Essay:The Mao-Guevara Principle

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Essay.svg This essay is an original work by TheMyon.
It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in RationalWiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas.
Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. See RationalWiki:Copyrights.
Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of RationalWiki editors' thoughts.
This is a draft that anyone is free to edit as they would a mainspace page.

So, I noticed a trend amongst certain people. They led their side to victory in a revolution, but the new government proved to be a poorly-run, undemocratic mess which ended in disaster. In response to this trend of knowing how to lead a revolution but not a government, I have come up with a term for this: The Mao-Guevara Principle.

So, what is it?[edit]

Essentially, this boils down to: (insert proper quote-format here) "A leader's skill at leading the masses in revolution is inversely proportional to said leader's skill at leading the masses in government."

Examples known to the original author of the essay[edit]

A sterling example of the Mao-Guevara Principle in action would be Mao Zedong. After leading China's people to victory against a certain bunch of assholes hell-bent on conquering eastern Asia (China's tyrannical and foul-mouthed head of state at the time played his part, too, though) and then against the Kuomintang, the absolute disaster of the "Great Leap Forward" happened, in which, due to Mao's incompetence, millions of people died of starvation in a famine, amongst other things.

Che Guevara is also an example. He was aware of this concept before a term was created, so he gave the job of leading post-revolution Cuba to someone else... who proved to be another example of this.

Libya is fast becoming another example of this. After the Trump of MENA was ousted from power in the revolution, a new government was put in power. Said new government is on the verge of collapse, thanks to tribalism, intervention by a bunch of scumbags from Iraq and Syria, and other factors.

The exception that proves the rule[edit]

George Washington was a fairly competent first POTUS. He did have a bit of trouble involving whisky (not what it sounds like), but his presidency proved to be a classic exception to this.

Other examples of this[edit]

Feel free to add your own examples of revolutions ending in incompetent governments right here.

See also[edit]