Wei Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A217-W108
魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号：A217-W108
Release Date: July 1, 2006
发布日：2006年7月1日
Topic: On the Origins and Reasons for the Chinese Cultural Revolution -- WEI Jingsheng
标题：论文革起因 -- 魏京生
Original Language Version: Chinese (Chinese version at the end)
此号以中文为准（英文在前，中文在后）
Note: Please use "Simplified Chinese (GB2312)" encoding to view the Chinese parts of this release. If this mail does not display properly in your email program, please send your request for special delivery to us or visit:
http://www.weijingsheng.org/report/report2006/report2006-07/WeiJS060701CulturalRevA217-W108.htm which contains identical information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On the Origins and Reasons for the Chinese Cultural Revolution
-- WEI Jingsheng
How many are there still remember the Cultural Revolution? Those now over 50 still have memories, as they went through that great disaster. Those now under 40 perhaps have heard about it from others. They probably did not hear that much from their elders, mainly getting their information in piecemeal form from newspapers, magazines, books, movies, and television. Since the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has, over the last 40 years, prohibited people from researching or criticizing it, young and middle-aged people's impressions of the Cultural Revolution are quite fragmented, and even less are they able to learn from the historical lessons. We are currently at the 40th anniversary of the outbreak of the Cultural Revolution. I would like to discuss my view of the Cultural Revolution with everyone, for the generations to come.
The Cultural Revolution was not just started overnight. It occurred gradually, ending in a sudden explosion. It's called the Great Cultural Revolution, which shows that those who wanted to launch it wished to revolt against Chinese traditional culture. It wasn't simply a movement to seize power or revolt of the oppressed masses. The reasons for the start of the Great Cultural Revolution are not at all simple. Only with many elements mixed within could such an intense, huge disaster come about. It changed both society and the thinking of the majority of the Chinese people. You could say that it was a revolution that struck the souls of the people. However, it didn't end up as Mao Zedong and his gang hoped, that it would increase people's belief in the Communist Party's stuff. On the contrary, people believed even less in the Communist Party's stuff. This disbelief in the CCP became the cause for the rise of the democracy movement late on.
Then, from where did the Cultural Revolution arise? If we search back through history, it probably arose from the failure of the movement to learn from the West that happened at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of last century. The mainstream thinking of that movement of several decades was similar to how the CCP of nowadays talked about: you don't need to change the old system and culture; as long as we learn from the West and its advanced technology, all of our problems can be solved. Yet there would inevitably be serious conflicts between the imported technologies, management methods, and new social statuses that were newly emerged against the old, corrupt bureaucratic system and social environment of the late Qing Dynasty. More importantly, it was hard for the obsolete ways of thinking and the old bureaucratic structure to adapt to the new economic structure, and vice versa, nor was it easy for the old structures to adapt to the rapidly evolving world order. Putting these two conflicting systems together was like taking a sledgehammer to a broken-down house. The Qing Dynasty quickly collapsed, as did many other decaying monarchies.
After the collapse of the Qing Dynasty, the Chinese people felt extremely pained. They believed that it was not enough to merely study others' technologies; they had to study even more of others things. They had to study culture, thought, art, and so on, as well as advanced social system. By the end of the Qing Dynasty, there was already a small portion of people with this mindset who tried out some things: this is the well-known Hundred Days Reform. After the Hundred Days Reform failed, those youths who advocated for constitutional reform followed Sun Yat-Sen towards radical revolution. They established the first Republic in Asia. But this republic was a failure right from the start: it was not able to realize the ideals of a democratic republic. It seemed little different from a change in dynasties, and was far from Western social systems.
People's disappointment in the Beiyang government, which usurped power in China, and their hopes towards the advanced countries that were overtaking the world led to two major social trends of thoughts. The common belief between these two trends was that China should fully Westernized itself and thoroughly change the course of Chinese culture to the point that it was no different from the West. This trend of thought reached its climax during the Cultural Revolution period; its method of expression was destroying the Four Olds (old ideology, old culture, old custom, old habits). Its purpose was to eliminate all traditional Chinese culture and to replace it with a new, modern Western culture. They also wished to replace Chinese culture with so claimed most advanced Marxist-Leninist culture, but what they ended up creating was a cultural desert.
The difference between the two trends of thought was that the majority of people advocated studying a democratic system under a market economy, which was not such a pleasant thing to hear about at the time. This was because the Chinese traditional market economy had an easier time accepting this more gentle democratic system. But another portion of radical intellectuals and youths leaned towards having a Communist system, which sounded like a more perfect system. They wanted to make quick changes in one night and to study an idealist, perfect society that even Westerners had yet to try out.
Looking at things from the perspective of people of the time not understanding the evils that would come out of Communism, these radical ideals are fully understandable. When they attempted to establish this perfect ideal - but one that people had too much difficulty accepting on a practical level - they met fierce resistance from the deeply rooted market economy society, led mainly by small farmers. Although they were supported by the Soviet Union, they were still under tremendous difficulties, and were unable to gain the acceptance of the majority of the Chinese people. This group of theorists refused to say that their ideals were incorrect, and instead pushed responsibility onto the decadent side of traditional Chinese culture. They blamed China's feudal culture for the fact that Communism faced even more resistance in China than in the Soviet Union. Without thoroughly destroying the feudal and capitalist cultures in China and those brought in from foreign lands, socialism had no future in China. This type of thinking was the foundation of thought that led to the CCP's launch of the Great Cultural Revolution.
The radical Communist trend of thought with Chinese characteristics that emerged in the May 4th movement [1] believed that if Chinese traditional culture was not thoroughly changed or eradicated, there would be no way to put the most advanced Western social structures into place. From the perspective of their theories, such culture was China's "feudal" culture and Western capitalist culture. Thus, the Great Cultural Revolution was not something that Mao Zedong launched on a moment's whim; rather, it was a long-term ideal of the Communist Party. Moreover, that important document, the "May 16 Notice" [2], that helped to launch the Great Cultural Revolution in May 40 years ago, was passed unanimously by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. Not even the Communist leaders who were later overthrown or killed by the movement opposed launching it. This is because they had identified with this train of thoughts for decades.
Although no one opposed the movement, all the propositions were initiated by Mao Zedong and his clique. Why was it Mao Zedong and not others who initiated the proposals? This has to do with the shift of inner-Party power and the failure of Communist policies. In other words, it was the result of inner-Party struggles. A political struggle between these who persisted in erroneous policies and these who favored revisionism is really under the guise of a Cultural Revolution? Thus, many complicated elements have been mixed into this period of history.
Everyone knows that the Great Famine around 1960, where tens of millions died, was anything but a natural disaster. Instead, it was a man-made calamity produced during the Mao Zedong-led Communist drive to implement social collectivization reforms. Precisely during this time when China lacked foodstuffs, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), in order to manufacture nuclear weapons and develop military industry, sold food to the Soviet Union in exchange for military machinery facilities. It created disasters in the people's communes and lengthened the duration of the famine. So one year of man-made disasters produced a three-year famine, with the highest number of deaths happening in the first two years after the Great Leap Forward period. That famine even created negative population growth for that period.
Even though society at that time was full of trust in the beautiful ideals of the Communists, the famine and the massive deaths of so many peasants that it caused dealt a heavy blow to this trust. Who should bear responsibility for this? The CCP had to find a scapegoat in order to keep duping the Chinese people. They could temporarily use a lie to stall off the distrust and criticisms filling the minds of the common people. But the doubts and criticisms brewing among intellectuals and cadres could not be shut up simply by suppressing Peng Dehuai [3]. Peng Dehuai's long plea at the Lushan Conference [4] represented the societal elite's denunciation of the erroneous policies of the so-called "Great Leap Forward," as well as the complaints and denunciations of the greater population of workers and peasants. Mao Zedong could dismiss Peng Dehuai and his associates and put them under house arrest, but he would still have no way to shirk his responsibility for the disasters. He had no choice but to, facing that last bit of inner-Party democracy, criticize himself and lessen his power within the Party. This created another faction led by Chinese President Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping, also known as the "pragmatic" faction, which seized the opportunity to take power. They took over most of the power that Mao Zedong previously held sole control of. It was merely that Mao Zedong was a god that they jointly created, as creating a new god in order to dupe the common people would not be that easy. Thus, while in the process of creating a new living immortal, the entire party had no choice but to deal with Mao Zedong staying on as Communism's living immortal for the time being.
But Mao Zedong was the type that didn't like to lose. While Liu, Deng, and others were busy with administrative affairs and taking the opportunity to recruit executive branch cadres to joining them, Mao Zedong began to embark on a plan to rebuild his shining image. His old friend Lin Biao, who controlled the military system, began a new ethics movement starting with "studying from Lei Feng [5]" in order to create a living immortal. And Mao's wife, Jiang Qing, began to gather a group of intellectuals together; they began to assert their influence on educational and cultural circles, beginning a movement of cleaning up the fields of arts and cultures that complemented the ethics movement. They started mainly through creating "model Cultural Revolution plays," then gradually developed into criticizing arts with "feudal" or "capitalist" content or by attacking people who had already become hostile to the CCP with the label of "revisionist weeds." Step by step, they launched a spiritual and cultural revolution.
Since the ideological foundation for this revolution had been the joint ideological foundation of the Communists for decades, there was no one in the CCP's leadership opposed; quite the contrary, the revolution gained the energetic support and assistance from the entire Party. The new ethics movement and cultural revolution could even be said to be the joint goal of the Chinese intellectual elite after the May 4th movement; thus, the movements were supported by nearly the entire society, or at least tolerated. The move from the Lei Feng movement of 1960 to criticizing the "poisonous weeds" of feudalism, capitalism, and revisionism of 1965 only took five years. Mao Zedong and his group took the new culture movement of May Fourth and developed it into a new Communist ideology with Chinese characteristics. Under the cooperation of the one-sided Communist cultural autocracy, Mao monopolized the minds of the 800 million Chinese people and established the absolute individual authority of Mao, the immortal. This image swept the entire world around the time of the Great Cultural Revolution. Not only did it bring about a soul-stirring disaster for the Chinese people, it also brought about the climax of worldwide violent, "new idealism" activities. The climax of this violent revolution has continued until today, giving reign to its destructive power under the name of terrorism. It has affected the way all of humankind exists and has poisoned the minds of the whole human race.
The idea of fully realizing Marxist ideology from the West is rooted from the concept of "complete Westernization" of the May 4th Movement, along with the slogan of "thoroughly smashing traditional Chinese culture". The Great Cultural Revolution had two direct goals.
One of its public goals was to overturn the ideologies of feudalism, capitalism, and revisionism, and to replace old culture with Communist morals and Communist culture, thus lessening obstacles to the establishment of a purer Communist system. Another purpose was to use this movement to overturn what they called the "capitalist class headquarters," which was adapted to the ideologies of feudalism, capitalism, and revisionism.
Thus, during the new morals and cultural criticism movements of the early 1960s, the Marxist-Leninist theory of class struggle became the main argument in theoretical propaganda regarding preparations for launching the Great Cultural Revolution. This is because only by using the theory of class struggle could they be the most effective in inciting people and having them harm and kill others. Only this way could Mao Zedong achieve all of his goals - they were not the goals of the new morals movement and of Communist culture the other Party comrades shared.
In the five years between 1960 and 1965, the Communist Party's writers created many lifelike literary and artistic figures, allowing the new morals and new culture movement, under the slogan of class struggle, to be pushed into the thoughts and consciousness of all the nation's people, thus preparing them mentally and theoretically for the madness of the Great Cultural Revolution. By early 1966, when the movement of exposing and criticizing feudalism, capitalism, and revisionism had reached its climax, the theory of class struggle had already become a social mainstream ideology that deeply penetrated the brains of the people and that had become embedded in their lives. There are two sides to its extreme manifesting forms.
One side is the once-fashionable bloodline theory, known by the saying, "If the elder is a hero, the son will be a brave man, but if the elder is a reactionary, the son will be a scoundrel." Having receded from extreme slogans into becoming fixed thought patterns of the masses, this theory became national law and policy, the policy of discriminating against people based on their social status of the last ten-plus years and based on their social status history. It was similar to the racial discrimination in the West, having passed into China's Western culture through Marxism. Although they began doing away with these discriminatory laws and policies during the 80s, to this day many people deal with others and their affairs using these thought patterns. Some have even planned to present a revised bloodline theory to the public in order to start a new round of class struggles and to revive the old Maoist dream of unifying the whole country. I am advising all of you to stay on guard against this.
Another side is that Mao Zedong seized onto the theory of class struggle when it was being practiced to the extreme and made it into a political struggle by guiding people to "ferret out hidden class enemies inside the Communist Party." Without much effort, he was able to eliminate his political opponents, unify ideologies and his ranks, and accelerate his implementing of the goals of Communist ideals.
This ferreting movement had a process of development as well. From the class struggle movement of 1960, they took all of the landlords of the past (with Liu Wencai [6] as a typical example), the tens of millions of landlords who had already lost their property and social status, as well as wealthy peasants, the urban capitalist class, and right-leaning intellectuals, and made them into criminals and political rebels (that is, they were deemed "bad elements" and those outside of the theory of class struggle) and thus, a group of class enemies, called as "the five black classes": landlords, wealthy peasants, counter-revolutionaries, bad elements, and rightists.
Although the propaganda, which was coordinated with policies and legal decrees, had already made a deep impression on the minds of the people, it was also unanimously supported by the Party elite. But the theory was imperfect and left doubts in the minds of the people. That is, people wondered: according to the theories of Marxism-Leninism, what is the social structure built on the ferocious labeling of people as part of "the five black classes"? Who are their political representatives? What political forces are they relying on in order to brutally injure and kill the masses?
In early 1966, Mao timely published an article called "Shell the Headquarters - A Big-Character Poster of Mine," sounding the bugle of the Great Cultural Revolution, answering the questions in people's minds, and perfecting his theory of class struggle. This big-character poster formally pointed out the representatives of the five black classes and of the culture of feudalism, capitalism, and revisionism: a few Communist Party leaders secretly walking down the path to capitalism by using their powers. Mao also pointed out that among these "capitalist roaders," there was a Capitalist Headquarters that exercise the central authorities that not often aired views opposing those of Mao, but also even already suppressed of his Proletarian Headquarters.
The direction that the Great Cultural Revolution's struggle therefore concentrated within the Communist Party and government itself and soon reached a white hot stage. It reached a new stage of launching mass attacks against government officials. That is, the Cultural Revolution had transformed into a political revolution. Moreover, the ratio of government officials that were overthrown, killed, or sent to jail far outstripped that of any normal revolution. It indeed was a huge political revolution, just as Mao Zedong had said. Yet it had also indeed come from the Cultural Revolution, and had taken advantage of that form. Calling it the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is quite accurate, as it did not deviate from Mao Zedong's new theoretical framework.
Its exact, literal meaning includes the two theories of class struggle and fully realization of Marxist ideology from the West. At the same time, it was not a reform, but the process of taking the lives of tens of millions of people, and the majority of power-holders. If this is not a revolution, what is?
From the May 4th ideology of complete westernization to Mao Zedong's class struggle theory of the 1960s, after forty some years, it finally reached its climax, exploding in the form of the Great Cultural Revolution. Yet this explosion was not a purely cultural revolution; a purely cultural revolution would not manifest in such a violent manner. There are two reasons for why the Great Cultural Revolution was not limited to culture: One was that Mao Zedong and his clique were plotting to regain their lost power, thus they used Mao as a living immortal which was established by the entire Communist party. The second reason is that China's general public had accumulated more than a decade of dissatisfaction and enmity. When the autocracy had lessened its suppression of the people, they would try and take the opportunity to rise up. That is to say that the ruling class struggles for power and the resistance of the oppressed were interwoven, and made people unable to see which came first. Everyone misunderstood the political climate and had their own predictions about what would come from it.
Most people believed that Mao Zedong has great talent and bold vision to start a movement of the masses struggling against bureaucrats. But this is only half-correct. The other half is that he had no other choice. The "capitalist roaders" at the top of the Party, led by Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping, moved in a manner that was more pragmatic and that would restore individual businesses and a limited market economy in the three years after the Great Famine. While their policies were not sharply opposed to Communism, they were still able to quickly rejuvenate the economy. It helped Chinese society recover from the Great Famine and made the capitalist roaders a major force in society. The path of capitalism is one that gained the support of the masses and majority of Party bureaucrats.
Most of the Chinese people supported the Communist Party, but they did not identify with Communist ideology. What happened is that the slogans the Communist party made in the 1940s attracted the majority of the peasant and the national bourgeoisie classes. When a minority of the urban and rural landlord and bureaucratic capitalist class opposed them, they were able to defeat them. On this occasion, Liu and Deng followed a set pattern. They used both the urban and rural population's desire for a prosperous and secure life to secure the support of the majority of the populace and the officialdom. They began to make a figurehead of the living immortal that the Party set up, moving step by step towards victory against the pious Marxist-Leninists.
Yet Liu Shaoqi's political program had two crucial flaws. One was that he had neither a guiding principles or legitimate theories. He was just quietly and secretively doing reforms. Mao's faction criticized that Liu and the others were "holding the red flag but actually opposing it," which was accurate and also a powerful image. His second flaw was that while Liu and Deng took the legacy of Mao by going towards peaceful evolution, they had to bear the consequences of Communist policies as well. They had to bear the grassroots society's enmity and dissatisfaction towards the Party, thus left Mao out of the responsibility of what he did, and gave Mao higher moral commanding point from which to act.
There were two possible outcomes of this situation: one is that Mao would accept his position and support the Premier and his ministers in cleaning up Mao's mess. The entire Party hoped that this would happen, Mao had accepted this, and this was how things were run in the first five years of the 1960s. Moreover, things were run quite smoothly, as the economy, society, culture and education all became rejuvenated much faster than people had anticipated. At the same time, though, Mao was quickly being deified, and the grudges felt by the Marxist-Leninist fundamentalists were also increasing. These people had complete legitimacy in the Communist system, and they did not think that their policies, which created the Great Famine and other disasters, were wrong. Instead of understand these disasters are the results of putting Communism into practice, they thought these as the results of not really put Communism into practice.
Mao Zedong took advantage of this beneficial position, which allowed him to be free of his sins, to gain the support of a big group of people in the Party. He cast off his position as the figurehead prince and regained the qualifications that would allow him once again to fight for political leadership. Mao quietly assisted his supporters, and gained complete control over the ability to command the army, as well as the public security and intelligence organs. His five-year-long preparation of coup finally came to erupt in 1966. When it erupted, Mao's faction gained control of the ideological battleground, as well as control of the army and of the public security and intelligence organs.
These conditions ensured that even he abandon his first choice, would he cause great chaos or get used by outside enemies. Moreover, it ensures that his opponents had no way to thoroughly defeat him. Under these circumstances, winning the war was only a matter of time. His strategy was just like that in Sun Tzu's "The Art of War." Liu, Deng, and their bureaucrats and supporters saw this situation clearly, and thus surrendered after just a few rounds of fighting. But Mao did not want any captured prisoners to surround this time; especially he refused to accept the surrender of the commander-in-chief. Since he no longer trusted these subordinates who once betrayed him, he officially called them "unrepentant capitalist roaders." He indeed persecuted Liu and his core followers to death. Afterwards, as for those bureaucrats who surrendered, led by Deng Xiaoping, and led by Zhou Enlai, they were used to continue Mao's revolutionary theories and to struggle for the sake of bringing about Communism.
The industrial and agricultural policies in the 1950s that brought about the Great Famine were continued after the end of the Cultural Revolution policy in 1969, and were the true result of the Great Cultural Revolution.
We have talked about the origins and reasons of the Great Cultural Revolution in China in 1960's, but we have only produced a general idea about it so far. For more detailed information on this period, please consult the materials produced by scholars Song Yongyi and Wang Youqin. They capture both major events and minute details, leaving nothing out, and describe everything both richly and colorfully. Their work can be supplied to those with interest in the subject and who wish to do deeper research on it. Today, I would just like to describe in a simple manner why and how the Cultural Revolution ended up developing in unexpected ways to so many others, the results it continued to produce, and the development of a movement that none of the Communist Party factions wanted to see, and which fundamentally differed from all of them: the democracy movement.
The Cultural Revolution actually was not some democracy movement. It was a clandestine movement for autocracy in China, with Mao Zedong and his colleagues making use of the "democracy movement" banner in order to realize his goals of one-party dictatorship and Communism. China's Communist Party, just as the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe's Communist Parties, took advantage of the tide of democracy movements to trick society into supporting their parties, and succeeding after usurping power. This is the essence of Leninism - a developed form of Marxism. The Chinese Communist faction, led by Mao Zedong, expanded the scope of Leninism. Not only did they use "democracy" to trick people, they mainly relied on the non-worker class and united with the capitalist class to defeat the capitalist democratic revolution of the Nationalist Party's.
When the People's Republic of China was established, China had already accumulated a over 2000 years tradition of market economies, and the major components of Chinese societies past were the capitalist class, the middle class and intellectuals, and the petty bourgeoisie, made up of farmers and small craftsmen. The Chinese had a deeply rooted private ownership mentality, so even 17 years of socialist transformation were unable to fundamentally change the Chinese people's mentality. Liu Shaoqi's idea of "taking the capitalist road" won popular support, and was the greatest obstacle to Mao Zedong's launching of the Great Cultural Revolution.
Thus, Mao used two social forces to drive forward his movement. One social force was students - especially middle-school students - who were ignorance of worldly affairs and who blindly worshipped power. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) had been stirring up student movements for decades, and so they had plenty of experience. If you were not a participant in the early stages of the student movements, you would have almost no way of knowing how Kang Sheng's [7] spy agencies were inciting and manipulating Beijing middle-school students to launch this rebellion movement.
But you cannot stir up a major incident relying merely on students, and Liu Shaoqi's work team was almost able to put down this student movement. At this time, Mao came out to personally show his support for the middle-school Red Guard, and also used his big-character Poster, "Shell the Headquarters," to show his support for the rebel faction of the university students. He also called upon the students to bring their movement to the whole society and to the whole nation. This was to mobilize the second, and much more enormous, social force that Mao hoped to rely on in his movement: the lowest layer of society, which was filled with people bearing grudges and hatred, especially these workers and peasants, as well as office workers and intellectuals in different government offices, who were easy to organize. Only through the mobilization of these social forces was Mao able to defeat the bureaucratic system that Liu Shaoqi controlled.
After Mao reached his ideological goals after "destroying the four olds," he immediately called upon the Red Guard students to establish ties with one another all across the nation. He also clearly told them that the great link-up of the Red Guard across the nation is like the Long March - it is the seeding machine of the revolution. The flames of war indeed spread to all different domains across the nation. At this time, Liu Shaoqi paced back and forth in front of Mao's house for several days, waiting to speak with him in order to reconcile their differences, but Mao paid him no heed. The outcome of their rivalry was a foregone conclusion, and it was just a matter of time for final arrangements, as the two leaders' chess game had already finished up. Mao's goal was to leave Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping dead, as Mao was anything but a gullible softy. Thereafter, he used more naive and more easily controlled subordinates to achieve his communist ideals.
But unforeseen circumstances came about. The first was that the boldest group of Red Guard rebels was also the least obedient. Once they realized that Mao and wife Jiang Qing's goals in launching the Cultural Revolution were dishonest, they began rebelling against Mao's own inner circle. Even though this group of youths had little experience or social foundations, Mao had a hard time dealing with them. Only after various failed attempts was Mao able to thoroughly resolve the problems this group caused him, using the sinister trick of sending all educated youth to the mountains and countryside for "re-education".
What Mao had an even harder time dealing with was rebellions from the lowest stratum of society, those in society who had been oppressed and exploited. What they sought was basic human rights and interests for the people, and their demands touched on the Communist Party's basic power and interests. Moreover, they represented the support and desires of the widespread masses of Chinese people to realize these rights and interests. Even when Mao severely repressed them and tried to make them collapse, he still could not put down their rebellion. From the start, Mao the Emperor decreed the lower class to rebel, until Lin Biao plotted to rebel against Mao in the name of the lower class. It made Mao feel helpless as he began to sense society's resistance to the perverse acts of Communism, as well as the limits to the effectiveness of his fraudulent theories. He also began to sense the attractiveness of the "road to capitalism" to the common people. This was the real reason for why he had no choice but to ask Deng Xiaoping to come out and clean up his mess, even as he refused to change his ideas.
The Cultural Revolution was a Pandora's Box that Mao opened when he said "rebellion is justified." Although it had both good and bad points, and although it is all the facets while all the strange things happened, it legitimized the idea that "people's rebellion is justified". This was actually not what Mao ZeDong or the Communist Party wished to see. The reason for the failed legacy of "taking the imperial decree of rebellion" during the Cultural Revolution lies partially on the rebellion, and partially on the act of following imperial decrees itself.
Later generations summed up their experiences from different perspectives to form lessons from them. This process led to the April 5th Tiananmen Square movement (in 1976), the 1978 Democracy Wall movement, and the 1989 Tiananmen Square democracy movement. It has progressed step-by-step until reaching the current stage of having both democracy movements and human rights movements inside China, as well as overseas. The CCP has distorted the history of the Cultural Revolution and prohibited people from discussing it precisely because it fears that people will catch on to the spirit of the people's revolt that arose during that period. It is precisely this spirit that will eventually lead to the collapse of the one-party dictatorship.
Annotates:
[1] The May 4th movement of 1919, was a politically important movement that came from China's ability to establish a Republic government and that attempted to establish a "new culture" for China in order for it to return to its previous glory, and that advocated learning Science and Democracy from the West, using vernacular Chinese in written texts, and other changes.
[2] A decree from the Central Committee of the Communist Party dated May 16, 1966 that formally provides guidance for and thus marked as the beginning of the Cultural Revolution.
[3] Peng Dehuai, a Communist military leader, criticized Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward policies by submit is well-known long plea on July 14 1959 at the Lushan Conference. He was dismissed for this and subsequently tortured to death during the Cultural Revolution.
[4] The Chinese Communist Party official conference in July and extended into August 1959 in which Peng Dehuai criticized Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward policies.
[5] Lei Feng was a young Communist cadre from the military who exemplified hard work, selflessness, and nationalism, and after his death in 1962, was used by Mao and others in a propaganda campaign to promote such values.
[6] A landlord used in an exhibition of clay sculptures called Shouzu Yuan displayed in 1966, in which the landlord exploits the poor peasants miserably and eventually oppressed peasants rise up against their cruel landlord.
[7]: Kang Sheng was head of the PRC's security apparatuses until his death in 1975, and is responsible for much of the state terror and secret persecution systems utilized during the Cultural Revolution.
(Written in on May 12/20/24, 2006. Partially broadcasted by Radio Free Asia. The Wei Jingsheng Foundation is responsible for the accuracy of this version of the English translation.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This is a message from WeiJingSheng.org
The Wei Jingsheng Foundation and the Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition are dedicated to the promotion of human rights and democratization in China. We appreciate your assistance and help in any means. We pledge solidarity to all who struggle for human rights and democratic governance on this planet.
You are welcome to use or distribute this release. However, please credit with this foundation and its website at: www.weijingsheng.org
Although we are unable to afford to pay royalty fees at this time, we are seeking your contribution as well. You may send your articles, comments and opinions to: HCP@weijingsheng.org. Please remember, only in text files, not in attachments.
For website issues and suggestions, you may contact our professional staff and web master at: webmaster@Weijingsheng.org
To find out more about us, please also visit our websites at:
www.WeiJingSheng.org and www.ChinaLaborUnion.org
for news and information for Overseas Chinese Democracy Coalition and human rights and democracy movement as whole, especially our Chinese Labor Union Base.
You may contact Ciping Huang at: HCP@Weijingsheng.org or
Wei Jingsheng Foundation office at: 1-202-543-1538 Fax: 1-202-543-1539
Wei Jingsheng Foundation's address is:
415 East Capitol Street, SE, Suite 2, Washington, DC 20003-3810, USA
Its postal address is:
Wei Jingsheng Foundation, P. O. Box 15449, Washington, DC 20003, USA
You are receiving this message because you had previous shown your interest in learning more about Mr. Wei Jingsheng and the Chinese Democratic Movement. To be removed from the list, simply reply this message and use "unsubscribe" as the Subject. Please allow us a few days to process your request.
*****************************************************************
中文版
Wei Jingsheng Foundation News and Article Release Issue: A217-W108
魏京生基金会新闻与文章发布号：A217-W108
Release Date: July 1, 2006
发布日：2006年7月1日
Topic: On the Origins and Reasons for the Chinese Cultural Revolution -- WEI Jingsheng
标题：论文革起因 -- 魏京生
Original Language Version: Chinese (Chinese version at the end)
此号以中文为准（英文在前，中文在后）
如有中文乱码问题，请与我们联系或访问:
http://www.weijingsheng.org/report/report2006/report2006-07/WeiJS060701CulturalRevA217-W108.htm
-----------------------------------------------------------------
论文革起因
-- 魏京生
有多少人还记得文化革命呢?现在50岁以上的人还有记忆，还经历过那一场大动荡。40岁以下的人，恐怕就只能听人家说了。听长辈们说的可能不太多。主要是以书报杂志，电影电视上零零星星听说了一些。由于40年来中共不允许研究和评论文革，所以中青年人头脑中的文革印像支离破碎。更谈不上总结历史的教训。现在已是文革发动40周年的时候，我就和大家谈谈我对文革这段历史的分析，和大家一起从中总结出一些经验和教训。
文化革命不是某一天突然发生的。它有一个逐渐发生一直到突然爆发的过程。把它叫做文化大革命，就说明了发动它的那一批人的的确确是想革中国传统文化的命。而不简简单单地是什么夺权斗争或者被压迫群众的反抗。产生文化大革命的原因绝不是简单的，许多种因素掺杂在其中，才汇集起来形成了这样一场轰轰烈烈的大动荡，改变了社会也改变了大多数人的思想。可以说这是一场触及了人们灵魂的大革命。不过并没有像毛泽东一伙人想像的那样更加相信共产党的一套，恰恰相反，是更加不相信共产党的一套了。这种不相信，就成为后来的民主运动的起源。
那么文革起源于什么呢?往前追溯，应该起源于19世纪末和上个世纪初洋务运动的失败。几十年的洋务运动的主流思想，就像现在的中共所说的一样，旧的制度和旧的文化思想不用改变，只要学习西方先进的技术。一切问题就解决了。但是，引进的技术和管理方式，以及新出现的社会成份，和清朝末年已经腐败了的官僚体制和社会环境之间，必然会产生严重的矛盾。更重要的陈旧的思维方式和官僚体制一方面和新的经济结构难以互相适应；另一方面和迅速发展的世界局势难以互相适应。这两个无法互相适应就像个给一座快要倒塌的破房子再来上两记重锤。清朝就这么垮掉了。像其他腐朽的王朝一样垮掉了。
垮台之后的中国人十分痛苦，都认为仅仅学习人家的先进技术不行，还要学人家更多的东西。学习文化思想艺术等等，还要学习先进的社会制度。清朝末年已经有一小部分人这样想也试着做了，这就是著名的戊戌变法。变法失败后，宪改派的青年们大多跟随孙中山的一派，从事了激进的革命。建立了亚洲第一个共和国。但这个共和国从一开始就失败了，没有能够实现民主共和的理想，看上去像是改朝换代一样，和西方的社会制度相差太远。
对篡夺权利的北洋政府的失望，和对迅速赶上世界先进国家的期望，产生了两股主要的社会思潮。这两股思潮的共同点就是要全盘西化，彻底改道中国文化，直到改道得和西方一样。这一思潮在文化革命时期达到了它的最高潮，破四旧是它的表达方式。它的目标就是消灭所有的中国传统文化，换上一个全新的西方现代文化。而且还要换上据说最先进的马列主义文化，结果制造出的是文化的沙漠。
这两种思潮的不同之处，就是大部分人主张学习看上去不那么美丽动听的市场经济下的民主制。因为中国传统的市场经济比较容易接受这种温和的民主制。但是另外一小部分激进的知识分子和年轻人，则倾向于听上去更加完美无缺的共产主义制度。他们希望一步登天，学习连西方人还没有试验过的理想中的完美社会。
以当时全人类都并不太了解共产主义所可能造成的罪恶来看，这种激进的理想完全可以理解。当他们企图建立这个理想中太完美，而在现实中太难让人接受的社会时，他们遭遇到中国这个根深蒂固的市场经济的小农为主的社会的剧烈反抗。虽得到苏联的大力援助仍然艰难困苦，得不到大多数中国人的认同。这一派的理论家们不承认自己的理想不对头，而把责任推到了中国传统文化的腐朽落后上。把共产主义在中国遭到了比苏俄更大的抵制，归罪于所谓的中国封建文化。不彻底摧毁中国和外国传进来的封建的和资产阶级的文化，社会主义的进程就无法继续下去了。这种思想，就是中国共产党发动文化大革命的基本思路。
由于文化大革命的思想上的来源产生于五﹒四运动前后的有中国特色的激进的共产主义思潮，认为不彻底改变、铲除中国的传统文化就不能实现他们从西方学来的最先进的社会制度。用他们的理论描述，这种文化是中国的所谓封建文化和西方资本主义文化。因此发动文化革命不是毛泽东一时的心血来潮，而是共产党人长期的理想，而且在40年前的五月份促使文化大革命爆发的那一份重要的文件，《五﹒一六通知》就是中共中央一致通过的决定。包括后来被打倒被整死的中共领导人，没有人反对发动这场文化大革命。因为他们对此有几十年的认同。
虽然没有人反对，但都是毛泽东和他的小集团主动提出的建议。为什么不是由别人而是由毛泽东在这个时间提出这个建议呢?这里边首先是有共产主义政策失败和党内领导权转移的背景。就是说，是党内斗争的结果。是坚持错误政策还是改行修正主义的一份政治斗争，借用了文化革命的外壳。使这段历史掺进了复杂的因素。
大家知道1960年前后饿死几千万人的大饥荒，并不是什么自然灾害。而是以毛泽东为首的中共实行社会主义集体化改革，而制造出来的人祸。恰恰在这缺少食品的年代，中共为了制造核武器和军事工业，而用食品作为支付手段，向苏联购买了大量机器设备。使人民公社大食堂的灾难，加重并且延长了时间。所以一年的人祸造成了三年的大饥荒，饿死人最多的恰恰是大跃进之后的两年。竟然使得人口负增长。
虽然当时的社会还沉浸在对共产党美好理想的信任之中。但现实的饥饿和大量饿死的农民，对这种信任是个沉重的打击。谁该对这些负责呢?中共必须找出一个替罪羊，才能继续欺骗中国人民。弥漫在老百姓之中的怀疑和指责，可以暂时用一个谣言来搪塞。但在知识份子和干部中酝酿的怀疑和指责，就不是靠镇压彭德怀可以封得住口的了。彭德怀的庐山会议万言书，所代表的是当时社会上层精英对所谓大跃进的错误政策的控诉；所代表的是更广大的工人、农民的控诉。毛泽东可以把彭德怀和他的同伙撤职软禁，但还是无法推卸他的罪责。他不得不在还剩下一点儿的党内民主面前低头，做检讨，并在党内缩减他的权利。这就造成以刘少奇、邓小平为代表的党内另一派，或有叫做务实派势力乘机上台。接管了过去由毛泽东独攥的大部分权力。只是毛泽东是他们大家共同塑造的一尊神，换一尊新的神来欺骗老百姓，也不是那么容易。所以，在塑造新的活神仙的过渡期，全党就只好容忍毛泽东继续先当共产主义的活神仙。
但毛泽东的性格是个不甘于失败的性格。就在刘少奇和邓小平等人忙于政务并乘机收编行政干部的同时，毛泽东也开始了他的新的重塑金身的计划。他的老朋友林彪所控制的军队系统，从学雷锋开始发动了一场制造活神仙的新道德运动。而他的夫人江青，则开始聚集一批知识分子，从教育界和文化界入手，开始了和新道德运动相辅相成的文化艺术界的清洁化运动。开始是以创造所谓的革命样板戏为主流，渐渐地发展到以批判所谓的封建主义的、资本主义的和已经跟中共翻脸的所谓修正主义的毒草为主流。一步步地在精神文化领域展开了一场革命。
由于这场革命的意识形态基础是共产党人几十年来的共同的意识形态基础，所以中共的领导阶层并没有人反对，而且得到了全党的大力支持和热情的协助。新道德运动和文化的革命甚至是五﹒四以后中国知识精英们的共同目标，于是得到了几乎全社会的拥护，至少也是容忍。从1960年的学雷锋运动，到1965年的批判封资修的挖毒草运动，仅仅花了五年的时间。毛泽东及其一伙人就把五﹒四以来的新文化运动，发展成了有中国特色的新共产主义意识形态。在共产党的文化专制一面倒的配合下，垄断了八亿中国人的头脑，树立了毛神仙的绝对个人权威。并在随后的文化大革命时期风靡了全世界。不但给中国人带来一场触及灵魂的大劫难，而且在全球危围内掀起一场新理想主义的暴力活动高潮。这个暴力革命高潮一直延续到现在，以恐怖主义的名称不断发挥它的破坏力。影响着全人类的生存，也毒化着全人类的思想。
文化大革命的直接目的有两个。
一个公开的目的就是打倒封资修的意识形态，用共产主义道德和共产主义文化代替旧文化。减轻建立更纯粹的共产主义制度的阻力。另一个目的，是借这场运动打倒和封资修意识形态相适应的、所谓的“资产阶级司令部”。
因此，在六十年代初的新道德运动和文化批判运动的同时，马克思列宁主义的阶级斗争理论，成了准备发动文化大革命的理论宣传的主调。因为只有阶级斗争的理论，才具有最大的煽动性和杀伤力。才能达到毛泽东的全部目标，而不是和党内同志共有的新道德运动和共产主义文化的目标。
在60年到65年的五年中，共产党的笔杆子们创造了很多栩栩如生的文艺形象，使得新道德运动和新文化运动，在阶级斗争的口号下被推向全国人民的思想意识中。为文化大革命的疯狂做好了思想舆论准备。到1966年初揭批封资修运动达到高潮时，阶级斗争的理论已经成为深入人心的、模式化的、形象鲜明的社会主流意识形态。它的极端表现形式有两个侧面。
一面是“老子英雄儿好汉，老子反动儿混蛋”的血统论，曾经风靡一时。从极端的口号退潮到固定的民众思维模式，就是维持了十年以上时间的划分阶级成分，实行身份歧视和身份历史歧视的国家法律政策。类似于西方的种族歧视制度，是随马克思主义传入中国的西方文化。虽然八十年代逐渐取消了这些歧视性的法律和政策，但至今仍有许多人以这种思维模式对待人和事务。甚至有人策划推出修改了内容的新血统论，以便操弄起新一轮的阶级斗争，重温毛泽东的一统天下的旧梦。值得大家警惕。
另一个侧面。就是毛泽东在时机成熟时，借助于阶级斗争理论的极端化，把阶级斗争的大方向引导到“揪出党内暗藏的阶级敌人”的现实政治斗争中去。很轻松地达到了消灭政治对手，统一思想和队伍，加快实行共产主义理想的目的。
这个揪出运动也有一个发展过程。从60年开始的阶级斗争运动，是以过去的地主刘文彩为典型，把几千万早已被剥夺了财产和社会地位的地主、富农和城市资产阶级和右派知识分子，与刑事犯罪分子和政治反抗者（就是被称为“坏分子”的、阶级斗争理论以外的人员）划为一组阶级敌人。他们被称为黑五类：地、富、反、坏、右。
虽然宣传配合政策法令，已经推行得深入人心了，也得到了党内精英阶层的一致的支持。但理论的不完善，仍然会在有头脑的人们心目中遭到质疑。这就是：按马列主义理论，这么凶恶的黑五类形成的社会基础，谁是他们政治上的代表呢？他们靠什么政治力量来实行他们残害人民大众的狼子野心呢？
在1966年初，毛泽东适时地发表了他的《炮打司令部--我的一张大字报》，吹响了文化大革命的号角，同时回答了人们心中的疑问，完善了他的阶级斗争理论。毛在这张大字报中正式提出了黑五类和封资修文化的代表，就是党内一小撮走资本主义道路的当权派。并指出：这一小撮当权派在中央内部有一个和他毛泽东唱反调的、甚至已经压迫了他这个无产阶级司令部的“资产阶级司令部”。
整个文化大革命的斗争方向，从此集中到了党和政府内部，并且迅速进入了白热化。进入了发动群众斗争官员的新阶段，也就是文化革命转变为政治革命的阶段。而且被斗倒、斗死、斗进监狱的官员的比例，超过了任何一般的革命。它的的确确是一场政治大革命，如毛泽东自己所说的那样。但也的的确确起源于文化革命，并借助于文化革命的表现形式。叫做“无产阶级文化大革命”是它的准确表述，没有背离毛泽东的新理论框架。
它确切的字义，就包括了阶级斗争和全盘西化这两种理论。同时，它并不是改良，而是革掉了几千万人的性命，革掉了大部分的当权者。这还不叫革命，什么叫革命呢？
从五﹒四时期的全盘西化的意识形态，到六十年代的毛泽东式的阶级斗争理论，四十多年的时间终于发展到了顶峰，以文化大革命的方式爆发了。但是它的爆发，并不是纯粹的文化革命，纯粹的文化革命也不会以如此暴烈的方式进行。文化大革命之所以不局限于文化有两个重要的原因；一个是毛泽东集团企图夺回失去的权力，就利用了全党给他树立的活神仙的地位。第二个原因就是在人民大众之中积累了十几年的怨恨和不满，在专制的压力减轻时，会借机揭竿而起。也就是说，统治阶级争权的斗争和被压迫者的反抗交错纠缠，使人一时分辨不清它的主要性质。大家都看错了形势，都有自己的自以为是的估计。
一般都认为毛泽东雄才大略，敢于玩弄发动群众斗官僚的把戏。这只说对了一半儿。另一半儿是因为他也无路可走了。以刘少奇和邓小平为首的“走资本主义道路的当权派”，在三年大饥荒之后，走了一条比较务实的、有限恢复市场经济和自主经营的修正主义的路子。既不是与共产主义政策尖锐对立，又很快地恢复了经济。使中国社会从大饥荒中缓过来了，并产生了走资本主义道路的强烈社会动力。这条走资本主义道路的路线，得到了社会大众和党内官僚多数的支持。
中国人民的多数支持共产党，并不是认同共产主义的意识形态，而是因为共产党在四十年代的口号，吸引了农民阶级的大多数和民族资产阶级的大多数。与在城市和乡村中各占少数的地主阶级和官僚资产阶级形成的对立中，取得了胜利。这一次刘少奇和邓小平也如法炮制。利用城乡大多数人民要过富裕安定生活的愿望为动力，获得了大多数人民和官吏的支持。居然架空了全党树立的活神仙，在权力斗争中步步为营地战胜了虔诚的马列主义者。
但是刘少奇的政治纲领有两个致命的缺点；第一个缺点是他没有纲领，没有理论上的合法性，只不过是偷偷摸摸的改良。毛派指责他们是“打着红旗反红旗”，既形象又准确。第二个缺点是刘、邓既然和平演变继承了毛的衣钵，也就同时承担了共产党政策的恶果。基层的怨恨与不满，就得由他们来承担责任。倒把毛泽东的责任撇清了，使毛泽东处于更有利的道德制高点。
这种形势有两种发展前途；一种是毛甘当虚君，支持总理大臣收拾烂摊子。全党也是这样希望的，毛泽东也是这样接受的，六十年代的前五年也是这样操作的。而且操作得很顺利，经济、社会、文化教育的恢复比人们预想的还要快。与此同时，毛泽东的神化也以同样的速度膨胀起来。马列原教旨主义的怨恨也以同样的速度膨胀起来。他们在共产党的体系内拥有完全的合法性，他们不认为造成大饥荒等等的政策是错误的、是执行共产主义政策的结果，反倒认为是没有真正执行共产主义政策的结果。
毛泽东站在了这个有利于开脱他自己罪行的立场上，在党内获得了一大批人的支持。摆脱了虚君的地位，而拥有了再次争夺领导权的资格。毛泽东不动声色地帮助他的支持者，完全控制了军队和治安情报机构的最高指挥权。一场准备了五年的政变终于在1966年爆发了。爆发时毛派掌握了意识形态的制高点，而且控制了军队和情治机构。
这些条件保证了他即使放弃了第一种选择，也不会产生大混乱，不会被外敌所利用。而且保证了他的对手不可能彻底打败他，在不败的前提下，战争只是个时间问题了。这完全符合《孙子兵法》的谋略。刘、邓及其官僚队伍显然看清了这个形势，所以没斗几下子就立刻投降了。 但这回毛泽东可不要什么招降纳叛了，招也只招将官以下，不接受统帅的投降。因为他不再相信这些背叛了他的部下，正式的说法就叫做“死不改悔的走资派”。他也确实把刘少奇及其核心成员整到死为止。之后，再招降以邓小平为首的和以周恩来为首的大多数官僚，来执行他的继续革命理论，为实现共产主义而奋斗。
五十年代导致大饥荒的工农业政策，经修改之后从文革结束后的1969年开始继续执行，是文化大革命的真正结果。
关于文化大革命谈到现在，也只是个大概。更详细的内容，有宋永毅、王友琴等学者的资料，描述的巨细无遗，色彩斑斓，可供有兴趣的朋友做更深入的研究，我这里只想简单的评论一下，文革是为什么和怎样出现了各方意料之外的情况，造成了欲罢不能的结果，并延续到今天发展出各派共产党都不愿看见的、性质完全不同的民主运动。
文革并不是什么民主运动。而是毛泽东及其同伙假借民主运动的旗号，达到实现一党专政、实现共产主义目标的私货的一场专制化运动。中国的共产党和苏联东欧的共产党一样，是借助于民主化运动的大潮骗取了社会的支持，篡夺了领导权之后成功的。这就是列宁主义的实质，是发展了的马克思主义。毛泽东领导的中国共产主义集团，扩大了列宁主义的范围。不仅打着民主的旗号骗人，而且主要依靠非工人阶级，并团结资产阶级，打败了国民党的资产阶级民主革命。
共产党建国前、有两千多年市场经济传统的中国社会，它的主要成分是资产阶级、中产知识分子和以农民、小手工业者为主的小资产阶级。私有观念根深蒂固，因此十七年的社会主义改造，没有从根本上改变中国人的观念。刘少奇的“走资本主义道路”深得民心。这就是毛泽东发动文化大革命的最大障碍。
所以毛泽东就把两个力量作为发动运动的主要力量。一个是不谙世事而又迷信权威的学生，特别是中学生。中共搞了几十年的学生运动，经验丰富。如果不是最早期的学生运动参加者，几乎无法观察到，康生的特务机关是如何煽动和操纵了北京的中学生，发起了这一场造反运动。
但是仅靠学生闹不起大事，刘少奇的工作组差一点就平息了这一场学生运动。这时老毛亲自出面支持中学红卫兵，同时又用《炮打司令部》的大字报支持大学造反派。并号召把运动推向社会、推向全国。这就动员起了毛泽东希望依靠的第二支更为庞大的力量，被压迫而又有怨有恨的社会底层，特别是容易组织起来的工人和农民，以及各机构的小职员和知识分子。这些力量的动员，才真正打败了刘少奇所控制的官僚体系。
在破四旧达到意识形态目标后，毛立即号召学生红卫兵全国大串连。并且明明白白的指示说；大串联就像长征，是革命的播种机。而且战火也确实蔓延到了全国的各个领域。这时，刘少奇徘徊在老毛的门口几天想讲和，老毛也不理他了。大局已定，善后处理只是时间问题了，棋局已进入了收官阶段。毛的目标是置刘、邓这一批叛徒于死地，决不做东郭先生。然后用更纯洁的、便于指挥的人马去完成他的共产主义理想。
但计划出了意外。首先是最有胆量造反的那一批红卫兵也最不听话。当他们发现毛泽东和江青发动文革的目的并不纯洁时，造反的对象就上升到了毛本人的集团内部。这一部分没什么经验也没多大社会基础的年轻人，已经不太好对付。反反复复，直到一年后用知识青年上山下乡的阴招儿，才把他们彻底解决。
更难对付的是社会上被压迫、被剥削的下层人民的造反。他们争取的是人民的基本人权和利益，触及的也是共产党的基本权力和利益。而且代表的是广大人民群众的支持或者愿望。给予更严厉的镇压和瓦解仍不能平息。从一开始打着毛皇帝的旗号奉旨造反，一直发展到林彪企图打着下层人民的旗号造毛泽东的反。使毛泽东本人也感到了无能为力，感到了社会对共产主义倒行逆施的反抗，感到了他的理论的欺骗性的有限。感到了“走资本主义道路”对百姓的难以抗拒的吸引力。这就是他虽仍坚持己见，又不得不请邓小平出来收拾局面的真正原因。
文革由毛泽东打开了“造反有理”的潘多拉的盒子。虽然瑕瑜并存，千奇百怪不可能统一定性，但赋予了人民造反的合法性，并不是毛泽东和共产党所希望看到的。文革中失败的奉旨造反留下的精神遗产，有奉旨的一面也有造反的一面。
后人从不同的角度总结经验教训，就产生了四﹒五天安门运动，78年的民主墙运动和89年的天安门民主运动。一步步地走到了今天的海内外民主运动和维权运动。中共歪曲文革历史、禁止谈论文革的原因，正是害怕被文革意外惊醒的人民造反精神。正是这种精神，最终将导致一党专政的崩溃。
（于2006年5月12/20/24日。部分内容在自由亚洲电台播出。）
-----------------------------------------------------------------
魏京生基金会及中国民主运动海外联席会议以推动中国的人权与民主为己任。
我们欢迎任何形式的帮助与贡献。我们愿与世界上为人权与民主而奋斗的人们一起努力。
我们希望您能够帮助我们散发我们的资料。但请标明出处与我们的网址：www.weijingsheng.org
欢迎投稿（暂无稿费）或批评建议，请寄信箱: HCP@WEIJINGSHENG.ORG
魏京生基金会地址:
415 East Capitol Street, SE, Suite 2, Washington, DC 20003-3810，USA
魏京生基金会通讯地址：
Wei Jingsheng Foundation, P. O. Box 15449, Washington, DC 20003, USA
电话: 1-202-543-1538 传真：1-202-543-1539
魏京生基金会网址：WWW.weijingsheng.org
中国民主运动海外联席会议及中国团结工会的网址为：www.ChinaLaborUnion.org
阁下之所以收到本信，是因为阁下以前曾表示有兴趣了解魏京生先生和中国民主运动。
倘若阁下希望不再收到类似信息，请回复本信并用 unsubscribe 作为主题(Subject)。