Sociólogos argentinos aceitan el engranaje Por Daniel Goldstein
FINAL DE LA POLÉMICA SOBRE EL «PROYECTO MARGINALIDAD»
Historians during the early years of the PRC used historical narratives about the failure of the 1911 Revolution to engage in a debate about whether the bourgeoisie had a place in the revolution after the conclusion of the New Democratic period. Some historians argued that the bourgeoisie lacked the experience and guidance to unite with the masses in 1911, and therefore that education could bring the bourgeoisie to support the proletariat in the PRC. Other historians argued that the gap between bourgeoisie and workers during the 1911 Revolution proved the historical and contemporary contradiction of class interests between the masses and the bourgeoisie.
Many historians between 1949 and 1957 argued that the failure of the Revolutionary Alliance to ally with the peasants and workers, which all historians in the PRC at the time agreed had led directly to the failure of the 1911 Revolution, was a failure of recognition. These historians implied that through proper education members of the bourgeoisie would recognise the mistake of not allying with the workers and peasants and thereafter be able to forge a real alliance between classes. Shui Zhaoxiong水兆熊 (d.u.)73 wrote that the Revolutionary
Alliance, “Did not see the power of the people (such as during the Resist-Russia, Resist-France, Boycott American Goods patriotic movement and other anti-tax movements or the Railway Protection movement), therefore, they did not truly go organise and lead a grand mass
movement”.74 According to Shui, the bourgeoisie was unaware of the power of the peasantry.
If the problem was one of awareness then the bourgeoisie, under the tutelage of the
proletariat, could become aware of the peasantry and ally with the masses. Rong Mengyuan similarly claimed, “The Revolutionary Alliance allied with the secret societies only in order to use them to fuel their uprisings, and its members only allied with the top level of the societies.
73 Shui Zhaoxiong was an educator at Zhenhai Middle School in Zhejiang.
74 Shui Zhaoxiong, Zhongguo jindaishi xuexi gangyao 中国近代史学习纲要 [An Outline of Modern
162
[The Revolutionary Alliance’s] relationship with the lower level broad masses of peasants was not at all intimate, therefore, the uprisings all failed…. Even up to the 1911 Revolution, the power of the masses could not be truly brought forth”.75 The bourgeoisie attempted to ally
with the peasantry according to Rong, but did not recognise its true power and therefore its engagement with the masses lacked depth and understanding. The potential for unity between the bourgeoisie and peasantry went unrealised due to a lack of recognition and experience.
Other historians looked to the issues of organisation and ideology to explain the failure of the Revolutionary Alliance to ally with the peasantry. Li Shu wrote, “This victory [the Wuchang Uprising] was unexpected. The revolutionary party, both in Wuchang and in other provinces across China, had not prepared for victory. The party lacked political experience and lacked a base among the wide masses”.76 Li argued that the Revolutionary Alliance was unprepared for
the revolution because it had neither the requisite time to forge connections with the masses nor had it made organisational preparations for victory. Li Zehou李泽厚 (1930-)77 wrote that,
prior to the 1911 Revolution, Sun Yat-sen’s slogans of ‘equal land rights’ and principle of ‘People’s Livelihood’:
Were not turned into a clear, definite revolutionary method, nor were they turned into concrete activities. Therefore, Sun Yat-sen’s [slogans of] ‘equal land rights’ and
‘People’s Livelihood’ were unable to find substantive forces to carry out the policies among the peasant masses, to turn those policies into a truly revolutionary rage to clear away the feudal system, and thoroughly alter the base of the feudal village economy. And the 1911 Revolution in the end “failed due to the lack of this
75 Rong Mengyuan, Zhongguo jin bainian geming shilüe, 95. 76 Li Shu, Xinhai Geming qian hou de Zhongguo zhengzhi, 32.
77 Li Zehou is a professor of philosophy at Peking University who has written many important works of
philosophy both before and after the Cultural Revolution. He was sent to the villages during the Cultural Revolution.
163 movement in the villages”.78
Li thought that the ideology necessary to forge an alliance between the bourgeoisie and the working classes existed in Sun Yat-sen’s Tridemism but that the ideology had not been tempered by revolutionary experience and transformed into method. By extension, now that Tridemism had evolved and found a method of application through the CCP and Mao Zedong Thought the bourgeoisie could ally with the masses. These authors, from Rong Mengyuan to Li Zehou, argued that the United Front failed in the 1911 Revolution because the bourgeoisie that led the revolutionary movement lacked experience and awareness, not because of its class interests. Therefore, these historians also argued that the bourgeoisie could remake itself and participate in the socialist revolution just as Mao and the CCP argued during the Yan’an period that Sun Yat-sen had remade himself.
Other historians argued that the class interests of the bourgeoisie prohibited it from ever allying with the masses. These historians denied not only the participation of the bourgeoisie in the contemporary United Front, but also denied that the Revolutionary Alliance of the 1911 Revolution had been an example of a United Front. In the contemporary context of socialist construction, these authors made the case that any alliance between the CCP and the
bourgeoisie would only be temporary since the bourgeoisie would pursue its class interests in opposition to the masses after the socialist revolution. Several important articles in the People’s Daily made this case early on in 1951. One editorial argued simply that, “The 1911 Revolution led by Sun Yat-sen at one time moved the peasant masses, but due to the intrinsic weakness of the bourgeoisie the class could not unleash the unlimited revolutionary activism of the peasant masses”.79 The editorial argued that, although at certain times the two could
78 Li Zehou, “Lun Sun Zhongshan de ‘minshengzhuyi’ sixiang 论孙中山的‘民生主义’思想 [On Sun Yat-
sen’s ‘People’s Livelihood’ Thought]”, Lishi yanjiu 1956 (11): 44. Section in quotes is referenced by the author as Mao Zedong Xuanji 毛泽东选集, v. 1, 7.
79 “Jinian Taiping Tianguo geming bai zhounian 纪念太平天国革命百周年 [Commemorating the 100th
164
appear to have some similar interests and work together, the interests of the bourgeoisie did not meaningfully coincide with those of the masses. Any alliance between the masses and the bourgeoisie was therefore a temporary one. Hu Qiaomu 胡乔木 (1912-1992),80 a major actor
in the CCP and historical sphere, also wrote in 1951 that, “The Chinese bourgeoisie is weak, it fears imperialism and feudalism, it fears the workers and peasants, it not only cannot [obtain] liberation, it cannot even raise the anti-imperial anti-feudal problem”.81 Hu argued that the
bourgeoisie’s intrinsic fear of the workers and peasants prevented it from uniting with the masses. Hu Wenyan wrote, “When the constitutional monarchists maintained that inciting the ‘base people’ would break down social order, the democratic revolutionaries not only did not say that the point of a revolution was to incite the masses to break down the old order and establish a new society, they in fact said that a revolution could proceed in an orderly fashion”.82 The bourgeoisie, according to Hu, fundamentally misunderstood the revolution
and instead protected its class interests, making the class an unworthy ally of the proletariat. Li Shiyue argued that the principle of People’s Livelihood in Tridemism, despite its apparent basis in socialism, in fact served to hide the class interests of the bourgeoisie and was intended to prevent a socialist revolution after the democratic revolution.83 These historians believed in
a more restrictive version of class analysis that saw class interests as the motivating factor in determining the ability of a class to contribute to the revolution. Because these authors judged the class interests of the bourgeoisie as contrary to those of the masses, they argued that the bourgeoisie could not contribute to the United Front of the contemporary PRC. These historians developed upon the attacks against Chiang Kai-shek, which portrayed Chiang as the representative of an unreformable and reactionary bourgeoisie. During the 1957 Anti-Rightist
80 Hu Qiaomu was the editor of the People’s Daily, first president of the Chinese Academy of Social
Sciences and a chief propagandist of the CCP.
81 Hu Qiaomu, “Zhongguo Gongchandang de sanshi nian 中国共产党的三十年 [The CCP’s Thirty Years]”,
Renmin ribao, 22 June 1951, 5.
82 Hu Wenyan, Chuji zhongxue keben Zhongguo lishi di san ce, 164. 83 Li Shiyue, Xinhai geming shiqi Liang Hu di qu de geming yundong, 10.
165
Movement, Mao endorsed this interpretation of Mao Zedong Thought and the United Front.