Marxism Research Network
Unofficial English Translation

You Haihua and Tu Guodong: Layering and the Search for Truth: An Investigation into the Finished History of Mao Zedong’s Status at the Zunyi Conference

Modern Chinese History

The Zunyi Meeting [1] is a major research topic within the history of the Communist Party of China (CPC), the history of the Chinese Revolution, and modern Chinese history. It has generated a wealth of scholarship: papers focused solely on the Zunyi Meeting number in the thousands, covering the spirit of the meeting, the establishment of Mao Zedong’s leadership, the relationship between CPC leaders and the meeting, its background, process, site, content, role, significance, lessons, and inspirations, as well as its relationship with Party building and the Sinicization of Marxism.

If it is said that the Zunyi Meeting was a life-and-death turning point in the Party's history, then the change in Mao Zedong's status was the key to that turning point. For this reason, whether Mao Zedong’s leadership was established has long been the most focused and controversial issue regarding the Zunyi Meeting. Over a decade ago, some scholars conducted specialized reviews of the state of research on this issue, while others briefly listed accounts from Party documents and narratives from those who personally experienced the meeting. While related to these two approaches, this article intends to take a different path by adopting the perspectives of academic history and socio-cultural history. It will trace the shifts in historical writing within mainland academic circles since 1949 regarding Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Meeting and analyze the similarities, differences, and reflected information between official and academic expressions, thereby advancing reflection on the Zunyi Meeting and related scholarly research.

I. Shifts in Official Historical Writing Regarding Mao Zedong's Status at the Zunyi Meeting

The Communist Party of China has its own historical narrative regarding Mao Zedong's status at the Zunyi Meeting, which this article terms "official writing." This primarily includes expressions found in Party documents, public speeches by Party and state leaders, and the works of central propaganda and Party history departments and their respective heads.

"Party documents" here refers to the expressions regarding Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Meeting found in the Party’s three historical resolutions [2]. The first historical resolution, the “Resolution on Certain Historical Issues” adopted by the Seventh Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of the CPC in 1945, stated: the Zunyi Meeting “began the new leadership of the Central Committee headed by Comrade Mao Zedong.” The second historical resolution, the “Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China” adopted by the Sixth Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of the CPC in 1981, stated: the Zunyi Meeting “established Comrade Mao Zedong’s leadership position in the Red Army and the Central Committee of the Party.” The third historical resolution, the “Resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party over the Past Century” adopted by the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the CPC in 2021, stated: the Zunyi Meeting “de facto established Comrade Mao Zedong’s leadership position in the Central Committee of the Party and the Red Army, began to establish the leadership position of the correct Marxist line—with Comrade Mao Zedong as its chief representative—in the Central Committee of the Party, and began the formation of the Party’s first generation of central collective leadership with Comrade Mao Zedong as the core.”

Public speeches by Party and state leaders refer to the expressions regarding Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Meeting by successive cores of the central collective leadership, such as Deng Xiaoping, Jiang Zemin, Hu Jintao, and Xi Jinping. In 1965, Deng Xiaoping was a member of the first generation of central collective leadership and had not yet grown into the core of the second generation. In a talk with a leader of an Asian Communist Party that year, he pointed out that the Zunyi Meeting “established the central leadership with Comrade Mao Zedong as the core.” In 1996, in a speech at the meeting commemorating the 60th anniversary of the victory of the Red Army's Long March, Jiang Zemin stated that the Zunyi Meeting “established Comrade Mao Zedong’s leadership position.” In 2006, in his speech commemorating the 70th anniversary, Hu Jintao stated: “The Zunyi Meeting established Comrade Mao Zedong’s leadership position in the Red Army and the Party Central Committee, began to establish the correct line of the Party Central Committee represented by Comrade Mao Zedong,” and “the first generation of the Party’s central collective leadership with Comrade Mao Zedong as the core gradually took shape.” In 2016, in his speech commemorating the 80th anniversary, Xi Jinping stated: “The meeting established Comrade Mao Zedong’s leadership position in the Red Army and the Party Central Committee, began to establish the leadership position of the correct Marxist line—with Comrade Mao Zedong as its chief representative—in the Party Central Committee, and began the formation of the Party’s first generation of central collective leadership with Comrade Mao Zedong as the core.”

Works by central propaganda and Party history departments and their heads primarily refer to the Party history books compiled by Liao Gailong, Hu Qiaomu, Hu Sheng, and the Institute of Party History of the CPC Central Committee (中共中央党史研究室).

In the 1950s, those who expounded on Mao Zedong's status at the Zunyi Meeting in the form of scholarly works were mainly Liao Gailong and Hu Qiaomu. The earliest was Liao Gailong, then deputy editor-in-chief of Xinhua News Agency, who recorded in his 1950 book How Was New China Born? that the Zunyi Meeting “established the leadership position within the Party of Comrade Mao Zedong and the correct line represented by Comrade Mao Zedong.” By December 1952, this book had gone through 13 printings with 75,000 copies distributed. In 1955, after rewriting and adding content, it was renamed How Was New China Born and Grown? and published by Shanghai People's Publishing House, with a circulation of 42,000 copies, exerting significant influence; the expression regarding Mao Zedong’s status was carried over entirely in the 1955 edition. Slightly later was Thirty Years of the Communist Party of China, published in 1951 and written by Hu Qiaomu, then deputy head of the Central Propaganda Department, for the Central Committee’s celebration of the 30th anniversary of the CPC’s birth. Though only 52,000 words, it was the "first pioneering, concise work on Party history in New China." After the initial draft was completed, it underwent several revisions by Mao Zedong and Liu Shaoqi. The book recorded: the Zunyi Meeting “established Comrade Mao Zedong’s leadership position in the whole Party.”

In the early 1980s, “to meet the needs of the whole Party and the people of the whole country to understand the content of the Zunyi Meeting,” the Central Party History Materials Collection Committee and the Central Archives edited Documents of the Zunyi Meeting, published in 1985. In the preface and related investigations and textual research on the meeting, the editors recorded: at the Zunyi Meeting and shortly thereafter, “the Political Bureau of the Central Committee changed the leadership of the Central Committee and the Red Army, actually establishing Comrade Mao Zedong’s leadership position within the Party and the military,” and “began the correct leadership of the new Central Committee represented by Comrade Mao Zedong.” Subsequently, to celebrate the 70th anniversary of the founding of the CPC, and after several years and many drafts, the Institute of Party History of the CPC Central Committee published the first volume of History of the Communist Party of China in 1991. Starting from 1919 and ending in 1949, totaling 564,000 words, it was the first detailed and authoritative Party history work covering the thirty years since the founding of the CPC. The book recorded: the Zunyi Meeting “actually established Mao Zedong’s leadership position in the Party Central Committee,” and “from then on, the Communist Party of China was able, under the leadership of the correct Marxist line represented by Mao Zedong, to overcome numerous difficulties and lead the Chinese revolution step by step toward victory.” A year earlier, also to celebrate the 70th anniversary, under the direction of Hu Sheng, personnel from the Central Propaganda Department, the Central Literature Research Office, and the State Council Research Office were invited to join personnel from the Institute of Party History to co-author Seventy Years of the Communist Party of China, published in 1991. This book was “a relatively perfect and complete Party history of medium length.” It recorded: the Zunyi Meeting “de facto established the correct leadership of the Party Central Committee with Mao Zedong as the core.”

In 2011, on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of the founding of the CPC, the Institute of Party History published for the first time a complete History of the Communist Party of China spanning 1921–1978 in two volumes. Volume 1 (1921–1949), Part 1, recorded: the Zunyi Meeting “established Mao Zedong's leadership position in the CPC Central Committee and the Red Army,” and “from then on, the Communist Party of China was able... to lead the Chinese revolution step by step toward victory.” In 2016, to celebrate the 95th anniversary [3], the Institute published Ninety Years of the Communist Party of China, divided into three volumes: the New Democratic Revolution period, the Socialist Revolution and Construction period, and the New Period of Reform, Opening-up, and Socialist Modernization. The volume on the New Democratic Revolution recorded: “The Zunyi Meeting began to establish the leadership position of the correct Marxist line—with Comrade Mao Zedong as its chief representative—in the CPC Central Committee.” In 2021, to celebrate the centenary of the CPC, the centenary edition of the Brief History of the Communist Party of China was published. It recorded: the Zunyi Meeting “de facto established Mao Zedong’s leadership position in the Party Central Committee and the Red Army, began to establish the leadership position of the correct Marxist line—with Mao Zedong as its chief representative—in the Party Central Committee, and began the formation of the first generation of central collective leadership with Mao Zedong as the core.”

Comparing the expressions regarding Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Meeting in Party documents, speeches by Party and state leaders, and works by central propaganda/Party history departments and their heads, it is not difficult to find:

First, across all official expressions, it is consistent that the Zunyi Meeting de facto established Mao Zedong’s leadership position, though the modes of expression differ and their implicit or extended meanings are not entirely identical.

Second, the first historical resolution is the earliest and most authoritative official document regarding Mao Zedong's status. From the perspective of "the core," although "headed by Comrade Mao Zedong" (以毛泽东同志为首) implies the essence of a core, this specific concept [4] had not yet been proposed at that time. Regarding whether leadership was "established," the dynamic descriptive phrase "began" (开始了) was used—referring to the start of an event—which did not explicitly say "established" but implied it. Regarding the scope of leadership, it only clarified that Mao was the new central leader without specifying the concrete scope of that leadership.

Third, in the early 1950s, Liao Gailong and Hu Qiaomu enriched the expression of the first historical resolution. Regarding whether it was "established," Liao Gailong was the first to use the term "established" (确立了), followed by Hu Qiaomu. Both described Mao Zedong's leadership position as being "within the Party" and "in the whole Party," thus providing a specific scope of leadership. Subsequently, except for the 1985 Central Party History Materials Collection Committee, which adopted the phrasing of Liao and Hu ("established Comrade Mao Zedong's leadership position within the Party..."), later authoritative Party history works all adopted phrasings similar to the second historical resolution: "established his leadership position in 'the Red Army and the Party Central Committee'."

Fourth, the "core" (核心) concept first proposed by Deng Xiaoping in 1965 was inherited by the 1991 edition of Seventy Years of the Communist Party of China (edited by Hu Sheng) and was developed in the third historical resolution into the expression: "began the formation of the Party’s first generation of central collective leadership with Mao Zedong as the core."

Fifth, the expression in the third historical resolution that the meeting "began to establish the leadership position of the correct Marxist line—with Comrade Mao Zedong as its chief representative—in the Party Central Committee" likely originated from Liao Gailong's "established the leadership position within the Party of Comrade Mao Zedong and the correct line represented by Comrade Mao Zedong." This was later inherited by the 1985 committee's phrasing ("began the correct leadership of the new Central Committee represented by Comrade Mao Zedong") and was basically finalized in the 1991 Volume 1 of History of the Communist Party of China, subsequently adopted by authoritative Party history works and by Hu Jintao and Xi Jinping.

Sixth, the complete expression in the third historical resolution—that the Zunyi Meeting “de facto established Comrade Mao Zedong’s leadership position in the Central Committee of the Party and the Red Army, began to establish the leadership position of the correct Marxist line—with Comrade Mao Zedong as its chief representative—in the Central Committee of the Party, and began the formation of the Party’s first generation of central collective leadership with Comrade Mao Zedong as the core”—first took shape in Hu Jintao's 2006 speech. It was thereafter fully used in Xi Jinping's 2016 speech and the 2021 Brief History of the Communist Party of China.

Seventh, looking only at the three historical resolutions: first, they increasingly clarify Mao Zedong's core status in the Red Army and the first generation of central collective leadership. For instance, they all emphasize Mao Zedong alone without mentioning other central leaders, the self-evident meaning being that Mao's leadership was essentially the core of the Central Committee and Red Army leadership. Second, expressions regarding the leadership status of the Mao Zedong Thought line in the Party Central Committee were added; that is, the expressions regarding the scope and content of leadership, the core leadership status, and the de facto establishment became increasingly explicit.

Eighth, regarding the formulations used by Party and state leaders alone, Deng Xiaoping was the first to propose the concept of the central leadership’s "core"; Jiang Zemin’s formulation was the most concise and plain, excising the categorical phrase "the Red Army and the Party Central Committee"; Hu Jintao added the expression "began to establish the correct line of the Party Central Committee represented by Comrade Mao Zedong"; and Xi Jinping added the qualifier "Marxist" to Hu Jintao’s foundation, highlighting Mao Zedong’s theoretical contributions while clarifying that Mao Zedong was the core of the Party’s first generation of central collective leadership. If one compares the formulations of Party and state leaders with the three historical resolutions [5], it becomes evident that while the wording varies, Deng Xiaoping and Jiang Zemin basically followed the formulations of the first and second historical resolutions. In contrast, Hu Jintao and Xi Jinping, while adhering to the first two resolutions, further enriched and developed the descriptions of Mao Zedong regarding the Zunyi Meeting. The third historical resolution almost entirely adopted Xi Jinping’s 2016 formulation.

II. Changes in Academic Historical Writing Regarding Mao Zedong's Status at the Zunyi Meeting

Academic historical writing on Mao Zedong's status at the Zunyi Meeting likely began with formulations in textbooks compiled by Hu Hua, He Ganzhi, and others. In early 1950, Hu Hua simplified and revised part of his lecture notes from North China University, History of the Chinese Revolution, publishing it as History of the Chinese New Democratic Revolution (Draft) (中国新民主主义革命史(初稿)). It served as a textbook for senior high schools and normal colleges, as well as a general reference for political and historical studies. The book recorded that the Zunyi Meeting "established the correct leadership of the Party Central Committee headed by Mao Zedong." In the same year, commissioned by the Department of Political Education of the Ministry of Higher Education to address the lack of textbooks for Chinese revolutionary history courses in universities, He Ganzhi invited several Beijing-based teaching and research sections [6] focusing on the history of the Chinese revolution to collaborate. Using the outlines and lecture notes from the Renmin University of China as a blueprint, they collectively compiled and published in 1954 the Lecture Notes on Modern Chinese Revolutionary History (Draft) (中国现代革命史讲义(初稿)). This book stated that the Zunyi Meeting "affirmed Comrade Mao Zedong’s correct military line" and "established a new leadership of the Party Central Committee headed by Comrade Mao Zedong"; it "established Comrade Mao Zedong's leadership position in the whole Party and the Central Committee," and noted that "the beginning of the leadership of the new Central Committee headed by Comrade Mao Zedong was an extremely important turning point for our Party. From then on, the Communist Party of China and the Chinese revolution have marched from victory to victory under the Marxist-Leninist leadership of this outstanding, great, and completely trustworthy leader." In 1953 and 1954, Hu Hua edited the Lecture Notes on the History of the Chinese Revolution. Starting from 1954, this book was "printed in volumes and used as internal lecture notes." It was published by Renmin University of China Press in 1959 and revised in 1979 for use as "a textbook for Party history and modern history courses in institutions of higher learning." This book recorded that the Zunyi Meeting "affirmed Mao Zedong’s Marxist-Leninist military line" and "established Mao Zedong's leadership position in the Red Army and the Party Central Committee."

Slightly later, following the 1950 national conference on liberal arts textbooks, Li Xin and others convened many experts from higher education institutions to collectively compile the General History of China’s New Democratic Revolution Period (中国新民主主义革命时期通史) (Vols. 1–4), published in 1962. During compilation, "the name 'History of the Revolution' was still used, but the style, structure, and content of the entire book were of the nature of modern history, becoming the primary textbook for modern history." Consequently, this book became the model for compiling modern Chinese history in universities. Regarding Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Meeting, Volume 2 of this book recorded: the meeting "reaffirmed the correct military line represented by Mao Zedong" and "established the new leadership of the Party Central Committee headed by Mao Zedong"; "it is particularly fortunate that after fourteen years of heroic, tortuous, and complex struggle, the Party finally found an outstanding and completely trustworthy leader in Mao Zedong. For fourteen years, Mao Zedong correctly and vividly integrated the universal truths of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution, solving a series of major problems of the Chinese revolution. For fourteen years, Mao Zedong continuously waged irreconcilable and effective struggles against various reactionary trends of thought outside the Party and various forms of opportunism within the Party; these struggles proved that Mao Zedong was a model of the creative application of Marxism-Leninism, a model of combining a high degree of revolutionary spirit with a high degree of scientific spirit."

In addition to the representative works above, a small number of articles prior to the Reform and Opening-up [7] discussed Mao Zedong's status at the Zunyi Meeting. An earlier example is Yang Shengqing, who, in his 1965 article "The Great Historical Significance of the Zunyi Meeting," cited the first historical resolution’s formulation of Mao Zedong’s status, arguing that the Zunyi Meeting "established Comrade Mao Zedong’s leadership position in the whole Party." In 1975, the Party History Group of the Department of Philosophy at Guizhou University argued in the article "The Zunyi Meeting Shines Forever" that the Zunyi Meeting "established Chairman Mao’s leadership position in the whole Party" and "re-recognized the correctness of Chairman Mao’s Marxist-Leninist military line." The former article was written to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Zunyi Meeting, and the latter for the 40th anniversary; both carried strong commemorative and promotional tones.

Synthesizing the academic discussions from 1949 to 1978, several conclusions can be drawn:

First, all agreed that the Zunyi Meeting established Mao Zedong’s leadership position in fact. In terms of formulation, the descriptive term "began" (开始了) from the first historical resolution generally evolved into the more definitive qualitative term "established" (确定了/确立了).

Second, the formulations of Mao Zedong’s leadership status were enriched, and the scope of his leadership was determined to be the whole Party and the whole army. The Lecture Notes on Modern Chinese Revolutionary History (Draft) edited by He Ganzhi was the first to change the first historical resolution’s "new leadership of the Central Committee headed by Comrade Mao Zedong" to "established Comrade Mao Zedong's leadership position in the whole Party and the Central Committee." Hu Hua's 1950 History of the Chinese New Democratic Revolution (Draft) inherited the formulation of the first historical resolution with slight linguistic modifications, but in the later Lecture Notes on the History of the Chinese Revolution, it was expressed for the first time as "established Mao Zedong’s leadership position in the Red Army and the Party Central Committee," explicitly affirming that the Zunyi Meeting established Mao’s leadership over both the Party and the (Red) Army.

Third, emphasis was placed on the historical writing of Mao Zedong’s theoretical contributions to the Sinicization of Marxism. This ranged from "affirmed Comrade Mao Zedong’s correct military line" in the Lecture Notes on Modern Chinese Revolutionary History (Draft) to "affirmed Mao Zedong’s Marxist-Leninist military line" in the Lecture Notes on the History of the Chinese Revolution; and from the emphasis in the former that Mao Zedong provided Marxist-Leninist leadership, to the emphasis in Volume 2 of the General History of China’s New Democratic Revolution Period that Mao Zedong, since the founding of the CPC, had correctly and vividly integrated the universal truths of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution to solve a series of major problems, and was a model of the creative application of Marxism-Leninism. Although the significant proposition of the "Sinicization of Marxism" had been proposed as early as 1938 at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth CPC Central Committee, it was not yet a "buzzword" in the 17 years following the founding of the PRC; nevertheless, Mao Zedong's theoretical contribution to the Sinicization of Marxism had already been clearly articulated.

On one hand, Hu Hua, He Ganzhi, and Li Xin were authorities in the fields of the history of the Chinese revolution and modern Chinese history. Not only did the works they edited serve as blueprints for various university textbooks for a long time, but their formulations regarding Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Meeting were also inherited by the academic community, remaining a mainstream formulation to this day. Scholars in the 1980s (such as Li Anbao, Huang Yuanqi, Liu Zhongliang, etc.) and the 1990s (such as Liu Pinrong, Li Jie, Song Zhongfu, etc.), as well as those in the new century (such as Cheng Zhongyuan, Shi Zhongquan, Li Liangming, etc.), have all upheld this mainstream narrative. Although their specific formulations vary and their emphases differ depending on the themes of their papers—for instance, some emphasize leadership over the whole Party, others over the Party Central Committee, the whole army, or both; some emphasize the collective leadership, others argue for a distinction between "leadership status" and "supreme leadership status," and still others speak of the establishment of Mao Zedong’s "core" status.

On the other hand, since the Reform and Opening-up, with the discovery of new historical materials and a more relaxed research environment, new formulations and viewpoints have emerged in academia regarding Mao Zedong’s status at the Zunyi Meeting. The most important of these is the view that the Zunyi Meeting did not establish Mao Zedong’s leadership over the whole Party and the whole army, that traditional formulations are not quite accurate, and that the establishment of Mao Zedong’s leadership status was a historical process of development. This viewpoint can be divided into the following seven scenarios [8]:

First is the view that the Zunyi Meeting did not establish Mao Zedong’s leadership but was merely the beginning of his entry into the center of the Party to exercise significant power; he was an important member of the collective leadership headed by Zhang Wentian. In 1987, Yuan Jiang explicitly stated that "the habitual formulation—that the Zunyi Meeting 'established Chairman Mao’s leadership position in the whole Party and the whole army'—is not quite accurate." At the Zunyi Meeting, Mao Zedong began to enter the leadership core of the Central Political Bureau, but at that time it was not determined that he should take overall responsibility for the work of the Central Committee; after the meeting, Mao’s position was not yet stable, and some leading comrades grumbled about him, with some even calling for a change in leadership. Therefore, the Zunyi Meeting was only the beginning of Mao’s entry into the center of power, not its final establishment. In 1994, Dong Shiming pointed out that after the Zunyi Meeting, Mao Zedong neither held the primary leadership position of the whole Party nor functioned as the primary leader in practice; thus, the meeting did not establish his leadership over the whole Party. A related view is that the Zunyi Meeting established the collective leadership of the Party Central Committee headed by Zhang Wentian, and while Mao played a particularly important role as a member of this collective, he had not yet become the core.

Second is the view that for the establishment of Mao’s leadership, the Zunyi Meeting was only the beginning, and it was only after the Gouba Meeting on March 10, 1935, when the Three-Man Military Command Group was formed, that it was actually established. Bai Yuwu was among the first to propose this, arguing that the Tongdao, Liping, and Houchang Meetings laid the foundation; the Zunyi Meeting affirmed the correct line represented by Mao and elected him to the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau; in the village of Jiminsansheng, the Standing Committee divided labor, with Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai responsible for military affairs; and the formation of the Three-Man Group (Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, Wang Jiaxiang) after the Gouba Meeting indicated that Mao’s new central leadership position was further consolidated within the whole Party. Bai Yuwu’s view actually derived from the 1984 Investigation Report on Certain Circumstances of the Zunyi Enlarged Political Bureau Meeting compiled by the Commission for Collecting Party Historical Data of the CPC Central Committee. Subsequently, Feng Jianhui, Zhao Bei, and Du Xuebin proposed similar views.

Third is the view that Mao Zedong only became the primary person in charge of central military affairs after an eight-month transition period from the Zunyi Meeting to August 19, 1935. In 1996, Li Ping performed an organizational analysis, pointing out that the Zunyi Meeting determined Zhou Enlai was the person in charge of final military decisions, while Mao was the assistant to Zhou’s command. It was only on August 19, 1935, when the Political Bureau decided Mao would be responsible for the military, that he became the primary military leader organizationally. Chen Guoquan and Qin Haoyang hold similar views.

Fourth is the view that Mao Zedong did not become the CPC’s supreme military leader until November 3, 1935. In 2016, Yang Kuisong pointed out that although Mao effectively gained considerable power over the combat operations of the Central Red Army through the organizational form of the "Three-Man Group" after the Zunyi Meeting, this did not mean he had become the supreme head of military work within the Party. The landmark event showing Mao as the supreme military leader was November 3, 1935, when the CPC Central Committee, in the name of the Provisional Central Government of the Soviet Republic, announced the establishment of the "Northwest Revolutionary Military Commission," explicitly ordering that "Mao Zedong be the Chairman, and Zhou Enlai and Peng Dehuai be the Vice-Chairmen." From then on, Mao became the supreme military leader not only in practice but also in name.

Fifth is the view that the establishment of Mao Zedong's leadership over the entire Party was completed at the March 1943 meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee. In 1994, Dong Shiming argued that the establishment of Mao's leadership began with the Zunyi Meeting, passed through the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth CPC Central Committee, and was finalized at the 1943 Political Bureau meeting. At this meeting, Mao Zedong was elected Chairman of the Political Bureau and Chairman of the Central Secretariat, possessing the "power of final decision." Subsequently, Chen Songyou repeated Dong Shiming’s research, and Tong Jing and Li Dunsong held the same view.

Sixth is the view that Mao Zedong's leadership or "leader" [9] status was only truly and completely established in the period from the Zunyi Meeting to the Seventh National Congress of the CPC. In 1992, Gu Guanlin proposed that the true establishment of Mao Zedong's leadership was a developmental process realized through the period spanning from the Zunyi Meeting to the successful convening of the Seventh National Congress. In 1995, Qi Weiping suggested that "leadership" (lingdao) and "leader" (lingxiu) are two different concepts, with the scope of the latter being broader than the former; while the Zunyi Meeting established Mao Zedong’s leadership within the whole Party, his status as the "leader" was ultimately established at the Seventh National Congress. Qin Sheng, Xie Junchun, Zeng Jingzhong, Zheng Fuzhi, and Shi Zhongquan hold roughly similar views.

Seventh is the view that the Zunyi Meeting was merely a beginning or provided a possibility, while Mao Zedong's position within the Party Central Committee remained unstable. This perspective emphasizes that Mao's leadership was not yet secure at the time of the Zunyi Meeting, and that the post-meeting establishment of his leadership was a complex process with multiple causal factors. Proponents of this view include Liu Jinxiang, Li Shuxin, Yang Feng, Huang Daoxuan, and Wang Jipeng. Their reasoning primarily includes: organizationally, although Mao began to enter the Party Central Committee after the Zunyi Meeting, he was not actually designated as the general leader in charge of the Party Central Committee and military work, nor was he the core leader; politically, the Zunyi Meeting did not correct the previous erroneous political line of the Party Central Committee, but rather affirmed its correctness; and the realization of Mao's leadership was constrained by the objective conditions of the time. Therefore, for a long period following the Zunyi Meeting, Mao's position in the Party Central Committee was not yet firmly established; his leadership was the result of a series of meetings centered on the Zunyi Meeting and was inseparable from the support of the Comintern.

Conclusion

Overall, regarding the historical writing of Mao Zedong's status at the Zunyi Meeting since 1945, and especially since 1949, not only do official formulations differ, but academic formulations vary even more—or rather, official and academic expressions are not entirely identical, containing both similarities and differences. These expressions exhibit the following characteristics:

First, the official historical writing regarding Mao Zedong's status at the Zunyi Meeting bears the flavor of "cumulative construction" [10]. It has undergone a developmental process where the descriptions have become increasingly rich, detailed, and accurate, showing a clear characteristic of "seeking common ground" (qiutong). This evolved from the concise formulation in the First Historical Resolution [11]—"began a new central leadership headed by Comrade Mao Zedong"—to the most detailed and complete formulation in the Third Historical Resolution [12]: "in fact established the leadership of Comrade Mao Zedong in the Party Central Committee and the Red Army, began to establish the leadership of the correct Marxist line represented primarily by Comrade Mao Zedong in the Party Central Committee, and began the formation of the first generation of the Party's central collective leadership with Comrade Mao Zedong as the core." This result is the product of mutual promotion, learning, and absorption between many Party leaders and academic scholars.

Second, official historical writing has greatly standardized academic expressions. Since 1949, the formulation that the Zunyi Meeting "in fact established" Mao Zedong's leadership has remained the mainstream historical narrative in academia.

Third, since the beginning of Reform and Opening-up, new academic views have emerged suggesting that the Zunyi Meeting did not establish Mao Zedong's leadership over the entire Party and Red Army. These views argue that traditional formulations are not sufficiently precise and that the establishment of Mao's leadership was a historical process. Various theories have emerged, such as Mao being an important member of a collective leadership headed by Zhang Wentian, or the leadership being established after the Gouba Meeting [13], on August 19, 1935, on November 3, 1935, at the 1943 Political Bureau meeting, at the 1945 Seventh National Congress, or the "Zunyi Meeting as a beginning" theory. Clearly, these theories do not completely deny the traditional narrative but rather supplement and refine it. This shows that while official formulations have greatly standardized academic discourse, they have not completely replaced academic viewpoints. Since Reform and Opening-up, the academic community has upheld an atmosphere of "letting a hundred schools of thought contend" [14] and practiced the principle that "there are no forbidden zones in academic research" regarding Mao's status at Zunyi, guided by the values of seeking truth from facts and being pragmatic.

Fourth, official historical writing has greatly absorbed the "truth-seeking" research results of academia. For example, the lecture notes on the History of the Chinese Revolution edited by Hu Hua first used the phrase "establishing the leadership of Mao Zedong in the Red Army and the Party Central Committee." Similarly, the historical accounts in university textbooks edited by He Ganzhi, Hu Hua, and Li Xin regarding Mao's correct military line, his Marxist-Leninist military line, and his theoretical contributions to the Sinicization of Marxism were absorbed into the Second and Third Historical Resolutions. Furthermore, the words "in fact" (shijishang), which were deleted from the draft of the Second Historical Resolution at the request of Deng Xiaoping, were reintroduced in the Third Historical Resolution as "in fact (shishi shang) established the leadership of Comrade Mao Zedong..." This addition likely represents a response to, and absorption of, academic discussions since Reform and Opening-up regarding the idea that the Zunyi Meeting did not immediately establish Mao's leadership over the entire Party and military.

From this, we can see that the mutual promotion, learning, and absorption between the official sphere and academia is beneficial and possesses positive value. This not only allows "truth to become clearer through debate" and historical facts to be clarified, but also makes the Third Historical Resolution's formulation of Mao's status at Zunyi increasingly scientific. In recent years, a subtle consensus seems to have emerged in Party history research: that discussions of the Party’s history, figures, and events should not exceed the limits of the Party's historical resolutions and should use them as a yardstick. Clearly, if such a concept were strictly held, the discussions since Reform and Opening-up regarding whether Zunyi established Mao's leadership would not have occurred, nor would we have gained much new knowledge about the Long March period around the time of the meeting. In fact, as commentators pointed out over twenty years ago, the process of the "academization of CPC history" over the twenty years of Reform and Opening-up was largely driven by such in-depth factual research. Although the 1991 edition of the History of the Communist Party of China "still retained a value orientation toward propaganda and was not entirely for academic research, it did not insist on a 'single source of authority' (ding yu yi zun) [15] or artificially set boundaries forbidding progress." From the perspective of the academic development of Party history research, this is a progress worth mentioning. The changes in the historical writing of Mao Zedong's status at Zunyi since Reform and Opening-up serve as a typical footnote to this academization.

"One falling leaf heralds the coming of autumn." [16] The case of the changes in historical writing regarding Mao's status at the Zunyi Meeting offers several insights. For the official side, there must be enough confidence to practice the concept that "there are no forbidden zones in academic research," granting academia sufficient openness and freedom. Research must be distinguished from propaganda; Party history research cannot be treated merely as propaganda for "governance and education" (zi zheng yu ren). While Party history work "can play an important role in ideological and political work," the premise "should be scientific research, not simplistic propaganda." If research and propaganda are equated, Party history research becomes mere interpretation, innovation becomes impossible, and the discipline of Party history will eventually equate to and be subsumed by the discipline of Ideological and Political Education, thereby dissolving itself. For the academic community, especially those in CPC history, "no forbidden zones" is not just a conceptual issue but a matter of academic practice. One must have the courage to explore, seek truth from facts, "let a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend," and avoid being stuck in old ways or "drawing a circle on the ground to imprison oneself" (hua di wei lao) [17]. Otherwise, it is difficult to discover new problems, open new fields, or advance new understandings. Now that "CPC History and Party Building" has been established as a "first-level discipline" [18], it is even more necessary to vigorously promote research from an academic perspective and build it into a scientific discipline worthy of the name.

Additionally, CPC history scholars urgently need to strengthen their academic self-discipline. Without this, research not only fails to rise to a scientific level but also becomes vulnerable to criticism from other academic fields. Looking at the history of academic formulations on Mao Zedong's status, academic self-discipline includes at least three aspects: First, strengthening original research and avoiding "stir-frying cold rice" [19]—that is, repetitive research. For example, an article published in 2002 titled "New Theoretical Views on the Timing of the Establishment of Mao Zedong's Leader Status" title itself claimed to be new, but its content and viewpoints almost completely repeated Dong Shiming's 1994 research. Such non-innovative repetition is a common phenomenon in the field and should be eliminated in today's era of convenient digital databases. If an article has no new ideas, it should be abandoned; one should not become a "copyist" just to publish, thereby losing the "original aspiration" of academic research. Second, maintaining a good "style of study" (xuefeng) and eliminating the phenomenon of duplicate publication. Some articles are republished years later with almost identical materials, viewpoints, and content. Third, upholding the academic principle of seeking truth from facts and, in particular, distinguishing between academia and propaganda. For example, from the early 1950s until before the "Cultural Revolution," academic descriptions of Mao's leadership and contributions began to feature numerous modifiers and laudatory terms, such as "the outstanding, great, and completely trustworthy leader" or "moving from victory to victory." While these expressions were products of a specific era, scholars should nonetheless adhere to the rationality and boundaries of academic research. Although academic research and mass propaganda are related, they have different tasks, philosophies, and audiences, and should be distinguished.