|
||||
  
 
 |
Understanding China: Evenings with Jim By
Leon D'Souza
Western scholars have been relentless in their criticism of Chinese socialism. Many pioneers of the Chinese state have been branded as evil men with vested interests. Almost every publication on the state of political affairs in modern China takes aim at the Chinese Communist Party. This institution, it would seem, is the source of all political evil -- a dinosaur that crushes young reformers committed to free expression. The CCP is, in fact, representative of one of the greatest ironies of modern China. Despite the transformation of the Chinese state into an economic powerhouse, and the immense Westernization that has accompanied this development, modern China is governed by an administration that remains politically Leninist. The Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989 was a harsh reminder of the administration's commitment to the practice of proletarian dictatorship. Western criticism of the CCP is therefore not entirely unfounded. However, there are problems with most Western accounts of China's past and present. The West, particularly the United States, has traditionally been staunchly opposed to Bolshevik-style communism. The U.S. sided with Chiang Kai Shek and the Kuomintang during the Chinese civil war in an attempt to quash the Red revolution. Since the Communist takeover in 1949, America has granted political asylum to several dissident Chinese leaders championing the cause of democracy for mainland China. Western authors have sought to justify the Western political stance by presenting astonishingly detailed accounts of social and political oppression in Communist China. They have interviewed intellectuals with democratic leanings and other disgruntled Chinese to document evidence for their anti-communist theses. However, the average Chinese in the middle of the political spectrum has, for the most part, been neglected. His views have fallen on deaf years. It appears as if many have considered his opinions to be uninformed and therefore, irrelevant. Driven by scathing criticism of the Communist Party in the Western press, the free world has stormed heaven for the collapse of communism. But is this what the average citizen of China wants? How does he look upon his country's past? and what is his take on China's future? Talking Politics with Jim Chen Jianwu or "Jim"as we call him, is a computer software engineer at the Kunming Guanghua School. A native of Guangdong Province in southern China, Jim grew up in the city of Guangzhou, also known as Canton, one of the most prosperous cities in China. Guangdong is regarded as a rather rebellious province. A latecomer to the Chinese empire, Guangdong was the site of many rival national governments. Jim's people, the Cantonese, are an industrious lot. They have given the world its bustling Chinatowns, and transformed Guangdong into what some economists refer to as Greater Hong Kong. Unlike most Cantonese who delight in discussing economics and economics alone, Jim is politically savvy and speaks eloquently about his country's past, and what he thinks will be its future. Jim is not part of the social or intellectual elite. He is a member of the educated, lower-middle class of Chinese society. This is why I enjoy talking politics with Jim. He helps me see China through the eyes of the average Chinese. Last week, Jim and I discussed China's past -- the Communist revolution, Mao tse-Tung, Deng Xiaoping and Tiananmen Square -- every other evening over spicy noodles and hot China tea. As always, Jim made some interesting comments. Excerpts: China's Past Our discussion began with a critical remark on the veracity of Chinese history books. "I don't think Chinese history books are correct," Jim said. Why? "My senior and high school teachers told me that the books were unquestionable, but in university, our professor told us that we had grown up and were entitled to our own opinions. This is mine. I believe that all history books serve a political purpose. In China, they serve the CCP." How so? " Well, in China, history books do not reveal the real reason for the Long March, which in my opinion, was to flee the Kuomintang. They only inform us that Mao marched north to repel the Japanese. The KMT is made out to be this incompetent party that was incapable of defeating the Japanese, when in actuality, it was a Communist-KMT coalition that fought and defeated [them], not just the CCP. The Communists did not have the equipment and weaponry to fight the Japanese on their own. The KMT had American backing, and this was the main force behind the victory over the Japanese." You seem to be pro-KMT. Do you then believe that the revolution was a bad idea? " No. The Communists had good intentions. They wanted a lot for China. At the time, they were good men. But history books must be fair to both sides. The people must know the true story of this nation's birth." What about Mao tse-Tung? How do you think of him as a leader? "Mao was a great leader. Without his vision, the revolution would not have been possible. The idea of a 'People's Republic' was good. But after the revolution, we didn't really have a 'People's Republic.' This is when we saw Mao's second face. Mao was a good man before 1949. Once he tasted power, however, he became corrupt. History books are semi-critical of Mao. According to the books, he was right 70 percent of the time, and wrong 30 percent of the time. In my view, before the revolution, he was right 100 percent of the time. After 1949, he was a man of sin. He abused the people's loyalty to him and carried into execution regressive policies, particularly during the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution. His policies dragged China into a pit. He ruined the nation. History books don't tell the story quite like this. They don't dare tell the true story, for it was a nightmare." And Deng Xiaoping? Was he a good leader? "Deng was a good man. He is the savior of China. History books don't give him enough credit. There is too much emphasis on Mao. People get to know Deng only after 1976, but he was always a key member of the inner circle of the CCP. Deng didn't really see eye to eye with Mao on policy, but Mao was tight-fisted and dominated the political scene until his death. Deng was sidelined on many occasions. Mao used Deng. He could never have carried out his policies without Deng or Zhou Enlai. However, Mao couldn't take correction. Deng was a reformer and an intellectual. Mao used his authority as Party chairman to push him aside so that he could hold on to the reins of power." What about Tiananmen Square? Isn't that event often considered one of Deng's mistakes? "Deng 's policies created a new China, a prosperous China. However, economic prosperity also gives rise to corruption, because some people become greedy. In the 1980s, corruption was rampant in the upper echelons of the CCP. The people, particularly the student community, were upset and sought political reform. My take on the whole movement is that the CCP had too much power. The movement forced the Party to cleanse itself internally and change its ways. It helped tackle corruption. But not all of it was good. Some people were guided by vested interests, which is why the movement ran into trouble. Some leaders of that rebellion were manipulated by a few evil men. The western press has been much too critical of Deng Xiaoping for his decision to call in the People's Liberation Army. In all fairness, there was nothing else he could do. How else could he have restored order in the country? The people were going crazy, and the mobs were becoming increasingly difficult to control. Anyone in his position would have done what he did. The loss of life was tragic, but it couldn't be helped." Next Week's Agenda Democracy, Human Rights, the Falun Gong, and Taiwan. These are, by far, the most sensitive issues in China today, and no discussion of these subjects is without fear of conflict with the CCP. Jim has agreed to discuss these issues with me, but I must allow him to read my entire article before publication. Jim suggested that we wait till next week to talk about each of these hot potatoes. He needs time to word his opinions. Jim believes in fairness. So he must research his facts before we talk. I can hardly wait. Evenings with Jim are more intellectually enriching, and more informative, than all the books I have read about China put together. Jim speaks about China with a glittering eye. He analyses the past with the perspective that distance from unpleasant events contributes -- with objectivity. And he looks to the future with a sense of hope. Jim represents the average Chinese. Understanding Jim's China, I hope, will bring us a step closer to truly understanding Red China.
|
Archived Months:
January
1999 January
2000 January
2001 |
||