Victor Heaulme
IB History SL
28/02/12

EXAMINE THE CONDITIONS THAT LED TO THE RISE OF A SINGLE-PARTY STATE UNDER MAO ZEDONG.

“In October 1949 Mao Zedong proclaimed the establishment of the People’s Republic of China” (IB Packet, 60). This date marked the official beginning of the CCP’s (Chinese Communist Party) rule under a single party rule. However, one question remains: what exactly were the prominent conditions that led to this rise of the CCP under Mao Zedong? Although one could easily isolate several specific variables that aided the parties rise, such as the failure of the GMD (Nationalist Party) or even The May 4th Movement, one must look at it more broadly to understand the bigger picture of the circumstances. When looking at …show more content…

At least the Communists were offering…. Stability” (Lawrence, 8). Again, we continue to see the CCP gaining an advantage both socially (the middle class starts turning towards them) and economically (they offer stability in the economy and alternatives). However, one positive economic accomplishment of the GMD was its “industrial output grew at 6% p.a.” (IB Packet, 64). Socially, even education rose, with 86% more children attending primaries and 94% more going to university! However, despite strengths like these, the GMD declined because of its “loss of revolutionary outlook” (IB Packet, 64). Socially, despite its gain thanks to education, it started to lose popular support and gradually the GMD would eliminate left-wingers and “turn its back on mass organizations of peasants” (IB Packet, 64), as previously mentioned. Additionally, in economic aspects, although the GMD was more in power than the CCP during the “industrial expansion,” “Most of the industrial expansion in the 1930s took place in foreign-owned factories” (IB Packet, 65). This shows that despite the GMD “making improvements” economically, they really weren’t doing much, which is why Lawrence says that the people felt they had nothing to lose with the CCP. Socially, despite the GMD having bad relations with the peasantry, it even had bad relations with the “intellectuals and students.” Indeed, the “GMD relations with intellectuals and students worsened” (IB Packet, 66). In fact, GMD officials had their