Which teacher was Mr. Qin Hui, a professor at Tsinghua University, when he was a graduate student?

It was Prof. Zhao Lisheng!

Qin Hui: "Teaching and Enlightenment: Remembering our Predecessor Prof. Zhao Lisheng", which was published on QQ.com.

Qin Hui, Professor of History at Tsinghua University

Zhao Lisheng (1917-2007), a native of Anqiu, Shandong Province, was a famous contemporary historian

My mentor, Mr. Zhao Lisheng, passed away.

Looking back to 1978, when we, the first postgraduate students after the Cultural Revolution, entered the university, although we all insisted on studying during the years of turmoil, after all, we had just gone through the "cultural fault" and were unfamiliar with the traditional terminology. An elder brother wrote in an article about how the "late master Zhao Lisheng", probably because he thought that "late master" was similar to "Mr." and a more respectful way of addressing him. As a result, Mr. Zhao read and laughed: "I'm still alive and well, how to become a 'master'?"

Late Zhao Lisheng Author's photo

And now the voice is still there, the philosopher has passed away, Mr. Zhao walked through his bumpy, legendary 91 spring and autumn, really became our master.

Mr. Zhao was very kind to me. I just entered middle school in 1966 in the "Cultural Revolution" class suspension, followed by the tragic degree of Guangxi than the country's "martial arts struggle" - in fact, is the rain of bullets in the civil war, the flames of war just extinguished, I was less than 16 years old at the time of the "Cultural Revolution". When I was less than 16 years old, I graduated from junior high school and went to the countryside to work in the army. After that, I spent more than nine years at Waseda University until 1978, when I became a graduate student of Mr. Zhao. Therefore, except for the six years of elementary school before the Cultural Revolution, my real career was under Mr. Zhao's tutelage. Although I did very well in my exams, I was not immune to the stereotypes of my "Waseda University" background. Especially my "congenital glaucoma, blind in the right eye, optic nerve atrophy in the left eye, naked eyesight 0.2, corrected eyesight only 0.7" medical examination form, a strong impression. Therefore, I later heard that there was a lot of resistance to my acceptance. It was only after Mr. Zhao's strong argument that I was able to enter the school. At that time, Mr. Zhao is said to have said, "If I don't recruit Qin Hui, I won't recruit anyone. He also said that if Qin Hui was blind, he could become another Chen Yinke.

Young Zhao Lisheng

Nearly 30 years later, I have not lost my eyesight, and I am ashamed of my teacher's kindness because I have not become a "Chen Yincheng". But Mr. Zhao's kindness to me is quite different from that of ordinary teachers and students. Life depends on hard work and opportunities. I think the biggest opportunity in my life is to be able to study under Mr. Zhao. It was he who brought me into the hall of academia, and the peasant issue I have studied so far also originated from Mr. Zhao's "pioneering" of the history of land system and peasant war. If I hadn't met Mr. Zhao, my life path would have been completely different.

But as a scholar, Mr. Zhao has given me more than just "opportunities". Mr. Zhao's knowledge is vast and profound, and his inspiration to me is immeasurable. Although Mr. and I are two generations, the field of knowledge can not overlap, the times give us a "sense of the problem" can not be the same, the path of study can not be the same, and even the views of many issues are not the same, but even in those "not the same" place, there are from Mr. to give me inspiration. But even in those "different" points, there are inspirations from Mr. Wang to me. Reviewing these thoughts at this moment of remembering Mr. Zhao is the best way to honor him. Mr. Zhao himself was an independent thinker, and he demanded the same of us. So I believe that Mr. in heaven's spirit, will be happy to see me write this text.　　

1 On the "Asian Mode of Production"

The Collected Writings of Zhao Lisheng, Lanzhou University Press, 2004

Mr. Zhao was branded as a "rightist" in 1958, and nearly died as a result.

Mr. But before 1949, he was a typical leftist scholar. He not only participated in the whole "129 Movement", participated in the Shanxi New Army under the leadership of the Chinese **** and served as a battalion instructor, and later "discharged his armor and study", but also still to the leftist thinking, especially Marxism as the main ideological resources for the basis of the study. Mr. Wang said that he did not like to set out the science in his life, and he attached importance to macroscopic research and theoretical analysis. Although many of the later "ists" were not recognized due to Mr. Zhao's purges, he was one of the greatest contributors to the new Marxist system of historiography that was formed around 1949. Mr. Xiang Da, another master of historiography who was branded as a "rightist" at the same time with him, once called the new historiography of that time "Five Golden Flowers" without irony, that is to say, it mainly discussed the five major issues, namely, the staging of ancient history, the peasant wars, the agrarian system, the relationship between ethnic groups and national integration, and the sprouting of capitalism. The Five Golden Flowers. Mr. Zhao made great contributions to three of these "golden flowers": he was recognized as the founder of the history of the Peasant War, he established his own research system on the history of the land system, and he was one of the leaders in the discussion of the third flower, namely, the "Staging of Ancient History" and the discussion of the nature of society. He was also one of the important scholars in the school of "Wei and Jin Feudalism". However, Mr. Zhao's fame does not lie in the specific argumentation of "Wei and Jin feudalism", but in the theoretical foundation of this theory, i.e., Marx's ideas about the "Ancient Orient" and "Asia's mode of production".

The idea of the "ancient East" and the "Asiatic mode of production" was interpreted and played out in Marx's theory.　　

The theory of the "Asiatic State" as "no privation, but a state of 'despotism' and slavery"

Marx's theory of the "Asiatic State" is similar to the theory of the "****same body". Marx's theory of the "Asiatic State" was closely related to the concept of "****sameness". In the 19th century, ancient or "traditional" societies were characterized by identity, coercion and dependence on the "whole", while modernization meant the awakening of individuality and individual rights and the contractual union of free men, which has been the main theme of various "progressive" ideas since the Age of Enlightenment. This is the ****same point of view of various "progressive" ideas since the Age of Enlightenment. Rousseau, Hegel, Mann, Mill, Tennessee, Dyrkheim, and even Marx, Lafargue, Kautsky, and Plekhanov all saw it this way. According to Marx, "The further we go back in history, the more the individual manifests himself as not independent, as subordinate to a larger whole." These "wholes" have evolved from "perfectly natural families," then from families "expanding into clans," and from "inter-clan conflicts and fusions" into "clans" and "clans," and then from "clans," and then from "clans," and then from "clans," and then from "clans," and then from "clans. then from families "expanding into clans" and from "inter-clan conflict and fusion" into various larger ****similars. Or rather, the "naturally occurring ****similarities" consist of the "expansion of families into tribes" and then the "union of tribes". From these "naturally occurring" organizations there is then synthesized the "overarching unity above all small ****-symbols", i.e., the "Asiatic State". In these "****somes" or "unities", which suppress individuality, the individual is only "an appendage of the narrow crowd", and the individual himself is "the property of the ****somes". The individual himself is "the property of the ****-same". From the attachment of all individuals to the ****-same comes the attachment of the members of the ****-same to the "Father of the ****-same". And this is the source of "Asian despotism".

With the limited empirical information available at the time, the above insights were in fact logically derived from those scholars' pursuit of the value of freedom. The so-called "Asian countries" is a concept that is more a value judgment than a factual one. The "Asia" that Marx referred to at the time had the following basic characteristics: it was the first stage of social development; there was no private ownership at that time, but rather "nationalization of the land" and "rural communes". On this basis, harsh authoritarianism and "universal slavery" were established.　　

Conflict between the "Asian way" and the later "five social forms"

But this description faced serious interpretive difficulties when it came to the later "five social forms". According to the Stalinist understanding, the "authoritarian state" and "slavery" were only products of "private ownership". The state of "no private ownership", or where everything is a "commune", was painted in the rose color of "equality": either the future ideal of "**productivism", or the future ideal of "**productivism", or the future ideal of "**productivism", or the future ideal of "**productivism". *or the "primitive society" which is said to be the original state of mankind, and which, apart from being materially poor and "very unproductive", seems morally beautiful: it is a "classless" and "unproductive" society, and it is a "communal" society, and it is a "communal" society. The latter, apart from material poverty and "low productivity", seems morally beautiful: it is a state of "primitive democracy" and "primitive ****productivism" that is "classless" and "free from exploitation and oppression". Marx's "Asia", on the other hand, has put together "disinterestedness", "****-symbolism", "communes", and the appalling "autocratic state". "despotic state" and "universal slavery". Where does this fit into the Five Forms? If you call it a "primitive society", it is full of "exploitation and oppression"; if you call it a "slave society", it does not have "private ownership". "And Marx clearly puts it in the initial position, not the "second stage" after the "primitive society".

There was a long battle between the "two types" and the "two stages" of the Soviet Union. The former considered that "Asia" was only a special type of society in the "irrigated" regions of the East, and was not suitable for Europe and other non-irrigated regions. The latter recognized that the "Asiatic way" existed not only in Asia, but said that it was a transitional stage between "primitive society" and "slave society", and that "disinterestedness" was primitive. The "disinterestedness" is a primitive characteristic, and the "autocratic state" is a characteristic of slave societies, so it seems to be "early slavery" or "underdeveloped slavery", which is different from the later slavery. Therefore, it seems that it should be "early slavery" or "underdeveloped slavery", which, together with the later "typical slavery" or "developed slavery "*** constitutes the two stages of "slave society". However, both of these statements have a large number of empirical and logical flaws.　　

The early Marxists in the Tsarist era used the term "Asian despotism" to criticize the reality

And more importantly, the term "despotism" and slavery, without "private ownership", was used to describe the state of slavery. In fact, when the Marxists of Plekhanov's generation fought against autocracy in Russia, they did use this kind of argument to attack the then Tsarist autocratic "communal state", denouncing the Tsar for "forcing the peasants to '**** plough' with bayonets and whips", pointing out that "the Russian peasantry is split up and divided", and that "the Russian peasantry is split up and divided". They denounced the Tsar for "forcing the peasants to '*** plough' with bayonets and whips", pointed out that "the Russian peasants are divided into two classes: the communes of exploiters and the exploited individuals", exclaimed that "the rural communes are becoming more and more harmful to the peasants", and listed support for the independent peasants and the realization of freedom to withdraw from the communes as "the only content" of the first land program of the proletarian parties. They also listed support for an independent peasantry and the realization of freedom of withdrawal as the "sole content" of the proletarian party's first agrarian program. They also attacked the populists of the time for glorifying the rural commune and resisting capitalism as an attempt to justify "Asian despotism," as reactionary "police populism," and as a quest for an "ancient Chinese or Peruvian-style ****production It was a reactionary "police populism" and the pursuit of an "emperor's dictatorship revolutionized on the basis of ancient Chinese or Peruvian ****anism. At that time, the theory of "Asian despotism" had such a role in reality, and academically it had not yet conflicted with the non-existent "five-form" official model, so it used to be a sharp weapon in the hands of anti-despotic Marxists. From Plekhanov, early Lenin to Pokrovsky, the founding father of Russian Marxist historiography, were skilled in this way.　　

Discussions of the "Asiatic" approach became a sensitive topic during the Soviet era

The situation changed dramatically during the Soviet era, however, when the Bolsheviks themselves instituted a harsher "communal state" and established the "Five Forms". The crime of the populists changed from the defense of the "despotic commune" to the promotion of the "freedom of the small peasant". The discussion of the "Asean way" became very sensitive and even dangerous. During the Soviet period, many people were imprisoned and lost their heads.

In China, the "Asian way" was recognized as a "Trotskyist theory" in the social history debate during the Republican era, and many people suffered the same fate after 1949. In addition, unlike the Russians, who identified with Europe, the people of the East and Asia were prone to another layer of antipathy towards the "Asiatic way" theory, which was so pejorative: in addition to being a "Trotskyist heresy," it seemed to have a "colonialist Western bias" as well. colonialist Western bias" (although in Marx's case "Asia" is a universal concept and does not exclusively refer to Asia). So in our country, the "Asian way" theory is a long time to become a forbidden academic area, until after 1990 there was a "big criticism" of it.