Nuclear Fallout in Maoist China: What Does That Reveal?
Posted by Mike E on June 18, 2009
By Nando Sims
I was provoked to write this by some details given in an article in Scientific American. (“Blasts from the Past,” Zeeya Merali, July 2009, not online) — because the explorations of nuclear testing in China reveal things about the state of socialist democracy.
Scientific American‘s article sketches some investigations into the health impact of the crash program to develop nuclear weapons in Maoist China — particularly the open air testing of very large nuclear weapons during the 60s and 70s in China’s western Xinjiang province. Like the similar U.S. open air tests in Nevada, these Chinese tests caused fallout to contaminate large areas, exposing many people to radiation.
The article quotes a Japanese physicist Jun Tanaka who, based on extensive empirical research from nearby parts of Central Asia, estimates that about 194,000 people would have died as a result of radiation exposure, and around 1.2 million received doses high enough to cause cancers and birth defects. “My estimate is a conservative minimum,” Takada says.
This is a sobering discussion — since it suggests a scale of human cost to defense preparations by a socialist China — and this is true even if we don’t necessarily embrace the specific estimates of Takada.
At the time China (and much of the world) was under heavy nuclear threat. It came first from the United States (which used nukes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and threatened revolutionary China with nuclear destructionvery directly during the Korean war.) And then it came from the Soviet Union — which after China’s break in the early 1960s mobilized massive military force on China’s borders. It was a VERY big deal in the 1960s when China exploded its first nuclear device. China was the first third world country to develop the means of deterrence, and it was an event that weakened the ability of the U.S. (and powers like France, Britain and the USSR) to threaten people around the world. And it was an achievement that made it much harder for any of the hostile powers to contemplate new wars or invasions against socialist China. And those are important things.
But it is sobering to start to learn about the possible cost of this for the people of China (and specifically the Uygur minority nationality region of western China). And it is sobering to think about why the casualties had to be so large and why the population wasn’t informed about the ongoing dangers. And why the story is just coming out now.
The article describes an account by someone growing up in the test zones, and how, as a child, he was taught not to worry about the flakes of dirt that fell from the sky for three days in 1973 from a 10 megaton test.
This brings me back to the discussion of socialist democracy — and of a realistic and honest appraisal of the experience of the twentieth century.
This SA article talked about the experience of this survivor Enver Tohti after experiening the fallout as a child.
“…as a teenager, he was proud that his province was chosen for tests marking China’s technological and military progress. His view changed when he became a physician and saw a disproportionate number of malignant lymphomas, lung cancers, leukemia cases, degenerative disorders and babies born with deformities. ‘Many doctors suspected this was connected to the tests, but we couldn’t say anything,’ Tohti recalls. ‘We were warned away from researching by our superiors.’”
What does this say about the norms of open debate and ”whistle blowing” (and about the conditions of power) in socialist China?
“Many doctors suspected this was connected to the tests, but we couldn’t say anything,’ Tohti recalls. ‘We were warned away from researching by our superiors.’”
Does anyone doubt that such conditions of silencing were not rare in socialist China?
There were great upheavals and revolutionary changes — land reform, military resistance to the U.S. in Korea, conflict over transforming old culture, replacement of feudal norms by new norms. So there was clearly great debate, ferment and change in socialist China. But still, does anyone doubt that there weren’t many places where it was maddenly dangerous to speak out against real problems?
Nuclear and other military matters obviously require secrecy (even under socialism) — but the health concerns of whole populations require casual and routine transparency.
And more: socialism itself (its survival and advancement) requires an ability of people to speak out against continuing or restored injustices.
What About Democracy, Though?
This brings me to a piece Ray Lotta just wrote ( Socialism in the 20th Century) — which, I believe, fudges some hard questions. Here is what Ray said on this question of democracy. (I’m including his full response in order not to misrepresent it.)
Question: What about democracy, though?
Raymond Lotta: I want to emphasize two aspects of this. First, the socialist state guaranteed the rights of the masses. In China, during the Cultural Revolution, there was democracy for the masses on an unprecedented scale. Nowhere before or since did the masses not only have formal rights of free speech and press, etc., but actually use them on such a scale to examine and debate all aspects of political life. One well-known example is the widespread use of what were called “big-character posters” in the schools, factories, and other institutions where constant debate and struggle took place by posting large wall posters on every available surface. It was forbidden to tear down a big-character poster, and every institution was required to make materials—paper, paint, and brushes—freely available.
The ability of the masses to hold meetings to criticize top party leaders, the freewheeling debates large and small…all of this was democracy on a scale not even imaginable in even the “most democratic” of capitalist states. The Cultural Revolution institutionalized what were called the “four bigs”—big character posters, big debates, big contending, and big blooming (of ideas). And if you think this was just cosmetic formality, the new capitalist rulers of China who came to power in 1976 understood that this was in the service of arousing and motivating the masses; they vilified and banned these practices.
But there is another aspect of democracy under the dictatorship of the proletariat that’s important. Forms were being developed, especially through the Cultural Revolution, through which the masses were increasingly able to take greater responsibility for the direction of society—like the revolutionary committees, which were new institutions of power. These involved combinations of representatives of the masses; from different professional, technical, intellectual-cultural strata (depending on the particular base-level institutions in question, like hospitals or schools); and party cadre. Through these organs of power, meaningful decision-making responsibility was being put in the hands of the masses.
Compare this to the electoral ritual of bourgeois democracy, where the masses are asked to choose between this and that representative of the ruling class, and through which the agendas of different fractions of the ruling class are legitimized.
It is true, as Ray says, that there are two different issues here: rights and power. But reading this, I couldn’t help ask: Is this picture really true? Is this really sufficient? And it is true that “during the Cultural Revolution” there was (at some times and in many places) unprecedented and free-wheeling debate amid the power struggles. There was widespread criticism and deposing of leadership — at virtually all levels. Communist Party members (and leaders) were required to go “through the gate” of public criticism and evaluation. There were great movements of placing criticism and complaints on public posters. There were newspapers, flyers, and whole movements of re-evaluating past practices. The youngest, the poorest and most “lowly” were all encouraged to play spearhead roles in all that. This is true. And important. And something to build on.
However….
I also think that it has to be asked how true it is that through new organs of power “meaningful decision-making responsibility was being put in the hands of the masses.”
Certainly there were “advanced experiences” — however temporary. Certainly this was something being fought for by the best forces within Mao’s party and socialist society. But to what degree was it actually true? How widely? How much was society marked by this? Where?
And certainly we can’t imply that this was generally true, without confronting immediately the fact that capitalism was rather soon (and rather quickly) restored in China without very much mass resistance at all.
Isn’t it more true that this was attempted and desired (putting meaningful decisionmaking responsibility “in the hands of the masses”) — and that it happened through strugggle, but that this was very uneven, and probably not actually achieved yet in a general or defining way? And that many places were run like water-tight kingdoms by layers of bosses and small overlords (and their various political aparatuses)? Where “superiors” could tell doctors to shut up about a cancer epidemic with potentially explosive political implications?
Don’t we need to present realistic pictures of the tissue and operations of previous socialist societies? Both in terms of how power worked, and in terms of what the rights of the people actually were.
For example: It is important to point out that Mao upheld the right to strike (for example) — just as it is important for us to uphold the right to stike. And there were obviously strikes in China. But that isn’t the full story. Wasn’t it shocking when Mao proposed inserting the right to strike into foundational documents (almost two decades after the revolution)? And to what extent did that right to strike exist (on the ground, in factories and farms)? To what extent was it contested? In other words, to what extent were workstoppages considered criminal or counterrevolutionary — and who made those decisions?
And it is worth thinking through: Why was there such a stubborn gap between the desires of the core revolutionary forces and the actual functioning of society in so many places?
Fallout in Context
The people exposed to nuclear fallout in the U.S. were also lied to and silenced, and their suffering denied for decades. I once spent a day with a former Army grunt who had been exposed to U.S. nuclear fallout in the Nevada desert during the 1950s. While struggling with his fatal leukemia he worked as a safety trainer for a coal company — and I heard first hand from him many many examples of how this criminal exposure was conducted and then denied.
In addition, the U.S. and France did a lot of their open air testing in Polenesia — and there is a whole story to tell about the destruction of cultures and lives in that process. And there is a whole analysis to be shared of how the whole history of nuclear testing took place on the lands of indigenous and minority peoples — Native peoples in the U.S. west, Polenesian people in the French and American colonies, Uygur people in China, Central Asian people in the USSR etc.
And so, the point here is not to take the claims of this one Scientific American article at face value, or to (somehow) think that the nuclear exposure was specific to socialist China.
But it is worth asking, as revolutionaries and communists: What does this example reveals about what the actual experience with socialism, and specifically the actually exercised “rights of the people” under socialism?
It is true that “socialism really is different and better than capitalism.” But this is not a simple, or uniform, or obvious matter — if you actually dig into the experience. Mao famously said socialism is a checkerboard, and that in many ways it is NOT that different from capitalism. And that is not easy to understand.
Isn’t there a connection between the inability of doctors to point out a cancer epidemic and the larger inability of a people to prevent the wholesale restoration of capitalism?
n3wday said
thanks for writing this. these are exactly the hard hitting discussion we need to get into.
David_D said
There is the hard question of socialist state security. Is this a realm of democracy for the masses at all times? Must the actions of the state at all times be consistent with a concept of “communist morality?” Is pragmatism always bad?
The Chinese state was faced with the task of preventing foreign aggression. This was a real danger, especially after it became clear that the Soviets were an enemy. So the nuclear project was a part of the struggle for national security. On the other hand, if everything in terms of principles is sacrificed in the name of expediency, then exactly how is it, in this sense, that “socialism really is different and better than capitalism.”
I would argue that China, like the Soviet Union, placed too much emphasis of keeping on iron wall between matters for popular discussion and participation, and matters of national security. During the Cultural Revolution, for instance, revisionism was allowed to thrive in the foreign affairs departments because there was a “red line” around it which could not be crossed. In this way, state security organs, the military, and foreign affairs departments can become hotbeds of revisionism.
Dr. Zaius said
Has anyone ever seen that “Mao’s Little Red Video?” It was supposedly filmed by the Chinese Authorities in the 60′s and/or 70′s and has a section on their nuclear testing. It shows them setting off some of the nukes in different battle scenarios or something, the nuke explodes then the PLA on horseback charge into the direction of the blast. Or they show that a horse with a gasmask can survive the fallout(!), along with assorted test animals.
It always disturbed the hell out of me, but what disturbed me more was when I would ask older comrades about it (from the RCP) they would just kind of dodge the question and then change the subject to repeating an MLM mantra that was developed by the Cultural Revolution. If I tried to bring it back up in conversation, I was somehow suspect, of what I never understood.
Anyway, thanks for posting this, hopefully some major discussion can blossom out of it.
David_D said
Dr. Zaius: The film you are referring to is what I would call an example of gross voluntarism – premised on the notion that ideology alone can solve anything. Untrue. There were political elements in the GPCR who totally negated expertise for the sake of “redness.” Obviously, the claims regarding radioactivity were not premised on scientific materialism, but rather metaphysical voluntarism. That said, it cannot simply be laid at Mao’s feet. Starting in 1970, he did much to rein in this problem. Such anti-scientific attitudes only served to strengthen the hand of the pragmatist reactionaries like Zhou Enlai and Deng Xiaoping.
John Steele said
Thanks for posting this, Mike. It’s disturbing, and I’d like to try to separate out a few different aspects of what’s described. The question of democracy is one aspect (and I’ll come back to it), but not the only one. There’s also the question of concern for the health and well-being of the people. And there’s the fact that the tests were conducted in an area inhabited by the minority Uygur people, and to what degree their rights were in fact seen as more disposable.
And then there’s also the general question of what, exactly, are the characteristics of socialism. Mike ends his post by noting that in many ways socialism is not that different from capitalism, and David D poses the question, ‘So the nuclear project was a part of the struggle for national security. On the other hand, if everything in terms of principles is sacrificed in the name of expediency, then exactly how is it, in this sense, that “socialism really is different and better than capitalism.”’
Is democracy a characteristic of socialism? I don’t see how it cannot be — not in the sense of particular forms (it’s not a formal question). But if socialism is revolutionary, then it must involve the real remaking of social structures and relations (including of course the relations of production), by the great masses of people themselves. And this means democracy, in the sense of real participation in determining the direction of society. Of course how this can be accomplished in conditions of encirclement, attack, war and other dangers which have loomed for every revolutionary society is not a simple question. But if the people broadly are not actually empowered in real ways, then what do they have? (Excuse the use of this word that’s been hatefully hijacked by liberals…)
Miles Ahead said
Quoting Nando at length to ask some very simple questions–and questions that are not necessarily related to proletarian democracy, etc.:
Nando:
We all know that the U.S. has been the only imperialist power to actually use atomic/nuclear weapons–i.e. Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
But my questions are, was China’s development of a nuclear weapon really a deterrence? Has the development of a nuclear arsenal of any country–be it Israel, Pakistan, India, et al. been a deterrence for invasion, war, attack, etc.? And how many people worldwide have suffered from the “fallout” from nuclear testing, under the guise of we have nuclear weapons, so you better not mess with us.
There is the question of who holds state power, and who are the “top dogs” on a world scale, but were the non-proliferation treaties not something to uphold? (IMO, in some maybe minor aspect, the movement around these treaties had to do with some “fallout” at the U.S.’s usage of nukes on Japan.)
As I read this post couldn’t help but think of 1) “Dr. Strangelove” and 2) “The Last Flower” by James Thurber. And I am wondering if this post is not somehow alluding to the elephant in the room, that is, No. Korea.
GD said
I don’t think this is such a difficult issue that requires intense debate. The dangers of radiation and nuclear fallout were not as well understood in the 1960′s as they are today. Given that the PRC at this time was significantly behind the West as well as the USSR in the realm of science, I think this tragedy is something that could have only ever been a one time thing. On the whole, Maoist China has a pretty good record when it comes to public health. I think greater knowledge at the time would have led to a different approach. However if someone can find out when knowledge concerning the full risks of radiation and fallout (particularly when it concerns how long an area remains toxic after a nuclear test) became known on a global scale I’d be willing to change my view of these events.
nando said
there is much to say on all of these points…
for the moment, just a quick reply to GD:
You are right that socialist China made huge strides in public health in ways that no non-revolutionary system could match (barefoot doctors etc.)
This is, in fact, an example of socialism being different from and clearly better than capitalism (or feudalism).
And yes, it may be true that less was known about radiation in the 1960s.
The story in the Scientific American was about the suppression of information about the cancer epidemic itself — not the potential danger of an epidemic — when the deaths were emerging. It is not about their degree of pre-knowledge — but how potentially damaging information was handled and who decided how it would be handled, and whose interests that handling represented.
Let’s look at it another way:
What would society have had to be like for those doctors to be able to be “whistleblowers” on a major cancer epidemic line this regardless what their superiors feared or the immediate authorities wanted?
land said
This was a difficult article to read. The quote:
“Isn’t there a connection between the inability of doctors to point out a cancer epidemic and the larger inability of a people to prevent the wholesale restoration of capitalism.”
This needs to be part of our discussion when we talk about a revolutionary people and what this means and why it matters.
I think it is important to recognize the “checkerboard” Mao referred to.
China is a huge country. It was surrounded by imperialism.
The party was kind of a mess.
But if 194,000.00 people “might”
have died from radiation exposure what was the discussion going on among the party. That had to be huge.
You might think they did not know and I suppose that is possible. But there was the knowledge and experience of Hiroshima.
People died behind this testing. Doctors were silenced in a revolutionary society and it was a revolutionary society.
The Lotta examples are inspiring and people fought very hard to make these happen. But it was not enough and I question how widespread was the determination to keep the party red.
In any case it was not enough.
And there is the huge difference between silencing doctors and
what the barefoot doctors did to keep people alive. What was the debate in this area and thoughtout China about this. There must be much more info.
I am going to read more on this. To me this example doesn’t change the fact that people had real rights under socialism.
But it shows how complex changing the world is. And how not needed and wholly destructive is dogmatism which refuses to take a look at what is actually happening in the world because it does not fit the picture you want.
And again. Nuclear weapons really have no place in any future revolutionary society.
Hope this is clear. Add your thoughts.
Miles Ahead said
No one really addressed my questions in Comment Nº 6 but that is not the end of the world…so to speak.
But to me Land pretty much summed up my basic position, and what led me to ask some questions, when he/she said:
An article I posted on K. Threads News & Analysis today kind of dovetails with this discussion–as well as some of the line struggle around Iran. If this article is true, you know damn well the totally repressive Myanmar gov’t is going to use said weapons to protect its people.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090622/ap_on_…_koreas_nuclear
“Official: North Korean ship carrying weapons to Myanmar”
Miles Ahead said
Obviously meant to say “isn’t” going to use said weapons…
Mike E said
Let me ask, Miles:
I think that there is something profoundly reactionary about threatening “mutually assured destruction” and targeting nuclear weapons at cities and civilians. In my view this runs against what our cause is about.
But is it wrong for a socialist state to have nuclear weapons for deterrence — if their strategy doesn’t include the targeting of cities?
Socialist China did this by announcing a firm “no first use” policy — and challenging all nuclear powers to adopt this policy universally. (The U.S. has always refused to say they will never use nukes first — which was/is revealing and exposing).
Some of the armies threatening china (specifically the million plus Soviet troops in siberia) were far from population centers — so it was possible to use nuclear weapons to deter attack from very powerful high tech forces, without threatening population centers.
Was this wrong?
Miles Ahead said
Sorry Mike, am on the run, but will try and answer your “back to you” with a somewhat spontaneous response even though, IMO, this is a subject that deserves a lot more.
”But is it wrong for a socialist state to have nuclear weapons for deterrence — if their strategy doesn’t include the targeting of cities?”
Fundamentally, I am against the proliferation of nuclear weapons across the board. And if you look at the world today, what state is socialist? None that I can see. So while nuclear weapons may have been developed in revolutionary China as “deterrence” against their real and many enemies, China is no longer revolutionary but they still have their nuclear arsenal.
And to say that revolutionary China’s strategy didn’t include targeting of cities (or “no first use”)—is a pretty feeble sop to having nukes.
I maintain that having nuclear weapons in your arsenal is not a deterrence. How do the world’s people control the uncontrollable governments, most especially the U.S. and Israel, who have the most nuclear weapons, once nuclear war is initiated?
Seems to me for starters, instead of developing nuclear weapons as some sort of “deterrence”, what the people of the world should be demanding is the dismantlement of nuclear weapons—starting with the biggest hypocrites of all, the U.S.—who actually are the only ones so far who have dropped atomic/nuclear bombs.
To begin with, this whole notion of nuclear weaponry (for a socialist country in particular, but also in terms of wars of liberation, etc.) leaves out the more decisive factor in a war situation, that is, the people, people’s war, and guerrilla warfare. In fact, if nothing else, ethically and morally, it relegates the people to a pretty piss-poor position. (For the superpowers to go up against a highly politically conscious nation such as socialist China is a nightmare for the nuclear powers. Vietnam was a nightmare for the U.S., French and Japanese imperialists.)
And whether whole populated cities are targeted or not, it is the planet, including all forms of life, that are affected and at stake. To say that the development and usage of nuclear weapons is a game-changer, but not necessarily a deterrence, is an understatement.
Let’s just think about this post. And included in on our ponderings, what about the effects of even the testing of nuclear weapons in some “remote” place like Los Alamos, the Aleutian Islands, etc. not only on people directly and over years hence, but the environment. Not a pretty picture.
In a circuitous way, this reminds me of the footage of the U.S. bombing (not using nuclear weapons, but supposedly strategic weapons and air missiles) against Iraq, in both the current war and the Gulf War (and now we can read about Pakistan, Afghanistan and Somalia), wherein the pilots of those planes were pushing computer buttons – not meeting THEIR supposed enemy face to face – and the killing of 100,000’s of Iraqi civilians was like these pilots and soldiers, in the service of U.S. imperialism, had gone to the nearest mall, playing video games.
And, for example, Pakistan—while the U.S. acknowledges their storehouse of nukes, and even uses that as an excuse and propaganda for it’s “interference” in Pakistan—“god forbid those same nukes should fall into the ‘wrong’ hands”, but even with the knowledge of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, this has not deterred the U.S. from stepping up its incursions, war moves and actual bombing of Pakistan. It’s just that the U.S. “has god on its side.”
This might not sound related, but in my mind it is. I remember the first time I came up against anti-Semitism. I was 17 yrs. old and attending a “business school” to learn how to type and take shorthand (as it ends up, both a curse and a blessing.) I had befriended a lovely Chicana. Unbeknownst to me her husband was Syrian, and further unbeknownst to me, he found out I was Jewish (at least born Jewish). So, one day I go out to my car, and the husband was waiting for me along with one of his “buds.” And while they were pummeling me – beating the crap out of me actually – and yelling racial and anti-Semitic epithets, the whole time I was naively trying to explain—“hey, I’m for the Palestinians and against the Zionists.” My personal politics mattered little to these guys. Two days later, after his wife had become pretty hysterical, he actually half-assedly apologized, but still didn’t want his wife associating with me. And I reluctantly accepted his apology—while facing him with two black eyes, swollen face and limbs.
My point in raising that experience is that war, “skirmishes”, or even certain fist-a-cuffs, etc. can be indiscriminate, and the threat of nuclear war and nuclear weapons probably the most indiscriminate of all. To talk about a socialist country developing nuclear weapons as a “deterrent” against the aggressive likes of the U.S. or former Soviet Union, raises the spectrum of nuclear war and “war games” to a cold and heartless abstract. Am sure you remember Curtis LeMay with his “quip” about the Vietnamese, as the U.S. was losing that war—“Bomb ‘em back to the Stone Age.”
And I think that it is beholden on a truly revolutionary, socialist country, to set an example, across the board, that that country and its people stand for and are about the betterment of humanity. And that it is the people who are the decisive factor, not nukes.
So let me ask you—what do you think of the anti-nuke forces? More hypothetically, do you think that the USSR would have been able to deter the Germans had they had nukes in WW II?
land said
At this point I do not think the main struggle should be over Are Nuclear weapons necessary.
Our concern is with the people.
I am not a pacifist. There is something to political power does grow out of the barrel of a sun.
But it makes no sense to me in building a revolutionary movement to talk about how nuclear weapons can be a deterrent. the destruction is just too overwhelming.
Even if they are not aimed at a population center their destruction to the earth and the people who live on the earth is way over any benefit. Which is what?
The question was why were doctors silenced from talking about the cancer epidemic.
Even if they weren’t silenced the epidemic was still there. there.
Adrienne said
Land:
Indeed.
I’m with the naysayers here. Nuclear weapons have never make a lick of sense. If we wish to say that socialists are wise, decent and moral (toward human beings and animals, our planet, and that our work is to build a better future for us all), I think we should take the right stand: No Nukes.
redgrape said
Unfortunately, imperialists are not wise, decent and moral, and have no qualms about using any and all means necessary and available to ensure their continued survival and control. While I fully value and appreciate the reasons why nuclear weapons should not be proliferated, taking the “no nukes” stance against it is, in my mind, akin to bringing a knife to a gun fight.
The issue of nuclear armament has at times been a political issue. During the 40s and 50s nuclear development was considered the apex of a society’s technological prowess and for a time nuclear power, whether in the form of a bomb or power plant, was considered the ultimate step in human technological advancement.
China, during this period, was desperately trying to assure its place in the world, not solely on selfish grounds but on the grounds of its importance as a revolutionary global force. Against them they had the armed might of the United States, who had annihilated two Japanese cities with nuclear weapons and was threatening the same against China; and beginning in the mid-to-late 50s the USSR, too, became a potential enemy who could (and to their mind, would) use nuclear devices against them.
While we can all (hopefully) agree the entire existence of a weapon purposely made to end life on an unimaginable scale is in direct contrast to our most basic of principles, the fact of the matter is that they ARE a deterrent against their use. Mutually assured destruction, as sad as it is, was and in some ways still is the only real defense against western imperialism; short of their own destruction, they can and will go to any lengths to secure their interests globally.
But the topic at hand is, of course, the atmosphere of silence and intellectual suppression which plagues China to this day. That is, I believe, not so much a byproduct of socialism in China but a byproduct of the oppurtunist reactionaries who stole the reigns of that revolutionary society and engineered it into their own base of power. During the 1970s and 1980s there was an incredible amount of pressure on intellectuals and people at large to not question policy. The image of Mao, what he represented and taught was streamlined, snipped and transformed into an unquestionable decree which the whole of China was expected to adopt without question. The revolution, they preached, was unquestionable; to speak against it, or anything, was a sign of reaction, a moral crime. This mindset petered down into every walk of life, as is common among all dictatorial governments (re: Iran); the state of things is unquestionable.
This of course goes against the very foundation of revolutionary socialism, where the proliferation of ideas and information and thought is of paramount importance, an undeniable individual right. How was this lost in China? How did one of the most open, democratic societies turn into the despotic dictatorial government we see today? During the late 1950s and early 1960s, had the same thing occured, that young up-and-coming physicist would probably have not hesitated for an instant in heading home that night, painting up a few dozen big character posters, and plastering them across his campus, university or workplace to denounce his boss for having a closed, conservative mind, in suppressing thoughts and ideas.
One thing that strikes me is the way in which the oppurtunist reactionaries who eventually would take over China used those socialist tools of expression and freedom to their own means. Much of the sense of suppression in China seems to come not from the state itself through laws and incarceration (though this exists in a huge degree) but through pressure from ones direct peers and superiors.
During the onset of the Cultural Revolution it was commonplace for people to speak out, to criticize others for their non-revolutionary views, to expose corruption and complacency. As time went on, and as the revolutionary battle within the party continued, that same tool was used in reverse; during the witchhunts following Mao’s death, many of Mao’s supporters and Deng’s detractors were put on “verbal trial”, placed before their peers in the government and tongue-lashed for going against the state. In campuses and workplaces, workers and students were criticized by reactionaries, publically demonized and turned into social pariahs. Big character posters were used against revolutionaries, and the whole idea of blooming flowers was used to suppress thoughts and ideas rather than express them.
A more in-depth look at this phenomenon, I think, would be a wonderful thing to read.
Adrienne said
Redgrape:
But this shouldn’t be about Them. It should be about Us. About what we stand for, right? Otherwise we’re allowing them to define us. And to define what we’re willing to do to other people and our planet.
I’ve heard this said many times, but I’ve never agreed with this particular assertion. I think the deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons is that everyone on the planet was and is horrified and haunted by the mass murder of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The use of the threat of nukes has been like a pissing contest ever since — with no one quite insane enough to actually want to recreate the nightmare, or wish to bear that level of shame.
Just my opinion.
Miles Ahead said
Part of this post, asks the question of why this information was suppressed in socialist China; why were the physicists, researchers, etc. hushed up. So while I think that Land and I have some very basic agreements, I do not agree when Land says:
Precisely because of what I do agree with Land over in his/her next sentence:
To quote John Steele in Comment Nº 5:
Seems to me, that the development of nukes took (and still takes) precedence over concern for the people. (It’s almost an oxymoron.) And if the development and testing of nuclear weapons was strictly limited to one country, be it socialist or capitalist/imperialist, we would still be having to deal with the populations that are being subjected to testing, etc. as well as the overall effects on the planet, the health and welfare of living creatures, the environment, flora and fauna, ad infinitum. If not, why would it be “sobering to start to learn about the possible cost of this for the people of China,” (and frankly elsewhere)? My guess is, because we assume a revolutionary socialist country like China would do better by its people (and humanity) under these circumstances. At least you would hope so.
The suppression of documentation as to the effects of radiation and nuclear fallout from testing nuclear weapons has been going on for decades. Even those who worked directly on the Manhattan Project, who after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, had a twinge of conscience (including not only Oppenheimer but Albert Einstein), were suppressed and repressed; some called before the House on Un-American Activities and labeled spies, Commie-dupes and sympathizers. But even the effects of wielding nuclear power, if handled irresponsibly, has been exposed by Chernobyl, Karen Silkwood (who was murdered because of what she learned), or the dumping of chemicals in the Love Canal (don’t you love it, the “love” canal). Geez, even Erin Brockovich became a hero on the side of the people taking on PG&E.
In the 80s, a very telling exposé was written by one Carl Bakal: Charity U.S.A.: An investigation into the hidden world of the multi-million dollar charity industry. Bakal documented where all the multi-millions actually go and went. The statistics around the American Cancer Association, thought to be a bulwark of research into the causes of different cancers, as well as the lynchpin of medical organizations trying to both end or control the disease, was very revealing: 80% of the funds raised for “cancer research” went back into further publicity for the ACA, while only 20% of the monies were actually applied to research.
It is one thing to say that “political power grows out of the barrel of a gun” (I don’t know if Land was being ironic, or this was just a typo, but Land said, “out of the barrel of a sun.”) And it is another to say that “political power grows out of a nuclear bomb.” And I think it is a straw-man and simplistic to equate the anti-nuclear movement strictly with pacifism. But political power does not simply grow out of the barrel of a gun. It depends on who is wielding that gun, and the political, social and collective consciousness behind that gun. Otherwise, to me, Mao’s statement is simply reduced to a slogan and one that we can pull out, and “fire,” whenever contradictions become a sticky-wicket.
So, I don’t think it was correct to suppress the Chinese physicists’ (and physicians’) findings, nor do I agree that China having nuclear weapons was going to deter their enemies.
Miles Ahead said
BTW…meant to say the American Cancer Society…
land said
To be clear when I said “I do not think at this point the main struggle should be over are Nuclear weapons necessary.”
“Our concern should be with the people.”
What I meant was we do not have the kind of revolutionary movement that we need. Kasama is going all out in every way to make this happen. As are others.
What I meant was and I didn’t say it very well was that we need internationalism on this planet.
There are those trying to destroy the world in some insane manner by building weapons that have potential to end life as we know it. It will not matter where one lives.
There are environmentalists who concern themselves totally with this situation. That is good. But
I think the most important things is to build a communist movement. The Kasama way.
This has been a thoughtful back and forth.
Miles Ahead said
Dearest Land,
My whole heart and soul is with you when you say: “we need internationalism on this planet.”
And if we take that as our jumping off place and overall outlook, hopefully we can better analyze, “dig in deeper” etc. into all the important questions we (the “we” ‘s of the world) are facing. “What is to be Done?”–IMO a shitload.
I try to keep up with the “environmentalists” but am not at all some expert on the subject. But some of the changes I have seen in what I read, watch, etc. in that movement is, they too are broadening their perspective. (My first encounter with anti-nuke forces was during the late 50s, and SANE) I hope in the future that we can unite more broadly with those forces.
Hope this doesn’t sound too cliché, but will quote Mao: “The future is bright, the road is tortuous.” Am glad we’re in this together.
land said
I do think we need to join forces with the environmentalists and many others who are concerned about the fate of this planet.
Spread the conversation “what is to be Done”.
To the future.
G said
This is an important topic, that relates to encouraging self-checks, whistle blowers, and organs that increase act independently to bring about public awareness of what those in govt. and in power are doing, so that the masses can know what is going on, and then exert their own pressure and power, a dvision and contradiction that should be broken down, as a society tries to advance on the socialist road.
There are practical and serious consequences when this is lacking. I was recently reading Professor Amartya Sen on the great famine during the Great Leap Forward, and he argued that severity of the tragedy was increased by the suppression of information. He concluded that censorship that went on contributing to the famine. Sen wrote, “what was lacking when the famine threatened China was a political system of adversarial journalism and opposition….the population itself did not know about the extent of the national calamity… as it unfolded”.
I wonder if there was a revolutionary but independent “on the side of the people’s right to know” press as part of a socialist revolutionary society, that had no tolerance for censorship, or fear of embarrassment for mistakes, that things would be far better for developing and maintaining the socialist road? I say yes.