Mao and Xi

https://www.asianews.it/en/east-asia/china/fifty-years-after-mao-s-death-what-s-left-of-him-in-china

Though you aren't likely to hear 'Red China' these days, it's common for Right-wing media to speak of 'Communist China'.

And yet in reality, China abandoned that system in the late seventies, just a few years after Mao's death on 9 September 1976. Under Deng Xiaoping's tenure (1978-1989), the Chinese government embraced capitalism - though it did not develop on Western or American lines.

Subject to cronyism and corruption and increasingly an authoritarian state, China grew fabulously wealthy with millionaires and now even several hundred billionaires. Communist countries don't have an ultra-rich class. China is not communist in any way shape or form.

The difference in China is that once you cross into the upper echelon, you more or less must work with the state - at least to some extent. Although the same is true in many Western countries if in a less formal or codified way.

In actuality the Chinese model (at present) reminds me a bit of what you saw under fascism - industrialists who were allowed to grow fabulously rich with both private and public sector contracts and yet they must be patriotic in terms of their goals. They must be on board with the state's agenda. The same is true in China. And if you're not aiming for millionaire status, you can do quite well as long as you don't do anything to draw attention from the state or pursue profits in a way that runs contrary to state policy. There's definitely a lack of free speech even alongside free enterprise.

The article provides a brief and yet helpful explanation of the tumultuous year of 1976 in China - the death of Zhou Enlai, the April violence in Tiananmen Square, the terrible earthquake, and Mao's death. The Gang of Four (Mao's ruling faction) were involved in everything and after his death, there was a backlash, leading to their arrest in October and the subsequent trials. This marked the end of the Cultural Revolution which was really Mao's way of re-asserting power after the disastrous Great Leap Forward in the late 1950's. Mao was dead and the Gang of Four were all destined to spend many years in prison - where some would die.

China was on the edge - it was a watershed moment. And yet the ruling party has never been willing to turn to democracy - something China has never really known. Even the brief experiment with republicanism quickly degenerated into the rule of warlords and ultimately civil war.

After Mao's death the CCP continued to rule in the name of the 1949 revolutionary victory. Mao was the hero, the legend, and the yet an empty symbol and remains so today. They have repudiated him even while they use his image. For if they formally reject the legacy of Mao, the CCP loses its legitimacy. It's to reject 1949, and then what? The ramifications would reverberate across society and even affect issues such as Taiwan and Tibet.

Xi is actually attempting to re-cast China. Building loosely on the models of Mao and Deng, Xi has become the pivotal figure, laying the foundations for 21st century China. It may be that in another generation Xi is the venerated one - the architect of the new China. And yet, he continues to retain (at least for the foreseeable future) the CCP apparatus including the Mao-related iconography. The CCP had become somewhat meaningless under the Cultural Revolution and Gang of Four, and yet it returned to power (though significantly modified) with Deng. Today, the party is completely in the grip of Xi in a way only analogous to the CCP under Mao in the 1950's. Some have argued Xi is even more powerful than Mao ever was.

I appreciated how the article argues that Xi's ideology is more Confucian-Nationalist that anything else. He uses some of the rhetoric and lexicon of the old order but it's all been redefined.

For all the horrors Mao unleashed on China, he's still revered by the older generation - which (it should be noted) is dying off. But for those old enough to remember, the fact that many died during his tenure must be balanced with the improvements brought by the 1949 revolution and the CCP regime. Many remember starving and by the time of Mao's death, the nation was completely transformed. The price had been terrible but I've read and heard many an interview with an older person that explains this viewpoint. The article is correct - Mao is like an icon. Don't probe too deeply into the particulars. They don't matter at the present. He is symbol of China reborn and Xi hopes to build on top of that and restore China to its historical position as the Great Asian Power. And yet in a globalised economic world, the pull, temptation, and even necessity of engaging on a world-wide basis is inescapable. This is how empires are born. Under capitalism, if China doesn't keep growing, it will stagnate and die. And hence the clash with the United States seems inevitable. And there are many in that dying empire who see a victory over China as a way to revivify their imperial claims and global status.

Finally the article (being published on a Catholic website) cites the suffering and persecution suffered under Mao. They understandably want this remembered and yet this brings them into conflict with Xi and (ironically) with the Vatican who under Francis capitulated to Beijing's wishes with regard to bishops and the state-sanctioned Chinese Catholic Church. Leo has given no indication that he plans to change the present arrangement.

It's hard to believe that Mao has been gone fifty years. I think of people who are in their seventies and eighties - their heads must spin when they reflect on all that has happened in China during their lifetimes.

In its naivete the US and other Western strategists hoped that capitalism would bring about democratic revolution in China and for a time in the early 2000's, it seemed like it might happen. But then Xi came along and consolidated power. He's a wicked but brilliant man and a very capable and certainly ruthless administrator. Xi is seventy-three years old and so if he lives another decade or so - he can seal his legacy. I think his age is a key factor in calculating China's timetable regarding Taiwan. I agree with the article and other thinkers that Xi won't want to leave the stage until the issue is resolved.

It's tempting to think in terms of what might be next after Xi, but the Taiwan question looms large and depending on how that plays out - there are a lot of variables that will affect not only geopolitics, but the standing of the American Empire, and certainly the question of Christianity within China itself.