The Chinese Anarchist Movement

Posted by apoc
June 22, 2007

By R. Scalapino and G. T. Yu

1961

EDITOR’S NOTE

The death of Shih Fu removed a dynamic figure from the Chinese Anarchist Movement and certainly damaged it severely However, organizational efforts not only went forward between 1916 and 1920, but in some respects, anarchist thought had its greatest influence upon young Chinese intellectuals during this period. Anarchist societies continued or were formed in Peking, Nanking, Shensi, and Shanghai.[127] During this period, anarchist thought and writings penetrated deeply into student circles at Peking University and elsewhere. Student journals such as Chin-hua (Evolution), Hsin ch’ao (New Currents ), and Kuo-min (The Citizen), carried the admixture of Anarchist, Socialist, and democratic ideas that were now flowing into China.[128] A lack of funds and governmental restrictions made it difficult to keep the student and intellectual journals alive It was possible, however, to have study groups, reading circles, and individual correspondence. And Peking [Beijing] was now unquestionably the center of such activities. Through these channels. Anarchism was a strong force, perhaps the dominant one, among the radical avant garde as World War I ended. Indeed, when the Bolsheviks made their first overtures to the Chinese intellectuals, it was inevitable that they would have intimate contact with the Anarchists in China, just as they did in Japan.[129]

THE WORK-STUDY MOVEMENT

A New Project

In this same period. the Paris Anarchist Group were engaged in another work-study project to send Chinese students to France. While this project in some senses was related only peripherally to the Chinese Anarchist Movement, still no study of that movement would be complete without giving attention to the new French program.

As we noted earlier, some of the young Paris Anarchist Group, notably Chang Ching-chiang and Li Shth-tseng, had used family funds to launch a few enterprises in the period after 1905. Thus they enabled the employment of comrades from home who could simultaneously acquire an education As has also been indicated, men like Chang and Li came home from Europe as Francophiles in addition to being Anarchists. They continued to harbor the hope that as many Chinese students as possible would have the opportunities for a French education. It is interesting to note some of their arguments as to why France was an ideal area for Chinese overseas education.[130] First, French education, they asserted, had long been separated from the superstitions of monarchy and religion. In France, the monarchy had vanished and the French Revolution stood as a monument to human liberty. Moreover, the required study of religion had been abolished in 1886, with a further separation of church and state being initiated in 1907.[131] Also, French education was relatively cheap and the French people were generous to foreigners. In terms of “deep knowledge,” moreover, while each Western country had its speciality, the French were most famous for the wide range of their scholarship and its originality. The pre-eminence of French science was illustrated by the nearly universal use of French measurements and the large roster of famous French scientists. But French achievements were equally noted in the humanities; where else could one find men like Montesquieu and Rousseau?[132]

“Frugal Study” in France

To forward their causes Wu Chih-hui, Wang Ching-wei, Li Shih-tseng, Chang Ching-chiang, Chtu Min-i, Chang Chi, and Chi Chu-shan founded the Liu-Fachien-hsueh Hui. “The Society for Frugal Study in France.” in 1912. The second phase of the overseas work-study movement had begun. The purpose of the Frugal Study Society was to promote simple living and low costs for the students, thus enabling them to find the means to go to France and remain there for the time necessary to complete their studies. There was no compulsion upon the student to work, incidentally, if he had the necessary funds. The Society also undertook to provide some advance language training and indoctrination for life and study abroad.[133]

A preparatory school was established in Peking [Beijing], with Chi Chushan in charge and one Frenchman was hired as an instructor. Fortunately, Tstai Yuan-p’ei was currently serving as Minister of Education with the Peking [Beijing] government, and he provided the school with quarters. To join the Society or participate in the school, one had to be over fourteen years of age unless he was in the company of parents. In good Anarchist fashion, the Society had no officers. Instead, a few “workers” were selected by the members to carry our specific functions. Nor were there any dues other than the necessary educational costs and needed expenses which were supposedly met through the “mutual aid” of all comrades In some respects, this was another scheme for anarchism in action.

Students were to travel to France via the Siberian railway. The trip took about eighteen days, and cost approximately two hundred dollars. Food and lodging were to be arranged either through the school or in some other organized quarters. The full costs were set at five or six hundred dollars yearly, although this sum included travel and clothing. Students were expected to commit themselves to at least three years of foreign schooling and the type of education they were to undertake was determined by the number of years they agreed to spend abroad. The emphasis, however, was to be upon science and technical subjects, not upon politics, law, or military studies. Students were not to visit prostitutes, smoke, drink, or gamble. The regulations concluded with the hope that through this program, scholars would be created who were frugal in their living habits, pure in their character, and possessed of skills to match their intelligence.[134]

It is not difficult to see the Anarchist themes shining through. The Peking [Beijing] Preparatory School opened in the spring of 1912. It had some interesting rules. The curriculum consisted of French (taught by the Frenchmen), Chinese, and mathematics. Various comrades (notably the Paris veterans) were invited to speak before the school. The term was fixed at six months, with an examination at the conclusion. Those who passed were to be sent to France under the auspices of the Society. Expenses would be assumed by the comrades. The tuition for the Peking [Beijing] school was determined by the number of students each term; if there were twenty students, each would pay eight dollars per month, but if there were forty, the tuition would be reduced to six dollars per month. As might have been expected, French proved a difficult language for the students to master, and a number became discouraged. However, almost one hundred individuals were sent to France before political changes in 1913 forced Ts’ai out as Minister of Education and caused the school to be closed.[135] A Frugal Study Society had also been established for England, and some twenty students sent there. This project was initiated by Chang Ching-chiang, and managed by Wu Chih-hui in London during part of this period.

The failure of the nationalist revolution and the rise of Yuan Shih-k’ai seriously interfered with the Frugal Study Movement. Moreover, with the outbreak of the European war, Chinese students could not be sent to France. Hence, organized activities in China were largely abandoned although Li and some others continued to propagate the cause. As the war dragged on, however, France began to face an acute manpower shortage. Consequently, the French government negotiated with the Chinese government for Chinese workers. Tens of thousands of laborers were sent. Under these circumstances, Li and his friends saw another opportunity whereby they could recruit students willing to work in order to study abroad. The hope was that for each year’s work, a Chinese student would be able to afford two years’ study.

The “Diligent Work-Frugal Study” Movement

Thus in June 1915, the old Paris Anarchist Group and their supporters organized a new society, Ch’in-kung chien-hseh Hui, “The Association for Diligent Work and Frugal Study.”[l36] In the earlier Society, as was noted, there had been no special pre mium upon the students working if funds could be acquired by other means. This new program was specifically geared to a work-study movement. However, other categories of students continued to go to France: those with private means and a few with government scholarships.[137] In 1916, Li was able to conclude an agreement with French authorities for his own recruitment program. Once again, preparatory schools were opened in Peking [Beijing] and elsewhere. The Diligent Work-Frugal Study Association also established branches in various Chinese cities. In addition, certain Frenchmen cooperated with the old Paris group to found the Sino-French Educational Association. Ts’ai was made head, and Li served as secretary. In France, this Association was to make arrangements for the students, and help them with their problems. In China, it was to help in recruitment and general cultural relations. Headquarters were established in Peking [Beijing], with branches in Canton, Shanghai, and other areas.

By 1917, the work-study movement had spread to a number of Chinese provinces, and had widespread intellectual support, Moreover, prospective students, thrilled by the possibility of overseas study, were willing to do almost anything to get this opportunity. Ho Ch’ang-kung has written an account of particular interest concerning his own experience in the work-study movement of this period.[138] In the winter of 1917, he was attending a technical school in Changsha, Hunan province, one term away from graduation and worried about the future. Suddenly, his elementary school teacher and friend, Lo Hsi-wen, returned from Canton, having made contact there with the work-study branch office and Huang Ch’iang, who was operating it. Immediately, Lo wrote Tstai and Li in Peking. They responded by urging Lo to found a preparatory school in Hunan, but the provincial government at Changsha refused to help.

Discouraged, Lo and a friend, Tai Hsun, decided to go directly to Peking [Bejing]in February 1918. During the spring, they had conversations with Li on how funds could be obtained to aid the students from Hunan who wanted to go overseas. Ultimately the overseas Workers Department of the government agreed to loan some money. Thus, in the summer of 1918, a message went out to the students back home to come to Peking [Beijing]. Several groups arrived as quickly as they could make arrangements; and the group of twelve that arrived on July 19 included a young man named Mao Tse-tung [Ze-dong].

Shortly thereafter, Ts’ai, Li, and other representatives of the Sino-French Educational Association met with representatives of the Hunan students to discuss schooling and funds. Li told the students that the overseas Workers Department had been willing to extend funds to the Association because of the large number of Chinese laborers in France and their need for educational guidance; otherwise, foreigners would get a bad impression of Chinese. Since the government could not afford to send teachers abroad, the most simple method was to loan some transportation funds to students, who would be expected to continue their studies and teach the Chinese laborers in France. When the first class of thirty students (northerners) had repaid the loan (Li hoped it would be within five months after their arrival in France), then the next class could follow. In this manner, two classes a year would be able to go to France.

The number of Hunanese students who sought entry into preparatory school was actually so large according to Ho that three classes had to be established, one at Peking, the others at Pao-ting and Ch’ang-hsin-tien. Mao was in the Peking class; Liu Shao-chti was one of the sixty Hunanese at Pao-ting along with Li Wei-han. Of course not all of the students went abroad; neither Mao nor Liu made the trip. Ho reports that he spent one year at Ch’ang-hsin-tien, and that their schedule was to work in the mornings, attend school in the afternoons, and study in the evenings.

When Ho finally arrived in France in early 1920, he found some three hundred “diligent work-frugal study” students already in France. He recalls that there were several types of work-study arrangements. Some students worked part-time and studied part-time; others would work for a short period, three or six months, and then study until their savings were exhausted; some brought a small amount of money with them, studied until it was gone, and then sought a job. Ho’s arrival coincided with the flood-tide of students. At one point, they were arriving at the rate of one hundred per month.

The Decline of the Work-Study Movement

By the latter half of 1920, however, economic conditions in France had become troubled. There were problems of postwar dislocation and serious inflation. Unemployment was mounting. At first, the Sino-French Educational Association tried to take care of the unemployed Chinese students. But Ly the beginning of 1921, there were over 1000 students in France, the majority of whom had insufficient funds and little or no work. The Association did not have the money to provide for this number.[139] Many of the students suffered real hardships, going without proper food or clothing, and living under miserable conditions. Some even lived in tents in the garden of the Association’s Paris headquarters. Bitter conflicts ensued. Li Shth-tseng had returned to China in December 1919; Chang Chi also went back in June 1920. Ts’ai Yuan-p’ei came to France just in time to inherit the most difficult problems. As head of the Association, he finally announced on January 16, 1921, that they would no longer assume financial responsibility for the “diligent work and frugal study” students. Then the students sought help from the Chinese Legation in Paris. The Chinese government offered only to pay transportation costs home for those unable to raise these funds. The provincial governments at home also refused to help.

On February 28, 1921, several hundred Chinese students came to their Legation demanding that the government give them four hundred francs a month for a period up to four years. The French government at this point undertook to give some support to the student cause. In May, a special French-Chinese joint committee was founded to aid the worker-students. Funds were secured from various sources with both the Chinese and the French governments making contributions, as well as private donors. For a time, some eight hundred students received aid, in the amount of five francs daily. New complexities and disputes arose. Shortly, French and Chinese authorities combined to put pressures upon many students to return home, and to safeguard themselves in the future, the authorities also insisted upon a 5,000 Yuan guarantee from each prospective student. The “diligent work-frugal study” idea was ending rather badly. In September 1921, the joint committee was abolished and financial aid was stopped on October 15.

Meanwhile, another incident had occurred in connection with “Lyons University, ” the so-called Chinese overseas university in France. This project, initiated by Wu Chih-hui, had the support of Ch’en Chiung-ming and others. The idea was to establish a special institution for Chinese students in France, and Wu was to serve as president. A dispute arose over who should be allowed to attend. Wu insisted that this project was separate from the “diligent work-frugal study” movement, partly because the money for Lyons University was being put up by certain provinces, and so only students from those areas, selected by him, were eligible. Wu arrived with his students at the end of September, 1921. At about the same time, over one hundred of the work-study students left Paris for Lyons, determined to obtain quarters on the campus. They included Ts’ai Ho-shen, Li Li-san, Li Wei-han, and Ch’en I. When they arrived in Lyons, they forced their way into the “University ” houses. Lyons police removed them, and put them temporarily in some military barracks. Negotiations with Wu began, but while these were going on, the French police suddenly rounded up the detained students, shipped them to Marseilles, and put them forcibly aboard a ship sailing for China. One hundred and four students, including Ts’ai Ho-shen, Li Li-san, and Ch’en I were returned in this fashion.

These experiences, quite as much as contact with Western ideas, may have induced radicalism among the Chinese overseas students of this period. It is interesting to read the memoirs of yet another student, Sheng Ch’eng.[140] Sheng departed from Shanghai for Europe on October 22, 1919. When he reached Paris, he quickly observed that Li Shih-tseng was in complete charge of the work-study movement. But he received little aid from the Sino-French Educational Association. In this period, a student got a tent in their garden and a small “maintenance fee. ” Everyone naturally wanted to get out of a tent, reported Sheng, and thus any announcement that a few workers were needed somewhere was always greeted with joy. But a worker-student had to pass a very rigorous test before being accepted for employment. Sheng recalled that all the students had great respect for Li, but most were dissatisfied with the Association, largely because it seemed to have few contacts and could not find them employment.Although Sheng received some funds from home, these were insufficient and so he went to work in a lumber factory. But he spent his evenings reading Marx, Kropotkin, and other revolutionaries who gave him “theoretical guidance” to match his practical experience. “I was slowly turning into a Socialist with a bent toward Anarchism, ” he wrote.[141] Soon Sheng lost his job, and joined the ranks of the unemployed. In June 1920, Wu Chih-hui came to Paris, and Sheng reported that the students looked to him for salvation. But no salvation was forthcoming. Wu insisted that a distinction had to be made between the work-study movement and the Sino-French Educational Association on the one hand, and the Lyons University project on the other. The former, Wu asserted, was the responsibility of Li and his associates; the latter was his program. It was at this point that the students set up their own organization and among other things, requested the Sino-French Education Association in China to stop sending more students to France. But little came of these actions. Wu returned to China and more students continued to come.

“We are not like other political parties
which have plans and policies Following the overthrow of governments
and the attainment of Anarchism, there will be no Anarchist party.”
[125]

Later, Wu Chih-hui was to write:

“Since the death of Shih Fu, the Anarchist Party of China has been scattered and indifferent it seems as if Shih Fu’s death from tuberculosis has caused the Chinese Anarchist Party to suffer also from this disease.”[126]

THE WORK-STUDY MOVEMENT

A New Project

“Frugal Study” in France

The “Diligent Work-Frugal Study” Movement

The Decline of the Work-Study Movement

Sheng gave a graphic account of the mounting tension in 1921 among the Chinese students in France. When the Association washed its hands of the students, he reported, the French government provided some assistance. But the February demonstration before the Chinese Legation resulted in violence, and Chinese students battled with French police. There was also fighting in June. The students were becoming more militant and more radical. Both French and Chinese authorities were becoming more hostile. And according to Sheng, “Lyons University” was nothing but a few houses which cost seventy thousand yuan. A nine year lease had been signed, but the houses were never used for more than living quarters:

“In the fall of 1922, the Peking government finally sent one hundred-thousand Yuan to the Paris Sino-French Educational Association to aid the students. Now the Association, which had previously been little more than an address to which one had one’s mail sent, suddenly became active. Under its secretary, Li Kuang-han, a committee was established to distribute the money. Unfortunately, Li pocketed some of the money and disappeared. But on the whole, the conditions of the students improved.” [142]

In the February, 1923 issue of Hsin Chiao-y, (The New Education), there appeared an interesting letter from the headquarters of the Chinese Students Association in Paris.[143] According to its authors, the basic problem remained French industrial decline, and the difficulty under these circumstances of competing with French workers, especially when attempting to go to school. Over one hundred Chinese students had died during the past three years as a result of conditions, asserted the writers. Since the government sent one hundred thousand yuan last year (out of two hundred thousand yuan appropriated), there had been some relief. About nine hundred students had been helped, each receiving approximately one thousand francs; but this represented only one-half of the amount needed.

The letter asserted that a census taken in the fall of 1922 indicated that there were some 920 worker-students currently in France. All had graduated previously from Chinese high schools. Since arriving in France, they had been able to obtain two to three years schooling after engaging in work. This amount of time, the writers maintained, was insufficient. Five years of education should be a minimum. Chinese government students were receiving eight hundred francs a month, it was stated. If the worker-students could receive one-third of that amount, and hope for some additional provincial government support, they would be satisfied. The letter ended with a proposal that the Boxer Indemnity Fund which France had lately agreed could be used for Sino-French educational purposes, be allocated to this cause.

THE ANARCHIST CONFLICT WITH MARXISM

Ou Sheng-pai vs. Ch’en Tu-hsiu

These problems with the work-study movement in France were complicated when Marxist-Leninists began to try to take control of the Chinese student movement. The Anarchists had hoped that many students would feel the pull of the same ideological and political currents that had captured them a decade or more earlier. The impact of this program was very substantial and some of the students of this period did gravitate toward Anarchism.

But, according to Liang Ping-hsien, the Chinese Communist Party began to organize in France during this period.[144] By 1922, the chief worker-student organization, the Work-Study Mutual Assistance Group, was controlled by Communist students.[145] In the winter of 1921, certain worker-students led by Wang Jo-fei, Chao Shih-yen, and Ch’en Yen-nien, organized a Socialist Youth Corps in Paris. It attracted a number of members and immediately established contact with the embryonic Chinese Communist Party which had held its first Congress in July 1921. In August 1922, this Corps served as the nucleus for the organization of a Main Branch of the Chinese Communist Party in Europe.[146] Chou En-lai came from Germany to Paris especially to participate in the founding meeting, and was elected a committeeman along with such other students as the three Youth Corps leaders mentioned above. The Chinese Anarchist students engaged the Communists in heated debates, but the latter were steadily gaining ground.

Indeed, after 1920, Communism became a truly formidable opponent to Anarchism, and the crescendo of debate within “progressive” circles rose. For the Communists, Ch’en Tu-hsiu quickly emerged as the leading spokesman. He fought one lengthy literary duel with the Anarchist Ou Sheng-pai, and fortunately their exchanges have been preserved.[147] To read them is both fascinating and instructive.

Let us first examine some of Ch’en’s major arguments against Anarchism as presented in these writings. One line of attack was that Anarchism had neither the capacity to wage successful revolution nor the capacity to hold power successfully in the aftermath of a revolution.[148] Revolution, he argued, could not be advanced by reliance upon separate, atomized units of undisciplined men. And if in the aftermath of a revolution, Kropotkin’s system of free federation were adopted instead of Lenin’s dictatorship of the proletariat, the Capitalists would soon regain their position. Frequently, Ch’en concerned himself with the nature of man and the basis of authority, those two most central questions to all political theory. Both he and Li Ta found the Anarchists too optimistic regarding human nature and too pessimistic regarding things political.[149] Not all men tended to be good, and even among those with such proclivities, many could not be reached by education during the Capitalist era. Some men were evil and reactionary; they could not be reformed. Until such men had been extinguished, any attempt to rule by virtue and education alone was unrealistic. Moreover, even people who could be salvaged eventually, were not to be trusted immediately after the overthrow of the old order. Thorough enlightenment - proper education - these things were not possible while militarists, tyrants, and Capitalists were in control.[l50]

Ch’en made some surprising statements about mass movements and revolutions truly in the hands of the common man. He acknowledged that the “May 4th Movement” had had beneficial results. But most mass movements were ugly and irrational, like the Boxer Rebellion. Mass psychology was a blind force. “No matter how great a scientist one may be, once he is thrown in with the masses, he loses all sense of reason.” [151] Ch’en was attempting to answer the Anarchist argument that a free society should be controlled not by laws but by the public will, as developed through “town hall” meetings and voluntary associations. “The public will,” argued Ch’en, thrives on emotionalism and can be built up through the skillful application of pressures. What is enlightened about the collective judgment of ignorant men?

Some of Ch’en’s most trenchant remarks were directly aimed at the Chinese people. They were guilty of corruption and backwardness. If they were to be saved, there had to be “strict interference” in economic and political matters There had to be an “enlightened despotism” both in name and in fact. The chief obstacle to this was the “lazy, wanton, illegal sort of free thought that forms a part of our people’s character.” [152]

Ch’en was Leninist in his rather extensive defense of authority and the state, and in his conspicuous doubts concerning the common man. Above all, he was Leninist in his espousal of vanguardism, an intellectual vanguardism that would shape and guide the common man until he could be trusted. There is no better way to see the authoritarian elements in Communist theory than to read the Communist polemics directed against the Anarchist. Ch’en pursued another theme with vigor Anarchism would have man return to primitivism. Economically, it would take him back to the era of handicraft industries. Politically, it would remove him to the days of tribalism.[153]

Ou Sheng-pai struck back at Ch’en forcefully. He argued that Syndicalism was a feasible method both of conducting revolution and of maintaining post-revolutionary power. Anarchism did not hesitate to use violence against evil. Why did Anarchists assassinate officials and seek to overthrow capitalist societies? But Anarchism was opposed to institutionalized power and law, because these forces inevitably resulted in indiscriminate oppression. Laws were dead. They were the fixed instrumentalities of the ruling class. Did laws stop officials from robbing people?[154]

Anarchism had as its central quest the freedom of every man. Ou, however, distinguished himself from the individualist branch of Anarchism. Freedom, as Bakunin had indicated long ago, did not have meaning without relation to society. It was not to be equated with rampant individualism. But freedom in society could be obtained only when law had been replaced by free contracts based upon common will. There was no conflict between freedom and association, argued Ou, because the key lay in Kropotkin’s concept of free contracts, and in the idea of free federation. And because each man would be free to join and free to withdraw, modern society could function without disruption.

Ou insisted that most men were “stubborn” because they had insufficient knowledge, and he professed much greater hope in education, both before and after the revolution than Ch’en. if an offender persisted in wrong-doing in an Anarchist society, Ou asserted, he would be asked to leave; and he insisted that there were no men so shameless as to disregard such a demand from the whole society. In answer to Ch’en’s remarks about mass movements and their motivating forces, Ou asserted that with the progress of science, the force of emotionalism among mankind would recede.[155] He looked toward a more rational man and a more rational world.

EDITOR’S FOOTNOTE

The authors of this text originally used the word “tutelage” for what Anarchists refer to as vanguardism. In the true sense of the word, “tutelage” is the practice of educating people to prepare them for revolution and not the practice of the Marxist-Leninist who advocated “enlightened despotism” because people were too stupid and lazy to instigate a revolution on their own. This is the elitist language of vanguardists who claim that dictatorship can create Socialism while, throughout history, it has only created tyranny.

The authors commented that “tutelage” was a part of Chinese culture, which it is. Chinese philosophical and religious systems (including those that were attacked by the Anarchists) are based on the teachings of people like Lao Tzu and Confucius who were regarded as great scholars by different groups of people. Tutelage was enlightenment through education.

This “tutelage” was part of the attractiveness of the Work-Study Movement and it was exploited by Marxist-Leninists who infiltrated the study groups to spread their doctrine. Maoism turns “tutelage” on its head through its “preceptoral” method of indoctrination and social control. “Preceptoral” means a system based on teaching. In Maoism, Mao, the Part, or those in Authority are right and if you don’t agree with them there is a contradiction which can only be solved by persuading you to agree with them. This is the basis for the idea of political “reeducation” camps. The object is to get a person to recant their beliefs much like what was done by the catholic Church during the Inquisition.

The Maoist method of recruiting uses a similar tactic. The person who the Maoist is trying to recruit is asked to recite their beliefs and then persuaded that working toward the objectives of the Maoist (Communist) Party will fulfill that persons beliefs and desires. The objective is to persuade you to do more and more until you are actually following the Maoist leaders at the expense of your original values, desires, work projects, etc.. Once they get you into their movement, they begin the process of trying to reeducate you by challenging your beliefs until you think like they do. It is a kind of brainwashing similar to that used by some religious cults.

The Chinese Communists used the same lies as the Bolsheviks to attack Anarchism. In 1922 they were accusing Anarchists of being primitivists while only a few years earlier Anarcho-Syndicalist propaganda had helped instigate worker self-management in Russia and Anarchist slogans had been parroted by the Bolsheviks. They claimed that Chinese people were technologically simple people, but the Russians had also been technologically simple people - defying Marx’s claim that revolution must happen in industrialized nations where workers are more technologically advanced.

The Chinese Communists claimed that people are incapable of managing their own affairs without despotism while Anarchists in the Ukraine had established an autonomous area of collectivized farming, worker self-management and free economic exchange from 1917-1921, a year before the Chinese Communist diatribes against Anarchists in Paris!

The Chinese Communists claimed that people couldn’t overthrow tyrants without their leadership when the Anarchist partisans had defeated the occupying armies of Germany and Austria-Hungary, aborted a counterrevolution by Ukrainian Nationalist troops, and defended their accomplishments against the attacks of the Russian Red Army under the command of Leon Trotsky. Trotsky sent inexperienced troops up against Anarchist partisans who had been engaged in guerilla warfare for 9 years - he told them the guerillas were merely “bandits.” The Anarchists were able to kill seven Red Army soldiers for every one of their losses until they finally ran out of troops and had to seek refuge in France.

NOTES

Edgar Snow, Red Star Over China,
London, 1937, p.149.
A recent study of Chinese students in Japan is entitled Chukokujin
Nihon ryugaku shi (An History of Chinese Students Studying
in Japan) by Saneto Keishu, Tokyo, 1960. This is an essentially factual
account.
Chu Ho-chung, “The Record of the European T’ung Meng Hui, in Lo
Chia-lun, (ed.), Ke-ming wen-hsien(Documents
of the Revolution), Vol. II, Taipei, 1953, pp. 251-270. See also Feng
Tzu-yu, “Chinese Students in Europe and the T`ung Meng Hui –Ho Chih-ts’ai’s
Account of the Beginning and End of the European T’ung Meng Hui,”
in Ke-ming i-shih (An Informal History of
the Revolution), Vol. II, Taipei, 1953, pp.132-141.
Shih-chieh-she (Le Monde), ed., L-Ou chiao-y yn-tung
(The Educational Movement in Europe), Tours, France, 1916, p. 49.
This is an extremely valuable source for the study of the Chinese
student movement in France, particularly the Anarchist-sponsored work-study
movement.
For an excellent, brief biography of Li Hung-tsao, see the account
written by Fang Chao-ying in Hummel, Arthur, (ed.) Eminent
Chinese of the Ch’ing Period, Washington, 1943, pp.471-2.
Chang was born in Chekiang province. His father became a successful
Shanghai business man, and when the elder Chang died, his son received
a sizeable inheritance. Physically, the young man was not strong,
but he had passionate political convictions. According to Feng Tzu-yu,
he secured the position of commercial attache in the Chinese Legation
in France by bribery. While Chang soon became acquainted with Western
Anarchism and secretly called himself a Chinese Anarchist, some students
feared that he might be a spy because of his government connections.
This was untrue, however. For these and other details of Chang’s life,
see Feng Tzu-yu, “The Master of the Hsin Shih-chi, Chang Ching-chiang,”
Ke-ming i -shih, op. cit., pp. 227 -230.
Chu, also a native of Chekiang, went to Japan in 1903, studying
political science and economics. He travelled to Europe in 1908, with
Chang, and shortly thereafter, became involved in the Anarchist Movement.
Chu was to remain in France until shortly after the outbreak of World
War I, when he returned to China. But a few years later, he went back
to Paris to study medicine and pharmacy. In this period, he participated
in the establishment of the “University of Lyons” which will be discussed
later. Chu’s life ended in tragedy. After many years of service to
the Kuomintang, in 1939 he threw in his lot with his old friend, Wang
Ching-wei, and accepted the post of Minister of Foreign Affairs in
Wang’s Nanking government. After the allied victory in 1945, Chu was
arrested and put to death.
The Educational Movement in Europe, op. cit. , p. 50. For the results
of Li’s research on soya beans see Li-Yu-Yung (de la Societe Biologique-d’l
Extreme-Orient, Chine) Le Soja Essay Culture: Ses Usages
Alimentaires, Therapeutiques, Agricoles et industriels,
Paris, 1912, p.150.
A complete collection of Hsin Shih-chi
(The New Century). together with some of the pamphlets published by
the Paris group, were reprinted in four volumes, in Shanghai, 1947.
All citations from Hsin Shih-chi are from
this edition.
A full account of Wu’s life is given in Chang Wen-po, Chih-lao
hsien-hua (Chit-Chat About Old Chih), Taipei, 1952.
For a few special details that pertain to Wu’s relations with Sun
Yat-sen, see a series of articles by Yang K’ai-ling, “The Father of
Our Country and Mr. Wu Chih-hui,” published in the magazine San
Min Chu I pan-veh k’an (Three People’s Principles Semi-Monthly),
Nos.1-4, May 15 - June 15, 1953.
Chang Wen-po, op. cit., p. 24.
Interview between the senior author and Li Shih-tseng, Taipei, July
16, 1959.
To stress the importance of the classics upon their thinking, Li
in the interview recalled that Wu had once painted a picture to depict
the following ancient Chinese tale: during the Chou dynasty, two philosophers
were each asked by the Emperor to be his successor. The one put his
ear into some water, saying “I must clean my ear after hearing such
a thing”; the other said, “Do not let my oxen drink the water in which
you have cleaned your ear.”
For a general survey of the European Anarchist Movement, see G.
D. H. Cole, A History of Socialist Thought,
3 Vol., London 1955-57; and Carl A. Landauer, European
Socialism, 2 Vol., Berkeley, 1959.
Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution was
published in 1902, and quickly had a world-wide impact. The Paris
group of Chinese Anarchists undoubtedly read it shortly after their
arrival there. Li translated it serially for the Hsin
Shih-chi. Kropotkin was to be translated into Japanese
and Chinese many times during the next two decades. His theme that
mutual aid was as much a law of nature as mutual struggle, and more
significant for the progressive evolution of mankind was central to
the Anarcho-Communist creed.
Professor Olga Lang has pointed out to us that aristocrats like
Bakunin and Kropotkin did, however, have a powerful appeal to men
not of their class as well, namely an important segment of the European
working class.
Professor Lang has agreed with this point, but has reminded us that
perhaps Bakunin and Kropotkin are not the happiest examples of Russian
influence, since their impact upon Russian revolutionary thought was
perhaps less than that upon Western Europe.
Wu Chih-hui, “Degrees,” Hsin Shih-chi,
No. 2, June 29, 1907, p. 1.
Wu Chih-hui, “Answering the Writing of a Certain Gentleman,” Ibid.,
No. 42, April 11, 1908, pp. 2-3.
“This is Known As a Chinese Sage,” Ibid.,
No. 1, June 22, 1907, p. 3. (Only a few authors can be identified
in Hsin Shih-chi. Sometimes pen-names are
used, but frequently no designation whatsoever is given).
Ch’u Min-i, “Looking at the Past,” Ibid., No. 24, Nov. 30, 1907,
p. 2.
Ibid, p. 2.
Li Shih-tseng, “Ancestor Revolution,” Ibid.,
No. 2, June 29, 1907, pp.3-4. See also Ch’u Min-i, “On Anarchism,”
Ibid., No.36, February 29, 1908, pp.3-4.
We are indebted to Professor Joseph Levenson for pointing out that
K’ang Yu-wei had written some tracts attacking the family system as
early as the 1880’s, although these remained unpublished. Hoover Library
has on microfilm his Shih-li kung fa, and
somewhat later, a similar position was expressed in Ta
t’ung shu.
Chiu Min-i, “General Revolution,” Ibid.,
No.17, Oct.12, 1907, pp. 2-3.
Ibid., p.3. The Anarchist distinction between “political revolution”
and “social revolution” will be discussed later.
Speech of Liu Shih-p’ei (Kuang-han) at the first meeting of the
Socialist Study Group in Tokyo, taken from T’ien-i Pao, printed in
Hsin Shih-chi, No. 22, Nov.16, 1907, p.4.
“A Letter with Answers,” Ibid., No. 6,
July 27, 1907, p.1. Answers by Li Shih-tseng.
“A Letter to Hsin Shih-chi from a Certain Individual, with Answers,”
Ibid., No.8, August 10, 1907, pp. 2-3. Answers
by Li Shih-tseng.
“A Letter with Answers,” op. cit., p.1.
Ibid., p.1.
Ibid., p.1.
Ibid., p.1.
“A Discussion with a Friend Concerning Hsin Shih-chi,” Ibid.,
No.3, July 6, 1907, pp.1-2.
“A Letter to Hsin Shih-chi from a Certain Individual, with Answers,”
op. cit., p. 3.
“Anarchism Can Be Steadfastly Matched Against the Sense of Responsibility
of the Revolutionary Party,” Ibid., No.
58, August 1, 1908, pp.10 -13.
“An Extended Discussion on the Differences and Similarities of Nationalism,
Democracy, and Socialism, and another Reply to the Letter on the Interesting
Meaning of the Opening Statement of Hsin Shih-chi,” Ibid.,
No. 6, July 27, 1907, pp.3-4.
Ibid., p.4.
“National Extinction? ” Ibid., No. 48,
May 23, 1908, pp.1-2.
“An Extended Discussion etc., ” op. cit.,
p.3.
“A Letter to Hsin Shih-chi from a Certain Individual, with Answers,
” op. cit., p.3.
Li Shih-tseng, “On Knowledge,” Ibid.,
No. 7, August 3, 1907, p.2.
“On Anarchism” (Continued), Ibid., No.
43, April 18, 1908, p.4.
One article berated the Chinese Minister to Italy for allowing the
body of his wife to lie unburied for a period of time, in accordance
with Chinese custom. It charged that this kind of superstitious, unscientific,
barbaric custom subjected the Chinese to ridicule in the eyes of Europeans.
See “The Chinese in Europe,” Ibid., No.15,
September 28, 1907, p.3. For still another use of science, see “The
End of Imperialism,” Ibid., No. 63, September
5, 1908, pp.10-12. Said the author: “I dare say that ten
years from now, death will come to the robber-kings of the world and
universal well-being will be achieved. I hope that the youth of China
will learn more science and make more bombs, each working according
to his own heavenly conscience to expel the barbarians and prevent
imperialism from sprouting in China.”
“Hurried Thoughts At the Advent of Hsin Shih-chi,” Ibid.,
No.1, June 22, 1907, p.1.
“On Anarchism” (Continued), Ibid., No.34,
February 15, 1908, pp.3 -4.
“International Revolutionary Currents,” (Comments by Li Shihtseng),
Ibid., No.32, February 1, 1908, pp.1-2.
We are indebted to Mr. Michael Gasster for pointing out that one Hsin
Shih-chi reader argued that in their advocacy of revolution,
the editors were violating the evolutionary principles of one of their
heroes, Darwin. To this argument, Wu responded by asserting that there
was a difference between biology and human affairs, for the latter
were subject to control (and hence acceleration) by human action.
“A Rejection of Hsin Shih-chi Writings on Revolution” (with answers
by Li Shih-tseng), Ibid., No. 5, July 20,
1907, pp.1-2.
“On the Uselessness of Jumping into the Ocean,” Ibid.,
No. 6, July 27, 1907, p.2.
“General Revolution,” Ibid., No.17, October
12, 1907,
Li Shih-tseng and Chiu Min-i (?),La Revolution,
Paris, 1907, (8 page pamphlet), republished, Shanghai, 1947.
“Go and Join Ranks with the Secret Societies,” Hsin
Shih-chi, No. 42, April 11, 1908, pp.1-2.
Ibid., p. 2.
A few articles on unionism and its objectives were published in
Hsin Shih-chi. For example, see “Labor Unions,” Ibid.,
No.4, July 13, 1907, p. 2; and Ch’u Min-i, “The Strike,” Ibid.,
No.92, April 10, 1909, pp. 5-8. Also, Professor Lang has pointed out
to us that Chang Chi translated Arnold Roller’s General
Strike (Lo-lieh Tsung t’ung-meng pa-kung) in 1907, Canton.
La Revolution, op. cit.
Ibid.
Ch’u Min-i, “On Anarchism” began in issue No. 31, January 25, 1908
of the Hsin Shih-chi, and continued through issue No. 60, August 15,
1908.
“On Anarchism” (Continued), Ibid., No.
60. August 15, 1908, pp. 5-9.
Of course, the word “socialism” (she-hui-chu-i) had been introduced
much earlier, possibly by Liang Ch’i-chiao in his Ch’ing-I
Pao (Public Opinion Journal) in 1899.
Ch’u Min-i, “Rejecting the Shih-pao’s ‘Why China Cannot Now Promote
Communism’,” Ibid., No. 72, November 7,
1908, pp.7-14.
“A Comparison of the Three Principles of Nationalism, Democracy,
and Socialism,” Ibid., No. 6, July 27, 1907,
p.1.
Ibid., p.1.
When posed with this general question, Li Shih-tseng asserted that
in each era, one struggles for freedom and the liberation of the individual
spirit in a different manner, relying upon different tactics and approaches
– but that the fundamental struggle is still the same. Interview,
July 16, 1959.
Yang K’ai-ling asserts that Sun met Wu in Tokyo, but others state
that the London meeting was the first. See Yang, “The Father of the
Country and Mr. Wu Chih-hui,” op. cit.,
No.1, pp. 28-29.
Feng Tzu-yu, “The Master of the Hsin Shih-chi, Chang Chingchiang,”
op. cit., Vol. II, pp. 227-230.
Ibid., p. 229.
For an account of this and other events of this period in English,
see T’ang Leang-li, The Inner History of the Chinese Revolution,
London, 1930, pp.40 ff. (p. 62) For a discussion of the manifesto,
see “Advice,” Hsin Shth-chi, No. 115, November
13, 1909, pp. 4-11.
The Su-pao Affair is discussed in T’ang, op. cit.,
p. 42; and History of The Press and Public Opinion in
China, 1936, p.102. Mr. Richard Howard has informed
us that some authorities claim that the enmity of Wu and Chang dates
even before the Su-pao affair.
This was Lin Yutang’s remark. Ibid., p.102.
For some of Chang’s “open letters,” see “A Just Discussion on Anti-Manchuism,”
Min-pao, No. 21, June 10. 1908, pp. 1-12; “Refuting the Argument
Regarding China’s Adoption of the International Language,” Ibid.,
pp. 49-72; “The Taiwanese and the Hsin Shih-chi Correspondent,”
Ibid., No. 22, July 10, 1908, pp. 31-35; “To Advise
Hsin Shih-chi,” Ibid., No. 24, October 10,
1908, pp.41-65. Wu’s open letters to Chang appear in Hsin
Shih-chi, Nos. 28, 44, and 63. See also the important
article, “Advice,” Ibid., No. 115.
See Wu’s article “Party People,” Ibid., No. 117, January 22, 1910,
pp.1-10. Here Wu reported that the anti-Sun manifesto, circulated
in the names of T’ung Meng Hui members from seven provinces, was reported
to have been written by T’ao Ch’eng-chang. He argued that if Sun were
wealthy why did his son work in Honolulu to earn tuition, and why
were the expenses of his mother, near death in Hongkong, being met
by friends. He urged the anti-Sun forces to furnish proof of their
charges. Then he furnished “proof” of Chang Ping-lin’s association
with Liu Kuang-han and his wife, in the form of five letters, the
implication being that Chang was still close to him who by this time
had deserted the Anarchist and revolutionary cause.
“Meeting of the Overseas Students to Oppose a Supervisor,” Hsin
Shih-chi, No. 1, June 22, 1907, pp. 3-4.
Ibid., p 4.
“Record of the Supervisor’s Speech at the Association of Overseas
Students in France,” Ibid., No. 50, June
6, 1908, pp. 2-3.
See the advertisement on page one of Hsin Shih-chi,
No. 114, October 16, 1909.
See Ibid., No. 116, December 18, 1909,
p. 1. In this advertisement, it says “We have received our copy; three
hundred more are on the way here.” There is also other evidence to
indicate secret publication in Tokyo.
Ibid., p. 1
Ibid., No. 121, May 21, 1910.
Chang Chi, Chang P’u-ch’an hsien-sheng ch’an-chi
(Collective Works of Mr. Chang P’u-ch’an). Taipei, 1951, pp. 220-235.
Ibid., p. 236. Fang Chao-ving has informed
us that the first mention of Anarchism in Chinese literature was probably
through the translation of two Japanese works, Shakaito
(the Socialist Party), by Nishikawa Kojiro and Shakaishugi
gaikyo by Shimada Saburo, both published in Chinese
in 1903, thus introducing Anarchist concepts.
For two brief accounts of Liu and his wife, see Ts’ai Yuan-p’ei,
“A Brief Account of the Activities of Liu Shen-shu,” in Liu
Shenshu i-shu (Posthumous Writings of Liu Shen-shu),
1936, pp. 1-3, and Wu Chih-hui, “Titbits,” Hsin Shih-chi,
No. 109, August 21, 1909, pp. 13-14.
Liu contributed a number of articles to Min-pao during Chang Ping-lin’s
editorship of that journal. He used the pen name of Wei I. See Min-pao,
No.13, May 5, 1907, pp.1-16; No.14, June 8, 1907, pp. 23-28 and pp.39-111;
No.15, July 5, 1907, pp.19-34 and pp.35-62; and No.18, December 25,
1907, pp.1-26. See also Chang T’ai-yen (Ping-lin), “A Preface to Anarchism,”
Min-pao, No. 20, April, 1908, pp.129-130,
in which Chang makes some generally favorable remarks in connection
with Chang Chi’s translation of Errico Malatesta.
Ibid., No.15, July, 1907.
Certain articles from the T’ien-i Pao
are reprinted in the Hsin Shih-chi. The
Kuomintang Archives near T’aichung Taiwan contain issues 4 and 5 (July
25, August 10, 1907), and the authors have had the important articles
copied from these two issues. No issues have yet been discovered in
Japan.
Hsin Shih-chi No. 22, November 16, 1907,
p.4, No. 25, December 7, 1907, pp.3-4, and No. 26, December 14, 1907,
p.4 carry the events and major speeches of this first meeting as recorded
in T’ien-i Pao.
Ibid., No. 25, p.3.
Ibid., No. 22, p.4.
Liu Kuang-han, “Views on the Equality of Anarchism,” T’ien-i
Pao, No.4, July 25, 1907, pp.7-20.
Liu Kuang-han, “An Examination of the Development of Socialism in
the Western Han Period,” op. cit., pp. 20-29.
and No. 5, August 10, 1907, pp. 27-30.
Ibid., No. 5, p.30.
Ts’ai Yuan-p’ei, op. cit.
Ibid., pp. 236-237.
Shortly after his return to China, he attempted to secure from the
revolutionary government Ch’ung-ming Island at the mouth of the Yangtze
River “as an experimental area for world Anarchism.” Min-li
Pao (The People’s Independent), Shanghai, China, January
26, 1912, p. 2.
A brief biography of Shih Fu appears at the beginning of his collective
works, Shih Fu wen-ts`on (Collective Works
of Shih Fu), Canton, 1927. See also his biography in the Anarchist
publication Ko-ming hsien-ch’ (the Vanguard
of Revolution), Shanghai, 1928. For a sketch in English, see H. E.
Shaw, “A Chinese Revolutionist,” Mother Earth,
Vol.X, No.8, October, 1915, pp.284-5.
Shih Fu wen-ts’un, op. cit.
Ibid.
Ibid. See also Feng Tzu-yu, op.
cit., Vol.II, pp. 207-211.
For a detailed description of the Chin-te Hui, see Chang Hsing yen,
“On the Chin-te Hui”, Min-li Pao, February
26, 1912, p. 2, and the special Chin-te Hui section which was subsequently
carried in that newspaper. See also Wu Chih-hui’s reply to Shih Fu
in Min Sheng, No. 2, August 27, 1913, p.10.
“Covenant of the Chin-te Hui”, Min-li Pao,
February 26, 1912, p. 2.
Ibid., p. 2.
Ibid., p.2.
From time to time, lists of members were given in Min-li
Pao. General members included Ts’ai Yuan-piei, Chang
Hsing-yen, and according to a new list of March 1, 1912, Hu Han-min
among others. Special A Division members included Chang Chi, Chang
Ching-chiang, Tai Chi-tiao and many others. B Division members included
Wang Ching-wei and Chiu Min-i. C Division included Wu Chih-hui and
Li Shih-tseng.
Ibid., March 2, 1912, p.3.
Ibid., March 6. 1912, p.3.
Ibid., April 21, 1912, p.2.
A complete set of these papers is available and has been used by
the authors.
For its declaration, see “Declaration of the Society of Anarchist
Communist Comrades,” Min Sheng, No.19, July
18, 1914, pp. 6-9.
See Shih Fu’s “Letter to the International Anarchist Congress,”
Min Sheng No.16, June 27, 1914, pp. 4-8.
This is a valuable source, especially for current developments.
For example, in Min Sheng, No. 21, August
2, 1914, the receipt of one of Emma Goldman’s books is acknowledged,
and her picture is printed. In the same issue, is a note stating that
despite the seizure and suppression of Osugi Sakae’s new journal,
Heimin Shimbun(The Commoner Newspaper),
Min Sheng has secretly received a copy of
issue No.1. Scarcely an issue of Min Sheng,
moreover, was without news of some foreign anarchist party or movement.
In issue No.13, an advertisement appears on p. 12 for a Chinese socialist
and Anarchist journal published in Burma called Cheng
Sheng(The Voice of Justice).
Shih Fu lived until after the publication of issue No. 22. It is
reported that after every issue, he became ill from over-exhaustion.
Following his death, Min Sheng was changed
to a bi-weekly, and the last few issues were published very irregularly.
At a later point, the Anarchists began to publish the magazine again.
“Declaration, ” Hui - ming -lu, No. 1,
August 20, 1913, pp. 1 - 2.
Ibid., p. 2.
“A Simple Explanation of Anarchism,” Ibid.,
pp. 2-8.
Ibid.
“Explaining the term ‘Anarchist-Communism’,” Min Sheng,
No. 5, April 11, 1914, pp.1-5.
Ibid.
“The Aims and Methods of the Anarchist-Communist Party,” Ibid.,
No.19, July 18, 1914, pp. 6-9.
“First Letter of Shih Fu to Wu Chih-hui,” Ibid.,
No. 2, August 27, 1913, pp.9-10.
“Wu Chih-hui’s Reply,” Ibid., No. 2, August
27, 1912, p.10.
“Shih Fu’s Letter to Chang Chi,” Ibid.,
pp.10-11.
See especially “The Socialism of Sun Yat-sen and Chiang K’ang-hu,”
Ibid., No. 6, April 18, 1914, pp.1-7, and
Chiang K’ang-hu’s “Anarchism,” Ibid., No.17-18,
July 4-11, 1914, pp.6-7; 5-7
“The Socialism of Sun Yat-sen and Chiang K’ang-hu,” op. cit.,
pp.1-7.
Ibid.
“Argument Against Chiang K’ang-hu,” Ibid.,
No.14, June 13, 1914. pp.159-167, continued in No. 15, June 20, 1914,
pp.171-177. See also “The Anarchism of Chiang K’ang-hu,” Ibid.,
No.17, July 4, 1914, pp.6-7, continued in No.18, July 11, 1914, pp.
5-7.
See Shih Fu’s “In Answer to Lo Wu,” Ibid.,
No.7, April 25, 1914, pp. 9-11; and his “On the Socialist Party,”
Ibid., No. 9, May 9, 1914, pp.1-6.
Wu Chih-hui, “Remembering Mr. Shih Fu,” in Wu Chih-hui
ch’an-chi (The Complete Works of Wu Chih-hui), Shanghai,
1927. Vol.8, pp.115-117.
See Yang Ch’uan, “Social Reform Thought of the Last Thirty Years
in China,” Tung-fang tsa-chih, Vol. 21,
No. 17, September 10, 1924, pp. 50-56.
Ibid.
See Liang Ping-hsien (using the pen-name Hai-y Ku-X’e) “Special
Memoirs of the Liberation,” Tzu-yu Jen (The
Freeman), Hong Kong, Nos. 73-86, Nov. 14 - Dec. 29, 1951. Liang was
a member of the Hui-ming Hseh-she and these are an exceedingly valuable
series of articles pertaining to such questions as the origins of
the Chinese Communist movement, and the relation of the Anarchists
to its opening stages.
For one valuable account of the French work-study movement, see
a Chinese book published in Paris: Shih-chich-she, comp., L-Ou
chiao-y yn-tung (The Educational Movement in Europe),
Tours, France, 1916, 123 pp. See especially the section entitled “Reasons
for Leaning Towards French Education,” pp. 63-65.
Ibid., p. 63.
Ibid., p. 65.
Ibid., pp. 50-55.
Ibid., p. 55.
Ibid., p. 55.
Shu Hsin-ch’eng, Chin-tai Chung-kuo liu-hseh shih
(A History of Students Abroad in Modern China), Shanghai, 1933, p.
88.
See Li Shih-tseng, “A Speech on Going to France to Study” (pp. 59-66)
in Liu-Fa chien-hseh pao-kao shu, (Report
of Frugal Study in France) put out by the Kwangtung Branch of the
Sino-French Educational Association, Canton, 1918. This little volume
contains some twenty items relating to the work-study movement in
France up to 1918, including essays by its leaders, descriptions by
participants, and a few documents and news reports.
Ho Ch’ang -kung, Ch’in kung chien-hseh sheng-huo hui-i,
(Recollections of Diligent Work and Frugal Study Life), Peking 1958.
A very interesting work by a veteran Communist.
Pien Hsiao-hsuan, Editor, “Sources on Diligent Work and Frugal Study
in France”, Chin-tai-shih tzu-liao(Contemporary
Historical Materials), No. 2, April, 1955, Peking, pp.174-208. Shu
Hsin-ch’eng, op. cit., says there were 1700 unemployed Chinese by
the beginning of 1921. p.94.
Sheng Ch’eng, Hai-wai kung-tu shih-nien chi-shih
(A True Record of Ten Years of Work and Study Overseas), Shanghai,
1932.
Ibid., pp. 52-54.
Ibid., pp. 56 ff .
“Letter Regarding Plans for the Fundamental Solution of the Diligent
Work-Frugal Student Movement,” Hsin Chiao-y,
Vol. 6, No. 2, February, 1923, pp. 239-242.
Liang Ping-hsien, op. cit., No. 85, December
26, 1951, p.4.
Sheng Chieng, op. cit., pp. 68-69.
Ho Ch’ang-kung, op. cit., pp. 74-75.
A collection of writings, including the Ch’en-Ou exchange was published
by the Editorial Department, New Youth Society, entitled She-hui
chu-i t`ao-lun chi (Discussions on Socialism), Canton,
1922.
Ch’en Tu-hsiu, “Speaking on Politics,” Ibid.,
pp.1-16.
For example, in a speech before the Canton Public School of Law
and Politics, entitled “Criticism. of Socialism,” Ch’en
said:”From the political and economic aspects, Anarchism is absolutely
unsuitable. Anarchism is based upon the assumption that man is by
nature good and that education has been popularized. But the rise
of political and economic systems is precisely due to the fact that
men are not all good by nature and popular education has not been
realized. What we need is to reform slowly the political and economic
institutions so as to make men good and popularize education.” op.
cit., pp. 74-96. See also Li Ta, “The
Anatomy of Anarchism,” Ibid., pp. 219-238.
“Another Answer by Ch`en Tu-hsiu to Ou Sheng-pai,” Ibid.,
p. 119.
See Ou’s answer in “Another Reply of Ou Sheng-pai to Ch’en Tu-hsiu,”
Ibid., pp. 125-6, and Ch`en’s reply, “Ch’en
Tuhsiu’s Third Reply to Ou Sheng-pai,” Ibid.,
pp. 137-138. “Another Answer by Ch’en Tu-hsiu to Ou Sheng-pai,” op.
cit., p.125.
See Ch’en Tu-hsiu, “Chinese Style Anarchism,” Hsin Ch’ing-
nien, Vol.9, No. 1, May 1, 1921, pp. 5-6.
“Ch`en Tu-hsiu’s Third Reply to Ou Sheng-pai,”
op. cit., pp. 140 -1
“Ou Sheng-pai’s Answer to Ch’en Tu-hsiu,” Ibid.,
p. 118. See also “Another Reply of Ou Sheng-pai to Ch’en Tu-hsiu,”
op. cit., pp. 127-128.
Ibid., p. 119

Share

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Information and Links

Join the fray by commenting, tracking what others have to say, or linking to it from your blog.

Information: June 22nd, 2007; No Responses

Feeds and Links: Comment Feed; From This Author; Del.icio.us; Digg; Technorati

Categories and Tags: Culture

Other Posts: Interview: Tijuana No!; The Korean Anarchist Movement

Possibly related posts

Anarchism and the Chinese Revolution
Jalan: A journal of Asian Liberation
Raising Baby APOC in the White Anarchist Movement
IAS Grant Deadline
Why am I Starting to Become More Prideful in My Identity?
NE Anarchist Gathering

Reader Comments

Be the first to leave a comment!