翻译成英文老右派孔令平先生的回忆录几页

中国50年代到70年代一系列的伤痕比官方批均的一时的伤痕文学描写的严重得多。我一月份在他的重庆家里认识了《血记》 作者孔令平先生。他的回忆录的光碟版是2010年香港五七学社出版社出版的。 我做了很少一部分的英文翻译。 我的翻译在中文原文后面。

高大伟

上集
1、阳谋——初生牛犊的陷阱

57年4月初,开学典礼还不到一个月,重庆大学校园春意正浓。一天,同学们正在新学生食堂午餐时,高音喇叭里传出了校党委的通知:“今天下午两点正,全校教职员工和学生,在新学生食堂听取中央重要文件。自带板凳,不得缺席。”
广播通知之后,接着播放周璇的《四季歌》,歌声甜美,宛如银铃。我端着饭盅走出第一食堂西侧大门,看到边晒太阳边吃饭同班同学马开先,便走过去对她说:“今天下午又要听去报告,谁去拿凳子?”
马开先回过那张被春光晒得微红的脸蛋回应道:“当然是你去拿啰,我就在这儿等你。”说完,还朝我做了个顽皮的鬼脸。
这些年来,重庆大学教职员工和学生人数急剧增加。原先的教学大楼、学生宿舍和学生食堂,都不敷使用了。原来一直使用的松林坡大礼堂,还是三十年代留下来的“古迹”。它虽然容纳了抗战时期各校学生在这里聚会和募捐,但现在已容纳不下全校师生的集会了。
能容纳万人新大礼堂与露天球场综合工程,才开工兴建。学校到处都在大兴土木,周围还堆积着砖头瓦砾。虽然有些杂乱,但显出一派繁忙的景像。那片正在平整的地基,将要修建学生宿舍大楼。透过这片地基看过去,是正在盛开的桃李花。在桃李花掩映的后面,便是重庆一中。
在这段大兴土木的“过渡时期”里,学校只好在团结广场举行全校露天集会。倘若遇上烈日和下雨天,则会转到这个还没有完成扫尾工程的新学生食堂。
在新学生食堂整齐摆放着一排排新餐桌。吃饭时,同学们凑足八人,就可以开饭。比饶家大院的旧学生食堂宽敞多了。虽然还没有凳子坐,仍让人感到新鲜。
我在55年考入重庆大学机械系。大学的学习和生活,与中学有很大的不同。上课没有固定的教室。每堂课都是按课程表上排定的教室上课,下课就离开。去到下一堂课指定的教室。平时自习、演练习题和复习,也没有固定的场所。同学们都背着帆布书包,从一个教室赶去另一个教室。
在寝室里,有一张属于自己的小课桌。一间二十平方米的寝室,额定人数八人。四张双层木床摆在门窗两侧。中心地带是八张小课桌。摆放得挤挤的。
除了归宿和上课外,同学们都挎着帆布书包,自行物色图书馆或教室,或自习,或翻阅参考书。自由度比中学时代大多了。
入学两年来,为了选择适宜的自习场所,我熟悉了校园内所有角落。我和马开先选中了松林坡后面一栋旧教学楼作为自习场所。那栋黄楼房,虽然已移交给了汉渝路小学,但暂时还空着。教室里的桌子板凳多已残缺,桌面上还覆盖着厚厚的灰尘,很少有人光顾,显得十分安静。
那幢教学大楼被松树林包围,空气特别清新。当时,我和马开先正在初恋。这儿给我们提供了一个复习功课而不受他人打扰的场所。我从建筑队借来斧锯等工具,自己动手,修好了两套桌椅。还钉了两个可以随身携带的小方凳。专供开会和看露天电影用。需用时,便去拿。
那天下午的传达,同学们按系别和班级,坐在各自的区域中。老师们则被统一安排在食堂前方就坐。没设主席台。高音喇叭里传来了毛泽东《关于正确处理人民内部矛盾的问题》的讲话原声录音。
传达会开始,党委书记郑思群郑重宣布:不准作记录。在郑思群异常严肃的眼光压迫下,原先准备记录的老教授们,只好悄悄收起了笔记本,坐在那里静静聆听。与以往的气氛大不相同。
毛泽东那浑浊的湖南口音,加上录制过程的杂音,虽然影响了聆听效果,但个个脸色凝重,神情肃穆。
毛泽东的讲话虽然冗长而杂乱,但有一些过去从未提到过的说法,仍使人感到新鲜,吸引了大家的注意力。从下午两点到傍晚六点半,整整四个多小时,现场秩序一直很好。很少有人交头接耳,也没有人中途溜号。
在当时,无论是老师和学生,都对这位党国元首的每一句话奉为圣旨。因为他的话常常决定着国家的前途,也决定着自己的命运。
我至今还记得,毛泽东那慢悠悠的湖南腔中,讲到了赫鲁晓夫和苏共二十大,讲到了匈牙利事件和波兰事件,讲到了东欧局势,讲到了反对个人崇拜……毛还对无比神圣的斯大林作了“功过”三七开的评价。说共产党还存在着严重的主观主义、官僚主义和宗派主义。当毛说到裴多菲俱乐部、布达佩斯事件和波兹南等事件时,说那里的共产党没有很好解决人民内部矛盾。强调要用批评和自我批评的方法,用民主、说服的方法,来妥善解决人民内部矛盾。要“百花齐放,百家争鸣”,要进行“大鸣、大放、大字报”……
当时,联共(布)党史是我们的必修课。为了应付考试,我们只是把它当成死记硬背的教条,从未深入思考。尤其是我这个出身于“反革命家庭”的学生,更没有兴趣去弄清这门课程的真正内涵。即使苏共二十大的“秘密报告”引发了一连串共产党阵营内的地震,也没有引起过我的足够重视。
我自幼就被“反革命家属”的紧箍咒套着。一听到“反革命”和“镇压反革命”的咒语,就使我感到芒刺在背,心惊肉跳。我不敢设想自己挨整后的可怕后果,只是想方设法地逃避。
入学第一年,就碰上了“反胡风”运动。每次学习,仿佛都在对我念紧箍咒。在整个“反胡风”运动中,同学们只是模仿报纸上的官腔套话,厉声谴责,声色俱厉。从来不敢表述自己的真情实感。我更是躲得远远的。不敢想什么,更不敢说什么。
我刚上中学的时候,父亲就被捕了。我始终谨记母亲的教诲:“不要过问政治,那是一个危险的领域。也不要从事教育,你父亲就是例子。念好你的工科,有了一技之长,才有安身立命的本钱。千万不要多嘴……”
斯大林死后,发生了一连串重大政治事件。我除了从报纸上得到“社会主义阵营是坚不可摧的,是无比团结的,共产主义是不可战胜的”的标准解释之外,便什么都不知道了。
毛的这个讲话,对我们这些“怕”得要命的大学生,无不感到“亲切”和“鼓舞”。那些端坐在中心地带的老教授们,也挺直了腰板,聚精会神。
听过录音传达之后,同学们开始了议论。过去从未关心过东欧局势的人们,也你一言我一语地热烈讨论起来。有人甚至绘声绘色地讲述中央情报局的特工,是如何潜入到苏共二十大前的政治局秘密会议上,窃取了赫鲁晓夫的“秘密报告”……
在这段时间里,听到一些共产党内部斗争的传闻,曾极大的激活了我们这些长期闭目塞听而愚昧盲从的工科大学生。图书馆内,阅览室里,极其稀少的“参考消息”等刊物,被同学们抢借一空。大家开始思考一些问题。一个思想活跃的春天,似乎徐徐降临了。
我和马开先也不例外,也跟风阅读了一些这类报刊。扪心自问,我俩几乎是没有任何政治意识的政治“盲人”。只有用耳朵听的份。同学们的议论,对我俩来说,绝对是新鲜和“知识性”的。
两天以后,教学大楼前挂出了“百花齐放,百家争鸣”的巨幅横额。接着,全校两次在松林坡大礼堂召开了“帮助党整风”的动员大会。两次会议都由校党委副书记宋殿宾主持。
会场内外,贴着各种标语:“正确区分两类矛盾,正确处理人民内部矛盾”;“发动群众,和风细雨帮助党整顿党风”;“反对主观主义、官僚主义和宗派主义”;“知无不言,言无不尽。言者无过,闻者足戒。有则改之,无则嘉勉。”等等。
那次动员大会上,宋殿宾用异常诚恳的语气拍着胸口表态说:“自己保证带头在这次运动中虚心听取大家的意见。不管有多么尖锐,都要接受。”
“整风”动员大会第二天,又在团结广场召开了规模更大的“大鸣大放动员大会”。所有校级领导纷纷登台表态:要求大家本着“知无不言、言无不尽”的态度提意见……
插图02

(这是重庆大学团结广场的下半部,大型露天集会一般在此举行)
紧接着,各系、各年级、各班,也纷纷召开“大鸣大放动员会”。要求大家不要逃避,不要作“逍遥派”。
与此同时,上至人民日报,下至重庆日报,加上全国各地的广播电台,开足马力,一个劲地鼓吹:“全党和全国人民,要积极投入大鸣大放大辩论。这是当前压倒一切的中心任务”。“党外民主人士更要积极帮助党进行整风”。摆出一副“虚怀若谷、同心同德建设新中国”和“共存、共荣、相互监督,披肝历胆、和衷共济”的诚恳态度。
在57年春暖花开的时节里,毛泽东为全国送来了一阵迷人的“香”风。他的美妙许诺,似乎将“思想改造”、“三反五反”、“肃反”、“镇反”和“反胡风”等一系列政治运动的恐怖气氛一扫而空。
紧接着,各班级的“鸣放会”也轰轰烈烈地开展了起来。为了不占用课时,开始的时候,只在下午课外活动时间举行。逐渐延伸到晚上,直至拿出整个下午,甚至拿出全天进行“鸣放”。
被恐怖政治空气压抑了七年的人们,虽然对于这种突然降临的宽松气氛感到兴奋,但顾虑到反“反胡风运动”才过去几个月,大都害怕沾上“反动”的帽子,只好远远地躲开。
面对着党、团干部再三动员,各班的鸣放会反而“冷场”了。叫我们这些工科大学生说些什么好呢?我们可以就一个设计或一道力学题争得面红耳赤,但要让我们向党提意见,确实毫无思想准备,也没有什么意见可提。
为了检查各班的鸣放情况,机械系党支部书记尹四海,专门召集了各年级各班团支部书记会议。会上给各班团支部书记发了一个笔记本。要求他们必须准确完整地记下发言者的内容和姓名等。晚上按时上交,第二天早晨取回再记。
我们班的鸣放会,就在团支部书记陈思顺所在的204房举行。当时,学生中的中共党员人数很少。机械系一千三百多名学生,仅十几名党员。我们年级四百多名同学,才五六名党员。按照规定,会议必须由党员主持。但在没有党员的班里,则由团支部书记主持。
我们班的团支部书记陈思顺,心中也没有底。因而谨小慎微,诚惶诚恐。放胆鸣放的局面始终没有打开。
不久前,就在这个204房里,举行“反胡风”的“背靠背”揭发批判会。一位助教因鼓吹“学习是一个独立奋斗、独立拼搏的过程”,从而被打成了“胡风反革命份子”,被送去劳动教养。
陈思顺亲眼看到那位助教被送上囚车,他有一种说不出来的迷惘和困惑。凡是政治学习,他总是把我们年级的党支部组织委员曹英的话认真记下来,回来照本宣科,逐字照读。不敢稍有松懈。生怕念错了字就犯下了错误。“反胡风运动”杀气腾腾言犹在耳,现在又要求大家“知无不言,言无不尽”,未免使人在思想上难以转过弯来。
二十平方米的房间里,挤坐着我们班的三十几位同学。陈思顺结结巴巴地作了“开场白”。班长郭英华准备记录。
鸣放会从一开始,大家你看看我,我看看你,谁都不愿说话。因为在会议上的发言是不同的。像赫鲁晓夫的秘密报告,大家可以在图书馆或饭堂里的侃得神乎其神。但这些东西,怎敢拿到会上来说?大家都清楚,说走了嘴,就会犯“政治错误”。国家的施政方针、毛泽东思想,谁能弄得清?讲话和发言,要合乎“政治原则”。
鸣放会开成了哑巴会,这可急坏了陈思顺。这样下去,怎么向尹书记交差?他只好沿用历次政治学习的老办法,挨个点名,要求发言。
结果,几乎所有点到名的发言者,都与陈思顺的“开场白”一样,尽是一些言不由衷的套话。尽管郭英华在记录时作了语言的调整,无非是用词不同,胆意思却没有改变。
第二天,陈思顺果然挨了尹四海的批评。全系各年级各班的情况也大致相同。于是尹书记再作布置,要求各班团支部务必想尽一切方法,让大家说出“心里话”,向党交心。
陈思顺回来,立即召开了团支部会议,研究对策。宣教委员秦松美出了一个点子:先让平时最爱放炮的林娟和刘唐发言……组织委员刘奎则建议:由林娟最看不起的雷田沛先说话,林娟必会作出反应……总之,在这次会议上,大家出谋画策,要使鸣放会活跃起来。
第二天的鸣放会便依“计”而行。点名要雷田沛首先发言。雷田沛只说了不到十句话,果然引来了林娟的一番挖苦。说他像个录音机,不像个男同学……
林娟说完,还将话峰直逼班长郭英华。说郭英华的工作作风简单生硬,经常凭个人的主观愿望来组织班里的活动。凡是她不喜欢的活动,都无法开展起来。比方说人家五班,已组织去了长寿湖,又去了大足,他们班每周都有活动,或组织郊游。而我们班只有死板的周末舞会。舞会上又没有人教,只好各干各的。希望郭英华在这次整风中好好改一改。
郭英华冷不防受到林娟的一顿抢白,脸上红一阵白一阵的。记录的笔也停了下来。等到想起要作记录时,只好草草记下:“林娟发言:批评班长郭英华思想古板,有主观主义和教条主义的毛病,组织班上的活动死板,应当改进”。
郭英华没有想到,大鸣大放的第一把火,竟烧到了自己头上?但只好硬着头皮,做出虚心接受的样子。因为校长早就交待过,被批评的人,不准当面辩解。这是大鸣大放的第一条纪律。
林娟开了头炮,刘唐紧紧跟上。他举了一个实例,来批评郭英华的“官僚”作风:“去年上机械原理的齿轮课时,大家对齿轮变位齿的正负变位的选齿还没有弄清楚,认为林教授讲得快了些,希望林教授在晚自习时给大家补一补。但郭英华却反对说,‘自习课本来就是自己学习、自己消化。个别同学没弄懂,完全可以自己去问,也有参考书可以看,没有必要全班抽时间补一堂课’。结果,大家的意见被轻易否定了。这就是主观主义、教条主义的表现。对不对。”
刘唐虽然将帽子扣得很大,仍然同“帮助党整风”挨不上边。
虽然文不对题,但毕竟有了争论。大家七言八语,鸣放会开成了一个实实在在的民主生活检讨会。郭英华成了鸣放的对象。
在接下来的几天里,我们班的“大鸣大放”,都是针对陈思顺、刘奎、郭英华的批评内容。“帽子”也大同小异。
看来,工科大学生的大鸣大放,只局限于与自己的生活学习直接相关的班干部。郭英华虽然受了一点委屈,但总比“冷场”要好。别说不满二十岁的陈思顺和郭英华不知道整风的主旨,就连校党委书记兼校长郑思群和副书记兼人事处主任宋殿宾,也不知道中共中央的“用心”。谁知道毛泽东葫芦里卖的什么药?

2、大字报

唯独校园里贴出的大字报,倒在校园搅起了一阵风波。

贴在学生宿舍墙上的第一张大字报,是以谦恭的语气,向年级的党小组长、机械系党支部组织委员曹英“进一言”的。谦卑的语气中,含有一点讥讽和挖苦的内容。以曹英的知识水平,未必能懂。大字报的大意是:希望曹英能在这次整风中先给自己洗个澡,与其只知道装腔作势的训人,不如多读点数学和力学。不要经常“吃鹅蛋”,以免在今后的工作中辜负了党的期望,难以真正为人民服务。

曹英是某机关调来的“调干生”,比我们这些从中学生考来的学生足足大了十多岁。属于随军南下的干部。出身于农民,文化程度不会高于小学。已是两个小孩的父亲,是从“机关”专门调来“镀金”的。

当时,像这种带着官帽的大龄“调干生”,光机械系就有好几个。他们的全部威信就是建立在一张冷若冰霜的脸上,让人望而生畏。加上言必称党的利益,动辄训人,批评别人“阶级意识太差”。谁都对他们都畏惧三分,敬而远之。

中共建政初期,为改造知识分子“结构”,为了在“剥削阶级”出身的学生中渗入共产主义“成分”,“调干生”制度便应运而生。“调干生”的主要目的是渗透,而不管他们是否学有所成。曹英面带雀斑,在学生中早有绯闻。说他经常借“政审”和“个别谈话”之机,在漂亮的女同学面前动手动脚。

自从贴出了第一张大字报,接着便有第二张、第三张,以至于无数张。

这大概是校园内的第一批大字报。从曹英开始,波及至校内各级领导。由下而上的写到党委副书记宋殿宾。其中闹得沸沸扬扬的,当首推针对膳食科张科长的大字报。

张科长四十来岁,出身于河北农家,随刘邓大军进入四川,当过营长。因“工作需要”,分配到重庆大学,担任了他能胜任的“领导工作”——管理膳食科。

张科长任科长几年,他家门前,经常是迎来送往,车水马龙。据闻张科长喜欢喝酒,家里来了客人,纷纷送上名酒等礼物。当年十分名贵的茅台、五粮液等。在他的家里,是品类齐全,应有尽有。“三反”和“五反”时,他曾受到审查。但后来作了结论,属于“过关”的干部。大鸣大放时,把他的“瘟猪肉事件”揭了出来,轰动了全校。

“瘟猪肉事件”是张科长不知从哪里买进了几百头肥猪。第二天,重庆大学膳食科的养猪场便开始“发瘟”。打针喂药都无法止住,只好变养猪场为屠宰场。将几百头猪变成了几十吨猪肉。张科长还叫人封锁消息。结果学生顿顿是猪肉。纸毕竟没有包住火,大鸣大放时,张科长首先就上了大字报。

瘟猪肉事件使张科长有口难辩。他既说不清何以一次买进那么多病猪?更说不清明知是病猪,却用来“毒害”三千多名大学生?

“瘟猪肉事件”声势越来越大,张科长便成了众矢之的。“贪官”、“杀人犯”这些耸人听闻的大帽子,纷纷向他头上扣来。使胖胖的张科长背上了沉重的精神包袱。平时走路时经常低着头,还被学生业余漫画家林毓森、杨汉群等人画成了一头大肥猪。

受张科长瘟猪肉事件牵连,他的老乡兼“上级”宋殿宾也成了大字报揭发对象。宋殿宾是全校第二把手,掌管着全校教职员工的人事档案,难免使他养成一种居高临下训斥别人的习惯。这几年来,一波波袭来的镇反、肃反、三反、五反、反胡风运动,哪一次不是宋殿斌扮演“太上皇”角色?岂止犯了官僚主义错误?许多人命关天的冤案,他也是罪魁祸首。

但所有的大字报,依然很懂“政策”,语气绝对是“与人为善”。在林毓森的画笔下,将宋殿宾画成一个官僚。只知道整天将腿翘在办公桌上,旁边摆着茶杯香烟和散乱的文件。配上一首打油诗。大意是:宋书记平时办公时,喝茶抽烟,草率地批发文件,从不关心师生疾苦。希望他能在这次运动中认真改一改。

对其他党团干部的大字报,大抵属于生活作风和工作作风的批评。

偶尔出现的几张附和“教授治校”、“反对党委独揽大权”、“反对人民代表的选举由党委包办”、“历次运动中伤害无辜”的大字报,也是低调善意,数量稀少,而被淹没在工作作风和生活作风的大字报的汪洋大海之中。

后来还贴出过几张大字报,说苏联驻华大使馆武官和旅顺总领事馆的苏军兵士,在中国举办的招待舞会上,对中国女招待动手动脚和强行“接吻”的非礼行为。说有损于民族尊严。算是最“出格”的了。

重庆大学毕竟以理工科和技术教育为宗旨的学校。据当时统计,出身于“剥削阶级”家庭的学生占总人数的80%

“解放”以后,经过土改斗地主和杀地主、三反、五反、肃反、镇反等运动,恐怖气氛笼罩着全国。那些沾上“剥削阶级”出身的人,正是革命的对象。虽然还没有受到明显的歧视,但强大的社会舆论压力,成了我们沉重的“精神枷锁”。

我的父亲孔祥嘉,在“解放”后不久就被捕了。仍在狱中服刑,不知生死。以我这种“反革命”子弟的身份,我对“政治”一词,早已畏如鬼神,自觉“矮人一等”。一听到“反革命”三个字,就像踩着蛇一样,胆战心惊。

再加上母亲一再告诫我“千万不要涉足政治,莫谈国是”,所以我下决心,选读理工科。能与一般公民“平身”,我便心满意足了。对政治的戒惧,使我成为政治上的盲人。充其量只是为了应付考试,去死记硬背“联共(布)党史”而已。

当时,《人民日报》及全国各大报刊,刊出了种种闻所未闻的“奇谈”。如陈名枢的“三人行必有我师”,黄绍竤的“以党代政”,张奚若批评中共“好大喜功、急功近利、鄙视既往、迷信将来”等言论。我只是感到新鲜,也没有往深处去想。至于章伯钧的“政治设计院”是什么意思?我更是不明所以。

储安平的“党天下”,曾轰动一时。引起了同学们的热烈讨论。但我和马开先也没有参与。

罗隆基提出的“平反委员会”的倡议,倒对我触动很大,印象深刻。像我这种深受“出身”之害而饱受歧视的人,虽然产生了强烈的共鸣,也只是默记于心,而不敢公开表示出来。

直到《重庆日报》刊载了董时光在西南师范大学的演讲文字以后,同学们才有了有血有肉的感触。

董时光是“解放”后受中共感召从美归国的人。他经历了两种生活的对比,使他十分悔恨自己回到这个毫无人权保障的国家。他以自己亲身经历来说明他的思想,对我们很有启发意义。重庆大学便邀他来松林坡大礼堂演讲。

董时光的演讲会,学校没有动员,都是自愿去的。我也没有去。马开先倒是去了。她回到我们复习的地方,绘声绘色地向我“传达”演讲的内容,使我感到“受益匪浅”。

马开先说:董先生全用事实说话,讲得实实在在的。比方说美国的学校,教师和学生可以就学校设备、教学安排、乃至于教师待遇等问题,向董事会提出质疑。而董事会必须给予答复。凡正确的,必须加以采纳,并出示改正时间。在董事答复会上,任何人都可以自由地发表自己的见解……美国公民在毫无障碍的情况下参加选举,而美国政府必须遵守宪法,尊重任何人的意见。任何人都可以批评政府,并通过议员弹劾政府官员。至于说到美国人民生活水平,与中国相比,那真是天渊之别……

从阿先那兴奋激动、滔滔不绝的介绍中,我感叹自己的可怜和闭塞。我们深受中共系统性欺骗和愚弄,只能接受“资本主义国家的工人农民过着牛马不如的生活”之类的鬼话。

可以说,在整个大鸣大放过程中,我完全处于懵懂无知的状态。我在“反革命家庭出身”的压抑下自我封闭。不敢去想,更不敢说。只是躲得远远的,追求个人的出人头地。

压抑使思想僵化,而愚昧又使压抑合法化。大鸣大放中,我们没有感到这种长期压抑有什么不对。今天看来,我们真是一群长期压抑的可悲人类。

有了“百花齐放”的政策,有了各级党团组织一再诚恳的表态和承诺,大家渐渐的放松了戒心。

谭天荣在北京大学刷出了争取民主的大字报。

林希翎在北大发表演说,为胡风鸣冤,为社会主义民主呐喊。

在西南一隅,四川大学冯竹君也发出争取民主自由的呼吁。

在这种社会氛围下,重庆大学的鸣放讲台上,站出了一位冶金系团委书记蒲世光,贴出了一张署名“非团员呼声编辑部”的大字报,旨在替家庭出身不好而在入团问题上备受歧视的学生呼吁,反对“唯成分论”。蒲世光遂成了“出身不好”的师生心目中的英雄。

同学们在百花齐放、百家争鸣的“春风细雨”的沐浴下,渐渐地从思想禁锢的牢笼中醒来。而我和马开先却躲在那间僻静的教室里复习功课,并贪图着初恋的欢愉。

谭天荣的大字报,是以“中国共产党万岁”为结束语。林希翎喊出的民主,依然是“社会主义民主”。但毛泽东一声令下,掀起了一场轰轰烈烈的“反右派”运动,把奉命开口的人统统打成另类,受到九死一生的折磨和摧残,直至家破人亡。

蒲世光最终以“组织反革命集团罪”被判处二十年徒刑。

我除了被迫参加班级鸣放会之外,没有参与过任何辩论和鸣放,更没有兴趣去探讨和思考。我只是暗暗赞赏别人的见识和勇气。

在这段时间里,我和阿先更多的是相互介绍自己的身世,尤其是我不幸的童年和少年。

——- 英文翻译 ——

第一章:陷入阳谋的初生牛犊

Blood Chronicle Book One

Chapter One The Newborn Calf Falls into the Trap of Openness

In early April 1957, it already felt like Spring on the Chongqing University campus. At noon one day, the student restaurant loudspeakers blared an announcement from the university party committee — “This afternoon at two o’clock, all university students, teachers and staff will hear the chairman of the university party committee pass along an important document from the Central Committee. Bring your own stool. Don’t be absent.”

Then a song about the beauty of the four season by Zhou Xuan was played. I took my lunch and walked out the west side of the restaurant. On the steps, my classmate Ma Kaixian was eating her lunch and sunning herself.

“This afternoon we will have to listen to another report. Which one of us is bringing the stools?” I asked.

She turned towards her face, slightly reddened already by the Spring sunlight answering, “Of course, that’s your job. I’ll wait for you here.” Then she flicked her pigtail towards me mischeviously and made a face.

I passed the Chongqing University Mechanical Engineering Department entrance examination in 1955. Life in college was much different from high school. We didn’t have any one classroom but followed a schedule moving from classroom to classroom. We chose out seat when we arrived and then left as the end of that class. There was no set place for self-study and review work. Apart from going to classes and studying late in the dormitory, students took their book bags and their things to study in the library or in classrooms. Life was much freer than in high school. Having been in the school for two years, I knew all the good places to study and every corner of the campus.

Ma Xiankai and I chose an old building near the pine forest back gate to the school. Most of the chairs and desks were missing; most people didn’t go there. It was quiet, pine trees were all about and the air was especially fresh. In those days, we had just fallen in love and enjoyed having a quiet place to study together and discuss things where we would not be disturbed. We repaired two desks and chairs ourselves and nailed together two stools that we could take wherever we liked whenever we attended a meeting or an outdoor film.

That afternoon, we heard a recording of Mao Zedong speaking at the Eleventh State Council meeting on “The Correct Handing of Contradictions Among the People”. When the meeting started, the university party committee secretary Zheng Siqun at the microphone announced that we would not be allowed to take notes. He enunciated the instruction very clearly, stressing each word, so that we knew that this was a rule that must be obeyed. Mao Zedong’s difficult Hunan accent added to the noise on the recording made listening difficult. However that were many things on the recording that we had never heard in our political studies that made this special. This freshness added to university president Zheng’s stern instruction, made for a much different atmosphere than before.

In those days, everyone was respectful of this top leader of the party and state. Although the recording was long, repetitious and disjointed yet order remained good and everyone on this ten thousand square meter “meeting place” listened from two o’clock in the afternoon until 6:30. There was very little talking back and forth and nobody snuck away. I remember to this day listening to that leisurely Hunan drawl as he talked about Khrushchev and the 17th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party, about the events in Hungary and Poland, and about the situation in Eastern Europe. During those days, the “History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union” was a required course as part of our political training. Students of engineering and science, and in particular those of us who were the children of “counter-revolutionary households” were not interested in delving deeply into that curriculum. This even though the secret report to the Twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the USSR, after it was revealed to the world by the CIA and had created a series of earthquakes and divisions in the communist camp, had not made an impression on us.

Ever since my early youth I had been cursed by the tag of being from a “counter-revolutionary household”. Just hearing about counterrevolutionary riots and their suppression made me feel worry that I was going to be put into a difficult position and suffer for it. In my freshman year, I had run into the movement to fight the Hu Feng Counter-revolutionary group. Every time I heard that fearful label in my ears, I didn’t dare ask “Why did Hu Feng want to oppose the revolution?” I would simply repeat the dry statement that the Communist Youth League person had given us and never went any further. When I started Middle School, my father was arrested. Caught up in a long series of red terror movements, I always remembered my mother’s injunction “Don’t be like your father, don’t ask about politics, just be a good student and discover your talents. That is the only thing. Don’t say anything about anything else, child. Remember the example of your father. ”

As for the Soviet Union, all I knew was that “the socialist camp is impregnable. Nothing is stronger. Communism cannot be defeated. The Communist Party will destroy all the plots of the imperialists.”

That day however, we heard from the very lips of Mao Zedong himself that we must opposed personality cults and the hero-worshiping of individuals. We heard that person from Hun an say that the the good deeds and errors of that deified figure Stalin himself were in the ratio of three to seven. That very head of the Soviet Communist Party who had been praised as the leader and father had become an ordinary man who made mistakes! We for the first time heard a new theory, to wit: Serious errors of subjectivism, bureaucratism, and factionalism exist even within that sacred and paramount institution — the Communist Party. There had been strikes and demonstrations in the socialist countries of Eastern Europe because their communist parties had been unable to resolve contradictions among the people. That “There are many contradictions among the people, some of them quite serious at times” We need to use the methods of criticism and self-criticism, democracy and persuasion to resolve contradictions among the people. The academic world should rely on as its guiding principle the method of “Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom, Let a Hundred Schools of Thought Compete”. Speak out freely and fully and write big character posters.

These principles, like a fresh rain, encouraged all the students since they had been chilled by a steady succession of political campaigns. I noticed the teachers in the front row straightening up and concentrating.

After the meeting was over, the students started vigorous discussions. Some of the students at the student restaurant even launched into a vivid description of Khrushchev secret report to the Twentieth Congress of the Soviet Communist Party that had been stolen by the CIA.

The library’s copy of Reference News and other publications that had published this report were all taken as everyone fought to read these materials and from them ponder just what was going on in China.

My lover and I were no exception. In the little study room we had made for ourselves we discussed it. An intellectually stimulating Spring had come upon us!

第一節:“大鳴大放” Section One “Speak Out Boldly, Holding Nothing Back”

Two days later, a banner “Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom, Let a Hundred Schools of Thought Contend” in big red letters hung from the education building.

Then all the Communist Party, Youth League, Teachers and employees of the university participated in a meeting held at the auditorium on Pine Hill called “Help the Communist Party Correct its Working Style” “speak out boldly” meeting led by the Chongqing University Communist Party Deputy Secretary Song Dianne. On the buildings around the meeting place there were already hung all kinds of colorful slogans such as “Correctly distinguish between the two kinds of contradictions and handle correctly contradictions among the people”; “mobilize the masses in a mild and caring way to help the Party conscientiously correct problems in its working style”; “oppose subjectivism, bureaucratism and factionalism”; “Speaking out is not wrong, listeners should heed the warning, talk about anything you know about and don’t hold anything back”.

At that mobilization meeting, Song Dianbin spoke in an unusually mild and sincere way. To express the attitude of the school party committee, he pounded on his chest to pledge that as he led this meeting, he would be open-minded as he listened to everyone’s opinions. He said he would accept any criticism, no matter how pointed.

The day after the mobilization meeting led by Song Dianbin, another big “speak out boldly” assembly of the entire university was held on the Unity Arena. All the top university leaders spoke out, welcoming everyone and asking everyone to share their views and to hold nothing back. Following them spoke the members of the mobilization committees of the various university departments, years and sections. They got into some detail and urged the entire university teachers, staff and students not to “avoid” any topic.

At the same time, the national media was getting into high gear, repeating constantly “The entire party and the entire people are taking active part in a big speak out boldly debate. The movement to correct the working style of the Communist Party is the the most urgent current task facing us all” and that it was particularly important that “democratic elements outside the Communist Party participate more actively in helping the Communist Party correct its working style.” The authorities employed slogans like a Chinese Communist must be determined “to make themselves of one heart and one mind with the people, and work together with the people to build a prosperous New China” and to be honest in working together “with the people of the democratic parties build prosperous coexistence, to supervise one another, and to cooperate with them as one”.

After reading some representative statements from the discussions at the meeting of all the democratic parties and democratic elements of the country convened by the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party, such as Chen Mingshu’s “Seeking Teachers and Friends h Outside the Party”, I thought that Chen Mingshu’s talks was just flattery of the Communist Party. In particular, the part where inspired by the old saying “Among any three people, at least one must be my teacher”, he suggests that the Communist Party itself should also seek advice from people who are not party members, which is nothing more than what Mao Zedong himself said. Huang Shaohong’s talk “The Party Replacing the Government” touched on an extremely sensitive issue of the leadership of the Communist Party. He said while the Party is certain to be concerned about the methods of governance, actually doing everything itself is not a good working style or a good method. It would be strange indeed if the Party trying to do everything did not lead to the ills of subjectivism, bureaucratism and factionalism.

Moreover, Zhang Xiruo discussed the problem of the Communist Party’s four major deviations — being overly ambitious for great achievements, being too eager for quick successes and accomplishments, despising the past, and having a superstitious anticipation of a great future” These opinions were offered to Mao Zedong as part of “taking the pulse”. Didn’t Mao Zedong earnestly call for everyone to present their opinions without reserve? Who could have predicted that Mr. Zhang’s words diagnose Mao Zedong’s mental illness and sensitive taboo?

Zhang Bojun in his talk on “A Political Planning Institute” suggest that many people should work together on political planning. That four humble workmen putting their heads together can plot a great strategy — is that what Mao Zedong had told us many times in his talks? Didn ‘t he call for a hundred flowers to bloom? Isn’t calling for a Political Planning Institute just an enthusiastic response to his call?

As for Chu Anping’s “The Party Controls Everything” made a sensation. The idea grew out of the old joke about the young monk who was always praising the old monk. “The Party Controls Everything” is just calling a spade a spade, not the servility of Chen Mingshu and speaking more directly than Huang Shaohong about the tyranny of the Communist Party, something that had the Chinese Communist Party’s allies had expresses dissastisfaction with that year.

How could university students under the control of red terrorism understand the world struggle between autocracy and democracy that was underway? Isn’t it a fact that the Communist Party was always deceiving people in matters both large and small? Wasn’t it true that those weak voices against one party rule were saying the same views that the Communist Party had strongly held back when it was fighting the rule of the Nationalist Party?

Luo Longji is his “Rehabilitation Committee” proposal showed how under the rule of the Communist Party there were a great many injustices. Who was not aware of that, especially people who had been attacked on account of their families? From the perspective of the ruling party, correcting mistaken and unjust cases should be a right and proper correction to make and a forthright opinion to offer.

Now these people who brought up these views and human rights were the “old friends” who had supported and helped the Communist Party. Mao Zedong himself had acknowledged that without their support, the Communists could not have won. Most of what they said were views that the Communist Party itself used to propose and hold. Now these views, from the perspective of a governing party, were hindrances.

Now the strong anesthetic injection that “The nationwide large scale class struggle storm had passed and the new period of peaceful construction has arrived” and so the atmosphere of fear generated during the campaigns of the Three Oppositions (oppose corruption, waste and bureaucracy) and Five Oppositions (oppose bribery, tax evasion, theft of state property, cheating on government contracts and stealing) and the campaign against the Hu Feng counter-revolutionary clique had dissipated. Now it seemed that the big democracy of Europe can be used and the mild methods of “little democracy” can be applied to solve problems.

This is how as the spring flower blossoms opened during the third lunar month of 1957, Mao Zedong spread a deceptive “fragrance” throughout the country. In the lines of the relaxing tune “Correctly Handle Contradictions Among the People” describes how under the leadership of the Communist Party the masses “made trouble” for which the magnanimous Communist Party blamed itself, humbling bowing low as it accepted the “criticisms” and “suggestions” of the masses. The Party is like a glorious democratic spirit which for the sake of the state and the people came to the campus to plant a cultivate the beautiful scene of the “hundred flowers blooming”. The spring is the season for planting. The spring is just the season for showing the wonderful image of the Creator.

We who had already lived for seven years under the red terror of the Chinese Communist Party breathed sighs of relief and felt that in the midst of our fear we have been given an unexpected favor. We had become accustomed to the loss of democratic rights and always felt very cautious about freedom of speech, for hadn’t the Hu Feng counterrevolutionary clique made that error only a few months earlier?

They were used to have the great matters of state being taken charge of by the “party’s policy” and the “governance” of the school to be handled by the school’s party committee. So they never thought about those things. Moreover they were afraid of being tagged as someone who came from a “counter-revolutionary” household or as someone who had “counter-revolutionary thoughts”, of being investigated, and so kept their distance from these things.

Everyone knew from the Hu Feng case that anyone who listened to foreign broadcasts could be convicted of treason and jailed so nobody dared to listen to them. Conversely, they thought that this dictatorial measure of the Chinese communists was right and proper and that democratic views were dangerous. They became so cowardly that even when their own relatives were condemned unjustly in some campaign that they didn’t dare to speak up for them, thinking that making use of their right to appeal would get them into dangerous territory and so simply gave up. They didn’t dare oppose the arrogant attitude of the Communist Party organization.

Therefore when the party branch organization urged them on, they will unwilling to say anything at the “speak out” meetings. What did they expect these students of science and engineering to say? They could perfectly well have a passionate debate about some technical issue. They never expected and never imagined that they would be expected to offer advice to the party

In order to find out how the various “speak out” meetings were going, the branch party secretary called a meeting of the branch youth league secretaries for each year and each class and gave out a notebook to each one of them. He admonished them to be ready to make notes on the meeting of the next day, including the names of all the speakers. They were told that they must turn in the notebooks to his office every evening before lights out.

Not only did the youth league branch secretaries for each class not understand the intention behind all this, their liaison branch party secretary did not know and was just following the directions of the school party committee. The secrecy of the Communist Party was strict and so when the Party center decided on a policy, it required organizations at every level to carry out the policy as stated. They weren’t allowed to ask why!

The speak out meeting of our class was held by the branch youth league secretary Chen Si, in his room, No. 204. In those days there were very few student members of the Communist Party. Among the 1300 students in our department, there were only a dozen or so party members. This meeting in principle should have been chaired by a party member, but on the class level was convened instead by the youth league secretary.

Chen Si didn’t known how to conduct this kind of meeting which was strictly required by party policy. He didn’t know what to do and was afraid of making a mistake if he didn’t do it right, but he didn’t have any idea of what was correct and incorrect. The sophomore political guidance instructor, a Mr. Deng had previously in that same room had called a series of meetings with several people who didn’t know about other meetings on the same topic so as to root out and criticize the Hu Feng counter-revolutionary clique. Then, a teaching assistant said that “Study is a matter of fighting alone with all one’s might” and so was marked as a Hu Feng element. Later that teaching assistant was sent to away for re-education through labor.

Chen Si had no idea of why it was wrong to say that “study is a matter of fighting alone with all one’s might”. Where is the mistake in saying that? He himself had seen that teaching assistant being taken away in the prison van. From then on, he was especially on his guard whenever he met party members.

Normally when he conducted political study sessions for his class, he first made close notes of the talk the branch party secretary for their year Cao Ying gave them and reproduced them exactly, never daring to stray from them in any way.

That was not even a year ago. The brutality in political instructor Deng’s voice still rang in his ears. Suddenly everyone is asked to think broadly and told that it is allowed to say anything. People don’t understand that at all.

Chen Si made his opening remarks according to the notes that he had made at the department meeting. Class leader Guo Yinghu opened the meeting record book. The first day’s discussion was cautious, not at all like the vigorous discussions the students had had in the library and restaurant.

This worried Chen Si. How could he present a record of this meeting of the dumb to the school’s party secretary. There was no alternative but to use the old method of political meetings and call on people one by one.

Everyone simply gave a response in line with Chen Si’s opening remarks. Although Deng Yinghua made some revisions for the sake of the record, they were not significant, mere changes in phrasing. If he were to present this record to the school party secretary, he would certainly be criticized. The meetings of all the classes in the department went just the same way. The school party secretary then demanded that the youth league secretaries for each branch think of ways to get people to “speak from the heart”.

Chen Si returned and called a meeting of the branch committee of the youth league branch. The Propaganda and Education Committee member made a suggestion, volunteering to ask the ordinarily outspoken Lin Juan and Liu Tang speak first. Let them present suggestions on the work of their youth league branch. Organization Committee member Liu Kuize suggested that the person that Lin Juan most despises, Lei Tianpei speak first, then have Lin Juan make a response. This would enliven the whole atmosphere.

This plan was carried out at the next day’s “speak out” rally. Lei Tianpei spoke first and stopped after saying just ten sentences. Naturally this led to a sarcastic remark from Lin Juan, saying he was just like a poor quality tape recorder and not at a like a real man should be like. Surprisingly, she moved right on to attack class leader Guo Yinghua felt compelled to say that she was really too simple minded and harsh in her attitude. Moreover she was too subjective in the way she organized class activities, just doing things the way she pleases. For example, she said she was going to organize trips but we are already two months into the semester and we haven’t been on a trip. Another class, number five, had already gone on a trip to Longevity Lake and to Dazu — they went on a trip every week. She said she hoped that Deng Yinghua would change this incorrect work style.

Guo Yinghua face flushed red and then went pale for a moment. She put down her notebook, and didn’t know quite what to write in her notebook. She wrote this “Lin Juan statement: Criticizes Deng Guohua class leader for inflexible thinking, she has the flaws of subjectivism and dogmatism, she is inflexible in her organization work and must improve.”

After Lin Juan dropped her bomb, Liu Tangjin followed up but citing an example to criticize Guo Yinghua’s “bureaucratic” working style. He said, “Last year, in the principles of mechanics class when we discussed gears and we still were not clear about the way a gear transmission shifts upwards and downwards and though that Teacher Lin was moving a little too fast, and asked the teacher to add some additional material to work on in the self-study class, only Guo Yinghua opposed, “The self-study class is for self study, digestion of the material on one’s own, and there is no need for the entire class to meet and have a supplementary class on a small matter.” This individual subjective view blithely contradicted everyone else’s views. Isn’t is clear that this is subjectivism, that this is dogmatism.

For the sake of being in line with the “speak out boldly” theme, Liu Tang put two hats on that class leader who was not even twenty years old. Deng Guohua was not a party member and seemingly had nothing to do with “helping the Party correct its working style”. Although it was off topic, still it made for an argument and everybody brought up a wide range of opinions and so became a genuine meeting for reviewing how democratic their community life had been.

The speaking out boldly of the science and engineering students was confined to those class leaders who they were in direct contact in their daily lives and studies. Chen Si and Deng Yinghua who were not even twenty, not to mention the beloved and well respected school party secretary Zheng Siqun, had no idea what the Party Center’s intention behind all this really was.

Big character posters pasted on campus wall stirred up the quiet campus. I remember the first big character poster put up in the mechanical engineering department. That poster, in polite language, aimed to give a “word of advice” to Cao Ying. Cao Ying was the class party group leader and a member of the organization committee of the party branch of the department. He was a cadre transfer who had been sent to the department by a certain organization. Although he was ten years old that us naive students but she had no better than an elementary school education and was already the father of two children. He had been sent to the university from the bureaucracy to brush up his resume.

There were many “cadre transfer” students in the department, much older than the other students who wore the hats of both party members and officials. In the early period after “liberation”, in order to change the “composition” of the intellectuals by placing among those students who had been born into the oppressor class some students of peasant and worker backgrounds. That is how the “cadre transfer” students came to the university campus. It didn’t matter whether they could keep up with the classwork, what mattered was that they spoke up for the interests of the Party and criticize people who had “poor class consciousness”. Everyone was a little afraid of them.

The person who posted the big character poster, blended sarcasm and irony with humble words that he hoped he that this campaign would wash him thoroughly. However he also hoped that the pretentious people who were criticizing him would study more mathematics and mechanics so they wouldn’t get a zero on their graduation examination and in the future work disappoint the Party’s hopes in them, and so make it hard to achieve the goal of serving the people.

Some with the poor educational background of Cao Ying might not necessarily catch the meaning.

Then came a second poster, a third and then many more. Cao Ying already had a bad reputation among the students. He was thought to take advantage of “political examination” and “a private conversation” to often take liberties with beautiful young women who had just entered the university.

During the speak out boldly period, the most controversy surrounded the poster about the head of the university food service. It was said that this 40 some son of north China peasants left the village to fight with the revolutionary forces for several years reaching the rank of company commander. After his return to civilian life, he was assigned as head of the food service at the university. There is no need to get into all the details of what was said during the speak boldly sessions. What got the whole school set aflame was the story of the diseased pork.

Nobody knows where section head Zhang bought several hundred fat pigs, but the next day a big epidemic started on the Chongqing University food service pig pens. After pigs died, they were sent to the student restaurants. The students ate diseased pork without knowing it.

The big character poster about section head Zhang that went up during the speak boldly period made him very ashamed of the diseased pork incident. He couldn’t explain from just which illegal merchant he bought so many diseased pigs. Nor could he explain why he used what he knew where diseased pigs to poison three thousand university students.

Section head Zhang was an old party member and had served in the Eighth Route Army. After he did this evil deed, he became a target of criticism as “corrupt official” and a “murderer”. The guilt made him sleepless for many days and nights. He always walked around with his head down.

It seemed as if students’ force of public opinion and ability to criticize people orally and in writing was sufficient to keep a watch over bad working styles within the Communist Party. This student movement resembled the student protests many years later in Indonesia and South Korea. Chinese students had an honorable tradition of protest going back to the May Fourth Movement. However, the tyranny of the Communist Party fostered ignorance and blind hero worship among the students so that they were unable to make reasonable objective judgments.

Section chief Zhang had a backer in Song Dianbin, who was concurrently the university deputy party secretary and university personnel department chief. Song for years had been fighting counter-revolution; fighting in the campaign against corruption, waste and bureaucracy; fighting in the campaign against bribery, tax evasion, theft of state property, cheating on government contracts and stealing; and fighting the Hu Feng counter-revolutionary clique. He always played the role of backstage director in these campaigns. If one were to search for someone who had committed the errors of bureaucratism and subjectivism, not to mention making up charges of murdering someone, he would be the one to choose. The section chief Zhang case came to roots on the head of this man who was used to being the stage director for accusations against others.

However, all the big character posters that went up were in line with policy and did not go outside the box of “criticism”. The meaning and usage was clearly aimed at seeing people as good and needing improvement. However in the cartoon drawn by the great cartoonist Lin Yusen, director Song became a short and fat fellow with his ears pointing backwards. The cartoon portrayed him going to work everyday, putting his bare feet up on the desk, drinking tea and smoking with a bunch of scattered documents that he had just approved. Some doggerel accompanied the cartoon that said that Secretary Song drinks tea and smokes in the office every day, approves documents hastily, and his not concerned abut the health of the faculty and students. We hope that he will conscientiously change this during this campaign.

Another kind of big character poster criticizing the Party and the Communist Youth League was concerned only their lifestyles and working styles. Sometimes a big character poster would say that professors should govern the school or criticizing the arrogance of the Party committee would appear. Some would criticize the way that elections to the People’s Congress were handled entirely by the party committee or the sufferings of innocent people in previous political campaigns. These posters were cautiously worded, were few in number and lost amongst the sea of posters that confined themselves to criticizing lifestyles and work styles. Later some posters appeared criticizing the behavior of some personnel at the USSR Embassy, Soviet military advisers and consulate personnel who harassed and acted aggressively towards Chinese female hosts at Chinese sponsored dance parties including forcibly “kissing” them.

Most of the students at Chongqing University were studying science, engineering and technology. At that time, about 80 percent of the students came from families of the “oppressor class”. Ever since “liberation” through the anti-landlord movement, the killing of local despots, the three opposes and the five opposes movements, and other movements against counter-revolutionaries, and atmosphere of fear had spread across the entire country. These people stained with an oppressor class background were the targets of these movements. Although they were temporarily in the majority of students at the university, the weight of public opinion against them they already felt as considerable moral pressure.

As someone from a “counter-revolutionary” household whose father was still in jail, I already felt more pressure than I could ever express. Therefore, I respected and feared “politics” like it was some powerful spirit and saw myself as “a first class dwarf”. That feeling of being “deeply branded with my class” filled me with a purposely created dread. I often thought of my mother’s warning “Above all, don’t get involved in politics, you should generally avoid discussing national affairs”. Therefore I decided to be a student of science and engineering. I thought if I could grow up to become an ordinary citizen, I would be doing well.

Our caution about politics made many of us children blind and cowardly about politics.

Mr. Dong Shiguang came back from the USA to teach at Western China Normal University. He spoke during a speak boldly meeting. Dong compared China and America including the systems and living standards of the peoples to explain his central point that the Communist Party was acting arbitrarily and dictatorially in its governance of China. Chongqing University invited him to come and talk to the entire school in a kind of democracy salon speech. His speech opened up the world and critical thought to those of us who had grown up amidst the traditional education of the Chinese communists and in the closed world of the university. But I didn’t attend.

Ma Kaixian went. When she got back she told me about it, clearly moved by what she had heard. She said: Mr. Dong compared the two systems using concrete examples. For example, he said that in the USA the students and faculty can bring questions about school facilities, the curriculum, and even the salary of teachers to the school’s board of directors. The board must respond to them. Reasonable suggestions are accepted and carried out with a certain period of time. Moreover, the U.S. government must abide by the U.S. Constitution and respect everyone’s opinion. Everyone has the right to criticize the government and can through their elected representatives impeach government officials etc.

In fact, I had already read of such things in publications and digests. However, I had been taught by the Chinese Communists the distortion of the truth that “In capitalist society, democracy and freedom is the democracy of people with money. The oppressed classes live in slavery even worse than the treatment of cows and horses.” This, combined with incessant political campaigns, had associated in my mind that worshiping America and fear of America are great counter-revolutionary crimes.

Throughout the period of speaking out boldly I was still caught up in my own foolishness and ignorance. I brought from my class background congenital inhibitions and cowardice that closed me up. I didn’t dare think for myself. Ignorance divorced us from the course of world events and the progress of civilizations, it made us lose our understanding of what a democratic society was, and we lost the motivation to live an authentic life.

Inhibitions re-enforce ignorance and ignorance re-enforces constraints.

The speak out boldly movement made us aware of our long held inhibitions and ignorance. We began to feel that we are pitiful people who have been kept in our ignorance and inhibitions for a long time. Keeping us there was the basic ideological guarantee of Mao Zedong’s dictatorship. Otherwise, Mao Zedong saw “democracy” as a great scourge that must be wiped out wherever it rears its head. If not, then how, during his lifetime could it have given birth to one political movement after another? Mao’s totalitarianism did not realize that once Chinese people understand their pitiful state of inhibition and ignorance, then dictatorship will be hard to maintain.

We young and isolated students didn’t realize the speak out boldly was just the opening of an ideological campaign that would be storm much larger and broader than the Oppose Hu Feng campaign. Hearing the solemn promises of every level of Party organization that the “Let a hundred flowers bloom” policy meant that people may speak out freely without fear of retaliation would in the end put those who spoke out into handcuffs and into prison!

It wasn’t until after Tian Tianrong at Beijing University painted a big character poster called for democracy and freedom, Lin Xiling spoke out at Beijing University about the grievances of Hu Feng, and Feng Zhujun at Sichuan University called for democracy and freedom that finally at Chonging University a metallurgy department student youth league secretary Pu Shiguang put up a big character poster signed “editorial board of an appeal on behalf of non-youth league members” on behalf of students who were not youth league members and came from a household with a bad class background “opposing the theory of the unique importance of class origin”.

Even so, university students throughout China still hadn’t managed to escape from the box of “ignorance and inhibitions” and so didn’t overstep the ideological bounds set by the Chinese Communist Party. Tan Tianrong’s poster ended with the words “Long live the Chinese Communist Party” and “Long live freedom, democracy and reasonable human rights” and Lin Xiling’s call for democracy was still for “socialist democracy”. These kinds of calls made under constraint, this making peace with the “cage” communist theory did not move Mao Zedong one bit.

Mao Zedong, already swept up in the superstition of his own dictatorship, was just carrying at a big plot in plain sight — an open plot to wildly brandish the butcher’s knife against democracy. Even Pu Shiguang, with his minor point of opposition in opposing the “unique importance of class background” did not escape the cruel repression. Pu Shiguang was convicted of the crime of organizing a counter-revolutionary group, arrested, jailed and sentenced to 20 years in prison. This even though the so-called “editorial board of the appeal on behalf of non Youth League members” consisted of only one person — himself.

Except for a few times when I was forced to attend criticism sessions, I did not take part in any discussions or criticism nor did I have any interest in discussing them or thinking about them.

In those days,  A Xian and I got to understand each others’ lives, especially the days of innocence of our childhood and youth.


This entry was posted in Famous Chinese Political Court Cases 中国政治名案, Ideology 思想, Literature 文学, Society 社会. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s