Sources of Chinese Tradition, Volume 2

by Wm. Theodore de Bary

  [From Xuexi zhiliao, September 4, 1979; trans. adapted from Issues and Studies 16, no. 5 (January 1980): 88–90]

  “UPHOLD THE FOUR BASIC PRINCIPLES,” SPEECH BY DENG XIAOPING, MARCH 30, 1979

  Although the Deng regime put an end to the Maoist emphasis on political campaigns and class conflict, from early on it tried to set parameters on speech and actions. Despite these strictures, the eighties, as we shall see below, saw greater freedom for intellectuals than any period since the founding of the People’s Republic in 1949.

  The [Party] Center believes that in realizing the four modernizations in China we must uphold the four basic principles in thought and politics. They are the fundamental premise for realizing the four modernizations. They are [as follows]:

  We must uphold the socialist road.

  We must uphold the dictatorship of the proletariat.

  We must uphold the leadership of the Communist Party.

  We must uphold Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought.

  The Center believes that we must reemphasize upholding the four basic principles today because some people (albeit an extreme minority) have attempted to shake those basic principles. . . . Recently, a tendency has developed for some people to create trouble in some parts of the country. . .. Some others also deliberately exaggerate and create a sensation by raising such slogans as “Oppose starvation” and “Demand human rights.” Under these slogans, they incite some people to demonstrate and scheme to get foreigners to propagandize their words and actions to the outside world. The so-called China Human Rights Organization has even tacked up big character posters requesting the American president “to show solicitude” toward human rights in China. Can we permit these kinds of public demands for foreigners to interfere in China’s domestic affairs? A so-called Thaw Society issued a proclamation openly opposing the dictatorship of the proletariat, saying that it divided people. Can we permit this kind of “freedom of speech,” which openly opposes constitutional principles?

  [Trans. from Deng Xiaoping wenxuan 2: 158–184—RL]

  “BUILDING SOCIALIST SPIRITUAL CIVILIZATION,” LETTER FROM LI CHANG, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CHINESE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES, TO A MEMBER OF THE PARTY CENTRAL COMMITTEE, DECEMBER 1980

  Like the Qing dynasty in the nineteenth century, the new regime hoped to open the country to the outside world without modifying its legitimating ideology. New technology or scientific advances were welcomed while Western cultural or political notions were considered threatening and undesirable. The regime therefore developed this concept of a socialist spiritual civilization in the hope of combating the inroads of what it called Western bourgeois material civilization.

  Since the Fifth Plenary Session of the Eleventh Party Central Committee, inspired by the idea of “improving and strengthening the Party leadership,” I have felt all along that, after the ten disastrous years of the “cultural revolution,” there still exists within the Party the pernicious influence of the ultra-left line of the Gang of Four, remnants of the factional ideology of feudalism, selfish individualism of the bourgeoisie, anarchism of the petty bourgeoisie, and colonial ideas that worship things foreign. Under these influences, ideological demands inside and outside the Party have grown somewhat slack. . . . I feel that, along with the general goal of realizing the Four Modernizations, we should also consider putting forward a goal of “building socialist spiritual civilization.” The phrase itself first appeared in Vice Chairman Ye’s 1979 speech at the meeting in celebration of the thirtieth anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China.

  I consider that the socialist spiritual civilization includes a concrete aspect (such as well-developed education and thriving science, literature, and art) as well as an ideological aspect (such as social ethics, traditions, and customs). For example, by ideals we mean dedication to the people’s cause and building the socialist motherland, whereas moral concepts imply identification of individual interests with the interest of the people and, when the two fall into contradiction, subordination of personal interests to the overall interests of the people. Moral concepts also refer to democracy and unity, hard work and plain living, eagerness to acquire an education, attaching importance to the development of science, paying attention to personal and public hygiene, and being polite and courteous. . . .

  It was wrong for Lin Biao and the Gang of Four to emphasize the primacy of the spiritual role. However, we should not overlook the fact that spirit can play a definite role.

  [From Beijing Review 10 (March 9, 1981): 16–17]

  OFFICE OF THE CCP DEHONG DAI NATIONALITY AND QINGBO AUTONOMOUS ZHOU COMMITTEE: “SEVERAL QUESTIONS IN STRENGTHENING AND PERFECTING THE JOB RESPONSIBILITY SYSTEMS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION,” NOVEMBER 7, 1980

  The people’s communes had been established during the heyday of the Great Leap Forward, and although they were modified in the early sixties, they remained the primary form of rural organization until the early eighties. At that time the new regime dismantled the communes and leased the land to the people of the communes, hoping that this would increase agricultural production. The farmers still had to sell a certain amount of grain to the state at fixed (albeit higher) prices but could now sell the surplus on the market for whatever price they could get. The new contracting arrangement came to be known as the responsibility system, and at least in the first few years, helped by a period of good weather, production rose. Note, however, that these moves toward free enterprise and a market economy are all clothed in the language of socialism and collectivization and concede nothing in respect to overall state control.

  Owing to the shortcomings in the movement of collectivization, the ultra-left interruptions, and the fact that for a long period of time the Party had not shifted the emphasis of work to economic construction, the current material and technical bases for the collective economy are still comparatively weak. Meanwhile, there also are matters in need of improvement and perfection concerning systems and structure of the people’s communes, the weakest link being the management and administrative work. For a long time there have been no significant improvements and breakthroughs in implementing the principle of distribution according to work and in perfecting the system of job responsibility for production. This has caused suppression of the peasants’ socialist initiative as well as insufficient exertion of the superiority of collectivization. Because the collective economy has not been doing satisfactorily, people in a few backward and poverty-stricken localities have even less faith in agricultural collectivization. We must face these problems squarely and solve them aggressively and step by step. At present, it is necessary to regard improvement of management and administration, implementation of distribution according to work, and improvement and perfection of the system of job responsibility for production as the central link for further consolidation of the collective economy and for development of agricultural production. It is necessary to put in a lot of strenuous effort to grasp it tight and grasp it well. . . .

  3. Under the moral encouragement of the Third Plenary Session, Party cadres and the masses of commune members have in the recent two years proceeded from actual conditions, liberated their thought and boldly explored, and established many forms of job responsibility systems for production, which can be generally divided into two categories: one is contracted work of small segments with payments according to fixed quotas, and the other is contracted work and production quotas with payments in accordance with actual production. Results of implementation indicate that most areas have increased production by acquiring some new experience. Especially noteworthy is the emergence of the system of job responsibility that gives contracts to specialized persons and gives payment in accordance with actual production, which is widely welcomed by commune members. This is a very good start. Leadership at various levels should sum up the positive and negative experiences, together with the broad masses, and help the communes and brigades perfect and improve the system of job responsibility to energetically push furthe
r the management work of the collective economy. . . .

  5. The system of job responsibility, of giving contracts to specific persons and giving payments in accordance with actual production, is a system based on division of labor and cooperative work. Under the system, the labor forces [peasants] who are good in agriculture receive contracts for arable lands according to their ability, while those who are good in forestry, stock raising, sideline production, fishery, industry, commerce, and so on receive contracts of various trades concerned according to their ability. Contracts for production of fixed quotas in various trades are assigned to teams, to labor forces, or to households, according to the principle of facilitating production and benefiting management. All operations in the process of production are to be centralized whenever centralization is suitable, and decentralized whenever decentralization is good, by the production team. Centralized distribution [of payment] is made for the portions under fixed quotas, while rewards or penalties are given for production in excess of quotas or unfulfilled production. These are stipulated in the form of contracts for the current year or for the next several years.

  This kind of system of production responsibility has many more merits than other forms of contracted production: it can satisfy the commune members’ demand for calculating payments in accordance with production, stabilize the production team’s position as the main economic entity, concretely consolidate both the mobilization of production initiative of individual commune members and the exertion of the superiority of centralized management as well as division of labor and cooperative work; it is favorable to the development of diversified business, popularization of scientific farming, and the promotion of production of commercial items; it is good for people to exert their talents, things to exert their usefulness, and land to exert its potential; it is favorable for the commune members to take care of their sideline business; and it is convenient for making arrangements for production to ensure a livelihood for the four categories of bereaved households . . . and the weak-labor households. This form is, on the one hand, applicable to areas currently undergoing difficulties while, on the other, it can be developed into a system of job responsibility that further divides specialties by an even higher degree and with more socialist characteristics.

  [Issues and Studies 17, no. 5 (May 1981): 77–79]

  EARLY CRITIQUES OF THE DENG REGIME

  PUBLICATION STATEMENT, BEIJING SPRING MAGAZINE, JANUARY 1979

  During the Beijing Spring period, roughly 1978 to 1981, unofficial journals and big character posters expressing all sorts of ideas flourished, free of government censorship. Most of them, subscribing to Marx-Leninism and the Communist Party, supported the new regime under Deng Xiaoping, which tolerated their existence because they were useful in its battle with political enemies opposed to Deng’s emphasis on modernization of the economy and minimizing of class conflict. Once those enemies were vanquished, however, these publications were closed down and many of their editors and writers were punished by long jail sentences.

  It was once predicted that the China giant would shake the world the moment it rose. In 1949 it rose, but over a long period of thirty years it has not yielded proper influence. It not only has failed to surpass the imperialist powers but has staggered along behind, hesitating and wavering. Finally, we realize that this great nation wears two tight shoes—ignorance and tyranny. This is why China fails to keep pace with the times and lacks the ability to stand in the front ranks of the nations in the world. Can it be that the Chinese people truly lack such ability?

  To be rich and powerful, China must be built into a modern socialist power. This has long been the dream of the Chinese people. However, to stride toward this great ideal we must break down modern feudalism and modern superstition and gradually acquire socialist democracy and modern science.

  On the basis of Marxism-Leninism, this publication supports the Chinese Communist Party, adheres to the socialist path, and follows Comrade Mao Zedong’s policy of “a hundred flowers blossoming and a hundred schools of thought contending.” As a comprehensive mass periodical, it fully exercises the democratic rights of speech and publication as provided by the Constitution. It will publish the appeals of the people and all kinds of articles of an exploratory nature.

  The road of progress is arduous and tortuous, but the historical current of the people’s desire for democracy and the nation’s desire for wealth and power is irresistible. The fresh flowers of socialist democracy and science will brave blizzards and spring’s chills and will bloom proudly. Baptized by the great and powerful April Fifth Movement, the Chinese people will, with an indomitable fighting spirit, welcome Beijing spring’s hundred flowers.1

  [Adapted from Seymour, The Fifth Modernization, p. 38]

  WEI JINGSHENG: THE FIFTH MODERNIZATION—DEMOCRACY, 1978

  Wei Jingsheng edited the journal Exploration during the Beijing Spring period and differed from most of his fellow editors and writers in warning that Deng Xiaoping and other members of the new reform faction could become dictators themselves without the implementation of democracy in China—what Wei dubbed the “fifth modernization.” More than any writings of this period, his heralded the student and democracy movements of the mid- and late 1980s. After the following poster appeared on Beijing’s Democracy Wall on December 5, 1978, he was arrested on trumped-up charges and served nearly fifteen years in prison. Upon his release in late 1993, Wei resumed his political activities and was re-arrested in April 1994 and sentenced to fourteen more years in prison. He was exiled to the United States in 1998.

  Newspapers and television no longer assail us with deafening praise for the dictatorship of the proletariat and class struggle. This is in part because these were once the magical incantations of the now-overthrown Gang of Four. But more importantly, it’s because the masses have grown absolutely sick of hearing these worn-out phrases and will never be duped by them again. . . .

  After the arrest of the Gang of Four, the people eagerly hoped that Vice Chairman Deng Xiaoping, the possible “restorer of capitalism,” would rise up again like a magnificent banner. Finally he did regain his position in the central leadership. How excited the people felt! How inspired they were! But alas, the old political system so despised by the people remains unchanged, and the democracy and freedom they longed for has not even been mentioned. . . .

  But now there are people warning us that Marxist-Leninist-Mao Zedong Thought is the foundation of all things, even speech, that Chairman Mao was the “great savior” of the people, and that the phrase “without the Communist Party, there would be no new China” actually means “without Chairman Mao, there would be no new China.” If anyone denies this point, the official notices make it clear that they’ll come to no good end. There are even “certain people” who try to tell us that the Chinese people need a dictator and if he is more dictatorial than the emperors of old, it only proves his greatness. The Chinese people don’t need democracy, they say, for unless it is a “democracy under centralized leadership,” it isn’t worth a cent. Whether you believe this or not is up to you, but there are plenty of recently vacated prison cells waiting for you if you don’t.

  But now there are those who’ve offered us a way out: if you take the Four Modernizations as your guiding principle, forge ahead with stability and unity, and bravely serve the revolution like a faithful old ox, you will reach paradise—the glory of communism and the Four Modernizations. Those kindhearted “certain people” have also told us that if we find this confusing, we should undertake a serious and thorough study of Marxist-Leninist-Mao Zedong Thought! If you’re confused, it’s because you don’t understand it, and the fact that you don’t understand only goes to show just how profound a theory it is! Don’t be disobedient or the leadership of your work unit will be uncompromising! And so on and so on.

  I urge everyone to stop believing such political swindlers. When we all know that we are being tricked, why don’t we trust ourselves instead? The Cultural Revolution ha
s tempered us and we are no longer so ignorant. Let us investigate for ourselves what should be done! . . .

  What is true democracy? Only when the people themselves choose representatives to manage affairs in accordance with their will and interests can we speak of democracy. Furthermore, the people must have the power to replace these representatives at any time in order to prevent them from abusing their powers to oppress the people. Is this possible? The citizens of Europe and the United States enjoy just this kind of democracy and could run people like Nixon, de Gaulle, and Tanaka out of office when they wished and can even reinstate them if they want to, for no one can interfere with their democratic rights. In China, however, if a person so much as comments on the now-deceased “Great Helmsman” or “Great Man peerless in history” Mao Zedong, the mighty prison gates and all kinds of unimaginable misfortunes await him. If we compare the socialist system of “democratic centralism” with the “exploiting class democracy” of capitalism, the difference is as clear as night and day.

  Will the country sink into chaos and anarchy if the people attain democracy? On the contrary, have not the scandals exposed in the newspapers recently shown that it is precisely due to an absence of democracy that dictators, large and small, have caused chaos and anarchy? The maintenance of democratic order is an internal problem that the people themselves must solve. It is not something that the privileged overlords need concern themselves with. Besides, they are not really concerned with democracy for the people but use it as a pretext to deny the people their democratic rights. Of course, internal problems cannot be solved overnight but must be constantly addressed during the development process. Mistakes and shortcomings are inevitable, but these are for us to worry about and are infinitely preferable to facing abusive overlords against whom we have no means of redress. Those who worry that democracy will lead to anarchy and chaos are just like those who worried that without an emperor China would fall into chaos following the overthrow of the Qing dynasty. Their recommendation was, Patiently suffer oppression! Without the weight of oppression, the roofs of your homes might fly off!