Category Archives: Chinese

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.


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.


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.


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

Response to Is HBD an Ideology of Hatred and Racism?: A Reply to Robert Lindsay

This is my response to Is HBD an Ideology of Hatred and Racism?: A Reply to Robert Lindsay by NotPoliticallyCorrect. His piece is also on my site here.

I do not believe that the facts of HBD, if they are facts at all, are racist. The thing is, in general, we have not proven that they are even facts. Officially, science is still agnostic on this stuff. Nevertheless, HBD is a perfectly legitimate position to take, and it’s not a racist position at all assuming it might be true, and perhaps quite a bit of it might be true.

It’s absolutely wrong for the Left to say that believing in HBD is racist. It’s not racist at all, and even less so if it’s true. That’s a bad definition of racism.

Even the “superior or inferior” argument is wrong because even leaving aside HBD, statistics show that different races score either superior or inferior on various metrics. Clearly Whites have a superior (lower) crime rate than Blacks. If you point this out, you’re racist? Insane! Even pointing out that presently, intelligence tests show that Whites are smarter than Blacks (true even leaving HBD aside) is somehow racist. But that’s just true. It’s a fact of science.

Nevertheless, look around you. 98% of HBD’ers are some pretty ugly, vicious racists, aren’t they? Or is it even more than that? And most of the rest of them are not all that nice.

How many HBD’ers do you meet who seem like they actually like those dirty inferior NAM people? Zero? How many HBD’ers do you meet who actually like those nasty “low IQ” people, most of whom are not even low IQ? Human IQ is 89 average, and HBD’ers routinely claim that IQ’s at that level are “low.” Zero! How many HBD’ers do you meet who don’t think that higher IQ are superior to lower IQ people? Zero!

Nasty, nasty people.

Now I agree that some HBD’ers are ok, but they barely even seem HBD. I had no idea Will was even HBD because he’s so mild. Tulio is much the same way.

Well, of course they’re all reactionaries. That’s another reason no one wants anything to do with them. Progressive or liberal HBD’ers are like four leaf clovers. There’s not many about.

Whenever I meet someone spouting HBD, I check and see what sort of a person this is. Almost inevitably, it’s someone who leans rightwing, usually hard rightwing. Usually they are aligned with the Alt Right. Usually they hate NAM’s, low IQ people and think people with higher IQ’s are superior to people with low IQ’s. And usually they give off a very ugly vibe somehow.

Now this philosophy either attracts people who are already racist or it turns people that way. It’s up in the air. But it’s still pretty much poison.

What good does talking about this HBD stuff do? The only reason 99% of HBD’ers talk about this stuff all the time is so they can use it as a club to beat up those evil NAM people and those scummy “low IQ” people. That’s why they talk about it all the time.

Just because something is true doesn’t mean we have to talk about it. I took some shits in the past month. That’s a fact. They had a certain consistency about them, though it was variable. If I wanted to, I could have charted all my shits, taken some photos and made a nice essay called My September Turds. 100% fact. 100% science. 100% true. But why should I talk about that? Why would anyone want to hear about that? They wouldn’t.

Can someone tell me why we need to talk about this HBD stuff all the time? Someone give me a reason why this needs to be discussed all the time. What good does it do? All the HBD’ers say HBD means everything is hopeless anyway. If it’s all hopeless, why talk about it? I always say if you don’t have a solution to ameliorate a problem, don’t bother talking about it. HBD’ers admit there is no ameliorating HBD facts (they are wrong by the way). Well, if there is no way to better these problems, then why in God’s name are we talking about them? Why don’t we rail about the horrible problem of death instead? There’s no solution to that either.

There’s no evidence that the world naturally sucks, that people are lousy or that the world is a vicious, nasty place. There’s also no evidence that Social Darwinism is the natural state of man. These are all just opinions.

We don’t live in jungles. Unlike wild animals, we can actually decide not to live by the law of the jungle. Wild animals can’t make decisions like that. Conservatives think the world is a nasty, vicious place because their philosophy is nasty and vicious and typically they are nasty and vicious little monsters  themselves. It’s all self-serving belief.

Nice try with the oxytocin and other biological attempts to justify racism. Sure, humans are often racist jerks. That doesn’t mean it’s normal to act that way. That doesn’t mean we are doomed to act that way. Every racist person made a conscious decision to feel racist. There’s no oxytocin BS that made him feel that way.

People’s ethnocentrism varies all over the world. You go to San Francisco or Hawaii these days, and there’s really no such thing as ethnic or racial ethnocentrism. It’s gone.

Don’t want to get into the Communism death toll BS, but you ought to know that India probably killed 200 million more people than Communist China did, even under Mao. Even looking at the Mao era, India killed 100 million more than Mao did. We know that as of 1979, India had killed 100 million more people than Mao. I assume that nothing has changed since and India killed another 100 million since then. That’s 200 million more than Mao. Communist death toll, get real.

That data is from Amartya Sen, by the way. You can look it up.

Most of those deaths were from starvation and malnutrition.

Since 1986, capitalism starves 14 million people to death every single year. There are 14 million deaths due to starvation every year in the world, and in the last 30 years, very few of those have been in Communist countries. Most of those deaths were in South Asia. That’s 420 million starvation deaths in the world since 1986, mostly in South Asia, almost all killed by capitalism. How many people did Communism kill since 1986?

Mao set a world record for doubling life expectancy in the shortest period of time. That’s called saving lives. Sure Mao killed people, but he saved so many more lives, and he gave so many people more time on Earth.


Filed under Asia, Asian, Capitalism, China, Chinese, Conservatism, Death, Economics, Health, History, India, Intelligence, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Modern, Nutrition, Political Science, Psychology, Race Realism, Race/Ethnicity, Racism, Regional, South Asia

What Race Is This Person (Singapore)?


An interesting phenotype from Singapore.

This is the aunt of a friend of mine. The family is from Singapore. They are part of an ethnic group called the Pernakans, a Southern Chinese group that moved to Malaysia ~600 years ago for some reason, possibly due to overcrowding in Fujian or worse, the terrible wars that periodically raged through the region.

Chinese groups have been leaving from this part of Southern China for a very long time now, especially in the last 200 years. In the past couple of centuries, this part of China has become very crowded. Possibly as a result, wild and vicious wars periodically raged through the area, sometimes killing 100,000’s of people. If you study Chinese history, you will hear about these wars a lot. It is not uncommon to read that invaders conquered several large cities and exterminated the whole populations of perhaps 300,000 people, men, women and children. This is how the Chinese have often fought wars. Chinese wars are unbelievably vicious and savage.

The Pernakans moved to Malaysia, and over time, bred in with Dutch and Portuguese and to a lesser extent British Europeans. All three were colonists in the region. I believe that they were Min speakers, but their Hokkien has gotten so changed, in particular from massive borrowings from Malay, that these languages in general are no longer intelligible with Amoy or Taiwanese Hokkien Proper.

Most Pernakans now are somewhat Eurasian, Chinese crossed with Dutch, Portuguese and sometimes British. The Pernakans had their own patriarchal culture and were known as very hard workers, often at manual labor type jobs like farming, timber harvest are working on rubber plantations. They committed little crime and had very orderly societies. The European colonists marveled at their high level of civilization. They did keep slaves, but they probably treated their slaves better than any slaves have ever been treated, and in many cases, slaves were freed.

Over time, most Pernakans also bred in with Malays. Pernakans are now a Chinese/Malay/European race, but the Asiatic tends to be prominent over the European in the stock. The mixing of cultures over 600 years in Malaysia resulted in some very interesting fine cuisine.

Many of these Chinese migrated to Singapore, where they, along with Teochew speakers (another Min group) and a large group of Cantonese Chinese, form what is known as the Singaporean Chinese, one of the wealthiest and most economically advanced ethnic groups on Earth. There is still a division of labor in Singapore, with Chinese on top, Malays on the bottom, and Southern Indian Dravidian speakers in between. Nevertheless all three groups are substantially mixed by this point. Most Chinese have Malay blood, and a lot of Malays have some Chinese in them. Malays and Indians are now intermarrying quite a bit. There is some ethnic conflict but not a lot possibly due to the wealth and everyone being so mixed.

Although this woman has a somewhat archaic phenotype (note prognathism), these archaic types are fairly common in Southern China. Many can be seen in the mountains of Yunnan Province. The archaism may be due to incomplete transition from Australoid -> Mongoloid, as the transition happened much later in Southern China than in Northern China, and prominent Australoid types were common in the far south of China only 3-4,000 YBP.

I also believe that this woman may be admixed with Caucasian. And I think the Malay admixture is quite clear. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I think I see some Vedda influence here. That would not be unusual, as Malays were Veddoids only until quite recently, and the Senoi are Veddoids to this day. The Mani Negritos are also still extant.

The transition in Malaysia went from Australoid Negritos (Mani) and Orang Asli -> Australoid Veddas (Senoi) -> Paleomongoloid Southeast Asians (modern Malays). The Malays appear to be aware of this transition, as they state that the Mani and Orang Asli are their ancestors. The bloodline of the Orang Asli goes back 72,000 YBP, so this group has been present in Malaysia since the very first Out of Africa groups, and their archaism is about on a par with the Andaman Islanders, another Australoid group which is also the remains of some of the earliest OOA groups.


Filed under Andaman Islanders, Anthropology, Asia, Asian, Asians, Cantonese, China, Chinese, Chinese (Ethnic), Chinese language, Colonialism, Cultural, Culture, Dutch, English, Europeans, History, Language Families, Linguistics, Malays, Malaysia, Mixed Race, Negritos, Physical, Political Science, Portuguese, Race/Ethnicity, Regional, SE Asia, SE Asian, SE Asians, Singapore, Sinitic, Sino-Tibetan, Sociology, War

Why Mao Was One of the World’s Greatest Humanitarians

Sam writes: You have to weigh that against “the great leap forward” which killed off around 42 million Chinese. Any rise …

James Schipper writes:

Dear Sam

Robert is right. We should look at the whole picture. People can die from neglect just as well as from killing. Let’s take two dictators, Peter and Paul, who both rule a country of 10 million and who both ruled for 20 years. Paul kills 100,000, but he brings down infant mortality significantly and mortality at other ages as well. As a result, the population of his country increased to 15 million during his dictatorship.

Peter only kills 20 dissidents, but he does nothing to improve the health care and nutrition of his subjects. Consequently, at the end of his rule, the population of his country is only 12 million. Let’s assume that both countries have the same fertility. Who has been more respectful of human life, Peter or Paul? A good case can be made that it is Paul. That’s the case that Robert is making.

In China under the communists, many people died as result of government policies, but also a lot of people were prevented from dying by government policies. The number of prevented deaths may very well have been higher than the number of inflicted deaths. In post-war India, fewer people died directly from government actions than in China, but more people died as a result of government neglect. It has been estimated that, if India had had the same age-specific mortality rates as China after independence, then today there would be 1.6 billion instead of 1.2 billion Indians.

Regards. James

James is absolutely correct. By some figures, there have been 200 million excess deaths in India since 1949 as compared to China. China and India were equal on most measures in 1949. What this means is that if the Indians had adopted the Chinese system instead of the Indian system, there would have been 200 million fewer deaths in India. In other words, Indian capitalism caused 200 million excess deaths as opposed to the superior system which the Chinese put in. In other words, the Indian system killed 200 million more people than the Chinese system. Now keep in mind that that figure is taking into all of the deaths that were directly caused by Maoism, which were considerable.

Here you can see the fallacy of calling Mao or Stalin the world’s biggest murderers. It’s just not true. There are many ways to kill a man. You can put a bullet in his head or you can slowly starve him or kill of disease, exposure to the elements and whatnot. I am a little bit mystified at why it is so much better to kill your citizens with disease and starvation than it is to kill them with bullets. I would think death by bullet would be a lot quicker and less painful.

I might also that if India had gone more of a Chinese road, they might have instituted a much-needed one-child policy in India and the out of control population growth might have been arrested to some extent.


Filed under Asia, Asian, Capitalism, China, Chinese, Death, Economics, Health, History, India, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Nutrition, Regional, Socialism, Sociology, South Asia

The Truth about the Cultural Revolution

Sam writes:

You have to weigh that against “the great leap forward” which killed off around 42 million Chinese. Any rise in productivity may have been because anyone with any weakness at all starved to death. There was no going down they were already there.

There were no 42 million dead in the Great Leap. All of those nutty figures were arrived at because the birth rate dropped precipitously during the Great Leap. So those huge figures are arrived at by throwing in tens of millions of people as “dead” who never even got born in the first place! Because they should have been born except for famine you know. Capitalists are such liars.

15 million died during the Great Leap. But even during the Great Leap, the death rate was a lower than it was before the Revolution pre-1949. So even with the Great Leap deaths, the people were still better because far fewer of them were dying. You wonder why people support Mao despite all the bad things that went on, and that is why.

Sam writes:

I’m hardly the capitalist hegemonic defender but I can’t believe this is true. How can anyone be more productive when they’re running around all day waving banners and attacking the school teachers?

Because that wasn’t all they were doing.

I heard that if you average it all out, it boiled down to average 10% growth rate per year.

The deaths in the Cultural Revolution were wildly exaggerated. All the capitalist propaganda says the Cultural Revolution resulted in “millions of deaths.” It didn’t. There were 1 million excess deaths over that period, but most of those were suicides. 30,000 people were killed. That is 3,000 killings per year.

30,000 does not equal “millions.” I guess capitalists can’t do math, or maybe they are too busy lying to remember the math they learned in school. You would think Communism would be bad enough that the capitalists wouldn’t have to lie about it all the time, but that’s exactly what they do. If Communism really is the worst thing on Earth, then the capitalists wouldn’t have to lie about it. It would be like Nazism. No need to exaggerate and lie because the truth would be bad enough.


Filed under Asian, Capitalists, Chinese, Death, History, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Scum

The Free Market Is the Best System on Earth


These people are literally eating dirt because that is how poor and starving they are. But the free market works great. The system that doesn’t work is called Communism or socialism. The system that “works” is called free market capitalism. It’s working great in Haiti, isn’t it?

Aristide came in and raised the minimum wage. That was when the CIA said enough and plotted to overthrow him.

Then he tried to give every kid a glass of milk every day at school. That hardened America’s resolve even more. Haitians must eat dirt! We can’t have them drinking milk! Drinking milk? That’s Communism! Capitalism is about eating dirt! Aristide had to go. He was trying to feed his people! The nerve of that Commie!

The corporate media started up a propaganda war calling Aristide a Communist. Well obviously he was a Communist. Only a socialist would try to feed his own people! A capitalist would want them to eat dirt!

Then he started building schools. In his few years in office, Aristide built more schools in 8 years than had been built in the previous 188 years since Independence. The CIA said, “That does it! He’s building schools! This Commie has to go!” Of course he was a Commie. Only Commies build schools.

Capitalists don’t believe in schools. They think they should all be run by the free market as private education. I once surveyed the Republicans in the US Senate. Every single one of them,  even the most liberal Northeasterners like Specter and Stowe, were awful on Education. They voted No on every single Education bill. As you can see, Republicans don’t believe in Education. They send their kids to private schools. The hard truth of the matter is that US conservatives don’t believe in public education.

Every time capitalists or rightwingers take over a government, the first thing they start hacking and slashing away at is education. It’s number 1 on the chopping block.

During the Cultural Revolution, one of the great things they did was to build schools all over China, especially in the rural areas. Mostly they built elementary schools, to a lesser extent junior highs, and to an even lesser extent, high schools. That is why if you go out to rural China now, many people will praise the Cultural Revolution.

One more thing: During the Cultural Revolution, the economy grew by 10% a year.

Since Deng’s capitalist reforms, tens of thousands of the schools that were built during the Cultural Revolution were closed down. These are the reforms that everybody says are the greatest thing since sliced bread. What’s so great about the reforms? What’s so great about shuttering 90,000 schools?

Capitalist propaganda is a joke. It’s pitiful. Communism is a failed system that doesn’t work, but capitalist works perfectly. And any attempts to fix capitalism’s endless failures is called “socialism” and as we well know, socialism fails everywhere it is tried. So there is no way to even fix the free market’s countless deficiencies. We are stuck with them.


Filed under Americas, Asia, Asian, Capitalism, Capitalists, Caribbean, China, Chinese, Conservatism, Economics, Education, Government, Haiti, Health, History, Latin America, Left, Marxism, Nutrition, Political Science, Politics, Regional, Republicans, Scum, Socialism, The Americas, US Politics, USA

China as a Planned Economy

I’ve been saying this for a long time now.

Dissecting the Concept of Planning

After years of experimenting with different types of planning from 1949 to 1979, the Chinese Communists finally settled down for Market Socialism-based Planning. Yes sir, p-l-a-n-n-i-n-g.

They reclassified their economy as being in the primary stage of Socialism, and then went on to chalk out a 50-year plan. Yes sir, p-l-a-n. Under this fifty-year plan, they have taken up the all round development of one region every ten years. Right now it is Tibet and the South-western provinces.

The result is announced on 15-08-2014 : Chinese Railways has reached the border of Sikkim, will very soon reach the border of Arunachal Pradesh, and will also eventually connect with the Pakistani Railways through Aksai Chin and POK.

That is “communism” for those who care. All about careful, methodical planning which implies two basic things: selection of goals and mobilization of resources for achieving those goals.

Now let us see India. We had a sham Planning Commission at least after 1991, when Manmohan Singh as the then Finance Minister started talking of “Economic Reforms”. Vajpayee started talking of “Shining India” even as he too continued with a sham Planning Commission. Manmohan Singh, after becoming PM, actually appointed Montek Singh Ahluwalia (a self-confessed neoliberal, ergo: anti-planning) as the Chairman of the Planning Commission, and practically destroyed the idea of planning.

And now comes along Narendra Modi, who declares from the ramparts of the Red Fort that planning commission is no longer necessary (because as per the neoliberal economic ideology, planning itself is not necessary). In order to mute his critics, he declares that he will set up a new institution for generating new ideas. His government’s recent budget for railways talks of “FDI in Railways” as the panacea for railways development. The Foreign Direct Investment in Railways is and will always be about high-speed trains between Mumbai and Ahmedabad, or about air-conditioned double-decker trains between Mumbai and Goa, or about Palaces on Wheels. Never about Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh or Ladakh.

Today, when from Kashmir, Telangana, Chattisgarh, or any other part of India for that matter, when we hear complaints about Government of India, the main burden of the song is about lack of development, leading to frustration, despondency, and militancy.

During his election campaign, Modi precisely cashed in on this lack of development. But the neoliberal that he is, he thinks that deliverance lies through the path of inviting FDI in every field : “Come, Make in India”.

Simultaneously, he announces the jettisoning of the concept of Planning.

Our corporate press hails it as a burial of Nehruvian Anachronisms.

Our “secular-liberal” thinkers also start by sighing as to how Planning had practically ceased in India long ago, and as to how we have to start looking out for “new”, “latest” ideas in development economics.

Those who blindly support Modi, do not wish to tolerate any critic of Modi’s ideas.

The million-rupee fact is that by Planning, the Chinese Railways have reached Sikkim and will soon reach Arunachal Pradesh and Ladakh. The Indian Railways with 67 years of sham planning are nowhere near Sikkim, Arunachal and Ladakh.

And with the jettisoning of the very concept of planning coupled with the wholehearted embrace of FDI, the Indian Railways will never reach there. And perchance, if some Foreign Direct Investor does construct railways in those places, then he would do it to build up his pockets – not to build up India. And more likely than not, the very presence of such FDI predators in those areas would only lead to further alienation, further disaffection, and further militancy.

The concept of Planning was not invented by Nehru. It was invented by the Soviet Socialists. Hence rejection of the concept of planning is hardly an act of anti-Nehruvianism. It is an act of anti-Socialism. And, considering that Socialism is a Basic Feature of India’s Constitution, it is a serious violation of the Constitution and repudiation of the oath to defend the Constitution.


Filed under Asia, Asian, China, Chinese, Economics, Government, History, India, Left, Maoism, Marxism, Neoliberalism, Regional, Socialism, South Asia

Chairman Mao Murdered 100 Million People?

Luther Seahand, a rightwinger, writes that Mao Zedong murdered 100 million people during his term in office (1949-1978). Of those, one half, or 50 million, were buried alive so as to save bullets.

RL: This is a socialist blog. We don’t believe in the “Mao murdered 100 million” stuff.

LS: Of course you don’t, Mr. Lindsay.  I was just wondering how a socialist might react when faced with the facts.  Thank you for not ripping my head off.  Have a good one!

You didn’t present me with any facts. You presented me with lies.

There were no “100 million murdered by Mao.” And there certainly were no “50 million buried alive so as to save bullets.”

Are you talking about people executed under Mao’s rule?

In the land reform campaign at the very start, it is very possible that up to 3 million landlords (most of them criminals) were executed.

There were 29,000 executions during the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976).

Mao was in power for 29 years. That covers about 14 of those years, or nearly half his time in office.

So covering 50% of his term, there were 3.03 million executions, possibly. Probably hardly any of them were buried alive. I have no figures on executions from 1953-1965.

3 million is a lot, but it is not 100 million. Let us first get out figures straight

The problem with crazy rightwing anti-Communists is not their view that Communism is bad, or even that it is evil. Perhaps it is either of those things. Their problem is that they habitually trot out lies when whipping out figures of those killed under Communism. Favorites include Joseph Stalin of the USSR and Mao Zedong of China.

Hence we often get figures that Stalin killed 10-110 million people. Even many perfectly sane and often liberal people believe this hogwash. It’s not that Stalin or the Soviet Communists never killed any of the opposition or the dissidents. Stalin was a killer. He killed lots of people. But not 110 million.

Final figures for Stalin’s regime are for 1926-1953 (27 years in office):

Executions and political killings: 1.29 million

Unnatural deaths in the gulags: 1.4 million.

Total political killings by Stalin: 2.7 million

There are some problems with that figure as it apparently does not include some of the deaths during WW2, such as deaths of German POW’s, enemy civilians and most importantly, deaths during the ethnic relocations during that war. I also do not include “Holodomor” deaths because there was no “terror famine.” Famine, yes. Terror famine, no.

3 million is a lot of human beings, but it’s not 110 million. If we want to talk about whether the deaths under Communism were justified or not, we first need to get the figures straight.


Filed under Asian, Chinese, Conservatism, Death, History, Left, Marxism, Political Science, USSR