First, about the social nature of modern China.
As early as 1927, after the failure of the Great Revolution, China's ideological and theoretical circles had launched a great debate on the social nature of China for nearly ten years. Although the people involved in the discussion have different political ideas, academic opinions and arguments, those who deny the semi-colonial and semi-feudal nature of modern China society do not approve of the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal revolution led by China. On the contrary, the metropolis affirmed the necessity of carrying out the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal revolution. This shows that, from the academic level alone, the social nature of modern China is not an isolated issue irrelevant to the overall situation. It is also related to the understanding of a series of major issues such as imperialism, feudalism, reform and revolution. In fact, it is through this debate that theoretical workers under the guidance of Marxism not only judged the semi-colonial and semi-feudal social nature of modern China, but also re-studied and outlined the development process and future trend of China society from ancient times to the present, and made many new interpretations of the history of China, especially the modern history of China, thus initially forming an unprecedented scientific historical system. On the basis of understanding the basic national conditions of modern society, the China * * * Production Party also made clear a series of major issues such as the object, task, motive force, nature and future of the China Revolution.
After the founding of New China, the view that China was a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society in modern times was generally accepted by historians, and the revolutionary practice led by China's * * * production party was recognized as a powerful proof of this view. However, in recent years, some scholars have questioned this. Some academic journals have also opened columns to invite scholars to express their opinions. Some people think that modern China society is the product of the total conflict between two completely different cultural systems, and it is difficult to analyze it by the standard of morphological differentiation. The so-called concepts of feudalism, capitalism, semi-feudalism and semi-colonialism all have cognitive deviations. It has been suggested that semi-feudalism and semi-colonialism are not a unified whole, and semi-colonialism corresponds to semi-independence, which is a description of the status of the country; The other half of semi-feudalism is semi-capitalism. The general trend of modern China was the disintegration of feudalism and the emergence and development of capitalism. The mistake of Mao Zedong's theory of "two halves" lies in ignoring the great progressive significance of the occurrence and development of capitalism in China. In the past, we only paid attention to the plunder and slavery of foreign capitalism, and did not say that it promoted China's social economy. Some articles think that imperialism has destroyed China's national sovereignty and territorial integrity, but it has not and cannot change the social nature of China, so China was a feudal society before the Revolution of 1911, and then a semi-feudal or semi-capitalist society (some people think it is a capitalist society).
Generally speaking, although some scholars have clearly questioned or denied the "two halves theory", there is still a lack of further elaboration and demonstration on some problems that follow. Nevertheless, the problem itself has great influence. Because most of them are put forward under the background of discussing how to break through and develop the study of China's modern history. Some scholars have made it clear that denying Mao Zedong's "two halves theory" and re-examining the formulation of semi-colony and semi-feudalism is to find a theoretical basis for designing a new framework of modern history.
Scholars who hold the opposite view believe that the study of modern history should strive to demonstrate the nature of semi-colonial and semi-feudal society in modern China and comprehensively summarize the historical experience of anti-imperialism and anti-feudalism during the democratic revolution. In this way, our understanding of China's modern history is profound. If rewriting modern history breaks through this basic idea, our historical research will return to the old way of historical works of the bourgeoisie and the landlord class in old China. Some articles emphasize that the study of China's modern history should take the scientific "two halves theory" which has been fully tested by practice as one of its basic points. This fundamental scientific conclusion needs to be enriched and developed, but it must not be easily denied.
Second, the imperialist aggression and the anti-aggression of the people of China.
Chinese historians have done a lot of work to expose the profound disasters caused by imperialist aggression to modern China and affirm the anti-aggression struggle of the people of China. In recent years, some scholars have put forward different views on this.
(a) Relationship between colonization and modernization
One view is that colonization promoted modernization. The invasion of western capitalism broke the shackles of feudalism, brought modern civilization and forced China to modernize. In this regard, we can no longer just look at it from the standpoint of aggression and anti-aggression, oppression and oppression, slavery and enslavement, otherwise we will make a negative, one-sided and emotional denial of this history. Only by reevaluating the historical issue of "the world goes to China" from the perspective of axiology can we have a more essential understanding of the modern history of China. Obviously, commentators emphasized the role of colonization in promoting modernization. Although he didn't use the term colonial aggression, he replaced it with a neutral description of "the world is going to China".
One view is that colonization does not hinder modernization. Some scholars have suggested that there is no necessary connection between modernization and national independence. The military aggression suffered by China in modern times had a negative impact on the development of China, but in the economic, political, cultural and educational aspects, foreign countries made a lot of efforts to promote China's modernization, which is worthy of recognition.
Many scholars have put forward different views on the above new viewpoints, the main reasons are as follows:
First of all, national independence and political democracy are indispensable historical prerequisites for modernization. Imperialism pushed China towards a certain degree of modernization, but it was strictly limited to whether it was conducive to colonial rule. Another kind of modernization is to break through the scope allowed by imperialism and strive for national independence, thus realizing modernization. These two different modernization trends in modern history should be distinguished. Judging from the process of modernization in China, the continuous loss of national independence and the stubborn existence of feudal absolutism in politics have blocked the road to modernization. When history advances to a certain stage, solving the two major problems of national independence and political democracy has increasingly become the primary problem in realizing modernization. Judging from the development of world history, imperialism is also proceeding from its own interests, deliberately retaining the pre-capitalist relations that hinder the progress and development of the nation in the colonies, so that capitalism can only develop in a limited scope.
Secondly, we should have an all-round objective evaluation of the influence and function of modern civilization with the invasion and determine its leading aspects. Some scholars have pointed out that western capitalism has established some modern industries and facilities in China for the needs of aggression and plunder, but what is more important to China is the disaster, which has caused poverty and backwardness in China. Besides, these modern civilizations are not owned and enjoyed by the people of China. The capital and imperialism that invaded modern China were not only the disseminators of modern western capitalism, but also the oppressors of modern China capitalism. Without distinguishing the difference between the two functions, it will go to extremes; If you don't distinguish between primary and secondary roles, you will go to the other extreme.
(2) Resist aggression and learn from the West
On this issue, some new ideas put forward by scholars focus on two aspects:
First of all, in nature, China people's resistance to aggression is essentially a rejection of western advanced civilization, which is not conducive to China's progress and violates the historical development trend. Because the contradiction between capitalism and feudalism is the basic contradiction in modern history, and it is the contradiction between advanced and backward, civilized and barbaric, progressive and conservative, revolutionary and reactionary in the modern history of the world. Marx and other classic writers also fully affirmed that the colonial aggression of western capitalism was "an unconscious tool of history" from the perspective of historical progress. In modern China, the so-called imperialism is essentially capitalism in the rising stage; At this time, the Chinese nation was still a feudal nation in the Middle Ages. Their resistance to foreign aggression was essentially a conservative position to safeguard the national feudal tradition and an instinctive resistance to the historical trend of world capitalism.
Secondly, in terms of strength, backward China is also unable to resist western aggression. Therefore, the primary task of modern China was to bear the burden of humiliation, maintain peace and strive for modernization. Some scholars emphasize that backwardness will lead to beatings, and every failed resistance has brought greater disaster to China. As a result, some people reevaluate the issues of "peace" and "war" in China's modern history. It is believed that the starting point of Li Hongzhang and others' foreign policy of "seeking goodness through resentment" is also to safeguard the highest interests of the country. Only by maintaining peace can China have a strong day. It has also been suggested that China should also abide by the unequal treaties it was forced to sign, because this treaty is a record of the contrast between Chinese and foreign forces at that time, reflecting the comprehensive and profound gap between China and the West, and the way to change it is to strengthen itself first. At the same time, even unequal treaties are bound up with national credibility. Signing today and overthrowing tomorrow is enough to trouble yourself, which will inevitably lead to further loss of dignity.
Scholars who hold the opposite opinion think that:
First of all, we cannot deny the resistance of backward feudal countries to western invasion on the grounds of advanced capitalist civilization. Although Marx and Engels affirmed the progressive role of capitalist civilization from the perspective of historical development, it does not mean that backward countries should welcome the invasion of capitalist countries. The rise and development of capitalism, on the one hand, has formed a progressive trend to connect all countries in the world into a unified economic whole; On the other hand, it has created colonial and semi-colonial countries in vast areas of the world, making them the targets of plunder and hindering the rapid development of capitalism in these backward countries. Therefore, the struggle against aggression in colonies and semi-colonies is a more important and progressive historical trend. Marx, Engels and Lenin paid great attention to and spoke highly of the anti-aggression struggle of Asian countries. The victory of the anti-aggression war not only contributed to the independence and liberation of the country, but also promoted the development of capitalism and social progress in this region.
Secondly, resisting aggression does not mean rejecting civilization. In modern China, there was a complicated historical movement to resist aggression and learn from western civilization. In fact, only after national independence can we really absorb the positive factors of western civilization for our use. Moreover, the so-called anti-aggression struggle includes not only the actual anti-aggression movement and armed struggle, but also the design and refinement of anti-aggression ideas, as well as the struggle of national industrialists and imperialist economic aggressors for economic equality and rights. The early anti-aggression struggle was primitive, but with the accumulation of experience and theoretical summary, the level of struggle of the people of China has been continuously improved. In the whole anti-aggression struggle, the positive factors of western civilization have always been studied.
Third, don't praise the Lord's theory of "harmony" and belittle resistance. The fundamental reason for the "disharmony" between China and foreign countries in modern times is the constant expansion of aggression by the West, which is by no means the result of the belligerence of the China government and people. Some theorists just reverse the causal relationship. Li Hongzhang and others' premise of peace thought is wrong, that is, they don't realize that the great powers are gradually turning China into a colony, but think that foreigners are harmless to China. Its peace has not brought a peaceful international environment to China. Some scholars pointed out that backwardness is beating, which denied the resistance of China people. Because the small wins the big and the weak wins the strong, there are many examples at home and abroad, and failure is the mother of success. After a hundred years of resistance, the people of China finally defeated imperialism. On the issue of abiding by the peace treaty, an article pointed out that after imperialism forced China to sign an unequal treaty, it could violate the treaty at any time, and then forced China to sign a more harsh New Testament to expand its rights and interests of aggression. China people, on the other hand, are accused of "breaking the contract" and resisting "civilization" with "ignorance". This is a kind of robber logic!
Third, about revolution and improvement.
How to evaluate the revolution and improvement in China's modern history is also a hot issue. In this regard, some scholars put forward the following new views:
First of all, it affirmed the modern reform activities, especially the reforms carried out by the ruling class. It is believed that the development of Westernization Movement, the implementation of the New Deal in the late Qing Dynasty and the implementation of the ruling policy of Beiyang government all promoted the modernization of China and conformed to the historical trend. It has been suggested that the representatives of the ruling class in the west, such as Empress Dowager Cixi, Li Hongzhang and Zeng Guofan, are also eager for the prosperity and progress of China. If the modernization plan they designed can be realized, China will be saved. Some people affirmed that the Beiyang government was politically diversified, economically privatized and liberalized, and its ideological culture and social customs also showed the momentum of reform and opening up. They think that Yuan Shikai's policy of developing capitalist economy reflects the general trend of social and historical development at that time.
Secondly, criticize and deny the modern revolution. Modern revolution is the product of radicalism; Sun Yat-sen and other revolutionaries ignored China's national conditions, transcended the inevitable stage of social development and fell into the misunderstanding of idealism and revolution. The result not only led to long-term social chaos, but also triggered political romanticism in China in the 20th century. Others suggest that the revolution in modern history should be completely denied, asserting that the revolution is only a destructive force, and further summarizing this view of the revolution as a law: improvement may succeed, but the revolution will certainly fail.
There are also many scholars who believe that the above evaluation of revolution and improvement is unrealistic.
First, revolution is an inevitable trend of historical development and a resistance to the oppression of imperialism and feudalism. Some scholars have pointed out that revolution and improvement cannot be evaluated abstractly. The Revolution of 1911 was not the result of subjective will, but the product of serious national crisis and sharp social contradictions at that time, and the result of the decadent Qing court's unwillingness or inability to resist foreign aggression and lead domestic reform. Many revolutionaries put forward their revolutionary ideas only when the road to improvement is blocked.
Second, the revolution has promoted the social progress of China. Many scholars have affirmed that China's anti-imperialist and anti-feudal revolution has cleared the obstacles to historical progress and brought about political, economic and cultural progress in China. History has proved that it is impossible to complete the modernization of China by the reform of the feudal ruling class itself. Only by taking the revolutionary road, overthrowing the semi-colonial and semi-feudal ruling order and realizing national independence can China open up a new world of modernization. If we want revolution, there will be destruction, bloodshed and sacrifice. However, if we tolerate the common rule of imperialism and feudalism instead of revolution, the people of China will suffer more pain and sacrifice for a long time. The chaos after the Revolution of 1911 was caused by imperialism and feudalism, and it was the result of incomplete revolution. We can't generally say that there were too many struggles and frequent upheavals in modern China, which led to the failure of social development. Instead, it is necessary to conduct a class analysis and point out that the reason is that China invaded and oppressed other nationalities, or that others invaded and oppressed the Chinese nation. Can the struggle between the ruling classes be confused with the people's resistance? How is the turmoil caused? Where does the contradiction come from? Should the oppressed also be responsible for the harm caused by their resistance?