2 ms·
Only they were different leaders. Traditionally PRC had two factions. The Maoists and the rivals, let's call them the pragmatists. The Maoists were bent on c
by papersmith 17y ago
Only they were different leaders.
Traditionally PRC had two factions. The Maoists and the rivals, let's call them the pragmatists. The Maoists were bent on communist doctrines and making great leaps. The pragmatists were more into what already works. The heads of the pragmatists were Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Shaoqi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liu_Shaoqi
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_xiaoping http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deng_xiaoping
The famine as you mentioned was attributed in part to Mao's radical policies, and because so Mao stepped down while Liu Shaoqi took his chair for a few years. While Liu was in power he played with capitalist policies similar to those in place today (this was the early 60s), Mao got paranoid and ousted him and Deng, and cultural revolution was launched in part to undo their popularity. Liu died in house arrest.
After Mao died in the late 70s, Deng took over and finally switched to market economy. The current line of leaders descended from his faction of pragmatists. Maoism is pretty much dead in China, a new split in the party is between the populists and the princelings, much more similiar to the dichotomy of liberals and conservatives in the west.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generations_of_Chinese_leadership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generations_of_Chinese_leadersh...
- nir 17y agoThey are obviously different leaders (and I suppose the PRC have changed quite a bit since 1958 in any case) but my point is a more general one - "the leaders know best" is never a good assumption. Assuming most HN readers consider themselves independent minded and skeptic towards authority it's disappointing to see the credit given here to China's leaders, who are chosen and operate mostly behind closed doors, as if they really operate with their people's best interest in mind (or even know what it is). I wouldn't rely so blindly on any Western leader, certainly not on a leader in a closed, one party system like China's.
- papersmith 17y agoI don't think the OP ever implied that the leaders know the best. It was meant to be read from the viewpoint that there aren't good or bad politicians, there are only politicians making good or bad decisions. In fact from what I've read, the current generation of Chinese leaders aren't particularly smart as people have given them credit for. Though they do seem to know that they don't know enough to be visionaries, so they take the stance of non-interference. I can see the appeal of this kind of mentality has on HN, as I sense a lot of users here hold libertarian views.