On May 30, 2008, at 8:49 AM, Ted Winslow wrote:
> The implicit assumption here is that peasant individuality can be
> significantly altered in a positive way by "speak bitterness" sessions
> created not by peasants themselves but by others with the despotic
> power required to change conditions in this and other ways e.g. to
> impose "collectivization."
>
> What evidence is there that this assumption is true?
The subsequent history of China suggests that it's not. What Mao and his comrades created was an effective authoritarian state that has proved quite skilled at managing a transition to capitalism. If the revolution had had more of a popular base, would it have been as trauma-free a transition as it's been?
Or could it be that Maoism didn't provide the Chinese masses much that they thought was worth defending? I don't know the answer to that, but it's an interesting question.
Doug