Not that it’s really news, but there’s a new book out documenting that Mao (Anita Dunn’s favorite philosopher) was the biggest mass murderer in history. But unlike Hitler, he murdered his own kind, so that’s all right. And as usual, one has to ask why it’s acceptable, and even fashionable, to wear a Che or Mao tee shirt on campus, but not a Hitler one.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Wow. It’s amazing to read some of the defenses of Mao (and Che), and anti-West sentiment in comments over there.
Its just as amazing to see that the author of the piece is an Arts writer. Usually that type is wearing the Che or Mao shirts.
How many Tories does Dunn have to get elected in the UK before you’ll drop this idea that she actually subscribes to any sort of Maoism. Letting a bunch of flowers grow is consistent with robust competition in a free market.
But but Rand Mao killed people for thinking badly not indiscriminately cause they were born a certain color or a certain ethnicity . If they didn’t want to be killed they shouldn’t have been a capitalist.
To a lefty discriminating against someone who thinks “Badly” is GOOD it their fault.
They should be thinking and doing things in the “correct” manner. But discriminating against someone cause of who they are is bad .
And um ya forgot the tripe that Hitler was possibly Jewish and certainly did pass for his superior race. So he could of been killing his own kind.
Cameron is hardly a Conservative, though he be a Tory. The British Conservative Party under Cameron espouses a squishy sort of neo-socialism. Dunn should be right at home along with her copy of Mao’s Little Red Book.
How many more people did Mao need to kill before bob has a problem with someone calling him a great philosopher?
Unfortunately it really isn’t amazing to see people defend Mao.
That’s what’s so sad
I always thought it demented that Mao and Che were somehow more acceptable than Hitler or Stalin.
More nearly contemporary estimates during the 1970s and 1980s put the death toll in China at 60 million.
In 1960, China’s population was about 650 million. Beating 45 million people to death would have been a trivial task over 4 years, especially if one had nothing else to do…
Dear folks,
My first overseas teaching job was in Nanjing in 1987-1988. While there, and back in grad school in Miami, I ran across more than one person who had lived through the Great Leap Forward, or had been sent out to the countryside to ‘learn’ from the peasants during the Cultural Revolution of 1966-1976. These people were mostly engineers and other professional types. Anita Dunn may be fond of Mao, but the Repubs and and Libertarians come November can quote an old favorite of Mao’s from the his Cultural Revolution as they fill out their ballots: “Bombard the headquarters!”
How many Tories does Dunn have to get elected in the UK before you’ll drop this idea that she actually subscribes to any sort of Maoism. Letting a bunch of flowers grow is consistent with robust competition in a free market.
Is Anita Dunn a UK citizen? What I read indicates that she’s been in the US at least since the Carter administration and has held a number of political positions that seem incompatible with her having foreign citizenship.
Also, you seem to have a strange criteria for determining whether someone subscribes to a belief system. Obama is “electing” a lot of Republicans in the US. How many more does he need to “elect” before we start calling him a Republican?
Finally, I think it’s sad that you refer, out of context, to that infamous Mao phrase about flowers blooming. This period of time was followed shortly by the “Great Leap Forward”. While we’ll probably never know if the “Hundred Flowers” period was a deliberate attempt to trap political dissidents, it had that effect. Quoting Mao sayings without mentioning or understanding the cynical and brutal context behind them, is in my view a sign of great ignorance of a terrible period of human history. Just saying, Bob, that this sort of thing might be a reason you keep getting insulted whenever you post on Transterrestrial.
Finally, while there is some reason to consider him a passable poet (or maybe a vain and egotistical thug with a few thousand sufficiently capable and motivated ghostwriters and propagandists, and a captive market of at least half a billion people) who managed to generate a number of cute and sometimes useful sayings, I’m puzzled by Dunn’s 2009 claim that he was a philosopher. Doesn’t philosophy implicitly require granting a degree of freedom, that is, the ability to disagree about key issues and beliefs? Given at times that disagreement with some of the principles of Maoism could lead to your unpleasant death, there doesn’t seem to be even a trace of the philosopher in Mao.
I’ve been told the current party line here in China is that Mao was 60% right. Personally, I like collecting wallet-sized pictures of Mao, particularly the pink ones.*
Karl, I think you meant to say that the Hundred Flowers period was followed by the Cultural Revolution.
*He’s back on the money (keep your Mao on your money and your money on your Mao), the pink one are 100 RMB.
Karl,
That was an uncharacteristically uninformed comment from you that you could have avoided with a few moments of research. However, I’m not in much of a position to criticize, as I also made an error which also could have been avoided with a few moments of research.
—
Your error:
Anita Dunn is an American citizen who has worked for a number of US senators in the Democatic party. but you are apparently not aware that she also recently advised David Cameron during his recent bid to become the UK’s prime minister. Since prime minister isn’t elected directly in the UK, the only way to assure that a conservative become PM was to help get a sufficient number of conservative MPs get elected. You can read more about Dunn’s role here: “www.google.com/search?&q=+site:www.timesonline.co.uk+anita+dunn+cameron”
—
My error:
I was wrong. Dunn didn’t refer to Mao’s famous quote about the flowers. Senator John McCain did! I didn’t correctly remember the details of our earlier dicussion about this topic. Dunn had a more obscure quote which she says she cribbed from the highly effective (and repentent) Republican strategist Lee Atwater. (However, Mickey Klaus doubts she is quoting Atwater correctly.) Dunn’s original remark is reproduced below. Dunn’s subsequent comment can be found here: “www.politico.com/politico44/perm/1009/burton_beck_viewer_2cd10ae0-ccd2-48a9-bb9a-ac895dc50e38.html”
McCain’s comment, which I mistakenly thought was Dunn’s, can be found here: “www.trentonian.com/articles/2009/10/12/opinion/doc4ad3503070000200061553.txt”
—
What Dunn actually said:
The third lesson and tip actually comes from two of my favorite political philosophers: Mao Zedong and Mother Teresa — not often coupled with each other, but the two people I turn to most to basically deliver a simple point which is: you’re going to make choices; you’re going to challenge; you’re going to say why not; you’re going to figure out how to do things that have never been done before. But here’s the deal: These are your choices, they are no one else’s. In 1947, when Mao Zedong was being challenged within his own party on his plan to basically take China over. Chiang Kai-shek and the Nationalist Chinese held the cities, they had the army, they had the air force, they had everything on their side. And people said, “How can you win? How can you do this? How can you do this, against all of the odds against you?” And Mao Zedong said, you know, “You fight your war, and I’ll fight mine.” And think about that for a second. You don’t have to accept the definition of how to do things and you don’t have to follow other peoples choices and paths. Ok? It is about your choices and your path. You fight your own war, you lay out your own path, you figure out what’s right for you. You don’t let external definition define how good you are internally, you fight your war, you let them fight theirs. Everybody has their own path.
—
We’ve already had this conversation: http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=22456 The only new element is Dunn’s assistance to the leader of the Conservative party in the UK, which is why I commented this time.
—
That was an uncharacteristically uninformed comment from you that you could have avoided with a few moments of research
My apologies for disappointing you. I didn’t see this when I googled Dunn’s name. Obviously, I didn’t do the right research.
Second, I remain confused what Dunn’s political leanings have to do with her job. She no doubt was well compensated for whatever work she did for Cameron and the Conservative Party. Even a Maoist, especially of the typically hypocritical sort, would have little trouble with that. Your “evidence” is not relevant since it doesn’t distinguish between Maoist and non-Maoist.
My view is that I don’t know whether Dunn is or isn’t a Maoist, but her year ago praise of Mao as a philosopher to be admired, remains a serious flaw in judgment on her part.
Finally, I imagine if anyone here were to read through the thread you linked above, they would no doubt be a bit puzzled why you brought up an episode where you lost badly (and yet, continue to pick at the old scabs almost a year later). It would have been a bit less tedious today, if you had listened to reason then. And oh yes, you continue the fallacy of arguing that someone’s personal beliefs can be determined by looking at their employer. Oh well, I promised that I wouldn’t clutter Rand’s threads with a discussion of fellow posters’ psychological problems or fallacy-based style of argument.
Karl, I think you meant to say that the Hundred Flowers period was followed by the Cultural Revolution.
According to Wikipedia, the Hundred Flowers period was 1956-1957 while the Great Leap Forward was 1958-1961. The Cultural Revolution spanned 1966-1976. So indeed the Cultural Revolution did follow the Hundred Flowers period, but the Great Leap Forward was in between.
I do not pretend to be an expert on these periods of Communist China’s history, but I usually do adequate fact checking before I make such statements.
You want to see people pissed off at mass murdering Mao? Get Spielberg et al making movies which personalize his victims and nobody would wear a Mao shirt or talk about his “philosophy” again.
K, why would they make such a film? It wouldn’t fit the narrative. Compare, for example, how Spielberg treats the Japanese in “Empire of the Sun” to the Nazis in his various films. The Nazis are portrayed as pure evil while the Japanese are are portrayed with a great deal of moral ambiguity.
Spielberg would never make such a film, he’d never be allowed back into Temple once he smeared a good communist like that.
Hitler killed his own people as well. Mao had the Cultural Revolution. Hitler had the Night of the Long Knives. Stalin had his purges.
Che Guevara was a promoter of the internationalization of communism via global war just like Trotsky. Just like Trotsky lost to Stalin, Che lost to Fidel. Only stupid people are into profitless global war for idealistic motives. War is mostly fought on economical or other strategic motives.
And let’s not forget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party
two of my favorite political philosophers, Mao Tse Tung and Mother Teresa”
Bob, you’re claiming it’s only a silly joke, a jarring juxtaposition, and she didn’t really mean it. It’s only a way of leading in to the point that people should follow their own path.
Strange. Is follow your own path a favored philosophy of hers? It seems obvious it is. It’s the point she’s making using both as examples.
Why say ‘my favorite’? Is she just tone deaf? Or are you? Note that she then goes on to paint Mao in a very favorable light which is consistent with him being one of her favorites and not simple a way to punch up a speech.
Your defense is indefensible.
OF course my defense is defensible. Do you think I’m in favor of murdering people? Do you think I’d approve of someone who is in favor of murdering people? I just happen to disagree with you about Dunn, but you and I both agree about Mao. You can think of me as having indefensibly horrible pro-communist pro-murder views, but I simply don’t have them. Or did you just say that my views were indefensible to punch up your comment?