Originally published at: 批判韩愈及其反动作品三篇 – 曙光
Critique of Han Yu and His Reactionary Works (Three Articles)
Editorial Department of the League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Proletariat
Editorial Board of League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Proletariat
Conflicts between Confucianism and Legalism are an important ideological struggle in China’s history within the realm of思想文化, reflecting the struggle between progressive and reactionary classes in ideology, and still have profound influence today. Socialist China, through historical materialism, studied the Confucian-Legalist struggle and discovered a规律性的历史经验: all reactionary classes—declining slave-owning classes,大地主阶级, and comprador bourgeoisie—always尊儒反法, promote idealism and metaphysics, and pursue复辟倒退; all progressive classes—new地主阶级,中小地主阶级, and民族资产阶级—respect法 and反儒, advocate materialism and dialectics, and pursue改革革新. However, since the capitalist restoration in 1976, the Zhongxiu (中修) traitor group has vigorously suppressed the latest成果 in the study of the Confucian-Legalist struggle, in order to维护 their腐朽反动的统治,重新捧上台面 the reactionary Confucianism that venerates past反动阶级, praising Confucian figures, erecting碑传, and宣扬“师道”、“孝道”、“奴才之道”, using Confucianism to精神奴役人民. Han Yu is a典型 of the Confucian figures promoted by the Zhongxiu. They elevate Han Yu as “the foremost of the Eight Masters of the Tang and Song,” and夸耀他“有思想、文章，更有事功”. In Zhongxiu’s language textbooks, Han Yu’s “Ma Shuo” (马说), “Shi Shuo” (师说), and “Zuo Qian Zhi Languan Shi Zisun Xiang” (左迁至蓝关示侄孙湘) are listed as必背篇目, spreading毒害广泛. Next, we will analyze these three works of Han Yu to彻底揭露 his true face and see what his所谓“思想、文章和事功” really are. This is very meaningful for understanding how Zhongxiu利用儒教 to麻痹青年.
Han Yu’s Era Background
“Before Changbai Mountain, the wise man knew the world, dressed in red silk, with a back waistband. The spear侵天 half,轮刀耀日光. Climbing the mountain to eat deer, descending to eat cattle and sheep. Suddenly hearing the官军 arrive,提刀向前荡. Like dying in Liaodong, beheading, what’s the harm?” (from “Song of Liaodong Dead”)
After the sweep of the农民战争 at the end of the Sui Dynasty, “衣冠殄丧，法众消亡”. The peasant uprising基本打垮了魏晋兴起的门阀士族大地主势力, and in Shandong, the uprising军还提出了“严惩腐儒、禁绝儒学”的革命口号, directly attacking孔府 and burning Confucian classics, dealt heavy blow to the儒教 that the大地主阶级 relied on to maintain their reactionary rule. In this historical context, the Tang Dynasty, represented by李世民 and武则天, saw the rise of法家地主阶级. Among them,武则天, from a庶族 background, implemented the法家路线 most thoroughly. Economically, she suppressed大地主阶级的土地兼并 to维护均田制度, promoting社会经济的持续发展. Politically, she repeatedly suppressed宗室,贵戚, and upper官僚的叛乱, inheriting the pre-Qin法家“以吏为师” doctrine, appointing法家思想的官吏 as太学祭酒, and政事“不问诸儒”. However, although庶族地主阶级调整了封建生产关系 to some extent, their利益 as剥削阶级 always fundamentally opposed劳动人民. To maintain their rule, they also needed some reactionary ideology as精神武器 to麻痹 and奴役劳动人民. The Tang rulers mainly used佛老思想, and儒教 was not highly valued. Successive emperors often built佛寺 and granted大量土地 and免税特权, leading to a new form of大土地所有制——寺院庄园, and a new大庄园主——僧侣地主. Moreover, from the later period of唐玄宗李隆基’s rule, especially during天宝年间, as中小地主阶级转化为大地主阶级 through不断的土地兼并, the成果 of the earlier法家路线——均田制 and府兵制——began to崩溃. Subsequently, there were continuous农民起义如袁晁起义, driven by heavy剥削, and地方割据势力如安史之乱, leading to increasingly深重的统治危机. To缓和阶级矛盾, with the support of唐顺宗李诵,地主阶级革新派 led a永贞改革, involving削减租赋、罢免权贵宦官、任用革新人才、夺取阉党兵权. However, at this time, the儒教的卫道士、大地主阶级的乏走狗韩愈,极力攻击改革运动,对革新派口诛笔伐,甚至编造所谓“道统”说作为理论依据，力图“以种种努力去保持旧事物使它得免于死亡”[1]. It was in this historical background that Han Yu successively produced his three reactionary articles.
Promoting the “Reading and Official Appointment” Theory, Flattering the Power Elite in “Ma Shuo”
Confucian opportunists, opponents of永贞革新, and僧侣地主的乏走狗 Han Yu
“Ma Shuo” was written between 795 and 800. As mentioned earlier, this was during the国难时期, when宦官擅权 and节度割据 were rampant, the Jingyuan兵变 (783–784) had just passed, and宫市使 were still endlessly剥削人民. Yet, Han Yu, a“道济天下之溺” opportunist, sought personal advancement by flattering the powerful, desperately seeking a way to rise in官场 and gain荣誉. He三次参加吏部考试, all unsuccessful; three times he petitioned the宰相, visited their residences, flattered, and哭求, flattering them as“周公一饭三吐哺” (from “Letter to宰相 after the 29th day”), even自比“管库”、“盗贼” (from “Letter to宰相 after the 19th day”), hoping to gain favor, but received no response. Seeing the路不通, he turned to藩镇割据势力, first serving as观察推官 under宣武节度使董晋. After董晋’s death, the宣武军发生兵变, Han Yu hurriedly fled amidst chaos, then served as节度推官 under徐泗濠节度使张建封. However, shortly after, 张建封 also died of illness. Losing his backing, like his祖师爷孔丘, “失魂落魄如丧家之狗,” Han Yu then published《马说》, shamelessly吹捧自己, venting his“怀才不遇”愤恨, while simultaneously向权贵低头,献上一份忠心的投名状. The opening line of “Ma Shuo”—“世有伯乐，然后有千里马”—exposes Han Yu’s极端唯心主义 worldview. He believed that first有伯乐 capable of识别千里马, then才有千里马; first有对事物的认识或能力, then事物本身。His思想 always服务于阶级利益, he夸大“伯乐”的作用,甚至脱离现实,实际上是奴颜婢膝地向权贵表白心迹——像他这样的腐儒, only靠“贵人”的赏识才能荣身. He then said: “虽有名马，祗辱于奴隶人之手，骈死于槽枥之间，不以千里称也,” indicating that in his view, only“伯乐”类天才才能识别“千里马”,而“奴隶人”——马夫,根本不能认识. Han Yu极端鄙视劳动人民,作为生产斗争和阶级斗争的主体,但他自己又是什么货色呢？He shamelessly吹捧自己“有千里之能”, but only because“食不饱力不足”,只要吃上一顿“石粟米”,便能大显身手. In fact, Han Yu even没有读过他所奉为“道统”的孔孟之道多少. In《Han Yu Quan Ji》, the真正“扶道助教” only a few篇, others are吹拍文章. Moreover, Han Yu’s生活作风极端腐朽, involving酒、赌、毒. In《酒中留上襄阳李相公》, he记述了自己通宵饮酒、狎妓的劣迹——“耳热何辞数爵频”、“金钗半醉座添春”,极其无耻!嫖娼如此，赌博更是常事。连好友张籍也劝他：“博塞（一种赌博游戏）之戏与人竞财……君子固不为也。今执事（指韩愈）为之，以废弃时日，窃实不识其然” (from “Letter to韩昌黎”),希望他专心著书复兴孔孟之道。而韩愈推三阻四，说等到五六十岁再写也不迟，直到死也未完成《论语注解》。吸毒方面，白居易在《思旧》中记载：“退之服硫磺，一病迄不痊”,韩愈晚年幻想永生不死，竟服食“金丹”—硫磺，最终丢了性命。可见，韩愈一类“无体力、无谷识”的儒教徒，根本不是“千里马”。中修对韩愈的粉饰，只是用功名利禄引诱青年，教他们走个人成功的资本主义邪路，教他们为私利出卖尊严良心，向资产阶级学着韩愈摇尾乞怜。
维护“师道尊严”的《师说》
《师说》创作于801年至802年，此时正值永贞改革前夕，地主阶级革新派已在为即将到来的改革做舆论和组织准备：王叔文“待诏禁中，以道合于储后，凡十有八载” (《全唐文·卷五百八十九》)，成为改革运动的骨干；柳宗元在799年作《辩侵伐论》，主张镇压淮西节度使叛乱，得到太子李诵重视。革新派的政治活动卓有成效，柳宗元在长安时，“日或数十人” (柳宗元：《报袁君陈秀才避师名书》)向他讨教革新道理，“一时辈行推仰” (《新唐书·柳宗元传》). 儒教在唐朝本就不受重视，此时因农民起义和法家思想流行而更衰微。见此情景，孔孟忠实信徒韩愈心急如焚，刚当上国子监四门博士便立即发表《师说》，大叫“师道之不传也久矣”，企图恢复儒教的师生等级制度，号召尊孔读经，用倒退的孔孟之道束缚思想，以阻止法家政治变革。
《师说》开头写道：“师者，所以传道受业解惑也。”对此，中修一般翻译为“老师是传授道理、教授学业、解决疑难问题的人”。但如此一来，掩盖了韩愈的反动政治目的。韩愈亲口承认：“授之书而习其句读者，非吾所谓传其道解其惑者也”。就是说，他口中的“师”并非传授一般文化知识的人，而是所谓“传道”者。这个“道”具体指什么？韩愈在《原道》中回答——“其位：君臣、父子、师友、宾主、昆弟、夫妇”，“君者，出令者也；臣者，行君令而致之民也；民者，出粟米麻丝，作器皿，通货财，以事其上者也。君不出令，则失其所以为君；臣不行君之令而致之民，则失其所以为臣；民不出粟米麻丝，作器皿，通货财，以事其上，则诛。”可见，“道”就是以“三纲五常”为核心的孔孟之道，就是地主阶级剥削人民、压迫人民、统治人民的封建秩序。为了维护“道”的权威，必然要求“道”的传授者——“师”也具有权威。这便是韩愈作《师说》的险恶用心——为“师”加上一圈神圣的光环，通过宣扬“尊师”进而鼓吹“重道”。
韩愈是如何论述“从师”的必要性的呢？他写道：“人非生而知之者，孰能无惑”，“古之圣人，其出人也远矣，犹且从师而问焉”。这两句话乍看起来是很有迷惑性的，表面上说人们不是“生而知之”而是“学而知之”，甚至进一步“否定”了儒教圣人孔丘的“天才”，好像是反对唯心主义先验论的。但实际上，韩愈在这里鼓吹的仍是天才论和先验论，只不过是采取了更狡猾、更隐蔽的形式而已。韩愈在《原性》中重新咀嚼董仲舒所提出的反动“性三品”论道——“性也者，与生俱生也”，“性之品有上、中、下三：上焉者，善焉而已矣；中焉者，可导而上下也；下焉者，恶焉而已矣”，“上之性就学而愈明，下之性畏威而寡罪。”也就是说，所谓“性”是与生俱来的，“上品”的人生来就是善的，“下品”的人生来就是恶的；只有“中品”以上的人才能通过后天学习变得更明白天理，“下品”的人无法通过教育改变，因此只能用暴力统治他们。可见，韩愈是个彻头彻尾的唯心主义者，他所说的“下品之性”，与孔老二所说的“下愚”、董仲舒所说的“斗筲之性”一样，都是极端污蔑和鄙视劳动人民的。韩愈要为他的先验论、天才论披上一层唯物主义外衣，实际上只是为了在当时社会条件下复兴儒教：因为“师道”，即孔孟之道已不传，自然不能片面强调“生而知之”——如果有人生来就懂孔孟之道，就不用学习了。相反，强调后天学习的重要性，才能吸引地主阶级知识分子加入他的门下，才能使儒教思想战胜佛老思想和法家思想，重新掌握统治地位。并且，韩愈还无限夸大间接经验的作用，认为只有通过“从师”才能学到知识，否则只能“愚益愚”。他否认三大实践是认识的唯一来源，实际上反对唯物主义认识论。
韩愈又是如何美化儒教的师生等级关系的呢？他接着写：“无贵无贱，无长无少，道之所存，师之所存也。”这句话同样具有欺骗性，似乎韩愈反对等级制度，主张“贤者为师”。但正如前面提到的，韩愈恰恰是封建等级制度的忠实捍卫者。在这里，他只是再次强调“师”的权威是“道”的权威赋予的。韩愈本人出身中等地主家庭，写《师说》时也只是国子监中的七品小官，而当时的太学学生多来自世家豪族——“国子馆学生三百人，皆取文武三品以上及国公子孙从三品以上曾孙补充” (韩愈：《请复国子监生徒状》)，自然看不起他，更不可能尊他为师、向他学习孔孟之道。因此，韩愈鼓吹一套貌似不看等级出身、只看“闻道先后”的师道观，意在吸引世家子弟加入，从而一方面宣扬儒教，另一方面利用师生关系扩展人脉、谋取高官厚禄。韩愈口头上说“无贵无贱”，但实际上像他这样的儒教“禄蠹”最热衷于攀附权贵，一句话道出实质：“彼与彼年相若也，道相似也，位卑则足羞，官盛则近谀”——你们年龄相仿，学问相当，又何必搞那一套师生名分？这无非是趋炎附势、耻于以低位为师、阿谀奉承高位之人。正是这句话揭露了韩愈一类腐儒的丑陋面目，于是他恼羞成怒：“巫医乐师百工之人，君子不齿，今其智乃反不能及，其可怪也欤！”他恶毒咒骂不遵儒教师道的革新派还不如“君子”所厌恶的“泥腿子”，只不过暴露出自己极端无能、无耻、反动的本质。韩愈逆历史潮流而动、“抗颜为师”，最终只落得个可笑的下场。柳宗元在《答韦中立论师道书》中记载：“世果群怪聚骂……愈以是得狂名，居长安，炊不暇熟，又挈挈而东，如是者数矣”——世人果然嘲笑和谴责他，韩愈因此被称为“狂人”，在长安时，连饭都等不及熟，就被皇帝赶出长安、流放他处，这样的事情已经发生多次了。
Outstanding landlord-class writer, reformer, and materialist thinker Liu Zongyuan
The reason Zhongxiu included《师说》in textbooks and portrayed Han Yu as a“materialist” and“opponent of feudal等级制度” was precisely to indoctrinate students with Confucian ideas of“师道尊严,” turning them into奴才 who obey teachers blindly. Zhongxiu used Han Yu’s black rhetoric to极力美化资本主义教育制度, claiming that teachers’ roles are not only“teaching” but also“育人,” making students obedient to teachers who know more文化知识 and“做人道理”. In fact, “教书育人” merely means teaching students知识 that is“九分无用一分歪曲”, while also让他们学会服从剥削阶级的统治. Zhongxiu’s “gardener” theory is just a copy of Han Yu’s “师道” theory from over 1,200 years ago. He口头上讲什么“师生平等”, but in reality, teachers in China have always压迫学生, and students have never享有 equal rights and status with teachers. Teachers often残酷迫害学生, causing伤残、死亡或心理创伤. The极端野蛮且普遍的“衡水式”学校，正是韩愈所谓“师道尊严”的活生生的今天的活标本！
Zhong Xiu aimed to promote Confucianism by vigorously “exalting Han and disparaging Liu.” However, the legalist educational views of Liu Zongyuan and Han Yu, which are mutually opposed, are truly characterized by equality. Regarding the teacher-student relationship, Liu Zongyuan advocated “taking the essence and discarding the name” (Reply to Wei Zhongli on the Doctrine of Teachers), opposing the Confucian teacher-student distinctions and hierarchical system; as long as both sides communicate, learn from each other’s strengths, and interact as teachers and students, it is sufficient. He believed that teachers should respect students—“not dare to be lazy, not dare to be stingy, not dare to be reckless” (Reply to Yan Houyu on the Doctrine of Teachers); and students should not blindly worship or follow teachers, but should often ask questions: “Is it true? Is it not? Is there something to gain? Or is there a deviation?” (Reply to Wei Zhongli on the Doctrine of Teachers). As for the criteria for choosing a teacher, Liu Zongyuan prioritized whether they understood the reformist “Dao” of the legalist school—this “Dao” that Liu Zongyuan spoke of is fundamentally different from Han Yu’s, as he clearly opposed the Confucian retrograde “Way of the Sage” and the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius, believing they “are not beneficial for worldly use,” advocating “focusing on the people” (Inscription for the Tomb of Mr. Lu Wentong, Attendant to the Crown Prince) and “beneficial to people, prepared for affairs” (On Seasonal Orders), that is, the “Dao” serving the reality of “living people” and current affairs. From this point, Liu Zongyuan’s attitude towards laboring people and high officials is also fundamentally different from Han Yu’s. He said: “If the Dao exists, even a beggar is a peer; if the Dao is reversed, dukes and marquises are just runaways” (Teacher and Friend’s Admonition)—for lowly servants and beggars with reformist ideas, they should also be regarded as teachers; conversely, even kings and high officials, if they do not understand the principles of reform, should be kept at a distance. Liu Zongyuan also proposed, “Not to seek fame and reputation for this, but to implement it based on facts, to assist the times and things as the Dao” (Reply to Wu Wuling on Non-Official Language)—reading is not for gaining fame or wealth, but to apply what is learned “to the world,” that is, to help with current politics and promote social development. Clearly, Liu Zongyuan’s legalist educational ideas contrast sharply with Han Yu’s Confucian educational ideas, making the distinction obvious.
Promoting the "Loyalty to the Emperor and Love for the Country" in Left Official to Lan Pass to Show Nephew Sun Xiang
"Left Official to Lan Pass to Show Nephew Sun Xiang" was written in 819 AD. That year, Han Yu submitted a memorial opposing Emperor Xianzong of Tang Li Chun’s acceptance of Buddhist relics into the palace, which angered Li Chun and nearly caused him to be killed, ultimately leading to his exile to Chaozhou. Due to the memorial against accepting Buddhist relics, bourgeois writers often praised Han Yu as a "frank and courageous critic" and a "fighter against Buddhism," attaching him to a series of "progressive" halos opposing religion and loyal to the emperor and country. However, Lu Xun said: "From the Six Dynasties to Tang and Song, those attacking Buddhism often said he did not worship the emperor and father, bordering on rebellion" [2], Han Yu’s weapon of "anti-Buddhism" was also the same decayed and reactionary "ruler and subject, father and son" and Confucian doctrines of Mencius and Confucius. Moreover, the ideological and cultural struggle is a reflection of economic and political struggles between certain classes or strata. Han Yu was precisely motivated by the interests of secular landlords to "oppose Buddhism." As previously mentioned, during the Tang Dynasty, the ruling class mainly used Buddhist and Taoist ideas as spiritual weapons to numb the people, and the temple economy and monastic landlord forces developed greatly. They relied on privileges such as exemption from taxes and corvée labor, engaging in fierce land and labor disputes with secular landlords. Han Yu wrote in Sending the Spirit Master: "The rampant spread of Buddhism caused 'common people to escape taxes and corvée,' 'plowing and mulberry farming daily lost slaves.'" Of course, as a spokesperson for the interests of the landlord class, Han Yu did not care about the interests of the feudal state. Here, he merely used the reality of empty granaries and no one to serve as a warning to rulers to adopt policies condemning Buddhism. It is evident that Han Yu’s so-called "anti-Buddhism" was not a struggle between materialism and idealism, nor a conflict between progressive and reactionary forces, but merely a "particularly interesting fight among big dogs, small dogs, and hungry dogs" [3].
Han Yu’s personal activities further prove that he was not only not opposed to religious superstition but also a faithful believer in it. When passing through Yueyang on his exile to Chaozhou, Han Yu went to Huangling Temple to pray, asking the gods to bless him to be pardoned and restored to court. During his tenure as the governor of Chaozhou, Han Yu even staged a grotesque "worshiping crocodile" ritual, and even wrote a "Worshiping Crocodile" essay. In 820, Emperor Muzong of Tang Li Heng ascended the throne, and Han Yu was pardoned and returned to the capital, but he believed this was the result of his prayers being answered, so he donated "100,000 private coins" to rebuild Huangling Temple and specifically wrote a stele for it, The Stele of Huangling Temple. Moreover, Han Yu also maintained close relations with various monks and Taoists, flatteringly praising them as "high monks" and even using poetry to glorify them.
To expose the true nature of Han Yu’s "anti-Buddhism," we return to the original poem. The full text of Left Official is as follows: “A letter to the court in the ninefold heaven, exiled to Chao Yang at dusk, eight thousand miles away. To eliminate the evil of the holy name, willing to sacrifice the declining years! Cloud crossing the Qinling Mountains, where is my home? Snow blocking Lan Pass, the horse cannot move forward. Knowing that you come from afar with intentions, I hope to gather my bones by the Miasma River.” After being demoted, Han Yu immediately felt that worldly affairs were unpredictable and his official career was shrouded in darkness, and his old bones only had death ahead. He repeatedly urged his nephew to prepare his body for burial. At the same time, he did not forget to boast about himself, portraying himself as a loyal official who dared to "speak out against death," with a righteous appearance. However, upon arriving in Chaozhou, Han Yu quickly wrote another memorial, Thank the Governor of Chaozhou for the Report, pleading with the ruler, praising the incompetent Tang Xianzong Li Chun, and claiming that his own memorial was "arrogant, foolish, and unaware of propriety," and he used four "kneel" (knock head) expressions to beg Xianzong to "pity and have mercy" on him. The image of a "loyal official" ready to face death was gone, replaced by a shameless servant’s face. But Zhong Xiu closed his eyes to this black article, insisting that Left Official expressed Han Yu’s "uprightness" and "the sadness of a hero lost," which can be called the "double wall" with Against the Buddhist Relics. It is evident that, in order to defend the bourgeois landlord class’s lackeys like Han Yu and promote the idea that "loyal to the emperor" means obedience to the ruling class, Zhong Xiu has exhausted all tricks.
Liu Yuxi, Liu Zongyuan’s comrade-in-arms
The same is true for Liu Yuxi, who was also exiled. His spirit was completely opposite to Han Yu’s. However, this was also buried by the reactionary propaganda that promoted Han Yu’s praise of Han Yu and Liu Yuxi’s disparagement. Like Liu Zongyuan, Liu Yuxi was also a backbone of the reformist faction, persecuted by reactionary forces after the failure of the Yongzhen reforms, and repeatedly exiled. In 821, Liu Yuxi was exiled to Kuizhou, which was his third exile since the failure of the reform sixteen years earlier. However, Liu Yuxi did not despair; the next year, he created the famous Wave Washing Sand · Part Eight: "Do not say slanderous words are as deep as waves, do not say exiled officials are like sinking sand. Though the filtering is arduous, after sifting through the wild sand, gold will be found!"—do not let the slander of conservative forces roll like vicious waves, nor let reform-minded scholars, exiled and pushed aside, sink like silt; although the process is difficult, as long as the mud and sand are washed away, gold will be obtained! Unlike Han Yu, after being exiled and facing powerful enemies, Liu Yuxi not only did not plead for mercy or give up his reform ideals, but became even more convinced that reform would succeed after arduous struggle. Many of Liu Yuxi’s poems reflect this optimistic spirit. In 836, he wrote Reply to Le Tian’s Ode to Old Age and Show: "Do not say the sunset is late, the clouds still fill the sky." This old but vigorous will to fight cannot help but make Han Yu, who shouted "My life is over" at every setback, look pale in comparison.
Lenin said: Under the capitalist education system, "the young generation of workers and peasants... rather than being educated, are more like enslaved by the bourgeoisie. The purpose of educating these youths is to train slaves useful to the bourgeoisie, who can create profits for the bourgeoisie and will not disturb their peace and leisure." [4] Zhong Xiu included Han Yu’s three reactionary works in textbooks, aiming to shape young students into such slaves—teaching students that only fame and profit are the ultimate goals of life, and the shortest way to achieve this is through the hands of "Bole" and "noblemen," i.e., the ruling class, to leap over the dragon gate and soar into the sky, thus requiring a set of skills to serve the ruling class (The Horse Says). Where do these skills come from? Their answer: only from books, from schools, and from teachers. For the sake of "future prospects," students must read diligently, obey school rules, and respectfully seek guidance from teachers (On the Teacher). However, to gain the favor of the ruling class, mere ability is not enough; more important is a "loyal heart." Therefore, Zhong Xiu also claims: only by flattering and submitting can one make the ruling class feel their "sincerity" and win their favor (Left Official). Zhong Xiu believed that this way would make all youth become "obedient to all the wealthy" [5] and good servants, obedient dogs. "But, students still harbor hopes for change and revolution. As Chinese society’s polarization deepens, the phenomenon of inter-class competition intensifies, and the oppression of students by parents and schools becomes heavier. This will inevitably arouse students’ dissatisfaction with the bourgeois education system and the capitalist political system, prompting their reflection." [6] Even if Zhong Xiu tries to poison the youth, the crisis of capitalism will inevitably erupt, and the awakening of youth will also come!
- Mao Zedong: "Discussion on the Need to Reconsider the Film ", People’s Daily May 20, 1951. ↑
- Lu Xun: "Random Thoughts · Thirty-Three". ↑
- Mao Zedong: "On the Strategy Against Japanese Imperialism", Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Volume 1, People’s Publishing House, 1967. ↑
- Lenin: "The Tasks of the Youth League", Selected Works of Lenin, Volume 4, People’s Publishing House, 1972. ↑
- Lu Xun: "The 'Homeless' 'Capitalist's Lackey'". ↑
- Fenghuo Flame: "The Road of Future Revolution in China". ↑