By Jing Chen
During the Chinese Civil War, Nationalist insider Jiang Lianru — then serving as secretary to General Chen Cheng — recalled a revealing anecdote about Mao Zedong.
An American journalist once asked Mao whether he genuinely believed he could defeat Chiang Kai-shek. Mao reportedly smiled and answered: “You don’t believe it? Chiang has read many books — but he understands none of them.”
He went on to distill his philosophy of struggle into two words: cruelty and endurance. Cruelty “to the point of being merciless,” and endurance “to the point of being shameless.”
Mao’s deeper meaning was unmistakable. To him, Chiang lacked both qualities — he still operated with the instincts of a traditional scholar-official, clinging to moral restraint and personal shame. And for Mao, those limits were fatal.
Success
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Success
Check your email to complete sign up
Mao believed the Nationalists were too concerned with legitimacy and “face,” unwilling to abandon even the last remnants of political honor.
The Communist Party, by contrast, had already embraced methods with no bottom line: political purges, land reform killings, and “counterrevolutionary” crackdowns that wiped out rivals with brutal efficiency.
Propaganda was equally unrestrained.
The CCP could label Nationalist underground members as traitors, recast Hu Zongnan’s offensive into Yan’an as a Communist victory, or erase the Nationalists’ role in resisting Japan. Fabrication was not a tactic but a tool of governance.
This contrast between moral boundaries and their absence led many later scholars to observe that the civil war was not simply a battle of good versus evil, but a struggle between a side with limits and a side without any. In such contests, the side without limits usually prevails.
Yet Mao’s advantage was not only ruthlessness or shamelessness. It was something more subtle — a weapon he rarely named.
Deception – Layered, disciplined, and delivered with such conviction that even experienced observers struggled to see through it.
Mao made the extreme appear humane, the impossible seem reasonable, and the outrageous sound sincere.
This was the true foundation of his rise, because deception accomplished what violence alone never could.
The architecture of Mao’s political deception
He framed the cruelest measures as acts of liberation.
Land reform was presented as “allowing peasants to stand up,” even as entire landlord families were wiped out.
“Suppression of Counterrevolutionaries” promised chances for reform — while executions escalated.
The Anti-Rightist Campaign encouraged “frank speech,” then condemned more than half a million for offering it.
The slogans were so idealistic, so seemingly humane, that people found them easier to believe than suspect.
He stated obvious falsehoods with total confidence.
During the 1945 Chongqing negotiations, Mao vowed China would never again fight a civil war.
He praised Chiang as “the beloved leader of the entire nation,” speaking with apparent emotion.
Three years later, he issued orders to “liberate all of China.”
The Nationalists could not imagine someone reversing himself so openly and so completely — and that disbelief became part of the trap set by Mao.
He recast betrayal as the inevitable flow of history.
Every reversal became “objective necessity.”
Every broken promise, “the will of the people.”
Every purge, “forced by imperialist pressure.”
Betrayal was never acknowledged. Instead, it was reframed as historical righteousness.
He performed sincerity with unsettling precision.
Mao could weep in front of intellectuals while lecturing on “thought reform.”
He could write letters of apology to those he had just purged.
He could invite the widow of a newly condemned official to dine in Zhongnanhai.
The performances were so intimate, so convincing, that many concluded he must have been genuine, even as he orchestrated their downfall.
Thus the most shameless acts were repackaged as acts of conscience, and the deception became self-reinforcing.
Mao’s ‘Yangmou:’ the open conspiracy
In 1957, Mao introduced a concept he called “yangmou,” or open conspiracy — a trap laid in full view.
Rather than conceal his intentions, he encouraged critics to speak, knowing they would expose themselves. “Let poisonous weeds grow,” he instructed. “Let them attack us.”
Once they stepped forward, the crackdown began exactly as Mao intended.
This principle became the blueprint for the Anti-Rightist Campaign and, later, the Cultural Revolution.
“Yangmou” was Mao’s proudest tactic: “I tell you exactly what I intend to do — and you walk into it anyway.”
A century of consequences
Had Mao announced openly that he intended to rule through ruthlessness and deceit, few would have followed him.
Instead, he presented a vision of moral purity and historical redemption — and delivered it with unmatched intensity.
Millions believed him. Generations paid the price.
Mao did not merely win a civil war.
He rewrote the logic of political reality, convincing a nation that shamelessness could be virtue, deception could be sincerity, and cruelty could be reform.
A hundred years later, the cost of that belief remains staggering.
