The Chinese Communist Revolution

[thelerner]

[sean] split from:

 

 

I'd love to see the military budget highly trimmed.  Hate to win a non-existent war and lose the country's wellbeing due to spending and taxing trillions on gun powder. 

 

On the other hand, Jimmy Carters statement about 'China ahead of us in almost every way',  Is because China became increasingly Capitalistic.  Before allowing for free markets they were 3rd world in everything in many of the statistics where they're not ahead of us.  imo, Its Capitalism that allowed there boom, lifting 100's of millions out of dire poverty, creating a middle class. 

 

We have problems, so does China, it's allowed some of the worst pollution to go on, but when it comes to freedom we're ahead.  They are Orwellian and getting worse in many ways (see abolition of presidential term limits).  <interestingly enough you can buy a copy of '1984' but you typing it into a social media post, in context, is criminal!?  (https://boingboing.net/2019/01/13/laobaixing.html & https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/why-1984-and-animal-farm-arent-banned-china/580156/)

 

 

<wait, why are we discussing this on the mass shooting thread??

<seems like it should have its own thread.>

[sean]

6 hours ago, thelerner said:

On the other hand, Jimmy Carters statement about 'China ahead of us in almost every way',  Is because China became increasingly Capitalistic.  Before allowing for free markets they were 3rd world in everything in many of the statistics where they're not ahead of us.  imo, Its Capitalism that allowed there boom, lifting 100's of millions out of dire poverty, creating a middle class. 

 

Compadre, you've really fully internalized these utterly sweeping capitalist mythologies. I guess I can't blame anyone for it. Capitalist propaganda is arguably the most exorbitant, grandiose and ubiquitous form of propaganda in human history. We're immeasurably indoctrinated with its "grand narratives" relentlessly, full-time, nonstop everywhere we turn.

 

But this neat little children's story that China, a nation many thousands of years old and that has survived every kind of geo/sociopolitical fate imaginable, was "saved" in our own lifetime by adopting good ol' Western capitalism is pure ideology bordering religious lore.

 

Quote

We have problems, so does China, it's allowed some of the worst pollution to go on, but when it comes to freedom we're ahead.  They are Orwellian and getting worse in many ways (see abolition of presidential term limits).  <interestingly enough you can buy a copy of '1984' but you typing it into a social media post, in context, is criminal!?  (https://boingboing.net/2019/01/13/laobaixing.html & https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/why-1984-and-animal-farm-arent-banned-china/580156/)

 

George Orwell was a socialist, FWIW.

 

Sean

 

[Apech]

7 hours ago, sean said:

 

Compadre, you've really fully internalized these utterly sweeping capitalist mythologies. I guess I can't blame anyone for it. Capitalist propaganda is arguably the most exorbitant, grandiose and ubiquitous form of propaganda in human history. We're immeasurably indoctrinated with its "grand narratives" relentlessly, full-time, nonstop everywhere we turn.

 

But this neat little children's story that China, a nation many thousands of years old and that has survived every kind of geo/sociopolitical fate imaginable, was "saved" in our own lifetime by adopting good ol' Western capitalism is pure ideology bordering religious lore.

 

 

George Orwell was a socialist, FWIW.

 

Sean

 

 

He was anti-authoritarian and pro free speech - which is what 1984 is about - he was a real socialist unlike a many who wear the badge.

[thelerner]

21 hours ago, sean said:

 

Compadre, you've really fully internalized these utterly sweeping capitalist mythologies. I guess I can't blame anyone for it. Capitalist propaganda is arguably the most exorbitant, grandiose and ubiquitous form of propaganda in human history. We're immeasurably indoctrinated with its "grand narratives" relentlessly, full-time, nonstop everywhere we turn.

 

But this neat little children's story that China, a nation many thousands of years old and that has survived every kind of geo/sociopolitical fate imaginable, was "saved" in our own lifetime by adopting good ol' Western capitalism is pure ideology bordering religious lore.

 

 

George Orwell was a socialist, FWIW.

 

Sean

 

The mindset of my writing was focused on China 1950s to 1970s. Decades of, imo, disaster. Rights squashed, tens of millions dead. The Cultural Revolution was a disaster and Orwellian. 

 

Should it be blamed on Communism, on dictatorship on facisism?  I don't know. 

 

I didn't mean to impugn China proud history or it's many accomplishments. In the US the 50s Mcarthurism was also Orwellian. 

 

I do think that after 3 decades of stagnation turning away from Comunism and allowing capitalists concepts of ownership and free Enterprise, which had traditions in China, we're the engines for it's roaring modernization. 

 

Is it disputed that under Mao freedoms suffered, tens of millions died?

[ralis]

22 minutes ago, thelerner said:

The mindset of my writing was focused on China 1950s to 1970s. Decades of, imo, disaster. Rights squashed, tens of millions dead. The Cultural Revolution was a disaster and Orwellian. 

 

Should it be blamed on Communism, on dictatorship on facisism?  I don't know. 

 

I didn't mean to impugn China proud history or it's many accomplishments. In the US the 50s Mcarthurism was also Orwellian. 

 

I do think that after 3 decades of stagnation turning away from Comunism and allowing capitalists concepts of ownership and free Enterprise, which had traditions in China, we're the engines for it's roaring modernization. 

 

Is it disputed that under Mao freedoms suffered, tens of millions died?

 

Mao was the leader of the communist party which was in no way a fascist regime. There are major differences between the two. 

[C T]

China denies human rights openly, while in some countries, its done covertly. Not sure which is more sinister. 

 

[Zork]

4 hours ago, ralis said:

 

Mao was the leader of the communist party which was in no way a fascist regime. There are major differences between the two. 

Communism under Mao is a weird ideology. Mao fought Chiang Kai-shek's socialist party despite both of them having the same mentor and the same goals (to get rid of foreign powers' influence on China.).

[dawei]

11 hours ago, C T said:

China denies human rights openly, while in some countries, its done covertly. Not sure which is more sinister. 

 

 

杀一儆百 - Kill one to warn one hundred 

 

[C T]

38 minutes ago, dawei said:

 

杀一儆百 - Kill one to warn one hundred 

 

 

Something to that effect. This may soon be visible again if the situation in Hong Kong gets any crazier. 

[sean]

Here's my understanding.

 

The Chinese Communist Revolution as a whole was a failure, but not necessarily a mistake and not because proletarian revolution is inherently flawed. (The GPCR, specifically, is another issue.) It was a failure in the large simply in that it failed at its stated goal to move China into a thriving communist nation and prevent the restoration of capitalism.

 

But what was achieved by Mao-era China is unparalleled in human history.

 

China was still semi-feudal in 1949 with a life expectancy of ~35 years.

 

Under Mao, living conditions skyrocketed, illiteracy was massively reduced (perhaps the single greatest educational effort), and life expectancy rose to ~65 years, the most rapid increase in documented world history.

 

People's schools, hospitals, communes, theaters, etc. were swiftly built in solidarity while free healthcare services were widely expanded even into rural areas, widespread water and sanitation improvements, new progressive freedoms e.g., to choose your partner, unilateral divorce by will of female, etc. were introduced, some for the first time in Chinese history.

 

Much has been written unpacking the "millions died literally because communism". Millions die in the U.S. from poverty, racial segregation, lack of healthcare, etc., and yet we remain the angelic poster of capitalist "success" and the legitimacy of neoliberal capitalism is barely questioned as an obvious "overall force for good".

 

Here's a decent short piece on the Great Chinese Famine: https://mronline.org/2011/06/26/revisiting-alleged-30-million-famine-deaths-during-chinas-great-leap

 

Quote

While, clearly, 1960 was an abnormal year with about 8 million deaths in excess of the 1958 level, note that this peak official ‘famine’ death rate of 25.4 per thousand in China was little different from India's 24.8 death rate in the same year which was considered quite normal and attracted no criticism.

 

More recent economic improvements in China can arguably be correlated as much to U.S. lifting embargoes and economic sanctions, freeing up international trade, than it can to China's adoption of neoliberal market reforms required for access to such. For example, I recall Vietnam's GDP growth began when the U.S. lifted their embargo, not when they privatized several years prior.

 

In other words, the U.S. is a fuck and actively undermines socialist countries economically and militarily. The outcomes of socialist revolutions can't be understood in a vacuum. Another one of many classic examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d'état

 

All this said, I'm not a "tankie" and I'm not oblivious to the problems and severe transgressions throughout the Chinese Communist Revolution (mostly neither was Mao, frankly).

 

But I think it's telling we hear volumes of vilification and almost nothing of its very unique triumphs. I think the reason for this may be quite simple. The West, and U.S. citizens in particular, are inundated with imperialist, capitalist propaganda in every direction from the moment we are born.

 

Capitalism is antidemocratic and authoritarian, just more insidiously than the weaponized caricatures of communist revolutionary excesses.

 

Capitalism bares its teeth anytime capitalists lose too much privilege or access to cheap/slave labor. It "masks off" and aligns with fascism whenever necessary to prop up its vampiric privatization of the entire natural world. It fetishizes GDP at the expense of our planet and actual people's health, happiness and freedom.

 

The socialist way has only barely been seen.

 

Class struggle is a process. It's taken us from chattel slavery, through feudalism and into capitalism. I believe socialism is the next step and that communism, while not a utopia, will at least mark the end of the monstrous class inequalities structurally inherent to capitalist societies.

 

BTW, I'm really fun at parties, obviously. 🙄

 

Sean

 

[C T]

America's fundamental misunderstanding of China today ~ interview with Kishore Mahbubani (A key politician/statesman that helped push the meteoric rise of Singapore, at one time touted by Huff Post as "the most successful city" in the world). 

 

"What makes you think a society with a 240 year history knows whats good for a society that has a 2400 year history?" ~ K. M. 

 

 

Link to Huff Post article https://www.huffpost.com/entry/singapore-world-successful-society_b_7934988?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACJknj8ls9oKM0tzXj5QWaAwgj6VGxW4MrB5iVwtsYFzf0dfrZurldXJM_GTjoP3d7OVUv16cRmMaExFXhjzxMEBNd8VQ_Y-yHJ2Xg1pVzr3_aVfMQaZzuRZTJ8WFV55Ek535XnqlqPFpLWr-apZj0H3PH0wR_hYNw4x170eZm7Y

 

Additional reads on Singapore's rise against the odds, from abject obscurity in 1965 when it gained independence from Malaysia to be the economic, financial and social powerhouse it is today. 

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-32028693

http://ibe-infocus.org/articles/singapore-unravelling-success-factors/

 

Its always interesting to contrast Singapore's success story, practically just a red dot on the map, with zero natural resources to rely on, and Malaysia, its one-time twin, a country with enormous natural resources (rubber, tin, palm oil, agriculture, etc.) and yet today, Malaysia's underperformance is stark comparatively. There's a rather sad but true 'joke' among some that Malaysia's lack of real progress despite its massive edge over its puny neighbour in terms of potential, is the very blueprint for Singapore's success. All they had to do was to be smart in avoiding the pitfalls in the policy decisions made by Malaysia 

 

[Zork]

1 hour ago, sean said:

But what was achieved by Mao-era China is unparalleled in human history.

@sean What is your opinion on the Great Leap Forward then?

1 hour ago, sean said:

In other words, the U.S. is a fuck and actively undermines socialist countries economically and militarily. The outcomes of socialist revolutions can't be understood in a vacuum. Another one of many classic examples: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d'état

Yes unfortunately you are correct. Chile is the most well known but there had been cases in eastern Europe also.

 

1 hour ago, sean said:

The Chinese Communist Revolution as a whole was a failure, but not necessarily a mistake and not because proletarian revolution is inherently flawed. (The GPCR, specifically, is another issue.) It was a failure in the large simply in that it failed at its stated goal to move China into a thriving communist nation and prevent the restoration of capitalism.

The problem with all communist revolutions up to now is that they all failed to produce thriving societies. It isn't the chinese that did something differently though their very fast transition from communism to the capitalist extreme, still surprises me.

It is fair to say though that as you mentioned, all these communist states were relentlessly attacked by the West.

Edited August 15, 2019 by Zork

[thelerner]

Food for thought. 

I'm glad this was split off from the original thread because it deserves its own discussion. 

 

So.. how do you feel about Mao?  Hero, villain.. did he evolve or devolve as he ruled?

 

[Nungali]

19 hours ago, C T said:

China denies human rights openly, while in some countries, its done covertly. Not sure which is more sinister. 

 

 

Yes !  Aussies  are appalled by human rights violations in China ... and  other Asian countries, and Russia and South  America .

 

Appalling ... shocking  ! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[C T]

@Nungali The dark tide of oppressive totalitarianism is slowly but surely gathering a swell. Australia is not without her own problems, if the words of my buddies there are anything to go by. They relate often the challenges they encounter daily as immigrants, but after a while, they learn how to pace themselves and not get overwhelmed. Not sure how accurate it is, but they say its gradually getting better, they feel more at ease, racism on the wane, discrimination not as rife.... hopefully its true, and not simply some idealistic wish they harbour and then imagining to be true. 

[Taomeow]

15 hours ago, Zork said:

Communism under Mao is a weird ideology. Mao fought Chiang Kai-shek's socialist party despite both of them having the same mentor and the same goals (to get rid of foreign powers' influence on China.).

 

Especially considering it was not Mao's but Chiang Kai-shek's son, future President Chiang Ching-kuo, who met his wife in Russia and gave Taiwan a Russian first lady.  She became  Jiǎng Fāngliáng but her original name was  Фаина Ипатьевна Вахрева (Faina Ipat'evna Vakhreva).  She turned into a traditional Chinese wife and stayed out of the spotlight.    

[Nungali]

Just now, C T said:

@Nungali The dark tide of oppressive totalitarianism is slowly but surely gathering a swell. Australia is not without her own problems, if the words of my buddies there are anything to go by. They relate often the challenges they encounter daily as immigrants, but after a while, they learn how to pace themselves and not get overwhelmed. Not sure how accurate it is, but they say its gradually getting better, they feel more at ease, racism on the wane, discrimination not as rife.... hopefully its true, and not simply some idealistic wish they harbour and then imagining to be true. 

 

 

 

It pulses . At heart we are a deeply racist society , its been embedded in our violent history . 

 

A bounty was paid for skulls ... rare primitive  species  museum pieces of 'anthropological value.  So people would hunt them down, and as one shocked explorer found ; a camp of two men with a huge  drum of boiling water with a fire under it , he looked in and it full of human heads , cooking the flesh off the bones .

 

Then , after ; 'The White Australian Policy'

 

 

 

 

 

 

But on the surface we are trying to be open, accepting and multi cultural . It surfaces at times in the midst of peaceful  happy Australia  .... even in my childhood home town !

 

 

 

Then ... ungenerally there are those that are always  'on side'  or 'off side '

 

 " Islam is a disease that we need to vaccinate against " 

 

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/pauline-hanson-says-islam-is-a-disease-australia-needs-to-vaccinate-20170324-gv5w7z.html

 

And yes , this isnt  JUST  a matter of left or right , it is crystal clear it is also a matter of intelligence and blinding stupidity

 

 

 

 

[C T]

16 hours ago, Zork said:

Communism under Mao is a weird ideology. Mao fought Chiang Kai-shek's socialist party despite both of them having the same mentor and the same goals (to get rid of foreign powers' influence on China.).

 

They may have shared a similar vision in some respect, but Mao's ideology was pretty much influenced by what he thought was lacking in traditional communist thought. It was so unique the term Maoism was coined to give it identity, and from which came the infamous Little Red Book. 

[Taomeow]

Years ago, I read this book, unique in that it was written by someone who arguably knew Mao better than anyone else -- his personal physician of nearly 30 years.  A Western educated dude.  Who hated his only patient with a passion yet was trusted by the latter probably more than Mao ever trusted anyone, and was in on many behind-the-scenes dynamics.  I have to warn whoever may get interested in reading it that it's 736 pages (even I have become wary by now of committing to most written material of this voluminosity -- a woeful side effect of gradually ingrained online habits -- but I used to read "everything" on paper on any subject of interest to me and still retain some bigger-picture cognitive habits).   

 

It may be in this book (although I read many more on the subject, aside from having some friends who lived through "it all") that I came across this interesting thought: Mao's success in "winning over the masses" was rooted in one peculiar innovation no Chinese emperor before him (not even Emperor Wu Hou who was a woman) ever offered his constituents: equal rights for women, and not only in the form of lip service but in the form of a whole lot of empowering venues this opened for them -- in education, science, economy, medicine, politics, overall social status where being a "daughter" didn't seal one's family, marital, reproductive and lifestyle fate anymore -- and a rather comprehensive dismantling of a social order that trampled upon them for thousands of years.  It was Chinese women who landslided him into power and were willing to take the good with the bad with the ugly as long as this one innovation -- a monumental one -- was part of it.      

[C T]

1 hour ago, Taomeow said:

Years ago, I read this book, unique in that it was written by someone who arguably knew Mao better than anyone else -- his personal physician of nearly 30 years.  A Western educated dude.  Who hated his only patient with a passion yet was trusted by the latter probably more than Mao ever trusted anyone, and was in on many behind-the-scenes dynamics.  I have to warn whoever may get interested in reading it that it's 736 pages (even I have become wary by now of committing to most written material of this voluminosity -- a woeful side effect of gradually ingrained online habits -- but I used to read "everything" on paper on any subject of interest to me and still retain some bigger-picture cognitive habits).   

 

It may be in this book (although I read many more on the subject, aside from having some friends who lived through "it all") that I came across this interesting thought: Mao's success in "winning over the masses" was rooted in one peculiar innovation no Chinese emperor before him (not even Emperor Wu Hou who was a woman) ever offered his constituents: equal rights for women, and not only in the form of lip service but in the form of a whole lot of empowering venues this opened for them -- in education, science, economy, medicine, politics, overall social status where being a "daughter" didn't seal one's family, marital, reproductive and lifestyle fate anymore -- and a rather comprehensive dismantling of a social order that trampled upon them for thousands of years.  It was Chinese women who landslided him into power and were willing to take the good with the bad with the ugly as long as this one innovation -- a monumental one -- was part of it.      

 

Interesting indeed. Curiously, Im wondering if the move to empower women was intentional, or a somewhat perverted outcome coinciding with his mass culling of landlords (called Classicide), which must have meant huge numbers of suddenly husbandless, bereft women who choicelessly had to seek provenance somewhere, and Mao conveniently took on the "provider" role, on his own terms, naturally. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_of_landlords_under_Mao_Zedong

 

[Taomeow]

30 minutes ago, C T said:

 

Interesting indeed. Curiously, Im wondering if the move to empower women was intentional, or a somewhat perverted outcome coinciding with his mass culling of landlords (called Classicide), which must have meant huge numbers of suddenly husbandless, bereft women who choicelessly had to seek provenance somewhere, and Mao conveniently took on the "provider" role, on his own terms, naturally. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_of_landlords_under_Mao_Zedong

 

 

I haven't thought of that.  I guess it's hard to tell.  There's no misogynistic ideology specifically attached to socialism or communism (unlike in many other social class-based theoretical and empirical arrangements), although empirical applications are usually still uniformly patriarchal, like in any other civilized management project.  Except for a new twist -- some patriarchal overlords can be female, this is acceptable under both socialism and capitalism (and even under classical feudalism) -- anatomically female provided politically they are as patriarchal as ever.  Marx himself, in an interview I recall dedicated to personal matters, answered these questions:

 "What do you value the most in a man?" -- "Strength." --  "And what do you value the most in a woman?" --  "Weakness." 

Though I don't think he offered any specific ideological justifications for keeping women weak.  As for Mao, perhaps he understood (he was nothing if not an expert on human strengths and weaknesses) that it doesn't matter if it is a man or a woman in the position of power as long as the structure of the power itself is fully patriarchal.  We don't care if it's a black cat or a white cat as long as it catches mice.  

[dawei]

2 hours ago, Taomeow said:

It may be in this book (although I read many more on the subject, aside from having some friends who lived through "it all") that I came across this interesting thought: Mao's success in "winning over the masses" was rooted in one peculiar innovation no Chinese emperor before him (not even Emperor Wu Hou who was a woman) ever offered his constituents: equal rights for women,

 

There is the saying by Mao [something like]: Women hold up half the world.

 

I used to joke that he should of added, the 'heavier half...' 

[C T]

22 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

 

I haven't thought of that.  I guess it's hard to tell.  There's no misogynistic ideology specifically attached to socialism or communism (unlike in many other social class-based theoretical and empirical arrangements), although empirical applications are usually still uniformly patriarchal, like in any other civilized management project.  Except for a new twist -- some patriarchal overlords can be female, this is acceptable under both socialism and capitalism (and even under classical feudalism) -- anatomically female provided politically they are as patriarchal as ever.  Marx himself, in an interview I recall dedicated to personal matters, answered these questions:

 "What do you value the most in a man?" -- "Strength." --  "And what do you value the most in a woman?" --  "Weakness." 

Though I don't think he offered any specific ideological justifications for keeping women weak.  As for Mao, perhaps he understood (he was nothing if not an expert on human strengths and weaknesses) that it doesn't matter if it is a man or a woman in the position of power as long as the structure of the power itself is fully patriarchal.  We don't care if it's a black cat or a white cat as long as it catches mice.  

 

Mao's (4th) wife, Jiang Qing, comes to mind  

What little I know of her history hints at being some such individual. 

Her famous words, "There cannot be peaceful coexistence in the ideological realm. Peaceful coexistence corrupts."  

 

[Taomeow]

2 hours ago, C T said:

 

Mao's (4th) wife, Jiang Qing, comes to mind  

What little I know of her history hints at being some such individual. 

Her famous words, "There cannot be peaceful coexistence in the ideological realm. Peaceful coexistence corrupts."  

 

 

Yes, I remember a bit, though not much, of her story.  What I remember is, she was first a traditional wife and chiefly always on the brink of death from all kinds of ailments, including cancer.  Mao, to humor her, gave her a token involvement in the political process.  She promptly went for more than a token.  Discovered a taste for intrigue, conspiracy and power consolidation.  All her illnesses disappeared.  Cancer disappeared.  For the rest of her life she was full of energy and never sick.  I don't think it's because power itself cures the body, I think it's more the opposite scenario -- powerlessness undermines health (scientific fact.)  Apply power to the wound and it works as an antidote.  Quite in accord with Chinese medicine's  tradition of treating -- but only when all else fails -- "extreme poisons with extreme poisons."      

[Walker]

On 2019/8/16 at 3:37 AM, C T said:

"What makes you think a society with a 240 year history knows whats good for a society that has a 2400 year history?" ~ K. M. 

 

Lol, this has to be in my Top 3 crock of shit intellectually lazy PRC brainwashing machine excuses for Chinese excess (also a favorite to be trotted out by my Indian friends, too). Oh lorrrrd, wrong on so many levels.

 

1. No culture is really any older or younger than any other. Even linguistic continuity as the Chinese have imo means little. We are all branches off the same trunk--however old one culture claims to be, we all have exactly as much human history as each other. Inheriting a seeming cultural blank slate versus inheriting a seeming cultural suitcase is all the same, it's all the product of the inexorable rolling of history. People fail to see that processes of elimination are no less "cultural" than addition and continuation, and therefore grow glazy-eyed and lazy-brained to the lullaby of "greeeaaatttnneesss..."

2. The same "historically conscious" Chinese person who is chiding young America to me in one sentence will, more times than not, in the very next sentence excuse any and all Chinese excesses because "actually our grand civilization was destroyed long ago by the Mongols and then again by the Japanese and the Europeans and Americans who sacked Beijing, and yet again by the Cultural Revolution, so please don't judge us by what you see now, because when I say 'Chinese civilization' I mean Tang dynasty, Northern Song at the latest, by Southern Song it had already gone to shit, but boy we sure used to be great." Sighhhhhh. This is a convo I've had so many times I have a permanent imprint of my palm on my face. Tip: don't talk to assclowns in same year as you practice hard qigong.

3. Dear ancient, granddaddy civilization that is so hoary and venerable that we should all just shut up and bow to the emperor who perches upon on his little high chair, precisely how many more centuries/millennia did you need to miraculously decide to stop binding women's feet (or insert N number of abominations instead)? Or in fact are we all wrong and smashing the bones in little girls' feet to mutilate and permanently disable women is the apex of human progress? (Upon hearing me say stuff like this, point #2 above is invariably invoked lol: "No no, you don't understand, we Chinese don't really do that, foot binding only started in the Ming dynasty, a mere 600 years ago, 1200 years ago, during the Tang dynasty, we would never have done such a thing...." Mmhmm, and I'm not an alcoholic, I'm just a chocoholic for booze...)

4. "Wait, you mean the Tang period was more civilized than the Ming, which in turn was more civilized than the communist dynasty? And that the best of all was the days before even the Yellow Emperor, when people were so simple they didn't even visit neighboring villages? So, wait, don't you mean to say that when it comes to civilizations, the younger the better, hmmmmm?? Hmm?? Hmmmmmmmm???

 

Hahaha, been around these blocks many times. There's a reason I got tired of living there. Eventually most eyes glaze over just as glassily as you'd expect from a person who quotes Tucker Carlson and the Party still wins the argument. Hard to beat a propaganda machine that ties a national myth, the party state, and family identity into one. Eventually "I can talk shit about my daddy but you can't talk shit about my daddy" psychology trumps all. No wonder that's the US prez's name... He figured this out, too. 

 

#MMACGA (Make my ancient civilization great again!!!)