Creation: Marxist Philosophy Group of the Proletarian Liberation Struggle Association
On November 14th, the Pudong New Area Court in Shanghai rendered a judgment that the defendant Jia Moumou was sentenced to return three sets of houses and 400,000 yuan in savings to his parents for injuring his mother by pushing her down and failing to fulfill his filial duties.
Jia Moumou’s parents are nearly ninety years old and have multiple children. In 2005, their property in Pudong New Area was demolished, and they received four resettlement houses according to the policy. Because Jia Moumou is their only son, they did not hesitate to choose to “gift” three of these resettlement houses and 400,000 yuan in savings to him among their many children. However, this huge sum of wealth did not make Jia Moumou feel grateful nor did it lead to filial piety. “Old Uncle Jia and Old Lady Shen (respectively Jia Moumou’s parents—editor’s note) not only did not enjoy the expected later years, but still had to take care of Jia Moumou’s family’s daily needs. Even more, when the two elders fell ill, Jia Moumou’s family did not spend a penny. Even more outrageous, in August 2022, Jia Moumou pushed Old Lady Shen to the ground, causing her injury”[1].
This news plainly reveals the essence of private family and the hypocrisy of Confucian teachings of “fatherly kindness and filial sonship.” Marx and Engels pointed out in the Communist Manifesto that “the bourgeoisie has torn the veil of tender feelings covering family relations and turned these relations into purely monetary ones.”[2] Jia Moumou’s family is precisely such a family maintained solely by monetary relations. The reason Jia Moumou’s parents “gifted” all their property to him and left nothing for their daughter is because, in a patriarchal society, daughters are expected to marry out, i.e., be sold as commodities to other families—by then, the daughter becomes the property of her husband and his family. In other words, for parents, if the daughter owns property, it will ultimately just serve to “drain the rich water into outsiders’ fields,” making the property and the daughter become the property of other families. Since male descendants are naturally the heirs of family property, the most reliable way to “prevent old age” is to “raise sons,” i.e., hand over all property to the son to ensure he will support them in old age. For children, they are merely regarded as property or tools with different functions, which is the so-called “fatherly kindness”! Of course, Jia Moumou’s parents’ scheme was loud and clear, but “blue surpasses blue,” and Jia Moumou’s mind was not far behind. After obtaining his parents’ property, Jia Moumou declared himself the “head of the family”—this is the common situation in private families: whoever owns the property has all the power to control other family members. Thus, he completely tore off the “filial piety” mask, not only failing to “fulfill filial duties” to his parents but also physically assaulting them. To his parents, they are merely seen as parasitic hosts and sources of property, which is the so-called “filial son”! However, the attitude of the Zhongxiu government towards unloving fathers and unfilial sons is completely different. Because Jia Moumou’s behavior seriously undermines the commodity exchange principle of “property for old age” and the feudal patriarchal authority of “father as head of the family,” Jia Moumou’s parents immediately demanded that their son return the house and money, safeguarding their “consumer rights,” and Zhongxiu also swiftly imposed strict “sanctions” on Jia Moumou.
The criminal附带 civil judgment shows that Jia Moumou failed to fulfill his filial obligation as a donee and that his act of pushing his mother causing injury constitutes a criminal offense, severely infringing on the legal rights of the donor, thus the court revoked the transfer of the three property shares from Jia Moumou’s parents to him. In a capitalist society where “private property is sacred and inviolable,” the judiciary actually revokes a transfer of property rights! Why is that? The Surging News, in an editorial strongly supporting the court’s decision, explained: legally, “the law also considers ‘reason’ and ‘emotion,’ leaving room for ‘reversal’ (!) of gifts,” meaning that the donor can apply for revocation if the gift recipient “seriously infringes on the donor or close relatives’ legal rights,” “fails to fulfill support obligations,” or “fails to perform obligations stipulated in the gift contract,” etc. From the perspective of “judicial practice,” the court’s support for the revocation of the gift by Jia Moumou’s parents “also reflects the clear attitude of judicial protection of mainstream social values (!).” From the standpoint of “reason,” “allowing parents to revoke gifts to ‘unfilial children’ (!) also aligns with common sense,” and “acts such as ‘unfiliality,’ neglecting to support parents, and other violations of human morality (!) … are not only morally condemned but also subject to legal regulation.”[3] In other words, the reason Zhongxiu law stipulates this and the court’s ruling is to uphold the authority of feudal parents and the Confucian concept of “filial piety.” In this “equal” exchange of “family affection” and “gifts” wrapped in the guise of “love,” only the buyer side—i.e., the parents’ rights—are guaranteed. The traditional Confucian idea of “fatherly kindness and filial piety” is actually “fathers can be unkind, but children must be filial”!
Zhongxiu’s sheltering and supporting feudal parents is not only evident in this case. Since the capitalist restoration, numerous cases have shown that “father kills son, sentenced to several years in prison; son kills father, immediate death penalty.” In this case, Jia Moumou’s act of “pushing his mother and causing injury” only constitutes a “criminal offense.” However, in the “Inner Mongolia girl abuse leading to death” case held in August this year, the parents and their lover who abused the girl to death were only prosecuted for “abuse” and “intentional injury” (the girl’s biological father’s lover crazily named a video recording her abuse as “Hunting Moment,” yet according to court rulings, their actions did not constitute intentional homicide because “insufficient evidence to prove their intent to kill”).[4] And in the 2022 “Father stabs son to death with Bushido sword” case, the father repeatedly threatened and cut the child with a samurai sword (the child’s multiple old wounds proved this), and finally, during another abuse incident, “an accident” occurred, and the father “accidentally” stabbed the child to death (the wound on the child’s waist was as deep as ten centimeters!), and he was only sentenced to twelve years in prison…[5]
So why does the Zhongxiu government uphold the patriarchy system? Lu Xun once said that in ancient slave society, even the lowest-ranked “Tai” had “a wife more humble than him, a weaker son,” because of the patriarchal system, so they “need not worry.” “Moreover, his son also has hope; when he grows up and becomes ‘Tai,’ he will have a more humble and weaker wife to command. Such cycles, each getting their due, and anyone daring to criticize is accused of being disobedient!”[6] In other words, as long as the private family is maintained, allowing the patriarch to oppress children and for children to oppress their own children after becoming parents, it can divide the people and make them “each get their due,” thereby expanding and consolidating the social foundation of Zhongxiu’s reactionary rule. Anyone daring to question or oppose the patriarchal order and capitalist system—those who are “disobedient”—can be suppressed through old customs and even violence. Maintaining the patriarchy—on one hand, perpetuates gender oppression, oppressing half the society; on the other hand, upholds the authority of the elders in the family, oppressing the next generation—ultimately serving the ruling class, making hundreds of millions or billions of people oppress billions more. How insidious and sinister is this method! When the entire people accept the Confucian concept of “loyalty, faith, filial piety,” Zhongxiu’s rule becomes incredibly stable.
Chairman Mao once said, “Political power, clan power, divine power, and husband’s power represent all feudal patriarchal ideas and systems, and are the four great ropes that bind the Chinese people, especially peasants… Political power is the backbone of all authority.”[7] We must see through the essence of Zhongxiu’s support for the patriarchy: not only supporting all struggles against gender oppression and patriarchal authority but also guiding these fighters toward true liberation—overthrowing the entire backing of all oppressors: the Zhongxiu fascist regime.
3 Likes
Pulling someone down is a criminal offense, and the law is truly a vivid manifestation of the will of the ruling class.
It’s hard to believe that “Li Mou’s house purchase does not meet the conditions or motives for buying a house in the name of another, and his behavior aligns with the traditional Chinese values of respecting and honoring the elderly and filial piety, and should be considered a gift,” once the gift from the child enters the parents’ mouths, it cannot be taken back.
In stark contrast, it is highly ironic.
In a case of workers’ rights protection in a southeastern coastal city, after capitalists pushed down the workers demanding their wages and dragged them for several meters, when Nazi China’s police arrived, they said that such pushing down and dragging did not constitute illegal crime. It shows how the police in this “disobedient son” case are so “just in law enforcement” and “strict in law enforcement”.
So, how should we view the so-called relationship between law and morality?