Book review

I have just finished slogging my way through Mao: The Unknown Story by Jung Chang and her husband Jon Halliday. Published in 2005, this book has received critical acclaim, yet has also received quite a few knocks. Several critics and scholars claim the book is rather skewed, as Chang grew up in China during the Cultural Revolution and has an obvious, and rather intense hatred of her subject. Beyond question. However, is it necessary to suspend one's view of a subject in order to write well about it? I will take something like this over a dry, 'where's-the-pulse' tome any day, and an adept reader is going to discern any agenda if they read carefully. Chang's book is an attempt to completely dismantle the Mao myth that has been foisted on the people of China since the Chairman's death, and on the Western world since Edgar Snow reported on Mao's struggle in 1937. The book is well-researched, especially when it comes to the relationship between China and the USSR, as Halliday had access to recently opened Soviet archives. Also, many people who were involved with Mao go on record for the first time, even though one must be aware that most of these people are well-advanced in their years and may not have the most accurate recollections.

I suppose my selecting this book was inevitable. My knowledge of Mao has been rather murky- sure I knew the basics of the Mao myth, and the signposts of the man's reign: the Long March, the Great Leap Forward and the famines, the Cultural Revolution, the Korean War, and the Gang of Four, but I did not really know much about the man. After finishing the book, I feel I understand the scope of the complexity of this man- he was certainly a riddle.

Chang basically makes the claim that Mao's early days as the son of a fairly well off peasant in Hunan set the tone for the rest of his life. He was adverse to labor and, despite later claims, was not charmed by the virtues of agrarian living...he just didn't like to get his hands dirty. What becomes readily apparent at a young age is that Mao is smart, cunning, and extremely ambitious, and very resilient. The one thing he is not is politically motivated, until events open the door for the young Chairman. Chang's basic assertion is that Mao, who at that time was an educator (headmaster of a school) and a journalist, thought politics would be a much easier gig than actually 'working for a living'. Therefore, Mao's reason for becoming involved in politics stems not from political or philosophical idealism or ideology, but rather from a desire to achieve a level of personal comfort. Therefore, according to Chang, since Mao's motivation for becoming a Communist are suspect, surely everything afterward must be veiwed with suspicion as well. Unfortunately, that is a rather simplistic notion and I feel that the author really tripped over this throughout the book. It is one thing to speculate about why someone may have done something, and then proceed to make a case to support this contention, but it is another entirely to claim with absolute certainty that this IS the reason why someone did something. No one can know for sure.

The authors show that Mao was a master manipulator and a cunning adversary to his foes, but surprisingly, Mao was not the master charmer that other powerful leaders are alleged to have been (Hitler, in particular). Example after example is trotted out that shows Mao creating enemies that he didn't need, of offending regional Party officials over seemingly trivial matters; the Chairman was not exactly beloved by all. Mao was, however, quite adept at forging political alliances out of necessity with people he could not stand or could not trust (in later years this is shown with Deng Xio Peng), and he was able to use these people to his advantage and then discard them with calculated efficiency. He was the master of spin and, to use a chess analogy, preferred skipping the middle for the end game. He was a very decisive person. Married five times, Mao's ability to turn his back on his family when he was preoccupied with other matters is loathsome, but also quite incredible by itself. How can a man do this? Mao had the opportunity and means to save his second wife, but didn't do anything to save her from the Nationalists and she was executed. This pattern of cold efficiency never left Mao. Hitler, despite being a pathological, neurotic, monster of a man, was reknowned for his ability to charm entire rooms, yet Mao never seemed to demonstrate this personal magnetism, but he achieved the desired outcome by planning, playing people against each other (another Hitler favorite), and through the use of intimidation and fear. Mao didn't care if you liked him, but he did care that you followed his orders. Interestingly, when Mao was in his last years fighting the advent of Lou Gehrig's disease and slowly losing his grip on the Cultural Revolution to strong oppositional alliances, the author's show Mao positively overwhelmed with sentiment for the newly-deposed Nixon. Mao's eyes allegedly tear up at the sight of Nixon (who, conversely, seemed bored to death) who had been flown by Mao to Beijing for one last meeting ( on the other hand, perhaps his obvious affection for Nixon showcases his monstrousness).

There were several other interesting arguments in the book. The authors really did an excellent job of clearly stating the often complex relationship Mao had with Chiang Kai Shek, the leader of the Nationalists. While bitter enemies on the political/military front, Mao admired the General in many ways and was very upset by his death in later years. The authors claim that Mao did not so much defeat the General for control of China, as Shek, through an exhaustive set of military and political errors, handed the country to Mao. Mao was unified in his desire to destroy the forces of Nationalism; so much so that he did virtually nothing to stop the invading Japanese forces. His reasoning was that he could let the General preoccupy himself with commiting forces to repelling the Japanese, while he could shore up support, forge alliances with the Soviets, and then spin the entire mess to look like he was the great defender against the invading forces. It worked. I was simply amazed to see how easily Chiang Kai Shek could have destroyed Mao, but Mao was simply more decisive and cunning. The authors also devote a considerable length of time to dismantling the myth of the Long March. Fascinating reading and perhaps another great example of Mao's mastering the art of propaganda.

This book is a well-written, engaging examination of a very complex man who controlled a very complex country during very turbulent times. Is Mao, as the author's contend, to be ranked alongside Hitler and Stalin as a despot who ultimately wanted world control? I am not sold that Mao ever had those desires. Mao did many despicable things, caused the death of countless millions with his Cultural Revolution and agrarian policies, supported monsters like Pol Pot in Cambodia, ruthlessly denied the Chinese people the opportunity to enjoy personal freedoms, turned his back on family and loyal colleagues, casually ordered the imprisonment or execution of rivals or other 'non-believers'- this is all without question. In fact, the Chinese have been attempting to reconcile Mao's image and legacy with since the Chairman's death. The government's latest position is that Mao's policies were essentially correct and well-intentioned until the mid-50's, whereafter he dropped the ball, so-to-speak. There is no doubt that Mao did unify a country that desperately needed to be unifed. Some of Mao's earlier reforms did help implement badly needed political restructuring, and industry and infrastructure to support such began under Mao. His lack of understanding about the rudiments of economics had a particularly devastating effect on China, and I really think that Deng Xio Peng deserves more credit for helping to create the modern China than he receives. But can one state, as the authors do, that there really is no difference between someone like Hitler and Mao? Hitler's primary concern was the subjugation of others to his notion of a master race, whereas the author's contention that Mao was similarly interested in world domination can not be supported with any veracity. Hitler's National Socialism was an end in itself, whereas Maoism always purported to be a vehicle in which people could be led to a better way of life, no matter that the people themselves certainly would have preferred any alternative. In other words, no matter how impractical or Marx-lite Maoism was, it was sold as a bona fide political movement predicated on something other than the systematic destruction of other peoples. One of the ironies is that Mao is personally responsible for the deaths of more people than Hitler.

This book is worth the time needed to actually get through it. It will greatly expand your knowledge of the formation of modern China, Mao's role in this creation, and constant references to Chinese history, literature, and philosophy help place these events in their proper context. I don't think it is the most balanced portrait of Mao that will emerge, and I take issue with some of the author's methodology, but the book does go a long way towards re-examing the Mao myth.

[Edit by="gjones on Jul 21, 6:56:07 PM"][/Edit]

gjones,
Thank you for your review of Mao: The Unknown Story. I, too, do not know much about Mao, other than that he was the Chinese Hitler. From reading your review, though, I am still of the opinion that he was basically an evil man. I do not think the comparisons with Hitler are unwarranted.
The fact that he also seemed to be ignorant (of economics, for example) made for a dangerous combination. Even so, it was interesting to find out from your review, that Mao was a teacher and journalist; and that he was adverse to manual labor and married 5 times. You wonder how he got the last three to marry him after the unfortunate demise of #2. I guess that's where that legendary "charm" kicked in.
It is an interesting thesis that the authors have about Mao's motivation. I agree with you that their theories sound simplistic. All in all, it pays to try to understand Mao in our study of China. This books seems like a very good start.

Glenda

I was kidding about the charm.
Fascinating information, though. Thanks again.
Glenda