oftwominds | Those who lived through The Cultural Revolution are reticent about revealing their experiences.
Even in the privacy of their homes in the U.S., their voices become hushed and their
reluctance to give voice to their experiences is evident.
The unifying thread in my view is the accused belonged to some "counter-revolutionary" elite
--or they were living vestiges of a pre-revolutionary elite (children of the landlord class,
professors, etc.)--and it was now open season on all elites, presumed or real.
What generates such spontaneous, self-organizing violence on a national scale?
My conclusion is that cultural revolutions result from the suppression of legitimate
political expression and the failure of the regime to meet its lofty idealistic goals.
Cultural revolutions are an expression of disappointment and frustration with corruption and
the lack of progress in improving everyday life, frustrations that have no outlet in a
regime of self-serving elites who view dissent as treason and/or blasphemy.
By 1966, China's progress since 1949 had been at best uneven, and at worst catastrophic:
the Great Leap Forward caused the deaths of millions due to malnutrition and starvation,
and other centrally planned programs were equally disastrous for the masses.
Given the quick demise of the Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom movement of open expression,
young people realized there was no avenue for dissent within the Party, and no way to express
their frustration with the Party's failure to fulfil its idealistic goals and promises.
When there is no relief valve in the pressure cooker, it's eventually released in a
Cultural Revolution that unleashes all the bottled-up frustrations on elites which are
deemed politically vulnerable. These frustrations have no outlet politically because they're
threatening to the status quo.
All these repressed emotions will find some release and expression, and whatever avenues are
blocked by authorities will channel the frustrations into whatever is still open.
A Cultural Revolution takes the diversity of individuals and identities and reduces them into
an abstraction which gives the masses permission to criticize the abstract class that "deserves"
whatever rough justice is being delivered by the Cultural Revolution.
As the book review excerpt noted, the definition of who deserves long overdue justice shifts
with the emergent winds, and so those at the head of the Revolution might find themselves
identified as an illegitimate elite that must be unseated.
I submit that these conditions exist in the U.S.: the systemic failure of the status quo to
deliver on idealized promises and the repression of dissent outside "approved" (i.e.
unthreatening to the status quo) boundaries.
What elite can be criticized without drawing the full repressive powers of the central state?
What elite will it be politically acceptable to criticize? I submit that "the wealthy" are
just such an abstract elite.
To protect itself, a repressive status quo implicitly signals that the masses can release their
ire on an abstract elite with indistinct boundaries--a process that will divert the public anger,
leaving the Powers That Be still in charge.
But just as in China's Cultural Revolution, central authorities will quickly lose control
of conditions on the ground. They will maintain the illusion of control even as events spiral
ever farther from their control. The falcon will no longer hear the falconer.
0 comments:
Post a Comment