[Why] Should We Attach Great Importance to the Discussion on the Film “The Story of Wu Xun” (?)

When we published Comrade Yang Ping’s article, “Does Mr. Tao Xingzhi’s Promotion of the ‘Wu Xun Spirit’ Have Any Positive Significance?,” we expressed the hope that it would spark further discussion about the film “The Story of Wu Xun.” But why [should] this discussion be given such importance?

The issues raised by “The Story of Wu Xun” are of a fundamental nature. In an era when the Chinese people were engaged in a great struggle—fighting both foreign aggressors and the reactionary feudal rulers at the end of the Qing dynasty—someone like Wu Xun not only failed to touch even a hair of the feudal economic base or its superstructure; he zealously propagated feudal culture. Moreover, in order to secure a position from which to propagate this very culture, he went to extreme lengths to grovel before the reactionary feudal authorities. Is such a despicable act—the propagation of a “slave culture” and “slave morality”—something we ought to glorify? To extol this kind of abhorrent behavior before the masses, even under the revolutionary banner of “serving the people,” and even by contrasting it with the supposed failure of the revolutionary peasant struggle—can we really tolerate such a thing? To acknowledge or condone this kind of glorification is tantamount to acknowledging or tolerating the demise of historical materialism: it means recognizing the triumph of a supra-class “culture” and “morality,” the victory of slavish, demagogic reform. It amounts to legitimizing as proper propaganda the vilification of the peasant revolutionary struggle, the defamation of Chinese history, and the denigration of the Chinese nation.

The emergence of the film “The Story of Wu Xun,” and especially the extent to which Wu Xun himself and the film have been lauded, demonstrates just how superficial our understanding of historical materialism and new democracy remains. This poses an important task for us: we must use “The Story of Wu Xun” as a teaching tool to clear our minds, to dispel idealism and reformism from our thinking. It also reveals the degree of ideological confusion prevailing in China’s cultural circles. Consider, for example, the following incomplete list of articles published in newspapers and periodicals in Beijing, Tianjin, and Shanghai since the film’s release—pieces either praising “The Story of Wu Xun” and Wu Xun directly, or criticizing certain aspects of him while still celebrating others:

(Catalogue Notes)

[Because Wu Xun has come to carry such significance and influence, we believe it is essential to engage in a serious, in-depth discussion. We particularly encourage those who have already expressed their views on this matter to join this highly important debate.]

In the eyes of many authors, historical development does not consist of new things replacing old ones; rather, it involves various efforts to preserve the old and prevent its demise. Instead of overthrowing the reactionary feudal rulers through class struggle, they advocate, like Wu Xun, the denial of the oppressed people’s own class struggle and submission to those very rulers. Our writers do not bother to examine who the enemies oppressing the Chinese people have been throughout history, nor do they consider whether those who surrendered to and served these enemies might deserve any praise. Nor do they study what new social and economic formations, new class forces, new figures, and new ideas arose over the more than one hundred years since the Opium War of 1840—struggles against the old socio-economic order and its superstructure (politics, culture, etc.)—in order to determine what should be praised or celebrated, what should not, and what must be opposed.

Of particular concern are certain Communist Party members who claim to have mastered Marxism. They may have studied the history of social development—the doctrine of historical materialism—but when confronted with concrete historical events, specific historical figures (such as Wu Xun), or explicitly anti-historical ideologies (like the film “The Story of Wu Xun” and other works about him), they lose all capacity for critical analysis. Some even capitulate entirely to such reactionary ideas. Has bourgeois reactionary thought indeed infiltrated the ranks of the fighting Communist Party? And whatever Marxism these comrades claim to have learned—where has it gone?

For all these reasons, a discussion should be launched concerning the film “The Story of Wu Xun” and other writings and essays related to Wu Xun, so as to thoroughly clarify the confused thinking surrounding this issue.

Note: Text within square brackets was deleted by the Chairman; boldface was added by the Chairman.