Deng Xiaoping, China, and the World

Alexander V. Pantsov, with Steven I. Levine, Deng Xiaoping: A Revolutionary Life. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. 610 pp. $27.50.Editor's Note: Deng Xiaoping had a crucial impact on China's role in the world in the latter half of the twentieth century. Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai oversaw Chinese foreign policy during the country's first quarter century of Communist rule—initially establishing a close alliance with the Soviet Union, then turning bitterly against the USSR at the end of the 1950s, and finally pursuing a rapprochement with the United States in the early 1970s—but it was Deng who made the momentous decision in the late 1970s to integrate China into the global economic order that had been largely shaped by the United States from the mid-1940s on. When Mao and Zhou died in 1976, China was still one of the poorest countries in the world. Deng's bid to link China with the international capitalist system spawned a prolonged period of rapid economic growth that nowadays has made the Chinese economy the second largest in the world.In political terms, however, Deng never made a full break with Maoism. Deng's willingness to use brutal violence against unarmed demonstrators in Beijing in June 1989—killing many hundreds of people—kept China from modernizing its political system in a way compatible with the dynamism of its rapidly growing economy. Deng's legacy in China is thus mixed, having turned his country into an economic powerhouse but having left it under a repressive authoritarian system.Over the past several years, two important biographies of Deng have appeared in English, one put out in 2011 by a colleague of mine at Harvard, Ezra Vogel, and the other produced by Alexander V. Pantsov, assisted by Steven I. Levine. Pantsov, who spent the first part of his career in Moscow before moving to the United States in the early 1990s and becoming a professor of history (currently at Capital University in Columbus, Ohio), originally published the book in Russian in 2013. Soon thereafter he teamed up with Levine to put out a slightly revised English version, the same approach the two of them had earlier undertaken with a huge biography of Mao published by Pantsov in Russian in 2007 and in English in 2012. We asked three leading experts on Chinese politics and Chinese foreign policy under Mao and Deng—Joseph Fewsmith, Frederick C. Teiwes, and Sergey Radchenko—to offer their assessments of the Pantsov-Levine biography of Deng. We present their commentaries here along with a reply by Pantsov to numerous points of criticism.In March 1931, Deng Xiaoping, who had been commanding troops in the ill-fated Bose Uprising in Guangxi Province, led the remnants of his 7th Corps to Jiangxi to link up with Mao Zedong in Jiangxi. As they got to southern Jiangxi, Deng left for Shanghai to report to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) center. On the day he left, his co-commander, Li Mingrui, came under attack and had to retreat. The circumstances of Deng leaving were murky, raising the possibility he had abandoned his troops (p. 80).The incident was significant not only because it forms a part of a chapter on the Bose Uprising, which is not well known, but also because Mao in April 1967, after Deng had been enduring months of harsh criticism in the Cultural Revolution, suddenly had Deng woken up in the middle of the night to berate him for sending work teams into the schools. He then asked Deng whether he had abandoned the 7th Corps 36 years earlier (p. 256). This incident perhaps sheds less light on Deng than on Mao, who seems to have spent much time in his later years ruminating about the past actions of his comrades. Had Mao's memories been stirred by Red Guard charges that Deng had indeed abandoned his troops? Did Mao just want to see how Deng would respond to the question in the early hours of the morning? Certainly Mao must have accepted Deng's explanation when he joined the Central Soviet and must have seen Deng as a loyal comrade when Deng was purged as part of Mao's ouster from the top leadership in 1933. As far as we know, Mao did not raise the question in all the years Deng served as political commissar in the Second Field Army or as General Secretary of the CCP.The murkiness of Deng's actions in Guangxi, the complex relationship he had with Mao, and many other details of Deng's pre-reform life are difficult to ferret out. With Mao, we have much more to go on, but even with him it is difficult to form a picture of the man (though Alexander Pantsov and Steven I. Levine do an admirable job in their biography of Mao). The trouble is that writing a biography of even (especially) such a prominent figure as Deng is very hard. We simply do not have the personal papers, correspondence, and detailed memories of close associates that we have with other major historical personages. It will be a long time before a biography of Deng comparable to Stephen Kotkin's recent volumes on Iosif Stalin or Robert Caro's multivolume study of Lyndon Johnson is feasible.If we cannot have the level of detail and the feel for personality, motives, and personal relations that we would like to have, what can we reasonably expect? In the case of Deng Xiaoping: A Revolutionary Life, what we get is an extensive telling of the Communist revolution with attention to what Deng was doing at particular points in time. But what Deng thought about the steps he was taking is hard to say. Consider the Jiangxi period, for example. Deng was close to Zhou Enlai, whom he had gotten to know and work with in France, but we hear nothing about what Deng felt when Zhou repeatedly disagreed with Mao on strategy and when Zhou stood by as Mao (and Deng) were sidelined. Similarly, Deng had studied in the Soviet Union, albeit only for a year, but we hear nothing of his relations with the so-called returned student faction. Perhaps this is simply because Deng was so low in the political hierarchy at the time that he was not even aware of tensions at a higher level, much less in a position to enter the political fray.Given how difficult it is to know much about how Deng felt or how he interacted with the other major political figures of the time, it is curious that Pantsov and Levine choose to spend roughly two-thirds of their biography on Deng's revolutionary history rather than his better-known period as the leader of China's reforms. Presumably this is because Pantsov and Levine want to emphasize that Deng's consciousness, commitment to Marxism-Leninism, and loyalty to the CCP emerged from his life of activity in the party. Deng's loyalty is repeatedly emphasized, but this only raises the question of where and when Deng rethought his commitments.Deng was notorious for his leadership of the anti-rightist movement in 1957, but he is also well known for his support of intellectuals when he returned to power in 1977. Before the CCP's watershed Third Plenum in December 1978, Deng, still under Hua Guofeng's leadership, turned his portfolio of science and education into a power position. He proceeded with the opening of universities and the restoration of the examination system in the fall of 1977 and humbly told the Fourth Congress of Scientists that he would serve as their “logistics officer.” This was a major change of attitude. Perhaps Deng started to understand the damage he helped bring about as the anti-rightest movement descended into the Cultural Revolution, and his hatred of the Cultural Revolution no doubt stemmed not only from his own political demise but also from the crippling of his son, Deng Pufang. Deng may have been a revolutionary, but he was also a family man, joining his family for dinner every Sunday when he could. It is hard to imagine Mao doing the same. No doubt Deng's years in exile in Jiangxi provided the time to think through a different way of doing things.The Pantsov-Levine study is difficult to compare with Ezra Vogel's 2011 biography of Deng, but Pantsov and Levine invite such comparison.1 They criticize Vogel for spending just 32 pages on Deng's life prior to Mao's death. Deng's six decades as a revolutionary must have taught him a great deal, but what exactly is that legacy? Deng was a disciplined cadre who carried out a violent revolution, but he was hardly unique in this regard. The Chinese Communist revolution was an extremely violent affair, and our understanding of the depth and breadth of that violence is only increasing as new studies, including the Pantsov-Levine book, explore new sources. But Deng is also interesting because he initiated enormous changes in Chinese social and economic life. One still longs to understand how we can better reconcile this commitment to reform with six decades of dedication to violent revolution. Pantsov and Levine also criticize Vogel's biography for not drawing on the Russian sources they are able to use. This is certainly true, but it is not clear what exactly the Russian sources tell us that the Chinese sources do not. More indication in the text or an explanatory note would have helped. As far as this reviewer can tell, the Russian sources add relatively little to our understanding.None of these comments should detract from the enormous amount of good work that has gone into this book. It reflects a prodigious amount of scholarship and makes a lively biography. But it remains more a history of the Chinese revolution than a biography of Deng Xiaoping.This biography by Alexander Pantsov with Steven I. Levine builds on, and is intimately related to, the biography they published in 2012 of Mao Zedong. Mao's interaction with Deng Xiaoping was not only the crucial aspect of Deng's political life; it provides a central basis for the understanding of this figure in the history of Chinese Pantsov and Levine their new book is only and of Deng (p. that is at Ezra Vogel's 2011 Deng Xiaoping and the of They with Vogel's decision to on Deng's career they the of his and they also Vogel's is Deng. an biography is It Deng's leadership in China's economic his in and under Mao's not to his own for the in June of the book, not an is the of their was and But he was also and (p. They such of his as his to Mao to the of and his of his in with whether his or who were no and his increasing as he to Mao, the their of the and leader in a less of in and with for his as Mao's biography is into three the period from Deng's through his joining the Communist movement in and in and his early revolutionary in Deng's period in the Soviet and his to Mao's from 1931, through his to work in after the Cultural and Deng from his after the Cultural Revolution to the end of his life. The of the from to is The Deng in were on Mao's Deng's was a of his understanding of Mao, not to the the Deng was not before Mao's and Mao for his part to is on extensive that a great of CCP and of CCP Soviet and Communist for the Moscow of the period, Deng's as a and an extensive that is an decision to with recent scholarship at with the The also have a to sources as the of Mao's Li and The Pantsov and Levine an important and by Deng's on his with the to Beijing in a at which was it not their as a of Deng and close of the report of this that not only a Revolution family but even more that as a the of sources the recent CCP and provides and the not break much new is is that the of can be so in the case of two of the significant in Deng's the and Deng's and of economic reform with his southern three the of important and on several years, as in Mao's policy in as a from to to from their of Deng's is the It Mao's Deng's his loyalty even when the of the actions and points out that what Mao was for Deng to his The was to what the at (p. of the leader and of reform is less They the of Deng's but the book its when it to the period and Deng's with Hua of Deng's with Hua and of Hua more close to the of Hua at the time of his from the leadership in in the him as a a who to and Deng's They him no for the of of the Cultural Revolution and him as the leader for the new economic in The role in the of the of never even at the time of from Deng, of for the of reform the time of the Third all these points a different picture from CCP history CCP and even the of life after his in that him as the in the of the the figure who initiated the of on Cultural Revolution and much the of a on Hua Deng, no major on before the CCP leadership, Deng more than Hua on the new economic and that Hua a role in the of economic in the of the of the what and what it about The was the great in historical a who joined the CCP only in and Deng, one of the of the revolution who stood at the of the system at the of the Cultural The was and had to be the for us to the Pantsov-Levine picture of Deng as a of and do not Deng in his and only to a do they him in his Mao, Deng's was to out his is little to against other even 1976, Deng did at to in in the form of of other on the to historical in the but a in accepted rather with by the and not by as the Deng had no for or He got what he he his on an less power than the he was also not as with a and as Mao had been with Deng In to Mao a through who simply not his in Deng against only after to his on and in the of an who their but very different significant and very different a major for this book, will with a largely picture of Deng the man, which is the of but will an understanding of the circumstances in which he of an of Deng and his is to Mao revolutionary and of Deng Xiaoping has not as much attention from the that he he a good not only in China but also in the Deng's as the of he has been seen as the of China's economic the who reform and opening of the and helped hundreds of of out of This biography by Alexander Pantsov and Steven Levine to this Deng's of its more and we who is but not of a and a an and a In we see who is good Deng the doing of the and of this biography is that it Deng's This the to on in Deng's to the of his and to how he or to change and what he or the latter was Deng's in the political of the Communist Party and in the of power from the top he as early as when he was still a student in Soviet is to the of the (p. In Deng have his under every he later no no is to The of was on the and Levine of Deng the an was a man who for of his life was not only to Mao in before the man who was for the of Deng's own but Mao's with whether in out of his in the Communist in Jiangxi (p. in an of in (p. in Mao's brutal against intellectuals in the (p. or even in his of Mao's in the (p. This is Mao never with Deng, him in but at for the of the Cultural Revolution and at to bring him to power in In the Deng a even after Mao's as for in his on in which he had helped just months earlier (p. to the of as will the of as Deng as The of this revolutionary purged and by Iosif Stalin will not as much to as it did to the Russian of earlier biography of Deng, on which this is Pantsov and Levine that Deng, in pursuing economic of New in the USSR in the But for the seems not to have the other Pantsov and Levine that China's reform was not to the Soviet not Deng's because he had on his a much more and did not have the and that China's way to This seems like a in the end who can tell from not what have in a book this and can points on which with the leaving would like to to criticism as Deng to do in his time, to for every as as Pantsov and Levine of having put much in Chinese sources on close out to be thought the Russian in the do not add as to the book as they do to and earlier biography of Mao, are as many as one would This is in part because many of the are still largely in including Pantsov and Levine, end up on or and and this a It as years how the of these and of their sources and what they or perhaps in the about the of by when it is difficult to the of their from the book the one (p. Pantsov and Levine on March Mao a CCP to hear Deng's report on the Congress of the Soviet Communist Party They go on to that by that time the Chinese were with for them by of the New China the English published in The New on March was nothing of the published in The New on March text of the was not published early The for the it But is repeatedly so is he a to that have his book, so this is a question put to as much as to Pantsov and is just one of many and of Deng in the book, less The chapter on the for on The may or may not be and on of the The are more or less every on Chinese history reviewer has to on such sources (though it is also how much one can go these in Chinese for the recent by and by and by as the book how little we still know about the of the Chinese leadership and how difficult it must be to a from and the Pantsov and Levine were in this of Deng a of for thought and to our understanding of one of the important figures of China's twentieth century and of his Fewsmith, Frederick Teiwes, and Sergey for the and assessments of the book. with their and of the all the and all the they are mine and should not be to Steven Levine, role was that of Russian book in its into English and the to with the to their have the in the of the book that came out in April in the same time, want to a the Russian sources tell us that the Chinese sources do also that Russian in the do not add as to the book as to earlier biography of Russian on Deng are indeed extremely important even they are not as as on the do not every chapter in Deng's they tell us much about him as a only do the light on his in Moscow in they also us with unique about his and including Mao, Zhou Enlai, and We can also new about Deng's with Soviet in the that the of Deng's This to Mao Deng for his role in taking a against the Soviet during the The also that Deng was not loyal to as he later of the Soviet who in the Soviet in Beijing and that Deng was not a of and on his own which with Zhou against the of In the Russian also us with many details about to Moscow in as well as Iosif policy in China from the to the early in the at the Russian of us understand against Deng in the early and the other that Deng and rather than of New the Deng was not before Mao's But in Deng did On he Mao's order to a CCP Central that was to a the Cultural Revolution an Mao the of to at but Deng as an he not good about the Cultural he had Mao with his or but this because of his of Mao's not The incident was the first time Deng to a order of the that have a to sources as the of Mao's Li and The Pantsov and Levine an important and by Deng's on his with the to Beijing in a at which was it not their as a of Deng and close of the report of this that not only a Revolution family but even more that as a would not be so The were published by two and is not in should not their and in China after the of their book. the same should not use The that he was in his in after his with in about his to the second book at to what he In much the same the of the Russian that his about are more than had on its own is is about But we still must use they are the only of and we cannot their should more than should a in for report of Deng's in with who not add new to our understanding of Deng's relations with As that and that he his to up of This not at years in the Russian of Mao book that had in against were so that and before his he all with and this from the English and did not on it in Deng book for the for Hua as a Mao that Hua was not a leader and that this is he he has a low the man with the low then that do not Hua as in the of the of do not. Hua did a great role in the and do not it but do not it and the The came from and it was that the also that Hua was not a at the end of Hua told of the CCP that Mao and to which he in we will not to Did his the they Did he Deng's to he we of the of the the same time, did Hua a role in the of economic in of Did about it as at that by the time Deng about changes had also in Hua Guofeng's other the for the of his to and the including Deng, then about also that Hua was the one who on a of the CCP that to the of of all work to as of of with that a chapter on the and a on the Deng southern be was to the life of Deng in a book of no more than had to be that an decision to with recent scholarship at with the In he also to be and even do not think that in a the is but the would be to he would did part of history did and will with an understanding of the circumstances in which he points to only one several years, as in Mao's policy in as a from to to from their should we this policy we have recent that this far can that to with only one recent the book by on The of the in with did so for the same the of sources as and their even of of the is one example. and that incident was of the in his and the depth of his hatred of and This is as Deng had never been book nothing about Revolution family Deng and was known for his The of not be an he to Deng on Mao's In The of the also so many to with all was to use it as as other by to all the as well as the of the of for this very

Alliance · Beijing · China · Communism · Development economics · Dynamism · Economic history · Economics · Economy · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Quarter (Canadian coin · Sociology · China's Socioeconomic Reforms and Governance · Chinese history and philosophy · History · Law · Philosophy