, USSR

The Gains and Legacy of Maoism and the State Role in the Chinese Economy Today

TRASH: Central Planning has done no favors for the Chinese economy and that is why everyone was making The Great Leap Forward to British Hong Kong or eating their children during the famine. Mao was both an idiot and a sadistic tyrant.

True enough that China has found a form of government binding Soviet-blood Manchurian Eurasians, Uighur Turks and Tibet people into a large infrastructure.

Han Chinese seem to have born the brunt of their leaders incompetent Central Planning, Great Leaps Forward, intellectual purges during the Blue Kite horrors etc.

Do you have any idea what China was like before Mao took over? Believe me, it was way, way, way worse that it was under Mao.

Really? Mao set a world record by doubling life expectancy in in the shortest period of time. Life expectancy was doubled from 32 in 1949 to 65 in 1980. A world record! Think how many lives Mao saved! Sure he killed some people, but he saved so many other lives. This is why so many people who lived under Mao revere him to this very day, though it is admitted that he made mistakes.

Industrial production grew at about 10% per year under Mao. Agricultural production exploded under Mao. Medical care was dramatically expanded to where it served the whole population. There were vast expansions in education and after Mao, every Chinese could go to school. There was a massive expansion in housing under Mao and few Chinese lived in slums anymore. Life in countryside improved dramatically under Mao.

The state still plays a huge role in the economy and to some extent the economic progress of the nation is indeed planned or guided by the state. But the same is done in Japan and South Korea.

You realize that all land in China is owned by the state?

Do you have any idea how much money the Chinese state spends at various levels on public projects of all kinds?

Do you realize that the #2 maker of TV’s in the world is a Chinese state firm?

You realize that all Chinese publically owned firms are officially owned by their workers. This was something that Mao put in and the “reformers” have not been able to get rid of it. The more money the firm makes, the larger the workers’ paycheks are.

You realize that 45% of the economy is still publicly owned, right? The difference is now much of that is owned by municipalities and those cities actually compete against each other. Also state firms are run to make a profit, but the profit goes to the state where it is plowed right back to the people in all sorts of ways.

Even the market is under pretty serious control of the state. Private firms need to go along with the project or risk being shut down and confiscated. Much of the massive Chinese development in China is done by state firms. Many Chinese state firms now compete globally against capitalist enterprises, so it’s sink or swim. Many pro-capitalist rightwingers in the US have been complaining about having to compete with Chinese state firms because they are shored up by the Chinese state so therefore this is somehow unfair competition.

31 Comments

Filed under Agricutlure, Asia, Asian, Capitalism, China, Chinese, Economics, Education, Government, Health, History, Labor, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Regional, Socialism, Sociology