quinta-feira, 30 de agosto de 2012

Ainda o maior tirano da humanidade: Mao Tse Tung e a grande fome


Mao's Great Famine
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mao's Great Famine: The History of China's Most Devastating Catastrophe, 1958–62, is a 2010 book by professor and historian Frank Dikötter about the Great Chinese Famine of 1958–1962.
Based on four years of research in recently opened Chinese provincial, county, and city archives,[1][2] the book constructs what Andrew J. Nathan, Professor and Chair of the Department of Political Science at Columbia University writing in Foreign Affairs, describes as "the most detailed account yet"[3] of the experiences of the Chinese people during the famine, which occurred under the Communist regime of Mao Zedong. The book supports an estimate of "at least" 45 million premature deaths in China during the famine years.[4] Dikötter characterises the Great Famine as "The worst catastrophe in China’s history, and one of the worst anywhere."[4].
The book won the Samuel Johnson Prize in 2011, beating five other works on the short list,[5] for being what the judges characterised as "stunningly original and hugely important".[6] The 20,000 award is the largest in the UK for a non-fiction book.[7]
Background
Dikötter is Chair Professor of Humanities at the University of Hong Kong, where he teaches courses on both Mao and the Great Chinese Famine,[8] and Professor of the Modern History of China from the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London. The author's research behind the book was funded by, in the UK, the Wellcome Trust, the Arts and Humanities Research Council, and the Economic and Social Research Council, and in Hong Kong, the Research Grants Council and the Chiang Ching-kuo Foundation.[9]
The first chapter of the book, entitled "The Pursuit of Utopia", explains how the Chinese Communist Party's Great Leap Forward program, intended to achieve the rapid modernization of Chinese industry and agriculture, instead led to the catastrophe of the famine. According to one reviewer, the chapter summarizes:
… Mao's hubristic and utterly impractical plans for remaking China in the image of communist paradise. These include mass mobilization fueled by revolutionary ardor alone, the expropriation of personal property and housing to be replaced by People's Communes, the centralized distribution of food, plans to leapfrog Britain in 15 years and outdo Stalin by "walking on two legs” (referring to development of both agriculture and industry), and regimenting and militarizing the entire society.[1]
The following chapters detail the attempt to reach these goals and the consequences of the failures to do so.[1] Dikötter was one of only a few historians granted access to the relevant Chinese archives.[5]
Key arguments of the book
On a website providing exposure for the book, Dikötter detailed his key arguments. First, he states that the famine lasted at least four years (early 1958 to late 1962), not the three sometimes stated. And after researching large volumes of Chinese archives, Dikötter concluded that decisions coming from the top officials of the Chinese government at Beijing were the direct cause of the famine.
Beijing government officials, including Zhou Enlai and Mao, increased the food procurement quota from the countryside to pay for international imports. According to Dikötter, "In most cases the party knew very well that it was starving its own people to death." Mao was quoted as saying in Shanghai in 1959: “When there is not enough to eat people starve to death. It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.”
In their attempts to survive, Chinese people resorted to hiding, stealing, cheating, pilfering, foraging, smuggling, tricking, manipulating or otherwise outwitting the government. There were reports of armed assaults on granaries or trains. Overall, Dikötter estimates that there were 45 million premature deaths, not 30 million as previously estimated. Some two to three million of these were victims of political repression, beaten or tortured to death or summarily executed for political reasons, often for the slightest infraction.
Because local communist cadres were in charge of food distribution, they were able to withhold food from anyone of whom they disapproved. Old, sick and weak individuals were often regarded as unproductive and hence expendable. Apart from Mao, Dikkötter accuses several other members of the top party leadership of doing nothing about the famine. While famine was ravaging the country, free food was still being exported to allies, as well as economic aid and interest-free or low-interest loans.
In addition to the human suffering, some 30 to 40 percent of all rural housing was demolished in village relocations, for building roads and infrastructure, or sometimes as punishment for political opponents. Up to 50 percent of trees were cut down in some provinces, as the rural ecological system was ruined.[10][4]
Responses to the book
Mao's Great Famine has elicited a number of responses (here presented in alphabetical order by author):
Jasper Becker, author of Hungry Ghosts: Mao's Secret Famine, praises the book as a "brilliant work, backed by painstaking research . . . The archive material gathered by Dikötter . . . confirms that far from being ignorant or misled about the famine, the Chinese leadership were kept informed about it all the time."[11]
Jung Chang, author of Mao: The Unknown Story, called the book: "The most authoritative and comprehensive study of the biggest and most lethal famine in history. A must-read."[12]
Jonathan Fenby, author of the Penguin History of Modern China and China Director at the research service, Trusted Sources, praised Dikötter's "masterly book" and states that his "painstaking research in newly opened local archives makes all too credible his estimate that the death toll reached 45 million people."[2]
Sinologist Roderick MacFarquhar said the book is "Pathbreaking... a first-class piece of research... [Mao] will be remembered as the ruler who initiated and presided over the worst man-made human catastrophe ever. His place in Chinese history is assured. Dikötter’s book will have done much to put him there."[13]
Historian and journalist Ben Macintyre, one of the judges for the Samuel Johnson Prize, said Mao's Great Famine was a "meticulous account of a brutal manmade calamity [that] is essential reading for anyone seeking to understand the history of the 20th century."[7] He also said that the book "could have been overwritten, but part of what makes it work so well is it is written with quiet fury. He doesn't overstate his case because he doesn't need to. Its very strength lies in its depth of scholarship, lightly worn."[6]
Writer Brenda Maddox, another of the judges for the prize, said "this book changed my life - I think differently about the 20th century than I did before. Why didn't I know about this?"[6]
Jonathan Mirsky, a historian and journalist specializing in Asian affairs, said Dikötter's book "is for now the best and last word on Mao's greatest horror. Frank Dikötter has put everyone in the field of Chinese studies in his debt, together with anyone else interested in the real China. Sooner or later the Chinese, too, will praise his name." He also writes that "In terms of Mao's reputation this book leaves the Chairman for dead, as a monster in the same league as Hitler and Stalin - and that is without considering the years of the Cultural Revolution (1966-76), when hundreds of thousands more Chinese died."[14]
The Indian essayist and novelist Pankaj Mishra, writing in The New Yorker, offered qualified praise for the book, stating that the "narrative line is plausible". However he stated that Dikötter is "generally dismissive of facts that could blunt his story’s sharp edge", and thought that Dikötter’s "comparison of the famine to the great evils of the Holocaust and the Gulag does not, finally, persuade".[15]
Cormac Ó Gráda, a leading scholar of famine, and professor of economics at University College Dublin, criticised the book describing it as reading "more like a catalogue of anecdotes about atrocities than a sustained analytic argument". Ó Gráda further goes on to describe the book as "weak on context and unreliable with data" and that it failed to note that "many of the horrors it describes were recurrent features of Chinese history during the previous century or so". Dikötter is also taken to task for his use of an unrealistic low 'normal' mortality rate of 1 percent in order to maximise his death count. Ó Gráda says 10 per thousand adopted by Dikötter is "implausibly low". Ó Gráda goes on to say that "The crude death rate in China in the wake of the revolution was probably about 25 per thousand. It is highly unlikely that the Communists could have reduced it within less than a decade to the implausibly low 10 per thousand adopted here (p. 331). Had they done so, they would have “saved” over 30 million lives in the interim! One can hardly have it both ways."[16] Ó Gráda criticises Dikötter's "breathless prose style – replete with expressions like 'plummeted,' 'rocketed,' 'beaten to a pulp,' 'beaten black and blue,' 'frenzy,' 'ceaseless,' 'frenzied witch-hunt'" which he said were more "reminiscent of the tabloid press than the standard academic monograph".[16]
Orville Schell, former Dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at the University of California, Berkeley, praised Dikötter's research in Chinese archives, which enabled him to unveil "the shroud on this period of monumental, man-made catastrophe" and document how Mao's "impetuosity was the demise of tens of millions of ordinary Chinese who perished unnecessarily in this spasm of revolutionary extremism."[12]
Simon Sebag-Montefiore, author of Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar, called the book "a gripping and masterful portrait of the brutal court of Mao."[12]
George Mason University Law School professor Ilya Somin called the book "excellent", and wrote that "Dikötter’s study is not the first to describe these events. Nonetheless, few Western intellectuals are aware of the scale of these atrocities, and they have had almost no impact on popular consciousness. This is part of the more general problem of the neglect of communist crimes. But Chinese communist atrocities are little-known even by comparison to those inflicted by communists in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, possibly because the Chinese are more culturally distant from Westerners than are Eastern Europeans or the German victims of the Berlin Wall. Ironically, the Wall (one of communism’s relatively smaller crimes) is vastly better known than the Great Leap Forward — the largest mass murder in all of world history. Hopefully, Dikötter’s important work will help change that."[17]
Steven Yearley, Professor of the Sociology of Scientific Knowledge at the University of Edinburgh, notes that the book "stands out" from other works on the famine "on account of its basis in recently opened archives and in the countless compelling details which are provided to clarify the interlocking themes of the text."[18]
Misrepresentation of famine image on book cover
Adam Jones, political science and genocide studies professor at UBC Okanagan, criticised Bloomsbury Publishing and Dikötter for using a cover photograph on their editions of the book of a starving child that was actually from a Lifemagazine depiction of a 1946 Chinese famine, well before the events described in the book took place. [19]
Jones places most of the blame on Bloomsbury, stating that "Most book covers are designed by the publisher, often using stock images, rather than by the author," but also accepted a blogger's point that it was unlikely that Dikötter would have been unaware of the deception, because in an interview with Newsweek magazine, Dikötter had stated that, to his knowledge, no 'non-propaganda' images from the Great Leap Forward had ever been found.[20] The Walker & Company edition of the book has a different cover, which incorporates a 1962 image of Chinese refugees to Hong Kong begging for food as they are deported back to China.[20]
References: 
1.     a b c Robertson, Matthew (21 November 2010). "Mao's Utopia a Medley of Death and Destruction"The Epoch Times.
2.     a b Fenby, Jonathan (5 September 2010). "Mao's Great Famine by Frank Dikötter"The Guardian (London).
4.     a b c Dikötter, Frank (15 December 15 2010). "Mao's Great Leap to Famine"International Herald Tribune.
6.     a b c d Flood, Alison (6 July 2011). "Samuel Johnson prize won by 'hugely important' study of Mao"The Guardian.
8.     ^ "Professor Frank Dikötter"University of Hong Kong. Retrieved 7 January 2011.
9.     ^ "Frank Dikötter". Frank Dikötter home page. Retrieved 1 January 2011.
10.   ^ Dikötter, Frank (20 October 2010). "Cover interview of October 20, 2010". Rorotoko.com. Retrieved 21 November 2010.
11.   ^ Becker, Jasper (25 September 2010). "Systematic genocide"The Spectator.
12.   a b c "Frank Dikötter: Advance Praise and Synopsis". Frank Dikötter Home Page. Retrieved 22 November 2010.
14.   ^ Mirksy, Jonathan (September 2010). "Livelihood Issues"Literary Review.
16.   a b Ó Gráda, Cormac (15 March 2011). "Great Leap into Famine? – Ó Gráda’s review of Dikötter book". China Study Group.
17.   ^ Somin, Ilya (17 December 2010). "Frank Dikötter on Mao’s Mass Murders"The Volokh Conspiracy.
18.   ^ Yearley, Steven (15 January 2011). "Book Review: Frank Dikötter, Mao's Great Famine"Food Security 3 (1): 113–115.doi:10.1007/s12571-010-0110-3.
19.   ^ Jones, Adam (7 October 2010). "Misrepresenting a famine image". Genocide Studies Media File.
20.   a b Fish, Issac Stone (26 September 2010). "Greeting Misery With Violence"Newsweek.

External links: 
§  Mao's Great Famine (Complete)Historian Frank Dikötter recounts the horrific cost of China's "Great Leap Forward" between 1958 and 1962. Asia Society, October 13, 2010. (Video)
§  Jeff Kingston. Mao's famine was no dinner party.The Japan Times, 3 October 2010
§  Peter Duffy. The MonsterThe New Republic. 27 October 2010.
§  Bhupesh Bhandari. Mao, the grim reaperBusiness Standard. 6 November 2010.




Revista Historia e Economia: chamada de artigos

Chamada de artigos Revista História e Economia
A Revista interdisciplinar História e Economia é uma publicação semestral impressa do Instituto de  História e Economia. A proposta do Conselho, formado por professores da USP, UFF, Unicamp e outras importantes universidades, quando criou o Instituto, foi resgatar e incentivar uma parte da nossa pesquisa pouco privilegiada nos centros acadêmicos, como a História Comparativa, a História Econômica e a História Política.  Receberemos artigos até o dia 15 de novembro de 2012.  Os artigos serão publicados no  v. 11, 2 º semestre de 2012. Os artigos devem ter no mínimo 20 páginas e ser enviados para o e-mail revistahistoriaeconomia@gmail.com
A Revista dedica-se à publicação de trabalhos nas áreas de Economia, História Econômica, História Financeira, e História das Idéias Econômicas. Publicamos somente textos originais, aceitando em casos especiais, a publicação simultânea em revista estrangeira. Recebemos artigos em português, inglês, espanhol ou francês.
Os artigos poderão ser referentes a quaisquer países ou regiões. Todos os artigos serão publicados no idioma em que foram escritos.

Conselho Editorial da Revista História e Economia
Adalton Franciozo Diniz (Faculdade Cásper Líbero/PUC- SP)
André Villela (EPGE/FGV)
Antônio Penalves Rocha (USP)
Carlos Eduardo Carvalho (PUC/SP)
Carlos Gabriel Guimarães (UFF)
Flavio Saes (USP)
Gail Triner (Rutgers University)
Jaime Reis (ICS - Universidade de Lisboa)
John Schulz (BBS)
John K. Thornton (Boston University)
Jonathan B. Wight (University of Richmond)
José Luis Cardoso (ICS – Universidade de Lisboa)
Marcos Cintra (Unicamp)
Pedro Carvalho de Mello (ESALQ)
Renato Leite Marcondes (USP/Ribeirão Preto)
Ricardo Feijó (USP/Ribeirão Preto)
Steven Topik (University of California Irvine)
Vitoria Saddi (INSPER)

quarta-feira, 29 de agosto de 2012

O maior tirano da humanidade: Mao Tse-tung

Este post é dedicado a um leitor, obviamente anônimo, que acha que o ex-Partido Comunista da finada União Soviética era de "esquerda". 
Uau! Ele chama partidos totalitários, e reacionários, como sendo de "esquerda". Não havia nada mais conservador, reacionário, arcaico, e anti-esquerda do que o PCUS. Ele era a favor do imobilismo desde Stalin, pelo menos, ou seja, durante setenta anos. Como pode ser de esquerda um partido conservador e imobilista?
Mao Tsé-tung era outro reacionário, embora anárquico. Certamente não era de esquerda. Era apenas... maoista. Ele foi, provavelmente, o homem que mais matou outros homens (e mulheres e crianças), muito mais que Stalin e bem mais do que Hitler.
Foi um dos grandes tiranos da história humana conhecida, como se pode constatar pelo texto abaixo.
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 

Sábado, 25 de agosto de 2012

:: Maria João Marques

                        Como, para mim, denunciar os crimes do comunismo é sempre uma atividade meritória e prazenteira, aqui vos deixo uma sugestão de leitura: Mao's Great Famine de Frank Dikotter.
            Quase acabado de sair do prelo, faz uso de muitas fontes originais, sobretudo guardadas nas sedes partidárias estaduais (as centrais estão ainda vedadas a olhos curiosos), para nos dar um retrato já muito aprofundado desse movimento de radical coletivização da agricultura (sempre um grande desígnio comunista) chamado Grande Salto A Frente que inevitavelmente (e como sucede com todos os movimentos de coletivização da agricultura) matou de fome, pelo menos, 45 milhões de chineses (números de Dikotter).
            Apesar do tema pesado, o livro está bem escrito e permite uma leitura fluída. E, sendo um livro de história de um acadêmico renomado, é também uma viagem ao absurdo e não se consegue ler sem esboçar uns tantos sorrisos de incredulidade. A adoção de métodos agrícolas não científicos, mas ideológicos (porque as adotadas pelos camponeses e testadas pelo tempo eram ‘métodos direitistas’ indignos de um país socialista) que levaram a uma quebra importante na produção agrícola.                                                                                                           As fundições nas traseiras que permitiriam que a China produzisse mais aço do que a Grã-Bretanha em quinze anos (e, depois, em três ou quatro), que consumiu todos os produtos metálicos das zonas rurais, incluindo as ferramentas agrícolas (oops!), desviou milhões de camponeses dos trabalhos nos campos para as fundições e que terminou com quebra abrupta na produção agrícola e produziu toneladas de aço de má qualidade não usável. As colossais obras de irrigação feitas às pressas e em locais errados que findaram abandonadas ou com efeitos contrários aos inicialmente planeados, com destaque para a barragem que iria tirar o lodo ao Rio Amarelo, mas que levou a que o lodo fosse duplicado.  Um regime comunista, a usar os camponeses como trabalho escravo (sem comida, sem horas de descanso, sem acomodações adequadas ao clima, sem cuidados médicos, com espancamentos, com humilhações públicas…) nas obras de irrigação, nas comunas agrícolas ou nas fundições, acabou matando, por esta via, milhões de camponeses.
                        As sucessivas rodadas de expurgos, que puniram, sobretudo os quadros do PCC (Partido Comunista Chinês), que tentavam proteger as populações dos efeitos das políticas do “Grande Salto A Frente e aqueles que denunciavam a existência de fome generalizada, quando o topo do politiburo do PCC considerava a situação “excelente” e as mortes ocorridas ‘uma lição de valor’, destacando-se o expurgado ministro da defesa Peng Dehuai (que morreria, ainda como castigo por ter falado verdade em 1959, durante a revolução cultural).
            A proteção da imagem internacional da China, doando toneladas de alimentos a países como a Albânia enquanto nos campos a fome matava a eito vinha sempre em decorrência das “sábias” citações de Mao Tsé Tung, ora questionando sobre que destino daria aos excedentes que o GSF produziria, ora exortando os camponeses chineses (famintos) a tornarem-se vegetarianos para que se pudesse exportar a carne chinesa, ora afirmando que “mais valia que metade da população morresse para que a outra metade tivesse a sua porção de comida”.
            Os elaborados esquemas que levaram à criação de um complexo mercado de sucessivas trocas diretas, etc., etc., etc.. E, claro, as mortes. Está tudo no livro de Dikotter, que recomendo vivamente. 
Título e Texto: Maria João MarquesO Insurgente
Mao’s Great Famine

                        “Between 1958 and 1962, China lived through tragedy on an epic scale. The “Great Leap Forward” – conceived by Mao so that China could drive industrial output ahead of Great Britain and achieve autonomy from the might of the neighboring USSR – led to a catastrophic famine resulting in the death of between 36 and 55 million people.
            “Three years of natural disasters”: it is in these terms that the Chinese Communist Party today justifies this terrible outcome. But the tragedy was masked by an official lie, because while China was starving to death, the grain stores were full.
            Based on previously unheard testimony by survivors, rare archive footage, secret documents and interviews with the leading historians on this catastrophe, this film provides, for the first time, an insight into the folly of the “Great Leap Forward”.
            It examines the mechanisms and political decisions that led to famine, stripping away the incredible secrecy surrounding the campaign, and exposing the lie which continues even today as to who was responsible, and the true human cost”.

Venezuela no Mercosul: e a imprensa, de fora?


PRESS FREEDOM GROUP: VENEZUELA MEDIA UNDER ASSAULT

Aug 29, 10:50 AM EDT


CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- The Committee to Protect Journalists said in a new report Wednesday that Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's government has used threats and a barrage of restrictive measures to gradually weaken the country's private news media.
The New York-based press freedom group said restrictions have come through harassment of critical journalists as well as fines and other measures to penalize coverage of sensitive subjects.
The group's report cited a $2.2 million fine against TV channel Globovision for its coverage of a deadly prison uprising last year. It also condemned an injunction issued earlier this year calling for journalists to base reports about water contamination on hard data, specifically requiring a "truthful technical report backed by a competent institution."
That measure came after reports in Venezuelan newspapers about complaints of contaminated drinking water, and after an oil spill that fouled the Guarapiche River in eastern Venezuela.
"The injunction on water reporting is only the latest addition to a minefield of legislative changes and presidential decrees put forth by Chavez's administration to restrict the independent media," CPJ said in its report. "Through its massive state media presence and its use of censorship, legal harassment, and administrative sanctions, the Chavez government sets clear limits on public dissent."
The group said such measures have led to censorship and a dearth of in-depth coverage about some key issues ahead of Venezuela's Oct. 7 presidential election. It also said access to information that should be public has increasingly been restricted, and that journalists from critical Venezuelan news organizations such as Globovision often are excluded from news conferences.
There was no immediate reaction from the Venezuelan government to the report. Chavez has repeatedly said that the government respects press freedom, while also strongly criticizing private media that he says campaign against him.
Chavez on Tuesday accused his opponents of using the media for political purposes to take advantage of last weekend's deadly refinery explosion, which killed dozens and set off debate about safety measures within the oil industry.
"They have a well thought-out strategy that we shouldn't underestimate," Chavez said in a television Cabinet meeting.
Joel Simon, CPJ's executive director, said past government measures against critical media outlets are likely to have an impact as Venezuelan journalists report on the disaster because some may be concerned about reprisals for aggressive reporting.
"The legal environment that exists now is journalists always have to worry whether reporting, even nuts-and-bolts reporting about issues that have broad impact for the public, things like crime, things like public safety, whether there could be government action and legal action as a result of that reporting," Simon said in a telephone interview from New York. "And that's simply unacceptable, particularly in the context of a political campaign."
----
Ian James on Twitter: HTTP://TWITTER.COM/IANJAMESAP

Postagem em destaque

Livro Marxismo e Socialismo finalmente disponível - Paulo Roberto de Almeida

Meu mais recente livro – que não tem nada a ver com o governo atual ou com sua diplomacia esquizofrênica, já vou logo avisando – ficou final...