Close

Support Global Voices

To stay independent, free, and sustainable, our community needs the help of friends and readers like you.

Donate now »

See all those languages up there? We translate Global Voices stories to make the world's citizen media available to everyone.

Learn more about Lingua Translation  »

China: Revolution's victims’ stories blogged, not forgotten (1/4)

For a good number of years, Sichuan-based blogger-journalist Ran Yunfei (冉云飞) has been collecting the stories of those persecuted as right wing elements during the Cultural Revolution, another part of Chinese contemporary history largely left unexplored even to this day. Early this year Ran began posting his research findings on his blog. Early last month Ran participated in a discussion in a Chengdu teahouse titled ‘On Right Wing Research.’ A transcript of the talk was later posted onto his blog in four pieces; here is the first installment:

杨远宏:

Yang Yuanhong: [emcee]

今天下午,我们请来了博闻强识、怪招迭出的著名作家、学者冉云飞先生来给在座的朋友们作演讲,他今天演讲的题目是“关于右派研究”。在冉云飞开始这个演讲之前,我荣幸地通报大家,今天来的朋友们当中,有一位最老的前辈右派先生,就是八十六岁的萧赛先生,也是作家萧赛先生、学者萧赛先生,请大家欢迎。(鼓掌)也来了一位最年轻的右派,前《星星诗刊》的副主编,全国著名诗人、鲁迅文学奖获得者张新泉先生,请大家欢迎。(鼓掌)这位年长的萧赛先生和现在已经不太年轻的新泉先生都是今天第一次来参加我们的草堂读书会,我本人和读书会的朋友们对这两位朋友的到来表示热烈的欢迎和由衷的感谢。(鼓掌)

This afternoon we've invited someone well-known for his rich and strong knowledge, noted writer and scholar Mr. Ran Yunfei, to give us a lecture. The subject on which he will be speaking today is ‘On Right Wing Research.’ Before Ran begins, I'm honored to announce to everybody that among us here today is one of the oldest of the old rightists, eighty-six year old Mr. Xiao Sai. Also Mr. Xiao Sai the writer, Mr. Xiao Sai the scholar. Everybody please welcome him. (applause) Also here is one of the youngest rightists around: former deputy editor of Xingxing Poetry Weekly, nationwide -known poet and winner of the Lu Xun prize for literature, Mr. Zhang Xinquan. Everybody please welcome him. (applause) This older Mr. Xiao Sai and already no longer young Mr. Xinquan are both in attendance of our reading group for the first time. Let's give them an enthusiastic welcome and our heartfelt thanks. (applause)

冉云飞先生今天所讲的话题,其实牵涉到对中国历代体制和文化的广阔而又深刻的思考。中国的历代统治者、集权专制者从来没有把知识分子与社会的关系摆在一个正常的、正当的位置。在他们看来,知识分子不过是一撮毛,不过是附在统治阶级这张皮上的一撮毛,如此而已。这一撮毛如果顺服一点,那么也许还可以留在这张皮上,如果这撮毛略有不顺服,或是这撮毛甚至倒立起来了,那这撮毛就可能被拔去。皮之不存,毛将焉附,是对中国历代知识分子和统治阶级这种关系的形象生动地表达。

What Mr. Ran Yunfei will speak of today involves the systems of China's past dynasties as well as vast and deep thoughts. The totalitarian and despotic leaders of past Chinese dynasties have never before seen the relationship between intellectuals and society as a natural or legitimate one. As they see it, intellectuals are just a bunch of hairs, but hairs attached to the skin of the ruling class. If these hairs obey, then they can stay on the skin. If they don't, they might just get ripped out from the skin. This gives one a vivid idea of the relationship between past intellectuals and the ruling classes of past dynasties.

在这样的关系当中,中国的知识分子不仅仅丧失了自己的文化品格,而且更重要的是丧失了作为一个知识分子的独立人格。一个知识分子的独立人格就是不仅要思考,还要有批判精神。因此在上一次周雨樵先生所讲的“毛泽东与文革”和今天云飞所要讲的“关于右派研究”这两个历史个案,虽然时间相隔十年,整风反右已经过去将近五十年了,文革过去已经四十年了,而这两场革命给我们留下的记忆,在这块土地上所造成的灾难,今天我们仍然记忆犹新。

Kept in this sort of relationship, not only did Chinese intellectuals lose their cultural character but, most importantly, lost the independent character it takes to be an intellectual as well. An intellectual's independent character consists of more than just thinking, but requires a critical spirit as well. Therefore with the previous talk, Mr. Zhou Yuqiao's ‘Mao Zedong and the Cultural Revolution‘ and Yunfei's lecture today ‘On Right Wing Research,’ these two cases from history, although seperated by ten years, with the rectification of and opposition to rightists having stopped for close to fifty years already and the Cultural Revolution for forty, memories of these two revolutions remain. Those tragedies which also took place here on this very spot remain fresh in our minds today.

文革和整风反右与其说是一场文化的灾难,不如说是一场人的灾难。它是对中国知识分子的良知、道义、独立人格、独立思考、怀疑精神、批判精神的一次全面的迫害、打击和摧毁。这以后中国知识分子开始走向分裂。特别是到了当下这个时代,中国知识分子的精神、道义、良知是荡然无存。因此冉云飞先生今天所讲的这个话题,仅管它是一个历史个案,仅管它已经过去了将近五十年,无疑,它会引起我们对在这块土地上发生过的,历史上遗留下来的集权专制造成的灾难进行全面、深刻地反思。

The Cultural Revolution and the anti-right movement, if said to be a cultural disaster, might be better said to have been a people's disaster. It was a comprehensive, full-on persecution, attack and destruction of Chinese intellectuals’ conscience, morality, independent character, independent thought and doubtful and critical spirit. From then on Chinese intellectuals began to move towards a split. Especially with the arrival of the present modern era. The spirit, morality and conscience of Chinese intellectuals has ceased to exist. Accordingly, the subject of Mr. Ran Yunfei's talk today only looks at it as a historical case, one nearly fifty years past. Without doubt, it will lead us to thoroughly and profoundly reconsider the totalitarian- and despot-made tragedies which have gone down in history and happened on this very spot.

其实我们如果往后追溯一下,对知识分子的打压和迫害,早已从延安整风就开始了的。有一点我不太明白的是为什么专制统治者对知识分子怀有一种天然的怀疑和敌意。正是这种怀疑和敌意,防范之心,造成一代又一代的文字狱。在座的朋友们都知道,这是从秦始皇焚书坑儒就开始了的。我记得现在中国出了本高尔基写的《不合时宜的思想》,在这本书里面高尔基当初针对以列宁为代表的布尔什维克对知识分子的残酷迫害,高尔基出于当时还没有泯灭的良知,他实在看不下去了,他就到克里姆林宫去质问列宁。如果我没记错的话高尔基质问列宁是这样说的,你们所迫害的,是俄罗斯的大脑。而列宁是怎么回答的呢,他说:什么大脑?一堆粪便。当我在这本书中看到列宁这个回答时我大为震惊,为什么这些集权统治者对知识分子都有一种天然的敌意呢,他本身也是知识分子嘛。为什么他们要把知识分子看成集权专制的天敌?其实当我提出问题时答案也就已经在问题之中了,今天在冉云飞先生开讲之前,我就简单地为冉云飞先生拉开序幕。

Actually if we back up a bit, we see that the attacks and persecution of intellectuals began as early as the Yan'an Movement. One thing I don't completely understand is why despots harbor such a natural suspicion and hostility toward intellectuals. It's just this sort of suspicion and hostility which creates generation after generation of political prisoners. The friends present here all know that this began with Emperor Qin Shihuang‘s burning of books and burying of Confucian scholars. I remember that Gorki‘s ‘Untimely Thoughts‘ has been released in China. Early in this book, Gorki takes aim at Lenin's brutal persecution of intellectuals in the name of representing the Bolsheviks. At that time Gorki's conscience hadn't yet disappeared. In fact he couldn't stand to see this. He went to the Kremlin to demand an answer from Lenin. If I remember correctly, this is what he said to Lenin: ‘What you are persecuting is Russia's brain.’ And how did Lenin respond? He said: ‘What brain? That's a pile of crap.’ It was a big shock when I saw in this book this answer of Lenin's. Why do these despots harbor an inherent hostility towards intellectuals? He himself was an intellectual to begin with. Why do they need to see intellectuals as the natural enemies of despotic autocrats? In fact, as I ask, the answer is in the question itself. Before Mr. Ran Yunfei begins his talk today, I'll just give this simple opening.

冉云飞:

Ran Yunfei

谢谢各位。参加草堂读书会较多的朋友应该是了解我的,而别的朋友可能也多少知道我一些。所以我在这里也不做自我介绍了。我首先在这里说一下我今天的讲题“关于右派研究”。因为关于右派研究这个问题,无论是从大陆还是海外来讲,目前写的关于技术性的右派研究的书还不少,但真正有份量的研究的书实质上并不多。我为什么要把今天的讲话题目定为“关于右派研究”?尽管我们来反省,来批判,来声讨集权专制对知识分子的迫害,对国家大脑的迫害,我认为对关于右派这个问题的批评,不管怎样我认为都不过火。问题是到底怎么样的批评才是最重要的。

Thank you everybody. A lot of people taking part in this reading group should have a good idea of who I am, and the others should at least more or less have an idea about me. That's why I won't do any self-introduction here. First off I'd like to say a bit about my lecture topic, ‘On Right Wing Research.’ Because many books—regardless if one is speaking about the mainland or overseas—have been written about the technical aspects of researching the right wing. But authentic books with weighty research on the right wing virtually don't exist. Why do I want to talk about right wing research here today? Although we engage in self-reflection, in criticism, in condemning despotic autocracy's persecution of intellectuals, persecution of China's brain, I feel that comment on the issue of the right wing hasn't come very far. The real question is what sort of commenting is the most important.

这个话怎么讲呢,那就是我们在批评一个东西的同时,要占有大量详实的资料,这才是一个人做学问的态度。我们不能采取共产党那种搞法,以论代史。比如说我们先讲好这个观点是正确的,然后我们再去找资料,这不是一个做学问的方式。虽然关于右派这个事情可以激起很多人的愤怒,也可以激起我冉云飞的愤怒,对不对?在前不久,也就是前两天吧,中央电视台搞的一个“感动中国”的节目,我就在我的博客上写了一篇文章叫《政府越无耻,百姓越感动》,后来发到“天涯”上,那跟贴简直多得很,可以说是群情振奋,后来“天涯”当局把它删掉、打包。就是这样,政府越无耻,百姓越感动,我坐在这里,为什么要先讲这一点,是因为政府的很多做法是无耻的,他拿了纳税人的钱,却不替纳税人做事,他的合法性何在?我在我的文章当中写到,比如说我写到徐本禹让我感动、黄战辉让我感动,高耀洁让我感动,他们越让我感动,越让我感到这个政府的无耻。因为他们该做的事情不做,他们拿了我的钱不为我办事。

What am I trying to say? That as we move to comment on something, we must first have a large volume of detailed and factual information. This is the attitude of a true scholar. We cannot assume the Communist Party's way of carrying on and substitute talk for historical fact. For example, first saying that our points of view are correct, and then going to find information to back them up. This is not how scholars work. Although the subject of rightists may give rise to a lot of people's anger, it might also give rise to mine, am I right? Not long ago, just two days ago actually, China Central Television aired a program ‘Move China.’ I then wrote a post on my blog called ‘The more shameless the government gets, the more moved the people get.’ Then I posted it on Tianya BBS, and it aroused the sentiments of the masses. Later, Tianya's authorities deleted it. But that's how it is; the more shameless the government gets, the more moved the people get. Sitting here, why do I bring this up? Because many of the government's ways of doing things are shameless. It takes taxpayers’ money, but doesn't do anything in return. Where is its legitimacy? I wrote about this in my post. For example, I wrote about how Xu Benyu moves me, how Huang Zhanhui moves me, and how Gao Yaojie moves me. The more they move me, the more I feel this government's shamelessness. Because they don't do the things a government should. The money they take from me is not used for their work.

我的文章主体就是这样写的,那么这个国家很奇怪,但这个国家的老百姓也很奇怪,你政府无耻吗他还越感动,他不知道这个感动的背后政府到底是一种什么样的缺失。我在那篇文章中说了,政府在管和整老百姓这方面中国政府是世界第一,在关怀和爱护老百姓上面也是世界第一,但是是倒数第一。(鼓掌)

Most of my post was written like this: this country is so strange, and its people are so strange too. I ask if his government is shameless and he gets more excited. He doesn't know that the backdrop for this excitement is a kind of flawed government. I said it in my post: in managing its citizens the Chinese government comes first, first also in being concerned of and caring for the people. First from last, that is. (applause)

在今天讲关于右派研究的问题,我可以这样说,在今天我们看到的所有关于研究右派的写作,都十分缺乏原始资料。关于这方面在国内有朱正先生的《一九五七年的夏季》, 和胡平写的《禅机:一九五七》,包括叶永烈写的《沉重的一九五七》,这些东西基本上都是一堆常见资料堆砌,而很多资料也是极不全备的,非常不完备。为什么呢,事实上这几位的书还都算不上是学术研究,不能算平心静气的研究,只能算对资料的清理和罗列。有鉴于此,我本人对这个问题的研究也开始多少年了,很多年前我就在收集右派资料,今天我带来的这一份叫《右派资料知见录》(编年初稿)。编年是什么意思呢,编年就是从一九五七到二OO五年,凡是我能够见到的右派资料,我全部将它罗列出来了。今天我拿了一叠来。 这个工作很多自以为有才华的人是不愿意做的。他觉得这个工作又琐碎、又繁复,工作量又大,这些确实非常之大。要翻很多刊物、很多资料、很多报纸,要钻很多图书馆,要钻很多故纸堆。这么多年我每个星期天早上都要去旧书市场,明天又是星期天我依然还要去,这些都是我每一个星期天早上在旧书摊上淘的书和资料的一部分。因为我星期天从来不睡懒觉。我这样说的意思就是关于右派的研究要象冉云飞这样作。要象谢泳这样作。谢泳,黄河杂志的副主编,研究储安平,研究西南联大,研究《观察》杂志等卓有成效的学者。同样也需要我这样的人来做这种最为基础的资料。

In regards to today's topic of researching the right wing, I can say this: of all the writing we see today regarding research on the right wing, all of them lack source material. In this regard on the mainland, we have Mr. Zhu Zheng's ‘Summer of 1957,’ Hu Ping‘s ‘Zen Insight: 1957‘ and Ye Yonglie‘s ‘Weighty 1957.’ These things are all just a pile of commonly-seen materials, many of which are rather incomplete. Definitely far from perfect. And why? As a matter of fact, the books of these three don't count as scholarly research and cannot be considered as objective research, only the re-organization and spreading-out of information. With that in mind, my own research into this subject has been going on for years. I began collecting right-wing materials many years ago and today have brought with me one collection called ‘Right Wing: Knowledge, Testimony and Records‘ (first draft); all the materials I've come across regarding rightists from 1957 until today can be found inside. I've brought a pile with me today. Many people think that anyone with any writing ability wouldn't be willing to take on such a job. They see this work as trivial, complex and consuming, which it definitely is. You have to flip through many periodicals, lots of information, many newspapers. You must dig your way through many libraries and heaps of old books. For many years every Sunday morning I stop by the old market. Tomorrow's Sunday and still I will go. These are just some of the books and materials spread out on the vendor stands every Sunday morning. Because I never sleep in on Sunday mornings. What I'm trying to say is that research on the right wing needs to be carried out just like Ran Yunfei himself. Just like Xie Yong himself. Xie Yong, Yellow River magazine's deputy editor, is researching Chu Anping, researching Southwestern University, researching Guangcha magazine and other productive scholars. Similarly, there is need for people like me to produce these more basic kinds of information.

这个就象我们曾经做过一期张献忠屠杀四川三百六十周年的一个小辑一样。张献忠屠杀四川我曾经做了个资料,现在我又发现了一些。我这个人很喜欢做一些非常基础的资料,只有在这些非常基础的资料上再进行详实的研究。这样做下来,我就可以这样说,什么叫木板上钉钉,板都板不脱,什么叫详实有力。希望大家在将来写回忆录的时候,写文革回忆录也好,写右派回忆录也好,写肃反、三反五反回忆录也好,大跃进回忆录也好,或者是全民民歌运动回忆录也好,四清运动回忆录也好,大家首先要做到第一点,那就是忠实于自己,你说的话自己应该负责。第二点就是要忠实于历史,就是你不管怎么样批评政府也好,批评他人也好,你首先对于资料要有个详实的把握,这种态度才是一个人做学问的态度,是一个人诚实的态度。我觉得这真要涉及到诚实,因为你不能因痛恨某一个人,就把某种观点强加于他。同样的,你不能因为痛恨曾经的政府,你说的话就可以没有根据。我认为一个人说话就应该有根据,当然我不是说我们每一句话都查得出根据,但是对每一句话我应有逻辑,从逻辑上可以推断出那种必然性和或然性。我说这个的意思也就是各位若需要这个资料可以拿去复印,同时告知大家我的很多资料在网上都有公布,你只要输入冉云飞就可查到。这份《右派资料知见录》刚才我拿给几位老右派看了他们都觉得吃惊,因为他们只知道自己是右派,不知道这一堆,这么多详实的资料。所以我在下面要讲的第一点就是怎样收集右派资料。

This is just like when we once did a small booklet on the 360 year anniversary of Zhang Xianzhong‘s massacre of Sichuan. I'd done some information on this before and now I see some more. Personally, I like doing more basic research; only in such basic research can such detailed work be done. Having thus done, I can thus say. What is this there's nothing more to said nonsense? What is this ‘the power is in the details?’ I wish that everyone, when writing their memoirs, whether of the Cultural Revolution or of the several anti-right campaigns, the Great Leap Forward, the national folk song movement or the Four Cleanups Movement, could pay most attention to this first point: be honest to yourself. You should take responsibility for the things you say. The second point is to be honest to history. That's to say, no matter how you might critique the government or other people, you must first of all have a grasp on the details of the information. This kind of attitude is the attitude of a scholar, an honest attitude. I feel one must always deal honestly. Just because you hate somebody doesn't mean you can impose a point of view on him. Similarly, just because you hate past governments doesn't mean you can say something without proof. I think one who wants to speak should have some evidence. Of course I'm not saying that every sentence we speak has to be backed up, but every word should be logical. It's through logic that we can expound a sort of inevitability or probability. What I mean is that anyone who needs this material can go out and photocopy it, and at the same time notify everyone that I've post a lot of my information online. Just type in Ran Yunfei and you can find it. I just gave this copy of ‘Right Wing: Knowledge, Testimony and Records‘ to some old righty friends to look at and they were all taken aback. Because they only knew they themselves were right wing, didn't know there was this pile of such detailed information. That's why the point I'm about to speak on is how to collect right wing information.

如果你能收集到详实的资料,比如你要研究抗战,要研究日本侵华史,你要研究日本的罪行,你手上有日本人的证据就是最棒的。比如说樊建川手上有很多日本人侵华的证据,樊建川在这个问题的研究上就是很棒的。这些证据拿出来你板都板不脱。同样的,右派的很多资料用几种方法可以收集。第一就是旧书市场可以收到一些,这是个人可以去找的;第二就是图书馆,图书馆五七年到六O年到六一年六二年这四年之间资料还保存得有。也许你觉得这样翻起来很麻烦,我在这里告诉大家一个捷径,有本工具书叫《全国主要报刊资料索引》,是上海出的,每年都有,那么你要去翻哪个时候的资料那上面都有。你可以把关于右派的分类从那当中找出来,同时找报刊实物来核对,这样就可以节约你找资料的时间。

If you are able to gather some detailed information, researching the Sino-Japanese War, for instance, and Japan's invasion of China, Japan's crimes, the ideal would be to get your hands on a Japanese's testimony. For example, Fan Jianchuan is known to have plenty of evidence of Japan's invasion of China. Fan Jianchuan's research on this subject is superb. A lot of information on rightists can be collected using one of several methods. The first is the old book market where some can be found. These can be found by going and looking yourself. The second is the library. Libraries still stock books from 1957 to 1962. Perhaps you think this kind of searching too troublesome. I'll tell everybody a shortcut now: there's a tool called the National Major Publication Information Index, from out of Shanghai. Every year there's a new one and whatever you want to find can be found there. You can even look up the right wing there. At the same time, the searches produce matches. This way you can cut down on the time you spend looking for information.

第三点活着的右派我们要抢救,这不是开玩笑,你身边的右派你应该去做访谈,做访问录,做口述历史各种工作。我对今天在座诸位是所盼焉,希望大家都来做。这点我觉得胡适先生非常了不起,四十岁的时候他就开始写胡适杂记,开始写胡适回忆录,也就是四十自述。胡适先生曾经说过,所有的人回忆出来的历史加在一起,它就是一个比较完备的历史。因为历史它会呈现出很多种面貌,然后让那些研究者,让那些解读者更加全面地看到这个历史。并不仅仅是说只有你冉云飞回忆的才是历史,张三回忆的就不是历史,对不对?它可能有着互相印证甚至于互相矛盾的地方,互相抵触的地方,但最重要的是要全方位地尽可能准确地恢复和接近历史的原貌,这一点特别重要。所以我说在座诸位自己当过右派的,自己亲聆过右派谈话的,或者你周围有亲戚朋友是右派的,我希望你们做一点这样的工作,这个东西保留下来,其作用相当的大,那么这是第三点。

Thirdly, we need to salvage those rightists still alive. This is no joke. You should go talk to the rightists that you know, and make a recording. Do every sort of oral history work. I have this hope of you here in attendance today. I hope everybody gets to it. On this point I think Hu Shi was remarkable. At the age of forty he began writing his memoir. Mister Hu Shi once said that if everyone's memoir-based histories were put together, what a perfect history it would make. Because history can present many different kinds of faces, it lets these researchers, these decoders, have a more thorough view of history. Certainly it is not that only Ran Yunfei's own records that count as history while Joe Wang's do not, right? There could very well be places that reaffirm each other, as well as those that contradict, and areas in which each balance the other out. But the most important is to as thoroughly as possible come as close as possible to history's original condition. This is especially important. That's why I say if any of you here now have ever been persecuted as a rightist, have heard any talk, or know some among your friends and family, I hope you will take on this work. If these things are saved down, their usefulness is considerably big. This is the third point.

第四点的资料收集是这样的,目前能够找到的这些老一辈的人,他们留下的只言片语,还有他们留下来的各种资料,现在已经出版的,我已经收集了不少。因为这个工作非常浩大,比如说你要做一个人经历过五七年后的传记,假如说我做流沙河先生的传记,或者说我做某某人的传记,我可能做到有一节它涉及到右派方面的。所以这种工作量相当大,但这种工作必须要有人去做。但现在是许多亲历过一九五七的人的传记里,反右这一章都语焉不详。所以我劝写回忆录写到一九五七,或者说替经历过一九五七年灾难的人立传,尽量不要回避。哪怕你写的暂时出不来,资料先存着也行。我觉得从这四方面来进行资料的收集。我们不要觉得收集资料无关紧要,在我看来,资料是铁打的证据,这种证据比你说的任何东西,呼的任何口号都有力量。

The fourth point on collecting information goes like this: Of the older generation which can still now be found, much of the records they've left behind has already been published. I've already collected my fair share of these. Because this undertaking is so vast, let's say you want to do a biography of someone who lived through 1957, let's say I wanted to do Mr. Liu Shahe‘s biography, or so-and-so's biography. I might end up with a chapter that touches on the right wing. That's why this workload is so big. But somebody has to do it. But now in many personal accounts from those who lived through 1957, the chapters on the anti-right movement are often not very detailed. That's why I recommend if you're going to write a memoir, write about 1957, or speak on behalf of someone who was there. Try your best not so shy away from it. Even if what you write can't be published right away, at least the information will exist. We should not feel that collecting this information will not make a difference. As I see it, the information is evidence stronger than steel, and stronger than anything you say or any slogan you shout.

对于这一点我说一下去年我到美国去访问,美国人对历史的做法就像我刚才说的那样的做法。他们做南北战争研究也好,做种族隔离研究也好,他在这方面就是一种全方位的的收集资料,首先的工作就是恢复历史的原貌。

Regarding this point I'll say a bit about my visit last year to America. Americans’ approach to history is just like what I've just said. Whether they're researching the Civil War or segregation, in this way they collect information from all across the board; the primary job is to revive history's original condition.

以上是我说的第一点叫收集资料。第二点我们要做的就是,现在根据官方的说法当年打成右派的是五十五万人,对于这个数据,官方的说法我一直表示怀疑,如果这个官方的说法再加上我们民间的研究,我们可不可以得到一个接近真实的右派名录。我觉得第一就是要收集象我这样的资料编年,我这个资料是从一九五七到二OO五年,每一年只要有涉及到右派的,有回忆到右派的,那么这些资料里面都有。我搞的是这种编年体的,它的好处是一查就查得到。第二点我说的最好是编一个右派名录,编一个右派名录的工作量相当大,如果像我上面说的资料做不好的话,编右派名录的困难更是相当大。我说这个话的意思是现在相当多的研究右派的书和一些文章,很多人转去转来就是章伯钧、罗隆基,流沙河。。。这些人要不要关注呢?这些人值不值得研究呢?当然值得,非常值得。这些著名的右派(你看历史是何其的残酷,右派也有著名和不著名之分),但对于搞研究的人来讲,你不管他右派著不著名,他对于我来说,他就是一个研究的个案,一个右派他不出名,他也应该得到最为基础的关注,最为认真的对待。

Above is my earlier-mentioned first way to collect information. The second we just have to follow. According to official accounts now, the number of those labelled as right wing amounts to 550,000 people. With regards to this number, I've always expressed some doubt at official accounts. If one adds onto this official account the number arrived at by the people's research, can we reach an approximate and realistic right wing name list? I think the first is the need to collect the information spanning the years like I have. This information of mine covers 1957 to 2005. Any information from each year which dealt with the right wing or was a memoir of the right wing, it's all here. What I've made is a chronology. Its advantage is that anything can be found. The best part of the second point is the editing of a right wing name list, although the workload that would involve is quite large. If, as I said above, the information is ill-prepared, preparing a right wing name list would be even more difficult. What I'm trying to say is that of the comparatively large number of books and essays exploring the left wing around now, those that most people turn to are Zhang Bojun's, Luo Longji and Liu Shahe…Should we watch these people closely? Are they worth researching? Of course it's worth it. Extremely worth it. These prominent rightists (You see how cruel history is? There are even well-known and unknown parts of the right wing). But speaking of doing research, don't worry if he's well-known or not. As far as I'm concerned, he's just a case to be researched. Even if a right winger doesn't become well-known, he still deserves some basic attention, the most honest of treatment.

但是在这点上,我可以这样讲,我们现在对很多著名右派的研究都还做得不好,比如说章伯钧先生的女儿章诒和女士写的《往事并不如烟》,写得非常好,很有文采,但事实上这本书在有些史实上是有问题的。从整体上讲,她的价值观我是认同的,但在史实上有很多是有待核实的。那当然这也并不影响《往事并不如烟》是一本非常好的书。但是对于我们读书的人来说,我们第一要务是求真,求真的目的是为了什么?是为了获得我们的自由、体面和尊严,当然也有对知识的纯然热爱。特别是对于一个知识分子,应该坚持自己的思索,所以我觉得这些著名的右派尚且没有很好地研究,何况这些小右派,和这些不出名的右派?

But on this point, I could say that our research on many prominent rightists still hasn't been done very well. For example, Mr. Zhang Bojun's daughter Ms. Zhang Yihe's book ‘The Past Is Not Like Smoke,’ which is written very well, full of literary grace. But in fact this book has some problems in historical fact. Overall, I agree with her values, but there are many unverified historical facts. Of course this doesn't change that The Past is a terrific book. But for readers like us, our prime demand is truth. What is the goal of demanding truth for? It's for winning our freedom, grace and respect. Of course there is also the pure love for knowledge. Especially for an intellectual, one should adhere to one's own thoughts. That's why I wonder, if these prominent rightists don't do very good research, what about the smaller, lesser-known rightists?

谢泳在给我的一封信当中曾说过(关于那封信我在我的博客上专门回了一封信,同时发在关天茶舍的新年展望当中的,文章的题目叫“与谢泳兄书”),实际上有很多不出名的右派,或名气不大的右派都没有受到应有的关注。这方面第一是资料不好找,第二是研究者的心态不大对,只注意著名右派去了,而不注意那些不著名的,也是右派的人,他们的命运也很悲惨。做为一个研究者来讲,要恢复历史的原貌,不管你著不著名,都应该得到相应的研究,相应的尊重。所以第二点我说的就是要做一个右派名录,那么右派名录应该有一些什么样的资料呢?我觉得基础资料就应该有籍贯,生年和死年,打成右派时候的年岁,主要右派言论,还有劳改地点、管制地点、主要报刊的批评目录等,我认为就要由这些资料组成。我刚才说了,还愿意重复一遍。还要加上他的劳改和管制地点,还有他的职业,比如是编辑啊,是老师啊,是工人啊还是学生等等。如果能够做到这些,就基本上是他的一个小传了。这样一个右派名录做出来,我认为是一个有利于千秋万代的事情。有这样的资料可以进行量化的分析,可以进行必要的社会学研究,对不对?

Xie Yong once said to me in a letter that in fact many lesser-known rightists haven't been paid the attention they should. In this aspect the most important is that information is hard to come across. Secondly, the intent of research is not right: only focussing on well-known rightists and not those lesser-known, who are also rightists. Their lives were also very tragic. As a researcher, one must restore history's original condition. Regardless of whether a person is well-known or not, all should receive corresponding research, corresponding respect. That's why I say the second point is to draw up a list of rightists’ names. And what sort of information should that list have on it? Basically, it should have their place and date of birth and date of death, the age at which they were first labelled a rightist, important right-wing speech, where they underwent reform through land labor, where they were kept and a list of major criticisms in the press. I think it should be comprised of these. I'm willing to repeat one more time. In addition to the locations of their labor reform and detention, their occupations. For example, editor, teacher, worker or student, etc. If that much could just be done, that would give a basic profile of him. If this kind of rightist name list were drawn up, I think that would be something which would prove beneficial for many years. With this kind of information, one could begin carrying out a quantitative analysis, carrying out necessary research for society, right?

这样做慢慢地做下来,到目前为止,我也收集了很多右派资料,我目前做的右派名录已经有大几十位了,就是按照我的这个做法已经做了大几十位了。我的名录里有很多很不出名的人。我刚才说的做右派名录的最后还应有一个备注,备注就是要注明是否改正。是否改正这点很重要,因为还有很多右派是没有改正的,据中央公布的全国只有六个右派不被改正,就是说只有罗隆基、章伯钧等这几个大右派不被改正,这几乎是一个通行的说法了。意思就是说除了这六个右派,其它的右派和错误都得到了改正。说个老实话,我认为这个说法是比较无耻的,因为它不是事实。因为有很多人被打成右派不仅不了了之,而且是明着写的不予改正。

Slowly carrying on this way up until now, I've also collected a lot of rightist information. The name list I'm currently working on already has several dozen names on it. That is, using this approach of mine, I've already finished several dozen names. On my name list are many, many little-known people. The rightist list of which I just spoke should also have a note at the end, stating clearly whether or not they've been rectified. Stating whether or not they've been rectified is very important because there are still many who were not. According to the central government's public record, there were only six rightists who did not undergo rectification. That's to say, there are only Luo Longji, Zhang Bojun and several big rightists who were not rectified. What it means is that aside from these six, other rightists and those who errored all received rectification. Speaking truthfully, I think this kind of talk is rather shameless. Because it's not true. Because many people labelled as rightists not only clearly weren't, but it's also clearly written that they didn't receive rectification.

当说到这点时我要提到我的前辈黄一龙先生,黄一龙先生和沙河先生和曾伯炎先生的关系都很好,也是被打成右派的,他打成右派的时候是成都市委宣传部的副部长,还是市团委的我记不太清楚了。这位老先生现在也已有七十几岁了,他写杂文写得非常好,同鄢烈山、刘洪波、何三畏这些人还有我的的关系都不错,他们做了一本书叫《当代四川简史》,涉及到右派的部分,涉及到五十年到六十年的这个历史刚好是黄一龙先生在写,这当中涉及到四川的右派具体的数字我记不住了,大致是五点五万。那么全国是五十五万好象四川一下子就占了十分之一,所以我觉得是不大准确的,你全国有这么多个省,如果用四川的五点五万来验证全国的五十五万,我认为逻辑上都有点问题。但我不是说用这个数字来反推全国的数字,我只能说当时四川是遭受得比较凶的了,要不就是五十五万是假的。其实这个工作是可以反推的,你只要仔细做几个省的数字统计,就可以把它推翻掉。比如江苏,它要出《当代江苏简史》,也要涉及到右派,比如说它的右派是六万,你加几个省也许就冒出去五十五万了。所以这个推论是不准确的,甚至是错误的,甚至是掩盖的。

As I get to this point, I want to bring up my senior, Mr. Huang Yilong. Mr. Huang Yilong was on very good terms with Mssrs. Liu Shahe and Zeng Boyan, and was also labelled a rightist. At the time he was labelled a rightist, he was Vice-minister of Chengdu city's Party Propaganda Department, or of the city's Youth Corps Committee, I can't remember exactly. This old man is now over seventy years old. He writes excellent essays, just like Yan Lieshan and Liu Hongbo and He Sanwei, with whom he is also on good terms. They came out with a book called ‘An Abbreviated Contemporary History of Sichuan.’ It just happens that the parts which touch on the right wing, which touch on history of the years 1950-1960 were written by Mr. Huang Yilong. The exact numbers found there of rightists in Sichuan I can't quite remember. Roughly 55,000. Given that there were 550,000 rightists throughout the entire country, that Sichuan comprised ten percent I feel is not quite accurate. How many provinces are there in this country? If Sichuan's 55,000 were used to verify the national count of 550,000, I think the logic of that would be a little off. I'm not saying that this number should be used to refute the national count, I can only say that Sichuan's suffering at the time must have been exceedingly brutal, or else the 550,000 would be fake. Actually, this work could be refuted. If you just make a quick calcluation of the numbers from several different provinces, you would then be able to refute those numbers. Jiangsu, for example, is about to to put out ‘An Abbrviated Contemporary History of Jiangsu,’ which will also touch upon the right wing, and says it had 60,000 rightists. If you add several provinces together , you risk going over 550,000. That's why this conclusion is not accurate, even has some errors, albeit covered up.

我在这里谈一下《当代四川简史》里,黄一龙先生的这段记载里说四川的右派都改正了,其中只有二十一名下落不明的事。在这二十一名下落不明的人当中,就有我们著名的右派学姐,我们学校生物系的冯元春女士,关于这位学姐我也收集了不少资料,对冯元春的言论和她在学校的行为我觉得一点也不亚于林昭。我正在准备写一篇长文章叫《纪念冯元春女士》。我对这篇文章准备了很久,主要是有些资料还有待核实,所以准备慢慢地写出来。那么这个二十一人下落不明已经写进了四川当代简史当中了,而且是官修的四川当代简史。但我在前年的有一天(具体时间要查当时的日记)我花二十元钱收到一叠资料,是四川省委统战部发的,是一九八七年八月三十一日发的(好像是这个日子,待查),这本资料是横排十六开,总共有七页,名称叫《四川不予改正的右派名录》,刚好二十一人。这和黄一龙先生写的下落不明的二十一人刚好对上了。有天我走到沙河老师那里就把这个复印资料拿了本给他,他才晓得被骗了。你想一下,光四川就有二十一位不予改正的右派,怎么全国才只有六位不予改正的右派呢?这不是荒唐吗?全国有多少个省啊,那还有多少名右派至今不予改正,这一点很多人都不知道。我如果不是收到这个资料,我实在也无法证实这个问题的真伪。所以说资料的力量是多么的伟大,他可以节省你很多废话。

Talking now about ‘An Abbreviated Contemporary History of Sichuan,’ Mr. Huang Yilong's records show that all rightists in Sichuan underwent rectification. Of those, there are only twenty-one with unknown whereabouts. On this twenty-one-strong list of people of unknown whereabouts can be found one of our well-known female right wing classmates, Ms. Feng Yuanchun of our school's biology department. I've collected a not small amount of information on this particular female classmate. I see Feng Yuanchun's speeches and behavior in the school as nothing less than that of Lin Zhao. I'm currently preparing to write one long essay called ‘Commemorating Miss Feng Yuanchun’. I've been preparing this essay for a very long time; the main reason being that some materials still need to be verified. That's why it's being prepared and written so slowly. Now, this twenty-one-strong list of people of unknown whereabouts has already been written into ‘An Abbreviated Contemporary History of Sichuan,’ and it's the officially-approved version of contemporary Sichuan history at that. One day last year (I'd have to check my diary to find the exact date) I spent twenty yuan to receive a pile of information, sent by Sichuan province Department of United Front, sent on August 31, 1987 (I think that's the date, I'd have to check). Seven pages of information in total, titled ‘List of rightists not having received rectification,’ twenty-one in total. This matches exactly the twenty-one persons of unknown whereabouts written about by Mr. Huang Yilong. Only when I stopped off to see Teacher Liu Shahe and gave him a copy of this information did he know he had been lied to. If you think about it, in Sichuan alone there were twenty-one rightists who did not undergo rectification. Then how could there only be six nation-wide? Isn't this a lie? With so many provinces in the country, how many other rightists are there who until today have not undergone rectification? Not many people know about this. If I hadn't received that information, I would have had no way to confirm this matter's veracity. That's why I say the power of information is so great. It can help reduce your untruths.

对于共产党,你是说不赢他的,因为他可以开动媒体说,我们只有六位不予改正,其他的都改正了。你怎么说得赢他呢?但这是从他们自己保留的资料中看到的,你才会恍然大悟“原来如此”。所以我说做研究的人就是要有这种上天入地的研究方式,你才可以把问题完全地研究出来,这就是我说的做关于右派名录的备注一项。而这样的名录做出来,是一件功德无量的事情。但如果仅靠个人的力量,是非常微弱的。

As for the Communist Party, you say there's no way to beat it, because it can make the media say that there are only six people yet to receive rectification, all others have been rectified. How can you say they can't be beat? From their own preserved records we see how things really are. That's why I say of those doing research only the ones who turn over every stone in their approach to research will be able to fully research this issue. Just like I said about the notes on the rightist name list. Drawing up the list in this manner will prove to have boundless benefits. Whereas if you only rely on your personal strength, the results will be quite weak.

下面第三点我觉得右派研究我们要看大的环境。现在有很多人的书,比如叶永烈的书,朱正的书,胡平的书,还有一个英国人写的关于反右的书,他们对于反右以前的基础背景不是很清楚的,或者是说得不是很清楚的。我本人可以这样说,反对和整肃知识分子在共产党当中是由来已久。有些人告诉我说(今天早上还有人在我的博客上跟帖说)应该从一九四二年算起,就是王实味他们被整肃开始算起。当然这个算法如果要在时间上从那儿算起是可以考虑,可以讨论的。但事实上如果你就不研究别的东西,你就研究中国共产党早期的党员,比如参加一大二大的这些人物,凡是知识分子味道浓的人,在二五年过后基本上都靠边站了。你知识分子味道越浓,就越被整肃,陈独秀先生,瞿秋白先生都是很著名的例子了,还有郑超粼,对不对?包括后来投降变节的陈公博这些人,都是有很浓厚的知识分子味道。我可以这样说,一个纪律非常严明,严明到残酷的组织是不能容许知识分子的。我们今天说知识分子,什么叫知识分子,有些人曾经嘲笑说,现在的知识分子无非是知道分子,这个话很刻薄,但实际上是点到了今天很多读书人的要害。很多读书人也确实只是一个知道分子,有时连知道都不知道,有些人甚至是不知道分子。那么什么是知识分子和知道分子的差别呢?我举个简单例子,从小你妈会告诉你成都在重庆的西边,你就知道了,你一直记住了,这绝对就是一个知道分子。但是重庆到成都怎么走,用什么方式走,在走的这一个过程中你有什么想法,你有什么思想和心得,有什么体验,你要做到与众不同的概括。那么我认为从这样一个意义上去思考你才会变成知识分子。同样的,你知道这个政府它很多不作为,知道这个政府他整肃百姓很厉害,厉害得让你俩脚发抖,尿都吓出来了,那你肯定是一个知道分子。但是如果你知道他为什么整肃你,要把你的尿吓出来,为什么不让你有自己的头脑,为什么不让你像一个体面而有尊严的人这样的活着,为什么不允许你批评它,反思它?如果你这样想了,你就近于一个知识分子了。这就是知道分子和知识分子的区别,所以我告诉你,一个纪律严明到残酷的组织,一个入党申请甚至要考查你的祖宗八代,要关心你的婚姻,要关心到你个人私生活的组织,他怎么可能容纳真正的知识分子。除非你完全顺服它,除非你真是识时务者为俊杰。

I think that in carrying out research on the right wing, we need to look at the bigger picture. At present, many people's books regarding the anti-right movement—Ye Yonglie's for example, Zhu Zheng's, Hu Ping's, as well as one written by a Briton—either aren't very clear on the movement's basic background, or haven't written very clearly. What I can say for certain is that the opposing and purging of intellectuals has long been part of the Communist Party. Some people tell me (even someone in a comment on my blog this morning) that I should start looking from 1942, when the purging of Wang Shiwei and them began. Of course if looking strictly in terms of time, this could be considered, discussed. But really, if you don't research other factors and only research the Communist Party of China‘s (CPC) early party members—those that later took part in the first and second National CPC Congress‘—those with a heavy intellectual scent, by 1925 had already moved to standing on the sidelines. The heavier your intellectual smell, the higher the extent to which you would get purged. Mssrs. Chen Duxiu and Qu Qiubai are the more well-known examples, as well as Zheng Chaolin, right? Including those who gave up and switched sides, like Chen Gongbo, all of whom were rich with the smell of intellectuals. I can say this much: an organization so extremely strict in discipline, strict to the point of cruel, cannot contain intellectuals. Today when we say intellectuals, what does that mean? Some people joke that today's intellectuals are nothing more than merely educated. This kind of talk is very harsh, but in fact speaks true of many learned types. Many of these learned really are nothing more than merely well-read. Sometimes even what they know they don't really know, un-well-read, even. So, what is the difference between intellectuals and the merely learned? I'll give an simple example. From childhood your mother will tell you Chengdu is west of Chongqing. This you know, and never forget. This absolutely is a ‘learned.’ But how to go from Chongqing to Chengdu, using which means, what you think about during the process, what thoughts and epiphanies you have, what experiences, what opinions you have different from the masses; I regard these kinds of significant thinking signs of having become an intellectual. Similarly, if you know that in many ways this government is lacking, that this government purged the people like mad, mad enough to make your feet shake and make you piss yourself, then you definitely are a ‘learned.’ But if you know why the government purged you, made you piss yourself, why it doesn't let you have your own brain, why it doesn't let you have a life of dignity, why it doesn't let you criticize it, second-guess it, if you think like this, then you are pretty much an intellectual. This is the difference between the learned and the intellectual. That's why I tell you that an organization so extremely strict in discipline, application for entry into which requires a check of the last eight generations of your family, that concerns itself with your marriage, with the organization of your personal life, how could it ever really accept authentic intellectuals? Unless you completely obey it, unless you are a master at knowing how things really work.

事实上,这样的组织不可能容纳下不同的想法,不同的声音,乃至意见的,它是不允许对它有意见的。凡是与它不同,就被称之为“反动”,我认为是极其可笑的。在我看来,生在这个国家也好,生在这个世界上也好,有不同的意见是正常的,我认为在这个世界上不存在极权意义上和意识形态上的反动。而是只有异见。如果你想对冉云飞的东西不同意也好,对张三对李四的东西不同意也好,对任何一个人,任何一个党派,任何一张报纸,任何一个电台的异见都不叫反动。你批评共产党也好,批评人大批评政协也好,那都不能叫反动,只能叫异见。就是不同的看法,仅此而已。怎么说你就叫正确,我就叫反动?哪个说你就铁定正确,我就不正确?同样的我们做研究的人,我不认为我研究出来的东西就不能批评,就不能受到置疑。我说过我随时准备着受到置疑,随时准备着来自于许多方面的不同看法,所以我们要贡献的就是异见。任何人说你反动你都不能接受。你说凭什么说我反动,难道你就是不受置疑的正确吗?哪有这样的人?哪有这样的组织?是天然的正确!就像我前两天写的那篇文章《政府越无耻,百姓越感动》。我说伟大的、光荣的、正确的这种无耻的表扬,在这个世界上绝对没有那个比这更无耻的了。当然啊,他都把光荣、伟大、正确都占齐了,你就只有去反动了,你只有把反动这个名背了嘛。如果你要说点异见,你就只有去反动,因为他把正面的都占完了,只有他正确,除非你跟着他鹦鹉学舌,趋炎附势,否则你就不能叫正确。你更不可以伟大,当然你也没什么光荣可言。所以我刚才说的右派的研究背景,就是这个右派是怎么来的,就像我刚才说的一个纪律严明到残酷的组织根本不会容纳知识分子,他首先就是民主的敌人。

In fact, this kind of organization cannot accept different ideas, different voices, or withstand suggestions. It doesn't allow opinions of it. Everything different from it is labelled ‘reactionary.’ I think this is terribly ridiculous. As I see it, whether you live in this country or live in this world, to have differing opinions is normal. I think that in this world there doesn't exist totalitarian or ideological reactionaries, there are just different opinions, different perspectives, only this and nothing more. How can you say you're legitimate and I'm a reactionary? Who's to say your accuracy is airtight and I'm wrong? Similarly, for us researchers, I don't think my research findings aren't open to criticism and cannot be doubted. I'm prepared to be doubted at any time, prepared to at anytime face many different perspectives in many different aspects. That's just why what we must contribute are different opinions. You cannot accept anyone saying you are a reactionary. ‘You call me reactionary?’ As if you're unquestionably correct. Do such naturally correct people exist? Do such naturally correct organizations exist? It's just like the post I wrote two days ago, ‘The more shameless the government gets, the more moved the people get.’ I'm talking grand, glorious, precise, this kind of shameless praise; there is absolutely nothing in this world more shameless than that. Of course, it has appropriated these words glory, great and precise, while you just get reactionary, the only word you need to remember. If you want to speak some different points of views, all you've got is reactionary. Because it has appropriated all the positive words, only it is correct. Unless you make like a parrot and toe the line, you won't be called correct. You definitely cannot be great and of course you've no glory to speak of. That's why I just said that the background of the right wing, how this right wing came about. Just like I said, an organization so extremely strict in discipline, strict to the point of cruel, that cannot accept intellectuals, is first and foremost the enemy of democracy.

一个党派,一个独裁政权,我们都知道生活当中凡是涉及到垄断的行业,电信也好,邮电也好,铁路也好都搞不好的,这是经济生活中的垄断,而政治生活中的垄断就是一党独裁。我们这个国家最大的垄断就是一党执政。而这个党这个组织严明到到非常刻毒,非常残酷,所以它天然地不能容纳知识分子。自从它诞生的那一天起,它不仅是民主的敌人,而且是自由的敌人,它也是真正的知识分子的敌人。它其实天然地就种下了一九五七年大批的知识分子被打成右派的因子。从那以后,三十年代整AB团,四十年代的整风,只不过是五七年反右的一种预演,用共产党的话来说是一个小规模的战斗。而一九五七年是一个大规模的战略演练,一九六六年的文革就近乎是野战军的战斗了。

One party, one dictatorship, we know that everything in life is involved with the monopoly industry; whether it be the telephone company, the post office, the railways, all are run poorly. This is monopoly in economic life, and monopoly in political life is the one party dictatorship. In this country of ours the biggest monopoly is that of one party rule. And this party, this organization, is restrictive to the point of malice, of cruelty. That's why it inherently cannot accomodate intellectuals. Since the day it came into being, not only has it been the enemy of democracy, but the enemy of freedom as well. It is the enemy of the authentic intellectual. In fact it is the root cause of the 1957 labelling as rightists of a large number of intellectuals. The rectification of the AB Group in the 1930s and the rectification movement in the 1940s were just a sort of rehearsal for the anti-right campaign in 1957. To use Communist Party talk, it was a small-scale battle. And 1957 was a large-scale strategy drill. 1966's Cultural Revolution verged on field-army warfare.

以上是我挖的第一个根,而第二个根以一九四九年作为共产党的建国开始。如果你大量地看四七年、四八年的文献资料的话,共产党在这种温和的语气下已经显示出他们的强硬态度。而他们的强硬姿态不仅仅是用在对待国民党的态度上,强硬,非常强硬,他们在谈判当中再也没有像毛泽东到重庆谈判时的那种相对说来软弱的态度了。同样地他对知识分子的态度也很强硬。把大规模的知识分子都弄去进行土改,东北的土改,比如象丁玲写的《太阳照在桑乾河上》。四九年以后参加土改的人就更多(在这里我还要说一下,我这个人喜欢说的就是四九,也就是指四九年,有很多人说解放前解放后,而这种说法我认为都是意识形态被洗脑的说法,那就意味着他有一种先天正确,你四九年前是旧社会,而我们现在是新社会了,所以他先天就预定了他的正确性)所以我认为准确的说法就应该是四九年前四九年后。我们做学问和做事都要注意,我们很多时候被意识形态洗脑过后你不自觉地就装了很多这样的东西,这是一种集体无意识。

Above is a root that I dug up, and the second root begins with the Communist Party's 1949 founding of the nation. If you read closely the literature on 1947-48, the gentle tone shows that the Communist Party had already demonstrated its tough manner. And not only was their tough stance used in dealing with the Kuomintang, tough, extremely tough, neither did their negotiations resemble Mao Zedong's relatively weak stance when he came to Chongqing to negotiate. Similarly, his attitude towards intellectuals was also quite tough. Large-scale sending of intellectuals to be reformed through working the land in the northeast. Like Ding Ling wrote in her book ‘The sun shines over the Sanggan River.’ The number of people taking part in land labor reform increased after 1949 (here I just want to say, I personally just like to say '49’ to mean ‘1949,’ but many people say ‘before liberation’ and ‘after liberation,’ but I feel this way of talking is indicative of ideological brainwashing, implying that he has a sort of innate accuracy. Before 1949 you had the old society, but what we have now is the new society. That's why his innateness predetermines his accuracy), that's why I feel the proper terms to use are pre-49 and post-49. As scholars, in everything we do, we must be careful. Many times after we get ideologically brainwashed, we don't even notice when we pick up things like this, a kind of collective unconsciousness.

在四九年的六月份,著名的史学家陈垣先生,北京师范大学的校长,写了一封很著名的信叫《致胡适先生的公开信》,可以说那就是一个著名的转折点,标志着知识分子的转向。实际上是用陈垣先生作一个标志,向大家提个醒,意思是说我共产党来了,你们只有拥护和不拥护,最好是拥护,不拥护嘛,后果是什么你们应该明白。他用陈垣先生这样一个史学大师来拉开知识分子改造的序幕,很有象征意义。我认为陈垣先生称得上是一个大师。而现在很多人都称为大师,象前几天张中行死了,也称为大师,我认为很可笑的。张先生是不错,但不可谓大师。我曾经说过,四九年以后还能称得上大师的,是以前硕果仅存的人。而四九年以后受的这种中共奴化基础教育能成为大师的人的概率无限趋近于零。我这个话说得又坚决又准确,为什么呢?我的意思是说你不能说全部都不可能,万一突然出来一个天才呢,对不对?所以我用的是无限趋近于零,你仔细想一下,像余秋雨这样的名声不可谓不大吧,但是他算得上是大师吗?他算哪门子的大师?他仅仅是一个知道分子,像这些没有自己头脑的人,没有自己思想的人,仅仅是个知道分子而已。所以我说象陈垣先生这样的史学成就,那确实在二十世纪都是数得着的。陈垣先生对佛教的研究,对道教的研究,对《资治通鉴》的研究,对年代学、校雠学诸方面都有极深之成就。他抗战时写过《胡注通鉴表微》这样著名的书,为什么人他要写《胡注通鉴表微》呢?这个胡三省是南宋的人,在元朝的时候还活着,他又不敢表达自己的思想,就通过在《资治通鉴》上的批注来表达国家已经灭亡的哀痛,来表达他的民族思想和抗敌思想。陈先生的文章写得非常漂亮,学术功力也是很高深的。但是在共产党的统治下,再高的人再伟大的大师都经不住摔摆,共产党是很厉害的。在国民党统治的时候,很多人都雄起在,很多人批评国民党的腐败,那简直振振有词。但是在共产党统治以后,他就不敢说了。所以到了一九五七年储安平先生著名的“党天下”言论就被打成了大右派。储安平先生就说得非常好“国民党领导时民主是多和少的问题,而共产党领导时民主是有和无的问题”,就说你国民党再坏,民主总是有的,它只是一个多和少的问题。你看储安平先生批评国民党,他自己办《观察》杂志,批评得那么猛,当然《观察》后来是被封了,他本人受没受到像我们今天这些人受到国安这样的骚扰没有,受到拘查没有,受到传唤没有,至今我没有看到过记录。从这种对比你就可以想见哪个时代言论更自由,那个更好,那个更不好。

In June, 1949, renowned historian and president of Beijing Normal University Mr. Chen Yuan wrote a very famous letter called ‘A letter to Mr. Hu Shi,’ which can be said to have been a turning point, symbolizing a change for intellectuals. Actually, the Party used Mr. Chen Yuan as a symbol, letting everyone know that ‘the Communist Party has come, that you're either with us or against us. Best if you're with us, but if you're not, well, I'm sure you understand the consequences.’ The Party used Mister Chen Yuan this historian-professor to set the tone for reclaiming the intellectuals; full of symbolic significance. As far as I'm concerned Mr. Chen Yuan should be referred to as a master professor. Many people are referred thus these days, like Zhang Zhongxing who died recently but was also referred to as a master professor. Absurd, I think. Mister Zhang was not bad, but definitely not a master professor. I said once that post-1949 those that can still be called master professors, were rare enough to begin with. After 1949, the probability that anyone having received the Communist Party's enslaving sort of basic education might go on to become a master professor is infinitely approaching zero. This statement of mine was said both firmly and accurately. And why is that? My meaning is that you can't say that it would be impossible for everybody, in case a genius suddenly appears, right? That's why I said ‘infinitely approaching zero.’ If you think carefully, like Yu Qiuyu with a reputation that can't be said to be small, but does he count as a master professor? For what could he ever be considered a master professor? He's merely a ‘learned.’ These sorts who have no brain of their own, no thoughts of their own, are well-read and nothing more. That's why I say academic achievements like Mr. Chen Yuan's in history surely counted for something in the twentieth century. Mr. Chen Yuan's research into all the various aspects of Buddhism, Taoism and ‘Great Political Writings in History‘ [资治通鉴], into chronology and ‘anti-education-ism’ have achieved great results. But under Communist Party rule, even the highest and greatest professors could not stop the ball from rolling. The Communist Party is amazing that way. During Kuomintang rule, many people bravely stood up to criticize Kuomintang corruption. But after the Communist Party came to power, they didn't dare. That's why when in 1957 Mr. Chu Anping made his well-known ‘the Party empire’ comment he was labelled right wing. Mr. Chu Anping said it very well, “When Kuomintang led, the democracy was just a question of how much, but while the Communist Party leads, the democracy question is to have it or not?” As bad as the Kuomintang is, they've always had democracy; it's just a question of how much. You see Mr. Chu Anping criticized the Kuomintang; he himself edited Guancha magazine, where he criticized them like mad. Of course, Guangcha was then shut down, but he did he receive harrasment from the state secret police like we do today? Was he arrested, investigated or taken to court? I've yet to see any records. From this comparison you can imagine which era's speech was most free, which era was best, which era was worst.


Comments

yjiahongyuyao

敬仰你们!——敬仰你们的思想与认真的做事态度!

Respect you! Respect your thoughts and honest work ethic!

冉云飞

Ran Yunfei

为什么我突然不能跟帖贴长篇内容?

Why can I suddenly not post longer content?

sooooooo

深受启发,谢冉兄!

What deep enlightenment, thank brother Ran!

我也一直比较关注右派以及当代史上其他运动的研究,深感资料是个大问题,也一直在注意搜集,虽有零星进帐,但收获总的不大,以后当更努力!

I've also been paying close attention to research on the right wing as well as contemporary movements and feel strongly that sources is a problem. I've also been carefully collecting all along, although I don't have much in the way of money, and the rewards are not always great, I'll work harder from now on!

除谢泳外,北大钱理群先生似乎也很关注右派的命运,早先他写过《所有“右派”兄弟姐妹,你们在哪里?》,去年《随笔》杂志第5期发表了他的《活着:艰难而有尊严》,就是关于四川右派钟朝岳先生(一个“不著名”的右派)的文章,还附有钟朝岳先生自己的文章《九死一生》,冉兄想必已经寓目?

Aside from Yu Xieyong, Peking University's Mr. Qian Liqun apparently also pays close attention to the lot of right wingers. Early on he wrote ‘Where are All The “Right Wing” Brothers and Sisters?‘ and last year published in issue 5 of Essay magazine was his ‘Living: Hardship and Respect,’ about Sichuan's right wing Mr. Zhong Chaoyue (one ‘lesser-known’ rightist), as well as Mr. Zhong Chaoyue's own essay ‘Nine Deaths One Life‘. Brother Ran, you've probably already seen it?

野鬼艳春

Wild Ghost Crazy Spring

“在共产党的统治下,再高的人再伟大的大师都经不住摔摆,共产党是很厉害的。在国民党统治的时候,很多人都雄起在,很多人批评国民党的腐败,那简直振振有词。但是在共产党统治以后,他就不敢说了。所以到了一九五七年储安平先生著名的“党天下”言论就被打成了大右派。储安平先生就说得非常好“国民党领导时民主是多和少的问题,而共产党领导时民主是有和无的问题”,就说你国民党再坏,民主总是有的,它只是一个多和少的问题。”……

But under Communist Party rule, even the highest and greatest professors could not stop the ball from rolling. The Communist Party is amazing that way. During Kuomintang rule, many people bravely stood up to criticize Kuomintang corruption. But after the Communist Party came to power, they didn't dare. That's why when in 1957 Mr. Chu Anping made his well-known ‘the Party empire’ comment he was labelled right wing. Mr. Chu Anping said it very well, “When Kuomintang led, the democracy was just a question of how much, but while the Communist Party leads, the democracy question is to have it or not?” As bad as the Kuomintang is, they've always had democracy; it's just a question of how much.

——

冉兄的研究方法是很对头的
得出的结论也是符合事实的
但是伟光正它永远不会主动推出历史舞台的
真正的知识分子
依旧还是只有在“太阳”底下夹着尾巴做人的
想起“三个代表”是气愤的——球大个需要你来代表啊?
除了代表你共惨裆自己!
就像送大熊猫给台湾一样——所幸的是台湾不是伟光正的顺民,还有拒绝的权利和胆气;大陆的知识分子,可悲就可悲在:对于共惨裆强加给你的种种非人待遇,你完全失去了拒绝的权利!你要独立思考?你要民主自由?——没门!

Brother Ran's research methods are spot on!
Gaining a conclusion that is in accordance with reality
But the great shining government will never actively exit the stage of history
Real intellectuals
As of old are still only under “the sun” nipping at each others’ tails
Reminds me that the “Three Represents” are angry—planet earth needs you to represent?
Except for representing your Collective Cruel Crotch [euphemism for Communist Party] selves!
Just like with sending panda bears to Taiwan, all the luck is Taiwan's and not your own citizens’. As well as the right and courage to refuse; mainland intellectuals, pitiful through and through; as for the Collective Cruel Crotch with its various kinds of forced inhuman treatment of you, you've completely lost the right of refusal! You want independent thoughts? You want freedom and democracy? No way!

yjiahongyuyao

——“什么大脑?一堆类便”如果列宁这样说,那么按列宁的话就是:如果人的大脑都不必思索……能清一色、大一统,那样最好!也用不着统制者刻意去变着法子清理了。专治国家怕用大脑,不要大脑……限制的结果是:只要你动用大脑,就衍生了“派别”,各个群体、部门,最好是领头儿的带着一群听话的大脑袋猪。集权统制,只这个“派”的划分,就够阴森可怖、残酷无情——更何谈民主、自由?有的只是:集权统制取代民主异议;派别划分取代平等自由。看了后面两个帖,受不少启发,觉得自己该明白和思索的还有许多、许多

——”What brain? That's a pile of crap!” If Lenin did say this, then according to him, if people's brains don't need to think, only see the same colors, universal, that would be best! Then our controllers wouldn't need to use such painstaking methods to keep everything under control. Despots fear brain use, don't want big brains…the result of restrictions is: if you ever do put your brain to use, you'll just give rise to ‘factions.’ Every community and department head would do good to keep a pack of obedient knucklehead pigs in tow. Totalitarian control just needs a split to reveal what's behind the facade. Get your share of englightenment and you'll feel there's still so many, so many more things you ought to understand and think about.

德阳

Deyang

才读完 储安平与《观察》不久.储安平先生就说得非常好“国民党领导时民主是多和少的问题,而共产党领导时民主是有和无的问题”,如今大陆与台湾相比,也是有无民主制度与民主制度是否健全的区别.另,冉兄,视右派皆平等甚好,记住他们每一个才可能”明白”我们每一个.期待余下的几段,可惜我那时已经离川,不能亲临读书会.

I just finished reading Chu Anping's ‘Guangcha‘ not long ago. Mr. Chu Anping said it very well: “When Kuomintang led, the democracy was just a question of how much, but while the Communist Party leads, the democracy question is to have it or not?” Comparing today's mainland China with Taiwan, the difference is also between whether or not there's a democratic system and whether or not the democratic system is healthy. Further, Brother Ran, to see equality for the right wing would be great. Remember every single one of them until They understand every one of us. I would have liked to attend the reading group, but by that time I had already left Sichuan, could visit in person.

蓝紫木槿

Blue-Violet Hibiscus

震撼!期待下文!

Shocked! Look forward to the next part!

martincn

冉兄辛苦.你让我看到学问之路的真相,也许我和它今生无缘,但你演讲的内容与研究的态度及方法却不会轻易从我脑中抹去。一句题外话,前几日从宜宾到成都过”黄金周”,无法上网,此之间倒似近实远了。

Poor Brother Ran. You've let me see the true road to scholarship; while it may not be written into my this current life, the content of your speech today and your research attitude and methods won't be easily slipped out of my mind.

yjiahongyuyao

这样严肃的,有良知的文章,还引不起国人思索,还有人做恶心的广告,可见国人大脑退化后的动物性有多强。列宁所说的大粪,除了异端,可能还有资产阶级自由化,不过如他之类的领导可能怕异端要比自由化更强烈.所以必要的时候可以用动物性来麻痹和阻止异端的思想.不过,我常见的是,真正的自由总是精神的,总是更多的远离动物原始本性的……

This is serious, when an essay with conscience can't even lead people to ponder. There are even people posting disgusting advertisements; you can see that people's regression back to animals is quite strong. The pile of crap that Lenin mentioned, except for deviations, might just be bourgeois liberalization, although the fear leaders like him have of deviations may be stronger than that of liberalization. That's why when it's necessary, one can behave like an animal and anaesthetize and prevent deviant thought. Though, what I often see is that true freedom is spiritual, so much more so than primitive animal instinct.

冉云飞

Ran Yunfei

野鬼兄,独裁者当然不会自动退出历史舞台,所以我们得更加努力。

Brother Wild Ghost, of course dictators won't actively back off the stage of history. That's why we must work harder.

ddrose

可笑的是我们的教育,右似乎总是与不好连起来,而真正害人的却是一系列的左。

The most laughable thing is our education. The Right always seems to be associated with the bad, when the real perpetrators are all on the Left.

2 comments

  • […] Global Voices Online » Blog Archive » China: Revolution’s victims’ stories blogged, not forgotten (1/4) a history of China’s jailed dissidents from Mao. (tags: china) […]

  • abded

    教育是需要改革了。在这里学英文不错啊。

Join the conversation

Authors, please log in »

Guidelines

  • All comments are reviewed by a moderator. Do not submit your comment more than once or it may be identified as spam.
  • Please treat others with respect. Comments containing hate speech, obscenity, and personal attacks will not be approved.

Receive great stories from around the world directly in your inbox.

Sign up to receive the best of Global Voices!

Submitted addresses will be confirmed by email, and used only to keep you up to date about Global Voices and our mission. See our Privacy Policy for details.

Newsletter powered by Mailchimp (Privacy Policy and Terms).

* = required field
Email Frequency



No thanks, show me the site