失序的造反：文革初期集體行動的內在機制

by Andrew G. Walder, 魏昂德, 閆宇 (Translator)

1969年，文革開始後僅三年，全國已深陷派系林立、權鬥不斷的失序之中，其範圍之廣、影響之深遠超黨政高層的預計。全國革命委員會的成立加上軍事介入，為何無助重塑秩序，反而推動了運動內部的派別對立，令局勢逐漸失控？為解釋這場「謎一般的動亂」，本書從全國動員談起，透過系統梳理2,246個省、市、縣的地方志檔案，考察3.4萬起事件，逐步揭示文革的造反步伐、黨政體系的崩潰、派系身分的形成和其後所引發的鬥爭，以至地區衝突的升級和對策，剖析文革集體行動的起因、發展過程和後果。本書提出在當時瞬息萬變的政治和社會環境下，集體行動由機關幹部發起、「自內而外」擊潰政治秩序，個體的選擇和政策的驟變促使各方派系形成及演變。作者研究一方面修正了過去造反是以學生和工人階級主導、「自下而上」破壞秩序的傳統論述，另一方面「展現了歷史的偶然性、人類的不確定性和對『政治利益』不斷改變的定義」。

Genres: China, History, Asia, Nonfiction

284 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 2024

Reviews

[Yupa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Un libro che è fatto anche di tante tabelle e numeri, ma è giusto così, perché è proprio da qui che si deve partire per raccontare e capire la storia. L'autore inoltre sa giostrare bene le parti più nozionistiche e quelle più descrittive. È così che in meno di trecento pagine (e molte sono di note bibliografiche) riesce a dipingere forse uno dei migliori quadri possibili dei primi due anni della Rivoluzione Culturale in Cina, dei modi in cui si è articolata tra le diverse fasi di ribellione, ma una ribellione in buona parte spinta se non pilotata dai quadri intermedî della burocrazia, come il libro illustra nel dettaglio, e di dura repressione quando le cose rischiavano di andare troppo fuori controllo, specie per gli scontri tra fazioni.
Ma dietro i resoconti del caso specifico in esame si celano anche le diatribe dell'autore con suoi colleghi sociologi sulla forma generale della mobilitazione politica.
In particolare l'autore contesta l'idea che gli scontri politici avvengano tra gruppi con interessi predefiniti che vengono portati avanti coerentemente, e propone invece l'ipotesi che gli interessi possano formarsi in seguito alla mobilitazione politica e possano variare, anche completamente, a seconda delle circostanze, delle convenienze, della vicinanza o lontananza dal potere politico. Questo, tornando all'argomento specifico, contrasta con l'idea dominante che la Rivoluzione Culturale sia stata soprattutto uno scontro binario tra ribelli e conservatori all'interno dell'establishment, tra un Mao che voleva portare all'estremo la sua idea di socialismo e gli strati del partito che, dopo i fallimenti del Grande Balzo in Avanti, volevano marginalizzare il grande timoniere e riformare il sistema.
L'autore porta una gran quantità di dati e osservazioni per confermare la propria ipotesi, in gran parte risulta convincente, e soprattutto alimenta un dubbio che mi interroga da tempo, ovvero che forse non ci sono legami tra il contenuto di una dottrina politica (o anche religiosa, se vogliamo) e la quantità di violenza e repressione che chi porta avanti quella specifica dottrina può dispiegare una volta giunto al potere. Sarebbero quindi inutili le discussioni se una tal religione abbia messaggi più o meno pacifici, o se sia più autoritaria la destra o la sinistra: una volta preso il potere qualunque tipo di gruppo tenderebbe comunque a sopprimere gli avversarî ideologici.
Eppure… eppure nell'ipotesi dell'autore c'è anche un limite. In tutto il suo resoconto sugli scontri tra le varie fazioni ed entità della Rivoluzione Culturale, le loro fragili e mutevoli alleanze, le effimere prese del potere, è completamente assente proprio l'eventuale idea di società che questi gruppi portavano avanti. Può essere che gli interessi dei diversi gruppi si siano formati anche in corso d'opera e siano stati molto meno scolpiti nella pietra di quanto si creda, che si siano anche ribaltati da una fase all'altra, ma resta il fatto che, una volta al potere, portavano o avrebbero portato avanti determinate politiche in termini di forma delle istituzioni, di gestione dell'economia, di rapporti con l'estero e così via. Che poi è quello che è effettivamente successo, pur se in maniera molto contorta.
Anche senza accettare completamente la tesi di fondo dell'autore, questo libro è comunque una sfida a scrutare la complessità spesso sorprendente di quei due o tre anni che hanno sconvolto la Cina.

[Rocco Graziano · Rating 4 out of 5]

An incredibly well-researched look at the first years of the Cultural Revolution from a sociological perspective. The prose is extremely dry, unfortunately, but the author's very thorough use of the available sources (especially the local county/town annals) provides a glimpse into the role of local political actors and senior CPC members in the unfolding of the Cultural Revolution. Walder's argument provides a needed corrective to the en vogue identarian explanations for the CR, though he does occasionally reach beyond the limits of what the research shows, and I don't think he is entirely clear enough in delineating what is supported by the evidence and what is simply his personal extrapolation.

[Publius Decius Max · Rating 4 out of 5]

In this book Walder argues that interest group analysis is a lackluster explanation to the factionalism that took place during the Cultural Revolution. That is, the conflicts were not merely caused by the ex ante sociopolitical roots and settings of the differing groups, but also that the conflicts were interactive adaptions to the institutional complexities of the era. I don't believe older theories from original political sociology ought to be jettisoned completely, but I do believe Walder's documentations and the subsequent arguments are produced in good faith and with rigor, and explain the interactivity of conflicts during the Cultural Revolution fairly well. On the other hand, I do not believe the level of stochasticity of the event is generalizable. If one was to construct a mental framework of the stochasticity, one could assert that the more ambiguous and uncertain the institutional context, the more relevance Walder's main thesis has. In contrast, the more institutionally stable (more predictable) an event is, the less flexibility and rapid judgements are needed, strengthening the inferences from conventional interest group analysis. Viz, due to the CR being incredibly institutionally disrupting, I think Walder is more correct than not.

All in all, this is a great book. The study encompasses 2246 cities, and Walder does excellent analysis and narrating throughout. The "inside-out" aspect of the CR, wherein rebel cadres turned against their superiors, how this created new reactionary rebel movements, and how this inside-out behavior often trickled down institutionally, from provinces to counties was interesting. Furthermore, how the military interventions thereafter served to form the factional warfare, depending on which rebel groups they sided with. Walder also shows that the majority of the casualties and victims happened at the behest of the military and civilian authorities, not the Red Guards or rebels in schools or workplaces. "Their application of force in the suppression of rebel organizations, and their conduct of the vast persecution campaigns designed to
consolidate political order after the suppression of rebel insurgencies, generated
far more deaths, and vastly more victims, than the disruptive insurgencies to
which they were a response." Out of all the books I have read on the Cultural Revolution, this would probably be my go-to pick, despite being quite dry at times. For a CR-trifecta: I would combine Walder's book with Red-Color News Soldier and The Unknown Cultural Revolution: Life and Change in a Chinese Village.

[Zulu Fox · Rating 5 out of 5]

Five stars. Absolutely phenomenal book on the Cultural Revolution which seems to be criminally underrated on Goodreads. I’ve always liked Walder and he really hit it out of the park this time. Revisionist history at its very best, and at a modest 200 some-odd pages no less. I’ve read quite a bit on this subject and wasn’t sure my understanding of it would ever meaningfully change, but wonders never cease! This book has deeply changed the way I view it.

To be sure, there are some stats and graphs and collections of case studies that can seem dry (this books also serves as an awesome reference), but the way it’s structured it’s easy to just skip those portions if you’re not interested in them. I won’t dock a star just for including information that might be very interesting or useful to some readers. Likewise, there are some theoretical bits which may be less interesting to some, but here again, just skip them! Because what IS here is revelatory and interesting and might really change the way you look at this topic.

[Jeff McLeod · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some really interesting conclusions in here about how "power seizures" and PLA intervention unfolded in 1967 - 1969, applying sociological analysis to collective actions of the rapidly shifting social groupings and factions in the Cultural Revolution. The author stretches the conclusions that can be reached from relatively limited official statistical data to its limit and beyond, in my opinion. The switching between descriptive analysis and statistical analysis is disorienting, not clarifying, and there's no attempt to establish a broader narrative. That said, a lot of detail and worthwhile breakdowns of some possible explanations for the actions of different political actors during a really confusing and tumultuous few years. Worth a read for GPCR-heads

[Michael · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lucid but dry history of the first two years of the Cultural Revolution.
Effectively communicates much of the complexity and contradiction of these years. The study is built on extensive research into published local annals, unifying fragmentary quantitative data into a national data-set used to illustrate the narrative. The shortcomings of these statistics are discussed rather briefly at the end.

I would have liked a bit more on the dynamics among senior leaders leading up to the Cultural revolution, or discussing the continuities with earlier purges. But on the whole an effective history.

[Alexander Boyd · Rating 5 out of 5]

will be posting review soon

[Russell Chee · Rating 3 out of 5]

An interesting corrective to conventional narratives of the Cultural Revolution. Occasionally a little too data-oriented (it is, after all, sociological analysis, I suppose) but often with fascinating insights (eg how death tolls were starkly proportional to military occupation due to the risks of an escalatory trap). I also thought the author did a convincing job of extrapolating death tolls and justifying such actions. However, I sometimes thought that the author made judgments/conclusions that were not self-evident from the data without justifying them sufficiently.

Nonetheless, an interesting read for anyone who wants to understand the Cultural Revolution.