Because my first volume was left at school, I am now posting some reading questions I encountered while reading the second volume on the forum for everyone to answer.
- 【p533】Why do reformists strive to praise bourgeois parliamentary politics but oppose implementing democracy and republic in China?
- 【p547】I don’t understand what “protect China but not the Qing Dynasty” means. Does it mean that the bourgeois reform measures by Kang and Liang would overthrow the landlord class?
- 【p550】I don’t understand why, even though they clearly do not hold military power, reformists do not try hard to seize military control. Is it related to their weakness or fear of directly confronting the later-party?
- 【p551】I looked up information about Chen Baozhen and found something very shocking. After the Tianjing city fell, this person directly advised the Xiang Army to pursue and arrest Hong Tianguifu:
And later, he also closely associated with reactionary leaders like Zeng Guofan, Rong Lu, and Zhang Zhidong. His Hunan governor was appointed because Rong Lu recommended him. I don’t understand how he supported and promoted the new policies afterward. - 【p555】How to understand Lenin’s statement: “When those advocating reform and improvement do not yet understand that any old system, no matter how absurd and corrupt, is supported by certain ruling class forces, they will always be deceived by those who support the old system.”
- 【p561】Why is it said that the Hundred Days’ Reform movement had an influence on the subsequent development of China’s national industry, even though the new policies were hardly implemented and Empress Dowager Cixi and others quickly reversed the reforms?
其实这不矛盾，还是跟他们的阶级利益相关。因为改良派一般都是那种地主资产阶级分子，中国民族资产阶级的上层，跟帝国主义有着比较深的联系，很多就直接是洋人的买办，而他们自身很多就是从地主阶级内部转化过来的，很多是拿经营资本主义工商业的利润拿来进行封建剥削；最关键的还是他们自己想要通过不暴力革命不触及封建制度封建生产的根本的前提下，搞所谓议会改革和君主立宪，让这些地主资产阶级能够参与到政权当中去，颂扬资产阶级议会是在给他们搞改良制造舆论。如果是要搞民主共和，那其实就是要进行武装革命，以暴力彻底摧毁封建制度等上层建筑，夺取资产阶级的政权，变封建制的生产关系为资产阶级的生产关系，这对于改良派来说，利益损失反而是更大的，自然是要反对民主共和，反对暴力革命。
这是地主阶级顽固派的说法和制造的谣言，意思是说康有为要保中国四万万人而不保地主阶级赖以维持统治的政权及暴力机关，可实际上当时中日甲午战争失败后，列强掀起瓜分中国的狂潮，民族危亡严重，改良派是基于民族资产阶级的利益站在本民族的立场上主张变法图强图存，加强国家暴力机关的力量，避免亡国灭种，在当时是有一定进步意义的 。地主阶级顽固派如此反对，是因为康梁的改革会让民族资产阶级也参与到国家政权中来，对于封建旧官僚制度的废除，鼓励工商业的发展等，会损害他们这些大地主的利益，当然是反对的。
是有关系，他们自身就是从地主阶级当中转化出来的，他们的要求只是说要不限制发展资本主义，而不是说彻底地推翻封建制度和否定封建土地所有制，是反对武装暴力革命的。并且他们自身跟帝国主义间的联系以及他们自身的剥削阶级立场，不彻底反帝反封建，也就决定了他们不可能有广泛的群众基础，也不可能会去和能够掌握武装。
他基于自身地主买办资产阶级的立场，为了维护自身的阶级利益，更好地镇压人民的反抗，对于改革军事，发展工商业来提供反革命的武装及物质基础当然是不会抵触的。
你结合情景来理解，是顽固派对戊戌变法进行反扑，其实就是说改良派自己的阶级局限性使得他们并不能够看清楚变法实际上是行不通的，因为这触犯到本阶级内部占大多数的顽固派的核心利益，自然要遭到包括暴力在内的反对和镇压，他们自身又基于剥削阶级的立场无法认识到这些，乃至于根本想不到袁世凯会选择通风报信站在顽固派那边来对他们举起屠刀。
戊戌变法颁布的发展民族资本主义工商业的措施，即便基本没有实施，但是这些具体的方案和要求，是符合历史的潮流的，在日后的清末新政就被实施了 ，所以才说是有影响的。
“Outline of Modern Chinese History” as the first history book I bought, I started reading it intermittently as early as April. But because at that time I was unwilling to do systematic theoretical study and only regarded it as a way to understand “historical secrets,” the effect of reading this book was always poor. Now I have to relearn it.
- Chapter 1, Section 1, The struggle between drug trafficking and drug prohibition:
- [p2] How did the budding capitalism in Jiangnan during the late Qing Dynasty specifically impact the shackles of feudal production relations?
- [p3] What are the specific contents of the Heavenly Principles Sect and the White Lotus Sect? Why can historiography successfully win over intellectuals?
- [p5] How to understand Lenin’s statement that capitalism has an tendency for unlimited expansion?
- [p6] Why did the British bourgeoisie want to use commodity cannons to open the door to China first? This question feels somewhat reactionary, uh uh.
- [p9] I don’t understand how the triangular trade chain between Britain, India, and China operated. Especially, why could Britain force India to produce opium in exchange for Chinese silver, thus expanding the sales of Indian industrial products in India? Could it be that they forced the masses to buy?
- The internal struggle within the landlord class between the strict prohibition faction and the anti-prohibition faction— is this a continuation of the Confucian-Legalist struggle in Chinese history for over two thousand years? I remember that the Legalist landlord class was also relatively weak during the Qing Dynasty.
Actually, it means that in the Jiangnan region, after the high development of commodity economy, the embryonic form of capitalist production relations appeared. The local bourgeoisie (generally emerging from small and medium landlords who also engaged in industry and commerce) established handicraft workshops, hiring workers to produce various handicraft products. At that time, the sources of workers in workshops mainly came from bankrupt farmers who had nowhere to go, or farmers whose harvests were insufficient to survive and had to be employed for wages to maintain their livelihood. Originally, before the emergence of handicraft workshops, bankrupt farmers had no choice but to depend on the landlord class, especially large landlords, to survive, and farmers with poor harvests were often tenant farmers for landlords; for the landlord class, especially those managing large estates, the appearance of workshops and the embryonic form of new production relations meant that some of their expanded feudal exploitation targets were no longer under their control, destroying the reproduction of feudal production relations. Therefore, they naturally hated these new things that damaged their interests and wanted to suppress them. Moreover, in the late feudal society, the more feudal production relations developed and land annexation became more severe, the more farmers went bankrupt. After bankruptcy, a considerable number of these farmers became wage laborers in handicrafts, forming part of the new production relations, rather than remaining dependent farmers for landlords. The new things kept growing within the old, and the contradictions between old and new forces grew larger.
The Tianli Doctrine is a branch of the White Lotus Sect; both are one and the same. Revolutionary farmers used the transformed and developed ideas of Maniism as their revolutionary theory. For specific content, refer to the association’s article “The Height of the Dao, the Height of the Demon—Maniism.”
First, the intellectuals of the feudal society were mainly from the landlord class. Their class stance determined that whether they were progressive Legalist landlords or thoroughly conservative large landlords, they all opposed peasant revolution and used suppression measures. Politically and culturally, everything they promoted was aligned with the needs of the exploiting majority and served the interests of the ruling class at that time. As a discipline that does not disturb the existing rule of the large landlord class, scholarship of the kind of textual research only studies the past and, in public opinion, serves the needs of the landlord class to maintain the status quo. By this period, the landlord class had become thoroughly reactionary. Most landlord intellectuals who could enter the government to share power naturally supported the anti-revolutionary ideological control over the peasant class, and they recognized the benefits that textual research could bring to their class interests.
The direct and sole purpose of capitalist production is to pursue surplus value. For capitalism to develop, its production relations must first expand. The bourgeoisie seeks larger markets, turning more workers into hired labor, so that the surplus value produced by their goods can be realized and increased. Capital cannot stop moving; once capital ceases to move, capitalism that does not expand will perish.
Because, firstly, as a capitalist country, Britain’s export of goods to backward countries with outdated production relations naturally aligned with their class interests. In their own country, due to high productivity and labor efficiency, their goods are relatively cheap, but in less developed countries, the prices are higher under their own level of production, which is excess profit—essentially plundering the people of other countries. The greed of the bourgeoisie is insatiable. When their exports to China encounter obstacles, they resort to savage invasion and war to achieve their goals.
Actually, there is more explanation, including Britain’s sales of industrial products in India. Britain forced Indian farmers to produce opium, then British colonial merchants in India smuggled the opium into China to sell, exchanging it for Chinese silver. With the silver in hand, they bought British textiles imported into the colonies to indulge and enjoy. The forced part is that Indian laborers produced opium outside of the necessities for daily life, as a means for British colonizers to dump Chinese goods.
Yes, the Legalist landlords represented small and medium landlords. In the late Qing feudal society, large landownership dominated, and the landlord class had become thoroughly reactionary. Small and medium landlords had to compete with large landlords, often engaging in industry and commerce. The invasion of foreign powers and the unlimited export of opium would severely damage China’s industry and commerce. The interests of these small and medium landlords, who were transitioning toward the bourgeoisie, would be greatly harmed, leading them to oppose the ban and prohibition. However, their class stance made them oppose revolution; along with large landlords, they chose repression against peasant revolts, and thus they could not gain broad support from the masses, leading inevitably to failure.