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.
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.
- 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.
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.
How is it racist that I support Chinese people and oppose those who hate the Chinese and China?
That does sound like blatant racism or culturalism to me.
You really do hate China arguing for some guy that killed about 40 million Chinese and destroyed the country
"The measurement pro should have used is GDP per capita which evaluates living standards and is the best measure for economic growth."
Living standards have nothing to do with GDP per capita. For example, USA has high GDP per capita. But we couldnt say it has high living standards. The very high prices, mass torture in prisons and the annual 60000 murders and suicides surely means they arent that much better than the living standards of a typical warzone.
Hope I don't get reprimanded for this. I have other topics as well.
wow, I would say that was a good argument. To be fair I almost forgot this debate existed lol
"Intelligence is the type of dude to not only ask the teacher why they forgot the homework is due but to ask the student why he or she expects anything less than a good ass-whooping for it."
That is the benefit of surveillance.
I never claimed Chinese products are bad because they're Chinese. ", China is giving enough freedom to the citizens(and the rights can be revised through a collective effort, and not filibustered every time lol), rather America is giving people too much rights in some areas(e.g. Guns) and too little in others (e.g.abortion). A divided house doesn't stand, lincoln would be crying if he sees what America is today."
We can debate this, if you want?
Intelligence is the type of dude to not only ask the teacher why they forgot the homework is due but to ask the student why he or she expects anything less than a good ass-whooping for it.
The American propaganda is really kicking in huh? Chinese manufacturers are not making bad products because they are bad at making things, but because they are given less money and are expected to return more, leading a general decrease in quality. The manufacturers are not the ones to blame, the people that provided them such little money are. As for "lose more freedom", no, China is giving enough freedom to the citizens(and the rights can be revised through a collective effort, and not filibustered every time lol), rather America is giving people too much rights in some areas(e.g.guns) and too little in others (e.g.abortion). A divided house doesn't stand, lincoln would be crying if he sees what America is today.
Taiwan was fascist. Yet now it no longer is. There's a lot of what ifs. I don't think China becoming so powerful is beneficial to the development democracy or world peace. I'm unsure of how you can argue China has been beneficial for the world at large. Sure they have offered goods for much cheaper than what other nations could offer. However, i don't see lower quality, cheaper goods outweighing the cons of the nation gaining more control and influence at the world stage, hindering the development of democracy and personal freedoms both on the internet and in developing countries. I'd rather pay a little more for my goods than see people lose more freedoms and become more under the thumb of the Chinese Government.
There is a way of proving that China today benefits the world as it is being taught, and as "oppressive" as it sounds, without him, China may be an anarchy.
I personally find moral questions like this very vague. Beneficial for who? the world at large or the Chinese populace? there's lots of guess work and assumptions made in discussions like this. If we're talking in terms of more beneficial compared to what was or what could of been, you can get radically different answers. On a personal note, i find Mao to of been an unsavoury leader. Who, Without him China may not of been as oppressive as it is today. Although this is once more, guess work.
I suppose it 'does sound better to be a united powerful nation, than a weak nation or number of smaller warring nations,
But. . . Ends are not always what they seem,
And Means Ends in themselves.
I'm not negative towards this debate, but curious.