When we think about the Cultural Revolution, certain images come to mind: Red Guards waving their little red books, shouting slogans, tearing down temples, and humiliating teachers. These scenes are powerful—but they leave us with one big question: how did ordinary students, the kind who used to respect their teachers and follow rules, suddenly turn into people capable of violence?

The easy answer is that they were “fanatics.” But oral histories tell a more complicated story. They show how fear, peer pressure, family responsibility, broken friendships, and blind loyalty to Mao all shaped the moment. Together, these forces created what Tocqueville once called the “tyranny of the majority”—when people stop thinking for themselves and just go along with the crowd.

Fear and the Pressure to “Act Left”

One former student remembered: “My father had bourgeois thinking, but he was scared, so he acted more left than others.” That wasn’t real belief—it was fear. In that atmosphere, even silence could be dangerous. Tocqueville warned that when people trade independent judgment for comfort, they start losing their sense of responsibility (Glen-James, 2020). That’s exactly what happened. To stay safe, many shouted louder and acted harsher than others. Conformity became a shield. The more people tried to prove their loyalty, the faster fear turned into collective violence. Tyranny didn’t come from one dictator—it came from millions of small acts of self-protection.

Broken Friendships and Family Burdens

Another interviewee recalled how politics broke apart childhood bonds: “Friends who grew up together stopped talking because their parents had different class backgrounds.” Politics entered daily life and destroyed trust. Classmates turned into enemies. Once trust disappeared, it became easier to justify hurting someone. For some young people, joining the Red Guards wasn’t about ideology at all—it was about protecting their families. She said that if she stayed out of the movement, her parents would face harsher punishment. In a world where guilt was inherited, being politically active could save the people you loved. Robert Dahl (1989) once wrote that political systems—democratic or authoritarian—depend on how people balance private life with public rules. During the Cultural Revolution, that balance completely collapsed.

“Grabbing Houses” and the Power of Words

A man from Shanghai described a trend he called “grabbing houses.” Poorer families rushed into rich people’s homes and simply moved in. They called it justice. In reality, it was robbery—but it was robbery with a slogan. Politics mixed with greed, and language made it look moral. Under the banner of “class struggle,” envy and desire were dressed up as righteousness. Orwell would have called it “Newspeak.” Levitsky and Ziblatt (2018) warned that when words lose their meaning, political norms fall apart. That’s what happened here: words like “enemy” and “struggle” turned violence into virtue. Ironically, being a Red Guard could also protect your family. Some wealthy households avoided raids simply because their children were in the movement. In that way, joining became less about belief and more about survival.

Mao’s Aura

Fear and social pressure explain part of it, but Mao’s presence gave everything a sacred meaning. In August 1966, Mao greeted millions of Red Guards at Tiananmen Square. For many students, that day felt like being chosen by history itself. His smile, his silence, even his wave seemed like an order. Tocqueville once observed that people often hand power to leaders while cheering them on. That was exactly what happened. Mao became the emotional center of the movement. He made obedience feel noble and violence feel patriotic. Students didn’t think they were punishing teachers—they believed they were serving the revolution.

Complicated Memories

When we look back, it’s easy to call the Red Guards monsters. But the truth is more uncomfortable: they were scared kids trying to fit in, children trying to protect their parents, and teens influenced by a leader’s appeal. Huq and Ginsburg (2018) say the first step of democratic erosion happens when citizens choose safety over responsibility. That’s what we see here. Tyranny didn’t need evil people—it only needed ordinary people who stopped questioning what they were told.

Why It Still Matters

The Cultural Revolution isn’t just a story about China’s past. It’s a warning for every society. Tocqueville feared the tyranny of the majority—when people prefer comfort to conscience. Dahl reminded us that even good citizens can support unjust systems. Levitsky and Ziblatt showed how political norms die when words and values are twisted. When fear replaces discussion, when slogans replace truth, when families break apart over politics, and when leaders are worshipped instead of questioned—the tyranny of the majority returns. And it never looks like tyranny at first. It often arrives with cheering crowds and a sense of pride.

The Red Guards were young, anxious, idealistic, desperate to belong. They remind us that under the wrong conditions, ordinary people can do terrible things for reasons that seem right at the time. So maybe the question isn’t, “Why did they change so fast?” The harder question is, “What would we have done in their place?” Because history’s most chilling lesson is this: tyranny doesn’t need monsters. It only needs people like us—choosing safety over judgment, one small step at a time.

References

East Asian Library, University Library System, retrieved from CR/10: China’s Cultural Revolution in Memories: The CR/10 Project website: https://culturalrevolution.pitt.edu/
Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and Its Critics. Yale University Press.
Glen-James, A. (2020). Democratic Despotism as Described by Alexis de Tocqueville. Raw History.
Huq, A. Z., & Ginsburg, T. (2018). How to Lose a Constitutional Democracy. UCLA Law Review.
Irm, H. (2022). Lecture: Problematics of the ‘Best’ & ‘Worst’ Political Systems. NTUlearn.
Levitsky, S., & Ziblatt, D. (2018). How Democracies Die. Crown Publishing Group.