生命的价值与标签的意义

生命的价值是人类文明的核心命题，却在历史的黑暗篇章中被无情践踏。日本侵华期间的南京大屠杀，纳粹德国对犹太人的种族灭绝，斯大林的政治清洗，蒋介石在大陆和台湾制造的一次次白色恐怖，毛泽东时代的中国，数千万人在类似的政治运动、清洗和暴政中无辜死亡。这些事件不仅揭示了人类暴行的残酷，更提出了一个深刻问题：谁有权定义“无辜”与“有罪”，谁能决定生命是否“该死”？下面通过比较，聚焦于标签化、权力滥用与监控失控，探讨生命价值在不同意识形态下的扭曲，批判特权、公平与合理性的缺失，并反思为何人类在面对死亡时，仍执着于差异化对待。

一、南京大屠杀：生命被彻底物化

1937年的南京大屠杀，三十万中国平民和战俘在六周内被屠杀，伴随大规模的强奸、抢掠和焚烧。日本军队的行为不仅是对生命的毁灭，更是对人性尊严的系统性践踏。在军国主义意识形态下，中国人被视为“劣等民族”，生命被物化为可以随意处置的“猪”。这种种族主义的极端逻辑，将生命的价值完全剥夺，死亡不再是个体的悲剧，而成为一种集体性的、机械化的“处理”。这种对生命的蔑视并非孤立现象。殖民主义和帝国主义的历史中，类似的对“他者”的物化屡见不鲜。然而，南京大屠杀的规模和残忍程度，使其成为人类历史上最臭名昭著的暴行之一。日本军方和部分士兵在屠杀中展现的冷漠，甚至以杀人为乐的心态，揭示了一种极端意识形态如何将生命贬为无意义的符号。

二、毛泽东时代：意识形态下的生命牺牲

与南京大屠杀的外部暴行相比，毛泽东时代的中国呈现了一种内部的、意识形态驱动的生命摧残。从红军长征时期的权力斗争，到建国后的政治运动，数千万人在清洗、迫害和政策失误中丧生。被持续的虐待生不如死的就更是数不胜数。以下几个关键事件凸显了生命在这一时期的脆弱性：

1. 红军内部清洗：长征途中，红军因权力斗争而多次进行内部清洗。刘志丹在陕北接纳了长征的红军，却因被怀疑“叛变”而遭到刻意安排的死亡。井冈山时期和张国焘领导下的红军，也因派系斗争导致大量功臣被以“莫须有”罪名处决。这些清洗往往伴随着残酷的折磨，生命在权力面前变得毫无价值。

2. 建国后的阶级划分：1949年后，中共通过土地改革和“五类分子”划分，刻意将数百万人贴上“反革命”或“阶级敌人”的标签。这些人从出生起便被剥夺基本人权，遭受肉体与精神的双重摧残。生命的价值被简化为阶级标签，个人的尊严和存在被彻底否定。

3. 文化大革命：文革期间，连国家主席刘少奇都被批斗、残酷迫害致死。林彪作为毛泽东的亲密战友，最终因权力斗争而被迫逃亡，坠机身亡。文革的混乱将整个社会推向极端，生命在“革命”名义下被随意牺牲，忠诚与否已不再重要。

这些事件共同揭示了一个事实：在毛泽东的治理下，生命的价值被意识形态绑架。无论是“反革命”还是“忠诚的同志”，只要被贴上不符合意识形态（他自己定义的，带有很强的个人性和随意性）的标签，生命便可被随意剥夺。这种逻辑与日本军国主义将中国人视为“猪”并无本质区别——两者都通过标签化将生命贬为工具，服务于某种更高的个人或者是小团体的“目标”。

三、纳粹的标签化与中共的“五类分子”：生命的任意裁决

纳粹德国对犹太人的迫害与中共对“五类分子”和“反革命”的清洗，在标签化的逻辑上惊人地相似。希特勒的种族主义将犹太人贴上“劣等种族”的标签，剥夺他们的公民权利，最终实施系统性灭绝。同样，中共通过“地主”“富农”“反革命”等标签，将数百万中国人划为社会“毒瘤”（实际上就是劣等人），剥夺其人权，甚至生命。这些标签的共同特点是缺乏公平的衡量标准，且往往与对掌权者的实际威胁无关。

1. 标签的任意性：纳粹的“犹太人”标签基于伪科学的种族理论，忽视个体的行为或贡献。中共的“五类分子”标签同样随意，许多人仅因家庭出身或历史背景便被定罪，有的甚至只是基层政府需要满足上级的硬性指标要求。例如，一个地主的后代可能从未剥削他人，却因被刻上的“阶级成分”而被终身歧视。这种标签化的过程完全绕过了法律程序和道德考量，生命的命运由掌权者单方面裁决。

2. 防范未然的极端逻辑：纳粹屠杀犹太人并非因为他们对德国构成了直接威胁，而是出于一种“防范未然”的妄想——希特勒认为犹太人可能威胁“雅利安种族的纯洁性”。同样，中共对“反革命”的清洗往往基于臆测，所谓“潜在威胁”成为处决或迫害的借口。例如，刘少奇作为国家主席，其忠诚度毋庸置疑，却因可能威胁毛泽东的权威而被残酷迫害。这种“宁可错杀一千，不可放过一个”的逻辑，将生命贬为掌权者焦虑的牺牲品。

3. 标签的毁灭性后果：纳粹的标签化导致六百万犹太人死于集中营；中共的标签化则使数千万人在政治运动中丧生或受尽折磨。无论是毒气室还是批斗会，受害者的生命都被简化为一个符号，死亡成为掌权者“净化”社会的工具。

四、特权的根源：谁定义生命的价值？

无论是日本的种族主义、纳粹的优生学还是中共的阶级斗争，生命价值的剥夺都源于一种特权——即某些群体或个人自认为有权定义他人的“价值”。这种特权的根源可以从以下几个方面分析：

1. 意识形态的绝对化：日本军国主义将“种族优越”奉为圭臬，纳粹推崇“雅利安至上”，中共则以“阶级斗争”和“革命”为核心信条。这些绝对化的意识形态赋予掌权者无限的道德优越感，使其可以随意将他人贴上“低端”或“不配做人”的标签。

2. 权力的集中与失控：无论是日本军队的指挥链、纳粹的党卫军还是中共的中央集权，权力的过度集中导致个体生命在决策者眼中变得微不足道。南京大屠杀中，日本军官对士兵的暴行放任自流；纳粹集中营由国家机器系统性运作；文革中，毛泽东的个人意志凌驾于法律和人性之上。权力的高度集中，使生命的毁灭成为一种“必要代价”。

3. 他者的物化：无论是“劣等民族”“犹太威胁”还是“阶级敌人”，他者的生命都被简化为某种符号。这种物化过程剥夺了生命的复杂性和个体性，使屠杀或迫害变得“合理”。在日本兵眼中，中国人只是“猪”；在纳粹眼中，犹太人是“害虫”；在文革红卫兵眼中，“反革命”必须被消灭。

五、权力罪恶的放大与监控的失控

南京大屠杀、犹太人大屠杀和毛泽东时代暴行的共同点，在于它们都是权力罪恶的极端体现。掌权者不仅滥用权力，还通过放大权力的破坏力，将整个社会推向毁灭的深渊。

1. 权力的罪恶：权力本身并非邪恶，但当它被用来剥夺他人的生命和尊严时，便成为罪恶的根源。日本军国主义的扩张野心、纳粹的种族清洗和中共的意识形态斗争，都以“崇高目标”掩盖权力的暴虐。南京的平民、奥斯维辛的犹太人、文革的“反革命”，他们的死亡并非因自身罪行，而是因掌权者将他们视为实现目标的障碍。

2. 权力放大的机制：掌权者通过宣传、组织和暴力机器，放大权力的破坏力。日本军队通过军国主义教育，将士兵变成杀戮机器；纳粹通过党卫军和集中营，系统化地实施种族灭绝；中共通过群众运动和红色恐怖，将普通人变成迫害他人的工具。文革中的红卫兵，原本是普通学生，却在权力的煽动下成为批斗和杀戮的执行者。

3. 监控的失控：权力的罪恶之所以能够肆虐，很大程度上是因为缺乏有效的监控机制。日本军队在南京的暴行未受约束，纳粹的集中营运作无人监督，中共的政治运动则在“革命”名义下绕过一切法律和道德约束。毛泽东的个人崇拜使任何批评或制衡都成为“反革命”，导致权力的失控达到顶峰。监控的缺失，使掌权者的罪恶得以无限放大，生命成为最廉价的牺牲品。

六、公平与合理性的缺失

公平与合理性要求生命的尊严被普遍尊重，不因种族、阶级或政治立场而异。然而，无论是南京大屠杀、犹太人大屠杀还是毛泽东时代的暴行，这种原则都被彻底违背。以下是对三者实质性相似性的分析：

1. 生命贬值的共同逻辑：日本军国主义、纳粹种族主义和中共的意识形态都通过标签化将特定群体排除在“人”的范畴之外。这种逻辑使屠杀或迫害不再被视为对生命的侵犯，而成为一种“清理”或“净化”。

2. 暴行的系统性：南京大屠杀是日本军队系统性暴行的结果，犹太人大屠杀是纳粹国家机器的产物，毛泽东时代的死亡则源于政策性清洗和运动。它们都不是偶然事件，而是由制度和意识形态驱动的系统性摧残。

3. 受害者的无助：无论是南京的平民、奥斯维辛的犹太人还是文革的“五类分子”，受害者都无力反抗。他们被剥夺了发声的机会，生命在暴力面前毫无还手之力。

然而，尽管三者在逻辑和效果上相似，历史叙述却往往将它们区别对待。南京大屠杀被视为外敌的暴行，犹太人大屠杀被定性为种族灭绝的罪恶，而毛泽东时代的死亡常被归为“内部问题”，甚至被美化为“革命的代价”。这种差异化的对待，本身就是对生命价值的不公——同样是无辜的死亡，为何必须被赋予不同的意义？

七、为何必须差异化对待？

对南京大屠杀、犹太人大屠杀和毛泽东时代暴行的不同对待，源于历史叙述的复杂性和政治需求：

1. 民族主义与集体记忆：南京大屠杀作为外敌入侵的象征，被用来凝聚民族认同；犹太人大屠杀则成为西方世界反思种族主义的标志。相比之下，毛泽东时代的暴行涉及内部矛盾，承认其严重性可能动摇执政合法性。因此，官方叙述往往淡化或重新解读这些事件。

2. 道德的相对性：日本和纳粹的暴行被视为“绝对的恶”，因为它们针对的是“无辜的民族”或“无辜的种族”。而中共的清洗常被包装为“为了革命的必要牺牲”，受害者被指责为“阻碍进步”。这种道德相对性使同样的死亡被赋予不同的价值。

3. 权力与真相的博弈：掌权者通过控制历史叙述，决定哪些生命“值得”被悼念，哪些可以被遗忘。南京大屠杀和犹太人大屠杀的受害者被塑造成集体记忆的象征，而文革的受害者往往被边缘化，甚至无人知晓。

然而，这种差异化对待并不能掩盖一个事实：生命的毁灭在本质上是等同的。无论是被日本兵屠杀的南京市民、被纳粹毒气室杀害的犹太人，还是被红卫兵批斗致死的“反革命”，他们遭受的痛苦和尊严的丧失并无二致。将死亡划分为“该死”与“不该死”，本身就是对生命价值的亵渎。

八、批判与反思

生命的价值不应被任何意识形态或权力所绑架。无论是日本的种族主义、纳粹的优生学还是中共的阶级斗争，它们都通过标签化和物化，将生命贬为工具。这种逻辑的危险在于，它赋予少数人决定他人命运的绝对权力，而这种权力往往导致灾难性的后果。

公平与合理性的重建，要求我们放弃对生命的差异化对待。无论是南京大屠杀的受害者、犹太人大屠杀的牺牲者，还是毛泽东时代政治运动的遇难者，他们的死亡都应被平等悼念。历史的任务不是为暴行辩护或美化，而是揭示真相，让后人警惕权力的滥用和意识形态的极端化。

更重要的是，我们需要反思“特权”和“权力”的根源。谁有权定义“无辜”与“有罪”？谁有权决定生命的“价值”？答案是：没有人。生命的尊严是普世的，不应因种族、阶级或政治立场而异。任何试图将生命分级的企图，都是对人性的背叛。权力必须受到监控，无论是通过法律、道德还是社会机制，以防止其罪恶的放大。历史的教训告诉我们，失控的权力是生命最大的威胁。

结语：南京大屠杀、犹太人大屠杀和毛泽东时代的暴行，虽然背景各异，但都揭示了生命在极端意识形态和权力滥用下的脆弱性。日本军国主义将中国人视为“猪”，纳粹将犹太人视为“害虫”，中共将“阶级敌人”视为“毒瘤”，这些标签化的逻辑殊途同归——生命被剥夺了内在的价值，沦为服务于某种“更高目标”的牺牲品。权力罪恶的放大和监控的失控，使这些暴行成为人类历史的耻辱。公平与合理性要求我们平等对待每一场死亡，拒绝为暴行寻找借口。只有当我们承认所有生命的平等尊严，并建立对权力的有效制约，历史才不会重演其悲剧。

The Value of Life and the Meaning of Labels

Introduction

The value of life stands as a cornerstone of human civilization, yet it has been ruthlessly trampled in the darkest chapters of history. The Nanjing Massacre during Japan’s invasion of China, the Nazi genocide of Jews, Stalin’s political purges, Chiang Kai-shek’s repeated White Terror campaigns in mainland China and Taiwan, and Mao Zedong’s China, where tens of millions perished in political movements, purges, and tyrannical policies—these events not only expose the brutality of human atrocities but also pose a profound question: Who has the right to define “innocent” or “guilty,” and who can determine whether a life is “worthy” of death? This essay compares these atrocities, focusing on the mechanisms of labeling, power abuse, and the absence of oversight, to explore the distortion of life’s value under different ideologies. It critiques the privilege of defining life’s worth, the absence of fairness and reason, and the persistent human tendency to differentiate deaths despite their shared essence.

I. The Nanjing Massacre: Life Reduced to Objects

In 1937, the Nanjing Massacre saw 300,000 Chinese civilians and prisoners of war slaughtered over six weeks, accompanied by widespread rape, looting, and arson. The Japanese military’s actions were not merely the destruction of lives but a systematic assault on human dignity. Under the ideology of Japanese militarism, Chinese people were deemed an “inferior race,” their lives reduced to disposable “pigs.” This racist logic stripped life of all value, transforming death from an individual tragedy into a collective, mechanized “processing.” Such dehumanization is not unique; the history of colonialism and imperialism is replete with similar objectifications of the “other.” Yet the scale and cruelty of the Nanjing Massacre mark it as one of humanity’s most infamous atrocities. The indifference of Japanese commanders and the perverse pleasure some soldiers took in killing reveal how an extreme ideology can render life a meaningless symbol.

II. Mao Zedong’s Era: Life Sacrificed to Ideology

In contrast to the external violence of the Nanjing Massacre, Mao Zedong’s China witnessed an internal, ideology-driven destruction of life. From the power struggles during the Long March to the political campaigns after 1949, tens of millions perished in purges, persecutions, and policy failures, with countless others subjected to relentless torment that made life worse than death. Key events highlight the fragility of life in this period:

1. Internal Purges in the Red Army: During the Long March, factional struggles led to repeated purges within the Red Army. Liu Zhidan, who welcomed the Long Marchers in Shaanxi, was deliberately killed after being suspected of “treason.” In the Jinggang Mountains and under Zhang Guotao’s leadership, countless loyalists were executed on baseless charges. These purges, often accompanied by brutal torture, rendered life worthless before the altar of power.

2. Class Divisions Post-1949: After the founding of the People’s Republic, the Communist Party labeled millions as “counterrevolutionaries” or “class enemies” through land reforms and the “Five Black Categories” system. These individuals were stripped of basic rights from birth, enduring physical and psychological torment. Life’s value was reduced to a class label, obliterating personal dignity and existence.

3. The Cultural Revolution: During the Cultural Revolution, even President Liu Shaoqi was denounced, tortured, and died in captivity. Lin Biao, Mao’s close ally, was forced to flee and perished in a plane crash amid power struggles. The chaos of the Cultural Revolution pushed society to extremes, with lives sacrificed in the name of “revolution,” regardless of loyalty.

These events reveal a grim truth: under Mao’s rule, life’s value was hijacked by ideology. Whether labeled “counterrevolutionary” or “loyal comrade,” anyone could be stripped of life if deemed misaligned with an ideology defined by Mao’s personal and arbitrary standards. This logic mirrors Japanese militarism’s view of Chinese as “pigs”—both reduced life to a tool serving a “higher” individual or clique-driven goal.

III. Nazi Labeling and China’s “Five Black Categories”: Arbitrary Judgments on Life

The Nazi persecution of Jews and the Chinese Communist Party’s targeting of the “Five Black Categories” and “counterrevolutionaries” share a chilling similarity in their logic of labeling. Hitler’s racism branded Jews as an “inferior race,” stripping them of citizenship and culminating in systematic extermination. Similarly, the Communist Party labeled millions of Chinese as social “vermin” through tags like “landlord,” “rich peasant,” or “counterrevolutionary,” denying them rights and often life itself. These labels shared a lack of fair standards and were typically unrelated to any tangible threat to those in power.

1. Arbitrary Labeling: The Nazi “Jew” label was rooted in pseudoscientific racial theories, ignoring individual actions or contributions. The “Five Black Categories” were equally capricious, with many condemned solely for their family background or history, sometimes merely to meet quotas imposed by higher authorities. For instance, a landlord’s descendant who never exploited others could face lifelong discrimination due to their “class status.” This labeling process bypassed legal or moral scrutiny, leaving life’s fate to the whims of those in power.

2. Preemptive Extremism: The Nazis massacred Jews not because they posed an immediate threat but out of a paranoid “preemption”—Hitler believed Jews could undermine “Aryan purity.” Similarly, the Communist Party’s purges of “counterrevolutionaries” were often based on speculation, with “potential threats” justifying executions or persecution. Liu Shaoqi, despite his unquestionable loyalty, was brutally targeted for potentially challenging Mao’s authority. This “better to kill a thousand by mistake than let one escape” logic reduced life to a casualty of rulers’ anxieties.

3. Devastating Consequences: Nazi labeling led to six million Jews perishing in concentration camps; Communist labeling caused tens of millions to die or suffer in political campaigns. Whether in gas chambers or denunciation rallies, victims’ lives were reduced to symbols, their deaths tools for “purifying” society.

IV. The Roots of Privilege: Who Defines Life’s Value?

Whether through Japanese racism, Nazi eugenics, or Chinese class struggle, the devaluation of life stems from a privilege—the belief that certain groups or individuals have the authority to define others’ worth. This privilege arises from several sources:

1. Absolute Ideology: Japanese militarism enshrined “racial superiority,” Nazism exalted “Aryan supremacy,” and Chinese Communism centered on “class struggle” and “revolution.” These absolutist ideologies granted rulers an unassailable moral superiority, enabling them to label others as “inferior” or “unworthy of humanity.”

2. Concentrated and Unchecked Power: From the Japanese military’s chain of command to the Nazi SS and the Communist Party’s centralized authority, excessive power concentration rendered individual lives insignificant to decision-makers. In the Nanjing Massacre, Japanese officers turned a blind eye to soldiers’ atrocities; Nazi concentration camps were state-orchestrated; during the Cultural Revolution, Mao’s will superseded law and humanity. Concentrated power made life’s destruction a “necessary cost.”

3. Dehumanization of the Other: Whether “inferior race,” “Jewish threat,” or “class enemy,” the other’s life was reduced to a symbol. This dehumanization stripped away life’s complexity and individuality, making slaughter or persecution “justifiable.” To Japanese soldiers, Chinese were “pigs”; to Nazis, Jews were “vermin”; to Cultural Revolution Red Guards, “counterrevolutionaries” were to be eradicated.

V. The Amplification of Power’s Evil and the Loss of Oversight

The Nanjing Massacre, the Holocaust, and Mao’s purges share a common thread: they are extreme manifestations of power’s evil. Rulers not only abused power but amplified its destructiveness, plunging societies into ruin.

1. The Evil of Power: Power itself is not inherently evil, but when used to strip others of life and dignity, it becomes a source of malevolence. Japanese militarism’s expansionist ambitions, Nazi racial purges, and Communist ideological struggles cloaked power’s tyranny in “noble” aims. The civilians of Nanjing, the Jews of Auschwitz, and the “counterrevolutionaries” of the Cultural Revolution died not for their own crimes but because rulers saw them as obstacles to their goals.

2. Mechanisms of Amplification: Rulers magnified power’s destructiveness through propaganda, organization, and violence. The Japanese military indoctrinated soldiers into killing machines; the Nazis systematized genocide through the SS and camps; the Communist Party turned ordinary citizens into persecutors via mass movements and Red Terror. Cultural Revolution Red Guards, once mere students, became agents of denunciation and murder under power’s incitement.

3. Loss of Oversight: The unchecked nature of these atrocities stemmed from the absence of effective oversight. Japanese troops in Nanjing operated without restraint, Nazi camps functioned beyond scrutiny, and Communist campaigns bypassed all legal and moral boundaries under the guise of “revolution.” Mao’s cult of personality branded any criticism as “counterrevolutionary,” pushing power’s recklessness to its zenith. Without oversight, rulers’ evils were amplified, and life became the cheapest commodity.

VI. The Absence of Fairness and Reason

Fairness and reason demand that life’s dignity be universally respected, regardless of race, class, or political stance. Yet, the Nanjing Massacre, the Holocaust, and Mao’s purges utterly violated this principle. Their similarities include:

1. Shared Logic of Devaluation: Japanese militarism, Nazi racism, and Communist ideology all used labeling to exclude groups from humanity’s scope. This logic transformed slaughter or persecution into “cleansing” or “purification.”

2. Systematic Atrocities: The Nanjing Massacre was a product of Japanese military organization, the Holocaust a Nazi state machinery, and Mao’s deaths the result of orchestrated purges and campaigns. These were not random but institutionally driven destructions.

3. Victims’ Helplessness: Whether Nanjing’s civilians, Auschwitz’s Jews, or the Cultural Revolution’s “Five Black Categories,” victims were powerless. Stripped of voice, their lives were defenseless before violence.

Despite these parallels, historical narratives often treat them differently. The Nanjing Massacre is framed as foreign aggression, the Holocaust as genocidal evil, while Mao’s purges are often downplayed as “internal issues” or glorified as “revolutionary costs.” This differential treatment is itself an injustice—why must identical innocent deaths carry different meanings?

VII. Why the Differential Treatment?

The varying treatment of the Nanjing Massacre, the Holocaust, and Mao’s purges stems from the complexities of historical narratives and political needs:

1. Nationalism and Collective Memory: The Nanjing Massacre, as a symbol of foreign invasion, fuels national unity; the Holocaust anchors Western reflection on racism. Mao’s purges, involving internal conflicts, risk undermining ruling legitimacy, leading official narratives to minimize or reinterpret them.

2. Moral Relativism: Japanese and Nazi atrocities are deemed “absolute evils” for targeting “innocent nations” or “races.” Communist purges, however, are often framed as “necessary sacrifices for revolution,” with victims blamed as “obstacles to progress.” This relativism assigns different values to equivalent deaths.

3. Power and Truth’s Struggle: Rulers shape narratives to decide which lives are “worthy” of mourning and which are forgotten. Victims of the Nanjing Massacre and Holocaust are enshrined in collective memory, while Cultural Revolution victims are marginalized, often unknown.

Yet, this differential treatment cannot obscure a truth: the destruction of life is fundamentally the same. Whether a Nanjing citizen slaughtered by Japanese soldiers, a Jew gassed by Nazis, or a “counterrevolutionary” beaten to death by Red Guards, their suffering and loss of dignity are indistinguishable. Dividing deaths into “deserving” and “undeserving” profanes life’s value.

VIII. Critique and Reflection

Life’s value must not be held hostage by ideology or power. Whether Japanese racism, Nazi eugenics, or Chinese class struggle, these systems used labeling and dehumanization to reduce life to a tool. Their danger lies in granting a few the absolute power to dictate others’ fates, often with catastrophic consequences.

Restoring fairness and reason requires abandoning differential treatment of lives. Victims of the Nanjing Massacre, the Holocaust, and Mao’s purges deserve equal mourning. History’s task is not to justify or glorify atrocities but to uncover truth, warning future generations against power’s abuse and ideological extremism.

Above all, we must reflect on the roots of “privilege” and “power.” Who has the right to define “innocent” or “guilty”? Who can judge life’s “value”? The answer is: no one. Life’s dignity is universal, unbound by race, class, or politics. Any attempt to hierarchize life betrays humanity. Power must be restrained—through law, morality, or societal mechanisms—to prevent its evils’ amplification. History teaches us that unchecked power is life’s greatest threat.

Conclusion

The Nanjing Massacre, the Holocaust, and Mao Zedong’s purges, though distinct in context, expose life’s fragility under extreme ideologies and power’s abuse. Japanese militarism saw Chinese as “pigs,” Nazis branded Jews as “vermin,” and Chinese Communism deemed “class enemies” as “toxins.” These labeling logics converge in stripping life of intrinsic value, reducing it to a sacrifice for some “higher” goal. The amplification of power’s evil and the absence of oversight made these atrocities humanity’s shame. Fairness and reason demand we mourn all deaths equally, rejecting excuses for violence. Only by recognizing the universal dignity of all lives and establishing robust checks on power can history avoid repeating its tragedies.