On May 4, 1919, students participating in the May 4th Movement held a national flag parade in Peiping. (Image source: Public domain) Looking at Chinese websites, it is prohibited to create mirror websites.
exist”Fourth Movement“On the occasion of the anniversary, it makes people look back and think about this movement with great influence.I once said in the article “We should start by negating the May 4th Movement”.May 4thLooking at these three aspects: its leaders, slogans, and results, the May Fourth Movement should be rejected because it was obviously an incitementcollectivismtowardstotalitarianismexercise. It is forbidden to create mirror websites on Chinese websites.
Later, in two articles, “The May 4th Movement is the Prelude to the Cultural Revolution” and “Affirming the New Culture Movement, Denying the May 4th Movement”, the “two May 4th Movements” proposed by some knowledgeable people in China were clearly divided into “New Culture Movement” and “New Culture Movement”. Cultural Movement” and “May Fourth Movement”. Because the nature of these two sports is very different.
Burning Zhaojialou
From the far-reaching “Burning of Zhaojialou” incident at that time, we can see that the later May Fourth Movement was not essentially consistent with the “New Culture Movement”: in the name of patriotism, this movement burned down people’s houses, and gang fights were bloodthirsty. This behavior is a reflection of how the Communist Party later deprived individuals of their rights in the name of the group and used all means to achieve the goal. The May Fourth violence was the first spark that ignited all the bloodshed in “Red China” that followed.
The burning of Zhao’s building was premeditated. At the student meeting on the eve of the May Fourth Movement, there were two factions of opinion. One faction advocated law-abiding demonstrations, while the other advocated violence, beating government officials, and burning the private residence (Zhaojia Building) of Cao Rulin (then the Chief of Communications of the Beiyang Government). As a result, the radicals gained the upper hand, so the students prepared gasoline, matches, etc. in advance; they also collected photos of Cao Rulin and other three officials, preparing to beat or even assassinate them.
Kuang Husheng, a student from Beijing Normal University, is a major advocate of violence. He broke open the window of Cao’s house, jumped in and opened the door. According to the memories of the person involved, the 28 heavily armed patrol officers who were protecting Cao’s house at that time took off their bayonets and ejected their ammunition because the authorities ordered that student demonstrations be “treated in a civilized manner.” There was a chief named Ding Shiyuan who was at Cao’s house at the time. He came out and asked the patrolman: Why didn’t you start beating me? Patrolman replied: We have not received orders from the commander. Director Ding said: I said it, okay? The patrolman replied: No!
In the history of China so far, we have almost never seen a government with such humane police force. During the entire May 4th Movement, the government did not fire a single shot and not a single person was killed.
After the students poured in, the Cao family was smashed to pieces. Seeing that porcelain, calligraphy, paintings, furniture, etc. were all smashed, Cao Rulin’s father asked not to smash them and that the things could be taken away. But the furious students piled mosquito nets, calligraphy and paintings, letters, etc. together, set a fire, and burned Cao’s house.
According to the description of historical data, Zhaojialou is a combination of Chinese and Western architecture. It is divided into three courtyards, more than 50 rooms, and scattered pavilions and pavilions. But a fire destroyed this beautiful house. After the founding of the Communist Party of China, the Zhaojialou site was built into the “Beijing Military Region Guest House”. From being the target of student violence to being occupied by the “Liberation” Army when they entered the city, the fate of Zhaojialou is truly a symbol!
The students not only beat and burned him, but also dragged out the diplomat Zhang Zongxiang who was at Cao’s house and beat him in a group. They even hit him with bricks until he was covered in blood. According to a later injury examination, Zhang had dozens of injuries on his body and suffered a concussion.
Faced with such illegal acts of invading private homes, smashing and burning houses, and beating and injuring people, the vast majority of Chinese intellectuals at that time emphasized that students were patriotic and innocent. Only Liang Shuming and others called for the rule of law, emphasizing that “injuring someone is an ongoing crime”; even if those government officials committed heinous crimes, they still cannot be “violated or subjected to violence” without being convicted of the crime. Liang also said that if the bottom line of the rule of law is not adhered to, “the losses will be even greater in the future.” He may have had a premonition that using the means to justify the goal would bring disaster to China.
However, Liang’s call for rule of law was completely overwhelmed by the revolutionary slogans of the May Fourth radical leader Chen Duxiu: Chen not only praised the students’ actions, but even called for the dissolution of government agencies in the name of all Beijing citizens and let the citizens take power; he called on the people to “stand up and solve the problem directly” “No” is tantamount to calling for a mob movement outside the legal system; that is, as long as the goal is correct, any means can be adopted. Just like he issued the “Beijing Citizens’ Declaration” without obtaining the consent and authorization of Beijing citizens.
As a result, under the pressure of public opinion from such “patriotic intellectuals”, the Beiyang government not only had no way to beat the students who were smashed and burned, but in the end it even “apologized” to them and invited the arrested students out of the prison. Amid firecrackers, military music and cheers, They returned to school and became heroes.
Kuang Husheng, the “May Fourth hero” who ignited the first fire, was hired as the academic director of Hunan Normal School that summer. After taking office, he promoted Mao Zedong, whom he had known for a long time and was a teacher at the Normal School Affiliated, to a normal school. teacher. At that time, there were regulations that normal teachers must graduate from university, but Mao did not. Kuang changed the rules temporarily because he admired Mao very much. Mao also admired Kuang and called him a revolutionary ascetic. Writer Ba Jin also wrote an article, saying that Kuang is a light that illuminates the road ahead. But this “patriotic light” guided the bloody path of the next 90 years (which is heading towards a century).
The May Fourth Movement was a movement that incited collectivism and moved towards totalitarianism. (Internet picture)
How do you view the burning of Zhaojialou?
How to view the burning of Zhao’s building not only involves the characterization of May Fourth, but also involves important value orientations such as violence and rights, groups and individuals, goals and means. If we affirm the burning of Zhaojialou, we agree that in the name of so-called “goodness” for the country and the people, individual rights can be deprived and trampled upon, and violence can even be used. The great disasters in modern world history, such as the French Revolution, Stalin’s tyranny, and Mao Zedong’s bloody rule, all occurred under this theory.
The Russian writer Fyodor Dostoevsky, who was born a full 100 years before the Chinese Communist Party, already raised this question in his masterpiece “Crime and Punishment”: Can the end justify the means? The protagonist of “Crime and Punishment” Raskolnikov is a radical college student. He kills the old loan shark woman who is hated by everyone. His motive is not revenge or embezzlement of money, but to eliminate harm for the people and use her to money for greater human endeavors. Dosage put forward a proposition that is still of great significance today: Can individual rights be deprived of for the benefit of the group? In other words, can we use violence to deprive others of their freedom and lives for the sake of our own lofty goals?
Raskolnikov believes that this is possible and necessary, and it is the price that must be paid for the great cause of mankind. Before the murder, the college student argued with an officer in the tavern that by killing “this consumptive, stupid, vicious old woman, she could use her money to do thousands of good deeds and innovations, and make thousands of “Every family was saved from poverty” and “with the help of her money, work and public undertakings for all mankind can be carried out.” Finally, the college student said confidently, “The death of one person brings the survival of a hundred people. This is simple arithmetic!”
Raskolnikov wrote a paper on this theory and said: “If Newton’s theory was obstructed by some conspiracy before it appeared, it could only be achieved by sacrificing ten or a hundred or even more people,” then Newton had the right, and even the obligation, to kill these ten or a hundred people so that his great theory would be known to mankind.”
The murderous college student also made it clear: “As long as the main goal is good, then taking one violent action is allowed. You only do a bad thing once, but you can accomplish a hundred good things!” “I did that thing. Not for personal enjoyment, but for a glorious and wonderful purpose. I am killing just one nasty, harmful louse.”
Dostoyevsky seems to have had insight into the “brilliant and wonderful goals” carried out by Lenin’s October Revolution less than 30 years after his death, and later by Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot, etc. Mass murder. Another important work of Dosage’s “Demons” is almost a sketch of this violent revolutionary.
Doskin hated the tsarist dictatorship that sentenced him to death and almost killed him, but he was even more afraid of the revolutionary “demons” who “will do whatever it takes to achieve the goal.” Hugo, the great French writer who was contemporary with Dossin, also thought about the same important issue. Hugo’s late novel “1993” also condemned the blood and terror of the French Revolution. He pointed out that “the guillotine is the Revolution”, which is tantamount to complete denial.
Hugo hated the tyranny of Louis XVI very much, but he even more condemned Robespierre’s guillotine revolution. What Hugo wanted was a humanitarian revolution, a people-centered revolution. The central character of “1993” is not the royalist aristocratic marquis, nor the bloodthirsty revolutionary bishop, nor even the young general who paid the price with his life for his humanitarian beliefs. Instead, he appears from the beginning of the novel. The ending also focuses on the three children. The lives of these three children are the core of the book and the value that Hugo values most. Also because he valued the value of these three children, the noble Marquis, who had accidentally discovered a tunnel when surrounded by enemies and escaped, resolutely returned to the besieged castle and rescued the three children who were about to be swallowed up by the fire, even though he himself To be caught and killed. The most important thing here is the individual life symbolized by the child, not the revolution, not any ideology.
“1993” is Hugo’s last work, and it took the longest time to write. It can be said to be the crystallization of his lifelong thinking about the French Revolution and human value orientation. He asked in the book: “Is the purpose of revolution to destroy human nature? Is revolution to destroy families and suffocate humanity?” It is precisely because Hugo values human life, human rights, humanitarianism and other values so much that he is so I hate the cruelty and indiscriminate killing of Robespierre. There are long sections in the book describing revolutionary leaders such as Robespierre, Marat, and Danton, describing their bloodshed, their cruelty, and their morbid passions. At the trial of Louis XVI, all the voting leaders shouted “Guillotine, execution!” and “The blood of a king, not human blood. Death!” The bare-shouldered women who counted the votes, held lists in their hands , when someone casts a vote, he or she will be pricked with a pin; this scene alone is terrifying enough. Hugo lamented in the book that revolutions came and went, and in the end he lost his head. “When they sentenced Louis XVI to death, Robespierre had 18 months to live, Dandong 15 months, and Ma 5 months and 3 weeks, holy law is only one day.”
Dostoyevsky and Victor Hugo all emphasized the value of individual life and individual rights. The British and American Western civilization is based on this value of protecting individual rights. I mentioned in the article “We should start by negating the May 4th Movement” that the two important documents, the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, which are the foundation of Western civilization, do not mention the word “democracy” once. It is by no means an accident, let alone Negligence, but the consensus of the American sages is to avoid Robespierre-style mass revolution, avoid the guillotine and the burning of Zhaojialou style mob politics in the name of the people and patriotism. These two most important documents emphasize the protection of individual rights and the establishment of individualistic values. When the American forefathers had heated discussions about the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, what they most feared and most clearly wanted to avoid was the deprivation of individual rights in the name of the group, the majority, and justice.
The “Burning of the Zhao Family Building” on May 4th also burned China into a “humane desert”. (Image source: Public domain)
“Burning Zhaojialou” burned China into a desert of humanity
In China, long before the Zhaojialou was burned down, according to historical data quoted by historian Yuan Weishi, Chen Duxiu, the main leader of the May 4th Movement, “studied in Japan before the Revolution of 1911. He was dissatisfied with the Qing government’s supervision of overseas students, so a few people took that official to prison.” He grabbed Chen Duxiu, hugged him, and others cut off his braids. Cutting off his braids was a big deal at that time. He was such an extreme person. They regarded it as a symbol of feudal ugliness for men. But for what you think is progress and beauty, can you force people to cut it off?
In the name of correct goals, depriving others of their rights and even trampling on individual life and freedom has been the main theory and practice of the Chinese Communist Party since the May 4th burning of Zhaojialou; it is also one of the roots of all human violence. Because all the disasters in modern history happened in the name of “patriotism” and “goodness” for the people. Many famous experts, including Hayek, have long pointed out that “the most serious disasters of mankind are carried out by good people in the name of the most justice.” Evil is not terrible because it is clear and easy to identify; but under the guidance of wrong theories, evil is not terrible. It is the lower level of “goodness” that brings greater disaster to mankind.
The “burning of the Zhao Family Building” began China’s history of depriving individuals of their rights in the name of “patriotism” and committing violence in the name of “people” and “justice.” To this day, “patriotism” is not only the banner that the Chinese government is most keen to hold high, but also an aphrodisiac that makes countless intellectuals and young students excited. The fire that “burned Zhaojialou” is not only still burning, but countless educated people are adding fuel and fuel to it.
More than a hundred years! On the land of China that was turned into a humane desert by the “Burning of Zhaojialou”, the concepts of individualism, individual life, and the value of individual rights are still rarely sprouted, and we don’t know how long it will take for a patch of green to grow and finally cover that land. land. One hundred years have passed! What a profound sorrow!
Editor in charge: Chen Naxin Source: Look at China Column
Short URL: All rights reserved. Reprinting in any form requires permission from this website. It is strictly prohibited to create mirror websites.
[Honorary Members Wanted]Streams can merge into the sea, and small kindnesses can achieve great love. We sincerely recruit 10,000 honorary members from Chinese people all over the world: each honorary member only needs to pay a subscription fee per year and become an honorary member of the “Look at China” website, which can help us break through censorship and blockade and provide services to at least 10,000 mainland Chinese compatriots. Provide independent and true key information to warn them in times of crisis and save them from great plagues and other social crises.
