It's interesting to look back at the Cultural Revolution with an intelligence document like this that was written in the beginning of it. Its analysis and predictions are very accurate in many ways (especially the parts about Zhou Enlai, Maoist Dogmas eventually disappearing) but in it fails to express the significance and and potency of what was going on, which is understandable as I don't think anyone really thought it would last the better part of ten years. It's amazing one man was able to cause such drastic changes in the different structures of a country the way Mao did.
I've always found that the most enlightening aspect of the Cultural Revolution is that many of the principles it was against eventually became defining aspects of post-Mao China. As a social revolution, it seems to be alone in this regard. I am unsure if this outcome is surprising or not, as the Four Modernizations were originally proposed in 1963.
... many of the principles it was against eventually became defining aspects of post-Mao China. As a social revolution, it seems to be alone in this regard.
Maybe I misunderstand what you're saying, but isn't that the typical outcome of revolutions? Something along the lines of "thesis - antithesis - synthesis", I guess.
If you look at the French Revolution, the post-Revolution society in France oscillated between the Royalist and Republican extremes for the better part of two centuries before settling on a balance where both the left and right segments of French politics can today claim to be inheritors of the Revolution.
I've always found that the most enlightening aspect of the Cultural Revolution is that many of the principles it was against eventually became defining aspects of post-Mao China. As a social revolution, it seems to be alone in this regard. I am unsure if this outcome is surprising or not, as the Four Modernizations were originally proposed in 1963.