Chapter 07 Criticism of Hu Shih’s Movement 1954

Journalist: “Hu Shih ran away to the United States in 1949, why did you still launch the criticism of Hu Shih?”

Mao: “In 1954, China launched a powerful movement to criticize Yu Pingbo’s Study of the Dream of the Red Chamber, which later turned to criticize Yu Pingbo’s teacher Hu Shih. I called him a ‘pragmatist advocate,’ a ‘foreign slave and a bought man of letters,’ and an ‘enemy of Marxism.’ I called him a ‘pragmatist advocate,’ a ‘foreign slave-trader,’ and an ‘enemy of Marxism.’

I launched a major criticism of Hu Shih, who was living abroad, because Hu Shih’s liberalism was incompatible with my authoritarianism, and Hu Shih’s ideas had a great influence on intellectuals, and I could not implement my doctrine without criticizing Hu Shih.”

Journalist: “Oh, Hu Shih is free, you autocratic, criticize down the freedom, so as to be autocratic?”

Mao: “Yes, the criticism of Hu Shih, there were sporadic articles in 1950. Due to the rise of the ‘Three-Anti’ and ‘Five-Anti’ campaigns, there were no major initiatives to criticize Hu Shih from 1952 to the autumn of 1954. During this period, intellectuals were mainly engaged in self-reflection and self-censorship in the process of ideological reform, and also in criticizing Hu Shih’s thought, with self-imposed ideological reform as the main focus and criticism of Hu Shih’s thought as the second.

In October 1954, I was dissatisfied with the errors of the Literary and Art Newspaper, and thus supported the articles of Li Xifan and Lan Ling, and launched a movement to criticize Yu Pingbo’s study of the Dream of the Red Chamber, stating that ‘one should not admit that Yu Pingbo’s views are correct, but study and criticize the wrong ideas.’ I also commented on the article in Guangming Daily that ‘sesame oil mixed with leeks, each person’s heart loves’ “This is the relativism of Hu Shih’s philosophy, that is, pragmatism.”

Journalist: “How do you carry out your criticism of Hu Shih?”

Mao: “At that time, the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Writers’ Association jointly set up a special body to criticize Hu, or what Zhou Yang called the ‘Committee to Discuss Hu,’ and thereafter the criticism campaign was rapidly launched. During this period, the criticism of Yu Pingbo’s erroneous views in the study of Dream of the Red Chamber was the main criticism, and the criticism of Hu Shih was the second. However, the criticism of Yu Pingbo gradually decreased, while the criticism of Hu Shih gradually increased.

In November 1954, the movement to criticize Hu Shih was ostensibly led by Guo Moruo and Zhou Yang, but it soon became clear that I was the one who authorized it, and everyone became even more frightened and uneasy. Guo Moruo was the first to criticize Hu Shih. Guo said: ‘We have politically declared Hu Shih a war criminal, but in the minds of some people, Hu Shih is still a ‘Confucius. This ‘Confucius’ we have not yet knocked him down.’”

Journalist: “Oh, Guo Moruo compared Hu Shih to Confucius, and they all had to be knocked down?”

Mao: “Yes. December 2, 1954, the Academy of Sciences and the Writers’ Association, the joint criticism of Hu Shih, presumed that Guo Moruo, Mao Dun, Zhou Yang, Pan Zinian, Deng Tuo, Hu rope, Lao She, Shao Tsuen-fu, Yin Da and other nine people to form a committee, the same day, the Central Propaganda Department Zhou Yang on the criticism of Hu Shih reported to me. December 3, I approved: Liu (Shaoqi), Zhou (Enlai), Zhu (De), Chen (Yun), Deng (Xiaoping), Chen Boda, Hu Qiaomu, Deng Tuo, Zhou Yang comrades read, according to this. The Academy of Sciences and the Writers’ Association have held more than 30 joint criticism meetings.

On December 9, 1954, the People’s Daily once again published Guo Moruo’s speech, in which he said that Hu Shih was: ‘the number one spokesman of the bought-and-paid-for bourgeoisie, he and Chiang Kai-shek, a literary and a military, difficult brother and sister, twin peaks confront each other, double water diversion,’ and asked everyone to criticize Hu Shih, ‘profound examination, always alert.’”

Journalist: “Guo Moruo said that Chiang Kai-shek and Hu Shih, are one martial and one literary, reactionary buyers, you agree?”

Mao: “Yes, I agree. Fan Wenlan, a Marxist-Leninist historian, also criticized that Hu Shih was a traitorous traitor dressed up as the present-day Confucius, waiting for a price to be paid. In the crusade, under great pressure, in order to survive, the literati of the Hu Shih faction, as well as academic, educational and cultural figures of all sizes, took a stand and vowed to break with Hu Shih completely, using the pens and ballpoint pens in their hands as throwing guns and daggers, and hurling them at Hu Shih, who was far away across the ocean.”

Journalist: “Oh, the Marxist-Leninist historian Fan Wenlan said Hu Shih was a traitor and traitor, you also agree?”

Mao: “Yes, I agree. 1955 Luo Erzang spoke with passion, under the title of ‘Two Lives’, published in Guangming Daily on May 4, 1955. Hu Shih’s disciples and old friends, who also held Luo Erzang as their teacher, criticized Hu Shih in droves.

As early as 1949, I had already characterized Hu Shih, Fu Sian and Qian Mu as representatives of ‘reactionary literary scholars,’ and Xia Nai, Zhouliang, Xiangda and Feng Youlan also jumped up and kicked Hu Shih hard. In the atmosphere of trumpeting and danger, the scholars had to take up their daggers and stab at Hu Shih’s shadow for self-preservation, and a new climax was set off again.”

Journalist: “The intellectual community has spoken to your tune?”

Mao: “Yes, just when the criticism of Hu Shih was in full swing, in response to Hu Feng’s Report on the Situation of Literary and Artistic Practice in the Past Few Years, submitted in July 1954, I simultaneously launched a campaign to criticize Hu Feng.

On January 20, 1955, I wanted to submit a report to the Central Propaganda Department on the development of the criticism of Hu Feng’s thought, pointing out that while criticizing Hu Shih and Yu Pingbo for their bourgeois idealism, I had to thoroughly criticize Hu Feng’s bourgeois literary and artistic thought. The main critique was of Hu Shih and the secondary critique was of Hu Feng.

Guo Moruo said: ‘Hu Shih and Hu Feng were different in appearance, one openly selling American goods and the other smuggling and selling Japanese goods, but essentially they had in common the desire to seize the leading position by using the bourgeois subjective idealism.’”

Journalist: “Guo Moruo said Hu Shih was selling American goods (American Ideals) and Hu Feng was selling Japanese goods (Japanese Ideals), you also agree?”

Mao: “Yes, I agree, both are bourgeois things On May 13, 1955, the People’s Daily published ‘Some Materials on Hu Feng’s Anti-Party Group,’ to which I added a special editor’s note. As a result, the special criticism of Hu Feng gradually became the main character. With the publication of the Second Batch of Materials on Hu Feng’s Anti-Party Group and the Third Batch of Materials on Hu Feng’s Anti-Party Group, the denunciation and purging of Hu Feng’s anti-Party group dominated the mainstream, and the criticism of Hu gradually faded out.

On October 5, 1955, the Central Propaganda Department reported to the Central Committee about the main work from January to September 1955, indicating that the criticism of Yu Pingbo’s study of Dream of the Red Chamber had ended. The criticism of Hu Shih would come to an end. The criticism of Hu Feng had been raised to expose and purge Hu Feng’s counter-revolutionary group.

In 1955, under the leadership of Guo Moruo, eight series of ‘Criticism of Hu Shih’s Thought’ were published with about 2 million words, and another 30 books were published to criticize Hu’s writings, totaling 3 million words. Hu Shih read all of these articles and made some interesting commentaries.”

Journalist: “Wow, there are 30 books of criticism and 3 million words? What was Hu Shih’s reaction?”

Mao: “Hu Shih did not mind at all my criticism of Hu’s movement, seeing it as a victory for his own liberal ideas and political convictions, a lift for himself. Hu Shih said, ‘These invective words make me feel happy and excited, because what little effort I have made for 40 years is not entirely in vain; after all, a great deal of ‘toxin’ is left behind. This ‘toxin’ for Marxism-Leninism is like the plague, but also occurs anti-poison and antiseptic effect.”

Journalist: “Oh, Hu Shih was very confident! You didn’t criticize him?”

Mao: “No. In 1956, I thought I was not enjoying criticizing Hu Shih in China, and my fist was hitting the cotton. In September 1956, I asked Chen Yuan in London to send a letter to Hu Shih, conveying my opinion that the domestic criticism of Hu Shih was mainly directed at his ideas, not at individuals. If Hu Shih came back, he would still be welcomed and would be free to come and go. Hu Shih wrote back, ‘Besides thoughts, what is ‘me’’”

Journalist: “Hu Shih did not fall for your trick? Freedom to come and go? After entering your iron barrel, you are the one who decides?”

Mao: “Yes, Hu Shih did not take my bait. Hu Shih remained the same. He also said, ‘Although some of my writings may not be worth preserving for a long time, at the time when the Communist Party on the mainland is burning my books, at the time when the Communist Party is ‘liquidating Hu Shih’s thought,’ I should let the people of the free world know what ‘Hu Shih’s thought’ is and what ‘Hu Shih’s thought is’ and why exactly ‘Hu Shih’s thought’ deserves the Communist Party’s crazy liquidation?’”

Journalist: “Hu Shih is in America, if he were in China, he would have to die if you wanted him to?”

Mao: “Unfortunately, he was allowed to run away fast and get away. Hu Shih and I are the same age, from the point of view of personal struggle, I am more successful than Hu Shih, people call me the master of strategy, master of rectification, the artist of lies, but in terms of understanding of life and the world, in terms of wisdom, I am not as good as Hu Shih. I am at best a hero in the category of Zhu Yuanzhang, but I am not as good as Zhu Yuanzhang, who contributed to the founding of the country, I on the contrary, I painted civilization dirty and black.”

Journalist: “We understand that criticizing Hu Shih is necessary for your authoritarian politics; in fact, do you think Hu Shih is really that bad?”

Mao: “No. I once said, ‘Hu Shih is really stubborn. We sent letters to him to persuade him to come back, but I don’t know what he really loves. The criticism is always nothing good. To be honest, he is credited with the New Culture Movement and should seek truth from facts. In the 21st century, at that time, then restore his reputation.’”