Originally published at: 把颠倒的历史颠倒过来！——李自成、张献忠起义是中国农民革命的新高峰 – 曙光>Editor’s Note: Recently, a bourgeois-themed video game set in the late Ming Dynasty, “Ming End: Yuanxu’s Feather,” has sparked intense discussion. The content of this game is highly reactionary; the female protagonist comes from a reactionary Jin Yi Wei family, has long associated with “sea merchants” (i.e., Wokou pirates), and later engaged in a frenzy of slaughtering local people and peasant armies in Sichuan, with hands stained with the blood of the people—an unambiguous executioner. In this game, the female protagonist treats Ming Dynasty landlords, peasant armies, and refugees as enemies, considers Zhang Xianzhong’s three uncooperative adoptive sons as enemies, but sets the surrendering Sun Kewang as a “neutral NPC.” The Qing army, which in history committed mass slaughter during the late Ming period, has never appeared in the game. Many “Huang Han” elements, driven by Han chauvinist ideas, oppose the game’s omission of the Qing Dynasty and its focus on killing Ming troops, but in fact, this game also wildly glorifies the Ming landlord class, which is no different from the “Huang Han” faction’s worship of landlords. It uses the “three-dimensional characters” approach to depict the Ming landlord class, falsely claiming that although they are in different camps from the female protagonist, they are also “loyal” and “loving the people,” while it grotesquely vilifies Zhang Xianzhong and his Western Army, branding them as “bandits” and the culprits of Sichuan chaos, and setting Zhang Xianzhong as a so-called “boss of the pass.” Shamelessly, it attributes the numerous crimes of plundering and slaughtering Sichuanese by the Manchu and Han landlords to the peasant uprising, blaming the Western Army for the chaos. To thoroughly criticize this reactionary game that is anti-communist, anti-people, and extols feudal landlords, and to restore the true face of the Ming peasant uprising, the editorial department has agreed to publish separately an article from the sixth issue of “Dawn” magazine about the Ming peasant uprising for everyone’s reference and study.
Turn the upside-down history right side up! — The uprisings of Li Zicheng and Zhang Xianzhong are the new heights of Chinese peasant revolution
Editorial Department of the League of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Proletariat
“The superstition that blames the occurrence of revolution on a few agitators’ malicious intent is long gone. Now everyone knows that whenever revolutionary upheaval occurs somewhere, it is always rooted in social demands, and the decayed system obstructs the fulfillment of these demands. These demands may not yet be strongly felt by the masses, so immediate victory is not possible; but if one attempts to suppress these demands with violence, it will only make them grow stronger until finally their shackles are shattered.”[^1] The late Ming and early Qing periods were indeed a “catastrophic” era of peasant revolutionary wars. The brutal economic exploitation and political oppression by the Ming ruling class plunged the vast peasantry into poverty, slavery, displacement, and starvation. The heavier the oppression, the more intense the resistance. Awakening peasant masses took up arms and raised their banners of rebellion, led by outstanding leaders like Li Zicheng and Zhang Xianzhong, gradually realizing social demands such as “equal land and exemption from grain taxes,” fiercely challenging the reactionary Ming regime and Confucian doctrines, ultimately burying the Chuangzhen Dynasty that sought to violently suppress them, and smashing the shackles imposed by feudal rulers. However, for a long time, brave peasant leaders and revolutionary armies were viciously slandered by landlord bourgeoisie as “ignorant,” “murderous maniacs,” destined to “luxuriate in decadence” and ultimately fail. Revolution must not be slandered, history must not be turned upside down. After the founding of New China, the working people first seized power, overturning the wrongful accusations imposed by landlords and bourgeoisie on the peasant class. In the era of capitalist restoration, bourgeois lackeys and intellectuals again promoted idealist and hero-worship ideas, heavily slandering revolutionary peasants and peasant uprisings. Today, revolutionaries must remove the stigmas falsely imposed by revisionists, bourgeois elements, and right-wing petty bourgeoisie on the peasant class, and restore the true face of history!
Ignorance or honesty and integrity?
The so-called “famous economist” Wang Fuzhong, who is shamelessly slandering peasants for being uneducated and ignorant
Many people living in the era of imperialism in China have probably heard the bourgeois slander that peasants are “ignorant and foolish.” Xi Jinping, the leader of the Chinese revisionist faction, once slandered that peasants are impoverished because of ignorance and claimed arrogantly, “To eradicate poverty, first eradicate ignorance; to help the poor, first help their wisdom”[^2]; bourgeois intellectuals like Wang Fuzhong are even more unscrupulous, insulting peasants as “lazy and stupid, not worth respecting”; teachers who serve the revisionist regime, aiming to deceive, enslave, and control students, often say “if you don’t study well, you will go farming,” belittling peasants as “stupid and worthless.” The reactionary landlord class throughout history also followed Confucius’s doctrine of “the upper knows and the lower is ignorant”[^3], exploiting these “beasts-like” peasants. “The lowest are the smartest, the noble are the most foolish.”[^4] The peasant uprisings at the end of the Ming Dynasty shattered the shameless lies of the landlord bourgeoisie about the ignorance of peasants and laboring masses. Unlike any landlord, the Ming peasant rebels were resolutely opposed to Confucianism and feudal superstitions, promoted simple materialism and dialectics, dared to resist feudal rule, demanded the abolition of wealth disparity, and pursued equality and fairness.
“Morning seeking promotion, evening seeking union, recently poor men find it hard to survive. Early open the door to welcome the King of Rebels, so that both young and old rejoice.”
At the beginning of the uprising, a folk song called “Tatian Ge” (Collapse Heaven Song) circulated widely. The Ming landlord class heavily promoted Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism, creating the false doctrine of the “Three Bonds and Five Constants,” claiming that “Heaven” and “wealth and honor come from Heaven”[^5], demanding that people “obey Heaven and know their destiny,” and accept the rule of monarchs over subjects, parents over children, and husbands over wives. Through their brutal exploitation, the people realized the dark reality of society—“enjoying glory while killing and setting fire, starving to death while reading scriptures,” exposing the lies of the landlord class’s “Mandate of Heaven” theory, and shouting the slogan “Old Heaven, you won’t do, collapse already!” criticizing the reactionary Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism, expressing the immense anger of the people against the rotten feudal rule. The “Tatian Ge” embodies the revolutionary atheistic thought of opposing Heaven’s decree, which was a distinctive feature of the Ming peasant revolution. Revolutionary peasants did not use religious ideas as a means of struggle; they abandoned all religious disguises, faced social contradictions directly, and proposed revolutionary programs such as “equal land and exemption from grain taxes” and “eliminate violence and benefit the people,” devising strategies like “taking the Central Plains and conquering the world” to overthrow Ming feudal rule. “Equal land and exemption from grain taxes” was the economic program of the peasant revolution, directly targeting the core of feudal land ownership—feudal land system—representing a new peak of the peasant uprising’s “equality” and “fairness” ideas. Past peasant uprisings at most called for “equalizing wealth,” focusing on dividing money and grain, but the Ming peasant uprising, responding to the wave of rent resistance and land seizure, demanded land redistribution. This was a “demand forged through thousands of hardships and years of oppression”[^6], reflecting the revolutionary aspiration “to completely overthrow landlord power and eliminate landlord land ownership”[^7]. “Eliminate violence and benefit the people” was the political program of the peasant revolution, embodying the class principle of the peasants—removing the landlords and gentry who oppressed the people and protecting the interests of the broad masses of laboring people. “Taking the Central Plains and conquering the world” was the strategic goal of the peasant revolution—seizing the national power from the landlord class through armed uprising and establishing peasant dictatorship, which was also a new idea not explicitly mentioned in previous peasant uprisings. “The fundamental issue of revolution is the issue of political power”[^8], the revolutionary peasants of the late Ming era realized this; only by seizing power could they “become the masters of their own lives”[^9]. Under the influence of revolutionary programs and led by Li Zicheng’s “charge” (chuang) banner, they dared to break through reactionary Confucian teachings with practice. Every time the peasant army arrived somewhere, they implemented the program of “equal land and exemption from grain taxes” to varying degrees, striving to build an ideal society that would make the poor happy, and declared war on the reactionary Confucian doctrine of “preserving Heaven’s principles and eradicating human desires.” The peasant army “kills only officials, not civilians,” suppresses the landlords who once oppressed them, such as punishing the blood-stained Fuwang Zhu Changxun in Luoyang, crushing the arrogance of the landlord class. Moreover, the peasant army mobilized peasants to “divide” landlords’ land and cattle, creating a vivid scene of “serfs (tenant farmers) sitting above, landlords singing below,” demonstrating that the contradiction between the two sides could be transformed, and using simple dialectics to deny the metaphysical view of “fixed positions” in Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism. Peasant women were also mobilized to participate in revolutionary struggles; for example, Li Zicheng’s wife was a female leader of the peasant army, making outstanding contributions to the revolution and smashing the “male supremacy” doctrine of Confucius and Mencius. The peasant army, under Li Zicheng’s leadership, also burned Confucian temples, smashed ancestral halls, and finally stormed Beijing, overthrowing the Chongzhen Emperor, destroying the myth of “Heaven’s Mandate,” and proving that the “Three Bonds and Five Constants” are not “Heaven’s principles,” and that people’s suffering is not “Heaven’s decree.” They used simple materialism to deny the reactionary metaphysical idealism of Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism and shattered this spiritual shackles. Li Zicheng was an outstanding peasant leader at the end of the Ming Dynasty, an excellent representative of the peasant class. From a young age, he endured life-and-death hardships, voluntarily joined the peasant revolution at age twenty-three, grew into an outstanding revolutionary leader amid class struggles, and sacrificed his life heroically at age thirty-nine for the revolutionary cause of the peasant class. His revolutionary philosophy reflected the progressive ideas of the peasant class. Standing on the revolutionary stance against feudalism, Li Zicheng consciously applied the inherent materialist worldview of the working people to understand and transform the world, devising revolutionary strategies and tactics. His principles of understanding and methods of thinking also shone with the light of simple materialism. Based on the materialist recognition principle, Li Zicheng understood that the suffering of the masses was a result of landlords and officials occupying land, holding power, and oppressing and exploiting the people; he also proposed a revolutionary “view of order and chaos” consistent with historical reality. The landlord class cursed the peasant revolutionaries as “rebels,” but Li Zicheng designated the national name of the peasant regime as “Dashun” (Great Obedience), meaning that the peasant regime replacing the landlord regime was “order,” aligning with the trend of historical development; after capturing Beijing, Li Zicheng saw the “Chengtianmen” (Heaven’s Gate) plaque, aimed at the character “Heaven,” drew his bow, and shot, demonstrating a fighting style of atheism and opposition to Heaven’s decree; he emphasized collective wisdom, investigation, and research in leadership, never acting on subjective guesses. This naive materialism in revolutionary practice provided the worldview foundation for Li Zicheng’s commanding of a million-strong peasant army to achieve great victories.
Li Zicheng rebuking Zhu Changxun
Modern bourgeoisie especially likes to slander peasant uprisings as “superstitious and religious” under the guise of “science,” but in fact, in the great Ming peasant uprising, revolutionary peasants “believed in revolution, not Heaven’s decree,” and did not believe in any supernatural divine power; they believed that relying on themselves, they could transform nature and society. Conversely, the landlord class still engaged in “obeying Heaven,” “accepting Heaven,” and “knowing Heaven,” promoting Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism to the extreme. Neo-Confucianism is also a religion; it merely replaced the personal god of Christianity with an unconscious “Heaven,” still propagating obscurantism. Ming rulers vigorously promoted Confucianism, establishing over 1,560 temples for worship, with two sacrifices each year[^10]. They also used other religions to lull the people—Buddhism, Taoism, and later Islam—making temples quite prosperous. Compared to this, it is obvious who is more intelligent and who is more ignorant—the peasant class or the feudal landlord class. Even the Legalist landlord class’s ideas lacked the revolutionary potential of the peasant class’s ideas. Take China’s “Three Literary Giants”—Li Zhi, Huang Zongxi, and Wang Fuzhi—as examples: even Li Zhi, known for anti-Confucianism, still spoke kindly of Confucius; he did not burn down Confucian temples and ancestral halls to deny Confucian morality and hierarchy like the peasant army did; Huang Zongxi, known for criticizing monarchy, still operated within the exploitative class internal politics; Wang Fuzhi, known for simple materialism, still held a hero-centric view of history, unlike the peasant army that refused to obey Heaven’s decree and relied on their own hands to transform society. Moreover, even the Legalists’ correct knowledge ultimately depended on the productive struggles, class struggles, and scientific experiments of the people. The peasant class is not “ignorant and foolish” but truly clever and honest.
Landlord bourgeoisie always slanders peasants as “ignorant and foolish,” feeling their noble scholars are a thousand times superior to the uneducated peasants. Such rhetoric is both stupid and reactionary. “Those who truly know are the people practicing in the world.”[^11] True knowledge is not obtained from reactionary classics divorced from reality or reactionary textbooks disconnected from practice, but from practice itself. The bourgeoisie considers itself a “genius” sitting above the people, but is merely a fool. The working people are direct participants in productive struggles, class struggles, and scientific experiments; they are the main body of social practice, with the most practical experience and the least bias of exploitation. The feudal peasantry was the same. The revolutionary peasants at the end of the Ming Dynasty also proved this truth. Whether in the past feudal era or in modern capitalist society, the reason why the rural proletariat and small farmers cannot access so-called “higher education” of the exploiting class is precisely because of the economic exploitation and political oppression by the bourgeoisie. Conversely, the bourgeoisie can access “higher education” because they have absorbed the blood and sweat of the laboring people, including peasants. “Xiang Zhuang dances sword, aiming at Pei Gong,” the modern bourgeoisie repeats the old tune of slandering peasants as “ignorant and foolish” with sinister class motives. In the realm of history, the bourgeoisie slanders the peasant class of feudal society as “ignorant and foolish,” promoting idealist history that “heroes create history,” flattering their bourgeois ancestors, and fabricating “justification” for bourgeois rule. They slander ancient peasants, and they are also slandering modern rural workers. Capitalist society has created the most serious urban-rural divide, with the wealthy city bourgeoisie enjoying urban dominance while the declining countryside supplies raw materials and markets for big industry. The broad peasant laborers (small farmers and agricultural workers) suffer exploitation by capitalists through the “scissors difference” in industry and commerce. The bourgeoisie falsely claims that modern peasants are “ignorant and foolish,” aiming to obscure the root causes of rural backwardness and peasant poverty—namely, the capitalist system and bourgeois exploitation—using this fallacy to suppress the thoughts of the working people and maintain bourgeois reactionary rule.
Murderer or revolutionary hero?
In Damianshan Cave Tower in Zitong County, Sichuan, there is a statue of Zhang Xianzhong with a golden face and green robe. Since the 17th century, the local people have long worshiped Zhang Xianzhong’s statue. Even after the Qing rulers burned the statues and erected a “Stele of Extermination of the Rebel Image,” and suppressed the families of Pei and Jia who maintained Zhang’s incense, the people remained unyielding, confronting the reactionaries, and rebuilt Zhang Xianzhong’s statue[^12], expressing respect for the uprising leader and hatred for feudal rule. Zhang Xianzhong, a revolutionary peasant leader remembered forever by the people, was falsely portrayed by the landlord bourgeoisie as a “bloodthirsty, brutal, and inhumane butcher who slaughtered Sichuanese,” and has suffered long-term slander and defamation. Today, especially in recent years, the Chinese internet has suddenly popularized the “Zhang Xianzhong” meme, with rumors such as “Zhang Xianzhong wrote the ‘Seven Killings Song’ and erected the Seven Killings Stele” being widely circulated, along with exaggerated images of “Zhang Xianzhong slaughtering Sichuan.” In bourgeois liberal and leftist “Zhang Xianzhong” images, the combination of his statue and “massacre” texts is common. The statues built by the people out of love for revolutionary leaders have become objects of ridicule by bourgeois liberals and leftists; the heroic deeds of the revolutionary leaders fighting against Ming feudal rulers are erased by rumors of “massacre.” The truth of history must not be distorted, and we Marxists, as well as the working people, absolutely oppose such distortions!
Bourgeoisie once boasted: there are countless historical materials about “Zhang Xianzhong slaughtering Sichuan,” which obviously cannot be completely negated. They pride themselves on being “fair and objective,” “listening to all based on historical data,” claiming “if there is one piece of evidence, then say one,” and thus conclude “Zhang Xianzhong slaughtered Sichuan.” But in reality, historical data is class-based; the documents written by the bourgeoisie reflect their class bias and bear the mark of their class. Modern objectivists, no matter how they try to portray themselves as supra-class historians, cannot hide their strong bourgeois party spirit and class bias. Marxist historical materialism is also a party-oriented theory, but its party spirit is proletarian. The interests of the proletariat are aligned with the trend of social development—“The more scientific and impartial it is, the more it conforms to the interests and wishes of workers.”[^13] The interests of the proletariat require a correct understanding of objective laws. Therefore, Marxist historical materialism is a high unity of scientificity and class character; only through it can the true history be restored. If we do not view the problem from the proletarian standpoint, and do not use class analysis to wash away the subjective coloring imposed by the landlord bourgeoisie on Zhang Xianzhong, how can we distinguish truth from falsehood and explore the essence of history? The bourgeoisie is so eager to use reactionary landlord materials to slander Zhang Xianzhong that we should analyze them with class methods and see what the historical facts really are.
“The Liu Jin Agreement of the Western Western Cavalry Camp”
Zhang Xianzhong was born into a poor peasant family. From childhood, he suffered oppression from landlords and military officers, living a life of exploitation and discrimination, which planted the seeds of deep hatred for reactionary landlords and bourgeoisie. In 1627, Wang Er, a peasant from Baishui County, Shaanxi, ignited the blazing fire of the late Ming peasant uprising. In 1630, Zhang Xianzhong led the uprising at Eighteen Villages in Mishi, dedicating his life to the liberation of peasants, growing into an outstanding peasant leader. He led the peasant army through battles across the north and south, advancing into Sichuan, attracting and defeating the main forces of the reactionary Ming army. Later, he marched eastward, winning successive victories, and in 1644, established the Daxi peasant revolutionary regime in Chengdu, Sichuan. The bourgeoisie still howls that Zhang Xianzhong was a demon who slaughtered Sichuanese, but in fact, as a peasant leader fighting against the reactionary Ming army, he relied on the broad masses oppressed by Ming rule; he could not have slaughtered civilians indiscriminately or shed blood on Sichuanese. The Ming reactionary army relied on the entire landlord class and feudal state machinery to attack the people; Zhang Xianzhong led the peasant army to overthrow Ming reactionary rule, relying on the broadest laboring masses.
“Facts speak louder than words.” Contrary to the slander of the landlord bourgeoisie, the disciplined peasant army under Zhang Xianzhong’s leadership did not harm the people and was deeply loved by the common folk. After establishing the state in Sichuan, Zhang issued the “Liu Jin Agreement of the Western Cavalry Camp” to maintain military discipline, engraving it on a stele. The stele explicitly states: “No false accusations in the name of heavenly soldiers to disturb the local area,” “No local officials or military officers shall marry local women,” etc. Chairman Mao once pointed out: “In class society, everyone lives within a certain class position, and all thoughts are stamped with class marks.”[^14] In the late Ming, the broad poor peasantry struggled on the brink of life and death, with little or no means of production, and had long given up hope of wealth. Their hearts were filled with “countless hatred, anger, and desperate resolve”[^15], eager to overthrow the world and establish a society of equality. To realize this goal, they launched uprisings, with each uprising targeting the reigning emperor. “Dare to cut oneself to pull down the emperor” is a direct reflection of the selfless and fearless spirit of the revolutionary peasants. Zhang Xianzhong’s peasant army was the same. Not only Zhang himself, but also the soldiers of the uprising came from tenant farmers and poor peasants. They were the kindest laboring people, participating in the revolution to “serve the people” and overthrow this unjust society. Zhang Xianzhong and his peasant army aimed not only to overthrow Ming feudal rule through political and military means but also to help peasants turn over through policies like “equal land and exemption from grain taxes.” In 1640, Zhang’s peasant army entered Sichuan, capturing Dachang and Bawu Kou, attacking Kui Prefecture from behind, “retreating from Kui Mountain, establishing granaries at Tuer Dam, and self-sufficient grain production”[^16], achieving land equality. In Changsha, he issued a proclamation of “three years’ exemption from taxes and grain,” and reclaimed land from reactionary Ming landlords and officials like Yang Sigang, the Minister of War, who had “occupied land and oppressed common people.” In March 1643, he led the peasant army to seize Hanyang and Wuchang, arresting the Chu King Zhu Huakuai, and using his supplies to aid the starving masses. Records show that after establishing the state in Sichuan, Zhang also implemented policies of “exempting ethnic minorities in border areas from rent and taxes for three years.” The revolutionary masses enthusiastically supported Zhang Xianzhong, greatly aiding the military actions of the peasant army. Because of this, Zhang and his army defeated the Ming forces decisively. During the first campaign into Sichuan, when fighting against the anti-revolutionary army led by Yang Sigang, the peasant army adopted a mobile tactic of “retreating to lure the enemy” to preserve their strength and avoid pitched battles. The peasant army, lightly equipped, could get supplies from the local people wherever they went, sometimes riding for three hundred miles in a day and night. The Ming army, burdened with supplies, could not catch up and was completely passive, finally defeated by the peasants. After Zhang’s second entry into Sichuan, tens of thousands of local people responded to enlistment, welcoming the rebels[^17], and in Shehong County, Sichuan, “people opened their doors to welcome the rebels”[^18]. These ironclad facts dispel the falsehood of “Zhang Xianzhong slaughtering Sichuan,” proving that the peasant army was not a force seeking personal wealth through slaughter and plunder but a genuine force defending the people’s interests.
"Talking about general ‘violence’ without analyzing the conditions that differentiate reactionary violence from revolutionary violence, then it becomes a betrayal of the revolution by petty bourgeoisie, or simply sophistry to deceive oneself."[^20] It is undeniable that, whether elsewhere or in Sichuan, after the peasant armies led by Zhang Xianzhong captured cities, they indeed used violence and indeed killed people, but they used revolutionary violence, which is just and entirely necessary. In the late Ming, Sichuan had already become a “purgatory of accumulated grievances, suppressed anger hard to vent, regret heaven and frustrate earth, crying ghosts and distressed gods”[^21], with extremely sharp social contradictions at the time—on one side were Sichuan’s large landlords and officials, living a life of extreme extravagance like vampires, with gold and jade piled in the Shu royal palace; on the other side were the impoverished people of Sichuan, subjected to countless harsh taxes and levies, “only tenant farmers and tenants are hungry and cold”[^22]. The brave Sichuanese people, before Zhang Xianzhong’s entry into Sichuan to establish his regime, had already launched multiple struggles against feudal rulers, all unfortunately ending in failure. After Zhang Xianzhong entered Sichuan, he implemented policies of confiscation and deprivation, promoting and influencing the entire Sichuan population to fight against the “Five Pests” (corrupt officials, bureaucrats, landowners, eunuchs, and scholars), resolutely attacking the landlord class and punishing reactionaries. In Chongqing, Zhang Xianzhong’s uprising executed Ming Rui King Zhu Changhao and his followers, as well as the governor Chen Shiqi, punishing hypocritical landlords who pretended to be poor, concealed wealth, and were unkind to the rich; in Chengdu, Zhang Xianzhong killed Ming princes, suppressed Confucian scholars plotting counterrevolutionary riots, and even ordered servants to report malicious masters, resulting in vivid scenes of rebellious slaves “arbitrarily reporting”[^23], “killing their masters and responding accordingly”[^24]. “Countless groups of slaves—peasants—there, overturned their cannibal enemies. The peasants’ actions are entirely correct; their actions are very good! ‘Very good’ is the theory of peasants and other revolutionaries.”[^25] What are the incorrect aspects of the suppression actions by peasant armies? “Revolution is undoubtedly the most authoritative thing in the world. Revolution means a part of people using guns, bayonets, cannons—using extremely authoritative means—to force another part of people to accept their will. If the victorious party does not want to lose the results of its efforts, it must rely on its weapons to create fear in reactionaries to maintain its rule.”[^26] In the late Ming peasant uprising against the brutal feudal rulers, in such a fierce, life-and-death class struggle, can we blame the peasant armies for using this authority too much? The peasant armies absolutely cannot, and did not, adopt “stupid pig-like righteousness and morality”[^27], nor did they implement benevolent policies toward enemies. Because of this, the landlord class hated Zhang Xianzhong’s peasant army to the bone, crazily fabricating rumors that Zhang Xianzhong “massacred Chongqing,” “massacred Chengdu,” “massacred scholars,” and “killed all over the countryside”[^28]. The modern bourgeoisie claims to be “just and objective,” but when they select historical materials, they instinctively and stubbornly stand on their exploitative class’s side, deliberately picking slanderous words from the landlord class against the peasant army, insisting on the “Zhang Xianzhong massacre theory,” and, together with the landlord class, slandering and insulting the working people, aiming to deny the legitimacy of rebellion and to portray revolution as a crime. The cultural henchmen of the enemy Chiang Kai-shek once attacked, “From the chaos and decay in northern Shu for three years, the cities that were overrun turned into ruins, the slaughter was more brutal than the Yellow Tiger (referring to Zhang Xianzhong).”[^29] The modern bourgeois liberals are the same. They publish attacks against Zhang Xianzhong, produce images that vilify him, to smear him as a “murderous madman,” and to slander oppressed peasants who rose up in rebellion, in order to oppose Mao and oppose the Communist Party, and to promote the idea that only these landlords and the privileged “spiritual aristocrats”—the bourgeois liberals—are qualified to lead the anti-revisionist “revolution.” Regarding some malicious random killing incidents by bourgeois and petty-bourgeois right-wing elements, the modern bourgeois liberals show no sympathy for the slaughtered masses, nor do they analyze the frenzied fascist psychology of the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeois right-wing involved in the massacres, nor their connection to the revisionist social reality. They simply label these incidents as “Xianzhong incidents,” with only perverse and reactionary schadenfreude in their hearts, fearing chaos in the revisionist society, using the lives of innocent people as “fuel” to accelerate the demise of revisionism. Today, some leftist circles also like to use the “Zhang Xianzhong” meme, shamelessly creating and spreading vilifying texts and images about Zhang Xianzhong on the internet, venting their dark and toxic fascist thoughts. — When personal interests are harmed, they retaliate against society, staging a massacre. The main composition of the Chinese leftist circles is the bankrupt petty bourgeoisie. These frenziedly damaged petty bourgeoisie, unlearned and without political principles, believe in the rumors of Zhang Xianzhong’s massacres, or even knowing they are rumors, still exploit them, happily making fun of the “Zhang Xianzhong” meme, belittling noble revolutionary leaders, and defending their fascist reactionary ideas. The rumors of “Zhang Xianzhong massacring Sichuan” are linked to the rumors of “Jiangkou sinking treasure.” In the words of the landlord class, Zhang Xianzhong became a bloodthirsty, greed-driven executioner, not only slaughtering the Sichuan people but also plundering their wealth. In the official history compiled by Manchu officials, Zhang Xianzhong deliberately hid a huge amount of looted money in Jinjiang; books like “Shu Nan” slander that Zhang Xianzhong’s defeated ships sank, and that the money he looted from Sichuan people sank with the ships into Jinjiang. Since the 21st century, the revisionists have excavated gold and silver treasures of the late Ming Shu King and officials, as well as currency and weapons of the Daxi peasant regime, along the Min River in Jiangkou Town, Pengshan District, Meishan City, Sichuan, claiming that these are evidence of Zhang Xianzhong’s plundering of “Sichuan’s common people.” Those who can shamelessly utter such heinous lies truly do not understand the real situation of Sichuan society at that time. What “Sichuan’s common people” have gold and silver jewelry? Moreover, Zhang Xianzhong’s peasant army has always maintained the frugal and simple character of the peasant class, despising money and wealth. Every time they seized loot in battle, “their gold and silver were always discarded”[^30], and Zhang Xianzhong strictly forbade soldiers to hide gold and silver, with records stating, “Hidden silver of three or two taels, killed on the spot”[^31]. Cruelty and greed are characteristics of the landlord bourgeoisie, absolutely not traits of impoverished peasants. A murderous madman can only be the Manchu and Han landlords who committed multiple massacres, not the peasant leaders or their peasant armies. Chairman Mao once said: “Being opposed by enemies is a good thing, not a bad thing.”[^32] The peasants and the broad revolutionary masses are not afraid of enemy slander or opposition. No matter how viciously the landlord bourgeoisie slanders or how fiercely they oppose, it only proves more strongly that Zhang Xianzhong and his peasant army are correct, and it further proves the correctness of the revolution.
Luxurious decadence or simple austerity?
The revisionist mouthpieces often use the morals of the exploiting classes to speculate on the conduct of the working people, especially regarding the peasant uprising led by Li Zicheng, which was deeply loved by the people. They baselessly claim that after Li Zicheng entered the capital, his army “ransacked gold and silver jewelry,” “became obsessed with court luxury and beauty,” and that their exploitation of the common people was “more severe than the Ming Dynasty,” leading to the uprising’s ultimate failure.
“Kill cattle and sheep, prepare wine and grain, open the city gates to welcome the King of Recklessness, who refuses to pay grain when he arrives. Damn it, she’s not enough for the King of Recklessness. Not doing chores, not paying grain, everyone happily has a good time.”
The slander by the revisionists is obviously full of loopholes. After Li Zicheng entered Beijing, he did not immediately eliminate the feudal landlords’ forces; they still remained, their hearts unbroken, constantly plotting to gather private armies to overthrow the newly established peasant revolutionary regime. If Li Zicheng’s army had truly become decadent and luxurious, making the city’s people suffer even more than during Ming rule, then these reactionary forces could have immediately recruited large private armies to overthrow the new regime. The peasant uprising’s regime would not have been destroyed by the dual attacks of Ming and Qing armies but would have been overthrown by a coup of the landlords in the city. To maintain a regime, it must have certain class support. The Dazong peasant revolutionary regime was different from the landlord feudal regime; it was supported not by landlords but by peasants and other laboring masses. Most soldiers of the Dazong peasant army came from the working class; their rebellion against Ming feudal rule aimed to realize the revolutionary program of “equalizing land,” eliminating feudal exploitation. The peasant army itself came from peasants and would never do anything that harms peasant interests. Because of this, Li Zicheng’s uprising was supported by the broad peasant masses and repeatedly defeated Ming officials, ultimately overthrowing Ming rule. The landlord class has always hated peasant uprisings and tried to crush them at all costs. Naturally, the Ming landlord class constantly plotted to assassinate the Dazong peasant regime and regain their lost paradise. Therefore, the peasant army cannot rely on the extra-economic coercion and feudal armies that large landlords used to maintain their power; they can only rely on the support of the laboring masses. Once they lose this support, they will fall into complete isolation and helplessness, let alone establish a revolutionary regime in Beijing. The actual behavior of the peasant uprising after entering the city has already proven this. After entering Beijing, the peasant army continued to strictly enforce military discipline, did not harm the people, and executed those who violated military discipline immediately, gaining the support of the masses, and social order quickly stabilized. Later, many citizens married into the peasant army, further showing the close relationship between the masses and the peasant army. Moreover, Li Zicheng’s peasant army maintained a simple peasant style after entering the city; Li Zicheng himself “woke early, sipped millet porridge, and avoided using other things”[^33], dressing plainly every day, waking early, drinking only millet porridge, and not eating other foods. The generals of the peasant army also called each other brothers, ate and sat together, maintaining friendly relations among the working people. For the urban laborers, the Dazong peasant army maintained deep ties with them; Li Zicheng called the uprising “specifically to save the people”[^34], and twice summoned representatives of the people to the Wu Ying Hall to inquire about their hardships. He also removed the plaque “Respect Heaven and Worship Ancestors” from the Ming court and replaced it with “Respect Heaven and Love the People.” As for the officials and landlords who previously harmed the masses, they were severely suppressed: they were ordered to return the “stolen goods” they extorted from the people, and the most heinous ones were expelled from the city. Most of the ministers above the third rank in the Ming court were not retained. While purging the Ming landlords in the city, the peasant army also did not forget the remnants of the Ming government across the country, continuing to strengthen military training. Liu Zongmin often led troops in drills, and sometimes Li Zicheng personally inspected the troops. It was through such training that the peasant army was able to capture Tianjin, Shandong, and other places after entering Beijing, controlling regions south of the Yangtze River, north of the Great Wall, from the coast in the east to Shaanxi and Gansu in the west, liberating most of the country. If the peasant army had been decadent and only knew how to indulge in vice, loot, and flee in battle like the Ming army, it would have been impossible to achieve such great revolutionary results. The baseless slander from successive exploitative classes about the peasant army has been thoroughly debunked by facts.
Chairman Mao once pointed out: In China’s feudal society, “Only this kind of peasant class struggle, peasant uprising, and peasant war are the true driving forces of history. Because every larger peasant uprising and peasant war has struck at the feudal ruling class of the time, thereby somewhat promoting the development of social productive forces.”[^35] As Marxists, we adhere to historical materialism, rebut the fallacies of the landlord bourgeoisie, and give correct evaluations of historical peasant uprisings. This is not to erect monuments for individual peasant leaders but to overturn the inverted history, affirm that the working people are the true masters of history, serve the revolution, and serve the people. The revisionists are precisely the ones who most like to praise the landlord class and erect monuments for them; their current trend of praising landlords and belittling peasants is not for any other reason but to promote the idealist historiography that heroically creates history, glorify capitalists as naturally entitled to rule the people, and belittle the broad working masses as inherently destined to be ruled, thus seeking “rationalization” for the exploitation and oppression by the bourgeoisie. Opening the revisionist history textbooks, one finds that as a revisionist state, it seeks to justify its own regime’s “legitimacy,” deceive the people, and maintain bourgeois rule, so it pretends to acknowledge the “people’s view of history” and “people creating history.” Essentially, the revisionist regime remains a government controlled by the exploitative class, thus it subtly slanders the peasants and the broad masses, praises the landlord bourgeoisie, and vigorously promotes the “pluralistic history view” (such as: global history, modernization history, “revolution” history, etc.), which is rooted in idealism. The history teachers of the revisionist state also understand this well; they are all lapdogs and mouthpieces who belittle the masses while fervently kneeling at the feet of the exploiting class, indoctrinating students with the false notion that heroes create history. The revisionist state hypocritically claims: “The people create history,” “The people are the ruling power”… Open your eyes, prepare to struggle! Recognize the true nature of the exploitative class of the revisionist state, stop uttering empty words about the people’s historical subjectivity, and continue to overturn history for the peasants and the broad masses, thoroughly overturn history for the peasants and the masses!
Reverse the inverted history!
