Around 8:30 p.m. on July 2nd, a side collision occurred between the K1373 passenger train and a freight train that failed to stop in time within Jinhua City, causing the passenger train to derail and be out of service for three hours. At the same time, the train’s air conditioning system stopped functioning, and the indoor temperature displayed by the thermometer reached up to 31 degrees Celsius. It can be said that passengers endured a full three hours in an extremely hot and stuffy carriage. After an hour of being halted, some passengers showed obvious symptoms of heatstroke, and some were nearly unconscious and had to be removed from the carriage. During the stoppage, the unbearable crowd demanded that the train staff open the windows, but they were refused, with only a few ventilation openings the size of a palm being opened. The effect was essentially negligible; passengers sitting near the vents felt very hot. Another measure was to only give mineral water to the elderly and children (only when traffic was about to resume were cold water and Eight Treasures Porridge distributed). At 10 p.m., a passenger, unable to bear the extreme heat and the staff’s ignoring of the crowd’s request to open the windows, angrily used a safety hammer near the window to smash the glass. “The wind came in, and it felt much better. The temperature on the train’s thermometer also dropped,” and the maintenance staff naturally could not let such a person who dared to deny the “emergency measures” go unpunished. After the train resumed operation and arrived at Jinhua Station, maintenance police took the window-breaking crowd away, but (most likely due to pressure from the crowd) did not impose any administrative punishment on him, only giving a warning and releasing him.
Because a large number of netizens online supported this crowd’s window-breaking behavior and claimed that the staff should have opened the windows rather than waiting until passengers were overwhelmed by heat and then smashing them open, writers from various local railway departments personally wrote several articles to refute such “perverted reasoning” (e.g., “Breaking Windows Is Not a ‘Self-Rescue Act’; ‘Emotional Outbursts’ Should Not Be Without Limits,” “Breaking Windows Is Not a Heroic Act; Following Rules Is True Responsibility,” “Breaking Windows Is Not ‘Heroic’; Maintaining Order Is Peace”). In fact, these articles did not have the intended effect of the ruling class; instead, they further expanded the incident and public opinion, leading more people to oppose the railway maintenance department. These articles, seemingly only denying the rationality of breaking windows, actually attempt to use Confucian viewpoints to suffocate public opposition to maintenance. To fully expose this, a careful analysis of the viewpoints in these three articles is necessary.
The basic logic and structure of these three articles are quite similar, mainly expressing: first, that the train had already taken sufficient and effective measures to alleviate the heat; second, that the hot environment was not so urgent as to require breaking windows, i.e., the so-called “lesser of two evils”; third, that breaking windows disrupted emergency plans and could lead to dangerous behaviors like everyone breaking windows or jumping out, causing safety accidents; finally, that in emergencies, people should remain rational and follow emergency protocols (and also establish reasonable systems).
Regarding the first point, all three articles state these claims. However, the first article should be excluded because its premise is fundamentally wrong. It claims that high-speed trains have independent air conditioning systems and were operating normally at the time. The K1373 train used a locomotive power system without an additional air conditioning generator car. When the locomotive derailed and lost power, the air conditioning in the carriages would definitely have shut down, and the 25G-type carriages do not have an independent air conditioning system. Moreover, even if the air conditioning system was still working, a simple search shows that the internal temperature can reach up to 31 degrees Celsius. It is hard to imagine how the author of that article could write such a piece without understanding these facts. As for the other two articles, their main argument is to list what the train operators did, then directly claim that these actions were effective and reasonable, having “some degree” of alleviating the heat, even reaching the level of “taking many effective measures.” However, this logic is clearly flawed because merely stating what was done does not explain why it was reasonable. If the author believes that doing something is reasonable, then why not consider breaking windows as reasonable? Why not see this as an “effective measure”?
Of course, the issues go far beyond that. The unreasonableness of breaking windows and the reasonableness of not breaking windows are essentially the same. Therefore, the authors argue that the emergency logic is “choosing the lesser of two evils.” However, for some undisclosed reasons, they did not specify what exactly these two harms are, nor why they chose the harm of not opening doors or windows among the two. In reality, the two harms are quite clear: one harm is not opening the doors or windows, leaving passengers in a hot environment, which could cause health issues or even threaten life; the other harm is opening the doors or windows, which could cause passengers to fall and suffer injuries. Both are possibilities; heatstroke and related health problems are concrete possibilities, while passengers falling from doors or windows are more abstract possibilities (since the primary goal is to solve the heat issue, not to escape the carriage). So, how can the authors talk about “choosing the lesser of two harms” when the logical choice is likely to cause life safety issues? What reasoning led to choosing the more dangerous possibility for passengers?
This leads to the conclusion that the bourgeoisie is completely indifferent to the heat in the carriage and the life safety issues caused by it. This is too absolute. After all, some netizens found that the national standard “Technical Requirements for the Management of Pig Transportation” states that during pig transportation, the temperature must be maintained between 5 and 25 degrees Celsius, and if an accident causes the temperature to deviate from this range, necessary measures should be taken to prevent stress in pigs. It shows that when transporting private property of the bourgeoisie, they pay special attention to preventing property damage. To avoid compensation for damages, transportation departments formulate standards and enforce them on workers. However, when it comes to passengers, their personal safety is largely their own responsibility. In this incident, the bourgeoisie prefers a “safer” approach—avoiding further damage to the already damaged fixed capital (the train)—even if it means leaving passengers in a hot environment that could cause heatstroke and endanger lives. They only distribute mineral water to the elderly and children to prevent illness, avoiding any modifications to the train itself. This is their “necessary effective measures” and “choosing the lesser of two harms.” Here, the two harms are not life safety but the potential further damage to private property. The railway department’s compensation measures—changing the final stop to Changsha Station and offering free refunds—also reflect this intention, as passengers had to buy new tickets to return to their destination, Changde. Is there any apology for delaying passengers’ journeys, causing psychological stress, or risking lives? Comparing the rhetoric of the authors with the facts makes it clear that the maintenance department’s two-faced behavior is evident. On one hand, driven by greed, they prefer passengers to suffer maximum losses and avoid any risk; on the other hand, they pretend to care about disaster relief to quell public anger and doubts.
The purpose of these articles by the writers is not only to distort facts but also to ultimately accuse the crowd of breaking windows as a disruption of order. Such accusations have reached a frightening level, with claims like “if everyone breaks windows in emergencies, the railway safety net will be riddled with holes,” “shattered windows and flying glass can easily injure nearby passengers (how do fragments fly inward from outside?),” “if breaking windows sets a precedent, it could lead to crowd jumping out, with disastrous consequences,” and even invoking “dangerous methods” from criminal law to threaten. The problem is that the derailment has already caused damage and disrupted the railway structure, leading to suspension along the line, yet the bourgeoisie’s pursuit of profit has caused the window-breaking incident. Why attribute all these consequences solely to the act of breaking windows? Is it like a robbery where the victim’s resistance causes injuries, and the victim is then arrested? (Of course, in this decayed imperialist country of maintenance, such things happen constantly.) Even more shameless is the claim that after breaking windows, the crowd will “imitate jumping out,” as if the crowd is ignorant and only mimics without independent thought—this fully exposes the reactionary viewpoint of these writers slandering the masses as mobs. Moreover, this reactionary populist rhetoric serves their ultimate purpose. When the people criticize the railway and police for justice, they counter by insisting: the crowd must always remain rational (because otherwise they will “break windows in emergencies” and “imitate jumping out”), and this rationality means unconditional obedience to bourgeois authority (so-called experts) and the ruling order (so-called emergency systems).
These articles by the railway writers inevitably remind one of a story about a virtuous maiden:
In the thirty-third year of Song Pinggong (543 BC, Lu Xiangong’s 30th year, mistakenly recorded as Song Jinggong in “Lie Nu Zhuan”), in the evening of the midnight of the fifth month, a great fire broke out in the palace. Palace servants wanted to save Bo Ji and evacuate her from the palace to avoid the fire, but the elderly Bo Ji, who upheld strict rites, said: “A woman’s duty is to uphold filial piety; I will not leave the hall at night until my husband comes.” When the wet nurse arrived, she found that Bo Ji’s mother was not there, and the palace servants again urged Bo Ji to leave the palace to avoid the fire. Bo Ji replied: “A woman’s duty is to uphold filial piety; my mother is not here, and I cannot leave the hall at night. To violate filial piety and seek life is not as good as to uphold righteousness and die.” So Bo Ji refused to leave the palace and perished in the fire.
Bo Ji’s steadfastness in upholding rites and dying in the fire was praised by the feudal lords of that time, and people mourned her death, gathering in Danyuan, Wei State, to mourn together. Her story was praised in the “Spring and Autumn Annals,” and in “Lie Nu Zhuan,” she was praised as: “Bo Ji was dedicated, upheld rites with single-mindedness; when the palace caught fire at night, she was unprepared, and perished in the fire, her heart undisturbed. The Spring and Autumn period esteemed her, recording her deeds in detail.”
Widow Song Bo Ji, to uphold her maidenly virtue, was willing to be burned alive by the flames rather than escape to the outside of the palace when conditions allowed. Such a character, willing to die to maintain feudal order, was naturally praised by Confucian scholars throughout history because it fully conformed to the feudal doctrine of “preserving Heaven’s principles and eradicating human desires.” Respect for Confucius inevitably leads to restoration, and restoration inevitably venerates Confucius. The teachings of Confucius and Mencius are the ideological weapons of reactionaries in history, defending decayed rule and suppressing people’s movements. The essence of Confucianism is to conceal all oppression and exploitation of the people under the banner of “benevolence.” Today, the ruling clique of the maintenance department fears that public opposition to their rule will gather and threaten their order, so they hurriedly fabricated three black articles. Although these articles claim to be for the safety of the masses and to build a civilized society, in essence, they shout slogans like “preserve Heaven’s principles, eliminate human desires,” “starvation is minor, losing chastity is major,” insisting that people must always uphold the ruling order of the maintenance clique, even at the cost of their lives or risking death when someone is in danger. This cover-up of cannibalism by the maintenance clique reminds me of Lu Xun’s words in “A Madman’s Diary”: “This history has no era; every page is written with the words ‘benevolence and righteousness.’ I couldn’t sleep, looked carefully through the night, and from the cracks in the words, I saw the characters: it’s all written with two words—‘eating people’!” But, “where there is oppression, there is resistance,” and the masses are not as the reactionary writers slander—they are not mindless mobs without independent thought. These three articles by the maintenance clique did not distort public opinion; instead, they provoked more and deeper dissatisfaction with the social reality of the maintenance regime. In various online comment sections, there are calls for the overthrow of the regime, implying that although the rule of the maintenance clique appears strong, it is actually fragile. The inevitable course of history is that the more the bourgeoisie tries to maintain its decayed rule, the more it exposes its two-faced and weak nature before the people, and the more it unites the people to overthrow the entire imperialist system, allowing socialist New China to re-emerge on the land of China! “Though the kingdom’s fate is cut off, its revival awaits another year!” (Hong Rengan, “Poem of Despair”)
