Can Xi Jinping Become the Next Mao Zedong? Xin Haonian Discusses the Cultural Revolution and Xi Jinping #XinHaonian #CulturalRevolution #XiJinping #CulturalRevolution2.0 #LanShu #Mark #CurrentAffairsChronicle

This episode of "Political Spring and Autumn" invites historian Xin Haonian to discuss the relationship between the Cultural Revolution and today, and whether Xi Jinping can become the next Mao Zedong. Professor Xin points out that the Cultural Revolution was a product of the autocratic rule of the first 17 years of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and that current China is vastly different from the Mao Zedong era. Xi Jinping does not possess Mao Zedong's absolute authority, massive Cultural Revolution team, absolute control over the military, or the foundation of unified national ideology and public opinion of that time. Xi Jinping's current centralized power moves are essentially about protecting his power and saving his own life, rather than launching a second Cultural Revolution.

Video Link:

Full Text:

Hello viewers, welcome to the program "Political Spring and Autumn". Welcome everyone to subscribe, like, leave comments, and participate in our discussions. This September marks the 50th anniversary of Mao Zedong's death, and also the 60th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party launching the Cultural Revolution. Mao Zedong has been dead for 50 years, and half a century has passed since the Cultural Revolution. Today's Chinese people, especially those born after the 1980s, do not have much of an impression of the Cultural Revolution, but older Chinese people still always have a feeling that the Cultural Revolution does not seem too far away. Why is there such a feeling? What kind of relationship is there between the Cultural Revolution and today's Chinese society? Today we will discuss this topic. The special guest we have invited for you today is the renowned overseas Chinese historian and chief editor of "Huanghuagang Magazine", Professor Xin Haonian. Hello Professor Xin, welcome once again to "Political Spring and Autumn". Hello, hello viewers and friends.

Professor Xin, you are someone who has lived through this and personally experienced the Cultural Revolution. How do you view this issue—why do many Chinese people today still feel as if that Cultural Revolution of more than 50 years ago is not far from today? How do you look at this question? One reason is certainly that the historical memory is too deep; second, the matter of the Cultural Revolution was too prominent, almost unprecedented in human history; third, when the Chinese Communist Party launched the Cultural Revolution, its autocratic and centralized system was fundamentally no different from the current autocratic and centralized system. Another reason is that the Chinese Communist Party is once again facing an era where it is heading toward collapse, and the people are very likely to rise up in revolution precisely because its extreme corruption and centralized rule are causing this. Therefore, the spiritual and psychological fear of the Cultural Revolution formed by people over a long historical process still exists, and that is why they always think of the Cultural Revolution; this is not surprising.

What do you think about the fact that in recent years, Beijing's propaganda machine has constantly pushed slogans like "staying true to our founding mission" and "keeping the mission firmly in mind," as well as the narrative promoted over the past decade or so that the latter 30 years of reform and opening up cannot be used to negate the first 30 years? This is what I mean: the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has not changed in essence. Starting in 1979, the CCP merely pushed for authoritarian reform to save itself—what they call "reform and opening up," and what I call the "New Westernization Movement." What was the goal? It was to rescue the CCP from the self-inflicted wounds caused by the Cultural Revolution. Everyone thought the Cultural Revolution was a self-inflicted wound by the CCP itself, and everyone mistakenly believed the CCP was proactively asking for reform and improvement, hence launching the "New Westernization Movement," the reform and opening up, and "invigorating the domestic economy while opening up to the outside world." In reality, nobody knew—as clearly recorded in the 1979 issue of *Reference News*—that by 1979 (three years after Mao Zedong's death in 1976 and through Hua Guofeng's two years), the populace was full of complaints and misery during those roughly three years. Especially the impoverished peasants in the vast rural areas, who made up 90% of China's total population—do you know what they were doing? Every single night, they moved in groups, coming just short of taking up arms to loot grain, robbing all of the state's granaries and grain warehouses. It almost formed a terrifying peasant movement akin to guerrilla warfare for the Communists. This movement made the Communists feel that their regime was extremely unstable, not to mention the pain and grievances of intellectuals, or the suffering and bitter cold experienced by urban residents. Under these circumstances, when the entire country had fallen into a state of hollowed-out economy and exhausted people, the Communists' rule could no longer be sustained. The Communists themselves knew what the current situation was when the peasants rose up. They had risen to power by agitating for peasant revolution and peasant uprisings, so of course they knew. Therefore, at this juncture, they had to save themselves so the CCP could survive this difficult hurdle after the Cultural Revolution. What did they do? The only solution came down to two things they had to do. First, concession to the muddled masses: they could no longer treat the common people the way they did during the Cultural Revolution, especially the first 17 years before it. Back then, they categorized ordinary people into landlords, rich peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements, and rightists. During the Cultural Revolution, these five categories were even elevated to nine categories, and dictatorship had to be exercised—either arrest, beating, imprisonment, or execution. Throughout Mao's 28 years of rule, everyone thought the CCP only killed people during the Cultural Revolution, and that the CCP only plunged China into complete disarray during that time. That is entirely wrong. The Cultural Revolution was merely the final, hysterical outburst of the CCP's governance during its first 30 years—an authoritarian, hysterical outburst that arose entirely from Mao Zedong's personal pursuit of power, resulting in a massive massacre and chaos. We must understand that if the Cultural Revolution happened, it was because of the first 17 years preceding it: the CCP's class struggle, violent revolution, and proletarian dictatorship. Without those first 17 years, there would have been no Cultural Revolution. Without the education of teenagers on class struggle during the first 17 years—fighting landlords and capitalists, killing landlords and capitalists, killing class enemies and counter-revolutionary elements—without that tradition and that systematic reactionary education, there would have been no Cultural Revolution. Without the wave after wave of massacres carried out in the first 17 years against everyone the Communists deemed a class enemy, the massacres of the Cultural Revolution would have been impossible. Without the dozen or so political movements launched by the Communists in the first 17 years, which massacred, arrested, and framed an untold number of innocent Chinese, there would have been no Cultural Revolution. It is precisely because the regime established by the Communists in 1949 in the conquered areas of the Chinese mainland—the conquered areas of the Republic of China—the regime established upon founding their state, was an utterly evil, regressive, and restorationist authoritarian regime, that it had to conduct ideological rule for the sake of consolidating its power. It carried out centralized ideological control, enforced belief despotism, and ran a rule of faith. If you did not believe in communism, I would attack you and cancel you. If you did not believe in communism, you were definitely not of the same mind as me, hence the necessity of a rule of faith and belief despotism. Consequently, they had to enforce authoritarian rule across all aspects—thought, culture, politics, and economics. All of this had already been forged during the first 17 years before the Cultural Revolution, and there was no difference, right? It was precisely because, during the first 17 years before the Cultural Revolution, the CCP overthrew a difficult China that was moving toward a republic—the Republic of China on the mainland—and instead launched the third authoritarian restoration in modern Chinese history. As everyone knows, the first authoritarian restoration was Yuan Shikai's restoration of the monarchy and imperial system. We Chinese were formidable; the Chinese people of that era were the pride of the entire world. No other country's imperial restoration could be overthrown in just 83 days like the Chinese did. After Yuan Shikai collapsed, Zhang Xun restored the Qing Dynasty, and the Chinese were even more remarkable, overthrowing Zhang Xun's restored Qing Dynasty in a mere 11 days. Many people fail to understand the third restoration because it raised the banner of international communist revolution from the West—ostensibly the most progressive banner coming from Europe—and deceived many people, including most minor intellectuals or a small minority of elite intellectuals. People did not expect this to be an authoritarian restoration; instead, they believed it to be a glorious, democratic, major revolution from Europe, the most progressive in the West, even more advanced, progressive, and great than the revolution led by Sun Yat-sen, capable of establishing a communist earthly paradise without exploitation or oppression. Yet they did not know what kind of regime the CCP established on the mainland after 1949 when it founded its state.

It is a regime that thoroughly implements autocratic rule, a regime that Yuan Shikai and Zhang Xun wanted to restore but failed to do so. Moreover, because this regime incorporated Western factors and the factors of the Moscow political system, it formed a centralized autocratic rule that had never appeared in Chinese history. That is, the dual control of spirit and flesh, which is the rule implemented by the popes of the Roman Curia in the Middle Ages. It demands belief in autocracy to control your thoughts, leaving you with only the right to obey; on the other hand, it also manages your body, meaning your soul, your mind, your body, and your behavior are all under its control. This is the Communist Party. But where did the Communist Party come from? It came from Moscow. Where did Moscow come from? It came from the medieval Roman Curia. In Chinese history, no dynasty has ever engaged in the tyranny of belief; none. Throughout thousands of years of Chinese history, belief has always been free, and throughout thousands of years of Chinese history, religion has always been free. Furthermore, religion did not interfere in politics, and politics did not oppress religion; this was basically the case. However, Europe is different. Europe has always been a region under religious rule. What are the characteristics of religious rule in the entire West, especially in Europe? It is the dual control of spirit and flesh. The so-called dual control of spirit and flesh I just mentioned: spirit is thought, is the soul; flesh is the body. That is to say, the freedom of thought that a person should possess is completely deprived, so there is no freedom of belief; this is the first point. Second, your freedom of action is deprived. In the face of a determined, unique, and mandatory belief, human freedom is completely lost, human thinking ability is completely deprived, and human freedom of action is completely deprived. The regime formed under such circumstances is called a religious-style centralized autocratic regime with dual control of spirit and flesh. The regime established by the CCP in 1949 was exactly such a regime. Today, whether we recall the Cultural Revolution, the seventeen years of the Cultural Revolution, or the Mao Zedong era, we can only explain it in one sentence: in 1949, the CCP not only restored autocratic rule and the autocratic system and established centralized rule, but also brought the most reactionary, cruel, and bloody rule in Western history to China, to the occupied mainland of the Republic of China. Therefore, the Cultural Revolution was merely a cruel peak period during Mao Zedong's thirty-year rule; without the first seventeen years, the Cultural Revolution would have been absolutely impossible.

Professor Na, what is your take on this? Since 1979, specifically after Deng Xiaoping visited the United States—following the invitation from President Carter—the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) began what is known as 'Reform and Opening-up.' Western capital and Western ideologies began to open up to Chinese society. After so many years of this, in recent years, there has been a renewed emphasis on 'not forgetting the original intention' and 'not forgetting the historical mission.' It now feels like we are getting closer and closer to the Cultural Revolution—that period from 1966 to 1976—and that level of ideological control. That is a good question. First, I must explain what 'Reform and Opening-up' actually is. Unfortunately, around 1979, I spent two years—as a professional writer, I had the time—researching the reform and opening-up efforts of all authoritarian states in modern world history. When an authoritarian regime falls into danger and is on the verge of collapse, it must seek to save itself, right? Self-preservation. As I just mentioned, the Communist Party had to save itself after the Cultural Revolution. Although the Cultural Revolution was a brutal massacre, it was also self-inflicted by the Party; it turned the country into a mess, and eventually, the Party itself could no longer survive. So, it had to save itself. Every authoritarian regime in the world, when nearing its end, seeks self-preservation. A major characteristic of this self-preservation is that the people are too poor and suffering, the country has no money, and the treasury is empty. Therefore, the first thing they think of is, 'We need money.' With money, I can get things done; with money, I can strengthen my rule; with money, I can develop production; with money, I can make concessions to the common people in some areas while tightening control in others. So, they need money. That is why they always put economic reform first. This is what is called 'Reform and Opening-up'—'invigorating the domestic economy and opening up to the outside world.' Didn't Empress Dowager Cixi also do the same? It is exactly the same. The 'New Westernization Movement' launched by Cixi and the 'New Westernization Movement' launched by the CCP are 100% identical in essence, method, image, outcome, and failure, from beginning to end. There is no difference, only in degree. Why? Because both were for the sake of self-preservation. They were originally stagnant, doing nothing, but finally, they thought of developing the economy. Since they want to promote the economy, they will naturally achieve some economic development results. This is the positive outcome of domestic and foreign reform and opening-up, right? However, there is one thing: they only reform the economy, not the politics. You must understand that politics is always the foundation of the economy. What kind of political foundation leads to what kind of economic form? The capitalist economic form is a free economic form, while the communist economic form is an authoritarian economic form—an economy controlled by politics. Because they only reform the economy and not the politics, what is the result? The result is that the economy develops, there are dividends, and there is a bit of money. But because politics is not reformed, as long as the authoritarian rule remains, the regime will not be eliminated; instead, the regime expands due to economic development. Let's briefly look back—is that not the case? I don't want to go into too much detail. This need for power leads to corruption throughout the officialdom. The result? The economic fruits of the reform and opening-up—what the experts call 'dividends'—are all sucked dry by the privileged authoritarian rulers and their cronies, or at least a large portion of them. The common people never get a share, and in fact, they may end up living even harder lives. That is the situation now. It is precisely this common feature that has created a special phenomenon since the outbreak of modern democratic revolutions: every authoritarian regime tries to save itself by engaging in economic reform while refusing political reform. And what does this result in? It creates a wealth gap across society, leading directly to the antagonism between the rich and the poor. When this antagonism reaches a certain point and the people can no longer endure it, they rise up to resist. So, what is the result of 'Reform and Opening-up'? The result is a people's revolution. There is not a single country where this is not the case. If you can find one country where reform and opening-up did not lead to revolution, I will never speak again. I spent two years studying the reform and opening-up of every authoritarian country in the world, and the result is always the same. Therefore, a famous Russian prime minister and reformer—or rather, a favorite minister of the last Tsar, Nicholas II—once said: 'If a revolution does not occur, reform must continue; if a revolution occurs, reform must stop.' And this 'reform' refers only to economic reform, not political reform at all. Because if political reform were truly implemented, the fruits of economic reform would not be entirely sucked dry by the privileged ruling class, right? We also had a saying during the late Qing Dynasty: 'The opportunity for reform is truly set in motion.' This refers to political reform. When the opportunity for reform is truly set in motion, the fire of revolution is ignited. If reform were truly implemented, the people would have food to eat and everyone would have freedom—then why would there be a need for revolution? But this is the historical tragedy of every country, the historical tragedy of every authoritarian rule: they only reform the economy, and the fruits of the economy are gathered into their own pockets.

Without political reform, the political privileges will continue to develop wildly, causing sharp social antagonism. Who will solve the problem? Only revolution can solve this problem.

And what about the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)? Isn't the CCP the same? Not entirely the same? From Alexander and Peter the Great to Alexander I, Alexander II, Nicholas I, and Nicholas II, the Russian tsars all carried out reform and opening up, but they simply refused to emancipate the serfs, and they stubbornly refused to carry out political reforms. The result? The result was a revolution. One day on the streets of St. Petersburg, a small bakery had no bread to sell. Such a simple, small matter caused the ordinary people to stir up trouble, and within eight days, it turned into a nationwide revolution. No one expected it—not even Lenin back then—that a revolution would still happen in Russia? Russian intellectuals believed that a revolution was impossible because the Russia of that time was the best Russia in history. On the eighth day of those eight days, the tsar signed his abdication certificate on a train, and the 306-year-old Romanov dynasty perished just like that. If Lenin hadn't later launched the Bolshevik proletarian revolution, Russia would have been such a wonderful democratic country created by a peaceful revolution! The Russian Republic was established by the former revolution, not the latter one; the latter overthrew the Russian Republic, didn't it?

So after we think this way, during my research process—about thirty or forty years ago—I could probably say that I came to a conclusion and established a conceptual system: all the old and new Westernization movements promoted by the reform and opening up carried out by authoritarian regimes belong to authoritarian reform. Why is it called authoritarian reform? Because it is reform carried out to consolidate authoritarian rule; therefore, it only reforms the economy without reforming politics. Consequently, it causes privileges to swell, and the fruits of economic reform are completely swallowed up by them. Not only do the people get no benefits, but they even suffer from even more bitter torment and oppression.

This is what authoritarian reform is. So some people say, just as you mentioned earlier, didn't you say that capital is coming in, which belongs to revitalizing the domestic economy, right? Revitalizing internally and opening up externally. Well, American capital came in, and British capital came in. What did they come in to do? You just thought that once they came in, they were practicing a market economy. That is all lies and nonsense fabricated by the group of economists raised by the CCP, and it is also nonsense talked by those worthless economists in the West. What the CCP has been doing is authoritarian reform, so the CCP's economy is bound to be an authoritarian-reform-type economy. What is an authoritarian-reform-type economy? It is to consolidate authoritarianism; it has not truly changed the economic form under authoritarian rule. The central planned economy has not been cancelled, nor has it disappeared—it is still in control. In the past, it controlled the economic production of the entire country; what does it control now? It now controls the economy of the entire country, while putting on a bright facade, allowing the so-called market economy—that is, the so-called free economy—to become a part of its central planned economy. Then, depending on the needs of the regime, the development of the situation, and economic coercion, it decides when to expand this market economy sector a bit and when to shrink this market economy sector a bit, all under the control of this central planned economy whose foundation has fundamentally not changed. I am not an economics major, and originally I wouldn't even dare to speak about this. Thirty years ago I already had such a theory, but I didn't dare to speak much about it. Recently, however, I wrote it out; I wrote out the whole set, because I feel I am right. Since it is authoritarian reform, of course what is being run is an authoritarian-reform-type economy. What is an authoritarian-reform-type economy? It is an economy developed to consolidate authoritarian rule, taking the so-called capitalist market economy of the West and incorporating it to become a part of my control. Am I speaking the facts? Why is it that today the CCP suddenly advances the state sector and retreats the private sector, and tomorrow advances the private sector and retreats the state sector? It is precisely because it wants to continuously exercise control over its authoritarian economy and the brought-in market economy according to the needs of the state and the needs of the CCP regime. Look at Xi Jinping now; he doesn't want to carry out reform and opening up anymore because he doesn't want to engage in a free economy. What does he do? He wants to return to the past; he wants to start having his original aspiration—which is what you just mentioned, what is his original aspiration?

So I think this issue is worth discussing. Everyone thinks that Xi Jinping is about to launch a Cultural Revolution, which I find very strange. How could Xi Jinping possibly launch a Cultural Revolution? Let me talk about my own experience. I came overseas from the mainland thirty-two years ago. After I arrived overseas, I quickly heard people overseas—the people I met, the Taiwanese people I met overseas, and many people I met during my two trips to Taiwan who care about Chinese affairs—whenever they mentioned the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), they would talk about the Cultural Revolution. They would say the Cultural Revolution was bad, and ask if things are going to be like the Cultural Revolution again, or if it's going to be like the Cultural Revolution in this or that way. This is a very strange thing. At first, I thought this was a confused understanding held by people overseas who did not understand the real situation in the mainland. Later, I realized that while the confused understanding is true, after all, they are separated by an ocean and are just scratching the surface; they cannot truly understand or know the actual situation of the ordinary people and society in the mainland, right? To this day, the United States also does not fully understand the social sentiment in China. It doesn't understand it at all, nor does it want to understand it; it even refuses to understand it. We have many Chinese people overseas, and many people in Taiwan are the same. In their hearts and minds, they only care about the high-rise buildings in Beijing and Shanghai, or the red carpets walked by CCP officials, and the banquets they are invited to. Other than that, they don't care about anything at all. Therefore, I have repeatedly said that the people of the mainland must rely on themselves and cannot rely on outsiders. But this statement has indeed been exploited by the CCP. In the more than twenty years since then, especially as time goes on, I increasingly feel that it seems like mentioning that the Communist Party is bad is only because it did one thing—it launched a Cultural Revolution, so it is bad. As long as one says the Communist Party is bad, it means the Cultural Revolution was bad; no one talks about anything else. Isn't this a joke? I just mentioned that without the Cultural Revolution, the first seventeen years of this autocratic rule were not the Cultural Revolution. The massacres of the first seventeen years were not the massacres of the Cultural Revolution, nor were they the June 4, 1989 Tiananmen crackdown, right?

You think, let me think, let's use a simple figure. First, we all say that twenty million people died in the Cultural Revolution. Everyone considers this a reliable figure because it was stated by Xi Jinping in his report to the National People's Congress, so it shouldn't be a lie, right? This Cultural Revolution killed and injured twenty million people. How many exactly died, he dares not say. Then let me tell you all: from 1949 to the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1976, the minimum number of people who were struggled to death, criticized to death, harmed to death, forced to death, starved to death, killed, or executed under the rule of the CCP is eighty million. So, if the Cultural Revolution only killed and injured twenty million, then who killed the other sixty million, and when was it done? Was it done during the seventeen years before the Cultural Revolution? A single land reform killed 2.6 million landlords. During one suppression of counter-revolutionaries—because after 1949, the CCP suppressed counter-revolutionaries countless times—in the first suppression of counter-revolutionaries, Mao Zedong said we killed 460,000 counter-revolutionaries, and they were all intellectuals. The Ministry of Public Security's report said 760,000, just in one go. And from June 1948 to the end of 1949, the first political movement, which everyone doesn't know is called the 'Clear Out Bandits and Oppose Tyrants' movement—the so-called 'clear out bandits' meant eliminating the Kuomintang military, police, and secret agents left in the mainland—do you know how many were killed in one go? Four million were killed. Then, in over a dozen political movements, which one didn't kill tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions, up to twenty million, up to sixty million? In one famine where people starved to death, even though the national granaries were full, they just wouldn't give grain to the farmers. The lowest estimate of farmers who starved to death is 43 million. In November 1962, the figure came out at a meeting of the CCP Central Committee and provincial party secretaries, where they reported how many people starved to death in their provinces. Added together, it was 41 million. Now the latest news is that in 1962, Yang Shangkun had sent people from his Central Office to conduct investigations across the country, and the result was that 97 million people starved to death. So I want to ask: without the Cultural Revolution, the Communist Party had already harmed to death 80 million people—this is the minimum estimate, the absolute minimum estimate. With the Cultural Revolution, it was just less than 20 million of that total, because it wasn't 20 million deaths, it was 20 million killed and injured. These are all things we have seen with our own eyes. So how can we say that apart from the Cultural Revolution, the Communist Party has done no other evil things? As long as we mention the bad side of the CCP, it's that it launched the Cultural Revolution. Many Chinese newspapers around the world say this now, which I think is very ridiculous and also very sad. You cannot forget history, you cannot fail to understand modern Chinese history. This modern history, which has not yet ended before your eyes, has already been completely forgotten. A crime has been gently lifted from the embrace of the Communist Party. It says it only did one bad thing, which is the Cultural Revolution, and it was done by Mao Zedong alone, and all other Communist Party members are good. It is precisely because of this kind of atmosphere that is influencing public and non-public opinion overseas that when we talk about Xi Jinping, we find that people both at home and abroad think that Xi Jinping is launching a second Cultural Revolution, or that Xi Jinping wants to launch a second Cultural Revolution, or that Xi Jinping is currently launching a second Cultural Revolution, or that Xi Jinping is preparing for a great purge just like the Cultural Revolution, or that Xi Jinping now just wants to make the country his own family business, just like Mao Zedong, using the methods of the Cultural Revolution to achieve it. So I want to ask everyone: does Xi Jinping have this ability?

How was the Cultural Revolution launched? How was it launched? Let me briefly state a few points. First, the first step of the Cultural Revolution was to establish an absolute authority, an authority that would last ten thousand years, the authority of the red sun in the hearts of the people of the world—Mao Zedong. And this establishment began even before 1949; to be precise, it started in 1944, rose significantly in 1947, and after 1949, there were countless songs and works praising the great leader Chairman Mao. The seventeen years of history were a history of praising Mao Zedong. By 1964, "The East Is Red" finally emerged, elevating Mao Zedong as the sole leader in the history of the Chinese revolution, the greatest leader. Without Mao Zedong, there would be no Chinese communist revolution, no happiness for the Chinese people, and no happy future for the people of the world. By this time, Mao Zedong's absolute authority and the cult of personality surrounding him had been pushed to the peak. I ask you, does Xi Jinping have this ability? Who doesn't curse Xi Jinping now? Can Xi Jinping have the authority of Mao Zedong? Adults and children alike know to curse Xi Jinping, right? Many witty remarks cursing Xi Jinping are circulating everywhere among the people, circulating everywhere at home and abroad. When people mention Xi Jinping, they look down on him and don't take him seriously, right? Actually, Xi Jinping is quite formidable; many people simply don't understand. If he really weren't formidable, could he have survived for thirteen years in this meat grinder that is the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)? Right? Of course, the "formidable" I speak of is a bad kind of formidable, not a good one. This is the most important thing.

Then, the second point: where did Mao Zedong start when launching the Cultural Revolution? He started with culture. So, in 1964, he suddenly proposed that we must implement Chairman Mao's revolutionary literary and artistic line and oppose the revisionist literary and artistic line. He divided the literary and artistic field into two lines, and Chairman Mao's was the revolutionary literary and artistic line. So, what is the revolutionary literary and artistic line? It is to sing the praises of workers, peasants, and soldiers and to sing the praises of Chairman Mao. This is the revolutionary literary and artistic line. Any drama, film, novel, essay, or poem that does not praise Chairman Mao is not a product of the revolutionary literary and artistic line. Then, what is the revisionist literary and artistic line? It is that of emperors, generals, scholars, and beauties, because there were still some old dramas in that era. Mao seized upon this and sent his wife to handle it. This was the first time within the Chinese Communist Party that two lines were cut open starting from literature and art: one was Mao's revolutionary literary and artistic line, and the other was some unknown revisionist literary and artistic line. The second step was to occupy the public opinion front. Yes, the Wenhui Bao was a newspaper in the hands of the Gang of Four. All disputes over revolutionary or non-revolutionary literature and art were started by the Wenhui Bao. Then they occupied the People's Daily, occupied the public opinion front, and then, starting from mass criticism, they occupied the newspapers. Once they occupied the public opinion front, they could start criticizing. Then it jumped out of the scope of the literary and artistic circles. After 1949, everything that did not listen to Chairman Mao or act according to Mao Zedong Thought had to undergo a mass criticism. So, where did the spearhead of the criticism slowly, slowly, slowly concentrate? It concentrated on the fact that there was still a Party Central Committee within the CCP. This Party Central Committee was invisible, but it did not listen to Mao Zedong; it wanted to set up a separate stove, it needed another leader. It was a big group of people within the party. Only then did the Cultural Revolution begin to mobilize the masses, only then did it begin to take an oath. Once mobilized, who did he use? He used ignorant and simple young students. Who did he rely on? He relied on the "red second generation" descendants among the young students, the natural-born red second generation. Who did he use? He used all the party and government bureaucrats who had climbed up under Mao Zedong's rule, the party and government bureaucrats under Mao. Because at that time there was a saying, I guess you might not even know it. What was it called at that time? It was called "The Mao family's world, the Liu family's party." The world belonged to Mao Zedong, and the party belonged to Liu Shaoqi, because from the time in Yan'an, Liu Shaoqi had been managing party affairs and government affairs. Therefore, Mao Zedong did not have that much power within the party; the one who truly held the power of manipulation within the party was Liu Shaoqi. Mao Zedong was equivalent to having lost the power within the nest, wearing only the hat of the "world." Why? That was because Mao Zedong launched the Great Leap Forward in 1958, which caused so many people to starve to death. So the party had to find a way to deal with this problem, and in the end, it was traced back to Mao Zedong. The general line and the Great Leap Forward were all proposed by Mao Zedong, so Liu Shaoqi pushed this blame onto Mao Zedong. Liu Shaoqi told Mao Zedong to his face that because so many people had starved to death, both of them would go down in history, meaning that we cannot escape the punishment of history.

I want to ask, with Xi Jinping's background and foundation, does he have them? Did he go through that generation of youth and studenthood tempered by 17 years of class struggle, violent revolution, and proletarian dictatorship? Does he have in his hands today the Red Second Generation, the kind of Red Second Generation from back then, children of their own forged by 17 years of class struggle and class dictatorship? Does he have a whole set of so-called revolutionary literary and artistic lines spanning all of China? Does he have a whole set of so-called Maoist, Marxist ideological theories to serve as his backing for launching the Cultural Revolution? Does he? Absolutely not. How could he launch it? He does not have absolute authority. First, he does not have absolute authority; second, he fundamentally cannot start from the cultural sphere to launch a cultural revolution; third, he does not have that kind of manpower, because even among the old Red Second Generation now, those who oppose him far outnumber those who do not, right? Among the bureaucrats and bureaucratic descendants, the majority oppose him, because when Hu Jintao was in power, in 10 years he did nothing except one thing: he turned 73% of all top leaders in the national leadership organs from the central to local levels—across ministries, provinces, cities, districts, and counties, the top party and government leaders—into members of the Communist Youth League faction. Although Xi Jinping carried out purges as soon as he came to power, how could he possibly purge them all? At least among these 73% of people, no one supports him. To this day, those who hate him the most are precisely this Communist Youth League faction colluding with some Chinese-language media at home and abroad to specifically praise Hu Jintao and the Youth League faction, which is the fundamental reason behind this. I am not convenient to mention some examples here, as I know a lot of inside information. So under such circumstances, can Xi Jinping launch a Cultural Revolution? Can it be launched?

Fourth, Mao Zedong had a famous four-character saying during the Cultural Revolution: \u0022Do not allow my Great Wall to be destroyed,\u0022 meaning that the Cultural Revolution could be carried out anywhere, and the capitalist-roaders could be struggled against anywhere, except that hands could not be laid upon the capitalist-roaders within the military. Because ever since Mao Zedong became the leader of the CCP, he always concurrently served as the Chairman of the Central Military Commission. The military was his, and the veterans and old guard in the military were all his, whom no one dared to touch, nor did he allow anyone to touch. Otherwise, where would he get the guts to launch a Cultural Revolution? But does Xi Jinping have such a military? Even Zhang Youxia, a friend who grew up with him since childhood, opposes him and wants to stage a coup. Just as many rumors say, the military is everywhere opposing him. Without the military in the background providing Great Wall-style support, can he carry out the Cultural Revolution? He cannot. Fifth, Mao Zedong created a state where, after 17 years of centralized autocratic rule, he made all ordinary people too afraid to open their mouths to speak. He created such a condition where no one dared to utter a single \u0022no,\u0022 no one dared to do anything but obey, and no one had freedom of thought. Is the Xi Jinping era like this? After so many years of reform and opening up, no matter what, objectively speaking, capitalist and liberal ideas still reached China, didn't they? Can he make all Chinese people from top to bottom, either from the bottom of their hearts or forced to, only shout \u0022Long live Xi Jinping,\u0022 only listen to Xi Jinping's words, and absolutely never utter a single word saying anything bad about Xi Jinping? Is that possible? Everywhere inside and outside the country now, people are cursing Xi Jinping, and so many videos are publicly cursing Xi Jinping. Can he launch a Cultural Revolution? He cannot, right? He doesn't have this capability, doesn't have this backing, doesn't have these means, and even less does he have a group of intellectuals with considerable achievements in Marxist-Leninist theory to ghostwrite for him, specifically writing a series of consecutive articles criticizing the revisionist line within the party. Does he have them? He does not. He is unable to build up public opinion. He only has one thing in common with Mao Zedong, which is the same intent to launch the Cultural Revolution as Mao: he also wants to purge. He wants to purge everyone within the CCP who goes against him, doesn't listen to him, or even tries to oppose him—all the superficial opposition factions among the party, government, and military. He wants to purge them all completely. But can he do it? He cannot do it. You should just look at all public opinion and you will know: today this military officer doesn't listen to him, tomorrow that military officer doesn't listen to him, and Zhang Youxia has been trying to stage a coup against him for over a year now. Zhang Youxia has sold all his information to the United States. Everyone knows this now, right? He cannot do it.

Why is it that, for something as completely impossible as this—leaving aside the fact that the times have changed and people's minds have changed, and leaving aside the fact that today's occupied mainland territory of the Republic of China, which is the Chinese Communist Party (CCP)'s country, is no longer the CCP's country of the Mao era, and setting aside these major conditions—just based on the conditions I mentioned a moment ago, he simply does not possess them. Right now, people desperately wish for two things: one wish is for Xi to step down, uniting with anti-Xi factions within the CCP to overthrow Xi, and allowing the so-called reformists within the party, meaning the reformist faction, to return to power. This is the idea of toppling Xi to save the CCP. Then there is another view belonging to the people: Xi falls, Xi is the last emperor of the CCP, and when Xi falls the CCP must fall. This leads to the notion that if the CCP falls, Xi will definitely fall, but if Xi falls, the CCP might not necessarily fall—or rather, if Xi falls, the CCP will definitely fall. Which one will the people choose? Certainly the latter: Xi falls and the CCP must fall, rather than Xi falls and the CCP does not fall. As long as Xi falls and the CCP does not fall, just as I said in that short article, another reformist will just come up, promising the masses once again that we have reformed and opened up, that we will get along well with the West, and that we will make promises to the common people about how we will improve their lives. In the end, after another round of deception, as long as the system does not change and politics do not change, it will happen all over again—another round of terrifying, managed corruption and privilege, and ultimately another revolution. The tragedy is that the CCP extends its lifespan, and the people extend their suffering. This must resolutely not be allowed! Therefore, I support the idea that if the CCP falls, Xi must fall, and cannot support the idea that Xi falls while the CCP does not fall. This is a very important matter at present, because under the collusion between forces inside and outside China, this issue has been whipped up and debated to the point of turning things upside down. Do not underestimate the Youth League faction. First, the Youth League faction is also part of the Communist Party; it is the Communist Party's Youth League faction. Therefore, when a professor at the CCP Central Committee Party School said that the struggle between Xi Jinping and the CCP is inevitable, that is a joke. Is Xi Jinping not a Communist? Let me ask the reverse question: Is the Communist Youth League not the Communist Party? As long as it is the Communist Party, it is a bad party; taken as a whole, it is a bad organization, a bad faction. The Communist Party has no other skills; the Communist Party's greatest characteristic is hypocrisy. They are a group of people who grew up under hypocritical education and became hypocrites. In front of youth and children they are cheerful and lively, while in front of leading cadres they are upright in party style, with their collars buttoned tightly and sitting on only one-third of the sofa. I have personally interacted with them; I know many secretaries of the Central Committee of the Communist Youth League and various provincial party secretaries. This is something I have personally experienced—they are all hypocrites and formidable ones at that. Therefore, never lose your mind over the Youth League faction. So, when all is said and done, saying that Xi Jinping might launch a Cultural Revolution is impossible. Xi Jinping is simply trying to protect himself right now; even his desire to attack Taiwan is to protect his own life and to protect the life of the Communist Party. In the past, it included protecting the life of the Communist Party, but now it is just protecting himself and protecting his own family, because he has already been looked down upon in every possible aspect. Inside the party, everyone wants to push him down; domestically, ordinary people simply do not take him seriously, right? He is barely holding on and controlling this regime relying on conspiracies and the instinctive scheming he developed from suffering a great deal during his youth. Who knows, one day he might just collapse, right? Therefore, I say it is impossible for Xi Jinping to launch a Cultural Revolution. He is not launching a Cultural Revolution right now; he is focused on how to save himself and save his life. Mao Zedong wanted to protect his power, while Xi is protecting his power now in order to save his life. We can just imagine, he has allowed so many major and minor corrupt officials within the party to