Cultural Revolution: Red Guards

Author(s):  
Franklin Parker ◽  
Betty June Parker
2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (8) ◽  
pp. 346-366
Author(s):  
V. V. Bondareva

The article analyzes the first years of “the cultural revolution” in China (1966—1967), characterized by high revolutionary activity of students and school youth, organized into groups of “red guards”, who were distinguished in their actions by extreme cruelty and fanaticism. From this point of view, the destructive actions of the red guards, which were of a terrorist and mass nature, highlight the main direction of their revolutionary strike, which was inflicted on the party and state apparatus of China. Mao Zedong is presented as the initiator of a mass movement of red guards who used monstrous terrorist methods to fight his opposition and all, from their point of view, not enough politically conscious elements. The hongweibing movement, considered as an instrument of Mao Zedong’s struggle with the opposition, allows to reveal in the course of research the personal qualities of a leader who, in the name of establishing his own cult, was not afraid to deliberately plunge the entire country into mass and deeply disorderly turmoil. The detailed description of Mao Zedong’s personal attitude to what is happening, based on documentary sources, reveals the deeply dictatorial and anti-democratic nature of his power, which was asserted in the first years of “the cultural revolution” with the help of the red guards movement.


1986 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 643-651
Author(s):  
Bill Brugger

The China of the 1980s seems so very different from that of the mid 1960s: the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is now widely denounced, seemingly both for the mid 1960s' diagnosis of the ills afflicting Chinese society and for the remedies chosen at the time to cure them. Today few would wish to defend the treatment meted out by Red Guards, but a condemnation of past actions is no substitute for an understanding of what happened and why.


1980 ◽  
Vol 84 ◽  
pp. 641-668 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nick Knight

Despite the flood of Mao's previously unknown works released by Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution, no pre-liberation versions of his “celebrated philosophical essays” On Contradiction and On Practice came to light from that source. This gap in the Red Guard material may have been viewed as significant, confirming suspicions held by some that there were in fact no pre-liberation versions of these essays, and showing more conclusively the mendacity of the Chinese claim that they were originally written in 1937. Arthur Cohen, perhaps the most vociferous critic of Mao's “originality” as philosopher, argued in 1964 that both essays had been written in the period 1950 to 1952, and that the Chinese claim “appears to be fraudulent.” Doolin and Golas also contest the Chinese claim that On Contradiction was written by Mao in 1937. In both cases, the motivation for this falsification of the date of composition is interpreted as being the desire to backdate Mao's status as a Marxist theoretician to the early Yan'an period. Schram and Wittfogel, however, have both accepted the possibility that On Contradiction and On Practice could have been written in 1937, while not denying that the 1950 and 1952 texts could represent heavily revised versions of earlier pieces. Schram, in fact, has argued that Mao's Lecture Notes on Dialectical Materialism, On Practice and On Contradiction belonged to “a single intellectual enterprise, namely Mao's attempt to come to terms with the philosophical basis of Marxism from the time he was first exposed to it in July 1936 until the Japanese attack of September 1937 turned his attention to more practical things.”


2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 68
Author(s):  
Linyue Zhong

<em>This project’s goal was to interview people who’d lived through the Cultural Revolution and extract firsthand perspectives for a more accurate representation of history that may not exist in history textbooks. Through face-to-face or telephone interviews with witnesses of Cultural Revolution, I reflected on their respective attitudes and mentalities, trying to associate these individualities with possible causes rooted in their experiences. While the narrativization is inevitably coupled with subjectivity, hearsay history presents the basic conflict between individual experienced past and historically reconstructed past. My own stance concerning such disjuncture is more optimistic and moderate. Actual life experience is often messy and opaque, whereas rebuilding history brings order and clarity into the chaos. Thus, a historical researcher like me concerns as much with the fashioning of a past that is has validity in its direct participants’ eyes as with uncovering the “truth” in a rigorously objective manner. For the participants in Cultural Revolution, retelling stories taken place in that historical period enables them to restore their past values and cultural recognition: although the eventual outcome is universally known, individual explanations for how it develops to the end vary. This is why I mainly developed this essay through two subjects: the ordinary people who have gone through this time period and the abusers (Red Guards) who demonstrated brutish nature in the revolution. It turns out that approaching a same story from different perspectives render us with multiple interpretations and each historical actor takes part in the revolution with diverse motivations. This is why some people chose to become Red Guards and some other struggled to maintain sanity in the chaotic age. In the meanwhile, I would discuss about deductive findings in this essay: selective memory, revelation of human nature, personal cult mixed up with national allegiance, historical-context-blindness of historical actors, and class struggle. Overall, the report aims to demonstrate how the complexity of human nature spawned in political turbulence interferes with historical progress in a significant way. As the author, I’d recommend the readers to form their independent judgments on Cultural Revolution rather than to absorb information indistinguishably. Certain radical information is included only for the sake of authenticity.</em>


Author(s):  
Bazar D. Tsybenov Tsybenov ◽  
◽  
Tsyden S. Ochirov ◽  

Introduction. Peculiarities of the ‘Cultural Revolution’ in China’s national regions remain a poorly studied issue in modern Oriental studies. In this regard, Hulunbuir league of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region had been a strategically important and geopolitically significant region of the country. This territory bordered on the Mongolian People’s Republic and the USSR, therefore the central government of China considered its population potentially dangerous and marginal. The People’s Revolutionary Party of Inner Mongolia had two party factions in Hulunbuir league: the ‘unification’ faction, and the ‘justice’ one. The Maoists viewed the ‘Mongol Unification’ faction of the People’s Revolutionary Party of Inner Mongolia as a particularly dangerous, separatist trend. Goals. The paper aims to examine the political events and facts that took place in Hulunbuir league in 1965–1968. Objectives. Chronologically, the first objective is to examine the ideological and political campaigns —struggle against the ‘Four Olds’, and the ‘Four Purges’ — as a prehistory to the ‘Cultural Revolution’. The second objective is to analyze the cardinal changes that took place in the leadership of the party committee and local authorities in 1966–1968. The third problem studied deals with repressive activities of the Red Guards and Zaofan in Hulunbuir league, their division into two fighting camps. The fourth objective is to examine the creation of the aimag revolutionary committee and its activities in 1968. Materials. The work analyzes three collections of official documents published in the PRC. The information thereof is supplemented with materials from works by Russian and foreign authors. The article provides a comparative analysis of events and facts, translates some terms from Mongolian and Chinese. Results. The introducing part the paper examines a prehistory of the ‘Cultural Revolution’, the ideological and political campaigns. Its main part studies the events of the ‘Cultural Revolution’ in the region. In July of 1966, a special working group arrived in Hailar on behalf of the CPC Northern Bureau. Members of this group were cadre Party workers from Hubei and Shanxi provinces. In September of 1966, Party Committee Secretary of Hulunbuir league Qi Junshan and Deputy Secretary Zhargal were dismissed from their posts. Red Guards appeared in Hulunbuir in August of 1966 and began organizing ‘struggle meetings’. They actively recruited local Mongolian youth. In 1967, the Red Guards in Hulunbuir split into two opposing factions. They were confronting each other and for a while forgot about ‘class enemies’. Activities of the Red Guards were out of control of the regional authorities, and the situation needed stabilization. In March of 1967, the State Council and the Central Military Commission of the People’s Republic of China decided to create a military council in Hulunbuir league, also referred to as ‘the first line to contain the Revolution and stimulate production’. On December 20, 1967, a revolutionary committee was formed in Hailar. In March of 1968, Shangmin, a loyal follower of Mao Zedong, became the leader of the revolutionary committee. Making false accusations, he intensified repressions against members of the ‘Mongol Unification’ faction. Conclusions. Political events in Hulunbuir league in 1965–1968 were directly related to the situation in the whole autonomous region and country. Repressions against members of the ‘Mongol Unification’ faction were a distinctive feature of the repressive policy in the region. Still, the appointments of cadre Party workers from central provinces are a poorly understood issue. So, the ‘Cultural Revolution’ in this territory of Inner Mongolia obviously has local features that require further scientific research.


1968 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 503-521 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Finkelstein

It is no wonder that the world is baffled by Communist China's “cultural Revolution.” Not only do the specialists who are skilled in reading between the lines of Chinese Communist utterances disagree about many aspects of the present upheaval, those whose task it is merely to read the. plain lines themselves also seem unable to agree even on the basic meaning of what they are reading. We are informed, for instance, that “eight Red Guards and a member of the Pioneers … had been killed by ‘class enemies,’ according to a Red Guard announcement.” Later we are told of “doubts about a report that nine youths were killed last week. Chinese-language experts said the characters on a poster reporting the incident could mean also that the nine young Chinese had been injured.” There were more doubts about whether Lo Jui-ch'ing was “taken away” or was “arrested” and still more about whether T'ao Chu was “led” or “dragged” through the streets.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document