Regardless of the views that a person may have on Mao, history will ultimately give a fair judgement on Mao's achievement. I would like to give an objective comparison of Mao to several of past Chinese leaders:
Comparing Mao to Han Wudi is wrong. Han Wudi was a very blessed emperor. His two predecessors spent roughly 50-60 years of pure economic development in order to have the resources and technologies for Han Wudi to achieve his greatness. Similarly, comparing Mao to Qianlong of the Qing Dynasty is also wrong.
Two great Chinese leaders that Mao cannot match are Tang Taizong and Kangxi of the Qing Dynasty. Both were founders/immediate rulers after unification/occupation of China. Both reigns took place after years of ravaging and pillaging by hungry peasants, civil wars, invasions, etc. Both reigns were marked by several internal uprisings. Please also keep in mind that the Yellow River never stopped flooding and that there is always a drought somewhere in the central plains of China. What stopped these so called "natural disasters" were, to a certain degree, prevented due to effective governing and, to a certain degree, mitigated due to prompt responses. That's why the disasters did not become the "worst natural disasters of the century."
Neither Tang Taizong nor Kangxi received any foreign subsidies. Tang Taizong had to tighten his belt in his early years by reducing imperial spendings by cutting back on standards of ceremonies. Tang Taizong employed good-willed and strong-opinionated advisors who constantly pissed him off by preventing him from doing what he wanted. Together with open border agreements with neighboring countries and free religious practices, and after twenty years of reign, China was able to reach one of the most glorious and longest gold age.
Kangxi, on the other hand, faced a reigned with 90%+ population opposing his rule. He was able to learn from the opposing culture and developed a form of governance that was strict yet humane. He developed the most comprehensive testing system to date to avoid fraud and corruption, which in turn provided civilians with opportunities for advancement and provided himself with qualified officials to assist in governing. He also allowed for open borders and readily accepted Western technologies and was able to solidify litigious border issues with Russia. After his reign of 60 years or so, the prosperity was able to continue unhindered for another 70-80 years.
Similar in setup, yet due to different governing philosophies and insufficient sacrifices, Mao was not able to achieve as great of an accomplishment as Tang Taizong and Kanxi.
On the other hand, comparing Mao to Qin Shi Huang, Sui Wendi, or Kublai Khan, you will see a lot of similarities but differences in terms of outcomes.
Qin Shi Huang, who unified China, unified the coinage, unified the written language, unified the standards of wheel, was arguably one of the most accomplished leaders. He ended the Warring States period, which lasted for hundreds of years, and moved the country forward under one rule. Without him, there is no China today. Similarly, Mao ended years of internal strife between regional military rulers and between the KMT and the Communist Party and unified the mainland China. Qin Shi Huang burned books and buried scholars while Mao brought about the Cultural Revolution and sent educated youngsters to the farms instead of universities. Qin Shi Huang built the Great Wall and kept the barbarians at bay while Mao built a sizeable military and one of the first atom bombs to keep greedy outsiders from taking more land away from China. What is different is that Qin Shi Huang's dynasty lasted for only 18 years while the Communist Party is still in control of China today.
Sui Wendi, who also unified China after years of civil war, had a great opportunity to achieve greatness without the constant battering from natural disasters. However, his government was too fragile to last under the reign of his son. In contrast, even with all the so called disasters and much debated achievements, the People's Republic is now in its fourth succession.
Kublai Khan, a great leader for the Mongolians, was a horrible ruler for the Chinese. His distrust of the Han people ultimately limited the Yuan Dynasty to a mere 99 years. Similarly, Mao's distrust of his peers limited the country from rapid growth during his reign. However, his legacy did not last as the borders were opened in the 1980s.
Mao did some great things but also did some horrible things. He was definitely not lucky in terms of timing but he was definitely successful in becoming one of the most recognizable face of the modern world from a humble beginning of an ancestral scholar.
In terms of achievements, I would compare Mao to Zhu Yuan Zhang, the founding emperor of the Ming Dynasty. They shared a lot of similarities. While both were great military strategists, neither led an army on the frontline. While they both achieved their leadership postions from humble beginning with the help of their close confidants, they both murdered their friends afterwards. While they both were successful in driving the oppositions out of the central plains, neither achieved full unification of China. Lastly, they both made horrible governing decisions that haunted the citizens for the years to come.
My comment to Mao and Zhu Yuan Zhang: their decisions in the way they ruled the land was necessary based on the timing, the economics, and the international landscape. However, with a little more personal sacrifice, they could have been better and be ranked among the greatests such as Tang Taizong and Kanxi. Ultimately I believe the heavenly judgement on Mao's children were the most appropriate for all of his actions
Finally, at a more personal level, I would much prefer to live under Mao's rule than under Empress Dowager's.
Yssilk
