Shaka Zulu wrote:
Mao NEVER 'liberated' China into anything or for anything but his own lust for power; he was not a communist or a socialist, but a Stalinist, and his system was only slightly better than the Kim dynasty that has run North Korea into the ground and his master Stalin's rule.
A Stalinist? I'm sorry, but that made me laugh. The Soviet and Chinese Communists hated
each other. They were arch-rivals for leadership of the global communist revolution and their philosophies and interpretations of Marxism were in fierce conflict. Mao's Communism was a distinctly Chinese strain, drawing at least as much on Chinese history, culture, and tradition as on anything Western. In the early years of the revolution, when the Chinese Communist Party was battling against the brutal occupation of Imperial Japan and the entrenched corruption of the Nationalist government, the advisors that the USSR sent them almost led to their destruction by blindly employing traditional European tactics of "honorable" open combat rather than adapting to the needs of a guerrilla campaign. It was only by breaking free of the Soviet advisors and going his own independent route that Mao was able to save the revolution. So there was no love lost between them in either direction.
Nobody disputes that what Mao's rule became later in life was horrible, brutal, and despotic. But the tragedy is that what he became later in life was a betrayal of what he stood for in his youth. He started out as an idealist, genuinely trying to build a better world, and back then he had the sense to realize that the only way it could work was as a gradual transition taking generations. But as he aged, and perhaps as he grew accustomed to being in power, he lost sight of those old convictions, and he tried to forcibly accelerate the pace of change so that he could see the results within his lifetime, and the result was a horrendous nationwide atrocity. His younger self would've known that was the wrong path, but power corrupts.
Any 'socialism' he knew was just platitudes he mouthed. China may not have been better under the Nationalists, but it wasn't anything like what wen on under Mao & Co. (please read Mao: The Unknown Story for more.
Having been a history major, I'm aware that no single book can be perceived as the sole authoritative source of truth. Every text has its biases. As for that particular book, its own objectivity and accuracy have come under heavy criticism from historians:
I suggest you broaden your own reading on the topic rather than trust a single source, especially one so suspect.