Was Mao Zedong a Taoist?

[brawnypandora0]

Let's suppose he thought he believed in taoism sincerely. Since taoism does not talk about morality and good or evil, how can Mao's tyrannical grip over China for 27 years be described in terms of te?

[Marblehead]

Let's suppose he thought he believed in taoism sincerely. Since taoism does not talk about morality and good or evil, how can Mao's tyrannical grip over China for 27 years be described in terms of te?

 

In my opinion Mao was not a Taoist. He was an egomaniac. He intentionally harmed his own people - that is totally anti-Taoist. His virtue (te) was corrupt. Actually, 'virtue' connotes 'good', 'vice' connotes 'bad'. IMO he had many more vices than he had virtues.

[andrew]

Hi brawnypandora0,

 

Have you read a biography about his life? I believe the figure is around 70,000,000 dead as a direct result of his rise to power, purges and artificial famines. Thousands of dancing troop girls kept for his personal sexual entertainment, and in his last years entertained himself with films of rapes he ordered. What does all that mean in terms of Te? I don't know.

 

Perhaps he was only half as bad as he had potential to be, perhaps compared to the alternatives faced by the Chinese people at the time he was a 'saint'.

 

I feel I am looking into the hidden depths of the Chinese people when I consider what they went through with him, and are still going through with communism in general.

 

Then I look at myself and realize I have to breath and bring myself back to the center. What would an answer really provide me?

 

http://www.amazon.com/Mao-Story-Jung-Chang/dp/0679746323/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301378968&sr=8-1

 

peace to you

 

andrew

Edited March 29, 2011 by andrew

[Mark Saltveit]

Mao was a committed Marxist, and as a rule they oppose all religion (opiate of the masses, remember?) He certainly didn't get wu wei. One story is that he was annoyed by bugs at one point and organized millions of Chinese to rip up all the grass around Beijing, at one point. The person who told me this said that decades later, there is still a noted lack of ground cover.

[TheSongsofDistantEarth]

Mao Zedong

a typographical poem

 

 

Maoist,

not Taoist.

Edited March 29, 2011 by TheSongsofDistantEarth

[Marblehead]

Mao Zedong

a typographical poem

 

 

Maoist,

not Taoist.

 

Accurately stated with few words.

[Encephalon]

Let's suppose he thought he believed in taoism sincerely. Since taoism does not talk about morality and good or evil, how can Mao's tyrannical grip over China for 27 years be described in terms of te?

 

Was Barbra Steisand a cannibal?

Did Mark Twain invent the internet?

Was Eric Clapton ever a member of the Italian mafia?

[gendao]

Hi brawnypandora0,

 

Have you read a biography about his life? I believe the figure is around 70,000,000 dead as a direct result of his rise to power, purges and artificial famines. Thousands of dancing troop girls kept for his personal sexual entertainment, and in his last years entertained himself with films of rapes he ordered. What does all that mean in terms of Te? I don't know.

 

Perhaps he was only half as bad as he had potential to be, perhaps compared to the alternatives faced by the Chinese people at the time he was a 'saint'.

 

I feel I am looking into the hidden depths of the Chinese people when I consider what they went through with him, and are still going through with communism in general.

 

Then I look at myself and realize I have to breath and bring myself back to the center. What would an answer really provide me?

 

http://www.amazon.com/Mao-Story-Jung-Chang/dp/0679746323/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301378968&sr=8-1

 

peace to you

 

andrew

I totally agree. Mao was a Marxist Communist - about the furthest thing from a Taoist...

 

His brutal and misguided regime was a horrifying testament to radical leftist ideology in actual practice. Which is why I ideologically oppose Western liberals who romanticize and idealize the same principles from the comfort of their ivory towers in capitalist countries today.

Edited March 29, 2011 by vortex

[ralis]

I totally agree. Mao was a Marxist Communist - about the furthest thing from a Taoist...

 

His brutal and misguided regime was a horrifying testament to radical leftist ideology in actual practice. Which is why I ideologically oppose Western liberals who romanticize and idealize the same principles from their ivory towers in capitalist countries today.

 

You are comparing Mao to leftist's? That is a false construct given to you by the purveyors of propaganda i.e, Fox News, conspiratorial sites on the internet, Rush Limbaugh et al. Further, as Blasto has so eloquently pointed out, the problem is about a plutocracy and not a left and right political divide.

 

 

 

Stop believing your illusory maps of reality and see reality for what it is.

Edited March 29, 2011 by ralis

[gendao]

You are comparing Mao to leftist's? That is a false construct given to you by the purveyors of propaganda i.e, Fox News, conspiratorial sites on the internet, Rush Limbaugh et al. Further, as Blasto has so eloquently pointed out, the problem is about a plutocracy and not a left and right political divide.

Lol, so you state the right and "conspiratorial" sites are the sole "purveyors of propaganda." But then claim the problem is a "plutocratic class divide" and NOT a "left and right political divide."

 

Do you ever even stop to read your own posts???

 

Which paradigm do you think you really adhere to here?

 

Baby Boomer polarity = "Left Vs Right/Conspiratorial" (or possibly "Right Vs Left/Conspiratorial")

Emerging Gen-E polarity = "Conspiratorial Vs Mainstream (Left/Right)"

 

If you really have your finger on the zeitgeist pulse - you can feel the Left & Right increasingly coalescing together (into irrelevance) and the "conspiratorial" steadily gaining legitimacy towards a mass tipping point to supplant them. This is why both the Left & Right fervently oppose the Tea Party - which represents a grass-roots shift away from the mainstream Right towards the "Conspiratorial." Because any 3rd Party represents the deathknell for both of them and their CFR/banksta/corporatized agenda.

 

The "Conspiratorial Vs Mainstream" is thus the paradigm of the future based upon an awakening grass-roots consciousness and natural flux.

[ralis]

Lol, so you state the right and "conspiratorial" sites are the sole "purveyors of propaganda." But then claim the problem is a "plutocratic class divide" and NOT a "left and right political divide."

 

Do you ever even stop to read your own posts???

 

Which paradigm do you think you really adhere to here?

 

Baby Boomer polarity = "Left Vs Right/Conspiratorial" (or possibly "Right Vs Left/Conspiratorial")

Emerging Gen-E polarity = "Conspiratorial Vs Mainstream (Left/Right)"

 

If you really have your finger on the zeitgeist pulse - you can feel the Left & Right increasingly coalescing together (into irrelevance) and the "conspiratorial" steadily gaining legitimacy towards a mass tipping point to supplant them. This is why both the Left & Right fervently oppose the Tea Party - which represents a grass-roots shift away from the mainstream Right towards the "Conspiratorial." Because any 3rd Party represents the deathknell for both of them and their CFR/banksta/corporatized agenda.

 

The "Conspiratorial Vs Mainstream" is thus the paradigm of the future based upon an awakening grass-roots consciousness and natural flux.

 

 

What I would like to know is, do you have a profession, are you a student, if neither are correct, what kind of job do you have? Has the economic downturn hurt your lifestyle in any way?

[Encephalon]

[Encephalon]

Let's suppose he thought he believed in taoism sincerely. Since taoism does not talk about morality and good or evil, how can Mao's tyrannical grip over China for 27 years be described in terms of te?

 

Dear new person -

This is a grossly uninformed question. Please note that this forum is not meant to be an alternative to your own reading and independent study. It can be an amazingly cool place for sharing ideas though.

[RyanO]

One of the basic guidelines for effective communication is to use our terms with clarity and specificity. Nothing derails a conversation so quickly as the presumption of universal agreement of word usage. Communication becomes even more hazardous when emotionally charged terms are employed in religious or political discussions. Most people assume that they are experts in the art of communication but few people commit themselves to the effort and practice necessary to eliminate ambiguity from their speech unless they have to.

 

 

I respectfully decline to enter this debate, except to say that I really appreciated this paragraph. If more people understood and took to heart these words, the world would be a better place.

[joeblast]

I respectfully decline to enter this debate, except to say that I really appreciated this paragraph. If more people understood and took to heart these words, the world would be a better place.

ditto, except that "agreed upon" can sometimes mean different things.

 

for example, there's a ton of people out there who believe a great many things are "rights" yet they are clearly not (e.g. the "right" to a house, a good living, healthcare, collective collusion for public unions, etc.)

 

What do you do when somebody tries redefining a term, it is clearly not correct, yet they stubbornly cling to their redefinition?

[ralis]

ditto, except that "agreed upon" can sometimes mean different things.

 

for example, there's a ton of people out there who believe a great many things are "rights" yet they are clearly not (e.g. the "right" to a house, a good living, healthcare, collective collusion for public unions, etc.)

 

What do you do when somebody tries redefining a term, it is clearly not correct, yet they stubbornly cling to their redefinition?

 

The wealthy elite feel they have a right to huge tax breaks, for what purpose? Those breaks were given by Reagan and Bush. To create jobs? Hardly! Artificial (bubble) economies were created, not jobs. Jobs are created from consumer demand and if there is little demand for a given product, then tax cuts do nothing except inflate Wall Street's profits. Further, tax breaks to corporations are still funding .60cents per hour labor in China. Chinese companies are growing with the help of tax breaks from U.S. business, while the U.S. economy rots. By your logic it is more fair to put someone out of a job and possible homelessness in the U.S. so that said corporation can make greater profits manufacturing in China. What gives you the right to determine what is right for others in this context. Are you more entitled to a better life by virtue of being a conservative?

 

The states that are involved in union busting and cutting pension benefits and other so called cost cutting measures are giving more tax breaks to the wealthy. Since when are the wealthy corporations so damn important?

 

Since you are a known conservative and want less government, then the government has no business giving special dispensation to corporations in order to increase profits. No assistance whatsoever should be given. That would be less government interference.

 

 

Not only is corporate power increasing in terms of profit, the Citizens United vs. FEC SCOTUS decision, in which corporations were given the rights of persons gives free speech rights to so called corporate persons the right to donate unlimited money to political campaigns. That is the most bogus ruling ever coming from that court!

 

Your first paragraph in defining what rights people should not have portrays you as greedy with no respect for your fellow human beings. Yet, you call yourself a spiritual person?

Edited March 30, 2011 by ralis

[Encephalon]

I respectfully decline to enter this debate, except to say that I really appreciated this paragraph. If more people understood and took to heart these words, the world would be a better place.

 

Thank you very much. I appreciate the support because I am currently being taken to task for being mean-spirited in my advancement of clarity. Hopefully, I haven't offended everyone.

[joeblast]

The wealthy elite feel they have a right to huge tax breaks, for what purpose? Those breaks were given by Reagan and Bush. To create jobs? Hardly! Artificial (bubble) economies were created, not jobs. Jobs are created from consumer demand and if there is little demand for a given product, then tax cuts do nothing except inflate Wall Street's profits. Further, tax breaks to corporations are still funding .60cents per hour labor in China. Chinese companies are growing with the help of tax breaks from U.S. business, while the U.S. economy rots. By your logic it is more fair to put someone out of a job and possible homelessness in the U.S. so that said corporation can make greater profits manufacturing in China. What gives you the right to determine what is right for others in this context. Are you more entitled to a better life by virtue of being a conservative?

 

The states that are involved in union busting and cutting pension benefits and other so called cost cutting measures are giving more tax breaks to the wealthy. Since when are the wealthy corporations so damn important?

 

Since you are a known conservative and want less government, then the government has no business giving special dispensation to corporations in order to increase profits. No assistance whatsoever should be given. That would be less government interference.

 

 

Not only is corporate power increasing in terms of profit, the Citizens United vs. FEC SCOTUS decision, in which corporations were given the rights of persons gives free speech rights to so called corporate persons the right to donate unlimited money to political campaigns. That is the most bogus ruling ever coming from that court!

 

Your first paragraph in defining what rights people should not have portrays you as greedy with no respect for your fellow human beings. Yet, you call yourself a spiritual person?

you should really just go hang out at huffpo exclusively so the bile that emanates from there can stay there, we dont need you bringing it here. every time I say something that remotely has a political message to it you're jumping the shark on it. (or are you a little young to remember Happy Days?)

 

so what makes you think I'm in favor of corporations getting massive tax breaks? you think I'm pleased that GE sells rocket parts to Iran, lobbies the shit out of the gub and paid zero taxes last year? this whole buddy-buddy between corporations and government is not good, no more than the buddy-buddy between politicians and public sector unions basically led to contract negotiations having two parties on the same side of the table and nobody on the other. you cant even call that collective bargaining, that's collective collusion.

 

so yes, less government interference, no corporate welfare, and...I'd even go so far as to say put a cap on what they can spend on lobbying, because that's something that's gotten entirely out of hand too.

 

 

as to rights, who am I to invent them? who is anyone else?

 

I was forwarded this one recently, it is quite prescient on the subject of "rights" - you cannot arbitrarily define them - I am heartless for pointing this out?

 

[aridus]

Some people think that because Tao does not judge, it means "do what you want". It is not only this, but it is included.

 

Some people think that effortless doing means "inertia". It is not only this, but it is included.

 

I suggest looking into TTC chapter 10. There's a thread on it here.