【中文标题】中国编写共产党历史的漫长历程
【原文标题】In China, a long path of writing the Communist Party’s history
【登载媒体】华盛顿邮报
【原文作者】Andrew Higgins
【原文链接】http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-china-a-long-path-of-writing-the-communist-partys-history/2011/05/16/AGDfMECH_story.html
2011年3月28日，中国重庆一所学校的小学生在庆祝中国共产党成立90周年。
中国共产党终于理顺了自己的历史。整个编写过程花费了16年，经过4次全面修改。中国的领导人在运作一个超级新兴势力的同时，全面权衡了所有的因素。
石仲泉参与构思了党对于近代史上一些最具政治敏感和血腥的章节所期望的最终措辞——1074页的文件描述了党在执政初期几十年的历程。他说：“我没想到最终会花费这么长的时间。”
中国正在迈向未来，在7月份即将度过其90岁生日的共产党仍然对历史，尤其是自身的历史持非常严肃的态度。经验丰富的党史学家石说：“编写历史不是件容易的事情。”
尤其困难的是，党史中不但要包括这个国家两次最致命的人为灾难——大跃进和文化大革命，还要涉及一件貌似普通但相当棘手的事件——1962年习仲勋遭陷害。他是中国现任副主席、本次党史编写的负责人习近平的父亲。
哈佛大学的学者、毛泽东时代的中国政治研究权威人士Roderick Macfarquhar说：“从前有一个共产主义的笑话，说马克思主义者能预测未来，但说不清楚过去。”历史“具有重要的意义，因为它为现在正言。”而且“历史的错误必须要在现在得到平反。”
党在20年前发表了第一部官方历史，其内容截止到毛在1949年征服中国。现在，它已经进一步深入到更加诡谲、凶险的领域。一月份出版的《中国共产党历史，第二卷（1949-1978）》继续了史诗般的英雄故事，直到邓小平开始推翻毛的大部分思想遗产。
中国正在积极筹备1921年成立的党在7月份即将到来的纪念活动，历史在此时格外引人注目。除了一小撮毛泽东思想死硬派之外，没人愿意重现公社制度、阶级斗争和残忍的肃反行动。但是党在反复灌输一个它认为对其掌权无比重要的信息：中国的经济发展现状和不断晋升的国际影响力完全是不间断一党执政的结果。
国家投入了将近4亿美元建设新的国家博物馆，其中填满了革命纪念物。用更多投资打造的《建党大业》是一部明星云集的史诗电影，即将公映。中国的电视台与此同时停止播放警匪类型的连续剧，纷纷关注党史类电视剧。
塑造历史对于中国所谓的“太子党”来说尤其重要，他们都是毛的战友们的后代。这个规模不大，但权力无边的团体通过家庭关系已经确立了自身的影响力，通常也积累了大量的财富。他们试图通过拥抱这样一个完美无缺的历史来提升自身的地位，同时可以回避他们祖辈在党残酷的历史中所扮演的政策执行者和受害者的角色。
“歪曲和诋毁”
政治局委员习即将在明年接手党领袖的职务，他的父亲在1962年被毛清除出党，他积极强调理顺历史的重要性。在去年夏天的“历史工作会议”上，他在讲话中呼吁所有党员——约有8000万之众——“坚决与歪曲和诋毁党史的倾向做斗争”。（他在讲话中并未提及父亲。）
权衡历史的积极倡议者还有刘少奇之子。刘少奇这位前任中国国家主席在文化大革命期间被毛清除出党，1969年因拒绝接受治疗而去世。其子解放军总后勤部政委刘源在一本新书的序言中写道：“党的总书记都有不少背叛、变节的。国际国内，早年近年，不胜枚数。”
毛的肖像被悬挂在紫禁城的大门尚方，他在近些年遭到了一些书籍的抨击——这些书在中国全部被禁止，他被描绘成各种角色：自大狂、性欲狂、大屠杀刽子手。
站在毛的身后
石作为党史研究中心的前副主任，承认在国内外的学术界存在广泛的不同见解，但是他说党从未偏离1981年对毛的首次定性——毛出现过“重大错误”，但是整体来看，功大于过。石说：“攻击毛就等于攻击中国共产党。”
党对其历史极为敏感，以至于石参与编写的新版历史必须要经过64方国家机关的审核，其中包括人民解放军。最早的版本花费4年时间编写，但未通过领导层审核。又过了12年，政治局最终批准了完整的版本。据一名编辑所说，批准中包括了总书记、习的继承权决定人胡锦涛和副主席曾庆红的“明确修改指示”。
整个过程如此漫长，有十几位一开始就参与此事的学者在成果出版前就已经去世。在最开始的三名高级编辑中，现今73岁的石是唯一在世的人。
领导层的关注至少刺激了书籍的销售，两卷图书在北京新闻类书籍销售排行榜上占据首位达一个月之久。主要原因是各级当政机构的批量订购，他们被要求学习这部作品。
常规历史学家对这部作品嗤之以鼻。北京一位著名的历史学教授杨奎松说：“这就是政治手段和宣传策略，我对此毫无兴趣。”
然而，与中国新近开放的国家博物馆和其它由党资助的历史研究不同，官方党史不仅单纯地宣扬了取得的成就，比如1964年中国第一颗原子弹试验，还涉及了一些党的痛苦经历。
据石介绍，编写中涉及到的最“敏感的”年代不是1966年到1976年的文化大革命，党在很久以前就宣布这是一场灾难，罪行都被推在所谓的四人帮身上，而是文化大革命之前十年发生的事情。毛在那时首次对自己的前盟友们开火，首先在所谓的反右行动中针对知识分子，然后斗争的对象是党内高层官员，包括习仲勋——几乎铁定接任胡主席的习近平的父亲。
早期的革命者、时任副总理的习仲勋在1962年失宠，毛呼吁对那些妄图复辟资本主义制度的人加大“阶级斗争”打击力度。党内针对他写的一本小说《刘志丹》发生了复杂难解的内部斗争，习成为了牺牲品，从公众视野中消失了16年。毛认为这本书是一个阴谋的一部分，试图给早先被清除出党、后来自杀的高岗恢复名誉。
新版的官方历史回避了事件的细节，把习的垮台大部分归因于毛的安全主管康生的阴谋。结论是，把习和其它成员定性为“反d集团”是“完全错误的”。毛死后，习最终得到了平反。
处理大跃进问题
1958年的大跃进实际上是中国工业化改革和农村集体制举措的巨大失败。在对这个问题的漫长讨论之后，党史承认大跃进所造成的巨大灾难，甚至提到，由于食品短缺和疾病发生，中国在1960年的人口下降了1000万。
但是，书中写明毛自始至终的目的是与中国当代领导人基本一致的，那就是“希望以最快的建设速度尽快改变贫穷落后面貌，使中国真正发展、强大起来，以自立于世界民族之林。”
据党史中描述，毛“在相对早期就通过初步调查和研究，意识到（大跃进）运动中存在问题，并努力去纠正这些问题。”
荷兰学者Frank Dikotter去年发表了一份这个时期的研究成果《毛的大饥荒》，他不屑地称之为“厚颜无耻的谎言”。他说，毛实际上知道他的政策造成了大饥荒，但他仍然一意孤行，最终导致4500万人死亡。
有一条记录没有被载入官方史料，但是被Dikotter从一份中国省地方志中发掘出来。毛在1959年说：“还不如让一半人饿死，这样另一半人可以吃饱肚子。”
附：解构中国的官方历史
简单比较中国共产党对政治敏感事件的叙述和外界历史学家对此的看法。
| | 中国共产党史官方版本 | 西方历史学家和中国独立历史学家共同认可的观点 | | 1950年，朝鲜战争 | “1950年6月25日，朝鲜爆发内战。美国立即决定军事干涉，并且把干涉范围延伸到朝鲜以外的亚洲地区。” | 在中国盟友北朝鲜黎明时分入侵美国支持的南朝鲜之后，朝鲜战争于1950年6月25日“爆发”。美国立即向联合国安理会汇报，安理会谴责入侵行为，敦促成员国支持南朝鲜。 | | 1958年-1961年，大跃进 | “谷物、油、蔬菜和非主要食材极为短缺，严重损害了人们的健康和生命。很多地区的农村居民发生水肿，患肝炎和妇科病的人数上升。” | 饥荒、疾病和党官员的残酷镇压夺走了上千万中国人的生命，一些村民被迫同类相食。肝炎很普遍，但主要患病者还是城市富裕居民。各种类型的疾病——从麻风到疟疾——患者数量飙升。毛泽东的政策所造成的受害者数量比斯大林统治下的大屠杀和乌克兰饥荒死亡人数还要多。 | | 1962年，党内秘密会议中清除习仲勋和其他人 | “会议错误地对所谓的‘邪风’、‘单干风’和‘平反风’进行批评，为党造成了严重的负面后果……习仲勋和其他人被定性为试图为高岗恢复名誉的‘反d集团’……将其定为工人阶级与资产阶级之间的斗争是对当时形势完全错误的判断。” | 毛在1962年将习仲勋清除出党并非是一个错误，而是预示4年之后文化大革命中更大、更残忍的清除行动。习曾经与高岗有过亲密合作，后者在1954年因被清除出党而自杀。但1962年他遭受耻辱的具体原因依然不明。 | | 1969年，文化大革命和被清除的国家主席刘少奇之死 | “1969年10月，病危中的刘少奇被送到河南开封，12月12日在囚禁中死于疾病，死时依然背负错误的指控。与刘少奇冤案相关的错判案例达26000件，涉及28000多人。刘少奇冤案的形成是党在30年代开始扩大打击反革命行动之后最痛苦的教训。” | 毛泽东策划了针对这位前中国国家主席的长期、残忍、报复性的打击运动，刘少奇因此而死。医生需要使用药物治疗患有糖尿病、高血压和其它疾病的刘，但被禁止治疗。刘在无人照看中，身染肺炎而死。党将他的死讯对公众保密了长达10年之久，至今没有明确说明事件的过程和毛在事件中的具体角色。 |
原文：
Pupils attend a celebration of the 90th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China at a primary school on March 28, 2011 in Chongqing, China.
China’s Communist Party has finally got its story straight. It took 16 years of editing and four extensive rewrites. Chinese leaders, otherwise preoccupied with running a rising superpower, weighed in throughout.
“I never thought it would take so long,” said Shi Zhongquan, who helped craft what the party hopes will be the final word on some of the most politically sensitive and also bloodiest episodes of China’s recent history — a new 1,074-page account of the party’s early decades in power.
As China races into the future, the Communist Party — which marks its 90th birthday in July — still takes the past, especially its own, very seriously. “Writing history is not easy,” said Shi, a veteran party historian.
It gets particularly hard when it includes not only two of the past century’s most lethal man-made catastrophes — the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution — but also a modest yet now ticklish upset back in 1962 — the disgrace of Xi Zhongxun, the father of Xi Jinping, China’s current vice president and leader-in-waiting.
“It’s an old communist joke that Marxists can predict the future, but the past is more difficult,” said Roderick Macfarquhar, a Harvard University scholar and leading authority on Chinese politics under Mao Zedong, who died in 1976. The past, added Macfarquhar, “is important because it legitimates the present” and “what went wrong then has to be justified now.”
The party published its first official history 20 years ago but ended the story with Mao’s conquest of China in 1949. It has now ventured into far more treacherous territory with the January publication of “History of the Chinese Communist Party, Volume 2 (1949-1978),” which continues the saga until the year Deng Xiaoping started undoing much of Mao’s legacy.
As China gears up to mark the July anniversary of the party’s founding in 1921, history has become a boom industry. Nobody outside a tiny group of die-hard Maoists wants to revive communes, class struggle and brutal purges. But the party is hammering a message it views as crucial to its grip on power: China’s surging economy and growing international clout are entirely the fruit of uninterrupted one-party rule.
The state poured nearly $400 million into a new National Museum stuffed with revolutionary memorabilia, and millions more into “The Founding of a Party,” a star-studded epic movie due to be released soon. Chinese TV stations, meanwhile, have been told to yank cop shows and focus on airing dramas about party history instead.
Shaping history is particularly important to China’s so-called princelings, the offspring of Mao’s comrades. Having secured influence and often wealth on the basis of their family connections, members of this small but powerful group celebrate a wart-free version of the past that boosts their status — and sidesteps their parents’ role as enforcers and then victims of party brutality.
‘Distort and smear’
Xi, the Politburo member who is due to take over as leader of the party next year and whose father was purged by Mao in 1962, has been particularly active in stressing the need to get history right. In a keynote address at a “history work conference” last summer, he called on all party members — numbering nearly 80 million — to “resolutely combat the wrong tendency to distort and smear the party’s history.” (He didn’t comment on his father.)
Also weighing history has been the son of Liu Shaoqi, a former Chinese president who died in 1969 after being denied medical treatment, having been purged by Mao during the Cultural Revolution. The son, military officer Liu Yuan, wrote in a preface to a new book that “the Party has been repeatedly betrayed by general secretaries, both in and outside the country, recently and in the past.”
Mao, whose portrait hangs above the main gate to the Forbidden City, has taken a beating in recent years from books — all now banned in China — that portray him variously as a megalomaniac, sex maniac and mass murderer.
Standing behind Mao
Shi, a former deputy director of the Party History Research Center, acknowledged wide differences of opinion among scholars, both Chinese and foreign, but said the party was not budging from the line it first fixed in 1981 that Mao made “gross mistakes” but, overall, did far more good than harm. “You can’t attack Mao and not attack the Chinese Communist Party,” Shi said.
So touchy is the party about its past that the new history Shi helped edit had to be vetted by 64 party and state bodies, including the People’s Liberation Army. An initial draft took four years to finish, but that didn’t pass muster with the leadership. It took 12 more years before the Politburo finally signed off on a finished text. This, according to an editor’s note, followed “clear demands regarding revisions” from party chief Hu Jintao, his heir apparent, Xi, and vice president Zeng Qinghong.
The whole process lasted so long that more than a dozen of the scholars involved at the start died before publication. Of an original trio of three senior editors, Shi, now 73, is the only one still alive.
The leadership’s close attention has at least helped boost sales: The two-volume text topped the Beijing News bestseller list for more than a month, due in large part to bulk orders from party units, which have been ordered to study the work.
Regular historians sniff at the whole venture: “This is politics and propaganda,” said Yang Kuisong, a prominent history professor in Beijing. “I have no interest in the topic.”
Unlike China’s recently opened National Museum and other party-sponsored excursions into the past, however, the official history doesn’t simply trumpet triumphs such as China’s first atomic-bomb test in 1964. It also tackles the party’s painful episodes.
The most “sensitive” period to write about, according to Shi, was not the 1966-76 Cultural Revolution, which the party long ago declared a disaster and blamed on the so-called Gang of Four, but the decade before. That was when Mao first turned on many of his former allies, first intellectuals during the so-called anti-rightists campaign, and then senior party officials, including Xi Zhongxun, the father of Xi Jinping, the all-but-certain successor to President Hu.
An early revolutionary and a vice premier, Xi Zhongxun fell from favor in 1962 amid calls by Mao to step up “class struggle” against those accused of seeking to restore capitalism. Xi, who vanished from public view for 16 years, got caught up in an obscure internal feud over a novel called “Liu Zhi Dan.” Mao saw the book as part of an alleged plot to rehabilitate Gao Gang, an earlier purge victim who killed himself.
The new official party history skirts details of the saga and blames Xi’s downfall mostly on the machinations of Mao’s security chief, Kang Sheng. Branding Xi and others as members of “an anti-Party clique” was “totally wrong,” the history says. Xi was finally rehabilitated after Mao’s death.
Tackling the Great Leap
In a lengthy discussion of the Great Leap Forward, a ruinous crash program of industrialization and rural collectivization launched in 1958, the party history acknowledges great suffering and even notes that because of food shortages and illness, China’s population in 1960 fell by 10 million.
But, claiming that Mao’s goal throughout was basically the same as that of China’s current leadership, it says he was driven by “a desire to change a picture of poverty and backwardness and make China grow rich and strong so it could use its own strength to stand tall in the forest of nations.”
Mao, according to the party’s version of events, “realized relatively early through preliminary investigation and research that there were problems in [the Great Leap] movement and worked hard to correct them.”
Frank Dikotter, a Dutch scholar who last year published a study of the period, “Mao’s Great Famine,” dismissed this as a “barefaced lie.” Mao, he said, was indeed aware of the starvation caused by his policies but pressed on, with the result that as many as 45 million people died.
Not recorded in the official history is a 1959 comment by Mao that Dikotter unearthed from a Chinese provincial archive: “It is better to let half of the people die so that the other half can eat their fill.”
Deconstructing China’s official history
A look at the China Communist Party’s take on politically sensitive events compared with how they are interpreted by outside historians: |
狗仔卡
发表于 2011-5-30 15:46
提升卡
变色卡
抢沙发
千斤顶
显身卡
发表于 2011-5-30 16:41
