NPR- Interviews author, Newly Released Documents Detail Traumas Of China's Cultural Revolution

unimackpass

Black Belt
@Black
Joined
Jul 3, 2010
Messages
6,220
Reaction score
721
Author talks about content in newy available archives to get a deeper understanding of the Cultural Revolution.



FRANK DIKOTTER, HISTORIAN: Well, indeed, one of the great things about the People's Republic of China over the last I would say five, six, seven, eight, nine years is that it has very gradually been opening up archives. So you can imagine that if you can get into the party archives to study episodes like Mao's Cultural Revolution, you'll get a very different sort of insight than if you were to rely on semi-official or official publications released by the state itself......

....Well, if I would have to describe what happens in the years following the red flag going up over Beijing - 1949, an event referred to as liberation - over to 1957, I would say that it is an effort to gradually close down all very basic civil liberties. The freedom of speech, the freedom of movement, the freedom of association, of belief, you name it - one by one are being gradually shut down as a - as the one-party state starts pretty much consolidating its power. So by the time that you're in 1957, in particular in the countryside, most ordinary villages have lost control over their own land, over their own tools, sometimes even over their schedules. They've become pretty much bonded servants at the beck and call of local party officials. So it gradually - a gradual closing down of all liberties.....

........ he does herd them into giant collectives referred to as people's communes. And in these people's communes, pretty much any and every type of private property is abolished in favor of radical collectivization. In other words, the land belongs to the state.

Tools, pots, utensils become collective property. Even the very schedule that farmers follow is now determined by a local carter on the ground. And this is one of the reasons why this backfired so badly. Once you strip farmers of any incentive to work, including any sense of private property, of course it becomes very difficult to have them work, and violence replaces incentives.....

......with the event of communism, Mao Zedong pits people against each other in a campaign of land reform in which a small number of large property holders are literally executed in public and land is redistributed in particular to poor people.

Now some of them might have been rather pleased in particular, the poor ones after 1949. But gradually from '49 up to '56, the state takes back that land and starts collectivizing most of the private property in the countryside. So you would have small-scale collectors already by 1953 expanded into state farms by 1956.

Now, the introduction of people's communes in 1958 is something quite extraordinary in that they are absolutely giants, and they are based very much on the monologue "The Army," with man and woman separated from each other, meant to sleep in dormitories, children sent to kindergartens, people deployed very much like brigades and platoons - that's what they are referred to. So if you were - '58 is a sense of absolute radical collectivization with the abolishment of any sense of private property.

DAVIES: And what was the impact?

DIKOTTER: Famine. The effect is famine on a devastating scale. As local party members have to use the stick in order to compel these villagers to carry out work for which they're barely paid. Not only that, but all sorts of half-baked schemes to increase the crop backfired rather badly.

So already by '59, you can see famine appearing. By '61 we're talking about tens of millions of people, not just starved to death but also neglected, worked, if not beaten to death.

DAVIES: And how did the regime respond? I mean, this obviously is not sustainable.

DIKOTTER: It's not sustainable. Chairman Mao 1961 is very much forced by circumstances to somehow step back and allow at least an element of economic freedom to be reintroduced in the guise of small, private plots, which farmers used to more or less survive. So the famine is over by 1962.

DAVIES: Now, when you describe this mass collectivization, you know - there's been a lot of dispute over the years about the way Chinese communism was characterized. And some would say, no, that's, you know - that's a reactionary point of view that, in fact, things weren't as bad as they were or that, you know - that there were many people who were treated more fairly than they had been under the previous system in which they were, you know, feudal overlords in some cases. How can you be sure of the picture you're getting?

DIKOTTER: Well, this is the great thing about gaining access to the archives of the party itself. Until recently, it would've been very difficult to come up with real factual information with evidence. Whereas once you can get into the party archives, you are exposed to a whole mass of evidence that very clearly points towards a catastrophe on a gigantic scale.

It is sometimes said that China, even before communism, went through famines. But they were not man-made, and they did not take place at a time of peace. And they certainly weren't on the scale of what happened in China between 1958 and 1962.
 
DAVIES: Now these attacks of students on their professors, on local party officials - it wasn't simply a matter of polite criticism on posters. There was very direct action. What started to happen?

DIKOTTER: Indeed. Students, Red Guards in particular, first turned their attention towards any public display of the so-called old world. They vandalized shops. They turned over street signs with names that come from the past or invoke a feudal culture. They will vandalize churches, tear down temples, overturn tombstones, burn books in public - massive bonfires. But also, bit by bit, they start raiding homes of people suspected of still having sympathies for the old regime - of playing piano, of reading bourgeois literature, of harboring capitalist thoughts.

In Shanghai alone, a quarter of a million homes of ordinary people are raided by Red Guards. Much of what is seized is being destroyed. And then, of course, Red Guards attack the very people they believe are opposed to communism, attack them physically. Tens of thousands are hounded out of cities like Shanghai and Beijing in an effort to purify these cities. And some of them are literally taken to task, spat upon, beaten - some of them, very much to death.

DAVIES: You use a term Red Guards. What were Red Guards?

DIKOTTER: Red Guards are students who, over the summer, start donning uniforms and use a red armband to signify that they are the soldiers. They are the ones who will fight for Mao Zedong and make sure that the Cultural Revolution is carried out to the very end. They are students who identify themselves as defenders of Mao Zedong and Mao Zedong thought.

DAVIES: Did they torture people to exact confessions, or did they impose terrible punishment of people?

DIKOTTER: Yes. When Red Guards take their teachers to task in the beginning, the first months of the summer of 1966, it is merely ritual debasement, humiliation, possibly a few slaps around the face. But bit by bit, there is a cycle of violence that builds up with Red Guards who volunteered to take it much further.

So by August, you see teachers who have their hair torn out, who are being beaten, pummeled by Red Guards. There are in cases of people being caned literally to death - one case of a man who was covered in petrol and set alight, some of them stoned. In the outskirts of Beijing, not so much by Red Guards, but by people who'd joined the Cultural Revolution, a grandmother and her child are buried alive. So very quickly, violence starts assuming quite extraordinary proportions.


https://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Revolution-Peoples-History-1962_1976/dp/1632864231#customerReviews
 
The revolution was officially about purging the country of bourgeois values and the enemies of communism. But Dikotter says it was also about Mao settling scores with his colleagues and subordinates and turning people against each other to shore up his own power. People were tortured to extract confessions. Many people were beaten to death.

DAVIES: Do we know how many people died?

DIKOTTER: Overall? The entire cultural revolution? Probably if you take 1966 to 1976 - in other words a good decade - until the very moment that Chairman Mao dies, you can probably count about 1.5 to 2 million people who were hounded to their deaths.

But the point must be that in comparison to "Mao's Great Famine" which took place earlier from '58 to '62, that appears to be a rather low figure. But the point is that it is not so much death which characterized the Cultural Revolution, it was trauma.

It was the way in which people were pitted against each other, were obliged to denounce family members, colleagues, friends. It was about loss, loss of trust, loss of friendship, loss of faith in other human beings, loss of predictability in social relationships. And that really is the mark that the Cultural Revolution left behind.

DAVIES: And, you know, initially it was students who used their fists or maybe, you know, sticks or clubs in the combat. Eventually Mao encourages the People's Liberation Army to become involved, and they do. What's the effect of that?

DIKOTTER: Exactly. In January 1967, Mao orders the army to support what he refers to as the revolutionary left. But military leaders don't know who the true revolutionary left is. Different leaders, different parts of the army support very different factions.

All of them believing firmly that they speak in the voice of Mao Zedong. They are the true defenders of Mao Zedong. They are the ones who interpret precisely what it is that Mao Zedong has in mind.

So the people are armed by soldiers, and around about spring of 1967, you start seeing people fighting each other literally with machine guns and anti-aircraft artillery.....

....
DAVIES: And what kind of atrocities occurred there?

DIKOTTER: Well, most of the atrocities actually occurred somewhere else. If you look at the south of China, in particular Guangxi province, which is not all that far away from where I live in Hong Kong, there you see that throughout 1967 but also '68, there are factions in the countryside that start not just eliminating each other physically, but literally in a couple of small towns they start ritualistically eating each other.

In other words, it is not enough to eliminate your class enemy. You have to eat his heart, so there are very well-documented cases of ritual cannibalism....

....
DIKOTTER: Well, indeed, the ideological justification is that people from the cities - students, scholars, professionals, in particular - must be able to bridge that big gap there is between the city and the countryside and must, to some extent, be reeducated by the "peasants," quote, unquote. That was the slogan of the time. But in effect, what the party is doing in the summer of 1968 and for a number of years following from here, is to send millions of people to the countryside as punishment for ever having spoken out at the height of the Cultural Revolution, including the students who took the chairman at his word.

In other words, it's a form of punishment. It's a form of getting rid of those who participated in the cities in the Cultural Revolution. Many of them are sent without much support. In the case of students, in one province the size of France, Hubei, about half of them spent years living in caves, in abandoned pig sheds, in structures that have collapsed - very few of them have enough to eat.

There are girls who are sent to the countryside who are raped literally in the thousands by local bullies. Some of these girls are as young as 14. The reality is that many of them are just abandoned by the party state and dumped in the countryside.

DAVIES: You know, the events in this book - I mean, it's remarkable to see the leaders of the party set into motion these efforts which had, in many cases, such catastrophic effects. And they - in your book, they appear to me as, you know, essentially - the cynical manipulation by these Chinese leaders to maintain their own authority and privilege, always finding a new reason to purge, an enemy to get people frightened about.

Was there any of these initiatives that - were they motivated in any way, do you think, by some belief that they really would, you know, reduce oppression, promote equality and bring a more prosperous and equitable society?
 
China scares me. A lot. People from there are literally brainwashed and won't even acknowledge the pollution issues within the cities.
 
This isnt even a problem with communism. Its problem with strong man dictator, in a country, and culture of the Chinese. Mao was one of if not the worst strong man dictator in history, and China the worst possible place to have someone like him.

This topic hits close to my heart. My parents were small children, or maybe preteens in China when all this happened. I always knew something was off about them, and of course I figure it must stem from their time growing up in that atmosphere.

All that happened though, is the fault of the chinese mentality. They are very stubborn, set in their ways, me me me attitude. Mao knew how to manipulate that. It comes with the territory of being the most dominant power in their region of the world for many millenia I guess.

When the Euro imperialist powers came, it was a real shocker to the chinese. They went through like a century and a half of strife. Now though they seem to be coming out of it, but they really still want to regain that old glory of theirs, while keeping that same superiority complex.
 
In before "but, but, but, that wasn't TRUE communism!" excuse.

Here is a video completely disproving that tired notion:


Communist China and the Soviet Union were communist countries. Sorry lefties, you own them.
 
In before "but, but, but, that wasn't TRUE communism!" excuse.

Here is a video completely disproving that tired notion:


Communist China and the Soviet Union were communist countries. Sorry lefties, you own them.


Thanks for this psychiatrist's opinion on history.

Totally relevant.

You know that just because Jordan Peterson thinks or says something doesn't mean it's fact, especially when we're dealing with subject matter that has nothing to do with his expertise.
 
You know that just because Jordan Peterson thinks or says something doesn't mean it's fact, especially when we're dealing with subject matter that has nothing to do with his expertise.

Peterson spent years researching totalitarian communist regimes. I think it is safe to assume he has some insight on the subject.
 
Peterson spent years researching totalitarian communist regimes. I think it is safe to assume he has some insight on the subject.

I never said he couldn't provide insight, personally I think he'd provide more insight into the psychology involved in that type of propaganda and the psyche of a strongman like Mao.

He certainly is not authority on politics or history or economics, though.

He just holds opinions you agree with.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for this psychiatrist's opinion on history.

Totally relevant.
Infinitely more relevant and worth considering than your opinion.

And it always will be.

You know that just because Jordan Peterson thinks or says something doesn't mean it's fact, especially when we're dealing with subject matter that has nothing to do with his expertise.
He's studied totalitarian regime far more tha you could ever hope to. This is just you trying to poison the well.

The sophists who make the flawed "not true communism" argument will leave no mark on the intellectual history of humanity.

Jordan Peterson on the other hand.......
 
He certainly is not authority on politics or history or economics, though.
Jordan Peterson is more of an authority on each of those subjects than you are.

What makes you think you have any standing to say he's not an authority? You're just a spiteful internet troll, and Jordan Peterson is actually making the world a better place (teaching people how to think, not just telling them what to think).
 
Jordan Peterson is more of an authority on each of those subjects than you are.

What makes you think you have any standing to say he's not an authority? You're just a spiteful internet troll, and Jordan Peterson is actually making the world a better place (teaching people how to think, not just telling them what to think).

He has a degree in psychology, not history, economics, or politics.
 
Infinitely more relevant and worth considering than your opinion.

And it always will be.


He's studied totalitarian regime far more tha you could ever hope to. This is just you trying to poison the well.

The sophists who make the flawed "not true communism" argument will leave no mark on the intellectual history of humanity.

Jordan Peterson on the other hand.......

Nope, he's just the latest right wing personality cult.

A psychologist with an inflated ego and you can't just use his youtube as some sort of trump card for every topic.
 
He has a degree in psychology, not history, economics, or politics.
By your own standard, unless you have a degree in the field you're commenting on, the rest of Sherdog can simply discount your posts as empty words with no truth value to them.

Got it.

Glad we cleared that up!
 
By your own standard, unless you have a degree in the field you're commenting on, the rest of Sherdog can simply discount your posts as empty words with no truth value to them.

Got it.

Glad we cleared that up!

<TrumpWrong1>

As usual, you're wrong.

You try to copy paste Peterson all over this place like that somehow wins you a debate. At best, that would be him winning a debate, and you're still no better than most monkeys.

I'm not claiming to be an expert, or even offer an opinion here, just calling you out on this silly practice.

Peterson isn't right about everything and he doesn't know everything, and he'd probably admit it sooner than you.
 
Nope, he's just the latest right wing personality cult.

A psychologist with an inflated ego and you can't just use his youtube as some sort of trump card for every topic.

Again, your attempts to poison the well fall short.

Also of note:
At no point have you ever refuted anything Professor Peterson said. All you've done is try to smear him.

Interesting that you lack any arguments.....
 
Again, your attempts to poison the well fall short.

Also of note:
At no point have you ever refuted anything Professor Peterson said. All you've done is try to smear him.

Interesting that you lack any arguments.....

I'm not smearing him, I'm smearing you using him to make your arguments, and pointing out that this isn't his field of expertise.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
1,237,045
Messages
55,463,586
Members
174,786
Latest member
JoyceOuthw
Back
Top