Left Communism in China

In the People's Republic of China since 1967, the terms "Ultra-Left" and "left communist" (simplified Chinese: 共产主义左翼; traditional Chinese: 共產主義左翼; pinyin: Gòngchǎn zhǔyì zuǒyì) refers to political theory and practice self-defined as further "Left-wing politics" than that of the central Maoist leaders at the height of the GPCR ("Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution"). The terms are also used retroactively to describe some early 20th century Chinese anarchist orientations. As a slur, the Communist Party of China (CPC) has used the term "ultra-left" more broadly to denounce any orientation it considers further "left" than the party line. According to the latter usage, in 1978 the CPC Central Committee denounced as "ultra-left" the line of Mao Zedong from 1956 until his death in 1976. This article refers only to 1) the self-defined Ultra-Left of the GPCR, and 2) more recent theoretical trends drawing inspiration from the GPCR Ultra-Left, China's anarchist legacy, and international "left communist" traditions.

The GPCR Ultra-Left

"Ultra-Left" refers to those GPCR rebel positions that diverged from the central general strikes, mutinies, weapons seizures, and, ultimately, the merging of the Chinese revolution with a global communist revolution.

When the central Maoist leaders launched the GPCR in the spring of 1966, they launched a campaign for students and academics to criticize "bourgeois" or otherwise "counter-revolutionary" ideas within China's "superstructural" apparatus. As the Central Committee's put it in August:

Although the bourgeoisie has been overthrown, it is still trying to use the old ideas, culture, customs, habits, practices, traditions, philosophies, and thinking of the exploiting classes to corrupt the masses, capture their minds and endeavour to stage a comeback. The proletariat must do the exact opposite: it must meet head-on every challenge of the bourgeoisie in the ideological field and use the new ideas, culture, customs and habits of the proletariat to change the mental outlook of the whole of society. At present, our objective is to struggle against and overthrow those persons in authority who are taking the capitalist road, to criticize and repudiate the reactionary bourgeois academic 'authorities' and the ideology of the bourgeoisie and all other exploiting classes and to transform education, literature and art and all other parts of the superstructure not in correspondence with the socialist economic base, so as to facilitate the consolidation and development of the socialist system.

Although the 16 Points called on not only students but also "the masses of the workers, peasants, soldiers, revolutionary intellectuals, and revolutionary cadres" to carry out this struggle, and although it encouraged activists to "institute a system of general elections, like that of the Paris Commune, for electing members to the Cultural Revolutionary groups and committees and delegates to the Cultural Revolutionary congresses," this and other proof of the central Maoist leaders made clear that this was to be "wen (文)" struggle rather than a "wu (武)" struggle. The leaders used these terms to emphasize that "martial" (wu) or physical violence should be avoided in favor of "verbal" (wen) struggle (big-character posters, debates, rallies, etc.), but the distinction also corresponds to one that Ultra-Left rebels would later reject: the "revolution" was to be "cultural" rather than "political" or social. The rationale was that China's economic structure or "base" had already completed its transition to socialist productive relations (Mao had announced this good news in 1956), so now the next logical step before full communization was to complete the superstructural transformation.

When, in late 1966, over a million workers in Shanghai extended their activism into a general strike calling for improved salaries and democratic control over workplace management and city governance, Maoist worker representatives such as Wang Hongwen criticized these demands as "economistic" violation of point 14 of the 16 Points: "embrace the revolution while stimulating production (抓革命,促生产)." With some police assistance, these representatives managed to silence the more radical rank-and-file demands and absorb their energy into the nominal "January Storm," which replaced the city government and Party Committee with a "Shanghai People's Commune" ruled by Wang and Zhang Chunqiao. Some intransigent rebels called for democratic control over the Commune, and even the abolition of all "heads." When Mao heard of this he told Zhang to transform the Commune into a "Revolutionary Committee" in which mass representatives would share power with Army and Party representatives, and he recommended that this model of "power seizure" be propagated throughout China lest people get the wrong idea from Shanghai's invocation of the Paris Commune.[3] Thus marched the People's Liberation Army onto the stage of GPCR mass politics, and thus began what the Ultra-Left would later call the "February Adverse Current."

It was out of this momentary radicalization of GPCR mass politics and its sudden suppression and redirection that the Ultra-Left currents were born, first independently within rebel groups scattered throughout China, then, by late 1967, in increasing dialogue until their suppression during the following years. The earliest record GPCR scholar Wang Shaoguang has found of something like an Ultra-Left position is an open letter from two high school students to Lin Biao, published under the pseudonym "Yilin-Dixi" in November 1966.[4] Whereas Lin had recently sought to curb Red Guard rebellion by interpreting Mao's "Bombard the Headquarters" to mean "bombard a few capitalist roaders" as opposed to "bombard our proletarian headquarters," Yilin-Dixi argued that it was the so-called "proletarian headquarters" itself that had "become obsolete" and needed to be "reformed": "We must create a whole new state machinery to replace the old one" (3).

See also


  1. ^ "Peasant (农民)" was the official term for workers on people's communes. According to the Ultra-Left, both peasants and (urban) workers together composed a proletarian Social class divorced from any meaningful control over production or distribution.
  2. ^ See, for instance, "Whither China?" by Yang Xiguang.
  3. ^ Mao Zedong, "Talks at Three Meetings with Comrades Chang Ch’un-ch’iao and Yao Wen-yuan", Selected Works, Volume 9.
  4. ^ Wang Shaoguang. 1999. "'New Trends of Thought' on China's Cultural Revolution". Journal of Contemporary China, 8:21, 3.

Further reading

  • The 70s Collective, ed. 1996. China: The Revolution is Dead, Long Live the Revolution. Montreal: Black Rose Books.
  • Chen Erjin. 1984. Crossroads Socialism: An Unofficial Manifesto for Proletarian Democracy. Trans. Robin Munro. London: Verso.
  • Mehnert, Klaus, ed. 1969. Peking and the New Left: At Home and Abroad. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  • Meisner, Maurice. 1999. Mao's China and After: A History of the People's Republic, Third Edition. New York: The Free Press.
  • Perry, Elizabeth and Li Xun. 1997. Proletarian Power: Shanghai in the Cultural Revolution. Boulder: Westview Press.
  • Wang Shaoguang. 1995. The Failure of Charisma: The Cultural Revolution in Wuhan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • 陈益南,《一个工人的“文革”》,2006年。

External links

  • Communist Left on China
  • "Whither China?" by Yang Xiguang of the Sheng Wu Lian (Hunan Proletarian Alliance)(full text of this and other Sheng Wu Lian documents translated in Mehnert, below.)
  • "The rise and suppression of the 'ultra-left' in the Chinese cultural revolution" by Pete Brown
  • "'New Trends of Thought' on the Cultural Revolution" by Wang Shaoguang
  • "Rethinking 'Capitalist Restoration' in China" by Yiching Wu
  • 宋永毅、孙大进编. 1997. 《文化大革命中的异端思潮》. 香港:田园书屋.:
  • 《论新思潮》,四三派( ?)著
  • 《中国向何处去?》,省无联(杨曦光)著
  • 《无产阶级文化大革命中各种派别的分析》,北决扬( 杨 Xiulin)著
  • 《特权论》(《论无产阶级民主革命》),陈泱潮(陈尔晋)著
  • 《从阶级关系反思中国的“资本主义复辟”》,吴一庆著
  • 《“文革”为什么结束?》,韩少功 (陈益南《一个工人的“文革”》的序言)
This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.