1959.12思想改革。中国的意识形态重塑

shiyi18

Thought Reform: Ideological Remolding in China
HARRIET C. MILLS, who teaches Chinese at Columbia, has spent twenty-five years of her life in China. The daughter of Presbyterian missionaries, she graduated from the Shanghai American School, went to Wellesley College, and took an M.A. at Columbia. She returned to Peking in 1947 and was awarded a Fulbright scholarship. She was arrested in July of 1951, confined in the prison for counterrevolutionaries, and not released until October, 1955.

By Harriet C. Mills
DECEMBER 1959 ISSUE
SHARE

BY HARRIET C. MILLS

FOR the past ten years the Chinese Communists have been conducting the greatest campaign in human history to reshape the minds of men. No other Communist or authoritarian state, not even the Soviet Union, has ever equaled the scope and intensity of the Chinese Communist effort.


The Chinese Communists believe that thought determines action. Thus, if 650 million Chinese can be brought to think “correctly,” they will act “correctly” along lines the Chinese Communist Party considers essential for the creation of its version of a socialist China, to become at some distant date a Communist society in a Communist world.

Magazine Cover image
View This Story as a PDF
See this story as it appeared in the pages of The Atlantic magazine.

Open
The Chinese Communists are attempting to remold the mind as well as the face of China. Their approach combines standard techniques of the authoritarian state with a system of their own invention. Like any authoritarian state, the People’s Republic of China has the power to enforce its edicts and protect official ideology by absolute control of education and all regular mass media. A vast supplementary network of village radio receivers and loudspeakers, housetop megaphone recasts, and door-to-door agents of oral propaganda carries official news, slogans, rousing songs, and propaganda skits to the illiterate in remote rural areas. In the familiar pattern of modern authoritarian societies, the whole population is thoroughly organized. Virtually every individual belongs to one or more mass organizations built around his age, residential, trade, or professional group.

However, the Chinese Communists are well aware that, effective as such regimentation may be in conditioning habits of action and response, it does not necessarily achieve genuine reorientation. They know that only if people are truly persuaded of the justice and correctness of the Communist position will they release their spontaneous creative energy and cooperate, not from necessity but from conviction. To accelerate this persuasion the Chinese Communists have developed group study, or hsüeh-hsi, in which everyone must participate — peasant, ex-landlord, city dweller, artisan, worker, peddler, merchant, housewife, producer, industrialist, even the political prisoner. Group study is a unique means for achieving critical rejection of old ideas in favor of new ones and a powerful weapon for ideological remolding.


Two main lines of experience have gone into group study, one Chinese, one Communist. During their twenty-odd years as guerrilla fighters, the Chinese Communists stumbled, through necessity, on one basic element of what is now group study. In teaching uneducated peasant recruits to use weapons, obey commands, live together, and protect the country people, the Communists gradually found that small discussion groups were the best way to make sure each man understood not only how but why. These small groups went patiently over all questions, objections, or countersuggestions until the best method had been found and agreed upon. To the peasantry, on whom the army depended for support and cover, the Communists likewise explained their rural improvement program, rent reduction, land redistribution, public health, and literacy. Thus, they persuaded the peasants that it was to their advantage to cooperate in resisting Japan or the Kuomintang. The high morale of the guerrilla areas justified the Communists’ approach.

RECOMMENDED READING
An animation featuring the rewind symbol, which appears to be "turning back the tape" on the universe
The Webb Space Telescope Is a Time Machine
MARINA KOREN
A black-and-white image of former President Donald Trump
The Inescapable Conclusion From the January 6 Hearings
RUSSELL BERMAN

SPONSOR CONTENT
A Main Street of Small Businesses Created For You
FACEBOOK, INC.
The second objective in group study — namely, the study of Marxist theory and the discipline of criticism and self-criticism — has long been standard practice in Communist cells around the world. Out of the gradual fusion of these two traditions — Chinese persuasion and Communist dogma — contemporary group study has evolved as the ubiquitous working mechanism of thought reform in China.

TODAY every office, factory, shop, school, cooperative, commune, military or residential unit in China is divided into ostensibly voluntary small study groups of about six to twelve persons. Under elected leaders, approved by the authorities, these groups are required to meet regularly to discuss government policies, Marxist theory, or whatever has been mapped out for discussion by the central Party and government organs directing the nationwide group-study program. The function of these small study groups is to persuade members of the validity of the official position by bringing their thinking into line with that of the Party. Complex interplay of psychological and personal factors gives the technique its special character and power.

First, the study group is official. The leader represents and reports to higher authorities. Every member knows that evaluation of his thinking as reactionary, backward, bourgeois, apolitical, progressive, or zealous materially affects his future for better or for worse.

Second, everyone must express an opinion; there is no freedom of silence. In a small, intimate group, whose members know each other well and work and sometimes even live together, it can be very embarrassing to express an incorrect idea, yet over a long period it is virtually impossible to dissemble.

Magazine Cover image
Explore the December 1959 Issue
Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.

View More
Third, parroting theory or the official line is not enough. Nor is mere intellectual acknowledgment of the reasonableness of the stipulated position sufficient. The important thing is to apply correct theory so as to discredit one’s previous incorrect conceptions so thoroughly in one’s own eyes that one gladly discards them and accepts the new. It is not sufficient for one to come to the genuine intellectual position that landlords were bad for China, yet maintain that not all landlords, one’s father or a friend, perhaps, were bad. This proves unresolved sympathy with the old order. Nor can one honestly believe that America had been aggressive in China and yet feel that the U.S. system of elections is more democratic than China’s. This proves insufficient understanding of the nature of the capitalist-imperialist system, which, if predatory abroad, could hardly be benign at home. Likewise, it proves unresolved pro-Americanism, which by extension becomes general sympathy with the West and therefore hostility to the Communist Party in China.

For an intellectual to admit that labor — mental and physical — is the origin of all wealth, the root of all progress, and yet be reluctant to participate in an allotted span of agricultural work proves he still retains elements of bourgeois prejudice against manual labor and is therefore still bourgeois. Raising the level of one’s political consciousness through group study is considered a lifelong process. Not even Mao Tse-tung is beyond improvement.

The weapon the group uses is criticism. The ideas of each member are criticized by the others against the correct standard. In this way, everyone is forced actively to apply that standard to someone else’s problem and is not permitted simply to receive it passively. The individual who is cooperative, who satisfies his fellows that he is really examining and gradually modifying his views, is “helped” in a quiet, reasoned, and friendly manner, for his attitude is good. One who stubbornly insists on maintaining his original position, who says, if not overtly, at least in effect, “I know all your arguments, but I still think I’m right,” is treated as an enemy of the group, subject to intense, prolonged criticism of his attitude as well as his thoughts. Helping him may even take the form of “struggle” or verbal assault (tou-cheng), a humiliating combination of loud criticism interlarded with sarcasm, epithet, and — very rarely — with minor violence. It involves ostracism by, but not escape from, members of his study group and even the threat of public verbal assault before several small groups or an entire organization. Nor can the one being helped find solace among other friends or relatives, for in China a thought problem is serious. Everyone must help to solve it. No one ventures to prolong the agony by dangerous sympathy.

Self-criticism is as important as, if not more important than, criticism. One cannot merely reveal his thoughts. He must detail convincing reasons why he thinks they are wrong. Only thus, it is argued, can he avoid continuing to think and therefore to act in the old, incorrect way. If his fellows feel his self-criticism is genuine, though not profound, they will — again with reason, quiet, and friendliness — help him to see more deeply into his problems. If, however, they feel his self-criticism is a ruse adopted to ward off criticism, the offender will be vigorously helped and, if necessary, subjected to verbal assault until his fellows are convinced that he has begun to see the light.

WHAT are the factors which tend to make group study, tense and painful as it often is, effective? First, there is the essential human need to belong, to achieve and maintain emotional balance. To be unprogressive in China is not simply a political verdict; it is social suicide as well. Second, the constant repetition of correct ideas and particularly the application of them to the public analysis of one’s own and others’ problems mean that one is forced to give them detailed scrutiny. The Communists are conscious of the value of this. “From habit or pretense,” they say, “it may become real.”Third — and this is all too often neglected by outside observers — is the crusading idealism, the strong moral note, that runs through all discussion of political, social, and economic steps. Since it is obviously right that China should be made new and strong to assume its long overdue place as a major power, it is right to collectivize so as to mechanize and increase agricultural production. It is right to be Spartan and not demand higher wages so more effort can go into new plants, right to report opposition to the Party that is bringing medicine, schooling, and security to half a billion peasants, right to resist the “aggressive designs” of the United States in Korea, right that women should be emancipated. Fourth, there is the universal knowledge, as the highest spokesmen of the Party have frankly admitted, that in the long run no course but the correct one is open. Attempts to avoid the tensions of group study by tacit compact to go through the routine or to stick to pleasantries are blocked not only by the fact of the leader’s relations with the authorities but by the ever-present possibility that some member, whether motivated by genuine change of heart or by a selfish attempt at winning official favor, might report the group. Thus, there is tremendous pressure both to fall in line and to want to fall in line.

Most important of all, however, is a sense of nationalism, a patriotic pride in China’s new posture of confidence and achievement. That China, which in 1948 was economically prostrate under runaway inflation, maladministered by a weak and corrupt government totally dependent on American aid, incapable of producing motorcycles, much less automobiles, can now fight the United Nations to a draw in Korea, maintain the world’s fourth largest air force, produce trucks, jet planes, even establish a nuclear reactor, is an intoxicating spectacle to the Chinese. This pride, in turn, has generated a remarkably effective and spontaneous code of public honesty, courtesy, and civic sense unknown in the old China. To be asked whether an incorrect idea is really worthy of the new China can make one feel guilty. Thousands have asked themselves, “What right have I to disagree with those who can achieve so much?” As a professor of English, remembering China’s internal disintegration and international humiliation, explained to me in the spring of 1951, “Now we can again be proud to be Chinese!”

This man, a master of arts from Yale, had taught in an army language program at Harvard during World War II and knew and liked America. No left-wing enthusiast, he was slow in making up his mind about the Communists in the early period of their power, but as they brought the country under control, licked inflation, improved material conditions in the universities, and dared abrogate the unequal treaties, he proudly identified himself with the new China. For him, group study was stimulating. He looked on it as accelerating the weeding out of his undesirable bourgeois liberalism and promoting the growth of new socialist thinking. He had once enjoyed Animal Farm, but by mid-1951 he rejected 1984, though his wife, a graduate of an American university in Shanghai, did not.

The valedictorian of the class of 1948 at the same university — the last class to graduate before the Communist take-over — was a brilliant student of international affairs. His English was good, his French and Japanese serviceable. His burning idealism had led him as a high school student into Christianity. Later, at the university, it led him into the student movement, which, in the last years before the fall of the Kuomintang, was dominated by the left. For months after the Communists came in, he was deeply troubled. His patriotism thrilled to the assurance and vitality of the Communists. Other aspects of his being cringed at their attack on habits and patterns of thinking which he subscribed to, including his Christianity.

One hot summer day he came to see me. “I have studied and studied,” he said, using the Chinese term hsüeh-hsi, “and thought and thought. I have begun to feel there is more good in the Communist Party than in the Christian church. If I can satisfy myself on this score, I shall join the Party.” Shortly afterwards he told me that he had. “Now that you are a Party member,” I asked, “do you think group study is still worth your while?” “Oh, yes,” he replied, his eyes burning with infectious enthusiasm, “it is indispensable.”

Group study can even be exhilarating, particularly for those who, having been heavily criticized or struggled against, admit the error of their ways and are readmitted to the fellowship of the group. My good friend, a young former YWCA secretary, is only one example. Daughter of a Japanesetrained optometrist, she had graduated from the Catholic University in Peking about the end of World War II. A Protestant, she went to work for the YWCA and soon became close to young American students and diplomatic personnel who returned to Peking after the war. Transferred away for a while, she returned to Peking in early 1950 and joined the Central Relief Agency of the People’s Government. She was miserable. She welcomed the material advances of the Government but felt that the price, in terms of regimentation, controlled thought, required group study, anti-Americanism, and the like, was too high. “I will go anywhere in the world,” she used to remark, “where there is no group study.”

Intrinsically honest, my friend’s reservations about the regime were all too obvious. She could not fit into, and was therefore cut off from, the mainstream of Chinese life. Her Chinese friends pleaded with her to reconsider her attitude, particularly her relations with me, since by early 1951 I was known to be under suspicion. Her Western friends, knowing there was little possibility for her to leave China, were forced to urge her to compromise. But she remained fiercely loyal to her standards and her friends. For this she eventually landed, on my account, in the same prison cell with me.

In prison, as outside, she soon won the respect of wardens as well as prisoners for her honesty and courage. She did not pretend. Her kindnesses to me, whom the Communists had arrested as an American spy, were unobtrusive, but if discovered she courageously admitted them. For the first time in her life, she met people from many walks of Chinese life, people who, unlike herself, were uneducated, had had no contact with foreigners, people who were wholly and completely Chinese. Some had accomplished amazing things against incredible odds. She began to see a new dimension to her native land, to feel its hope lay within itself. She no longer felt that China was somehow inferior to the West. She began to discover her Chinese identity. But her habits of mind, her desire to look at both sides of a question, to undertake impartial inquiry, her reluctance to be regimented, and particularly her loyalty to her old friends died hard, and she was on one or two occasions briefly struggled against.

The result which I watched was a sort of catharsis. Her point of view changed, and with it her evaluation of past friends and associations. She remained as courageous, fair, and honest as ever, but her frame of reference was new. The joy and good feeling within the cell group that had helped her were enormous and vital. The helpers rejoiced at a black sheep brought home. She rejoiced at the psychological relief of having achieved spiritual integration. Very positive feelings of identification with and gratitude toward the small group and the larger society beyond followed.

FROM time to time, all means of state propaganda, including the group-study mechanism, focus the thinking of the entire nation on specific economic, political, or ideological questions in great campaigns or movements. These campaigns are building blocks in the monolithic orthodoxy which the Communists are determined to erect. Roughly, they fall into two categories. The primary purpose of one type is to discredit some existing idea, group, or system inimical to Communist ends. The second category aims to explain some program about to be enacted or some theory the Communists feel must be universally understood.

Campaigns usually begin with a series of articles and editorials in newspapers. Since newspaper reading is a political obligation in China and items of the day are often taken up in study groups, a subject which has received more than usual attention will begin to be discussed. Thus, a demand is created for further study, for which the materials and instructions are soon forthcoming. The campaign, which may last several months, is launched.

When the aim is to discredit, the initial articles will be exposés of the evil to be attacked. Some person, group, or catchword is made into a symbol. Every organization, office, factory, school, military unit, and so forth then embarks on an intense campaign of its own to find examples within its ranks. If concepts like bureaucracy, commandism, extravagance, timidity, and the like are under fire, flagrant manifestations of these are certain to be found in every organization, and most individuals will confess to similar tendencies in themselves. Serious offenders are required to examine their thoughts to uncover what causes them to act thus. Those whose examination is unsatisfactory are brought before a public meeting of the organization, which may turn into a struggle meeting. Depending on the nature of the campaign, the offense, and the outcome of organizational help, they may be remanded to a period of reflection, supervision, special full-time study, or, in serious cases where criminality is involved, to prison, where intensive thought reform and punishment are combined. The aim is redemption through criticism. Mass accusation meetings administering summary justice to landlords and counterrevolutionaries were used, particularly in the early years of the regime, in connection with campaigns to educate the public.

In campaigns like those against counterrevolutionaries, it is not suggested that every organization harbors a traitor. However, each study group will discuss not only the facts as presented by the Government but also what sort of thought could have produced such actions. The group will then proceed to look for traces of the same in themselves. Thus, a campaign against counterrevolutionaries provides education along many lines. Showing how counterrevolutionaries serve the exploiting classes raises the whole issue of class and the nature of the class struggle. Betrayal of the common good, as embodied in the state, by counterrevolutionaries becomes an object lesson in the meaning and duty of citizenship; enemies of the state, be they friends or relatives, must be reported. The difficulty of ferreting out counterrevolutionaries emphasizes the need to cultivate a high level of political consciousness. Promulgation of the statutes for dealing with counterrevolutionaries dramatizes the fact that harsh treatment and death are reserved for those who do not repent and reform. For those who confess and are penitent, there is leniency. So, too, the 1957-1958 anti-rightist and rectification campaign was used to educate the nation still further on the correctness of the Party in all things. Criticisms voiced during the Hundred Flowers period earlier in 1957 were refuted and discredited. A new movement to give one’s heart to the Party followed.


Campaigns of explanation put the major emphasis on the Communist theory which makes impending economic or political changes both inevitable and just. A few movements, like the early campaign for the Stockholm Peace Appeal or the current Hate America campaign, are basically ideological in intent, unrelated to any impending change. Others, like the famous Resist America, Aid Korea movement, are designed both to discredit and to mobilize.

Physical labor plays a major role in thought reform in China. Invoking Marxist insistence on the dignity of labor as the origin of all value and wealth, the Communists strive to counter strong traditional Chinese scorn for manual labor. They are determined to negate a fundamental tenet of Chinese thinking formulated by Confucius 2500 years ago: “Who works with his mind rules; who works with his hands is ruled.” Reform by labor goes hand in hand with reform through study in the rehabilitation of prisoners and landlords. In Peking political prisons, the right to labor comes only after a certain level of reform through study has been achieved.

Intellectuals, city office workers, and government cadres, merchants, capitalists, and students have long been urged to do voluntary labor on weekends and holidays. In a tremendous attempt to break down prejudice toward labor and increase appreciation of the leadership of the proletariat, during the past couple of years there has been regular assignment of large groups for extensive periods to agricultural and factory work.

HOW effective has ideological remolding been? No simple answer is possible, for it varies with and within different segments of the population. The Communists stress that thought reform is a long, arduous task which has just begun; even in theory, the perfect mentality which needs no reform must wait on a perfect society.

Particularly in the early years of the regime, the degree of organization for indoctrination through study differed sharply, from very loose among the peasants to very tight in well-defined bodies, like offices, factories, schools, and the military. Once the cooperatives were set up in the countryside, more intensive group study became possible, bringing peasants in many ways very positively into the pattern of national life. But, as a recent official summary admitted, many peasants did not clearly grasp the relation between the state, the cooperative, and the individual household; some still harbored “individual and group exclusiveness, which disregard national and collective interests.” Some well-to-do peasants sabotaged or competed against the cooperative and resisted state grain policy. Unless a high level of political and social consciousness can be developed and maintained among the peasants, it is possible that, as communes are set up and proprietorship becomes more impersonal, they will be no more interested in working for the commune than they were for the landlord but will save their best efforts for their recently guaranteed private plots.

Among workers, the Communists claim — and reports tend to confirm — the ideological situation is generally good. But the influx of other than working-class elements into the labor force has led the Communists to call for a drive to help workers “recognize that they must, under the leadership of the Communist Party, constantly raise their own social consciousness . . . develop the excellent tradition of working hard, maintain the noble character of being just and selfless, work hard in production, save, and economize.” Note that the word “raise,” not “reform,” is used, because under the theory that makes workers leaders of any Communist revolution, workingclass mentality is, by definition, correct.

Resistance to ideological remolding has been strong among what the Communists call the “bourgeoisie” and the “bourgeois intellectuals.” Both are very broad terms. “Bourgeoisie” covers roughly all private business above a one-man show, and well-to-do peasants. “Bourgeois intellectual” means not so much egghead as all students, technicians, and specialists beyond the high school level, scientists, professional men, and university personnel. From the beginning, the Communists, realizing that these groups, who generally had had the largest stake in the oid order, would prove most troublesome, have given special attention to their reform.

Destruction of the bourgeoisie through the reform of its members has been declared a basic tenet of the revolutionary program. Thought reform, therefore, involves turning them into willing pallbearers at their own funeral. The 1951-1952 Five Anti Campaigns (against bribery, tax evasion, theft of state property, cheating on government contracts, and leakage of government economic secrets), designed to discredit the irresponsible selfishness of production for private profit, greatly weakened the economic position of the bourgeoisie. For many months they were required to study, examine, and confess with special intensity the errors of their thinking and conduct. Since 1953, a body established to deal with the bourgeoisie and pave the way for their compensated integration into the socialist economy has conducted thorough ideological education, urging the need to abide by law, the acceptance of socialist transformation, the teachings of Mao Tse-tung, and patriotism. The group has continually organized the bourgeoisie for participation in patriotic and social movements. But though the bourgeoisie did not resist the socialist transformation of 1956, they have not been reformed, at least in areas touching on their economic role. The Communists candidly state that the majority have come to realize there would be no way out by opposing the proletariat. But they admit that most of the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois intellectuals “are unwilling to accept the leadership of the proletariat and the Communist Party.”


Most difficult of all to refashion have been the higher intellectuals — scientists, professors, and the like. They have the knowledge and the skills which the Communists lack and need, but have little patience with Communist dogmatism and interference. Communist policy toward this strategic group in the past decade has consistently aimed at securing most effective utilization of its knowledge. Zigzagging steadily toward this goal, the Communists have now attacked, now united, now criticized. Meanwhile, they are recruiting their own Red intellectuals, but have not yet had time to train a new group both Red and expert.

The importance and recalcitrance of the intellectuals, largely Western-oriented and often American-trained, have subjected them to more intense and sustained reform than that applied to any other section of the population. Like everyone else, they have gone through a decade of group study. As many came from landlord families, they were sent to the countryside during land redistribution, an experience which for the most part appears to have decisively reformed their attitude toward landlords. Participation in such activities as the Resist America, Aid Korea campaign and the Sino-Soviet Friendship Association was supposed to help change their sympathy with the West to admiration for the Soviet Union. It is hard to assess just how successful these moves have been, but it should be noted in passing that the hardening American position toward China in the last ten years has not encouraged America’s sensitive and nationalistic friends there and has unwittingly played into Communist hands.


After two years of gentle courting, the Communists stiffened the ideological remolding of the intelligentsia in late 1951. Thousands were concentrated in special centers for reform, and the group study of others was greatly stepped up. The hard line continued into 1955. By 1956, the Party had become seriously disturbed by the negative response of the intellectuals chafing under brusque dogmatism, the arrogance of ignorant cadres, and time-consuming group study and public meetings. Chou En-lai, admitting errors in handling intellectuals, estimated that only 40 per cent actively supported the regime. Relaxation followed. The Government materially improved living and working conditions of the intellectuals, treated them with polite respect, urged them to speak out — even to criticize — freely and frankly. The intellectuals were grateful but wary.

Finally, after more than a year of gentle prodding and watchful waiting, the Hundred Flowers of criticism bloomed wildly for one brief month from May 8 to June 8, 1957. One after another, intellectuals delivered scathing attacks on monolithic Party power, the identification of Party and state, the sham of coalition government with minor parties, the incompetence and arrogance of Party cadres. Intellectuals complained of high but powerless posts, of the damaging effects of Party interference with education and research, and of something not limited to Communist societies — denial of access to research data for reasons of security. They questioned the infallibility of Marx-Leninism. They called the Party incompetent to lead in science, education, and the arts. They declared that Party bureaucratism is worse than capitalism. Forceful as the criticisms were, they were not aimed at the overthrow of the Government. Rather, they aimed at making it genuinely democratic, with democratic safeguards and a sharing of political power. The intellectuals in essence demanded a separation of Party and government, of Party and technical endeavor.


Communist response was swift. Critics were automatically identified as rightists, and rectification campaigns were launched. In late 1957, prominent critics were forced to make public confessions and were dismissed from office, but apparently not imprisoned or executed. Lesser voices confessed and repledged their support of the Party. Nineteen fifty-eight brought a new and, in many ways, unprecedentedly rigid orthodoxy. In January, 1959, a high official concluded that the intellectuals were dragging their feet, generally tired of self-remolding.

Because tired and resentful intellectuals do not release their full creative power, the tack in early 1959 has veered once again toward persuasion. Many dismissed in 1957 were reinstated, although there have been recent indications of a new tightening up. “We must conduct long, recurrent, patient, delicate, and persuasive education.”At least another decade — perhaps much longer — will be required, Party spokesmen emphasize, because bourgeois intellectuals are not just those left over from the old society whom the attrition of time could remove; men trained recently have acquired the same outlook.

WHAT of the future? Mao Tse-tung has declared that there will be regular rectification campaigns. “Thought reform,” he says, “is a protracted, gigantic, and complex task. As the struggle will continue to experience ups and downs, we shall have both tense and slack moments during our work and shall have to proceed in a zigzag.”


To say that the Communists have not made complete Marxists out of the Chinese is not sufficient grounds for concluding that in the eyes of the Chinese people they have failed or that volcanic discontent smolders under the surface, straining to erupt. Certain expectations generated by a decade of Communist accomplishment will persist; certain attitudes have been permanently reformed by Communist education. The sense of national pride and dignity, the expectation of honest and efficient government will continue. Through group study and the experience of manifold collective living and working, the Chinese have become and will remain conscious of the interrelationship of various social elements. They may not agree with the Communist interpretation, but gone is the day when, in Sun Yat-sen’s phrase, China was like a sheet of loose sand with no sense of cohesion. The thirst for modernity, for ordered, planned, and accelerated economic development by all levels of society, cannot be quenched. The farmer, who may not like the regimentation of the commune, desires not so much return to his unprotected position in the old order as more freedom to utilize for his personal profit the advantages which land redistribution, peace, market stability, and government technical assistance in seeds and fertilizer have brought. He wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Public demand for adequate health and welfare systems, for education will not abate. The shopkeeper, who may not be too happy about being socialized, nonetheless appreciates the fact that his son can finish school, and, with ability, even college. The woman who objects to placing her child in a state nursery so she may be freed for labor is still grateful for the genuine improvement in public health. As the Hundred Flowers movement showed, opposition and bitter criticism in many areas are not so much a demand for the return of the old order as for the revision of the new, under broader, not exclusively Communist leadership.


Observers recently back from China report that the crusading spirit of idealism and sacrifice so prevalent in the early part of the decade is gradually receding. There is a rising desire among the people for more material benefits now. Ironically, the Communists are trapped by their own success. Spectacular strides toward industrialization have unleashed tremendous, if premature, expectations, which the Communists will have to deal with both in their economic planning and their group-study program.

To date, success of group study has depended to no small degree on its invocation of moral and patriotic appeals. In the future, these may not be enough. If the system is to continue to be effective, the Communists will have to find a new focus for thought reform or resort to more pressure. How the inventors of history’s most potent mechanism for ideological reform meet this challenge will be an important story of the next decade.



思想改革。中国的意识形态重塑
在哥伦比亚大学教中文的HARRIET C. MILLS在中国度过了她生命中的25年。她是长老会传教士的女儿，毕业于上海美国学校，就读于韦尔斯利学院，并在哥伦比亚大学获得硕士学位。她于1947年回到北京，获得了富布赖特奖学金。她于1951年7月被捕，被关在反革命分子监狱，直到1955年10月才获释。

作者：哈丽雅特-C-米尔斯
1959年12月号
分享

作者：哈丽雅特-C-米尔斯

在过去的十年里，中国共产党人一直在开展人类历史上最伟大的运动，以重塑人们的思想。没有任何一个共产党或专制国家，甚至苏联，能与中国共产党的努力的范围和强度相提并论。


中国共产党人相信，思想决定行动。因此，如果能够让6.5亿中国人 "正确地 "思考，他们就会按照中国共产党认为对创建其版本的社会主义中国至关重要的路线 "正确地 "行动，在某个遥远的日期成为共产主义世界中的共产主义社会。

杂志封面图片
以PDF格式查看本故事
请看这个故事出现在《大西洋》杂志的页面上。

打开
中国共产党人正试图重新塑造中国的思想和面貌。他们的方法结合了专制国家的标准技术和他们自己发明的系统。像任何专制国家一样，中华人民共和国有权力通过绝对控制教育和所有常规大众媒体来执行其法令并保护官方意识形态。一个由乡村广播接收器和扬声器、屋顶扩音器和挨家挨户的口头宣传员组成的庞大补充网络，向偏远农村地区的文盲传递官方新闻、口号、振奋人心的歌曲和宣传短剧。在现代专制社会的熟悉模式中，整个人口被彻底组织起来。几乎每个人都属于一个或多个围绕其年龄、居住地、行业或职业群体建立的群众组织。

然而，中国共产党人很清楚，尽管这种组织在调节行动和反应的习惯方面可能是有效的，但它不一定能实现真正的重新定位。他们知道，只有当人们真正相信共产主义立场的公正性和正确性时，他们才会释放出自发的创造能量，并不是出于需要，而是出于信念进行合作。为了加速这种说服，中国共产党人发展了小组学习，即hsüeh-hsi，每个人都必须参与其中--农民、前地主、城市居民、工匠、工人、小贩、商人、家庭主妇、生产者、工业家，甚至政治犯。小组学习是实现批判性地拒绝旧观念而支持新观念的独特手段，也是意识形态重塑的有力武器。


在小组学习中，有两条主要的经验路线，一条是中国的，一条是共产党的。在他们二十多年的游击战中，中国共产党人在必要时偶然发现了现在的小组学习的一个基本要素。在教导没有受过教育的农民新兵使用武器、服从命令、共同生活和保护国家人民的过程中，共产党人逐渐发现，小型讨论小组是确保每个人不仅理解如何做，而且理解为什么做的最好方法。这些小组耐心地讨论所有问题、反对意见或反建议，直到找到并同意最好的方法。对于军队赖以支持和掩护的农民，共产党人也同样解释了他们的农村改良计划、减租、土地再分配、公共卫生和扫盲。因此，他们说服农民，合作抵抗日本或国民党对他们是有利的。游击区的高昂士气证明了共产党人的做法是正确的。

推荐阅读
一部以倒带符号为主题的动画，它似乎是在对宇宙进行 "倒带 "处理
韦伯太空望远镜是一台时间机器
MARINA KOREN
前总统唐纳德-特朗普的黑白图像
1月6日听证会上无法回避的结论
鲁塞尔-伯曼

赞助商内容
为您打造的小企业主街
FACEBOOK, INC.
小组学习中的第二个目标--即学习马克思主义理论和批评与自我批评的纪律--早已成为世界各地共产主义小组的标准做法。从这两个传统--中国式的劝说和共产主义的教条--的逐渐融合中，当代小组学习已经发展成为中国思想改革中无处不在的工作机制。

今天，中国的每个办公室、工厂、商店、学校、合作社、公社、军队或居民单位都被划分为表面上自愿的小型学习小组，大约有六到十二人。在当局批准的当选领导人的领导下，这些小组必须定期开会，讨论政府政策、马克思主义理论，或由指导全国小组学习计划的中央党政机关制定的任何讨论。这些小型学习小组的功能是说服成员相信官方立场的正确性，使他们的思想与党的立场保持一致。复杂的心理和个人因素的相互作用使这种方法具有特殊的性质和力量。

首先，研究小组是官方的。组长代表并向上级机关报告。每个成员都知道，对他的思想的评价是反动的、落后的、资产阶级的、非政治的、进步的或热心的，都会对他的未来产生实质性的影响，无论好坏。

第二，每个人都必须发表意见；没有沉默的自由。在一个小而亲密的团体中，其成员彼此熟悉，并在一起工作，有时甚至生活在一起，表达一个不正确的想法可能是非常尴尬的，然而在一个长时期内，几乎不可能传播。

杂志封面图片
探索1959年12月号
查看本期的更多内容，并寻找你的下一个故事来阅读。

查看更多
第三，鹦鹉学舌或官方路线是不够的。仅仅在思想上承认规定立场的合理性也是不够的。重要的是运用正确的理论，使自己以前不正确的观念在自己的眼里彻底失去信誉，从而欣然抛弃它们，接受新的观念。如果一个人得出了地主对中国不利的真正知识立场，却认为不是所有的地主，也许是自己的父亲或朋友，都是坏的，这是不够的。这就证明了对旧秩序的同情是不坚定的。人们也不能诚实地相信美国在中国有侵略性，却觉得美国的选举制度比中国的更民主。这证明人们对资本主义-帝国主义制度的性质认识不足，这种制度如果在国外是掠夺性的，在国内就不可能是良性的。同样，这也证明了未解决的亲美主义，而亲美主义又延伸为对西方的普遍同情，从而对中国的共产党产生敌意。

一个知识分子承认劳动--脑力劳动和体力劳动--是所有财富的来源，是所有进步的根源，但却不愿意参加分配的农业劳动，这证明他仍然保留着对体力劳动的资产阶级偏见的因素，因此仍然是资产阶级。通过集体学习提高一个人的政治意识水平被认为是一个终生的过程。即使是毛泽东也不是无法改进的。

小组使用的武器是批评。每个成员的想法都由其他人对照正确的标准进行批评。通过这种方式，每个人都被迫积极地把这个标准应用到别人的问题上，而不允许只是被动地接受它。合作的个人，让他的伙伴们满意他真的在检查并逐渐修改他的观点，以安静、合理和友好的方式得到 "帮助"，因为他的态度是好的。而那些顽固地坚持自己原有立场的人，即使不公开，至少也会说："我知道你所有的论点，但我仍然认为我是对的。"他被当作群体的敌人，受到对他的态度和思想的强烈、长期的批评。帮助他甚至可能采取 "斗争 "或言语攻击（tou-cheng）的形式，这是一种羞辱性的组合，大声的批评夹杂着讽刺、辱骂，以及--极少--轻微的暴力。它涉及到被他的学习小组成员排斥，但不是逃离，甚至威胁要在几个小团体或整个组织面前公开进行口头攻击。被帮助的人也不能在其他朋友或亲戚中找到慰藉，因为在中国，思想问题是很严重的。每个人都必须帮助解决这个问题。没有人敢于用危险的同情心来延长痛苦的时间。

自我批评与批评同样重要，甚至比批评更重要。一个人不能仅仅透露他的想法。他必须详细说明他认为这些想法是错误的令人信服的理由。有人认为，只有这样，他才能避免继续思考，从而避免以旧的、不正确的方式行事。如果他的伙伴们觉得他的自我批评是真实的，尽管并不深刻，他们会再次以理性、安静和友好的方式，帮助他更深入地了解自己的问题。然而，如果他们觉得他的自我批评是为了逃避批评而采取的一种诡计，那么将大力帮助罪犯，必要时对其进行言语攻击，直到他的伙伴们相信他已经开始看到曙光。

有哪些因素会使小组学习--尽管经常是紧张和痛苦的--变得有效？首先，是人类对归属感的基本需求，以实现和保持情感平衡。在中国，不思进取不仅是一种政治判决；也是社会自杀。第二，不断重复正确的观点，特别是将其应用于对自己和他人问题的公开分析，意味着人们不得不对其进行详细的审查。共产党人意识到了这一点的价值。"他们说："从习惯或装腔作势中，它可能成为现实。"第三--这一点常常被外部观察者所忽视--是贯穿所有关于政治、社会和经济步骤的讨论的十字军理想主义，强烈的道德感。既然让中国变得崭新和强大以承担其早该承担的大国地位显然是正确的，那么实行集体化以实现机械化和提高农业生产就是正确的。做一个斯巴达人，不要求更高的工资，以便更多的精力投入到新的工厂中去，报告反对给5亿农民带来医药、学校教育和安全的党是正确的，抵制美国在朝鲜的 "侵略企图 "是正确的，妇女应该获得解放是正确的。第四，正如党的最高发言人所坦率地承认的那样，有一个普遍的知识，即从长远来看，除了正确的路线之外，没有其他路线是开放的。试图通过默契的契约来避免小组学习的紧张气氛，通过例行公事或坚持寒暄，不仅被领导者与当局的关系所阻挡，而且被一种始终存在的可能性所阻挡，即一些成员，不管是出于真正的心灵变化还是出于赢得官方青睐的自私企图，都可能会举报小组。因此，存在着巨大的压力，既要保持一致，又要想保持一致。

然而，最重要的是一种民族主义意识，一种对中国自信和成就的新姿态的爱国自豪感。1948年，中国在经济上因通货膨胀失控而一蹶不振，由一个完全依赖美国援助的软弱和腐败的政府管理，没有能力生产摩托车，更不用说汽车，现在却能在朝鲜与联合国打成平手，保持世界第四大空军，生产卡车和喷气式飞机，甚至建立核反应堆，这对中国人来说是一个令人陶醉的景象。这种自豪感反过来又产生了一个非常有效和自发的公共诚实、礼貌和公民意识的准则，这在旧中国是不存在的。被问及一个不正确的想法是否真的配得上新中国，会让人感到内疚。成千上万的人问自己，"我有什么权利不同意那些能取得如此大成就的人？" 正如一位英语教授回忆起中国的内部解体和国际屈辱，在1951年春天向我解释说："现在我们又可以为自己是中国人而感到自豪了！"

这个人是耶鲁大学的文科硕士，二战期间曾在哈佛大学的一个军队语言项目中任教，了解并喜欢美国。他不是左翼爱好者，在共产党执政初期，他对共产党的看法很迟钝，但当他们控制了国家，消除了通货膨胀，改善了大学的物质条件，并敢于废除不平等条约时，他自豪地认同了新中国的存在。对他来说，集体学习是一种刺激。他认为这加速了对他不受欢迎的资产阶级自由主义的清除，促进了新的社会主义思想的发展。他曾经喜欢过《动物庄园》，但到了1951年中期，他拒绝了《1984》，尽管他的妻子--上海一所美国大学的毕业生--没有这样做。

同一所大学1948级的告别演说者--共产党接管前的最后一届毕业生--是一位出色的国际事务学生。他的英语很好，法语和日语也可以。他炽热的理想主义使他在中学生时期就开始信奉基督教。后来，在大学里，它使他加入了学生运动，在国民党垮台前的最后几年，该运动由左派主导。共产党上台后的几个月里，他深感不安。他的爱国主义对共产党人的保证和活力感到兴奋。他的其他方面对他们攻击他所认同的习惯和思维模式，包括他的基督教信仰，感到恐惧。

一个炎热的夏天，他来找我。他说："我研究了又研究，"他用中国的术语hsüeh-hsi，"思考了又思考。我已经开始感觉到，共产党的好处比基督教会的好处多。如果我能够在这一点上满足自己，我就会入党。" 不久之后，他告诉我，他已经加入了。"现在你是一名党员，"我问，"你认为小组学习仍然值得你去做吗？" "哦，是的，"他回答说，他的眼睛里燃烧着富有感染力的热情，"它是不可或缺的。"

小组学习甚至可以是令人振奋的，特别是对于那些被严厉批评或斗争过的人来说，他们承认了自己的错误，并被重新接纳到小组的团契中。我的好朋友，一位年轻的前基督教女青年会秘书，只是一个例子。她是一个受过日本训练的验光师的女儿，在第二次世界大战结束时从北京的天主教大学毕业。作为一名新教徒，她为基督教女青年会工作，并很快与战后回到北京的年轻美国学生和外交人员关系密切。她被调离了一段时间，于1950年初回到北京，加入了人民政府的中央救济局。她很苦闷。她对政府的物质进步表示欢迎，但觉得代价太高，包括制度化、控制思想、要求集体学习、反美主义等方面。"她说："我愿意去世界上任何一个没有集体学习的地方"。

从本质上讲，我的朋友对这个政权的保留意见是非常明显的。她无法融入中国的主流生活，因此与之隔绝。她的中国朋友恳求她重新考虑她的态度，特别是她与我的关系，因为到1951年初，我已经被怀疑了。她的西方朋友知道她离开中国的可能性不大，不得不劝她妥协。但她仍然对她的标准和她的朋友保持着强烈的忠诚。为此，她最终因我的原因与我关在同一个牢房里。

在监狱里和在外面一样，她的诚实和勇气很快赢得了狱警和囚犯的尊重。她没有装腔作势。她对作为美国间谍而被共产党逮捕的我的善意是不显眼的，但如果被发现，她会勇敢地承认这些。在她的生活中，她第一次见到了来自中国各行各业的人，这些人与她自己不同，没有受过教育，没有与外国人接触过，完全是中国人。有些人在难以置信的情况下取得了惊人的成就。她开始看到她的祖国的一个新的层面，感觉到它的希望就在自己身上。她不再觉得中国在某种程度上比西方差。她开始发现自己的中国身份。但是，她的思维习惯，她对问题的两面性的渴望，进行公正的调查，她不愿意被束缚，特别是她对她的老朋友的忠诚，死得很难看，她有一两次受到了短暂的抗争。

我看到的结果是一种宣泄。她的观点改变了，她对过去的朋友和协会的评价也随之改变。她仍然像以前一样勇敢、公正、诚实，但她的参考框架是新的。在帮助过她的细胞小组中，喜悦和良好的感觉是巨大而重要的。帮助者们为一只黑羊被带回家而欢欣鼓舞。她为实现精神整合的心理安慰而高兴。随后，对小团体和更大的社会产生了非常积极的认同和感激之情。

所有的国家宣传手段，包括小组学习机制，都会不时地将整个民族的思维集中在特定的经济、政治或意识形态问题上，开展伟大的运动或活动。这些运动是共产党人决心建立的一元化正统观念的基石。粗略地说，它们分为两类。一类的主要目的是诋毁一些不利于共产主义目标的现有思想、团体或制度。第二类的目的是解释一些即将颁布的计划或一些共产党人认为必须被普遍理解的理论。

宣传活动通常以报纸上的一系列文章和社论开始。因为在中国，读报是一项政治义务，而且当天的项目经常在学习小组中讨论，一个比平时更受关注的主题将开始被讨论。这样，就产生了进一步学习的需求，而这方面的材料和指示很快就会出现。这场可能持续数月的运动就开始了。

如果目的是诋毁，最初的文章将是对要攻击的罪恶的揭露。某个人、某个团体或某个口号会成为一种象征。每个组织、办公室、工厂、学校、军事单位等都会展开一场激烈的运动，在自己的队伍中寻找例子。如果官僚主义、命令主义、奢侈、胆小等概念受到抨击，这些概念的公然表现肯定会在每个组织中找到，而且大多数人都会承认自己有类似的倾向。严重的犯罪者需要检查他们的思想，以发现导致他们这样做的原因。那些检查结果不令人满意的人被带到组织的公开会议上，这可能会变成一场斗争会议。根据运动的性质、罪行和组织帮助的结果，他们可能会被还押反省、监督、专门的全日制学习，或者在涉及犯罪的严重情况下，被送入监狱，在那里强化思想改造和惩罚相结合。其目的是通过批评进行救赎。对地主和反革命分子实行即决裁判的群众控告会，特别是在政权的早期，与教育公众的运动结合起来使用。

在类似打击反革命分子的运动中，并不是说每个组织都藏有叛徒。但是，每个研究小组不仅要讨论政府提出的事实，还要讨论什么样的思想会产生这种行为。然后，该小组将在自己身上寻找同样的痕迹。因此，反对反革命分子的运动提供了许多方面的教育。显示反革命分子是如何为剥削阶级服务的，这就提出了整个阶级问题和阶级斗争的性质。反革命分子对国家所体现的共同利益的背叛，成为公民的意义和义务的客观教训；国家的敌人，无论是朋友还是亲属，都必须被举报。揪出反革命分子的难度强调了培养高水平的政治意识的必要性。颁布处理反革命分子的法规表明，严厉的待遇和死亡是留给那些不忏悔和改革的人的事实。对于那些认罪和忏悔的人，则会有宽大的处理。因此，1957-1958年的反右派和整风运动也被用来进一步教育全国人民，使他们了解党在所有事情上的正确性。1957年早些时候在百花齐放时期提出的批评意见被驳斥和否定。一场新的向党献身的运动随之展开。


解释运动主要强调共产主义理论，该理论使即将发生的经济或政治变化是不可避免的和公正的。少数运动，如早期的斯德哥尔摩和平呼吁运动或目前的仇恨美国运动，基本上是以意识形态为目的的，与任何即将发生的变化无关。其他运动，如著名的抵制美国、援助朝鲜运动，既是为了诋毁，也是为了动员。

在中国，体力劳动在思想改革中发挥着重要作用。共产党人援引马克思主义对劳动尊严的坚持，认为劳动是所有价值和财富的来源，努力对抗中国传统上对体力劳动的强烈蔑视。他们决心否定孔子在2500年前制定的中国思想的一个基本原则。"谁用他的头脑工作，谁就能统治；谁用他的手工作，谁就能被统治。" 在改造犯人和地主的过程中，劳动改造与学习改造并驾齐驱。在北京的政治监狱里，只有在达到一定的学习改造水平后，才有权利进行劳动。

长期以来，知识分子、城市办公室工作人员和政府干部、商人、资本家和学生都被敦促在周末和节假日做义务劳动。在过去几年中，为了打破对劳动的偏见，提高对无产阶级领导能力的赞赏，定期指派大批人员到农业和工厂工作，这是一个巨大的尝试。

思想改造的效果如何？没有简单的答案是可能的，因为它随着人口的不同部分而变化。共产党人强调，思想改革是一项刚刚开始的漫长而艰巨的任务；即使在理论上，不需要改革的完美心态也必须等待一个完美的社会。

特别是在政权的早期，通过学习进行灌输的组织程度有很大的不同，从农民中的非常松散到明确规定的机构中的非常紧密，如办公室、工厂、学校和军队。一旦在农村建立了合作社，更密集的集体学习成为可能，在许多方面将农民非常积极地带入国家生活的模式。但是，正如最近的一份官方总结所承认的那样，许多农民并没有清楚地掌握国家、合作社和个体户之间的关系；一些人仍然怀有 "个人和团体的排他性，无视国家和集体的利益"。一些富裕的农民破坏或竞争合作社，抵制国家粮食政策。除非能在农民中培养和保持高度的政治和社会意识，否则，随着公社的建立和所有权变得更加不近人情，他们有可能对为公社工作不再感兴趣，就像他们为地主工作一样，而是将他们的最大努力留给他们最近得到保障的私人地块。

在工人中，共产党人声称--而且报告也倾向于证实--思想状况普遍良好。但是，工人阶级以外的人员涌入劳动大军，使共产党人要求推动帮助工人 "认识到他们必须在共产党的领导下，不断提高自己的社会觉悟......发扬艰苦奋斗的优良传统，保持公正无私的高尚品格，努力生产，厉行节约，厉行节约。" 请注意，使用的是 "提高"，而不是 "改造"，因为根据使工人成为任何共产主义革命的领导者的理论，工人阶级的心态顾名思义是正确的。

在共产党人所说的 "资产阶级 "和 "资产阶级知识分子 "中，对意识形态重塑的抵抗一直很强烈。两者都是非常广泛的术语。"资产阶级 "大致包括所有单人表演以上的私营企业和富裕的农民。"资产阶级知识分子 "与其说是蛋头，不如说是指所有学生、技术人员和高中以上的专家、科学家、专业人员和大学人员。从一开始，共产党人就意识到，这些群体通常在秩序中拥有最大的利益，会被证明是最麻烦的，因此特别关注他们的改革。

通过改革资产阶级成员来摧毁资产阶级已被宣布为革命纲领的基本原则。因此，思想改革涉及到把他们变成自己葬礼上的自愿护柩者。1951-1952年的五反运动（反对贿赂、逃税、盗窃国家财产、欺骗政府合同、泄露政府经济机密），旨在诋毁为私人利润而生产的不负责任的自私行为，大大削弱了资产阶级的经济地位。许多个月来，他们被要求研究、检查，并特别强烈地忏悔他们思想和行为的错误。自1953年以来，一个为处理资产阶级并为他们有偿融入社会主义经济铺平道路而成立的机构进行了彻底的思想教育，敦促他们必须遵守法律，接受社会主义改造，接受毛泽东的教诲，以及爱国主义。该集团不断地组织资产阶级参加爱国主义和社会运动。但是，尽管资产阶级没有抵制1956年的社会主义改造，他们也没有得到改革，至少在触及他们的经济作用的领域。共产党人坦率地说，大多数人已经认识到，反对无产阶级是没有出路的。但他们承认，大多数资产阶级和资产阶级知识分子 "不愿意接受无产阶级和共产党的领导"。


最难改造的是高级知识分子--科学家、教授之类的人。他们拥有共产党人所缺乏和需要的知识和技能，但对共产党人的教条主义和干涉没有什么耐心。过去十年中，共产党对这一战略群体的政策一直旨在确保最有效地利用其知识。共产党人朝着这个目标稳步前进，现在攻击，现在联合，现在批评。同时，他们正在招募自己的红色知识分子，但还没有时间去培训一个既是红色又是专家的新群体。

知识分子的重要性和顽固性，主要是面向西方的，而且往往是由美国人培训的，使他们受到了比适用于任何其他部分人口的更激烈和持续的改革。和其他人一样，他们也经历了十年的集体学习。由于许多人来自地主家庭，他们在土地重新分配期间被派往农村，这种经历在大多数情况下似乎决定性地改变了他们对地主的态度。参加抗美援朝运动和中苏友好协会等活动，应该有助于将他们对西方的同情转变为对苏联的钦佩。很难评估这些举措到底有多成功，但应该顺便指出，过去十年美国对中国的强硬立场并没有鼓励美国在中国的敏感和民族主义朋友，而是不知不觉地落入了共产党的手中。


经过两年的温柔讨好，共产党在1951年底加强了对知识分子的意识形态改造。数以千计的人被集中到专门的改革中心，对其他人的集体学习也大大加强了。这种强硬路线一直持续到1955年。到1956年，党对知识分子在粗暴的教条主义、无知的干部的傲慢以及耗时的集体学习和公开会议下的消极反应感到严重不安。周恩来承认在处理知识分子方面的错误，估计只有40％的人积极支持政权。随之而来的是放松。政府从物质上改善了知识分子的生活和工作条件，礼貌地尊重他们，敦促他们自由而坦率地发表意见，甚至批评。知识分子们很感激，但也很警惕。

最后，经过一年多的温和劝说和警惕等待，批判的百花在1957年5月8日至6月8日的短短一个月内疯狂绽放。一个接一个的知识分子对党的一元化权力、党和国家的认同、与小党派联合执政的假象、党的干部的无能和傲慢进行了尖锐的抨击。知识分子抱怨职位高而无权，抱怨党对教育和研究的干预所带来的破坏性影响，以及一些不限于共产主义社会的事情--以安全为由拒绝获取研究数据。他们质疑马克思列宁主义的无误性。他们称党没有能力领导科学、教育和艺术。他们宣称，党的官僚主义比资本主义更糟糕。尽管这些批评很有力，但它们的目的不是要推翻政府。相反，他们的目的是使政府真正民主，有民主保障和分享政治权力。知识分子在本质上要求将党和政府、党和技术工作分开。


共产党的反应是迅速的。批评者被自动认定为右派，并开展了整风运动。1957年底，著名的批评家被迫公开忏悔，并被开除公职，但显然没有被监禁或处决。较小的声音则承认并重申他们对党的支持。1958年带来了一个新的，而且在许多方面都是前所未有的严格的正统观念。1959年1月，一位高级官员得出结论，知识分子在拖后腿，普遍对自我约束感到厌倦。

因为疲惫和怨恨的知识分子不会释放出他们全部的创造力，所以1959年初的策略再次转向劝说。许多在1957年被开除的人被恢复了职务，尽管最近有迹象表明有了新的收紧。党的发言人强调，"我们必须进行长期的、经常性的、耐心的、微妙的和有说服力的教育。"至少还需要十年--也许更长的时间--因为资产阶级知识分子不仅仅是那些旧社会遗留下来的，时间的消磨可以使他们消失；最近接受培训的人也获得了同样的观点。

未来如何？毛泽东已经宣布，将定期开展整风运动。"他说："思想改革，"是一项长期的、巨大的、复杂的任务。由于斗争将继续经历起伏，我们在工作中既要有紧张的时刻，也要有松懈的时刻，要按之字形进行。"


说共产党人没有使中国人成为完整的马克思主义者，并不足以得出结论说在中国人民眼中他们失败了，或者说火山般的不满情绪在表面下酝酿着，正在努力爆发。共产党十年来的成就所产生的某些期望将持续存在；某些态度已经被共产党的教育永久地改造了。民族自豪感和尊严感，对诚实和高效政府的期望将继续存在。通过集体学习和多种集体生活和工作的经验，中国人已经并将继续意识到各种社会因素的相互关系。他们可能不同意共产党的解释，但用孙中山的话说，中国像一片没有凝聚力的散沙的日子已经过去了。社会各阶层对现代化的渴求，对有序的、有计划的、加速的经济发展的渴求，是无法消解的。农民可能不喜欢公社的制度化，但他并不希望回到他在旧秩序中不受保护的地位，而是希望有更多的自由来利用土地再分配、和平、市场稳定以及政府在种子和肥料方面的技术援助所带来的好处来为自己谋利。他想吃自己的蛋糕，也想吃它。

公众对适当的卫生和福利系统以及教育的需求不会减少。店主可能对被社会化不太满意，但他还是感谢他的儿子可以完成学业，如果有能力，甚至可以上大学。反对把孩子放在国家托儿所以便她能被解放出来工作的妇女，仍然对公共卫生的真正改善表示感谢。正如百花运动所显示的那样，许多地区的反对和激烈的批评与其说是要求恢复旧秩序，不如说是要求在更广泛的而不完全是共产党的领导下修改新秩序。


最近从中国回来的观察家们报告说，在本世纪初如此盛行的理想主义和牺牲精神正在逐渐消退。现在人民对更多物质利益的渴望越来越强烈。具有讽刺意味的是，共产党人被自己的成功所困。工业化的巨大进步释放了巨大的、甚至是不成熟的期望，共产党人将不得不在他们的经济规划和他们的集体学习计划中处理这些期望。

迄今为止，集体学习的成功在很大程度上取决于它对道德和爱国主义呼吁的援引。在未来，这些可能是不够的。如果该系统要继续有效，共产党人将不得不为思想改革找到一个新的重点，或者诉诸更多的压力。历史上最有力的意识形态改革机制的发明者如何应对这一挑战，将是未来十年的一个重要故事。