The Influence of Maoist Ideology in the Cultural Revolution

To many Western observers, the 1966 Proletariat Cultural Revolution was a puzzling display of protest in Communist China.  During the mass revolt, thousands of students crowded Beijing to denounce intellectuals and Communist Party officials while leaving a long trail of destruction in their path.  However, the rejection of intellectualism and Party bureaucracy can be understood in context of the unique variation of Marxist-Lenin Communism that developed in China.  Political ideology forms the basis of all political actions in society and can be used as a guide to understanding political conflicts that emerge within any given society.  Through the lens of ideology, the Proletariat Cultural Revolution can be viewed as an inevitable conflict that emerged as an expression of Maoist Communist ideology.  Maoist emphasis on the peasantry as the focal point for revolution distinguished Chinese Communism from Marxist-Leninist ideology and resulted in a tension between the educated elite of China and Communist leadership that caused the Cultural Revolution.      

Historical Context of Chinese Communism

Ideology does not exist in a vacuum, and the historical events of China must be understood in order to understand the ideological underpinnings that influenced the Proletariat Cultural Revolution.  The Proletariat Cultural Revolution is a response to social forces that play a continual theme in Chinese history and that shaped the development of Chinese Communist ideology.  Prior to the introduction of Communism to China in the 20th century, China was ruled by dynasties such as the Tang and Sui for several centuries that played a strong role in shaping Chinese society.  According to political scientists, Patrick O’Neil, Karl J. Fields, and Donald Share, Chinese political culture was heavily influenced by Confucian philosophy (O’Neil, Fields, and Share 369).  As a low-ranking civil servant, Confucius sought to promote justice in society and reform abuses he saw among Chinese rulers by introducing a meritocratic system of government (369).  Confucius’s greatest contribution to Chinese society was the exam system, which allowed members of society from all classes to compete for prestigious government traditions (369).  Further, the adoption of Confucianism in Chinese society led to the emphasis of hierarchical roles in society and obedience to authority (369).  Confucian philosophy played a central role among China’s elite and later reformers would focus their criticisms on the role of Confucius thought in Chinese society.   

The inability of China to meet modern day challenges highlighted the need to reassess the utility of Confucian values.  As O’Neil, Fields and Share note, while Confucian influences in society initially allowed China to flourish and emerge as a leading civilization, Chinese society became stagnant during the mid-1400s (370).  Because corresponding ideological views held that China was the center of the universe, Chinese society failed to take advantage of beneficial foreign innovations (370).  Further, while the civil exam system initially allowed ordinary citizens to pursue social mobility, the exam system eventually fostered a bureaucratic elite (370).  Because Confucian ideology favored scholarship over commercial activities, the most talented citizens vied for government positions and resorted to rent-seeking and arbitrary taxation to hinder entrepreneurial developments (370).  As social mobility declined, civil servants abused their positions of power and engaged in rent seeking and other forms of corruption (370).  Because Chinese society was entrenched in Confucian practices, these abuses continued to weaken Chinese society unabated.

In addition to Confucian rigidity, China’s xenophobic worldview led to weaknesses in Chinese foreign policy.  As historian Conrad Schirokauer notes, China had limited commercial interactions with foreign countries but failed to develop diplomatic relationships (Schirokauer 387).  The disdain that Chinese emperors held towards foreigners led increased hostilities between China and European powers.  For example, when King George III sent a gift to China in order to open up negotiations for increased trade, the emperor referred to the English king’s gift as “tribute” from a barbarian culture (387).  While the demand for Chinese tea was high in England, the lack of interest in English goods among the Chinese population created a trade deficit that frustrated English businessmen (389).  England’s later efforts to compensate for its disadvantages would alter Chinese history and form the basis for the China’s ideological framework.  

The Opium War, spanning 1839 and 1842, contributed to the disintegration of dynastic rule in China and led to a contentious period of foreign control.  As Schirokauer notes, the Opium War broke out when the Chinese created a public health crisis in China through the sell of opium to the Chinese population in an effort to gain a trade surplus (389-390).  In 1840, when Chinese officials attempted to curtail the opium trade, the British Navy seized the Chusan Island and utilized military force to protect the opium industry (392).  Because China failed to innovate its military technologies, it was unable to defend its population from the opium trade and was forced to sign the 1842 Treaty of Nanjing in defeat (393).  The significance of the Treaty of Nanjing is that it set the precedent for future foreign powers that would seize control of Chinese territory (394).  Through treaty provisions, the British weakened Chinese sovereignty through extraterritoriality, lowered Chinese tariffs for British traders, and opened five additional ports for Western trade (394).  The economic exploitation that China endured at the hands of foreigners sets the historical context that influenced social movements in the following century.

Overview of Marxist-Lenin Ideology

The adoption of Communist in China can be seen as a natural response to the exploitation levied upon the Chinese population by the bureaucratic elite and foreign capitalists.  As political scientist Patrick O’Neil writes, “Ideologies are built over time out of a set of ideas, and attitudes are articulated in response to the institutional conditions around us” (69).  O’Neil defines ideology as a belief regarding the fundamental goal of politics and notes that all ideologies ultimately address the desired balance between freedom and equality in society (76).  Exploitation on both domestic and international fronts influenced the distinct form of Communism that developed in China.  To understand the intricacies of Chinese philosophy, it is crucial to evaluate the foundations of Communist ideology set by Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin.

German philosopher Karl Marx developed the ideology of communism during the 19th century.  Addressing the core ideological issue of equality, Marx’s ideology responded to the abuses of industrialism and sought to alleviate economic inequities in society.  As O’Neil notes, historical analysis of dominant economic structures forms the basis for Marxist ideology (259).  According to Marx, base, which is the system of economic production in society, and superstructure, which is includes all social and political institutions, play a key role in driving human history (260).  Marx asserted that the base includes the level of technology that an economic system has at its disposal and allows the elite to extract additional profits from the labor force (259).  While an economic system is advantageous to the elite, the superstructure contributes to a “false conscious” that causes the general population to overlook their exploitation (260).  For example, the superstructure includes national identity, which can be used to give citizens a false sense of ownership in society. 

O’Neil further explains the relationship that Marx conceives between dominant economic systems and social development.  Essentially, Marx holds that history will develop in evolutionary phases, through a process called dialectic materialism (261).  Dialectic materialism describes the steps through which society progresses.  The term “dialectic” refers to the struggle between the existing order, termed the “thesis,” and the forces that challenge the existing order, known as the “synthesis” (261).  In reference to capitalism, synthesis occurs when the exploited working class in capitalist societies finally overthrows the oppressive capitalist class (261).  Next, Marx predicted that a dictatorship of the proletariat would emerge in order to dismantle the superstructure and create a stateless society (263).  Further, Marx's views contended that socialism would serve as the transitory system while the final goal of abolishing private property and the state came to fruition (263).  While Marx’s predictions of a final struggle between the exploited masses and the economic elites are quite detailed, future Communist leaders made adjustments to Marxist’s theory in order to meet the specific conditions of their society.

The Soviet Union, the first established Communist state, was influenced by the ideology of Vladimir Lenin, leader of the 1919 Russian Revolution.  Though Marx believed that the first Communist revolution would take place in an advanced country, Lenin believed that Communism could be adapted to less-developed countries (263).  While Marx required a certain level of consciousness to be reached before the masses could understand their plight and revolt against their oppressors, Lenin believed that a vanguard of the proletariat could initiate the revolutionary movement on behalf of the general population (263).  In Lenin’s view, the vanguard would consist of an educated elite who would help to raise the consciousness of the public by taking actions that fundamentally reshaped social relationships (263).  By gradually retraining the public, superstructures could be eliminated and society the transition from the dictatorship of the proletariat to Communism could be made.  

Lenin also influenced the institutional structures that took shape in order to accommodate the vanguard.  In order for the Communist parties to maintain power and begin the task of re-educating society, they would need political and social institutions that allowed them to penetrate every layer of society (265).  The nomenklatura, civil positions that hold great political significance, was a main feature of Communist political organization (265).  Through the nomenklatura, the Communist Party could appoint culturally influential figures to head educational institutions, media outlets, or military organizations (265).  Along with the development of the vanguard to oversee social change, the introduction of the nomenklatura to civil society was an important addition to Marxist Communism made by the Soviet Union.  China would adopt these two Soviet inventions and modify them to serve its unique ideological goals.

Overview of Maoist Ideology

Mao Zedong, who began his political career as a student leader, is the father of Chinese Communism and played a crucial role in adapting Marxist-Lenin ideology to the conditions of Chinese society.  Because the personality cult surrounding Mao was a distinct feature of Chinese Communism, it is appropriate to begin an evaluation of Maoism by examining Mao’s personal ideological influences.  According to Asian studies scholar Robert A. Scalapino, Mao came from a relatively privileged class in society; his family was economically comfortable, and he was able to become part of the educated class in society (Scalapino 29).  However, Mao received a mid-level education, which would place him in conflict with the educated elite in society (29).  During his role as a Communist leader, Mao’s tension with the educated class would strongly influence his ideological development.

Mao’s became concerned with social inequities, which led him to eventually adopt a Communist ideology, originated during his early days as a student.  Like many political thinkers, Mao developed his ideology by observing the societal conditions around him and the relationships between rulers and the ruled.  According to Scalapino, one of Mao’s earliest writings addressed the plight of ordinary citizens in society (Scalapino 35).  In his 1919 Xiang River Review editorial, titled “The Great Union of the Masses,” Mao sympathized with women, teachers, and policemen (35).  In order to combat inequity, Mao advocated that different downtrodden segments of society should form small unions from which a great union would emerge (35).  The emphasis on empowering citizens at the lower level of society became a dominant theme in Maoist ideology.   

After developing an interest in improving the condition of those in the lower echelons of Chinese society, Mao further identified the social systems at fault for the oppression of the masses.  As scholar Lung-Chang Young notes, Mao’s earlier writing focused on power and domination in society (Young 47).  Mao believed that Chinese society consisted of a small group of dominators who held control of the majority of the population (47).  Specifically, Mao identified warlords, politicians, and bureaucrats as the elite entities responsible for the dire condition of Chinese population (47).  Further, Mao believed that these elite entities dominated the population through their monopoly on knowledge, money, and military power (47).  Mao held that the elite in society held an unfair advantage over the general population because they dominated education and created a divide between the wise and ignorant in society (47).  While Mao’s observations of exploitation are similar to Marx’s observations on the abuses in an industrial society, Mao still needed to bridge the gap between his observations and overarching Marxist ideology.

Though Mao shares Marx’s focus on the condition of the lower classes of society, there are many incompatibilities between Marxism and the conditions of Chinese society that needed to be reconciled.  As O’Neil, Fields, and Share note, the historical event that led to the rise of Communism in China was the 1911 public revolt against foreign economic interference that led to the collapse of China’s final dynasty (372).  During the May Fourth Movement, student protesters called for a break from traditional Confucian values and demanded modernization (372).  Yet the struggle between China and foreign imperialism and the Chinese focus on modernization was distinct from the struggles Marx described between the working class and capitalist classes in developed economies.  Following the footsteps of the Soviet Union, Mao also sought to modify Communist ideology in order to increase its compatibility with the issues facing Chinese society.

After identifying the exploiters in society and examining their methods of exploitation, Mao worked to develop an ideology that was compatible with Marxism.  As Young notes, Mao became acquainted with Marxism during the 1920s and made adopted the language of Marxism to describe his own ideological perspective (48).  First, Mao utilized Marxist class distinctions to categorize members of Chinese society.  In a 1927 article, Mao identified equivocated landlords, politicians and warlords in Chinese society with the capitalist class in industrial societies (48).  Mao classified entrepreneurs, peasants who owned land, students, teachers, and low-level bureaucrats as the middle class (48).  Further, Mao identified poor tenants as the semi-proletariat and the laborers as the proletariat (48).  As Young asserts, land-ownership was the main qualification that Mao used to develop his categories (48).  By developing clearly defined categories of class, Mao was able to effectively apply themes of Marxist class struggle to the anti-imperialist struggle in China.

Though Mao borrowed heavily from Marx in the articulation of his political philosophy, the undertones of Maoist ideology were derived from non-Marxist influences.  As political scientist James A. Gregor notes, Mao spent the majority of his time as a student reading popular novels that shaped his views on revolution (309).  Of the novels that inspired Mao, Shui-hu Chuan, Water Margin, written during the 14th century, is credited as the novel that leaves the strongest mark on Maoist ideology (309).  The popular novel chronicles a rebellion that took place during the Northern Sung Dynasty and makes the case that revolutionary change is justified when rulers violate the Mandate of Heaven, which can be described as a mutual obligation of respect and support between rulers and the ruled (310).  The themes of peasant rebellion expressed in Water Margin were reflected by Mao’s affections for the Chinese peasantry.

Finally, historical circumstances served to influence Maoist Communist thought.  Following the defeat of the Qing dynasty, China embarked on a period of civil war and conflict between political groups that wished to lead China in its fight against foreign powers.  While Mao held an initial interest in the plight of the masses, necessity also contributed to his emphasis in distinguishing the peasantry as the central force in Chinese Communism. As O’Neil, Fields, and Share note, the Chinese Communist Party, under the leadership of Mao, were banished from the cities by their opposition and relied on rural support for their political survival (372).  During the Long March of 1934, a defining moment in Chinese Communist history, the Chinese Communists were forced to trek over 6,000 miles through rural China after being driven westward by rival political factions (372).  The Nationalists, the leading rivals of the Chinese, dominated the urban centers, making it necessary for Mao to rally and mobilize rural peasants in order to build Communist support (372).  These historical pressures account for Mao’s emphasis on the peasants, rather than the intelligentsia, as the favored vanguards of Communism.

Ideological Roots of the Cultural Revolution

Intellectuals were the primary targets for persecution during the Cultural Revolution.  The examination of Chinese history and Maoist ideology reveals the anti-intellectual biases that fermented in Chinese society during the periods leading up to the Revolution.  Mao’s reliance on the peasantry for support provides a partial explanation for his low esteem for Chinese intellectuals.  However, the distrust for intellectuals can also be understood through the framework of class struggle.  As Schirokauer notes, intellectuals in Chinese society often came from elite backgrounds and were detached from the concerns of the general population (605).  However, because the Chinese Communist Party relied on intellectuals to contribute to economic development, they could not simply dismiss the intellectual class (605).  Thus, the struggle between balancing the interests of the intellectual class with the ideological stances posed by Maoism became a constant struggle for Communist officials.

A common misconception is that Mao was indiscriminate in his use of violence to suppress his opposition.  Yet, prior to the Cultural Revolution, Mao sought gentler means to redirect the ideological focus of the intellectual elite.  As historian Jonathan Spence notes, Mao made a distinction between “contradictions among the people” and “contradictions with the enemy” (Spence 384).  Recognizing that brutal suppression of the population could weaken moral and support for the Communist movement, Mao held that disagreements among the Chinese should be handled lightly while disputes with outside enemies could be met with violence (384).  Thus, Mao adopted peaceful means for addressing disagreements between intellectuals and the Communist Party.

During his early rule, Mao launched rectification campaigns to increase intellectual sympathies for the Communist cause.  Spence notes that a 1948 campaign utilized criticism meetings to encourage all members of Chinese society to highlight ways in which they and others could live consistently with Communist ideology (355).  Further, Mao sought to resolve conflicts by encouraging dissidents to study Marxist-Lenin ideology and by forcing prominent dissidents to live amongst the peasants (330).  Through these programs, Mao believed that he could successfully shift the ideological leanings of intellectuals who were critical of his ideology or Communist Party tactics.

Another conflict that emerged from tensions with the intellectual class was the disagreement over the role of art in Chinese society.  According to Spence, Mao gave several key addresses criticizing intellectuals who developed art that was detached from the sensibilities of the peasantry (332).    As scholar William Moritz highlights, Soviet realism, which influenced the artistic styles of Communist artists, called for all art to uphold the Communist Party agenda (38).  From a Marxist-Lenin perspective, the interest in controlling artistic expression is relevant to Communist Party officials.  Since artists form the vanguard through which the general population is guided toward correct socialist thought, it is in the Party’s interest to ensure that artwork reflects the correct ideological messages.  However, the censorship that emerged from political interference with artistic expression also led to a source of resentment among the intellectuals.

The Cultural Revolution can be seen as the consequence of Mao’s attempt to placate the resentful intellectual elite.  As Spence documents, Mao eventually experimented with intellectual freedom through his 1956 Hundred Flowers policy, where he allowed intellectuals to pursue wider avenues of expression (378).  While the policy was in effect, universities began to offer courses on Western thought and the intellectual began to resume their criticisms of Chinese society (379).  Simultaneously, Mao attempted to free the general population of China by abandoning Soviet-style centralized planning, and reorganizing the population into communes that were to serve as the basic units of society (382).  Known as the Great Leap Forward, Mao’s attempt at economic reform was a failure and led to his dismissal from the Communist Party (383).  The actions that the empowered intellectuals took during Mao’s departure resulted in ideological conflict that eventually provoked Mao to adopt radical political tactics.

First, following the Great Leap Forward, Chinese political leaders started to shift their focus away from socialism and adopt market-based reforms.  As Robert Weatherly notes, Mao’s disagreement with these reforms led him to adopt a harsher stance against dissidents during the Cultural Revolution (59).  According to Weatherly, Mao termed the actions of the bureaucrats as a form of revisionism, or a departure from Marxist ideology (60).  Mao also believed that the willingness of peasants to exploit economic opportunities after restrictions were loosened demonstrated that he had not been fervent enough in promoting class-consciousness throughout society (59).  Further, Mao believed that the intellectual elites were adopting reforms to school curriculum that placed an insufficient emphasis on socialist ideals (60).  Essentially, Mao feared that China was on the path to abandoning Communism and re-embracing the exploitative conditions that dominated pre-revolutionary society.  Because the reform efforts were perceived as a betrayal to revolution, Mao was able to justify the violent acts of suppression that ensued when he led millions of students to Beijing to regain control over the government.

While Mao sought to return Communist China to its Marxist roots, his actions ultimately alienated Chinese society from the international Communist community.  The Cultural Revolution had the effect of widening the schism between Marxist-Lenin ideology and Chinese Communist ideology.  As scholar Jan S. Prybyla asserts, Soviet leaders recognized that Marxism-Leninism was incompatible with their economic goals and were wary of China’s inflexible adherence to ideology (Prybyla 385-386).  However, in 1967, the Peking People’s Daily denounced Soviet leadership and labeled them as enemies of the Soviet Union (385).  As this hostile correspondence between the two nations demonstrates, discord between Soviet Communism and Chinese Communism had emerged well before the Cultural Revolution took place.  The inability of the Soviet Union to recognize the merits of Mao’s revolution demonstrate that Chinese Communism had evolved from a form of Marxist-Leninism into a distinct political ideology that reflected the historical and political forces unique to Chinese society.

Conclusion

The 1966 Proletariat Cultural Revolution was led by Mao Zedong in effort to restore Communist values to Chinese society.  The violent nature of the Cultural Revolution can be understood through the ideological lens provided by Chinese Communism.  Departing from the Marxist-Lenin ideology adopted by the Soviet Union, Chinese Communism attempted to bring about revolution by empowering the peasantry in society, rather than a core group of intellectuals.  Thus, this created a continual animosity between the intellectual elite of Chinese society and Communist Party leaders.  While Mao initially attempted to reconcile the differences through peaceful measures, the elite’s departure from Marxist values during Mao’s hiatus from office following the Great Leap Forward convinced Mao that radical tactics were necessary in order to fundamentally reorient society towards Communist values.  Thus, the Cultural Revolution can be viewed as an ideological conflict between the intellectual elite and Chinese Communists.  

Works Cited

Gregor, James A., and Maria Hsia Chang. “Maoism and Marxism in Comparative Perspective.” The Review of Politics, vol. 40, no. 3, 1978, pp. 307-327. JSTOR. Web. 10 Sep. 2013.

Moritz, William. “Narrative Strategies for Resistance and Protest in Eastern European Animation.” A Reader in Animation Studies. Ed. Jayne Pilling. London: John Libbey, 1998. Print.

O'Neil, Patrick H. Essentials of comparative politics. 4th ed. New York, N.Y.: W.W. Norton & Co., 2013. Print.

O’Neil, Patrick H., Karl J. Fields, and Donald Share. Cases in comparative politics. 4th ed. New York: Norton, 2013. Print.

Prybyla, Jan S. “The Soviet View of Mao’s Cultural Revolution.” The Virginia Quarterly Review vol. 40, no. 3, 1978, pp. 307-327. ProQuest. Web. 11 Sep. 2013.

Scalapino, Robert A. “The Evolution of a Young Revolutionary – Mao Zedong in 1919-1921.” The Journal of Asian Studies vol. 40, no. 3, 1978, pp. 307-327. JSTOR. Web. 7 Sep. 2013.

Schirokauer, Conrad. A brief history of Chinese and Japanese civilizations. 2nd ed. San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1989. Print.

Spence, Jonathan D. The Gate of Heavenly Peace: the Chinese and their revolution, 1895-1980. New York: Viking Press, 1981. Print.

Weatherley, Robert. Politics in China since 1949 legitimizing authoritarian rule. London: Routledge, 2006. Print.

Young, Lung-Chang. “Mao Tse-Tung and social inequality.” Sociological Focus vol. 40, no. 3, 1978, pp. 307-327. JSTOR. Web. 7 Sep. 2013.