Zhang first became known by the public because of his article on bourgeois right, “Destroy the Ideas of Bourgeois Legal Ownership.” (In Chinese, bourgeois right and bourgeois legal ownership is the same thing.) He argued the core thought of bourgeois right is hierarchical system, which contributes to the principle “to each according to one’s work,” instead of “to each according to one’s need.” Mao noticed and praised the article, which was published soon on “People’s Daily.” Zhang became a top official in Shanghai afterwards.
But in 1975, when Zhang published the article “On Exercising All-Round Dictatorship over the Bourgeois,” Deng raised problems in the article to Mao, who later criticized the “gang of four” at a central political committee meeting. In the article, Zhang seemed to be “politically correct,” as it stuck with the struggle between proletarian and bourgeois, and the ownership of people. He tended to label all political enemies as bourgeois and exaggerate potential bourgeois elements. Looking backwards of history, the reality of China was still way far away from bourgeois and capitalism, as it shows today dramatically. Fortunately, he was not the one who grabbed the power at the end, or it would be terrible to think China with on-going class struggle and ideological fight.
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Line Struggle & Class Struggle
Class struggle (阶级斗争) became a very familiar term once the Communist took power, and Mao warned people not to forget class struggle, which should be reminded every year, every month, and even every day. In 1962, Mao raised another specific struggle, as he said, “there still exist class, class contradiction, and class struggle; and that also existent is the struggle between socialism and capitalism and the danger of a comeback of capitalism.” The latter is the line struggle (路线斗争).
The leaders of two lines were not clear at first, as “Mao felt that the forces of capitalism operated primarily in the form of unreconstructed consciousness among certain strata.” As the time developed, the party leadership was stratified on the issues like land reform, socialization in 1951-1956, response to the condemnation of Stalinism, the Great Leap Forward and the People’s Communes. Mao sensed “some comrades” (which he never exactly pointed out, but everyone else knew who he’s referring to) were “taking the capitalist road.”
In 1965, Mao used his favorite method of class struggle while “identifying the class enemy as people in positions of authority in the Party who take the capitalist road (走资本主义道路当权派, 简称走资派),” who were actually Mao’s political enemy. Thus he combined the class struggle and line struggle, as Blecher wrote, “class struggle was to be undertaken, in which ‘capitalist roaders’ would be attacked in a broad mass movement.” In other words, Mao tried to eliminate his line struggle opponents, Liu and Deng, through class struggle with mass support on Mao’s side.
Later in the Cultural Revolution, the whole society joined in the “game.” People fought against each other in the name of class struggle, and people put their enemies to the other line. All those political terms acted as excuses for a group to punish the other group, as Mao set a good example ahead.
The leaders of two lines were not clear at first, as “Mao felt that the forces of capitalism operated primarily in the form of unreconstructed consciousness among certain strata.” As the time developed, the party leadership was stratified on the issues like land reform, socialization in 1951-1956, response to the condemnation of Stalinism, the Great Leap Forward and the People’s Communes. Mao sensed “some comrades” (which he never exactly pointed out, but everyone else knew who he’s referring to) were “taking the capitalist road.”
In 1965, Mao used his favorite method of class struggle while “identifying the class enemy as people in positions of authority in the Party who take the capitalist road (走资本主义道路当权派, 简称走资派),” who were actually Mao’s political enemy. Thus he combined the class struggle and line struggle, as Blecher wrote, “class struggle was to be undertaken, in which ‘capitalist roaders’ would be attacked in a broad mass movement.” In other words, Mao tried to eliminate his line struggle opponents, Liu and Deng, through class struggle with mass support on Mao’s side.
Later in the Cultural Revolution, the whole society joined in the “game.” People fought against each other in the name of class struggle, and people put their enemies to the other line. All those political terms acted as excuses for a group to punish the other group, as Mao set a good example ahead.
Two Co-ops
When I heard of Oberlin’s Co-ops, I thought it’s such a great idea for students to own their dorms and dining. It’s not only much cheaper than school owned things, but students are in charge of everything they eat and live. However, I never connect Oberlin’s Co-ops to the ones we had in modern Chinese history. How could it be the same thing, at least sharing the same name? If you ask Chinese peasants, they might have very complicated feelings about the Co-ops. It might be a good idea, but the consequences it led to afterwards were not pleasant at all.
I was searching what Chinese scholars think about the Agriculture Production Co-op Movement, and interestingly, I found some very different ideas. They argue the direct reason accelerating the movement was the government unified grain purchase, which destructed the economic structure and market network originally existed in Chinese countryside. Through the process, local cadres paid the most efforts, but such expense was never taken into consideration when the central government made up the decision. It certainly caused peasants’ anti-sentiments, and Xinhua news agency reported (only to officials) that many places had peasants’ suicides. In order to pull through the purchase since 1953, the government started the Co-ops, which took away all surplus products from peasants and private market was no longer necessary. The speed of transition was super fast: for 90% of Chinese peasants, it only took a year from individuals to higher-stage Co-ops, most without experiencing the so-called MATs or LAPCs.
Here’s the link to the article, written by Zhang Ming, a Chinese politics professor. http://blog.china.com.cn/art/show.do?dn=zhangming&id=333122&agMode=1&com.trs.idm.gSessionId=0CD22EE4BC222AA6344EC24BE7337762
I was searching what Chinese scholars think about the Agriculture Production Co-op Movement, and interestingly, I found some very different ideas. They argue the direct reason accelerating the movement was the government unified grain purchase, which destructed the economic structure and market network originally existed in Chinese countryside. Through the process, local cadres paid the most efforts, but such expense was never taken into consideration when the central government made up the decision. It certainly caused peasants’ anti-sentiments, and Xinhua news agency reported (only to officials) that many places had peasants’ suicides. In order to pull through the purchase since 1953, the government started the Co-ops, which took away all surplus products from peasants and private market was no longer necessary. The speed of transition was super fast: for 90% of Chinese peasants, it only took a year from individuals to higher-stage Co-ops, most without experiencing the so-called MATs or LAPCs.
Here’s the link to the article, written by Zhang Ming, a Chinese politics professor. http://blog.china.com.cn/art/show.do?dn=zhangming&id=333122&agMode=1&com.trs.idm.gSessionId=0CD22EE4BC222AA6344EC24BE7337762
Reading Government Papers
I enjoy reading those government papers, which are great primary resources. When learning history in China, I never had the thought to see these authentic works, but now I’m glad to read the original materials of what I’ve learned before and know where do there come from. I tried to find the respective Chinese documents and read, which is easier and makes more sense to me. The English translation always seems funny somehow, especially some ideological terms Chinese politicians loved to use.
Among these papers, Mao’s works are the most interesting and important ones, since he used a lot slangs to make himself understood, and others had to follow his thoughts, at least in accordance with him. Mao usually made a list in his writings, which sound very logical. Mao liked to use philosophy in his articles, which he believed it’s Marxism.
But ironically, what’s written on papers was usually not what he did in reality, if not completely opposite. Such as today’s reading, “On the Ten Major Relationships (论十大关系),” he tried to be balanced in each relationship, but it was not the case in practice, not only at that time, even today some of the relationships are hard to deal with. Mao was a combination of poet and politician, and inevitably, he’s more idealistic than practical.
Among these papers, Mao’s works are the most interesting and important ones, since he used a lot slangs to make himself understood, and others had to follow his thoughts, at least in accordance with him. Mao usually made a list in his writings, which sound very logical. Mao liked to use philosophy in his articles, which he believed it’s Marxism.
But ironically, what’s written on papers was usually not what he did in reality, if not completely opposite. Such as today’s reading, “On the Ten Major Relationships (论十大关系),” he tried to be balanced in each relationship, but it was not the case in practice, not only at that time, even today some of the relationships are hard to deal with. Mao was a combination of poet and politician, and inevitably, he’s more idealistic than practical.
longevity of China’s agrarianism
The extraordinary longevity of China’s agrarianism might be explained in three terms: politically, no matter which dynasty or emperor was on stage, they all tried to control everything. “The landlords, state officials and scholars were bound together in a complex web of mutually reinforcing roles and self-interest (p.8).” Thus the power and abundant resources were upheld, instead of distributing to locals or the public; economically, traditional China followed a pattern of natural and self-sufficient economy, which feeds everything on its own but not encouraging exchange with the outside world; and culturally, the traditional Chinese thought of emphasizing on agriculture while deemphasizing on commerce was well recognized throughout each dynasty, first written into policy since Shang Yang Reforms in Qin dynasty.
The question says “it never makes a breakthrough into industrialization,” but I would argue Chinese industrialization was delayed, extended and just not as crisp as in other countries. Actually, in late Ming dynasty, the “sprouts of capitalism” emerged in southern coast area, which might be China’s first step to enter industrialization, yet doomed to fail due to the above reasons and the changing of dynasty. Then was the “self-strengthening” movement in the 1860s, when several local figures tried to introduce Western industry to Chinese people without much support from the emperor. Such attempt also happened in early 20th century and 20’s to 30’s, unfortunately none of them fully developed.
The question says “it never makes a breakthrough into industrialization,” but I would argue Chinese industrialization was delayed, extended and just not as crisp as in other countries. Actually, in late Ming dynasty, the “sprouts of capitalism” emerged in southern coast area, which might be China’s first step to enter industrialization, yet doomed to fail due to the above reasons and the changing of dynasty. Then was the “self-strengthening” movement in the 1860s, when several local figures tried to introduce Western industry to Chinese people without much support from the emperor. Such attempt also happened in early 20th century and 20’s to 30’s, unfortunately none of them fully developed.
William Hinton
The first time I started reading “Fanshen,” I was so glad that everything’s connected! I’ve seen and loved Carma Hinton’s documentaries for a long time (especially the Morning Sun and the Tiananmen), and just found out William Hinton is her father! No wonder they both did a great job telling the other side of the world what was really happening in China. I’ve also noticed the “Long Bow Group” as always a contributor to those documentaries, and just figured out that name came out of the town William Hinton visited and wrote on! As I was reading the Chinese version of the book translated by Carma Hinton, I never felt it was written by an American, not only because the translation is perfect, but all details are down to earth and very real. For the class, while we’re reading mostly theories, “Fanshen” seems more enjoyable and fresh.
Surprising Chinese History
Maybe it’s the reason that I’ve been studying Chinese history over and over again since middle school, all those dramatic shifts don’t seem surprising any more. To the opposite, I found more similarities between different historical events. Such as those students in June Fourth, their patriotism, idealism and irrational behaviors might be traced back to May Fourth movement in 1919, or even 1895 when some civil examination candidates expressed their opposition to the treaty of Shimonoseki to the Qing emperor. Or when reading the history of Soviet Union, I was terrified by how identical those tragedies happened in both countries. If traditional China recycled itself by changing dynasties and emperors, who know whether modern China is just entering into another cycle? Talking of June Fourth, everyone wishes it will never ever happen again. However, it’s neither the first, unfortunately, nor the last in long terms. History tends to repeat itself if we don’t learn from our past.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
