O que é este blog?

Este blog trata basicamente de ideias, se possível inteligentes, para pessoas inteligentes. Ele também se ocupa de ideias aplicadas à política, em especial à política econômica. Ele constitui uma tentativa de manter um pensamento crítico e independente sobre livros, sobre questões culturais em geral, focando numa discussão bem informada sobre temas de relações internacionais e de política externa do Brasil. Para meus livros e ensaios ver o website: www.pralmeida.org. Para a maior parte de meus textos, ver minha página na plataforma Academia.edu, link: https://itamaraty.academia.edu/PauloRobertodeAlmeida.

Mostrando postagens com marcador Revolução Cultural. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador Revolução Cultural. Mostrar todas as postagens

sexta-feira, 12 de agosto de 2016

China, a revolucao cultural vista do ponto de vista do povo - Frank Dikotter (The Guardian)


The Cultural Revolution: A People’s History 1962-1976 by Frank Dikotter – review

A timely reminder of the human cost and miscalculations of Mao’s last experiment, fifty years on
Portrait of Mao Zedong in Tiananmen Square, Beijing.

Portrait of Mao Zedong in Tiananmen Square, Beijing. Photograph: Wang Zhao/AFP/Getty Images

Fifty years ago this year, Mao Zedong issued the directive that launched the Cultural Revolution. His “May 16 Notification” exposed and denounced supposed traitors (“counter-revolutionary revisionists”) at all levels of the Chinese Communist party (CCP). By the time Mao died, just over a decade later, his final, extended purge had torn Chinese government and society apart. Perhaps one and a half million people died unnatural deaths (including two of Mao’s designated successors), millions more had been brutalised, the economy and education had been stultified by political dogma, and some 20 million had been banished from the cities to a countryside that could not feed them. The Cultural Revolution’s hyper-Maoism had devastated and disillusioned the population.
Public memory of these events remains fractured in China today. Some former Red Guards – Mao’s shock troops for propelling the early violence of the purge – have apologised for their actions, while others still defend their beliefs; far more have buried their pasts. Leading novelists – Mo Yan, Tie Ning, Yan Lianke, Yu Hua – stress the sufferings of victims: the ordinary people persecuted by ideologues, opportunists and mindless thugs. Born-again neo-Maoists – many of them too young to remember the Mao era in any meaningful way – celebrate the Cultural Revolution as a utopian experiment in mass democracy.

But reticence, above all, is the keynote of Cultural Revolution commemoration in contemporary China. In the late 1970s, after an internal party wrangle, Mao’s successors (many of whom had suffered between 1966 and 1976) vetoed de-Maoification in the style of Khrushchev’s “secret speech” against Stalin in 1956. To denounce Mao comprehensively or permit open conversation about the Cultural Revolution, they decided, would jeopardise CCP legitimacy. In 1981, therefore, the party issued a resolution on “certain questions left over from our party’s history”, which acclaimed Mao as a pioneering genius, condemned the Cultural Revolution as a freak error of excess leftism and blamed its horrors on the “Gang of Four”, Mao’s wife and her three closest collaborators. On the anniversary this year, the spokesman for the Chinese ministry of foreign affairs flatly responded thus to a question about the revolution: “The Chinese government already made the correct verdict on it long ago.” Public discussion of it remains so minimal that many who did not experience it directly are vague or incredulous about its details. The 50th anniversary has generated conferences, articles and books outside mainland China; within China, academics are fearful even of mentioning it in class.
Since its publication a decade ago, Roderick MacFarquhar and Michael Schoenhals’s Mao’s Last Revolution has provided the most authoritative, comprehensive single-volume account of the Cultural Revolution in English. Its coolly analytical narrative exposed the unedifying mix of high-flown ideology and sordid factional wrangles. Now comes Frank Dikötter’s The Cultural Revolution, the last in his trilogy of works on the Mao era.
It importantly extends MacFarquhar and Schoenhals’s impressive work in two ways. First, Dikötter makes more intensive use of evidence drawn from China’s local archives, where historians (both Chinese and non-Chinese) have been able to uncover abundant research materials on the Mao era for the past decade and a half. Second, he excavates the unintended socioeconomic consequences of the Cultural Revolution, arguing that a purge launched to preserve the anti-capitalist “purity” of Mao’s revolution had the opposite effect.
In the early 70s, years before Mao’s demise, exasperated inhabitants of rural China were dismantling collectivisation and rebuilding private enterprises, paving the way for the resurgence of the market in China after 1978. The book is subtitled “A People’s History” but plenty of attention is given to leadership machinations, especially in the early chapters.

Dikötter describes both persecutors and persecuted at the top echelons of the CCP as repugnant: in turn vindictive, bullying, treacherous and cowardly. Like MacFarquhar and Schoenhals before him, Dikötter illuminates how high-level victims of the Cultural Revolution (such as Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping) helped build the culture of political violence that brought them down after 1966. Occasionally, the characterisation threatens to elide psychological complexity. Dikötter unwaveringly represents Mao as a scheming megalomaniac, “deliberately turning society upside down and stoking the violence of millions to retain his position at the centre”. There is a good deal of truth in this portrait, but Mao was also an ideologue, who genuinely believed in his political mission as the architect of world revolution. Peng Zhen, the mayor of Beijing who became the first target of the Cultural Revolution, is described both as an anti-intellectual hatchet man and, a few pages later, the friend and protector of one of China’s most respected writers.

Elsewhere, though, the book fully acknowledges the contradictory intricacies of the revolution. The campaign as a whole was justified by an appeal to mass government (“Trust the masses … [Let] the masses … expose all the monsters and demons”), yet was dominated by top-down manipulation. One of the many tragedies is that through it Mao pledged greater political transparency and responsiveness to China’s dispossessed, without any idea of the mechanics or implications of providing it; grotesquely bloody civil war ensued. This failure notwithstanding, Dikötter also points out instances where ordinary people tried to make good the liberatory promises of revolution rhetoric, denouncing the inequalities and inequities of life under communist rule. In the archives, Dikötter encountered striking examples of individual rebellion: a man who swore to resist “re-education” however many years the party made him sit through it; a family who dreamed of liberation by foreign invasion.
  
Dikötter is best on the growth of a private economy during China’s reddest decade. By the early 70s, some rural communist cadres – perhaps exhausted by the caprices of central party directives – allowed local farmers to distance themselves from the tyrannies of central socialist planning. Free-wheelers carved off private plots from communes, sowed non-staple crops that were highly profitable in a growing black market, and returned to sidelines (animal rearing, handicrafts) that had been condemned as “capitalist” since the mid-50s. In south China, goods supposedly controlled by government monopoly were openly sold privately; gangs of entrepreneurs roamed the coastline “going all the way to Shanghai to trade in prohibited goods”.
While Mao remains enshrined at the heart of Tiananmen Square and of the legitimacy of China’s ruling party, the CCP will not lift the lid on discussions of individual and collective responsibility for the Cultural Revolution. But the CCP’s reluctance to revisit this history is not just down to sensitivity about Mao’s legacy. The party also dreads remembrance of the political spontaneity that characterised phases of the revolution: the way in which hundreds of millions of discontented ordinary people, given the opportunity, lashed out violently at the party and government. China in 1966 was, like China today, a maelstrom of economic, social and political grievances, fertile ground for an anarchic mobilisation that easily escalated into civil war.
Since 2012, Chinese media voices and ordinary citizens have muttered that contemporary China – as it confronts economic slowdown after three decades of rising inequality – may be approaching a cultural revolution 2.0. This is a dangerous and appalling prospect, especially given the lack of public understanding within the country about what actually happened between 1966 and 1976. For this, and many other reasons, Dikötter’s well-researched and readable new book on the Cultural Revolution’s causes and consequences is a crucial reminder of the tragedies, miscalculations and human costs of Mao’s last experiment.

Julia Lovell is the author of The Opium War: Drugs, Dreams and the Making of China (Picador).

To order The Cultural Revolution for £20.50 (RRP £25) go to bookshop.theguardian.com or call 0330 333 6846. Free UK p&p over £10, online orders only. Phone orders min p&p of £1.99.

sábado, 30 de abril de 2016

A Revolucao Cultural na China, por um historiador (Frank Dikotter) e um sobrevivente da RCC (Xia Yeliang) - Cato Book Forum

The Cultural Revolution: A People’s History, 1962–1976

(Bloomsbury, 2016) 

Book Forum in Cato Institute, April 25, 2016

http://www.cato.org/events/cultural-revolution-peoples-history-1962-1976

Featuring the author Frank Dikötter, Chair Professor of Humanities, University of Hong Kong; with comments by Xia Yeliang, Visiting Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity, Cato Institute; moderated by Marian L. Tupy, Editor, www.humanprogress.org, Cato Institute.
After the economic disaster of the Great Leap Forward that claimed tens of millions of lives from 1958–1962, Mao Zedong launched an ambitious scheme to shore up his reputation and eliminate those he viewed as a threat to his legacy. The stated goal of the Cultural Revolution was to purge China of its bourgeoisie and remaining capitalists. The Cultural Revolution soon resulted in street fighting between rival factions. As China descended into chaos, the military intervened, turning the country into a garrison state marked by bloody purges that killed as many as one in 50 people. After the army itself fell victim to the Cultural Revolution, ordinary people used the political chaos to resurrect the market and hollow out the party’s ideology. In short, they buried Maoism. Please join us for a discussion of the horrors of the Cultural Revolution and its unintended consequences.

quinta-feira, 28 de abril de 2016

Efeitos psiquicos da Revolucão Chinesa: meio século depois, um psicanalista americano investiga - Tomas Plankers

Asia Pacific

Q. and A.: Tomas Plänkers on the Psychic Legacy of the Cultural Revolution

sexta-feira, 15 de agosto de 2014

Simon Leys: o homem que desmascarou Mao Tse-tung, morre...

Lembro-me como se fosse hoje: eu, jovem estudante recém chegado na Bélgica, percorrendo as livrarias de Bruxelas, e vendo um livro que contribuiria ainda mais para aprofundar o meu ceticismo em relação às supostas virtudes humanas do socialismo chinês.
Ali estava o livro: Les Habits Neufs du Président Mao, por um certo Simon Leys.
Era o começo da transformação...
Paulo Roberto de Almeida 
Pierre Ryckmans, 78, Dies; Exposed Mao’s Hard Line
He challenged the prevailing romantic view of Mao harbored by many Western intellectuals by writing about the cruelties of the Cultural Revolution.



By MICHAEL FORSYTHEAUG. 14, 2014
Photo
Pierre Ryckmans, who used the pen name Simon Leys, first traveled to China as a student in 1955. His once romantic view of China dissipated when he learned of the Cultural Revolution.CreditWilliam West/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

Pierre Ryckmans, a Belgian-born scholar of China who challenged a romanticized Western view of Mao Zedong in the 1960s with his early portrayal of Mao’s Cultural Revolution as chaotic and destructive, died on Monday at his home in Sydney, Australia. He was 78.
His daughter, Jeanne Ryckmans, said the cause was cancer.
Mr. Ryckmans, who was better known by his pen name, Simon Leys, fell in love with China at the age of 19 while touring the country with fellow Belgian students in 1955. One highlight was an audience with Prime Minister Zhou Enlai. The man-made famine of Mao’s Great Leap Forward and his Cultural Revolution, which began in 1966 and ended about the time of Mao’s death, in 1976, were still in the future. There was much to be admired in the new China.
Yet pursuing his studies of Chinese art, culture and literature in the People’s Republic itself was not an option for a Westerner, so he settled in Taiwan, where he met his future wife, Han-fang Chan. He also lived in Singapore and Hong Kong.
It was in Hong Kong during the late 1960s, when it was still a British colony, that Mr. Ryckmans (pronounced RICK-mans) began to follow the turmoil just across the frontier, reading accounts in the official Chinese press about the Cultural Revolution and talking to former Mao supporters who had escaped it.
He began to find that the romantic view of Mao harbored by many Western intellectuals — as a progressive if flawed champion of the masses — was completely at odds with the cruelties of the Cultural Revolution, which sought to eradicate Chinese cultural traditions and Western capitalist influences and replace it with a Maoist orthodoxy. The movement led to purges, forced internal exiles and whipsaw shifts in the political winds, and it compelled Mr. Ryckmans to step into the arena of political commentary.
“Until 1966 Chinese politics did not loom large in my preoccupations, and I confidently extended to the Maoist regime the same sympathy I felt for all things Chinese, without giving it more specific thought,” Mr. Ryckmans wrote under his pseudonym in “Chinese Shadows,” which was first published in French in 1974. “But the Cultural Revolution, which I observed from beginning to end from the vantage point of Hong Kong, forced me out of this comfortable ignorance.”
His first account, “The Chairman’s New Clothes,” was also published in French, in 1971, a year after he had settled in Australia, lured by an eminent Chinese literary scholar, Liu Cunren, to teach at Australian National University. Mr. Ryckmans wrote the book under the name Simon Leys to disguise his identity so that he would not be banned from China.
He returned to China in 1972 on a six-month assignment as a cultural attaché for the Belgian Embassy in Beijing. The wanton destruction of the city’s ancient architectural heritage shocked him.
In “Chinese Shadows,” he wrote of his frantic search for some of the most magnificent of the city’s huge gates, which he assumed had been preserved, even though he knew that the city walls had been taken apart starting in the 1950s. The gates were gone. “The destruction of the gates of Peking is, properly speaking, a sacrilege; and what makes it dramatic is not that the authorities had them pulled down but that they remain unable to understand why they pulled them down,” he wrote.
The Cultural Revolution, he found, had destroyed the beauty of Chinese culture and civilization without destroying what needed to be exorcised: the tyranny of arbitrary rule.
In a telephone interview, Kevin Rudd, a former prime minister of Australia and a former student of Mr. Ryckmans, called him “the first of the Western Sinologists of the ’60s and ’70s to expose the truth of the cultural desecration that occurred during the Cultural Revolution, ripping away the political veneer from it all and exposing it for what it was: an ugly, violent, internal political struggle within the Chinese Communist Party led by Mao.”
Mr. Rudd added, “He was excoriated at the time by Sinologists who had been captured by the romance which many felt for the Cultural Revolution in the early days.”
The irony, Mr. Rudd said, is that the Chinese leadership moved to repudiate the Cultural Revolution after Mao’s death. Many of the delights of old Beijing — the food stalls, the street dancing on a summer’s evening — did indeed return, as did an appreciation for classical art, literature and, finally, the classical scholar Confucius, who had been vilified by the Maoists. Mr. Ryckmans translated, into English, the “Analects,” the collection of sayings attributed to Confucius.
Yet he did not change with the times. “It was difficult to get Pierre to accept that real, sustainable and positive changes had occurred in the China of the period of ‘reform and opening,’ ” Mr. Rudd said.
More than a Sinologist, Mr. Ryckmans was also a formidable European man of letters, earning doctorates in law and art in Belgium, said Richard Rigby, a China scholar and Mr. Ryckmans’s brother-in-law. His lectures, he added, brought the best of both worlds together.
“He could look at a Chinese painting or maybe something by Orwell and essays by Montaigne and put them all together into a coherent whole,” Mr. Rigby said.
Mr. Ryckmans also wrote a novel, “The Death of Napoleon,” which imagines the deposed emperor escaping from exile on St. Helena and making his way back to France. First published in France in 1986 and then in English in 1992, it was hailed as “an extraordinary book” by the novelist Penelope Fitzgerald, writing in The New York Times Book Review, and adapted into a film, with Ian Holm and Hugh Bonneville, in 2002.
Mr. Ryckmans was a frequent contributor to The New York Review of Books, Le Monde and other periodicals and the recipient of several literary prizes.
He was born on Sept. 28, 1935, in Brussels. Besides his daughter, he is survived by his wife; his sons Marc, Etienne and Louis; and two grandchildren.
He also taught at the University of Sydney and spent his later years writing and sailing. A collection of his essays, “The Hall of Uselessness,” discussing topics as far-ranging as “Don Quixote” and Confucius, was published in 2011.
In “Chinese Shadows,” Mr. Ryckmans wrote that even though Mao and his acolytes would leave the scene, and there would be an inevitable relaxation of authoritarian rule, the fundamental characteristics of Communist rule would not change.
“Among various descriptions of Communist China made at different times, one may note differences,” he wrote, “yet if these descriptions have been made conscientiously and perceptively, they will show more than ephemeral journalistic truths, for modifications will be in quantity, never in quality — variations in amplitude, not changes in basic orientation.”
A version of this article appears in print on August 15, 2014, on page A21 of the New York edition with the headline: Pierre Ryckmans, 78, Dies; Exposed Mao’s Hard Line.