Analysis: Chang and Halliday on Mao and the Great Leap Forward

No one can deny that Mao Zedong was of enormous significance in shaping the history of China in the modern era or that he was equally significant an actor on the international geopolitical stage. What is debatable is whether or not Mao deserves to be revered as the man who led China out of feudalism and into new prominence as a world power, or despised as a callous man whose only real commitment and passion was for personal power (Wilson, 499). Indeed, Thomas P. Bernstein (24) states that "getting Mao Zedong right has been a formidable challenge" because in the not so distant past he was regarded as a philosopher-king who created an egalitarian and bureaucratic state but more recently is seen as "a member of the monstrous trinity that includes Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin, and as responsible for more deaths than either of them."

The purpose of this particular essay is threefold: first, a critical analysis of a recent book by Jung Chang and Jon Halliday titled Mao: The Unknown Story will be presented on these authors' interpretation of the Great Leap Forward. Next, given that several authors do not accept the version of the Great Leap Forward described by Chang and Halliday, other analyses of this seminal movement in Maoist China will be explored. Finally, the report will conclude with an assessment of which particular view of Mao's role in the Great Leap Forward is correct.

. . .
entirely uninhibited manner with a strong emphasis on agriculture and industry. Wilson's (362-363) analysis suggests that Mao's policies in this era were meant to enhance China's economic situation and to help China industrialize without urbanizing, doubling its grain harvest simply by working harder. Wilson (376) suggests that Mao had been let down by over-optimistic or over-ambitious local cadres who reported exaggerated harvests. This particular writer attributes to Mao the capacity to recognize his own errors in the Great Leap Forward and does not paint Mao as a terrorist who was unconcerned with the fate of the Chinese people. In essence, Wilson (98) takes the position that while Mao's policies did wreak havoc on some elements within Chinese society, he places much of the responsibility for the putative failures of those policies on Mao's underlings. Here, Wilson clearly departs from Chang and Halliday (100), who argue instead that while Mao did not receive accurate reports from many Party functionaries on the actual effects of his policies, this was not due to incompetence but to fear of potential reprisals. Indeed, Wilson's (100) entire approach to Mao is evident in his characterization of Mao as a modern-day empero
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Chang Halliday, Leap Forward, Leap Mao, Mao Zedong, Forward Mao, Communist Party, Sixty Methods, leap forward, chang halliday, Indeed Wilson's, Zedong Mao, Halliday Mao, mao zedong, bernstein 26, chinese people, death toll, mao's policies, cultural revolution, forward mao, communist party, leap forward mao, text chang halliday, ideas advanced chang, failures leap forward, advanced chang halliday,
Approximate Word count = 5120
Approximate Pages = 20 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Analysis: Chang and Halliday on Mao and the Great Leap Forward