Comparing the Taiping Rebellion with the rise of Communism in China

While reading about the rise of Communism in China, I couldn't help but compare Mao's ideology to Hong Xiuquan's ideology, who was the leader of the failed Taiping Rebellion in the mid 19th century. As I will show you, both Mao and Hong had similar political and economical ideas, and both of the movements were distinctly anti-traditional. However, the Taiping Rebellion was defeated in 1864, while the Communist party is still in power in China to this day.

The Taiping Rebellion was a massive rebellion in China during the Qing Dynasty, that resulted in, somewhere between, twenty to a hundred million deaths. The leader of this movement was Hong Xiuquan, who believed that he was the younger brother of Jesus Christ, and who also believed that he was sent by God (the Christian God) to replace the Qing Dynasty with a Taiping heavenly kingdom. Throughout the rebellion, Hong called for the destruction of sacred Chinese artifacts because he wanted to completely remove any reminders of Confucianism. (http://taipingrebellion.com/) Furthermore, Hong's ideal society included the abolition of private land ownership. Instead, each Taiping family was allotted land proportional to their size. Also, there were public granaries assigned to every twenty five families; every group of twenty five families was treated as a community that was assigned a loosely-enforced quota of production. Hong's kingdom is best summed up in an excerpt from a document written in 1853; "There being fields, let all cultivate them; there being food, let all eat; there being clothes, let all be dressed; there being money, let all use it, so that nowhere does inequality exist, and no man is not well fed and clothed." (http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/taiping.html)

Mao Zedong's ideology was very similar to Hong's, in fact, Mao was actually inspired by the actions of Hong Xiuquan. Mao also desired to purge China of anything reminiscent of Confucianism and traditional Chinese culture. Therefore, Mao closed down temples when he first came to power in the early 1950s, Later, in 1965, Mao launched the Cultural Revolution which resulted in the widespread destruction of ancient monuments, books, art, and antiques. This is similar to how Hong destroyed similar ancient artifacts. In terms of egalitarianism, Mao also abolished private ownership of land and also redistributed this newly-seized land. Furthermore, Mao created "communes", which were small communities of people that were assigned a quota of produce. This is loosely similar to Hong's communities of "twenty five families".

Clearly, Mao and Hong were very similar in their approaches to change; both desired the termination of traditional Chinese culture, and both possessed very egalitarian economical ideas. This naturally leads to the question of what caused the Taipings to falter, whereas Mao's Communist Party succeeded. I believe that timing, though the simple answer, is the main reason why. The Taiping Rebellion lasted from 1850-1864; thus, the Chinese had not yet lost the Sino-Japanese war to the Japanese. According to the McKay textbook, it was it not until after the Sino-Japanese war that the Chinese realized that they were internationally, very weak (Mckay). That being said, at the time of the Taiping Rebellion, there was no major desire for the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty because there was no reason to believe that China needed reform, and certainly did not need reform with Western influence (Hong preached Christianity). Conversely, when Mao came to power, the Qing dynasty had already been overthrown. Secondly, there was no absolute government in China during the 1940s. The "government" at the time were the Nationalists, who were preoccupied with the Japanese in China (McKay). This distraction gave Mao the perfect chance to recruit followers and to spread propaganda; this coupled with the massive Chinese casualties suffered by the war between the nationalists and the Japanese gave Mao the perfect window of time to seize power.

Nonviolent or Violent Rebellion?

Gandhi is famous for holding fast to his belief that nonviolence is "a far more powerful weapon than guns or bombs." (In class Handout, 28). Even when the British in Colonial India physically harmed Indians, such as at the "Massacre at Amritsar", Gandhi never once condoned a violent reaction.

One of Gandhi's reasons for supporting nonviolence is obvious: violence is immoral and no good can result from it. This notion can be generally accepted. However, violence is often employed by rebels because it causes rapid change. This can be seen during the Indian Nationalist Movement, when after being released from jail, Gandhi was urged to start a new satyagraha campaign. Gandhi reluctantly agreed on the condition that the campaign would be explicitly nonviolent, however, some of his followers, who were impatient for change, burned a police station and killed 22 policemen in the process. Gandhi immediately ended this campaign after this incident.

Gandhi ignored the fact that violence quickens the pace of change. Instead, Gandhi once wrote that "Swaraj by non-violence must be a progressively peaceful revolution such that the transference of power...will be as natural as the dropping of a fully ripe fruit from a well-nurtured tree. I say again that such a thing may be quite impossible of attainment. But I know that nothing less is the implication of non-violence". (Handout, 42). The idea that Gandhi is trying to convey is that non violence is a much more natural transition of power than violence. This is based off of Gandhi's fundamental belief that truth will emerge inevitably. Thus, "truth" or in this case, freedom of the Indians from British captivity, will happen inevitably because no group can ever keep another group oppressed forever. Therefore, Gandhi sees no use in 'pressing the matter', especially if violence is the sacrifice that one must make in order to quicken the pace of change. Instead, Gandhi trusts that time will do its work and will eventually unravel all unjust things.

Is Gandhi correct in his statement that nonviolence will ultimately lead to justice? I say yes, because throughout history, no group has been prejudiced for eternity. Whether it be race, religion, gender etc., rights and freedoms have always emerged, to some extent, for the oppressed. Then, if the idea of inevitable truth holds true, there is no use for violence in fighting for independence. Violence causes increased emotion and bloodshed, neither of which are ultimately good. Instead, people should just remain calm and patient, and especially careful in practicing nonviolence. In the end, the oppressed will find justice.