General Secretaries And Chairmen Of The Communist Party Of China

"在一般情况下，人民内部的矛盾不是对抗性的。但是如果处理得不适当，或者失去警觉，麻痹大意，也可能发生对抗。这种情况，在社会主义国家通常只是局部的暂时的现象。这是因为社会主义国家消灭了人剥削人的制度，人民的利益在根本上是一致的。"

"在一九四二年，我们曾经把解决人民内部矛盾的这种民主的方法，具体化为一个公式，叫做“团结——批评——团结”。讲详细一点，就是从团结的愿望出发，经过批评或者斗争使矛盾得到解决，从而在新的基础上达到新的团结。按照我们的经验，这是解决人民内部矛盾的一个正确的方法。"

"民主自由都是相对的，不是绝对的，都是在历史上发生和发展的。在人民内部，民主是对集中而言，自由是对纪律而言。这些都是一个统一体的两个矛盾着的侧面，它们是矛盾的，又是统一的，我们不应当片面地强调某一个侧面而否定另一个侧面。在人民内部，不可以没有自由，也不可以没有纪律；不可以没有民主，也不可以没有集中。这种民主和集中的统一，自由和纪律的统一，就是我们的民主集中制。在这个制度下，人民享受着广泛的民主和自由；同时又必须用社会主义的纪律约束自己。这些道理，广大人民群众是懂得的。"

"我们的宪法规定:中华人民共和国公民有言论、出版、集会、结社、游行、示威、宗教信仰等等自由。我们的宪法又规定:国家机关实行民主集中制，国家机关必须依靠人民群众，国家机关工作人员必须为人民服务。我们的这个社会主义的民主是任何资产阶级国家所不可能有的最广大的民主。我们的专政，叫做工人阶级领导的以工农联盟为基础的人民民主专政。这就表明，在人民内部实行民主制度，而由工人阶级团结全体有公民权的人民，首先是农民，向着反动阶级、反动派和反抗社会主义改造和社会主义建设的分子实行专政。所谓有公民权，在政治方面，就是说有自由和民主的权利。"

"我们的国家是工人阶级领导的以工农联盟为基础的人民民主专政的国家。这个专政是干什么的呢？专政的第一个作用，就是压迫国家内部的反动阶级、反动派和反抗社会主义革命的剥削者，压迫那些对于社会主义建设的破坏者，就是为了解决国内敌我之间的矛盾。"

"马克思主义的哲学认为，对立统一规律是宇宙的根本规律。这个规律，不论在自然界、人类社会和人们的思想中，都是普遍存在的。矛盾着的对立面又统一，又斗争，由此推动事物的运动和变化。矛盾是普遍存在的，不过按事物的性质不同，矛盾的性质也就不同。对于任何一个具体的事物说来，对立的统一是有条件的、暂时的、过渡的，因而是相对的，对立的斗争则是绝对的。"

"以马克思列宁主义的理论思想武装起来的中国共产党，在中国人民中产生了新的工作作风，这主要的就是理论和实践相结合的作风，和人民群众紧密地联系在一起的作风以及自我批评的作风。"

"许多人觉得，提出采用民主方法解决人民内部矛盾的问题是一个新的问题。事实并不是这样。马克思主义者从来就认为无产阶级的事业只能依靠人民群众，共产党人在劳动人民中间进行工作的时候必须采取民主的说服教育的方法，决不允许采取命令主义态度和强制手段。中国共产党忠实地遵守马克思列宁主义的这个原则。我们历来就主张，在人民民主专政下面，解决敌我之间的和人民内部的这两类不同性质的矛盾，采用专政和民主这样两种不同的方法。"

"敌我之间的矛盾是对抗性的矛盾。人民内部的矛盾，在劳动人民之间说来，是非对抗性的；在被剥削阶级和剥削阶级之间说来，除了对抗性的一面以外，还有非对抗性的一面。"

"国家的统一，人民的团结，国内各民族的团结，这是我们的事业必定要胜利的基本保证。但是，这并不是说在我们的社会里已经没有任何的矛盾了。没有矛盾的想法是不符合客观实际的天真的想法。在我们的面前有两类社会矛盾，这就是敌我之间的矛盾和人民内部的矛盾。这是性质完全不同的两类矛盾。"

"All the rest of the world uses the word "electricity." They've borrowed the word from English. But we Chinese have our own word for it!"

"斯大林（社会主义经济问题）在郑州读过两遍，就讲学。现在要深入研究，否则事业不能发展，不能巩固。如讲责任，××、×××有点责任。农业部×××有点责任，第一个责任是我。柯老，你的发明权有没有责任？（柯老：有）是否比较轻？你那是意识形态问题。我是一个一○七○万吨钢，九千万人上阵，这个乱子就闹大了，自己负责。同志们自己的责任都要分析一下，有屎拉出来，有屁放出来，肚子就舒服了。"

"假如办十件事，九件是坏的，都登在报上，一定灭亡。那我就走，到农村去，率领农民推翻政府，你解放军不跟我走，我就找红军去。"

"在上海时，一个中央分裂为两个中央，在长征中与张国焘分裂，高饶事件是部分分裂。部分的分裂是经常的。去年以来。全国有一半的省份在领导集团内发生了分裂。人身上海天都要脱发、脱皮，这就是灭亡一部分细胞。从小孩起就要灭亡一部分细胞，这才有利于生长。如果没有灭亡，人就不能生存。自从孔夫子以来，人要不灭亡那不得了。灭亡有好处，可以做肥料，你说不做，实际做了。精神上要有准备。部分的分裂每天都存在。分裂灭亡总会有的。没有分裂．不利于发展。整个的灭亡，也是历史的必然。整个讲，作为阶级斗争工具的党和国家，是要灭亡的。但在它的历史任务未完成前，是要巩固它，不希望分裂，但要准备分裂。没有准备，就要分裂。有准备。就可避免大分裂。大型、中型的分裂是暂时的。匈牙利事件是大型的，高饶事件、莫洛托失事件是中型的。每个支部都在起变化，有些开除，有些进来，有些工作很好，有些犯错误。永远不起变化是不可能的。列宁经常说：国家总有两种可能。或者胜利，或者灭亡。我们中华人为共和国也有两种可能，胜利下去，或者灭亡。列宁是不隐讳灭亡这种可能性的，我们人民共和国也有两种可能性，不要否定这种可能性。我们手里没有原子弹，打起来，三十六计，走为上计，他占北京、上海、武汉，我们打游击，倒退十几年，二十年，回到延安时代。所以一方面我们要积极准备，大搞钢铁，搞机器，搞铁路，争取三四年内搞几千万吨钢，建立起工业基础，使我们比现在更巩固。"

"春风杨柳万千条，六亿神州尽舜尧。 红雨随心翻作浪，青山着意化为桥。 天连五岭银锄落，地动三河铁臂摇。 借问瘟君欲何往，纸船明烛照天烧。"

"绿水青山枉自多，华佗无奈小虫何！ 千村薜荔人遗矢，万户萧疏鬼唱歌。 坐地日行八万里，巡天遥看一千河。 牛郎欲问瘟神事，一样悲欢逐逝波。"

"中国人把结婚叫红喜事，死人叫做白喜事，合起来叫红白喜事，我看很有道理。中国人是懂得辩证法的。结婚可以生小孩，母亲分裂出孩子来．是个突变，是喜事。一个母亲分数出三个、两个，一个小人出来。多子女的分裂出六个、七个，七个、八个，甚至十个，像航空母舰一样。我不是不赞成节育，我是讲辩证法，是说新事物的发生，人的生产，这是喜事，是变化，一个变两个，两个变四个。至于死亡，老百姓也叫喜事。一方面并追悼会，哭鼻子，要送葬，人之常情。另一方面是喜事。也确实是喜事。你们设想，如果孔夫子还在，也在怀仁堂开会，他二千多岁了，就很不妙。讲辩证法而又不赞成灭亡，是形而上学。有灾难，是社会现象。灾变，是宇宙根本的规律。生是突变，死也是突变。由生到死几十年的渐变。假如蒋介石死了。我们都会鼓掌。杜勒斯死了，我们没有掉眼泪。这是因为旧社会事物的灭亡是好事，大家都希望。新事物的产生是好事，新事物的灭亡当然不好。如一九零五举俄国革命的失败。南方我们根据地的丢失，等于现在的苗子被雹子和暴雨打掉，这当然不好，这就发生补苗问题。"

"战争与和平，和平的可能性大于战争的可能性，现在争取和平的可能性比过去大．社会主义阵营的力量比过去大，和平的可能性此第二次世界大战前大。苏联强大，民族独立运动是我们强大的同盟军，西方国家不稳定，工人阶级不愿打仗，资产阶级一部分人也不愿打仗，美国人也不愿打仗，和平的可能性大于战争的可能，但也有战争的可能性，要准备有疯子。帝国主义为了摆脱经济危机现在打原子战，时间会缩短，不要四年，只三年就可以了。要准备，真正打怎么办？要讲讲这个问题，要打就打，把帝国主义扫光，然后再来建设，从此就不会有世界大战了。既有可能打世界大战，就要准备，不能睡觉。打起来也不要大惊小怪，打起仗来无非就是死人。打仗死人我们见过，人口消灭一半在中国历史上有过好几次，汉武帝时五千万人口，到三国两晋南北朝，只剩下一千多万，一打几十年，连连续续几百年，三国两晋南北朝、宋、齐、梁、陈。唐朝人口开始是两千万。以后到唐明皇时又达到五千万，安禄山反了，分为五代十国，一两百年，一直到宋朝才统一，又剩下千把万。这个道理我和×××讲过，我说现代武器不如中国关云长的大刀厉害，他不信，两次世界大战死人并不多，第一次死一千万，第二次死两千万，我们一死就是四千万。你看那些大刀破坏性多大呀。原子仗现在没经验不知要死多少。最好剩一半。次好剩三分之一。二十几亿人口剩几亿，几个五年计划就发展起来，换来了一个资本主义全部灭亡。取得永久和平，这不是坏事。"

"为了同敌人作斗争，我们在一个长时间内形成了一个概念，就是说，在战略上我们要藐视一切敌人，在战术上我们要重视一切敌人。也就是说在整体上我们一定要藐视它，在一个一个的具体问题上我们一定要重视它。如果不是在整体上藐视敌人，我们就要犯机会主义的错误。马克思、恩格思只有两个人，那时他们就说全世界资本主义要被打倒。但是在具体问题上，在一个一个敌人的问题上，如果我们不重视它，我们就要犯冒险主义的错误。打仗只能一仗一仗地打，敌人只能一部分一部分地消灭。工厂只能一个一个地盖，农民犁地只能一块一块的犁，就是吃饭也是如此。我们在战略上藐视吃饭：这顿饭我们能 够吃下去。但是具体地吃，却是一口口地吃的，你不可能把一桌酒席一口吞下去。这叫做各个解决，军事书上叫做各个击破。"

"世界是你们的，也是我们的，但是归根结底是你们的。你们青年人朝气蓬勃，正在兴旺时期，好像早晨八、九点钟的太阳。希望寄托在你们身上。世界是属于你们的。中国的前途是属于你们的。"

"要使几亿人中的中国人生活得好，要把我们这个经济落后、文化落后的国家，建设成为富裕的、强盛的、 具有高度文化的国家，这是一个很艰巨的任务。我们所以要整风，现在要整风，将来还要整风，要不断把我们身上的错误东西整掉，就是为了使我们能够更好地担负起这项任务，更好地同党外的一切立志改革的志士仁人共同工作。"

"对民主人士，我们要让他们唱对台戏，放手让他们批评。如果我们不这样做，就有点象国民党了。国民党很怕批评，每次开参政会就诚惶诚恐。民主人士的批评也无非是两种：一种是错的，一种是不错的。不错的可以补足我们的短处；错的要反驳。至于梁漱溟、彭一湖、章乃器那一类人，他们有屁就让他们放，放出来有利，让大家闻一闻，是香的还是臭的，经过讨论，争取多数，使他们孤立起来。他们要闹，就让他们闹够。"

"天下大乱，形势大好。"

""The food of the true revolutionary is the red pepper, And he who cannot endure red peppers is also unable to fight." - Otto Braun memoirs"

"People who try to commit suicide — don't attempt to save them! . . . China is such a populous nation, it is not as if we cannot do without a few people."

"It's always darkest before it's totally black."

"The real war is within us. History is a symptom of our disease."

"China, despite many imperfections in its economic and political system, has been the most rapidly growing nation of the past three decades. Chinese poverty until Mao Zedong’s death had nothing to do with Chinese culture; it was due to the disastrous way Mao organized the economy and conducted politics. In the 1950s, he promoted the Great Leap Forward, a drastic industrialization policy that led to mass starvation and famine. In the 1960s, he propagated the Cultural Revolution, which led to the mass persecution of intellectuals and educated people—anyone whose party loyalty might be doubted. This again led to terror and a huge waste of the society’s talent and resources. In the same way, current Chinese growth has nothing to do with Chinese values or changes in Chinese culture; it results from a process of economic transformation unleashed by the reforms implemented by Deng Xiaoping and his allies, who, after Mao Zedong’s death, gradually abandoned socialist economic policies and institutions, first in agriculture and then in industry."

"The students caught between the two superpowers and equally disillusioned by East and West, "inevitably pursue some third ideology, from Mao's China or Castro's Cuba." (Spender, op. cit., p. 92.) Their calls for Mao, Castro, Che Guevara, and Ho Chi Minh are like pseudo-religious incantations for saviors from another world; they would also call for Tito if only Yugoslavia were farther away and less approachable."

"The Young Lords Party understood themselves to be a revolutionary nationalist party with an internationalist vision. According to Melendez, three texts formed the core of the Young Lords' political education program: Franz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth, Mao Tse-tung's Little Red Book, and Che Guevara's Man and Socialism: Transformation of the Individual. Grounded in Mao's critique of nationalism and Fanon's analysis of colonialism, as well as Vladimir Lenin's writings on imperialism and the national question, the nationalism of the Young Lords was much more ideologically explicit than that of most Chicano leaders...Inspired by Che Guevara, the Young Lords Party sought to engage the internal struggle of the individual "to manifest change within himself in order to create a revolution in society.""

"Mao’s impact on China must also be assessed in terms of economic and social changes in China after 1949. Despite the setbacks of the Great Leap and the Cultural Revolution, overall China’s economy made decided advances during the Maoist period. China’s industrial sector grew rapidly and agricultural output was once again showing increases by the time of Mao’s death. China’s infrastructure expanded with the addition of new railways and improved roads. Electricity became available in all but the most remote villages. Life expectancy reached 65 years by the time of Mao’s death, a remarkable increase over the 1949 figure. Under the new laws of the PRC, women held equal status with men and, as a result of the commune movement, worked outside the home. Although efforts to expand education stumbled repeatedly because of political campaigns, the number of literate men and women climbed as schools and colleges grew in number throughout the period. These accomplishments are part of the legacy of the first generation of revolutionary leadership. At the same time, Maoist policies exacted an enormous human cost. Misguided policy decisions of the Great Leap Forward claimed millions of lives. Whether this cost was levied unintentionally or not, Mao himself chose the policies that led to human disaster and he cannot be absolved of responsibility for the outcomes. When the records of the CCP are someday made available for objective examination, both the Chinese people and the world community will be able to assess more clearly the circumstances that led to the greatest tragedies of the Maoist period and how that experience influenced China’s current economic reforms and its political direction."

"Is Mao dead? That we even feel the need to ask the question betrays part of the answer. Yes he’s dead, but more importantly, his legacy still exerts a profound influence on China, both in his continuing grassroots popularity and in the instruments of governance that the C.C.P. still uses—most of which have Mao’s fingerprints all over them."

"The very fact that Mao is a paradoxical figure means that thinking about him is a useful way in understanding some of the other paradoxes that now constitute the PRC. The combination of artificiality, make-believe and sheer downright lies in what has gone into creating the image of Mao and reflects much on the place that has produced this mythos. Mao himself celebrated conflict, contradiction and tension. He famously opined that 'without destruction there can be no construction', an idea that was enshrined in the CR, and became the justification for many of the acts of violence then."

"Had he been purely an economic thinker, then Mao would have been consigned to the dustbin of history the day he died in September 1976. Evidence of the failure of his economic ideas is manifold. But of course, economics is more often than not intimately linked to emotions and ideas of status. It is here that the other two strands of Maoism come to the fore – Mao as a nationalist and Mao as a tactician. In areas that can be broadly described as geopolitics and politics, Mao still retains impact in China."

"At best, Marx equipped Mao with a dynamic vision of reality, but one which was fundamentally posited on contradictions. Once more, the real ballast was supplied by Daoism, a body of ideas reaching back to the earliest recorded dynasty, the Shang, and set down in oracular form. The Way or Dao celebrated counterpoised forces, the struggle for the achievement of balance in society constantly undermined by the rise of new forces and situations. Flux was the god of this view of the world, and it was to flux and dynamism that Mao himself appealed in perhaps the only one of his works that claims to have made a distinctive and original contribution to the corpus of Marxist theoretical works: ‘On contradiction’."

"Historians have long noted that Mao Zedong, the man, was not only deeply flawed but also was not the all-powerful creator of the People’s Republic of China or even of the CCP; that real history is, naturally, much more complex than the leadership of one man. Yet he was, and remains, the most charismatic and significant leader of twentieth-century China and both the official source of legitimacy for the CCP and a powerful model of rebellion for generations of Chinese. The key point to keep in mind about the power of Mao today is this contradictory legacy. This enduring contradiction in Maoism can be summed up in two phrases: ‘leave it up to the Party’ and ‘it’s right to rebel.’ The first reflects the considerable prestige of the CCP associated with its role in China’s turbulent twentieth-century history. Even though various people in China today dismiss the extreme claims of revolutionary correctness or question the gaps in official Party histories, the CCP is broadly credited with saving China from imperialism, warlords, and poverty. For many in China, the greatest achievement of the CCP, for which Mao is the embodiment, is the establishment of the Chinese nation-state and the restoration of order in 1949. The many sins committed by Mao and the CCP since then have not – yet – utterly overshadowed this singular achievement."

"This is the contradictory legacy of Mao: while Mao wrote the norms and rules of CCP leadership and represents its successes, he is also the voice of rebellion and the mirror that shows up the faults and failures of the Party. The social results of this contradiction, and this history of Mao’s three campaigns in the 1950s and 1960s, are profoundly important for China today. The most famous slogan of the tumultuous Cultural Revolution, ‘it’s right to rebel’ (zaofan youli), trained a generation of Chinese youth. When those former Red Guards returned to urban China from their rustication after two, three, and sometimes ten years, they had learned from Mao, though not perhaps what Mao and the Party wanted them to learn. They learned of the profound corruptibility of the Party and of leaders everywhere, they learned it was possible – and that Mao agreed – to rebel against corrupt leadership, and they learned that rural China was still very poor. Not only poor, but also superstitious. Rural China has been identified with the excesses of faith in Mao that these self-same ‘educated youth’ also displayed during the 1960s and during at least some of their time in the countryside."

"In all, Mao’s memory in China today is a two-edged sword of legitimacy for the CCP: an ambivalent symbol of national pride for educated Chinese, a cool brand for middle-class youth, and a talisman of selfworth for China’s disposed who have suffered under reform and globalization. Behind these meanings reside wider historical meanings of hope and despair analyzed by scholars in Western countries, as well as the inspiration Mao provided for rural revolutions in Asia, Africa, and Latin America."

"Had Mao died in 1956, his achievements would have been immortal. Had he died in 1966, he would still have been a great man but flawed. But he died in 1976. Alas, what can one say?"

"When Mao Zedong, founder of the People’s Republic of China and Chairman of the Chinese Communist Party since 1943, died on September 9th, 1976, China was in the midst of the Cultural Revolution, which Mao had initiated a decade earlier. This was meant to be the first of a series of revolutions to rejuvenate socialism, ridding it of capitalist corruption and bureaucratic rigidity. The Cultural Revolution had been preceded by a series of social and political campaigns relentlessly prosecuted by Mao to push China toward the promised paradise of socialism. Mao believed that China could shrug off poverty and jump on to the “golden highway” to socialism if, and only if, the Chinese people, united in thought and action, threw all their talents and energy behind the collective cause. Unselfish and property-less, the Chinese people would be reborn. Having shed the burden of history and Chinese feudalism on the one hand, and without the distraction of material interests and western capitalism on the other, the Chinese people would respond to nothing but the call of socialism. However, instead of paradise, Mao’s deeply flawed ideology and ill-thought-out revolutions not only brought to the Chinese people the most lethal famine in human history, but also cut them off from their cultural roots and the progress of modern times. An enterprising people were quickly reduced to lifeless cogs in the socialist machine. It can be a hard truth to accept, but the disaster Mao inflicted on the Chinese people was matched only by his ineradicable accomplishments. “In the final reckoning,” wrote The Economist, “Mao must be accepted as one of history’s great achievers: for devising a peasant-centered revolutionary strategy which enabled China’s Communist Party to seize power, against Marx’s prescriptions, from bases in the countryside; for directing the transformation of China from a feudal society, wracked by war and bled by corruption, into a unified, egalitarian state where nobody starves; and for reviving national pride and confidence so that China could, in Mao’s words, ‘stand up’ among the great powers.” While The Economist was seriously mistaken about the absence of starvation in Mao’s China, few could deny the inspiration and influence of Mao’s revolution on both China and the rest of the world. Richard Nixon, who reopened diplomatic relations between China and the United States in 1972, called Mao “a unique man in a generation of great revolutionary leaders.” Pakistani Premier Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the last foreign statesman to see him before his death, called Mao “the son of revolution, its very essence, indeed, its rhythm and romance, the supreme architect of a brilliant new order shaking the world,” adding, “Men like Mao come once in a century.”"

"It is worthwhile pointing out that even though Mao was directly responsible for the decentralization of the Chinese political and economic system, other forces, more elusive but no less decisive, were also at work. The size of the Chinese continent would make life difficult for any central planner. As an age-old Chinese axiom puts it, “Heaven is high and the emperor far away.” Some local autonomy was therefore inevitable. Historically, the tension between administrative centralization (or what is called junxian in Chinese literature) and decentralization (or what is called fengjian) has been an absorbing issue for China’s rulers ever since the First Emperor of Qin unified China in 221 BC. Even though Imperial China is remembered for its administrative innovation, a centralized bureaucracy staffed by civilians who were selected through the civil service examination, centralization coexisted with decentralization. Centralization may be the best-known aspect of traditional Chinese politics, but the political system was kept in order by balancing the competing forces of centralization and decentralization, like the Yin and Yang in Tai Chi. Even though China under Mao had built up, mostly from scratch, an impressive nationwide industrial base, its economic performance was an agonizing disappointment. But while Mao left behind poverty and a poorly functioning economic system, he also created much discontent among a large number of people, most of whom were desperate for change. At the end of Mao’s rule, China was left with a fractured society, a fragmented economy, and a confused and disoriented politics, crawling along what was once believed the golden highway to socialism. With the end of Mao’s era, China was bound to open a new chapter."

"Mao’s life and his character are difficult to sum up because he was a complex man who behaved in contradictory ways. He embraced an imported modernizing ideology yet remained profoundly Chinese in his outlook. He was an idealist who produced inspirational writings but was prepared to accept suffering and death on an unimaginable scale to achieve his aims. He was a despot who proclaimed that ‘it is right to rebel’. He was an ideologue who wrote poetry. Mao recognized the contradictory nature of his own character when he wrote he combined a ‘kingly’ disposition demanding to dominate and suborn, with a ‘monkey spirit’ that urged him to run riot and throw all into disorder. Henry Kissinger saw the kingly Mao, observing that he ‘distilled raw concentrated willpower’ and ‘exuded in almost tangible form the overwhelming drive to prevail’. These qualities contributed to the survival of the communist forces during the period of armed struggle and their remarkable victory. Once China was united, however, they were often harmful. Mao used his immense prestige to intimidate his colleagues and get his own way. He became increasingly autocratic, refused to listen to those who disagreed with him, and stubbornly enforced bad decisions. He bears responsibility for the horrors of the famine brought about by the Great Leap Forward, and for the tardy response to it which produced a death toll of tens of millions. His increasing tendency to interpret any criticism as a challenge to his leadership so intimidated his colleagues that in his last years many feared to express opinions at all. His Cultural Revolution caused immense suffering and social and economic disruption, yet until his death all leaders had to pay tribute to its achievements."

"The consequences of Mao’s actions were inevitably in proportion to the prodigious power he exercised, and the enormous population he ruled over. As a unifier and modernizer his achievements were immense, but his errors caused appalling suffering on a scale that is difficult to grasp. His utopian dreams, his periodic refusal to engage with reality, his ruthlessness, and his determination to win imposed terrible suffering on the Chinese people and cost millions of them their lives. He was ready to accept huge costs because he believed that suffering and death were inevitable in the pursuit of his cause. Mao’s revolution improved life for those who survived it, bringing the economic development, education, and modernization on which subsequent progress was built. It also reunified China and made the country a force to be reckoned with in the world. He left an indelible mark on history."

"I should remind you that Chairman Mao dedicated most of his life to China, that he saved the party and the revolution in their most critical moments, that, in short, his contribution was so great that, without him, the Chinese people would have had a much harder time finding the right path out of the darkness. We also shouldn't forget that it was Chairman Mao who combined the teachings of Marx and Lenin with the realities of Chinese history—that it was he who applied those principles, creatively, not only to politics but to philosophy, art, literature, and military strategy. Yes, before the 1960s—or, better, up until the late 1950s—some of Chairman Mao's ideas were, for the most part, correct. Furthermore, many of his principles brought us victory and allowed us to gain power. Then, unfortunately, in the last few years of his life, he committed many grave errors—the Cultural Revolution, above all. And much disgrace was brought upon the party, the country, the people."

"We know that Mao was the key architect of the Great Leap Forward, and thus bears the main responsibility for the catastrophe that followed. He had to work hard to push through his vision, bargaining, cajoling, goading, occasionally tormenting or persecuting his colleagues. Unlike Stalin, he did not drag his rivals into a dungeon to have them executed, but he did have the power to remove them from office, terminating their careers – and the many privileges which came with a top position in the party. The campaign to overtake Britain started with Chairman Mao, and it ended when he grudgingly allowed his colleagues to return to a more gradual approach in economic planning a few years later. But he would never have been able to prevail if Liu Shaoqi and Zhou Enlai, the next two most powerful party leaders, had acted against him. They, in turn, whipped up support from other senior colleagues, as chains of interests and alliances extended all the way down to the village – as is documented here for the first time. Ferocious purges were carried out, as lacklustre cadres were replaced with hard, unscrupulous men who trimmed their sails to benefit from the radical winds blowing from Beijing."

"Mao set about ensnaring his enemies with the precision of a trapper. But once the stage was set and the Cultural Revolution erupted in the summer of 1966, it took on a life of its own, with unintended consequences that even the most consummate strategist could not have anticipated. Mao wished to purge the higher echelons of power, so he could hardly rely on the party machine to get the job done. He turned to young, radical students instead, some of them no older than fourteen, giving them licence to denounce all authority and ‘bombard the headquarters’. But party officials had honed their survival skills during decades of political infighting, and few were about to be outflanked by a group of screaming, self-righteous Red Guards. Many deflected the violence away from themselves by encouraging the youngsters to raid the homes of class enemies, stigmatised as social outcasts. Some cadres even managed to organise their own Red Guards, all in the name of Mao Zedong Thought and the Cultural Revolution. In the parlance of the time, they ‘raised the red flag in order to fight the red flag’. The Red Guards started fighting each other, divided over who the true ‘capitalist roaders’ inside the party were. In some places, party activists and factory workers rallied in support of their besieged leaders. In response, the Chairman urged the population at large to join the revolution, calling on all to ‘seize power’ and overthrow the ‘bourgeois power holders’. The result was a social explosion on an unprecedented scale, as every pent-up frustration caused by years of communist rule was released. There was no lack of people who harboured grievances against party officials. But the ‘revolutionary masses’, instead of neatly sweeping away all followers of the ‘bourgeois reactionary line’, also became divided, as different factions jostled for power and started fighting each other. Mao used the people during the Cultural Revolution; but, equally, many people manipulated the campaign to pursue their own goals. By January 1967 the chaos was such that the army intervened, seeking to push through the revolution and bring the situation under control by supporting the ‘true proletarian left’. As different military leaders supported different factions, all of them equally certain they represented the true voice of Mao Zedong, the country slid into civil war. Still, the Chairman prevailed. He was cold and calculating, but also erratic, whimsical and fitful, thriving in willed chaos. He improvised, bending and breaking millions along the way. He may not have been in control, but he was always in charge, relishing a game in which he could constantly rewrite the rules. Periodically he stepped in to rescue a loyal follower or, contrariwise, to throw a close colleague to the wolves. A mere utterance of his decided the fates of countless people, as he declared one or another faction to be ‘counter-revolutionary’. His verdict could change overnight, feeding a seemingly endless cycle of violence in which people scrambled to prove their loyalty to the Chairman."

"Mao's impact on Chinese politics will probably be reinterpreted for as long as that impact is politically significant - and it remains considerable ten years after his death, both among reformers who have redacted their own 'new text' and among the 'leftists' who resist this construal. To Deng Xiaoping and his 'practice faction', the 'living soul' of Mao Zedong Thought consists of the mass line, 'seeking truth from facts', and independence - of class struggle, Mao's 'key link', the less said the better. Mao's notions of a regenerative bourgeoisie, of 'struggle between the two lines' within the Party, of 'continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat', have been essentially repudiated, thereby removing this source of theoretical embarrassment and political anarchism. Mao's deep concern with distributive justice, as translated into economic egalitarianism and a smothering ideological conformity, has likewise gone by the board. The posthumous interpretation of what Mao was wont to call 'self-reliance' (zili gengsheng) thoroughly discounts the old economic indices therefore (eschewal of loans, investment, or very much trade) in favour of 'opening to the outside world', compensating with a more heavy-handed appeal to Chinese nationalism. The post-Mao leadership has thus in effect sought to preserve only those aspects of Mao's legacy which are utterly flexible, while dismissing those to which he attributed immortal importance."

"In his enhanced identification with revolutionary youth, Mao no longer found the Party's standard" from the top down" approach to mass mobilization acceptable, and in spontaneously rebuking Liu and Deng and ordering the work teams withdrawn, he authorized a momentous departure from previous traditions of Party-mass linkage. Having ventured this innovation, however, he found it impossible either to allow the rebels to consummate their victory or to permit the entire experiment in spontaneous mobilization to be negated. Instead, from 1968 through 1976 he vacillated, sometimes permitting repression of the "revolutionary masses," sometimes kicking over the traces and permitting the masses to rise in relatively untrammeled anarchy (up to a point); as a result, mass mobilization became devalued either as a mechanism for elite implementation of policy or for the purpose of popular monitoring of deviant elites. Similarly, it was his prescient recognition of the problem of his own aging and debility that led Mao to attempt to designate his own heir apparent well in advance and to encourage the rise of revolutionary successors in a generational sense, but having undertaken such preparations he found them in direct conflict with his own fierce will to live, and thus repeatedly reversed them. On the issues of both mobilization and succession, we have argued that although part of the reason for Mao's oscillatory tendencies has to do with the constraints of a complex political reality, basically he was afflicted by his own crippling ambivalence. The result was an unusually protracted and debilitating crisis of succession."

"I suppose some people will say on balance Mao did more good than harm."

"One never left a meeting with him feeling indifferent... He spoke slowly and quietly, weighing each word. He never said anything foolish. There was something sad in him, and he often behaved strangely. Once he arrived unexpect­edly and he told me that Buddhism was a good religion; that though he was a prince, Buddha had done much to improve the lot of the poor. Then, as suddenly as he had arrived, he left. He was always very affectionate with me. [Oriana Fallaci: You're unable to see him as an enemy, isn't that true, Holiness?] Yes. Speaking as a Buddhist, I cannot accept the word enemy. ... Mao Tse-tung is neither cunning nor diplomatic. I told him what his generals were doing in Tibet, and he understood. Perhaps he couldn't stop them. Or perhaps he has changed. I am unable to reconcile the Mao Tse-tung I knew with the Mao Tse-tung of today. He must be in the grip of some madness or some infirmity. The cultural revolution, for example. The name is lovely, but there is no substance: it's the dementia of an old man. I cannot see him in this dementia."