DOW JONES, A NEWS CORP COMPANY
Sections
Aim higher, reach further.
Get the Wall Street Journal $12 for 12 weeks. Subscribe Now

Xi Embraces Mao’s Radical Legacy

The Cultural Revolution is no longer just an ugly chapter in China’s past. Its brutal legacy forms a key part of President Xi Jinping’s ‘China dream’

Illustration: Marc Burckhardt

Fifty years ago, on May 16, Mao Zedong unleashed an attack aimed at smashing his own Communist Party apparatus from top to bottom, having concluded that it was going capitalist. “Bombard the headquarters!” he urged the masses in a famous People’s Daily article. Millions of young zealots responded, becoming Mao’s Red Guards, his fanatical foot-soldiers. Thus began China’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, a period of murderous insanity that ended only with Mao’s death a decade later, in 1976.

Nothing could be further from the tactics of President Xi Jinping today as he seeks to rid the party of the ills that he fears could lead to its extinction—corruption, moral decay, the loss of will to fight for a cause. His response has been to impose rigid order from on high, to stifle criticism—party members are forbidden from engaging in “improper discussion”—and to crush organized dissent, no matter how mild. Draconian media censorship has silenced debate on the Internet.

Yet, despite these obvious differences, Mr. Xi has spent his first three years in office resurrecting Mao, borrowing his rhetoric and aping his practices. He has concentrated power in his own hands and flirted with a personality cult—the most haunting symbol of the Cultural Revolution, in which blind worship of a supreme leader kindled years of convulsive violence. As many as 1.5 million Chinese were beaten to death, driven to suicide or killed in fighting among Red Guard factions.

Today’s China is nowhere near the point of another Cultural Revolution, and the 50th anniversary of the start of that traumatic era will go unmarked in official circles. Chinese leaders “are frightened of the Cultural Revolution,” says the historian Frank Dikötter. “They think that’s what might happen if you give ordinary people a say.”

More Saturday Essays

But the paradox of Mao’s continuing influence remains: Contrary to expectations, a half-century after the Cultural Revolution began, the “Great Helmsman,” as he styled himself, is again the most potent force in the country’s political life. What part of his legacy, exactly, is Mr. Xi claiming?

The signal for the youth rebellion in 1966 was Mao’s “May 16 Circular,” which accused “representatives of the bourgeoisie” of infiltrating every corner of the party in a vast conspiracy to restore the old capitalist society. The aging tyrant feared that these “class enemies” would discard him when he died, just as Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev had denounced the departed Stalin and his personality cult in 1956. At the top of Mao’s target list were President Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping, who was then in charge of party administration. They were the prime “capitalist roaders.”

Marauding gangs of Red Guards, many of them just high-school kids, began by ransacking the homes of “counterrevolutionaries.” In Shanghai, they burst into the elegant residence of Nien Cheng, whose late husband ran the Anglo-Dutch oil company Shell, cracking whips. A young man stomped on one of her exquisite Qing dynasty wine cups​while others cut up her furs and evening dresses and used her lipstick to scrawl on her bedroom wall: “Down with the Running Dog of Imperialism!” Dragged off to jail, she survived more than six years in solitary confinement.

The Cultural Revolution at 50

In May 1966, Mao Zedong unleashed a decade-long wave of mass upheaval that convulsed China, leaving as many as 1.5 million people dead and banishing millions more to the countryside.

fullscreen
Young pioneers on the eve of the Cultural Revolution, 1965.
Young pioneers on the eve of the Cultural Revolution, 1965. Marc Riboud/Magnum Photos
Luo Zicheng, the head of a work group designated by a provincial Communist Party committee, was accused by the staff of the Heilongjiang Daily of following ‘the capitalist line’ and forced to wear a dunce cap listing his alleged crimes, Harbin, Aug. 25, 1966.
Luo Zicheng, the head of a work group designated by a provincial Communist Party committee, was accused by the staff of the Heilongjiang Daily of following ‘the capitalist line’ and forced to wear a dunce cap listing his alleged crimes, Harbin, Aug. 25, 1966. Li Zhensheng/Contact Press Images
At a mass rally in northeastern China, party secretary Wang Yilun and Li Xia, the wife of another top official, were denounced, their faces and clothes splattered with ink, and their crimes spelled out in placards hung around their necks, Harbin, Aug. 29, 1966.
At a mass rally in northeastern China, party secretary Wang Yilun and Li Xia, the wife of another top official, were denounced, their faces and clothes splattered with ink, and their crimes spelled out in placards hung around their necks, Harbin, Aug. 29, 1966. Li Zhensheng/Contact Press Images
At a rally led by the Red Guards (a Maoist paramilitary student movement), stocks, securities certificates and savings-deposit books confiscated during home searches were burned, Harbin, Sept. 19, 1966.
At a rally led by the Red Guards (a Maoist paramilitary student movement), stocks, securities certificates and savings-deposit books confiscated during home searches were burned, Harbin, Sept. 19, 1966. Li Zhensheng/Contact Press Images
Educated youth from China’s cities sent to live in rural areas worked to reclaim wasteland in Jilin province, 1968.
Educated youth from China’s cities sent to live in rural areas worked to reclaim wasteland in Jilin province, 1968. VCG/Getty Images
Chinese soldiers read from Mao’s Little Red Book, 1969.
Chinese soldiers read from Mao’s Little Red Book, 1969. Popperfoto/Getty Images
People held up Mao’s portrait during a parade, Beijing, circa 1970.
People held up Mao’s portrait during a parade, Beijing, circa 1970. VCG/Getty Images
of
SHOW CAPTION HIDE CAPTION
fullscreen

The signature torture of the Red Guards was the “airplane position.” It involved twisting people’s arms behind their backs until it wrenched at the sockets and then shoving their heads down. Doubled up in this way, often on a stage in front of frenzied crowds, the beatings began. A favorite weapon was a bicycle chain wrapped in rubber so that it bruised internally but didn’t draw blood.

All this became very familiar to the late Ji Xianlin, a Sanskrit scholar who had received his doctorate in Germany and found a spot as head of the Eastern Languages Department at Peking University, a Red Guard hotbed. In one of the few written accounts of that era, he described being herded into a detention-cum-torture center in the middle of campus, guarded by his own students, who flogged him mercilessly. He spent nine months incarcerated there. “The world seemed not to be ruled by men but by ghouls or beasts,” he wrote in “The Cowshed: Memories of the Chinese Cultural Revolution.”

Scores of faculty and staff at China’s premier college committed suicide in the first few months alone, Mr. Ji recalled. They couldn’t bear the humiliation, steeped as many of them were in a Confucian tradition that venerated scholarship. An eminent history professor overdosed on sleeping pills; a philosophy tutor slit his wrists and bled to death slowly in front of bystanders. Others jumped off buildings or leapt in front of trains. One walked off to the hills and swallowed pesticide.

Mao was seemingly taken by surprise at the extent of the anti-Establishment fury he had whipped up. When it finally spun into near civil war and Red Guards were blasting at each other with machine guns, mortars and tanks, he called in the army to restore control. China was essentially under martial law.

The scene of confusion at Mao’s deathbed shortly after midnight on Sept. 9, 1976, was a harbinger of things to come. His widow, Jiang Qing, was there along with others in the Gang of Four who had led the Cultural Revolution and would soon be arrested. It was decided that Mao would rest in a mausoleum on Tiananmen Square, but doctors had no idea how to preserve a body. In a panic, they instructed the Institute of Arts and Crafts to fashion a waxen dummy in case they botched the job.

The bigger concern was how Mao should be remembered. He had won a civil war against all odds, driving the former Nationalist government to Taiwan, and had unified China. Yet he had inflicted more death and suffering than all the rampaging imperialists put together since the Opium Wars. His Great Leap Forward in the late 1950s, a deranged economic plan to catch up with the rich West, triggered a famine that killed 30 or 40 million people. He was both a demigod and a demon.

Mao himself offered a generous self-evaluation toward the end of his life: “nine fingers” good, “one finger” bad. The peppery Deng’s judgment (he was twice purged by Mao) was harsher: “70% right and 30% wrong.” A 1981 party document assigned blame for the Cultural Revolution primarily to Mao.

But China’s current leader, Mr. Xi, will not stand to see Mao denigrated, even though his own father, Xi Zhongxun, one of Mao’s top lieutenants, was purged in the Cultural Revolution and a half-sister killed herself. Mr. Xi himself was one of 18 million urban youths banished to the countryside to learn from the peasants.

He has declared that it is just as unacceptable to negate Mao’s 30 years in power as it is to speak critically of the 30 years that followed under Deng. He has set side-by-side, on equal footing, a period marked by spasms of mass killing and destruction and an overwhelmingly peaceful era that saw the greatest economic progress in human history.

Xi Jinping, left, and Mao Zedong.
Xi Jinping, left, and Mao Zedong. Photo: ASSOCIATED PRESS

Outsiders may wonder why Mr. Xi takes such an impartial view of one of the 20th century’s worst despots. But in the Chinese context, it makes a certain sense. A key to understanding Mr. Xi’s relationship with Mao is the system of hereditary privilege that still exists in a once-feudal country. The Red Guards had a saying: “The son of a hero is a real man; the son of a reactionary is a bastard.” Mr. Xi’s father was a hero. And he owed it to Mao.

It is Mao, by extension, who gives Mr. Xi his prestige as one of China’s “red aristocrats,” scions of Mao’s closest comrades, even if those comrades were badly abused. It is Mao who was responsible for the young Mr. Xi’s enforced sojourn in rural Shaanxi province, where he stayed in a cave and had his political coming-of-age. Above all, it is Mao—a heroic version of Mao, the patriot who proclaimed the founding of the People’s Republic atop the Gate of Heavenly Peace—who stars in Mr. Xi’s “China Dream,” a narrative intended to uplift the masses and instill pride in the party at a time when the economy is slowing dramatically.

The story starts with the Opium Wars and China’s ensuing “century of humiliation” by Japan and the West and leads, via Mao’s 1949 revolution, toward a “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.” Absent Mao, the story falls apart. Mao has become Mr. Xi’s best—and perhaps last—hope for rescuing his party from the fate that befell its Soviet counterpart.

As he hones and polishes his chronicle of national redemption, Mr. Xi is carefully picking and choosing from Mao’s legacy. He wants Mao the hero without Mao the author of chaos; Mao the patriot without the Mao who appeared so indifferent to the death and suffering of his own people. But the Mao era can’t be so neatly disaggregated. Some Chinese, especially intellectuals, fear that their leader is playing with fire.

Mr. Xi’s “China Dream” depends to a large degree on silence, secrecy and propaganda about the Cultural Revolution, which traumatized some 100 million Chinese. Authorities won’t allow open discussion of that era for fear that it would discredit Mao and undermine the party’s legitimacy. At the National Museum of China on Tiananmen Square, the tragedy gets a single mention: a photo of Red Guards surging through Tiananmen, lost in a high corner of a cavernous gallery.

The memories are also too painful for many Chinese, who prefer to forget an era in which they both suffered and dealt out suffering. Mr. Ji, the mild-mannered Sanskrit expert, is a case in point. He had taken sides with one Red Guard faction against another at Peking University at a time when students were fighting pitched battles with homemade spears. He didn’t fight, but he was implicated in the violence.

And over the years, memories have grown selective. To the urban poor and others left behind by China’s high-speed growth, Mao represents a purer, more egalitarian, less corrupt era. The nostalgia feeds today’s popular enthusiasm for dances from that era and for singing revolutionary songs like “Sailing the Seas Depends on the Helmsman.” These groups welcome the Mao revival, though it makes the party nervous. The last thing Mr. Xi wants is for Mao to become a symbol of protest for the downtrodden.

Students in central China read a lecture from Mao’s ‘Little Red Book’ at their elementary and middle school, Sitong, Henan province, on Dec. 3, 2013.
Students in central China read a lecture from Mao’s ‘Little Red Book’ at their elementary and middle school, Sitong, Henan province, on Dec. 3, 2013. Photo: Carlos Barria/Reuters

Unlike Mao, Mr. Xi will be judged not by his revolutionary charisma but by his job performance—his ability to deliver economic growth. He has committed to a “moderately prosperous society” by 2049, the centenary of the revolution. And while Mao was aloof from day-to-day administration, Mr. Xi is a micromanager who personally runs the economy, national security, defense, cybersecurity and just about everything else.

What passes for Mr. Xi’s cult today is modest indeed. Obsequious jingles to “Daddy Xi” may circulate online, but copies of his tome, “The Governance of China,” pile up on bookstore shelves, and few Chinese pay much attention to the laudatory headlines of the People’s Daily. Mao’s cult was of a different order altogether. At its height, writes Mr. Dikötter in “The Cultural Revolution: A People’s History, 1962-1976,” demand for plastic to cover the Little Red Book, a collection of Mao’s aphorisms, forced toy factories to scale back output, and the production of Mao badges—as many as five billion of them—exhausted aluminum supplies.

The more serious parallel to the past is Mr. Xi’s tendency to seek solutions for the party’s woes in its early years. To clean up official corruption, he has set loose the party’s own spies and inquisitors instead of lawyers and prosecutors. Like Mao, he believes in the power not of institutional constraints but of ideology to mold human nature and reform behavior. Self-criticism and public confessions have made a comeback, techniques designed to induce shame and subservience to the party’s will.

There has always been a streak of xenophobia in Chinese communism, and that too is creeping back. A cartoon poster warns female government workers of “dangerous love” with foreign spies, as illustrated by the naive “Little Li,” who hands over government secrets to a red-haired “David.” China increasingly sees itself in ideological confrontation with the West. Last month, the party magazine Qiushi quoted Mr. Xi saying that some Chinese have “unwittingly become trumpeters of Western capitalistic ideology.”

Mr. Xi’s economic policies also bear a Maoist stamp. He insists on bulking up state enterprises, the bedrock of Mao’s command economy, even as the state sector hemorrhages money and threatens to overwhelm the economy with debt.

In the decades after the Cultural Revolution, a conviction took hold outside China that ideology no longer mattered inside. Deng was supposed to have buried it, and Mao had become a benign cultural icon, his smiling portrait on bank notes and gazing out across Tiananmen Square. To the extent that Chinese leaders believed in anything, the thinking went, it was in a technocratic future. They had become pragmatists, single-mindedly devoted to economic growth. Hadn’t Deng declared that “it doesn’t matter whether a cat is black or white so long as it catches mice”?

Some in the West imagined that as Chinese living standards caught up with the rest of the modern world, the political systems would start to converge too. This assumption has proved wrong. On Mr. Xi’s watch, as in Mao’s time all those years ago, the East remains in the grip of communist ideas with a logic and power of their own. The Cultural Revolution lives on.

Write to Andrew Browne at [email protected]

39 comments
XAVIER L SIMON
XAVIER L SIMON subscriber

Beware of where the U.S. is going. Just look at the role Ben Rhodes has been playing as told in last week's New York Times Magazine article “The Aspiring Novelist Who Became Obama’s Foreign-Policy Guru.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/the-aspiring-novelist-who-became-obamas-foreign-policy-guru.html?_r=2

Remember that one of the fundamental levers on the power of autocrats like Xi is information. Rhodes tells how Obama not only controlled the information and media, but actually fabricated the narrative.

If that is not enough, then look at this short video of how we were manipulated by Obama to sell us ObamaCare by, among other things, lying to us by saying that "if you like your insurance you can keep it.

https://youtu.be/Pkqn6wsrUfs


BoKai Sun
BoKai Sun subscriber

I grew up in India, came to the US when I was 22 and have lived for 8 years in China. None of the systems are perfect of course, but the Chinese system is unique in its susceptibility to "discontinuities". Democracies, for all their warts and weaknesses, continually provide ways for discontent to "let off steam" - through elections at the local, congressional and national levels. In the PRC's system, there is no such mechanism - hence the constant fear of the party that revolution is just a few missteps away. This manifests itself in censorship, restricted debate, revisionist history - and also many times in extraordinary responsiveness to people's concerns to head off the possibility of mass revolt. But there is the risk that some problems might prove to be too much for the party to handle - e.g. slowing economic growth in the face of low-cost manufacturing exhausting its potential, ageing demographics and a slowing world economy. When that discontent boils over, all bets are off...

James French
James French subscriber

Trump will be the key, here.  If he is elected, and pares the trade deficit with China down and then eliminates it, watch the commie cockroaches start eating each other in the People's Gulag.

David Corwin
David Corwin subscriber

Yet more guano from this political hack Andrew Browne. I bet he's never even been to China, but just get orders from the State Department or some conservative think tank.

Look at the list of $1b+ startup and see how many are Chinese.  Go to an American university and see how many students are Chinese.  Read WSJ and count how many businesses they are buying up all over the world.  Look at their strategic industrial roadmap and tell me if it has any resemblance to the cultural revolution.

Contrary to what this authors says, they are making deals around the world, but our neocons are perpetuating the Cold War.

The world is changing rapidly, but some pathetic propagandist like this Andrew Browne still wants us to think other people are living in the 1950s.  This is like some Chinese executive sitting in his skyscraper corner office comparing the US to our civil rights era.  It is this ridiculous.

CHRISTINA NGUYEN
CHRISTINA NGUYEN subscriber

@David Corwin @CHRISTINA NGUYEN A Vietnamese agent is way much better than one like yourself for the following reasons:

1. We, the US, shed a lot of bloods and money during World War II against the Japanese in the Pacific to gain navigation freedom we have today from the Middle East across the Pacific Ocean.

2. Chinese's bullying construction of reef-to-island in the region is a ridiculous attempt to create strategic chokepoint and strip away that maritime freedom, not only to us to the rest of the world.


You're definitely a real chinese agent impersonnated under non-chinese name (read item #1).

David Corwin
David Corwin subscriber

@CHRISTINA NGUYEN @David Corwin Really?  I had always thought the WW2 Allies were the US, the Soviet Union, the British, and the Chinese.  I never heard of Vietnam being part of it.  Wasn't it a French colony back then?  Do you really want to dispute the contribution to WW2 between Vietnam and China?  Seriously, you must be supremely ignorant.  

I actually remember the Vietnamese killing about 60,000 of our soldier's shortly after WW2.  Did you have a memory lapse?

Didn't both Vietnam and the Philippines build military installations and runways on their islets.  You are just crying because the Chinese are building faster and bigger than you can ever match.  I bet both of you are now regretting kicking us out in the first place, and want to love us long time.

Nevin Taylor
Nevin Taylor subscriber

@David Corwin

David,

Their 'strategic industrial roadmap'...such as their thriving auto manufacturing presence in N. America?  


And what's the avg. wage in rural China?  I know guano when I see it and it's not from Mr. Brown.  

David Corwin
David Corwin subscriber

@Nevin Taylor @David Corwin OK, so tell me what's Obama administration's strategy for next-generation manufacturing.  I see private company trying and I see occasional calls for manufacturing innovation proposals from NIST for a few million dollars.  This is not a national strategy to compete with the hundreds of billions that Germans and Chinese are pumping in.

You are right, China is not a wealthy country.  Neither is Russia.  But they have well-defined national strategies and competence to execute.  This is how they manage to out-maneuver us at almost every turn.  Meanwhile this guys Andrew Browne is still keeping his head in the sand and trying to tell us China is returning to the 1950s.  This is just dumb political propaganda that doesn't help anybody.


Kristin Sampayan
Kristin Sampayan subscriber

" Like Mao, he believes in the power not of institutional constraints but of ideology to mold human nature and reform behavior. Self-criticism and public confessions have made a comeback, techniques designed to induce shame and subservience to the party’s will."


Does this remind anyone else besides me of the Obama Administration and the left?

Frank You
Frank You subscriber

The difference in today's China is that the people have come to expect and demand increasing economic prosperity. This facet in China's social fabric will not disappear, in fact, it will only continue to grow. The Communist Party knows this and they also know that they must transform as the country transforms economically and socially. 


Stability is the number one priority for the Communist Party and they know that the key to that is economic growth.

Ilari Kallunki
Ilari Kallunki subscriber

Not only Mao destroyed tens of millions of human lives of his subordinates but he also attacked India, Taiwan, Soviet Union and fought in Korea and Vietnam. In Korea Mao’s main aim was to destroy completely the remnants of the soldiers of Chiang Kai-shek. He would have used nuclear weapons if the Chinese military technology would have allowed him to send a bomb beyond Chinese borders.

Nothing has changed in the ideology of leftism. Mao fought for social equality, solidarity and he was against capitalist exploitation and inequality. Today "very liberal" Mr. Sanders fight for social equality, solidarity and he is against capitalist exploitation and inequality. Why wouldn’t Mr. Xi use the legacy of Mao if Mr. Sanders use it with great success.

Craig Hobson
Craig Hobson subscriber

Apparently 50 million dead just wasn't enough. 

Thomas Bishop
Thomas Bishop subscriber

"dictators ride to and fro on tigers from which they dare not dismount."

-winston churchill 


mao zedong was lucky enough to escape the wrath of tigers.  others were not so lucky.  cats catch mice.  tigers kill people. 


meanwhile, the air and water in many of china's urban areas remain polluted.  no history book can fix that. 

christopher mast
christopher mast subscriber

Sooner or later they will end up like Venezuela; no food, no beer and no toilet paper.

Gene Ramirez
Gene Ramirez subscriber

Here in the states, Joe 6 pack has no idea what a cult of personality can lead to.

Carrie Gorringe
Carrie Gorringe subscriber

My profoundest sympathies to the Chinese people: totalitarian rulers are the political nitwits you can't get rid of easily. President Xi clearly hasn't the wit to come up with his own version of Hades; he has to resurrect a Frankenstein's monster of an ideology best reserved for the dustbin of history.

bruce miller
bruce miller subscriber

Sounds a bit like "the Bern" and his army of junior Red Guards.   The one constant in leftism is their "good" intentions and their deranged, often murderous, results.

XAVIER L SIMON
XAVIER L SIMON subscriber

When you don't have a God like Jews and Christians have, you make one up. Like it or not, they are a very convenient way of rallying the masses around a cause or anchor. So Xi tries to convert Mao into a god or anchor around which to rally his people. Some of his methods too are convenient for controlling the people.

eric ma
eric ma subscriber

@XAVIER L SIMON this shows that  you don't know much about china, most chinese are die-hard Buddist. so as japanese, koreans, vietnamese, Thai. you probably never set foot in china either, as every tourist notices that every township has numerous buddist temples.

XAVIER L SIMON
XAVIER L SIMON subscriber

@eric ma

Eric, that most Chinese are die-hard Buddhist doesn't negate my point. As John Adams put it, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." Originally the link between the secular government and religion was so tight that for many decades after the U.S.' independence many state and local governments although secular operated out of church premises.

Communism denies the existence of a god or religion. Instead communism is a religion onto itself. That's why I suggested that many governments invent a god to control the people. For that matter we are not far behind ourselves in the U.S. Many atheists now treat our secular leaders as demigods.


Ray D. Chang
Ray D. Chang subscriber

Sadly, none of China's brutal first thirty years under Mao and the recent attempt to go backward by the revisionists under Xi would have been possible if Truman had the vision to stop the CCP by supporting Chiang Kaishek during the Chinese civil war between 1946 and 1949.  Nor would the U.S. Army have to fight the Chinese Army during the Korean War.  Chinese CCP won the civil with massive backing and aid from Russia while the Nationalists begged and begged support from the U.S. to no avail.  Madam Chiang Kaishek came to the U.S. for the second time to seek ally help (first time she was received by FDR and welcomed like a hero by the U.S. Congress) and Truman would not even meet with her.  If FDR had been alive instead of Truman China would be like Taiwan, Hong Kong, or Singapore today.  It goes to show the importance of having a visionary leader in the POTUS office.  Of course we can't change history, but if we don't learn from history we are bound to repeat it.

Bill Graf
Bill Graf subscriber

@Ray D. Chang President Truman also turned away Ho Chi Minh's request for help with regard to its efforts to end its colonial relationship with France.  Imagine the difference on our more recent history if there had been a more democratic government in the "Vietnam Democratic Republic". See copy of letter from the US Archives http://www.archives.gov/global-pages/larger-image.html?i=/historical-docs/doc-content/images/ho-chi-minh-telegram-truman-l.jpg&c=/historical-docs/doc-content/images/ho-chi-minh-telegram-truman.caption.html 

Bill Graf
Bill Graf subscriber

@Ray D. Chang @Bill Graf  Perhaps, but we will never know what else might have affected a FDR decision.  I think I once read that FDR had ignored Ho's requests some years earlier.  I need to read up on this.

eric ma
eric ma subscriber

@Ray D. Chang  in 1911Dr. Sun overthrew Qing dynasty. but west included US did not recognize democratic Sun's gov't in Nanking, instead they supplied arms, money,diplomatic recognition to the Qing's old generals in Beijing= warlords to keep the foreign concession in different provinces & their economic privileges ( e.g. collecting & keeping all import & export tax  by West officials). Dr. Sun had to turn to Soviet for military support & finance.( read his interview- N.Y.Time in 1920s) 1st military college was set up by Soviet,lot of famous communists like Chou En Lai was given position in that school. with Soviet help, Sun's protege Chiang Kai Sek  beat warlords,but Chiang expelled the Soviets &  fought chinese CCP after his win over warlords. Since then West except germany(which lost WW1 & all interests inside china) did not help china, not even helped Chiang in war with japan 1937-1941 until WW2 started.if West helped  in 1920s, there won’t be CCP in china.

Joseph Katz
Joseph Katz subscriber

Xi doesn't take an "impartial" view of Mao.  You mean "neutral".  An impartial view of Mao would regard him as a homicidal maniac responsible for the deaths of tens of millions.

Geoff Aronson
Geoff Aronson subscriber

To comprehend Communist Party rule of China is to understand that it has only 1 policy: stay in power.  Under Mao that meant the mass murder and insanity of the Great Leap Forward, Cultural Revolution and never ending 'struggle'.  


Deng realized that a backward China was no match for the West or the Soviets.  Thus, he opened the economy up and lifted tens of millions out of poverty.  But when threatened (Tiananmen) keeping power in the hands of the Party was the guiding principle.


Today, as Chinese can see their lives improving materially, but with no say outside the Party as to reform or ending corruption, Xi is using the old style communist tool box to whip up fear and keep the masses in line: xenophobia, class enemies, cult of leader and many more.

eric ma
eric ma subscriber

what a loose correlation between mao & Xi, cultural revolution & nowadays china. in mao's time, china is upside down, no economy or international roles to speak of, & 99% poverty worse than India or Phillipine. nowadays, over half of population is out of poverty,in fact creates a middle class and even billionaires. china engages in commerce, joining globalisation. only similarity is that Xi grabs power but that is based on need to have barrel of guns in hand as he is cleaning up the corrupt military which resists to change( not just about corruption). also he has to get rid of lot of conservatives & corrupt officials( such as gangs of  remenant ex-president Jiang) in other civilian departments & SOE which also resist change to protect their old own interest. other similarity is that election is out of question. (but so as many US allies) .china & Xi is far cry from Mao's era/philosophy.

Show More Archives
Advertisement

Popular on WSJ

Editors’ Picks