The Rectification Campaign at Peking University: May--June 1957 Author(s): Ren Goldman Reviewed work(s): Source: The China

Quarterly, No. 12 (Oct. - Dec., 1962), pp. 138-153 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the School of Oriental and African Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/651820 . Accessed: 05/04/2012 22:35
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and School of Oriental and African Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The China Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

The Rectification Campaign at Peking University: May-June 1957

By RENRi GOLDMAN IN a previous article I outlined briefly the development of the situation on the campus of Peking University (Pei-Ta) before, during and after the momentous events of the spring of 1957, the period of the " rectification campaign." 1 The sequence of events in the past four years permits us to view the rectification campaign as a dividing date in the history of Communist China. The rectification campaign was the culminating point of a period that had seen the post-revolutionary reorganisation of the country, the assertion by the Communist Party of total control over the political, economic and ideological life of the nation and, following a campaign of liquidation of counter-revolutionary elements in the summer of 1955, a sudden "thaw." The slogan of "Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom" was first applied in the winter of 1955, when plays previously forbidden were staged again and operas of all provinces were presented in Peking. On May 26, 1956, Lu Ting-yi, secretary of the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, delivered his historic speech, entitled: " Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom! Let a Hundred Schools Contend! " In this speech he promised the scholars freedom of thought, controversy, creation and criticism. He said China should learn from the entire world, even from her enemies, and not mechanically transplant Soviet experience. The reaction of the intellectuals to this encouraging speech was, however, slow to come; their bitter past experience, and the limitations on freedom of criticism expressed in subsequent speeches of Party leaders and editorials of the People's Daily, made them reluctant to air their grievances. It took them a year to become bold enough to accept the invitation. Following Chou En-lai's report on "The Question of the Intellectuals," delivered at a special conference of the Central Committee on January 14, 1956, the living conditions of the intellectuals were improved: their salaries were raised, they were given better research conditions, more materials were made available, better use was made of their talents and their administrative and meeting assignments were reduced. Although
1 See "Peking University Today," The China Quarterly, No. 7, July-September 1961.

138

RECTIFICATION

CAMPAIGN

AT

PEKING

UNIVERSITY

ThoughtReform remainedthe ultimategoal, it came to be understood as a long-rangeprocess, and the Party decided that coercion was no longer necessaryto ensureit. Meanwhile the walls of Pei-Ta were plastered with slogans like "Think Independently," "Conquer Science,""Storm the Fortress of Science,"which permittedthe study of the achievementsof science in the Westand Japan. In the 1956-57 curriculum seminarswere included called "Discussion in the Class Room." They were conductedin the form of professorsissuingthe studentswith questionsto prepare disfor cussion, followingwhich debateswere held in class under the guidance of the professor. Althoughthese questionswere formulatedin MarxistLeninisttermsand the debateswere carefullykept withinthe boundsof orthodoxy,the very fact that debates were held constituteda marked science discussionforums were held by improvement.University-wide studentsand professors the end of the springterm. The studentswere at lessons to attend. I still vividly given a variety of non-compulsory remember enthusiasm the with which my Chineseclass-matesstartedto
compile bibliographies on various topics, write papers on the subjects since the number of class hours and meetings had been reduced. They

whichthey had themselves selectedand whichthey now had time to write,

were fascinated,almost like children,by k'a-p'ien(librarycards),which they were taught how to write. Many spent days filling piles of cards with references. Their thirstfor learningwas admirable and they sometimes dreamedup fantasticplans of research. Throughout country, the new literaryand scientificperiodicals,sometimescontainingheterodox views, began publication. Some workers'strikesand increasingstudent unrestin the summer and autumn of 1956 probably caused the Party, especially after the Hungarianuprising,to suspect that it had hithertounderestimated the extent of latent oppositionamong various sections of the people. The food supplysituationwas growingdifficult,and in orderto appeasethe emergingoppositionvariousmeasureswere taken,like the free distribution of winterclothes to school-teachers Peking. In addition,a new, in more friendlyapproachto the minoritypartieswas expressedunderthe slogan: "Peaceful Co-existenceand Mutual Supervision." Finally on February27, 1957, at an enlargedsession of the SupremeState Conference,Mao Tse-tungmade his famousspeech" On the CorrectHandling of Contradictions the among the People." (Unfortunately speech was not publishedat the time, but only in June when the anti-rightist drive was alreadyunder way. As officiallyadmitted,it was published with some modifications. In March,Mao's speechwas only commented on and interpreted differentlevels, inside and outside the Party.) at 139

THE

CHINA

QUARTERLY

Mao announced that a "Rectification Campaign" was soon to be launched against the "three evils" in the "style of work" of Party cadres: bureaucratism, sectarianism and subjectivism. By "Letting a Hundred Flowers Bloom and a Hundred Schools Contend " the "three evils" could be uprooted and unity achieved again, on a new basis. was the slogan of the campaign. The "Unity-Criticism-Unity" Rectification Campaign, it was warned, must be earnest and yet like a mild breeze and a thin rain; meetings should be limited to small groups of a few people and assume the form of comradely talks. Unlike in the 1942 Rectification Campaign, which was an intra-Party movement, in 1957 the minority parties and all the intellectuals were invited to help the Communist Party eradicate the " three evils " plaguing it. From the very moment the Communist leaders had moved into the large urban centres they had been concerned about the corrupting influence these might have on the cadres, who had previously known only the austere conditions of the "Liberated Areas." Besides, Party membership had swollen over sixfold: the bulk of the new members had not been brought up in revolutionary conditions, but had frequently joined the Party for the material and spiritual security Party membership offered or in order to gratify their personal ambitions. The People's Daily 2 itself admitted that some Party cadres had contracted the style of work of the ruling classes of the old society: they were dizzy with power and complacent. The intellectuals still had what Fei Hsiao-t'ung called " a feeling of early spring." They were bewildered and hesitating. As Professor T'ao Ta-yung of Peking Pedagogical University said: The intellectuals... are still not free from misgivingsand fear that they might be trapped. They fear that, once their idealistic thoughts appearin print, they might be requiredto undergothe process of rectification once again in the future . . . they fear that they would be criticised and suffer the loss of prestige and face once their views are found to be unsatisfactory. As a result they have not the courage to contend althoughthey very much want to do so.... On the other hand the leadershipquartersof some institutions... have neitherenthusiasm nor regard for the implementationof this line. They refuse to loosen their grip for fear of trouble. .. .8 However these feelings of bewilderment were finally overcome when the Rectification Campaign began. The May forums organised by the United Front Work Department of the Central Committee, to which the leaders of the democratic parties and non-party personages were invited, encouraged the movement of criticism against the Party among the intellectuals, and particularly in colleges, all over the country.
2
3

See Directives on Rectification, People's Daily, May 1, 1957. T'ao Ta-yung, "The Flowers in Bloom are too Few, The Voices of Controversy are at too Low a Pitch," Peking Daily, April 20, 1957.

140

RECTIFICATION

CAMPAIGN

AT

PEKING

UNIVERSITY

In Peking University a tumultuous movement started on Sunday, May 19. As in previous student movements in the history of moder China, Pei-Ta came to the fore. The students of Pei-Ta were looked upon by others as leaders, not only because of their school's revolutionary traditions dating from the days of the May 4 Movement, but also because of their location in the capital of the " Party-monopolised country." 4 There was a stormy outburst of long-suppressed feelings, demands, resentment and frustration. Hundreds of posters were stuck up every day expanding the targets of the movement and attacking the policy of the Party towards the intellectuals. The announced statistics for one single day, May 22, indicated that the number of posters was 264 at 11 a.m. and was increased to 317 by 7 p.m. The rate grew in the following days. The students engaged in a real poster battle. The walls of the dormitories, the canteens and the class-rooms were covered with " ta-tzu-pao " or Big Letter Papers (posters). There were posters written by individuals as well as by groups. Many were boldly signed, but some were anonymous, which showed that there were students who strongly suspected that the invitation to "Bloom and Contend" might be a trap planned by the Communist Party to uncover disaffected elements, and this in spite of Party signs fixed up everywhere encouraging boldness: " Speak all you know and speak it fully; no fault will be attached to the speaker, while the listeners will learn a lesson thereof." Another form of voicing criticism was the open-air meeting. One small plaza on the campus, surrounded by student canteens and dormitories, became the centre of political life: it was called the Democratic "Plaza" (Kuang-ch'ang) and a "Democratic Tribune" was erected there from which every evening speakers argued with the crowd, while at times students stood in tight knots around speakers at other places on the campus, creating an atmosphere which reminded one of Hyde Park in London. One of the persons to speak on the Democratic Tribune was Lin Hsi-ling, a girl-student from the Chinese People's University, an institution for training Party cadres. She denounced the socialism carried out in China as false, because it was undemocratic. She claimed that Mao Tse-tung, in his speech on contradictions, had conceded most of what Hu Feng demanded. She publicly revealed facts which she claimed to know through her connections with important Party cadres, saying, for instance, that, when Mao Tse-tung made his famous speech to the Supreme State Conference, 80 per cent. of the Party members present left the room. This statement attracted an immediate denial from president
4

A formula coined by Ch'u An-p'ing, chief editor of the Kuang-ming Daily, in one of his articles.

141

THE

CHINA

QUARTERLY

Ma Yin-ch'u, who had attended the meeting. In reply to this denial, somebody put up a poster entitled-in English: "Please answer the Following Questions." The questions were: " 1.-Did Mr. Ma sit in the last row? 2.-Did Mr. Ma concentrate all his attention in observing whether or not there were people leaving the room?" The answers followed underneath: " 1.-Mr. Ma was not necessarily sitting in the last row and he did not necessarily frequently turn his head backwards. 2.--Mr. Ma was definitely not able to discern whether those going out were leaving or going to the lavatory." Some meetings actually became accusation meetings but with the roles reversed, with the Party cadres now being denounced for their attitudes and acts. The atmosphere of these open-air meetings was intensely emotional: there were emphatic, over-theatrical gestures, tears and shouts. Groups were also set up, like the " Hundred Flowers Society " organised by T'an T'ien-jung and several other graduating students of the Department of Physics. The " Society" collected money to print a magazine called Kuang-ch'ang (The Plaza), the success of which was limited, possibly as a result of an incident with some Party-organised workers who denied members of the "Society" access to the school printing office. T'an T'ien-jung soon became famous, not only at Pei-Ta but all over the country. He usually wrote one poster a day, calling them " poisonous weeds" in a provocative allusion to the differentiation made by the Party between "fragrant flowers" and " poisonous weeds." His first " poisonous weed " started with a famous quotation from Heraclitus: " In Ephesus all adult men should die and government of the city should be handed over to beardless young men." He labelled the People's Daily " The Great Wall sealing off the truth." T'an called for bold discussions among students to show the world that, in his words, "besides those 'Three-Good students' 5 (or morons, model students,' small nails' or 'sons and daughters of Mao Tse-tung' or whatever you call them, it's just the same) who have annihilated their thinking faculties, there are still among Chinese youth thousands of talented and remarkable persons." He signed his poster: " Puer Robustus sed Malitiosus." The " Hundred Flowers Society" attempted to co-ordinate the efforts and goals of all contenders, not only at Pei-Ta, but also in other universities like Tsinghua and Tientsin. The targets of criticism were many, and there was great variety in the formulations; if many were naive and incoherent, some were remarkable for their boldness, precision of judgment and sharpness of wit. Generally speaking, the targets of criticism of the students were the same as those
5 Allusion to the " San Hao " (Three Good) directive of Mao Tse-tung to the youth: "Good health, good study, good work."

142

RECTIFICATION

CAMPAIGN

AT

PEKING

UNIVERSITY

of the representatives the "democraticparties" at the forums, but of more concentrated problemsof direct concernto students,and were on also, on the whole,more vehementin tone. The criticismsat the forums, coming from older men, were rather carefully worded and always stressedthe necessityof the leadershipof the Communist Party. I shall now outline the variousquestionsraisedby the studentsand the way these were treated. I thinkthese revealto us interesting aspects of the impactof Communist educationon Chineseyouth. Perhapsthe first issue raised by the studentsas soon as the movement startedat Pei-Ta was the " Su-Fan"-the Movementto Liquidate Elementsin 1955. At the May 22 Forum, Lo Counter-Revolutionary of Lung-chi,deputy-chairman the ChinaDemocraticLeague,6proposed the establishment a special United Front organ to inspect excesses of committedduringsuch past movements; was to providea guarantee this that people who dared to " bloom" and "contend" would not be subjected to attack and retaliation. At Pei-Ta, students put up posters as askingfrom the Communist Partya statement to the fate of Hu Feng, of demandinghis releaseand the rehabilitation all innocentpeople who had been wrongedduringthe movement,particularly those studentsand teacherswho had committedsuicide. Some pointedout that Hu Feng's " only crimewas to havewanted" bloomingand contending too early. It was claimed that 90 per cent. of the victims were innocent. The experienceof the "Su-Fan" was still vivid in the minds of the students; to they wantedthe Partyto take concretemeasures preventthe recurrence of such events. Some postersalso demanded explanation the case an of of Kao Kang and Jao Shu-shih. Correlated with these demandswere attacks on the police methods employed to suppress opinion, and demandsfor human and democraticrights. The question of Party rule in educationalinstitutionswas one of the most hotly debated. Studentsand teachersdemandedthat the Party committees be withdrawnfrom educationalinstitutionsor limited in power so that decisions in mattersof curriculum and educationbe the sole concernof teachers. Opposition Partycommittees to univerrunning sities had previouslybeen expressedat the May 10 forumfor democratic partymembersby Lo Lung-chiand Ch'en Ming-shu. They denounced the commonphenomenon eminentscholars,some of worldfame,being of withdrawn from teachingand used solely in purely administrative posts as deans or vice-deans,yet withouthavingthe power usuallyassociated with such positions. Actual power was concentratedin the hands of the Party secretarieswho sometimes did not rank high in scholastic qualifications.Studentsfelt humiliatedand embitteredby the fact that
6

Later accused of having headed an anti-Party plot with Chang Po-chun.

143

THE

CHINA

QUARTERLY

sometimes even key courses were taught by lecturers or assistants who had Ibarely graduated, knew little and sometimes had little teaching ability. These young lecturers and assistants were not always drawn from the most capable of the graduates, but primarily from among those who were "ideologically reliable." The President of Pei-Ta, Ma Yinch'u, reflected these feelings at one of the May forums when he said that at Pei-Ta, young assistant professors no longer enjoyed the confidence of the students because they were considered to be teaching doctrinairism; he said all students wanted to listen to lectures by old professors. The application to China of the Soviet educational system even in its minor details, like the grading system (insufficient, sufficient, good, very good), came under sharp attack. Some students denounced the current use in all departments of translated Soviet textbooks, slanted with "Great Russian chauvinism" and depreciation of Western science and culture. This slant was most conspicuous in the curriculum of the departments of literature and history, where in the teaching of foreign history and literature the lion's share was devoted to Russia. On one of the posters put up in the Department of Chinese Language and Literature, a poster entitled "Against Chauvinism in the Teaching of Foreign Literature," one could read: On being told that many young people liked to read Romain the Rolland'sJean-Christophe, secretaryof the Youth Leagueexclaimed: "Don't poison yourself! Romain Rolland is a French writer, of a capitalist country, therefore his work contains poison!" We ask the school: why do you want to seal off Westernliteraturefrom us? The time devoted to the teachingof Westernliteraturedoes not even amount to half the time devoted to the teaching of Russian literature. Why do such great masters of world literature as Balzac, Byron and Shelley deserve only a two-hour lecture whereaswe had to study Pushkinalone for severalweeks? Other excellent writersof world staturelike Diderot, Hardy, Stendhal, Rolland, Dreiser,Twain, etc. ... do not even deserve to have their names mentioned! Alas, these great writers were unfortunate: they were not born in a Slavic nation! We are tired of simpleminded Soviet books filled with chauvinism,propagandaand boasting. We want equal consideration of the whole world literature and not always have some -ski, -ov, -aia, -na, presented as an idol or super-being. On another poster, put up in the Department of History, and entitled "Oppose Dogmatism in the Teaching of History," one could read: Some dogmatists lack the most elementary decency: even products that have nothing to do with Marxism are imposed on us if they carry the trade mark " U.S.S.R." Some say the Russo-Swedishwar was a just war because it gave Russia an outlet on the Baltic Sea. It was not aggression because this land belonged to Russia in antiquity, besides 144

RECTIFICATION

CAMPAIGN

AT

PEKING

UNIVERSITY

it was necessary for the historical development of Russia. Nelson is presentedas a warmongerand a parasite,whereas Suvorov of Russia is presentedas a hero who liberatedthe peoples of Europefrom Napoleon's tyranny! Let us not forget that the peoples of EuropegreetedNapoleon with bread and salt whereasSuvorov reimposedon them the shacklesof feudalism. The reasons for all peasant wars throughout history are presented to us as the same: land spoliation+ tax burden+ usury, and the main reason of the defeats of the peasant uprisingsalways was the fighting Marxism! Science students ridiculed the contention that all major discoveries like photography, the radio, the airplane, etc., were the work of Russians. Biology students criticised the limitation of learning to the theories of Russian and Soviet biologists considered to be materialist while Western biologists were branded as "idealist." Chinese national feelings were also expressed. For instance, the fact that the bust of Lomonosov presented by Moscow University was standing in the main library aroused resentment and many students strongly demanded its removal and replacement with the bust of some eminent Chinese. One poster asked: Why was the anniversaryof Einstein's death not commemoratedwhen so much noise has been made about the discovery of radio by Popov and so much fuss is constantlymade about Lomonosov whose contribution to world science was minimal? Permission to study more of Western science, to learn from the West was demanded. There was great enthusiasm for reading Western literature, for enjoying artistic works that were not necessarily "filled with ideological content." Weariness and mockery was expressed at the extreme politicisation of the teaching to a degree sometimes infantile; many students felt Marxism-Leninism dry and boring. As Mao Tse-tung said in his speech on contradictions: " It seems as if the Marxism that once was all the rage is not so much in fashion now." There were posters demanding cancellation of political lessons, especially the "Short Course of the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union " which was known from the speeches of Mikoyan and Khrushchev at the Twentieth Congress of the CPSU, to be filled with distortions of the historical truth. Others only wanted these lessons, purged of their dogmatic content, or else to have attendance at them made voluntary. It must be said here that the majority of the students participating in the campaign were not necessarily anti-Marxist. Actually most of them expressed attachment to Marxism, accusing only the Party of having deviated by becoming scholastic and dogmatic. Even T'an T'ien-jung, who was later condemned as the chief rightist of Pei-Ta, did not altogether repudiate Marxism. He accused the Chinese Communists of having no true 145
lack of a progressive class and party to lead them, etc .... Long live

THE

CHINA

QUARTERLY

understanding of dialectics and supported the opinion expressed by Professor Lei Hai-tsung that Marxism had failed to produce any new understanding of human history or new theories of the social sciences after Engels' death in 1895. T'an voiced disappointment at the fact that " Marxism has transformed itself into its own negation, into revisionism and dogmatism." He called for a "negation of this negation" and accused the article "Once more on the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" of being filled with "idealism." Coming to the evil of sectarianism, the students attacked the way of life and the haughty attitude of many Party cadres towards the masses of the people and the intellectuals in particular. They denounced the excessive privileges enjoyed by the cadres which turned them into what Djilas termed " the New Class." Numerous posters appeared describing examples of personal immorality of some cadres who led a dissolute and luxurious life, drove their families on holidays in governmentcars, coupled theirabuse of privilegeswith high-handednessand authoritarianismtowards the people; in a word, they were accused of believing that, as Stalin put it, Communists were made of "special stuff." Many of them were ridiculed on posters and wall-serials, like one entitled Ju-lin Nei-shih, a satire of Pei-Ta society modelled on Wu Ching-tzu's novel Ju-lin Waishih. It was asserted that there were nowadays in China three states: the Party, the Youth League members and the masses, each of them divided in turn into several degrees; Party cadres were labelled mandarins. In the universities, inequality of treatment was reflected in the allocation of job assignments to graduating students. Innumerable complaints were voiced at Pei-Ta that Party and Youth League members were assigned to choice places in Peking or Shanghai and other major urban centres, whereas others were appointed to remote areas or generally to low-paid posts. Many students attacked the stratification of the people along lines of Party and Youth League membership and the use of " activism" and " political maturity " as criteria for rewards and appointments. Perhaps the most bitter denunciation of the " New Class" came from student Ch'ien Ju-p'ing, who wrote a poster " On the Development of Classes ": I come from a poor peasant family and experienced all the bitterness of class oppression.. . . From the time that I went to elementaryschool I daily dreamedthat " there will be a day " when I will enjoy democracy and freedom; " there will be a day...." Then the experienceof the past seven years has proved that it is not so beautiful;a new class oppression is just building up. . . . Following the destructionof the old classes, a new class has emerged, which is naturally differentfrom the old ones, but has neverthelesscharacteristics its own. ... As for the means of of production, the main Party, Government and Army people who hold power and representa very small percentageof the people, own them in 146

RECTIFICATION

CAMPAIGN

AT

PEKING

UNIVERSITY

greaterthan at any time before in history. Even the cruel Kuomintang when they arrestedpeople, did it with at least some factual ground . . . We can see that at present there are no human rights whatsoever,life when Chu Yiian-chang conquered the empire, he also strove for the people's support and allied himself with the people. Having brilliantly succeeded,he immediatelykicked the people away... Besides denouncing the disdainful attitude of Party cadres towards the students and the intelligentsia in general, some described how the bestowal of Party membership altered the character of the beneficiary, broke friendships and transformed simple and friendly people into cold and distant officials. Thus lecturer Huang Chi-chung, of the Department of Western Languages, wrote in an article entitled " Boldly Offering my Opinion to the Party and Party Members": Shortly after the liberation the Party and Party members enjoyed the the Party and the masses have worsened, a high wall has emerged betweenthe Party and the masses. When the masses see a Party member they have the feeling that they ought to "respect them but keep away from them ".... In recent years, from being the most sincere people, Party membershave graduallybecome the most false people.... In our most of the Party membersare comradeswho graduatedtwo department or three years ago and are very young. When they were students they were lively and lovable and naturallyfriendly. On graduatingthey were were buried.... In the Party committee of our school, many very young male and female comrades impressedme as little monks and nuns. Party organisations had exclusive control over the appointment of staff members and graduating students, on the ibasis of opinion provided by Party members. Knowing the ignorance and the lack of understanding of many Party cadres, their eternal suspiciousness and their habit of relying on confidential reports, one can well imagine the resentment and the indignation of people affected by this system. Many complained that disagreements with Party members had led to political trouble for them, to the accusation of being " politically backward." Some students demanded that the secret files be opened and handed to the people they concerned or burned, as happened in Poland in October 1956. The selection of students sent abroad, mainly to the Soviet Union, was another aspect of "sectarianism" in the Party "style of work," most violently attacked by the students of Pei-Ta. This selection was made in a manner similar to that of the appointment of graduating students to jobs. China sent an average of 2,000 students yearly to the 147
assigned to the department . . . their youthful enthusiasm and energy highest confidence of the masses. But . . . nowadays relations between and security are constantly threatened .... We know from history, that

forming a new social group....

common and embellish this situation by calling it " common ownership by the people." The mandarinsback one another and are consciously
Their distrust of the common people is

THE

CHINA

QUARTERLY

SovietUnion and a hundredor so to the East Europeancountries. The basic criterion of selection was their ideological reliabilityand their social origin. These were determined the basis of the opinionsheld on the Partycommittee. Academicabilityand generalintelligence were by of secondaryimportance. One poster presentedtwo applicationsfilled by studentswishing to study abroad. One of them was the son of a bankruptmerchantwho had become a factoryworker;his grandfather was an impoverished landlord. This candidate's past record was void, fact he for the insignificant thatat the age of thirteen foundhimself except whichhe later learnedwas an antiby accidentin a crowd in Shanghai, had Communist gathering. His markswereexcellentand his class-mates the highest regardfor him, consideredhim to be selfless, active and alwayseager to help. Yet the final decisionof the Partycommitteewas that, ,beingby birth a memberof the exploitingclasses and having a dubious political past, he was unfit to be sent abroad. The second candidatewas the son of a cadre who was originallya poor peasant; his his of currently fatherwas secretary some Partyorganisation; mother was directorof some institution. His past was perfectly void. His classmates had the worst possible opinion about him: that he was haughty, and domineering selfish. In addition,his markswereall bad. However, the opinion of the Party organisationwas that his social origin was good, his ideology good and that, being reliable,he could be sent to the SovietUnion for study. Sometimesanti-Sovietfeelings came to be expressedin connection with the criticismof the Party " style of work." Some, followingLung " Ytin, questionedthe " friendliness of the Soviet Union towardsChina. There were complaintsagainst" blind adorationof the Soviet Union," the excessivelyhigh salariespaid to Sovietexpertsin Chinaas compared to those paid to Chineseexpertsand scholarsor Westernscholarsestablished in China and teaching in Chinese universities. The constant hailing of the "Soviet Big Brother" and the "ProgressiveExperience of the SovietUnion" was ridiculed. Some even tracedthe originof the "Three Evils" in China to the applicationof the Soviet experience. from theirown problems, studentscame to take up problems Starting of national importance,such as the duality of Party and government, the one holdingpower while the other maintainedonly an appearance of authority;the relationsbetween the Party and the masses; the attitude of the SovietUnion towardsChina;and naturally also the economic situation. One questionbroughtup was whetheror not the standards of livinghad reallybeen raised,how much the Communist Partyhad in fact improved the life of the Chinese masses, especially that of the
148

RECTIFICATION

CAMPAIGN

AT

PEKING

UNIVERSITY

peasants. The student Ch'ien Ju-p'ing already quoted, being himself from a poor peasant family, had this to say on the subject: All you can say is: but haven'tthe living standardsof the people been raised? . . . In fact how much have they been raised? When society is in development,the productiveforces increase constantly and the living standardsalso have a general tendency to be raised: this can be seen from history. ... In fact the incomes of the workers and peasants in our country in recent years have not been raised much. They just get enough to eat and avoid starvation. The well-known statement of Professor Ko P'ei-ch'i of People's University was even more extreme: he flatly denied that any improvement whatsoever had been made in the living standards of the masses, that it was only the Party cadres who had had their living standards improved. Posters multiplied beyond any possibility of counting, and it seemed as if the Party had every critical poster surrounded by many others stating the Party viewpoint and attacking the criticisers. Those posters which raised controversial issues usually attracted gatherings of students who reacted to their content by scribbling on these very posters brief remarks. There were various sorts of posters: poems, serials, polemics, cartoons. Some were signed with the names of their authors, some with student identification card numbers, some with pseudonyms; some were anonymous. More than a week after the beginning of the movement, irritation was growing at the fact that the People's Daily remained silent about what was going on in Pei-Ta. Only the Kuang-ming Daily and the Wen-hui Pao, which had asserted some independence at the time as organs of the democratic parties and the intellectuals, gave favourable accounts of the movement in their reports of May 26 and May 27. In a speech to the Third National Conference of the Communist Youth League, on May 25, Mao Tse-tung said: " Any speech or action which deviates from socialism is entirely wrong." This statement was immediately painted in big white characters on the Democratic Plaza. However, the movement went on unabated. It was in these late May days that, following repeated demands, Khrushchev's secret speech on Stalin at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was translated from the abridged version published by the New York Daily Worker. The translation was the work of four students of the Department of Physics. For a day or so, crowds gathered around the board where the secret speech had been posted and took notes. This poster was soon removed by the Party committee and other posters replaced it, attacking the four students as "unconscious agents of Allen Dulles" and quoting a remark made 149

THE

CHINA

QUARTERLY

by Khrushchev to a Western press correspondent in which he denied ever having made such a speech. The four incriminated students protested indignantly, claiming that they had acted in good faith, that they were sincere young Communists. Nevertheless, when the anti-rightist drive came they were branded as counter-revolutionaries. It might seem strange that students in physics and mathematics were the most prominent and formed the core of the leadership of the movement rather than students in the humanities. One of the reasons might be that students in the pure sciences had generally a better knowledge of the English language which they were encouraged to acquire in order to study foreign scientific works. Their relative awareness of developments in the outside world was surprising in a country where all media of information are entirely under government control. Also Pei-Ta had a large number of foreign students, some of whom (not necessarily antiCommunist) held heterodox views unfamiliar to the Chinese students. As a rule, foreign students had a better knowledge of developments in the rest of the world, especially the students from nonCommunist countries and those from Yugoslavia and Poland. It is no wonder that at the time of the anti-rightist drive, one of the explanations rumoured for the great numbers of "rightists" unmasked among the students of Pei-Ta (800 or 10 per cent. of the student body), was the presence of a large number of foreign students. To describe the attitude of the average student during this " May 19 movement," whether he approved or disapproved of what the contenders said, or whether he was simply disoriented and confused, is difficult to do. The question is, how many undiscovered rightists were there? In a Chinese student movement, just as in any other movement, there is obviously a leading minority and a mass of followers whose feelings are aroused by the leaders. In Pei-Ta, at the time of the Rectification campaign, there were students openly expressing their dissatisfaction and also some taking the Party stand (probably mainly Party and Youth League members and other activists). However, we can assume that the majority of the students stood somewhere in between, displaying a whole range of feelings from utter confusion and hesitation to semi-approval and unexpressed sympathy, an attitude which might be termed "wait and see." This is indicated by the fact that during the autumn and the winter, many months after the " Blooming and Contending" in May, scores of hitherto "hidden rightists" were " unmasked," while others were criticised for having been indifferent instead of supporting the Party when it was under fire. The time during which the flowers bloomed and the schools contended was very short; it lasted barely one month. The turning point was June 150

RECTIFICATION

CAMPAIGN

AT

PEKING

UNIVERSITY

8, when the People's Daily in its editorial " What is this for? " commented on an alleged anonymous letter of intimidation received by Lu Yu-wen, one of the leaders of the Revolutionary Committee of the KMT, after he had made a speech in which he attempted to justify all the policies of the Communist Party. The June 14 editorial of the Chinese Youth Newspaper provided an interesting description of the attitude of the students during the period of blooming and contending: ... In the ideological storm, not all members of the CommunistYouth League and other youths can stand firm; some are sitting on the fence and wavering. Some have compromised [with the enemy] and some have even allowed themselvesto be taken captive by the rightists. Some of our young comrades are not yet good enough at distinguishingtwo kinds of entirely different criticism. . . . Beware of political catarrh! In dealing with reactionary views, we must learn how to refute them skilfully with fact.... Do not be deceivedby them! ... Thus in the second week of June the Party line changed: attention was shifted from the " three evils" in the " style of work " of the cadres to the activities of the " rightists." Officially the Rectification campaign was still continuing and had entered its second stage, described as the " movement against the rightists " which in fact superseded the rectification of the "three evils." The slogans of class struggle, antagonistic ideological struggle directed against" enemies of the Party and socialism " displaced those of "mild breeze," "cool rain," "peaceful solution of contradictions among the people." The " May 19 Movement" at Pei-Ta consequently died down. The number of ta-tzu-pao pasted on the walls diminished and the majority of them now attacked T'an T'ien-jung, Lung Yin-hua and other " rightists" and expressed praise of and allegiance to the Party. For a few days "rightist" posters still appeared, but these were isolated cases and mostly anonymous. The nature of their content had changed. Disappointment and bitterness were couched in sharp terms, as in this poster signed " A Group of First Year Students in the Department of History": Intelligent friends! Everybody has been cheated! The goal of the Rectification Campaign of the Communist Party was not the removal of the three evils, the solution of the contradictionsamong the people or the improvementof the style of work, but the acquisition of even greater power, to be able better to rule over the "stupid" Chinese people. Isn't that clear? Even after the Emperor [Huang-Shang]has ordered the Party to mend its ways, the mandarinsof all degrees are neverthelessstill in place, everythingremains just as before. Lately, the Emperor has discoveredsome " right-wingelements" and he now uses them to frighten the " stupid" Chinese people! From the samples of opinions expressed by the students of Pei-Ta it can be seen that, although their criticisms were sometimes bolder than 151

THE

CHINA

QUARTERLY

those of their elders, on the whole they tackled concrete issues concerning their own life. The essence of their demands was a more liberal cultural and educational policy. Almost none had advocated the overthrow of the Communist Party and a change of regime. The criticisms of the students of Pei-Ta were for the most part expressed in good faith, they were frequently naive, animated by a desire to make Party rule over the universities and national life generally more tolerable; the reforms they demanded were of the nature of those that had already been carried out in Poland and Yugoslavia. Demands were expressed spontaneously, individually; even organised groups like the " Hundred Flowers Society" did not have a clear-cut common programme. This group advocated the preservation of socialist ownership of means of production but changes in other aspects of national life-the sacking of bad cadres and following the Yugoslav path. But while T'an T'ien-jung suggested that these reforms be carried out from the bottom up by means of a mass mobilisation of the youth, his colleague Lung Yin-hua believed that the leaders of the Party could be persuaded to take the initiative in carrying out reforms. The activities of the students of Pei-Ta and other schools, even linked as they were with the intellectual movement in general, could not possibly have achieved their goals, and not just because they were demanding much more than the Party was willing to grant them. Although organised groups like the " Hundred Flowers Society " existed, the whole movement had no organisational frame, no clearly agreed political programme. Although T'an T'ien-jung did establish some contacts and correspondence with students in other schools, every centre of student agitation was isolated from the other and the isolation was increased by the silence of the Party-controlled press. Moreover the time of "blooming and contending" was so short that many students were not yet aroused from their passiveness. One might wonder why the reaction of the Party was so sharp, why the Party decided to break the pledge that no one would be punished for having criticised? This move was essentially a defensive one, for if this trend of opinion among the intellectuals had not been checked before the rectification of the " three evils" was carried to the broad masses of the peasants, workers and townspeople, in time the widespread distribution of these ideas outside the schools might have provoked far-reaching consequences.7 Kuo Mo-jo had this to say about the broken pledge: This slogan applies only to the innocent speakersand not to the guilty ones. If a man is not charged with guilt, even when he says something
7

This fear was expressed by Lu Ting-yi in his speech, "The Basic Differences Between the Bourgeois Rightists and Us," delivered to the Fourth Session of the First National People's Congress on July 11.

152

RECTIFICATION

CAMPAIGN

AT

PEKING

UNIVERSITY

which underminesthe foundation of the state, one might as well scrap growing food crops. Even common weeds should be eradicatedtherefrom, not to mention the poisonous ones.8 Some of the " rightists" I had the opportunity to talk to were bitter and considered that they had been cheated. The anti-" rightist" movement lasted all through the summer and the autumn and at Pei-Ta did not end till January 1958 with the punishment of the " rightists." Some of them were sent away for " reform through labour "; the majority, however, were allowed to remain at school under supervision. During the summer of 1957 the students did not go home as usual during holidays, but instead took part in endless rounds of " struggle meetings" designed to get the " rightists" to confess their " crimes." In my opinion the evidence does not suggest that by calling the flowers to bloom, the Party intended to set a trap for critics. Rather the Party leaders discovered that opposition was wider than they had anticipated and that therefore to allow the criticism to continue was hazardous. Careful reading of the editorials of the main newspapers during the summer of 1957 reveals that what really shook the Party was a feeling that it faced the loss of its control over the youth. Young people brought up since childhood under Communist rule had become the loudest in denouncing the Party which had vested its hopes in them. The Party could devise only one means to remedy this failure: more indoctrination. The burden of meetings and labour was increased again and an eighthours-a-week course of " Socialistic Ideological Education " was added to the curriculum in the autumn.
the law and discipline of the state altogether .... Our land is used for

8 Interviewwith Kuo Mo-jo, Kuang-ming Daily, June 28, 1957.

153