本页主题: Patriotism or National Betrayal? --On the Reactionary Film Inside Story of the Ching Court 打印 | 加为IE收藏 | 复制链接 | 收藏主题 | 上一主题 | 下一主题

weihong
级别: 精灵王


精华: 0
发帖: 3193
威望: 3194 点
红花: 31935 朵
贡献值: 1 点
在线时间:286(小时)
注册时间:2007-01-15
最后登录:2009-12-31

 Patriotism or National Betrayal? --On the Reactionary Film Inside Story of the Ching Court

图片:
图片:
图片:
Patriotism or National Betrayal?

--On the Reactionary Film Inside Story of the Ching Court

Chi Pen-yu

Source: Peking Review, No. 15, 7 April 1967.
Transcribed by www.wengewang.org

"At no time since it was shown all over the country has the film 'Inside Story of the Ching Court' — described as patriotic though in fact a film of national betrayal — yet been criticized and repudiated."

— Chairman Mao Tse-tung: "Letter on the Ques¬tion of Studies on 'The Dream of the Red Chamber' "

When that new day dawned over the east of the world in October 1949, the China that had been weighed down by calamities rose to its feet like a giant.
       Guided by Mao Tse-tung's thought, the Chinese people, after countless bitter struggles, finally threw off the three big mountains of imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucrat-capitalism and liberated the whole country.

The storm of the great people's revolution was washing away the filth from the land of China. But the reactionary ruling classes, unreconciled to their doom, continued to mount frenzied, large-scale counterattacks in every field. The class struggle was very acute. On the cultural and ideological fronts it was especially complicated, and the reactionary films, plays, operas, songs, books, and journals that flooded the world of culture were important propaganda weapons in the big counterattacks carried out by the reactionary ruling classes against the revolutionary people. One of the most prominent examples was the reactionary film Inside Story of the Ching Court, which in 1950 was still being widely shown in Peking, Shanghai, and other cities.
   What should be the attitude of the victorious Chinese people in face of these large-scale counterattacks by reactionary culture? Should they carry out a proletarian cultural revolution, or compromise, or surrender to the reactionary culture rampant in society? Every revolutionary comrade faced a new choice and test.
   Around this reactionary film, the proletarian revolutionaries headed by Chairman Mao waged a serious struggle against a handful of Party people in authority taking the capitalist road. It was the first important struggle on the cultural and ideological fronts in liberated China.
       Chairman Mao sternly pointed out: "The Inside Story of the Ching Court is a film of national betrayal and should be criticized and repudiated." He also said: "Somebody called it patriotic; I consider it national betrayal, national betrayal through and through." But the counterrevolutionary revisionists Lu Ting-yi and Chou Yang and a certain Hu, a standing vice director of the Propaganda Department of the Party's Central Committee at that time, and others, as well as the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road who was supporting them from behind, stubbornly clung to their bourgeois reactionary stand and openly opposed Chairman Mao's directive. They asserted that this reactionary film was "patriotic" and refused to criticize and repudiate it.
       Comrade Chiang Ching, then a member of a committee for guiding the work of the cinema under the Ministry of Culture, upheld the proletarian revolutionary line of Chairman Mao and at a number of meetings proposed that the film Inside Story of the Ching Court should be firmly criticized and repudiated. However, Lu Ting-yi, Chou Yang, Hu, and others vigorously opposed this proposal and did their best to advertise the "patriotic progressiveness" of this reactionary film. When Comrade Chiang Ching wanted to act according to Chairman Mao's directive, they threw at her the reactionary talk of their boss behind the scenes, the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road, and said: "Comrade so-and-so holds that it is a patriotic film." Firmly upholding the truth, Comrade Chiang Ching stood her ground and in no uncertain terms refuting their reactionary and ludicrous statements insisted that the film should be criticized and repudiated. They had to give way, but perfunctorily appointed an historian of reactionary views to write a short fake criticism which was really aimed at shielding the film. They considered even such an article "too sharp," and held up publication, thus smothering a major struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie on the cultural and ideological fronts.
       In 1951, Chairman Mao personally led the struggle on the cultural and ideological fronts to criticize the reactionary film The Life of Wu Hsun.1 In 1954, he initiated another major nationwide struggle, namely, the criticism of Yu Ping-po's Studies on "The Dream of the Red Chamber"2 and the reactionary ideas of Hu Shih. On October 16 of the same year, Chairman Mao wrote a letter to the comrades in the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Party and other comrades concerned, sternly criticizing certain "important people" in the Party who suppressed attacks by newborn forces against the bourgeoisie and were its willing captives. In his letter, Chairman Mao again raised the question of the reactionary film Inside Story of the Ching Court. Referring to the article written by two young men criticizing Studies on "The Dream of the Red Chamber," Chairman Mao pointed out:
   This is the first serious attack in thirty years and more on the erroneous views of the so-called authoritative writer in the field of the studies of' The Dream of the Red Chamber. The authors are two Youth League members. First they wrote to the Wen I Pao [Literary Gazette], to ask whether it was all right to criticize Yu Ping-po, but they received no reply. Ignored by the Wen I Pao, they wrote to teachers at their alma mater—Shantung University—and got their support. Their article refuting A Short Study of "The Dream of the Red Chamber" was carried in the university journal Wenshizhe /Literature, History and Philosophy/. Then the problem came back again to Peking. Some people wanted this article to be reprinted in the Renmin Ribao, to arouse discussion and criticism. This was not done because certain people opposed it, giving various reasons (mainly that it was "an article written by unimportant people" and "the Party paper is not a platform for free debates"). As a compromise, the article was allowed to be reprinted in the Wen I Pao. Later, the "Literary Legacy" page of the Kuang Ming Jih Pao carried an article by the two young men refuting Yu Ping-po's book, Studies on "The Dream of the Red Chamber." It seems likely that the struggle is about to start against the bourgeois idealism of the school of Hu Shih which has been poisoning young people in the field of classical literature for the last thirty years and more. This struggle has been sparked by two "unimportant people," while the "important people," usually taking no notice of it or even obstructing it, advocate a united front on idealism with bourgeois writers and make themselves willing captives of the bourgeoisie. It was almost the same when the films Inside Story of the Ching Court and The Life of Wu Hsun were shown. At no time since it was shown all over the country has the film Inside Story of the Ching Court— described as patriotic though in fact a film of national betrayal—yet been criticized and repudiated. The Life of Wu Hsun has been criticized, but the lessons have not yet been drawn; now comes the bizarre situation when Yu Ping-po's idealism is tolerated and vigorous critical essays by some "unimportant people" are obstructed. This warrants our attention.
       Yet class struggle is independent of man's will. Even after Chairman Mao put the question forward so sharply, the handful of counterrevolutionary revisionists headed by Lu Ting-yi and the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road who supported them from behind, still continued to cling to the bourgeois reactionary stand and stubbornly opposed Chairman Mao's instructions. Twelve years have elapsed since 1954, but the Inside Story of the Ching Court, which is a reactionary, out-and-out traitorous film, remains uncriticized.
       The unprecedented Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution has once again brought this question up.
       Debts have to be paid sooner or later. In the present movement of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, this reactionary and completely traitorous film, which has remained uncriticized since the liberation, must be subjected to thorough criticism and repudiation by the revolutionary masses. The handful of counterrevolutionary revisionists who opposed Chairman Mao's directive and the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road who supported them from behind, must also be thoroughly criticized and repudiated by the revolutionary masses during this movement. Accounts must be settled with them in full for their crimes of flagrantly opposing Chairman Mao's proletarian revolutionary line and of recklessly opposing the Party and Mao Tse-tung's thought. The revolutionary masses must overthrow this handful of counterrevolutionary revisionists, remove the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road from his position, and make him stand aside.
       The reactionary film Inside Story of the Ching Court is a film with a so-called historical theme. It deals with the Reform Movement of 1898 and the struggle of the Yi Ho Tuan [Boxer] movement in the last years of the Ching Dynasty. It openly takes the stand of imperialism, feudalism, and the reactionary bourgeoisie, freely distorts historical facts, and prettifies imperialism, feudalism, and bourgeois reformism. While eulogizing the royalists, it slanders the revolutionary mass movement and the heroic struggle of the people against imperialism and feudalism and advocates national capitulation and class capitulation.
       This reactionary film was made by the Yunghua Film Company, a reactionary film studio whose first film was The Soul of a Nation. This conjured up the phantom soul of Wen Tien-hsiang to revive the soul of the dying Chiang Kai-shek regime. The Inside Story of the Ching Court was its second production. The scenario writer Yao Ke is a reactionary scribbler who holds stubbornly to the counterrevolutionary stand. He once edited the reactionary monthly Tien Hsia, opposed the Chinese revolution, and actively served British-American imperialism and the comprador-bourgeoisie. Later he went over to the Kuomintang reactionaries and wrote a series of vulgar, reactionary plays. He was a small running dog of the reactionary ruling classes. On the eve of China's liberation, he escaped to Hongkong. There is nothing strange in a reactionary anti-communist, antipopular, literary man writing such a reactionary scenario as Inside Story of the Ching Court. But it is indeed strange that the director and certain vice directors of the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party who donned the cloak of "Communists" and "proletarian revolutionaries," and the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road who supported them from behind, should show such favour to this extremely reactionary, thoroughly traitorous film, extol it as "patriotic," and actively serve as spokesmen for imperialism, feudalism, and the reactionary bourgeoisie. Doesn't this call for deep thought?
       On the question of the attitude to be adopted toward this reactionary, thoroughly traitorous film, what are the major differences in principle between the proletarian revolutionaries headed by Chairman Mao on the one hand and the handful of counterrevolutionary revisionists and the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road who supported them from behind, on the other hand? To sum up briefly, there are three differences: namely, what should be one's attitude toward imperialist aggression; toward the Yi Ho Tuan revolutionary mass movement; and toward bourgeois reformism?


WHAT SHOULD BE ONE'S ATTITUDE TOWARD IMPERIALIST AGGRESSION?

The contradiction between imperialism and the Chinese people is a principal contradiction in modern Chinese society. Imperialism is the first and most ferocious enemy of the Chinese people. What attitude should one take toward imperialist aggression is a question of first importance for the revolution.
       The reactionary film Inside Story of the Ching Court, praised as "patriotic" by a handful of counterrevolutionary revisionists and the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road who supported them from behind, is, on the question of imperialist aggression, a perfect reflection of an utterly shameful and servile attitude of fear and worship of imperialism and pro-imperialism [sic].
       It reveals a mortal fear of the imperialist aggression committed by the so-called "eight-power allied expedition" organized by Britain, the United States, Germany, Russia, Japan, France, Italy, and Austria. It assiduously spreads fear of imperialism, crying that "since the Sino-Japanese War of 1894, China has suffered financial losses, her armed forces are poorly equipped and weak, . . . and she is far inferior to the enemy in strength," that "it must not start hostilities with any foreign country." Hsu Ching-cheng, a high-ranking mandarin, is so scared of imperialism that he wails aloud.
       Chairman Mao teaches us that, before the wild beasts of imperialism, revolutionary people must not show the slightest timidity. But in the eyes of the scenarist and those who praised the film, there is no alternative but to surrender helplessly to imperialist aggression—all this is naked national capitulation, the philosophy of traitors.
       Moreover, the film painstakingly advocates worship of imperialism and pro-imperialism; it goes all out to spread illusions about imperialism and openly peddles the theory of national betrayal. Through the mouth of the emperor's concubine Chen Fei,3 an agent of imperialism in the film, the scenarist openly welcomes the imperialist aggression against China. Chen Fei puts it bluntly: "The foreign powers will certainly not blame Your Majesty"; "I am sure that the foreign powers will not harm Your Majesty, but on the contrary will help Your Majesty restore the throne and regenerate the imperial regime." Sun Chia-nai, a high-ranking mandarin, also asserts: "The envoys of both the Eastern and Western Powers are sympathetic toward Your Majesty." A comparison of this with the counterrevolutionary propaganda of the imperialists who committed aggression against China at the time, shows clearly that the film advocates just what the imperialists advocated. To deceive its people, tsarist Russia, for example, alleged that it was "not fighting against China," "but merely putting down a riot, suppressing rebels, and helping China's legitimate government to restore order." In The War in China, his first article on China written as early as 1900, Lenin mercilessly refuted such counterrevolutionary arguments put forward by the aggressors.
   What in fact is that "patriotism" in Inside Story of the Ching Court so extolled by the handful of counterrevolutionary revisionists and the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road who supported them from behind? The "patriotism" they praised turns out to be the so-called "patriotism" of the Emperor Kuang Hsu and his ilk who did not hesitate to rely on imperialism to restore and consolidate their rule over the people, as is described in the film. After the Chinese people had overthrown the reactionary rule of imperialism and feudalism, they still continued to urge the people to learn the "patriotism" of becoming traitors in order to restore and consolidate the exploiting classes' rule over the people. Such is their vicious intention!
       Chairman Mao teaches us: "The specific content of patriotism is determined by historical conditions. There is the 'patriotism' of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler, and there is our patriotism. Communists must resolutely oppose the 'patriotism' of the Japanese aggressors and of Hitler."4 Likewise, we must resolutely oppose the so-called "patriotism" (namely, an out-and-out theory of national betrayal) advocated by a handful of counterrevolutionary revisionists and the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road.
   The traitorous argument about welcoming imperialism to help China "regenerate the imperial regime" advocated by the film is of the same stock as the gangster logic of U.S. imperialism. Singing the same tune as those imperialists did when they carried out aggression against China, ex-U.S. Secretary of State Acheson in his 1949 White Paper talked at length about U.S. "concern" for China and described aggression as "friendship." In "Cast Away Illusions, Prepare for Struggle," " 'Friendship' or Aggression?" and other articles, Chairman Mao had already sternly rebutted such counterrevolutionary gangster logic. He pointed out that it is "the logic of the U.S. mandarins" to describe aggression as "friendship." Yet a handful of counterrevolutionary revisionists and the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road who supported them from behind, yielded to imperialist pressure and were mortally afraid of imperialism. They vainly hoped to arrange a compromise with imperialism, and get "understanding" and "help" from it. They were deeply dissatisfied with Chairman Mao's great call "cast away illusions, prepare for struggle." That they energetically boosted this reactionary, out-and-out traitorous film Inside Story of the Ching Court was in fact in open opposition to Chairman Mao's criticism and repudiation of Acheson's White Paper. This was an unbridled attack on Mao Tse-tung's thought.
       Obviously, the reason why this reactionary film company and reactionary scribbler made such a film on the eve of China's liberation, a film that advocates imperialist "help" in "regenerating the imperial regime," was that they wanted to use their film to arouse public opinion for their own reactionary purposes and openly advocate reliance on U.S. imperialism to suppress the revolutionary movement of the Chinese people, a stratagem they proposed to the Kuomintang reactionaries who were on their last legs. The film entirely takes the stand of imperialism and the Kuomintang reactionaries. It represents an attempt to help prop up the toppling reactionary regime to meet the needs of U.S. imperialist aggression against China and to serve U.S. imperialism and its lackeys. The handful of counterrevolutionary revisionists who paid lip-service to "opposing imperialism," and the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road who supported them from behind, eulogized such a reactionary, out-and-out traitorous film and called it "patriotic." Doesn't this expose their true features as sham anti-imperialists and genuine capitulationists? What country do they love? What they love is a country belonging to the imperialists, a country belonging to the landlords and the bourgeoisie, but not our great motherland under the dictatorship of the proletariat. The "patriotism" they eulogize is nothing but a theory of national betrayal which all the revolutionary people of our country want to trample underfoot.
       One thing in particular needs to be pointed out. It is by no means accidental that the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road should have praised a reactionary, out-and-out traitorous film as "patriotic." As early as the first days of the victory of the War of Resistance Against Japan, he was frightened when faced with aggression by U.S. imperialism and its lackeys. Despairing of the future of the Chinese revolution, he actively promoted within the Party a line of national capitulation and class capitulation in what he described as a "new stage of peace and democracy." Chairman Mao called on us to cast away illusions, to give the enemy tit for tat and fight for every inch of land, whereas this person energetically spread illusions about peace with U.S. imperialism and its lackeys and impudently wrote articles in newspapers in which he expressed gratitude for U.S. imperialist "help" to China and begged for "peace" from U.S. imperialism in an attempt to benumb the fighting will of the people. He 'even deceived the people by saying that "the main form of struggle in the Chinese revolution has become peaceful and parliamentary. It is legal mass struggle and parliamentary struggle," "there should be a change in the whole of the Party's work," and "all political issues should be settled peacefully." Chairman Mao said that as our enemies were sharpening their swords, we must sharpen ours too. Yet this person wanted the people to hand over the weapons in their hands. Energetically advertising the theory of national betrayal, he took the enemy as his father and wanted to be a willing servant of U.S. imperialism. He said: "Since the U.S. is bound to find compradors in China, we, too, may act as its compradors, red compradors!" Compradors are compradors. They are running dogs of the imperialists. What's this about "red compradors"? It is a pure lie. With such a mean and shameless slave mentality, long ago eager to be imperialist compradors, they found the reactionary, out-and-out traitorous film Inside Story of the Ching Court extremely well suited to their taste. This was because the theory advocated by Chen Fei, the imperialist agent in the film, that imperialism might help China "regenerate the imperial regime" exactly reflected their traitorous mentality of eagerly wanting to become compradors of imperialism!
       "Hearts which have a common beat are linked." This is a line of verse the Emperor Kuang Hsu reads out in the film while looking dejectedly at a lake. This is an apt description of the fact that the handful of counterrevolutionary revisionists and the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road shared the feelings of Kuang Hsu, his concubine, and their ilk. On the question of serving as imperialist agents, the handful of counterrevolutionary revisionists and the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road who supported them from behind echoed the views of the landlords and the bourgeoisie of over 60 years ago. This is the ideological and class root of their praise for the "patriotism" of this reactionary, out-and-out traitorous film.


WHAT SHOULD BE ONE'S ATTITUDE TOWARD THE YIHO TUAN REVOLUTIONARY MASS MOVEMENT?

Chairman Mao says: "In the final analysis, the innumerable truths of Marxism may be expressed in one sentence: 'rebellion is justified.' "5 What should be one's attitude toward the revolutionary movement of all-out rebellion against imperialism and feudalism launched by the revolutionary masses of the Yi Ho Tuan? Should one support it or oppose it? Should one praise it or hate it? This is a touchstone distinguishing genuine revolutionaries from fake, revolutionaries from counterrevolutionaries.
       The Yi Ho Tuan movement which shook our vast land was a great anti-imperialist, anti-feudal revolutionary mass movement in modern Chinese history. It was a great movement typifying the initiative of the Chinese people in history. At that time, the Yi Ho Tuan carried on revolutionary activities everywhere, in town and countryside, throughout most of the northern part of China. They set up more than 800 meeting places in the city of Peking itself, the political centre where the enemy exercised the tightest rule. Youths who had joined the Yi Ho Tuan drilled regularly every day under the palace walls behind Ching Shan.
       At a crucial moment when our country was in process of being partitioned amongst the imperialists, the Yi Ho Tuan heroes stepped forth bravely, raised aloft the great revolutionary banner of patriotic struggle against imperialism, and carried on a heroic struggle against the imperialist robbers and their lackeys. They splashed the street corners with slogans of every description which gave expression to the firm resolve of the Chinese people to fight the imperialists:

   Restore to us our land and rights! We'll fight our way
   Through seas of fire and over mountains of knives!
   What does it matter if the Emperor has surrendered?
We'll not rest till the last foreign invader is dead.

       They held the imperialists in contempt; they strictly banned imported goods. The street bearing the name "Legation Street" they renamed "Block the Aliens Street" and the Yu Ho Bridge: "Stop the Aliens Bridge." Demonstrating in the streets, the Yi Ho Tuan heroes often shouted the slogan "Kill the foreign devils!" in unison with the inhabitants, making the imperialists shudder. Some foreigners were so frightened that they put themselves into coffins and hired professional mourners to carry them out of the city.
       In June 1900, Yi Ho Tuan revolutionary activities reached a climax. Day and night, in groups of 30, 40, or SO, the Yi Ho Tuan detachments from Peking's outlying districts marched on the city. Scores arrived each day. The guards at the city gates stood at attention to salute them and shouted to the crowds to make way. Long columns of the revolutionary people in red turbans, red sashes, and shoes trimmed in red, armed with swords and spears, marched with great dignity in grand parades through the streets of Peking city. And the blacksmiths outside Chienmen worked through the night before their blazing furnaces making swords and spears for the Yi Ho Tuan.
       Faced with the frenzied repression of the imperialist aggressor forces, the revolutionary masses of the Yi Ho Tuan pitted their primitive swords and spears heroically against the invaders armed with modern rifles and guns. They demonstrated the Chinese people's militant, revolutionary spirit of fearlessness. In the famous battle at the railway town of Langfang to halt the enemy's advance on Peking, the Yi Ho Tuan "blockaded in the train and heavily challenged with spears" an allied force of more than 1,500 men led by British Admiral Seymour. The enemy suffered casualties amounting to nearly 50 percent of his strength, and beat a panicky retreat to Tientsin. Later Seymour recalled his fright that had the "Boxers" been armed with western weapons, the allied force he led would have been annihilated. In the battle to defend Tientsin, the Yi Ho Tuan fought the aggressors' army hand-to-hand. At the railway station, in one engagement alone they killed or wounded more than 500 men of an, opposing Russian aggressor force of 2,000. The imperialists were forced to admit that there had not been anything like the way the Chinese fought the western soldiers in the bitter battle at Tientsin which went on tenaciously for over a month. In the battle at Yangchun, the American imperialist aggressor army was mercilessly trounced by the Yi Ho Tuan fighters. From then on, the imperialist aggressor armies shuddered at the very bugle note of the Yi Ho Tuan. They wailed: "Those long brass trumpets that can make one's blood curdle horribly. . . ."
       Young people formed a most active and lively force during the Yi Ho Tuan movement. They performed immortal deeds in this great revolutionary movement. The Hung Teng Chao (Red Lanterns) that shook China and the world was an organization of young women from many places in northern China. They formed themselves into a well-disciplined force, did military exercises, and defended their homeland. They were dressed in red, wore red caps, carried red lanterns and red spears. They fought at the front and ferreted out spies in the rear. Playing an active part in the Yi Ho Tuan ranks and resolutely opposing imperialism and its lackeys, they displayed the heroic, anti-imperialist, anti-feudal revolutionary spirit of China's young women.
       "The Hung Teng Chao (Red Lanterns), and the Yi Ho Tuan are like real brothers and sisters. They are united as one, and as one they fight the foreign officials." This ditty expressed the resolute determination of the Hung Teng Chao to fight the imperialists.
   Tales of the heroic deeds of the Hung Teng Chao have circulated widely among the masses of the people ever since. One saying was: "Those Hung Teng girls stare death fearlessly in the face when they charge the enemy positions. Their only worry is that they may lag behind in the fighting." Another comment was: "Since the reigns of Taokuang and Hsienfeng all the battles at sea and on the land in coastal China against the alien invaders ended in defeat" but "now these girls are giving the foreigners such a trouncing that their victories have struck terror into the hearts of those foreign countries, and stirred the spirits of the Chinese people."
       The heroic struggle of the Yi Ho Tuan is the glory and pride of the Chinese people and one of the foundation stones of the great victory of the Chinese people fifty years later. It gave the aggressors a taste of the iron fists of the Chinese people and smashed the imperialists' pipe dream of "partitioning" China. Waldersee, commander of the invading imperialist army, reported to the German kaiser: "Your Majesty may entertain the idea of partitioning China, but let it not be forgotten . . . there is still immense vitality in them. The Chinese have not lost all their bellicosity, which may be seen in the recent 'Boxer Movement.' Whether Europe or America or Japan, he said, no country is intellectually or militarily equipped for the job of ruling over this one-quarter of mankind. It is therefore an ill-advised policy to try dismemberment.
       Real Marxists have always enthusiastically praised revolutionary mass movements of such a tremendous scale. In his great works, Chairman Mao highly appraises the Yi Ho Tuan movement and extols its heroic deeds again and again. He regards the Yi Ho Tuan movement as an important stage in the development of China's bourgeois democratic revolution. Chairman Mao has pointed out: The Yi Ho Tuan war was a just war against the oppressors. Like other revolutionary wars of the Chinese people in the last hundred years, it "testifies to the Chinese people's indomitable spirit infighting imperialism and its lackeys."6 It shows that "we Chinese have the spirit to fight the enemy to the last drop of our blood, the determination to recover our lost territory by our own efforts, and the ability to stand on our own feet in the family of nations."6 "Thanks to the Chinese people's unrelenting and heroic struggle during the last hundred years, imperialism has not been able to subjugate China, nor will it ever be able to do so."8
       But the reactionary and thoroughly traitorous film Inside Story of the Ching Court, praised by a handful of counterrevolutionary revisionists and the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road supporting them from behind, expresses a deep-rooted class hatred for the anti-imperialist revolutionary mass movement of the Yi Ho Tuan, and does its best to defame and slander it. The film portrays the revolutionary action of the Yi Ho Tuan against imperialism as a sort of barbarous turmoil. It tries its utmost to smear the Yi Ho Tuan, maliciously attacking it as "mad," "mobs" who "committed murder and arson," and as "ignorant people" who engaged in "witchcraft."
       These malicious slanders uttered against the Yi Ho Tuan by the film and those who praised it are completely in tune with the views of the imperialists. At that time Dean Acheson, a chieftain of U.S. imperialism, cursed the Yi Ho Tuan movement in his White Paper as "the anti-foreign disturbances in China" and "the Boxer Rebellion." The hired intellectuals of U.S. imperialism in China were also unbridled in their attacks against the Yi Ho Tuan movement as an "offspring of ignorant superstition and hysterics of the mob," as a "perpetrator of senseless acts," and as "Boxers" who committed murder and arson.
       Was it the Yi Ho Tuan organized by the Chinese people that went to the imperialist countries in Europe and America and to Japan to stage rebellion and "commit murder and arson"? Or was it the imperialist countries that came to invade China, this land of ours, to oppress and exploit the Chinese people and so aroused the masses of the Chinese people to resist imperialism and its lackeys and corrupt officials in China? This is a major question of right and wrong which must be debated and cleared up.
       The real bandits who massacred people and committed arson were none other than the imperialists and their lackeys. According to the admissions of Alfred von Waldersee, head of the invading imperialist troops, these troops, after occupying Peking, burnt, massacred, plundered, raped, destroyed cultural treasures, and committed all manner of crimes. Following their occupation of Peking, the imperialist troops were granted special permission to loot openly for three days. This was followed by robbery on an individual basis. They plundered everywhere, from the imperial court and mansions of the princes to the homes of ordinary people. "The windows facing the lakeside were widely opened; court officials were alarmed to see a line of camels coming." The historical relics stored in the Summer Palace, a treasure house of the feudal emperors, were carried away by the aggressors to Tientsin by camels, and this took many a month. Many relics preserved for centuries in China, including the Yung Lo Encyclopedia, were burnt or stolen by the imperialists. Waldersee also confessed that there were many cases of rape, brutality, willful murder, and senseless arson in the course of plunder. As for the massacre and suppression of the Yi Ho Tuan by the imperialists' lackeys, it was even more brutal and callous.

With deep indignation, Lenin condemned the crimes of massacre and arson committed by the imperialist aggressors. He wrote:
   The European governments (the Russian Government among the very first) have already started to partition China. . . . They began to rob China as ghouls rob corpses, and when the seeming corpse attempted to resist, they flung themselves upon it like savage beasts, burning down whole villages, shooting, bayoneting and drowning in the Amur River [Heilungkiang River] unarmed inhabitants, their wives, and their children. And all these Christian exploits are accompanied by howls against the Chinese barbarians who dared to raise their hands against the civilized Europeans.9

But the film and those who praised it have turned things upside down and assisted the evil doers, portraying the imperialist aggressors who committed murder, arson, robbery, and rape as envoys of civilization while slandering as "barbarous rioters" the heroic and indomitable Yi Ho Tuan who resolutely resisted imperialist aggression. This is the genuine philosophy of quislings and traitors.
       The patriotic, anti-imperialist struggle of the Yi Ho Tuan was closely linked with the anti-feudal struggle. The battle cries of the Yi Ho Tuan were: "Kill the foreigners and wipe out corrupt officials." A ditty of the time runs as follows: "Slay the foreigners and kill the beastly mandarins; great hopes will shine before the common people when the foreigners and mandarins are gone." "First kill the foreign devils and then beat up the corrupt officials." Such were their simple and forthright anti-imperialist and anti-feudal revolutionary slogans. They deeply hated the feudal ruling class. In 1900 when the Yi Ho Tuan controlled Peking, most of the offices of the mandarins of the Ching Dynasty in the capital and the mansions of princes, dukes, and aristocrats were watched over by members of the Yi Ho Tuan. The Yi Ho Tuan on many occasions caught officials who were notorious for their crimes, especially those subservient to imperialism, and forced them to kowtow and repent at the altar set up by the Yi Ho Tuan. Those who had committed the most heinous crimes were put to death.
       Yet the film slanders the Yi Ho Tuan as a tool of the feudal rulers. The film portrayed Chao Shu-chiao, a high-ranking mandarin of the Ching Dynasty, as one who had said: "The Empress Tzu Hsi [the Empress Dowager] is begged to issue an order to organize the Yi Ho Tuan into an imperial army." The empress gladly accepted this suggestion. In this way the Yi Ho Tuan was made out to be partisans of the Empress Tzu Hsi. This is an utterly vicious slander.
       For a short period, the rulers of the Ching Dynasty adopted the policy of deceiving and softening up the Yi Ho Tuan. For a time, this policy had some effect and some members of the Yi Ho Tuan were misled into an erroneous understanding of the rulers of the Ching Dynasty. Some detachments of the Yi Ho Tuan put forward the slogan "Support the Ching Dynasty and wipe out the foreigners." This reflects, on the one hand, the complicated nature of the class contradictions at that time and, on the other hand, the fact that people's understanding of imperialism and its lackeys at that time remained at the stage of perceptual knowledge.
       Chairman Mao has taught us that man's knowledge develops from the lower to the higher stage and from perceptual knowledge to rational knowledge. "Similarly with the Chinese people's knowledge of imperialism. The first stage was one of superficial, perceptual knowledge, as shown in the indiscriminate anti-foreign struggles of the movement of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom, the Yi Ho Tuan movement, and so on. It was only in the second stage that the Chinese people reached the stage of rational knowledge, saw the internal and external contradictions of imperialism, and saw the essential truth that imperialism had allied itself with China's comprador and feudal classes to oppress and exploit the great masses of the Chinese people. This knowledge began about the time of the May 4th Movement of 1919." 10 Therefore it is absolutely impermissible to slander the Yi Ho Tuan movement as a tool of the feudal rulers only because it failed to see clearly the nature of imperialism and feudalism. As stated above, along with their anti-imperialist activities, the Yi Ho Tuan never for a moment ceased their activities against the Ching Dynasty. Even after the appearance of the slogan "Support the Ching Dynasty and wipe out the foreigners," Chu Hung-teng [Red Lantern Chu], leader of the Yi Ho Tuan, worked out a plan for an attack on Peking and persevered in the anti-feudal struggle.
       It was solely to meet the needs of imperialism and the feudal landlord class that the reactionary film the Inside Story of the Ching Court so unscrupulously slandered and attacked the anti-imperialist, anti-feudal struggle of the Yi Ho Tuan movement. Their slanders and attacks against the revolutionary masses of the Yi Ho Tuan movement reflect the bitter hatred of the class enemy for the peasants—the main force of the Chinese revolution— and the bitter hatred of the class enemy for the new democratic revolutionary movement led by our Party. The handful of counterrevolutionary revisionists and the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road who was supporting them from behind were singing the same tune as imperialism and feudalism when they applauded this reactionary, thoroughly traitorous film which opposes the Chinese revolution and insults the revolutionary masses. When they did this they were simply serving as mouthpieces for the counterrevolutionary propaganda of imperialism and feudalism. This has completely exposed their counterrevolutionary class stand which is that of the landlords and bourgeoisie.
       The fact that the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road so bitterly hates the revolutionary mass movements in history helps us to understand better why, in the current Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, he put forward, in collaboration with another top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road, a bourgeois reactionary line in a vain attempt to extinguish the revolutionary flames set alight by Chairman Mao himself, why he confused right and wrong and turned things upside down, organized converging attacks against revolutionaries, suppressed the masses and carried out a white terror, and why he tried in a hundred and one ways to boost the arrogance of the bourgeoisie and crush the spirit of the proletariat.


WHAT SHOULD BE ONE'S ATTITUDE TOWARD BOURGEOIS REFORMISM?

One's attitude toward bourgeois reformism is, in reality, a question of one's attitude toward the socialist road and the capitalist road.
   With regard to this fundamental question which concerns the future of the Chinese revolution, differences of principle have long existed between the proletarian revolutionaries headed by Chairman Mao and the Party people in authority taking the capitalist road. These differences of principle became even more acute after China was liberated. The question of what attitude should one take toward the reactionary film the Inside Story of the Ching Court was a point at which these differences came to a head. This was the first fight at close quarters in the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie and between the socialist road and the capitalist road on the cultural and ideological fronts. In this fight, in their evaluations of the film, the proletarian revolutionaries headed by Chairman Mao, on the one hand, and the handful of Party people in authority taking the capitalist road, on the other, gave completely different answers to the question of which direction should China take.
       A handful of counterrevolutionary revisionists and the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road, who was supporting them from behind, did their best to boost this reactionary film which opposes revolution and sings the praises of reformism. They aimed to get help from the dead souls of bourgeois reformism and using the latter's names, robes, and slogans to spread capitalism in China.
       The Reform Movement of 1898 which the film glorifies was a reformist movement of the Chinese bourgeoisie. This movement was launched by certain members of the feudal ruling class and a number of bourgeois reformers who were starting to break away from the feudal ruling class. They launched this movement under the threat of a revolutionary storm and the disaster of national subjugation and in the interests of the landlords and the bourgeoisie. This was an attempt to lead China onto the road of capitalism through reformist modernization and constitutional reform from above.
       Under the historical conditions of the time, the 1898 Reform Movement was, to some extent, a blow against the ideological domination of the feudal ruling class and it played a certain enlightening role in the process of ideological emancipation. We have always taken note of this point. However, such recognition means making a critical assessment of historical personages and incidents from the viewpoint of historical materialism. It does not in any way mean an unprincipled glorifying of the 1898 Reform Movement and its representative participants. The representative persons of the 1898 Reform Movement were themselves rulers who exploited and oppressed the working people. Their reformist goal did not and could never serve the interests of the people's revolution; they aimed at consolidating their rule and exploiting the people even more effectively.
What they wanted to change was not the essence but only some minor aspects of the old order. The illusion they cherished was simply the gradual transformation by devious means of the landlord economy into a semi-landlord and semi-capitalist economy (actually a semi-feudal and semi-colonial economy). This was an attempt to head off the people's revolutionary movement and suppress the revolution in unapparent ways. Even at that time, therefore, reformism could never be the way out for the Chinese people.
       At the end of the nineteenth century, there already existed two roads of social reform in China: one was the bourgeois reformist road which meant the attempt to get to capitalism by means of constitutional reform and modernization from above. In the historical conditions of China at that time, this could not be other than a false, impassable, and reactionary road because China lacked the historical conditions for reformist modernization such as existed in western Europe and Japan. China was then being gradually reduced to a semi-feudal and semi-colonial state under imperialist aggression. Yet Kang Yu-wei and Liang Chi-chao, leaders of the Chinese bourgeois reformists, placed their hopes for constitutional reform and modernization precisely on imperialism. They cherished the illusion that they could go over completely to the side of imperialism and rely on its strength to realize their aims of constitutional reform and modernization. The result of that could only be to bring a wolf into the house and accelerate the process of reducing China to a semi-colonial, semi-feudal state, in which the development of capitalism in China would be absolutely out of the question. The other road of social reform was for the broad masses to rise up and make revolution by armed struggle. Both the Taiping Revolution and the Yi Ho Tuan movement took this road. These revolutions did not achieve final victory because they lacked proletarian leadership. However, they dealt heavy blows at imperialism and feudalism and promoted China's historical advance.
       "I raise my sword to laugh at the sky." A most tragic and moving episode of the 1898 Reform Movement was the death of Tan Szu-tung, a courageous and enlightening thinker. His death announced the premature end of this movement and the bankruptcy of the bourgeois reformist road. Half a century later, however, the reactionary film Inside Story of the Ching Court again advocated bourgeois reformism, which had long ago gone bankrupt. This film does its utmost to spread the nonsensical idea that "if China is to become rich and strong, there must be constitutional reform and modernization!" Through the mouth of the Emperor Kuang Hsu, the film gives high praise to constitutional reform and modernization, extravagantly lauding reformism in such words as "Meiji reforms," "the imperial decree on constitutional reform," and "if China continues to reform in this way, in less than 30 years it will become the richest and most powerful state in the world!" This is a crazy call for a bourgeois republic, for western bourgeois civilization and for the bourgeois reformist road, which will never be tolerated by the revolutionary people!
       The film lauds to the skies the representative persons of bourgeois reformism, the Emperor Kuang Hsu in particular. It says that the emperor "wearied his brain and suffered much vexation. . . in the interests of the state and the people," and pictures him as saying "as long asthe affairs of state are going well. . . personal health is of little account."
       Especially vicious is the way that the film, while singing the praises of emperors, kings, ministers, and generals and prettifying bourgeois reformism, tries by every means to smear the working people and vilify the masses as a "mob." Toward the end of the film, the scenarist, through distorted and slanderous images of peasants and village women, extravagantly glorifies the Emperor Kuang Hsu, praising him as a "good emperor," "helping us, the people," and saying that "we all think of His Majesty!" The villagers "offer" eggs and other refreshments to the Emperor Kuang Hsu. On his departure, the film shows "the people kneeling along the roadside to see him off." The film gives currency to the slander that "the masses are most obedient and most easily satisfied." Are the masses of people really such easygoing, obedient, base, and ugly mobs? It is absolutely impermissible to smear the working people! Chairman Mao teaches us: "The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history."11 That the handful of counterrevolutionary revisionists and the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road, who supports them from behind, have done so much to sing the praises of this reactionary film which glorifies emperors and kings, ministers and generals, smears the working people, and preaches bourgeois reformism only serves to expose their true colours of all-out opposition to Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tse-tung's thought.
       The Chinese people won revolutionary victory through protracted armed struggle under the leadership of Chairman Mao, and on the eve of the founding of the People's Republic of China, Chairman Mao himself summed up the revolutionary struggles of the past 100 years, criticizing and repudiating the bourgeois reformist road and proclaiming that "western bourgeois civilization, bourgeois democracy, and the plan for a bourgeois republic have all gone bankrupt in the eyes of the Chinese people." What angers people especially is the fact that after all this the handful of counterrevolutionary revisionists and the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road should have described this reactionary, out-and-out traitorous film, which sings the praises of bourgeois reformism and advocates the capitalist road, as a "patriotic" film and put it on show in a big way in every part of China without criticism and repudiation. If this can be tolerated, what cannot be tolerated?
       In his article, "On the People's Democratic Dictatorship," Chairman Mao states: "From the time of China's defeat in the Opium War of 1840, Chinese progressives went through untold hardships in their quest for truth from the Western countries." Chinese who then sought progress maintained that "only modernization could save China, only learning from foreign countries could modernize China." "The Japanese had been successful in learning from the West, and the Chinese also wished to learn from the Japanese." But, "imperialist aggression shattered the fond dreams of the Chinese about learning from the West. It was very odd—why were the teachers always committing aggression against their pupil? The Chinese learned a good deal from the West, but they could not make it work and were never able to realize their ideals." "The salvoes of the October Revolution brought us Marxism-Leninism." "Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, the Chinese people, after driving out Japanese imperialism, waged the People's War of Liberation for three years and have basically won victory." "Bourgeois democracy has given way to people's democracy under the leadership of the working class and the bourgeois republic to the people's republic. This has made it possible to achieve socialism and communism through the people's republic, to abolish classes, and enter a world of Great Harmony. Kang Yu-wei wrote Ta Tung Shu, or the Book of Great Harmony, but he did not and could not find the way to achieve Great Harmony. There are bourgeois republics in foreign lands, but China cannot have a bourgeois republic because she is a country suffering under imperialist oppression. The only way is through a people's republic led by the working class."12
       A handful of counterrevolutionary revisionists and the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road disregarded the historical facts as well as the warnings given by Chairman Mao. They continued to use the reactionary and out-and-out traitorous film, Inside Story of the Ching Court, to prettify western bourgeois civilization, prettify bourgeois democracy, prettify the bourgeois republic, and advocate bourgeois reformism and the capitalist road. This amounts to flagrantly opposing Mao Tse-tung's thought and vainly attempting a restoration of capitalism in China. They put all their efforts into extolling the reactionary film, Inside Story of the Ching Court, precisely because this film, which opposes revolution and eulogizes reform, serves to beat the gongs and clear the way for them to stage a capitalist restoration. What they did was in effect to use people of former times to sing the praises of capitalism and the road of bourgeois reformism, to use this film to mislead the masses and prettify bourgeois reformism, their ultimate purpose being to overthrow the people's regime, undermine our dictatorship of the proletariat, and place the fruits of the victory of the revolution in the hands of the bourgeoisie.
       The serious struggle that developed around the reactionary film, Inside Story of the Ching Court, is by no means merely a question of one film, but a struggle between the two classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, a struggle between Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tse-tung's thought on the one hand, and bourgeois reformist and revisionist ideas on the other, a struggle between an attempt at capitalist restoration and the efforts of the proletariat opposed to capitalist restoration. In the final analysis, it is a struggle to determine who will win, capitalism or socialism.
       Under the leadership of their great leader Chairman Mao, the Chinese people fought hard, bloody battles, advanced wave upon wave, and finally carried the struggle against imperialism and feudalism to victory. With the whole country liberated, where should liberated China go? To whom should the fruits of victory belong? Which class was entitled to pick the peaches that had grown, watered by the blood and lives of thousands upon thousands of revolutionary martyrs? Such major questions were the focus of the struggle waged between various classes in Chinese society not only at that time; they remain so even today.
       The bourgeoisie wanted to snatch the fruits of victory from out of the hands of the people. They wanted to pick the peaches. They wanted China, just liberated, to take the capitalist road. The top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road was the one to pick the peaches on behalf of the bourgeoisie.
       Since liberation, the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road has gone on dreaming night and day of capitalist restoration, obstinately clinging to his bourgeois world outlook, zealously yearning for bourgeois reformism, and trying his utmost to stop the Chinese revolution halfway, thus giving a big boost to capitalism.
       Chairman Mao has said that the founding of the People's Republic of China on October 1,1949, marked the basic completion of the stage of new democratic revolution and the beginning of the stage of socialist revolution. The top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road, however, harped on a contrary tune, painstakingly preached "consolidation of the new democratic order," and campaigned for the development of capitalism in China.
       Before and after the showing throughout the country of the reactionary film, Inside Story of the Ching Court, he campaigned everywhere, making many sinister speeches, issuing many sinister directives, energetically praising the so-called "progress" and "glory" of the capitalist system, and spreading the absurd idea that "exploitation is no crime," "to rebel is not justified." Marx said: "Capital comes [into the world] dripping from head to foot, from every pore, with blood and dirt."13 But, the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road had this to say: "In China, there is not too much capitalism, but too little"; "It is necessary to develop capitalist exploitation for such exploitation is progressive"; "Instead of being an evil, capitalist exploitation today is a contribution." He loudly stated that "the working people do not oppose exploitation, but welcome it"; and that "the more the capitalists, the more the exploitation, the more satisfaction we will have." He even shamelessly told a number of capitalists that "the agony of the workers is unemployment. What they fear is that no one will exploit them. Therefore, they feel it better to be exploited than not." "The workers want you to exploit them. If you do not exploit them, they will be miserable." "The capitalists are also serving the people." "If you are able to exploit more, you will be benefiting both the state and the people." "The more you exploit, the greater will be your merit and glory." "Exploitation by the capitalists has its merits in history and such merits are immortal." He energetically spread the idea that "exploitation is legal," saying: "It is legal to make [a] profit, however great it may be. "It is also legal to indulge in beautiful clothes, rouge and powder and wining and dining." Talking like a clown, he addressed capitalists: "Messrs. capitalists! I beg you to exploit me! If you exploit me, I shall be able to feed myself and my wife and children will be able to live. If you do not exploit me, that will be terrible."
       When the workers did not accept his stinking reactionary theories, he slandered them as "lacking political understanding and having a low level of political consciousness." Speaking like an accomplice of the capitalists, he maliciously threatened the workers: "If the workers are unruly, it is legal (for the capitalists) to struggle against (them)."
       At the same time, he also vigorously advocated the development of capitalist economy in the rural areas, clamouring for "long-term protection of the rich-peasant economy," advancing the "four freedoms" (freedom of usury, of hiring labour, land sale, and private enterprise). He advocated vigorous efforts to foster the type of peasant "who owns three horses, a plough, and a cart" so as to develop the rich-peasant economy. He talked such nonsense as: "At present, exploitation saves people and it is dogmatic to forbid exploitation. Now there must be exploitation and it should be welcomed. If the refugees from south of the Great Wall who go to northeast China are exploited by the rich peasants there, these refugees will be very grateful for such exploitation." "Hiring hands is not exploitation; it increases the wealth of society." He also proposed that there should be "no limitation" on hiring hands to till the land. "It is legal to hire hands to till the land; this benefits the masses too." He claimed that "those who exploit can also be socialists" and that "there is nothing to be afraid of, should there be 10,000 rich-peasant Party members in northeast China." He tried to get the capitalist economy to swiftly flood the rural areas.
       In singing the praises of the man-eating capitalist system of exploitation, not even the hired scholars of the bourgeoisie and the motley crew of apologists for old and modern revisionism could catch up with this top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road.
       Each plant yields its own particular fruit; each class speaks in its own terms. The top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road thinks and loves capitalism and talks capitalism too. The cannibal philosophy that he peddles serves entirely to develop capitalism and safeguard the bloody system of exploitation of man by man. His voice is the voice of vampires and parasites. This thoroughly exposes his filthy, ugly bourgeois soul.
       In trying to justify himself, the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road said that his case was one of "a veteran revolutionary meeting new problems."
       What a "veteran revolutionary meeting new problems"!
       Could there be a "veteran revolutionary" so franti-cally carrying out activities to restore capitalism?
       Could there be a "veteran revolutionary" who would so wildly oppose our great leader Chairman Mao and the great thought of Mao Tse-tung?
       If he really is a "veteran revolutionary," then let him explain:
       Why is it that, on the eve of the outbreak of the War of Resistance Against Japan, you preached so vigorously the philosophy of survival, a capitulationist philosophy, a traitor's philosophy, and directed some people to make confessions and surrender to the Kuomintang and betray the Communist Party, openly publish "anti-communist statements" and vow "firmly to oppose communism"?
       Why is it that, after the victory of the War of Resistance, you advanced the capitulationist line of "a new stage of peace and democracy"?
       Why is it that, after liberation, you did your utmost to oppose the socialist transformation of capitalist industry and commerce, oppose agricultural cooperation, and slash the number of agricultural cooperatives?
       Why is it that, after the completion of the transformation of capitalist industry and commerce, agriculture and handicrafts, you painstakingly propagated the dying out of class struggle and actively advocated class collaboration and the liquidation of class struggle?
       Why is it that, during the three difficult years, you echoed the ghosts and monsters at home and abroad in viciously attacking the three red banners [the Party's general line for building socialism, the great leap forward, and the people's communes], while advocating the revisionist line of "the extension of plots for private use and of free markets, the increase of small enterprises with sole responsibility for their own profits or losses, the fixing of output quotas based on the household," and "the liquidation of struggle in our relations with imperialism, the reactionaries, and modern revisionism, and reduction of assistance and support to the revolutionary struggle of other peoples"?
       Why is it that you republished in 1962 that poisonous weed, that deceitful book on self-cultivation of Communists which does not advocate revolution, class struggle, the seizure of political power, and the dictatorship of the proletariat, which opposes Marxism-Leninism, Mao Tse-tung's thought, preaches a decadent bourgeois world outlook and the reactionary philosophy of bourgeois idealism?
       Why is it that in the socialist education movement you put forward and pushed through the opportunist line which was "Left" in form but Right in essence to sabotage the socialist education movement?
       Why is it that in the course of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution you have colluded with another top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road in putting forward and carrying out the bourgeois reactionary line?
       There is only one answer: You are not at all a "veteran revolutionary"! You are a sham revolutionary, a counterrevolutionary. You are a Khrushchev lying right beside us!
       During the past seventeen years, a handful of counterrevolutionary revisionists, with the support of the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road, has launched a frenzied, all-round attack on the proletariat, spreading a great deal of poison in the fields of politics, economy, culture, and education.
       In this Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, we must follow Chairman Mao's teachings, organize a mighty cultural army of the proletarian revolution, thoroughly smash the frenzied attacks by this handful of counterrevolutionary revisionists and the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road, dig out the main root of revisionism in our country, overthrow careerists and conspirators like Khrushchev, prevent such bad elements from usurping the leadership of the Party and the state, and guard against the restoration of capitalism, so as to guarantee that our country will never change its colour!
       "With power and to spare we must pursue the tottering foe." This Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution initiated and led by our great leader Chairman Mao himself is aimed precisely at mobilizing the hundreds of millions of people to pursue relentlessly the handful of counterrevolutionary revisionists and the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road who supports them from behind, to recapture all the citadels they usurped and ensure that Mao Tse-tung's thought occupy all positions. It is precisely as Comrade Lin Piao said in speaking about this Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution: "It is a big campaign; it is a general attack on the ideas of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes." We must respond to the great call of Chairman Mao to hold high the revolutionary banner of criticism and repudiation, plunge bravely into the struggle, thoroughly criticize, repudiate, and eliminate in all fields the noxious influences of the bourgeois reactionary line represented by the top Party person in authority taking the capitalist road, we must vigorously destroy the old ideas of the exploiting classes and establish the complete ascendancy of Mao Tse-tung's thought.
       The road of struggle is tortuous and its development is uneven. There is resistance along the road of advance. We must overcome all difficulties, break down all resistance and carry the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution through to the end; we must not give up halfway.
       Unfurl the red banner of the great and invincible thought of Mao Tse-tung all over China; may it shine for ever in splendour!
       Long live the victory of the movement of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution led personally by our respected and beloved leader Chairman Mao!
      
      
1. The Life of Wu Hsun was a most pernicious counterrevolutionary film which fervently praised the landlord class and its lackeys, frenziedly advocated the most shameless slavishness and capitulationism, and maliciously slandered the peasants' revolutionary struggles. Wu Hsun (1838-1896) was a landlord's toady whom the film turned into a "great man" willing to sacrifice himself to provide poor peasant children with a chance to study.—Tr.
2. Studies on "The Dream of the Red Chamber" is a book which evaluated this classical novel from the bourgeois idealist point of view and used bourgeois methods of textual research.— Tr.
3. Chen Fei (1876-1900), concubine of Emperor Kuang Hsu.
4. "The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War," Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Eng. ed., Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1965, Vol. II, p. 196.
5. Mao Tse-tung, Speech at the Meeting of People From Various Walks of Life in Yenan Celebrating Stalin's 60th Birthday Anniversary.
6. "The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party," Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Eng. ed., Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1965, Vol. II, p. 314.
7. "'On Tactics Against Japanese Imperialism," Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Eng. ed., Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1965, Vol. I, p. 170.
8. "The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party," Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Eng. ed., Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1965, Vol. II, p. 314.
9. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1960, Vol. IV, p. 374.
10. "On Practice," Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung. Eng. ed., Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1965, Vol. I, p. 301.
11. Quotations from Chairman Mao Tse-tung Eng. ed., Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1966, p. 118.
12. "On the People's Democratic Dictatorship,", Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Eng. ed., Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1961, Vol. IV, pp. 412-44.
13. K. Marx, Capital, Eng. ed., Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1954, Vol. I, p. 760.

  
  
  

 
 
顶端 Posted: 2009-03-13 13:22 | [楼 主]
weihong
级别: 精灵王


精华: 0
发帖: 3193
威望: 3194 点
红花: 31935 朵
贡献值: 1 点
在线时间:286(小时)
注册时间:2007-01-15
最后登录:2009-12-31

 

爱国主义还是卖国主义?
──评反动影片《清宫秘史》

戚本禹

1967.03.30

 

被人称为爱国主义影片而实际是卖国主义影片的《清宫秘史》,在全国放映之后,至今没有被批判。

──毛主席:《关于(红楼梦研究)问题的一封信》

* * *

一九四九年的十月,朝霞照亮了东方的大地,灾难深重的祖国像巨人一样地站起来了。

中国人民在毛泽东思想的指引下,经过无数次的艰苦斗争,终于推翻了帝国主义、封建主义和官僚资本主义三座大山,获得了全国的解放。

人民大革命的暴风骤雨洗荡着中国大地上的污垢,但是,反动统治阶级并不甘心死亡,他们在各个领域里继续进行着疯狂的大反扑,阶级斗争非常尖锐。文化思想战线上的阶级斗争尤其复杂,充斥于文化阵地上的反动影片、戏剧、歌曲、书刊,是配合反动统治阶级向革命人民进行大反扑的重要宣传工具。一九五○年还在北京、上海和全国其他城市大量放映的反动影片《清宫秘史》,便是最突出的一例。

胜利了的中国人民在这种反动文化的大反扑面前,究竟采取什么态度?是进行无产阶级文化革命,还是同大肆泛滥的反动文化妥协投降?每一个革命同志都面临着新的抉择和考验。

围绕着《清宫秘史》这部反动影片,以毛主席为首的无产阶级革命派同党内一小撮走资本主义道路的胆派,展开了一场严重的斗争。这是解放了的中国,在文化思想战线上的第一次重大的斗争。

毛主席严正指出:《清宫秘史》是一部卖国主义的影片,应该进行批判。他还说过:《清宫秘史》,有人说是爱国主义的,我看是卖国主义的,彻底的卖国主义。但是,反革命修正主义分子陆定一、周扬和当时的中央宣传部常务副部长胡××等,以及背后支持他们的党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派,却顽固地坚持资产阶级反动立场,公然对抗毛主席的指示,说这部反动影片是"爱国主义"的,拒绝对这部影片进行批判。

当时,担任文化部电影事业指导委员会委员的江青同志,坚持毛主席的无产阶级革命路线,几次在会议上提出要坚决批判《清宫秘史》。但是,陆定一、周扬、胡×× 等人却大唱对台戏,他们极力宣扬这部反动影片的什么"爱国进步性"。江青同志要按照毛主席的指示办事,他们却抬出了他们的后台老板、党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派的黑话,说:"某某同志认为这部影片是爱国主义的。"江青同志坚持真理、力排众议,义正词严地驳斥了他们这种反动的、荒谬的主张,坚持要批判这部影片。他们不得已,只好敷衍了事地指定一个思想反动的历史工作者,写了一篇假批判、真包庇的小文章。但是,就是这样的文章,他们还嫌"太激烈了",扣住不发。无产阶级同资产阶级在文化思想战线上一场重大的斗争,就这样被他们活生生地扼杀了。

一九五一年,毛主席亲自领导了文化思想战线上批判反动电影《武训传》的斗争。一九五四年,毛主席又在全国范围内,发动了另一次重大的斗争,即对俞平伯的《红楼梦研究》和胡适反动思想的批判。同年十月十六日,毛主席曾经给中央政治局的同志和其他有关同志写了一封信,严肃地批判了党内的一些"大人物"压制新生力量向资产阶级开火,甘心作资产阶级的俘虏;并且再一次地提出了反动影片《清宫秘史》的问题。毛主席就两个青年写的关于《红楼梦研究》批判的文章指出:

"这是三十多年来向所谓红楼梦研究权威作家的错误观点的第一次认真的开火。作者是两个青年团员。他们起初写信给《文艺报》,请问可不可以批评俞平伯,被置之不理。他们不得已写信给他们的母校──山东大学的老师,获得了支持,并在该校刊物《文史哲》上登出了他们的文章驳《红楼梦简论》。问题又回到北京,有人要求将此文在《人民日报》上转载,以期引起争论,展开批评,又被某些人以种种理由(主要是"小人物的文章"," 党报不是自由辩论的场所")给以反对,不能实现;结果成立妥协,被允许在《文艺报》转载此文。嗣后,《光明日报》的《文学遗产》栏又发表了这两个青年的驳俞平伯《红楼梦研究》一书的文章。看样子,这个反对在古典文学领域毒害青年三十余年的胡适派资产阶级唯心论的斗争,也许可以开展起来了。事情是两个'小人物'做起来的,而'大人物'往往不注意,并往往加以阻拦,他们同资产阶级作家在唯心论方面讲统一战线,甘心作资产阶级的俘虏,这同影片《清宫秘史》和《武训传》放映时候的情形几乎是相同的。被人称为爱国主义影片而实际是卖国主义影片的《清宫秘史》,在全国放映之后,至今没有被批判。《武训传》虽然批判了,却至今没有引出教训,又出现了容忍俞平伯唯心论和阻拦'小人物'的很有生气的批判文章的奇怪事情,这是值得我们注意的。"

但是,阶级斗争是不以人的意志为转移的。在毛主席这样尖锐地提出问题之后,以陆定一为首的一小撮反革命修正主义分子,以及背后支持他们的党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派,仍然继续坚持资产阶级反动立场,顽固地对抗毛主席的指示。从一九五四年到现在,十二年过去了,反动的、彻底的卖国主义影片《清宫秘史》,还是一直没有得到批判。

史无前例的无产阶级文化大革命运动,把这个问题重新提了出来。

欠帐总是要还的。解放以后一直没有被批判的反动的、彻底的卖国主义影片《清宫秘史》,一定要在这次无产阶级文化大革命运动中受到革命群众的彻底批判。对抗毛主席指示的一小撮反革命修正主义分子,以及背后支持他们的党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派,也一定要在运动中受到革命群众的彻底批判。他们明目张胆地反对毛主席的无产阶级革命路线,猖狂地反党、反毛泽东思想的罪行,必须受到彻底的清算。革命群众一定要把这一小撮反革命修正主义分子打倒,一定要把党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派拉下马,让他靠边站。

反动影片《清宫秘史》,是一部所谓历史题材的影片,写的是清代末年戊戌变法运动和义和团斗争。它公开站在帝国主义、封建主义和反动资产阶级的立场上,任意歪曲历史事实,美化帝国主义,美化封建主义和资产阶级改良主义,歌颂保皇党,污蔑革命的群众运动和人民反帝、反封建的英勇斗争,宣扬民族投降主义和阶级投降主义。

反动影片《清宫秘史》是永华影业公司摄制的。这是一家反动的电影公司,它成立以后拍摄的第一部影片《国魂》,就是借文天祥的幽灵,来为垂死的蒋家王朝招魂。它的第二部影片就是《清宫秘史》。作者姚克,是一个坚持反革命立场的反动文人。他曾经编辑过反动的《天下》月刊,反对中国革命,积极为英、美帝国主义和买办资产阶级效劳。后来,又投靠国民党反动派,并不断写点反动的、黄色的剧本。他是反动统治阶级的一条小走狗。全国解放前夕,逃亡香港。这样一个反共、反人民的反动文人写出一部反动影片《清宫秘史》,是丝毫不奇怪的。奇怪的是那些披着"共产党员"、"无产阶级革命家"外衣的党中央宣传部的部长和某几个副部长,以及背后支持他们的党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派,却对这样一部极其反动的、彻底的卖国主义影片如此垂青,把它誉之为"爱国主义"的影片,积极充当帝国主义、封建主义、反动资产阶级的代言人,这岂不是可以发人深省的吗?!

在对待这部反动的、彻底的卖国主义影片问题上,以毛主席为首的无产阶级革命派同一小撮反革命修正主义分子,以及背后支持他们的党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派,究竟存在着哪些重大的原则分歧呢?概括地说,有三个方面的分歧,即:怎样对待帝国主义的侵略?怎样对待义和团的革命群众运动?怎样对待资产阶级改良主义?



怎样对待帝国主义的侵略?



帝国主义同中国人民的矛盾是近代中国社会的主要矛盾。帝国主义是中国人民第一个和最凶恶的敌人。怎样对待帝国主义的侵略,这是革命的首要问题。

在对待帝国主义侵略问题上,被一小撮反革命修正主义分子,以及背后支持他们的党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派歌颂为"爱国主义"的反动影片《清宫秘史》,完全是一副极端可耻的恐帝、崇帝、亲帝的奴才面孔。

影片对所谓英、美、德、俄、日、法、意、奥"八国联军"的帝国主义侵略害怕得要死,在影片中大肆宣扬恐帝思想。叫嚷什么"中国从甲午之战以后,财力亏损,兵力单薄,……众寡不敌,强弱悬殊","外衅必不可开"。大臣许景澄被帝国主义吓得放声大哭。

毛主席教导我们,在帝国主义野兽面前,革命的人民不可以有丝毫的怯懦。但是在电影的作者及其歌颂者们看来,在帝国主义侵略面前,除了举手投降之外,没有别的出路。──这是赤裸裸的民族投降主义,十足的亡国奴论调!

与此同时,影片又大肆宣扬崇帝、亲帝思想,极力散布对帝国主义的幻想,公开贩卖卖国主义理论。作者公然通过影片里所安排的帝国主义代理人珍妃之口,欢迎帝国主义对中国的侵略。说什么"各国一定会原谅皇上","我相信各国非但不会伤害皇上,还会帮助皇上恢复皇位,重振朝纲。"大臣孙家鼐也声称:"东西各国的使臣,也都向着皇上。"如果对照一下当时侵略中国的帝国主义分子的反革命宣传,就可以看出,影片所宣扬的论调同帝国主义所宣扬的论调简直是同出一辙。例如沙皇俄国就欺骗国内人民说:它"不是在同中国打仗","只是在平定暴乱,镇压叛乱者,帮助合法的中国政府恢复正常的秩序。"列宁早在一九○○年写的第一篇有关中国的论文《中国的战争》中,就无情地驳斥了侵略者的这种反革命论调。

一小撮反革命修正主义分子,以及背后支持他们的党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派,极力宣扬反动影片《清宫秘史》的"爱国主义",究竟是一些什么样的货色呢?原来他们所宣扬的"爱国主义",就是影片里所描写的光绪皇帝等人那种不惜依靠帝国主义的力量来恢复和巩固他们对人民的统治的所谓"爱国主义"。他们在中国人民推翻了帝国主义、封建主义的反动统治之后,还提倡人们去学习那种为了恢复和巩固剥削阶级对人民的统治,而不惜当卖国贼的所谓"爱国主义",其用心何其毒也!

毛主席教导我们:"爱国主义的具体内容,看在什么样的历史条件之下来决定。有日本侵略者和希特勒的'爱国主义',有我们的爱国主义。对于日本侵略者和希特勒的所谓'爱国主义',共产党员是必须坚决地反对的。"[(1)]同样,对于一小撮反革命修正主义分子和党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派提倡的所谓"爱国主义"(即彻底的卖国主义),也是我们所必须坚决反对的。

影片宣扬的欢迎帝国主义帮助中国"重振朝纲"的卖国主义理论,同美帝国主义的强盗逻辑也是一路货色。美国国务卿艾奇逊之流在一九四九年曾经操着当年侵略中国的帝国主义者的同一个腔调,在《白皮书》里大谈什么美国如何"关心"中国,把侵略说成"友谊"。毛主席在《丢掉幻想,准备斗争》、《"友谊",还是侵略?》等文章中,早已对这种反革命的强盗逻辑,给予了严厉的驳斥。毛主席指出:将侵略说成"友谊",是"美国老爷的逻辑"。但是,一小撮反革命修正主义分子,以及背后支持他们的党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派,屈服于帝国主义的压力,对帝国主义害怕得要命。他们幻想同帝国主义妥协,希望得到帝国主义的" 谅解"和"帮助",他们对毛主席的"丢掉幻想,准备斗争"的伟大号召,极端不满,他们大肆吹捧反动的、彻底的卖国主义影片《清宫秘史》,实际上是公开抗拒毛主席对艾奇逊《白皮书》的批判,这是对毛泽东思想的猖狂进攻。

十分明显,在全国解放前夕,反动的电影公司和反动文人所以要制作这种宣扬帝国主义可以帮助中国"重振朝纲"的影片,就是要通过电影制造反动舆论,公开鼓吹依靠美帝国主义来镇压中国人民的革命运动,为处于崩溃中的国民党反动派出谋划策。影片完全站在帝国主义和国民党反动派的立场上,迎合美帝国主义侵略中国的需要,为美帝国主义及其走狗效劳,企图维持其摇摇欲坠的反动统治。口头挂着"反帝"招牌的一小撮反革命修正主义分子,以及背后支持他们的党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派,把这样反动的、彻底的卖国主义影片吹捧为"爱国主义" 影片,不正是暴露了他们假反帝、真投降的真面目吗?他们爱的是什么国?爱的是帝国主义的国,爱的是地主、资产阶级的国,而不是我们无产阶级专政的伟大祖国。他们所歌颂的"爱国主义",正是全国革命人民所要打倒的卖国主义。

需要特别指出的是,党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派,把一部反动的、彻底的卖国主义影片吹捧为"爱国主义"影片,这决不是偶然的。他早在抗日战争胜利以后,就在美帝国主义及其走狗的侵略面前吓倒了,他对中国革命的前途悲观绝望,在党内积极推行所谓"和平民主新阶段"的民族投降主义和阶级投降主义路线。毛主席号召我们丢掉幻想,同敌人进行针锋相对,寸土必争的斗争,他却大肆散布对美帝国主义及其走狗的和平幻想,公然在报上发表文章,感谢美帝国主义对中国的所谓"帮助",向美帝国主义乞求"和平",麻痹人民的斗志。他还欺骗人民,说什么"中国革命的主要斗争形式已变为和平的、议会的,斗争是合法的群众斗争和议会斗争","党的全部工作要实行转变","一切政治问题要和平解决"。毛主席说:敌人在磨刀了,我们也要磨刀。他却要人民交出自己手里的武装。他大肆宣扬卖国主义理论,认贼作父,心甘情愿地要去当美帝国主义的奴才,说什么:"美国非要在中国找买办不可,我们也可以给他当买办,红色买办么!"买办就是买办,就是帝国主义的走狗,什么"红色买办"!全是骗人的鬼话。在这种早就想当帝国主义买办的卑鄙无耻的奴才思想的支配下,反动的、彻底的卖国主义影片《清宫秘史》,成了最适合他们口味的影片。因为影片里所安排的帝国主义代理人珍妃所宣扬的帝国主义可以帮助中国"重振朝纲"的理论,恰恰反映了他们热衷于充当帝国主义买办的卖国心理!(⑴⑵)

"心有灵犀一点通"。影片里光绪皇帝望湖兴叹的一句诗,正好是一小撮反革命修正主义分子和党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派同光绪、珍妃之流心心相印的写照。在充当帝国主义代理人的问题上,一小撮反革命修正主义分子,以及背后支持他们的党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派,同六十多年以前的地主、资产阶级发生了共鸣,这就是他们要把一部反动的、彻底的卖国主义影片吹捧为"爱国主义"影片的思想根源和阶级根源。



怎样对待义和团的革命群众运动?



毛主席说:"马克思主义的道理千条万绪,归根结底,就是一句话:'造反有理。'"[(2)]对于义和团的革命群众大造帝国主义的反、大造封建主义的反的革命运动,究竟采取什么态度?是支持还是反对,是歌颂还是仇视?这是检验真革命和假革命、革命和反革命的一块试金石。

震撼祖国大地的义和团运动,是近代中国历史上的一次伟大的反帝、反封建的革命群众运动。这是一次表现了中国人民历史首创精神的伟大运动。当时,几乎整个中国的北方,无论是城市或者乡村,到处都有义和团在进行革命活动。在敌人统治最严密的政治中心北京城内,义和团就设坛八百余所,景山后面的宫墙下,每天都有参加义和团的青少年在操练。

义和团的英雄们,在祖国处于被帝国主义瓜分的严重时刻,挺身而出,高举反帝爱国斗争的革命大旗,同帝国主义强盗及其走狗进行了英勇斗争。他们一开始就在大街小巷,贴出各种标语,表达了中国人民的反帝决心:

"还我江山还我权,刀山火海爷敢钻,哪怕皇上服了外,不杀洋人誓不完。"

义和团严厉禁止洋货,蔑视帝国主义分子。他们把驻有外国使馆的东交民巷改名为"切洋街",御河桥改为"断洋桥"。义和团在游行时,经常同市民齐声高呼"杀洋鬼子"的口号,使帝国主义分子听了发抖。有的吓得躲进棺材,雇人吹打着,企图逃出城外。

一九○○年的六月,义和团的革命活动达到高潮,京郊各县的义和团三五十人一队,不分昼夜,一天数十起地涌进北京城内,守卫城门口的士兵,向他们致敬礼,为他们喝道让路。浩浩荡荡的革命群众,头裹红布,腰缠红带,鞋镶红边,手持大刀长矛,在大街上威风凛凛地游行。前门外打磨厂等处的铁铺里,炉火熊熊,日夜不停地为义和团赶制各种刀枪。

当帝国主义侵略军疯狂镇压义和团的时候,义和团的革命群众用大刀、长矛等原始武器同以洋枪、洋炮武装的侵略者进行英勇的搏斗,显示了中国人民大无畏的革命战斗精神。在著名的"廊房阻击战"中,英国海军大将西摩尔率领的一千五百多人的联军,被义和团"直逼火车,持矛猛触",死伤将近一半,最后狼狈地逃回天津。后来西摩尔胆战心惊地说:"义和团所用设为西式枪炮,则所率联军必全体覆没。"在保卫天津的战斗中,义和团同侵略军进行肉搏战,在火车站一仗,就把一支二千人的俄国侵略军,打死打伤了五百多名。帝国主义者不得不承认:"此次天津华军与西兵苦战月余,西人咸谓如此死战,实为从来所未见"。在杨村的战斗中,美帝国主义的侵略军,被义和团战士打得落花流水。帝国主义侵略军一听到义和团的军号声,就惶恐万状,惊呼:"闻此声,可以使人之血凝而不流。"

在义和团运动中,青少年是一支最生动、最活跃的力量,他们在这次伟大的革命运动中,建立了不朽的功勋。震骇中外的"红灯照",就是当时北方许多地方女青年们的组织。她们很有纪律地自己组织起来,练习武艺,保卫祖国。她们着红衣,戴红帽,提红灯,拿红枪,前方作战,后方除奸,积极参加义和团的起义行列,坚决反对帝国主义及其走狗,表现了中国青年妇女反帝、反封建的革命英雄气概!

"红灯照,义和团,亲兄妹,闹的欢,一个心,杀洋官。"

这首歌谣生动地反映了"红灯照"反帝的坚强决心。"红灯照"英勇斗争的事迹,一直在人民群众中广泛地流传着。他们说,"红灯女儿,一入兵阵,视死如归,于枪林弹雨中,惟恐落后。""中国自道咸以来,沿海防夷水陆各战,望风奔溃","得此番小儿女一振疲癃,不特寒众国之心,且壮中原之气。"

义和团的英勇斗争,是中国人民的光荣和骄傲,是五十年后中国人民伟大胜利的奠基石之一。它使侵略者亲自尝到了中国人民铁拳的滋味,粉碎了帝国主义"瓜分"中国的迷梦。帝国主义侵略军的头子瓦德西为此向德皇威廉报告说:"皇上诚然常有瓜分中国的思想",可是,"不应忘去者,……彼等在实际上,尚含有无限蓬勃生气"。"中国所有好战精神,尚未完全丧失,可于此次'拳民运动'中见之"。"无论欧美、日本各国,皆无此脑力与兵力,可以统治此天下生灵四分之一","故瓜分一事,实为下策"。

对于这样大规模的革命群众运动,真正的马克思主义者从来都是热情歌颂的。毛主席在他的伟大著作中,曾经一再高度评价和赞扬义和团运动的英雄业绩,他把义和团运动看作是中国资产阶级民主革命重要的发展阶段之一。毛主席指出:义和团战争是反抗压迫者的义战,它同一百年来中国人民历次的革命战争一样,"都表现了中国人民不甘屈服于帝国主义及其走狗的顽强的反抗精神"[(3)];表现了"我们中华民族有同自己的敌人血战到底的气概,有在自力更生的基础上光复旧物的决心,有自立于世界民族之林的能力。"[(4)]"中国人民,百年以来,不屈不挠、再接再厉的英勇斗争,使得帝国主义至今不能灭亡中国,也永远不能灭亡中国。"[(5)]

但是,被一小撮反革命修正主义分子,以及背后支持他们的党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派所歌颂的反动的、彻底的卖国主义影片《清宫秘史》,对义和团反帝的革命群众运动却抱着刻骨的阶级仇恨,竭尽诽谤污蔑之能事。影片把义和团反对帝国主义的革命行动,描写为一种野蛮的骚乱。并且尽量地丑化义和团,恶毒地攻击义和团是什么"杀人放火"、"状如疯魔"的"乌合之众",是什么专搞"邪术妖法"的"无知愚民"。

影片及其歌颂者对义和团的这种恶毒污蔑同帝国主义者完全是一个鼻孔出气。当时美帝国主义头目艾奇逊就在《白皮书》中咒骂义和团是"中国的排外骚动",是"拳乱"。美帝国主义在中国的御用学者也大肆攻击义和团是"无知迷信与暴民歇斯底里的产物",是"没有理性的行动",是杀人放火的"拳匪"。

究竟是中国人民组织义和团跑到欧美、日本各帝国主义国家去造反,去"杀人放火"呢?还是各帝国主义国家跑到中国这块地方来侵略中国、压迫剥削中国人民,因而激起中国人民群众奋起反抗帝国主义及其在中国的走狗、贪官污吏?这是大是大非问题,不可以不辩论清楚。

真正的杀人放火的匪徒,不是别人,正是帝国主义者及其走狗。据帝国主义侵略军头子瓦德西自供:帝国主义侵略军侵占北京以后,烧杀抢劫,奸淫妇女,破坏文明,无恶不作。帝国主义军队在占领北京之后,"曾特许军队公开抢劫三日,其后更继以私人抢劫。"上自宫廷王府,下至民间百姓的财物均被洗劫一空。"曲槛临湖面面开,内官惊看骆驼来。"封建皇帝的宝库颐和园所贮藏的历朝文物,被侵略者用骆驼运至天津,累月不尽。中国几千年保留下来的许多文物,其中包括《永乐大典》,都被帝国主义烧抢殆尽。瓦德西还供称:"因抢劫时所发生之强奸妇女,残忍行为,随意杀人,无故放火等事,为数极属不少"。至于帝国主义的走狗对义和团的屠杀和镇压,更是惨无人道。

列宁曾经怀着满腔的愤怒,谴责了帝国主义侵略者杀人放火的罪行。他说:"欧洲各国政府(最先恐怕是俄国政府)已经开始瓜分中国了。……它们盗窃中国,就像盗窃死人的财物一样,一旦这个假死人试图反抗,它们就像野兽一样猛扑到他身上。它们杀人放火,把村庄烧光,把老百姓驱入黑龙江中活活淹死,枪杀和刺死手无寸铁的居民和他们的妻子儿女。就在这些基督教徒立功的时候,他们却大叫大嚷反对野蛮的中国人,说他们胆敢触犯文明的欧洲人。"[(6)]而影片及其歌颂者却颠倒黑白,为虎作伥,把杀人放火、奸淫掳掠的帝国主义侵略者美化为文明的使者,把坚决抗击帝国主义侵略、英勇不屈的义和团污蔑为"野蛮的骚乱"。这是地地道道的汉奸、卖国贼的哲学。

义和团的反帝爱国斗争是同反封建斗争紧密联系在一起的。义和团的战斗口号是:"杀洋人,灭赃官。"当时流传的歌谣说:"砍洋头,杀官兽,杀尽洋和官,百姓有盼头"。"先夺洋鬼头,后把贪官揍"。这些都是他们提出的朴素的反帝、反封建的革命口号。他们对封建统治阶级恨之入骨。一九○○年义和团控制北京期间,清朝的在京衙门、亲贵王公的住宅,大多数都被义和团成员把守监视。义和团时常抓住一些罪恶昭著的官吏,特别是对帝国主义奴颜婢膝的官吏,强迫他们到拳坛去叩头焚表,罪大恶极的官吏就被杀掉。

但是,影片却把义和团诽谤为封建统治者的工具。它借清朝大臣赵舒翘之口说:"请老佛爷旨,把义和团编为义军"。慈禧太后听了,欣然采纳。就这样把义和团污蔑为慈禧太后的一党,可谓恶毒之极。

在一个短时间内,清朝统治者对义和团采取了欺骗、软化的政策,这个政策一度发生了作用,义和团的一部分成员受了蒙蔽,对清朝统治者产生了一些错误的认识,有些组织提出过"扶清灭洋"的口号。这种情形,一方面反映了当时阶级矛盾的复杂性;另一方面,也反映了当时的人民大众对于帝国主义及其走狗的认识还处于感性阶段。

毛主席教导我们,人的认识是一步又一步地由低级向高级、由感性认识向理性认识发展的。"中国人民对于帝国主义的认识也是这样。第一阶段是表面的感性的认识阶段,表现在太平天国运动和义和团运动等笼统的排外主义的斗争上。第二阶段才进到理性的认识阶段,看出了帝国主义内部和外部的各种矛盾,并看出了帝国主义联合中国买办阶级和封建阶级以压榨中国人民大众的实质,这种认识是从一九一九年五四运动前后才开始的。"[(7)]所以,绝不可以因为当时义和团对帝国主义和封建主义的本质认识不清楚,就把义和团污蔑为封建统治者的工具。如前所述,义和团在反帝的同时,"抗清"活动一刻也没有停止过。就在"扶清灭洋"的口号出现之后,义和团的首领朱红灯还制定"攻打北京"的计划,始终坚持了反封建的斗争。

反动影片《清宫秘史》大肆污蔑和攻击义和团的反帝、反封建斗争,完全是出于帝国主义和封建地主阶级的需要。他们对义和团革命群众的污蔑和攻击,反映了阶级敌人对中国革命主力军农民的刻骨仇恨,反映了阶级敌人对我们党领导的新民主主义革命运动的刻骨仇恨。一小撮反革命修正主义分子,以及背后支持他们的党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派,同帝国主义和封建主义唱着同一个调子,为一部反对中国革命,侮辱革命群众的反动的、彻底的卖国主义影片拍手叫好。他们这样做,不折不扣地充当了帝国主义、封建主义反革命宣传的应声虫,赤裸裸地暴露了他们的地主、资产阶级的反革命立场。

党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派,这样仇恨历史上的革命群众运动,这使我们更加懂得了:在今天的无产阶级文化大革命运动中,他为什么要勾结党内另一个最大的走资本主义道路的当权派,抛出资产阶级反动路线,妄图扑灭毛主席亲自点燃起来的革命烈火;他为什么要颠倒是非,混淆黑白,围剿革命派,镇压群众,实行白色恐怖;他为什么要千方百计地长资产阶级的威风,灭无产阶级的志气。



怎样对待资产阶级的改良主义?



对待资产阶级改良主义抱什么态度,实际上是对社会主义道路和资本主义道路抱什么态度的问题。

以毛主席为首的无产阶级革命派和党内走资本主义道路的当权派,在这个关系中国革命前途的根本问题上,早已存在着原则的分歧。全国解放以后,这种原则分歧更加尖锐化。怎样对待反动影片《清宫秘史》,是这个分歧的一个爆发点,这是无产阶级和资产阶级两个阶级、社会主义和资本主义两条道路斗争在文化思想战线上的第一次短兵相接的交锋。在这次交锋中,以毛主席为首的无产阶级革命派同党内一小撮走资本主义道路的当权派,从一个电影的评价问题上,各自对中国向何处去的问题,作出了截然不同的回答。

一小撮反革命修正主义分子,以及背后支持他们的党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派,极力赞美这部反对革命、歌颂改良的反动影片,其目的是为了请出资产阶级改良主义的亡灵来给他们以帮助,企图借用它们的名字、口号和服装,在中国宣扬资本主义。

影片歌颂的戊戌变法运动是中国资产阶级的改良主义运动。这个运动是一部分封建统治阶级人物和从封建统治阶级中开始分化出来的一些资产阶级改良主义者,在革命风暴和亡国大祸的威胁下,从地主、资产阶级的利益出发,企图通过自上而下的维新变法的改良主义办法,使中国走上资本主义的道路。

戊戌变法运动在当时的历史条件下,一定程度上冲击了封建统治阶级思想统治的网罗,在解放思想上起了一些启蒙的作用,这一点我们从来是承认的。但是,我们的这种承认,指的是用历史唯物主义的观点去批判地认识历史人物和历史事件,决不是无原则地对戊戌变法运动及其代表人物进行歌功颂德。戊戌变法运动的代表人物,他们本身就是剥削压迫劳动人民的统治者,他们改良主义的目的,从来不是也绝不可能是为了人民革命的利益,而是为了更好地剥削人民和巩固他们的统治。他们所要改变的只是旧事物的某些枝节方面,而不是旧事物的质。他们所幻想的只是以渐变的形式,使地主经济逶迤曲折地改变为半地主、半资本主义经济(实际上是半封建、半殖民地经济),并企图以此来阻挡人民革命运动,把革命消灭于无形之中。所以,改良主义即使在当时也绝不是中国人民的出路。

十九世纪的末叶,中国的社会改革已经出现了两条道路:一条是资产阶级改良主义道路,即企图用自上而下的变法维新的办法通向资本主义。在中国当时的历史条件下,这只能是一条虚伪的、行不通的反动的道路。因为中国没有西欧和日本那样维新改良的历史条件。当时,在帝国主义的侵略下,中国正在逐步沦为半封建、半殖民地国家,而中国资产阶级改良主义的领导人康有为、梁启超,却恰好把维新变法的希望寄托在帝国主义身上,他们幻想投靠帝国主义,依赖帝国主义的力量,实现他们维新变法的主张。这样做的结果,只能是引狼入室,加速中国沦为半殖民地、半封建国家的过程,而根本谈不到发展中国的资本主义。另一条道路是广大群众起来,用武装斗争的办法进行革命。太平天国革命和义和团运动走的都是这条道路。由于没有无产阶级的领导,这样的革命不能取得最后的胜利,但是,却沉重地打击了帝国主义和封建主义,推动了中国历史的发展。

"我自横刀向天笑"。戊戌变法运动最悲壮的一幕是一个勇敢的启蒙思想家谭嗣同之死,他的死宣告了戊戌变法运动的夭折,宣告了资产阶级改良主义道路的破产。而在半个世纪以后,反动影片《清宫秘史》却还在鼓吹早已破产了的资产阶级改良主义。影片极力宣扬"如果要中国富强,必须要维新变法!"还通过光绪皇帝之口,大肆赞扬维新变法,把改良主义吹得天花乱坠,什么"明治维新",什么"变法上谕",什么"中国这样改革起来,不到三十年,就可成为世界上最最富强的国家啦!"等等。这是疯狂地为资产阶级共和国呼喊,为西方资产阶级文明呼喊,为资产阶级改良主义道路呼喊,革命人民是决不允许的!

影片把资产阶级改良主义的代表人物尤其光绪皇帝,捧到了九天之上。说他"为了国家,为了百姓","用尽了心机,受尽了闲气","只要国事有办法""身体倒不在乎"。

特别恶毒的是,影片在大肆吹捧帝王将相和美化资产阶级改良主义的同时,又千方百计地丑化劳动人民,把群众污蔑为"群氓"。在电影的末场,作者通过被歪曲、被丑化了的村民、村妇的形象,大肆美化光绪皇帝,称颂光绪皇帝是个"好皇帝","他是帮我们老百姓的","我们都惦着皇上呢!"村民、村妇把鸡蛋、饽饽"献给"光绪皇帝吃。临别时,"民众夹道跪送"。影片还污蔑说什么"老百姓是最听话的,也是最容易满足的"。难道人民群众就是这样恭顺服从、卑贱丑陋的群氓吗?绝对不许污蔑劳动人民!毛主席教导说:"人民,只有人民,才是创造世界历史的动力。"[(8)]一小撮反革命修正主义分子,以及背后支持他们的党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派,如此歌颂这部美化帝王将相,丑化劳动人民,宣扬资产阶级改良主义的反动影片,恰恰暴露了他们彻头彻尾反对马克思列宁主义、反对毛泽东思想的真面目。

特别令人气愤的是,当中国人民在毛主席的领导下,经过了长期的武装斗争获得革命胜利之后,当毛主席在中华人民共和国成立的前夕,亲自为近百年来的革命斗争作了总结,批判了资产阶级改良主义道路,宣告了"西方资产阶级的文明,资产阶级的民主主义,资产阶级共和国的方案,在中国人民的心目中,一齐破了产"之后,一小撮反革命修正主义分子和党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派,竟然还把这部大肆歌颂资产阶级改良主义、鼓吹资本主义道路的反动的、彻底的卖国主义影片作为"爱国主义"影片,不加批判地在各地大量放映,是可忍,孰不可忍!

毛主席在《论人民民主专政》中指出:"自从一八四○年鸦片战争失败那时起,先进的中国人,经过千辛万苦,向西方国家寻找真理。"那时,求进步的中国人认为,"要救国,只有维新,要维新,只有学外国。""日本人向西方学习有成效,中国人也想向日本人学。"但是,"帝国主义的侵略打破了中国人学西方的迷梦。很奇怪,为什么先生老是侵略学生呢?中国人向西方学得很不少,但是行不通,理想总是不能实现。""十月革命一声炮响,给我们送来了马克思列宁主义。""中国人民在中国共产党领导之下,在驱逐日本帝国主义之后,进行了三年的人民解放战争,取得了基本的胜利。""资产阶级的民主主义让位给工人阶级领导的人民民主主义,资产阶级共和国让位给人民共和国。这样就造成了一种可能性:经过人民共和国到达社会主义和共产主义,到达阶级的消灭和世界的大同。康有为写了《大同书》,他没有也不可能找到一条到达大同的路。资产阶级的共和国,外国有过的,中国不能有,因为中国是受帝国主义压迫的国家。唯一的路是经过工人阶级领导的人民共和国。" [(9)]

一小撮反革命修正主义分子和党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派,无视历史事实,无视毛主席的警告,仍然借着反动的、彻底的卖国主义影片《清宫秘史》,美化西方资产阶级文明,美化资产阶级民主主义,美化资产阶级共和国,宣扬资产阶级改良主义和资本主义道路,这是明目张胆地反对毛泽东思想,妄图在中国实行资本主义的复辟。他们所以全力歌颂反动影片《清宫秘史》,就是因为这部反对革命、歌颂改良的影片是他们进行资本主义复辟鸣锣开道的工具。他们实际上是为了通过古人来赞美资本主义和资产阶级改良主义的道路,并利用这部影片来迷惑群众,来为资产阶级改良主义涂脂抹粉。他们的最终目的就是为了推翻人民的江山,破坏我们的无产阶级专政;使革命胜利的果实落在资产阶级的手里。

围绕反动影片《清宫秘史》而展开的这一场严重的斗争,绝不仅仅是一部电影的问题,而是资产阶级同无产阶级两个阶级的斗争,是马克思列宁主义、毛泽东思想同资产阶级改良主义、修正主义思想的斗争,是资本主义复辟同无产阶级反复辟的斗争。归根结底,是资本主义同社会主义谁战胜谁的斗争。

中国人民在伟大领袖毛主席的领导下,前赴后继,浴血苦战,终于取得了反帝、反封建斗争的胜利。全国解放了,但是解放了的中国究竟往哪里去?胜利的果实究竟归于谁?千千万万革命烈士用他们的生命和热血所浇灌、生长起来的桃子究竟由哪个阶级来摘?这样重大的问题,不仅在当时,就是在现在都是中国社会各个阶级斗争的焦点。

资产阶级要从人民的手中争夺胜利的果实,他们要摘桃子。他们要刚刚获得解放的中国走资本主义的道路。党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派是代表资产阶级来摘桃子的人物。

党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派,在解放以后仍旧日夜梦想着资本主义的复辟,死抱着资产阶级的世界观不放,无限向往资产阶级改良主义,极力想使中国革命半途而废,大力发展资本主义。

毛主席说,一九四九年十月一日中华人民共和国的成立,标志了新民主主义革命阶段的基本结束和社会主义革命阶段的开始。党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派却大唱反调,极力宣扬"巩固新民主主义秩序",为在中国发展资本主义而奔走呼号。

就在反动影片《清宫秘史》在全国放映的前后,他到处游说,大做黑报告,滥发黑指示,极力颂扬资本主义制度的所谓"进步"和"光荣",鼓吹"剥削无罪","造反无理"的谬论。马克思说:"资本来到世间,就是从头到脚,每个毛孔都滴着血和肮脏的东西。"[(10)]他却胡说什么"中国不是资本主义太多了,而是资本主义太少了。""要发展资本主义剥削,这种剥削是进步的。"(⑵⑶)"今天资本主义的剥削不但没有罪恶,而且有功劳"。大叫什么:"劳动人民不是反对剥削,而是欢迎剥削。""如果资本家多了,剥削多了,那么,我们就越感到舒服。"他还恬不知耻地向资本家说:"工人的痛苦就是失业,就是怕没有人剥削,所以有人剥削比没有人剥削好。""工人要你剥削,不剥削人家就苦得很。""资本家也是为人民服务。""你们有本事多剥削,对国家对人民都有利。""剥削得越多,功劳越大,就越光荣。""资本家的剥削是有历史功绩的,这个功绩是永垂不朽的"。他大肆宣扬"剥削合法论",说什么"赚多少钱都是合法的,多到什么程度,花花绿绿,胭脂水粉、大吃大喝都是合法的。"他甚至学着小丑的腔调向资本家说:"资本家先生!我请求你剥削一下吧!剥削我就有饭吃,老婆孩子就能活下去,如果不剥削,就不得了。"

工人不接受他的这一套反动的臭理论,他便污蔑工人:"不懂政治,觉悟不高。"并以资本家的帮凶的口吻,恶狠狠地威胁工人说:"工人不听话,(资本家)要斗争(工人),这是合法的"。

与此同时,他还积极鼓吹发展农村的资本主义经济,大肆叫嚷"长期保护富农经济",提倡"四大自由"(即放高利贷自由、雇工自由、土地买卖自由、经营自由)。主张大力发展"三马一犁一车式的农民",发展富农经济。胡说什么"现在剥削是救人,不准剥削是教条主义,现在必须剥削,要欢迎剥削。关内难民到东北去,东北的富农剥削他,他就谢天谢地。""雇人劳动,不叫剥削,它增加了社会财富。"还提出雇人耕种土地"没有限制","雇工种地是合法的,对群众也有好处"。声称"有剥削还可以做社会主义者。""东北有一万富农党员也不怕。"企图使资本主义经济在农村中迅速泛滥开来。

党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派为人吃人的资本主义剥削制度所唱的颂歌,就连资产阶级的御用学者、形形色色的新老修正主义的辩护士们,也都望尘莫及。

什么藤结什么瓜,什么阶级说什么话。党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派,想的是资本主义,爱的是资本主义,讲的还是资本主义。他所贩卖的那一套人吃人的哲学,完全是为发展资本主义,维护血腥的剥削制度服务的。他的这种声音是吸血鬼和寄生虫们的声音,也是他自己那种肮脏的、丑恶的资产阶级灵魂的大暴露。

党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派,自我辩解说他是"老革命遇到了新问题"。

什么"老革命遇到了新问题"!

难道竟有这样疯狂进行资本主义复辟活动的"老革命"?

难道竟有这样猖狂反对我们的伟大领袖毛主席,猖狂反对伟大的毛泽东思想的"老革命"?

如果真是"老革命",那么,请问:

为什么你要在抗日战争爆发前夕,大肆宣扬活命哲学、投降哲学、叛徒哲学,指使别人自首变节,要他们投降国民党,叛变共产党,公开发表"反共启事"、宣誓"坚决反共"?

为什么你要在抗日战争胜利以后,提出"和平民主新阶段"的投降主义路线?

为什么你要在解放以后极力反对资本主义工商业的社会主义改造?反对农业合作化,大砍合作社?

为什么你要在社会主义三大改造完成以后,竭力宣扬阶级斗争熄灭论,积极主张阶级合作,取消阶级斗争?

为什么你要在三年困难时期,与国内外牛鬼蛇神遥相呼应,恶毒攻击三面红旗,鼓吹"三自一包"、"三和一少"的修正主义路线?

为什么你要在一九六二年还重新出版过去那种不要革命,不要阶级斗争,不要夺取政权,不要无产阶级专政,反对马克思列宁主义,反对毛泽东思想,宣扬腐朽的资产阶级世界观,宣扬反动的资产阶级唯心主义哲学的、欺人之谈的大毒草《论修养》?

为什么你要在社会主义教育运动中提出和推行形"左"实右的机会主义路线,破坏社会主义教育运动?

为什么你要在无产阶级文化大革命中,勾结另一个党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派,提出和推行资产阶级反动路线?

答案只有一个:你根本不是什么"老革命"!你是假革命、反革命,你就是睡在我们身边的赫鲁晓夫!

十七年来,一小撮反革命修正主义分子在党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派的支持下,向无产阶级发动了一个全面性的猖狂进攻,在政治、经济、文化、教育各个领域里放了大量的毒。在这次无产阶级文化大革命中,我们一定要遵照毛主席的教导,组织起浩浩荡荡的无产阶级革命的文化大军,彻底粉碎这一小撮反革命修正主义分子和党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派的猖狂进攻,挖出我国修正主义的总根子,打倒赫鲁晓夫那样的个人野心家和阴谋家,防止这样的坏人篡党、篡国,防止资本主义的复辟,保证我国永不变色!

"宜将剩勇追穷寇"。我们的伟大领袖毛主席亲自发动和领导的这场无产阶级文化大革命,就是要亿万人民动员起来,穷追一小撮反革命修正主义分子,穷追背后支持他们的党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派,夺取一切被他们篡夺了去的堡垒,让毛泽东思想占据一切阵地。正像林彪同志所说的,这次无产阶级文化大革命是一次"大战役,是对资产阶级和一切剥削阶级思想的总攻击"。我们一定要响应毛主席的伟大号召,高举革命的批判旗帜,勇敢地投入战斗,彻底批判和肃清以党内最大的走资本主义道路的当权派为代表的资产阶级反动路线在各方面的流毒;大破剥削阶级的旧思想,大立毛泽东思想。

斗争的道路是曲折的,发展是不平衡的,在前进的道路上是有阻力的,我们一定要克服种种困难,冲破一切阻力,把无产阶级文化大革命进行到底,绝不能半途而废。

把伟大的、战无不胜的毛泽东思想的红旗插遍全中国,让她永远永远地放射出灿烂的光芒!

我们敬爱的领袖毛主席亲自领导的无产阶级文化大革命运动胜利万岁!

(1)《毛泽东选集》第2卷,人民出版社1952年第2版,第508页。

(2)毛泽东:《在延安各界庆祝斯大林六十寿辰大会上的讲话》。

(3)(5)《毛泽东选集》第2卷,第626页。

(4)《毛泽东选集》第1卷,人民出版社1952年第2版,第156页。

(6)《列宁全集》第4卷,人民出版社版,第335-336页。

(7)《毛泽东选集》第1卷,第278页。

(8)《毛泽东选集》第3卷,人民出版社1953年第2版,第1031页。

(9)《毛泽东选集》第4卷,人民出版社1960年版,第1474-1476页。

(10)马克思:《资本论》第1卷,人民出版社1963年第2版,第839页。

(原载《红旗》杂志一九六七年三月三十日,第五期;转载《人民日报》一九六七年四月一日)
  
  
  

 
 
顶端 Posted: 2009-03-13 13:23 | 1 楼
帖子浏览记录 版块浏览记录
中国文革研究网 » CR DOCUMENTS
 
 

Total 0.020109(s) query 4, Time now is:06-27 03:01, Gzip enabled
Powered by PHPWind v6.3.2 Certificate © http://wengewang.tk