When British lawmakers recently quoted from Mao Zedongs Little Red Book during a heated budget debate, it was more than a clever jab it was a striking reminder of how deeply Mao has embedded himself into global political language. Much like Confucius, Caesar, or Napoleon, Mao has transcended his national origins to become a symbolic figure in world culture. Yet unlike ancient sages or imperial conquerors, Maos influence remains immediate, provocative, and paradoxical.
In the 1960s, Maos quotations swept through Western youth movements, from anti-Vietnam protests to the student uprisings of May 1968. His aphorisms became rallying cries not only in Beijing but also in Berkeley and Paris. To this day, his words retain rhetorical power short, sharp, ideologically loaded. This explains why a British MP would reach for Maos words to criticize a governments dependence on Chinese investment: it hits with symbolic weight.
Mao and Confucius may seem oppositional one preached order, the other incited revolution yet both left behind compact, quotable legacies that traveled far beyond their time and place. Western leaders are not endorsing Maoism when they cite him; they are borrowing the expressive force of a figure whose language carries immediate cultural recognition, even shock value. This rhetorical function is distinct from political endorsement it reflects Maos presence as a cultural code, not a political prescription.
One could ask: how does Mao compare to Caesar, Alexander, or Queen Elizabeth I, none of whom were democratically elected either? The difference is in the medium and the moment. Maos rise coincided with mass media, ideological struggle, and global literacy. His ideas were weaponized in real time across continents, not simply remembered centuries later. The fear he invoked especially in the Wests educational and political systems was profound enough to influence institutional curricula and liberal democracies self-conception.
It is tempting to judge Mao only by his political legacy the Cultural Revolution, the violence, the purges. But such a totalizing view risks replicating the same ideological rigidity that many accuse him of. Like many historic figures, Maos legacy is contradictory: destructive in action, yet intellectually generative. Dismissing all of his ideas outright, including early writings on critical thinking and self-correction, ignores the philosophical richness that made him more than a dictator it made him a debater of history.
In the end, the use of Maos quotes in the British Parliament doesnt signal admiration. It reveals something more powerful: that his language, for better or worse, has entered the bloodstream of global discourse. The Little Red Book is no longer just a Chinese artifact its a rhetorical device in the theater of world politics.
**
H/t:
通俗易懂用另一个词。有一次两个议员辩论同时引用毛语录
回答:英国人制衡思维下的势力均衡政策/抑强扶弱的政策?由TJKCB于2025-04-16 10:25:55
(4090 bytes) (77 reads) 04/16/2025 10:25:55工具化理解中学为体，西学为用/貴族與平民, 相生相剋/把法治当成依法治人，不是依法限制权力-TJKCB-♀
(3029 bytes) (15 reads) 04/16/2025 11:14:39通俗易懂用另一个词。有一次两个议员辩论同时引用毛语录-美国老师-♂
(193 bytes) (13 reads) 04/17/2025 19:57:38
(1)Mao Tse-tung孔子敏而好学不耻下问household name around the world文化图腾-TJKCB-♀
(942 bytes) (0 reads) 04/18/2025 13:01:35Mao Tse-tung孔子敏而好学不耻下问household name around the world文化图腾
毛主席的话的意思和孔子的名言是一个意思啊。 子贡问曰：孔文子何以谓之文也？子曰：敏而好学，不耻下问，是以谓之文也。 Mao Tse-tung, like Confucius, has become a household name around the world. Once, during a heated debate, two parliamentarians even quoted from Maos Little Red Book at the same time a moment that showed how deeply his words have blended into global political discourse.西方政治家拿来用，不是认同毛的极权实践，而是因为毛的语录具备一种压缩式、修辞式的简明洞察，在辩论中能起到重锤一句的效果。
**
工具化理解中学为体，西学为用/貴族與平民, 相生相剋/把法治当成依法治人，不是依法限制权力
本帖于 2025-04-16 11:31:54 时间, 由普通用户 TJKCB 编辑
回答:英国人制衡思维下的势力均衡政策/抑强扶弱的政策?由TJKCB于2025-04-16 10:25:55
这就是他们的制衡思维下的势力均衡政策。而且英国人做事不讲情感，不守盟约，只认效益。所有国家里头，英国是最难斗的。(来源:norman103于2025-04-16)
中国历史重视大一统、皇权神授，讲究家国同构与天命观。西方文明则是在封建割据、教权压迫下，逐步推进个人自由、权力分立、制度制衡的路径中前行。这就造成表面上的同词异义，实质上的文化水土不服。
比如中国人理解自由，常以为是无拘无束、为所欲为，却不懂西方语境下自由是受法律保护的权利边界。民主也常被误解为听多数人的，却忽视它背后的制度程序与少数权利的保障。
???? 为什么说中国还没完全理解西方文明的来源？
因为我们对现代文明的认知，仍常处于工具化理解阶段。(中学为体，西学为用即中体西用。清末洋务派的指导思想。主张以中国伦常经史之学为原本，以西方科技之术为应用。初由冯桂芬提出，后由张之洞在《劝学篇》中系统阐述。)
1) 把民主当成口号，而不是程序；
2) 把法治当成依法治人，不是依法限制权力；
3) 把议会当成吵架场所，没意识到它是社会妥协的舞台；
把文官制度当成考试工具，而非去官僚化与防腐机制。
就像英国早已在富不过三代中实现了贵族和平民的权力交替，而中国人仍幻想权贵家族世袭永享太平；他们明白制度制衡来自于现实的丛林法则，而我们常寄望于圣君仁政的偶然。
So?
中国人被忽悠的，不是被骗，而是误把表层的枪炮、科技、大学、工厂当成文明的全貌。而真正支撑西方现代文明的，是制度的演化、思想的抗争、权力的制衡、人性的释放。这些东西，不是教条，而是血泪与智慧的凝结。我们若不去理解它的来处，只能不断被它的表象所迷惑。
(0/16 reads)2025-04-16 10:25:55
用的都是抑强扶弱的政策?
貴族與平民: 富不過三代, 大概率貴族平民化，統治政策只好兼顧平民的活命。貴族與平民, 相生相剋。中国历史重视大一统、皇权神授，讲究家国同构与天命观。西方文明则是在封建割据、教权压迫下，逐步推进个人自由、权力分立、制度制衡的路径中前行。这就造成表面上的同词异义，实质上的文化水土不服。
比如中国人理解自由，常以为是无拘无束、为所欲为，却不懂西方语境下自由是受法律保护的权利边界。民主也常被误解为听多数人的，却忽视它背后的制度程序与少数权利的保障。
???? 为什么说中国还没完全理解西方文明的来源？
因为我们对现代文明的认知，仍常处于工具化理解阶段。(中学为体，西学为用即中体西用。清末洋务派的指导思想。主张以中国伦常经史之学为原本，以西方科技之术为应用。初由冯桂芬提出，后由张之洞在《劝学篇》中系统阐述。)
1) 把民主当成口号，而不是程序；
2) 把法治当成依法治人，不是依法限制权力；
3) 把议会当成吵架场所，没意识到它是社会妥协的舞台；
把文官制度当成考试工具，而非去官僚化与防腐机制。
就像英国早已在富不过三代中实现了贵族和平民的权力交替，而中国人仍幻想权贵家族世袭永享太平；他们明白制度制衡来自于现实的丛林法则，而我们常寄望于圣君仁政的偶然。
So?
中国人被忽悠的，不是被骗，而是误把表层的枪炮、科技、大学、工厂当成文明的全貌。而真正支撑西方现代文明的，是制度的演化、思想的抗争、权力的制衡、人性的释放。这些东西，不是教条，而是血泪与智慧的凝结。我们若不去理解它的来处，只能不断被它的表象所迷惑。
**
H/t:
英国人制衡思维下的势力均衡政策/抑强扶弱的政策?(0/16 reads)2025-04-16 10:25:55
