This is only because the plan for simplified characters died midway through. There was a second round of simplifications that would have gone even further with talks of full phoneticization if that succeeded. However, the second round of simplification was simply too unpopular.
> While Lu Xun is now taught in all mainland Chinese schools, they conveniently leave out the part where he advocated for leaving characters in the past.
They definitely don't. His arguments and polemics about this are pretty well known in China. There are a variety of secondary and undergraduate courses that cover his collected works, with that specific quote showing up all the time. This is also a hot topic that repeatedly shows up in all sorts of Chinese online forums.
Lu Xun, like the other scholars of his time, was extreme in the other direction. He believed that it was fundamentally impossible for China to advance without a phonetic script and that China was doomed and it was impossible for the Chinese citizenry to achieve literacy. His arguments are generally discarded today because he said things that have been soundly disproved.
It is worth noting that many early 20th century scholars had a fanatical devotion to anything Western. They contorted Chinese to make it as close to Western languages, especially English, as much as possible, adding new pronouns, following Western grammar patterns, etc. Indeed, some early 20th century Chinese articles are quite awkward to read without an English background.
Leaving aside whether characters are "good" or "bad," there is an oft-raised, but mistaken, view that using a phonetic script for Chinese would not change the language. After all it is but a different medium for the same information.
But that's not true. There remains a level of diglossia in modern Mandarin that makes some modern works difficult to decipher when read out loud (yes this is true even if we leave out Classical Chinese). Using a phonetic script to write Chinese would necessarily involve a change to the language, not just its transmission. Whether that's worth it is a separate question, but it is a change.
OK, {{citation-needed}}. FWIW, my source is two decades talking to locals. I am yet to meet anyone aware of these aspects of his position save academics, therefore I am genuinely interested in why you claim this is "definitely" false.
I agree with the rest of your points.
But as for sources...
It shows up on high school tests. E.g. a 2022 high school test from Dalian https://www.51jiaoxi.com/doc-13250120.html (there's a paywall but it's client-side you can remove it with your browser's DOM inspection tools)
> “胡适提出的文学革命其实是一剂泻药。而陈独秀、钱玄同、鲁迅等人还嫌它不够猛烈,又以更激烈的态度提出新的口号,于是‘废除汉字”‘将线装书统统丢进茅厕里”“不读中国书”等种种骇人听闻的说法便一个接一个地出来了,而且到现在还有人为之猛拍巴掌。”该评论指新文化运动( )
> "The literature revolution championed by Hu Shih in reality was a laxative. Yet Chen Duxiu, Qian Xuantong, Lu Xun and others thought it was still not extreme enough. As a result, "Get rid of chinese characters," "Throw thread-bound books [the usual book binding for classical texts] into the toilet," "Don't read Chinese books," and other shocking sayings came out one after the other, and even now there are people who applaud such sayings." This comment points out that the New Culture Movement ([a series of multiple choice answers follows])
There are literally dozens if not hundreds of threads about this on Zhihu, Baidu Zhidao, etc. (https://www.zhihu.com/question/36621372, https://www.zhihu.com/question/525670306, https://zhidao.baidu.com/question/2201546777143697068.html, etc.)
This is a pretty far cry from "conveniently leaving out."
I was under the impression that most of the debates about moving from Chinese characters to alphabetic writing happened in the pre-PRC period. For example, Lu Xun supported Latinxua Sin Wenz[1] in the 30s. These proposals failed for a variety of reasons. Simplified characters were introduced in the 50s. Pinyin was also introduced in the 50s, but unlike previous latinisations meant to replace the Chinese characters, it was only ever intended as a teaching tool. I think there was still a thought to replace Chinese characters with alphabetic writing at a later stage, but, in practice, it pretty much died in the 40s.
> 漢字必須改革,漢字改革要走世界文字共同的拼音方向
> Chinese characters must be reformed, and that reform of Chinese characters must follow the global trend of phonetic spelling (pinyin)
This was swiftly followed up by 1958 by a pronouncement from the head of the government committee on character reform (http://www.gov.cn/test/2008-03/07/content_912608.htm)
> 我们认为:汉字总是要变的,拿汉字过去的变化就可以证明,将来总是要走世界共同的拼音方向。
> We believe: Chinese characters inevitably must change. We can use the changes in Chinese characters of the past to prove that in the future, this must follow the global trend of phonetic spelling [this is almost a carbon copy of Mao's words]
This sentiment continued through the second round of simplification. The People's Daily (the usual mouthpiece of the PRC) wrote an article in 1977 (https://www.laoziliao.net/rmrb/1977-12-20-1) in concert with the beginning of the second round of simplification explicitly describing character simplification as setting the stage for phonetic spelling.
> 毛主席指出,汉字的拼音化需要做许多准备工作;在实现拼音化以前,必须简化汉字
> Chairman Mao has stated: the pinyin-ification of Chinese characters requires a great deal of preparation. Before we can achieve pinyin-ficiation, we must first simply characters.
But by that time literacy rates were sufficiently high that there was considerable backlash against the second round of simplification and it was withdrawn, first informally and later formally. Had it succeeded, no doubt a fully phonetic script would've been at least on the table for discussion.
> 至于汉字的前途问题:它是永远不变还是要变呢?它是在汉字固有的形体范围内变化,还是被拼音文字所代替呢?它是为拉丁字母式的拼音文字所代替,还是为别的形式的拼音文字所代替呢?这些问题我们现在还可以不忙去作结论。我们认为:汉字总是要变的,拿汉字过去的变化就可以证明,将来总是要走世界共同的拼音方向。而且可以说,世界各个民族的语言和文字,将来总有一天会逐渐接近和统一。但是这些都不属于当前文字改革的任务的范围,因此我们今天还不必加以讨论。
> As for the question of the future of Chinese characters: will they never change or will they change? Will the change be restricted to the scope of their current form, or will they be replaced by a phonetic script? Will they be replaced by a phonetic script based on Latin characters, or will they be replaced by another form of phonetic script? For now, we will not rush to any conclusions on this topic. We believe: Chinese characters inevitably must change. We can use the changes in Chinese characters of the past to prove that in the future, this must follow the global trend of phonetic spelling. Moreover it can be said, the languages and scripts of all the people in the world will one day come together and unify as one. But these are not within the scope of our current reform tasks and as such today we have no need to discuss them further.
The committee head's pronouncement was in fact essentially paraphrasing and nearly copying large parts of Zhou Enlai's speech. So I would not characterize his speech as closing the door on a phonetic script, only setting it aside for now and leaving the door open for a future date. From Zhou Enlai's speech:
> 至于汉字的前途,它是不是千秋万岁永远不变呢?还是要变呢?它是向着汉字自己的形体变化呢?还是被拼音文字代替呢?它是为拉丁字母式的拼音文字所代替,还是为另一种形式的拼音文字所代替呢?这个问题我们现在还不忙作出结论。但是文字总是要变化的,拿汉字过去的变化就可以证明。将来总要变化的。而且可以说,世界各个民族的文字形式将来总有一天会逐渐统一,甚至语言最后也会逐渐统一。人类的语言文字发展的最后趋势是逐渐接近,到最后也许就没有多大区别了。
> As for the future of Chinese characters, will they not change across the eons time? Or will they change? Will they trend towards changes based on the shapes of characters themselves? Or will they be replaced by phonetic script? Will they be replaced by a Latin character-based phonetic script, or will they be replaced by some other form of phonetic script? As of now, we are not yet in a rush to make conclusions. But writing must change. The past changes of Chinese character can prove this. In the future, there must be change. Moreover it can be said, the scripts of all the peoples of the world will one day unify as one, indeed language itself will gradually unify. Humanity's language and script development's ultimate trend is to gradually become closer. In the end there may not be much of any difference [among different languages].
And as we can see that rhetoric about a fully fledged phonetic script would indeed come back once the initial reform plans were finished.
Only with the failure of the second wave of simplification does it seem that future plans for a phonetic script finally disappeared from the conversation.
[0] Characters derived from Chinese. Each character has both an embedded meaning and one or more readings. They look like this: 漢字
[1] Characters that spell out whole syllables. The glyphs are typographically derived from kanji, but very simplified and without meanings. Due to medieval Japanese gender politics, there are two of them. They look like this: ひらがな and カタカナ.
[2] The characters you are using right now.