I have said much the same in my latest column in the FT. But I have added that the US is handing much of the world to China. (I was also on much the same trip as my good friend, Stephen.)
I always appreciate Stephen Roach sharing his opinion. I read his work as often as I could when he worked for Morgan Stanley. Before China and during his posting there. Always valuable. Always.
We all know how much dispassionate thinking is needed today. That, and wisdom gained only by years. Thank you Mr. Roach.
Like Mao, Trump is unleashing a self-destructive revolution. Unlike China, America’s Cultural Revolution will have devastating global consequences — a trade war and a geostrategic upheaval. Unlike China, America has no Deng Xiaoping to pick up the pieces. Like Mao, Trump appears to have lost his mind late in life! See my latest Substack post.
I think you are too kind about Trump losing his mind late in his life. He has always been this stupid and delusional. What I think is more a more apt description is 49.9% of the American people losing their minds for voting this sociopath into office so he is in position to do his damage.
Absurd. The American Cultural Revolution erupted from the left in the summer of 2020. The George Floyd riots, the ascent of BLM, and the rise of gender ideology didn’t materialize out of thin air; they were incubated in universities, where radical left-wing ideas have thrived for decades. This is the real echo of China’s Cultural Revolution, which was a movement to wipe out the past and enforce ideological purity. The student-led Red Guards smashed statues, closed schools, and coerced dissenters into public apologies or banishment. Ring any bells?
In 2020, America witnessed its own version: Historical figures — imperfect or otherwise —were toppled as “progress” demanded their erasure, much like Mao’s war on "bourgeois" symbols. Politicians literally took a knee to BLM’s vicious systemic racism lie, while restaurant patrons were strong-armed into raising fists, with holdouts berated. In Congress, Rep. Keith Self’s factual reference to trans-identifying Sarah McBride as "Mr. McBride" triggered Rep. Bill Keating to pause proceedings until Self conformed to the left’s language rules. The media, now a megaphone for this ideology, labeled it "misgendering", revealing how normalized this reality-warp has become.
The left’s revolution feeds on stifling dissent. Megan Murphy’s permanent Twitter ban for asking, "How are transwomen not men?" and asserting, "Men aren’t women", mirrors the Cultural Revolution’s crackdown on "counterrevolutionary" ideas.
These aren’t outliers — they’re signs of a wider push to mandate conformity, just as Mao’s Red Guards crushed free thought. This language policing evolved into policy: men competing in women's athletic competition, men being housed in women's prisons, etc.
The author obsesses over Trump’s pivots — protectionism, rethinking alliances, and an alleged threat to the rule of law — as a revolutionary rupture of America’s "historical norms", which is really just a Washington D.C.-manufactured post-war norm. But this misses the real disruption: the left’s assault on truth, reason, and speech. Trump’s moves adjust frameworks; the left’s ideology aims to demolish them. From rejecting biology (men in women’s sports and prisons) to rewriting history, this is the cultural revolution attempting to remake America.
The left’s ideology — pushed through media, academia, corporate sway and government agencies like USAID — carries comparable, if not greater, global influence than America's trade relationships. China’s Cultural Revolution was insular; America’s left-led upheaval projects outward, tainting discourse from Europe to Asia.
China’s Cultural Revolution left millions dead. America’s version avoids mass graves but destroys the intellect, insisting we abandon reality for doctrine. Trump’s approach, flaws and all, isn’t the radical departure here. The left’s erasure of history, language, and dissent is the true kin to Mao’s revolution, and it’s far more pervasive than the original piece admits.
Under Xi, the Cultural Revolution has been a taboo topic, as you might know*. If people are now discussing it, isn’t it at least likely that Xi himself has decided it can be discussed? As to why this might be, I haven’t a clue. But when people start discussing something that was previously too sensitive to discuss, the first thing to ask is, why is the leadership allowing it?
* I’ve had personal experience of this on the ground. The ban on discussing the CR was implemented by the authorities.
1. I accompanied a small group of Japanese resident in China, which included a PhD student at a prominent university, to visit the Laoshe museum (I think it was) and, as an afterthought, view Zhao Ziyang's site of house arrest in Dongsi. Before long a group came marching along the alley and took the student aside for questioning while we were kept waiting under the watchful eye of an official. It was near 4 June, so maybe not unexpected, but the Cultural Revolution was definitely a touchy topic.
2. At another time I bought some Mongolian-language children's books in an Inner Mongolian city. I went to the post office in order to post them out of China as I wanted to reduce my luggage, even just a little. I knew such books needed to be checked by the Cultural Bureau but I didn't have time. The post office official said I couldn't send them, even though they were picture books about Chinese legends and had publishing details in Chinese at the back of the book. She also muttered something about the Cultural Revolution, which seemed to be a topic that she had been instructed to be wary of. Since she couldn't read Mongolian, her caution (typical of officials in China) was understandable.
This leads me to believe that reluctance to discuss the Cultural Revolution was not just a matter of personal sensitivity; it was officially a "sensitive issue".
As a Chinese reader, I find the comparison between the turmoil stirred by Trump and Chinese Cultural Revolution compelling - particularly in a sense that both may ultimately become periods that majority of people would rather erase from historical memories. As from disagreements among readers reflecting on the origin of such movements in the US, the incompleteness of this analogy lies not in assigning blame to either the left or right, but in oversimplification of the causes - unlike China’s cultural revolution, where Mao’s intentional consolidation of his personal authority was largely identified as the central motif, which is not too far from reality - in the American case, disputes on criminalizing either side of political spectrum, in turn, vindicates deeper systematic problems, which may not to be viewed as isolated within the American politics context, but rather interrogated on a transnational scale. The dangerous dismissal of this phenomenon as merely a manifestation of far-right ideology doesn’t exempt it from being part of a broader crisis of deeper roots.
A very insightful analysis. We can hope to avoid the excesses of the Red Guards, although the demise of the rule of law makes that less likely. It will be interesting to see who will play the role of the Gang of Four (nominations currently open)—happily Melania does not seem to be taking a Jiang Qing-like role. Generals Milley and Brown do not seem to suffer quite the fate of Peng Dehuai, but the parallel treatment of the professionals in the armed forces is a source of significant concern.
One fundamental difference is that the China version involves steering individuals to act against each other while the America version is mainly about gaming on international balances and institutions. However, it is still sad to see that the US is joining the fake info camp to achieve power
Whether or not one agrees with Stephen Roach, that question is moot. What can’t be disputed is the lucidity of his arguments, their coherence and thoughtfulness. In the absence of any universal, supposedly impartial criteria for assessing the rightness or wrongness of such arguments, this is the most anyone can reasonably ask for. After all the hallmark of science is a recognition that any scientific theory is open to being proved wrong. To wit, Newton and Einstein’s theory of gravity. What was for centuries thought to be fact, turned out not to be. As the irritating lady said, there are alternative facts. I, for one, always look forward to a new Roach article. As I did as a youth waiting for the next Hardy Boys adventure.
You make it too simple and too easy, which is appealing to a lazy intellect (I do not know you and am therefore not suggesting yours is a lazy intellect). There is too much to cover in a short comment, but let’s just say America favors consumerism and consumption over investment. When you run a full employment deficit of $2 trillion you ‘balance’ the accounts either with a trade deficit or inflation or both. No one has taken advantage of us. We have prioritized today’s pleasure over tomorrow’s prosperity. I believe Mr. Roach has the right take on the sudden willingness of the Chinese to confront their cultural revolution.
I find it disturbing that people like that Shay fellow are popping up on threads like this. Substack used to be a civilised sort of space for thoughtful, well-researched, in-depth, intelligent coverage worth following if you were into serious issues. It seems to be turning into a kind of Facebook, where every man and his dog can drop by and leave uninformed, biased comments, or even rubbish posts. Where can we go next? I don’t want to come here and find Substack filled with garbage.
Hamas would not exist without Israel… Good news? You will only continue to alienate people with your hard line, intolerant, fanatical stance. I, for one, have just moved one step closer to disliking Israel.
“Designated terrorist group”. Step back a bit and remember the old saying: one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. I’m not supporting Hamas here, but you are decidedly partisan. Sympathy for Palestinians in Gaza should go beyond this kind of partisan stance. You hate 68ers? Ok, that’s your thing. Your jaundice is showing.
Israel - Palestine requires a political solution. Is Israel working towards one? Killing thousands of Palestinians is alright by Israel? By this Israel stands condemned.
“Critics argue”, “reportedly”, etc, etc. And organised student groups on campus. There are lots of these. Does Israel have no influence? Are there no pro-Israel student groups?
Just to add, I think anti-Semitic is a stretch. Anti-Zionist (a term that is often bandied around recently) isn’t necessarily anti-Semitic. Is it “woke” to feel sympathy for the Palestinians?
I have said much the same in my latest column in the FT. But I have added that the US is handing much of the world to China. (I was also on much the same trip as my good friend, Stephen.)
I always appreciate Stephen Roach sharing his opinion. I read his work as often as I could when he worked for Morgan Stanley. Before China and during his posting there. Always valuable. Always.
We all know how much dispassionate thinking is needed today. That, and wisdom gained only by years. Thank you Mr. Roach.
Like Mao, Trump is unleashing a self-destructive revolution. Unlike China, America’s Cultural Revolution will have devastating global consequences — a trade war and a geostrategic upheaval. Unlike China, America has no Deng Xiaoping to pick up the pieces. Like Mao, Trump appears to have lost his mind late in life! See my latest Substack post.
I think you are too kind about Trump losing his mind late in his life. He has always been this stupid and delusional. What I think is more a more apt description is 49.9% of the American people losing their minds for voting this sociopath into office so he is in position to do his damage.
Thanks for your thoughtful input.
Absurd. The American Cultural Revolution erupted from the left in the summer of 2020. The George Floyd riots, the ascent of BLM, and the rise of gender ideology didn’t materialize out of thin air; they were incubated in universities, where radical left-wing ideas have thrived for decades. This is the real echo of China’s Cultural Revolution, which was a movement to wipe out the past and enforce ideological purity. The student-led Red Guards smashed statues, closed schools, and coerced dissenters into public apologies or banishment. Ring any bells?
In 2020, America witnessed its own version: Historical figures — imperfect or otherwise —were toppled as “progress” demanded their erasure, much like Mao’s war on "bourgeois" symbols. Politicians literally took a knee to BLM’s vicious systemic racism lie, while restaurant patrons were strong-armed into raising fists, with holdouts berated. In Congress, Rep. Keith Self’s factual reference to trans-identifying Sarah McBride as "Mr. McBride" triggered Rep. Bill Keating to pause proceedings until Self conformed to the left’s language rules. The media, now a megaphone for this ideology, labeled it "misgendering", revealing how normalized this reality-warp has become.
The left’s revolution feeds on stifling dissent. Megan Murphy’s permanent Twitter ban for asking, "How are transwomen not men?" and asserting, "Men aren’t women", mirrors the Cultural Revolution’s crackdown on "counterrevolutionary" ideas.
These aren’t outliers — they’re signs of a wider push to mandate conformity, just as Mao’s Red Guards crushed free thought. This language policing evolved into policy: men competing in women's athletic competition, men being housed in women's prisons, etc.
The author obsesses over Trump’s pivots — protectionism, rethinking alliances, and an alleged threat to the rule of law — as a revolutionary rupture of America’s "historical norms", which is really just a Washington D.C.-manufactured post-war norm. But this misses the real disruption: the left’s assault on truth, reason, and speech. Trump’s moves adjust frameworks; the left’s ideology aims to demolish them. From rejecting biology (men in women’s sports and prisons) to rewriting history, this is the cultural revolution attempting to remake America.
The left’s ideology — pushed through media, academia, corporate sway and government agencies like USAID — carries comparable, if not greater, global influence than America's trade relationships. China’s Cultural Revolution was insular; America’s left-led upheaval projects outward, tainting discourse from Europe to Asia.
China’s Cultural Revolution left millions dead. America’s version avoids mass graves but destroys the intellect, insisting we abandon reality for doctrine. Trump’s approach, flaws and all, isn’t the radical departure here. The left’s erasure of history, language, and dissent is the true kin to Mao’s revolution, and it’s far more pervasive than the original piece admits.
Under Xi, the Cultural Revolution has been a taboo topic, as you might know*. If people are now discussing it, isn’t it at least likely that Xi himself has decided it can be discussed? As to why this might be, I haven’t a clue. But when people start discussing something that was previously too sensitive to discuss, the first thing to ask is, why is the leadership allowing it?
* I’ve had personal experience of this on the ground. The ban on discussing the CR was implemented by the authorities.
My two examples are from the period 2017-2019:
1. I accompanied a small group of Japanese resident in China, which included a PhD student at a prominent university, to visit the Laoshe museum (I think it was) and, as an afterthought, view Zhao Ziyang's site of house arrest in Dongsi. Before long a group came marching along the alley and took the student aside for questioning while we were kept waiting under the watchful eye of an official. It was near 4 June, so maybe not unexpected, but the Cultural Revolution was definitely a touchy topic.
2. At another time I bought some Mongolian-language children's books in an Inner Mongolian city. I went to the post office in order to post them out of China as I wanted to reduce my luggage, even just a little. I knew such books needed to be checked by the Cultural Bureau but I didn't have time. The post office official said I couldn't send them, even though they were picture books about Chinese legends and had publishing details in Chinese at the back of the book. She also muttered something about the Cultural Revolution, which seemed to be a topic that she had been instructed to be wary of. Since she couldn't read Mongolian, her caution (typical of officials in China) was understandable.
This leads me to believe that reluctance to discuss the Cultural Revolution was not just a matter of personal sensitivity; it was officially a "sensitive issue".
As a Chinese reader, I find the comparison between the turmoil stirred by Trump and Chinese Cultural Revolution compelling - particularly in a sense that both may ultimately become periods that majority of people would rather erase from historical memories. As from disagreements among readers reflecting on the origin of such movements in the US, the incompleteness of this analogy lies not in assigning blame to either the left or right, but in oversimplification of the causes - unlike China’s cultural revolution, where Mao’s intentional consolidation of his personal authority was largely identified as the central motif, which is not too far from reality - in the American case, disputes on criminalizing either side of political spectrum, in turn, vindicates deeper systematic problems, which may not to be viewed as isolated within the American politics context, but rather interrogated on a transnational scale. The dangerous dismissal of this phenomenon as merely a manifestation of far-right ideology doesn’t exempt it from being part of a broader crisis of deeper roots.
A very insightful analysis. We can hope to avoid the excesses of the Red Guards, although the demise of the rule of law makes that less likely. It will be interesting to see who will play the role of the Gang of Four (nominations currently open)—happily Melania does not seem to be taking a Jiang Qing-like role. Generals Milley and Brown do not seem to suffer quite the fate of Peng Dehuai, but the parallel treatment of the professionals in the armed forces is a source of significant concern.
One fundamental difference is that the China version involves steering individuals to act against each other while the America version is mainly about gaming on international balances and institutions. However, it is still sad to see that the US is joining the fake info camp to achieve power
Whether or not one agrees with Stephen Roach, that question is moot. What can’t be disputed is the lucidity of his arguments, their coherence and thoughtfulness. In the absence of any universal, supposedly impartial criteria for assessing the rightness or wrongness of such arguments, this is the most anyone can reasonably ask for. After all the hallmark of science is a recognition that any scientific theory is open to being proved wrong. To wit, Newton and Einstein’s theory of gravity. What was for centuries thought to be fact, turned out not to be. As the irritating lady said, there are alternative facts. I, for one, always look forward to a new Roach article. As I did as a youth waiting for the next Hardy Boys adventure.
tbh, as a Chinese reader, I share the same feelings with you that Trump2.0 has similarities to some extent.
You make it too simple and too easy, which is appealing to a lazy intellect (I do not know you and am therefore not suggesting yours is a lazy intellect). There is too much to cover in a short comment, but let’s just say America favors consumerism and consumption over investment. When you run a full employment deficit of $2 trillion you ‘balance’ the accounts either with a trade deficit or inflation or both. No one has taken advantage of us. We have prioritized today’s pleasure over tomorrow’s prosperity. I believe Mr. Roach has the right take on the sudden willingness of the Chinese to confront their cultural revolution.
Shay has deleted all his comments (or maybe he has blocked me). Good riddance.
I find it disturbing that people like that Shay fellow are popping up on threads like this. Substack used to be a civilised sort of space for thoughtful, well-researched, in-depth, intelligent coverage worth following if you were into serious issues. It seems to be turning into a kind of Facebook, where every man and his dog can drop by and leave uninformed, biased comments, or even rubbish posts. Where can we go next? I don’t want to come here and find Substack filled with garbage.
Agree 100%. I left Twitter/X and embraced Substack for precisely that reason.
Just tuning in. Share your concerns re: unhelpful comments. They seem to have fled.
Amen.
“You've got your head so far up your ass it’s incredible.” What compelling rhetoric!
I disagree. Nazis were Nazis. It wasn’t just about Judenhass, it was far more, repulsive as it was. Hamas is about Israel, full stop.
Hamas would not exist without Israel… Good news? You will only continue to alienate people with your hard line, intolerant, fanatical stance. I, for one, have just moved one step closer to disliking Israel.
I don’t think we have any more to say to each other. Good day.
“Designated terrorist group”. Step back a bit and remember the old saying: one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. I’m not supporting Hamas here, but you are decidedly partisan. Sympathy for Palestinians in Gaza should go beyond this kind of partisan stance. You hate 68ers? Ok, that’s your thing. Your jaundice is showing.
That’s fine. I don’t support 10/7 (which wasn’t “genocide”, by the way, heinous though it was). But your skewed fanaticism is showing.
Israel - Palestine requires a political solution. Is Israel working towards one? Killing thousands of Palestinians is alright by Israel? By this Israel stands condemned.
“Critics argue”, “reportedly”, etc, etc. And organised student groups on campus. There are lots of these. Does Israel have no influence? Are there no pro-Israel student groups?
Who, exactly, are the 68ers, and what is this unified political and social philosophy that you are attributing to them?
I suspected as much. But the reference to anti-Semitism as a hallmark of 68ers threw me. This sounds to me like an ex post facto, contemporary slant.
Just to add, I think anti-Semitic is a stretch. Anti-Zionist (a term that is often bandied around recently) isn’t necessarily anti-Semitic. Is it “woke” to feel sympathy for the Palestinians?
Hamas in American academia? Conspiracies abound, I see. If that’s the way you want to see the world, that’s the way it will be.