I. Background of the Campaign
The Communists in China, as in Russia, have a complete plan of ideological and cultural reorientation. On the basis of Lenin's interpretation of Oriental society Mao Tse-tung has called Chinese society feudal, semi-feudal, colonial and semi-colonial in one breath. The object of the Communist revolution, it is claimed, is to rid China of these backward characteristics and convert it into a Communist state. With all its political and economic implications, the Communist movement is basically a cultural revolution. The question of ideological conversion is, therefore, of primary importance to all projects the Communists want to carry out. Speaking before the People's Political Consultative Conference at Peiping on November 23 last, Mao Tse-tung said: "Ideological conversion, particularly the ideological conversion of all intellectuals, is one of the important conditions for the implementation of a program of thorough democratic reform and gradual industrialization throughout the country."1
After the arrival of the Communists the first thing the college professors did was to organize themselves into small groups for the study of Marxism-Leninism and what is known as Maoism. In these groups the students and servants also participated. This mixing of different sorts of people was a Communist device to destroy the pride of the professors who had traditionally enjoyed high honors in Chinese society. By this means the professors were given to understand that they did not have better knowledge than the students and servants but that they were expected to learn from the latter. According to Communist reasoning, all knowledge acquired under the ancient regime is vicious: the more of such knowledge one has, the more one has to reform.
The Red method of indoctrination is probably the best, possible example of education by rote. People are made to learn Communist ideas and phrases all day long and repeat the same political platitudes ad nauseam. Professors are told to discard all old-fashioned ideas, effect a complete break with the past, and learn to be new men all over again. The subjects of study range from Marxism-Leninism to such problems as land reform and the overthrow of the old family system.
Before the fall of 1950 the persecution of professors was relatively moderate. They were not yet required to prove their new faith by action. They did not need, for instance, to have a hand in the liquidation of landlords and so-called counter-revolutionaries. But late in 1950 the Communists launched three big movements which swept over the mainland throughout the next year. These were the Land Reform Movement, the Campaign to Suppress Counter-Revolutionaries, and the Drive to Resist America and Aid Korea, as the Korean war is called by the Reds. These movements were carried out by violence and all school teachers and professors were required to participate. The test of thought by action is a most incisive weapon of totalitarianism. During the ruthless redistribution of land a number of well-known scholars had to make public confession, whether they liked it or not.
Did these ideological purges produce the desired effect? "Most of the teachers and professors," said the official statement of the Peiping regime on October 23, 1951, "still have some residue of Western bourgeois ideology in their educational thought, academic viewpoints and ways of doing things, though on broad political lines they have accepted the New Democratic program. The slow progress made in higher education has been due, in the last analysis, to the fact that such ideology and ways of doing things have not been fundamentally transformed and that Marxism-Leninism has not sufficiently guided the work of higher education."2
The Communist view that most college teachers and professors on the Chinese mainland still have some Western ideology is certainly true. Hwa Lo-ken, celebrated mathematician at Tsinghua University, confirmed its truthfulness when he quoted, last November, his colleagues as often saying: As no American magazines are coming in, we cannot write on anything." "How can we do research work without the help of foreign magazines?" etc.3
The situation seems more serious in small towns where regimentation, as a rule, is more severe than in big cities. In a report to the Peiping authorities late last year the Red propaganda chief at Hsuchow, a town at the railway junction in northern Kiangsu, said:
"In some schools the people complain publicly: 'Our school is in a mess only because the men in grey uniforms (i.e. Communist cadres) often come to our school to make a mess of it.' More seriously, some schools have even proposed to eliminate the political courses. Their idea is: 'Where there is culture there is politics.' So today it is a common saying of the students: 'Don't fear to be jobless, if you master mathematics, physics and chemistry.' ... Some people think they have nothing to fear if they have technical skill. They look down, therefore, upon our political commissars. Some even go so far as to say: 'Technical skill is everything; with it one can run the world. Politics is hollow, while technical skill is substantial. To learn politics is easy, while to learn technical skill is difficult. Technical skill is the basis of politics'."4
It may well be a surprise to the outside world that after three years of ruthless control and suppression popular reaction to the Communist ideological purge should have been like that. But there you are. It shows convincingly that human nature has not changed under the Communist regime. The matter appears, indeed, so serious to the Peiping authorities that they cannot ignore it. It was against this background that the present "brain-washing" program in Peiping and Tientsin was inaugurated.
II. Procedure of the Purge
The idea of the present ideological purge originated last June, but it was not until the end of September that it took definite form. It would appear that this extensive campaign has followed the pattern of postwar Russian ideological purges held under the auspices of such august bodies as the Academy of Sciences and the Union of Writers or in special meetings of teachers and professors like the drive against Marr's ideas on linguistics in 1950.
As thousands of scholars reside in Peiping and Tientsin and as they have always exerted a dominant influence on Chinese culture and education, it is only natural that they should be singled out to serve as the first batch of targets in a large-scale liquidation. To all intents and purposes they were expected to set an example for all other intellectuals to follow. Peking University was the first institution to start the campaign at the request of Ma Ying-chu who became chancellor last June. The Red ministry of education approved his plan and extended it to all of the twenty institutions of higher education in Peiping and Tientsin.
The number of teachers and professors who have undergone "brain-washing" was first given as more than 3,000. It later grew to 6,188 with the inclusion of all staff members of the various institutions. To take charge of the entire program a Committee on the Re-Education of College Teachers and Professors in Peiping and Tientsin was established under the Red ministry of education with the minister and vice-ministers as chairman and vice-chairmen. The committee has a branch at Tientsin and a subcommittee in each of the institutions to direct and supervise the work.5
The work of "brain-washing" falls into three categories: listening to official speeches, reading Communist documents, and practicing criticism and self-criticism.
A series of speeches by responsible Red officials marks the whole project. The first important speech was delivered by Chou En-lai, the puppet premier, on September 29 when the indoctrination program was inaugurated. It set forth seven points as the bases of training. These were: 1. the proletarian stand, 2. the revolutionary attitude, 3. work for whom, 4. the question of ideology, 5. the question of knowledge, 6. the question of democracy, and 7. the question of criticism. Peng Cheng, Red mayor of Peiping, was also a speaker. According to the schedule, Chien Tsun-sui, Red vice-minister of education, will deliver the final speech in which he is expected to dwell on the results of the indoctrination campaign and plans for further ideological conversion. It must be remembered that he is the man chiefly responsible for this unprecedented ideological purge in Chinese history.
Reading material consists of a number of Communist documents and pamphlets. After three years of Communist rule the professors are supposed to have a general knowledge of Marxism-Leninism. They are now called upon to study specialized subjects such as the so-called three big movements. Thus far Mao Tse-tung has not addressed the trainees in person; probably he will never do so. But his speech before the People's Political Consultative Conference on October 23 has been implanted word by word in the minds of the scholars under re-education. "After hearing the speeches by Premier Chou and Comrade Peng Cheng," said Professor Lo Chang-pei of Peking University on December 28, "and after reading the speech by Chairman Mao before the People's Political Consultative Conference, I am more than ever convinced that I have not really reformed myself in actual deeds in the past two years, though I have talked and written a lot."6 It is hard to say which is more repulsive, the firing squad under a ruthless dictatorship or the inquisition before which intellectuals are made to succumb.
Criticism and self-criticism is not new under the Chinese Communist regime, but not until this overall thought purge in North China did the outside world understand its full significance. At the very outset orders were given that in the process of criticism and self-criticism one should link one's thought with the practical conditions of the institution to which one is attached and that one should practice broad political criticism rather than piecemeal criticism of a technical nature. When the campaign of exposure is in full swing, every trainee is called upon to recite the principal circumstances of his life, to state what he has done and what he is doing, and point out his own errors and those of others. Standing up in the open meeting, before the Communist cadres and the watchful group, he feels compelled by mass pressure to reveal his thoughts and points of view and humbly accept criticisms. More often than not he must answer affirmatively certain questions put by the Red cadres or others present, which are generally of a base and incriminating character about his public and private life. The errors criticized and confessed may cover years or decades and may incriminate several generations of his ancestors. If he does not sufficiently humiliate himself, he is further charged with lack of frankness and must atone for this new offence. To make matters worse, one is not allowed to keep silent; reticence leads to the suspicion of harboring reactionary thoughts. In conclusion some words must be said to show allegiance to the Communist regime. A confession thus made is usually corrected several times by the Red cadres before it is finally approved. Now and then some confessions by prominent figures are released to the press in order to impress and influence the people at large.
Those familiar with the Communist methods of persecution know how much more powerful the psychological torture is than the sword. The tragic fact is that people, being human, can be made to succumb through brutality and fear. It is horrifying that in a Communist state so many people confess to crimes which they never know exist and incriminate persons whom they have never known.
III. Ideological Errors Criticized and Confessed
The public confessions by Peiping and Tientsin professors as published in the Communist press are uniform. The only difference lies in the details of the scholars' stories which are incorporated in the confessions to make them appear genuine and spontaneous. The life stories fit so well into the structure of the confessions that one can hardly tell on a cursory examination whether the thing was not fabricated.
Like the postwar ideological purges in the Soviet Union, the "brain-washing" campaign in Peiping and Tientsin, though ideological in character, involves many questions of a political nature. This is because in Communist philosophy what is called thought can not be separated from politics. Furthermore, as there is no practical distinction between political and criminal offences in a Communist state, ideological and criminal offences often overlap. This is a very important point to be remembered when one attempts to examine the ideological questions under the Chinese Communist regime.
On the basis of Communist literature and the public confessions of individual professors, the most common ideological errors criticized and confessed may be divided into four categories, namely, Western bourgeois influence, Chinese tradition, individualism, and divorce between theory and practice. Each of these four ideological errors involves some questions of a political character.
A. Western Bourgeois Influence
According to all available evidence Western, particularly American, ideological influence is the first thing to be suppressed. Certainly the innate conflict between democracy and Communism is not the only reason. For several decades the United States has exerted a profound influence on Chinese culture and education. As Soviet Russia has been primarily instrumental in bringing about the Chinese Communist triumph on the mainland, she would naturally not tolerate any more American influence to challenge the Peiping puppet regime. It is evident that the present situation on the Chinese mainland is only part of the Soviet global strategy. The rapid suppression of American influence today is matched by the growth of Russian influence.
In an article entitled THE KEY TO THE REFORM OF HIGHER EDUCATION which l appeared in the Peiping People's Daily on November 9, 1951 Chien Tsun-sui, chief architect of the "brain-washing" program, itemized the erroneous thoughts to be eliminated and put Western ideology at the head of the list. "It cannot be denied," he said, "that many college professors still have a strong Western reactionary bourgeois ideology, especially a pro-American bourgeois ideology. They still obstinately worship the Western bourgeois way of life, especially the so-called American way of life. They admire American 'wealth' (they do not see the misery of American workers), 'political freedom' (they are reluctant to believe that Harry Truman is enforcing Fascism by suppressing all legitimate rights of the people), and 'civilization' (they look up to the degeneration of the Anglo-American capitalists and ignore the pitifully uncivilized plight of the great number of Anglo-American workers.) They admire Western science and technology to a superstitious degree and look down on advanced Soviet science and technology with contempt."8
As American influence on Chinese professors must first be eliminated, the American returned students have been the hardest hit. "Favor America, Admire America, and Fear America" has become a common instrument and trumped-up charge to persecute all pro-American people. Anti-American denunciations and self-accusations dominate all the public confessions released. Take, for instance, Professor Chin Yueh-lin, noted Tsinghua philosopher with distinct pro-American sympathies. "I went to the U. S.," he confessed, "to study at 19. By the time of the Chinese Renaissance Movement in 1919 I had studied in the graduate school for two years. At that time I had already developed a sense of pride typical of a Chinese intellectual. Out of my individual predilection I was bogged in the corrupt bourgeois philosophy. After my return to China I have been engaged in importing this type of metaphysical and schematically conceptional philosophy. In the meantime I have endeavored to build up a system of individualistic philosophy." After describing some other blunders made in the past, the once proud philosopher went on to say: "I despise American civilization after all, but actually I have long been a tool of American cultural aggression."9
B. Chinese Tradition
It is natural that Chinese tradition should become the target of Communist liquidation. It is, however, noteworthy that Chinese tradition does not occupy as important a place in the "brain-washing" process as American ideology, as can be seen from all the public confessions available. Presumably this is due to the fact that most contemporary Chinese professors owe more of their thought to American ideas than to Chinese culture.
As the Chinese scholars are called upon to affect a complete break with the past, they are charged with a variety of new-coined crimes. They are branded feudal remnants or accomplices of the reactionary ruling class. They are deemed to have blocked social progress by helping preserve the old society and by working for the enemy. They are called conservative, haughty, reformist and compromising. They are accused of having taught merely for making a living, thus neglecting their duty to take good care of the students. Above all, they are considered as belonging to the exploiting class, even though they live by honest work. Some of their ancestors, so the Reds say, must have exploited their fellow men; otherwise, these scholars could not possibly have the means to receive their education. Thus they are as guilty of the crime of exploitation as their ancestors. On the strength of this theory, Professor Lo Chang-pei of Peking University confessed himself guilty of exploitation.10
An outstanding example of cutting oneself off from the past is afforded by Professor Liang Sze-cheng, son of the late Liang Chi-chao who was one of the leading spirits in the political reform of 1898. In his confession he castigates his father's reformism and devotion to Chinese tradition. "I received," he remarks, "my patriotic education from him, but my patriotism is that of the petit bourgeoisie being individualistic in character. He sowed the seeds of Chinese cultural tradition in my thought. But for my own revolutionary stand and judgment, my mind would be all filled with feudalistic trash such as respect for the gentry, government by good men, etc.11
C. Individualism
The Communists are past masters in coining phrases and twisting their meaning. Apparently by individualism they mean three different things, namely, egoism, liberty and individuality. By a clever stroke they use the word individualism in the sense of egoism to cover all three meanings in order to confuse the public. It is unfortunate that this sweeping generalization appeals to the masses.
Says Chien Tsun-sui in his article referred to above:
"A considerable amount of individualism and objectivism is still found in our teachers and professors. Their personal interests rather than the interests of the country and the people appeal to them. They are indifferent to the welfare of their country and their people, they are not concerned for the future of the youth. They worry only about their personal gains and preferments. They prefer to follow their individual predilection and take delight in their own knowledge and, specialty. They indulge in remembrance of their own past and do not stop to think of the bright future of their country and people. Thus they are conservative. They separate their personal interests from the greater interests of the country and the people. Therefore, they retain sectarianism. In short, individualism, objectivism and sectarianism are all obstacles to the progress of the people's education. These must be uprooted so that we may advance with greater strides."
Such values of modern civilization as academic freedom and the development of individuality are suppressed, because the Reds identify them with individualism. They are replaced by what is called the doctrine of "social demand." It may be illuminating to add that Mao Tse-tung sets forth his concept of "democracy" in these simple and direct terms: The individual must obey the organization, the minority must obey the majority, lower echelons must obey higher echelons, and the entire party must obey the basic principles of the Central Committee. This concept of "democracy" subordinates all individuals to the state, which is a basic postulate of totalitarianism. Applied to the field of knowledge, it is euphemistically called "social demand." Professor Chin Yueh-lin, for instance, says in his confession: "All I have done is teaching for the sake of teaching and research for the sake of research. It is diametrically opposed to the principle that research, teaching and work should all be done in obedience to social demand."12
D. Divorce between Theory and Practice
Says Chien Tsun-sui in the same article:
"Our teachers and professors are still seriously handicapped by a kind of dogmatism characterized by the separation of theory from practice. The separation of theory from practice was one of the basic characteristics of the old education. Except a part of natural science, the subject matter of the old education was not the reflection of the objective world. That is to say, it was not truth. For this reason, it was impossible to achieve unification of theory with practice.
This dogmatism handed down from the old regime still exists in the various colleges and universities in this new society. It has immensely obstructed our work."
This passage is an application of the Communist principle of the unification of theory and practice as provided in Art. 46 of the Common Program adopted on September 29, 1949. We recall that Mao Tse-tung wrote an article entitled ON PRACTICE in 1937 for the purpose of combating intra-party dogmatism, by which the mechanical application of theory to Chinese conditions was meant. In conformity to the same principle Mao strengthened his personal leadership in the Communist Party in 1942 by inaugurating a movement against subjectivism in thought, formalism in literature and art and sectarianism in party relations. With the conquest of the entire Chinese mainland the effect of this movement has been found of new practical value, and thus a similar movement has again been in full swing in recent years. It is significant that the Pravda carried a special report on this subject on December 18, 1950.
In respect of the "brain-washing" campaign in Peiping and Tientsin the agitation over the divorce between theory and practice seems to have a double significance.
First, all unpractical knowledge is deliberately discouraged and even repressed. Knowledge, it is urged, is of no use if it is not applicable to practice. Science is valid only when it is studied in close association with the actual conditions of society and is used to solve the practical problems of industry, agriculture and national defense. The Communists in China, as in Russia, do not distinguish between pure and applied science. They wonder how science can be pure if it is out of all relation to the external world. There is no real scientific knowledge that is not potentially useful to mankind. Scientific thinking is valid only when it is carried on in terms of conceivable action. Thus the Chinese intelligentsias are told that they must come down from the ivory tower of the past and learn from the peasants and workers afresh.
Secondly, science cannot be divorced from politics. This is one of the most important principles of Marxian philosophy, which stands in sharp contrast to the generally accepted conception of science. According to Marx, science is part of the superstructure of an economic order which, in his way of thinking, is nothing but the essence of political reality. The Communists do not understand how science as an instrument of man's service for the state can be objective in the sense of having no connection with the political ideology on which the state is based. They do not make any distinction between what is and what ought to be, a distinction which seems to them both dangerous and unscientific. They do not recognize that science is above class or above politics. They call the scientific method bourgeois and dismiss all purely technical views as harmful. Moreover, it must be remembered that this is true not only of political science but of natural science as well. Natural science is not independent of politics by any means. We recall that the Church attempted to suppress the Copernican theory, because it challenged the authority of the Holy Scripture and thus that of the Church itself. Today Mendelism is banned in the Soviet Union because it repudiates the assumption that acquired characters can be inherited, an assumption on which the whole Soviet political system rests. In this respect the Communist state is very much like the Church just as Communism is like a religion.
These, then, are the four kinds of hostile thoughts most commonly criticized and confessed in the process of the Communist "brainwashing." They are generally considered the innate ideas of the bourgeoisie or petty bourgeoisie, to whom practically all Chinese intellectuals belong. None can possibly be an exception. Dr. Hu Shih who is now in the United States has also been liquidated during the anti-intellectual campaign. His alleged faults are exactly the same as other scholars who have confessed.13 It is interesting to note that the best known universities such as Peking, Tsinghua and Nankai have been castigated as institutions on the same charges as individuals. These institutions are looked upon as having been breeding grounds of dangerous thoughts.14
IV. Initial Reactions
It is yet too early to tell what enduring effect this ideological purge will have on Chinese culture in general and on the thinking of the scholars under training in particular. However, there are initial indications that human nature remains unchanged in spite of the ruthless suppression. According to the Communist press practically all the trainees have felt hurt and painful. There are those who do not believe that the confessors have really changed so much. As Chen Yuan, president of Fu Jen University pointed out, there are people who as a rule do not attend meetings and who show no interest in the political training. Some people, as the Reds admit, have even gone so far as to reject criticism and self-criticism.15
Of particular significance is the personal reaction of Liang Shou-ming, a leading member of the pro-Communist Democratic League, who was brought from his hometown in Szechuan province to Peiping in 1950 and who was subsequently sent to, Shantung and then to the Southeast to study the redistribution of land. Unlike the confessions of others,16 his position is surprisingly uncompromising and courageous.
His traditional points of view, as he put it, are something like this: China is not a feudal society. There is no class in China and, therefore, class struggle cannot solve Chinese problems. He does not believe that the Chinese revolution has been led by the proletariat. However, after two years of the Communist rule, as he admitted in October 1951, he has somewhat changed his views. Today he is of opinion that although there is no class in Chinese society, one has to approach the Chinese problem from the class standpoint in order to find a solution. There are two reasons for this. Domestically the rich and the poor, though not yet developed into distinct classes, can just as well fight one another, as was the case of the old Red-ruled areas in Shantung province. Externally, as the world is today divided into two hostile camps along the lines of class antagonism, China cannot help being allied to one or the other side; that is to say, she has to resort to class struggle by the force of world politics. In short, he has come to realize that though there is no class in China, class war has been forced upon the people at once by the Communists at home and by the Soviets from without.
As to the Chinese Communist claim to represent the proletariat, Liang declares: "It is obviously contrary to facts that the Communists call themselves proletariat, since I see clearly they are only a combined group of intellectuals and peasants." It was not until he had read, as he explains, the article by Peng Cheng, Red mayor of Peiping, that he began to understand the Communist point of view. Peng Cheng was quoted as saying:
"The members of the Communist Party are all state-supported in a system of militant Communism. They lead a strict collective life. They partake of the character of industrial workers in organization, discipline and consciousness. They are no longer peasants. They are professional revolutionaries or revolutionary soldiers."
Thus under Chinese Communism proletarian consciousness does not emerge from the working class but from the Communist Party. This led Liang to "understand why the Chinese revolution has been an armed fight and why both Stalin and Mao have emphasized the armed fight as a striking feature of the Chinese revolution.17
Liang's is a lone voice in a vast wilderness. His views deserve attention and careful study. He appears to be typical of not a few for whom the ideological purge in Peiping and Tientsin has been prolonged from four to six months.
Remarks:
| 1. | The People's Daily, Peiping | October 24, 1951 | 15. | The People's Daily, Peiping | October 27, 1951 | |||
| 2. | ditto | October 23, 1951 | December 07, 15, 1951 | |||||
| 3. | ditto | November 15, 1951 | March 04, 1952 | |||||
| 4. | ditto | November 05, 1951 (p.3) | 16. | ditto | Octoher 23, 27, 1951 | |||
| 5. | ditto | Octoher 23, 1951 | November 1, 2,6, 10, 13, 15,16, 19, 22, 23, 24, 27, 1951 | |||||
| 6. | ditto | December 28, 1951 | ||||||
| 7. | ditto | November 09, 1951 | December 3, 7, 10, 13, 14, 24, 26, 27, 28, 30, 1951 | |||||
| 8. | ditto | ditto | ||||||
| 9. | ditto | November 10, 1951 | January 16, 17, 1952 | |||||
| 10. | ditto | December 28, 1951 | February 23, 1952 | |||||
| 11. | ditto | December 27, 1951 | March 18, 1952 | |||||
| 12. | ditto | November 10, 1951 | 17. | Kwan Ming Jih Pao, Peiping Hong Kong Times | October 05, 1951 | |||
| 13. | Ta Kung Pao, Hong Kong | December 10, 13, 24, 1951 | February 23, 1952 | |||||
| 14. | The People's Daily, Peiping | November 2, 15, 19, 23, 1951 December 07, 1951 | ||||||