Chapter 3 – The Challenge of Assessing the Bourgeoisie after the Socialist Revolution (1949–
II. A Class Analysis and the Origins of the 1911 Revolution
Historians writing between 1949 and 1957 used class analysis to determine the causes of the 1911 Revolution. Historians used class analysis to debate whether or not to separate the two types of contradiction to determine if political or economic contradictions led to the 1911 Revolution. Multiple interpretations of the origins of the 1911 Revolution emerged and each represented a different approach and interpretation of Mao Zedong Thought and to the question of whether the bourgeoisie could participate in the United Front of socialist construction. Those historians who identified both political and economic contradictions as the cause of the 1911 Revolution, in effect argued to continue the position offered to the bourgeoisie during the War against Japan, after the formation of the PRC. Those historians who separated economic from political contradictions to identify contradictions in class interests as the primary cause of the 1911 Revolution, envisioned a decreasing role for the bourgeoisie in the PRC. Those historians who researched anti-Manchu sentiment during the
144
1911 Revolution eschewed class analysis entirely. When Mao redefined Mao Zedong Thought and the role of class analysis in 1957, historians interpreted his remarks as support for the second narrative of contradictions in class interests causing the 1911 Revolution. Giving primacy to class contradictions produced a more restrictive interpretation of class analysis that did not allow for the bourgeoisie to reform itself in the style of Sun Yat-sen and denied it participation in the United Front to build socialism.
Some historians followed Mao’s master narrative as iterated prior to the Civil War to argue that economic and political contradictions each contributed to the origins of the 1911 Revolution. These historians therefore argued that the bourgeoisie could still participate in the United Front after 1949 as it had done during the War against Japan because
contradictions greater than class existed. Hu Sheng argued that patriotic sentiment
engendered by reaction to the Qing dynasty’s policy of selling rail and mining rights started the 1911 Revolution.28 Economic rights were at the centre of his argument, yet Hu framed them
as a political issue due to the Qing dynasty’s sale of domestically owned railways which inspired patriotic revolts to save the country. In his influential and oft-cited work Lectures in Modern Chinese History, Wang Boyan汪伯岩 (1908-1974) wrote:
Domestically, the high tide of this revolutionary movement [the ten years leading up to 1911], was due to the early developments of the Chinese bourgeoisie as well as the deeper corruption of the rule of the Qing government, both propelling the
development of the revolutionary forces. On the foreign front, the Chinese national crisis continued to grow worse due to the deepening invasion of international imperialism and its theft of [economic] rights within China.29
28 Hu Sheng, Diguozhuyi yu Zhongguo zhengzhi 帝国主义与中国政治 [Imperialism and Chinese
Governance] (Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 1952), 116-122.
29 Wang Boyan, Zhongguo jindaishi jianghua 中国近代史讲话 [Lectures in Chinese Modern History]
145
According to Wang, imperialism, the growth of the bourgeoisie, the class interests of the bourgeoisie and patriotism all pushed the revolution forward by an equal degree. Chen Xulu
陈旭麓 (1918-1988)30 also argued for the dual causes of political and economic contradictions
by showing that the revolutionary movement grew fastest in the south, due to the strength of the bourgeoisie there and the visible impact of foreign imperialism.31 Li Shiyue 李时岳 (1928-
1996)32 wrote that the masses joined the 1911 Revolution for the nationalist aim of opposing
the Qing dynasty’s selling the country to imperialism,33 but that peasant discontent and
uprisings over taxes played a significant role in mobilising the peasantry during the period.34
As had Mao during the War against Japan, these historians argued that while economic contradictions contributed to the cause of the 1911 Revolution, political concerns such as the contradiction between the nation and imperialism could unite classes into alliances. The existence of political contradictions greater than those between class interests, allowed for classes to unite and even renew themselves through shared revolutionary struggle. By supporting Mao’s master narrative of history and Mao Zedong Thought as it existed prior to the Civil War, these authors argued that the bourgeoisie could participate in the United Front to rebuild the nation and recreate itself in the manner of Sun Yat-sen.
Some authors put a greater emphasis on establishing the economic origins of the classes and class interests and implied that classes could not set aside their class interests to enter any politically motivated alliance. These historians developed upon the historical narratives produced to attack Chiang Kai-shek, and argued against bourgeois participation in the United
30 Chen Xulu was a prolific historian of modern China, a founding professor of Huadong Normal
University and a member of the CCP after joining in 1953. He spent the Cultural Revolution in Fudan University compiling and editing primary materials for republication.
31 Chen Xulu, Xinhai geming 辛亥革命 [The 1911 Revolution] (Shanghai: Shanghai renmin chubanshe,
1955), 17.
32 Li Shiyue was a 1955 graduate of Peking University and professor of history at Guilin University. 33 Li Shiyue, Xinhai geming shiqi Liang Hu di qu de geming yundong 辛亥革命时期两湖地区的革命运动
[Revolutionary Movements in Hunan and Hubei during the 1911 Revolutionary Period] (Beijing: Sheng huo, du shu, xin zhi san lian shudian, 1957), 92.
146
Front of socialist construction. To do so, these authors argued that the 1911 Revolution arose from competing economic rather than political interests. Zhang Shouchang张守常 (1921- 2012)35 explained that economic interests determined both sides of the revolution:
Imperialism and the Manchu Qing government did their utmost to uphold the status quo and the old relations of production to continue their theft and exploitation. At this time, the Chinese national bourgeoisie also began developing, so workers, the bourgeoisie, overseas Chinese capitalists, new intellectuals, some bureaucrats,
peasants and handicraft workers all wanted to break down the status quo, break down the old relations of production obstructing the development of the forces of
production, pushing the revolutionary tide higher daily.36
While the Qing dynasty worked with imperialist powers, Zhang argued that the fundamental contradiction leading to the 1911 Revolution was the class contradiction between the feudal Qing dynasty and the bourgeoisie. Hu Wenyan胡文彦 (1930-)37 wrote similarly in a middle
school textbook that, “The Qing government chose to nationalise the railways in preparation to sell these already approved private railways to imperialism. People all over the country, particularly those in the provinces where these railroads were built, opposed this. The Railway Protection Movement erupted across all corners of the country. This served as the fuse [which started] the Wuchang Uprising”.38 Hu Wenyan described the origins of the 1911 Revolution as
arising from the economic contradiction between the Qing-imperialist alliance and the masses. Wu Yuzhang wrote, “Due to the increasing bullying of imperialist powers, taxes of the Qing government and the deepening exploitation by the landlords, the natural economy of the
35 Zhang Shouchang was a life-long professor of history at Beijing Normal University. Zhang was
criticised during the 1957 Anti-Rightist Movement.
36 Zhang Shouchang, Zhongguo jindaishi gangyao 中国近代史纲要 [An Outline History of Modern China]
(Tianjin: Lishi jiaoxue yuekan she, 1952), 85.
37 Hu Wenyan is an educator and professor of art history at the Central Academy of Applied Art. 38 Hu Wenyan, Chuji zhongxue keben Zhongguo lishi di san ce 初级中学课本中国历史第三册 [Chinese
147
Chinese villages was severely damaged and handicraft industry in the cities slowly dried up. Therefore, the peasants and handicraft workers rose up to ‘resist fees’, ‘resist taxes’ and start ‘rice riots’, continuously engaging in struggle”.39 Wu argued that imperialism and domestic
exploitation destroyed the natural economy of China and harmed the economic interests of the peasants, which led to the 1911 Revolution. Imperialism may have caused the destruction of China’s natural economy but the economic effects of that destruction, rather than patriotic sentiment, led the peasants to pursue their class interests through class struggle. Class analysis, to these authors, meant the identification and examination of the class interests of each class. These authors viewed class as restrictive in that classes always pursued their class interests. These authors argued that the bourgeoisie would pursue its interests after the socialist revolution by portraying economic contradictions between the bourgeoisie and the Qing dynasty as the cause of the 1911 Revolution. Moreover, these authors followed the Soviet historiographical model to argue for the primacy of class analysis in the periodisation of history and abandoned Mao’s theory of the United Front of the New Democratic period. I return to this point later in this chapter.
A much less common argument, but an important one nevertheless, was that factors other than economic and political contradictions caused the 1911 Revolution, including anti-Manchu nationalism directed against the ruling Qing dynasty.40 During this era of intense
historiographical debate before the Anti-Rightist Movement, some historians felt free to acknowledge and address the presence of anti-Manchu rhetoric in revolutionary tracts published around 1911. Historian Li Shu黎澍 (1912-1988)41 wrote of Prince Regent Zaifeng
39 Wu Yuzhang, “Jinian Xinhai Geming sishiwu zhou nian纪念辛亥革命四十五周年 [Commemorating
the 45th Anniversary of the 1911 Revolution]”, in Lishi wen ji 历史文集 [Collected Historical Works], ed.
Wu Yuzhang (Hong Kong: San lian shudian Xiang Gang fen dian, 1978), 68-69.
40 For examples of anti-Manchu attacks during the 1911 Revolution and PRC historical coverage of the
anti-Manchu discourse of the 1911 Revolution, see Leibold, “Xinhai Remembered”.
41 Li Shu was a student activist during the War against Japan who joined the CCP in 1936. He worked in
various government posts after the foundation of the PRC, notably in the Central Propaganda
Department, and was an editor of Historical Research. He was criticised during the Cultural Revolution, yet returned to work at Historical Research in 1975.
148
(1883-1951):42 “As soon as he ascended to the throne, he fired Yuan Shikai, who had taken
over military authority from Li Hongzhang 李鸿章 (1823-1901)43…. By April 1911, in the midst
of constitutionalist fervour he established an entirely dynastic family cabinet. The 200 odd years of cooperation between Manchu and Han ruling classes broke apart. The forces that the Manchu Qing government depended on to support its rule began weakening because of this”.44 Li even more unambiguously wrote that, “The central slogan motivating the [1911]
Revolution was opposing the Manchus”.45 Li did not necessarily argue that class analysis had
no place in determining the origins of the 1911 Revolution. Li’s argument for the importance of race, however, treated race as a motivating factor in the weakening of the feudal ruling class prior to the 1911 Revolution. Rong Mengyuan荣孟源 (1913-1985),46 the most
prominent historian of the 1911 Revolution between 1949 and 1957, also referred to anti- Manchu rhetoric. Rong wrote, “Opposing the Manchu Qing was the common goal of all Revolutionary Alliance members, and the revolutionary martyrs all entered into indomitable struggle in pursuit of this goal…. This encouraged and incited countless numbers of the masses to rise up and overthrow the Manchu Qing government”.47 Rong, however, did not claim that
anti-Manchu sentiment was the only source of the revolution. In an earlier work, Rong argued that the alliance between domestic feudal forces and imperialism created the unique, semi- feudal semi-colonial situation in China.48 These authors’ references to anti-Manchu rhetoric
42 Zaifeng, also known as Prince Chun醇亲王, was the father of the last emperor Puyi and regent during
his infant son’s reign.
43 Li Hongzhang was the protégé of Zeng Guofan and an eminent official of the Qing dynasty involved
primarily in foreign affairs. Li was also involved with the military during the suppression of the Taiping Rebellion, the Sino-Japanese War and the Boxer Rebellion.
44 Li Shu, Xinhai Geming qian hou de Zhongguo zhengzhi 辛亥革命前后的中国政治 [Chinese Politics
Before and After the 1911 Revolution] (Beijing: Renmin chubanshe, 1954), 17.
45 Ibid, 3.
46 Rong Mengyuan was an ex-member of the CCP, officer in the 8th Route Army and founding member of
the Chinese Academy of Science Modern History Research Office. He was criticised during the 1957 Anti-Rightist Movement for his opinions on history. He published prolifically on questions of modern Chinese history throughout the 1950s and again after his rehabilitation following the end of the Cultural Revolution in 1976.
47 Rong Mengyuan, Zhongguo jin bainian geming shilüe 中国近百年革命史略 [Sketch History of China’s
Last Hundred Years of Revolution] (Beijing: Shenghuo dushu xinzhi san lian shudian, 1954), 95.
48 Rong Mengyuan, “Geren zai lishi shang de zuoyong 个人在历史上的作用 [The Individual’s Effect on
149
sought to explain the prominent place it held in sources produced around the 1911 Revolution by arguing that contradictions other than class and imperialism existed. Li Shu and Rong Mengyuan both employed class analysis in other areas, but argued that some problems could not be solved using this tool when they addressed the issue of anti-Manchu sentiment in the 1911 Revolution. In the climate of the early PRC where historians tested the limits of CCP control over historiography, historians like Rong sought methods other than class analysis to build upon Mao’s master narrative of history. After Mao refined Mao Zedong Thought for the socialist era, however, Rong Mengyuan was persecuted for this and other views interpreted as reactionary during the Anti-Rightist Movement in 1957.