Was Maoism necessary to modernize China like some Marxist historians claim?
Could it have been done by the Kuomintang? At least it did that to Taiwan and far less deadly and perhaps more effectively than the communist party did.
Sun Yat Sen never set foot in Taiwan, considering that it was a Japanese colony from 1895 to 1945. Unless you are implying that Japan did most of the modernizing that occurred in Taiwan. I guess there's some truth to that.
This, problem was the the KMT never really had as much control over China as some people think, their power base was very much based on autonomous warlords. Chiang Kai-Shek was also deeply unpopular compared to this predecessor.
Had they the forces to stay in China, the KMT would likely have ended up in a prolonged war where they where only surviving thanks to foreign aid, similar to the Russian revolution. Communist victory was pretty much assured since their narrative had won the hearts and minds of the people.
Now, was Maoism good or bad?
Well, they Party definitely managed to modernize the country and vastly increased standards of living, but like in most states run by communists this involved a lot of less-than-successful experimentation.
That said, we should remember than a lot of the early starvations (Holodomor, Great Leap Forwards) had more to do with carry-over problems from the endless fighting before it. No men, no cattle, and every field filled with rotting corpses? Disaster in waiting.
Taiwan was never really that important to the Japanese beyond symbolic value, Manchuko was far more interesting (toghether with Korea) for their co-prosperity sphere.
Did you know after World War 2, South Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world? Living standards were behind almost all of Africa. After US intervention, in the 50's, it rapidly grew. By the 90's it was one of the top richest countries in the world. That's mudhuds to skyscrapers in -less- than one generation.
Small nations and communism = disasterous ( Cuba, North Korea, etc. )
Large nations and communism = superpower
>inb4 Russia is not
It went from feudal state filled with quasi serfs to a space faring nuclear superpower.. That's quite the achievement to pull in less than half a century.
Gorbie dun goofed because he not only introduced market economy but also liberalized the minds. China didn't do the latter and the communist party is still around.
Same thing in DPRK, both countries became a pissing contest between the different blocs, similar to DDR and BRD.
DPRK didn't turn to the batshit insane until the after the fall of the USSR.
This meme needs to die, they where run by communist parties, but the economy was socialism (a lot of commies will ofc disagree with the latter - but that's a question of tendency rather than facts).
It's also worthy to note they where command economies, compared to the market socialism of Tito.
Russia mostly lost its superpower status because it was the Soviet Union. China was just China. It didn't allow its minorities to have local governments like the USSR did ( a move by Lenin ) and keep alive its respective cultures. It basically took over all the historical territory of the Qing dynasty ( Tibet needed to be included in that ) and went from there. It didn't recognize the differences in culture even ( Cultural Revolution ) and still has an aim to downplay its minorities and put Han in the center.
You could easily draw the lines of future republics in the USSR. You couldn't and still can't in China.
That's why Russia almost lost the entire Caucasus and had the war in Chechnya.
It's still in danger of doing so.
You gotta give it to the Chinese, they did pretty epic-ly.
Kerry Bolton has an excellent book on this subject titled Revolution from Above which goes into this in great detail. Most Internationalist are well educated in Hegel's philosophy on Dialectics. They realised an intermediate transitionary phase was needed before China would be fully modernised which is why they encouraged Communism, Authoritarianism and Industrialisation in China.
>That said, we should remember than a lot of the early starvations (Holodomor, Great Leap Forwards) had more to do with carry-over problems from the endless fighting before it. No men, no cattle, and every field filled with rotting corpses? Disaster in waiting.
This is one thing I can never decide if people are just disingenuous, or actively forget/don't know about when talking about these events.
>It went from feudal state filled with quasi serfs to a space faring nuclear superpower.. That's quite the achievement to pull in less than half a century.
it was already happening and was one of the big reasons WW1 happened, Germany was shitting it's pants seeing how rapidly Russia was industrializing
except the cultural revolution did not get rid of the old customs, and removing them doesnt equate to modernization.
The cultural revolution was just another political move by Mao to regain his influence and power in the party. Removing the old customs because they're somehow against the proletariat was just the shitty excuse he used. He probably got the idea from Qin Shi Huang and its mass destruction of old records as a way to affirm his imperial power over the different chinese provinces.
The vast difference there was between the lower classes and higher classes was still a huge problem for communist China. What Mao did to try and get rid of the class changes was wrong and deeply mired in the fear he had of losing his power, and the actual thing that happened under the revolution didn't actually help.