Anne Applebaum misunderstands a fundamental point about modern China: It is ruled by Mao's opponents, not his followers. After Mao's death, there was a power struggle between Mao's opponents, led by Deng Xiaoping, and Mao's supporters, led by his widow and several of Mao's friends. Mao's opponents won; Deng Xiaoping became the new leader of China and changed the economic system back to capitalism; and Mao's widow and friends were labeled the "Gang of Four" and thrown in prison for their roles in the Cultural Revolution and other Mao-era fiascos.

The current Chinese leadership is overwhelmingly dominated by people who regard Mao's last decades as full of disastrous mistakes. That being the case, why is it still taboo to openly discuss failed policies such as the "Great Leap Forward"? The reason is simple -- China's ruling elite is anti-Mao, but China also has hundreds of millions of peasants who have a much more positive view of Mao. To many of China's peasants -- and peasants are still the bulk of the population -- Mao is a beloved figure who united China, stopping the endless battles between rival war lords and repelling the Japanese invaders. They also remember Mao as the man who made education and medical care available to the majority of the Chinese people for the first time in China's long history, and who (apart from the disastrous years of the "Great Leap Forward") managed to provide adequate food for China for the first time in about 150 years. (Yes, there was a terrible famine during Mao's reign, but before Mao took power, there was pretty much ALWAYS a famine going on somewhere in China.)

So, Mao is a tremendously divisive figure in China -- the elites generally think he was crazy, but many of the common people view him as a sort of god. In East Asian societies, there is only one way to cope with intense disagreement -- you pretend it doesn't exist. And so, the Chinese government doesn't talk about Mao, but for the exact opposite reason of what most Americans assume. It's not that the government is pro-Mao and the general Chinese population is anti-Mao; it's that the current government is anti-Mao, and the general population is largely pro-Mao.

Your post makes some good points and I generally agree with it, but a couple of your comments are unfortunately wrong:

1.) To compare the 30 million or so he died in Mao's famine to the famine conditions that you state were "more or less always" present in China is ludicrous and an insult to Mao's victims. It is true that therre have been famines throughout China's history, as with everyone's history. But they never occurred because the government took the land and the products of farming from the peasants in a quest for an illusory social ideal. To conflate the historical poverty of most of China's peasants with the devastation wrought by Mao's fools is the equivalent of arguing "what's the big deal with the Holocaust? The Jews have always been picked on."

2.) The Mao years NEVER provided China's people with "adequate" food (that only occured after the reforms of 1978), and to state for the food was adequate for "first time in 150 years" is also ridiculous - China's population increased several fold during that period, and there was generally enough food. There were, however, periodic floods and famines that hit the over populated country side hard - as they have always been throughout China's history. The civil war in the 1930s, the Japanese invasion, and second round of civil war in the late 1940s left millions dead. But none of these was as devastating as the collectivization in the 1950s that destroyed China's agricultural production, even prior to the "Great Leap Forward".

3.) It is true that the current regime is in practice, anti-Mao. Applebaum's point is that they can't admit it, because it would tend to undermine the legitimacy of their regime. To the average educated Chinese person, Mao gets credit for being a "strong leader" as does, say, Stalin in Russia. To the extent the average person reflects on Mao's role in the disasters he caused, there is generally a "don't blame it on Mao" approach which places the blame on local functionaries (which is also the pattern in Russia, in a certain sense even correct as it is apparent that Mao was not able to get much valid information from his minions). It is not in the State's interest to highlight Mao's role in the devastation that the Communist Party has created in China. But, as China becomes increasingly (relatively) open, more and more people do acknowlege, at least in private, the tragedies he and his Army of half educated "agrarian socialists" created, and that is progress of a sort.

4.) ...and, let's not even get started on the Cultural Revolution.

that party corruption at the local level is a major grievance in the countryside (see, e.g., Chen Guidi and Wu Chuntao, Will the Boat Sink the Water?) Criticism of Mao, the most prominent symbol of the party, could only exacerbate this problem for the national leaders. If they keep Mao's image sparkling (without getting into specifics), they keep alive at least some kind of hope (if illusory) that, sooner or later, the party is going to deal with these shortcomings.

I think Anne Applebaum completely misunderstands the situation the current Chinese government is in. She seems to think that the Chinese government can't say anything against Mao because that would legitimize anti-Mao sentiment from the Chinese people, and any anti-Mao sentiment would undermine the legitimacy of the current government. I'm saying the exact opposite -- the Chinese government can't saying anything against Mao because they are anti-Mao but Mao is still popular with many ordinary Chinese people, and these people would be angry if their government criticized Mao.

The current government doesn't derive its legitimacy from Mao at all; it derives its legitimacy from the current economic success of the policies of Deng Xiaoping, who was one of Mao's opponents.

In general, I think Americans, even those who are supposedly experts on China, misunderstand how China's politics work. It's not like under Stalin, where all opponents were killed and disagreement was suppressed by the government. These is plenty of disagreement about policies in China now, and there was plenty of disagreement about policies when Mao was in power, with a strong opposition movement that was led by Zhou Enlai. It's just that, in Chinese culture, such opposition goes on behind the scenes, not out in public like in the US.
The lack of a free press and of western-style election in China has nothing to do with China being communist, and everything to do with China being Chinese.

I also seem to have given a mistaken impression about my views of Mao. I certainly don't think that Mao's policies were justified, and I wasn't trying to excuse his disastrous policies such as the Great Leap Forward. Instead, I was trying to explain how Mao is viewed by the hundreds of millions of peasants in China, many of whom are still his ardent supporters.

Maybe I should have put it this way -- prior to Mao, most of China had a staggering death rate, due to constant malnutrition, periodic famines, civil war, and the epidemics that tend to accompany famine and war. The data I've seen suggest that about half of all Chinese were dying before reaching adulthood. Mao pretty much fixed these problems, and, except during the Great Leap Forward, the death rate during his rule was dramatically lower than it had been. China's population didn't grow at all from about 1800 to about 1950 (while the rest of the world's population grew by leaps and bounds) because there simply wasn't enough food in China to keep more people alive. This all changed under Mao -- as you note, China's population grew tremendously during Mao's rule. The population growth was because, unlike during the previous 150 years, most Chinese babies born during Mao's rule survived to maturity and had babies of their own, rather than dying of warfare, disease, or (primarily) starvation. China's death rate went from being similar to (or worse than) what we see now in the most worn-torn, famine stricken African countries to being only slightly higher than Western countries. This accomplishment gives Mao god-like status to many of China's ordinary people, no matter how serious his flaws and mistakes were.

A couple of things I left out before.....

freetrader:

...

To compare the 30 million or so he died in Mao's famine to the famine conditions that you state were "more or less always" present in China is ludicrous and an insult to Mao's victims. It is true that therre have been famines throughout China's history, as with everyone's history. But they never occurred because the government took the land and the products of farming from the peasants in a quest for an illusory social ideal....

The starvation in China was on a scale far beyond that seen in other countries -- although historical records are incomplete, there seem to have been at least two other famines that killed tens of millions of Chinese during the century before Mao came to power. I'm not sure ANY other countries had famines that bad, let alone that the famines in Chinese history were like those in "everyone's" history.

Also, a main cause of famines in earlier Chinese history WAS the government; that certainly wasn't something new with Mao. The last real government prior to Mao (the Qing Imperial Dynasty, which lasted until 1912) kept vast regions of the country as private hunting preserves for the nobility. In fact, the entire area of Manchuria was off-limits to farming (although the Qing dynasty had increasing trouble enforcing this rule as their power declined.) Enormous amounts of land were also used for the production of vast amounts of luxury goods (mostly silk, but also tea) for the rich. Mao actually GAVE vast amounts of land to ordinary people to be used for farming (this land was seized in a very brutal way from the rich, but it still made him popular among the poor.)

The previous governments also often did seize the "products of farming"; peasants had to pay large amount of rice as taxes. This situation was intolerable to much of China's population, many of whom saw their children starve to death, and led to near-constant rebellions and civil war in the century before Mao took power.

Basically, the worst times under Mao weren't much worse for ordinary Chinese people than the decades prior to when Mao took power, while the rest of the time (the vast majority of Mao's rule) was much, much better for ordinary Chinese people. However, most Americans know nothing of China prior to Mao, so they don't realize this.

I also think I misunderstood something you said -- I thought you were saying that the Chinese population more than doubled under Mao, which is true. However, re-reading your post, I think you meant that the Chinese population more than doubled between 1800 and 1950. This is not the case -- the world population doubled in that time period, but due to warfare and lack of food, China's population remained pretty flat, and went from being about 35-40% of the total world population in 1800 to being only about 20% of the world's population in 1950.

Fritz Gerlich:

that party corruption at the local level is a major grievance in the countryside (see, e.g., Chen Guidi and Wu Chuntao, Will the Boat Sink the Water?) Criticism of Mao, the most prominent symbol of the party, could only exacerbate this problem for the national leaders. If they keep Mao's image sparkling (without getting into specifics), they keep alive at least some kind of hope (if illusory) that, sooner or later, the party is going to deal with these shortcomings.

I think this is true, but there is an additional important point here. For thousands of years in China prior to Mao, corruption had been a huge problem. Mao got rid of the corruption (he certainly caused other problems, but he got rid of the corruption.) Since Mao's death, China has reverted to capitalism (China had a vibrant capitalist economy for thousands of years), but with the re-emergence of capitalism has come the re-emergence of corruption.

The current capitalist, anti-Mao government wants to eventually offer the best features of Mao's time (no corruption, access to medicine and education, no huge differences between rich and poor) while keeping the huge economic growth found under capitalism. The problem is that if they can't do this, many of the ordinary people would rather go back to communism. It's not that Mao is the symbol of the current (capitalist) government, it's that he is a symbol of the previous (communist) government, and many Chinese may actually prefer to go back to communism.

This discussion is HILARIOUS...I mean, Mao Tsetung is dead, so why are you all insisting on discussing him? Isn't Hu Jin Tao the 10th most liked leader on Facebook?

You know, when it comes to people like Mao Tsetung, huge, earth shaking people like that, who led vast revolutions of their people, it doesn't matter what the hell you think of them!

What Mao Tsetung actually DID is still rattling our windows and shaking our halls...and the game is far from over. Do you imagine that by slandering him or "denouncing
him that you can obviate that? Its DONE.

I mean, he left the western powers only Hong Kong, Macao and Tiawan!! They had such a coniption fit they issued a white paper! Stalin tried to have him killed for not dividing China at the Yellow River! Its DONE.

Even when it comes to Stalin, whom everyone rightly denounces, he still beat Hitler, and that is that, it changed the world forever. You can rant and rant, denounce and deamonize, but the huge deed is already done, and you cannot undo it.

Mao is on the golden highway; the people of China love him, they experienced him, you did not. Mao does not care, he is dead, its THEY who care, it THEY you want to hurt, all the people that loved Mao, you want to humiliate them, don't you? You want to hurt their feelings and perhaps, do them harm, don't you?

The current leaders could denounce Mao, and they have 60/40, but it would make their job a million times harder if they did, and in the long run, it would make no difference at all because you are either with the flow of history or you are not, and Mao will be remembered historically, not as any of you or I say, but by future generations who will change the world as THEY please.

Me, I used to be a 60s radical, a Maoist, but the people I associated with were freaking loonies, so I had to face that I must be one too, and so I stopped all that. I can't stand the left or right extremists, but Mao I like! I like accupuncture, without it I would never have had my child, and Mao stopped Lu Shao Chi from ending accupuncture, Lu thought it was a stupid Chinese folk custom, and that western medicine should only be supported. I'm going to get some accupuncture tomorrow, in fact. Thank you, Mr. Mao...if not for you, accupuncture would be like Aruvedic medicine, hardly any practitioners, in danger of being lost.

I also like Martin Luther King, who also *(#&$() a lot of women...and you all can just try to denounce him, and see where it gets you in America...so what they do alternatively is eviscerate him, instead. Hmm. That is what happens to all great leaders...it has happened to Adams, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin...those guys were as revolutionary as Mao Tsetung, but we have reduced them to icons of the status quo.

Get a grip, neocon loonies, this is the way of the real world. You have to burn Rome to be a Nero.

Candox is apparently a bit of a nutcase so, no comment there....

But Judith, again while I don't disagree with your central premise, I do strongly disagree with your characterizaton of Mao's land reform and other communilization activities being somehow progressive and helpful to China's peasants. Just because communalization is characterized by the dictatorship as "giving land to the people" that doesn't make it true - it is simply the propaganda used at the time. The fact was that the land was essentially taken AWAY from the peasants, and starvation and tragedy ensued.

You also gloss over the essential point about the three or so Mao-induced famiines - the point is the other famines were not caused directly by actions of the government. Mao killed at least 30 million people. The fact that there were other famines in Chinese history is irrelevant. ANY discussion of Mao that ignores this essential fact is effectively dishonest; it is like discussing Hitler without mentioning, oh, World War II and the Holocaust.

Freetrader, I'm not Chinese and have no direct experience of what life was like under Mao; I'm simply doing my best to understand how the Chinese people feel about him. My impression is that millions of poor Chinese people still revere him; the question is why, given that Mao certainly did some things that were disastrous.

The answer I have come up with is simple: Before Mao, China had a staggering death rate, with half or so of all Chinese dying of starvation and civil war. Under Mao, the death rate was usually much, much lower (not during the Great Leap Forward of course, but most of the time) and the population was finally able to increase. No one wants to starve to death, so this makes Chinese peasants grateful to Mao, no matter what his flaws.

Do you disagree with my claim that the average Chinese person was much better off at Mao's death than at the time Mao took power? Or, are you saying that whatever improvements took place in China during Mao's rule somehow took place despite Mao's rule, rather than because of it?

The impression I get from your posts is that you are strongly opposed to communism and, because Mao was communist, don't like the idea of giving him any credit for improvements in China. My belief about communism is that it has many drawbacks and that no country will do well for long with communism as its economic system. Still, it seems overwhelmingly clear to me that China was better off at the end of Mao's reign than before Mao took power. Whether communism deserves any of the credit for this, or whether it happened in spite of communism, I really don't know.

As for the claim that "the other famines were not caused directly by actions of the government:, I just don't get that. I would say that the famines during the Qing Dynasty were largely caused by the imperial government's insistence on keeping vast tracts of land for hunting and silk-growing, rather than for food growing. Furthermore, the starvation and desperation among China's poor led to civil war, which resulted in at least as many deaths as occurred during the Great Leap Forward. For example, modern estimates are that 50 million Chinese died of warfare and starvation during the Taiping Rebellion in the late 1800s. Wouldn't you say that those 50 million deaths were a direct result of the Chinese imperial government's actions?

Whether we agree or not on Mao's overall effect on China, perhaps we can agree that many of the Chinese people still view Mao in a positive light, regardless of what his overall effect actually was. It's important to understand that the Chinese people tend to compare Mao's rule to what came before him -- first, a despotic imperial government, and then civil war and foreign invasion -- rather than comparing Mao's era to the sort of peace and freedom we are used to in the US. The Chinese people have a very different view of Chinese history than what Americans have. (For example, had you even heard of the Taiping Rebellion before my post?)

Yes, thank you, I do know quite a bit about the Taiping Rebillion. It is worth acknowleging that while the stupidities of the Ching dynasty were massive, most of the deaths of the Taiping rebellion were caused by the Taipings themselves, or if you want to avoid placing blame, by the war itself. This reinforces my central point: Mao effectively declared war on his own people, as part of the 'class struggle' central to his ideology. Furthermore, my being pro- or anti- "communist" is beside the point. I am opposed to governments that murder millions of their own people - whether they are fascist, communist, or democratic. It IS certainly true that totalitarian regimes manage to kill their own populations in much greater numbers than more open or liberal regimes, but that is another discussion.

Your point about the fallacy of comparing mid-20th century China to early-21st century America is absolutely correct, and one that the anti-globalists among us should remember. Which leads me to your question: were the Chinese better off in 1976 than in 1949? No, they were not. Creating a famine and blaming it on "history" is ridiculous. Taking away the farmer's ability and motivation to grow crops is criminal. Do YOU know that Mao actually declared war on the peasants more than once? And in this discussion, trying to argue that some naive "resistance" to communism is behind my contempt for Mao (what is "communism" anyway? Where has it ever been practiced?) is way off the mark. As Orwell said, one does not impose a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one imposes a dictatorship in order to create a dictatorship. A totalitarian dictatorship is what Mao wanted, and it is what he got. And totalitarian dictatorships are notoriously willing to kill people in their millions.

I've agreed all along with your point that the average Chinese looks up to Mao as a strong ruler; while at the same time the current pragmatic leadership of China uneasily rides a tiger in promoting economic development while wearing the "legitimacy" bestowed on it by the Party's unchallenged 60-year rule. I have noted elsewhere that the ability to hold two contradictory ideas in their heads at the same time is a notable, pragmatic Chinese characteristic (Mao was evil/Mao was great; Taiwan is part of China/Taiwan has the right to elect its own rulers). Is is for that reason among others that I have a fair amount of hope for China; and believe that in time economic development will lead to increasing levels of pluralism (all without direct challange to the State), and that China will evolve into an orderly, Singapore-style, "democracy with Chinese characteristics." And after that finally happens, there will be those who will claim that that is what Mao wanted, all along.

Anyway, I hope that my sharp comments do not seem disrespectful; this is an enjoyable discussion.

Judith, after reviewing your earlier comments I noted the following:

You wrote: "In general, I think Americans, even those who are supposedly experts on China, misunderstand how China's politics work. It's not like under Stalin, where all opponents were killed and disagreement was suppressed by the government. These is plenty of disagreement about policies in China now, and there was plenty of disagreement about policies when Mao was in power, with a strong opposition movement that was led by Zhou Enlai."

Sorry, but that is just nonsense. The idea that Zhou was some kind of closet liberal is a fantasy posited by the Western admirers of the PRC like Edgar Snow. In fact, life under Mao was EXACTLY like life (and death) under Stalin - if you were suspected of disloyalty to the government or its policies, you were taken out and shot. Period. It happened to TENS of THOUSANDS of people. It happened from 1930 to 1976. It happend to avant garde communist cadres in Yenan. It happened during the "Hundred Flowers" campaign, it happened during the "Great Leap Forward", and it happened during the "Cultural Revolution". And, perhaps most frightening, it happened when there wasn't any particular crisis at all.

There IS some open disagreement, NOW, about "which road to take" as long as the party's aurhority is not questioned. But during Mao's era, you could be shot for simply not showing enough enthusiam at the local struggle sesssion. This type of comment makes me wonder how much you really know about Chinese history.

I'm not even sure what half of your post means, but I want to make clear that I'm not really interested in Mao; I'm interested in the United States' relations with China.

Many in the US seem to view China as a copy of the Soviet Union, as a communist "evil empire." But China really isn't communist at all anymore, and mistaking China for a communist enemy is a distraction the US can't afford, given that we have real enemies like Al Qaeda to worry about. So, my focus isn't Mao at all; it's China's current government and their reasons for what they do.

My question about your knowledge of the Taiping Rebellion was really intended just as a question, not as an accusation. Most Americans don't even know that Mao and his supporters fought on our side during WWII, let alone know about China's earlier history. Many Americans have no idea how bad things were in China before the PRC, and that is one reason they have a hard time understanding how anyone in China could support Mao. I thought maybe that was the source of our disagreement: you weren't aware of, or weren't thinking about, the terrible state of things in China prior to the PRC.

However, it seems our disagreement has a different cause -- I think that, even with all of Mao's violence, crazy policies, and excesses, China was better off at his death than it was when he took power; you don't. This raises another question -- do you think that the Chinese people who support Mao are mistaken in believing that he did some good things for China? In other words, do you Mao's Chinese admirers are simply brainwashed and misinformed, and don't know what Mao's real effect on China was?

I'm definitely aware that large numbers of people were killed for their political views during Mao's reign. However, my impression is that these people were, in many cases, actually supporters of Mao's ideologies who were killed because Mao thought they might become too powerful, rather than being true opponents of Mao. I'm interested in whether you agree with that assessment or not.

It's also my impression that what Mao often did was rile his followers up and then turn then loose, with the result that they killed people on an almost random basis, rather than Mao's having a KGB-style list of specific enemies to eliminate. While this might be just as bad morally as what Stalin did, I doubt it was nearly as effective as Stalin was at suppressing opposition. I'm interested on your thoughts on this, too.

My saying that there was a "strong" opposition to Mao was a poor choice of words. What I meant was that throughout Mao's reign, there was a portion of China's elite that opposed many of his policies -- an "enduring" opposition to Mao is more what I meant. Certainly, Deng Xiaoping was no true communist, as can be seen by his policies once he gained power and I don't think Zhou Enlai really favored Communism, either. So, why didn't Mao have them eliminated? Because they had substantial support from the Chinese people, and doing so would have risked civil war, plus Zhou in particular brought in substantial foreign support that China needed. I'm interested in your views of Zhou and Deng. Do you see them as supporters or opponents of Mao's policies?

I don't think that the fans of Mao are brainwashed fools at all; I think that looking up to a strong leader is kind of a natural thing for people to do: after 150 years of foreign semi-subjugation, there is no doubt that China was an independent player once Mao consolidated his power. Russians (and also, a bit ironically, Georgians) look up to Stalin the same way today - and I don't think most of those people want a return the old Police State.

We are moving toward some kind of consensus here, I think: our fundamental disagreement is whether we believe that China is better or worse off for being ruled by Mao: I don't, you do. But neither of us can be sure that we are correct, since to judge this requires us to engage in counter factual of 'what ifs' - what if, for example, Japan had never invaded China and Chiang was able to consolidate his rule; would the emergence of China as an economic power and a (relatively) decent place to live been accelerated by a generation? Alas, we can never know the answers to these questions.

So, I agree with you that China is not the global threat that the USSR was (or even, possibly, what Russia is today). China's leaders are very pragmatic, I admire them for that, and furthermore I do believe that there have a sincere desire to improve the lot of the Chinese people, as they have done quite successfully over the past few years. You are right also in noting that the Chinese as a people seem relatively comfortable with a higher degree of authoritarianism than us Westerners would find comfortable. While I do believe that 'human rights' is a human issue, not a Western one, I also think that we need to think carefully before we bash the Chinese government, given the immense challenges they have faced.

Regarding China as a threat or competitor, I bristle whenever I hear someone talk about 'the emerging Chinese threat' (I have a response to one of Bruce Reed's postings on this topic). I used to worry that China might become the Germany of the 21st Century - strong and capable, but prone to start trouble as it emerges. I now think that China is likely to be a great force for stability in the world, and probably over the long run an important ally for the US - both countries being status quo powers that place a high priority on economic development and 'the pursuit of happiness'. By contrast, it may be that Russia continues to be a problem, since it is not developing economically but wants to be seen as a world power. As we have just seen, that can lead to trouble.

I also agree with your general comments on Mao's methodologies - he was not nearly the mastermind that Stalin was; and sometimes, his terrors were almost inadvertent. We may never know whether Mao really intended to trap people with his "hundred flowers" campaign, I rather think now; he just saw things getting out of control and put his thugs to work. The Cultural Revolution, on the other hand, was ALLOWED to get out of control since the Red Guards were professing blind faith in the Chairman; it was difficult for any of Mao's rivals to fight against that, and it had the added benefit (for Mao) of eliminating potential rivals (in Deng's case, temporarily).

One more comment about Deng: I think he was the ultimate pragmatist. I believe that he believed in communism (state socialism) when he was young and eventually figured out that it couldn't work, and developed his own model for the future of China: prosperous and authoritarian. The real genius of Deng, I think, and the reason he didn't end up like Krustchev, is that he declined to take Mao on head on - he 'honored Mao's memory' while completely destroying the system he created. No big speeches, just get on with it - rather Chinese I think. By doing this he defused a lot of potential opposition. So, I think that Deng deserves to get a lot of credit and should go down in history as a great Chinese patriot and hero, despite the fact that he ordered the Tianamen square massacre.

As someone once said to me, and I think you echoed, China has been fundamentally capitalist for the past 5000 years, and it takes more than a generation of socialism to change that. Now that China is pretty much fully capitalist again, the native genius of the Chinese is being unleased, and all to the good, I think. And it may be that future historians will conclude that Mao was a 'necessery evil' in the development of a reasonably free and prosperous China.