Why did Mao forcibly collectivize Chinese agriculture into unproductive communes after seeing how absolutely disastrous...

What's this marxist meme that Russia was weakbefore the commies, I've been seeing it more and more and it's just retarded.

I think it stems from the defeat of the Russian armies in World War I and the Russo-Japanese War

I'm already fasting chink

Russian armies weren't defeated in WW1. Russia's military situation in 1917 was actually quite good until the February Revolution hit. And even after that, the situation still could have been salvaged if the Provisional Government wasn't been so slow in acting against the Bolsheviks.

Its usually to justify most of the boneheaded programs that Stalin supported like collectivisation
>They entered space first! Therefore it kinda justifies all those dead kulaks and resources wasted on boondoggles like Magnitogorsk, doesn't it?

The idea that the romanov rule was anything but a hopeless sickly regime that wouldn't collapse with or without a WW1 is woefully retarded revisionism.

>"It was either Bolsheviks or Romanov autocracy, even if the White movement was deeply divided on what role - if any - the throne would have in post-revolution Russia"

Because the landlords were assholes too

It depends on the particular reform.

For a lot of the Great Leap Forward, it legitimately looked like Mao was suffering from Lucas Syndrome - he was drunk on his success and got in over his head doing something he was wholly unqualified for. What made it particularly bad for him was that a lot of the early reforms didn't come to show how bad they were until they had been in place for quite some time, and that the legitimacy of his regime was largely based on the cult of personality he had created about himself. Thus, admitting failure would be undermining his regime and the CCP as a whole.

The Cultural Revolution somewhat seemed to have started out with the same kind of naivete (allowing openness of ideas), but the resulting crackdown on dissent was both an attempt to mitigate damage to the regime's legitimacy and cover for a purge of rivals to the regime.

The whole Maoist cult of personality would be a major hurdle for the CCP in the post-Mao years. Because his legacy was such a big part of the CCP's legitimacy, extra care had to be taken to justify any policy moves that went counter to his ideology.

the purpose was to enhance his political power not improve the economy

>someone is an asshole to the poor
>therefore I should be as well
>this helps the poor and I am a revolutionary hero now

>Why did Mao forcibly collectivize Chinese agriculture into unproductive communes after seeing how absolutely disastrous land reform was in Russia?

Because Communists want to force industrialisation no matter what. Even if it means murd... sacrificing millions upon millions of peasants. After all Marx says the revolution comes from the industrial proletariate not from farmers.

>What's this marxist meme
It was a meme EVEN during the 19th Century.

Russia was constantly mocked by various westerners as a backward oriental feudal regime masquerading as a European country.

Just take for example that the most common depiction of 19th Century Russia as a shabby man with a knout (a whip) to depict its tyrannical autocracy.

Immigrants with from various minorities of the Russian empire coming to the USA with their own horror stories didn't help either.

>Immigrants with from various minorities of the Russian empire coming to the USA with their own horror stories didn't help either.

/pol/ maymays aside it is hilarious how so many ashkenazi neo-cons STILL can't get over great-grandpa Schmoikel got run out of town by a pogrom, and insist Russia hasn't really changed

>For a lot of the Great Leap Forward, it legitimately looked like Mao was suffering from Lucas Syndrome - he was drunk on his success and got in over his head doing something he was wholly unqualified for.
It might not have helped that everyone was reporting fake production numbers to him to try and not get purged

>Cultural Revolution
>allowing openness of ideas
Did you mean the Hundred Flowers Campaign?

On the one hand, the land reform in Russia was pretty disastrous. On the other hand, there were sparrows.

>Did you mean the Hundred Flowers Campaign?
Yeah that's what I meant. The Cultural Revolution seemed to have been caused at least in part by Mao's hope to mitigate damage to his authority from that.

Soviet Union was seen as a success worldwide until the 1970s.

Furthermore, land reform actually worked in a retarded way

It was the failure of the Great Leap Forward that damaged Mao's authority, not the Hundred Flowers Campaign.

A
FUCKING
BIRD

Rate my meme.

Weak bait and goat post. Nobody replies you except me also proves that.

Those really are NOTHING compare to what commies did back then. Every bad things KMT committed, commies also did; every bad things KMT didn't commit, commies also did.

[Citation Needed]

refer to the handbook for dictator
you cna also youtube it

Because ideological and personal motivations often took hold instead of pragmatism in most of communist regimes.
Communism, or better said Marxism as well as works of other theoreticians, were taken as Bible. Thus communism ironically became a pseudo-religion, with all the benefits and disadvantages that invokes.
When you have to bend reality and ''interpret'' works, you know shit is fucked.

>communist reforms at all after seeing how disastrous they were in Russia?
>disastrous
oh you mean how they transformed russia into industrial powerhouse capable of defeating nazi germany?

To break down markets and society so it could be remolded into the CCP vision.

The theory was if everyone was collectivized no one would be an asshole, it didn't go to plan

The sick man of Europe was Turkey though

I don't think you have any idea how absolutely shit the KMT was to the point that popular support shifted to the CCP.

This is from Keiji Masuda's "Cold War Crucible" (2015), on a chapter that talks of KMT crackdowns on movements that weren't by any long shot, communist, and simply thought they can voice out their concerns and opinions because they live in a supposedly democratic China.

"Arrests of 'reactionary' college and high school students only aroused much larger protest movements among students, while causing morality and justice among local offices to deteriorate.The surveillance of the aforementioned dramatist found only that he frequently had patties at night and that many of his guests were GMD naval officers, not CCP sympathizers And the banning of books provoked slogans like “We Have the Freedom to Read!"
Even some intellectuals, who had been skeptical or reluctant to support the CCP, eventually abandoned the GMD when faced with a situation in which one could be arrested simply for openly opposing the government, “If we cannot openly oppose the government, let me ask this; what do we hope for the government hereafter?” wrote Peking University professor Lou Bangyan, who ominously prophesied, 'An antonym of the open opposition is an underground plot, If the government does not permit open opposition, people’s plot for rebellion will eventually develop into an all-out revolution.'

"The GMD’s harsh crackdown was particularly shocking because it occurred during one of the most liberal-democratic moments in modern Chinese history. In Shanghai alone, during the period following the defeat of Japan, hundreds of new magazines and newspapers were published, which provided forums for free and open exchanges of diverse viewpoints. These new voices boldly expressed their hopes for democracy, freedom, and equality and, thus, often openly took confrontational positions against the GMD
government,m One of the most active and prominent was a weekly magazine, Guancha (Observation), which wasfounded by a journalist, Chu Anping, in September 1946. From the start, the magazine demanded the establishment of a liberal and democratic government and, thus, opposed the GMD government's repressive attitude and continued to express its support for the fan MeifuRi student movement."

Oh since it mentioned the Fan Meifuri: that was a student protest against the US rehabilitation of the Japanese Emperor & other Japanese leaders following the end of the Tokyo War Crime trials. They criticized the US for not only the injustice of such acts, but also the fear that they were gonna use Japan as a way to tighten their grip on China.

You know what the KMT did to these students? Labeled them communist because they spoke ill of the USA and cracked down on them.

The KMT didn't lose because it emerged from WWII weak- Jesus Christ they had a more modern armed force due to all the fucking lend lease- but their political legitimacy was shot to shit amongst the Chinese populace.

>You mean the same people that can watch violent revolution after violent revolution create authoritarian dictatorships with bloody factional purges and insist that it won't happen next time?
Do you really think Mao didn't want an authoritarian dictatorship?

Ironically Jews fared quite well in some of the more remote provinces of the empire.
For instance, the reason Bessarabian Jews were so assblasted after 1918, when the Kingdom of Romania took control of Moldavia's Eastern half, was because during the empire's last decades they continuously managed to dodge paying taxes through various means. When the Romanian king's officials came in, they made everybody pay up their share, which evidently annoyed Shlomo and Moshe.

>g how absolutely disastrous land reform was in Russia?

That's wrong dou.

>This level of delusion
Im not even a bolshevik sympathizer, but the Russians were getting their ass handed to them. The only competent action they took during the war was the Brusilov offensive, due to innovative tactics and facing the weaker Austrian armies. Their logistics and overall morale was so poor, that the Germans had a remarkable string of victories from Tannenberg onwards.

>I don't think you have any idea how absolutely shit the KMT was to the point that popular support shifted to the CCP
Oh yes, I do.

But these are what CCP did after they overthrew KMT
>corruption, nepotism, press-gangs, "RED terrors", pandering to Soviet imperialists and later American imperialist.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_of_landlords_under_Mao_Zedong
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Red_Banners
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-anti_and_Five-anti_Campaigns
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Flowers_Campaign
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Rightist_Movement
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Leap_Forward
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Revolution
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gang_of_Four
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_Campaign
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#People's_Republic_of_China
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon's_1972_visit_to_China
independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/news/maos-great-leap-forward-killed-45-million-in-four-years-2081630.html
>estimated death numbers from 18 millions to 45 millions

The only thing save CCP's ass is 鄧小平 reformation. But even today all the ridiculous and horrible did by Mao regime are still constantly, heavily mocked and criticized by many people, such as this.

KMT really was NOTHING compare to that. However, that doesn't mean I want CCP to fall right now, I think they're doing OK for now, besides, I need them to stop separatists, faggots and whi*eloid supremacists.

> Why did Mao forcibly collectivize Chinese agriculture into unproductive communes after seeing how absolutely disastrous land reform was in Russia?
The Chinese and the Russians performed land reform completely differently, and the Chinese had had two succesful phases of the reform before the great leap, with increased collective ownership contributing to agricultural output.
> In fact why did they implement any communist reforms at all after seeing how disastrous they were in Russia?
Chinese reforms varied greatly from the Russian ones, and the collective agreement on the field tends to be that while the Russian programs were unnecessarily brutal, their core tenents worked.

USSR and China by no means were the only countries to do land reform. Half the European nations did it as well, so comparing it solely to USSRs seems like a political rather than a historical choice.

What? Russia had lost Poland, Lithuania, half of Lithuania and parts of Ukraine in addition to Romania collapsing. By that point of the war, Eastern front was the one where anyone of any side had lost the most ground and battles.

Because communists are fucking stupid

Russia temporarily losing some ground in the western provinces is almost meaningless. You know how big Russia is right? Back then, Russia was even larger than it is today. The Germans got much further in WW2 and yet still got beaten back. Same for Napoleon. Russia's military position in 1917 was fine; they could have easily have ridden out the war if not for the political disintegration that occurred when opportunistic liberals removed the Czar from power, unwittingly opening the door for Bolshevik subversion.

You are correct in saying that the Eastern Front of WW1 was much more fluid than the Western Front, but you are wrong in suggesting that this means the Russians were being defeated.

Look Chief, I know all those things that happened. But OP asked "why did Chinks become communist in the first place." And the and the answer is "Because the KMT was shit."

Everything you posted happened during the time of CCP rule. Not during the contention between KMT and CCP in which Communism was initially seen as a nicer alternative than KMT fuckery.

I don't think personally that it's really possible to reform from the top down the agricultural sectors of such a huge country like Russia or China without causing a whole lot of pain. A lot of the CCP's later reforms to Chinese agriculture and other industries under Deng Xiaoping were simply acknowledging officially the illicit reformations that the peasants themselves had already been doing and recognizing that it worked.

Some lessons are learnt the hard way.

>we will never live in the President Wrangel timeline