From cchen@merle.acns.nwu.edu Sat May 25 07:19:26 1996 Date: Sat, 25 May 96 02:40:03 GMT From: "Charlie H. Chen" Newsgroups: alt.politics.radical-left, alt.activism, soc.culture.china, alt.society.revolution, alt.politics.socialism.mao, alt.activism.d, alt.politics.org.misc, soc.culture.hongkong, soc.culture.peru Subject: Thoughts about China's Cultural Revolution On May 16, 1966, the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) ruling Politburo approved an edict drafted by Chairman Mao Zedong which began the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR). This month, May 1997 [sic], thus marks the 30th anniversary of the GPCR. This is a very exciting time for studying the GPCR. How the media talks about the GPCR The Nando Times reported on 5/16/96 that "China's propaganda machine flexed its awesome muscle" to ensure not a word slipped out to commemorate the event. State-controlled papers and television made no mention of the Cultural Revolution, focusing instead on the visit of China's current CCP leader Jiang Zemin to the Middle East. Scholars at universities across China have requested approval from the CCP for symposiums or other events to mark the Cultural Revolution. They were ordered to refrain, and instead focus on the 60th anniversary of the communist's heroic Long March. In China, any serious study of the Cultural Revolution's causes is taboo. The GPCR killed tens of thousands of people and ruined millions of lives. Almost everyone in China can recount stories of persecution and humiliation. The Hong Kong Daily said on 5/16/96, that it is for understandable reasons that the anniversary went unmarked: "The wanton destruction and the deaths of so many is the main factor behind the widespread concern for China's attitude towards human rights." It claims that this is the reason behind Hong Kong people's deep concern over next year's transfer of sovereignty to China. It is also the reasons renunciation with Taiwan is difficult. A report by Reuter Wire Service on 5/16/96 explains that the reason for the silence is that the CCP is reluctant to take responsibility for the disaster. "If the party commemorate the Cultural Revolution they are going to have to remind people again that this was a bad thing and once they do that they will have to ask: 'who is to blame?'" No one wants to take responsibility for the Cultural Revolution. Reuters claims that if the CCP allow the Cultural Revolution to be remembered they would lose their moral authority to rule. The 5/6/96 edition of Newsweek Magazine says that the CCP can't afford to publicize an anniversary like this because people these days are angry about widespread official corruption. Only seven years ago students occupied Tiananmen Square, trying to incite political change. To a Beijing leader, many Tiananmen battle cries -- "oppose official corruption! Clean up government!" -- can only sound scarily like the slogans Mao used to send students, as Red Guards, into the streets a generation ago. Newsweek thus explains that this is why "Beijing still fear the Cultural Revolution." China blocked any commemoration of the Cultural Revolution for fear that official reminiscing on the calamity that racked the lives of million could spark popular discontent. "Could the Cultural Revolution ever happen again?" Newsweek sakes. The media^Òs sensationalism trivialize the tragedy No, the Cultural Revolution can never happen again! The fact that Newsweek asked the question shows the media^s ignorance concerning China^s Revolution. The fact that the media describes the GPCR as ^wanton destruction^ and shows China^s ^human rights^ violation is further prove that most people today have a poor understanding of what the Revolution was about. As Maurice Meisner warns us, when we talked about China^s Revolution we must not only look at the persecution and the bloodshed. Doing that is too simplistic and trivializes the people^s suffering. Thus, we must criticize this kind of sensationalism by the media. We have to always remember that the Revolution was an sincere attempt to find an alternative to capitalism; to make China both modern and socialist. Thus calling the GPCR ^wanton destruction^ is unjust. We must go beyond this kind of brainwashing by the typical bourgeois media which assumes, without examination, that there is no alternative to a global capitalistic system. To do justice to the GPCR when we talk about it, we must keep in mind that, at the time, people imagined that it is possible for China to be modern and not become a capitalistic society; people dreamed that the world can be a better place without becoming capitalistic. The media today takes global capitalism for granted. Today, most of us do not dare to dream of a different world. We have lost that imagination. But we must remember that at the time of the GPCR, socialism appeared promising and offered a real alternative to capitalism. People had faith that oppression can be eliminated from society and better social relations between people realized though utopian communism; People had a dream then and they believed they could make the world a better place. Mao told his people: ^The road would be torturous, but the future glorious.^ This is why there was a revolution. Thus, we must never trivialize the GPCR as ^wanton destruction.^ But this is not to say that the GPCR is not a tragedy. It is. The Revolution is over, and not only that, the Revolution has failed. One of the essential goals of the Revolution was to overthrow the bourgeoisie, the oppressors of the working class, and build a new society based on rule of the people -- to achieve worker^s democracy. Thus, creating dictatorship of the proletariat and continual class struggle are fundamental themes of the Mao^s GPCR. However, within a year of Mao^s death, Deng Xiaoping, whom Mao criticized as being a ^Capitalist Roader,^ established himself as China^s supreme leader. One of Mao^s favorite slogan was: ^Better red then expert.^ By this Mao meant, in his own words, that ^the correctness or incorrectness of ideologies and political line decides everything.^ Deng, on the other hand, told the Chinese people: ^Be practical.^ One of his favorite sayings was: ^It doesn^t matter if the cat is black or white; what matters is how well it catches mice.^ Deng had no patience for Mao^s ideologies. He quickly, and boldly, negated Mao^s stress on dictatorship of the proletariat and class struggle by giving economic development top priority. Deng pushed China toward capitalism under the slogan ^socialism with Chinese characteristics.^ ^To get rich is glorious,^ Deng told the Chinese people. By his economic reforms and abandonment of Moist ideologies while paying lip service to Mao, Deng has effectively overturned Mao^s legacy in China. With Deng, the Revolution died. A strong bourgeois class have developed in Chinese society today, achieving great wealth by oppressing the workers. A report by Gemini News Service on 2/27/96 says that 70 million Chinese live below the official poverty level of an annual income of 450 yuan. ^It^s time to help us, the poor peasants cry out.^ The gap between rich and the poor is a fact that cannot be denied. This current situation in China is exactly what Mao knew would happen. And this is the very thing that Mao tried at all cost to prevent by staging a revolution. Today, China^s integration in to the capitalistic world system and the rise of the bourgeoisie are facts that cannot be denied. This is why Mao^s revolution is not only over, it has completely failed in its objectives. China is now socialist only by name. This is why Newsweek^s insinuation that the Cultural Revolution might happen again in China is stupid and represent irresponsible journalism. This kind of simplistic sensationalism trivializes the tragedy of the GPCR. At the root if the GPCR is a dream; an experiment to achieve socialism. Without such an ideological commitment, it is not possible to have something like the cultural revolution happen. Mao dared to dream; to imagine a better world. The people knew sacrifices had to be made. Mao told them: ^War is the highest form of struggle for resolving contractions.^ They waged a revolution. They reached out for that dream of utopian communism. But history shows us today that Mao^s courageous experiments failed. With the death of Mao and Deng^s rise to power, China^s revolution is clearly dead. No one takes Mao Zedong^s Thought seriously anymore. At best, people pay lip service. This is why something like the GPCR will not happen in China. These days in China, people don^t talk about ideology anymore -- people are too busy trying to get rich. Without the ideological foundation, there cannot not be a revolution like the GPCR. The revolution is over and the revolution failed. Therein lies the darkest tragedy of the GPCR. The revolution failed. In light of this great failure, we have to wonder whether or not the people suffered in vain. The GPCR was a tragedy. All the bloodshed for what? China is too confused to talk about the GPCR Despite my criticism of the media^s simplistic interpretation of the GPCR, the media is correct in reporting the fact that China blocked any commemoration of the 30th anniversary of the Cultural Revolution. We can^t help but to ask why? Because China is confused. [Indeed, we all are confused.] All the bloodshed for what? How do we interpret this tragedy? How do we make sense of it? We must be very careful to resist sensationalistic answers that oversimplify the great tragedy and trivialize the tremendous suffering the Chinese people endured. [Certainly, I do not pretend to be able to give you a satisfactory answer in this paper.] What good has come out of the GPCR? What is the legacy of Mao? Not only is China confused about what we are to make of all the bloodshed, China is also confused about ^socialism with Chinese characteristics.^ China, and specifically the CCP, still pay lip service to communist ideology. Vestiges of a socialistic society certainly remain, but everyday China is becoming more and more integrated into the capitalistic world system. Indeed, China is changing very quickly. Right now China has no clear ideological commitment; China is in a state of transition. All the lip service aside, there is an ideological vacuum. China is confused. Interpretations are built upon ideological scaffolds. But in an ideological vacuum how can China interpret the GPCR? Should China openly embrace capitalism, criticize the great Chairman and officially denounce Mao Zedong Thought as outdated and useless in today^s world? Or should China hold on to at least some of Mao Zedong Thought and point out at least some positive contributions of Mao^s revolution? How should the Chinese government justify its name as the Communist Party? What exactly is ^socialism with Chinese characteristics?^ You see, China is confused. The media insinuates that the reason China's ^propaganda machine flexed its awesome muscle" to ensure not a word slipped out to commemorate 30th anniversary of the GPCR is because the CCP can^t find anyone to ^blame^ and doesn^t what to take ^responsibility^ for it. This kind of simplistic explanation trivialize the situation in China. We must look beyond the surface and search for deeper causes. China is really struggling with an ideological vacuum. It is in a state of transition. It doesn^t know how to make sense of the GPCR. It doesn^t know how to act. How much of the ^dictatorial^ legacy should the government keep? China is confused about how to deal with the issue of intellectual freedom. Because there is no clear ideological grounding to guide China along. How should China treat the bureaucrats, the bourgeoisie, the cultural imperialists? People in China used to say that ^when you cannot think straight, try hard to study Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought.^ But now, clearly, this is no longer true. China is in a state of ideological vacuum. This is why any serious study of the Cultural Revolution's causes is taboo in China. Charlie H. Chen Northwestern University, Evanston, IL. USA cchen@merle.acns.nwu.edu