Original link

Original question:

Confused about history education, why are we preaching the legitimacy of violent revolution?

I have an idea, please help analyze whether there are any logical errors: now our education always wants to prove the legitimacy and inevitability of the uprising (rebellion), whether it is intentional or unintentional. In the dire straits, here comes the question, government corruption is relative, and people in today’s society always compare China with the United States and Europe, so can we say that the current government is corrupt, and uprisings (rebellions), violence Resistance is justified, it should be recognized by history, and it is of progressive significance. Why not analyze the reasons and background of the failure of reform in history, and describe the progressive significance of reform to this society and the least harm to this society ( First of all, I am more inclined to reform), guide our people or students to seek better ways to reform, and avoid the occurrence of violent revolution in the future. After all, in my opinion, the harm of war (chaos) to this country and society is Huge, it is incomparable by other methods, and it is also the only way that ordinary people will suffer the most, so please give pointers!

My point of view:

It is not to preach the legitimacy of violent revolution, but the legitimacy of violent revolution based on class history. Even today, the basic logic of our constitution and historical narrative is still the class view of history. Although we are gradually moving closer to the national view of history and the modern view of history, these are based on the premise that the socialist reform has eliminated the bourgeoisie. So, in theory, there are only three classes in China today, workers, peasants, and socialist builders.

Based on the class view of history, violent revolution is not the problem, but who is using the violence. In the class society before the socialist society, the peasant uprising was the way for the progressive class to resist the exploiting class and the driving force for historical progress. Therefore, the peasant uprising is absolutely positive under the Chinese official narrative. As for the failure of the peasant uprising or the establishment of a new feudal dynasty after the successful uprising, it is generally explained that the landlord class steals the fruits of the revolution or the peasant class degenerates due to class limitations. In extreme terms, it can be summed up as a rebellion.

According to the official narrative, after the socialist transformation, there will be no contradiction between the enemy and ourselves. The fundamental interests of the party, the government, the peasants, the workers, and the socialist builders are the same, so everything is a contradiction among the people. And because the people are the masters of the country and ownership by the whole people, strikes and demonstrations are self-destructive to their own interests. Therefore, the Constitution no longer has the right to strike.

Within this framework, all issues can be explained. The government is not corrupt, it is the deterioration of individuals. As long as they are dug out, the government will recover and become better. If anyone advocates revolution (let alone violent revolution), it is either bourgeois restoration (not to mention now) or external forces destroying. For a long time, U.S. imperialists, Soviet revisionists, etc., have played the role of "problem" culprits, providing an indiscriminate explanation of real problems. Economic difficulties are the Soviet revisionists forcing debts, and being arrested is the suppression of the U.S. imperialists. In this framework, there is no problem you said.

As for why we don't analyze reform and don't advocate reform, it's because of the linear evolution theory of the classic Marxist historical materialism. The conclusion of historical materialism is a priori, or prior to reality, the core is: the classes before the proletariat are all backward, and their efforts are doomed to fail. You should remember one of the main lines of modern Chinese history. The basic narrative structure of the “Salvation from the Nation” section is: the failure of the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom and the Boxer Rebellion shows that the peasant class is not good; the Westernization Movement and the New Deal at the end of the Qing Dynasty failed, showing that the landlord class is not good; The class reformists will not do; the Revolution of 1911 was successful, but in the end it was Yuan Shikai and then Chiang Kai-shek, which shows the weakness of the bourgeoisie and the backwardness of Chiang, who represents the big landlords, the big bourgeoisie and the comprador class. In short, except for the proletariat (represented by the Party), nothing else will do. In the last 49 years, Tiandi Xuanhuang was the choice of the people.

After 1949, especially after 1956, all the problems and contradictions are the problems of productive forces, the problems of underdevelopment, the problems of foreign interference, the problems of the suppression and blockade by the US imperialists, the problems of the deterioration of Soviet revisionism... In short, I is forever great and glorious right.

Whether violence is right or not depends on who is using violence, not violence itself. It doesn't matter if there are any problems now, just follow me, because I am good in nature, the main thing is that you follow me firmly, and you will get better later.

All education in China, from kindergarten to doctorate, is aimed at cultivating talents who can serve the socialist construction and Party governance. Therefore, all the content will definitely not lead to thinking about real problems and opposing existing institutional problems.

If you have other ideas, you must be thinking wrong. Someone will help you correct your thinking mistakes.

2022.6.1