Five Decades After Death, Mao Zedong’s Legacy Still Defines China

On September 9, 1976, Mao Zedong passed away, leaving behind a deeply contradictory historical footprint. While the revolutionary leader is credited with establishing the People’s Republic of China and framing narratives of national independence, his tenure also inflicted severe social trauma through successive political campaigns and persecutions.

Fifty years later, China has transformed from an isolated, impoverished communist state into the world’s second-largest economy. It now features a robust private sector, a substantial urban middle class, and a highly digitalized society integrated into global supply chains. Despite these economic shifts, scholars argue that Mao’s political imprint remains deeply embedded in the country’s governance structure.

Zhang Lun, a professor at Cergy-Paris University, identifies four key political legacies left by Mao: a highly centralized authoritarian system; a governance model reliant on political campaigns to address social issues; populist tendencies characterized by anti-elitism and anti-rationalism; and utopian visions of moralism and egalitarianism. Zhang suggests that the defining trajectory of modern China has been a process of “de-Maoization,” yet notes that this transition was never fully realized, leaving significant continuities between the past and present systems.

The Enduring Principle of Party Supremacy

Mao’s core tenet—that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) must maintain supremacy over the state and society—remains a fundamental pillar of current governance. His name and thought are enshrined in the CCP constitution, and his portrait continues to hang above Tiananmen Square in Beijing.

Jean Christopher Mittelstaedt, a professor at the University of Zurich, emphasizes that Mao helped forge the party’s structure, ensuring its dominance over all aspects of life. Veteran journalist Chang Ping concurs, noting that the institutional principle of “the party leads everything” endures, enabling the state to “concentrate resources to accomplish major tasks.” Chang warns that this priority allows the regime to pursue objectives at all costs, potentially sacrificing ordinary citizens’ interests to preserve political power.

Continuities Under Xi Jinping

Under President Xi Jinping, certain governance methods reminiscent of the Mao era have resurfaced, including a focus on ideological unity and the spirit of “struggle.” Xi’s abolition of presidential term limits and the incorporation of his own political thought into the constitution have drawn comparisons to Mao’s consolidation of authority.

However, experts caution against viewing this as a simple return to the past. Chang argues that Mao-era elements never truly disappeared, while Zhang points out that authoritarian rigidity and weak rule of law are persistent features linking the two eras. Felix Wemheuer, a professor of modern China studies at the University of Cologne, suggests Xi’s approach is pragmatic rather than nostalgic. Having suffered during the Cultural Revolution, Xi appears to have learned the value of holding power rather than the dangers of chaotic governance.

Wemheuer describes the leadership’s handling of Mao’s legacy as fundamentally Machiavellian: upholding Mao’s status as the founder of the state, military, and party for political legitimacy, while rejecting a return to Mao-era economic models. Contemporary China operates under a dynamic state capitalism framework with a strong private sector, and the concept of “self-reliance” today coexists with deep integration into the global economy.

Distinct Styles of Leadership

While similarities exist in the emphasis on party supremacy and the elevation of a central leader, Mao and Xi exercise power differently. Mao was a revolutionary who often bypassed party institutions, tolerating mass mobilization that temporarily collapsed grassroots party-state structures during the Cultural Revolution.

In contrast, Xi is described as a “party man through and through” who governs through institutional strengthening and top-down control. Mittelstaedt notes that unlike Mao, who stood above the party, Xi derives his authority from party institutions and would never permit the anarchic elements that characterized Mao’s later years.

Mao Nostalgia and Social Critique

Despite these differences, waves of Mao nostalgia have emerged among younger Chinese citizens, often citing a perceived lack of social inequality and economic security in the past. Experts suggest this nostalgia reflects dissatisfaction with current issues such as widening inequality, high housing costs, and limited social mobility, rather than a genuine desire to restore the Mao era.

Mittelstaedt highlights that the actual Mao period was marked by rigid hierarchies, including the urban-rural household registration divide and privilege based on family background. Chang notes that with space for independent media, protests, and opposition parties severely restricted, Mao’s image has become a symbolic tool for criticizing contemporary corruption and abuse of power. This creates a paradox where Mao serves as a source of political legitimacy for the CCP while his revolutionary language is simultaneously used to hold the current leadership accountable.