Zhao Lisheng is an active advocate of the "Asian Road" theory in China, which is a potential reason why he was labeled as a rightist.
In several discussions after 1949, Sue was the most enthusiastic advocate of the theory of "Asian mode of production". This most detailed account of the "Asian model" is a passage from Marx's manuscript 1857- 1858, and the Japanese version is an unofficial version that has rarely been circulated. Later, the manuscript included Liu's translation and Volume 46 of the Complete Works of the Central Compilation Bureau, but in 1978, neither version has yet come out. Although Zhao was later labeled as a "Rightist" for other direct reasons, it can be seen from his criticism of the "Great Rightist" that his "outdated" understanding of Marxism is also a potential factor. At that time, in the discussion on the stages of ancient history, Mr. Zhao's feudal theory of Wei, Jin and Wei dynasties was not the mainstream and was repeatedly suppressed, not because it was not as good as the orthodox feudal theory of the Warring States, but because it was most influenced by the theory of "sub-Taoism" in the stages of ancient history and must be called "the same body", so it was better to buy and sell land freely in private.
The theory of "Asian mode of production", as a value orientation and an ideological resource for criticizing autocracy and moving towards freedom and democracy, is not without value today. In this regard, Karl August Witt vogel later misinterpreted it as a concept of geographical determinism based on "water control" and used it specifically to refer to "irrigated agricultural areas of the great rivers in the East", which could not be established. Although Marx also talked a little about irrigation, logically, he clearly regarded "underdeveloped exchange" as the basic formation mechanism of "Asian way" and regarded it as a universal early human phenomenon. Russia, a place with no tradition of irrigated agriculture, was often regarded as an "Asian country" by Marxists at that time, which was circumstantial evidence. Even with Morgan's influence, the basic historical philosophy of Marx and even Engels from * * * the same person to personalized person is still consistent. Until the "pre-Stolypin era", the Russian Social Democratic Party still regarded it as the dividing line between Marxism and populism, which can be seen from plekhanov's famous saying about "exploiters' commune and exploited individuals". It should be said that the pursuit of freedom as a universal value, this spiritual heritage does not only come from the "right" side. The history of land system is an important field in Zhao Lisheng's academic achievements, and he has been working in this field for nearly 20 years. This is not only a demonstration of Mr. Wang's research on "social form", but also a deepening of his research on farmers' problems. "Staging of ancient history" is actually a problem of social and economic history without ideological cloak. When Mr. Zhao discussed it in the 1950 s, he mainly talked about theory, but he has been paying attention to the research of "food goods" since then. Before being labeled as "Rightist", Mr. Zhao devoted himself to studying the history of the peasant war. It is difficult to publish articles after bad luck, but it makes Mr. Wang's research develop in depth. According to what Mr. Zhao said at that time: "From studying the class struggle in the outbreak period to studying the evolution of class relations in the general period."
The traditional study of cannibalism in China focuses on the land system (land management of the imperial court) and labor from the financial preference of the imperial court, while the modern "historical view of class struggle" likes to emphasize the relationship between tenancy, employment and slaves among the people. Broadly speaking, Mr. Zhao undoubtedly belongs to the latter, but in front of him,
His sense of reality and theoretical hobbies actually made him pay more attention to the "super-economic" relationship than the economic exchanges between people. Therefore, he talked less about tenancy and employment, and more about the "land system", and focused on the time before the Song Dynasty, but slightly pointed out after the Song Dynasty. However, teacher Zhao's "field system" is naturally different from the traditional food science. He said: "I am engaged in this project (the history of land system), and I also have my own characteristics." My research began with the untidy disintegration of public ownership and collective ownership of land in ancient China. Private ownership of land was mixed with the remnants of commune and the intervention of state power. In short, it is to study the problem from the perspective of Asian production methods. "Obviously, Marx's" Asian way "theory also had a great influence on the study of the history of land system in Zhao Lisheng. Zhao Lisheng believes that the Jing Tian system is a commune system rather than a state-owned system, which is different from the original "Asian" way theory.
The three generations of society in China have obvious consanguineous national color, so it is hard to say that it is a "rural commune" according to the above definition, but if it is a consanguineous clan commune, it seems that the three generations have become a "primitive society", which is incompatible with the "class struggle" that critics want to emphasize. At that time, the mainstream school represented by Guo Moruo did not talk about "commune" at all, but only "country". Generally speaking, the three generations were "state-owned by slave owners" (sometimes it was said to be "private ownership by slave owners" in essence), but after Shang Yang's political reform, it became "private ownership by landlords". Therefore, Zhao Lisheng criticized: "In the pre-Qin history and the Jingtian system, the commune was unavoidable, but Lao Guo said that we could not talk about the commune, and there would be no slave society if we talked about the commune;" In the history of the Northern Wei Dynasty and the system of land equalization, the commune is no longer an unavoidable problem, but Mr. Tang said that the commune was the ancestor of the system of land equalization for farmers, and so on. At this time, Guo and Tang are the highest authorities in ancient history and Chinese history, and I dare to argue with them. " Here, Mr. Wang's "commune" avoids the issue of "blood relationship" or "geography", but he thinks that the well-field system is a commune rather than a state-owned system, which is different from the "Asian" theory that regards "land state-owned" and "rural commune" as a trinity.
Zhao Lisheng believes that the Jing Tian system is a commune system rather than a state-owned system, which is different from the original "Asian" way theory. Obviously, Mr. Zhao attaches importance to theory, but he does not stick to it. Some extremely important truths can be drawn from Mr. Wang's research. People often say that Zhao Lisheng is a "pioneer" in the field of peasant war history in new China historiography. In the past, China's traditional historiography studied a "rebellion", such as Li Wenzhi's Rebellion in the Late Ming Dynasty and Luo Ergang's works on the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom. As for the systematic history of peasant wars, although there were two monographs on the history of peasant wars written by Trotskyite scholars Xue and Cai as early as 1933 in China, they became famous later. The early mainstream historians in China who started with the peasant revolution, such as Guo Moruo, Fan Wenlan, Shang Yue and Hou Wailu, are strangely uninterested in the history of peasant war in China. In the early 1950s, from 65438 to 0954, the course of "History of Peasant War" was first opened in Shandong University, and the first monograph on the history of peasant war in New China, "Essays on the History of Peasant War in China" (co-authored with Mrs. Gao), was published, and many papers and pamphlets were also published before and after this. The research paradigm of China peasant war history formed by Mr. Zhao in this period still dominated this field until the AD1980s. Later, several representative figures in the debate on the history of peasant war, such as Sun Daren and Sun Ruomin, were all opponents of the debate, but they all came from the same family. It was not until Mr. Wang encountered "anti-Rightism" that the research on the history of agricultural war was forced to be interrupted. Later, he was deeply sorry. In his later years, he said: "The theme of peasant war history is promising, ... but the season is not good, and the storm comes suddenly, just like two famous sentences in Dunhuang paper" Widow Fu ","Hail breaks spring red, first frost is summer green ",and a dream of the development of peasant war history (research) comes to nothing." After entering 1990' s, the study of "peasant war history" declined rapidly and became a forgotten corner. At the same time, various practical problems about farmers have become more and more acute. There is even a discussion that "farmers are really bitter, the countryside is really poor, and agriculture is really dangerous". Before the reform, history praised rebellion, and the "thieves" and "thieves" in history books were all described as "peasant uprisings". Later, the praise of the emperor became a spring tide, especially in the Qing Dynasty. From Nurhachi to Ganlong, almost all emperors are holy, and there are no kings and no sages. It can be seen that the history of "peasant war" is the key to understand the history of China and even the reality of China. For example, when it comes to farmers' land rights today, many people still dig out the past saying that "private ownership and sale of land" is the source of chaos, and only the government controls land is the right way. Therefore, it is very important to re-understand this problem.
Break through the routine of "peasant-landlord class struggle"
In the past, New History paid attention to this issue, which was also good. Liang Qichao once said: "Twenty-four histories are not history, and the genealogy of twenty-four surnames is also." Advocates of "Chinese studies" may think this is too sharp, but there is no doubt that old history is really too imperial. Modern historiography advocates "the whole history" and "the history of ordinary people", which is not the exclusive feature of any ideology.
Zhao Lisheng played a vanguard role in the new historical field of peasant war. Later, the new historiography became "official historiography", only talking about "golden flowers" and nothing else, only using ideology to explain. Zhao Lisheng studied the history of peasant war in those days, and used the words at that time in the atmosphere at that time, and he himself sincerely believed in the theory at that time. However, it should be pointed out that, in fact, two monographs on the history of peasant wars in the1930s (Trotskyism is not a "bandit" but also a branch of post-Marxism, which is no farther from Marx's original intention than Stalin's) laid the foundation for this exposition. Today, Mr. Zhao is said to be a "pioneer in the field of peasant war history", which naturally implies that Mr. Zhao and others resumed this research after Trotskyism was silent for many years, but more importantly, the research at that time was not limited to the topic of "peasant-landlord class struggle". He put forward "four topics" to study the history of peasant war:
The first is the identity of farmers, that is, the differences of farmers' identities in different times.
The second is the relationship between the uprising and the state machine.
The third is the relationship between peasant uprising and ethnic relations.
The fourth is the role of religion in the uprising.
This has never been put forward by people in the past. After the interruption of Zhao Lisheng's research, the above topics failed to go further. But since then, these topics have been constantly discussed.