Mao Zedong’s Legacy for China

Prior to 1949, China adopted an imperial leadership system. The orthodox Confucianism ideology, strict bureaucratic structure, a sluggish economy, and emperor institutions founded on family ties defined the Qing dynasty, which lasted from 1644 to 1912. (Kenneth 5). However, after Mao Zedong took power in 1949, the situation improved. Although economic tensions in China remain, the national unity, equality, and economic empowerment that occurred during Zedong's reign are still visible today, showing that Zedong left a beneficial legacy for the country.
The imperial system embraced Confucianism ideology, which had three key characteristics. First thing, the ideology fostered conservative governance. According to Kenneth, the governance system preserved order without looking into the future (7). In other words, the leader perceived anything “progressive” or “new” as not trustworthy. Confucianism also valued hierarchy in both social and political spheres (Kenneth 7). The ideology claimed that people should not be equal in a political arena. From the Confucianism’s perspective, people who worked with their minds and not hands were fit to role implying that there was no democracy (Kenneth 7). The only democracy in that system was that those who mastered the ideology could join the ruling elite. As such, the ruling systems comprised only a few people. Although Confucianism was not based on hereditary factors, those from elite backgrounds had greater access to support and resources. Therefore, there was no equality.

The emperor headed the bureaucracy through which he governed not only the country, but also the extended family and the court system. This kind of rule created tension between the bureaucrats (the outer court) and people involved in the emperor’s life (the inner court) (Kenneth 10). Admission to the outer court or bureaucrat class required training in Confucian doctrine while admission to the inner court mainly the imperial relatives was based on blood ties. Indeed, the imperial system did not bring any improvement but often created “large-scale social unrest” (Kenneth 11). The system also involved rampant corruption. According to Kenneth, corruption and the misuse of the courts to galvanize wrongdoers made the military forces to lose their effectiveness. Overall, the emperor left a legacy of a strong personal rule at the top characterized by formal regulation or law which led to continuous tension between outer and inner court, the governing bureaucracy, and the emperor.

The Qin dynasty bureaucratic system was characterized by merit-based appointments, specialization in functions, well-articulated reward structures, highly developed formal communication systems, strict authority rules, formalized rules of monitoring deviance and compliance, and regularized reporting obligations (Kenneth 11). Although these features were meant to ensure harmony according to the Confuciasm concept, people did not like the system because it created social tension rather than promoting harmony in the society. The bureaucracy was based on the notion of a centralized and hierarchical system which was unpopular.

Although the system left some positive legacy due to features such as a good reward structure and merit-based appointment which are still practiced in China today, the bureaucracy was unpopular since people had to master the Confuciasm basics to get admission to the system. The merit considered in recruitment of officials to this system was the knowledge to control and handle flood, collect, transfer, and manage revenue, and master Confuciasm ideology. The legacy of this bureaucracy was that ideological indoctrination of administrators is necessary and natural.

The society during the Qing dynasty was hierarchical, ritualistic, and focused on family. According to Kenneth, clan organizations guided village ritual life and economy (11). For example, officials who were members of the national bureaucracy had to pass official examination that mainly focused on Confuciasm. Individual relationship with officials also helped to obtain and own land and acquire resources. Kenneth cites that those closely related to officials also had prestige and attained power in the villages (13). Land was mainly inherited by eldest sons thus leading to concentration of properties to a few families. Women were also severely repressed and “kept out of sight in the women’s quarters of the home” (Kenneth 14). Overall, the society in the Qing Dynasty lacked social obligation thus someone could suffer in the presence of wealthy neighbors.

The Chinese economy during Qing dynasty was also agrarian and lacked technology. The country assigned high status to farming but did not support commerce yet; it was the primary source of living for the majority of people (Kenneth 16-18). Merchants used their wealth to hire tutors so that their children could join the bureaucracy. Therefore, those who had no big businesses or farms had not opportunity to accede to the elite bureaucratic class. The government maintained monopolies on major industries. According to Kenneth, the government even extended monopolies to sale of essential commodities such as salt and porcelains to get more coins (17-18). In other words, the economy was rural-based, agrarian, and technology stagnant. Although the economy was efficient in terms of output per unit of land, it did not empower people economically.

However, Mao Zedong’s rise to power transformed China from centuries of socioeconomic and political stagnation to a better country for all people. First thing, landlords and peasants were the land owners in the country for centuries before 1949. However, Zedong reformed land ownership after taking power in 1949. According to Hung, Zedong eliminated landlords as social classes which exploited peasants and laborers under the feudal land ownership system (41). The leader also improved rural economy which was underdeveloped for decades. For example, Zedong merged rural population into advanced forms of cooperatives. The new leadership also decentralized ownership of some industries by 1956. Although some people might argue that the previous system of private ownership ensured productivity and improved revenue collection, transferring control of most industries to lower government levels devolved funds thus improving people’s welfare.

Unlike Qing dynasty that did not believe in empowering people, Zedong believed that empowering people would improve their socioeconomic wellbeing. As such, he established strong communes that had both government and economic functions. The communes were meant to end capitalism that increased the gap between the poor and the rich in the system (Kenneth 17-20). For example, the communes improved agricultural productivity using fewer workers and sending others to other industries. Initially, the economy was rural-based, but Zedong opened opportunities for rural residents in urban centers by absorbing more than 30 million workers into urban government-owned industries in 1958. Mao believed that organizational changes without increased state spending could increase industrial productivity and boost agricultural productivity to feed the entire population and offer raw materials for industries.

In addition to communes, Mao introduced backyard steel furnaces that involved more than 60 million people and more than 100 million individuals in irrigation among other schemes (Sullivan 8-9). These projects led to a great leap in Chinese economy. Some people might argue that the communes were a great failure because withdrawing of many people from agriculture led to a severe famine. This is a valid claim because famine had severe impacts including death of more than 30 million people and postponement of about 30 million births due malnutrition. However, the key argument here is that the communes were not well managed and some peasants opposed it from the beginning.

Moreover, industrialization is crucial to any economy. Transferring works from agriculture to other industries could improve services such as fuel manufacture, improve transportation, and provide raw materials which are also important for economic growth. Other people argue that Mao ended reward system that promoted hard work. According to Sullivan, Mao froze wages, ended bonuses and profits and mandated commune members to determine worthiness of each peasant’s work (8-10). Although the new system discouraged hard work, Mao thought it could induce people to put more effort in their work.

Like Qing dynasty, Mao believed in the use of bureaucracy to govern the country. However, unlike the bureaucracy under Qing dynasty that comprised of a few related officials, Mao established strong national organizations that permitted leaders to govern the entire country (Kenneth 60). Qing and Mao also believed in the power of an ideology though from different perspectives. However, contrary to leaders in Qing dynasty who used ideology to justify their unpopular actions, Mao believed in propagation of ideology to ensure success of popular movement he led.

The other evidence that Mao left a positive legacy in China is that schools in the country currently teach Mao. This is a clear indication that his ideas are worth imparting to the minds of learners to make them great leaders like Mao. Improper comments on Moa can also get an individual to trouble implying that people liked him because of what he contributed to the country.

In conclusion, although Mao eliminated some of the good practices such as merit-based appointments and transferred workers from agriculture to other industries thus leading to famine, his overall legacy was positive for the country because he initiated most of administrative practices that leaped the country head. Zedong transformed the country after many years of bad leadership under Qing and other empires. He empowered people by eliminating bureaucratic structures and land ownership system that hindered development and favored only people close to those in the bureaucracy. Mao also revived industrialization and decentralized management of key industries thus devolving funds to people in rural areas who Qing had overlooked. China today enjoys leadership practices which Zedong left behind.

























Works Cited

Hung, Po-Yi. “Tea Production, Land Use Politics, and Ethnic Minorities: Struggling Over Dilemmas on China's Southwest Frontier.” New York: Springer, 2015. Print.

Kenneth, Lieberthal. Governing China: From Revolution to Reform. New York; London: W.W. Norton, 2004. Print.

Sullivan, R. Lawrence. “Historical Dictionary of the People's Republic of China.” Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016. Print.