[–] MerrylandYBeerHeenya 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

In political science, the "reactionary classes" are those who hold political office/influence. So what Mao is saying is that the vast majority of whites have no interest in oppressing black people since a truly enlightened, gainful people have no interest in oppressing anybody. It is against any virtuous people's interest to opress another people.

[–] Sheeitpost [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

Therefor by extension he is saying if someone fails in the system the system is evil and wanting the system to stand is evidence the individual is evil as well... communism.

[–] alacrity167 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

can somebody explain in simple english what he's saying? having difficulty.

[–] bonghits4jeebus 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

He's saying the wealthy landlords and controllers of capital are the ones exploiting black people, not regular white working class people. Communism doesn't recognize a racial struggle (well didn't) but rather a struggle between various classes. Mao is reinforcing a Marxist view of the US.

[–] Sheeitpost [S] 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago  (edited ago)

I think what he is saying is explaining the original "white fragility" systemic racism ideology. He was selling China a postmodernist paradigm where the oppressor is evil and the oppressed are the good, totally discounting mankind's shared dismal societal advancements and strong evidence that civilization grows through colonialization and strife until it can reach capitalist equillibriums with moderate levels of peace - in other words, cultures should avoid war but if it is inevitable the long-term result may be a benefit, I.E. Rome's technological advances, the USA's technological advances after WW2. Mao also excuses extremism in his party under the guise of anti-imperialism/anti-exploitation. Fast forward Communist China is the most exploitative regime on the planet by any reasonable metric.

Mao is saying the winner is evil, while denying, for example, how the Aztecs were far scarier and barbaric than the Conquistadores and Cortez was able to defeat their empire by just going to the Aztecs victims and rallying them together (colonialization). Of course, Mao knew this conceptually as he was a voracious reader... but needed to rally uneducated and brainwashed people in China into not knowing that truly peaceful cultures throughout mankind's 100,000 year history are quite rare - therefor his claim that Communism was helping humanity by being oppressive and anti-capitalist is false and regressive since Communist China suffered over 100,000,000 deaths as a result of Mao's tyranny.

Mao wanted America's leadership and middle class to be silenced and once he identified they were of European descent that is who he criticized... race had nothing to do with it... he wanted the power structures to collapse and take advantage of class struggles and race struggles... by making people ignorant to what America actually stands for: freedom for any American.

[–] GhostBalls 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

I thought it was just me. This translation must be a little bit off.

[–] Sheeitpost [S] ago 

Just responded with what I think he meant below.

[–] Moonman_Alpha 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Mao Sukdong

[–] ReAwakened ago 

There seems to be some romanticism of the unwashed masses completely ignoring the fact that they're unwashed masses. There should be a minimum level of understanding required to participate in government, which is how the American government was supposed to work. The 17th amendment needs to be revoked.

[–] Misskylie42 ago 

Yeah cause they’re stupid .