A Look at Xia Yan’s Counter-Revolutionary True Face Through the Struggle Between Two Command Headquarters
Agency Revolutionary Combat Organization Liaison Station (1967.08.23)
(Old Ministry of Culture Agency Revolutionary Combat Organization Liaison Station)
The Chinese Khrushchev in the literary and art circles, Xia Yan, is a veteran who fights against the party under the banner of the “Red Flag.” He is very adept at the bourgeoisie’s strategy of class struggle against the proletariat: when he launches a major attack on the party, he always disguises himself as the party’s leader in the arts, using the power he has usurped to try to break through the fortress of the proletarian dictatorship from within; and when he needs to cover his retreat, he dresses up as a “writer” and “cultural person,” claiming that his issues are merely questions of understanding or worldview, trying to muddle through!
In early 1965, when the old Ministry of Culture’s pseudo rectification movement was about to end, Xia Yan hypocritically conducted a self-criticism. He said: “I have always questioned whether I had a double heart towards the party; now I realize: harboring bourgeois worldviews in my mind is the greatest double-heartedness towards the party.”
How easy it sounds to say, just a phrase like “harboring bourgeois worldviews in the mind”? Xia Yan tries to gloss over it with this, but that is a dream!
Looking back at Xia Yan’s role in the life-and-death struggle between the two command headquarters since the founding of the PRC, we can clearly see this so-called “writer” and “cultural person” as a disgusting face of counter-revolution!
I
In 1949, Xia Yan, a fanatic follower of Wang Ming’s line in the 1930s and an active promoter of “National Defense Literature,” had just returned to Shanghai when he immediately launched a reckless attack on the revolutionary literary and artistic line of the party and Chairman Mao!
At that time, a great debate was unfolding within our party about the future direction of New China: our great leader Chairman Mao issued the call to “build China into a great socialist country”; meanwhile, China’s Khrushchev was tirelessly advocating for the development of capitalism. In the cultural and artistic field, there was also a question of whom art and literature should serve. At this moment, China’s Khrushchev personally came to Shanghai and issued dark directives on cultural work. Following his master’s instructions, Xia Yan immediately challenged Mao’s line of “art serving workers, peasants, and soldiers.” He said at a meeting: “Although we propose the slogan of serving workers, peasants, and soldiers, this requires a period of time to gradually achieve, so the scope of creation is not so limited.” He advocated that Shanghai’s film studio should focus on depicting bourgeois and petty-bourgeois characters. Discussions about whether to write about petty-bourgeois themes also broke out in Shanghai newspapers. This was the first shot in the cultural and artistic field after liberation, launched by the bourgeoisie against Mao’s revolutionary line. And the one who fired this shot was none other than Xia Yan, the capable aide of China’s Khrushchev!
Closely coordinated with this attack, Xia Yan supported Kunlun Film Company in reshooting the reactionary film “Wu Xun Zhuan,” which had not been completed before liberation. Xia Yan proudly said: “Wu Xun had a very deep influence in the city, and will definitely be popular.” Zhou Yang also highly praised after watching the sample, saying: “Very good! I even shed tears while watching it!”
Why did Zhou Yang and Xia Yan rush to release this reactionary film right after the founding of New China? Its purpose was to make the proletariat kneel and surrender to the reactionary ruling class like Wu Xun, thus ruining the revolutionary cause of the Chinese people!
Once this reactionary film was released, Chairman Mao immediately discovered it and launched a nationwide critique. Mao pointed sharply: “The reactionary ideas of the bourgeoisie have infiltrated the fighting Communist Party; isn’t this a fact?” This was a clear and powerful expose of Xia Yan and others, the bourgeois representatives who infiltrated the party! Xia Yan then made a false self-criticism, but in fact harbored even greater resentment. Later, he claimed that this large-scale struggle was a “planned slander attack” against him, and that he “dared not speak on literary and artistic issues for more than two years.” This was a vicious attack and frantic counterattack against Mao’s personal leadership in this major struggle!
In 1955, Xia Yan was transferred by China’s Khrushchev-led black command to the Ministry of Culture as deputy minister and Party group deputy secretary, holding the major power in the film industry.
In 1956, the socialist transformation of the ownership of the means of production was basically completed in China. At this time, China’s Khrushchev was running around everywhere, loudly promoting the “theory of the extinguishing of class struggle.” He shouted: “The enemies within the country have been basically eliminated,” “After the joint public-private ownership, the main contradictions between the proletariat and bourgeoisie have been resolved,” “There will be no more revolutionary struggles, land reform is over, socialist transformation is complete,” to lull the proletariat and working people. Xia Yan immediately followed suit, shouting in his master’s tone: “A storm of revolution and war has passed, and people, with excitement, have entered a new era and environment.” Under the cover of their “theory of the extinguishing of class struggle,” bourgeois rightists launched a frantic attack on the party and socialism!
This attack by bourgeois rightists was characterized by an important feature: attacking the party’s leadership and preparing to seize political leadership. In the arts and literature circles, the vanguard of bourgeois rightist attack was composed of a small group of hidden counter-revolutionary revisionists like Zhou Yang and Xia Yan! They appeared as “party leaders,” advocating to hand over leadership power entirely to the bourgeoisie. Zhou Yang frantically attacked the party, saying: “The party does not lead well; true leadership must be in the hands of experts.” “Scientists should lead science, artists should lead art, musicians should lead music.” Xia Yan also shouted: “Film is like a big family with several heirs, everyone likes him, cares about him, and wants to control him. So, being a nanny for such a child is difficult.” He viciously compared the party’s leadership to “Old Master Lu, who is not a calligrapher,” insisting that “those who can copy calligraphy on their own” should be the ones to lead. He crazily declared: “In the future, artistic and technical issues will mainly depend on artists themselves to solve and practice.”
This group of counter-revolutionary revisionists, having seized control of cultural leadership, was able to implement their counter-revolutionary revisionist line directly in practice. On the eve of the Anti-Rightist Campaign, Xia Yan sent a film delegation to capitalist countries like Britain, France, Italy, and also to Yugoslavia, for half a year of “study” and “inspection.” After returning, he immediately drafted a “Report on Several Issues for Improving Film Production,” further promoting their revisionist line of “free combination, self-selected themes, self-financing, director-centered.” At that time, the rightists in schools were loudly calling for “professors governing schools,” while Xia Yan and others promoted “artists governing factories” at film studios, further implementing bourgeois dictatorship in the film industry, aiming to fundamentally abolish the party’s leadership.
When the Anti-Rightist struggle began, Xia Yan, sensing the unfavorable trend, teamed up with Zhou Yang, a two-faced counter-revolutionary, and suddenly transformed himself into a leader of the literary and artistic anti-rightist struggle, distorting history and attacking Lu Xun through criticism of Feng Xuefeng. At an enlarged meeting of the Writers’ Association Party Committee, Xia Yan, who had long been denounced by Lu Xun as one of the “Four Men,” was the first to jump out, brazenly attacking Lu Xun for “carrying out evil activities that split the left-wing literary movement,” and was sharply rebuked by Comrade Xu Guangping on the spot! This was yet another big debt Xia Yan owed to the party and the people!
II
In 1958, under the glorious glow of the Great Leap Forward, the entire nation launched a vigorous movement, and the socialist revolution and construction achieved new glorious victories.
In early 1959, the Soviet revisionists held the 21st Congress, and Khrushchev launched a vicious anti-China campaign, viciously attacking our party’s general line, the Great Leap Forward, and the People’s Commune. That summer, rightist opportunists led by Peng Dehuai launched a reckless attack on the party and Chairman Mao. This attack was approved and supported by China’s Khrushchev. In the arts and literature circles, Zhou Yang shouted: “Our leaders always like to do ‘left’ things,” “their minds are too hot,” “exaggerated.” Xia Yan also viciously jumped out, cursing the Great Leap Forward as “full of vanity” and “thinking that building socialism is too easy.” Even more viciously, he directly attacked our great leader Mao Zedong, saying: “Chairman Mao can write poetry, but actually cannot.” This was extremely arrogant! He also echoed Khrushchev from afar, shouting: “The production leap forward has made us excited, proud, and less internationalist.” This was a direct collusion with the Soviet revisionists in their wild attack on the party.
By July of that year, at the National Story Film Factory Directors’ Conference, Xia Yan officially put forward his notorious reactionary and ultra-reactionary “departure from the classics and rebellion” theory. He said: “Our current films are old-fashioned revolutionary classics and war stories. Without these classics, there is nothing. We cannot produce new varieties. Today, my speech is a departure from the classics.”
What is “departure from the classics and rebellion”? What he wants to depart from is the “classics” of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought; what he wants to rebel against is the “way” of the people’s revolutionary war. Depart from the “classics” and rebel against the “way,” for what purpose? He does not want socialist revolution; he wants capitalist counter-revolutionary restoration; he does not want the proletariat to seize power armed; he wants the bourgeoisie to seize power armed. In his speech where he proposed the “departure from the classics and rebellion” theory, he recommended a series of film themes, such as “The Big Wave,” Huanghuagang, Lin Juemin, Qiu Jin, etc., all of which praise the bourgeois armed seizure of power during the Xinhai Revolution. The film “Lin Family Shop,” which he personally adapted and released that year, was a reactionary film encouraging bourgeois counterattack and counter-revolution!
At the same time Xia Yan announced his “departure from the classics and rebellion” theory, Zhou Yang shouted: “Themes are all about fighting, dead bodies, revolutions, prisons, accidents, crying—how can that do?” He ordered to produce so-called light-hearted, diverse themes. Lin Mo Han shouted: “Films are either about fighting or tears,” “they burden people’s spirits heavily.” Tian Han also lamented: “During World War II, sacrifices were tragic; hearing gunfire makes people tired and afraid.” This small group of reactionary revisionists suddenly sang the same tune in unison during this period, which was no coincidence. In 1959, when revisionism was rampant internationally and Khrushchev was loudly proclaiming “a world without weapons, without armies, without war,” Xia Yan’s “departure from the classics and rebellion” theory clearly echoed the reactionary forces abroad.
III
This bourgeois offensive in 1959, although temporarily suppressed after Mao launched the anti-rightist struggle at the Lushan Conference, was not the end. The class enemies would not give up. During the Three Difficulties period, they saw a great opportunity and launched a frantic attack on the party and socialism.
In this attack, China’s Khrushchev personally took the stage, viciously attacking the “Three Red Banners.” Xia Yan also vigorously incited reactionary elements in the film industry to vent their anger at the party, saying: “There are big and small airs, big airs are views on intellectuals, small airs are improper criticism of individuals.”
This group of counter-revolutionary revisionists especially valued using literary and artistic works to carry out anti-party activities. Zhou Yang, at the Dalian meeting, advocated: literary works should depict the so-called “shortcomings, errors, and problems” of socialism, claiming: “I think past works were full of indignation, and now I also express some anger; perhaps there are good works.” Xia Yan also falsely claimed that there was a prominent problem in current creation, which was “not daring to write contradictions and face contradictions directly.” Afraid to speak plainly, he directly gave an example: “If there were no ‘Five Winds,’ why did serious problems occur in some places? Contradictions are obvious. So why not write about them? Fear. The word ‘fear.’ Fear of writing struggles, ideological concerns.” He desperately incited artists to oppose the party.
Moreover, Xia Yan teamed up with the “Three Family Village” leaders Wu Han, Liao Mosha, and the author of the reactionary big poison book “Li Huiliang,” Meng Chao, to open a column of essays titled “Long and Short Records” in newspapers. Using the pen name “Huang Si,” he published nine toxic essays in this column. In “Starting from Pointed Plays,” he compared the party’s leadership over literature and art to the play where the warlord Han Fuqu, like Qin Qiong, fights Guan Gong, viciously cursing the party as “narrow, despotic, and ignorant.” Another top capitalist-road authority in the party praised it, saying: “That piece where Qin Qiong fights Guan Gong, very good! Full of flavor!”
Xia Yan also loudly promoted the so-called “creating historical plays.” He said: “Historical events often can be used to teach the present. There are also coincidences in history; if it happened in ancient times, it can happen today.” More than a month after this speech, the reactionary and anti-socialist poison “Hai Rui Resigns” was released. Subsequently, Xia Yan himself vigorously promoted this anti-party “Hai Rui Spirit,” claiming: “We have such people who insist on the truth and stand up for justice. What educates them? Not necessarily textbooks, but Bao Gong, Hai Rui.” His so-called “using the ancient to teach the present” was actually using dead ancient people to attack the party’s leadership and socialism!
To continue peddling his long-criticized “departure from the classics and rebellion” theory, Xia Yan teamed up with Qu Baiyin to issue and personally revise a big poisonous essay titled “On the Issue of Innovation in Film.” What “innovation”? It was actually a thorough reversion to capitalism and feudalism! He also promoted screening Hong Kong films nationwide, saying: “Hong Kong films still have positive significance; people don’t find them boring, unlike some of our films which are dry and dull!” He also called for importing a large number of capitalist and revisionist films to corrupt the masses and conquer people’s hearts!
During this period, the screens of our country’s films and the stage of opera were filled with poisonous weeds and chaos, creating a reactionary atmosphere for counter-revolutionary restoration. The main culprits behind this evil wind were none other than Zhou Yang, Xia Yan, and their supporters in China, including China’s Khrushchev!
IV
Our great leader Mao Zedong had long seen through the wolfish ambitions of China’s Khrushchev and his accomplices to restore capitalism. In September 1962, at the Tenth Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee of the CPC, Mao issued the great call to “Never forget class struggle,” and pointed out: “To overthrow a regime, one must first create public opinion and do ideological work. This is true for revolutionary classes and counter-revolutionary classes.” Under Mao’s call, the proletariat launched a fierce counterattack in the ideological sphere against the bourgeoisie.
Faced with this surging, unstoppable revolutionary tide, Xia Yan and his master China’s Khrushchev continued to stubbornly resist. They carried out a series of sabotage activities, playing tricks, hoping to extinguish this raging revolutionary fire.
Not long after the Eighth Central Committee’s Tenth Plenary, Xia Yan publicly opposed the policies of the Tenth Plenary at the national cultural bureau directors’ meeting. He crazily shouted: “After the Tenth Plenary, the central authorities sounded the alarm, and some localities… again saw the growth of simple and crude leadership methods.” He also claimed: “Modern revisionist ideas are not only not dominant in our arts and literature, but are also difficult to grow.”
But history does not follow their counter-revolutionary will. While they were desperately struggling, Mao’s two brilliant directives on literary and artistic work were issued successively, further sounding the death knell for this small group of counter-revolutionary revisionists. Seeing the situation worsening for themselves, they changed their tune and continued to resist stubbornly. In January 1964, China’s Khrushchev personally convened a so-called symposium on literary and artistic work, falsely claiming that the problems in the arts and literature were merely “a matter of understanding,” used to resist Mao’s directives. Soon after, Zhou Yang and Xia Yan instructed Chen Huangmei to hold a meeting of story film factory directors and Party secretaries in Nanjing, loudly claiming: “Since liberation, films have basically followed Mao’s literary and artistic line, only wavering a bit.” Zhou Yang and Xia Yan themselves also presided over this, organizing a news documentary awards for “Outstanding Films” and “Outstanding Cinematographers,” with Lu Dingyi giving a speech, claiming that the old and new films were “model examples of implementing Mao’s line of serving workers, peasants, and soldiers,” and directly competing with Mao’s directives, trying to obscure the black line of the arts and literature circle.
Until the Peking Opera modern drama viewing and performance conference led by Comrade Jiang Qing in Beijing, Xia Yan also made remarks to Hong Kong reporters, downplaying the serious political issue of emperors, princes, talented women, and handsome men occupying the stage, calling it merely “defects,” and describing the great Peking Opera revolution, which was the true beginning of the proletarian cultural revolution, as just “filling in the gaps,” attempting to belittle the great significance of the Peking Opera revolution and undermine the proletarian cultural revolution.
However, how can the arm of a mantis block the wheel of history! Not long after this, Xia Yan, the old fox, was finally exposed by the broad revolutionary masses. Despite attempts by China’s Khrushchev, Peng Zhen, Lu Dingyi, Zhou Yang, and others to protect him, they were ultimately all unmasked one by one during the proletarian cultural revolution!
Reflecting on the seventeen years of this struggle, we can draw these simple conclusions about Xia Yan:
-
Xia Yan is the chief leader of the counter-revolutionary revisionist black line in arts and literature, a capable subordinate under China’s Khrushchev. Like his master, his dream is to restore capitalism in China. This is his core. Art and literature are merely tools for his counter-revolutionary activities. Over these seventeen years, at every critical moment of class struggle, he has used art and literature as weapons to launch reckless attacks on the party and socialism, according to China’s Khrushchev’s political needs. Removing Xia Yan’s hypocritical guise as a “writer” and “cultural person,” one can see clearly: he is a heinous counter-revolutionary revisionist!
-
Xia Yan is also an extremely dangerous enemy who has long infiltrated our core. He is not an ordinary writer or literary critic; he is not just someone who issues opinions. Over the long term, he has occupied leadership positions in cultural work,制定规章，调兵遣将，在文艺界实行资产阶级专政。在电影界，他更是自居“祖师爷”“老头子”，发号施令，直接指挥一切。他的毒害之广、之深，绝非社会上一般牛鬼蛇神所能比拟！
-
Xia Yan is a double-dealer with two identities. He is both a member of the party’s rightist faction advocating capitalism and an bourgeois reactionary “authority.” Since the 1930s, he has worn the guise of a “revolutionary writer,” selling black propaganda of national capitulationism and class capitulationism, and has had a certain influence in society. After liberation, he not only proposed the “departure from the classics and rebellion” theory and a whole set of counter-revolutionary programs, but also personally created or supported a series of reactionary poisonous films such as “Wu Xun Zhuan,” “Lin Family Shop,” “Revolutionary Family,” “Early Spring February,” “Stage Sisters,” etc., creating public opinion for capitalist restoration. Therefore, criticizing and fighting Xia Yan must thoroughly overthrow him politically, ideologically, and theoretically, and make sure that this group of counter-revolutionary revisionists and their backstage China’s Khrushchev never turn over again!
