Around 1959, he publicly commented on Cao Cao many times, advocating "overturning the case for Cao Cao", and it quickly developed into a national discussion that lasted nearly half a year. For the intention of ***, there are many studies in the academic community and a lot of results have been achieved, but there are still many problems that have not been solved, which are worth further studying.
**I love to read history all my life, and I especially like to comment on historical figures. Among the politicians of the past generations, * attached great importance to Cao Cao. Around 1959, * repeatedly proposed to re-evaluate Cao Cao and "overturn the case for Cao Cao". At the first Zhengzhou Conference in November 1958,* it was pointed out that it was incorrect to regard Cao Cao as a bad person. At the Wuchang East Lake Forum at the end of November, * said: "We want to overturn Cao Cao's case." Our party is a party that stresses the truth, and all wrongful and unjust cases will be overturned in 10 or 20 years, 1,000 years, and 2,000 years. The following month, when he saw Lu Bi reprimanding Cao Cao in the "Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms", he wrote a comment: "This annotation has posted a lot of big-character posters of Wei Wu, and there is no excuse for wanting to add to the crime." ”
At the beginning of the following year, major newspapers began to participate in the discussion of this topic. On January 25, Guangming** published Guo Moruo's article "On Cai Wenji's Eighteen Beats of Hu Ji". Guo Moruo exclaimed in the article: "Cao Cao's contribution to the nation should be highly evaluated, and he should be called a national hero", but "this outstanding historical figure has suffered an unjustified injustice."
Subsequently, Guo Moruo created the historical drama "Cai Wenji". In an interview with reporters, Guo Moruo expressed his thoughts, "My motive for writing "Cai Wenji" is to overturn the case for Cao Cao." Historian Jian Bozan also published ** in the journal "Historiography" "Should Restore Cao Cao's Reputation——— From the Battle of Red Cliffs to Cao Cao" to show support. On March 14th, Guangming ** republished Guo Moruo's article "Overturning the Case for Cao Cao", Guo Moruo shouted again: "Cao Cao has been a negative teacher for more than a thousand years, and we want to restore his reputation today." From then on, a nationwide discussion on "overturning the case for Cao Cao" was quickly set off, which lasted for half a year.
**What is the purpose of proposing to re-evaluate Cao Cao? Over the past decades, there have been many opinions and opinions, and in summary, the following kinds of influences are more extensive:
Prosperity Academic Theory: This view points out that the mistake of expanding the anti-rightist struggle in 1957 caused the academic circles to fall silent, and in order to implement the principle of "let a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend", * advocated free discussion and carried out academic controversy on the occasion of discussing Cao Cao.
Praise the leader said: The view is that this discussion is the embodiment of academic research directly serving realpolitik, "The premise of overturning the case for Cao Cao must be the leader's affirmation of this historical figure", Guo Moruo wrote "Cai Wenji" to praise ***
The proletariat said: This viewpoint advocates that "the purpose of Cao Cao's exposition is twofold: one is to refute the fallacy of domestic and foreign reactionaries attacking the Communist Party of China", and adhere to the leadership of the Communist Party and the fundamental principle of the proletariat; One is to oppose the so-called "orthodoxy" of socialism, oppose the "Lao Tzu Party," and strengthen the determination to take the road of socialist construction unique to China."
Looking back on the whole process, it can be seen that from the development of Cao Cao's personal emotional identification to a nationwide discussion, the incident has obviously evolved from a private event to a public event. Therefore, only by examining the motivation and goals of the company from the perspective of administrative decision-making can we more deeply understand the intention of the company.
The decision-making process first contains a certain value judgment, and the theoretical basis for value judgment is the Marxist view of history and values. In 1918, he went north to study, and his thinking gradually matured. On January 21, 1921, * wrote in a letter to Cai Hesen: "It is a fact that materialism is the basis of our Party's philosophy. From this point on, he gradually grew into a staunch Marxist, who unswervingly insisted on using the viewpoint of historical materialism to look at the world in two ways and analyze history. In the evaluation of historical figures, we advocate seeking truth from facts, not writing mistakes, not glossing over their faults, and giving comprehensive, objective and dialectical evaluations. In fact, * not only overturned the case for Cao Cao, but also used historical materialism to "overturn the case" for traditional villains such as Qin Hui and Wu Zetian. * said: "The surrender of Song Gaozong and Qin Hui, in fact, the responsibility for the Lord and Hui is not all on Qin Hui, and it is Song Gaozong Zhao Gou who plays a decisive role. ”
For Wu Zetian, * said: "Some history books) write her very absurdly, I'm afraid it's worth discussing, Wu Zetian is indeed a talent for governing the country, she has both the ability to tolerate people, the wisdom to recognize people, and the art of employing people. ”
In 1976, the view of the Tang Dynasty poet Han Yu was prevalent in academic circles to "deny all of them", and Liu Dajie, an expert in literary history, expressed different opinions in a letter to ***. ** Then he wrote back and said: "I agree with your opinion on Han Yu, it is appropriate to divide it into two. "Even under the influence of ultra-leftist ideology, * has not forgotten this principle of evaluating historical figures.
It can be seen that the first person who has believed in Marxism all his life has always insisted on using a materialist perspective to analyze historical figures. **The evaluation of Cao Cao can also be regarded as a model of his use of historical materialism and his insistence on seeking truth from facts to analyze historical figures.
Seeking truth from facts is the essence of the first thought, and it is also the starting point of the first administrative decision-making. Re-evaluate Cao Cao realistically, clear the stigma imposed on him, and restore a real image of Cao Cao in history. From this point of view, the decision to launch a national debate was taken for granted. Therefore, seeking truth from facts to "restore the reputation" of the statesman Cao Cao was the most direct and obvious purpose of the 1959 Great Debate.
At the same time, however, it is worth noting that *The choice to carry out this discussion around 1959 also has a deeper historical background and decision-making goals.
On February 25, 1956, after the official conclusion of the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Khrushchev made a secret report "On *** and its consequences", criticizing and repudiating Stalin. In this regard, *'s view is that it has both "lifted the lid" and "poked the leak". In particular, Khrushchev's demonization, nihilization, and vilification of Stalin left *** with a "somewhat pragmatic" view of this person.
In April, in order to sum up the lessons and lessons learned in the implementation of the first five-year plan, and to learn better from the experience of the Soviet Union's socialist construction, he made an important speech entitled "On the Ten Major Relations" on the basis of a large number of investigations and studies. In the article, it was mentioned again: "The Soviet Union used to praise Stalin to a height of 10,000 feet, but now he is suddenly reduced to 9,000 feet underground." ”
More importantly, Khrushchev also threw out ideas such as "peaceful transition" at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, which brought chaos to the Soviet Union and even the entire communist camp. This can't help but arouse the alarm of ***. In October 1956, the Hungarian Incident broke out. On December 29, the People** published "On the Historical Experience of the Proletariat Again", for which he instructed: "Khrushchev beat Stalin to death with a stick, and as a result he lifted a stone and shot himself in the foot"; "Stalin's knife, Khrushchev lost it, and others picked it up and beat him, causing trouble on all sides."
Obviously, in the face of the one-sided and complete denial of Stalin's bad consequences, he expressed strong dissatisfaction with Khrushchev.
In January 1957, he said: "I see that these people do not speak Marxism-Leninism, do not analyze problems, and lack revolutionary morality. Marxism also includes the revolutionary morality of the proletariat. You used to be so supportive, but now you have to give a little reason to turn the corner! The reason is not to be explained at all, and suddenly turning so 180 degrees, it seems that Lao Tzu has never supported Stalin, but in fact he used to be very supportive. * not only pointed out the problem of Khrushchev's "revolutionary morality", but also began to question his political guiding ideology.
However, Khrushchev went farther and farther away, gradually revealing the ideological tendency of abandoning the proletariat, taking the parliamentary road, realizing Soviet-American cooperation, and jointly dominating the world. Finally, at the 22nd Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Khrushchev officially wrote the "Party of the Whole People" and "the Whole Family" into the new party program.
It can be said that starting from Khrushchev's departure from historical materialism and his total rejection of Stalin, the differences between the Chinese and Soviet parties in the ideological field became wider and wider, and finally developed into the Sino-Soviet polemic in 1962. The two sides go back and forth, criticizing each other without naming each other. At the same time, the question of how to evaluate Stalin has always been the focus and core issue of the Sino-Soviet debate. Therefore, in the context of the differences between China and the Soviet Union, the intention of advocating an objective and scientific evaluation of historical figures and strengthening the guidance of Marxism should come from Khrushchev's complete rejection of Stalin's warning, and also show his concern and anxiety about the country's ideological security.
Finally, there was a direct external incentive for *** to make a decision to "overturn the case for Cao Cao" at the end of 1958. The year 1958 was an eventful year for Sino-Soviet relations, and in the first half of the year, there were incidents such as "long-wave radio" and "common fleet", which persisted in defending national sovereignty and rejected Soviet demands, failed Sino-Soviet military cooperation, and superficialized contradictions. On July 31, Khrushchev visited China, but the two sides did not speculate and broke up unhappily, failing to bridge the rift. ** Deeply dissatisfied with Khrushchev's policy toward China pursued by the Great Party and Great Power Chauvinism. Then there was the first Zhengzhou meeting in November, and at the Wuchang Conference, *** publicly called for "overturning the case for Cao Cao". From the point of view of time, there should be a close connection between these events.
Therefore, in the face of a series of mistakes made by Khrushchev starting from the complete repudiation of Stalin, the implicit purpose of proposing to "overturn the case for Cao Cao" should be to strengthen the belief in Marxism in the ideological field and refute a series of mistakes made by Khrushchev who deviated from historical materialism.
A year later, in April 1960, Red Banner magazine and others published three articles commemorating the 90th anniversary of Lenin's birth. ** Instructions "In the article it is possible to put forward the points of criticism in general terms, specifically quoting only the views of the Yugoslav press. The CPSU is the object of our unity, do not criticize it directly", these three articles do not directly mention the Soviet Union and Khrushchev, but there are obvious references in many places in the articles, and they are actually criticizing a series of views and foreign policies of the CPSU. It can be seen that before the general deterioration of Sino-Soviet relations, * for the purpose of unity, took great pains in the means of criticism, emphasizing not to criticize Khrushchev directly. From this, it can also be realized that around 1959, *** overturned the case for Cao Cao".
*: Journal of Huaihua University, Issue 01, 2014, author Wang Qi (Department of Ideology and Politics, Anhui University of Science and Technology).