我的简介

我的照片
作家、摄影家、民间文艺家

2023年6月2日星期五

醒悟(168)

 


168

 

潘光复与柴健民、何家福和李天道三个老人谈到北京大学第一张大字报时说:1966年毛泽东发动了“文化大革命”,原有的政治秩序受到冲击,“天下大乱”。一批原来不知名的人物突然登上了政治舞台的前沿,其中的领军人物便是北京大学哲学系总支书记聂元梓。她和其他6位同事于5月25日在校内联名贴出大字报“宋硕、陆平、彭佩云在文化大革命中干了些什么”。此文引起了毛泽东的重视,决定在6月1日向全国公开广播,并誉之为“全国第一张马列主义的大字报”。

聂元梓因此担任了北京大学文化革命委员会主任、首都大专院校红代会核心组长、北京市革命委员会副主任和中共九届候补中央委员。清华大学学生蒯大富、北京航空学院学生韩爱晶、北京师范大学学生谭厚兰、北京地质学院学生王大宾,因为在“文革”初期批评工作组而受到不同程度的打击和压制;毛泽东决定撤消工作组、批评刘少奇以后,他们得以翻身,分别成为清华“井冈山”、北航“红旗”、北师大“井冈山”和地院“东方红”的负责人,并且在1967年分别担任这4所大学的革委会主任、首都大专院校红代会核心组副组长和北京市革命委员会的常委。

1967年初毛泽东将他们5人称为“五大领袖”。

聂元梓、蒯大富、韩爱晶、谭厚兰、王大宾这5位曾并称“首都高校红卫兵五大领袖”的人物虽然在“文革”初期知名度很高,但活跃在政治舞台上的时间其实很短暂。

1968年7月28日,毛泽东和其他中央领导人在人民大会堂召见了这5个人,当面称他们为“五大领袖”。然而,这次召见意味着他们从此不得不退出历史前台。

2005年1月,作为“全国第一张马列主义大字报”的当事人,被人妖魔化为“乱世狂女”、“灾星”的聂元梓在香港出版了近40万字的《聂元梓回忆录》,向世人坦诚披露了她几十年来大起大落、坎坷多难的一生。

    聂元梓在回忆录中说:

  这部书出版以后,产生了令我自己都意想不到的社会反响。它不但在香港的销路很好,连国内的地摊上,也有了这本书的盗印本。用流行的话来说,就是往事并不如烟。几十年过去了,人们还是难以忘怀、还在继续探究着这十年动乱是怎样发生的?更让人意料不到的是,不但有很多

对文革感兴趣的研究者拿着这本书找到了我,还有许许多多早已相忘于江湖的旧友、甚至包括以前曾反对过我的人,也都相继联系上了。新老朋友聚在一起,过去的疮疤被屡屡揭开,历史的真相逐渐浮现,于是,一些重大事件的来龙去脉越来越清晰了。面对这么多的反馈意见,加之初版书中的不少错漏,使我萌生了重新修订增补回忆录的想法。我虽然拖着病体、年逾耄耋,但这是我在有生之年想干的一件最重要、也是最后的事情了。

  有人说过,历史永远是胜利者和权力者写就的。在中国,历史的吊诡还在于,你越是想来剔除伪史,恢复信史,而掌权者越是讳莫如深,固执己见。就拿这场给中华民族带来深重灾难的文化大革命来说,该由谁来承担历史的罪错?是被人称为“五个指头”大拇指即发动者毛泽东的罪错?是林彪、四人帮的罪错?还是我们这些被判刑囚禁了十多年的“五大领袖”的罪错?以“何其好也”的那张大字报来说,它恰逢其时地出笼以及所产生的疯魔般的效应,绝非简单的“造反”二字所能涵盖的。这里面既有一个老党员对中央“五·一六通知”的正常反应,也有官僚主义、宗派主义在北大历次运动中所造成积怨的症结。谁又能知道,一个被全国上下视为“造反第一人”的人,仅仅两年之后,就被江青说成是“聂元梓太骄傲,谁的话都不听,叫她反右她反左”而被逐出中国的政治舞台了。

    聂元梓在回忆录中说:

  在我有期徒刑十七年的判决书上,清清楚楚地写道:“本庭确认,被告人聂元梓在‘文化大革命’初期,积极追随林彪、江青反革命集团,参与推翻人民民主专政政权的阴谋活动。”十年文革,政治风云瞬息万变,人事沧桑白云苍狗,其后的八年我都是在失去人身自由的监禁中度过的。如果有正常历史思维的话,请问:文革初期,林彪、江青这两个反革命集团形成了吗?如果没有形成,当初我所追随的又是什么“集团”?判决书上为什么非要把我与这后来的两个集团紧紧地捆绑在一起?这里,不妨谈及一桩往事:文革初期,有人在北大历史系贴出一副对联:“庙小妖风大,池浅王八多”,被当时监督北大文革的李讷汇报给毛泽东了。毛泽东说:“什么池浅王八多,明明是池深王八多嘛!”这句话李讷向我传达了,在校内也公布了,按照当时的规格,应该敲锣打鼓,披红挂绿地宣布“最高指示”才对,但我冒天下之大不韪,把这句话给处理了。

  判决书上还有一个历史公案,上面写道:“一九六六年十一月十五日,江青派人把被告聂元梓秘密接到花园村‘中央文革’记者站,江青、陈伯达、姚文元、王力、关锋、戚本禹等人密谋,派聂元梓去上海‘造反’。”审讯我时,我要求江青出庭作证或请法庭出示与江青勾结的证据,可他们拒绝江青出庭作证,既无旁证,又无佐证,可以说没有一个能证明是江青指使我到上海造反的相关资料。现在,我自己从香港出版的《王力反思录》上,找到了一条最有力的证据,证明派我去上海的,根本不是江青,而是我们的伟大领袖毛泽东。

当时作为中央文革办公室主任的王力在回忆中详述了这一事件:“毛泽东对文化大革命的想法,是想把北京的群众组织、学生、工人、机关干部的造反派连在一起,通过聂元梓等人到上海串联,把北京和上海连成一片。主席的设想,组织个班子去上海,最早他想李讷(肖力)要去,聂元梓去,阮铭也去,搞个比较大的班子。聂元梓住在中央文革,叫她负责筹备这个班子。李讷找过我,我介绍她见过聂元梓。江青说李讷去不去,毛主席正在考虑,因为她正在搞农村文革的指示。后来江青又传达毛主席指示,李讷不去,阮铭也不去,班子不要这么大,聂元梓也不要代表北京市的红卫兵组织,只代表她自己和北大的群众组织,用北大群众组织的名义去上海……我跟聂元梓说时再三叮嘱这几条,说是毛主席、中央文革的决定。”

  聂元梓回忆说:还有一件与我们总设计师有关的话题。邓小平曾说过,什么时候看到我儿子,就想到了聂元梓。所以,这也决定了聂元梓一案不让上诉,不让证人出庭这些违背法律的政治判决。邓朴方的跳楼致残,与我有关吗?且看邓小平的女儿毛毛着《我的父亲邓小平‘文革’岁月》一书的讲述:“8月末的一天,是令我们铭心刻骨的一天。邓楠回来告诉我们,哥哥因不堪虐待,趁看押的造反派不注意时跳楼以示最后的抗议”。1968年8月19日工、军宣队进入北大,从此北大的一切权力,特别是领导文化大革命的权力,统统归宣传队行使。此时的我,与邓朴方的跳楼有什么关系?更可笑的事,判决书认定:“1968年4月7日,在被告人聂元梓指使下,在校内制造了‘反革命小集团’冤案,致使多人受伤,其中邓朴方下身瘫痪,终身残废。”于是,硬把这件事情的发生时间提前了将近五个月。什么叫“人治”,什么叫“欲加之罪,何患无词”,于此可略窥一斑。现在的邓朴方先生,已经厕身政协副主席这样国家领导人的地位了,他心里应该最清楚,到底是谁逼迫他跳了楼?这里面除了那个疯狂的时代和不正常的体制之外,还应该包括他的父亲、即身为党的总书记参与制定中共中央发动文化大革命“五·一六”通知的邓小平本人。

  造反、夺权,是有;抵制造反、制止武斗,也有。没想到文革结束后,原指望能洗清加在我身上的诬陷不实之词,反倒变调升级了。几十年过去了,作为一个曾经的劳改假释犯,北京大学却不能依照国家法律法规和政策,对我进行安置。现在我还是一个社会流散人员,户口暂存在

北京月坛派出所,吃着民政局的救济饭,借住在民政局的救济房。在纪念抗战胜利六十周年的日子里,连当年国民党的官兵战员,都发给了纪念章,可我这一九三七年七月在炮火中参加革命、出生入死的老干部,却偏偏被遗忘了。真可用“冠盖满京华,斯人独憔悴”来形容了。想想我这一生,“步步紧跟”,却跟出个如此凄凉结局。此情此景,夫复何言?

    聂元梓回忆说:十年文革等同于十年动乱,十年梦魇。可是发动者还是万众景仰的“英明领袖”;党还是“伟大光荣正确的”的党;领导写作“五·一六”通知,举手赞同发动文革永不翻案的领导人反倒成了受害者、甚至还要用文革方式加害别人;有的造反派头头如季羡林,竟还成了声名显赫的“国学大师”、“道德楷模”。一个国家与一个党的罪错,就这样利用政治“替罪羊”的审判方式,轻而易

举地算在几个人和红卫兵群众的身上了。难道这就是官方刻意营造的一种历史记忆?这样的历史距离客观公正又有多远?现在不是天天说要尊重历史、还原历史吗?我认为,历史本身、尤其是亿万民众所亲历过的文革史,不应该是一个任人宰割的羔羊,更不能如黑格尔所说的那样,“倒洗澡水把小孩也倒掉了”。我在文革的漩涡中经历了太多太多,还是让事实来说话吧!

    潘光复说:聂元梓的《我在文革漩涡中》写于2008年4月,香港中国文革历史出版社于2017年出版。

潘光复建议柴健民、何家福和李天道三个老人可以看看聂元梓的回忆录。

李天道笑着说,我对北京大学的第一张大字报毫无兴趣,对聂元梓所说的话也不信,她绝对不是个好人。

柴健民接口说:这个女人是祸国殃民的女魔。做了婊子还想立牌坊,她能为自己洗白吗?

何家福叹息道:好有好报,恶有恶报,皆为天意。卷入文革漩涡中的聂元梓如此,身居高位的刘少奇、林彪也是如此。

Wake up(167)

 


167

 

Anyone who wants to overthrow a regime must first create public opinion, and must first do ideological work. Pan Guangfu said to Chai Jianmin, He Jiafu and Li Tiandao: Mao Zedong continued to carry out the "anti-restoration" struggle in the cultural field, and the Cultural Revolution he launched officially kicked off.

In 1966, Mao Zedong launched the "Cultural Revolution", the original political order was impacted, and "the world was in chaos". A group of previously unknown figures suddenly stepped onto the forefront of the political arena, including Nie Yuanzi, Secretary of the General Branch of the Department of Philosophy at Peking University.

On May 25, 1966, Nie Yuanzi, Secretary of the General Party Branch of the Philosophy Department of Peking University, and seven teachers, Song Yixiu, Xia Jianzhi, Yang Keming, Gao Yunpeng, Li Xingchen, and Zhao Zhengyi, posted a post at Peking University titled "Song Shuo, Lu Ping, What exactly did Peng Peiyun do during the Cultural Revolution? ” big-character posters, targeting the Peking University Party Committee and the Beijing Municipal Party Committee. This big-character poster was called "the first Marxist-Leninist big-character poster in the country" by Mao Zedong.

The big-character posters by Nie Yuanzi and others attacked Song Shuo, Lu Ping, and Peng Peiyun, the main leaders of the Peking University Party Committee and the University Work Department of the Beijing Municipal Party Committee. The big-character poster said that the people of the whole country set off a vigorous cultural revolution, but Peking University stood still, deserted and lifeless, and the strong revolutionary demands of the teachers and students were suppressed. To "guide" the masses not to hold meetings, to publish big-character posters, to create all kinds of rules and regulations, and to suppress mass revolution. The big-character poster calls for breaking all revisionist controls and conspiracies, resolutely, thoroughly, cleanly and completely eliminating all monsters and ghosts, all Khrushchev-style counter-revolutionary revisionists, and carrying the socialist revolution to the end.

The big-character posters written by Nie Yuanzi and others aroused strong repercussions inside and outside Peking University. On the afternoon of May 25, a few hours after the big-character poster was posted, Jiang Nanxiang, Minister of Higher Education, Secretary of the Party Committee and President of Tsinghua University, came to Peking University. Then, Zhang Yan, head of the Foreign Affairs Office of the State Council, and Li Xuefeng, first secretary of the North China Bureau, went to Peking University successively, reiterating that the central government must "distinguish between inside and outside" for posting big-character posters, and that the movement must be carried out in a spirit of leadership, requiring strict adherence to party and state regulations. discipline. The Party Committee of Peking University urgently held a school-wide party member meeting that night to convey instructions from the leaders of the Central Committee and the North China Bureau. The spirit of the directive focuses on the fact that posting big-character posters in public violates the principle of "differentiation between inside and outside". Li Xuefeng suggested that the big-character posters could be torn off or covered with new ones; he asked the Peking University Party Committee to lead the movement well. Although relevant leaders did not object to posting big-character posters, nor did they comment on the content of Nie Yuanzi and others' big-character posters, their critical attitude towards big-character posters and their authors was very clear.

Under such circumstances, Kang Sheng sent the draft of the big-character poster to Mao Zedong in other places behind Liu Shaoqi, Zhou Enlai, Deng Xiaoping and others who were in charge of the work in Beijing. After Mao Zedong saw the big-character poster, he decided to broadcast it to the whole country.

On June 1, Mao Zedong wrote a comment on this big-character poster: "This article can be broadcast in full by Xinhua News Agency and published in various newspapers and periodicals across the country. It is very necessary. The reactionary fortress of Peking University can begin to be broken from now on."

At 8:00 p.m. on June 1, the Central People's Broadcasting Station broadcast the full text of the big-character posters written by Nie Yuanzi and others.

On June 2, the "People's Daily" published the full text of Nie Yuanzi and others' big-character posters under the headline "A Big-Character Poster of Seven Comrades of Peking University Exposes a Big Conspiracy", and at the same time published a commentator's article "Happy Peking University's Big-Character Poster Daily News, slandered Peking University as a "stubborn anti-Party and anti-socialist bastion", and the Peking University Party Committee is a "fake Communist Party" and a "revisionist 'party'", and called for "throwing them down, bringing down their gangsters, gangster organizations, Black discipline is completely destroyed."

During the Eleventh Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee, Mao Zedong wrote "Bombarding the Headquarters—One of My Big-Character Posters" on August 5. Regarding the big-character posters of Nie Yuanzi of Peking University and others, he said: "The country's first Marxist-Leninist big-character poster How well written are the commentaries of the People’s Daily and the People’s Daily! Comrades, please read this big-character poster and this comment again.”

On the same day, Mao Zedong added a comment to the People's Daily commentator article "Happy for a Big Character Poster at Peking University": "Wrong leadership that endangers the revolution should not be accepted unconditionally, but should be resolutely resisted. During the Great Revolution, the vast number of revolutionary teachers, students and revolutionary cadres widely resisted the wrong leadership."

The first big-character poster of Peking University caused widespread shock throughout the country. It directly caused the Party Committee of Peking University and the Beijing Municipal Committee to become the first party organizations to be washed away in the movement, thus setting a precedent for "kicking out party committees to start a revolution."

Under Mao Zedong's personal command and leadership, the unprecedented "Cultural Revolution" escalated dramatically.

醒悟(167)

 


167

 

凡是要推翻一个政权,总要先造舆论,总要先做意识形态方面的工作。潘光复对柴健民、何家福和李天道三个老人说: 毛泽东在文化领域不断开展“反复辟”斗争,他 发动的文革正式拉开了帷幕。

1966年毛泽东发动了“文化大革命”,原有的政治秩序受到冲击,“天下大乱”。一批原来不知名的人物突然登上了政治舞台的前沿,其中有北京大学哲学系总支书记聂元梓。

1966年5月25日,北京大学哲学系党总支书记聂元梓以及教师宋一秀、夏剑豸、杨克明、高云鹏、李醒尘、赵正义七人,在北京大学贴出的标题为《宋硕、陆平、彭佩云在文化革命中究竟干些什么?》的大字报,矛头指向北京大学党委和北京市委。这张大字报被毛泽东称为“全国第一张马列主义大字报”。

聂元梓等人的大字报攻击北京大学党委和北京市委大学工作部主要领导人宋硕、陆平、彭佩云。大字报说,全国人民掀起轰轰烈烈的文化大革命,可是北大按兵不动,冷冷清清,死气沉沉,广大师生的强烈革命要求被压制下来,这里有鬼;指责宋硕等人想把革命的群众运动纳入修正主义轨道,“引导”群众不开大会,不出大字报,制造种种清规戒律,压制群众革命。大字报号召,打破修正主义的种种控制和一切阴谋诡计,坚决、彻底、干净、全部地消灭一切牛鬼蛇神、一切赫鲁晓夫式的反革命的修正主义分子,把社会主义革命进行到底。

聂元梓等人的大字报在北京大学内外引起强烈反响。5月25日下午,大字报贴出后几小时,高教部部长、清华大学党委书记兼校长蒋南翔来到北京大学。接着,国务院外事办公室负责人张彦、华北局第一书记李雪峰先后到北京大学,重申中央关于贴大字报要“内外有别”,运动要有领导地进行的精神,要求严格遵守党和国家的纪律。北大党委当夜紧急召开全校党员大会,传达中央和华北局领导的指示。指示精神的着眼点是公开张贴大字报违背了“内外有别”的原则。李雪峰提出可以将大字报撕下来,或者用新的大字报将之覆盖起来;要求北大党委把运动领导好。虽然有关领导没有反对贴大字报,也没有评论聂元梓等人大字报的内容,但对大字报及其作者的批评态度是很清楚的。

在这种情况下,康生背着在京主持工作的刘少奇、周恩来、邓小平等人,把大字报的底稿送给了在外地的毛泽东。毛泽东看到大字报后,决定向全国广播。

6月1日,毛泽东在这份大字报上写了批语:“此文可以由新华社全文广播,在全国各报刊发表,十分必要。北京大学这个反动堡垒,从此可以开始打破。”

6月1日晚8点,中央人民广播电台全文播送了聂元梓等人的大字报。

6月2日,《人民日报》以《北京大学七同志一张大字报揭穿一个大阴谋》的通栏标题,全文刊登了聂元梓等人的大字报,同时发表评论员文章《欢呼北大的一张大字报》,污蔑北京大学是“反党反社会主义的顽固堡垒”,北京大学党委是“假共产党”、“修正主义的'党'”,号召“把他们打倒,把他们的黑帮、黑组织、黑纪律彻底摧毁”。

八届十一中全会期间,毛泽东于8月5日写下《炮打司令部——我的一张大字报》,针对北京大学聂元梓等人的大字报说:“全国第一张马列主义大字报和《人民日报》评论员的评论,写得何等好啊!请同志们重读一遍这张大字报和这个评论。”

同一天,毛泽东在《人民日报》评论员文章《欢呼北大的一张大字报》中加写下了一段批语:“危害革命的错误领导,不应当无条件接受,而应当坚决抵制,在这次文化大革命中广大革命师生及革命干部对于错误的领导,就广泛地进行过抵制。”

北京大学第一张大字报在全国引起广泛震动,它直接导致北大党委和北京市委成为运动中最先被冲垮的党组织,由此开了“踢开党委闹革命”的先例。

在毛泽东的亲自指挥亲自领导下,史无前例的“文化大革命”急剧升级了。

2023年6月1日星期四

Wake up(166)

 


Chapter 32 Cultural Revolution

 

166

 

Pan Guangfu said to Chai Jianmin, He Jiafu and Li Tiandao: Mao Zedong has always attached great importance to the "anti-restoration" struggle. After the founding of the People's Republic of China, Mao Zedong continued to carry out the "anti-restoration" struggle in the cultural field, and took the "anti-restoration" struggle in the ideological field as an important means of consolidating power. He believes that in order to overthrow a political power, public opinion must first be created, and ideological work must be done first. The revolutionary class is like this, and the counter-revolutionary class is also like this. I have read the book "Mao Zedong and the Cultural Revolution" edited by Chen Huanren. This book is also listed as the research achievement of a major scientific research project established by the Sichuan Academy of Social Sciences in 2007.

After reading this book, I have gained a lot of knowledge, mainly because I have a better understanding of the real situation of Mao Zedong's continuous "anti-restoration" struggle in the cultural field after the founding of the People's Republic of China.

As early as the Yan'an period before the founding of the People's Republic of China, Mao Zedong immediately wrote a letter of thanks to the Yan'an Pingju Theater after watching the Pingju Opera "Forcing the Liangshan", saying: "History is created by the people, but on the stage of old dramas (in all old literature and old arts that have left the people) (above) The people have become scum, and the stage is ruled by masters, wives, young masters and ladies. This kind of historical reversal is now reversed by you, and the historical appearance has been restored. Since then, the old drama has opened up a new life, so it is worth celebrating."

After the founding of the People's Republic of China, Mao Zedong believed that while consolidating the political power and restoring the economy, he must pay close attention to the class struggle in the cultural field, personally lead and personally criticize the films "Secret History of the Qing Palace" and "Wu Xun Biography", and criticize Hu Shi's bourgeois Thought, supported and criticized Yu Pingbai's "A Study of a Dream of Red Mansions", directed and personally criticized the so-called "counter-revolutionary group" composed of a group of cultural people headed by Hu Feng. Mao Zedong was most dissatisfied with the cultural and art departments. He often severely criticized the work in the ideological and cultural fields such as culture, education, health, and theory, and severely criticized the departments of the party and the state leading the work in the ideological and cultural fields. The struggle is regarded as an important struggle to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat and prevent the restoration of the old system and capitalism.

Since 1962, Mao Zedong faced the harsh fact that the imperialists attempted to implement "peaceful evolution" in China, and Khrushchev-style figures came to power in the Soviet Union, Hungary, Poland and other socialist countries. The trend of class struggle in the ideological field, the string of class struggle in the ideological and ideological field is getting tighter and tighter, from criticizing cultural figures and works in these fields, gradually pointing at the party and government leaders who lead these departments, and then suspecting that the central government has Revisionism, otherwise the problems in the field of ideology and culture will not be repeatedly banned, and even show a serious tendency towards restoration.

Li Jiantong, a relative of Liu Zhidan, wrote the historical novel "Liu Zhidan" reflecting the history of the revolutionary base in northern Shaanxi. Because the history of the revolutionary base in northern Shaanxi is an important part of the history of Chinese revolution, from July 28 to August 4, 1962, "Workers' Daily" serialized some chapters of Li Jiantong's historical novel "Liu Zhidan", and "China Youth Daily" Also reproduced. However, regarding the history of the revolutionary base areas in northern Shaanxi involved in the novel, there has been controversy among the founders of some revolutionary base areas in northern Shaanxi. The people who founded the northern Shaanxi base reported to the central government that Xi Zhongxun and others who were implicated in the 1954 investigation of the "Gaorao anti-party group" had provided materials for Li Jiantong, so the novel did not correctly reflect the history of the northern Shaanxi base. Kang Sheng, the leader of the CCP in charge of ideology, and others believed that Li Jiantong wrote this novel with political purposes, and the publication of the novel was to reverse the case of the "Gao-Rao Anti-Party Group", and reported the opinions reflected by Yan Hongyan and others to Mao Zedong.

On September 24, 1962, at the Tenth Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, Mao Zedong talked about the entire historical period of the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Regarding the class struggle in the field of ideology, Mao Zedong said to the novel "Liu Zhidan": "Isn't writing novels popular now? It is a great invention to use novels to carry out anti-party activities. Whenever a regime is to be overthrown, public opinion must first be formed. The ideological work must be done first. This is true of the revolutionary class, and it is also true of the counter-revolutionary class.”

In the past, Mao Zedong criticized the movie "The Legend of Wu Xun", criticized Hu Shi's idealism, and criticized the "Hu Feng counter-revolutionary clique", but only criticized the so-called non-proletarian ideas in the field of ideological culture. Some tendencies shown in this novel work have been raised to the point that the creator and publisher are using the novel to oppose the party and to overthrow a regime to create public opinion, and the top leaders of the CCP can no longer ignore it.

In March 1963, the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China issued an instruction to stop all ghost shows. In May, "Wen Wei Po" published an article "Theory of "Ghosts and Harmless"" criticizing Meng Chao's Kunqu opera "Li Huiniang" and Liao Mosha's article "Theory of Ghosts and Harmless", thinking that Meng Chao's Kunqu opera "Li Huiniang" and Liao Mosha's The appearance of his article "The Theory of Ghosts and Harmless" is an important manifestation of class struggle in ideological leadership.

On September 27, 1963, Mao Zedong severely criticized: "The literary and art departments, operas, and movies must also focus on the problem of innovation. The stage is full of emperors, generals, family members, and maids. The content has changed, and the form must also change. Such as water sleeves, etc. Introduce the old and bring forth the new, what will come out? Feudalism? Socialism? The old form must produce new content. If you follow this way, you won’t read it after thirty years. The superstructure must always adapt to the economic base. They are monsters and ghosts. I heard that there have been some improvements recently. In terms of culture, especially drama, there are a lot of feudal and backward things, and there are few socialist things. On the stage, they are nothing more than emperors, generals, talented scholars and beautiful women. The Ministry of Culture is in charge of culture, so we should pay attention to this aspect If there are any problems, we should check them and make serious corrections.” Mao Zedong also clearly pointed out in his instructions: “If the Ministry of Culture does not change, it will be renamed the Ministry of Emperors, Generals and Ministers, the Ministry of Talented Scholars and Beautiful Women, or the Ministry of Foreign Dead People.”

At the Central Working Conference on September 28, Mao Zedong pointed out that anti-revisionism should also include ideological issues. Literature, art, drama, and film must all be grasped.

On December 12, 1963, Mao Zedong issued another instruction: "All kinds of art forms - drama, folk art, music, fine arts, dance, film, poetry and literature, etc., have many problems and a large number of people. Bureaucratic transformation is in many departments. , with little success so far. Many departments are ruled by the dead. The achievements of film, new poetry, folk songs, fine arts, and novels cannot be underestimated, but there are also many problems in them. As for other departments, the problem is even bigger. The socio-economic base has changed Well, the art department, one of the superstructures that serve this base, is still a big problem. It needs to start with investigation and research, and get it right. Many Communists are enthusiastic about advocating feudalism and capitalist art, but they are not enthusiastic about advocating socialism. Wouldn't it be a strange thing to see the art of communism?"

On January 3, 1964, in order to implement Mao Zedong’s instructions, Deng Xiaoping, general secretary of the CPC Central Committee, presided over a symposium on literature and art. Liu Shaoqi, vice chairman of the CPC Central Committee, and Peng Zhen, member of the Political Bureau and Secretary of the Secretariat, conveyed Mao Zedong’s instructions at the meeting. The National Federation of Literary and Art Circles It started rectification with its affiliated associations in March, studied Mao Zedong's instructions, checked the problems existing in the cultural and art circles, and researched and put forward suggestions for improvement.

Mao Zedong was very dissatisfied with the "Report of the Central Propaganda Department on the rectification of the All-China Federation of Literary and Art Circles and its affiliated associations." On June 27, 1964, he wrote in the report of the Central Propaganda Department: "These associations and most of the publications they hold ( It is said that there are a few good ones), in the past fifteen years, basically (not everyone) did not implement the party's policies, became officials and lords, did not get close to workers, peasants and soldiers, and did not reflect the socialist revolution and construction. , It fell to the verge of revisionism. If it is not seriously reformed, it is bound to become a group like the Hungarian Petofi Club one day in the future."

On July 11, 1964, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China issued the above-mentioned instructions of Mao Zedong as a document. The Central Committee established a five-member group for the Central Cultural Revolution composed of Peng Zhen, Lu Dingyi, Kang Sheng, Zhou Yang, and Wu Lengxi. From July to November The second rectification was carried out in various associations in the literary and art circles and literary and art units directly under cultural issues. People are at risk. This kind of political criticism soon expanded from the world of literature and art to fields such as philosophy, economics, history, and education. Yang Xianzhen, vice president of the Central Party School, put two into one, Sun Yefang, an economist, said "Production Price Theory" and "Enterprise Profit View," Feng Ding, vice president of Peking University and professor of philosophy, wrote "Ordinary Truth," Peking University History Professor Jian Bozan's "historicism" and "concession policy", etc., and historian Hou Wailu's view of history have all been criticized successively by politics. From these political criticisms, Mao Zedong also discovered a group of cultural leaders such as Guan Feng, Qi Benyu, and Yao Wenyuan. The revolutionary "ultra-left".

In the second half of 1964, Mao Zedong continued to issue instructions on the problems existing on the ideological and cultural front. In August, Mao Zedong issued an instruction in the "Report of the Propaganda Department of the Central Committee on the Public Screening and Criticism of the Films "Northern Country Jiangnan" and "Early Spring and February"": "Maybe not only these two films, but also others, all need to be criticized. Let these revisionist materials be made public.” On August 18, Mao Zedong spoke at the Beidaihe Conference: “People who engage in philosophy think that the first is philosophy, no, the first is class struggle.” “Only with class struggle can there be philosophy. It is useless to actually talk about epistemology." "Philosophers should go to the countryside, this winter and next spring, to participate in class struggle." "If you don't engage in class struggle, what kind of philosophy are you doing?" Liberal arts college students want to participate in the socialist education movement, and they must " Go down in stages and in batches to participate in the class struggle. Only in this way can you learn something and learn about revolution.” Mao Zedong supported Jiang Qing in making revolutionary modern dramas showing workers, peasants and soldiers, driving talented men and beautiful women off the socialist stage. On October 8, Mao Zedong watched Jiang Qing's revolutionary ballet "Red Detachment of Women" and said: "The direction is right, the revolution is successful, and the art is also good."

On December 21, 1965, Mao Zedong therefore proposed to Chen Boda, Hu Sheng, Tian Jiaying, Ai Siqi and others in Hangzhou to criticize the Peking opera "Hai Rui Dismissed from Office" created by Wu Han. In April 1959, just before the Lushan Conference, Mao Zedong called on leading cadres at all levels to learn from Hai Rui’s spirit of “speaking out and admonishing” at the work conference held by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, and proposed to find some historians to study Hai Rui’s Rui. Wu Han, deputy mayor of Beijing and a historian, responded to Mao Zedong's call and published articles on Hai Rui, such as "Hai Rui Curses the Emperor" and "On Hai Rui". In 1961, Wu Han published a new historical Peking opera "Hai Rui Dismissed from Office". Mao Zedong watched the Peking opera "Hai Rui Dismissed from Office" at that time, and did not say there was any problem. However, Jiang Qing, Kang Sheng and others contacted Mao Zedong at the Beidaihe Conference and the Tenth Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee of the Communist Party of China since August 1962. Liu Shaoqi, Zhou Enlai, and Chen Yun regarded the problems that existed during the recovery of the economy very seriously, and proposed to oppose The "dark wind" refers to Deng Zihui's support for rural production contracting to work groups and household contracting of production to oppose the "do-it-yourself style", and to rehabilitating those who wrongly criticized in the "Anti-Rightist Movement" after the 7,000-person Congress of the Communist Party of China, and Deng Xiaoping's handing over to Peng Dehuai The 80,000-character letter to Mao Zedong, requesting the central government to re-examine his history, proposed to oppose the "reversal style", and repeatedly proposed to Mao Zedong that Wu Han's new historical Peking opera "Hai Rui Dismissed from Office" was aimed at the Lushan Conference and Mao Zedong's above-mentioned criticisms of. Therefore, Mao Zedong proposed to criticize "Hai Rui Dismissed from Office". At the beginning of 1965, Jiang Qing went to Shanghai to plan together with Zhang Chunqiao. Yao Wenyuan wrote an article criticizing "Hai Rui Dismissed from Office", linking Wu Han's "retirement of land and redress of unjust prison" in the play with Mao Zedong's criticism of "doing it alone" and "reversing the case". When I got up, I thought "Hai Rui Dismissed from Office" was a big poisonous weed. The Secretariat of the Central Committee and Peng Zhen did not allow Beijing newspapers to reprint Yao Wenyuan's far-fetched political criticism article. Mao Zedong was very angry because he listened to the slander of Jiang Qing, Kang Sheng and others.

Mao Zedong’s above-mentioned speech in Hangzhou seemed to be aimed at the historian Wu Han, but in fact it was to vent his extreme dissatisfaction with Liu Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping, Peng Zhen and other senior CCP leaders who blocked political criticism of "Hai Rui Dismissed from Office". Revisionism must be eliminated through the Cultural Revolution.

When Pan Guangfu talked with Chai Jianmin, He Jiafu, and Li Tiandao, his topic turned to the Cultural Revolution. After the founding of the People's Republic of China, Mao Zedong continued to carry out the "anti-restoration" struggle in the cultural field. Whenever he wanted to overthrow a regime, he always had to first create public opinion in terms of ideology. The Cultural Revolution launched by Lao Mao officially kicked off.

醒悟(166)

 


第32章 文革

 

166

 

潘光复对柴健民、何家福和李天道三个老人说: 毛泽东历来非常重视开展“反复辟”斗争。建国后,毛泽东在文化领域不断开展“反复辟”斗争,将意识形态领域“反复辟”斗争作为巩固权力的重要手段。他认为,凡是要推翻一个政权,总要先造舆论,总要先做意识形态方面的工作,革命的阶级是这样,反革命阶级也是这样。我看过陈焕仁编着的《毛泽东与文化大革命》一书,这本书还列为四川省社会科学院2007年立项重大科研课题之研究成果。

阅读这本书后,让我增长了很多知识,主要还是进一步了解了建国后,毛泽东在文化领域不断开展的“反复辟”斗争那些真实情况。

早在建国前的延安时期,毛泽东看了评剧《逼上梁山》之后,立即给延安评剧院写信致谢说:“历史是人民创造的,但在旧戏舞台上(在一切离开人民的旧文学旧艺术上)人民却成了渣滓,由老爷太太少爷小姐们统治着舞台,这种历史的颠倒,现在由你们再颠倒过来,恢复了历史面目,从此旧剧开了新生面,所以值得庆贺。”

建立了中华人民共和国,毛泽东认为,在巩固政权和恢复经济的同时,必须密切注视文化领域里的阶级斗争,亲自领导亲自上阵批判电影《清宫秘史》、《武训传》,批判胡适的资产阶级思想,支持批判俞平白的《红楼梦研究》,指挥并亲自上阵批判以胡风为首的一批文化人组成的所谓“反革命集团”。 毛泽东最不满意的是文化艺术部门,经常严厉批评文化、教育、卫生、理论等思想文化领域的工作,严厉批评党和国家领导思想文化领域的工作的部门,毛泽东把抓意识形态领域里的阶级斗争,视为巩固无产阶级专政,防止旧制度和资本主义复辟的重要斗争。

1962年以来,毛泽东面对帝国主义企图对中国实行“和平演变”,苏联、匈牙利、波兰等社会主义国家出现赫鲁晓夫式人物上台的严酷事实,面对中共党内只重经济工作而忽视意识形态领域阶级斗争的倾向,思想意识形态领域的阶级斗争之弦绷得越来越紧,从批判这些领域的文化人及作品,逐渐指向领导这些部门的党政领导人,进而怀疑中央出了修正主义,否则思想文化领域的问题不会屡禁不止,甚至呈现出严重的复辟倾向。

刘志丹的亲属李建彤,创作了反映陕北革命根据地的历史的历史长篇小说《刘志丹》。因为陕北革命根据地的历史,是中国革命历史的重要组成部分,1962年7月28日至8月4日,《工人日报》连载李建彤的历史长篇小说《刘志丹》部分章节,《中国青年报》也作了转载。但是对于小说涉及到的陕北革命根据地的历史,在部分陕北革命根据地创始人中一直存在争论,陕北革命根据地创始人之一,中共云南省委第一书记、昆明军区第一政委阎红彦等创建陕北根据地的人,当时向中央反映,在1954年清查“高饶反党集团”中受到牵连的习仲勋等人,曾经为李建彤提供过材料,因此小说没有正确反映陕北根据地的历史。中共主管意识形态的领导人康生等人,便认为李建彤写这部小说怀有政治目的,小说出版是在为“高饶反党集团”翻案,向毛泽东汇报了阎红彦等人反映的意见。

1962年9月24日,在中共八届十中全会上,毛泽东谈到无产阶级革命和无产阶级专政的整个历史时期,被推翻的反动统治阶级总是企图复辟时,特别提醒全党,要抓思想意识形态领域的阶级斗争,毛泽东针对长篇小说《刘志丹》说:“现在不是写小说盛行吗?利用小说进行反党活动,是一大发明。凡是要推翻一个政权,总要先造成舆论,总要先做意识形态方面的工作。革命阶级是这样,反革命阶级也是这样。”

毛泽东过去批判电影《武训传》、批判胡适派唯心主义、批判“胡风反革命集团”等,不过批判思想文化领域里的所谓非无产阶级思想,而在中共八届十中全会上,把一部小说作品表现出的某些倾向,提高到创作出版者是利用小说反党,是为了推翻一个政权制造舆论,中共高层领导就再也不能不高度重视了。

1963年3月,中共中央宣传部发出指示,停止演出一切鬼戏。5月,《文汇报》发表文章《“有鬼无害”论》点名批判孟超的昆曲《李慧娘》和廖沫沙的文章《有鬼无害论》,认为孟超的昆曲《李慧娘》和廖沫沙的文章《有鬼无害论》的出现,是意识形态领导里阶级斗争的重要表现。

1963年9月27日,毛泽东严厉批评:“文艺部门、戏曲、电影方面也要抓一个推陈出新的问题。舞台上尽是帝王将相、家员、丫环。内容变了,形式也要变,如水袖等等。推陈出新,出什么?封建主义?社会主义?旧形式要出新内容。按这样干,三十年后就没有看了。上层建筑总要适应经济基础。《戏剧报》上尽是牛鬼蛇神,听说最近有些改进,文化方面特别是戏剧大量是封建落后的东西,社会主义的东西少,在舞台上无非是帝王将相、才子佳人。文化部是管文化的,应当注意这方面的问题,为之检查,认真改正。”毛泽东同时在批示中明确指出:文化部“如不改变,就改名帝王将相部,才子佳人部,或者外国死人部。”

在9月28日的中央工作会议上,毛泽东指出:反修也要包括意识形态方面的问题。文学、艺术、戏剧、电影都要抓一下。

1963年12月12日,毛泽东又批示:“各种艺术形式——戏剧、曲艺、音乐、美术、舞蹈、电影、诗和文学等等,问题不少,人数很多,官僚主义改造在许多部门中,至今收效甚微。许多部门是死人统治着。不能低估电影、新诗、民歌、美术、小说的成绩,但其中的问题也不少。至于等部门,问题就更大了。社会经济基础已经改变了,为这个基础服务的上层建筑之一的艺术部门,至今还是大问题。这需要从调查研究着手,认真地抓起来。许多共产党人热心提倡封建主义和资本主义的艺术,却不热心提倡社会主义艺术,岂非咄咄怪事。”

1964年1月3日,为了贯彻毛泽东的批示,中共中央总书记邓小平主持召开文艺座谈会,中共中央副主席刘少奇和政治局委员、书记处书记彭真在会上传达了毛泽东的批示,全国文联和所属各协会从3月开始整风,学习毛泽东的批示,检查文化艺术界存在的问题,研究提出改进意见。

毛泽东对《中央宣传部关于全国文联和所属各协会整风情况的报告》很不满意,1964年6月27日,在中宣部的报告上批示:“这些协会和他们掌握的刊物的大多数(据说有少数几个好的),十五年来,基本上(不是一切人)不执行党的政策,做官当老爷,不去接近工农兵,不去反映社会主义的革命和建设,最近几年,竟然跌到了修正主义边缘。如果不认真改造,势必在将来的某一天,要变成匈牙利裴多菲俱乐部那样的团体。”

1964年7月11日,中共中央将毛泽东上述批示作为文件下发,中央成立由彭真、陆定一、康生、周扬、吴冷西组成的中央文化革命五人小组,从7月到11月,在文艺界各协会和文化问题直属文艺单位进行第二次整风,文艺界和文化领域里的一批代表人物及其代表作品在这次整风中受到政治批判,搞得文艺界和文化领域人人自危。这种政治批判很快就从文艺界扩大到哲学、经济学、历史、教育等领域。中央党校副校长杨献珍的“合二而一论”,经济学界孙冶方的“生产价格论”与“企业利润观”,北京大学副校长、哲学教授冯定的《平凡的真理》,北京大学历史学教授翦伯赞的“历史主义”和“让步政策”等,历史学家侯外庐的历史观,都先后受到政治批判,从这些政治批判中,毛泽东也发现了关锋、戚本禹、姚文元等一批文化革命的“极左派”。

1964年下半年,毛泽东针对思想文化战线存在的问题不断地继续发指示。8月,毛泽东在《中宣部关于公开放映和批判影片《北国江南》、《早春二月》的请示报告》上批示:“可能不止这两部影片,还有别的,都需要批判。要使这些修正主义材料公之于众。”8月18日,毛泽东在北戴河会议上讲话:“搞哲学的人,以为第一是哲学,不对,第一是阶级斗争。”“有阶级斗争才有哲学,脱离实际谈认识论没用。”“哲学家们应当下乡去,今冬明春就下去,去参加阶级斗争。”“不搞阶级斗争,搞什么哲学?”文科大学生要参加社会主义教育运动,要“分期分批下去,去参加阶级斗争。只有这样,才能学到东西,学到革命。”毛泽东支持江青搞表现工农兵的革命现代戏,把才子佳人赶下社会主义舞台。毛泽东10月8日看了江青搞出的革命芭蕾舞《红色娘子军》说:“方向是对的,革命是成功的,艺术上也是好的。”

1965年12月21日,毛泽东因此在杭州对陈伯达、胡绳、田家英、艾思奇等人提出,要批判吴晗创作的京剧《海瑞罢官》。1959年4月,也就是在庐山会议前,毛泽东在中共中央召开的工作会议上,号召各级领导干部要学习海瑞“直言敢谏”的精神,提出要找几个历史学家研究一下海瑞。北京市副市长、历史学家吴晗,响应毛泽东的号召,在这之后连续发表《海瑞骂皇帝》、《论海瑞》等研究海瑞的文章。1961年,吴晗又发表新编历史京剧《海瑞罢官》。毛泽东当时观看了京剧《海瑞罢官》,并未说有啥问题。可是江青、康生等人,联系到1962年8月以来,毛泽东在北戴河会议和中共八届十中全会上,针对在恢复经济中刘少奇、周恩来、陈云对存在的问题看得非常严重,提出要反对“黑暗风”,针对邓子恢等支持农村包产到作业组和包产到户提出要反对“单干风”,针对中共七千人大会之后为“反右倾运动”中错误批判的人平反,以及邓小平转交彭德怀请求中央重新审查他的历史的致毛泽东的八万言书,提出要反对“翻案风”,多次向毛泽东提出,吴晗创作的新编历史京剧《海瑞罢官》是针对庐山会议和毛泽东上述批评的。因此,毛泽东提出要批判《海瑞罢官》。1965年初江青到上海与张春桥共同策划,由姚文元撰写批判《海瑞罢官》的文章,把吴晗在剧中涉及的“退田、平冤狱”同毛泽东批评的“单干风”、“翻案风”联系起来,认为《海瑞罢官》是大毒草。中央书记处和彭真不允许北京报刊转载姚文元的牵强附会的政治批判文章,毛泽东竟然听信江青、康生等人的谗言,为此非常生气。

毛泽东在杭州的上述谈话,看似是针对历史学家吴晗,实际上是发泄对刘少奇、邓小平、彭真等中共高级领导人阻碍从政治上批判《海瑞罢官》极端不满,已经认定中央出了修正主义,必须采取文化大革命清除修正主义。

潘光复与柴健民、何家福和李天道交谈时,他的话题转向了文化大革命。建国后,毛泽东在文化领域不断开展“反复辟”斗争,凡是要推翻一个政权,总要在意识形态方面先造舆论。老毛发动的文革正式拉开了帷幕。

Wake up(165)

 


165

 

The meeting of 7,000 people held in early 1962 did not bring any benefits to the party, the country, or the people. On the contrary, it caused great turmoil across the country. Mao Zedong was in a difficult situation. For this reason, when the meeting was about to end, Mao Zedong suddenly proposed to hold a "venting meeting".

Pan Guangfu said to Chai Jianmin, He Jiafu, and Li Tiandao: The reason why Mao Zedong held a venting meeting was because the experimental campaign on the "Three Red Flags" was implemented by the central ministries and committees and provincial and municipal committees. The huge losses caused by "natural disasters" and "man-made disasters" and the harm caused to party members and cadres at all levels are serious, and the rebellious psychology and emotional resentment caused are also strong. However, as a rule, they do not blame the initiators of the line policy, but the specific executors who forced them to implement it, their immediate superiors.

Mao Zedong wanted to hold a meeting to release his anger, but he could release the anger in this part of the people's hearts, which can be said to kill three birds with one stone: First, it can ease the tense atmosphere caused by the struggle within the party in the past few years. Avoid "making too many enemies"; second, it can get rid of the domineering, arrogance, and bureaucratic habits of high and middle-level cadres, and further strengthen the prestige of the central government and himself in the grassroots, middle, and high-level party organizations of the entire party; Know the true thoughts, emotional attitudes, and political stances of the entire party's grassroots and middle-level leading cadres about Mao Zedong's own thoughts, line, and prestige over the past few years, so as to respond.

However, although the ministries of the central government and the provincial party committees became the targets of the representatives attending the meeting, most of the delegates really believed that the mistakes mainly came from the specific implementation. The general direction of Mao Zedong and the central government was always correct, but the central ministries and After all, the provincial party committees have been taught by generations, and the boards that the representatives hit on their buttocks will eventually hit Mao Zedong's scar through the principle of "transmitting force through objects". As a result, the censorships forced out by representatives of the central ministries and provincial committees were far more explicit, deeper, sharper, and more essentially pointed to the fundamental mistakes in his ideological line over the past few years than Liu Shaoqi's reports and speeches.

What worried Mao even more was that most of the people who vented their anger were leading cadres such as the county party committee secretary and prefectural party secretary. The Supreme Being, but in fact most of them do not agree with his ideological line, and are dissatisfied and worried about his serious mistakes. And once someone like Liu Shaoqi is allowed to sing the main theme of the party's work in the name of "economic adjustment" and "overcoming difficulties", and fight against him, these county party secretaries, prefectural party secretaries, including provincial party secretaries and central ministers, I'm afraid they will all leave Mao Zedong and go to Liu Shaoqi's side.

Mao Zedong was well versed in the explicit and unspoken rules of power struggle within the party. At a historical stage, if the supreme leader of a party wants to firmly control the supreme power in his hands and maintain his sacred and inviolable authority in the whole party, a minimum prerequisite is that he guides the main work of the party in this historical stage. The party's line, principles, policies, and ideological theories must be "correct", proven by practice and recognized by the entire party. Before the founding of the People's Republic of China, during the period of armed seizure of power, the main work within the party was military struggle, and it was the strategy and tactics he adopted in the military struggle and the "correctness" of the line and policy he represented established him as the supreme leader of the party. And the supreme authority "recognized" by the whole party.

After the founding of the People's Republic of China, the consolidation of political power and economic construction became the two major themes of the party's inner work, and their importance can be said to go hand in hand. It can be said that in the first five or six years of the founding of the People's Republic of China, Mao Zedong adopted a set of lines, principles, policies and theoretical results on these two major themes, which were basically successful and "effective" in practice. His position as the leader of the entire party is crucial. However, with the consolidation of the political power and the coming of the period of peaceful construction, the work of consolidating the political power has gradually withdrawn from the foreground, and it is inevitable that the work of economic construction will play the leading role.

Mao Zedong quickly made adjustments. After the "victory" of the anti-rightist struggle in 1957, he focused his energy on economic construction, and realized a major turning point in the guiding line, that is, from the transformation of the economic system to the improvement of the economic growth rate. The "three red flags" are the general idea, practical approach and theoretical policy of the new historical period that he grandly launched to realize this major turning point.

However, after four years of hard work and fanaticism, the myth of Mao Zedong's "always correct" has been shattered. He left Maicheng on the main battlefield of the party's economic work and was defeated. Although they have struggled several times, except for causing greater disasters to the people of the whole country, it is almost in vain. What made him feel particularly painful and desperate was that the three red flags he carefully crafted were his overall design for economic construction in the transitional period. The core content of the ideological line. If the three red flags are negated by history, by facts, by the whole party, and by the people, then it means that he, as the supreme leader of the party, is fundamentally wrong in the guiding line and theoretical principles of the main work of the party. This means: first, to vacate the position of commander, and let others take care of the economic construction work that occupies the dominant position in the party; second, the chain effect formed by the previous result is to vacate the position of the highest leader in the party. ; Three, the final result is that the power is left behind and obediently step down.

Of course, due to Mao Zedong's historical feats and lofty prestige, the best ending is to become the "Supreme Emperor" again. At the end of the meeting of 7,000 people, even if Mao Zedong had not clearly realized this point, he was aware of the coming crisis. The West Building Conference half a month later and the Central Work Conference in May of that year made this crisis clear and approachable.

Pan Guangfu said to Chai Jianmin, He Jiafu and Li Tiandao: Mao Zedong's bottom line has been stepped on. Mao Zedong believed that whenever a regime is to be overthrown, public opinion must be created first, and ideological work must be done first. The revolutionary class is like this, and the counter-revolutionary class is also like this. Therefore, Mao Zedong decided to launch an unprecedented "anti-restoration" struggle in the cultural field. This is the Cultural Revolution that caused a sensation in the world.

醒悟(165)

 


165

 

1962年初召开的七千人大会,没有给党、国家、人民带来什么好处,相反造成了全国大动乱。毛泽东处于困境之中。为此,在大会即将结束时,毛泽东突然提出来开个“出气会”。

潘光复对柴健民、何家福和李天道三个老人说:毛泽东为什么要开出气会,是因为关于“三面红旗”的实验运动是由中央各部委和各省市省市委具体执行的,在执行过程中,“天灾”和“人祸”造成的巨大损失和对各级党员干部造成的伤害是深重的,引起的逆反心理和情感上的怨愤也是强烈的。但是,按常规,他们并不把账算在路线政策的始作俑者身上,而是算在强迫他们实施的具体执行者头上,他们的顶头上司头上。

毛泽东要开出气会,可把这一部分人心里的气放出来,可谓一箭三雕:其一,可以缓和这几年党内斗争所造成的紧张空气。避免“树敌过多”;其二,可以打掉高中级干部的霸气、骄气和官僚主义习气,进一步强化中央和他本人在全党基层、中层、高层党组织中的威信;其三,进一步弄清楚全党基层、中层领导干部几年来对毛泽东本人的思想、路线及其威信的真实想法,情感态度,政治立场,以作应变。

但是,虽然中央各部和各省省委变成与会代表们出气的对象,绝大部分代表们也真的相信出错主要出在具体执行中,毛泽东和中央的大方向始终是正确的,但中央各部和各省委毕竟是代人受过,代表们打在他们屁股上的板子,最后终究要通过“隔物传力”的原理,击在毛泽东的伤疤上。结果,中央各部委和各省委被代表们逼出来的检讨,远比刘少奇的报告和讲话更露骨、更深入、更尖锐、更本质地指向了他几年来思想路线的根本错误。

更让毛泽东深感忧虑的是,出气的绝大部分是县委书记和地委书记这样一层领导干部,尽管他们怨愤的对象是他们的顶头上司,尽管他们对他毛泽东还在顶礼膜拜,奉为至尊,但实质上他们中的大部分,是不赞成他的思想路线的,是对他的严重失误心怀不满和忧愤的。而一旦让刘少奇这样的人以“经济调整”“渡过困难”的名义在党的工作中唱了主旋律,并和他分庭抗礼,这些县委书记、地委书记、包括省委书记和中央各部部长,恐怕都要离开他毛泽东,跑到刘少奇那一边去。

毛泽东深谙党内权力斗争的明潜规则。在一个历史阶段,一个党的最高领袖要想牢牢控制手中至高无上的权力,要想保持自己在全党神圣不可侵犯的权威,一个起码的先决条件是他用以指导这个历史阶段党的主要工作的路线、方针、政策及其思想理论必须是“正确”的,得到实践证明和全党公认的。建国前武装夺取政权时期,党内的主要工作是军事斗争,而正是在军事斗争上他所采取的战略战术、所代表的路线方针的“正确”,奠定了他在党内的最高领袖地位,和全党“公认”的至高无上的权威。

建国后,巩固政权和经济建设成为党内工作的两大主题,其重要性可谓并驾齐驱。可以说,在建国初期的五六年内,毛泽东在这两大主题上采取的一整套路线、方针、政策和提出的理论成果,是基本成功的,实践上也是“卓有成效”的,这对进一步巩固他在全党的领袖地位至关重要。但是,随着政权的巩固及和平建设时期的到来,巩固政权的工作逐渐退出前台,经济建设的工作要唱主角,这已经势不可免。

毛泽东敏捷地作了调整。从1957年反右斗争“胜利”以后,他把主要精力放到了经济建设上来,并在指导路线上实现了一个重大转折,即由经济制度的改造转为经济增长速度的提高。“三面红旗”,即是他为实现这个重大转折而隆重推出的新的历史时期的总体思路、实践途径和理论方针。

然而,四年的拼搏和狂热,毛泽东“一贯正确”的神话破灭了。他在党内经济工作这个主战场上走了麦城,败下阵来。其中虽然几经挣扎,但除了给全国人民造成更大的灾难外,几乎徒劳无功。尤其令他感到痛苦和绝望的,他精心打造的三面红旗,是他关于过渡时期经济建设的总体设计,凝聚了他对这个历史阶段建设发展的思考、决断、胆略的全部结晶,是他过渡时期思想路线的核心内容。如果三面红旗被历史否定,被事实否定,被全党否定,被人民否定,那么就是说他作为党内最高领袖,在党内主要工作的指导路线和理论方针上是根本错误的。这意味着:一,腾出指挥员的位置,党内占主体地位的经济建设工作让别人去抓;二,前一个结果形成的连锁效应是腾出党内最高领袖的位置,道理当然是不言自明;三,最终的结果是大权旁落,乖乖下台。

当然,由于毛泽东的历史功勋和崇高威望,最好的结局是再当一回“太上皇”。在七千人大会结束之际,毛泽东即使还没有清醒地认识到这一点,也意识到了危机的到来。而半个月后的西楼会议和当年五月的中央工作会议则使这种危机顿时清晰和逼近起来。

潘光复对柴健民、何家福和李天道三个老人说:毛泽东的底线被踩到了。毛泽东认为,凡是要推翻一个政权,总要先造舆论,总要先做意识形态方的工作,革命的阶级是这样,反革命阶级也是这样。因此,毛泽东决定在文化领域发动一场史无前例的“反复辟”斗争,这就是轰动世界的文化大革命。