The Cultural Revolution

[ClydeBarrow]

Admittedly, most of my knowledge of the Chinese Cultural Revolution comes from wikipedia and other online/textbook articles. :blush:

However, from what I have read, I don't have too many problems with the basic ideas behind the Cultural Revolution. That is, the Cultural Revolution was geared towards a total suberversion, a rejection and destruction of everything remotely traditional, and a defiance of authority in general; a really permanant revolution. Of course, Mao's cult-of-personality and the Party structure did undermine these ideas for many of those involved (even overtly. i.e. the army suppression of strikes, the callings for "obediance" to Mao). But there was also a strong ultra-leftist current in the Cultural Revolution that sought to demoralize and destroy all remnants of the old bourgeois structure, including the Party, Mao, and his perpetual sycophants.
Is this an accurate portrayal of the Cultural Revolution?

In any case, I very much like the idea of students, workers, "peasants" actively destroying and rejecting any forms of authority or bourgeois institutions (including any and all institutions that compel an individual to act in any certain way), even if this destruction and rejection takes on a very violent, disorganized, indiscriminate character.

I think it would be interesting to learn the different perspectives of comrades here on the events and ideas of the Cultural Revolution.

[redstar2000]

It was, I think, an enormously complex phenomenon...and maybe the closest China ever came to a "Petrograd February" -- the massive upheaval of tens of millions of ordinary workers and students.

There were all manner of both revolutionary and reactionary currents...and innumerable combinations of both.

The Shanghai Commune was the "key"...had it resisted the party's orders to dissolve itself and spread across China's urban areas, it's really hard to say what the historical impact might have been!

Imagine the significance of a "hyper-revolutionary" China (even if only for a few years) on world events in 1966.

How would workers in the USSR, Eastern Europe, Vietnam, even Cuba reacted to such a phenomenon? Indeed, May of 1968 in France was only two years away!

Questions of "what might have been" can really leave you shaking your head sometimes. ;)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Janus]

But there was also a strong ultra-leftist current in the Cultural Revolution that sought to demoralize and destroy all remnants of the old bourgeois structure, including the Party, Mao, and his perpetual sycophants.
I think that the Cultural revolution was inherently limited because it was called for by Mao. Therefore, you could criticize anything or anyone except for Mao and the CPC itself.


That is, the Cultural Revolution was geared towards a total subversion
Simply calling everyone to destroy temples means nothing if you can't destroy those ideas. Many Chinese still hold onto the old and dogmatic ideas of Confucianism. Mao himself accepted certain Confucian ideas bubt publicly denounced it.


The Shanghai Commune was the "key"...had it resisted the party's orders to dissolve itself and spread across China's urban areas, it's really hard to say what the historical impact might have been!
There were many instances in which regular people took control over the government then lost that control to someone else. That pretty much characterized the Cultural revolution. As for the Shanghai Commune, it was controlled by Mao and it was dissolved by him in the end. He stopped the Cultural revolution when he felt that it had gone overboard and was beyond his control.


Imagine the significance of a "hyper-revolutionary" China (even if only for a few years) on world events in 1966.
The problem was that China was practically on the brink of civil war. It was hyper-revolutionary in you could go out and "revolt" against certain leaders but you couldn't criticize against Mao himself or the CPC itself. There was always the chance still that someone would declare you to be a reactionary and knock you down. The whole thing was called for by Mao and implemented by people who were blindly obedient to him and the Party. How can ultra-democracy develop from that kind of ignorance?

The truth is that it's difficult to truly gauge the Cultural revolution. Some reactionaries may have been knocked down but many good and normal people were harmed as well. Once you were accused of rightist or reactionary tendencies, then you pretty much had to admit to it. Some who were totally loyal to the Party even believed it even if they weren't true.

[Scars]

The Cultural Revolution is, in my opinion, the greatest and most successful attempt at establishing an egalitarian society. It failed, yes, but so has almost everything else leftist in nature- should we ignore France in '68 because the workers were eventually bought off and fooled by De Gaulle? Of course not!

However, the Cultural Revolution was also an incredibly complex and confused affair. For instance the Red Guards, in my opinion, were largely a mistake. The intention was good (mobilising and politicising the youth), but you can't have 14 year olds beating up teachers and smashing temples. In addition silly things becoming major issues- cars been forced to drive on the left side of the road (as opposed to the 'right' side) and the changing of traffic lights so red no longer meant stop, being some of the more absurd examples.

In addition there was massive factionalism, which in itself is not a bad thing. Different people find different things work for them. The Cultural Revolution allowed the workers, peasants and students to take matters into their own hands and not to simply look to the party to tell them what they should and shouldn't do. The results were varied, from great examples of the possibilities of communist organisation to things that would be considered funny if they did not have such horrible consequences.

The Cult of Mao was largely not Mao's doing, however he did little to oppose to stem it and this is one of teh major mistakes of the Cultural Revolution. In addition Mao did get afraid at what the consequences may be and then would step in with the PLA and push things back into the line he thought was best- someone undermining the goals of the establishment of mass communism. The working class must be allowed to forge its own road and make its own mistakes and generally become empowered as a group, only then can the concept of 'leaders' be abolished- somthing that has never been achived to any realy degree of success.

I don't think it'll ever be possible to properly gauge the successes and failures of the Cultural Revolution. There were great leaps forward and great leaps backward, but the spirit, the idea, and the goal- mass communism without a god-party is definately something that deserves praise.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Janus+--> (Janus)It was hyper-revolutionary in [that] you could go out and "revolt" against certain leaders but you couldn't criticize against Mao himself or the CPC itself.[/b]

In the early days (1966), it was moving in that direction. One of the famous "big character posters" in Beijing read: 95% of the Cadre (CPC) are Capitalist-Roaders!

Good call!


Scars
The intention was good (mobilising and politicising the youth), but you can't have 14-year-olds beating up teachers and smashing temples.

I don't see why not...particularly smashing the temples.

Do you imagine that they beat up just "anybody" who was a teacher...or did they pick out the real assholes and beat them up?

And what would be "wrong" about that? :D

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Janus]

In the early days (1966), it was moving in that direction. One of the famous "big character posters" in Beijing read: 95% of the Cadre (CPC) are Capitalist-Roaders!
Yes, but it was inherently limited from the beginning as were any of the hyper-revolutionary societies or communes that were created during this period. Much of it was done in the name of Mao Zedong and the CPC and no matter what, Mao's words were always right. You could criticize anyone or anything except Mao himself or the CPC itself.

One of the old-timers told me a story about how one person wrote a statement on a wall condemning Mao during this period. He/she may have thought that it was right to do since everyone was criticizing someonebut the others did not think so and there was a huge search for this person.


I don't see why not...particularly smashing the temples.

Do you imagine that they beat up just "anybody" who was a teacher...or did they pick out the real assholes and beat them up?
They weren't beating up teachers because there was bigger fish to fry. The Red Guards focued their attention on government officials.

Destroying temples isn't bad. However, it's one thing to destroy a religious symbol and another thing to let go of that religious idea alltogether. So far, Confucian ideas are still a major part of Chinese society so all that Confucian bashing did no good.


In addition there was massive factionalism, which in itself is not a bad thing.
It's not necessarily a bad thing until it erupts into civil war. My home town was a battleground over which different political groups fought each other. Once the original government officials were gone, that's usually what it emerged into: one group declaring itself "pure" and calling the other group reactionary.

[Scars]

<<I don&#39;t see why not...particularly smashing the temples.>>

Monkey see, monkey do syndrome. I doubt most Red Guard, particularly the real youngsters (12 year olds and the like), had a fucking clue about the politics. I personally wouldn&#39;t mind beating up a few of my old teachers, but that would be for sheerly personal reasons.

<<Do you imagine that they beat up just "anybody" who was a teacher...or did they pick out the real assholes and beat them up?>>

Any teacher who was deemed &#39;reactionary&#39;, often on incredibly flimsy accusations. One should not be tortured to death for failing to position a picture of Mao correctly.

<<And what would be "wrong" about that?>>

Because you are destroying thousands of years of history in the process, as well as often defiling the graves of people. The slogan &#39;destroy the four olds&#39; isn&#39;t necessarily a bad one, but it doesn&#39;t need to be taken so literally. You cannot blow up system of beliefs. Hoxha made a damn good go at it and still failed.

[Janus]

Any teacher who was deemed &#39;reactionary&#39;, often on incredibly flimsy accusations. One should not be tortured to death for failing to position a picture of Mao correctly.
Teachers have always been pretty respected in China. The focus was on the government officials rather than the teachers. If a student was indeed found to be reactionary then it would be the business of the adults rather than the kids though there would be nothing wrong with writing a da zi bao about the teacher. I have never heard of someone being killed &#39;cause they positioned a picture wrong.


Because you are destroying thousands of years of history in the process, as well as often defiling the graves of people. The slogan &#39;destroy the four olds&#39; isn&#39;t necessarily a bad one, but it doesn&#39;t need to be taken so literally.
True, it&#39;s one thing to destroy the symbols of dogmatic thought and another to simply drop the idea itself.