Talk:Cultural Revolution

Citizens

I don't think we have enough information on the impact of the CR on the citizens of China, i.e. the ones who were purged. I mean what the purges actually included, etc. As I know very little about the CR, I thought I would bring this to the attention of more competent readers.

Please put new postings at the bottom of the page.

Please sign your postings with four tildes ~~~~.

You state a good ideal. However, it may prove difficult to get objective information on this subject.

It wasn't so much that people were purged, at least as I understand the term. A "purge" is usually a wholesale killing off of people in the government by the leadership or the takeover leadership, or the wholesale killing off of a segment of the population. The targets of the Cultural Revolution were generally ordinary people, people with ordinary positions in society, but people who could be singled out for supposed "counter-revolutionary" tendencies. The intent was presumably to remove them from positions of influence. Like McCarthyism in our country, there was no need for real evidence. If suspicions could be raised against someone by a "red guard" type, then attacking that person gave more power and influence to the attacking red guard leader. Mao apparently started the movement thinking he could recoup losses to his prestige that resulted from the failures of the so-called "Great Leap Forward," but it took on a life of its own. One of the features of the ensuing struggles was that power struggles developed between different red guard groups.

People who were driven from positions of responsibility in the community were frequently subjected to "rustification" campaigns, sent to the countryside to "learn from the common man," etc. I doubt that anybody who even bothered to keep statistics on the success of his/her attempts to get people rustified would have been interested in preserving the statistical records afterwards. It would have been potentially incriminating in some feared counter-purge in the future.

Besides families being torn apart by one or more members being sent to the countryside, and by divorces intended to avoid a husband giving a wife guilt by association or vice-versa, and besides the economic and personal losses suffered by those who were removed from responsible positions in their communities, there were also substantial losses due to people committing suicide. Again, I doubt that statistics were kept -- any more than the IRS probably records the number of suicides attributed to consequences of their actions in the US.

As far as I know, there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence in the form of individual biographical writings of people who went through these events themselves and knew of family members and friends who suffered their own losses. To get accurate statistical information would require massive research projects that probably would be opposed by the central government of China. P0M 05:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

CP China?

Where does the Communist Party admit that this was a horrible, inhuman and anti-intellectual genocide? Wondering, is all. 74.225.130.13 11:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You have been reading too much western propaganda!

The CCP basically recognizes that the Cultural Revolution was a disaster whose chief responsibility belongs to Mao Zedong and was used by "counter-revolutionary camps" of Jiang Qing and Lin Biao. That is the official view of the CCP. If the party maintains the CR was a good thing then Deng would have had a hard time implementing his policies. Colipon+(T) 04:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone vandalized the article by placing a Japanese flag as the whole thing. I suggest we ban the user whoever did this. Aeryck89 17:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the article to the way it was before vandalism. It would appear that The zero fighter is the one responsible for this. --Aeryck89 17:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Links

Could someone please explain to me why we need:

http://www.geocities.com/crmaozedong/index.html
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/magdoff010706.html

in the links section?

The first is a very amateurish site with no reliable content - we already have an excellent site for posters. The second is a description of a conference - if it was a link to the conference site and/or its seminars, etc I would understand. But I don't see any real useful information there. John Smith's 10:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you substanciate your claims? You claim this site has "no reliable content." This claims needs support. I don't see any information it contains about propaganda posters being inaccurate. The second link contains lot of useful information about issues surrounding interpretations of the CR. The article, after all is about a conferenced whose title is: "The Fortieth Anniversary: Rethinking the Genealogy and Legacy of the Cultural Revolution" Maybe you don't see any information it contains as useful to you, but it is certainly useful to those intersted in understanding and rethinking the legacy of the CR, along with the various scholars that it reports on.Giovanni33 22:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So can you highlight the useful information in the second article? I'm sure the conference was interesting, but it doesn't go into much useful depth from what I can see. John Smith's 23:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The entire article is a highlight of useful information itself. No point for me to copy and paste each section here. Maybe you can look at each section and tell me why what it says is not deemed useful. Obviously its from a socialist pov, and addresses some of the issues of the CR (its goals, its short comings, its excesses) from that POV. Within the article there are other links to articles talking about those specific issues in greater depth, which is also useful for anyone trying to understand the multi dimensional aspects of the CR--something that is often times greatly lacking in the Western media.Giovanni33 08:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not an answer, that's an attempt to wriggle out of the question. Don't answer a question with a question, or a request with a request. I still want to know what the oh-so important information is. If it's everywhere you should be able to quote easily. John Smith's 18:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I quote the whole thing. Why paste it here? You have the links. Tell me what about is NOT relevant or important? Its you who is wiggling out of making specific and concrete objections.Giovanni33 18:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni, you can spin and try to divert the discussion by making demands all you like. Until you can highlight key parts of the article that are so important to the Cultural Revolution you have zero credibility. John Smith's 18:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Quite the other way around. The entire article is about the Cultural Revolution. Look at the title of the article: "Rethinking the Genealogy and Legacy of the Cultural Revolution." Now show me how the title is a lie and its not about the CR. Until you do so, your objection here has no merit, i.e. zero credibility.Giovanni33 22:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The article is on a conference about the Cultural Revolution, but it contains only a summary of it. It is just some guy saying how "interesting" it was, with no real useful information - otherwise you would have highlighted it.

Maybe if you spent more time thinking and less time trying to parrot what others say because you're too lazy to think up your own rejoinders, you might understand that. John Smith's 00:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't make comments like that, please. – Steel 00:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

If you insist on wasting space here, lets start with just one passage at a time from this article. Here is a POV on the CR, which is probably the real reason you dont like it. But, I am interseted to hear how you think it doesn't really pertain or provide any information about the CR. I think it makes a good point about the standard wastern view, and the experience in the city contrasted with the way the period is viewed in the rual areas: "Mao's purpose for initiating the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) was to mobilize and engage millions and millions from all sectors of society -- workers and peasants as well as students and intellectuals -- in a struggle against the forces within the Party that favored the restoration of capitalism. Among most intellectuals in China and the United States, the Cultural Revolution has been viewed as an era of inhumane chaos. It is true that the Cultural Revolution was chaotic, with various Red Guard factions (some were even sham Red Guards, possibly organized by those under attack to confuse the masses) and many instances of exaggerated and inhumane treatment of people, including killings. On the other hand, in the rural areas this period is commonly viewed in a more positive light -- an era when much infrastructure was built and attention paid to problems of the great mass of people living in the countryside."Giovanni33 08:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Re-read what I said. it doesn't go into much useful depth from what I can see I didn't say it had nothing relevant at all to say. What you wrote would be useful if it went into more depth, but it's only a summary of a view. There are no sources for that opinion, statistics, etc. Maybe you wouldn't mind the reverse of that, which was a source that said something along the lines of "lots of people died in the Cultural Revolution, had ink poured down their faces and the economy was shot to hell" (albeit in a more long-winded fashion) but I wouldn't deem it necessary. John Smith's 13:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Each section of a summary of a possition contains an article that one can click on for more depth. And it does list the sources--the speakers at this conference. The ponit being made regarding the differences in perception from the urban and rual standpoint is useful information. You want more depth then find another link that makes this point in more depth--dont delete it so we then have nothing making it.Giovanni33 19:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh God, not the "you go find more info" rountine. That's your response to everything, Giovanni. Why can't you go find the information we need rather than spam some silly conference report all over wikipedia? John Smith's 23:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

The information is there for you to read if you bothered to look instead of wikistalking me to any other article I go seeking to edit war. And you are not being honest. This link was only placed here and in the article about Chang's book, since it also discusses that. So, stop making false accusations. If you keep this up this wikistalking for the seeming purpose of only looking to have a battle and edit war--without even making an argument most of the times on the talk page,I will have to assume you are not being serious and will report you.Giovanni33 00:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

So what you mean is you can't counter my points, so you're going to completely change the subject. It would have been a lot easier if you had just said that. John Smith's 09:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No, your points have been refuted. You say "its not there, there is no useful information ther!' and I say it is there, it is useful, relevant. You ask me to point it out. I say read the article. You seem not to be able to do that and point out specifically any example to support your claims. So, I quote one section. Then you make the claim that its 'not in depth enough.' So I counter: If you want something more in depth then go and find that link and add it, and suggest this links replacement--provided it makes the same points better. Care to make your counter argument? I'm still waiting. But, no, you simply want to suppress the information all together under the flimsy guise that it "doesnt go in depth enough." Do you have any other point to make, other than trying to change the subject again?Giovanni33 18:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol, once again you default to you go and do my work for me mode. Giovanni it is up to you to find and supply information, not to dump something barely relevant and insist someone find something better. John Smith's 09:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I did supply the information, and refuted your false claims, above. You have failed to respond to that, or come up with any other substantive argument to support action of removing the link. Care to try again?Giovanni33 10:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You haven't refuted anything. You just regurgitated some generalisation and then told me to go do my own research. What you seem to be saying is that you can't find anything more concrete so are scraping the bottom of the barrel to have something. John Smith's 10:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As I posted earlier: No, your points have been refuted. You say "its not there, there is no useful information ther!' and I say it is there, it is useful, relevant. You ask me to point it out. I say read the article. You seem not to be able to do that and point out specifically any example to support your claims. So, I quote one section. Then you make the claim that its 'not in depth enough.' So I counter: If you want something more in depth then go and find that link and add it, and suggest this links replacement--provided it makes the same points better. Care to make your counter argument? I'm still waiting. It does not make sens to suppress all the information under the guise that it "doesnt go in depth enough." That doesnt stand unless you have a better link to sugges that makes the same points but in more depth. Answer that. Unless you do, you stand refuted.Giovanni33 10:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)