of the case are all based on an interview with Doctora Laura Caller, one of the de-~ fense lawyers. [An English translation of the Gente article is to be found in World Outlook, October 21, 1966.]
Bohemia introduced this with several paragraphs describing the worldwide support for the defendants. For example, "To the House of Pizarro in Lima from all over the world come protests from hundreds of labor, student, and intellectual organizations; the Chamber of Deputies of Chile, various English Members of Parliament, the 62 Argentine trade-union organizations of Peronist persuasion, the League of Irish Workers, and the Pan African Congress of South Africa have sent telegrams; on the streets of Paris are to be seen many posters telling about the case and Committees for the Defense of Hugo Blanco are being formed everywhere."
Bohemia concluded the reprint from Gente with the comment that the Blanco trial, contrary to the expectations of
his persecutors, has become a demonstra-
tion of the readiness of the Peruvian peo-
ple to support "the necessary road of in-
surrection."
The April 21 Bohemia (which also
contains Che Guevara's message on Viet-
nam and world revolution) carries a photo
of one of the Parisian posters on the
Blanco case, with an explanatory caption.
The April 28 Bohemia (which in-
cludes Fidel Castro's speech praising the
April 15 Spring Mobilization in the U.S.)
reprints two messages by Hugo Blanco.
One is a short letter published in
the bulletin of the Paris-based Committee
of Solidarity with the Victims of Repres-
sion in Peru.
The other is an open letter to the
workers and peasants of Peru, explaining
the gist of his case and proclaiming his
willingness to die for the sake of the
revolutionary cause.
THE LOS ANGELES TEST OF THE "SPIRIT OF GLASSBORO"
An incident occurred between Kosygin's two téte-d-tétes with Johnson at Glassboro, the town that gave the English language the word "booze," which received little notice outside of the city where it occurred -~ Los Angeles, California. The incident, nonetheless, cast its own light on the "spirit of Glassboro" or "spirit of Holly Bush," as some of the Washington propagandists preferred to call it, and perhaps it signified something new on the American political scene.
On Friday, June 23, after a final handshake and pat on the back for the representative of the Kremlin, who went far beyond the call of duty in displaying homely cordiality, the busy political chief of U.S. imperialism jetted to the West Coast for a $500-a-plate fund-raising dinner sponsored by the local Democratic party bosses.
But the antiwar movement had organized a reception of its own. In response to the call to show Johnson what the people of Los Angeles really think about his war in Vietnam, a tremendous crowd turned out -- in fact the biggest of its kind in the history of the city. Estimates put the figure as high as 25,000 although the sponsoring committee, deciding to be conservative, put it at 20,000.
The demonstration was a legal one, having obtained the proper police permits, and it was conducted in an orderly way.
The Los Angeles police, however, appear to have been briefed to try a tactic that had not yet been attempted
"LET US REASON TOGETHER"
~ —_ o 4} ; G 9 yf
"LET US REASON TOGETHER"
by the authorities in response to the many and mounting demonstrations that have been staged against U.S. involvement in the Vietnamese civil war.
"The police used loudspeakers to instruct the crowd to disperse," writes a correspondent of World Outlook. "Only those in the front ranks heard the instructions." Those behind, not. hearing the police, kept moving forward.
"Shoulder to shoulder, the police advanced on the crowd, protected by crash helmets and with both hands on their clubs. The police separated the crowd into vulnerable sections and then when the demonstrators were unable to move they started swinging their clubs."
A 14-year-old girl reported: "The squad moved on us, swinging their clubs. My girl friend got knocked down. I tried to help her but a policeman kneed her in the stomach and hit her in the jaw with his club. We got to the parking lot, where police were still bashing and pushing and kicking people."
Dozens of similar scenes were reported. One demonstrator told the Los Angeles Free Press how people fell as they tried to get away and were then beaten senseless by the pursuing cops.
“Motoreycle cops rushed along the curb, stopping every ten feet or so and striking out. blindly with clubs."
"The police listed 200 as injured," writes our correspondent, "but many others were beaten and left to bleed. Unknown hundreds of others escaped to their homes. Only 51 were arrested, conpared to the hundreds beaten. As the frenzy of beatings ended, Police Chief Tom Reddin said, 'It was a perfect police exercise. I am very satisfied."
The June 25 Los Angeles Times reported him as saying, "It was a beautiful plan and well executed."
Democratic Mayor Sam Yorty, one of the main hosts of President Johnson at the banquet, left his $500 plate long enough to watch the execution of the "beautiful plan." According to the Los Angeles Times, he offered his thanks to the police, who are of course under his jurisdiction, "for making the President's stay an enjoyable and safe one."
Thousands of participants, for whom this was their first demonstration of any kind, were eyewitnesses of the police brutality, saw their fellow demonstrators being roughed up and clubbed, saw the blood streaming from lacerated skulls. Hundreds of thousands in the area saw the scenes on TV. As a result there was an uproar in the community.
Some of the participants began
speaking as charter members of a new
"June 24 Movement."
The civil-liberties organizations
rallied to the defense of the victims.
The issue became so hot that it finally
was given notice in the New York press
which had evidently hoped to ignore it.
Johnson, of course, was well aware
of what was occurring, including the ad-
vance plans. According to the July 1 New
York Post, "the President ate his dinner
at the Century Plaza Hotel expecting to
be rushed from the hotel at any minute."
The same source declares, "Ap-
parently the [Secret Service] agents kept
Johnson briefed on the developments out-—
side because he referred to them when he
later commended Police Chief Tom Reddin
on the ‘fine Job your officers have done
tonight.'"
Let us recall that Johnson flew to
Los Angeles to participate in the execu-
tion of this "beautiful plan" to use po-
lice clubs on antiwar demonstrators, af-
ter his first meeting with Kosygin. If
Johnson had had the slightest reason to
believe that a bloody incident like the
one contemplated against the antiwar
movement in Los Angeles would pain or
even embarrass the distinguished repre-
sentative of the Kremlin, would he have
gone through with it?
It is excluded, of course, that
Johnson consulted with Kosygin about the
evening's plans to use clubs on those who
were coming to protest the war in Vietnam
and to demand the withdrawal of American
troops among other things. But whatever
Kosygin said must have sounded extremely
reassuring to the boss of the U.S. imperi-
alist war machine.
If there were any doubts whatso-
ever, they were settled by the fact that
Kosygin did not at once cancel his sched-
uled Sunday meeting with Johnson in order
to indicate his solidarity with the anti-
war demonstrators who had been brutally
attacked and beaten in Los Angeles be-
cause they dared to engage in an action
that signified solidarity with the Viet-
namese people in their terrible ordeal.
Instead, wagging his tail to make
friends, while keeping it tucked between
his legs out of harm's way, Kosygin re-
turned for the second sniffing of noses.
Small wonder that Johnson was re-
ported to be "jubilant" over his success
in luring the Soviet "leader" into a ses-
sion of reasoning together. Of course,
Kosygin can reply that it was he who won.
He convinced Johnson of the virtues of
"peaceful coexistence" and this is proved
by what happened at Los Angeles.
AN INTERVIEW WITH CHEN PI-~LAN ON THE "CULTURAL REVOLUTION"
{Chen Pi-lan is well known in the history of the Communist movement of China as a woman's leader in the twenties and thirties. She took an active part in 1925-27 revolution and was a founding menber of the Trotskyist movement.
{Born in 1902, she joined the socialist youth movement in April 1922. She became a member of the Chinese Communist party in October 1922. She was active in the Peking branch under Li Ta-choa. Later she moved to Shanghai.
{In the spring of 1924, the party sent her to Moscow to study. She remained there until the outbreak of the Chinese revolution the following year and then returned to Shanghai where she served as a member of the regional committee and as secretary of the Women's Section and as editor of the magazine China Woman.
(In the fall of 1925, she met Peng Shu-tse, a founding member of the Chinese Communist party, and they became lifelong companions.
[Shortly after Peng and Chen Tuhsiu, the founders of the Chinese Communist party, were expelled in 1929 because of their assessment of the errors committed by the party leadership during the preceding revolutionary period, she, too, was expelled. The charge was “Trotskyisn. {There was substance to the accusation, since the errors committed by the young Communist party were due primarily to the baneful influence of Stalin; and full insight into the nature of the errors came from studying writings by Leon Trotsky which had been kept from the knowledge of the ranks and most leaders of the international Communist movement but which finally reached China in a roundabout way and came to the attention of Peng Shu-tse and Chen Tu-hsiu.
{In 1932, when her husband and Chen Tu-hsiu were imprisoned by Chiang Kai-shek, she continued to work at building the Trotskyist movement, supporting herself and two children by teaching and writing under the most difficult underground conditions. She wrote a number of articles under the pen name of Chen Piyam which were published in various periodicals and later compiled in two volumes. The publication of this work established her reputation in China as an authority on the woman question.
[After Peng's release from prison in 1937, she became editor of a monthly magazine New Voice and a member of the Political Bureau of the Revolutionary Communist party of China, the Trotskyist organization.
{Throughout World War II, the Chinese Trotskyists fought against Japanese imperialism and at the same time struggled for a socialist revolution in China. With the victory in 1949, however, some of the best-known Trotskyist leaders had to leave their homeland due to Mao's extremely factional attitude toward them. Those who remained suffered extreme persecution. Some disappeared, others were killed, a number were imprisoned. The ultimate fate of many of those who were imprisoned is not known to this day. Some are still behind bars. Chen Pi-lan is among those who, much against their will, have been forced to live in exile.
(The interview below was granted to Antonio Farien. In the opening he refers to two interviews with Peng Shu-tse. For these see World Outlook, August 12, 1966, and February 10, 1967.1]
* * *
Question: In my interviews with Peng Shu-tse, who analyzed the situation in China in some detail, I have gotten a fairly clear idea of the origins and subsequent evolution of the "great _proletarian cultural revolution," the different and contrasting positions of the Maoists and anti-Maoists, and the possible future perspectives of the struggle.
In the first stage of the "cultural revolution," the people who were at-— tacked were artists, writers, scholars and educators. Therefore, I would like to ask you some questions about the differences of opinion on questions of literature, art, education, etc.
First of all, may I ask you to describe and analyze the differences between the two factions on these questions, as it seems these differences can be most important and give us a much clearer and better understanding of the general lines and positions of the two contending factions.
Answer: Yes, this is true. If one understands the differences on these ques-— tions, one can get a very good idea as to what the general struggle between the two factions is about.
In reality, when Mao launched the "cultural revolution" movement, he began by attacking the drama of Wu Han, Hai Jui Dismissed from Office, Tien Han's drama, Shi Yao Whan (a woman's name) and the writings of Teng To, Midnight Discussions on Yen Shan and Notes from a Three-Family Village. In other words, Mao began by attacking the leading cadres in the cul-
tural fields which, of course, gave rise to the name, "cultural revolution."
We all know that under Stalinist dictatorial regimes, there is no political freedom, and, under these conditions, there is much dissatisfaction among the people. Dissatisfaction of this kind is usually reflected in literature and art since nost artists and writers are very sensitive to the world around them. They observe the daily life of the people and see their plight as well as their hopes and aspirations. Through the means of literature and art, then, they mirror what they have observed -- the bad as well as the good.
It is for just this reason that the Stalinist policies have always severely restricted the cultural fields in order to keep the bad side from being exposed, including the bureaucratic regime. Literature and art were no longer allowed to reflect the actual reality but became mere propaganda to praise the policies of the bureaucrats as well as them as individuals.
It is very clear that such a situation existed under Stalin's regime; and the policies elaborated by Zhdanov on literature and art are typical examples.
The policies elaborated by Mao in this respect have been in no way different, except perhaps they have been more restrictive and harsher. The result in China has been an almost constant resistance in the field of literature and art to Mao's policies. The present purge of people in this field is by no means the first, although it is the largest and most serious.
Q: Could you briefly _tell-us when Mao began to purge these people in the cultural fields and why?
A: Mao's policy of restricting literature and art began in May 1942 during the Yenan period. It was during this time that Mao made his well-known "Talks at the Yenan Forum on Literature and Art" which were given in preparation for the purge of a well-known writer.
In these long discourses, except for a few quotations from Lenin, whom he cited as his authority, Mao demanded that literature and art serve only the workers, peasants and soldiers in line with the political policies of the party; and he was against any exposures or satires of his Yenan regime. The writers were only supposed to praise the Communist New Democracy, revolutionary heroes, etc.; and he pointed out that there were many defects in the field of literature and art and that it was necessary to launch a movement in order to purge then.
During this time, there were several writers who had written some articles exposing the real life in Yenan, such as the famous woman writer, Ting Ling, who wrote an article entitled,. Inpressions of the March Eighth Holiday; the famous poet, Ai Ching, who wrote an article entitled, One Should Understand and Respect the Writers; and Wong Shi-wei, who wrote a series of articles entitled, Crotalaria Sessliflora. The latter were the sharpest exposure of certain aspects of Yenan. He criticized the lack of democracy and contrasted the privileged life of the bureaucracy to that of the rank and file. These articles attracted much attention among the people and especially among the young Communists.
Mao could not tolerate such criticism and for this reason called a meeting to discuss the questions of literature and art where he gave his talks. These meetings and talks not only prepared for the purge which followed; they also laid the foundations for the basic line of Communist party policy in questions concerning literature and art.
Not long after these discussions and meetings, a special meeting was called to purge Wong Shi-wei. Many of the party's officials, such as the heads of the Central Propaganda Department and the Organizational Department and the president of the Center of Academia, as well as cadres working in the field of literature and art, and other writers, took part in this meeting.
One might wonder why it was of such a serious nature. The reason is simple. Wong joined the party in 1926. This made him an old party member and one of the most important members of the Center of Academia. Wong had translated into Chinese more than two million words of the works of Marx, Engels and lenin. He was, as well, a very capable writer and was respected by almost everyone, especially the youth. Thus the purge of Wong Shi-wei was a most important event in the Yenan period.
The meeting lasted sixteen days during which Wong expressed and defended his opinions in the face of vigorous attacks by the leading cadres and officials of the party. There were a number of cultural workers who agreed with Wong's opinions and sympathized with him. Yet, due to his being condemned as antiparty, anti-Marxist and Trotskyist by some of the party leaders, and especially by Chen Po-ta -- who is now the leader of the present cultural revolutionary group but who at that time was Mao's private secretary -- who criticized Wong most maliciously, they became fearful and retreated. Nevertheless, Wong, from beginning to end, remained strong in defending
his ideas as correct.
The meeting finally ended by condemning him as being antiparty, anti- Marxist and Trotskyist; he was expelled from the party, thrown into prison and tortured. Finally, he acknowledged that he was a Trotskyist; and hence he was killed.
We should take special note of the fact that Wong Shi-wei's book, Crotalaria Sessliflora has exercised great attraction and has interested many youth, including members and sympathizers of the CCP as well as its youth organization. The book has circulated throughout China by means of handwritten copies passed on and on, time after time. The original copy that I read was borrowed from a sympathizer of the CCP and was of this type.
Because of the bravery and boldness of Wong's resistance against the vicious attacks and his insistence on the correctness of his own position, he became very famous. His name is to be found in most histories of this period.
Q: Were there any other purges after Wong?
A: After the CCP took power in 1949, Mao's cultural policies were put into effect for the nation as a whole.
The first to resist and criticize them was Hu Feng, who was a very famous left theoretician on literature and art. He considered Mao's "Talks at Yenan" to be mechanistic and therefore he said that "mechanism has controlled literature and art circles for the last ten years...this ideology of literature and art has been sterilized...when one speaks they must employ Mao's thought which causes people more than enough trouble."*
He held that truth is the highest principle of art. He was against what he regarded as the oversimplified policy of having literature and art serve only political ends and was against the limitation of themes as proposed by Mao. Thus he insisted that all writers should have the right to choose their own subjects.
The ideas and opinions of Hu Feng, as I have indicated, are, of course, based on principles which everyone should be able to accept. However, from Mao's point of view, such ideas were out of bounds and in 1955 he began a campaign against Hu Feng and his followers. This campaign lasted several months and was carried out on a national scale.
*The quotation is from "On the Counterrevolutionary Double-dealer Chou Yang," by Yao Wen-yuan, published in Honggi, No. 1, 1967. -- A.F, -673-
Not only were Hu Feng's followers attacked and criticized, but many people in the universities, middle schools and cultural organizations who only sympathized with him were also attacked and purged. According to reports published at the time, more than 130 Hu-Fengists were imprisoned or put in labor camps. Since that time there has been no news of him or his followers.
Almost immediately after the Hu Feng purge came the "Let a Hundred Flowers Blossom and a Hundred Schools of Thought Contend” movement, April to June 1957. It was during this period that a number of left writers criticized Mao's policies on literature and art, such as Ting Ling, Ai Ching and Feng Hsueh-feng, the most famous contemporary theoretician of literature and art. These three were all leaders of the party in the cultural fields, especially Ting Ling and Feng Hsueh-feng, who were respectively chairwoman and vice-chairman of the National Association of Literature and Art Workers.
In June, when Mao began to suppress the "Blossom and Contend" movement, they came under attack.
For example, in September, a special meeting was held in Peking to purge Ting Ling. There were around one hundred participants in this meeting, including many high officials of the party in the cultural fields, such as the minister and vice-minister of culture, Shien Yen-ping and Chou Yang.
This meeting, like the one held in Yenan to purge Wong Shi-wei, lasted sixteen days and was very exhausting for Ting Ling as she was subjected to one attack after another, accusing her of being a rightist and a reactionary. Attacks against her which appeared in the People's Daily made a connection between her and Wong Shi-wei and accused her of being like him. '
Shortly after the meeting, Ting Ling, Feng Hsueh-feng, Ai Ching and m others were imprisoned or sent to "reeducation camps." As with Hu Feng and his followers, nothing further has been heard about their fate.
Concerning Ting Ling, I should say a few more words. In 1923-24, she was a classmate of mine in Shanghai University where we lived in the same home. We became very close friends, so I know her very well. She had a very strong character and was very democratic minded.
Also during the "Blossom and Contend" movement, we should take notice of the position taken by Shien Yen-ping. In a meeting called by the Central United Front Department on May 16, 1957, Shien Yen-ping expressed his own views on liter-
ature and art. He said, "In regard to literature and art, it must be considered a special field. By only depending on some of the party's basic texts and without any special knowledge in this field, it is impossible to resolve concrete problems concerning literature and art...What then should be done? There is the short road which is dogmatism and commanderism." It is very clear that Shien was criticizing the whole apparatus of the cultural department.
Shien considered that in literature and art, there existed a "general phenomenon" of "monotony" and "repetitiousness." He explained that the "sickness" of repetition was due to reducing everything to formulas and to the lack of variety in themes. In short, these sicknesses were due to not carrying out the policy of the "Blossom and Contend" movement.
All the criticisms of Shien Yen~ ping no doubt implied that Mao's policies on literature and art restricted the creative initiative and freedom of the writers; hence the monotonous and repetitious works which were devoid of any liveliness or creativity.
Q@: Since Shien Yen-ping was the minister of culture, that is, the highest leader in the cultural field, why is it that _he spoke out against Mao's policies and why was he not purged with the others?
A: In order to answer this question, it is necessary to give a short résumé of Shien's personal history. He joined the. CCP in 1921 and at that time he was already the author of several articles and the editor of the large magazine, Novel. After the defeat of the revolution of 1927, he left the CCP. However, he continued to write and published several books under the pen name of Mao Toing, some of which became very celebrated and he himself became very well known. It was for this reason that he became minister of culture after the CCP took power in 1949. He held this post until January 1965 when he requested that he be allowed to retire.
As to the reasons why he criticized Mao's policies and why he was not purged, we must note that first of all, his speech was made during the peak of the "Blossom and Contend" movement; secondly, Shien was not a member of the party; and, thirdly, the Ministry of Culture was really controlled by Chou Yang.
According to some recent reports, however, Shien has been arrested in the current purge. It is most probable that he was arrested because of the position he expressed in his speech of 1957.
During the 1925-27 revolution, I
had quite a bit of personal contact with
Shien, and so I also knew him very well.
He was an extremely cautious man and most
likely, in my opinion, he has probably
not made any criticism of Mao's policies
since 1957.
Q: Since you said that it was
really Chou Yang who controlled the Mini-
stry_ of Culture and since Chou Yang hin-
' self has recently been attacked, what
were his ideas and did they conform with
those of Shien Yen-ping?
A: Chou Yang's opinions on liter-
ature and art are not only similar to
those of Shien Yen-ping, they are much
more profound. If we turn only to the
article by Yao Wen-yuan, recently pub-
lished in Hongqi, No. 1, 1967, "On the
Counterrevolutionary Double-dealer Chou
Yang," attacking Chou Yang, we can see
what his position is.
For example, Yao Wen-yuan very
clearly states, "Chou Yang, like Hu Feng,
repeatedly advocated the propaganda that
'the highest principle of art is truth,
and he was against the 'oversimplifica-
tion and vulgarization,' the conditions
placed on writers and the role of liter-
ature as propaganda. Chou Yang considered
that 'dogmatism' and 'sectarianism' and
the harsh attitude towards artists and
writers has seriously restricted their
freedom." "As to the ‘question of making
literature and art serve politics,' there
was narrow, one-sided and incorrect under-
standing." Therefore, Chou advocated that
"there should be no limits on subjects
and that we should help people see the
diversity of the world, the laws of his-
tory and the complex nature of life." "Re-
gardless of the subject, it can reflect
the spirit of the present period."
In another article, Chou Yang said,
"It is better to describe the intellectuals,
technicians, and others from the point of
view of the proletariat. However, the
working class should not be sectarian;
that is, it should not only write about
the workers and peasants. The idea that
proletarian literature is only about
workers and peasants is not correct."
Chou Yang was especially against
literature and art serving only politics.
He also said, "The writers should not only
write about current affairs and should
not follow the policy put forward today
and then follow a different policy that
might be put forward tomorrow. "*
"In a word, Chou Yang considered
*Quotations taken from an article criti-
cizing Chou Yang by Li Chi-kai and others,
published in Wenhui Bao, July 31, 1966.
-~ A.F.
that writers should write what they themselves see and according to what they themselves feel, even if what they see and feel does not correspond to the ideas and policies of the party. The writer must be loyal to the facts, to the truth and to the objective conditions, and write freely what he believes." Therefore, Chou Yang advocated assuring freedom in the sphere of writing.*
Q: If Chou Yang disagreed with Mao's policies, why was he allowed to remain as vice-minister of culture, being in fact the real head of the ministry, to carry out Mao's policies?
A: This is an important question and it is very necessary that it be answered. Under the personal dictatorship of Mao, many leaders and cadres of the party disagreed with his policies, but nevertheless they were forced to carry out Mao's decisions. Chou Yang was only one of many such cadres and leaders. He often found himself in a contradictory situation, that is, not believing in Mao's policies and even speaking and writing about his differences, but nevertheless forced to carry out Mao's line in practice.
For example, before the purge of Hu Feng in 1955, during a discussion meeting on Hu Feng's case, Chou Yang said, "Hu Feng's general political position is in agreement with the party. "** In other words, Chou Yang did not want the case of Hu Feng to become too serious. When Mao ordered Hu Feng to be purged as a reactionary, Chou was obliged to carry out his orders.
In 1957, when Ting Ling, Feng Hsueh-feng, Ai Ching and the others were attacked, Chou Yang was forced into the same contradictory position as in the case of Hu Feng. It was for this reason that Yao Wen~yuan accused him of being a "double-dealer" or "two-faced counterrevolutionary." In reality, then, under the pressure of Mao, many cadres were obliged to carry out policies with which they did not agree. This reflects the contradiction between Mao and the cadres of the party of. which the present crisis is only a culmination, reaching to the point of explosion.
Q: Can Chou Yang's opinions be considered as. exemplary for most of the cadres in the cultural fields?
*See article entitled, "A Reevaluation of Chou Yang," published in Ming Pao magazine, August 1966. -- A.F.
**See article by Yao Wen-yuan cited earlier. -- A.F.
A: Yes, it seems as though Chou Yang's opinions reflect most of those of the rank and file. For example, the two other vice-ministers of culture, Sha Yeh and Lin Mo-han, as well as the secretary of the party group heading the All-China Federation of Literature and Art Circles, Yang Han~sheng, all shared the same opinions as Chou Yang.
Yang Han-sheng's opinions were even more radical than Chou's, however, and it was for this reason that he has been subjected to harsher criticism than many of the others.
Q: Could you give us some idea of Yang Han~sheng's opinions?
A: Yes, I can, but first I should give. you a few details about his personal history. Yang Han-sheng was also a class-— mate of mine at Shanghai University in 1923-24. He was at that time a member of the party and was a very active participant in the revolutionary movement. After the defeat of the revolution in 1927, he remained in Shanghai and was active in the underground, and it was during this time that I had much contact with him and his wife. Beginning in 1928, he wrote several novels and afterwards became a very important party cadre in the cultural work of the party.
Because he remained loyal to certain traditions of the party during the second Chinese revolution, he disagreed with the many restrictions which Mao placed upon writers and artists and.criticized them very harshly.
For example, in 1962, at a meeting of playwrights and actors in Canton, he said, "The party's policy on literature and art [that is, Mao's policy] is equal to ten ropes binding the hands and feet of writers. Ikese ten ropes prove to be five obligations: (1) one must write about important subjects (2) one must write about heroes and outstanding figures (3) one must participate in collective writing (4) one must finish his work in a certain amount of time (5) one must always have the OK from the party leadership. From these five obligations arise five ventures: (1) to write about the contradictions among the people, especially between the masses and the leaders (2) to write any satirical dramas (3) to write any tragedies (4) to write about the defects and failures of a hero (5) to write about the weaknesses of any of the party's leaders. All of this leaves a writer in despair and makes it difficult for him to write, and even when he does write, his work is only repetitious."
In conclusion, he advocated that "it is necessary to do away with all restrictions and to break out of all limitations. We must respect the rule of cre-
ativity, that is, freedom for the writers. "*
Yang Han~sheng was severely attacked by the Maoists for the above opin-— ions as well as for many other things. In 1957, Yang and Tien Han went to the USSR for the anniversary of the October Revolution. While they were there, they saw many plays such as "The Infinite Perspec~ tive" and the "Bluebird." These two dramas were exposures of the personal cult of Stalin and the purges of his opponents. They portrayed Stalin's rule to be "like that under the Tsars," and pointed out that "the USSR no longer needs the period of terror."
When Yang Han-sheng and Tien Han returned to China, Yang said that the actors of the USSR were very "bold"; "we are very timid. We should make the utmost effort to reform, to be bold and creative. "**
For these things, the Maoists accused Yang of being a "counterrevolutionary revisionist"; yet, in reality, he was only expressing agreement with the de- Stalinization taking place in the Soviet theater. It was this which Mao could not tolerate.
Q: Wu Han, Teng To and Tien Han are some of China's most famous writers who not only have been among the first to be attacked but also among those who have been the most severely attacked by the Maoists. Have they ever expressed their opinions on literature and art?
A: Wu Han, Teng To and Tien Han have, of course, differences with Mao's policies, but these have never been expressed openly as far as I know. They have, however, written plays and articles in which they have indirectly criticized Mao's policies and his personal cult and dictatorship. The two plays, Hai Jui Dismissed by Wu Han and Shi Yao Whan by Tien Han, which uses historical plots in order to criticize Mao and his policies are good examples.
Teng To also wrote many articles in which he indirectly attacked the policy of the people's communes as well as Mao's infallibility. But this was explained in your interview with Peng Shutse, and so it is not necessary for me to repeat it. Here, I would only like to
*See article entitled, "Criticism of Yang Han-sheng's Ten Ropes," published in Renmin Ribao, December 29, 1966. -- A.F.
**See the article entitled "Yang Hansheng as a Propagandist of the Revisionist Literature and Art," published in the _Worker's Daily, February 27, 1967. --~ ALF, -676-
point out that even those who attacked Mao indirectly could not be tolerated by Mao.
Q: Were any of the leaders in the cultural fields, such as Chou Yi ; against any of Mao's other policies?
A: Almost all of those who disagreed on questions of literature and art were also in disagreement with Mao's overall policy. Since the leaders and cadres working in the cultural fields have frequent contact with writers and artists working directly with the masses, they learn from them the feelings and aspirations of the masses.
For example, in a meeting held in Darien, August 1962, of writers from all over the country, the overwhelming majority of them expressed their dissatisfaction with and criticized the "great leap forward" policy and especially the people's communes, as well as Mao's policies on literature and art. They felt that "the life of the peasants is getting worse and worse," and "the general line is the psychology of an upstart." Similarly, "the Great Leap Forward is like a stimulant," and "the people's communes are adventurism." Chou Yang himself said, "The Great Leap Forward represents subjective idealism." Again, "the people's communes have been established too early." He even said, "It is good to let the peasants have their own plots," and he advocated "opening the free market" in the countryside.*
The criticisms of the "great leap forward" and the people's communes by Chou Yang and the other writers are echoes of the criticisms advanced by Peng Teh-huai in 1959. Therefore, in a meeting of the All-China Federation of Literature and Art Circles in June 1964, Mao made an address in which he said that "in the past 15 years, these associations and most of their publications [a few said to be good] had for the most part failed... to carry out the policies of the party... and failed to reflect the socialist revolution and construction. In recent years, they had even verged on revisionism. If they did not take serious steps to remould themselves, sooner or later, they were bound to become organizations of the Hungarian Petofi club type."**
From what Mao said, it is clear that he feared the intellectuals in the cultural fields and it is easy to understand why he began the cultural revolu-
*See above, Li Chi-kai in Wenhui Bao. -- ALF.
**Yao Wen-yuan, "On the Counterrevolutionary Double-dealer Chou Yang." -~ A.F.
tion and a purge of all those who opposed him. Mao feared an actual development such as the Hungarian revolution of 1956 in China itself, started by similar groups as the Petofi Club and it is for this reason that he began his purge by singling out these cadres in the fields of literature and art.
Q: Why is it that many of the famous educators such as Lu Ping, president of Peking University, Li Ta, president of Wu_Han University, Kuang Ya-ming, president of Nanking University, etc., have been purged? Did they have differences, and possibly refused to carry out Mao's policies in education?
A: These educators were against Mao's policies on education. But this is a complicated and difficult question. It would make it much clearer if I would first outline Mao's attitude toward education.
Since the CCP took power in 1949, Mao has based his educational policies on the principle that "education must serve politics." Mao often stressed the idea that "students and professors should remould their thought." Mao compelled the students to attend political lectures and to participate in political discussions and physical work. In other words, his policy was to make Communists out of all the students and to get them to accept and support the party's policies. The learning of other subjects, Mao does not regard as being important; or, at best, it is only a secondary consideration. Because of such policies, the standards of education have greatly diminished.
In the "great leap forward" program of 1958, Mao put forward the idea of an "educational revolution." He stressed the idea that "education must be accompanied by productive work." Under this slogan, the professors as well as the students were sent to the countryside to participate in the work of the people's communes, while others were sent to work in the factories, still carrying on their political studies and activities. These conditions led to almost a standstill in the students' regular studies. This was the situation in 1958-59.
Mao's policies and their results aroused much dissatisfaction among the professors, teachers and students. For example, Li Ta said, "The Educational Revolution has destroyed the educational process. The fundamental courses have been torn asunder. The quality of education, has been lowered, the methods of teaching and studying have been disorganized. All the schools controlled by the party have become anarchic. The relations between teachers and students, between the young and old and between the masses and the party have worsened to the great- -677-
est degree."
He also said, "The Educational Revolution in 1958 caused a very bad situation. It destroyed the activities of the intellectuals and hampered their selfrespect. "*
The crisis described by Li Ta represents the common opinion of the overwhelming majority of educators, professors, teachers and students.
Li Ta was one of the founding menbers of the CCP and was one of the twelve who attended the founding congress in 1921. He was elected to the Central Committee of the party and became the head of the Central Committee's Propaganda Department. Sometime afterward, he left the party because he disagreed with the decision that the members of the CCP should join the Kuomintang, although he remained a Marxist. .
He translated many Marxist books and propagandized the ideas of Marxism in many of his own articles. It is evident that he helped the Marxist movement when he was outside the party.
Since he was a professor and had studied education from a Marxist point of view, including the educational system in the USSR, he became very well known as a Marxist educator. This was why the CCP, after taking power, appointed him as the president of Wu Han University.
It was because of his profound knowledge as an educator that he realized the dangers of Mao's educational policies and criticized them very severely.
Mao's policy of “educational revolution" met with bankruptcy following’ the failure of the "great leap forward." At the beginning of 1960, Mao was no longer able to maintain his policies and so he temporarily sat back while Liu. Shao-chi and Teng Hsiao-ping took on the responsibility of dealing with the situation.
Educational policies, then, were somewhat changed and corrected. First of all, the Central Educational Department published the "Sixty Points of Higher Educational Reforms." The chief reforms were aimed at encouraging the students to study in their special fields and to make sure that they had the necessary time to do so. The students were supposed to participate in physical work and political activities; however, these things were not supposed to interfere with or be done during the time set aside for study and class. A regular system of teaching and studying was to be reestablished as well
*See Ming Pao magazine, No. 12, 1966, p. 37. -- A.F.
as a disciplined relationship between the students and professors. In order to raise the quality of education, examinations were also to be reinstituted. Many of the students were to be encouraged to take up studies in the scientific fields as well as foreign languages. The schools were no longer supposed to interfere in the love life of the students, nor were they supposed to apply any other inappropriate pressures. Attention was also to be brought to the health of the students and to their welfare in general.
The Peking municipal government, headed by Peng Chen, carried out these new reforms very enthusiastically and elaborated a series of concrete measures to implement them. For example, it was stated that "students and teachers should not be demanded to learn politics too quickly, nor should any time be taken away from their regular studies for political activities. The teachers must know and teach their subjects as well as possible and the students must learn their lessons as well as they can. The use of abstract political ideas and terms, the empty preaching and the long political reports must be avoided."
The president of Peking University, Iu Ping, from 1961 completely abandoned the "educational revolution" policy and turned the university into an experiment for the new education reforms..He lowered the amount of time required for physical labor and political activity and made sure the students had adequate time to study their particular subjects. Hence the students of Peking University were much better off from 1961 to 1962.
Iu Ping also advanced the slogan, "Learn from the USSR," that is, China should also try to copy some of the educational policies in some of the Western countries; and he advocated inviting the old professors who had been expelled in the past years to return to their teaching posts.
Li Ta, Kuang Ya-ming and many of the other educators carried out similar reforms. Thus the universities and colleges succeeded in returning to normal and constructive educational practices.
This educational reform, in the eyes of Mao Tse-tung was an absolute negation of his own policies of "education serving politics" and "education combined with productive labor," and he considered it to be a "revisionist educational line" or the "restoration of bourgeois educational policies." With this he deliberately prepared to purge those who were responsible for these reforms.
On June 13, 1966, Mao published a notice in the name of the Central Committee of the CCP and the State Council. This document is a concrete manifestation of the purge in the educational field and contains two major points:
(1) All universities and middle schools were ordered closed for six months in order to “carry out thoroughly the cultural revolution." In reality, this meant to "carry out thoroughly" a purge in all the universities and middle schools. Following publication of the notice, there was a furious struggle and all Mao's opponents in the universities and middle schools came under attack and were purged.
(2) Almost all opponents were attacked by the students as they carried out Mao's orders, resulting in the purge of such people as Iu Ping, Li Ta, Kuang Yaming, Peng Kang, president of the University of Communications in Sian, Ho lu-ting, . president of the Museum College in Shanghai, and Chiang Lan-tsein, president of Tsing-hua University in Peking. As for the professors, the purge is difficult to estimate; however, from all reports, it seems as though the number would run into many thousands.
The People's Daily held that the most important question was to see "whether we shall pass on Mao Tse-tung's thought from generation to generation." This is comparable to the religious attitude towards the Bible, and Mao's "cultural revolutionary educational" reforms come close to paralleling the educational methods of the Catholic Church during the Middle Ages.
the outcome of the your ops SSL
That is, what do you think will be the overall influence and effect of Mao's "cultural revolution" on Chinese culture?
- A: Mao's purge has included almost all those cadres working in the Central Propaganda Department, the Central Cultural Ministry in the All-China Foundation of Literature and Art Circles, the All-China Union of Stage Artists, National Federation of Film Workers and the National Federation of News Workers as well as writers, musicians, painters, educators, professors, etc., who are the embodiment of China's culture. To purge them means to destroy China's culture. I will only point out here two indisputable examples of what Mao's "cultural revolution" means concretely to Chinese culture.
(1) Since Mao launched the "cultural revolution" in May 1966, most writers have not dared to write anything. The publication of most cultural magazines has stopped, film~making has almost come to a standstill; the publication and republication of many books of foreign origin and even many by Chinese authors has been
terminated; many cinemas and theaters have ceased to operate. In other words, almost all cultural activities no longer exist.
(2) Since all the middle schools and universities were closed in June 1966, not one university has reopened and it was only last March that a part of the middle schools began to reopen in such places as Peking and Tiensing. Even before the "cultural revolution" and Mao's purge, there was a great lack of teachers and professors; now, of course, there are even fewer.
The worst part is that from the elementary schools to the universities there is a chronic shortage of textbooks, since almost the whole printing establishment has been given over to printing the works of Mao Tse-tung. For example, in the last half year, fifteen million Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung have been produced, each containing four large volumes, as well as eighty million Quotations from Mao Tse-tung. In addition to this, another eighty million copies of the Selected Works have been scheduled for publication this year. Nearly all other books, therefore, such as textbooks, literature and even the works of Marx, Engels and Lenin have ceased to be printed.
Generally, then, I can say that not only have cultural activities stagnated since Mao launched his "cultural revolution," China's culture is being destroyed to the point of disaster.
Finally, I would like to say that the "proletarian cultural revolution" is theoretically absurd. When the proletariat takes power in a country, its greatest task is to overthrow the remai capitalists in the world and complete the socialist revolution. Before the world capitalist class has been destroyed, it is impossible to construct a real proletarian culture. However, after the world socialist revolution has been completed, the proletariat itself will begin to disappear; that is, classes and, of course, class antagonisms will begin to disappear. It is at this point, then, that socialist culture will begin naturally to establish itself. Therefore, it is in no way
necessary to establish a proletarian cul-
ture.
Mao's launching of the "cultural
revolution" is not only theoretically
absurd, it is also foolish from a prac-
tical point of view. The socio-economic
base in China is so backward that there
are many areas which remain in a state
of primitive production. As for culture,
the majority of the peasantry remain il-
literate along with almost half the work-
ing class. If under these conditions, to
launch a "proletarian cultural revolu-
tion" in order to establish "four news"
-- new culture, new ideas, new habits and
new customs -- does not display ignorance,
then it reveals illusionary and foolish
idealism.
If Mao really intended to raise
the cultural level of the workers and
peasants, he should have started by
eliminating the illiteracy of the masses.
In order to achieve this, it would, first
of all, be necessary to increase the stan-
dard of living of the masses, that is,
increase their pay and decrease their
hours of work. It would be necessary to
let them have time and energy to study
and to participate in cultural activities.
Mao's policy is, however, just the
contrary, demanding that the workers and
peasants work longer hours with no im-
provement in their living standards.
Mao's recent campaign against "economism"”
and his refusal to grant any concessions
to the working class show his attitude
quite clearly; that is, the working class
should serve only as instruments of pro-
duction in the interests of the bureau-
cracy.
In reality it can be said that Mao
utilized the label of "proletarian," only
in order to rationalize his attack and to
purge his opposition under the accusation
of "taking the capitalist road." However,
we can see that Mao has not attacked the
real capitalist and bourgeois elements
still existing in China. This in itself
is enough to prove that Mao's "proletar-
ian cultural revolution" is nothing more
than a purge which he is carrying out in
order to maintain his own bureaucratic
rule and personal cult.
KYOTO STUDENTS BLOCK ARMY USE OF UNIVERSITY
Some 2,000 students at Kyoto University boycotted classes and staged a marathon meeting beginning June 29 to com- ‘pel the administration to discontinue utilizihg their school for military purposes. fwenty-five army men are studying nuclear ‘physics there among other subjects.
. _, Dr. Azuma Okuda, president of the institution, appeared before the students.
By 10:20 p.m. he promised to take up the
matter at a meeting of deans the follow-
ing day. This was not acceptable to the
shouting, jeering students. Finally at
6 a.m., Okuda conceded. a
It was reported that during the
meeting he had to receive injections to
hold down his blood pressure and vita-
mins to keep going.
BERTRAND RUSSELL URGES BAN ON USE OF NAPALM
(Bertrand Russell, who initiated civilian. The main cause of death was nathe War Crimes Tribunal that recently palm bombing. Eyewitness reports from found the U.S. government guilty of ag- Lebanese doctors speak of continuous nagression and other crimes against peace palm bombing of roads where civilians and against humanity in Vietnam, has been were fleeing from the West Bank. Ambufollowing the events in the Middle East lances and medical units were bombed. with close attention. On June 12 he de- Three hospitals were totally destroyed. nounced the blitzkrieg carried out by the Refugees in and around Amman are esti- Government of Israel as “aggression.” mated by UNRWA (UN Relief and Works Agen- See World Outlook, June 30, p. 644.) cy] and others at 100,000, of whom 60,000
were already refugees living in the camps
{On June 27, in another statement near Jericho which were bombed....The to the press, Bertrand Russell expressed estimates of Egyptian casualties are still his revulsion over the Israeli use of very rough. It is feared that there may napalm in its attack on the neighboring be as many 2s 20,000, some of them mili- Arab states. The world-famous philosopher tary..." The vimes published a report from and pacifist urged that this fiendish Cairo on June 19 of its correspondent's "antipersonnel" weapon belongs in the visit to vict.ms of napalm in hospital. same category as dumdum bullets and gas chambers and should be banned. The full Napaim causes third degree burns text of his statement follows.] which destroy the whole thickness of the
skin, and frequently destroy the underly-
“** ing muscles and even the bones. If the
wounds remain open for long, keloids (or
There is now extensive evidence hypertrophic scars) occur on the scars. that Israel used large quantities of na- There is also the danger of fibrosis and palm in its recent blitzkrieg against its contracticn of the scars which usually Arab neighbours. U Thant announced on leads to pronounced disability and dis- June 9 that the United Nations represen- figurement. The keloid formations can tatives on the spot had reported to him become cancerous. that Israeli aircraft were "continuously bombing, napalming and strafing" Syrian positions. The Washington Post has re- It is abundantly clear that napalm ported Syrian hills “covered with burned is an antipersonnel weapon which has no and blackened fields, silent testimony to place in any civilised community. Whether the liberal use of napalm." The Beirut it is used in Syria or Vietnam, the Andes correspondent of the Economist has re- or Iraq, it is intolerable in its fiendported that in Jordan the informed esti- ishness. Napalm must be banned in the mate is "between 14,000 and 18,000 people same way as dumdum bullets and gas chankilled, of whom maybe almost half were bers.
SUMMER SCHEDULE
World Outlook is now on its sun- other week on the average. mer schedule.
With the fall we will resume our
This means publication every regular weekly schedule.