Li Xinyu
One
The end of the 20s was an important turning point in Chinese history. The victory of the Northern Expedition brought a new regime to China, but, from a cultural point of view, it is impossible to deny the fact that after the establishment of the new regime, not only did it not promote the development of the new culture, but also directly or indirectly brought about the resurgence of the old culture and the crisis of the new culture.
All this is by no means accidental, but is determined by the guiding ideology and revolutionary practice of the Kuomintang. The Kuomintang took Sun Yat-sen's Three People's Principles as its guiding ideology, but Sun Yat-sen, a bourgeois revolutionary, did not fully accept the advanced ideological system of the Western bourgeoisie, so he retained many non-modern elements in his Three People's Principles. Because of this, it is far from the spirit of the New Culture Movement.
The leaders of the New Culture Movement believed that traditional Chinese culture and authoritarian politics were mutually compatible, and that in order to achieve a true democratic republic in China, it was necessary to introduce universal values such as democracy, freedom, equality, and human rights, and thoroughly criticize the old culture. Sun Yat-sen, however, highly praised traditional Chinese culture, believing that all new Western cultures "already exist" in China, "but they did not know that they were the latest in Europe and have been in China for thousands of years." ”[1]
The leaders of the May Fourth New Culture Movement could not tolerate the erosion of China's political tradition on the republic's form of government, so they sought to introduce modern Western political ideas. Sun Yat-sen said: "The reason why Europe is above our China is not political philosophy, but completely material civilization." ...... As for the true meaning of political philosophy, the Europeans also demand it from China. ”[2]
The leaders of the May Fourth New Culture Movement discovered the evil of "cannibalism" in the old morality, and thus fiercely criticized the old morality. Sun Yat-sen, on the other hand, tried to promote morality compatible with authoritarian politics, and complained about the destruction of traditional morality by "ordinary people who are intoxicated with the new culture." [3]
What is particularly important is that the May Fourth New Culture Movement takes people as the ultimate goal and the highest value standard, and therefore strives for individual freedom and the protection of human rights. Sun Yat-sen, on the other hand, emphasized the nation and the state one-sidedly, and always demanded that people give up their personal freedom in the name of the nation and the state. He believed that the freedom of the Chinese had become so great that China had become "a piece of loose sand", so the priority was to "break the freedom of everyone and form a very strong group, just as Shimintu was joined into loose sand and formed a solid stone." ”[4]
He advocated that freedom "must no longer be applied to the individual, but to the state." ...... When the country can move freely, China will be a strong country, and to do so, everyone will have to sacrifice their freedom. ”[5]
The May Fourth New Culture Movement held high the banner of democracy. Sun Yat-sen had no concept of democracy, so he always unconsciously wanted to deprive citizens of their democratic rights. From the provisions of the "General Constitution of the Chinese Revolutionary Party" to the reorganization of the Kuomintang in 1924, he never overcame those anti-democratic ideas, and sometimes even intensified them. The "Declaration of the First National Congress of the Chinese Kuomintang" clearly wrote: "The nationalism of the Kuomintang is very different from the so-called 'natural human rights', and only if it is suitable for the needs of the present Chinese revolution and covers the civil rights of the Republic of China, only the citizens of the Republic of China can enjoy it, and this right will not be lightly granted to those who oppose the Republic of China, so that the Republic of China can be destroyed." ”[6]
Even within the party, what he repeatedly reinforced was the absolute obedience of party members to the leader.
In the process of the reorganization of the Kuomintang and the Northern Expedition, due to the influence of the Russian-style totalitarian ideology and system brought by Borodin and others, Sun Yat-sen's ideological limitations were further strengthened, rapidly expanded, and became the dominant ideology with the victory of the Northern Expedition.
Therefore, both during and after the victory of the Northern Expedition, the actions of the Kuomintang were in many ways contrary to the goals of the New Culture Movement. Most obviously, the new regime with Chiang Kai-shek at its core did not completely repudiate the democratic political framework that emerged after the Xinhai Revolution, but within this framework, it established a one-party autocratic regime in the name of discipline. This new form of rule represents a step backwards in Chinese politics. Because although Chinese politics in the early years of the Republic of China has not been on the right track, the existence of the National Assembly and its members marks a form of modern political system after all. The establishment of the Kuomintang's one-party autocratic form of government has turned the ruling party into an unchecked bloc, and this kind of bloc autocracy is not too far from imperial autocracy, and it can be said that it is an intermediary between imperial autocracy and democracy, but its essence is still autocracy. Among the intellectuals of the time, there was no lack of sober awareness of this.
According to Hu Shih's diary on April 26, 1929, Ma Junwu once said: "When there was a parliament that day, we only saw its evil, and now in retrospect, no matter how corrupt the parliament is, it is better than no parliament." And Hu Shi went on to say: "On that day, Yuan Shikai was able to pay money to buy parliamentarians, because he was afraid of the parliament's vote, and Cao Kun was willing to pay for a vote, but he only valued that vote, and they at least recognized the power represented by that vote." This is the starting point of the rule of the people. Politics is lawless politics now. ”
Because the government is not the result of popular elections, but the self-delegation of power of a group, there is a serious lack of legitimacy. Therefore, the new regime took a series of measures to consolidate its rule: first, it activated the propaganda machine, desperately created public opinion, promoted idolatry, and strengthened the party's ideology throughout society. They shouted slogans, put up slogans, held congresses, organized marches, and mobilized the masses, making the party's propaganda the overriding voice, making the Three People's Principles a golden rule that brooks no criticism, and trying to unify people's minds.
They regard Sun Yat-sen as an idol, not only cannot they criticize, but calling him by his name also means disrespect, and the party's "loyal comrades" must be "former prime ministers" or "father of the nation" when they open their mouths. More importantly, as the ruling party of a one-party dictatorship, the Kuomintang has made efforts to bring all fields of ideology and culture under the control of the party, with the result that the space for freedom of thought and speech has rapidly shrunk, and the freedom of the press has been seriously threatened, and has even become an empty phrase. The second is to carry out party-oriented education and restrict free thought. The new regime placed more emphasis on education and made efforts to raise teachers' salaries, so that the real living income of university professors was greatly increased with a series of measures such as the reform of the currency system, but at the same time, partisan ideology invaded schools and undermined the modern educational principle of educational independence.
The Kuomintang did not completely bring intellectuals into the shackles of the system, but tried to restrict the freedom of thought of teachers and students through political and ideological work. They demanded that schools do commemorative weeks, study the "Prime Minister's Testament", and tried to instill the faith of the party through school education, so that the party's ideology would occupy the school and education would serve the interests of the party. The third is to carry forward the old traditions, revive the old morality, and turn back the cultural wheel in order to find resources from the traditions. Ye Chuling, director of the Central Propaganda Department, personally wrote an article claiming that "China was originally a golden world built of virtue" and that "the party's strength should be used to restore the atmosphere." [7] In Chinese history, it has been a rule that when rulers strive to consolidate their dominance, they always strive to promote traditions. This is certainly not surprising, for the reason that the leaders of the New Culture Movement have repeatedly pointed out: Chinese tradition and authoritarianism are compatible with each other.
All this led to the first major retreat of Chinese culture in the 20 th century, and the new culture that had just been born during the May Fourth period faced a serious existential crisis.
Two
In the face of all kinds of perverse acts of state power and its ideology, Hu Shi finally couldn't bear it anymore. In 1929, he successively published articles such as "Human Rights and the Law", "When Will We Have a Constitution", "It is Not Easy to Know What Is Difficult to Do", and "The New Culture Movement and the Kuomintang", and launched a comprehensive resistance and protection.
The ideological differences between Hu Shih and the Kuomintang can be said to have been for a long time.
As early as 1922, Hu Shi publicly criticized Sun Yat-sen. In the face of Chen Jiongming's "mutiny", Hu Shi once said, "The conflict between Sun Wen and Chen Jiongming is a conflict of ideas.
Chen advocated the autonomy of Guangdong, creating a model new Guangdong. Sun advocated using Guangdong as a basis to achieve a unified Republic of China," and criticized Sun Yat-sen for "not hesitating to go perverse in order to achieve his goal," and that "the hearts of the people of the whole country have been lost in the distance, and the hearts of the people in Guangdong have been lost in the near places." Sun also relied on the navy to intimidate the people of Guangzhou with the words of shelling the city of Guangzhou, so he could not avoid this defeat. ”
He also criticized the old ideas exposed by the Kuomintang in this incident: "Vigorously attacked Chen Jiongming, saying that he was 'disobedient to the master,' that he was 'rebellious,' and that he was 'guilty.'" Let's ask: In a republican country, what is meant by 'rebellion'? What is meant by 'committing a crime'? As for rebellion, what kind of behavior is revolution and what kind of behavior is rebellion? Is Cai Ye rebellious when he overthrows Yuan Shikai? Hu Shi did not defend Chen Jiongming, but opposed the use of "zombies of old morality" as weapons. As a result, he was attacked by the Kuomintang and was called a lackey of the Beiyang warlords, however, he did not retreat because of this, but conducted a further analysis of the Kuomintang. He said: "In an open political party, it is common for party members to combine political views, and if they agree, they will stay, and if they do not, they will disperse. The Kuomintang, on the other hand, requires its members to take an oath, which has the nature of a secret association. The implication is that the KMT is not yet a modern political party. He asked, "Is the method used by secret societies to maintain party members sustainable in modern society?"
At the same time, during the period of confrontation between the north and the south, Hu Shih's political ideas also had great contradictions with those of the Kuomintang. The Kuomintang has always adhered to the unification of force and opposed the autonomy of the provinces. Like those heroes in history who intended to seize the world, they always wanted to defeat their opponents by force and establish their own iron power. Hu Shih, on the contrary, proceeded from humanity and hoped to avoid war, so he advocated seeking peaceful reunification through negotiations, and supported the autonomy of the provinces, and even accused those who advocated reunification by force as "China's traitors!" and held that "the great revolution -- the great revolution of democracy -- will not be realized for a while." ”[9]
When he returned to China in 1927, although Hu Shih chose the south, he was always worried that after the Kuomintang seized power by military means, it would move towards political dictatorship and autocracy, and thus culturally towards conservatism and regression.
Because of such a concern, he deliberately praised Wu Zhihui together with Gu Yanwu, Dai Zhen, and others in his article "Several Anti-Rational Thinkers", spoke highly of Wu Zhihui's fierce negation of oriental civilization, and repeatedly quoted Sun Yat-sen's letter to his comrades in January 1920 affirming the May Fourth New Culture Movement, such as "If our Party wants to reap the success of the revolution, it must depend on changes in thinking," "This kind of New Culture Movement is really the most valuable thing," and so on. This is nothing more than an attempt to block the way of the Kuomintang ideological and cultural retreat with the anti-traditional behavior of the Kuomintang veterans, and to defend the achievements of the New Culture Movement with Sun Yat-sen's affirmative evaluation of the New Culture Movement. The move was well-intentioned, but it was destined to have little effect. Because a few words cannot represent Sun Yat-sen's basic ideas after all, Wu Zhihui is only an outlier in the Kuomintang.
When Sun Yat-sen's ideas were openly linked to the ways of Confucius and Mencius, this effort lost all meaning. At the end of 1927, Hu Shi accepted Cai Yuanpei's invitation to serve as a member of the Graduate University Committee. However, there were two policies that prevented Hu Shih from living in harmony with him: one was the establishment of a labor university, and the other was the promotion of party-oriented education. As a result, in the University Committee, Hu Shih had a sharp conflict with the KMT's party-oriented education policy, and even his old friend Wu Zhihui denounced Hu Shih as a "counter-revolutionary" to his face. [10] However, from the standpoint of the new culture, Hu Shi could not tolerate the domination of people's minds by the ideology of a certain party, let alone the forcible indoctrination of political beliefs through universities, so as to mentally enslave young people.
At the same time, Hu Shi couldn't help but worry about the new cultural trend. The new country, the new regime, and the new society are all dazzling, but under the new look, it is not difficult to find the smell of decadence: the party's propaganda is seeking ideological unity with great force; Beijing has been changed to Beiping, and Sun Wen's name can no longer be shouted; and there are parades, rallies, slogans, and slogans everywhere, revealing falsehood in the excitement and superstition in the fanaticism. None of this is clearly what the New Culture Movement wants to see.
So, in 1928, he wrote the article "Famous Teachings", revealing the superstition and ignorance under the new political and cultural outlook. He even pointed out unceremoniously: "Sticking a piece on the wall that 'Down with imperialism' and sticking a piece on the wall that says 'Make Money for Me' or 'Look Up and See Joy' is it? Is it the mantle of a master? What is the difference between sticking a piece of 'burying Yoshiichi Tanaka' alive and a child sticking a piece of 'Thunder Beat King Ah Mao'?" He even pointed out unceremoniously: "Sticking a piece on the wall that 'the national government is a government that seeks happiness for the whole people' is equivalent to writing a message on the door: 'Jiang Taigong is here'. ”
Because of this, when the Nationalist Government issued an order to protect human rights on April 20, 1929, Hu Shi finally broke out in an unbearable manner. He published an article entitled "Human Rights and the Law" in the Crescent Moon, in which he challenged the nascent authority of the state. The government's order to protect human rights was supposed to be a good thing, but Hu Shih was deeply disappointed by the order. This is because government orders prohibit "any individual or group" from violating human rights, when in fact it is the party and government organs that are committing serious human rights violations. Hu Shi said: "Although individuals or groups are not allowed to infringe on the physical freedom and property of others by illegal acts, what we feel most painfully today is that various government organs or organs under the guise of the government and party departments infringe on the people's physical freedom and property. Today, interference with the freedom of speech and the press, such as the confiscation of private property in various places, such as the recent confiscation of the electrical appliance industry in various places, is carried out in the name of government agencies. The decree of 20 April gives the people absolutely no guarantee in this regard. ”
The article lists three things:
1. In March 1929, at the Third Plenum of the Kuomintang, Chen Dezheng, a representative of the Shanghai Party, put forward a proposal to "severely deal with the case of counter-revolutionaries." The proposal argues that the legal procedure is too cumbersome and that the courts are bound by evidence, thus allowing many existing counter-revolutionaries to go unpunished, and that "any person who has been certified in writing by the provincial or special city party headquarters to be a counter-revolutionary should be punished by the court or other legally prescribed organ for the crime of counter-revolution, and if he is not satisfied, he may be appealed, but the higher court or other higher statutory organ shall refute the case if it has been certified in writing by the central party department." ”
2. Liu Wendian, president of Anhui University, was detained for confronting Chiang Kai-shek in person. His family and friends could only run around to plead for mercy, and they could never go to any court to sue Chairman Chiang.
3. The army stationed in Tangshan arbitrarily detained businessmen and severely interrogated them to the point of disability, and the chamber of commerce could only plead for mercy, but the plea was invalid and could only strike the market. Hu Shih pointed out that it is unfettered power that seriously violates human rights.
Therefore, he called for at least a treaty of discipline in China: "We want a statute that defines the authority of the government: beyond this authority is an 'illegal act.'" We want a statute that will provide for the protection of the people's 'body, liberty, and property': anyone who violates the human rights stipulated in this provision can be sued by the people whether it is the company commander of the 152nd Brigade or the chairman of the National Government, and they will all be punished by law. ”
Then, Hu Shi wrote "When Will We Have a Constitution" and "It is Not Easy to Know What Is Difficult to Do", which challenged Sun Yat-sen's thoughts. In the article "When Will We Have a Constitution", Hu Shi pursued Sun Yat-sen's mistake in "Outline for the Founding of the People's Republic of China" by only stressing discipline and government rather than the law.
According to Sun Yat-sen's thoughts, "the majority of the people, who have been in bondage for a long time, have been suddenly liberated, do not know the way of their activities at first, and are not taking advantage of them because they have abdicated their responsibilities, or because they have fallen into counter-revolution without knowing it." "I, the Chinese, have been under autocracy for a long time, and our servility is deep and unbreakable. Isn't there a period of discipline and government, in order to wash away the old stains, and Xi can enjoy the rights of the master of the Republic of China?"
In this regard, Chinese politicians have the same line of thinking: when they launch a revolution, they often win the hearts and minds of the people with enthusiastic praise and distorted pandering, and promise to "be the masters of the country", but after success, they often deprive the people of their right to participate in politics on the pretext that they are incapable of participating in politics. In this regard, Hu Shi said: "Democratic politics itself is a kind of education, and when the people first participate in politics, mistakes are inevitable, but we must not allow the people to participate in politics because they are not enough. People don't need much expertise to participate in politics, what they need is political experience. ”
At that time, Yuan Shikai once opposed the democratic republic on the pretext that the knowledge level of the Chinese people was too low, and Sun Yat-sen criticized: "Yuan Shikai and his ilk must think that the knowledge level of the Chinese people is so low, and they must not be republic." Scholars of music also say that it is not necessary to be autocratic. Woohoo, the ox can still teach the farming, the horse can still teach the multiplication, and the situation is that the people are crying, and now the young child will want to enter the school to study, and the father said, 'This boy is illiterate, so he must not be allowed to enter the school readers', but he is illiterate, so he must be in a hurry to read. "When the Kuomintang came to power, it turned out to be the same. And the root of thought is Sun Yat-sen.
Hu Shih returned Sun Yat-sen's criticism of Yuan Shikai to Sun Yat-sen and his Kuomintang, and gave a merciless criticism of his idea of depriving citizens of their rights on the grounds of national conditions.
Faced with Hu Shih's challenge, the Kuomintang immediately organized a counterattack. Shanghai's "Minguo Daily" successively published articles criticizing Hu Shih's "reactionary fallacy"; the plenary congress of the party headquarters of the third district of Shanghai passed a resolution demanding that the Ministry of Education remove Hu Shih from his post and request the central and Shanghai party departments to severely punish him; the party departments of Beiping, Shanghai, Tianjin, Qingdao, Jiangsu, Nanjing, and other provinces and cities demanded that Hu Shih be investigated, severely punished, and even arrested; he was charged with "insulting the party's premier, slandering its own partyism, betraying the national government, and conspiring to incite the people"; poisoning the cultivation of party-state talents and hindering the promotion of the Three People's Principles"...... Finally, the Ministry of Education issued a directive on October 4 and dismissed Hu Shih from his post as head of China Public School. At the same time, on October 21, 1929, the Standing Committee of the Central Committee of the Kuomintang passed the "Provisional Regulations on the Study of Party Righteousness by School Teachers and Staff at All Levels", stipulating that "school teachers and staff at all levels throughout the country shall, in accordance with the provisions of these Regulations, conduct systematic research on the Party's Party righteousness and seek a deeper understanding." It even stipulates that "limited to semesters, there must be at least half an hour of self-study research per day on average, and at least once a week for collective research." ”[11]
Under these circumstances, Hu Shih published "The New Culture Movement and the Kuomintang" in the "New Moon", in which he pointed out clearly: "From the standpoint of the New Culture Movement, the Kuomintang is reactionary. He analyzed the Kuomintang's culturally reactionary stance and revealed in depth the roots of this reactionary stance. He believed that "the Kuomintang movement was an extreme nationalist movement, which had a conservative nature from the beginning, and therefore gave rise to some conservative theories. This theory was the basis for all kinds of reactionary acts and reactionary ideas in the later days of the country. "If the ideology of a party in power is anachronistic and reactionary, its influence can hinder the progress of a culture. In the "small preface" of the "Collected Essays on Human Rights," he wrote: "What we want to establish is the freedom to criticize the Kuomintang and the freedom to criticize Sun Yat-sen." God, we can criticize, not to mention the Kuomintang and Sun Yat-sen!"
Three
In the face of Hu Shih's conflict with the new regime and its ideology, one question worth pondering: What is the focal point of the conflict? What are the fundamental differences? In fact, it is not difficult to find that all Hu Shih's efforts are aimed at defending the achievements of the New Culture Movement and the direction of the New Culture Movement. The differences between the two sides are centered on the following points:
First, the new regime followed China's traditional ruling habits, ignored the protection of human rights, and even flagrantly violated human rights; Hu Shih adhered to the ideals of the May Fourth New Culture Movement, "attaching equal importance to science and human rights," and resolutely defended and worked hard to fight for human rights. To be fair, the government's motives for issuing orders to protect human rights may be good. However, a group of revolutionaries or politicians who lack modern political consciousness do not think that the law should not only bind the people, but also should bind those in power. This is because China's political tradition has always been that rulers make laws to deal with the common people, rather than citizens make laws to restrict rulers. However, Hu Shi could not help but be disappointed, because according to the concept of modern democratic politics, the protection of human rights is first and foremost to limit and constrain the power of those in power. At that time, the Party and government agencies were seriously violating human rights.
As Hu Shi pointed out in "Human Rights and the Law": "No matter who you are, as long as you put up a signboard of 'reactionary', 'local tyrant and inferior gentry', 'counter-revolutionary', 'suspected communist', etc., there will be no protection of human rights." The body can be insulted, liberty can be completely deprived, and property can be slaughtered at will, and it is no longer 'illegal'. Books and newspapers that are labeled 'reactionary publications' are prohibited and are no longer an infringement of freedom. No matter what kind of school, foreigners-run schools only need to be labeled with the words 'cultural aggression,' and Chinese-run schools only need to be labeled with the words 'academic valves,' 'reactionary forces,' and so on, and they can all be banned and confiscated, and they are not considered illegal infringements. ”
In order to illustrate the human rights situation in China at that time, he listed three things in the article, all of which illustrated the human rights violations committed by the party and the government: Chen Dezheng's proposal to "severely deal with the case of counter-revolutionaries" if passed, would lead to a complete substitution of the law by the party. Liu Wendian was detained for confronting Chiang Kai-shek. His family and friends can only plead everywhere, but they can't go to the court to complain, Hu Shi said: "You can only plead for mercy but not complain, this is the rule of man, not the rule of law." "The Tangshan garrison detained merchants at will, while the chamber of commerce could only intercede and boycott the market. Hu Shi said: "Under the rule of law, the chairman of the Nationalist Government and the officers of the 152nd Brigade of Tangshan are equally prohibited from exceeding the authority prescribed by law. What Hu Shi emphasized is the true meaning of human rights equality. He clearly saw how the political tradition of absolutism loomed over the new rulers, so he strongly called for a statute to define the authority of the party and the government in order to prevent the rulers from abusing their power and violating human rights.
2. The new regime ignored the principle of freedom of belief and freedom of thought, and tried to unify people's thinking with the Three People's Principles and make the people of the whole country adhere to one ism; Hu Shih adhered to the ideals of the May Fourth New Culture Movement, opposed idolatry, insisted on emancipating the mind, defended freedom of thought, and opposed the use of certain doctrines to shackle people's minds and stifle people's spirits. For the sake of the new ruling order, the new regime turned on its propaganda machine, desperately created public opinion, studied, held meetings, put up slogans, shouted slogans, carried out political education by various means, and tried to promote party-oriented education in schools. Their purpose in doing so was to create personal superstitions, to make Sun Yat-sen an idol, and to make the Three People's Principles a golden rule that could not be questioned, to unify the thinking of the whole country, and to make hundreds of millions of brains ossified into one ism. All this runs counter to the goal of the May Fourth New Culture Movement to strive for ideological emancipation. From the standpoint of the new culture, Hu Zheng naturally cannot tolerate the deprivation of people's freedom of thought by a certain doctrine, still less can he tolerate the enslavement and education of young people by one party through schools.
In "The New Culture Movement and the Kuomintang", Hu Shih said: "One of the great undertakings of the New Culture Movement is the emancipation of the mind. We criticized Confucius and Mencius, impeached Cheng Zhu, opposed Confucianism, and denied God, in order to bring down the door of Yizun and emancipate China's mind. So, he could not tolerate the reality that "freedom of thought and speech has been completely lost." God can deny it, but Sun Yat-sen is not allowed to criticize. Worship can be omitted, but the Prime Minister's will must be read, and Remembrance Week must be done. "We pay for newspapers to read, but we are not allowed to read a single piece of solid news, we are not allowed to read a little responsible commentary. When a responsible scholar said a few responsible words and discussed an issue that should be discussed by a Chinese citizen, five or six provincial and municipal party departments came out to petition the government to arrest him."
He further pointed out: "Today's Kuomintang is everywhere chanting 'the revolution has not yet succeeded,' but they do not want to promote 'ideological change' at all! As everyone knows, the idea of unity is only the rigidity of thinking, not the change of thinking. To unify one's thinking with one's speech and thoughts, we can only supply some unthinkers with the entrainment of the party's moral examination, and can only supply some materials for the party's eight shares, and we must never change our thinking, and we must never rely on this to 'reap the success of the revolution'. ”
3. In order to consolidate the ruling order that had just been established that was "new" but not "modern," the new regime naturally had to strive to find spiritual resources from tradition, so the inevitable choice was to carry forward the national tradition; Hu Shih adhered to the orientation of the May Fourth New Culture Movement, adhered to a critical attitude toward tradition, and resolutely opposed the use of traditional culture to give real legitimacy to traditional autocratic rule. If Sun Yat-sen still retains many elements of traditional Chinese absolutism, Chiang Kai-shek's thought probably has more traditional elements.
It is well known that Chiang Kai-shek was very interested in Confucianism, especially the Song and Ming Dynasty, and admired Zeng Guofan very much, but always held a negative view of the May Fourth New Culture Movement.
As a successor of Confucian culture, he repeatedly preached loyalty, filial piety, benevolence, faithfulness, and peace, rather than modern freedom, equality, democracy, and human rights.
Therefore, from Sun Yat-sen to Chiang Kai-shek, it can be said that it is in the same line, and Ye Chuling, Minister of the Central Propaganda Department, openly declared in "Saving the Atmosphere by the Party's Practice" that "China was originally a golden world built of virtue", which is by no means accidental, but means that the state's authoritative ideology guides the direction of cultural development. Standing on the standpoint of the May Fourth New Culture Movement, Hu Yi naturally could not remain silent. First of all, if this voice is allowed to continue to expand, Chinese culture will inevitably have a more serious regression.
Second, if China had been a golden world of virtues, there would have been no need for a new cultural movement.
Because of this, Hu Shih published "The New Culture Movement and the Kuomintang" despite the siege that had already caused the Kuomintang and the threat of his arrest from six provinces and cities. In the face of a political party that was in the process of achieving a total victory and its powerful state power, he firmly stood on the stand of the New Culture Movement and clearly pointed out: "The fundamental significance of the New Culture Movement is to recognize that the old Chinese culture is not suitable for the modern environment, and to advocate the full acceptance of the new civilization of the world." However, the Kuomintang is still there to this day chanting 'resist cultural aggression'! It is still talking about the 'royal road' and 'spiritual civilization'! It is still there advocating 'national art' and 'fighting in the ring.'" Therefore, "the Kuomintang represented by the Nationalist Government is reactionary. "As an intellectual without party affiliation, he must desperately resist the great cultural regression caused by the power of the state and its ideology with his own efforts.
Hu Shih's struggle was not a victory, for which he lost his position as the head of the Shanghai Public School, and the "New Moon" and "Collected Treatises on Human Rights" were also confiscated, and finally had to leave Shanghai for Beiping. However, his struggle has written a heavy stroke in the history of Chinese intellectuals: when a large group of intellectuals stumbled like withered grass in the storm, there were still tall and upright trees on the front of the new culture. It tells people that after the May Fourth New Culture Movement, cultural perversity was not unimpeded.
First drafted in January 1999 and revised in February 2004
Originally published in Literature and Culture, Vol. 5, 2004
——————————
注:
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Selected Works of Sun Yat-sen, p666, 667, 680, 721, 722, People's Publishing House, 1956.
[6] A Hundred Years of the Chinese Kuomintang, p3405, Yanbian University Press, 1995.
[7] Hu Shi, "The New Culture Movement and the Kuomintang", New Moon, Vol. 2, Nos. 6 and 7.
[8] [9] "This Week", Hu Shih's Collected Works, vol. 3, p427-428, p437, Peking University Press, 1998.
[10] Hu Ming, The Biography of Hu Shi, p690, People's Literature Publishing House, 1997.
[11] Quoted from New Moon, Vol. 2, Nos. 6 and 7. The issue was supposed to be published on September 10, 1929, but the document was published in this issue as an "appendix" to Lolongji's "Accusation to the Oppressors of Free Speech."