Anarquismo Chino
Publicado: 24 May 2006, 15:37
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_anarchism
Anarchism and Chinese Nationalism
In the first phase of the movement, Anarchists of both schools were generally participants in the Nationalist movement, even though in theory they repudiated nationalism and nation-states. Thus the first attacks on the infant movement were to come from Nationalists who saw Anarchism as a threat to their effort to build a strong, unified, centralized modern nation that could stand up to the encroaching power of Western Imperialism. As one nationalist reader wrote in a letter to Hsin Shih-chi,which was an Anarchist newspaper published by the Paris group, "If you people know only how to cry emptily that ‘We want no government, no soldiers, no national boundaries, and no State’ and that you are for universal harmony, justice, freedom, and equality, I fear that those who know only brute force and not justice will gather their armies to divide up our land and our people."
Nationalists also argued that only by building a popular front could the Nationalist movement defeat the Manchus and the Qing Dynasty, and that in the long term if Anarchism was to have any chance to succeed it must necessarily be preceded by a Republican system that would make China secure. The response of the Hsin Shi-Chi editors, written by Li Shih-tseng, was based in the idea that the revolution they advocated would be global, simultaneous, and spontaneous; and that since it would be happening everywhere, the foreign imperialists would thus be too preoccupied with the revolutions in their home countries to bother invading or harassing China anymore. They also argued that having a strong centralized coercive government had obviously not prevented Chinas enemies from attacking her, and that in the long run tyranny is tyranny, regardless of whether it is “native” or foreign, so the only logical approach for people who want freedom must be to oppose all authority be it Manchu, Han, foreign, or native.
In retrospect, the obvious question is how could they expect a global spontaneous revolution to come about, and the answer is that the Paris group – and many radicals of all stripes all over the globe at that time – believed in Revolution as something akin to a force of nature. Within the context of their thinking, Revolution would come because it was obviously needed, and their role was simply to prepare people for it and help them see the obvious necessity of social change. From a modern perspective, such thinking seems incredibly naïve. Understanding it, however, provides important insight into the fundamentally evolutionary nature of the movement, and explains the movement’s focus on education instead of organization building.
The involvement of prominent Nationalist figures indicates the role of personal relationships in the Paris groups’ organizing. The individuals who founded that group had come out of the Nationalist movement and remained strongly tied to it by a network of close personal friendships, so it was natural for them to attempt to include their friends in their organizing in the hopes of winning those friends (and the influence they possessed) over to the Anarchist cause. The actual result of such collaboration, however, was typically that it was the Anarchists, not the Nationalists, who compromised their positions since doing so allowed them to gain access to power positions in the Nationalist government that they theoretically opposed. That same year Jing Meijiu and Zhang Ji (another anarchist affiliated with the Tokyo group) would both be elected to the Republican parliament. Shifu and the Guangzhou group declared that by doing so they were traitors to the cause and proved their lack of commitment to the movement; but both men continued to call themselves anarchists and were active in promoting anarchism clear up to the late 1920s. Dirlik argues that this was indicative of lingering ambiguity in the definition of Anarchism. It would be more accurate to say, however, that the issue was one of strategy. These men considered themselves anarchists because they were working for the long-term abolition of capitalism, the state, and coercive authority in general; but in their vision Anarchism was a very long-term goal and not something they expected to see realized in their lifetimes - Chiang, for instance, expected that it would take 3,000 years to bring about the revolution they dreamed of. Understanding that, it becomes much easier to see why they would be tempted to campaign for and hold political office or collaborate with sympathetic elements in the government, since doing so would help them achieve their short term goals. This attitude is clearly distinct from the revolutionary anarchism of Kropotkin and Bakunin, or even of the Guangzhou group, which aimed for immediate revolution and the creation of an Anarchist society in the immediate future. The tendency to indefinitely postpone the revolution and the preoccupation with abstract philosophy and theory instead of concrete organizing by some of the wealthier participants in the movement doubtless has a lot to do with their class backgrounds. The split between wealthier “philosophical” Anarchists/Marxists/socialists/etc and working class revolutionaries is a common feature of revolutionary movements all over the world, and does not tell us anything in particular about the Anarchist movement in China.
As a counter-point to such collaboration, however, there is evidence that many more anarchists could have joined the new Nationalist government and gained positions of power and privilege but refused to do so because doing so would have violated their principles. As Scalapino and Yu put it “there can be little doubt that many refused to play the kind of political role that was so desperately needed in a period when trained personnel were extremely scarce compared to the tasks at hand.”
---
bueno, que alguien lo traduzca
Anarchism and Chinese Nationalism
In the first phase of the movement, Anarchists of both schools were generally participants in the Nationalist movement, even though in theory they repudiated nationalism and nation-states. Thus the first attacks on the infant movement were to come from Nationalists who saw Anarchism as a threat to their effort to build a strong, unified, centralized modern nation that could stand up to the encroaching power of Western Imperialism. As one nationalist reader wrote in a letter to Hsin Shih-chi,which was an Anarchist newspaper published by the Paris group, "If you people know only how to cry emptily that ‘We want no government, no soldiers, no national boundaries, and no State’ and that you are for universal harmony, justice, freedom, and equality, I fear that those who know only brute force and not justice will gather their armies to divide up our land and our people."
Nationalists also argued that only by building a popular front could the Nationalist movement defeat the Manchus and the Qing Dynasty, and that in the long term if Anarchism was to have any chance to succeed it must necessarily be preceded by a Republican system that would make China secure. The response of the Hsin Shi-Chi editors, written by Li Shih-tseng, was based in the idea that the revolution they advocated would be global, simultaneous, and spontaneous; and that since it would be happening everywhere, the foreign imperialists would thus be too preoccupied with the revolutions in their home countries to bother invading or harassing China anymore. They also argued that having a strong centralized coercive government had obviously not prevented Chinas enemies from attacking her, and that in the long run tyranny is tyranny, regardless of whether it is “native” or foreign, so the only logical approach for people who want freedom must be to oppose all authority be it Manchu, Han, foreign, or native.
In retrospect, the obvious question is how could they expect a global spontaneous revolution to come about, and the answer is that the Paris group – and many radicals of all stripes all over the globe at that time – believed in Revolution as something akin to a force of nature. Within the context of their thinking, Revolution would come because it was obviously needed, and their role was simply to prepare people for it and help them see the obvious necessity of social change. From a modern perspective, such thinking seems incredibly naïve. Understanding it, however, provides important insight into the fundamentally evolutionary nature of the movement, and explains the movement’s focus on education instead of organization building.
The involvement of prominent Nationalist figures indicates the role of personal relationships in the Paris groups’ organizing. The individuals who founded that group had come out of the Nationalist movement and remained strongly tied to it by a network of close personal friendships, so it was natural for them to attempt to include their friends in their organizing in the hopes of winning those friends (and the influence they possessed) over to the Anarchist cause. The actual result of such collaboration, however, was typically that it was the Anarchists, not the Nationalists, who compromised their positions since doing so allowed them to gain access to power positions in the Nationalist government that they theoretically opposed. That same year Jing Meijiu and Zhang Ji (another anarchist affiliated with the Tokyo group) would both be elected to the Republican parliament. Shifu and the Guangzhou group declared that by doing so they were traitors to the cause and proved their lack of commitment to the movement; but both men continued to call themselves anarchists and were active in promoting anarchism clear up to the late 1920s. Dirlik argues that this was indicative of lingering ambiguity in the definition of Anarchism. It would be more accurate to say, however, that the issue was one of strategy. These men considered themselves anarchists because they were working for the long-term abolition of capitalism, the state, and coercive authority in general; but in their vision Anarchism was a very long-term goal and not something they expected to see realized in their lifetimes - Chiang, for instance, expected that it would take 3,000 years to bring about the revolution they dreamed of. Understanding that, it becomes much easier to see why they would be tempted to campaign for and hold political office or collaborate with sympathetic elements in the government, since doing so would help them achieve their short term goals. This attitude is clearly distinct from the revolutionary anarchism of Kropotkin and Bakunin, or even of the Guangzhou group, which aimed for immediate revolution and the creation of an Anarchist society in the immediate future. The tendency to indefinitely postpone the revolution and the preoccupation with abstract philosophy and theory instead of concrete organizing by some of the wealthier participants in the movement doubtless has a lot to do with their class backgrounds. The split between wealthier “philosophical” Anarchists/Marxists/socialists/etc and working class revolutionaries is a common feature of revolutionary movements all over the world, and does not tell us anything in particular about the Anarchist movement in China.
As a counter-point to such collaboration, however, there is evidence that many more anarchists could have joined the new Nationalist government and gained positions of power and privilege but refused to do so because doing so would have violated their principles. As Scalapino and Yu put it “there can be little doubt that many refused to play the kind of political role that was so desperately needed in a period when trained personnel were extremely scarce compared to the tasks at hand.”
---
bueno, que alguien lo traduzca