7 ms·

>one big difference is that the Red Guards were created by Mao as a way to purge the party of his enemies... No -- that's not the case, and that's precisely wh

by AlanYx 6y ago

>one big difference is that the Red Guards were created by Mao as a way to purge the party of his enemies... No -- that's not the case, and that's precisely why I think the parallel to what is happening now is so strong. The Red Guards started in 1966 as a student movement. They later developed a manifesto, which Mao thought he could leverage to his own advantage, so he endorsed its broadcast. This fanned the flames of the movement (being a kind of political endorsement), and from that point Red Guard cells sprung up organically across the country. From that point, things became chaotic and the leadership in Beijing made a series of sometimes opposing moves, some of which tried to restrain the movement to preserve the government and others which fanned the flames.

missosoup 6y ago
This comment is 100% correct and the fact that most people here misunderstand the Red Guards movement is the terrifying proof that they have no idea what we're dealing with in the US right now. This ideology is not something that strives for or can be steered into a productive outcome, it inherently wants to expand its reach and list of enemies until it takes over the entire world or someone shuts it down. It's the cultural analogue of a cancer, and it masks its initial growth phase by pretending to rally behind a virtuous cause, and then shutting down any criticism of it as anti-virtuous. People from Cambodia, USSR, China, Vietnam, Germany, etc. have seen this before, but the current generation of westerners has not, so they're giving it the benefit of doubt and allowing it to gain momentum - it seems to be rallying behind a virtuous cause, after all. This is what GP and I are saying: alarm bells are going off in our heads because we have 1st or 2nd hand experience of how this plays out. And just like back then, people now are going 'naaaah, it'll be fine'. Lord of the Flies should remain mandatory school reading forever. It's a warning tale exactly about this.
- monocasa 6y ago
  I mean, Lord of the Flies is fiction. In real life, the boys stranded on a deserted island made a pact to never quarrel, and kept that pact for a half century. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-what-happened-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-...
  - Ygg2 6y ago
    I don't think children now would have the trust enough to cooperate.
    - monocasa 6y ago
      I think you might be surprised. The sense of comradery between the younger gens is crazy.
  - jostylr 6y ago
    Keep in mind that the book that is from, Humankind, while a hope filled book (I enjoyed it thoroughly), makes the point that when we get together, the bonds between people can lead them to do horrendous things to others. Our power to cooperate is our superpower and our kryptonite.
  - graeme 6y ago
    Lovely story! That said, lord of the flies had at least 20-30 boys involved, whereas this group was six boys who were already friends. More is different. (Not arguing reality would go the way of lord of the flies, merely that the example above is not definitive. But boy would I like to see the movie they made!)
- nitrogen 6y ago
  In addition to Lord of the Flies, we had to watch a movie in my high school (long ago) about student movements getting out of hand, I think it was called The Wave. https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0083316/ https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0083316/ might be it
- mifeng 6y ago
  As someone who grew up in China, I think this analogy is overblown. PG and others are up in arms about "cancel culture," but I'm not seeing substantial evidence of people's voices being suppressed by the masses. The few anecdotes cited (James Bennet fired by NYT, JK Rowling finally being called out for being anti-trans, random people being unfairly fired) don't seem to point toward a mass movement toward intolerance in the US. On the other hand, it's clear, especially to young people, that traditional liberalism has failed at actually addressing inequality, racism, and other systemic problems that the US faces. A big part of what people refer to as "cancel culture" is frustration over the ineffectiveness of traditional liberalism, especially when the far right seems to play by a different set of rules. I'm definitely concerned about far left zealotry, but I don't think that's what I'd happening in the US.
  - jdkee 6y ago
    “ JK Rowling finally being called out for being anti-trans“ And where is the evidence for this assertion?
    - bendbro 6y ago
      Apologies for the amp link. I would recommend looking at Twitter replies to the Harper's Mag letter about her being a signer, and then other discussions on it. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/j-k-rowling-defends-anti-trans-comments-twitter/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/j-k-ro...
    - michaelmrose 6y ago
      Turns out that we aren't electing a counsel composed of the liberals most active on twitter. Lets look at the situation clearly. I don't think JK Rowling is a bigot and yet and the internet hate machine is sure going full steam but her detractors are a smaller group than her fans and the woman is worth almost a billion dollars. She could burn dollar bills for warmth in her house for warmth for the rest of her life if she wanted. A minority of angry people on twitter can't cancel her life. Cancel culture is a distraction from more relevant issues.
- SiVal 6y ago
  My family in China are amazed that we in the US don't recognize the parallels between the marxist revolutionaries and violent Red Guards in China and today's US. The One Party that controls more and more of the institutions, the "news" reporters whose mission is obviously to sell the revolutionary narrative so the few stories that support the narrative are huge and meaningful while the much larger number of parallel examples that contradict the narrative are hidden by various means, all the entertainers gradually speaking with the same voice and same approved opinions as the "news", silencing of debate at the academies and ongoing purge of anyone suspected of harboring counter-revolutionary ideas there and in many other institutions and employers, young people taught that smart, independent thinkers such as themselves will become heroes by denouncing their parents and anyone they suspect of clinging to old ideas.... People who hear almost nothing that doesn't support the revolutionary narrative and are bombarded with stories about how those who "bravely" denounce dissenters are "heroes", and especially young people with little worldly success to be proud of, go on a rampage to feel the thrill of glory and power over others. The Red Guards are born. They burn whatever, destroy whatever, attack whomever, for whatever excuse they can come up, confident they'll be lauded as heroes by the "news" if they can somehow claim they are fighting enemies of the revolution, and if they can make it dramatic enough to compete with all the other aspiring heroes for attention. Because for most Red Guards, it's all about the thrill of feeling powerful and important. My Chinese relatives frankly feel a bit of schadenfreude about it. "So, you were supposedly the ones with all the freedom to think and say whatever you wanted, criticize whoever you wanted, and freely argue for your own opinions. We were the ones who were forced to keep our mouths shut and not say what we really thought because we were still stuck with a conform-and-submit culture that wasn't yet enlightened."
BurningFrog 6y ago
I guess we've read different books about it. This is my source: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679746323/ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679746323/ What Mao did in secret may not be possible to know fully. But are you really telling me that China in 1966 was a free enough society that students could just start an independent political movement that took over the country?
- AlanYx 6y ago
  I haven't read that book, but the Wikipedia article gives a reasonable account based on what I've read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards#Origins >But are you really telling me that China in 1966 was a free enough society that students could just start an independent political movement that took over the country? It wasn't a free society by any stretch, but the students' radicalism was in line with the prevailing zeitgeist... they denounced university officials as intellectual elites, corrupted by bourgeois notions that threatened the success of the revolution. Meanwhile, Mao faced ongoing struggles to maintain and consolidate power, so he found endorsing their ideas useful. But the movement itself rapidly spun beyond his direct control.
- free_rms 6y ago
  Mao leveraged the movement to try and get himself back in the driver's seat, after he had been sidelined following the Great Leap Forward. He amplified them greatly for his own selfish reasons, which is also happening in our current moment, in different ways. They wound up being, surprise, unpredictable and destructive. (A note, I read that book too, it's good but needs discounting for bias. Anybody who writes Beijing as 'Peking', or Zhou Enlai as "Chou En-lai" in the 21st century has clearly got a KMT-flavored axe to grind. But it also has some great original research.)
  - BurningFrog 6y ago
    Yeah, the anti Mao sentiment is very clear. This is not just a factual historical account. It also takes a lot of opportunities to point out how awful a person Mao was, and makes claims about his motives, which don't always seem knowable. Of course, when writing about one of the worst rulers in human history, being a bit judgemental is understandable. But it does make me want to check other sources. On the fact level, there seems to be an enormous amount of work behind the book.
nappy 6y ago
>(being a kind of political endorsement), and from that point Red Guard cells sprung up organically across the country. This is a massive understatement of what Mao's support and endorsement meant, and understating the "organic” nature of what happened after.

by AlanYx 6y ago

missosoup 6y ago

This comment is 100% correct and the fact that most people here misunderstand the Red Guards movement is the terrifying proof that they have no idea what we're dealing with in the US right now. This ideology is not something that strives for or can be steered into a productive outcome, it inherently wants to expand its reach and list of enemies until it takes over the entire world or someone shuts it down. It's the cultural analogue of a cancer, and it masks its initial growth phase by pretending to rally behind a virtuous cause, and then shutting down any criticism of it as anti-virtuous. People from Cambodia, USSR, China, Vietnam, Germany, etc. have seen this before, but the current generation of westerners has not, so they're giving it the benefit of doubt and allowing it to gain momentum - it seems to be rallying behind a virtuous cause, after all. This is what GP and I are saying: alarm bells are going off in our heads because we have 1st or 2nd hand experience of how this plays out. And just like back then, people now are going 'naaaah, it'll be fine'. Lord of the Flies should remain mandatory school reading forever. It's a warning tale exactly about this.

monocasa 6y ago
I mean, Lord of the Flies is fiction. In real life, the boys stranded on a deserted island made a pact to never quarrel, and kept that pact for a half century. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-of-the-flies-what-happened-when-six-boys-were-shipwrecked-for-15-months https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/may/09/the-real-lord-...
- Ygg2 6y ago
  I don't think children now would have the trust enough to cooperate.
  - monocasa 6y ago
    I think you might be surprised. The sense of comradery between the younger gens is crazy.
- jostylr 6y ago
  Keep in mind that the book that is from, Humankind, while a hope filled book (I enjoyed it thoroughly), makes the point that when we get together, the bonds between people can lead them to do horrendous things to others. Our power to cooperate is our superpower and our kryptonite.
- graeme 6y ago
  Lovely story! That said, lord of the flies had at least 20-30 boys involved, whereas this group was six boys who were already friends. More is different. (Not arguing reality would go the way of lord of the flies, merely that the example above is not definitive. But boy would I like to see the movie they made!)
nitrogen 6y ago
In addition to Lord of the Flies, we had to watch a movie in my high school (long ago) about student movements getting out of hand, I think it was called The Wave. https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0083316/ https://m.imdb.com/title/tt0083316/ might be it
mifeng 6y ago
As someone who grew up in China, I think this analogy is overblown. PG and others are up in arms about "cancel culture," but I'm not seeing substantial evidence of people's voices being suppressed by the masses. The few anecdotes cited (James Bennet fired by NYT, JK Rowling finally being called out for being anti-trans, random people being unfairly fired) don't seem to point toward a mass movement toward intolerance in the US. On the other hand, it's clear, especially to young people, that traditional liberalism has failed at actually addressing inequality, racism, and other systemic problems that the US faces. A big part of what people refer to as "cancel culture" is frustration over the ineffectiveness of traditional liberalism, especially when the far right seems to play by a different set of rules. I'm definitely concerned about far left zealotry, but I don't think that's what I'd happening in the US.
- jdkee 6y ago
  “ JK Rowling finally being called out for being anti-trans“ And where is the evidence for this assertion?
  - bendbro 6y ago
    Apologies for the amp link. I would recommend looking at Twitter replies to the Harper's Mag letter about her being a signer, and then other discussions on it. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/j-k-rowling-defends-anti-trans-comments-twitter/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/j-k-ro...
  - michaelmrose 6y ago
    Turns out that we aren't electing a counsel composed of the liberals most active on twitter. Lets look at the situation clearly. I don't think JK Rowling is a bigot and yet and the internet hate machine is sure going full steam but her detractors are a smaller group than her fans and the woman is worth almost a billion dollars. She could burn dollar bills for warmth in her house for warmth for the rest of her life if she wanted. A minority of angry people on twitter can't cancel her life. Cancel culture is a distraction from more relevant issues.
SiVal 6y ago
My family in China are amazed that we in the US don't recognize the parallels between the marxist revolutionaries and violent Red Guards in China and today's US. The One Party that controls more and more of the institutions, the "news" reporters whose mission is obviously to sell the revolutionary narrative so the few stories that support the narrative are huge and meaningful while the much larger number of parallel examples that contradict the narrative are hidden by various means, all the entertainers gradually speaking with the same voice and same approved opinions as the "news", silencing of debate at the academies and ongoing purge of anyone suspected of harboring counter-revolutionary ideas there and in many other institutions and employers, young people taught that smart, independent thinkers such as themselves will become heroes by denouncing their parents and anyone they suspect of clinging to old ideas.... People who hear almost nothing that doesn't support the revolutionary narrative and are bombarded with stories about how those who "bravely" denounce dissenters are "heroes", and especially young people with little worldly success to be proud of, go on a rampage to feel the thrill of glory and power over others. The Red Guards are born. They burn whatever, destroy whatever, attack whomever, for whatever excuse they can come up, confident they'll be lauded as heroes by the "news" if they can somehow claim they are fighting enemies of the revolution, and if they can make it dramatic enough to compete with all the other aspiring heroes for attention. Because for most Red Guards, it's all about the thrill of feeling powerful and important. My Chinese relatives frankly feel a bit of schadenfreude about it. "So, you were supposedly the ones with all the freedom to think and say whatever you wanted, criticize whoever you wanted, and freely argue for your own opinions. We were the ones who were forced to keep our mouths shut and not say what we really thought because we were still stuck with a conform-and-submit culture that wasn't yet enlightened."

BurningFrog 6y ago

I guess we've read different books about it. This is my source: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679746323/ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679746323/ What Mao did in secret may not be possible to know fully. But are you really telling me that China in 1966 was a free enough society that students could just start an independent political movement that took over the country?

AlanYx 6y ago
I haven't read that book, but the Wikipedia article gives a reasonable account based on what I've read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Guards#Origins >But are you really telling me that China in 1966 was a free enough society that students could just start an independent political movement that took over the country? It wasn't a free society by any stretch, but the students' radicalism was in line with the prevailing zeitgeist... they denounced university officials as intellectual elites, corrupted by bourgeois notions that threatened the success of the revolution. Meanwhile, Mao faced ongoing struggles to maintain and consolidate power, so he found endorsing their ideas useful. But the movement itself rapidly spun beyond his direct control.
free_rms 6y ago
Mao leveraged the movement to try and get himself back in the driver's seat, after he had been sidelined following the Great Leap Forward. He amplified them greatly for his own selfish reasons, which is also happening in our current moment, in different ways. They wound up being, surprise, unpredictable and destructive. (A note, I read that book too, it's good but needs discounting for bias. Anybody who writes Beijing as 'Peking', or Zhou Enlai as "Chou En-lai" in the 21st century has clearly got a KMT-flavored axe to grind. But it also has some great original research.)
- BurningFrog 6y ago
  Yeah, the anti Mao sentiment is very clear. This is not just a factual historical account. It also takes a lot of opportunities to point out how awful a person Mao was, and makes claims about his motives, which don't always seem knowable. Of course, when writing about one of the worst rulers in human history, being a bit judgemental is understandable. But it does make me want to check other sources. On the fact level, there seems to be an enormous amount of work behind the book.

nappy 6y ago

>(being a kind of political endorsement), and from that point Red Guard cells sprung up organically across the country. This is a massive understatement of what Mao's support and endorsement meant, and understating the "organic” nature of what happened after.