In my last post about China, I said Xi Jinping is not a Liberal, but Mao was. I was just assuming this because:
China is swinging back to the right (meaning it must have been left wing at some point before Xi Jinping).
He supposedly killed lots of people because of bad agricultural policy decisions, which sounds like something a Liberal would do since they don’t understand how to be productive and run a prosperous nation.
However, he definitely was not a Liberal, and therefore the swing to the right that China is undergoing must have begun before Xi Jinping. Maybe it began with Mao, and maybe not. When I saw his face I started to suspect he wasn’t a Liberal, so I looked into it.
Under Mao, the lower classes were praised for their humble way of life and work ethic, while the landlords and the wealthy were demonized and persecuted. Their property was seized, they were sent to do hard manual labour in the countryside, and the government turned a blind eye to, or even encouraged, local killings of landlords.
The stuff about Mao starving millions of people could just be Western Liberal propaganda, or maybe he was kind of incompetent, I don’t know. But he wasn’t Liberal.
Mao: “Beyond Japan is the United States. Didn’t our ancestors counsel negotiating with faraway countries while fighting those that are near?”
Li was shocked, recalling the long history of Sino-American hostility. “How could we negotiate with the United States?”
Mao Replied: “The United States and the Soviet Union are different… America’s new President, Richard Nixon, is a longtime rightist, a leader of the anti-communists there. I like to deal with rightists. They say what they really think—not like the leftists who say one thing and mean another."
So Mao and Xi are/were both leaders of the communist party, but they aren’t communist really. Communism is a leftwing tool of social parasitism.
Mao was a thoroughbred communist. The same way Mussolini was a thoroughbred socialist.
Political leanings are not the deciding factor for someone being a social parasite or not (your substack on social parasitism and verbal iq reference).
And there are way more outliers than Mao, xi and mussolini, you even gave Stalin as an example in your reference.
it's just a given but you're missing the pattern here; that the smartest of the smart understand group effort, regardless of ideology, pays out better in furthering group (and personal) interests. If it's communism or socialism they have to invoke to get there, so be it.