This article is the first installment in a series on the intellectual and historical origins of Chinese political economy.
Introduction: The People’s Republic of China and the Origins of its Ideology
To explain China’s contemporary politics, it is imperative to analyze its political history. Throughout its 4,000-year history, China has been characterized by adherence to traditional schools of thought, such as Confucianism. Confucianism, founded by the scholar Confucius, has been the most enduring cultural foundation for Chinese political ideology in the country’s four millennia of history.
Chinese society’s faith in feudal traditions, such as Confucianism’s emphasis on social harmony, has continued to benefit its leaders to this day. Embedded within its philosophy is a rigid political conviction that restricts Confucianism, compelling leaders from Mao to Xi Jinping to lead Chinese society within this framework of social harmony. In addition, even when Mao Zedong took over, the synthesis of various political systems, such as Communism—later Socialism—and Chinese traditional political motives, particularly its desire for preeminence, relied on Confucian adherence to tradition and stability, thereby underscoring the institution of a state Confucianism, synthesizing the social aspects of Confucianism and the institution of civil service, that has structured Chinese governance for generations since its existence.
Since the 1949 establishment of the People’s Republic of China, the Sleeping Giant of Asia has been enveloped in a paradox—Marxist geopolitical ambition and a primeval devotion to social harmony. Even Mao, hellbent on restructuring Chinese society through revolution, could not break China’s fealty to Confucianism. Since he died in 1976, the PRC has been holding these two opposing pillars of Chinese civilization. Today, ideological adaptability and its political manifestations in Chinese thought, stemming from social harmony and a communist/socialist ideal, help explain the longevity of the PRC as one of the few remaining communist nation-states.
This longevity in governance and thought has been one of the most influential outcomes of the twentieth century. As of 2025, China has (arguably) the largest economy in the world, the largest active military, and has directly lifted 800 million of its own people out of poverty through a remarkable economic development. Additionally, the paradox of synthesizing Marxism-Leninism, an inherently revolutionary ideology, and Confucianism, an ideology that prioritizes social harmony, has enabled China to overcome domestic barriers and emerge as a global leader. Behind the veil of progress, the distinct characteristics of Chinese ideology have woven their way into the tapestry of domestic civilization and, ultimately, international politics. An inquiry into the paradox of contemporary Chinese ideology will expand our Western horizons on the enduring legacy of China’s ideology.
While 1949 serves as an ideological starting point for contemporary Chinese ideology, this ignores the tumultuous political upheaval that preceded it. Since Chinese civilization is steeped in mystery and complexity, a brief run-through cannot do it justice. Even pre-eminent scholars who have written thousand-page volumes have only managed to scratch the surface. Yet, It is worth exploring briefly how Maoism, a strain of Marxism-Leninism, emerged from an adaptability towards Confucianism and consequential events that have shaped Chinese civilization.
Humble Beginnings: Confucianism Embeds itself in Chinese Thought
Since the Han Dynasty, Confucian ideas have provided the framework that underpins Chinese politics and society. Confucius’ philosophy, intertwined with Taoist and Buddhist thought, emphasized virtue and morality, particularly the concept of social harmony. In a broader sense, Confucian philosophy is fundamentally about teaching good citizenship (how to be a good member of society) the kind that serves to create and sustain this social harmony. For Confucius, social harmony can only come about through a mutual respect between the country’s ruling class (官僚guānliáo) and common citizens (百姓baixing). Rulers are expected to act wisely and benevolently, and citizens must reciprocate with respect and deference. This paternalistic system creates obligations for both classes. From this system formed a unique way of living for the Chinese people: a collective sense of responsibility, a strong emphasis on family (filial piety), and a reverence for ancestors. This top-down order remains a highly relevant topic in contemporary Chinese civilization.
By embedding the moral and social concept of social harmony into the bureaucratic system of the civil service, Chinese society fostered a strong sense of political belonging. This inseparability between politics and morality settled into the Chinese collective consciousness, shaping how they saw history. Throughout Chinese history, it has been marked by cycles of prolific development—from the inventions of gunpowder and paper-making to the grandiose expeditions of the Ming Dynasty—shaping how they saw themselves in relation to history. According to Henry Kissinger’s On China, the Chinese outlook on their historical positionality has “emphasized a cyclical process of decay and rectification, in which nature and the world can be understood but not completely mastered. The best that can be accomplished is to grow into harmony with it.” Additionally, the word China (中国) is literally translated as the Middle Kingdom, underscoring China’s view of itself as the world’s sole cultural, political, and economic center. This sensibility became known as Sinocentrism—the animating theory behind bureaucratic, social, and military affairs. In essence, the Chinese have long seen conflict as a dialectical process that reflected this paradigm of social harmony. This would be essential in seeing Chinese economic policy domestically and internationally.
Durability of Social Harmony: 1850s–1949
During the early 19th century, social harmony, once thought to be the tonic of Chinese society, broke down. Upheaval began to spread as its traditions waned. Following a ‘Century of Humiliation’ (CN), it is important to truly put into perspective how chaotic the Late Qing dynasty was for Chinese society. Characterized by Western incursions, a series of “unequal treaties” caused China to lose over 1.5 million square kilometers of territory to the Russian Empire which included Outer Manchuria and Xinjiang—a hefty blow to Chinese national pride. At the same time, coupled with the long running tensions with Britiain and its Western incursions on trade, this created a heavy sense societal disorder. This percolated to the point that Chinese citizens, discontent at the Qing Dynasty for its political ineptitude and the current political order of civil service, had to find ways to wrestle with the question of what was to become of China within a new world order. Chinese identity, as a result, found expression in chaos and rebellion as a way to seek answers. Chaos reached a crescendo with the onset of the Taiping Revolution of the 1850s, a civil war characterized by religious fervor, nationalism ad nativism where over 20-30 million people, with estimates ranging from 50-70 million. Between 1899 to 1901, the Boxer Rebellion was a product of the societal disorder that China held, only getting worse as political interregnums followed the Qing Dynasty. This ushered in the Warlord Era of the early 1900s marked by the specter of political factionalism and teetering on the brink of societal decay. Chinese faith within Confucianist social harmony, at the ideological helm of its civilization, found itself capsized by the turmoil, flailing in its inability to uphold Chinese society. In the 1920s, following the Xinhai Movement that overthrew the Qing Dynasty, the newly established Republic of China, founded by Sun Yat-sen, sawtheir grand vision through a perspective of reestablishing social harmony in a post-dynastic world, where Sun saw a cohesive nation of a Chinese republic guiding his revolutionary actions. Yet, militarism and factions would soon carve up China politically, creating an atmosphere of political struggle that would test the idea of social harmony in a post-dynastic era. Even then, in an era when China appeared politically and spiritually fractured, the millennia-old tradition of Confucianism was able to endure despite the chaotic situation. The Kuomintang (KMT), a newly emerged political party, under Chiang Kai-shek, aimed to militarily reunify the nation. The successful Northern Expedition (1926-1928) against the Beiyang government largely achieved this, establishing a recognized national government in Nanjing. Even at the center of the continuous struggle for political primacy between groups, the silver lining behind the warlordism and political upheavel was an understanding, albiet interpreted in a variety of ways, of reunification. While the ancient concept of social harmony was tenuous in 20th-century Chinese politics, the ideal of social harmony among Chinese citizens remained influential amid an ethos of power struggles endemic to the nascent Republic of China. Even through the sheer magnitude of disorder, reunification and the concept of social harmony proved to be a deeply noble virtue the Chinese aspired too.
Although alliances like the First United Front between the established Chinese Communist Party (CCP), co-founded by Mao Zedong, broke down, creating harmony remained a paramount goal. Before the era of the Kuomintang’s purges and White Terror against communists during 1927-32, Mao mused about the day that “the reform of the Chinese people will be…more radiant than that of any other people.” Mao’s sense of reunification came from a deep-seated disdain of the historical ineptitude of the dynastic order in maintaining Chinese society and the inert system of civil service bureaucracy. However, as history has showed, his own conception of reunification would rupture Chinese society itself and, similar to the Taiping Rebellion, seek to fundamentally root out Chinese culture in pursuit of a utopian vision of his sweeping reformation. Mao’s fascination and deep familiarity with the Marxist ideologies that toppled Tsar Nicholas II following the Russian Revolution sought to vindicate China of its century-long humiliation.
1949: Social Harmony and the Communist Reckoning
Mao’s cult of personality was driven by his ability to strategically maneuver the Chinese political system—or, more accurately, what was left of it—prior to his rule, his coalition building and speak to the grievances of the masses while speaking on reunifying China on a Marxist platform. More importantly, his ideology was undergirded by three critical factors: ideology, tradition, and Chinese nationalism. From 1949 to 1976, the Mao era was still bound by the traditional idea of reunification under a different banner. While Mao’s ideology was fundamentally Sinocentric, it was complicated by its synthesis with Marxism. The CCP’s formal establishment of Mao Zedong Thought (毛泽东思想), as it is officially known in China, represented a distinct Sinification of Marxism (马克思主义中国化). Maoist Marxism’s distinctiveness lies in its disregard for Chinese feudal tradition, particularly its advocacy for permanent revolution. Mao saw China’s reverence for the antiquated structure of powers, primarily its bureaucratic system of civil service, as incompatible and a hindrance to the unification of the Chinese people.
Mao’s ideology represented a significant departure from the traditional understanding of social harmony. In Chinese history, until Mao, social harmony was seen like a rubber band, consistently tested, sometimes tenuous, but always bouncing back. Mao’s ideology centered on cutting that rubber band. He desperately sought to cut loose the past China held on to, profusely claiming that “The thought, culture, and customs which brought China to where we found her must disappear.” It is essential to note that the Chinese pivot to Marxism was not a wholesale rejection to Confucianism; instead, it was in response to the challenges of modernity: a new Western order, globalization, and a fading cultural identity amid the collapse of the Qing Dynasty. Instead of social harmony, Mao promulgated a “Great Harmony”, which was more akin to a nationalistic fervor than political reconstruction. For him, “Great Harmony”, centered on constant change, was the revolutionary alternative towards the bourgeois concept of social harmony; Mao saw Chinese society as a series of revolutions: “one revolution must follow another, [and] the revolution must continually advance.”
Under Mao, this rebranded concept of the tradition of Chinese unification could only come about through ideological and nationalistic means. As the Qing Dynasty’s inability to keep a stable order revealed that a changing international order threatened to tear the fabric of Chinese society, Chinese chaos and rebellion undermined the notion of social harmony, creating an aperture for Mao’s idealism to present itself as a cultural panacea to societal grievances in a post-dynastic world. At the same time, Maoism created the conditions for permanent revolution in order to disrupt the Chinese status quo, including the bourgeois concept of social harmony. A continuous disruption of social harmony meant consciously shaping society to transcend Confucian harmony. This was anathema to everything China knew.
Socially Harmonious Campaigns: Social Harmony in Communist China 1966–1976
Let’s take a step back, because Mao’s extensive campaign can get complicated and convoluted quickly. Mao’s extensive campaign to eradicate bourgeois concepts, such as social harmony, manifested in various ways. The Cultural Revolution in 1966 indoctrinated the youth into cadres of Red Guards to disrupt the familial order and root out interpersonal dissent from Communist ideology. They sought to destroy judicial systems, existing systems of public security, and ignite violence en masse across Chinese society. This resulted in bureaucrats and professionals—the bourgeoisie—being sent to the countryside to work on farms and learn from the masses. In pursuit of his egalitarian virtue of “Great Harmony”, Mao’s revolutionary vanguard began to destroy themselves and subvert the overarching goal of the People’s Republic of China: to reunify the Chinese people. But here is Mao’s greatest tension: his political enterprise of revolutionizing Chinese civilization suffered from its coexistence with the institutions Mao relied on to sustain his governance and legitimacy. In turn, Mao came to the realization that his political vision was dependent on the institutions, not the other way around. Moreso, his extensive enterprise now had to become oriented towards quelling his own wayward Communist Red Guards, who, instead of contributing to the cohesion of societyby rooting out dissent, became anarchic and pillaged the Chinese countryside. In that moment, Mao realized he was, afterall, a politician before a revolutionary. Since then, the dilemma became apparent: to achieve this “Great Harmony” based on dismantling institutions, Mao had to throw the towel in, and enlarged bureaucracies became a necessary policy maneuver to order Chinese society around the Maoist vision.
Mao, in a paradoxical move, brought in military leaders to reestablish order. By April 1969, 45% of the Party’s Central Committee were military members, compared to 19% in 1956. Mao had to reconcile the dilemma that confronted him: in his pursuit of uprooting Chinese society and its bureaucracy, he increasingly recognized what a challenging task it would be. Mao’s 27-year crusade proved ineffective against the 4,000-year traditions of the Middle Kingdom. Despite Mao’s immense changes in China and his ability to reunify China around this mindset of liberation from China’s humiliating past, Mao demured his advancements in front of President Richard Nixon. Even Mao admitted to Nixon that even his charisma and ideological fervor could only “change a few places in the vicinity of Beijing.” This implies Mao’s desire for a new age of societal cohesion couldn’t pierce the veil of Chinese culture, leaving him to wallow in the paradox China found itself in.
A Phoenix: Social Harmony Survives the Fiery Mao Zedong
As the ancient ideal of Confucian social harmony eroded during the 19th century, strife and discord shook the social scaffolding of a vast and perennial Chinese tradition. Chinese society’s understanding of history, as they came to see it, positioned the country as the axle of human civilization—constantly rotating through times of social deterioration to cultural rectification. Mao’s cynicism towards China’s historical faith in tradition made him a political icon in a nascent Communist movement. The rise and fall of coalitions and political parties further affirmed Mao’s view of how untenable social harmony was for his vision of a communist haven. At the end of the day, Mao Zedong found himself to be the Old Man—agonized by the impossibility of his endeavor, whose extremist conviction had exhausted him of his days. Events such as the Cultural Revolution, the Great Leap Forward, and multiple bloody campaigns against counter-revolutionaries were Mao’s own attempts to uproot the perceived status quo of imperialism and feudalism. His efforts were only met with derision as a megalomaniac intoxicated by his revolutionary romanticism. In reality, Mao’s influence on contemporary China brought it to an inflection point after his death in 1976. Instead of trying to uproot Mao’s destructive legacy and Maoism, Chinese Communist leaders after Mao saw a way to use his penchant for revolution as a form of reverence, an intractable attitude that drove them towards deference in Confucianist thought as a means to achieve national unity. Even in death, his successors’ revisionism would determine how to appraise Mao Zedong’s passion and whether his vindication would serve as the catalyst for a new era of the Chinese Communist Party.
by Alejandro Nina Duran
