Groucho Marxism

Tankies – hardline Marxist-Leninists who defend the repressive actions of socialist states – often hold leaders such as Mao Zedong in high regard. This sets them apart from the rest of us, who usually think of these people as tyrannical despots. It is difficult to understand why anyone would venerate a leader who masterminded such disastrous initiatives as the Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. The first of these was a failed economic policy that ran from 1958 to 1960 resulted in the worst man-made famine in history, killing an estimated 40 to 80 million people. The second was a violent purge of perceived capitalist elements that lasted from 1966 to Mao’s death in 1976 and destroyed cultural heritage, paralyzed education, and also killed many people.

Mao created a cult of personality, suppressed free thought, and eliminated political opposition. Anyone who denies any of this is guilty of ignoring basic historical facts. Why, then, do some on the left seem to idolize him? A number of reasons may be put forward to explain this rather puzzling phenomenon. The first is that according to tankie ideology, opposing US imperialism is the primary goal of the communist movement. Because Mao led a successful revolution and established a strong, anti-Western power in China, he is seen by some as a champion of promoting unity among developing nations and a key figure in the fight against Western capitalism. This is the logic of ‘my enemy’s enemy is my friend’.

Another reason is that tankies often subscribe to the concept of ‘siege socialism’, which argues that for a socialist state to survive it must ruthlessly eliminate internal and external threats. Mao is viewed as a leader who prioritized the survival of the socialist state over all else, which in their view justifies his authoritarian measures. A third reason is that Maoism is considered an advanced form of Marxism-Leninism that applies particularly to revolutions in developing nations. Many, including those belonging to liberation movements like the Black Panthers, were influenced by Mao’s writings on strategy and revolution. A fourth reason is that tankies view criticisms of Mao as Western propaganda designed to delegitimize socialist history.

None of these arguments stand up to scrutiny. The idea that we socialists should blindly support any leader or country that opposes US imperialism is obviously nonsense. Nazi Germany opposed US imperialism as it viewed the US as a dangerous rival for global power and land, but that doesn’t mean we should venerate Hitler! The idea that Maoism is an advanced form of Marxism-Leninism that applies particularly to developing nations seems equally nonsensical. Leninism was developed in early 20th century Russia, also a backwards agrarian country at that time. However it should be noted that Mao did write extensively and made significant contributions to socialist theory. It is difficult to imagine today’s politicians doing the same. ‘The thoughts of Keir Starmer’ would be a pretty short book.

The ‘siege socialism’ argument has a bit more going for it, as any socialist state existing in a capitalist world will face many internal and external threats. You only have to look back to Chile in the 1970s to see what can happen when a socialist leader tries to make concessions to the capitalist class. (See my blog post on this for more details. Spoiler alert: it didn’t end well.) The argument that we view Mao through the lens of Western propaganda also has something going for it. It is often difficult to gauge how much of what we read and hear about socialist leaders like Mao is true and how much of it is capitalist propaganda. But it is undeniable that Mao was the architect of policies that killed millions of his own people and that this went way beyond simply eliminating capitalist threats.

One argument in support of Mao that I think does carry some weight relates to the transformation that China underwent whilst he was leader. When Mao became leader of China in 1949 the country had just been ravaged by 20 years of war. First there was the civil war of 1927-1936, fought between the nationalists led by the Chiang Kai-Shek and the communists led by Mao. Then followed the second Sino-Japanese war of 1937-1945, fought between the China and imperial Japan, which in 1931 had invaded and conquered Northeast China (Manchuria). By time Mao declared the formation of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 the nation was essentially a failed state. The literacy rate hovered around 30%, poverty was endemic, and life expectancy was just 35 years.

Mao’s leadership fundamentally transformed China from a fractured, war-torn feudal society into a unified, industrializing nation. He ended decades of war and foreign imperialism, reuniting mainland China and establishing the People’s Republic of China as an independent, sovereign, and respected international power. Life expectancy increased from roughly 35 years in 1949 to 65 years by the time of Mao’s death in 1976 as basic healthcare was expanded to rural areas. The 1950 Marriage Law abolished traditional, oppressive practices such as foot-binding, arranged marriages, and concubinage, allowing women to enter the workforce, own property, and attain greater equality. And despite the setbacks of the Great Leap Forward, the era saw rapid, foundational industrial growth.

If we were playing devil’s advocate we might ask whether any competent administration would have been able to achieve these advances given the dire state of China in 1949. But if we are to criticize Mao for the things he got wrong then as a point of logic we must also praise him for the things he got right. The rapid advances made by China under Mao demonstrate what can be achieved with a planned economy, even with a tyrannical dictator at the helm. Imagine what could be achieved by such an economy if it was run democratically by the people, for the people. Now that really would be a great leap forward.