Professor MacFarquhar may be a China expert and attempt to impart some of his wisdom here to NYT readers, but he's limited by his own background, and from the responses he's wasting his time on the unwashed whom are but for a better word, propaganda mind washed by Cold War. To understand China and Chairman Mao one needs to study Chinese history. I suggest the Opium Wars maybe a good starting point. For U.S. plagued by the opiate epidemic it's ironic probably 90% plus has no idea what that is.
4
Mao was a thug and a brutal dictator. His goal was to impose violence and oppression on the Chinese people, and he succeeded.
5
Somehow I missed the part about Mao being the biggest mass murderer in history, responsible for more deaths than Hitler or Stalin. "Monkey business" indeed.
12
Yet one more piece on the NY Times' road to irrelevance. Not a syllable about the tremendous and horrific suffering this man inflicted.
3
70% correct, as the Chinese like to say. Millions died but China is a superpower thanks to Mao. The liberal West hates the red dictators because they recognize that these people were a threat to their primacy.
America and Europe would prefer a weak, dependent China. Mao thought otherwise. That's why he's still venerated there.
4
What is the point of this superficial little essay on Mao? That Harvard professors still admire him for some reason? Look at all that China has accomplished since Mao's death in 1976, when the Cultural Revolution was stopped and people were allowed far more freedom than Mao's Communist Party allowed them. Don't idolize Mao.
6
McFarquhar gives short shift to the terror and hardships that Mao and his cohorts inflicted upon his own people. How can his blind spot be so big? Mao will go down as one history's most ruthless despots and a mass murderer of his own nations people.
4
I suppose someone could write a quasi-biography of Hitler and never
mention the death of millions in the Extermination Camps.
Or of Stalin and never mention the gulags and the Soviet mandated starvation of Ukrainians.
Mao had millions more murdered/starved to death then Hitler or Stalin
and yet there no mention of this most extraordinary brutal fact.
One can only wonder why.
6
Seriously? Would an assessment of Hitler's life, even as brief as this, fail to mention the millions he killed? The closest the author gets to Mao's mass murders and other savageries is "rooting out all opposition, real or imagined." The moral obtuseness of this piece gave me the chills.
7
Not sure that 'molded' is the right word when one has to first eradicate tens of millions to forge an empire. Mau killed more people than Stalin and Hitler combined. So, hacked an empire from the blood of all who disagreed is the age-old preference.
5
On every list of top murderers in history I've seen, Mao is #1, far surpassing Stalin, with Hitler a distant third...Mao more than wrecked havoc with a massive cudgel, he murdered perhaps as many as 80 million people...this article has no merit if it doesn't set the context with the basic facts...
7
And the parallel to the Mao cult in America is...
please don't say it!
1
How in the world can a Harvard professor write anything about Mao without talking about the tens of millions of men, women and children that died of starvation due to his policies? Once again, this weird series shows that the NYT still has a love affair with Communism, despite the hundreds of millions of innocents who died.
9
Homicidal maniac. Murdered more than either Hitler or Stalin, which is quite an accomplishment. Of course, he had a larger population of possible victims to choose from. In proportion, fewer than Pol Pot.
Is this someone to look up to? Who decided to use that propaganda photograph?
9
Along with Hitler and Stalin, one of the 3 great mass murders of the 20th century. Minor detail omitted. Oops !
9
Knowledgeable, concise and accurate article
1
Such is the way of cultural appropriation/diffusion: How do you make a European idea Chinese?
Commentary by a Chicago sociologist with strong interests in historical studies.
I. Rebellion, Struggles, Revolution, and Restoration
A. Personal rebellion. class struggles, national struggles
1. Mao's father started as head of a peasant family in poverty. By marriage, hard work, and good fortune, the family became rich peasants. Some biographers note that the father was a strict overbearing disciplinarian who would beat his sons for disobedience or lack of filial piety. It was said: "Mao hated his father." Psychology of rebellion. "To rebel is justified," theme in different periods of Mao's life. Mao, however, was authoritarian as his father when he was in power. B. Mao and his peasant family probably suffered from humiliating treatments by the gentry, The roots of 'class struggles -- Revenge of the peasants and laborers against the landlords and merchants. Another point -- this is also a continuing struggle against inequalities and for equality. Mao's major idea: The Theory of Perpetual Revolution. (Cf. Robert Michel, Iron Law of Oligarch. Walter Scheidel, The Great Leveler, -- protracted period of peace of a nation or state have tended to produce social and economic stratification -- the inexorable march of inequality,) All major redistributions of resources, i.e, leveling, have been preceded by one of what Scheidel call the Four Horsemen: -- state failure, pandemics, "mass mobilization warfare" and "transformative revolution."
3
C. National Pride, National Humiliation, and National Aspirations
1. The Chinese (Han) people believe that they have a great and glorious heritage, the Middle Kingdom at the center of the world, a civilization of great achievements. Then, from the mid-19th Century through the mid-20th Century, the decadent Ching Dynasty suffered a series of military defeats -- the Opium (Sino-British) War, the Second British-French War, the Sino-Japanese War (1894-95), the Boxer Rebellion and the Eight-Nation Alliance conquest of China (the Boxer Protocol forced the Ching rulers to pay heavy war reparations an grant extraterritorial leases to the occupying foreign powers). These military debacles were humiliations deeply felt by Chinese leaders and citizens, prodding them to launch political movements to overthrow the collapsing Ching Dynasty, to clean the slate of unequal treaties, and restore China as a great power. On the establishment of the People's Republic of China, Mao declared: "We have stood up."
II. Sun Zi, The Art of War, and the Military Strategies of Mao Zedong
Mao was greatly influenced by the work of Sun Zi. He learned and adapted his military tactics and strategies from The Art of War against the Nationalist opponents and against the Japanese invaders. 3 major thoughts. a, Deep and comprehensive understandings of the situation in which the events occur. b. know the enemy and c, know yourself. (See Griffith, The Art of War, pp.45-56)
2
Two things need to be corrected.
In Chinese culture, tiger means bravery, nothing to be afraid of. Monkey means wisdom and clever, adapted to everything very soon.
The explanation of the tiger and monkey the essay gave is loughable.
3
New Mao is just what it says Mao for enthronement and deification for the tribal Asian king of the all Dragons for perpetuity and in the new emperor clothes of social democratic materialistic devotion - so ends the Mr. Karl Marx, and the Mr. V. Lenin - add in North Korea, and maybe Cuba. I want to believe new is really new and transparent but I am agnostic deliberate.
jja Manhattan, N.Y.
1
Xi Jinping goes down in history as the second Chinese leader after Mao Zedong, whose name and ideology is being enshrined in the country's constitution. The approval by the 19th Communist Party Congress means that any challenge to Xi will now be seen as a threat to the party rule.
Now schoolchildren, college students and others will now have to join the 90 million Communist Party members in studying "Xi Jinping Thought on socialism with Chinese characteristics for the New Era", whose main aim is growth at all costs but without political and economic reforms.
Under Mao, it was compulsory to read his Little Red Book - aka as the Mao Zedong Thought. His philosophy described as "thought" was at the top of the ideological hierarchy. It contains 267 aphorisms from him, covering subjects such as class struggle, "correcting mistaken ideas" and other key ideas - like "political power grows out of the barrel of a gun".
Besides Mao, previous leaders had had their ideologies incorporated into the party's constitution or thinking, like Deng Xiaoping's economic policies, but only after his death. As father of the People's Republic of China and "revolutionary founder, Mao could never have been toppled. But as a revolutionary successor, Mr. Xi could be." No doubt Xi is aware of his vulnerabilities. It explains why he has to rule with an iron fist.
5
Too bad there's no mention of the Mandate of Heaven, the ancient Chinese doctrine which was used by the first emperor of each new dynasty to justify their right to rule was ordained by Heaven. Unlike the Divine Right of Kings in Europe, this right to rule is based on the condition that the emperor should rule his people with benevolence and competency. If the ruler is unworthy, Heaven will revoke this mandate and the people will have the right to rebel and replace him with a worthy leader. The failure to protect his people from famine, natural disasters and foreign invasions was an indication that the ruler had lost the Mandate of Heaven. It's no wonder why Chinese leaders since the Communist Revolution have the incentive to create a rich and powerful country even at the expense of individual liberties.
1
This is an entertaining account of China's tragedy. Certainly, Mao looked at himself this way. Mao's coffin was covered and and CCP evaluated Mao as 70% good and 30% bad. (Mao himself had said he would be satisfied with such an evaluation.) Most other people would not agree. This debate will not end.
Mao's action had consequence. In the piece, Prof MacFarquhar has missed what he knows well - over 50 million people perished. It was over 10% of China population and comparable to the population of UK at 53 million in 1960.
1
It is strange to find an article lionizing Mao Zedong, as all he did after 1949 was to copy Josef Stalin's game plan in the Soviet Union, almost verbatim and create even more deaths and destruction. The hero of today's China is Deng Xiaoping; that is the man that really opened the country and turned on the economic engines. My father-in-law is a Communist Party member living in Shenyang. He was born when Jiang Jieshi (Chiang Kai-shek) still ruled most of the country, so I have a different perspective (learned from him) than many folk. China needed a reformed Kuomintang, which the US could have delivered as this country held the purse strings after WWII. Instead we applied the Truman Doctrine to Europe but not to Asia and insisted on "coalition government" for China, which was impossible with Communists intent on overthrowing the existing regime. When Jiang was winning battles we called for cease fires. When he needed ammunition for already purchased weapons we imposed embargoes. Read two of Freda Utley's books about this and recall that she was an exSoviet party member. China Hands in the State Dept. did our government no favors as they influenced everyone from Stilwell on down. Proof: we would not deal with the People's Liberation Army (whatever that means) in China 1946-49 so we got to fight them in Korea 1950-53. Kim Ilsung would not have started the Korean War with a reformed Republic of China at his back. Now we have Trump in charge to fix this insoluble issue!
3
As the author noticed, Mao exploited Chinese peasants and believed in "power coming from the gun barrels", which led to Mao's success.
But this is nothing new or creative - China, in the past 4000 years, has nearly a dozen or more dynasties and their kings or emperors, and all of which were replaced one by another by violence, many of which were done by peasants and their "monkey Kings" who became the ruler of China.
If Mao should be credited with any "remarkable" contribution to China or the world history, it is his early realization that the communism incubated in Europe and born and grew in Russia did not fit China! His "success" is to go back his root of 4000 years and use the same tricks: violence and mass movement.
Xi, on the other hand, is still clinching on to this "tradition". His goal is to conquer the world, not China any more. His success or failure now is up to the rest of the free and democratic countries to decide.
4
I do not understand how anyone, in this article or in the comments attached, can give credence to one of the greatest mass murderers in history.
6
His "positions" are only contradictory if you take them seriously. Mao was nothing if not a ruthless manipulator. He is better understood by what he did than he is from what he said.
4
I accept that humans are composits of many fabric--leaders ever more so. Hence we take the good with the bad, savvy with the foolish. Mao forged a strong state from chaos, but he also oversaw famine and many millions of deaths. I simply can't believe the cultural revolution was necessary. Obviously it was a catastrophe. If the young Mao is a hero, the old Mao went berzerk, in my opinion.
The accepted word today, that Xi Jimping is the most powerful Chinese leader since Mao, should send shutters though out the world--certainly within China.
2
When the old emperor passed away the crown is passing to the next person in charge. “Coronation of a new Emperor” has been replayed many times before the coming of age of the Chinese Communism. The emperor is going to be overthrown when he loses the support of his people followed by a new dynasty.
1
Chinese history endlessly repeats itself "The empire, long divided must unite, the empire, long united must divide." (paraphrase from "San Guo" i.e. "Three Kingdoms". )
2
MacFarquhar's take on Mao is controversial and food for thought. But the last three paragraphs, linking to Xi Jinping, are simply gratuitous. Comparing Xi's
anticorruption drive to Mao's Cultural Revolution is absurd. I personally think Xi is the right person at the right time for China. But, at least, lets judge Xi on his own merits.
1
The complete version of Mao's thoughts on the cultural revolution show his literary gift more fully: "A revolution is not a dinner party, nor writing an essay, nor painting a picture nor doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another. A rural revolution is a revolution by which the peasantry overthrows the power of the feudal landlord class. Without using great force, the peasants cannot possibly overthrow the deep-rooted authority of the landlords, which has lasted for thousands of years. The rural areas need a mighty revolutionary upsurge, for it alone can rouse the people in their millions to become a powerful force. Leadership by the poor peasants is absolutely necessary. Without the poor peasants there would be no revolution. To deny their role is to deny the revolution. To attack them is to attack the revolution. They have never been wrong on the general direction of the revolution”.
Mr. Xi–who knew Mao as much as a boy could and benefited from the discipline Mao prescribed for him and his fellow princelings–would never compare himself to the Chairman, even in his wildest dreams. Nor is there anything remotely revolutionary about Xi's cleanup campaign: Mao himself launched five of them, and he was only one of hundreds of Chinese leaders to do so.
One class overthrows another class, and replaces the former system with what? . . . Another form of repression. The high esteem for rural peasants is disingenuous; it’s nothing more than a charismatic leader capitalizing on the suffering of an ignorant, albeit an exploited, class. Much like what trump did and still does — pander to those at the lower rungs of society to gain power for himself and the rest of the privileged. Class struggle only begets further oppression and misery. Overthrow a class? No; seriously and effectively reign in its excessive behavior and ameliorate the the consequences of unbridled greed. Just sayin’ . . .
1
Mao was a strong leader for the Communists' struggle to take control of China and able in consolidating his power in the Communist state, but he was a terrible leader for China. The economy was so poorly managed that millions starved to death. The Cultural Revolution was more than an ego driven endeavor by Mao, China was once a powerful and wealthy country but it remained weak, poor, and could not seem to change to the kind of modern state which was needed to restore it's pride, wealth and power, and it's culture was considered a big part of the reason that it seemed to lag behind. It was Mao's attempt to change the culture of China and make it a truly socialist and modern society. It was also one of the most ruinously badly conducted efforts at reform ever attempted and it nearly left China not just with it's ancient culture in taters and it's most skilled people treated as social enemies but took away people's sense of common purpose, everyone was scared of being attacked as an enemy of the people, which effectively atomized the people, dissolving any real ability to cooperate with each other for lack of mutual trust. In the end, China needed for Mao to die and to become a figure in history, so that more able leaders could restore the country and lead it in a different direction.
6
What about the role US industries, particularly their senior management played in handing over the manufacturing knowledge base and generous guidance to China so that the management here would be able to increase their own personal gains with no regard to the impact of those actions on US workers.
The question is would Mao still look such a phenomenon had US industries followed what Germany did? May be NYT should do a similar study of why Germany is where it is despite absorbing the East and a million new refugees while USA is busy admiring China’s growth.
The knowledge and technology transfer done by US industries to China has provided China as strong a foundation for its miraculous growth as any ideas from Mr. Mao, if not more. The US worker as a group has the rug pulled from under their feet.
3
Singapore and Taiwan helped more than the US dis in the economic transition. It's our typical hubris to want to take most of the credit.
2
No understanding of China is possible without a very long and deep excavation of Chinese history. The current machinations are not unlike events of centuries, and in some cases, millennia ago. This is a nice piece to help set the understanding of Chinese politics.
Excellent analysis on Mao's new China and the dynasty he founded. However, most people in the West failed to realize how vulnerable Chinese regime has always been compared to free and democratic U.S.
Prior to the CCP 19th party congress, the Chinese government banned all the sales of knife, sword, and any offensive hand weapon around the capital Beijing. Because the leaders are afraid that desperate people might use them to attack the attending VIPs. Around the D.C. metropolitan area there are probably more than two million handguns in the hand of private American citizens!! And it never bother our President or Congress. That shows the solid foundation our political system was built upon compared to most governments around the world.
1
Right... So we've had 4 assassinations and 8 more attempted ones and even more plots stopped... But we are secure..???
1
Wow. Cogent clear eyed history. How often does one see that? With the work, clear-eyed deceit would be more accuarate, of our American Capitalist Ayn Randian heros over the past 40 years "opening up Chinese markets for US goods" we have managed to transfer not only all of our manufacturing know-how and technology, but also our wealth. The United States, clearly in decline since W, has a difficult future ahead with China certain to be on top. And as anyone in Hong Kong will attest, that is not a great outcome.
1
To understand why many Chinese still admire Mao despite his disastrous policies in the Great Leap Forward and the unleashing of the cultural revolution, it is important to understand what China went through in the hundred years before the PRC was founded. China was at the mercy of the western powers, its palace pillaged by western troops, treasures plundered, its land carved out as concessions over which China has no sovereignty, and Chinese lives regarded inferior on Chinese soil. There were decades of civil war, and then the brutal Japanese occupation, the most infamous incident being the Nanking massacre. It was a hundred years of impotence, humiliation and trauma, and the loss of identity. The PRC restored peace and pride to the Chinese, finally becoming independent against foreign subjugations and brutalisations. This forged the new Chinese identity and cannot be easily negated by the trauma of the cultural revolution. China’s recent history is still the main driving force shaping China’s rise today, to finally shake off the century of humiliation and trauma and restore China to its rightful place as a great nation in the world. Propaganda has certainly influenced the popular narrative, but the general contour is still accurate. To understand Chinese thinking, it is essential to understand China’s recent history and its effect on the Chinese identity.
3
It is an interesting perspective to see Mao's actions as a outsider from the author. As the other comments mentioned, it felt a bit bizarre to think about the Monkey King persona for readers from a Chinese culture background, but I think it's OK. Observers of Chinese culture have their own interpretations and loop them into their own logic, as long as they are coherent and serve the author's narrative and points.
I do want to discuss the translation of the following two lines in Mao's most famous poem:
And Tang zong and Song zu
Had little poetry in their souls;
I'm sure the author is a seasoned student of Chinese language and poems, but I don't think Mao meant these two Emperors has little poetry in their souls. He used the phrase "feng sao" probably to convey that these two Emperors didn't achieve enough therefore less influential compared to Qingshihuang and Liu Bang. By looking down these two great generals and Emperors, Mao was definitely very very very ambitious and confident when he wrote down the lines. Because if you read Chinese history, no one would talk about Tang Zong & Song Zu like this.
1
Our country has a history of wanting any government, especially communism, that goes contrary to so called "free enterprise", to fail. It is remarkable that our CIA left China get this far. Though it may have been only because they opened the doors to some American exploitation to allow the initial driving of that economy.
1
"China’s current ruler...has unleashed another Cultural Revolution against the bureaucracy, albeit one that is controlled from the center not from the streets."
That is certainly one striking similarity between communism and capitalism - all policy is made from above. The disdain for democracy, the streets, couldn't be clearer in either system. Whether it's commissars, congresspersons or CEOs, the decisions that affect our lives will be made by them, not us, and always for our own benefit.
2
This is way too favorable a view of Mao. Even Chiang acknowledged after the KMT fled to Taiwan - the mainland was theirs for the losing and its own rottenness caused them to lose. You can give Mao some credit for seizing the moment and reunify most of China in the way the KMT failed... After that he was disastrous in his policies. Even the CCP after he died admitted the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were disasters (without using such strong a term). Deng Xiaoping deserves WAY more credit. It was precisely because during his time China moved away from Mao's policies that China began to blossom again. Current leader Xi Jingping is right to tackle corruption... But in terms of policy - he needs to be much much closer to Deng than Mao.
3
I should add that the comments are entirely necessary for me to properly appreciate this essay. I would have considerable difficulty knowing how to discuss the essay without reading the comments.
4
Such essays are invaluable for discussion. I make sure my students are aware of them.
3
"Mr. Xi is top tiger, the most powerful ruler since Mao."
But Xi is no Mao,he might think he is one. Xi and his associates at the top levels of the Chinese government have been pushing a society-wide anti-corruption campaign, targeting in particular some high-ranking rivals. Anti corruption drives have popular support and also helps Xi in taking down his political rivals. During Mao's time, the corrupt people and businesses that the Communist Party was targeting were the Party’s political adversaries. Campaigns against these enemies in the early 1950s used the word “annihilation,” and that’s pretty much what happened. Today, the corrupt adversaries are well inside the Party. To take down a tiger or two is possible, but to take down more could rock the stability of the regime,
1
Corruption at the policy level, where it really matters, is almost nonexistent in China, as its track record demonstrates. The CCP has, out of ruins and ashes, in the space of 70 years, created a society in which no one is poor and everyone receives an education, has paid employment, more than enough food and clothing, access to medical services, old-age support, a home and a comfortable life. And, significantly, the trust and support of 95% of voters.
While Prof MacFarquhar is a professional sinologist, it is laughable to offer an alternate view of Mao but perhaps history of personality can be subject to 24 revisions (inside joke) some of you may understand the reference
Mao was a local librarian who, unlike his top civilian colleagues like Deng and Chou, never gone oversea. Deng was a pamphleteer in France; and Chou, Japan. The latter two actually urged him to go oversea but he declined. He was no a bad poet though. I remember one about the Moon Goddess and "Wu Kong." I don't know his "animal spirits" but some believe his bible was "The Chronicle of The Three Kingdoms."
To be clear, Mao was very charismatic. Why, even the 14th Dalai Lama fell for him
Mr MacFarquhar is right about Chiang Kai-shek opted to unite his KMT force with the CCP's to fight against the Japanese invasion, Mao might not have been able to succeed. So, Chiang might have ironically been part responsible. Teddy White's Thunder Out of China is a more subjective but excellent book
The parents of my friend were university students just before the fall. They volunteered to stay to build the New China. They weren't communists, More a couple of apolitical nationalists. At first, it was okay. Then the purge came. They gambled and lost!
Mao understood & desired power. His power struggle during the Long March is well documented. Perhaps Cultural Revolution was his last grasp for it. Or maybe it was the gang of four. He could have been a truly immortal
1
One thing for certain, President Xi is a product of the Cultural Revolution. Like Deng before him, he survived and now he prospers. There is a Chinese term, "castle & citadel depth." People like Mao and Deng have that quality. Of all the people, perhaps Mao is the only true believer. Even so, from observers' perspective, he might prefer power to ideologies.
Zhou was a Comintern communist in Europe, mostly France, from 1920 to 1924. Deng was one of Zhou's subordinates for part of Deng's five European years.
Good essay! A few points to consider.
China has had no real experience with democracy except for perhaps a brief period after the fall of the Qing dynasty under Sun Yat-sen.
It does have a history stretching back 4000 years dominated by Great Emperors. Thus the ideal which some Chinese may aspire to is not Western Democracy but a benevolent autocracy.
Mao Zedong made many mistakes. One was the Great Leap Forward which resulted in a famine that may have killed 20-43 million Chinese.
After Mao died, under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping, China adopted a one child policy that may help explain how China was able to avoid intermittent famines and achieve remarkable economic growth.
A succession of effective leaders helped China leverage its one child policy into economic growth. China has enjoyed 10% GDP for many decades and now rivals the US in many domains.
The highest buildings in the world are in Arabia, but the Pudong district contains skyscrapers almost as high, dwarfing the Manhattan skyline. China has built high speed rail that connects its main cities, and has a One Belt-One Road plan that may eventually extend high speed rail from Beijing to Paris.
What Americans fail to understand, and President Trump in particular, is that China is making steps towards becoming the world superpower.
We should be emulating China's successes, not criticizing its trade practices.
China has demonstrated that slower population growth is consistent with building economic power.
15
What a great piece of concise writing. A pleasure to read.
4
Mao allowed his citizens to starve. He killed people. He allowed a personality cult to form around him and his wife. He tried to out-communist the Russians or Stalin if you like. Both men were brutal dictators and their countries suffered for it. The Cultural Revolution of 1966 ruined the lives of many Chinese. An entire generation was encouraged to turn on their parents, their families, anyone they could turn on and report. The new China Mao created was as crooked as the one that preceded it. The only difference was that there wasn't a dynasty in charge. It was the Communist party with Mao as its star attraction.
25
Those are old wives tales. In real life, Mao did none of those things as you can see here: https://www.unz.com/article/selling-democracy-to-china/.
If he had, would 10 million visit his birthplace each year?
In my opinion Chairman Mao was a great military leader. However, as often happens in history, his skills as leader of the People Republic of China remains to be judged by history.
The fact that he unified China is quite an accomplishment that most Chinese recognize today.
China is a very old nation and has a perception of history that may be difficult to comprehend by other cultures; unless one lived in the People's Republic of China for a couple of decades.
5
I may be wrong, but my understanding was that the Cultural Revolution was, in large part, carried out by Mao to reinforce his rule and to undermine his critics in the wake of the disaster (wholly human-made) of the Great Leap Forward and the resulting famine. By the late 50's, even Marshall Peng could not raise even loyal criticism to Mao, as evidenced by the Lushan Conference. By 1960, it would appear that what motivated Mao was not the good of the Chinese, but the focus of any authoritarian ruler - maintain power. It is too reductionist to frame this as an argument of "good" vs "evil;" however, his views on power, imho, need to be nuanced with his actions after 1958.
10
Prof MacFarquhar's book with Michael Schoenhals, "Mao's Last Revolution" is IMO the best on the Cultural Revolution. Great concise summary of Mao's career - for some reason not mentioning that 30 million people died as a result of farm collectivization, misreporting of production and the famine that followed, and the horrors of the Cultural Revolution, as covered in Prof MacFarquhar's book. Several of my grad school classmates lived through the Cultural Revolution. It would be interesting to hear more detailed analysis of Xi, who doesn't seem like the kind of perpetually revolutionary personality who might be inclined to start a revolution as Mao did when he had begun to fade from the limelight.
1
None of the greenwashing gesture deceptions that one commenter glorified Xi for doing will make any long term difference, do anything to make a sub continent the size of the USA with an overpopulation of 4-5 times our population ecologically sustainable! China is already in the process of rape, pillaging and plundering all the nations in the region to get enough resources to have a minimal standard of living for its people as it prepares to attack and subjugate the rest of the world in the coming decades. Xi's free trade violating campaign to make China the electric car and solar panel manufacturing leader in the world in an effort to supposedly to reduce pollution is a typical lying deception and laughable to any knowledgeable scientist or anyone who can do 6th grade math. Most of the electrical energy to run electric cars will come from the burning of fossil fuels, usually the dirtiest of dirty coal in China, and will simply move some of the particulate, poisonous sulfides and nitrous oxides and GW warming gas emissions out of city centers. But of course that will good enough for China's murderous Red Nobility elites (also for their 1% analogs in the rest of the world). For all humanity's elites have ever cared about was achieving God like control over the majority of their populations, while insuring that their pampered bodies and psyches don't have to experience the same nasty common condition that their incompetence and mendacious behaviors inflict on the rest of us.
13
China is huge, as large as the US, and naturally as well endowed as the US or even more so. It has a huge population because for 2,000 years it has been able to support a huge population, by the standards of the times.
China might or might not exploit neighbors as done by so many other powers, but it is not like 1940 Japan that must do so, having nothing at home.
8
Rape - pillage - plunder?? I don't see modern China practicing European style (or 20th century Japanese style) imperialism. You seem confused. Trade differences are one thing - but your description is simply mind boggling.
1
I recently read No Wall Too High One Man's Daring Escape From Mao's Darkest Prison by Xu, Hongci. It is a fascinating account of life under Mao's brutal regime.
5
Very interesting piece and comments. I tend to agree with the Chinese gentleman, who dislikes the use of the Monkey King to describe the political purges of Mao, but not entirely. I recently studied the Monkey King, or Monkey, because it is considered one of the four great novels of Chinese literature. I was delighted by the book, which is full of farce, comedy, slapstick and political satire. The Monkey King is a folk hero from stories of old China. He has super powers, and is more like a Marvel or DC superhero, a very naughty one, than any kind of political genius. Roderick MacFarquhar points out that Mao himself wrote that he was inspired by Sun Wukong, the Monkey King. That the story seems to be an entertainment for children, doesn't change the fact that the book has many levels of meaning, especially in its covert attack on the Emperor of China, and stuck up officials of all stripes. Out of reverence for this amazing story, I crafted a synopsis of the book into one of the chapters of my first book The Tay Son Rebellion, Historical Fiction of Eighteen-Century Vietnam.
David Lindsay Jr blogs at On Vietnam, located at www.TheTaysonRebellion.com
2
Excellent summary of what happened in China. There are a few things missing. Firstly, when he proposed the strategy for taking the countryside before the cities, he was expelled from the Communist Party. He went it alone anyway (Monkey King); meanwhile the city communists and workers were slaughtered when they engaged in political and economic strikes.
Secondly, Mao's strategy was predicated on mobilizing poor farmers for countryside economic reform, and converting China from colonial status into an independent country by expelling the Great Powers.
There are few Chinese today who do not consider that Mao Ze Dong's strategy was that only one that could have resulted in independence in 1949. The Cultural Revolution and the mass starvations during the Great Leap Forward are another story. It is one thing to knock down an old regime; building a new country under military and economic pressure from the outside powers like the USA is another. But Mao also instituted universal literacy which has resulted in its growth to international power. In fact, literacy in China outstrips that of the USA.
9
Professor MacFarquhar's piece far too lightly brushes over the cost to China that his Revolution cost that nation in terms of human suffering, stumbling starts and epic miscalculations . According to Dr Jun Chang's two definitive books on Mao Tse Tung, 'Wild Swans' ,which won the Samuel Johnson Award, and 'Mao Tse Tung: The Unknown Story (co-written with Jon Halliday)' Mao caused the deaths of 38 million of his countrymen during the greatest famine in human history, and may have over all been responsible for over 70 million Chinese who lost their lives during his regime.
We must also remember that despite Mao's image of a hero during the invasion of China by the Japanese during WWII, he in fact held his CCP forces back in the hinterlands during the course of the war, in anticipation of using them to fight Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist forces at the end of the War-And that Mao even conspired with the Japanese in several instances to destroy Nationalist Armies.
Finally, Dr Chang reminds us that Mao's Cultural Revolution completely destroyed China's intelligentsia and scientific community and literally set China back to a feudal pre-industrial age. So no, whether Monkey King or Tiger King using Mao as an example for Xi Jingping and his government is certainly not in the best interests of the Chinese people or, in fact, for the world.
19
"he in fact held his CCP forces back in the hinterlands during the course of the war, in anticipation of using them to fight Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist forces at the end"
That is a half truth. Both Mao and the Nationalists held back, to be ready for the next fight. However, the American generals at the time felt Mao was fighting the Japanese more so than the Nationalists were.
7
Just for reference - in terms of percentage of the population that famine actually wasn't the worst. Per capita European countries actually had worst ones. In fact the one that drove the Irish to NY is one.
But yeah it's strange to hear someone defend the Cultural Revolution. Even the Chinese themselves admit it set them back. Sadly they lost about 20 years worth of development with the destruction caused by that era.
1
Dr Chang tells us, in fact, that FDR relied heavily for information about the conduct of the War in China on a private network which included Edgar Snow, the now known CCP sympathizer and author of the sychophantic and largely fanciful tome about Mao's Long March, 'Red Star'. A better assessment of the CCP's involvement with the defeat of the Japanese is that provided to us by Earnest Hemingway who worked as a foreign correspondent on the front lines in China, and who tells us: "Thanks to the Reds excellent publicity (Edgar Snow?), America has an exaggerated idea of the part they played in the war against Japan. Their part has been considerable, but that of the Central Government (Chiang Kai-shek) has been a hundred times greater... Communists in my experience in Spain, always try to give the impression that they are the only ones who really fight."
Also, Chang tell us that the CCP actually recruited large numbers of the defeated Japanese Manchuko Army to train and even man the rudimentary CCP Air Force to fight the Nationalists, following the surrender of the Japanese. But hey Thomason, nice mustache.
I am a retired school teacher.
Back in the day, a number of my students were Chinese. Some studying music--either at Curtis or Julliard. One of these in particular I remember. He would linger after class (even though everyone else was hurrying off to lunch) and engage me in conversation.
And I remember the last time he did this. "What," he asked me, "do you think of Chairman Mao?" And I told myself sotto voce, "Be careful here! Pick your words carefully!" So I did.
But his own thoughts were noteworthy. He had no illusions. "Had I lived during the cultural revolution," he told me, "I know my fate would not have been enviable. At the very least--forced labor on some farm in the middle of nowhere. Or imprisonment. Or death."
(And I thought, "Well--to say the least!" My young friend was an outstanding pianist. Mao's use for outstanding pianists was pretty limited.)
And none of this made a dime's worth of difference. He had nothing but ardent admiration for the Chairman. "When Mao stood in the middle of Shanghai," he said (eyes glowing) "and declared, 'From now on, China belongs to the Chinese,' that was OUR Declaration of Independence."
I have heard this from other Chinese students as well. Blind to his failings? no--never that. "He came to think of himself as a god," said one.
But ardent admiration? Oh yes.
In spades.
41
Yes, that was a long time ago. Now, China is dealing with the many problems from Mao's push for big families, and some party members openly saying "it would have better if he had left power" in the 1950s.
1
There is a stark contrast between the young student's admiration for Mao and the current scorn and ridicule that is being heaped upon the men who used to lead us.
There is a lesson here. China may be coming together while we are falling apart.
You might enjoy "Do Not Say We Have Nothing" by Madeleine Thien, a fictionalised account of the experiences of a piano student at the Shanghai Conservatory and his compatriots from before the Cultural Revolution through Tiananmen Square and beyond. One of the characters (Kai) paraphrases Seiji Ozawa as saying that, as a result of the Cultural Revolution, Chinese musicians "ability to interpret music had fundamentally changed as if an entire emotional range had been lost to us, but we ourselves couldn't hear it." Sparrow continues "Every musician in the orchestra knew they'd been cheated. But until that moment, we never had to face it so directly" (pg 311)
1
It is too simplistic to reduce Mao's persona into the tiger vs monkey king model, and then leapfrog to paint Xi with the same paradigm. Mao's China that emerged from years of Japanese occupation in WW2 and corrupted KMT rule is not the China under administration by Xi today. The party dynamics and personnel on the top echelon of the Chinese "Communist" Party are very different from the Mao days. What remains the same is the alpha-male personality and smarts necessary to survive and rise in any political system. Xi's advantage is his insider knowledge of party politics because he is a direct descendant of original party member. He understands power struggle. While Mao indeed molded and created a "New China", Xi's unspoken slogan is to "Make China Great Again". All indication is that Xi would be successful because of his good luck that Donald Trump was elected by American voters to be their leader.
32
Why are 95% of the posts in The Times, blaming DJT for all the world's problems.
Get real, read NYTimes -- Xi is trying to seize more power then the Deng gang, to be in power longer. It has nothing to do with Trump, it is an internal Chinese Communist Party matter. And, IMHO, the Chinese Communist Party would tell anyone that, to their faces.
As a Chinese, this is the most bizarre thing I've ever read about from some western self proclaimed China experts. Monkey king is a character for amusement, it is inappropriate to refer it in politics, even in a metaphorical way.
Thus, the inappropriate bondage between a monkey and Mao Zedong, even Xi Jinping just seem awkwardly bizarre and disturbing to Chinese commonsense which is somehow lost in this author.
33
Today, the Monkey King is only for entertainment. But during Mao’s time, everything was seen through a political lens, and the Monkey King was the archetypical revolutionary against the heavenly court. So the author’s analogy is well grounded in history.
Could not agree more. Monkey king is similar to Hanuman (mythological Monkey God in Hinduism) in India, a mythological figure. Neither has any place in politics.
1
You did not read Mao's poem included in the column as the basis for this?
Like often happens in Communist nations, pure communism is driven out with fanaticism and tyrannical behavior. Mao was a tyrant that somehow some Chinese still pay homage to. Now that the US has Trump, it does not look good for western society, either. But, China's record on human rights and lack of elections still makes it backward.
1
Let us be more direct. Mao was a mass murder who suppressed those who might oppose him. His manipulation of the Chinese people during the Cultural Revolution was his attempt to distract from his failures and to keep himself in power.
35
Amen. Indeed he murdered millions of his own people. it is obvious when visiting China that many of the people who consider him a hero have had it censored from them that he did this.
18
Or, hard to understand, maybe they are aware of it, but already relegate it to "history", in a way that is maybe similar to how most Americans view our crimes against the indigenous people - yes, it was terrible, (that part is hurried over quietly) but look at the amazing results! (that part with pride.) From backward and humiliated, to a world power. We can't forget how bad it must have felt to be victimized and exploited by the Western Powers for all those years. Getting past that would justify a lot.
2
That's right. Mr. MacFarquhar conveniently left out the 20,000,000+ who starved to death during Mao's "Great Leap Forward" in the 1950s.
This is at least the fourth "feature" with a giant gap in reality, including how housing developed in Shanghai. Where are the editors?
2
Jefferson said, ""God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion." Mao led a revolution against his own Party every 10 years. MacFarquhar fails to note the "Rectify the Party's style of work" period in the middle of the Civil War against Chiang's Nationalists in 1946, captured with wonder by Hinton in Fanshen.
8
Great piece about Mao, who lifted up more people than anyone in history.
8
No mention of the tens of millions who died from famine and political purges during Mao’s “Great Leap Forward”
36
Michael - no that would be Deng - not Mao. Deng deserves much more adoration. If China stuck with Mao's policies they would have still had bread lines like the Soviets.
Mao did one great thing, something always considered impossible: he ordered that all Chinese children must learn to read. Or else. Everyone in China had to attend primary school, without exception.
First, some said they needed to do as the French did in Vietnam, and replace characters with a European alphabet. So the CCP ordered that schools start with Latin representations of every character, and came up with official CCP Latinisations of every character, so 'Peking' officially became 'Beijing.'
Others said China must keep Chinese characters, but the old characters were much too difficult to learn, so the CCP simplified all the characters. E.g., noodles went from 麵 to 面. And now China has almost 100% literacy.
With almost all young Chinese literate, Deng was able to start the transformation of China from one of the poorest nations to a wealthy nation, a transformation that his successors continued until China is the richest nation at PPP.
President Xi plans further improvements in air and water quality, replacing fossil fuels with renewables, a trillion dollar high speed rail link between China and Europe, improving the lives of the peasants, etc., etc.
Meanwhile, what is the US doing?
61
China's problems are real, but they are all about growing from nothing to much better. Along the way, problems come up and are then dealt with.
The US is falling apart, losing its inheritance. It is not building infrastructure, it is exploiting it as it falls apart. It already has major problems like pollution, and it is fighting against dealing with them, or even admitting them.
It just isn't the same. China is behind but gaining, while the US is ahead but stumbling.
10
Your example shows all the problems of simplification. 麵 was a clear reference to wheat grain and was easy to read one you knew all the radicals. 面 simplified that character, true, but this is also the character for "face." Simplified characters can be confusing. The Chinese in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore all became literate before those in China did and they all retained the complicated characters. The difference was not "simplified" characters, but a higher standard of living and an improved system of public education.
We are carrying on with making our weapons firms rich and selling war to various subversive elements hoping to prevent any government other than Capitalism ones from becoming a success and spreading.
1