Cultural Revolution at 60: Memory, power, and the struggle over history

By Harsh Thakor* 

The 60th anniversary of China’s Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution invites renewed reflection on an event that continues to shape debates on bureaucracy, class power, and socialist governance. Far from losing relevance, it remains a reference point for understanding how revolutionary societies confront the re‑emergence of privilege. As the original text notes, the Cultural Revolution “has not lost its relevance,” and its lessons still resonate in contemporary struggles against inequality and elite detachment.

The movement began on 16 May 1966 with the adoption of the May 16 Circular, which dissolved the earlier Group of Five and accused it of suppressing revolutionary criticism. The circular declared that “representatives of the bourgeoisie had infiltrated the party, the government, the army, and all domains of culture,” and called for an ideological struggle to prevent a drift toward capitalist restoration. This document laid the foundation for the Central Cultural Revolution Group (CCRG), which became the political command centre of the movement. Its members—Chen Boda, Jiang Qing, Kang Sheng, Zhang Chunqiao, Yao Wenyuan, Wang Li, and Xie Fuzhi—represented the organised Maoist left and provided ideological direction, mass‑mobilisation strategy, and a counterweight to the entrenched party bureaucracy.

Within weeks, the Red Guard movement erupted across universities as students responded to the call to “rebel against authority.” Mao’s August 1966 proclamation that “to rebel is justified” marked the high point of this mobilisation. The removal of work teams from campuses, the formation of rebel groups, the intervention of the People’s Liberation Army, and the establishment of Revolutionary Committees reflected an attempt to create new forms of political participation. These developments, as the text notes, were “concrete evidence of the blossoming of revolutionary democratic dynamics.”

The Cultural Revolution was not a spontaneous upheaval but the culmination of long‑standing ideological tensions within the Chinese party‑state. It raised a fundamental question that remains unresolved in socialist theory: how can a revolutionary state prevent the re‑emergence of a privileged class within its own institutions? The CCRG represented the most ambitious attempt in the 20th century to address bureaucratic degeneration through mass mobilisation rather than elite manoeuvring. Whether viewed as a bold experiment or a disastrous miscalculation, it forced global left movements to confront the contradictions of socialist governance.

Despite its turmoil, the Cultural Revolution produced notable social experiments. Local governance structures such as the Shanghai Commune and Tachai brigade expanded peasant and worker participation. Educational reforms encouraged students to integrate study with manual labour and community engagement. Healthcare and rural development expanded significantly. Women’s participation increased, challenging traditional gender hierarchies. The People’s Liberation Army adopted egalitarian practices, including the temporary abolition of ranks. These initiatives aimed to break “old ideas, customs and habits” and cultivate new social values aligned with egalitarian ideals.

Yet the movement also produced severe contradictions. Factional violence, coercion, and abuses committed in the name of revolutionary purity left lasting scars. Education and scientific work were disrupted, and intellectuals faced humiliation, forced labour, or persecution. Over‑reliance on youth mobilisation created instability, while hierarchical traditions persisted in the form of a personality cult around Mao. Revolutionary Committees lacked durable institutional structures, and the movement often judged all issues solely through the lens of “Mao Zedong Thought,” limiting creative and cultural expression. As the text argues, “a higher degree of preparation was needed,” and the revolution’s institutional foundations were fragile.

Today, rising inequality, elite privilege, and youth disillusionment in China have revived interest in the Cultural Revolution’s critique of bureaucracy and class formation. Many young people—while not endorsing the violence of the era—question the post‑Mao narrative that dismissed the movement as mere chaos. They ask how the officials purged during the Cultural Revolution later became the architects of market reforms and widening inequality. This reassessment marks a significant departure from official historiography. The Cultural Revolution is increasingly viewed as an attempt—however flawed—to confront the emergence of a new ruling class within a socialist system. As the text notes, “the shameless arrogance of the privileged today in China brings Mao’s theories back to life.”

Sixty years later, the Cultural Revolution remains one of the most contested episodes in modern history. Its failures were real and often tragic, but its questions endure: how can a socialist project prevent bureaucratic privilege, and how can mass participation be sustained without descending into coercion or factionalism? For contemporary left movements, especially those navigating the early stages of organisation, the Cultural Revolution offers both cautionary lessons and unresolved theoretical challenges. Its legacy lies not in romanticisation or condemnation, but in grappling with the contradictions it exposed.

---

*Freelance journalist