AskGemini

Gemini, what in the Chinese culture made it possible for Mao to kill over 60 million people in the revolution he lead?

The staggering death toll of over 60 million people during Mao Zedong’s revolutionary leadership in China cannot be attributed to a single cultural trait. Instead, it was a catastrophic convergence of a deeply wounded national psyche, a ruthless totalitarian ideology, and the cynical manipulation of pre-existing cultural and philosophical tendencies that had shaped Chinese society for centuries. While Mao and the Communist Party of China (CCP) overtly attacked many aspects of traditional Chinese culture, they also expertly exploited some of its deeply ingrained elements to consolidate power and mobilize the masses towards disastrous ends.

At the heart of this complex tragedy lies the “Century of Humiliation,” a period from the mid-19th to the mid-20th century when China suffered a series of military defeats, unequal treaties, and foreign domination.¹ This era of national shame and internal turmoil fostered a profound desire for a strong, unified China capable of resisting foreign encroachment and restoring national dignity. Mao and the CCP skillfully tapped into this potent nationalist sentiment, presenting themselves as the saviors who would finally allow China to “stand up.” This created a fertile ground for a leader who promised national rejuvenation, even if it demanded immense sacrifice.

Mao’s brand of communism, Maoism, evolved into a pseudo-religious, totalitarian ideology that demanded absolute fealty. The carefully constructed cult of personality around Mao positioned him as an infallible, quasi-divine figure, echoing the historical reverence for the emperor.² This was coupled with the brutal concept of “class struggle,” which demonized and dehumanized entire segments of the population as “landlords,” “intellectuals,” and “counter-revolutionaries.”³ This systematic dehumanization, broadcast through relentless propaganda, created an environment where violence against these designated “enemies of the people” was not only tolerated but encouraged as a revolutionary duty.⁴

This totalitarian agenda was brutally implemented through a series of mass mobilization campaigns, most notably the Great Leap Forward (1958-1962) and the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976).⁵ The Great Leap Forward’s aim of rapid industrialization and agricultural collectivization, driven by ideological fervor rather than sound economic principles, led to a famine of unprecedented scale.⁶ The Cultural Revolution, a campaign to purge society of “old” ideas, customs, and habits, unleashed a wave of violence and chaos, turning neighbor against neighbor and students against teachers.⁷

While these campaigns were revolutionary in their aims, their implementation and the public’s response were subtly influenced by long-standing cultural and philosophical threads:

Confucianism’s Legacy of Hierarchy and Obedience: For centuries, Confucianism had instilled a deep respect for authority and a hierarchical social structure.⁸ At its apex was the emperor, followed by his officials, and down to the family unit where filial piety demanded obedience. While Mao fiercely attacked Confucianism as a feudal relic, the ingrained societal habit of deference to a strong, centralized authority was a powerful tool in his hands. The CCP effectively replaced the imperial court with the Politburo, and Mao assumed the role of the ultimate, unquestionable patriarch. The Confucian emphasis on the collective over the individual, though different in its original context, was twisted to demand the complete sublimation of personal will to the will of the Party and its leader.

The Legalist Tradition of State Control: Juxtaposed with Confucian ideals of moral suasion was the hard-nosed philosophy of Legalism, which advocated for a powerful, centralized state that ruled through strict laws and harsh punishments. The Legalists believed that human nature was inherently selfish and that only a strong, authoritarian state could maintain order. This tradition provided a historical precedent for the CCP’s own intrusive and coercive methods of governance. Mao himself expressed admiration for Qin Shi Huang, the First Emperor who unified China through brutal, Legalist-inspired methods. This historical model of a state with far-reaching control over the lives of its citizens may have contributed to a greater acceptance of the CCP’s totalitarian ambitions.

The “Mandate of Heaven”: This ancient political and religious doctrine posited that a ruler’s legitimacy was granted by a divine power and was contingent on their ability to govern justly and maintain social order. While the CCP was an atheist regime, the concept of a “mandate” could have been unconsciously applied to their rule. Their initial victory in the civil war and the restoration of order after a century of chaos might have been interpreted by some as evidence of a new mandate to rule. The subsequent disasters, particularly the Great Famine, could then be seen as a sign that this mandate was being lost, which helps to explain the ferocity of the Cultural Revolution as Mao sought to violently reassert his authority and purge any opposition.⁹

Historical Precedents for Mass Mobilization: China has a long history of large-scale state projects, such as the construction of the Great Wall and the Grand Canal, which required the mobilization of vast numbers of laborers. While these historical endeavors were different in nature and scale from the frenzied campaigns of the Great Leap Forward, they established a precedent for the state’s ability to command and deploy its population for massive undertakings.

In conclusion, the immense human tragedy under Mao Zedong’s rule was not an inevitable outcome of Chinese culture. Rather, it was the result of a ruthless and charismatic leader who, at a moment of profound national crisis, masterfully exploited and distorted certain long-standing cultural and philosophical tendencies. The traditional respect for authority, the historical precedent of a strong centralized state, and a deep yearning for national unity were all woven into the fabric of a totalitarian ideology that demanded absolute sacrifice. The ultimate responsibility for the staggering loss of life lies with Mao Zedong and the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, who orchestrated and implemented these catastrophic policies.