Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution by Arif Dirlik Review by: Viren Murthy Philosophy East and West, Vol.

46, No. 1 (Jan., 1996), pp. 123-131 Published by: University of Hawai'i Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1399342 . Accessed: 06/05/2012 09:44
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Hawai'i Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Philosophy East and West.

http://www.jstor.org

Anarchismin the Chinese Revolution.By Arif Dirlik. Berkeleyand Los Angeles: Universityof CaliforniaPress,1991. Arif Dirlik'sAnarchismin the Chinese Revolution raises some funda- Reviewedby mental questions regardingour understanding of twentieth-century Chi- VirenMurthy nese intellectual history. According to Dirlik, the anarchistsplayed a Universityof Hawai'i crucial, but largelyneglected, role in shaping modernChinese thought. He arguesthat "not only did the revolutionary situationcreated by China's confrontation with the modernworld give birthto a radicalculture that provided fecund grounds for anarchism, but also that anarchists played an important partin the fashioningof this radicalculture"(pp. 1Dirlik's book the development of anarchismin China and describes 2). its on emphasizes influence Chinese communism. The role of anarchism in Chinese communist thought, in Dirlik's view, separatedit from RussianBolshevism.Anarchismserved as a constantcriticalforce thattriedto de-constructthe hegemonic tendencies of communism.It is important to note thatanarchismwas popularin China almost twenty years before Marxismwas introduced.Dirliktells us that he will try to show that the "anarchist origins (of Chinese Marxists) may be important to an understanding of how they became Marxists, and also of some featuresof Chinese Marxism(especially in its Maoist version) of Marxismthat they esthat diverged from the Leninistinterpretation 3-4). poused formally"(pp. The natureof the anarchistinfluence becomes clearer as one proceeds to read the text. Dirliktraces the variousfactions of the anarchist movement fromthe early years to the time when it was eventuallysuppressed. The anarchistsbroach many fundamentalthemes in political and revolutionary theory. In the introduction,Dirlikbringsto our attention the problemof discourseand ideology in anarchistthought:
In a crucial sense, then, anarchismextended the frontiersof revolutionary discourse by pointingto a social projectthat negated the boundariesestablished by a politicalconception of society; and its very presence in the revolutionarydiscourse rendered problematicany effort toward an ideological closure of the social by the political.(p. 35)

The anarchistmovementconstantlytriedto keep the socialist movements from achieving closure. They made activistsaware of the riftbetween political structures and society. This rift,which Mao would call a contradictionin his "On the CorrectHandlingof Contradictions among the People," was seen as one of the majorcauses of alienation. But before exploringthe details of the mannerin which the anarchistsought to ? 1996 overcome human alienation, Dirlikmakes an epistemologicalpoint that by University of Hawai'iPress is relevantto the restof the book:

123

The evaluationof anarchism's significancepresupposesa certainconception of the problemof ideology-in this case a specificallysocialistideology-that of needs to be spelled out brieflybeforewe discussthe concretecontributions anarchismto revolutionary discourse in China. Of special importanceis a distinctionI should like to draw between ideology and discourse, "a certain way of talkingabout a specific set of objects."(p. 37) This distinction, Dirlik claims, is essential to an understanding of the polemic between the anarchists and the communists. Let us look at Dirlik's analysis of each of these terms. Ideology has been interpreted predominantly in two ways: (1) "as the articulation of class or other social interests" and (2) "as the articulation of a broader system of authority structured by the interaction of these more narrow interests from which ideology as an 'integrative cultural system' derives its form" (p. 37). The second definition of ideology is termed discourse by Dirlik. Dirlik's notion of discourse is reminiscent of Heidegger's Altaglichkeit or Bourdieu's habitus. It is the prereflective realm within which ideological conflicts occur. Ideology relates to discourse in terms of containment: "(T)he ideological appropriation of discourse appears as a 'containment' of the discourse in accordance with specific social interests or outlooks. Containment is also primarily a procedure of exclusion, a silencing of those elements of the discourse that are inimical to the interests of the group" (p. 38). This analysis of ideology is pertinent to our present discussion of anarchism since we must determine whether anarchism in China functioned as an ideology or as a revolutionary disruptive discourse. This question is relevant not only on an abstract level, namely the level of discourse, but also on the concrete level of social transformation. As I remarked earlier, one of the key themes of the anarchist movement was the subversion of revolutionary hegemony. Dirlik comments on this point: While the importance of revolutionary success is hegemonyfor revolutionary self-evident,the criticalquestionforthe futureof revolutionis whetherhegemony is more desirablebecause it is revolutionary-especiallysince revolution if successful,establishesitselfa new order.Is it not likelythata revolution that will result in a new takes as its premise the hegemony of revolutionaries structure of authority, in its very hegemonythat hidden relationreproducing ship between ideology and power to overthrowwhich was the goal of revolution in the firstplace, againstwhich the only guaranteeis the good will of the revolutionaries or their claim to a scientific discoveryof the path to liberation?Is this not the point in revolutionary discourse at which revolution, which seeks to dispose of ideology, itself becomes ideological because it dissimulatesin its discourseits relationship to power?(p. 39) This paragraph adequately expresses Mao's sentiments during the Cultural Revolution. Dirlik's claim is that this problem was first brought PhilosophyEast& West to the Chinese revolution by the anarchists. As we look at the historical

124

developmentof the CommunistPartyin China,we notice that the problem of hegemony, namely the hegemony of the Party,has largelybeen excluded. The relevance of Dirlik'sbook is even more apparentwhen one looks at the contemporary hegemony of the CommunistParty. Dirlik'sbook is importantnot only for the light it sheds on a neglected areaof Chinese intellectualhistory,but also forthe issues it raises about the relationshipbetween governmentand the masses. An examination of this problemcan open a space in which to discuss the possibility of a radicaldemocracy. Democracy understoodin this anarchistic of the apparatus sense implies a radicalrestructuring that defines power relationsin contemporary This capitalistsociety. democracy is not mediated throughthe homogeneous state but has as its preconditionthe disof the state. "Government and the capitalistsystem were the integration twin objects of revolution;Shifu [an anarchistin Guangzhou]described sometimes one, sometimes the other, as the greatestenemy of the people." (p. 130). This shows that the anarchists,like the communists,saw capitalismas a majorobstacle to achievingtheirgoal of a "freesociety." The anarchistsbelieved that their conception of a free society had its roots in ancient Chinese philosophy. Dirlik describes two of China's most prominentanarchists,Liu Shipei and Shifu, as both believing that theircultureformeda base for theiranarchism:
Liu Shipei thoughtthat Chinese had an advantageover others in achieving anarchismbecause of their Confucian and Daoist heritage, which favored restricted government.A series of articlesin the New Eradescribedthe statement on utopia in the ancient Chinesework "LiYun"(Evolution of rites)as a depiction of anarchistsociety, even if the authorread into that statementa greatdeal thatwas not justifiedby the original. of Chineseanarchism. Shifusharedthese idiosyncrasies Thereis evidence of Buddhistinfluenceon his thought.His Conscience Societywas establishedin an atmospherepermeated by Buddhism,and the Covenant of the Society sounded more Buddhist than anarchist.(p. 132)

Shifu'sacknowledgmentof his indebtednessto the traditionwas not one-sided; he also distanced himselffrom Daoism:
Daoism, he believed, was negative;what he advocated was positive. Shifu meantthatwhereas Daoistsmay have rejectedgovernmentin the name of an eremetic existence, he sought to transformexisting society and to revolutionize humansociety as a whole. Shifurejectedpolitics, not to escape it but to abolish it. His social revolutionwas informedby a social theory that had nothingin common with traditional political reasoning.(p. 133)

The last sentence in the quote above is perhapsoverstated.I am not sure if one can assertthat Shifu'sanarchisttheory has nothing in common with "traditional political reasoning."I would preferto say that he radicalizescertain unrealizedpossibilitiesin traditionalpolitical theory. BookReviews

125

Traditional politicaltheorydoes emphasize that the authoritative person is to (junzi) play an active role in structuringsociety. However, the Confucian notion of governmenthad historicallybeen interpreted as a formationthat led to elitism. Daoism can be seen as a rigidhierarchical force that resistedthe hegemony of historicalConfucianism.But Daoism has often been interpreted as advocatinga life free from politics that is asocial. Given this interpretation of Daoism, Confucianismmay add a social element to the revolutionary Daoist philosophy. Froma historicalperspective,the anarchistsattackedConfucianism much more than any other philosophy. But it is important to note that of Confucianism that what they attackedwas a hegemonic interpretation was prevalentin the Ming and Qing dynasties:
attackedConfucianism Wu Yu, the uncompromising critic of Confucianism, not because it was "old" (he did not extend the same attackto Daoism and but because it upLegalismbut used them ratherto criticize Confucianism), that "theeffect of the idea of filial held the Chinesefamilysystem. His remark of obepiety has been to turnChina into a big factoryfor the manufacturing dient subjects," is revealingof the material,because social, understanding [sic] of culturethat infusedthe call for cultural[sic] revolutionin these years. It was not abstractissues or ideas, but the call for the struggleagainst the hegemonyof the old over the young, of men over women, of the richover the poor, of state over society, in short, against authority,that in these years fashioneda social movementout of ideas. (p. 165)

The recognitionof the manifoldpower relationsthat pervadedsociety made the anarchistscall for a cultural revolution.This revolution dealt with both the sphere of ideology and the materialrelationswhich constitutedsociety. Notice that the metaphorWu uses to describe the natureof the oppressivehegemony is thatof a big factorymanufacturing obedient subjects.' The anarchistswere concerned that the majorityof the Chinese masses were beginningto turn into cogs in the machine. In was sacrificedto an otherwords, the creativepower of the "individual" alien force. As JiangKanghu,an anarchisticsocialist, notes:
to be the basic unitof the Frombeginningto end, I have takenthe individual world. This is my differencefrom socialists who take society as their only premise.Ifsociety is taken as the sole premise,the resultis to disdainthe individual:trampledupon [in this way], the individualloses worth as the unit [of the world], which, in turn,obliteratesthe spiritof independenceand initiative. [This]reduces the individualto the [level of the] scales of fish and dragons,or the cog in a machine. (p. 138) The goal of the anarchists, namely some type of real democracy in which the subjects actively participate in the constitution of society, entailed the subversion of the oppressive structures that reduced them to PhilosophyEast& West the status of cogs in the machine. Both the anarchists and the commu-

126

nists constantly searched for methods by which a balance between structureand agency or individualand society could be attained.Here we see that the anarchistswere the firstto pose these types of questions. Moreover, Dirlik argues, the anarchistscould be used to criticize the of the Chinese CommunistParty,which he says did not do shortcomings its own hegemony over the masses, despite Mao's to overcome enough constantattempts.Accordingto Dirlik,Mao himselfwas not consistentin his attackon hegemony and sometimesgave in to the Partyand thus remained too much of a Leninist. But before proceeding furtherinto Dirlik'scritique, I shall quickly note the relevanceof this anarchistdiscourseto Marxismin general.The precedingdebate over how anarchisticMao actuallywas or should have been hinges, in many ways, on the auseinandersetzung between Marx and the anarchists.This is especially relevantin the Chinese case since the Bolshevikrevolutionwas interpreted by Chinese intellectualsas an anarchistratherthan a Marxistrevolution.2Thus, in the eyes of many radical Chinese, the distinction between Marxismand anarchismwas not drawnas distinctlyas it was in much of the West. Of course, history has made this distinction in a way such that Marxismhas come to be associatedwith the hegemonic partystructures that recentlycollapsed in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Here, we have a problem similarto the one that we encountered with Confucius.Anarchistswould be correct in criticizingthe historical structures with which Marxismis associated, but, at the same time, the one structure to which almost all anarchists, Chinese or Western,referis the one to which Marx himself pointed as an ideal, namely the Paris Commune.3 Moreover,the anarchists'constant concern with political structures as alienatingis analyzed by Marxin his essays "On the Jewish Question" and "A Critiqueof Hegel's Philosophy of Right."A close readingof these articlesshows that Marxhimselfwas a peculiartype of anarchist.That is, he was an anarchistwho believed that one could not be an anarchistand at the same time overlook the hegemonic natureof the capitalistmode of production.This mode of productionalso plays an intimaterole in structuring political domination. In addition, it contributes to the abstractway in which political notions, such as freedomand democracy, are perceived. EllenWood, in a recent article,gives a helpful descriptionof capitalismthat should be rememberedby all critics of hegemony: Itis a ruthless whichshapesourlivesin everyconceivable process totalizing and not aspect, everywhere, just in the relative opulenceof the capitalist North. other aside the sheer Among things,leaving powerof capital,it suball social life to the abstract of the thecomjects requirements market, through of life in all itsaspects. modification a mockery Thismakes of all ouraspirationsto autonomy, freedom of choice,anddemocratic self-government.4 BookReviews 127

Notice that Wood, following Marx, sees democratic self-government as a goal for her philosophy. But, as Marx and the Chinese anarchists constantly reiterate, this goal entails the radical transformation of social and political structures. This transformation, however, is contingent on the transformation of capitalism. Now let us briefly look at Marx's critique of so-called democratic structures. Lukacs, in his book on Lenin, cogently summarizes the key argument in "On the Jewish Question": Many workerssufferfrom the illusion that a purely formal democracy, in which the voice of every citizen is equally valid, is the most suitable instrumentfor expressingand representing the interests of society takenas a whole. But this fails to take into account the simple-simple!-detail that men are not abstractindividuals,abstractcitizens or isolatedatoms withinthe totality of the state, but are always concrete human beings who occupy specific positionswithin social production,whose social being ... is determinedby this position.The pure democracyof bourgeoissociety excludes this mediation. Itconnects the nakedand abstractindividualdirectlywith the totalityof the state, which in this context appearsequally abstract.The fundamentally formalcharacterof pure democracy ... is not merely an advantagefor the bourgeoisiebut is preciselythe decisive conditionof its class rule.5 Although this passage succeeds in outlining Marx's critique of the state, it in itself is not sufficient to allow us to skirt the possibility of a hegemonic interpretationof Marx. In fact, as Paul Thomas notes, "[w]ords like these could readily enough be put into the mouth of a corporate fascist," and "universal suffrage is not inherently bourgeois by nature."6 Marx's program to overcome this alienation is compatible with that of the anarchists, since his primary concern involves allowing the individual to regain his/her political power: Only when the actual individualman takes back into himself the abstract citizen and in his everydaylife, his individualwork, and his individualrelationshipshe has become a species being, only when he has recognizedand organizedhis powers (forcespropres)as social powers so that social force is no longerseparatedfrom him as politicalforce-only then is humanemancipationcomplete.7 Again, this "taking back" of oneself involves the transformation of existing state apparatuses and, of course, the transformation of the capitalist mode of production. The restructuringshould be carried out in order to ensure that the individual's social force is not "separated from him as a political force." Looking back at the various attempts at socialism, it is obvious that this separation continued to occur and in many cases was intensified due to the split between the party bureaucracy and the masses. Marx's critique of the Hegelian idea of a bureaucracy as a universal

PhilosophyEast& West

128

class is, in many ways, relevantto bureaucraciesin twentieth-century communistregimesas well.8 The partyabstractlyrepresentsthe masses while excluding them from even the possibilityof any serious decision making.As Mao noted, the party,or at least partof it, has the tendency to pursueits own interestsand becomes, as it were, a class in itself.This is the contradiction that the anarchistspredictedin the early 1900s. In the final chapter, Dirlikcriticizes Mao from an "anarchist"perspective. Mao and other Chinese communists inheritedthe Bolshevik fromthe very beginning,and both the anarchistsand their idestructure Dirlikgives a concrete als were suppressedin the name of this structure. in which of the this example way happened by examining the organization of the commune, which, as I mentionedabove, was a symbol of both anarchismand socialism:
LiuShipei mighthave recognized in the people's communes somethingakin to the rural reorganizationhe had advocated. For all its antimodernism, however, Mao's revolutionary policy was guided by a commitmentto rapid nationaldevelopment, and organic political power. As a consequence, the people's communescame to serve not as the nuclei for a new society but as a means to social control, fastereconomic development,and efficientexploitation that this demanded-rendered all the more ruthlessfor having been attachedto the symbols of the revolution.I have referred to the fate of the commune principleduringthe CulturalRevolution.Within the context of a politicalsystemdominatedby the all powerfulCommunist party,the model of the Paris Commune served, not the purposes of democratic revolutionary organization,but as a political imaginarythat, under the guise of popular revolutionarycontrol, perpetuatedand enhanced political penetration in society. And when it was transposedagainstthe existing political system by those who took it seriouslyas a radicalprincipleof a social democracy,it was suppressedwithouthesitation.(pp. 299-300)

Portionsof the CulturalRevolutionwere attemptsto overcome the comhegemony of the Partyand reorganizesociety into revolutionary mittees. In 1967, Mao toyed with the anarchistidea when talkingwith JiangQunqiao:9"Withthe establishmentof a people's commune, a series of problems arises and I wonder whether you have thought about them. If the whole of China sets up people's communes, should the People's Republicof China change its name to 'People's Commune of China"' (p. 295). Mao rejectedthis idea for a numberof reasons,and a
full examination of this subject would involve a detailed study of the "Cultural Revolution." Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution is important since anarchistic

tendencies in what is called "Chinese Communism"today are almost

nonexistent. Now, Chinese leaders who embody the hegemonic structure of the Party have joined hands with global capitalism and thus moved even further away from the ideals on which the Chinese revoluBook Reviews

129

tion was founded. Dirlikcites Deng Xiaoping'sreactionto the June 4, 1989 massacreto give us an understanding of the hegemonic natureof his regime:
Deng's reasoningin suppressingit (democracy)clearly revealed what some historianshave known all along: that he has throughoutbeen a more consistent Bolshevikthan Mao Zedong, who was always uncomfortablewith certainfeaturesof Bolshevik organization. Accordingto a reportin Asia Week of May 12, 1989, Deng purportedly said in a partymeetingin lateApril:"The students may be acting out of line but the broad masses of workers and peasantsare on our side. Evenif the workersand farmers[sic]were to join the students,we can still rely on morethanthree millionsoldiersto maintainlaw and order."(p. 303)

The historyof anarchism,as Dirliksays at the end of his book, provides a vantagepointfromwhich to rethink the fundamental problemsof Anarchism in the Chinese is Revolution an 304). politics (p. informative, well-writtenintroduction to the understanding of this vantage point. Democracy and freedom are perhapstwo of the best-knownpolitico-phildiscussionof anarchism. osophical concepts thatare addressedin Dirlik's The main directionof the discussion is one that many philosophersand to sinologistswill recognize as being peculiarlyChinese, namelya return the concrete. When democracy is conceived concretely it moves in the directiontheorized in differentways by the Chinese Anarchists,Marx, and Mao. The firststep towardrealizingthis goal is the constantcriticism of hegemonic structures. Anarchism,by definition, must meet with resistance since it structuresitself against existing hegemonic structures. Dirlik'sbook shows that the Chinese case has been no exception. As Mao said, where there is oppressionthere must also be resistance.The constancy of anarchicresistanceis perhapsbest summed up by the folbook Dialectics: lowing passage from Roy Bhaskar's
Dialectic is the process of absentingconstraintson absentingabsences (ills, etc.). It is not in the businessof telling people, in comconstraints, untruths, mandist(Stalinist) or elitist(SocialDemocratic) fashionwhat to do. Rather it is betterconceived as an inner urge that flows universallyfrom the elemental logic of absence (lack, need, want or desire). It manifests itself wherever of a positivelygeneralizedconpower relationshold sway. It is the heartbeat of freedom as It is cept flourishing.... irrepressible.10

Notes 1 - Here a differentinterpretation of Confucianism that focuses on the statement"the junzi is not an implement"may serve as the starting pointto make a similarcritique. 2 - Thisfact was interestingly overlookedby the membersof the Ameri-

East &West Philosophy 130

can Consulate, who were sent to uncover "Bolshevikactivities." the only reportthat distinguishesbetween Bolshevism Interestingly, and Anarchismwas made by John Dewey. Dewey's report,filed in December 1920, says of the movement in question: "it was truly anarchistic,advocatingthe abolitionof governmentand the family, but no Bolshevist." Thoughthere mightbe a few Bolsheviksaround the country, Dewey continued, they had "nothingto do with the generaltone and temperof radicalthoughtin the country"(p. 151). 3 - Cf. "The Civil War in France,"in Marx-Engels Reader(New York: W. W. Norton, 1978), pp. 618-652. 4 - EllenWood, "The Uses and Abuses of Civil Society," in Socialist Register 1990, ed. RalphMiliband,Leo Panitch,and John Saville Melin Press),p. 79. (London: 5 - Georg Lukacs,Lenin:A Study in the Unity of his Thought,trans. NicholasJacobs(Cambridge: MITPress,1970), p. 65; PaulThomas, Alien Politics(Routledge,1994), p. 174.
6 - Thomas, Alien Politics, p. 174

7 - Marx and Engels, Collected Works(New York:International Publishers,1975), pp. iii, 168; Thomas,Alien Politics,p. 82. 8 - For Marxistcritiquesof hegemonic structuresin socialist regimes, one can look at the works of Antonio Gramsci and Nicos Poulantzas. For example, Nicos Poulantzas, State, Power, Socialism (London:Verso, 1980), and Antonio Gramsci,Selections from the Prison Notebooks, ed. Quintin Hoare and GeoffreyNowell-Smith (New York:International Publishers,1971). Mao Talksto the People, ed. StuartSchram(New York: 9 - Chairman PantheonBooks),p. 278. 10 - Roy Bhaskar,Dialectics: The Pulse of Freedom (London:Verso, 1994), pp. 298-299. Feminizm:Vostok.Zapad. Rossiia(Feminism: East,West, Russia).Edited of Phiby MariettaStepaniants.RussianAcademy of Science, Institute losophy. Moscow: Nauka, 1993. Pp. 241. Thisvery interesting volume is a collaborativeeffortby fourteenRussian, American,British,Mexican, and Indianscholars, and it is the firstsuch work on feminismand philosophyto be published in Russia,so far as I Phiknow. The book had its genesis in the Moscow RegionalEast-West The and West Conference on Feminist Issues East (1990). palosophers' pers preparedfor that occasion were supplementedby others solicited Reviewed by Barbara T. Norton Widener University
? 1996

of by University Press Hawai'i

131