The Wisdom Of Mao Tse Tung

ISBN: 0486443760

On Guerrilla Warfare is a collection of essays, speeches, and communiques by Mao Tse Tung, who ushered in communism in China after decades of fighting as a heavy underdog starting in the early 20th century. He is arguably the most important man in China’s recent history.

What drew me to this book is to learn exactly how he did it. How did he go from being a member of the rag-tag Chinese communist party with a small membership to eventually overthrowing the Western-backed Chiang Kai-shek after World War 2? The answer lies in time, extraordinary persistence, and genius. The below excerpts highlight the best components of his strategy.

His goal

According to the directives of the Communist International and the Central Committee of our Party, the content of China’s democratic revolution consists in overthrowing the rule of imperialism and its warlord tools in China so as to complete the national revolution, and in carrying out the agrarian revolution so as to eliminate the feudal exploitation of the peasants by the landlord class.

Overall strategy

…strategy must be one of gradual advance. In such a period, the worst thing in military affairs is to divide our forces for an adventurous advance, and the worst thing in local work (distributing land, establishing political power, expanding the Party and organizing local armed forces) is to scatter our personnel and neglect to lay a solid foundation in the central districts.


…[the communist party’s] survival and growth require the following conditions: (1) a sound mass base, (2) a sound Party organization, (3) a fairly strong Red Army, (4) terrain favourable to military operations, and (5) economic resources sufficient for sustenance.


After receiving political education, the Red Army soldiers have become class-conscious, learned the essentials of distributing land, setting up political power, arming the workers and peasants, etc., and they know they are fighting for themselves, for the working class and the peasantry. Hence they can endure the hardships of the bitter struggle without complaint.


Any passivity, however, is a disadvantage, and one must strive hard to shake it off. Militarily, the way to do so is resolutely to wage quick-decision offensive warfare on exterior lines, to launch guerrilla warfare in the rear of the enemy and so secure overwhelming local superiority and initiative in many campaigns of mobile and guerrilla warfare.


In ancient warfare, the spear and the shield were used, the spear to attack and destroy the enemy, and the shield to defend and preserve oneself. To the present day, all weapons are still an extension of the spear and the shield. The bomber, the machine-gun, the long-range gun and poison gas are developments of the spear, while the air-raid shelter, the steel helmet, the concrete fortification and the gas mask are developments of the shield.


…the basic principle of guerrilla warfare must be the offensive, and guerrilla warfare is more offensive in its character than regular warfare. The offensive, moreover, must take the form of surprise attacks, and to expose ourselves by ostentatiously parading our forces is even less permissible in guerrilla warfare than in regular warfare. From the fact that the enemy is strong and we are weak it necessarily follows that, in guerrilla operations in general even more than in regular warfare, battles must be decided quickly, though on some occasions guerrilla fighting may be kept up for several days, as in an assault on a small and isolated enemy force cut off from help.


In real life, we cannot ask for “ever-victorious generals”, who are few and far between in history. What we can ask for is generals who are brave and sagacious and who normally win their battles in the course of a war, generals who combine wisdom with courage. To become both wise and courageous one must acquire a method, a method to be employed in learning as well as in applying what has been learned.


Weapons are an important factor in war, but not the decisive factor; it is people, not things, that are decisive. The contest of strength is not only a contest of military and economic power, but also a contest of human power and morale.


…politics is war without bloodshed while war is politics with bloodshed.

Winning hearts and minds

Apart from the role played by the Party, the reason why the Red Army has been able to carry on in spite of such poor material conditions and such frequent engagements is its practice of democracy. The officers do not beat the men; officers and men receive equal treatment, soldiers are free to hold meetings and to speak out; trivial formalities have been done away with; and the accounts are open for all to inspect. The soldiers handle the mess arrangements and, out of the daily five cents for cooking oil, salt, firewood and vegetables, they can even save a little for pocket money, amounting to roughly six or seven coppers per person per day, which is called “mess savings”. All this gives great satisfaction to the soldiers.


The most effective method in propaganda directed at the enemy forces is to release captured soldiers and give the wounded medical treatment.

Military tactics

…the concentration of forces to fight a numerically inferior, equal or slightly superior enemy force has often led to victory.


The enemy advances, we retreat; the enemy camps, we harass; the enemy tires, we attack; the enemy retreats, we pursue. To extend stable base areas, employ the policy of advancing in waves; when pursued by a powerful enemy, employ the policy of circling around. Arouse the largest numbers of the masses in the shortest possible time and by the best possible methods.


…oppose adventurism when on the offensive, oppose conservatism when on the defensive,


A battle of annihilation, on the other hand, produces a great and immediate impact on any enemy. Injuring all of a man’s ten fingers is not as effective as chopping off one, and routing ten enemy divisions is not as effective as annihilating one of them.


Oppose fighting merely to rout the enemy, and uphold fighting to annihilate the enemy.


If the attacking enemy is far more numerous and much stronger than we are, we can accomplish a change in the balance of forces only when the enemy has penetrated deeply into our base area and tasted all the bitterness it holds for him.


Whether in counter-offensives or offensives, we should always concentrate a big force to strike at one part of the enemy forces. We suffered every time we did not concentrate our troops…


…creating misconceptions among the enemy and springing surprise attacks on him– mean transferring the uncertainties of war to the enemy while securing the greatest possible certainty for ourselves and thereby gaining superiority, the initiative and victory. Excellent organization of the masses is the prerequisite for attaining all this.

Calculated retreat

…the object of retreat is to induce the enemy to make mistakes or to detect his mistakes. One must realize that an enemy commander, however wise, cannot avoid making some mistakes over a relatively long period of time, and hence it is always possible for us to exploit the openings he leaves us.


A well-timed retreat, which enables us to keep all the initiative, is of great assistance to us in switching to the counter-offensive when, having reached the terminal point for our retreat, we have regrouped our forces and are waiting at our ease for the fatigued enemy.


“Fight when you can win, move away when you can’t win”—this is the popular way of describing our mobile warfare today.


…it is inadvisable to continue an engagement in which there is no prospect of victory.


…to destroy the enemy means to disarm him or “deprive him of the power to resist”.

Flexible warfare

In studying the laws for directing wars that occur at different historical stages, that differ in nature and that are waged in different places and by different nations, we must fix our attention on the characteristics and development of each, and must oppose a mechanical approach to the problem of war.


To learn is no easy matter and to apply what one has learned is even harder. Many people appear impressive when discoursing on military science in classrooms or in books, but when it comes to actual fighting, some win battles and others lose them.


…failure is indeed the mother of success. But it is also necessary to learn with an open mind from other people’s experience, and it is sheer “narrow empiricism” to insist on one’s own personal experience in all matters and, in its absence, to adhere stubbornly to one’s own opinions and reject other people’s experience.


In war as well as in politics, planning only one step at a time as one goes along is a harmful way of directing matters. After each step, it is necessary to examine the ensuing concrete changes and to modify or develop one’s strategic and operational plans accordingly, or otherwise one is liable to make the mistake of rushing straight ahead regardless of danger.


…although we must cherish the earlier experience thus acquired, we must also cherish experience acquired at the cost of our own blood.

Mao was a military historian who deeply studied past warfare, but knew that completely new tactics would have to be developed for China’s unique situation in geography and time.

Frequent smaller losses are better than big catrostrophes

The same holds true on the question of bringing damage on the people. If you refuse to let the pots and pans of some households be smashed over a short period of time, you will cause the smashing of the pots and pans of all the people to go on over a long period of time. If you are afraid of unfavourable short-term political repercussions, you will have to pay the price in unfavourable long-term political repercussions. After the October Revolution, if the Russian Bolsheviks had acted on the opinions of the “Left Communists” and refused to sign the peace treaty with Germany, the new-born Soviets would have been in danger of early death.


To prepare for a counter-offensive, we must select or create conditions favourable to ourselves but unfavourable to the enemy, so as to bring about a change in the balance of forces, before we go on to the stage of the counter-offensive. In the light of our past experience, during the stage of retreat we should in general secure at least two of the following conditions before we can consider the situation as being favourable to us and unfavourable to the enemy and before we can go over to the counter-offensive. These conditions are:

(1) The population actively supports the Red Army.
(2) The terrain is favourable for operations.
(3) All the main forces of the Red Army are concentrated.
(4) The enemy’s weak spots have been discovered.
(5) The enemy has been reduced to a tired and demoralized state).
(6) The enemy has been induced to make mistakes.


Historically, all reactionary forces on the verge of extinction invariably conduct a last desperate struggle against the revolutionary forces, and some revolutionaries are apt to be deluded for a time by this phenomenon of outward strength but inner weakness, failing to grasp the essential fact that the enemy is nearing extinction while they themselves are approaching victory.


This army is powerful because all its members have a discipline based on political consciousness; they have come together and they fight not for the private interests of a few individuals or a narrow clique, but for the interests of the broad masses and of the whole nation. The sole purpose of this army is to stand firmly with the Chinese people and to serve them whole-heartedly.


We should point out that, before the abolition of capitalism, absolute equalitarianism is a mere illusion of peasants and small proprietors, and that even under socialism there can be no absolute equality, for material things will then be distributed on the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his work” as well as on that of meeting the needs of the work. The distribution of material things in the Red Army must be more or less equal, as in the case of equal pay for officers and men, because this is required by the present circumstances of the struggle. But absolute equalitarianism beyond reason must be opposed because it is not required by the struggle; on the contrary, it hinders the struggle.

The leader of Chinese communism believes in equality less than modern-day progressives.

Graduating from guerilla warfare to regular warfare

As you grow in strength and numbers, you must transition from guerilla warfare to regular warfare, where you finally have a superiority over your enemy. Your guerilla units now become infantry.

To transform guerrilla units waging guerrilla warfare into regular forces waging mobile warfare, two conditions are necessary–an increase in numbers, and an improvement in quality. Apart from directly mobilizing the people to join the forces, increased numbers can be attained by amalgamating small units, while better quality depends on steeling the fighters and improving their weapons in the course of the war.

War with Japan

Will China be subjugated? The answer is, No, she will not be subjugated, but will win final victory. Can China win quickly? The answer is, No, she cannot win quickly, and the war must be a protracted one. Are these conclusions correct? I think they are.


Thus it can be seen that the protracted and far-flung War of Resistance Against Japan is a war of a jig-saw pattern militarily, politically, economically and culturally. It is a marvellous spectacle in the annals of war, a heroic undertaking by the Chinese nation, a magnificent and earth-shaking feat. This war will not only affect China and Japan, strongly impelling both to advance, but will also affect the whole world, impelling all nations, especially the oppressed nations such as India, to march forward.

Mao provides an effective strategy for underdogs to defeat a better trained, better organized, and more numerous opponent. His own victory is proof of his tactics’ effectiveness, and I would be surprised to find that this text is not required reading in advanced military academies. His blow-by-blow account of revolutionary progress and setbacks even includes direct criticisms against his comrades. He honesty reveals not a bit of ego or aims for personal glory.

The book, however, was a difficult read. Though his writing improved over the years (the essays included span from 1928-1949), you’ll encounter dense information that lists Chinese names and places. If you’re not at all knowledgeable of Chinese history, like I was, you’ll miss most of the references and be lacking in context, meaning there will be long drags of information dumps until you get to the strategy. On the bright side, you’ll encounter hardly any communist propaganda. This work seemed to be intended to his fellow party members who already bought into the political program instead of the masses.

Mao was a great military and political strategist, but less skilled as a nation builder. Once in power, his policies resulted in untold suffering and death, but that shouldn’t take away from the fact that he won a revolution against improbable odds. Mao’s lessons should be studied today as we face our own war against a far stronger enemy.

Read More: “On Guerilla Warfare” on Amazon

222 thoughts on “The Wisdom Of Mao Tse Tung”

  1. Think whatever you want about Mao, when he came to power the literacy rate was 15% and life expectancy was 32 years, when he left the literacy rate was 90% and life expectancy 65.
    If the former conditions existed in 1950, looking at China today, he certainly was a great nation builder.

        1. Serious question, are you comparing the living standards of capitalism and communism?

        2. Yes. The living standards in countries that tried socialist economies were in almost all cases peaking during socialism. Take Russia for instance.

        3. I have a Russian pen pal who lives a lifestyle of capitalist abundance in St Petersburg
          Her parents existed in poverty despite having first rate educations and “good” jobs

        4. I am not a communist. I stand for the American school of economy.

          It is a capitalist economic school based on the Hamiltonian economic program.[12] The American School of capitalism was intended to allow the United States to become economically independent and nationally self-sufficient.
          I just prefer socialism to liberalism, the British school of death which has destroyed the whole world.

    1. Thank you for actually noticing this. Communism has definitely improved my native land, going from the level of Somalia to the level of Japan in less than 100 years.

      1. Communism in and of itself improved your country to the level of Japan?
        Or was it more about a billion other factors as well, such as a billion other factors?
        Not every communist country was the same. Nationality, history, mentality etc etc etc etc etc all play a role..

        1. You could get there even without socialism. You certainly couldn’t have gotten there with the help of the American IMF ‘freedom’.

        2. Communism improved the lives of most Cubans as well. And Nazism, which is also kind of a ‘total’ governmental system, did do a lot of positive things for Germany although it sucked in other ways.
          At least the Communists were an equal opportunity employer. Regardless of whether you were a Jew or Gentile.
          On balance a lot of non democratic systems are not so bad. But some Westerners believe that their form of democracy is like a religion everyone must follow to be saved. That’s just like going into a random ass country and forcing everyone to convert to Christianity.
          Think about it that way. Capitalist and democratic systems do not work for every culture, just like not every religion is right for every culture.

    2. Might have something to do with European imperialism and some nasty japs turning up on the scene and completely tearing shit up. Even then, a 90 per cent literacy rate and life expectancy 65 is not that great by many standards. Mao isn’t responsible for much except the ruling party and an extremely skewed wealth distribution, foreign technology + investment and export markets are responsible for china’s productivity. It’s easy to industrialize with the USSR and USA helping you along. It’s like saying the soviet union was good for Russians, NO, Russia was industrialising anyway, then some very nasty forces from outside conveniently interfered, cutting the average man out of being part of the ownership and intellectual classes. Life expectancy and literacy are very basic things for the Chinese, a naturally smart people to achieve. At best you can argue that mao successfully forced the people to be absorbed into the Centralized Borg, which is nothing the people couldn’t have achieved themselves, possibly in longer time, but in the end with more rights, political power and wealth equality.

      1. USA? Que? USA and the Eastern Bloc hated each other. I can understand USSR. Chinese folks are not naturally smart lol
        Nobody was really borgified. We just learned to read and we got rid of the 1%ers. And then the 1%ers went to the US to stir shit because they were butthurt that their bougie habits were exposed. Just like Marco Rubio and the other right wing ‘old school Cuban Americans’.
        Life expectancy and literacy were never big in pretty much any part of Asia whether it’s China, India or Vietnam. The standard of living between East Europe / Asia and Northwest Europe had started diverging around 800 AD. Trust me, you’d rather live in England or Netherlands in 1200 than in a non-first tier city in China at the same time.
        The only area with a living standard that would have even been similar to West Europe might have been a small corner of Beijing or Shanghai – that’s it.

        1. Average Chinese IQ is equal or slightly higher than US, GB etc. didn’t your king basically buggar off to Taiwan? anyways don’t be naïve about communism, USSR got a lot of their tech for instance either through spies, or by directly buying it off of America, or from allowing American capitalists to operate in the soviet union. Communism? Not quite, a capitalist scam maybe. They got the damn nuke blueprints straight from oppenheimer for gods sakes. who was basically a commie spy, And Armand hammer was running huge swathes of their economy, al gores freakin dad was right in there on the act too lol. that’s just established fact. The Point is the people who built up china did it for a reason, it wasn’t just some altruistic massacre by Mao. lol. Communist Command economies are created from the top down and exist for a reason, to benefit those at the top, in this case it was capitalists from the USA booting out your established landowners and intelligentsia, to quickly create a centralized command economy that was efficient and operated to their trade and financial needs.

        2. Around 1200 AD, the Muslim powers were the global superpower because they monopolized trade between Asia and Europe. Baghdad trumped anything found in Europe or Asia at the time.

        3. 65 life expectancy and 90% literacy was for the year 1975.
          75 life expectancy and 95% literacy rate for the year 2010.
          It is obvious that they aren’t gonna invent everything again, so they bought a lot of the technology from which they created their own industries. It is true that Ford set up a car factory in the USSR, but then the Soviets created their own from this base. Americans got the majority of nazi scientists but it was the Soviets who made it into space first.
          American IQ 100 years ago was 70, giving the fact that 90% of Americans were already literate and around 10% of Chinese were, the Chinese IQ used to be way bellow the American one.
          There were no ‘rich on top’ in socialist economies, the rich disappeared as a class.

        4. nonsense. An economic or class based elite is simply replaced by a political ruling class. Despite what you might hear, lenin lived in a mansion and loved being on top. The Chinese ruling class, at the top, were not living on communal farms lol, like the people they were socially experimenting on. give me a break.

        5. Living in a mansion doesnt equal being rich. If you are from the west chances are even you live in a mansion. The Anglo-American elite is stealing trillions every year thus destroying the entire planet.
          There are always gonna be people who rule. In any and every system.

        6. It does when your people are starving to death or forced into equal squalor, and you are responsible for that mess. and of course they may not really have been “rich” in the sense that people are in America today. “political power grows out the barrel of a gun”. They didn’t need money per se, they had all the POWER.

        7. There were hundreds of famines before Mao and Stalin came to power, they ended them.
          Notice that the famines in communist countries are the fault of socialism but NEVER EVER the famines in capitalistic countries are the fault of capitalism according to the Anglo-American pseudo-scholars.
          There are 20 million people dying every year in capitalistic countries when all these people would have been saved.

          It could be done in Afghanistan, it can be done anywhere.

        8. if the people were dying at the rate that they were dying, at times, under mao and stalin all throughout the history of those nations, they wouldn’t exist today….. the people, resources and climate of a country makes a big difference, but Here is a clue, backwards Theocracies that are constantly being invaded are not examples of the failure of capitalism, monarchies and caste based societies are not true capitalist societies, heck here in GB with an NHS, public education system, 1.3 trillion debt etc and 50% tax rate, we are not a true capitalist society, but at least people aren’t dying. Any country where private central banks control the creation currency and credit, are NOT true capitalist societies. IMF loaned to the hilt and debt squeezed countries are not real capitalism. True capitalism is the USA at it’s inception, but even then it is a dream never fully realised. Bare in mind also that china has had a one child policy that has made providing for all people more plausible, there are many peoples worldwide with neither the intellectual or altruistic capacity to survive using capitalism or socialism, they are destined to be a drain on their country/the world. Socialism only works on a small scale and consensually. Besides it is against many peoples moral compass, like theft, regardless of it’s ability to provide for the needy.

        9. This is a libertarian new speak drivel. You remind me of communists who say that ‘USSR was not the REEEEEEAAAAAL socialism’.
          Every country in the world is capitalistic except for DPRK and Cuba. Maybe we could extend it to Venezuela Vietnam and China but even that would be wrong. DPRK is not even Marxist-Leninist but an absolute monarchy, however they do use a socialist economic model. Cuba is the only marxist-leninist society left.
          Capitalism is a system where means of production is privately owned. That is IT. The capitalists are ruling the world, all members of the elite are capitalists.
          The western capitalists in order to keep their profits high exploit the third world and kill 20 million a year. These ‘backward’ theocracies were set up by western capitalists for this precise reason.
          When there was a more balanced world with the USSR, you could see people like Nasser Assad and Qaddafi elected/put in power. The west needs and creates Islamic terrorism and ‘backward theocracies’.
          edit: All the huge estimates of Stalin’s death toll have been disproven by the archival information. Now even the propaganda anti-Russian historians like Timothy Snyder have to use way smaller numbers which are cooked up in dubious ways anyways.

        10. All you have is communism speak drivel. And the opinion that certain things are good or bad. There is no good or bad. Only free or not free. You are not responsible for others born and living out of your control, that is in infinite pool or blackhole of consumption that you could be expected to provide for. You would have some credibility if you showed actual understanding of how things actually worked economically/politically throughout history. But here is a clue, Adolf Hitler was the closest thing you’ll see to a socialist in well forever. And that’s what it comes down to, An authoritarian dictator/political class that de facto becomes the ruling class, economic and political. Your line of argument doesn’t support communism per se, but benevolent dictatorship, which is the only way anything close to true socialism can exist, but also is an entirely different debate, and not a real argument for communism as we have known it in history. It also has very obvious drawbacks, like the potential for massive destruction/deception. But at least if that is what you are arguing for, then clarify, because it could have it’s merits. I’m no socialist, but far more a Hitler man, than a Mao man. Also I believe that a pre-requisite for true capitalism, is a neutral government beyond influence by the money powers, which is clearly not something we have right now in the democratic system. Hitler was right about one things, the “democracies” are simply rule by money.

        11. I am not a communist, how can I use ‘communist’ drivel? You are the one redefining words, saying that capitalism exists only in an anarchy or a society close to an anarchy. In fact Russia in the 90s was libertarian, when 70% of people lived in poverty and 5 million people simply perished

          Libertarians still consider that the FREEDOM and huge success. to go from number 30 to number 70 in 10 years in human development index.

          Nazi Germany was a right wing capitalist country where means of production was privately owned, in fact when Hitler came to power first thing he did was to privatize the public sphere, crush the unions and send the leftists to concentration camps and from the beginning he was supported by the industrialists.
          Why do you think there are so many nazis on this website and why Ron Paul was so popular among the KKK and nazi groups in the US. You are not as different as you try to make it look like. And don’t tell me about the word socialism in the nazi party, it was as socialist as DPRK is democratic.

        12. That is why they destroyed unions, privatized public property, crushed the workers and kept the wages low, faked statistics to make it look like there was no unemployment, and let foreign capitalists make big buck out of investments.
          Behind fascism stands nationalism, behind nationalism stands capitalism. Capitalists use whatever means to divide the dumb working class.

        13. In this debate you are a communist, because you are arguing FOR mao tse tsung over libertarianism, capitalism and just about everything else. He sent the leftists to the camps because they were basically commies, or at best social democrats run by the money power who wanted Germany to wallow in versaille debts and degeneracy, while the soviet union constructed the biggest army ever known to man to menace Europe with. The Weimar republic was already economically pretty right wing and near fully privatized, massive companies like IG farben existed before hitler in near enough the exact same form, he simply took them over. Even if certain capitalists helped hitler sieze power, he wasn’t run by them politically while he was in power, the money and the corporations were under his control. Even if what you say is true, he eliminated unemployment and raised standard of living considerably, and was basically a godsend for the poor and needy in Germany. Hitler was simply everything he needed to be to halt the advance of communism in it’s tracks in Europe. Regardless of his conduct during the war, by what I have seen of your previous posts and your concern for the poor and downtrodden you should worship him for that reason, no famines, no genocides in peacetime etc.

        14. They were collectivist.
          The government had massive amounts of control in the economy, and of public life in general.
          Read what Mussolini had to say about fascism. The marriage of corporations with state interest.
          People like you make me cringe.
          There’s one essentially Maoist nation left in the world. Go fucking live in it

        15. Mao took most of the rice from the peasants and sold it for exports.
          The plan was that backyard furnace created pig-iron would out-produce England’s steel industry.
          It’s perhaps the most laughable economic plan in history, if it didn’t kill 40 million people that is.
          Communism is lunacy. The idea that a few dozen men can plan economy is the kind of thing that gets debunked in the first page of any economics textbook.

        16. this is nonsense, you are no longer, and I doubt have been at all, arguing on intellect but on pure commie love emotion.
          “”Behind fascism stands nationalism, behind nationalism stands capitalism. Capitalists use whatever means to divide the dumb working class”
          This is complete nonsense. All these things can and definitely do exist totally independently from eachother.

        17. That is why the West is doing so good. Using economics that slaughter millions every year just so the bankers royals and industrialists can make big buck. No wonder the west was steadily declining for decades and the wages in the us peaked in 1971.

        18. Nonsensical response
          China’s economic plan was based on useless pig-iron production and starving to death 40 million people.
          Vote with your feet if you think totalitarianism is superior. Go live in North Korea

        19. The reason people think Asians are smart is because the US imports lots of H1Bs and tech workers from countries like China and India.
          The vast majority of people in Asia have a similar educational level to Latin America, Africa and other countries that don’t have such a high income. Believe it or not, Americans are far more educated, on average, than Asians.

        20. I am talking about average IQ IN china. not Asians in America. Yes we all know places like Pakistan, india, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia have relatively low IQs on average. Japanese, Koreans and yes even the Chinese, actually are pretty damn smart, at least when it comes to certain things, han Chinese have a tradition of dominating countries by shrewd economic practice outside of china. Although Europeans seem to dominate when it comes to original thought/discovery + have more ideas in general, and wider standard deviations from the mean, so more true geniuses.

        21. LOL how can you even get an accurate IQ test on a country where lots of people don’t go to school at *all*?
          don’t flatter yourself. there is a massive amount of anti intellectualism in chinese culture, people can’t stand reading for the most part. at least americans read 50 shades of grey.

        22. anti-intellectualism is not the same as low IQ or low intelligence, and that’s probably a left over from the hardcore commie days. Anyway what you say about school is irrelevant, those going to school are the ones that matter and who will be maintaining the industry/economy. Besides Believe it or not you can workout a kids IQ before they have even read more than a picture book at a very young age. Some of the smartest people are lazy, dirty and messy as fuck, and have history of being drifters, drug addicts and even batshit insane. Clearly Chinese people socially, culturally and intellectually are DIFFERENT. One thing they are not is stupid, hence the relative ease with which they can maintain an economy building outdated widgets for the American consumer market. I don’t know what dog you have in the fight, but i’m not flattering myself, as a high IQ European who believes in white supremacy over all races, at most i’m blowing the Chinese trumpet for them. But based solely on what iv’e judged to be the truth.

        23. Have you been overseas? My dad basically says reading is for suckers and this is a common attitude throughout much of Chinese culture.
          If you walk around in the US you’ll find way more people reading books. Lol I’m not saying other cultures don’t have advantages but don’t delude yourself. People are stupid wherever you go.

        24. Eh I don’t think the Anglo American elite is stealing trillions of dollars. I think its just a different system.

        25. It depends what you are reading? Are you reading novels? because that shit isn’t going to make you money or raise your family. Better off reading into self help, and shit like RoK, mathematics, how to run a business. Or better yet actually doing those things. I’m not a believer that there is any point in just sitting around being smart or educated, or even boasting about it and personally as a mathematician/engineer haven’t read a book or written an essay since I was 14.
          But you couldn’t really call me stupid as I make big bank, run a business, and still have time to be physically active, play sports, follow my favourite political/social commentary. Are you stupid/low IQ just because your dad doesn’t like to read? yes people everywhere are stupid, i’m just pointing out the Chinese on average are fairly less stupid than others. All the smartest people I know are planning how they can retire/stop working ASAP and do f- all day. Human need+desire is far more uniform than human ability. We all want sex, food, luxury and to be lazy. Only some of us have the power to achieve high standards.

    3. Can you post the same stats for non-Communist countries? The 20th century was a good one for literacy and life expectancy for pretty much everyone. Correlation does not imply causation.

      1. 1900 literacy rate USA: 90%
        1900 literacy rate France: 72%
        1900 literacy rate Japan: 85%
        1913 life expectancy: USA: 54
        1913 life expectancy: France: 51
        1913 life expectancy: Japan: 41
        Sweden already had the life expectancy of 60 years.
        The ‘WEST’ was way richer than the rest back then. In fact the gap is lower now than it was.

        1. When i say communism is good – I am not saying it’s good for *western* countries. It probably sucks for already developed countries, look at the Obamacare fiasco lol.
          It’s better for countries that need extra, extra help and don’t have so many natural resources and extra space. Countries in Asia, Africa, Eastern Europe and Latin America.
          Which is, lo and behold where it has flourished. It’s for when u need force majeure to lift a country from 1200AD to 2000AD in less than 100 years.
          And it is a temporary solution. According to Marx, communism is supposed to fade away once true democracy is attained.

        2. Obama is not a communist. Do you see him nationalizing industries? Is healthcare and education free or subsidized under Obama? Is he against wall street? No.
          USA is as right wing as it gets. The closest the US was to anything leftist was the FDR-LBJ era which coincidentally was the era of the highest standard of living.

        3. yeah, I’m still paying off that standard of living that the so called greatest generation saddled my ass with.
          Fucking selfish cunts they were.

        4. The time of the highest gains in standard of living in the US (and the West) was between 1880-1940 pal. That is without mortgaging the future generations wealth…

    4. You know what it means to be considered literated at that time? Is to be able to read and say out loud: Long live the Communist party, long live Mao Tse Tung.
      Without the commies, China would have been as rich as Japan already. Look at Taiwan.
      Communism is a good concept, but in reality the system is corrupted as FUCK.

      1. The chicoms banned the traditional chinese script still in use in Taiwan and replaced it with simplified script. Even Orwell didn’t envisage a newspeak alphabet designed to combat crimethink. So much for literacy.

    5. Applying the same logic : Obama is simply an amazing leader – with the stroke of a pen and a pronouncement he will have achieved 100 % health care coverage throughout the land. Simply awe inspiring!

    6. And the only words the poor peasants could read were ” Our Dear Leader is God” . But hey – literacy has been achieved so what’s not to like.

    7. You think Republic of China wouldn’t achieve at least the same ( probably much better) result than that?
      For two, the cost of his ~30 years of rule is complete destruction of Chinese culture on mainland. That’s some fucking great nation builder right there.

        1. You never heard of ‘the great cultural revolution’ and ‘the campaign to cast away the four olds’?

        2. Cultural revolution was kind of different from what Westerners think of it. It’s more like the Enlightenment era in Western thought.
          People started being more educated about modern ideas. People didn’t suddenly learn English en masse and not speak their language. Unless, of course, some westerners just want non western culture to stay the same from 1200AD.
          Think about it, does a modern Englishman think like a medieval Englishman? Cultural revolution in China is the same idea.

        3. What are you talking about? The cultural Revolution featured the mass killing of the ‘five black classes’ (landlords, rich peasants, reactionaries, bad elements, and rightists). Over 7 million people died.
          Countless historical artifacts and writings were destroyed. Ancient temples like the White Horse Temple were smashed and ancient scriptures were burned. Teachers were paraded through the streets and beaten by their own students, forced to conduct ‘self-criticism’.
          People were told to take instructions from the party in the morning and report to the party in the evening. Everyone was forced to read Mao’s writings. There was no freedom.
          In contrast, the Western Enlightenment encouraged skepticism and reason. It mostly consisted of educated men and women discussing things in coffee houses, masonic lodges and salons, writing letters to each other and publishing books. There were no mass killings. No historical treasures or ancient writings were destroyed. Voltaire is quoted to have said ‘I don’t agree with what you write but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it’.
          Those who criticised communism or Mao during the Cultural Revolution were murdered!

        4. Sure, a lot of shitty stuff happened. But what about another part of the Enlightenment – the French revolution? I would say the French revolution was worse. So was the Civil War which freed the slaves in the US. How about the Haitian revolution.
          Now my parents were in the Red Guards and that period was a very positive one for them, so I may be biased, but think about how history is written from a perspective of each country.
          The US, is still writing from a Cold War perspective sometimes. A good thing to do would be to read stuff written from a typical Chinese perspective.

        5. The key difference is that the French republicans killed in their struggle for power with nobles and the catholics in Vendée. The american civil war was between two competing governments. Once one side won, the killing stopped. Any deaths were for the purpose of gaining power.
          In China, the communists had total control over the whole country, the military, the police, the law, the economy, taxes, schools etc yet they still killed harmless people. Mass killings by Robespierre and even Hitler, as bad as they were, took place in wartime. The worst atrocities by Pol Pot, Stalin and the Chinese communists took place in peacetime.
          The red guards were unfortunate yet terrifying brainwashed kids. Did your parents participate in criticism session or public executions?
          I read the ‘ 9 commentaries on the communist party ‘, that’s written from a Chinese perspective.

        6. Read from an ordinary Chinese perspective and not a “dissident’ one. Most ppl like the gov’t there. The same can’t be said about Obama and the US gov’t, no offense lolol.

    8. Yeah, but they were only able to read and write chinese. Dafuq is that about? I called a restaurant the other day because i forgot to say brown rice and the women says hold on and screams like she was stabbing a fucking cat….if that is what the language is like, illiteracy is a perfectly viable option.

  2. One of the first things Mao did when he took power was ban all forms of prostitution and other commercial sexual outlets as corrupting Western influences. Kept a harem of nubile acolytes for himself though.

    1. Stalin was a better example for the people then. He lived a poor life, giving away his entire salary, wore one pair of shoes for a decade and died with 5 bucks in his bank account.

        1. There was a national central bank. You could save up money and you could even take low interest loans.

        1. I am not a communist, just come from an ex communist country and don’t like when people talk about how liberals saved ‘us’

        2. And yet looking through your comments on this thread, you seem to spout the standard communist/socialist/liberal rhetoric, complete with indignant proclamations against capitalism/right-wing/libertarian ideals.
          Look not at what a man says about himself, but what he does to reveal his true self.

        3. Liberalism = right wing.
          There is no ‘left’ in the US. When I talk of liberals of course I mean right wingers. The last left wing era in the US was the new deal era, the FDR-LBJ era.
          The democratic party of the US is right wing.

  3. It’s not just Mao, most revolutionaries are poor nation builders. Communist revolutions always end up the same way, disastrous for the people. A system of equality in outcome stifles a man’s incentive to produce and innovate. I was glad to read that even Mao understood this somewhat.

    1. That is why Russia went from capitalistic Imperial shithole to a communist superpower back to a capitalistic shithole.
      Note that this is after 20 years of failed Breznev’s policies. At the peak of Stalinism (the HDI is not published for the 50s) it was probably 10 places above this.
      Note that Russia is still 57th even after Putin’s fairly successful reign
      Liberal Poland. Privatization did good to the people who once flew to space.

      1. The Russian Empire was great. It is unfortunate that the communists won the civil war . . .

        1. Every statistic disagrees with you. The standard of living in 1913 in Russia was lower than the standard of living in 1776 in the USA.

        2. “Every statistic disagrees with you. The standard of living in 1913 in Russia was lower than the standard of living in 1776 in the USA.”
          Standard of living 1913 Russia > 1776 USA > Modern America. Stop measuring “success” by the measurements of an insane, walking dead, society. All the luxuries of the USA/EU are about to be disappear and all that is going to be left is Ferguson gone national. The “peasants” with some farmland and/or cattle are going to be the new wealthy.

        3. Stock up on guns. In a time of crisis they’re much more valuable than that new big screen TV.

        4. Capitalism never had to build a wall to keep people in.
          Your trendy clothes, your camera phone, your computer you on which you type, were all created by companies pursuing profit.

        5. Every statistic? They can’t even get all 5 dentists to agree on flossing.
          You can’t compare 1913 Russia with 1776 US. It a nonsense comparison.
          The Russian Empire, like all family dynasties, had ups and downs pinned to better or worse Tzars and, in the end, was a fantastic dynasty.
          Yeah, some peasants got stepped on. That is the nature of the game. Same thing happened in ancient rome. How do you think Rome in 50 BC compared to the USA in 1776…or the USA in 2015….adjusted for inflation I would take Peter’s Rome over our current america any day of the week.

        6. Capitalists build a shit ton of walls to keep people in….jails for instance…also, office buildings and mortgaged houses, university….they are all walls intended to keep people in….in debt, in line, in complacency and, most of all, in check.

        7. Comrade,
          You’re still talking to me on a smartphone that an evil capitalist produced out of his own greed… You paid for this product with money… This makes you a Capitalist.
          US has contemplated building walls to keep people out while the USSR had to build walls to keep people in.
          Don’t like university or mortgages or office jobs or debt etc? Then don’t buy things you can’t afford.
          Compare the worst prison in the continental US to the gulags of Communist Russia.

        8. Never suggested that the handcuffs aren’t golden nor did I say I didn’t willingly buy into it. I am here because it works for me. But not to recognize that it is just another brand of terrible…a brand you and I both happen to prefer…is just blindness.

    1. Sound military tactics are sound regardless of the ideology of the person employing them. Even Mao Tse Tung learned from men who had different ideologies from him in history.

  4. This is a solid read. Recommended for anyone interested in 20th century history…which should be everyone. Much better than Vo Nguyen Giap’s excessively propagandistic memoirs, which are almost worthless today.

  5. Brilliant insights. It is worth studying these revolutionary movements to learn how they proceeded in order to achieve the opposite. As de Maistre wrote, what is needed is not a revolution in the opposite direction, but the opposite of a revolution.
    Can anyone recommend a solid history of the revolution in China?

  6. I’m looking forward to the upcoming articles on Pol Pot’s implementation of family values. Or, better yet, Stalin’s spirituality… Are you guys for real? Celebrating tyranny?

    1. And we shouldn’t forget the old masters, like Vlad Dracul’s tips for promoting tourism, or Lucrezia Borgia’s guide to party etiquette and mixed drinks.

      1. Lol
        Vlad the Impaler’s terror tactics were actually effective in repelling a much more powerful Ottoman empire. It was kinda anti-tourism.

    2. Tyranny is just a word. Your very own political leadership is very probably responsible for the deaths of a lot of people. But even if you condemn that, it’s great to know the enemy.

    3. You’re one-dimensional and unimaginative if you can’t distinguish between war tactics and failed political views. War tactics, unless in some way innately cruel or depraved, are not tied to their founders other belief systems.

      1. Mao? War tactics? He fought& decimated peasant populations… of his own country. Sun Tzu he is most certainly not.

    1. Really?
      Without Mao, China would be what India is today – a large, decentralized, ungovernable mess.
      Think of Mao as a bulldozer, who cleared a path for China to go from sleeping giant/backwater to economic superpower in a mere 60 years.

      1. The Chinese are, on average smarter than the Indians, and didn’t have the same strict caste system and ethnic conflicts retarding a large amount of their population. India is a conglomerate nation of many tribes created by the British. China is not. Large centralized systems are easier for foreign investors to invest in and exploit, as well as update technologically from the outside, but then it wouldn’t be mao who was responsible for that, it’d be the Soviet union and the US of A. Or did you think the Chinese just came up with nuke technology from scratch? no it all came out of America origionally, then the soviet union, then to china. It’s Great Britain, and perhaps Germany(imperial and Nazi) that are worth studying when it comes to such things like industrialization and becoming an economic superpower. America has followed a similar mould. This is why so many of the richest people in the world right now, though you may not hear about them often, are in fact originally German,British or both with some americans usually of british or german origin thrown in. Old money/wealth/power doesn’t just disappear, it conquers the world and British old money is the oldest of them all. It is the British imperial model that has reigned supreme. They just don’t broadcast it.

        1. You see, your arguments don’t work without racism. Completely ignoring the flynn effect which pretty much proved that the American IQ was 70 a century ago.
          The reason India is poor is not because of the policies, but because Indians are collectively inferior – your logic.
          The reason why Russia under Stalin was successful has nothing to do with Stalin, but with the fact Russians are white and superior. If that is the case, why Russia sucked under Gorbachev and Yeltsin?
          America and Germany became superpowers because of the AMERICAN SCHOOL OF ECONOMY. Hamilton was the greatest American. Bismark learned from Americans and took the system over the Liberal British.

        2. I don’t believe Stalin or the russians were particularly successful, or any good at running shit, by and large they were a front for world capitalism baby-sitted and given hand me downs by the USA, an enemy mainly in name only, mainly because the Germans were way too big of a threat to Anglo-American hegemony. They were merely a vector from which communism spread and was supported, including to china, which is why I mentioned them. It’s not about inferior or superior, there are some very smart Indians, but there are more distinct groups and castes there, including massive underclasses, who yes it can be said are genetically inferior. How do you explain black and Hispanic IQs in America consistently being lower than whites. It’s not raism to point out reality, it’s racism to deny it. And maybe things like ideology, militarism and colonialism are indicators of superiority, Whites did invent and discover everything and basically conquer the world. It could be that which gave them an advantage, or perhaps those things occurred because they have some innate advantage, and it could be racist to deny that achievement and imply otherwise.

      2. I was speaking strictly in a historical context. As for modern China and its origins of economical superpower, that is up for debate.

      3. Think of Mao as a bulldozer who wrecked everything in China. Culture, history, heritage, everything, wrecked. It really isn’t hard to make a population of a billion become economic superpower.

        1. The “culture” that was lost was your 1%er daddy’s money that was released to the general fund instead.

        2. Yeah right, because China’s elite doesn’t take whatever it can and accumulate wealth, and there is no disparity in modern China…oh wait

        3. Lol there’s always a disparity but at least the poor now have basic food, education, health care

  7. It’s not clear how much Mao believed any of this, and in all honesty, he was a communist in only the most mercenary sense, using the populist appeal to help him sieze power and retain control. Personally, I found the book Mao: The Untold Story by Jung Chang more illuminating as to his real methods: brutality, terror and starvation. None of this is to say that there’s nothing to be learned by reading this book, but take it with a grain of salt. Mao certainly did.

  8. For a more entertaining and revealing experience read Mao: The Unknown Story which paints a different picture of the man as a character who was completely self-serving and power obsessed that he did the complete opposite of what he preached to his brainwashed constituents. i.e. Mao was telling peasants to lead a chaste life while he got delivered every night beautiful peasant girls to “rejuvenate” with, or how he hardly marched in the “Long March” and how he deliberately destroyed a good portion of China’s culture and countless lives simply to eliminate suspected political opponents. A very bad but a very wickedly shrewd character.

    1. Hey, killing millions of people is hard work. Ya gotta find ways to relax.

    2. I’m going to read that.
      I do business (dietary supplements for Happy Hippo) with some Chinese suppliers and they consider Mao a near divine figure, regardless of the famines that his collectivization caused. Russians are starting to speak that way about Stalin too.

      1. Russians are a weird lot when it comes to Stalin and communism.
        On the one hand they hate him and it, on the other hand, get one just slightly drunk and willing to spin his/her tongue about the past, and you’ll get an hour-long rant on how things were ” so much better in the good ole’ days.”, and how the communist leadership would be ashamed of the corrupt idiots running Russia today.
        It’s like they realize that Stalin was a bastard and communism is a horrific ideology, but decades of intense propaganda and “FORWARD SOVIET!”-style declarations have lodged a taint in their collective brains that they simply cannot get rid of.
        Alternatively, it could just be a “nostalgia goggles” view of the past.

        1. Communism in the USSR was not all about Stalin. There were different periods… most people probably refer to the late Khrushev and early Brezhnev eras as the “good old days”.

    3. Mao, and Communist leaders in general, are a classic example of the proverb:
      “DO AS I SAY, NOT AS I DO!”

  9. Any reason you went with the old style ‘Mao Tse Tung’ instead of the modern pinyin “Mao Zedong?”

  10. Hillary Clinton is using Mao’s tailor apparently.. What’s up with those Mao pantsuits she wears??

  11. Mao played “Go” which is like the national game in China. It influenced his military strategy alot. I believe I read that in Robert Greene’s 48 laws of Power..

    1. The point of this was to underscore a series of tactics and strategies that can be applied towards the pursuit of a particular goal. We are all aware of Mao’s cultural revolution but that has nothing to do with the tactics he employed in warfare.

    2. That was the same thought I had at first. And then I thought: Wait, have I made myself into such a dumb sheep that I cannot even allow myself to learn from men who made mistakes, have different values and/or are deemed as bad by society?

    3. From the article: “Once in power, his policies resulted in untold suffering and death, but that shouldn’t take away from the fact that he won a revolution against improbable odds.”

    4. That’s an ad-hominem fallacy, the fact that Mao was a genius as a military strategist is undeniable, however a complete disaster as head of State.

    5. The author already made this point. Try to distinguish the strategy of war from a man’s politics.

    6. Taking from the talented to give to the average joes is a great philosophy to get into power, but doesn’t work so well to stay in power and last into perpetuity. As eventually the talented remove their talents from the game and become part of the average joes who are receiving all of the largesse.
      The only way to keep the talented at their work is by force and death.

  12. The Great Leap Forward is all I’ll mention. That fucker was just as bad as Stalin, fuck him.

  13. The man took a massively dysfunctional, internally conflicted sleeping giant of a nation and unified it under one central authority, laying the groundwork for it to become the fastest growing nation on Earth and eventually the most powerful nation (economically) on Earth.
    Without him, China would be like what India is today – a divided, ungovernable mess.
    To neglect learning about the tactics and mindset he employed to achieve this astonishing goal on the basis of the bloodshed of his regime, is like ignoring the leadership strengths of Lincoln due to all the poor Southerners who died under his reign.
    Men don’t have to like someone to learn from them.

      1. Exactly, we should be hearing about the 6 years transformation of Germany, if we are hearing about this good for nothing evil fat chink.

      2. History is not a celebrity gossip magazine.
        Whether or not you like its players, or think them ‘bad men’ is immaterial.
        One must recognise that Hitler, Stalin and Mao were all men who achieved astonishing levels of success and power from initial positions of weakness.
        Ghengis Khan, I hear, was an absolute bastard.
        ‘Rapey’, the kids today would say.
        Doesn’t make his mindset, strategy and determination any less admirable.

    1. In other words, Anti-Democratic Totalitarianism works. China’s wealth comes from their ability to exploit their gigantic population as slave labor.

      1. And is it a success if they have large GDP, but the majority of the population is like you said, Slave labour? Or just an Epically evil plan by those at the top. Sccess for them maybe.

        1. The majority of the Chinese population is ‘slave labour’?
          I can tell you know nothing of the country.
          They have the largest middle class in the world now, and spend fortunes on luxury goods and travel. Strange behaviour for ‘slaves’.

        2. Largest in number is meaningless when you have a population of 1.3 billion
          What’s their GDP per capita?

        3. $8200.
          In 1950, the average American was worth 25x the average Chinese. Today that is down to 4x.
          One nation has played its hand smarter.
          Parity is forecasted for 2030-2040 depending on which economists you follow.

        4. the topic is mao tse tsung and his era, not China today, technology and productivity today is a different story. Where I come from single mothers on welfare have iphones, designer clothes and fly around the world. They are not middle class, neither are they being successful by the conventional capitalist model of success. The definition of middle class changes with the times and the economy, Where I am from the government tells us there is still a middle class, but it’s actual purchasing power has decreased greatly. You used to be middle class if you owned assets that made you a millionaire, now you are middle class if you earn twice the average wage. you can afford everything you need in my country on minimum wage, it doesn’t mean you aren’t being exploited or taxed to the hilt by the governemnt or ownership class. But yes obviously there will be massive diversity in a country of 1+ billion, like the man who dropped dead from making iphones LOL

        5. And as I said wrote above, today’s China would not be possible without the groundwork painfully laid by Mao.
          Prior to Mao China was, for the best part of 600 years, regarded as ungovernable. An uncivilized backwater, ruined by tension between regional factions. A lot like what India is today.
          Without Mao, China would be like India.
          Sure there would be some progress, but there would be no hope whatsoever of it becoming the World’s dominant power.

        6. You are coming from the assumption that being the worlds dominant power, benefits all Chinese(what about the ones who died/are still poor?), and the world as a whole and as such it was worth it. That people can’t be wealthy, developed or happy without being absurdly rich, materialistic, consumerist or a power on the world stage, when many nations prove this very wrong. I’m sure plenty of Americans would rather have their manufacturing jobs at home, rather than in china, and what you’ll find is that the American ruling class was very instrumental in china’s development towards what it is today. There is nothing special about mao, he was a henchman of world finance capital, and as such doesn’t exist independently without them. By your logic it would be good if Hitler kill all the jews, genocide and make slaves the Russian communists and repopulate eastern Europe and Russia with Germans, because it would be good for Germans and the geographical region of Russia in the long run, being smarter, more honourable and more industrious the germans would be living in space utopia by now. Or that whites would be better off if blacks had been their slaves for another 100 years. You have to draw the line somewhere. But where, forced abortion? slave labour? genocide?

        7. China is a capitalist country today. One party capitalist, but capitalist.
          Its government share of the national economy is about 38%. In the west it hovers about 50%

        8. one country had nowhere to go but up, but also one of those nations had a sellout elite that exported the jobs to china. America would be per capita better off if that didn’t happen, it’s tiny elite however would not be. So china can thank that tiny american elite more than anyone else

        9. And?
          India is capitalist too now. They are both mega-populations.
          The policies employed prior to globalized capitalism being installed have resulted in the divergent fortunes of these two nations.

        10. Excuses.
          Why has China been able to take advantage of American largesse so much better than any other large Asian nation?

        11. China’s success stems from its market reforms after Mao died.
          Communism was a cultural and economic disaster

        12. All I am saying is that Mao was fairly a successful leader, before Mao you had capitalism in China, where millions died every year of hunger, yet that is never mentioned.

        13. Yes you are absolutely right. Outsourcing is a disaster. I consider the FDR era which ended with the coming of Nixon to be the one that should be replicated.
          I don’t argue for socialism, what the USA should have is a protectionist system how Hamilton wanted it, with a national bank.

        14. Don’t fall for the moralistic fallacy. Just because something is hard to stomach, morally, doesn’t mean it doesn’t work well.

        15. it’s not a fallacy. If you are slave labour that does NOT work good for you. If I were a slave, that would work for my master, but it is not being moralistic to say that it doesn’t really work for me. It actually doesn’t, it actually deprives me of opportunity, and yes it would be morally hard to stomach also. There is more than one point of view/reference.

        16. That assertion proves how ignorant you are of China´s history. Before Mao there was civil war, before that a strange hybrid between feudalism (with much harsher rules and less social mobility than Europe ever had) with slavery and imperial monarchy with restricted trade.
          Capitalism involves not only the free flow of goods but also low barriers of entry in the market as a supplier (entrepreneurism, something virtually nonexistent in China at that time, when you had to be friends with the ruling class and a “landlord” yourself in order to do so), as well as transparency and choice for the customer. The closest examples to Capitalism in modern Asia are Japan, Taiwan and South Korea and they openly practice mercantilism…

        17. India Capitalist? With all due respect if you are smoking please share whatever it is. India is democratic however capitalism is not the name of the system so highly regulated in which almost everything depends on who you know and which caste/family you are. India is Cronyist, extremely cronyist that is.

        18. Please, the mastermind behind China’s economic boom was Deng Xiaoping. Mao was a good strategist and commander, but a terrible ruler that directly led to the unnecessary death of at least 70 million of his country and thought Chinese millenarian culture had to be destroyed in order for a new China to be reborn along Communist lines…

        19. I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. Just because something is immoral doesn’t mean it doesn’t work well. The Roman Empire was the greatest of the ancient world and 75% of it was slave labor. You can argue morality all you want, it doesn’t change the fact that it works.

      2. Were it as simple as that, plenty of other totalitarian countries would be enjoying the same levels of success. They are not.

        1. Neither has democracy been enjoyed on all the same levels. So your point is? Totalitarianism worked pretty well for ancient Rome and Hitler. Rome had one of the greatest empires in history, and it took the combined efforts of almost all of the Western world to stop Hitler. So you can’t say it doesn’t work either.

    2. No Chiang Kai Shek unified the nation. Mao simply created unnecessary war for 4 more years after WWII ended. Mao didn’t lay the groundwork for mainland to become fastest growing nation. Any place with population of a billion would be a massive market. Without him, China would not be divided and ungovernable. Chiang would’ve led the nation with strong grip but towards the right path. Without Mao, Sino-Japanese relation today would be like that of Taiwan-Japan. Without Mao, we won’t get to make fun of mainland China for organ harvesting and all that good stuff today.
      Comparing Mao to Lincoln does not work. Mao was trying to destroy the nation while Lincoln was trying to save it. They were on opposite tracks.

      1. It’s important to remember that Chiang Kai-Shek was a dictator and the Kuomintang were not good guys. They flooded the Yellow River in 1938 to slow the Japanese advance in 1938, killing millions of people living along its riverbanks. They forcibly conscripted young men, chained them together at night so they couldn’t abandon the army, and threw them against the Japanese with little training.
        Meanwhile, the Communists were guerilla fighters, harrying the Japanese with hit and run attacks and winning over the common people. US General Joseph Stillwell admired them and wanted to provide them with supplies and weapons. If Mao had died in the 40’s he would have gone down in history as a great hero. He wasn’t trying to destroy his country, he just didn’t grasp economics and relied on bureaucrats who lied to him about how well his programs were working.

    3. The KMT turned Taiwan into a first world country with a higher standard of living than many western nations decades ago. Imagine how rich China would be now had they won the civil war.
      China was unified by the Qin dynasty 2000 years ago.

  14. Check out what I found on my Facebook feed.
    Apparently insulting men on a mass scale is actually oppression of women.

    1. I can clearly not see the connection to Mao.
      Edit: I didn’t know the world can think. Interesting point. Brings me to a thought I had yesterday. If women and men are equal, there should – through simple probability – be at least 50% oppressive matriarchal societies. Where are they? Because if there aren’t, there must have been some kind of evil force to support men. Maybe it was the world itself. But then. Do feminists actually think they can beat the world?

        1. Ye, it’s because teachers at school never tell you that it’s actually possible to understand things. Especially in ethics or language lessons where you analyze the actions of protagonists. You are just expected to know what is “right”. Which is, of course, what they tell you. Reason? No way. They are older and know better and by that age, you’ve probably internalized that.
          I didn’t know how to think somewhat independently until age 23.

      1. Mother Nature is misogynistic, that’s why there are no matriarchies.
        Mother Nature, Lieutenant Of The Patriarchy.

        1. Ye, Mother Nature’s a self-loathing whore and doesn’t wish any better on her gender.
          No wonder, Mother Nature has had the seeds of millions in her soil.

  15. For another take on this, look up Malcolm Gladwell’s article “When David beats Goliath” in the New Yorker, which talks about the conditions under which underdogs — including insurgents — win. It uses several examples from fields as diverse as teenagers’ basketball matches through to simulations of naval battles.
    Basically it comes down to this: underdogs win when they refuse to fight on the opponent’s terms, when they refuse to fight in a “civilised” or “accepted” fashion. Basically, in any fight, the underdog has a shitload more chance of winning if he elects to fight like Bronn rather than like Ser Vardis. This is the basis of all guerrilla warfare: never commit to a pitched battle, because you’re going to lose. You engage in surprise attacks while slowly building up support to eventually confront your opponent head-on, or by slowly draining out his capacity to fight by inflicting deaths by a thousand cuts.
    Engaging directly in a “dialogue” or “debate” with the femosphere is a stupid tactic these days. It should never happen. For a start, when the other side starts asking for a “dialogue” it’s only because they know they can’t kill you by sheer force, so they’d rather have you kill yourself by concessions. And secondly, the only debate the femosphere understands is capable only of expression in bullshit 160-character slogans. You’re not dealing with rational people anymore, if you ever were.

    1. Indeed. No point in engaging in a battle of wits openly with the unarmed who are still capable of bringing us down with their greater access to resources.

      Back in the 80’s before the total state monopoly on crack, street gangs were minimized and media promoted a new form of dancing – BREAK DANCING. Rival gang members competed for the most impressive dance moves. They hung up the violence for a competitive art form.
      If it were possible to ‘game change’ the feminist movement –
      With the feminist hoards, any game change between the sexes would result in a big FUCK-A-THON as it always has. Who wins a fuck-a-thon doesn’t really matter, maybe who finishes last or first matters only if you’re coming or going and it beats wiffle ball and the game of strip mining men for their assets. The woman combatants of fem pan gynophooey ARE PAWNS. If women were disallowed from owning property, the divorce rape industry would fold. The only asset they have to give THEY TAKE BACK each time.

    3. Sun Tzu said all of that and more many millennia ago:
      “Appear weak when you are strong, and strong when you are weak.” – Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War.”
      “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.” – Sun Tzu’s “The Art of War.”

  16. Most of history’s brightest individuals were mass murderers.
    That being said…
    Its one thing to kill in the heat of battle against armed men(Richard the Lionheart, Napoleon, Saladin, etc.) but its another thing to kill tens of millions of disarmed civilians (Mao, Stalin, Hitler, etc.)

      1. One factor is simply having enough people around to kill. The world population didn’t exceed a billion until the 19th century and two billion was well into the 20th.
        You can’t kill tens of millions unless they are there.
        Another factor is that before the 20th century there were places to escape to. The Irish Famine, which was largely man made and sustained, killed a million, but a million more escaped, most by going to the still largely empty New World.
        Then there is the psychological factor. The world wars, particularly the first, drove the world mad, and it has never recovered.
        The world wars were what they were because it wasn’t until the 20th century that the technology existed. The First World War was not the first world war, but because of the technology of the times the first world war was so spread out in time that we think of its battles as individual wars unto themselves.
        Not only has technology effectively compressed time and space (and thus the ability to kill large numbers in short time), but it has done so in a disparate way. Before the 20th century one man could run away from another man. In the 20th, one man cannot run away from a tank or an airplane.

        1. Makes you fear the day when technology makes it possible to vaporize entire planets from orbit in a matter of minutes.
          I don’t think a single science-fiction writer in history has managed to grasp how truly horrifying interstellar warfare and galactic/inter-galactic imperial expansion is going to be.

      2. I think it was Plato’s Republic that he noted the superiority of warrior rulers verse those who inherited the role.
        Before the 20th Century political leaders (for the most part) directly commanded troops on the battlefield.
        Then with the 20th Century arrives the phenomenon of the Career Politician… Underachievers that are insulated from their poor decisions made from the comfort of their mansion.
        Combine this leadership decay with technological advance, and yeah, the 20th Century was barbaric.

  17. What the fuck is return of kings becoming?
    Worse and worse articles!
    You think Mao was a man? He’s the dirtiest coward in the whole world.
    He murdered many of his relatives, did countless of unhumane things.
    And you here mention his wisdom.

    1. Woah dude, pull the reins. No where in this article did I see Roosh cheerleading Mao. In fact, at the end he even says “Mao was a great military and political strategist, but less skilled as a nation builder. Once in power, his policies resulted in untold suffering and death, but that shouldn’t take away from the fact that he won a revolution against improbable odds. ”
      The article was quotes from the book framed by Roosh’s impression.
      What are we supposed to do? Say “we don’t like Mao let’s ignore he existed?”
      Did Mao have an enormous impact on the world? Yes. End of story, lets learn what we can about him and figure out what he did right and what he did wrong or, at the very least, understand as best we can and draw our own conclusions.

  18. Mao Zedong
    The man who thought exporting most of their rice, then having the peasants producing rock-bottom quality pig-iron was the way forward. I remember reading that a single city in England could produce more quality steel than the whole of China during the GLF
    Roosh is a good writer but he needs to undertake more research. Example, Mao demanded the building of dams but persecuted the only skilled engineers who could build them.
    The man was literally insane. Even his own party knew it. Personally I suspect syphilis or something like it scrambled his mind.

  19. One can’t discount the wholesale sell out of Chiang Kan Shek by the West ( US) and the effect it had on Maos success. The memoirs of John Birch ( he was a real life guy who was a missionary to mainland China during that time) showed this to be the case .
    The US has had, since Woodrow Wilson, a long sordid history of enabling these despots, both covertly and overtly, so that they succeed ” against the odds” . It gives the US ready made ” enemies” which in turn is the justification for keeping the military industrial complex and the banksters flush with cash, erosion of civil liberties here at home and consolidation of power for the puppet masters who lurk in the shadows

  20. Mao, Stalin, Hitler and Napoleon were all forced enemas. Christianity is a probiotic. Islam is ex-lax. The mass media is a dripping bacon triple cheeseburger. They all fit together.

  21. Hitler never learned game. Forget controlling the people. Individual men must first learn to control our women. Great men who purged millions only did so with the machiavellian mindset and with the crutch of the state. Armies of beta simps, few of which had the foggiest on how to lasso a woman and keep her obedient and hogtied. Conquer the fraus and the stars are ours.

    1. Photos of Hitler with adoring female fans, and first-hand accounts of his handling of women whom he encountered will dissuade you from that “Hitler had no Game” shebang real quick.
      Hitler’s mistake is that he wasn’t cruel enough, ironically. Refused to bomb civilian populations. Tried to keep to civil rules of warfare for the most part. By all accounts genuinely wanted to make Germany great again, and it’s people prosperous. If he had just gone forward with purging millions for the “greater good” as Stalin and Mao did, Nazi Germany might still be around.
      History rewards extreme leaders, not those stuck in between.

      1. States do a poor job of purging. Snitch society is a windfall for any ner do well or want not to deal thorns to their neighbor or to any disgruntled child or teen to turn their parents in. The camps eventually fill with the firebrand thinkers who could drive a nation,but who unfortunately fall cross with the useless eater power hogs WHO HAVE NO talent but for converting graft. The devolved idiots in typical contemporary parliamentary government couldn’t design ANYTHING much less design a future for a people if their lives depended on it. I’ve seen high-ups who could do no better than to draw kindergarten level stick people and arrows to illustrate their ‘brilliant’ ideas.
        Again the state misses the boat completely, especially when it implements an agenda to carry out a purge. From ground level, a person can see the feigned local party machine morons doing a cluster fuck on someone or some group and they miss the mark completely. From under the umbrella, a common citizen sees the naked disfunctional assholes above when looking up to simple municipal mobsters. From higher up, above the umbrella looking down, the state level schmuck overseer sees all looking well down below, nice clean desks, paperwork neat and numbers crunched as specified.
        Building roads and tunnels the state can do but that’s about it. A purge of any sort would be more thorough and accurate if carried out by the individual citizenry. Like smart dust, the citizens canvass out and scour every corner. They outsource the big blunt cadaver of the state apparatus by far and the individual citizen can see clearly the real individuals or collaborators menacing or hindering a society.
        Criminal justice and court process would also be better served by individuals unhindered and unfettered. Look at the farce of the court system and disagree? Many times a simple spanking or ass kicking does the trick in the needed ‘correcting’ that the ‘correctional’ zoo farms and enterprises are credited with but never deliver on. An entire class of ‘system dependent’ government workers and useless eaters who make their sustenance doing duplicative or senseless makework for the old guard system has grown sizeable to the degree that THEY are unsustainable. The people can see it all clearly but can’t necessarily articulate it.
        A post state-purge nation is always a little dumber and a little more beta than it was prior and has to be nursed through at least a generation or two of widespread apathy. A state-purge might not render the nation as a horde of dumb brown zombies but it definitely renders the land down to one of dumb BROWN-NOSING zombies. Just like the dying generation of inbred royalty must be flushed, the legacy of brown-nosers after the great purgers never rise again. They dwaddle for centuries.

  22. Not really that much of a genius, he pretty much took advantage of Japanese invasion to turn the table against Nationalists. As “smart” as that move is, he is a massive traitor to Chinese people for that and deserves less respect than a pile of dog shit.

  23. Reading this, it’s clear Mao studied Sun Tzu:
    Thus we may know that there are five essentials for victory:
    1 He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.
    2 He will win who knows how to handle both superior and inferior forces.
    3 He will win whose army is animated by the same spirit throughout all its ranks.
    4 He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.
    5 He will win who has military capacity and is not interfered with by the sovereign.
    – Sun Tzu, The Art of War. 6th Century BC
    Thanks for the article Roosh, it was an interesting summary.

    1. Sun Tzu is but one of many great men who left his mark in 4000 years of Chinese history, there are plenty more who deserve more recognition amongst Westerners. Studying the Art of War is a given, most leaders must have encountered it one way or another.

      1. William Bodri’s “The Means to Win” is based on the writings of Guan Zhong (管仲), a statesman from the China of the 7th Century BC, the Spring & Autumn Period. I’ve read through it a few times and found its content to be most noteworthy, especially given the times in which we live. It is probably a better illustration of politics than is the Art of War.

  24. Mao also engaged into one of the larger, if no the greatest, social engineering experiments in history. The Cultural Revolution.
    After the disastrous Great Leap Forward, Mao lost support even from hard-line party communists. Things like economic disaster, widespread famine and tens of millions of dead tend to cause that.
    His political genius was to sense the fire of youth burning without control not only in china, but in all the world. Just as the young were burning flags in Paris, Mexico and Washington, Mao launched a revolution within a revolution aimed at bourgeois elements that supposedly had infiltrated the government and society at large, aiming to restore capitalism. by creating a new power base from which to launch his counter-offensive, years of social and political struggle began.
    Such movement was even more socially atrocious than the previous decades of Mao’s rule, as his cult of personality grew even larger, aiming to destroy the entire culture and rewrite history. Historical relics and artifacts were destroyed, populations displaced, cultural and religious sites ransacked.

  25. No offense Roosh, but i’ll stick with Sun Tzu.
    I understand the appeal of learning about one of history’s most malevolent tyrants; i just can’t bring myself to do it. I couldn’t finish mein kampf or the communist manifesto: my interest for learning about these waned with each passing page.
    History provides greater wisdom from people who deserve the word far more than Mao.
    That being said, you are entitled to your view.

  26. I don’t know about this. Mao clearly understood political realism, but this is not unique for any Chinese politician, then and now. The truth is the KMT was already battered from fighting the Japanese, and in structural decline. A very significant chunk of KMT soldiers defected to the Red Army, eventually outnumbering the KMT army itself. The odds against Mao at the time were not at all improbable.
    Politics is indeed war without bloodshed, something that people often overlook because they don’t feel sufficiently discomforted. Ignoring the ideological battle is tantamount to letting the equalists win, because they have personalities that put their ideology at the center of their lives. In that sense all nations are at constant civil war against the traitors within their society. Some just fight better than others.

  27. Mao took advantage of the Japanese invasion. He let the KMT fight off the Japanese invaders pretty much alone having made a truce with the KMT, then he took advantage of its weakened state once the Japanese had been driven back.
    Then he rewrote history claiming the communists had defeated the Japanese.

  28. Is it a surprising that Mao read the military classics of ancient china, they are pervasive throughout the quotations.

  29. I get the underdog David vs Goliath thing but my mind still returns to ” But if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow.” Except you know it’s not gonna be all right. Even though I’m old and not particularly high profile popular around here maybe I should offer to write an article or two. Possibilities might include The Wit and Wisdom of Adolph Hitler, The Misunderstood Stalin, Back to the Land with Pol Pot. Man are we ever a disorganized mess. On another thread I was linked to communism because I was tired of 5 rules for this, and 7 tips for that and this many things you should know if you want to be a man. Hell I’m no commie, they throw guys like me in the gulag. Or worse. Now I got to follow one of the worst commie butchers of all time because he was a David that beat Goliath? Pour me a double and make it quick.

  30. Part of the reason the Chinese Communists won the Civil war is when they would take over a city they would attempt to feed and heal the city. When the Nationalists took over a city they would attempt to subjugate.
    But it seems the author failed to gloss over placing the citizens in a country-sized prison, the 50 million people dead disaster called the Great Leap forward, etc.
    I can’t wait to see the virtues of Lavrentiy Beria.

    1. Which only shows that there’s a difference between gaining power and actually using it well, something that holds as true for revolutionaries as for elected politicians in parliamentary systems.
      That Mao was able to conquer China despite being in such an underdog position implies that he did something right. And that by itself implies there are lessons to be learned from his life, regardless of his other failures.

  31. Communism has always thrived in giving women more rights then all men, it’s a fact. Our biggest issue will always be the manginas (government) who protect these whores from criticism. “Women hold up half the sky.” – Mao Zedong (communist chinese leader),“The chief thing is to get women to take part in socially productive labor, to liberate them from ‘domestic slavery,’ to free them from their stupefying and humiliating subjugation to the eternal drudgery of the kitchen and the nursery. This struggle will be a long one, and it demands a radical reconstruction, both of social technique and of morale. But it will end in the complete triumph of Communism.” ~ V.I. Lenin, International Working Women’s Day Speech, 1920
    “We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to
    Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism.” — Nikita Kruschev , “Destroy the family, you destroy the country.” — V.I. Lenin, and so much more.

  32. …to destroy the enemy means to disarm him or “deprive him of the power to resist”.
    and that, folks, is the entire essence of the left and the gun control movement in the US.

  33. He might have been a good general, but he was probably one of the worst leaders in history. He had absolutely no wisdom when it came to agriculture, just ask the 40 million who starved because of his shitty ideas.

    1. You assume he wanted those people to live. He was a psychopathic killer.
      As my IT friend say – It’s a feature, not a bug.

  34. Read “Retreat from Victory” by Sen. Joe McCarthy. Mao would be nothing without George Catlett Marshall. America is the greatest historical monster of all.

  35. He said that all weapons are extension from spear and shield. I would add bow as well. Long range weapon(cruise missiles, mobile artillery, rocket launcher, etc) are extensions of bow. Others offensive weapons are extension of spear or sword.
    Armored vehicles are extension of cavalry.

Comments are closed.