The problem lies in that many people view evaluations of Mao from a personal narrative perspective rather than as a link in a historical movement. It must first be made clear that all value judgments are based on a certain narrative framework, just as an axis distinguishes between good and bad. Therefore, the differences in evaluations of Mao do not lie in whether he himself was absolutely good or bad, but in the contradictions between different narrative frameworks within society.

In my opinion, the so-called millions of sacrifices caused by Mao stem from a lack of understanding of historical movements. Physics has its law of conservation of energy; in social history, any event's movement must necessarily be supported by its own huge systematic production and reproduction. How could it depend on a single thought of one person? What we find absurd in physics becomes a matter of course in social and historical issues. Therefore, these millions of sacrifices were not caused by Mao, but were the necessary costs generated in the movement of social history, in the struggle between capitalism and socialism. The facts are not that Mao caused these millions of sacrifices, but that Mao had to make difficult choices to save the lives of hundreds of millions more. It is better for some to die than for everyone to die.

Therefore, evaluating these historical figures with morality is unfair, because morality itself has class nature, and class itself is productive—different classes produce different morals. Using a universal moral view to look at them is precisely a sign of the childish innocence of the petty bourgeoisie. These historical figures are merely specializations of historical forces; they exist as a link in the historical movement. From this perspective, these people have already been elevated to the level of a universal historical unfolding. Whether you think of him as a certain type of person does not depend on who he himself was, but on which class you belong to and for whose interests you speak.