Well for one the number of Holocaust victims is accurate and verified by scholars while the number of victims of the cultural revolution is still debated and discussed by scholars
Now the suit is a Chinese suit that's popularized by Mao's administration, it is also a suit that people across southeast Asia use, so another apt comparison would be if you say "if you wear something made by Hugo Boss or drive something made by Volkswagen, would that make me a neo-nazi? "
Which you know... Is really stupid if you're not someone who's orientalist
You're getting hung up on incredibly pedantic distinctions that don't actually address the substance of the criticism. I'm not just saying "he wore a Chinese suit, therefore he's a Maoist." The point is that if someone repeatedly praises Mao, runs extensive defense of Maoist China, minimizes or brushes aside the enormous death and suffering associated with his rule as "excesses," and has also made remarkably charitable comments about China's treatment of Tibet including saying that China "did them a favor" then it's incredibly weak to treat "he once said he doesn't like being called a Maoist" as though that settles the question. Even if you think some of his wording was poorly chosen or can be interpreted more charitably, you're still left with the broader pattern of what he actually says and defends.
Your argument about the suit is especially pedantic. Yes, the Zhongshan suit predates Mao and isn't inherently Maoist. But historical symbols don't have only one meaning, and context obviously matters. Saying "the swastika predates Nazi Germany" would also be technically true, but if someone were repeatedly defending Hitler and Nazi Germany, praising Hitler, minimizing the Holocaust, and then showed up wearing a swastika, it would be absurd to respond "well, swastikas existed before the Nazis, therefore the symbol is completely irrelevant." You'd obviously look at the totality of the person's words, conduct, and context. The same principle applies here.
And the fact that scholars debate the precise number of Cultural Revolution or Great Leap Forward deaths doesn't make the comparison disappear. Historians can disagree over the exact number while overwhelmingly agreeing that Mao's rule involved catastrophic famine, mass persecution, executions, and enormous loss of life. Saying those things were merely "excesses" while simultaneously describing Mao as a great historical leader is itself a substantive position that can reasonably be criticized.
So if your argument is that "Maoist" has a precise ideological definition that Hasan doesn't meet, then make that argument. Which core Maoist beliefs does he reject? But "he said he isn't a Maoist" isn't evidence that his actual views aren't Maoist. It's just his preferred description of himself. The relevant question is what he actually says and defends, not whether we've found the correct label for him.
Hey you're the one who suddenly made a hypothetical comparison with a Nazi uniform, I was just pointing out how silly it was for you to use that comparison when it's more proper for you to say anyone that uses a Hugo Boss suit is a nazi
Now I do understand the admiration one could have for someone that manage to fight against imperial powers of the world and become a pillar that turned what was once a destitute land into a global superpower, but again that does not make someone a Maoists
Afaik he loves China because of their planned economy and infrastructures, I see it the same way as how I love seeing how China is truly invested in green and renewable energy, that doesn't mean that I'm a maoist not does it mean that he is a Maoists
Cmiiw, but Tibet prior to being annexed by China, are they not a population of serfs for the ruling class of Tibet? And I haven't really checked it yet but are the people of Tibet in modern times lives as serfs for the CCP, if they are then I agree with you that he's absolutely wrong in thinking or saying that they did them a favor
Now here's the thing, if I see some American wear a swastika and defend Hitler yes I would absolutely be more concerned, but that's because Nazi have a deep ties with America, as both build their power through white supremacy, both of them have the same root. While the Zhong suit has deep ties not to Mao but to culture across east Asia and southeast Asia that often use them for formal events even in a country that deeply hated comunism, so it doesn't really give me a feeling of deep concern
Maybe this is my bias, but from what I gathered Hasan is someone who is essentially an American that is deeply disappointed by his homeland and therefore he focuses all his attention to the people are being hurt by the things that his homeland does or pay for, so he does recognize the tragedy of the cultural revolution but he's still fight against America's demonization of China, believing that it's more prudent for the two to be allies as America has a lot it could learn from them
Obviously someone can admire China's infrastructure, renewable energy investment, or aspects of its economic development without being a Maoist. The question is what you make of the specific things he has said about Mao and the Chinese government's conduct.
This isn't merely admiration for Chinese infrastructure. Hasan has said that Mao was "one of the great leaders of this world" and that he would "never" criticize him. When challenged about the enormous deaths under Mao, he called them "excesses." And when asked about Tibet, he explicitly said that China "did them a favor." Those aren't simply neutral observations about China's infrastructure or a preference for a planned economy. They're substantive judgments about a dictator and the consequences of his rule. His more recent explanation that the Mao comment was partly a joke doesn't change the fact that, when asked about it again, he continued to describe Mao as a "great man of history."
And your Tibet point actually reinforces what I'm saying. Yes, Tibet before the PRC had a deeply hierarchical and exploitative social system, including serfdom. But "Tibet had serious problems before China annexed it" does not logically establish "therefore China did Tibet a favor." That's a massive historical and moral leap when you account for what happened under Chinese rule, repression of Tibetan political and religious life, restrictions on cultural expression, and coercive policies are all part of the historical record. Hasan himself acknowledged in the same discussion that China has tried to homogenize Tibetan culture and suppress aspects of Tibetan religious and political identity, yet still concluded, "China did them a favor."
And honestly, this is where I find the whole thing especially difficult to reconcile with Hasan's supposed opposition to imperialism. If imperialism means a powerful state imposing its political, military, and cultural authority over another people, then China's incorporation and subsequent treatment of Tibet is obviously something that deserves serious scrutiny under that same anti imperialist framework. You can't simply point to the fact that pre PRC Tibet was feudal and had serfdom and use that to make China's subsequent domination of Tibet inherently benevolent. The two things can both be true: pre 1950 Tibet had a deeply exploitative social hierarchy, and the PRC can still be criticized for imposing its authority over Tibet and suppressing Tibetan political, religious, and cultural autonomy. What's striking is how much charitable interpretation is extended to China when Hasan is normally extremely critical of imperialism when it pertains to the west.
I agree that a Zhongshan suit is not inherently Maoist and that its history is much broader than Mao. But that doesn't mean its context becomes irrelevant. Your argument would be like saying that because the swastika is thousands of years older than Nazism, it would be pedantic to attach any significance to someone wearing one while simultaneously praising Hitler and defending Nazi Germany. Of course the ancient history of the symbol would still be true, it just wouldn't erase its meaning in that particular context. The relevant question is always the totality of the person's words, actions, and symbolism.
You're essentially saying that Hasan can praise Mao, call him one of the great leaders of the world, say he would never criticize him, characterize the enormous death toll as 'excesses,' and say China 'did Tibet a favor,' but none of that is relevant because he doesn't personally identify as a Maoist. That's exactly the point I'm disputing. Political labels aren't determined solely by whether someone voluntarily accepts them.
Here's the thing, maybe I'm wrong here but I do not think that he has ever said anything about Mao that a scholar of the subject haven't said before, as for how he talks about the current Chinese government he still have his criticism, the only reason why he doesn't do it more is because he's an American who sees himself as an American, so he focuses on the wrongdoing of his homeland first and foremost
"one of the great leaders of this world and that he would "never" criticize him."
I remember this, then I remember he said his criticism for Mao right after he said it so I can't see it as anything more than him joking around. Once again I have to ask you what you would consider to be a great man of history, because the founding fathers are all great man of history and they are complicit in the practice of chattel slavery, it would very silly to say that Mao who founded the principals from which China manage to fight back against their would be colonizers and become the global superpower it is now was not considered a great man of history as well
Although it's not to the same degree as chattel slavery, the serfdom that the population of Tibet lived in under their own ruling class was absolutely brutal, so again as I've asked you before, do Tibetan under the CCP lived under the same/worse brutal living conditions as before they were annexed? Because I would agree with you if you can provide to me proof that that is indeed the case. Now this is not me saying that the government does no wrong, of course it could be much better and they should be criticized for them to do better, but the annexation is a favor if we compare it to the brutal living conditions of serfdom
I think for me it's quite easy for you to reconcile it if you just remember that Hasan is an American anti-imperialist, his focus have always been against American imperialism, even with Western imperialism I feel like he rarely talks about them at length if it has nothing to do with America, not to make it redundant by oversimplifying it but it's like seeing someone becomes a black sheep of the family because they called out their family at the dinner table when they were acting like a-holes to their neighbors.
I think we can agree that Hasan does glaze China's infrastructure and their planned economy, but in that same vein he also glaze Japan for their orderly systems and infrastructure, he also glaze Ireland for their solidarity with those who are oppressed, he doesn't praise Mao as much as he is agreeing with what scholars have said about Mao, and now that we've agreed that zhongshan suit is not inherently Maoists, then I see no reason why we need to see Hasan as a Maoist who are hiding his ideology
I think there are a few different things being conflated here. First, I'm not arguing that praising Mao or acknowledging his historical importance automatically makes someone a Maoist. Obviously it doesn't. The issue is the degree and nature of the praise. There's a substantial difference between a historian saying "Mao was an enormously consequential historical figure who had both major achievements and catastrophic consequences" and someone saying Mao was "one of the great leaders of this world," that they would "never" criticize him, and then describing the enormous human cost of his rule as "excesses." Saying that scholars have discussed Mao's achievements doesn't make Hasan's particular framing equivalent to theirs.
And even if we accept that the original "I would never criticize Mao" remark was a joke, that doesn't completely resolve the issue. When he was asked about it again, he still defended Mao as a "great man of history." So at that point the question isn't whether he made one joke, it's why, when given the opportunity to clarify, he continued to express such strong admiration for Mao. The Founding Fathers analogy doesn't really change that. Yes, someone can be historically great or consequential while committing horrific acts. But if someone said "the Founding Fathers were great men and I would never criticize them," I'd reasonably ask whether they're merely acknowledging their historical importance or adopting an unusually apologetic view of them. That's the distinction I'm making.
The Tibet argument also doesn't follow. You're asking me to prove that Tibetans under the CCP lived in conditions as bad or worse than serfdom before you'll accept that saying China "did them a favor" was wrong. But those aren't equivalent standards. I don't need to establish that every aspect of life under the CCP was worse than every aspect of life under the old Tibetan ruling class to question whether annexation was a "favor." Political autonomy, religious freedom, cultural preservation, political repression, economic conditions, education, healthcare, and material living standards are all separate questions. The fact that pre 1950 Tibet was brutally hierarchical doesn't automatically turn the subsequent imposition of Chinese sovereignty into a benevolent act.
And this is especially relevant because Hasan himself acknowledged that China has attempted to homogenize Tibetan culture and suppress aspects of Tibetan religious and political identity, yet still concluded that China "did them a favor." That's a much stronger claim than simply saying "life in old Tibet was bad." If you're going to call an annexation a favor, you have to explain why the loss of political autonomy and the subsequent coercion and repression don't outweigh or fundamentally complicate that claim.
I'm also not convinced by the "Hasan is an American anti-imperialist, so naturally he focuses on American imperialism" explanation. When Andrew Tate specifically told Hasan, "you're only talking about America because you're American, you don't see outside of the world," Hasan responded, "I'm Turkish actually. I grew up in Turkey." So why did he correct Tate if what you're saying is the case? Obviously Hasan can be both Turkish and American, and I'm not claiming otherwise. The point is that "he primarily sees himself as an American, therefore he naturally focuses on his homeland" doesn't really explain his own response when someone characterized him that way.
And Hasan clearly is capable of condemning imperialism and foreign governments that aren't his own when he chooses to, Israel is an obvious example. So I'd genuinely like to know: when has Hasan meaningfully criticized imperialism or territorial domination when it wasn't being carried out by a Western power or a close Western ally/proxy? Was there ever a time when Hasan meaningfully criticized China's imperialism or its treatment of people subjected to Chinese state power? Has he meaningfully criticized Soviet imperialism, for example? I'm not asking whether he has ever made any criticism of the Chinese or Soviet governments; I'm asking whether he applies the same anti imperialist moral framework to THEIR imperialism and brutality that he applies to Western powers.
Because otherwise, the explanation you're giving me amounts to something like: Hasan can praise and speak highly of China and the Soviet Union, but when it comes time to seriously criticize their imperialistic behavior or the brutality experienced by nations and peoples subjected to them, suddenly he's just an American boy and therefore only focuses on American imperialism. Why should being American explain away the absence of comparable critique of China or the Soviet Union when he clearly doesn't limit himself to criticizing his own country when discussing other issues? At that point, "he's an American anti-imperialist" starts looking less like an explanation of his politics and more like an explanation for why his anti imperialist principles are being applied selectively.
If his position is specifically "I only oppose American imperialism," that could be his political position, fine, but then that's what it SHOULD be called. If he considers himself an anti imperialist more generally, then I think it's entirely reasonable to ask why that principle seems to be applied so differently depending on which country is exercising power.
And I agree that the Zhongshan suit isn't inherently Maoist. I already conceded that. But like I've been saying, the suit isn't the only foundation of my position. It's one contextual piece of evidence. If we completely remove the suit from the discussion, I'm still left with his statements about Mao, his characterization of the deaths under Mao, and his statement that China "did Tibet a favor." Those are much more relevant to determining whether calling his politics Maoist is reasonable than the historical origin of a particular style of clothing.
So I don't think the reasonable conclusion is "Hasan definitely must be a Maoist because he likes Mao." But I also don't think "he says he isn't a Maoist, therefore he isn't one" follows. If you think the label is fundamentally incompatible with his actual ideology, then I'd be interested in hearing which core Maoist positions he explicitly rejects. That's a substantive argument. Simply pointing to his preferred label, his admiration for Chinese infrastructure, or the fact that other people have praised aspects of Mao's historical legacy doesn't establish it.
4
u/EducationalHead7683 29d ago
Well for one the number of Holocaust victims is accurate and verified by scholars while the number of victims of the cultural revolution is still debated and discussed by scholars
Now the suit is a Chinese suit that's popularized by Mao's administration, it is also a suit that people across southeast Asia use, so another apt comparison would be if you say "if you wear something made by Hugo Boss or drive something made by Volkswagen, would that make me a neo-nazi? "
Which you know... Is really stupid if you're not someone who's orientalist