What would you do if somebody misquoted or misrepresented you? In the case of the Straits Times claiming that the Worker’s Party was trying to form a new government in the next GE, leader of the opposition Pritam Singh sent out a correction notice. This led to an apology and a retraction. But what if 100 years down the road and the Worker’s Party no longer exists. I’m not sure if the Straits Times would outlive the Worker’s Party but supposing some publication puts words into the mouth of a dead politician? Who will call out that publication? Unless that person rises from his grave, debates over the correct interpretation of his speeches and writings may never be convincingly resolved.
Banned in Taiwan for many years, father of modern Chinese literature Lu Xun (1881-1936) is probably the most misunderstood Chinese writer who ever lived. My first encounter with Lu Xun was back in the 1980s when I first graduated. The book I bought, when Popular was still a proper bookshop, was published in China. The book introduced Lu Xun as a communist. I was surprised as I didn’t find any hint of Marxist ideology in any of his short stories. Had Lu Xun been misquoted, misrepresented and misused after his death? Allow me now to speak for the dead. What was the real Lu Xun really like?
First of all, we should be aware that Lu Xun died more than a decade before the communist era. Chairman Mao Zedong and academics in China saluted him as a communist ally in the literary world. As a result of creative interpretation or perhaps misinterpretation, his works were often used to teach revolutionary ideology. Without bothering to look into the details and change the narrative, his books were summarily banned in Taiwan in the wake of communist victory in the mainland. Lu Xun had passed away 13 years before that and was not available for comment or clarification. It was only in recent years that the great writer’s works were given a less controversial, more objective interpretation outside China.
Still, it is a fact that Lu Xun used to have a favourable impression of the Chinese Communist Party. We can see that from his close ties with Qu Qiubai 瞿秋白, the former general secretary of the CCP Central Committee. He was also a close friend of CCP’s cultural and propaganda senior cadre Feng Xuefeng 冯雪峰. He had even participated in the “Left Wing Cultural Group” 左翼文化联盟，showing his support for the CCP in the territories under Kuomintang control. However, the relationship between Lu Xun and the CCP is far more complicated than what appears on the surface.
For starters, Lu Xun was a rebel against China’s feudal and Confucianist system. It is thus not surprising that Lu Xun had sympathy for a rebel group with a common cause. However, Lu Xun had never indicated his full acceptance of the political ideology proposed by the CCP. To a large extent, his apparent support for the CCP was merely due to his affinity for the Left Wing activists of the Republic of China at that time, many of whom happened to be CCP members.
Besides, it was also documented that Lu Xun had long disagreed with mainstream CCP ideology. Most outstanding was his essay “四条汉子” in which he severely criticised 4 literary talents supporting the communist party namely 阳翰笙、田汉、夏衍、周扬. All 4 men were later given important positions under the CCP. Zhou Yang would later become a deputy minister of propaganda under the communist regime. Particularly objectionable to Lu Xun were some of the CCP slogans and manifestos. He had often engaged the propagandists in fierce written debates. One Left Wing writer Lu Xun was often in agreement with, was Fudan University lecturer Hu Feng 胡风. Shortly after the CCP came to power, Hu Feng was accused of being a counter revolutionary and imprisoned for decades until he became insane. If the CCP could not tolerate Hu Feng, there was no way the party which demanded 100% praise and support could have tolerated an independent critic like Lu Xun. Mao Zedong’s ambivalence is shown in a speech he delivered after coming to power in 1949. He said jokingly that if Lu Xun had lived until that time, he might be in prison. Mao Zedong might have tried to be funny, but Lu Xun’s fate if he had the misfortune of living under communist rule, was practically sealed.
Evidence of Lu Xun’s incompatibility with communism can also be found in his works, the themes of which revolve around the pathetic characteristics of the Chinese people. With his keen observation and pointed style, Lu Xun’s stories graphically illustrate the obnoxious, self-defeating characteristics of Chinese people, including cold-bloodedness, selfishness, greed, cowardice, ignorance, etc. His famous metaphor of “eating human blood-soaked buns” 吃人血馒头 is a morbid illustration of greed and the lack of compassion in Chinese society.
In sharp contrast, these Chinese characteristics were the very foundation upon which the CCP consolidated its rule as an autocratic regime. Without Chinese people being what they were, the CCP could never have been successful. A big part of that success depended on the people’s acceptance of Draconian leadership. If Lu Xun had written or spoken about this after the CCP came to power, he would have been a threat to the regime. A man like Lu Xun could never have lived long under CCP rule .
The incompatibility between Lu Xun and the CCP is also reflected in some of his profound insights on history. In the essay “Cultural Partialism” 文化偏至论 (1907), Lu Xun once pointed out that Chinese people must be vigilant and not let provocateurs harness herd behaviour to suppress those who stand out (借公以凌寡). He held that political opposition and the voices of vulnerable groups must not be suppressed in the name of national unity, ideals and constructive compromise.
Tactics employed to 借公以凌寡 were precisely what led to the victory of the Communist Party of China and the horrors of the Cultural Revolution. Lu Xun’s writings can be seen as prophetic. All the more, he could not have been tolerated by the CCP government.
The incompatibility between Lu Xun and the CCP can also be found in his personality and temperament. Lu Xun was one who would fight alone if he had to. He witnessed with his own eyes how the fervently revolutionary intellectual community cooled down after the May 4th Movement in 1919. Some activists retired and some deserted, he wrote in Southern Accents Northern Tunes Collection 南腔北调. Lu Xun had soldiered on alone. His persistent fight for reforms would not have been compatible with the CCP’s approach to government. A fiercely independent Lu Xun could not have submitted to conformity and uniformity under an autocratic regime.
While Lu Xun undeniably sympathised with the Left Wing, he did not and could not have agreed with the CCP government. Those who understand his spirit, his temperament, his observations and judgments should be certain that he could never have coexisted peacefully with the CCP. Of course, all this is just evidence based on conjecture. There is no way to debunk the communist interpretation with absolute certainty unless Lu Xun rises from his grave.