Instigator / Pro
1736
rating
94
debates
75.0%
won
Topic

On balance, the Chinese former-chairman Mao Zedong was more beneficial than harmful

Status
Debating

Waiting for the contender's second argument.

The round will be automatically forfeited in:

00
DD
:
00
HH
:
00
MM
:
00
SS
Parameters
More details
Publication date
Last update date
Category
History
Time for argument
Two weeks
Voting system
Open voting
Voting period
Two months
Point system
Four points
Rating mode
Rated
Characters per argument
20,000
Contender / Con
1662
rating
15
debates
90.0%
won
Description
~ 202 / 5,000

There is really no need to define anything. If you really are that brave to walk into this debate without knowing who Mao Zedong is, he is the first chairman of the People's Republic of China 1949-1976.

Round 1
Pro
1. Multilateralism

Multilateralism is a concept of that international affairs and relations be governed by 3 or more groups of countries. It is characterized by negotiations between multiple factions. According to Britannica:
In security arrangements, the principles of multilateralism are best embodied in a collective security system such as NATO, in which a war against one state is considered to be a war against all states, ensuring that any act of aggression against a member of the collective system is met with a response from all members.
In which the relationship between nations will be more of a "triangle" rather than that of a vector between two points.

A multilateral relationship, compared to bilateral relationships, will be more beneficial and less discriminatory for all the involved factions. For example, Brooking states:
Multilateralism — operating through architectures of organizations, institutions, and bespoke mechanisms, often based in treaties and international law and grounded, fundamentally, in the U.N. Charter — has been crucial to preserving peace, increasing prosperity, addressing common threats, and even defending democratic values in both the Cold War and post-Cold War eras.
Whereas for Bilateralism, Britannica states:
To better understand the nature of multilateralism, it is useful to contrast it with bilateralism, a good example of which is the commercial policies of Nazi Germany, in which the German government negotiated bilateral agreements with other countries specifying which goods and services were to be traded, their prices, and the quantities to be exchanged. Through that, a significant number of nations were connected by trade agreements, with Germany acting as a central hub. ... Thus, the German system was built around systematic discrimination, whereas the GATT assured nondiscrimination for all contracting parties.
It thus became clear that a multilateralism society is arguably better than a one-output bilateral society.

Now, what does China stand on here?
  • For Xi Jinping, the objective of multilateralism is to construct a “community of a shared future of mankind”
  • In his report to the 19th NPC, Xi Jinping described his vision of multilateralism as “dialogue without confrontation, partnership without alliance”
  • In English-language communication, the Chinese leadership and CCP outlets frequently highlight that China is a “champion of multilateralism”, that China will “adhere to multilateralism” or that China is committed to “upholding multilateralism”.
China is working towards multilateralism for the world's sake. Does it work?

China is strong enough
China has the largest GDP(PPP), second largest GDP, and one of the most powerful countries in terms of military despite being far from that during the old times such as 1950 and so. China has a large enough presence to shift the balance away from the "dominant" United States, who has been on the top and exploiting other nations for decades.

Well, just saying, China is essentially rightfully taking global power and attention away from a country who interfered with Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, a nation who bombed buildings intentionally then dismissed it as "accidental"; a state ran by the lesser of the two evils almost all the time. All this is simply not possible without Mao Zedong.

2. Foundation of China

Against "Nationalist" China and Japan
Without Mao, China might have been kept as a capitalist and maybe even imperial state, as lead by Chiang.

The Long March is a large operation conducted by the Communist party lead by Mao Zedong to move the Chinese red army towards Shaanxi(province), which later proved to be effective, as the wars between the Communist faction and the Nationalist factions were later won by the Communists. Without it, the Nationalist faction might have won and the effect of that on both China and the international affairs would be drastic. For example, poverty back then was roaring and the nationalist government simply didn't bother with it(They did't get support from the working class either). But Mao's China was from the people and for the people(They have the support of the working class), and from the ashes of the soil came the first two 5-year plans(aided by Soviet Union), the industry of China from the people quickly improved and poverty reduced.

Not only that, the Nationalist government proposed in the early years of WW2 that putting the conflict between the Chinese people(apart from affiliation) and the Japanese Empire before the conflict between the Nationalists and the Communists was illegal. This means, that while the red army was busy fending off Japanese imperials, the nationalists were busy fighting the communists, which does not help if not even hinders the anti-fascist faction of the war. On the other hand, almost ALL of the communist forces, with Mao, were fighing the japanese. It was actually the communists who convinced the nationalist faction that the conflict with the Japanese was more important and urgent.

The war lasted from 1931 to 1945. That is how long it was. In the last source(which was just a hub for more sources) one can obviously see that subfactions in the Republic of China was actually fighting on the side of Japan. Without Mao, without communism, maybe JAPAN would have taken over the Chinese land due to not enough effort from the beginning to repel them. What would that lead to? More power for the Axis and the next problem will not be America, but Nazi Germany or even Imperial Japan invading nearby countries(especially since their territories have expanded all the way to ALASKA). The world will be filled with racism, tyranny, etc. much more so than we have now here.

So yeah, Mao provided a substantial effort in saving the world from the Axis power of fascism. Without him, the world will be a much worse place.

Foundations of China
I have already stated the first 2 five year plans. That was just a part of what he had done. Similar achievements include land reform(one time in the 30's, that is what gained trust from the proletariat) and later(1953-56) 3 major reforms(reforms of capital, labor and land) which significantly improved crop produce in farmlands and production in factories and workshops. Great success!

Not only that, his theoretical foundations were also profound(and also is even to today, which ultimately shapes what China is now). The theories of Deng and all the way to Xi Jinping was improved upon his theory.
Mao’s theories which guided the Chinese revolution to victory in 1949, particularly his theory of people’s war, represent a fusion of many aspects of his thought: his confidence in the fundamental revolutionary strength of the peasantry, his grasp of the dialectical philosophy, his complete freedom from the kind of philistinism which invests excuses to condemn the armed struggle of the oppressed nations.
Mao's theory in fact was already working since the war against Japan, which is...why they won, well one reason. Without Mao's theoretical foundation and strategic guidance, it would still be unclear if China will defend successfully against Japanese invaders or not.

Then, let's look upon one example of Deng Xiaoping.
1975年1月任中共中央副主席、国务院副总理、中央军委副主席和中国人民解放军总参谋长。周恩来病重以后,在毛泽东支持下,他主持党、国家和军队的日常工作,针对“文化大革命”造成的混乱局面进行全面整顿,得到全国人民的衷心拥护,收到显著的成效。由于“四人帮”的诬陷,1976年4月又被撤销一切职务。
1976年10月“四人帮”被粉碎,“文化大革命”结束。
The quote above shows tha Deng was supported by Mao, and was criticized by another group of 4 people who actually controlled the wrongdoings in the period known as the Cultural Revolution. Deng later combined Mao's foundations with market, which made China's economy able to be this strong today. The wrongdoings in the Cultural Revolution was due to Mao's misestimation, yes that is correct, but to show just how strong the state he created was, the state was quickly able to transition from that, and later even to a state of market economy, and is now boosting in economy, being one of the only countries to have a POSITIVE economic gain in 2020, when Coronavirus first hit. The recovering back on track was due to his own theory.
根本否定了“文化大革命”,维护了毛泽东的历史地位,科学地评价了毛泽东思想。
Yes, Deng put constructive critism onto Mao's misestimations, and also constructive revisions on that as well, while not bashing him and actually defending him when looking at the big picture. Mao has essentially created a system that can do this. In contrast, we have Khrushchev's complete call of destalinization, in some areas making USSR's economy worse by either unnecessary revisions or inability to substantially change those that actually matter, leading to the fall of the Soviet model.

And then, we HAVE to bring up the Korean war, which the Chinese helped fending off the western forces lead by America despite having worse hardware. Mao's contribution in that war cannot be undermined. The status of China globally rose after that.

Global comment after death
Most countries have broadcasted the news of Mao's death in 1976 including the US, France, and UK. Half-mast ceremonies were conducted and the world leaders and the UN minister uttered respect to him(source). To most countries up to that point, Mao was a positive figure. I rest my case.
Con
  • A lot of ongoing circumstances got in he way, unfortunately, it happens sometimes. I apologize for the delay, but I hope for the prerogative to post my argument in the subsequent round if it serves the utility of both parties. 

Round 2
Pro
Extend all arguments, I won't be providing new arguments in this round.

Conclusions
  • China contributes to multilateralism and is currently strong enough to make the US not the only dominant power output
    • Mao is directly responsible for China being what it is today
  • Mao's strategy is responsible for:
    • Holding back against the nationalist warlords and the Japanese, in which either of them could make it worse
      • Help with negotiations with the Nationalists, and agreed to fight Japan together in the later stages of the war
      • The Nationalist faction is less united and called for anti-communism before anti-imperialism, so it has less of a chance to win
        • Mao decided that a long march was a good choice, which turned out yes, and it helped the Communists, in turn the Chinese civilization, in turn the Allies.
      • Japan likely will reunite with Germany after getting such a huge victory, and WW2 will be harder to win for the allies if not for Mao in China
      • Mao is responsible for holding back imperalism and fascism, resulting in a Win for the allies in WW2
    • Successfully holding back the South Koreans and the American army during the Korean war(despite having inferior weaponry)
      • Which made China a prominent rising force
    • Influencing Deng, Xi and other leaders to carve a path suitable for the conditions of this country and leading to the prosperity.
  • Mao reunited China and reformed land, capital and labor, so that efficiency increased
    • Mao gained trust from the prole, which was a lot of people, and eventually led to a successful revolution
  • Mao's revolutionary foundation of China was so strong that his theory upon improvement from his successors was able to keep running this country in a reasonable fashion, despite a few years under the influence of false revolutionaries like Jiang Qing and fatal misestimations
  • Mao received positive reviews upon his death amongst many countries and the UN.

Not published yet
Round 3
Not published yet
Not published yet
Round 4
Not published yet
Not published yet