Who was the better leader for China?

[JasonDebenah89]

Mao: Helped fight the Japanese, united Mainland China under Communist rule, restored Chinese nationalism and pride.

Deng: not as charismatic as Mao, but more liberal in policy and economically.

[Lord Halifax]

Mao: Helped fight the Japanese, united Mainland China under Communist rule, restored Chinese nationalism and pride.

Deng: not as charismatic as Mao, but more liberal in policy and economically.

This is a strange question. Mao created mass hunger and destroyed the lives of millions (plus large parts of the country's cultural heritage). Deng created the basis for the Chinese economic miracle. Who in their right mind would pick Mao?

[Beet]

Mao literally established the territorial integrity of the country. Deng just made it richer. I prefer Deng politically but Mao objectively did more.

[Lord Halifax]

Mao literally established the territorial integrity of the country. Deng just made it richer. I prefer Deng politically but Mao objectively did more.

But also much more terrible stuff. How can he not be worse on balance?

Also, if the Chinese civil war had ended in a frozen two state solution the nationalist China would almost certainly have been a free democracy today (looking at Taiwan and South Korea). Now you have an entrenched authoritarian government running a colossus. Was it really such a great thing to unite all of China? Mao may have been a capable war commander, but his results didn't create long term benefits for ordinary people.

[Frodo]

Wasn't it the Kuomintang who did the bulk of the fighting against the Japanese invaders, while the Communists largely hung back, hoarding their strength until the KMT was too exhausted from the long struggle to resist them after the war? 

[Tintrlvr]

Wasn't it the Kuomintang who did the bulk of the fighting against the Japanese invaders, while the Communists largely hung back, hoarding their strength until the KMT was too exhausted from the long struggle to resist them after the war? 

Indeed. The Communists didn't fight the Japanese at all, though most Chinese believe otherwise because of state propaganda. That's why the Communists were able to win the Civil War; the Kuomintang were exhausted from fighting the Japanese, but the Communists were largely unscathed.

[Intell]

Since, I hate Maoism, than any other communist ideology (Hoxhaism, stalinist worshipers and anti-revisionism aside), Deng, though Mao did some good, but his reign was largely bad, and idiotic, and his polciies could have been a lot less murderous, if he listened to other people, and caused a greater and more humane, and more productive way of social development in China.

Without Mao, China would not have made social development of now, without Deng, China would not have the economic development of now. On the absence of social equality, the absolute lack of labour rights, the lack of a meaningful sense of socialism and help towards the poor of China, that was largely the fault not of Deng but of his successors. He invested in social services, with labour rights and government still in many aspects had control of production in certain sectors, without private sector influence, while allowing for a socialist system with markets.

Jiang Zemin, was a lot to blame though, and is god awful, and causes the social inequalities, environmental degreation, lack of worker's rights, and an absence of policies for economic equality/justice, and in extension socialism, and the transition into economic growth and business above all else mentality.

Deng was FF, Mao did some good, China would not be as socially/economic developed and as it's now, but ultimately he's HP.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

You could make the argument for Mao if he had died in the 50's, or even as late as 1966 (although his failures were becoming undeniable by then) you could make the case that though he was fatally flawed, his unification of China was still a significant achievement. But the cultural revolution really tips the scales away from Mao 'merely' being a nasty tinpot dictator like Castro or Salazar or Ho Chi Minh or Park Chung-Hee (or for that matter, Deng himself), to a grotesque monster along the lines of Hitler, Tojo and Stalin.

[Lord Halifax]

You could make the argument for Mao if he had died in the 50's, or even as late as 1966 (although his failures were becoming undeniable by then) you could make the case that though he was fatally flawed, his unification of China was still a significant achievement. But the cultural revolution really tips the scales away from Mao 'merely' being a nasty tinpot dictator like Castro or Salazar or Ho Chi Minh or Park Chung-Hee (or for that matter, Deng himself), to a grotesque monster along the lines of Hitler, Tojo and Stalin.

I disagree. Causing the Great Famine after the (not so) Great Leap Forward already makes him a monster (15-30 mio. dead are a lot..).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
The earlier campaign against counter revolutionaries in 1950 cost the lifes of upwards of 2 mio. (even the official numbers say 700,00 dead). Mao was a Chinese Stalin right from the outset (or rather Hitler, an irrational romanticist).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_to_Suppress_Counterrevolutionaries

[Derpist]

Both were unfortunate and knifed the USSR in the back. True, the KMT did more than the Communists, but the USSR did more than the KMT.

[Lord Halifax]

Both were unfortunate and knifed the USSR in the back. True, the KMT did more than the Communists, but the USSR did more than the KMT.

No reason to drag the USSR into this. Calling Mao "unfortunate" is a bizarre understatement.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Mao is certainly infinitely more interesting than Deng.

[Derpist]

Both were unfortunate and knifed the USSR in the back. True, the KMT did more than the Communists, but the USSR did more than the KMT.

No reason to drag the USSR into this. Calling Mao "unfortunate" is a bizarre understatement.

Most of the worst failures of the PRC arose from Mao's bizarre interpretation of communism and his deviance from the Soviet line on domestic issues. Such as the Great Leap Forward. If China was run by an orthodox Marxist like Walter Ulbricht or something, most of the worst mistakes of the period would have been affected and China itself would probably be a much more respected and independent power in the world.

China is still paying for its original sin.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

You could make the argument for Mao if he had died in the 50's, or even as late as 1966 (although his failures were becoming undeniable by then) you could make the case that though he was fatally flawed, his unification of China was still a significant achievement. But the cultural revolution really tips the scales away from Mao 'merely' being a nasty tinpot dictator like Castro or Salazar or Ho Chi Minh or Park Chung-Hee (or for that matter, Deng himself), to a grotesque monster along the lines of Hitler, Tojo and Stalin.

I disagree. Causing the Great Famine after the (not so) Great Leap Forward already makes him a monster (15-30 mio. dead are a lot..).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
The earlier campaign against counter revolutionaries in 1950 cost the lifes of upwards of 2 mio. (even the official numbers say 700,00 dead). Mao was a Chinese Stalin right from the outset (or rather Hitler, an irrational romanticist).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_to_Suppress_Counterrevolutionaries

What I mean to say is murdering huge numbers in purges and killing vast scores via famine due to economic mismanagement isn't really unusual for a dictator (although China's enormous population means the raw numbers were much worse than your average dictator); but the Cultural Revolution really cements the insanity of Mao and his regime.

[Derpist]

You could make the argument for Mao if he had died in the 50's, or even as late as 1966 (although his failures were becoming undeniable by then) you could make the case that though he was fatally flawed, his unification of China was still a significant achievement. But the cultural revolution really tips the scales away from Mao 'merely' being a nasty tinpot dictator like Castro or Salazar or Ho Chi Minh or Park Chung-Hee (or for that matter, Deng himself), to a grotesque monster along the lines of Hitler, Tojo and Stalin.

Tojo was hardly a dictator. There was an organized effort by Imperial Japanese elites (Tojo himself included) to pin everything horrible the regime did on Tojo so the rest of them could get off. It largely worked.

[Derpist]

What I mean to say is murdering huge numbers in purges and killing vast scores via famine due to economic mismanagement isn't really unusual for a dictator (although China's enormous population means the raw numbers were much worse than your average dictator); but the Cultural Revolution really cements the insanity of Mao and his regime.

The only reason the Cultural Revolution outrages modern Chinese society is because most of the victims of the GPCR could read. And things are only considered truly outrageous in the conventional wisdom when rich, educated people suffer.

[Lord Halifax]

You could make the argument for Mao if he had died in the 50's, or even as late as 1966 (although his failures were becoming undeniable by then) you could make the case that though he was fatally flawed, his unification of China was still a significant achievement. But the cultural revolution really tips the scales away from Mao 'merely' being a nasty tinpot dictator like Castro or Salazar or Ho Chi Minh or Park Chung-Hee (or for that matter, Deng himself), to a grotesque monster along the lines of Hitler, Tojo and Stalin.

I disagree. Causing the Great Famine after the (not so) Great Leap Forward already makes him a monster (15-30 mio. dead are a lot..).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine
The earlier campaign against counter revolutionaries in 1950 cost the lifes of upwards of 2 mio. (even the official numbers say 700,00 dead). Mao was a Chinese Stalin right from the outset (or rather Hitler, an irrational romanticist).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_to_Suppress_Counterrevolutionaries

What I mean to say is murdering huge numbers in purges and killing vast scores via famine due to economic mismanagement isn't really unusual for a dictator (although China's enormous population means the raw numbers were much worse than your average dictator); but the Cultural Revolution really cements the insanity of Mao and his regime.

At least the Great Leap Forward was already in "monster class" and beyond "normal" dictator behaviour. None of the other dictators you mention committed atrocities on this level (and that is using a per capita based comparison).

[TDAS04]

Wasn't it the Kuomintang who did the bulk of the fighting against the Japanese invaders, while the Communists largely hung back, hoarding their strength until the KMT was too exhausted from the long struggle to resist them after the war? 

Yeah, Mao appreciated the Japanese invasion for weakening the KMT.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Deng easily

[jaichind]

Deng.  Of course as much as I oppose Mao and his cronies, I do give them credit for the atomic bomb, and restoration lost provinces like Tibet.  One caveat would be that if my side, the KMT, had won the 1945-49 civil war on the Mainland they would have done the same.

[Lord Halifax]

Deng.  Of course as much as I oppose Mao and his cronies, I do give them credit for the atomic bomb, and restoration lost provinces like Tibet.  One caveat would be that if my side, the KMT, had won the 1945-49 civil war on the Mainland they would have done the same.

You really are a nasty little fascist aren't you?