Historians provide various explanations for Mao Zedong’s rise to power. This person can be regarded as a skillful political strategist and tactician who could manipulate, forestall, and coerce his opponents into defeat. Yet, he can also be considered as an opportunist always able to take advantage of various circumstances, even those ones when he made obvious mistakes. Thus, it is necessary to show how modern scholars describe and assess Mao Zedong. In particular, we can compare Maurice Meisner’s evaluation of Mao with the assessment offered by David Apter and Tony Saich. To some degree, the works of these historians represent opposing views on Mao Zedong political struggles. Meisner emphasizes his efforts to appeal to various social classes. He shows what Mao Zedong gained the trust of his potential supporters. In turn, Apter and Saich attach greater importance to his rivalry with various people who could undermine his authority. First, it should be mentioned that these scholars pursue a similar objective; in particular, they strive to explain how Mao Zedong gained supremacy in the Communist Party, and became a symbol of a leader for the Chinese people. Yet, these texts differ greatly in the style of presentation. In his work Maurice Meisner looks at Mao’s succession to power from a strictly chronological standpoint. He discusses a series of events that contributed to Mao’s ascendance to power. His attention is focused on the Long March, the Japanese invasion of China, the establishment of Red Capital in Yan’an and so forth. He shows how these events helped to gain the support of people with “proletariat consciousness” (Meisner, 45). In their turn, Apter and Saich discuss separate strategies and tactics that Mao employed to overpower his opponents among politicians, intellectuals, administrators and military. Additionally, it is important to compare the data that these scholars analyze. For instance, Maurice Meisner discusses quantitative demographic data that shows how many people supported Mao and many people lost their lives because of his initiatives. Still, he also gives preference to quantitative research methods. He focuses on Mao’s description and perceptions of his successes and failures. The data that this historian discusses mostly comes from primary sources such as Mao’s books, articles, and interviews conducted with this political leader. He also uses secondary sources, especially, the books published by other historians and journalists. In contrast, Apter and Saich don’t use quantitative data. They give preference to qualitative data that allows the reader to understand the opinions of Mao and his opponents. Their data come from primary sources such as letters, diaries, pamphlets, and books published during that period. There are some similarities in conclusions that these authors arrive at. One of his arguments is that Mao was able to transform his failed initiatives into victories. For example, the Long March which resulted in thousands of casualties, was later transformed into a symbol of “will, spirit, and revolutionary consciousness” (Meisner, 34). Mao understood that this March could have been ruinous for the Communist Party, but he never admitted his errors and attributed them to his political rivals. This idea is share