Mao Tse Tung as an historic archetype
Talk History: On learning from and writing history
Join LibraryThing to post.
This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1Urquhart
Mao Tse Tung
Mao Tse Tung killed somewhere in the area of 70,000.000 people during his lifetime. Whether someone is talking of him or Stalin or Hitler, etc., it is clear such people as these were driven. And it is my theory that they were driven by something that has been part of human nature throughout history.
Homer’s Iliad, depending on which translation you read, begins with the phrase:
And it is rage that instigates or drives so much of the action in not just the Iliad but throughout all the Greek tragedies.
The raging temper tantrums of Hitler have been widely written about.
Have you ever scanned through the channels on your tv and seen how many of the programs show people enraged over one thing or person? In the daytime soaps, people are always fighting over one thing or another. And in the nighttime programming there is the obvious preponderance of shows with all the detective/mystery/murder/killing themes. Ever watch the old time classic movie channels with all the war time movies and as well the Westerns where each side is dedicated to killing the other for what we are shown are perfectly good reasons?
So many angry and enraged people for so many different reasons.
And of course in the nighttime news, people killing people not just in Florida but throughout the states as well as across the globe. All enraged and killing for their own particular reason.
Yes, anger is part of our human nature but strange that Freud never wrote that much about it but rather wrote of the importance of sex as the underlying motivator for so much that people do.
I say that rather than sex it has been anger and rage that each carries within that is the major motivator for people such as Mao Tse Tung. It is in such people that rage becomes channeled and that anger takes over and rules utterly with no human moderating influence. These channels for rage will stop at nothing in their quest for more power, utter domination, and the venting/acting out of more rage.
Mao Tse Tung killed somewhere in the area of 70,000.000 people during his lifetime. Whether someone is talking of him or Stalin or Hitler, etc., it is clear such people as these were driven. And it is my theory that they were driven by something that has been part of human nature throughout history.
Homer’s Iliad, depending on which translation you read, begins with the phrase:
“Rage-Goddess, sing the rage of Peleus’ son Achilles, murderous, doomed, that cost the Achaeans countless losses, Hurling down to the House of Death so many sturdy souls. (Trans. By Robert Fagles)
And it is rage that instigates or drives so much of the action in not just the Iliad but throughout all the Greek tragedies.
The raging temper tantrums of Hitler have been widely written about.
Have you ever scanned through the channels on your tv and seen how many of the programs show people enraged over one thing or person? In the daytime soaps, people are always fighting over one thing or another. And in the nighttime programming there is the obvious preponderance of shows with all the detective/mystery/murder/killing themes. Ever watch the old time classic movie channels with all the war time movies and as well the Westerns where each side is dedicated to killing the other for what we are shown are perfectly good reasons?
So many angry and enraged people for so many different reasons.
And of course in the nighttime news, people killing people not just in Florida but throughout the states as well as across the globe. All enraged and killing for their own particular reason.
Yes, anger is part of our human nature but strange that Freud never wrote that much about it but rather wrote of the importance of sex as the underlying motivator for so much that people do.
I say that rather than sex it has been anger and rage that each carries within that is the major motivator for people such as Mao Tse Tung. It is in such people that rage becomes channeled and that anger takes over and rules utterly with no human moderating influence. These channels for rage will stop at nothing in their quest for more power, utter domination, and the venting/acting out of more rage.
2Nicole_VanK
Hm, interesting, certainly possible. Personally - but I'm far from a Mao expert, way too modern for me ;-) - I always thought he was motivated by egotism rather than rage. Something like "Never mind if some millions die as long as I get my way, we have plenty".
P.s.: But generally speaking, yes, I'm convinced rage is a prime motivator in our species. Not a nice thought, but then I don't think we're a nice species.
P.s.: But generally speaking, yes, I'm convinced rage is a prime motivator in our species. Not a nice thought, but then I don't think we're a nice species.
3Urquhart
>2 Nicole_VanK: BarkingMatt
And why is it that this omnipresent 'rage' never get discussed or analyzed?
And why is it that this omnipresent 'rage' never get discussed or analyzed?
4rolandperkins
Along with "egotism" and/or "rage", didnʻt common sense play a role in Maoʻs career? Given that the so-called Empire and the so-called Republic* appeared to
be hopeless, and yet were defended by so entrenched an Establishment, it could easily seem to him that nothing short of a massacre-infused
revolution would end those
regimes, though they were already of failed efficacy.
Chiang kai shek and Mao
were both Moscow-trained. The young Chiang may well have appeared more radical to the Establishment than the young Mao. Pol Pot, by contrast, was Paris-trained, and most historians regard him as more blood-thirsty than Mao.
*The "Republic" (roughly 1911-1949) was run pretty much as Afghanistan is today,
by competing war lords, of
whom Chiang kai-shek, the nominal ruler, was only one.
be hopeless, and yet were defended by so entrenched an Establishment, it could easily seem to him that nothing short of a massacre-infused
revolution would end those
regimes, though they were already of failed efficacy.
Chiang kai shek and Mao
were both Moscow-trained. The young Chiang may well have appeared more radical to the Establishment than the young Mao. Pol Pot, by contrast, was Paris-trained, and most historians regard him as more blood-thirsty than Mao.
*The "Republic" (roughly 1911-1949) was run pretty much as Afghanistan is today,
by competing war lords, of
whom Chiang kai-shek, the nominal ruler, was only one.
5Nicole_VanK
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not denying China was a mess back then. And yes, even the Mao dictatorship was probably, in some ways, better than how things were before his rise to power.
6rolandperkins
No one is going to mistake me for "a Mao expert" (2), but I am something of a Homeric expert. what I see wrong with Urquhartʻs point of view is that heʻs looking at Homer "upside down". What Homer is mourning is not that there was violence (poetically called "rage" -- "menin" in Greek: Heʻs telling us that Achilles put his violence on hiatus, and so caused the deaths. The concern is with the Achaean*
deaths. (Trojan deaths, too, I suppose one could surmise, because Achilles made the war last longer.)
I think Fagles was right to start with "Rage-Goddess" even though Homer doesnʻt apply the adjective "rage" to the Muse. The translator was trying to bring out the PRIMACY of "rage": It is the first word of the Iliad, but
English word order would
make it the fourth or fifth word. So, why not make the Muse herself (temporarily) a "rage-goddess"? Iʻm reminded of the role of the goddess Athena in the Ajax of Sophocles: She is clearly an ally of Odysseus
and an enemy of Ajax --
a hypocritical one at that, for she speaks politely to Ajax, and
pretends to be on his side, --and NOT so politely to Odysseus her real ally. The audience knows this, but Ajax doesnʻt, until much later.
deaths. (Trojan deaths, too, I suppose one could surmise, because Achilles made the war last longer.)
I think Fagles was right to start with "Rage-Goddess" even though Homer doesnʻt apply the adjective "rage" to the Muse. The translator was trying to bring out the PRIMACY of "rage": It is the first word of the Iliad, but
English word order would
make it the fourth or fifth word. So, why not make the Muse herself (temporarily) a "rage-goddess"? Iʻm reminded of the role of the goddess Athena in the Ajax of Sophocles: She is clearly an ally of Odysseus
and an enemy of Ajax --
a hypocritical one at that, for she speaks politely to Ajax, and
pretends to be on his side, --and NOT so politely to Odysseus her real ally. The audience knows this, but Ajax doesnʻt, until much later.
7LamSon
I know nothing about the Iliad, so I won't even go there.
For Mao egotism and rage were two sides of the same coin. In the early days, when he didn't get his way, he would run off to the mountains and sulk for a few weeks. Later he would threaten to run off and raise a new Red Army and start another revolution. Once he had control he would simply order a purge if he didn't get his way.
Liu Shaoqi had been with Mao for a long time, but when he questioned the way Mao was doing things, he had an extended death from physical and psychological torture. Chou Enlai had his nose so far up Mao's butt I'm surprised he could breath, but he was always living one step away from being purged. Even at the end of their lives Mao refused to okay cancer treatment for Chou until it was to late.
Pol Pot probably bested Mao in percentage of population killed, but Mao recognised success when he saw it; he congratulated Pol Pot on his accomplishments.
For Mao egotism and rage were two sides of the same coin. In the early days, when he didn't get his way, he would run off to the mountains and sulk for a few weeks. Later he would threaten to run off and raise a new Red Army and start another revolution. Once he had control he would simply order a purge if he didn't get his way.
Liu Shaoqi had been with Mao for a long time, but when he questioned the way Mao was doing things, he had an extended death from physical and psychological torture. Chou Enlai had his nose so far up Mao's butt I'm surprised he could breath, but he was always living one step away from being purged. Even at the end of their lives Mao refused to okay cancer treatment for Chou until it was to late.
Pol Pot probably bested Mao in percentage of population killed, but Mao recognised success when he saw it; he congratulated Pol Pot on his accomplishments.
8wildbill
I think that what Mao sought was absolute power. Mao often compared himself to the First Emperor who also sought absolute power. In his drive for power Mao had no empathy for any other person or persons. I think that he killed and injured others just because he wanted to and to show that he could.
Jonathan Spence in his biography of Mao portrays him as someone bent on destruction. His final act, the Cultural Revolution, was about destroying everything that did not come from Mao thought.
My Chinese professor who lost eleven members of his family in Mao's purges was proud of some of Mao's accomplishments, such as bringing the atomic bomb to China. Prior to 1949 the Chinese had not ruled their own country since 1644.
Jonathan Spence in his biography of Mao portrays him as someone bent on destruction. His final act, the Cultural Revolution, was about destroying everything that did not come from Mao thought.
My Chinese professor who lost eleven members of his family in Mao's purges was proud of some of Mao's accomplishments, such as bringing the atomic bomb to China. Prior to 1949 the Chinese had not ruled their own country since 1644.
