The allure of primordial society and human nature revealed through the diverse backgrounds and behaviors of the first generation of Communist Party leaders (Part 1)

Li Yousheng (2014)

Abstract: After dividing human society into natural, primitive societies and artificial, secondary societies, it was found that before the 1950s, rural China remained in a quasi-primitive society, similar to a natural society. Consequently, Chinese farmers were less influenced by modern civilization and retained more of their natural humanity. This article provides a rough statistical analysis of the different backgrounds and behaviors of the first generation of Communist Party leaders, clearly showing that leaders from ordinary rural families possessed noble qualities often overlooked, qualities lacking in leaders from landlord or bureaucratic families: they were more willing to speak out for justice regardless of personal safety. The author further validates this with personal experience and observations in rural northern China, concluding that uncorrupted natural humanity possesses a longer-term vision and deeper considerations, despite its simple appearance. The article concludes with a detailed comparative analysis of Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, Lin Biao, and Deng Xiaoping, considering their family backgrounds. The author emphasizes that this article is written solely based on scientific and objective observations of social materials and has no intention of intervening in the current debates between left and right factions regarding the praise and criticism of former leaders. If any content offends any readers, the author apologizes in advance: it was not my intention.

Keywords: rural China, primitive society, natural human nature, Chinese leaders, Cultural Revolution, Great Leap Forward, family background, Mao Zedong, Zhou Enlai, Lin Biao, Deng Xiaoping

I. The Different Backgrounds and Performances of the First Generation of Leaders of the Communist Party of China

The success of the Chinese Communist Party was essentially a peasant revolution, and the theories of the Communist Party were beyond the reach of ordinary peasants. Therefore, many leaders of the Chinese Communist Party came from landlord families, but many others came from ordinary peasant families. The author has not conducted a detailed study here, but firmly believes that the presence or absence of inherent human constraints within the hearts of ordinary Chinese peasants will be strikingly revealed in the modern history of New China, provided that researchers use appropriate materials and methods.

It is widely known that the core leadership of the Chinese Communist Party is composed of three groups: those who studied in Europe, those who studied in the Soviet Union, and those born and raised in China. The first two groups generally come from more privileged backgrounds and are more susceptible to the influence of traditional Chinese imperial Confucian culture from the Qin and Han dynasties onward. Marxism-Leninism was established in response to capitalist society and is based on the urban working class and proletariat. The first two groups have a broader perspective on society and are more receptive to the traditions of Marxism-Leninism. Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao, both university professors, adhered to Marxism, at most incorporating some Leninism. Only Mao Zedong, from a peasant family, could not shake off the peasant mentality and sentiments, insisting on following the path of peasant revolution, which later became known as Mao Zedong Thought. After liberation, especially during the Cultural Revolution, Mao sidelined most of the central cadres, single-mindedly pursuing his utopian ideals, which was related to the influence of his peasant family. It is said that Chen Yonggui, from an ordinary peasant background, admired Mao’s idealistic attitude. It should also be noted that Mao’s father was an ordinary peasant, but later made money through business, reaching the level of a rich peasant, which enabled him to support Mao’s education.

After the revolution succeeded, Mao Zedong compared himself to Qin Shi Huang, meaning that Mao himself played the role of the emperor of China in the imperial era to some extent. It was for this reason that Lin Biao said: “At the beginning of the struggle for the country, we were fighting for equality, justice and security. After we won the country, we found out that there were no such things in the world. It’s ridiculous.” [1] This is similar to a saying that became popular in China not long after Mao’s death: the goal is noble, but the means are despicable. Whether despicable means can achieve noble goals is up to the reader to think about.

In the face of Mao’s emperor-like role, who were the people who came out to criticize the emperor like Hai Rui, and who echoed his sentiments and went with the flow? Here, we will only briefly discuss the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution in 1958.

The Great Leap Forward of 1958 began with the agricultural collectivization of 1956, one of the purposes of which was the unrestricted collection of grain from peasants. In 1956, Mao Zedong criticized Liu Shaoqi and Deng Zihui, calling them women with bound feet. Thus, both the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution began with the criticism of Liu Shaoqi, who came from an ordinary rural family but had studied in the Soviet Union. Liu was caught between two groups: those who had studied in Europe and the Soviet Union, and those who were born and raised in China. Liu was very active in the Great Leap Forward, which was the result of his criticism in 1956, leading to a situation where one-man rule was established. Deng Zihui also came from a poor rural family.

During the Great Leap Forward in 1958, newspapers across the country repeatedly published the lie of achieving a yield of 10,000 jin of grain per mu (a Chinese unit of area, approximately 667 kg per hectare). The result was the forced requisition of grain from farmers to ensure supplies for cities and exports. This was how the Communist Party treated its farmers just a few years after seizing power through them. In 1958 and 1959, commune cadres in my hometown searched farmers’ homes for grain; they surrounded the village and stood guard on the rooftops with guns. My father told me that this was the same as the Japanese army searching for anti-Japanese cadres in the countryside, saying it wasn’t the way a Communist should act.

When Mao Zedong launched the Great Leap Forward, local party and government officials rushed to boast about their high targets. It is said that four so-called “leftist fanatics” were at the forefront of this movement. They were: Li Jingquan, Secretary of the Sichuan Provincial Party Committee; Ke Qingshi, Secretary of the Shanghai Municipal Party Committee; Wu Zhipu, Secretary of the Henan Provincial Party Committee; and Zeng Xisheng, Secretary of the Anhui Provincial Party Committee. Henan was the first to establish people’s communes, while Anhui and Sichuan were the first to announce unrealistic per-mu yield targets. Ke Qingshi of Shanghai was known for his leftist rhetoric. Later, Sichuan, Henan, and Anhui were the provinces with the highest number of starvation deaths during the Great Famine, while Shanghai produced the disastrous consequences of the Gang of Four. All four men came from landlord families. Faced with the tragic situation of millions of peasants starving to death, it was Peng Dehuai, from a lower-middle peasant family, who stood up to speak out for the people. The so-called Peng-Huang-Zhang-Zhou counter-revolutionary clique was ultimately overthrown at the Lushan Conference in 1959. Huang, Zhang, and Zhou echoed Peng Dehuai’s views, while Zhang Wentian had a rift with Mao. In short, this discussion focuses solely on the first person to stand up and speak out for justice.

Peng Zhen was among the first to be targeted during the Cultural Revolution. He famously declared, “Everyone is equal before the law.” In the face of the overwhelming tide of the early Cultural Revolution, someone who dared to say such a thing was truly a reincarnation of Hai Rui. His Beijing was denounced as an independent kingdom “impenetrable to needles and water.” Peng Zhen came from a poor peasant background. Also purged along with Peng Zhen was the so-called “Peng-Luo-Lu-Yang clique,” but the latter three were purged for their own reasons, unlike Peng Zhen.

The Cultural Revolution’s smooth progress relied on two indispensable pillars: Lin Biao and Zhou Enlai. The former stabilized the army, while the latter maintained the essential social order; neither could be dispensed with. The author greatly admires Zhou Enlai, who played a crucial buffering role, mitigating the Cultural Revolution and protecting many. Here, the author merely discusses the inherent human constraints within the Chinese peasantry. Mao Zedong’s ideal state during the Cultural Revolution shares similarities with the traditional Confucian ideal of a sage-king; both represent possible directions for a secondary society, which Mao forcibly implemented despite widespread opposition. Lin and Zhou saw the rational aspects of Mao’s Cultural Revolution ideal; in a sense, Mao was equivalent to Wang Mang combined with Qin Shi Huang.

Lin Biao and Zhou Yi studied in the Soviet Union, while Zhou studied in Europe. Their families were of landlord or bureaucratic background, which gave them the opportunity to attend the Whampoa Military Academy and Nankai University in Tianjin at a young age. Judging from the writings found after Lin Biao’s death, he was deeply influenced by Confucianism, and the Confucian tradition he received could only be that of the imperial era over the past two thousand years.

During the Cultural Revolution, the most notorious example of the countercurrents of 1966 and 1967 was Tan Zhenlin, who caused a disturbance at Huai Ren Tang. Tan was born in 1902 into an ordinary working-class family in Chengguan Town, You County, Hunan Province. Even in large cities, China lacked a typical Western-style working class; in a small county town, workers were indistinguishable from peasants. The residents of my hometown county town were mainly peasants, with a few craftsmen among them.

This is a pioneering work by the author, and readers can easily raise examples to oppose the author’s conclusions. However, the author firmly believes that Chinese peasants, living in a quasi-primitive society, are more constrained by human nature and possess a greater degree of Confucian benevolence. In contrast, rural intellectual families, influenced by Confucian culture, have adopted the imperial Confucianism of the Qin and Han dynasties, which contradicts Confucius’s original teachings. This point can be verified through well-designed social surveys and research; the author’s work here is merely a preliminary attempt, not a serious academic paper. The examples of different backgrounds and performances of the first generation of Communist Party leaders listed above already far exceed the statistical significance threshold. Adding Chen Shaomin, discussed below, the difference is statistically highly significant (P < 0.001). II. The only person to vote against it during the Cultural Revolution: Chen Shaomin, a widow from a poor family. I remember Deng Xiaoping saying after Mao Zedong's death: "Some historical mistakes cannot all be attributed to Mao Zedong; we all agree." As I recall, he immediately followed up: "It's useless to disagree or not raise your hand." In its early stages, the Chinese Communist Party allowed dissenting opinions, which is why the leadership changed every few years. The need for centralized leadership during the war years allowed Mao Zedong to hold power for a long time, but the presence of numerous dissenting opinions forced him to adopt a pragmatic strategy, using New Democracy rather than Socialism to garner support from various social strata. Once the revolution was won and he held absolute power, Mao not only immediately abandoned the New Democratic path but also began to brutally suppress dissenters, depriving them of both social standing and personal dignity. This created an unhealthy political situation where even those who disagreed were forced to agree with the powerful without fully understanding the implications. When discussing the unjust case of Liu Shaoqi, Hu Yaobang passionately stated at a CCP meeting, "On this issue, we all made mistakes, we all raised our hands. Only Sister Chen didn't raise her hand, she didn't make a mistake." This was Chen Shaomin (1902-1977), later hailed as the only conscience of the Chinese people during the Cultural Revolution. Chen Shaomin was born in Fanyu Village, Sunjiaji Town, Shouguang County, Shandong Province. Her father had served as a company commander in the army during the Xinhai Revolution and, after returning to his hometown, farmed rented land while teaching in a primary school. Chen Shaomin joined the CCP in 1924 and held important positions both within and outside the Party before and after the liberation. In 1956, she was elected a member of the Central Committee. Chen Shaomin never remarried after her husband's death in 1939. In October 1968, at the Twelfth Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, Chen Shaomin, who had already been impacted by the Cultural Revolution, was allowed to attend the meeting despite being ill. During the vote on the resolution to "permanently expel" Liu Shaoqi from the Party, Chen Shaomin refused to raise his hand, remaining slumped over the table. After the meeting, Kang Sheng confronted Chen Shaomin aggressively, but Chen Shaomin replied, "This is my right!" The communique issued at the time still announced, as usual, that the congress had "unanimously passed" the decision to expel Liu Shaoqi from the Party. Like millions of ordinary Chinese people, I only know that Chen Shaomin voted against something during the Cultural Revolution. According to the theory of a two-tiered society, in today's two-tiered society, women are less influenced by the civilization of that society and possess a more innate human conscience. Furthermore, a long period of widowhood can make a person more feminine, more like herself, and further removed from general social influences. Perhaps for this reason, Chen Shaomin simply refused to raise her hand, calmly replying to Kang Sheng, "This is my right!" Men like Peng Dehuai wrote lengthy memorials, and men like Tan Zhenlin denounced Huairentang. But Chen Shaomin's simple sentence is enough to be remembered for eternity, moving people to tears. III. The Natural Human Charm of Impoverished Farmers as Seen from the Quasi-Primitive Social Life of Rural China The relatively intact family organization, the long period of peace and stability, the isolation, and the fact that the vast majority of the population was illiterate made it possible for Chinese peasants to live in a quasi-primitive society, similar to that of primitive society, in the early 1950s. This meant that Chinese peasants were rarely influenced by modern civilization and retained more of their innate social habits and natural human nature. In the past, much attention has been paid to the backwardness and laxity of peasants, and their "Ah Q spirit," while the charm of their natural humanity has been largely overlooked. The difference between the nature of ordinary farmers and traditional bureaucratic intellectuals can be illustrated by the different life paths taken by people from the author's hometown after being involved in the Anti-Japanese War and other wars in the 1940s and 50s. Here, they are divided into three types. The first type is the illiterate ordinary peasant. My uncle, mentioned below, belongs to this category. Their knowledge and experience were insufficient to adapt them to the role of cadres in the Communist regime, so they returned home to farm. A minority of these people acquired literacy skills through literacy classes and other means, thus gaining a broader perspective on secondary society and being able to remain as cadres. The second type is like my father, and like Mao Zedong, who came from wealthy peasant families and possessed knowledge and a broader perspective on secondary society. They either returned to their hometowns and, like my father, practiced medicine, taught, or took on the role of rural intellectuals. A considerable number of these people became cadres in the Communist regime, especially if they had the character of Zigong or Zilu, rather than the character of Confucius or Yan Hui. The third group consisted of people from landlord, bureaucratic, and intellectual families who embraced the imperial Confucian tradition dating back to the Qin and Han dynasties. Most of them joined the Kuomintang, some even going to Taiwan. A small minority betrayed their class and became mid- to high-ranking cadres in the Communist Party. These three types of people behaved differently in the Communist Party's subsequent political movements, with cadres from peasant backgrounds finding it more difficult to adapt to those inhumane political movements. My father told me that one of my uncles, who had participated in the revolution for many years, returned home to farm because he was criticized for his sexual conduct, and no one listened to his explanation. In a fit of anger, he went home to farm. In the quasi-primitive society of rural China, peasants obviously automatically adhered to monogamy, and this adherence stemmed from the innate human capacity to empathize with their feelings. Only an inhuman secondary society could disregard a colleague's heartfelt explanation. Many peasants in rural North China risked their lives to participate in the War of Resistance against Japan, and after the victory, they returned home to be farmers. These people, who were largely illiterate, participated in the war out of a fundamental human instinct. In early societies, ending chaos and disaster was everyone's responsibility, so they did not seek personal or group gain. This very pursuit of personal or group benefit is precisely the reason for the escalating wars throughout five thousand years of civilization, which is why Lao Tzu suggested that early societies did not use writing but instead used knotted ropes for record-keeping. The following example is based solely on my uncle. A distant uncle in my rural family in Hebei Province, like my father, joined the resistance against Japan, serving as a guerrilla squad leader. He deserted during the Battle of Shijiazhuang in 1947. He said many times in front of others that he had seen too many corpses and bloodshed, and he simply couldn't bear to look anymore, so he laid down his gun and went home. His words clearly show that Chinese peasants are still constrained by human nature; they lack the freedom of choice that the French philosopher Sartre described in the second-order society. He knew he would be criticized and denounced at a mass rally upon his return; he knew the Communist victory was a foregone conclusion; he knew that if he didn't return, he could obtain an official position. But he couldn't ignore the call of his humanity deep within him. Decades later, we say that the people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait are one family, one China, and we should actively promote exchanges and cooperation between the two sides. My distant uncle couldn't have foreseen the political developments decades later; rather, it was his untainted humanity that possessed a longer-term vision and deeper consideration. In recent years, I've listened to many lectures by Chinese university professors online. Many praised the Qing Dynasty's voluntary abdication without a fight, the Kang-Liang Reforms and the constitutional ideals of the time, and spoke of bidding farewell to revolution. None of those professors mentioned bidding farewell to the War of Resistance against Japan or to resistance against invasion. My distant uncle, who was illiterate, reached the same view as today's university professors more than sixty years ago, though he didn't express it in words: ordinary Chinese peasants don't have the heart to witness so much Chinese blood and corpses. It was Lin Biao, from a landlord family, who broke through this peasant narrow-mindedness: when junior officers reported the severity of our army's casualties, Lin said, "I ask you if the city has been captured, not how many people have died." 42. The Allure of Primitive Society and Human Nature as Seen Through the Different Backgrounds and Performances of the First Generation of Communist Party Leaders (Part 2)