Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

What do peoples here think about the GPCR? What do you have to say? What was its impact? Pros? Cons? Interesting events or points of interests?

[consuming negativity]

Pros: got rid of Confucian bullshit and gave China comprehensive women's rights

Cons: roving bands of kids with guns running around breaking artifacts and shooting people

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Pros: got rid of Confucian bullshit and gave China comprehensive women's rights

Cons: roving bands of kids with guns running around breaking artifacts and shooting people

Ok so if you could substantiate this a little that's be cool. Do tell more of these as so called roving band of kids with guns.

[Brutus]

Ok so if you could substantiate this a little that's be cool. Do tell more of these as so called roving band of kids with guns.

Red Guards- fanatical Maoist students who went around with red books and beating up "revisionists" and anything mao was like "k nope" towards.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Red Guards- fanatical Maoist students who went around with red books and beating up "revisionists" and anything mao was like "k nope" towards.

Alright, thought as much, I actually like the concept of the Red Guard. What was so wrong with thems?

[Tim Cornelis]

It was a situation of mass hysteria that resulted in the deaths of, hysterically persecuted, "revisionists" and "capitalist roaders". Thousands of people were lynched and beaten to death. It involved dirty power struggles between the Red Guards, armed forces, and Communist Party and factions within these groups. Its setup was voluntaristic: supposedly cultural change, toward a socialist culture, can be willed into existence and is a matter of consciously designed policy implemented by the upper layers of the state. It was designed to rehabilitate Mao, but gotten a lil' bit out of hand. Despite all this murdering and purging of revisionists, it took just one to get into power and reform 'back' to capitalism.

All in all, sucks.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

It was a situation of mass hysteria that resulted in the deaths of, hysterically persecuted, "revisionists" and "capitalist roaders". Thousands of people were lynched and beaten to death. It involved dirty power struggles between the Red Guards, armed forces, and Communist Party and factions within these groups. Its setup was voluntaristic: supposedly cultural change, toward a socialist culture, can be willed into existence and is a matter of consciously designed policy implemented by the upper layers of the state. It was designed to rehabilitate Mao, but gotten a lil' bit out of hand.

All in all, sucks.

That doesn't really sound so so bad. I mean, can you cite your sources? I don't think people necessarily should be beat or killed but hey, a revolution is dirty business. You know. I am drawn towards the voluntaristic, hyper-collectivism of it all. I like the idea of a self-critical society to the extreme degree. What's so wrong about that? The radical upheaval of the old and fossilized?

[Alexios]

Quite some time ago, some talented people invented a thing called a "Search function." You just type in what you want to search and it will show you all past threads made about the topic. Maybe you should consider it the next time you think about creating a troll thread.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Quite some time ago, some talented people invented a thing called a "Search function." You just type in what you want to search and it will show you all past threads made about the topic. Maybe you should consider it the next time you think about creating a troll thread.

Ok so idk who you are and idc but kindly stay the fuck out of my thread if you can't give me what I want and contribute in a meaningful way.

[consuming negativity]

They weren't beating up actual counter-revolutionaries, they were beating up people that they didn't like. This is after the great leap forward had already failed...

The tactic does bear a similarity to those advocated by Bakunin, and I do think there is merit to the concept, but the abstract applied to reality shows a number of problems. Mao was probably correct about his enemies... Deng Xiaoping in particular. But smashing Confucianism didn't have to entail destroying priceless artifacts of China's past, burning books, and other anti-intellectualism. There was once when Mao relaxed the policies against criticizing him and the Party... the intellectuals, naturally, began critiquing. But the criticism was so large and harsh that the CPC ended up gathering up the names of dissidents and cracking down on them. Also, by the end, Mao was the one who had the Red Guards destroyed because they were becoming more and more "anarchic" to use a poor word...

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

They weren't beating up actual counter-revolutionaries, they were beating up people that they didn't like. This is after the great leap forward had already failed...

Debatable. Who said the GLF failed anyway?

So aside from smashing historical artifacts and dodgy treatment of dissidents, what else was so bad? Are you sure the crackdown on 'criticisms' wasn't justified?

[ChangeAndChance]

One issue with the Cultural Revolution is that it was highly exploitable. It was during this period that Jiang Qing and the rest of the Gang of Four were able to effectively seize political power. Mao's cult of personality grew to epic proportions during this era and all one had to do to claim one's deeds were correct were to claim they done on behalf of the Chairman. If people were still skeptical all you had to do was pull out a random quote from the Little Red Book and all of your critics were silenced.

As mentioned above in some ways the revolution had its fruits (the end of new Confucianism and the purging of remaining reactionaries), it also caused the indiscriminate destruction of numerous valuable historical/cultural artifacts and wrongful persecution of numerous Communist Party members who had stuck with Mao since the Civil War, purely because they put forward ideas that Mao even slightly disagreed with. Over the course of the two years the Red Guard had control of the Chinese countryside, roughly 36 million people were publicly humiliated, imprisoned and abused and nearly a million people were executed. In the summer of 1967, the Red Guard was smashed by the People's Liberation Army and any further student radicalism was branded "counter-revolutionary". This was not a people's revolution, this was more like a Chinese Inquisition, with Mao as a modern day Cardinal Richelieu and teenagers as inquisitors. In other words, this had the potential to be good but just wasn't.

[consuming negativity]

Debatable. Who said the GLF failed anyway?

So aside from smashing historical artifacts and dodgy treatment of dissidents, what else was so bad? Are you sure the crackdown on 'criticisms' wasn't justified?

Mao said it failed. It almost got him kicked out of the government.

The crackdowns were not at all justified from an anarchist perspective or really from any perspective.

[Tim Cornelis]

Justified from the perspective of edgyness. And I suspect that that is what Vox Poili-something is looking for.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Justified from the perspective of edgyness. And I suspect that that is what Vox Poili-something is looking for.

No, stop picking on me and my name choices and just talk. Fuck man. Why do people think I'm trying to be edgy? What's that even mean? I want to be like a knife? Tf

And it's Populi, Vox Populi, Mr Timothy CoRиIcantspeakLatinsoimmabemeantovozxyfornoreaso n.

[Dagoth Ur]

I'd say the principal problem with the GPCR is that there wasn't enough government involvement in it. If they had helped organize the line, as they were already experienced in doing, they could have organically allowed the cultural revolution to finish its task.

It reminds me of American Reconstruction to a certain extent and how that was actively eroded by the government once it saw extremely progressive (by their standard too progressive) returns. Mao backtracked precisely because the GPCR threatened him.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I'd say the principal problem with the GPCR is that there wasn't enough government involvement in it. If they had helped organize the line, as they were already experienced in doing, they could have organically allowed the cultural revolution to finish its task.

I would argue the opposite that the successes of the GPCR was the very fact that was organic in nature due to the dry fact of its anarchistic character. Again, I think this is a very interesting experiment that needs more looking at. You know?


It reminds me of American Reconstruction to a certain extent and how that was actively eroded by the government once it saw extremely progressive (by their standard too progressive) returns. Mao backtracked precisely because the GPCR threatened him.

I'm not familiar with this American Reconstruction but I will say I do need to look more into this Mao and him ultimately saying the GPCR. It seems rather easy to say "oh, because his power was threatened," too easy, which is why I don't really buy it.

[Alexios]

Ok so idk who you are and idc but kindly stay the fuck out of my thread if you can't give me what I want and contribute in a meaningful way.
Do you ever post anything of substance or is it all just unfunny one-liners?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Do you ever post anything of substance or is it all just unfunny one-liners?

Do you people ever think before you post or are you content being this ignorant? If you want an audience for whines against my humor, posts or me personally, PM Rafiq, I'm sure he'd love to discuss with you at length. Moving forward, as much as it may shock you, this thread isn't about me (I know so confusing what with the thread title and all).

[Alexios]

Do you people ever think before you post or are you content being this ignorant? If you want an audience for whines against my humor, posts or me personally, PM Rafiq, I'm sure he'd love to discuss with you at length. Moving forward, as much as it may shock you, this thread isn't about me (I know so confusing what with the thread title and all).
You're the one shitting up the forum, not me. This is what the Chit Chat forum is for.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Part of the problem was that there was no rational basis for mobs of roving Red Guard to figure out who was an actual counter-revolutionary. People with all sorts of trappings of what Red Guard deemed to be "bourgeois" culture could be targeted. That and the levels of violence were not only unnecessary but counter-productive

[Prometeo liberado]

Think of the French Revolution without the Jacobins to make a bloody sweep of things. Not pretty but even Napoleon would later understand the power of the Proles.

[genjer]

It was a faction fight between the right and left wings of the CPC, during which ultra-left elements outside the party apparatus played a brief but abortive role.

Maoists and anti-communists both view it as a radical mass movement from start to finish, but that is an ignorant analysis based on taking Maoist propaganda at face value.

The driving force was not workers and youth, but the army. Mao initially encouraged and armed ultra-left radicals in 1966-1967 to support his agenda and give it the facade of a spontaneous uprising. However, once Liu Shaoqi and the rightists had been defeated, the ultra-left was no longer needed and they actually became a threat to the entire bureaucracy, so Mao and Lin Biao called out the army and savagely repressed the radical factions with imprisonment, torture, and even mass executions in some areas. Anything truly "revolutionary" about the GPCR was dead and buried by 1969. Lin Biao himself was killed in 1971, Mao forged a tacit alliance with US imperialism in 1972, and big rightists like Deng Xiaoping had been rehabilitated by 1976.


Pros: got rid of Confucian bullshit and gave China comprehensive women's rights
That's a hell of a stretch. Lots of women were involved, but many were also raped or murdered, and they certainly did not get any "comprehensive rights" out of it. As for Confucian bullshit, that is still alive and well in China today.

[The Feral Underclass]

Do you ever post anything of substance or is it all just unfunny one-liners?

Why don't you shut the fuck up? Kay?

[Five Year Plan]

Pros: got rid of Confucian bullshit and gave China comprehensive women's rights

Cons: roving bands of kids with guns running around breaking artifacts and shooting people

Yes, like that most basic of rights: the ability to make their own reproductive decisions. Oh, oops...

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

It was a faction fight between the right and left wings of the CPC, during which ultra-left elements outside the party apparatus played a brief but abortive role.

Maoists and anti-communists both view it as a radical mass movement from start to finish, but that is an ignorant analysis based on taking Maoist propaganda at face value.

The driving force was not workers and youth, but the army. Mao initially encouraged and armed ultra-left radicals in 1966-1967 to support his agenda and give it the facade of a spontaneous uprising. However, once Liu Shaoqi and the rightists had been defeated, the ultra-left was no longer needed and they actually became a threat to the entire bureaucracy, so Mao and Lin Biao called out the army and savagely repressed the radical factions with imprisonment, torture, and even mass executions in some areas. Anything truly "revolutionary" about the GPCR was dead and buried by 1969. Lin Biao himself was killed in 1971, Mao forged a tacit alliance with US imperialism in 1972, and big rightists like Deng Xiaoping had been rehabilitated by 1976.


That's a hell of a stretch. Lots of women were involved, but many were also raped or murdered, and they certainly did not get any "comprehensive rights" out of it. As for Confucian bullshit, that is still alive and well in China today.

There were positive and negative aspects of the GPCR. That's what it boils down to. But if you really look into it, the good outweighs the bad.

First off, the Cultural Revolution lasted ten years, until Mao's death in 1976. While bourgeois historians like to portray it as a decade-long calamity, this just isn't the case. There was brutality, violence, and hooliganism, but it only lasted from 1966 to the beginning of 1968.

There are many reasons for the violence. Perhaps one of the most important is the fact that the children of China's party elite desperately wanted to prove that they and their family were not reactionaries. These teenagers made up much of the younger, more trigger-happy Red Guards. It reminds me of Shakespeare: "the rich kids doth protest too much, methinks.":laugh:

We have to remember that the Red Guards were not one unified group under Mao's direct control. They originated as a group of university students speaking out against bureacracy and capitalist roaders. They were militant, but largely nonviolent. It was the high school-age Red Guards who did the most damage.

Mao and his allies condemned these groups. They constantly reiterated that the GPCR's policy should be to "fight with words, not violence." When the destruction of cultural artifacts became widespread, the government issued a resolution condemning and banning the practice. It's undeniable that Mao didn't do enough to stop the excesses, but it's incorrect to say that he did nothing.

People died tragically, I'm not denying it for one moment. But by 1968 the brutality had largely subsided. The economy returned to growth. New, more constructive projects were adopted. Former Red Guards went down to the countryside to work with the peasants, digging canals and laboring in the fields. The children of social elites were also sent there so they could learn to empathize with the experiences of the vast majority of China's population. "Barefoot doctors" with basic medical training went throughout the rural areas providing free healthcare to millions of poverty-stricken people. It was during this period that life expectancy in China increased most dramatically--to about 62 in 1976. Compare that to the life expectancy in 1949, 35!

Agricultural production increased dramatically, paving the way for a Green Revolution that would continue for years after Mao's death. Infrastructure was improved, with new bridges popping up all over the country. Programs were set up that successfully helped to eliminate pests. There was an explosion of culture and art. Traveling theatre groups performed in even the most remote areas, with assistance from the government. Movie production went up dramatically. For the first time, ordinary Chinese people could enjoy the world's most vibrant culture.

There were also major efforts to create a more decentralized, participatory, non-Soviet economy. Factories operated by local governments and communes accounted for 37% of industrial output by 1976--triple the percentage in 1965.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

Affirmative action policies were adopted, with women and ordinary peasants appointed to key Party positions.

So, in a nutshell, the GPCR was a social revolution that dramatically improved the lives of tens of millions of Chinese workers and peasants. It started out bad, but became something truly amazing. Sadly, it wasn't enough to stop Deng Xiaoping and other bourgeois nationalists from taking control after Mao's death. It failed in its principal objectives. That can't be denied. But we should also admire its achievements.

Also, about China's alliance with the United States: it was not a very revolutionary thing to do, but consider the historical context! The Soviet Union had demonstrated once and for all that it would not tolerate alternative socialist models by invading Hungary in 1968. It had plans for a potential nuclear attack on Beijing and a takeover of Mao's government. It's not as though Mao opened up to the U.S. because he loved President Nixon. He did it because the alternative was facing the strongest social imperialist nation in the world, all on his own.

[Hagalaz]

That doesn't really sound so so bad. I mean, can you cite your sources? I don't think people necessarily should be beat or killed but hey, a revolution is dirty business. You know. I am drawn towards the voluntaristic, hyper-collectivism of it all. I like the idea of a self-critical society to the extreme degree. What's so wrong about that? The radical upheaval of the old and fossilized?

May I respectfully suggest that you read some books on the subject before you start admiring it? The Cultural Revolution was nearly as big a disaster as the Great Leap Forward.
Millions of dead innocents and the destruction of ancient artifacts from an incredibly old culture is much more than...."dirty business".

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

May I respectfully suggest that you read some books on the subject before you start admiring it?

May I respectfully request you not assume I haven't just because I don't try to hide my ignorance or think I know anything just because I've read a couple books on the subject.


The Cultural Revolution was nearly as big a disaster as the Great Leap Forward.

I wouldn't necessarily claim either to be a "disaster." Part of my interest lies in specific policies and the abstract ideas of the policies. Given Chinese society pre-revolution, the policies and general ideology (if you want to call it as such) of the Cultural Revolution is unbelievably radical and turned traditional Chinese society in its head. Again, it's this sort of thing I feel should be learned from and explored. More so than I think if similar policies would be introduced today.


Millions of dead innocents and the destruction of ancient artifacts from an incredibly old culture is much more than...."dirty business".

A lot of people died during the French Revolution needlessly too but does that make it any less progressive? No, I'm not try to appear dismissive or col, it's just that in this particular case. I don't think it's wise to just fous on plain statistics but more so on the specifics, whys and what could learn from this. That I think would be more beneficial and constructive.

[D-A-C]

The Great Cultural Revolution is, from my perspective as a theorist, is a really important development for Marxist theory.

Now, it should also be noted that what actually went on within China, and the ideas the experiment ignited within the rest of the world and particularly amongst French Intellectuals of the 1960's are two separate things.

That said, think of this; Mao argued that the means of production can be socialized, but without a corresponding socializing of the relations of production then the revolution can be railroaded, and the old capitalist order restored, even unknowingly.

Sound familiar?

It should, as it is part (and I stress only a part) of an explanation for events of the failure of the socialist experiment of the Soviet Union. Essentially, if you blindly assume that because you socialize the means of production that this will automatically lead to a corresponding revolution with the relations of productions due to the economic base determining the superstructure, then you are sadly mistaken. This is what Stalin, and most of the Left thought would happen ... it didn't.

What you find then is the revenge of the old relations of productions, as old thinking, habits and practices continue to exist, leading to the rolling back of the revolution and socialized means of productions, and so ultimately you are ending up with the reestablishment of the old social order even if it is in conjunction with a supposedly socialist society!

The idea then of undertaking an ideological, or thought revolution to alter and break the old assumptions and practices of a newly socialized society is a fascinating and important concept to understand, and I also believe to be a necessary action.

Mao I believe didn't originate the idea, and I am pretty sure either Lenin or some of those around him in the early 1920's considered or alluded to such an idea first, but they certainly never understood it to be such an important aspect of a successful socialist society, nor to be undertaken with the size and scope of the Great Cultural Revolution.

That said, it also has to be understood that a large part of the whole event was that it was designed to aid in the reestablishment of Mao's authority within China after he had been sidelined politically. This doesn't detract from its theoretical merits, nor am I even sure of the true validity of that thesis as it feels like Right-Wing intellectual propaganda, but nevertheless its just something to keep in mind.

An interesting thesis proposed by Zizek is that the dirty little secret of contempory pro-Capitalist Chinese Party Leaders is that it was the GPCR that can be partly thanked for paving the way for their successful adaption of their current economic policies and the reason partly for their massive economic gains and expansion.

Anyway, long story short, I am all for it theoretically, but the way it was implemented needs examined fully so that abuses and mistakes can be corrected, but that doesn't in any way detract from its importance.

[Tim Cornelis]

"Essentially, if you blindly assume that because you socialize the means of production that this will automatically lead to a corresponding revolution with the relations of productions due to the economic base determining the superstructure, then you are sadly mistaken. This is what Stalin, and most of the Left thought would happen ... it didn't."

"What you find then is the revenge of the old relations of productions, as old thinking, habits and practices continue to exist, leading to the rolling back of the revolution and socialized means of productions, and so ultimately you are ending up with the reestablishment of the old social order even if it is in conjunction with a supposedly socialist society!"

"The idea then of undertaking an ideological, or thought revolution to alter and break the old assumptions and practices of a newly socialized society is a fascinating and important concept to understand, and I also believe to be a necessary action."

You got it backwards.

How can you even speak of socialisation when the relations of production remain intact? Relations of production determine the property relations, not vice versa. Therefore, there was no socialisation in China or the USSR, and the 'revenge' was not revenge at all:

"Marxist-Leninist dogmatism claims that the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, nationalization of property and establishment of central planning under the rule of party eliminates the basis of class antagonisms. Yet it was clear that China in 1966 was no workers utopia that had ridden itself of all social contradiction. In Mao’s eyes the remaining contradictions of society were contained strictly within the political/cultural superstructure, for the economic base no longer contained class antagonism. Maoist theory claimed that the superstructure was “relatively autonomous” from the base and hence a “cultural revolution” was needed to purge the revisionist leadership within the CCP. This was not a Marxist theory of revolution, but rather a populist theory that was not dissimilar from Bismark’s Kulturkamf ... A more apt description would be that it was a bureaucratic power struggle that in many cases got out of hand. Gaps in authority were certainly created by Mao’s chaotic tactics of consolidating power and workers certainly took advantage of these gaps in authority. But in the end Mao’s Cultural Revolution wasn’t much different from Stalin’s – an attempt to solve the problems of socialism-in-one-country through purging the state leadership of corrupt “capitalist roaders” rather than changing the social relations that led these corrupt positions to develop."

https://libcom.org/history/mythology-great-proletarian-cultural-revolution-chinese-ultra-left-donald-parkinson

"Lenin conceives socialism basically in terms of ownership form of the means of production rather than in terms of the (social) relations of production. And he posits 'social ownership' of the means of production (in socialism) against capitalism's private ownership uniquely in the sense of "private ownership of separate individuals"�.16 Here again Lenin is several steps backward compared to Marx. For Marx juridical relations (forms) have no independent existence, they simply arise from the economic, that is, production relations. In other words it is the production (economic) relations which determine the ownership relations and their specific forms, not inversely. Secondly, Marx had already shown on the basis of his close observation of capitalism's development how its forms of ownership changed in response to the needs of capital accumulation. The ownership form of which Lenin speaks was indeed the initial form in capitalism, directly taken over from the Roman law. However, in the course of capital's development the requirements of capital's accumulation dictated a change in the ownership form from individual to collective capitalist ownership, which signified "abolition of private ownership within the capitalist mode of production itself"�, as Marx clearly noted."

https://libcom.org/library/socialism-marx-early-bolshevism-chattopadhyay

[Illegalitarian]

The Cultural Revolution was objectively terrible.

It had a few bonuses, it did do a lot to wipe out Confucian morality, albeit not entirely, and it did see to the construction of many agricultural and infrastructural projects that made life easier for many people.


It also saw to shit loads of people dying and a complete halt of production which caused an economic collapse.

Which is the entire reason the Gang of Four was persecuted so hard. They didn't want to forsake the father of their nation, but the GPCR was so terrible that they absolutely had to blame someone lest they face full-scale rebellion.

[John Nada]

The Cultural Revolution kind of reminds me of The Children of The Corn. Generally the right idea originally, but fuck up badly and let the rightist take power. Seems like all it did was make the capitalist roaders adopt Marxist-Leninist phrases to cover their asses.

Here's an article (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/31/zhang-tiesheng-leftist-hero-china-millionaire) about a Red Guard "defender of the revolution."
By all accounts, his zealous defence of revolutionary standards was preceded by some difficulty with the questions on the paper: reportedly, he managed to answer just three. But he argued that his hard labour in the fields had prevented him from studying and attacked "bookworms who ignored their proper occupations" and craved a college education for their own selfish benefits. An edited version was carried across major newspapers and Mao Zedong himself singled the young man out for praise. Zhang, from Liaoning province, became a campaigner and role model and was later admitted to a farming college, majoring in animal husbandry and veterinary science. But he was jailed after the end of the Cultural Revolution in a crackdown on leftists and freed only in 1991. Despite missing the early years of reform and opening up, he caught up quickly, embracing private enterprise.What was in that exam? Was it about Marxism?:glare:

[Illegalitarian]

The Cultural Revolution kind of reminds me of The Children of The Corn. Generally the right idea originally, but fuck up badly and let the rightist take power. Seems like all it did was make the capitalist roaders adopt Marxist-Leninist phrases to cover their asses.

Here's an article (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/31/zhang-tiesheng-leftist-hero-china-millionaire) about a Red Guard "defender of the revolution."What was in that exam? Was it about Marxism?:glare:


Children of the corn LMFAO, it really was like that in a way. Giving guns to a bunch of puberty stricken kids and sending them into the mountains to purge reactionaries is probably the single worst thing you can do.

Which probably wouldn't have been so bad if what constituted a "rightist" or "capitalist roader" was well-defined and these groups had accountability and oversight, but alas, they did not

[David Warner]

Pros -- weakened feudal (as well as bourgeois) elements in the society, feudal practices, ideologies, etc.

Cons -- extreme "left" tendencies such as purging anyone who disagreed even slightly with Mao, wanting to directly reach "the communist stage!" when the level of development of the productive forces was quite low, cult of personality, monopolization of power by a single individual, etc.

Summary -- It was basically a power struggle within the CPC in which Mao first used the "left" (Lin Biao, Gang of four, etc.) to take out the "right" (Liu Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping, etc.) and then used the "right" to weaken the "left". Thus, consolidating his power.

Of course, this is not to say that his intentions were bad.

[Sandy Becker]

I'd say the principal problem with the GPCR is that there wasn't enough government involvement in it. If they had helped organize the line, as they were already experienced in doing, they could have organically allowed the cultural revolution to finish its task.

It reminds me of American Reconstruction to a certain extent and how that was actively eroded by the government once it saw extremely progressive (by their standard too progressive) returns. Mao backtracked precisely because the GPCR threatened him.
I'm late to this discussion -- sorry. But the GPCR was a power struggle between factions in the CCP, that spilled over big time into the general population. Mao, who was somewhat discredited due to some bad policies (the Great Leap Forward) and some bad luck (drought for a couple of years leading to terrible crop yields). mobilized his main support which came from the PLA -- and he rallied students to fight HIS fight against the more pragmatic elements in the CCP. It was a mess. As someone has said it was neither great, nor cultural, nor proletarian, nor a revolution.