现在的年轻人，很多已经不知道六四是什么意思了。
Why Did the 1989 Democracy Movement Fail in China? (Commemorating the 22nd Anniversary of the June 4 Massacre)
-- Wei Jingsheng
Among today's youth in China, many already do not know what the "June 4 massacre" was. However, for the middle aged, most memories of this tragedy are just as new as if they were yesterday. That was a time of shame for our nation, as well as an experience of stirring solemnity. For a better Chinese future, for democracy, thousands of heroic Chinese stood in front of the tanks and machine guns without fear. Blood flew like a river. Many died for a noble cause.
Twenty-two years have passed. People have been asking: what really happened? Why were so many heroic Chinese sacrificed yet not much has changed? In the past 22 years, some truths about 1989 have gradually been exposed. What happened behind the scenes has become clearer. After sifting and selection by elimination, varies opinions have also become more and more concentrated.
One of the most well known opinions is the theory that "one should stop when one is ahead". In this theory, since the Chinese Communist authority had yielded some and also had made some reasonable offers, the ones ahead should have stopped there in 1989. The unspoken words in this argument are that the students and civilians who would not stop when they were "ahead" should carry the responsibility of the massacre that killed so many civilians. The Chinese Communist regime immediately grabbed this theory, and pushed the responsibility of the massacre over to "the people with grown beards yet hiding behind the demonstrating students". The Communists took the opportunity to make their excuse of killing in June of 1989 as an action that was forced by the situation.
Is this theory of "one should stop when one is ahead" reasonable? From the gradually exposed history, we know there was not such a possibility at all. One of the reasons that the 1989 democracy movement happened in China was that the internal struggle within the Chinese Communist Party had reached a level which was not compromisable. The Communist officials of the Zhao Ziyang faction were sympathetic to reform, but had taken a lesson from his predecessor Hu Yaobang's resignation. That faction was the majority within the Communist Party and even had the support of public opinion in the Chinese society, so if Zhao Ziyang wanted to yield to the conservative minority, he would not receive other people's support to do so.
However, Zhao Ziyang yielded anyway. Not only that, he yielded all the way. The result is that Deng Xiaoping got the time to assemble and mobilize the military, without any intention to compromise. Thus, that theory of "one should stop when one is ahead", was based on an assumption of untrue reality. It was just impossible.
The key problem then was that Deng Xiaoping's faction was not only the minority, but also unwilling to make a retreat. They were unwilling to resign and to be replaced by the better. The characteristic nature of their autocratic dictatorship determined the only choice that they would make, which was to have a bloody suppression. To say that Deng Xiaoping's massacre "was forced by the situation", is to speak in favor of the dictator while standing in his position. In both Western democracy and the principles of China's own Constitution, the minority should have stepped down. When we look at the different result in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, we know that civilians' "blood flowing like river" should not be the only choice available.
For more than 20 years now, people have been asking one question: why did the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe achieve a peaceful resolution, yet we the Chinese failed? Many countries got the same result, so we cannot claim it as accidental. In particular, the highest authorities of several countries also gave the order of suppression, yet their military refused to carry out that order. The military of Romania even struck the other way and executed its dictator. Why was the Chinese army so lacking of conscience, and used machine guns and tanks to massacre its own people?
Regarding this question, I have asked some military personnel and policemen. My words were not pleasant and I said that their hands were full of the blood of civilians. All of them felt ashamed yet claimed to be wrongfully accused. They said that the situation was not the way given to the public. At that time, as soon as they finished their work, many police would change to civilian clothes and join in the democratic demonstration. I do remember the police who guarded me in jail were just as excited and emotional as I was while watching television those days. In their hearts, they were not much different from the civilians. After all, besides what they had to wear, they were average people.
The situation with the Chinese military was similar. Besides a few soldiers who were extremely lacking in conscience and education, most of the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who went to Beijing had their guns aimed to the sky. At that time, the streets were full of angry resistors. If all the soldiers aimed at these civilians, then the death toll would not be only a few thousand. When they were pushed into the corner, many military personnel thought of rebelling along with the civilians. Xu Qinxian, the military commander of the 38th troops who refused to carry out the massacre order and thus was arrested immediately, was their representative.
So, why was not there a true rebellion at that time? What a high rank military officer said deserve some deep pondering. He said that when you students rebel, you only receive a few years sentence; but for us, rebellion means punishment by execution. When your people were still supporting the Communist leadership and promoting "peace, rationality, and non-violence", we did not know what you really wanted. There was no other order given, so how could I use the lives of tens of thousands of my subordinates for something that was not serious? Our parents generation had sacrificed themselves for people to have better lives, how could we afford the conscience of killing the people? We were pushed to the corner to carry out that order.
The explicit words of this military official provide food for thought. The reason that the military in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe dared to go against orders and even struck the other way, is because the goal of their democratic movement was clear: to overthrow the one party dictatorship of the Communist Party. That was the expression of the will of all the people, instead of being sidelined by one particular faction in the internal fight of the Communist Party. When the majority of the military and people believe that democracy is associated with their best interests, the soldiers and their officers would make correct judgment.
These comments raise an issue that has lacked attention from many about the propagation of the thoughts of freedom and democracy in China during the 1980's. Was democracy too abstract and disassociated from people's own interests? The extreme advocacy of "peace, rationality, and non-violence", and the hope that the Communist Party would reform itself were the two major characteristics of the 1989 democratic movement in China. Exactly the guidance of this kind of wrongful thought brought that movement into a sure failure.
Nowadays, people have already formed their new evaluation for the events of that time. Although in 1989, many people agreed with the students sending the 3 youths who stained Mao Zedong's portrait to the police station and Liu Xiaobo smashing the machine guns that the civilians on the streets had; however, now they have changed their mind and think these actions were wrong. Nevertheless, the majority of people have yet to realize that these wrongful actions exactly resulted from the wrongful thoughts. There are leaders who always push the resonponsability to others, even using skillful words to cover up their own wrongs and defending their wrongful actions.
The Chinese Communist Party has learned a lesson as well. In the past 20 years, the regime has been actively promoting "peace, rationality, and non-violence" and actively pushing people to hold on to their hopes for reform within the Communist Party. The regime tolerated and protected a group of hack-writers who contributed to maintaining the rule of the Communist regime. Knowingly or unknowingly, for their own interests or just because of cowardice, this group of people has become the accomplice of the Communist Party.
Now, China has entered another era of troubled times. The Chinese people's tolerance has reached a new limit. The internal fights within the Chinese Communist Party have also turned white hot. Regardless of the viewpoint and ideology one may have, the people who care about the well-being and future of our nation must not ignore the lessons from the failed democratic movement in China 22 years ago. The history of 1989 should not be repeated again.
To hear Mr. Wei Jingsheng's commentary, please visit:
http://www.weijingsheng.org/RFA/RFA2011/WeiJSon64anniversary110527lessons.mp3
(Written and recorded on May 27, 2011. Broadcasted by Radio Free Asia.)
可是中年以上的人，大多记忆犹新。那是我们民族的一段耻辱，也是一段悲壮的经历。成千上万的英雄儿女，为了民族的前途，为了民主自由而面无惧色地站在了坦克机枪面前。血流成河。杀身成仁。虽死犹荣。
二十二年过去了。人们一直在追问：到底发生了什么？ 为什么牺牲了那么多优秀儿女却没有改变什么？二十二年来，事情的真相正在一点点地揭露出来。在轰轰烈烈的场景背后发生的故事越来越清晰。各派评论的观点也几经筛选淘汰，越来越集中。
各种观点中最著名的几种之一，就是见好就收论。 那意思是官方做了一些让步，给了一些面子，就应该见好就收。潜台词是屠杀了那么多百姓的责任，应该由见好不收的学生和市民承担。中共也马上抓住这个说法，把责任推给学生背后长胡子的那帮人。而且把他们在1989年六四开枪的理由，也顺理成章地说成是被逼无奈。
这个说法是不是很有道理呢？从现在逐渐暴露出来的历史看， 根本没有这个可能。一九八九年民主运动发生的原因之一，就是中共内斗发展到了不可调和的地步。赵紫阳一派的干部们接受了胡耀邦当年引退的教训，而且这一派当时在党内占多数，再加上社会舆论的支持，就是赵紫阳想让步也得不到其他人的支持。
赵紫阳也确实让步了，而且让到了底。 结果只是给了邓小平调集和动员军队的时间，却并没有换来邓小平的让步。所以这个见好就收的假设，完全脱离实际，根本就不能成立。
关键是邓小平一派既是少数，也不愿意退让。他们不愿意下台换班。 他们的独裁专制的本性决定了他们只有一个选择，那就是血腥镇压。说是被逼无奈，那正是站在独裁者的立场说话。无论按照西方民主还是中国宪法的原则，既然是少数就应该下台。看看苏联和东欧，就完全是另一种结果，而不是只有血流成河的一种选择。
二十多年来，人们一直在问一个问题：为什么苏联、 东欧会是另一种结果，而我们中国反倒失败了呢？好几个国家都是一种结果，不能说是偶然的。而且其中有几个国家的最高当局也曾经下令镇压，但是军队拒绝执行命令。甚至有罗马尼亚的军队反戈一击，处死了独裁者齐奥塞斯库。为什么中国的军队就完全没有良心，用机枪和坦克屠杀自己的人民呢？
我曾经就此问题请教过一些军官和警察，而且话说得很难听， 说他们双手沾满了人民的鲜血。他们无一例外都感到既惭愧又冤枉，都说情况不是外界传说的那样。当时，很多警察下班后换上便衣就参加了游行的队伍。我记得看守我的警察们守在电视机前面和我一样的激动，一样的跺脚叹息。他们的内心和老百姓没有什么区别，除了那身皮，他们就是老百姓。
中国军队的情况也差不多。 除了极少数极端没文化又没良心的士兵以外，几十万进城军人的枪口都是朝天的。当时满街道都是愤怒的抵抗者。如果都向人射击，不会只死了几千人。不少军人被逼无奈时都想到了造反。被当场逮捕的三十八军徐勤先军长 ，就是他们的代表。
为什么没有真正的造反呢？有一位高级军官的说法值得深思。 他说你们的学生造反只判几年徒刑，军人造反是要砍头的。你们的人还在那儿拥护党中央，和平、理性非暴力，我们不知道你们要干什么。又没有另一个命令，我怎么敢拿几万弟兄的脑袋开玩笑呢。我们的爹妈都是为了老百姓能过好日子才抛头颅洒热血的。孙子才忍心屠杀老百姓呢。我们才是被逼无奈不得不执行命令，就是打折扣，效果也十分有限。
这位军人的直言很耐人寻味。 苏联和东欧的军队敢于抗命甚至反戈一击，是因为他们的民主运动目标明确，就是要推翻共产党的一党专政。那是全民愿望的表达，而不是共产党内斗的帮手。当军人和老百姓的大多数都相信，民主关系到他们的切身利害时，军人们会做出正确的判断。
这就产生了一个大家很少关注的问题： 八十年代的自由民主思想传播，是不是太抽象化，太脱离人民的切身利害？极端的“和平理性非暴力”，和把希望寄托在共产党自身的改革上，是中国八九年民主运动的两大特色。正是这种错误思想的引导，使得那场运动必然走向失败。
现在人们对学生扭送污染毛泽东像的青年， 和刘晓波砸坏市民手中的冲锋枪，已经有了新的评价。可是，多年来大多数人并没有意识到这是错误思想引导的结果。领袖们总是把责任推给别人，甚至还文过饰非，为错误行为辩解。
但是共产党却总结了经验教训。二十年来，中共大力推行“ 和平理性非暴力”，大力推行把希望寄托在党内改革上。他们容忍和保护的一批披着民主外衣的御用文人，为共产党的维稳事业立下了汗马功劳。这批人自觉或者不自觉地，为了利益或者为了胆怯，而成为共产党的帮凶。
如今，又进入到了一个多事之秋。人民的忍耐再一次达到了极限。 中共党内的斗争也再一次达到了白热化。关心国家民族命运的人们，无论持有什么样的观点和理想，都不能忽视二十二年前民主运动失败的教训。二十二年前的历史，不应该再重演了。
聆听魏京生先生的相关录音，请访问：
http://www.weijingsheng.org/RFA/RFA2011/WeiJSon64anniversary110527lessons.mp3
（撰写并录音于2011年5月27日。自由亚洲电台播出。）
二十二年过去了。人们一直在追问：到底发生了什么？ 为什么牺牲了那么多优秀儿女却没有改变什么？二十二年来，事情的真相正在一点点地揭露出来。在轰轰烈烈的场景背后发生的故事越来越清晰。各派评论的观点也几经筛选淘汰，越来越集中。
各种观点中最著名的几种之一，就是见好就收论。 那意思是官方做了一些让步，给了一些面子，就应该见好就收。潜台词是屠杀了那么多百姓的责任，应该由见好不收的学生和市民承担。中共也马上抓住这个说法，把责任推给学生背后长胡子的那帮人。而且把他们在1989年六四开枪的理由，也顺理成章地说成是被逼无奈。
这个说法是不是很有道理呢？从现在逐渐暴露出来的历史看， 根本没有这个可能。一九八九年民主运动发生的原因之一，就是中共内斗发展到了不可调和的地步。赵紫阳一派的干部们接受了胡耀邦当年引退的教训，而且这一派当时在党内占多数，再加上社会舆论的支持，就是赵紫阳想让步也得不到其他人的支持。
赵紫阳也确实让步了，而且让到了底。 结果只是给了邓小平调集和动员军队的时间，却并没有换来邓小平的让步。所以这个见好就收的假设，完全脱离实际，根本就不能成立。
关键是邓小平一派既是少数，也不愿意退让。他们不愿意下台换班。 他们的独裁专制的本性决定了他们只有一个选择，那就是血腥镇压。说是被逼无奈，那正是站在独裁者的立场说话。无论按照西方民主还是中国宪法的原则，既然是少数就应该下台。看看苏联和东欧，就完全是另一种结果，而不是只有血流成河的一种选择。
二十多年来，人们一直在问一个问题：为什么苏联、 东欧会是另一种结果，而我们中国反倒失败了呢？好几个国家都是一种结果，不能说是偶然的。而且其中有几个国家的最高当局也曾经下令镇压，但是军队拒绝执行命令。甚至有罗马尼亚的军队反戈一击，处死了独裁者齐奥塞斯库。为什么中国的军队就完全没有良心，用机枪和坦克屠杀自己的人民呢？
我曾经就此问题请教过一些军官和警察，而且话说得很难听， 说他们双手沾满了人民的鲜血。他们无一例外都感到既惭愧又冤枉，都说情况不是外界传说的那样。当时，很多警察下班后换上便衣就参加了游行的队伍。我记得看守我的警察们守在电视机前面和我一样的激动，一样的跺脚叹息。他们的内心和老百姓没有什么区别，除了那身皮，他们就是老百姓。
中国军队的情况也差不多。 除了极少数极端没文化又没良心的士兵以外，几十万进城军人的枪口都是朝天的。当时满街道都是愤怒的抵抗者。如果都向人射击，不会只死了几千人。不少军人被逼无奈时都想到了造反。被当场逮捕的三十八军徐勤先军长 ，就是他们的代表。
为什么没有真正的造反呢？有一位高级军官的说法值得深思。 他说你们的学生造反只判几年徒刑，军人造反是要砍头的。你们的人还在那儿拥护党中央，和平、理性非暴力，我们不知道你们要干什么。又没有另一个命令，我怎么敢拿几万弟兄的脑袋开玩笑呢。我们的爹妈都是为了老百姓能过好日子才抛头颅洒热血的。孙子才忍心屠杀老百姓呢。我们才是被逼无奈不得不执行命令，就是打折扣，效果也十分有限。
这位军人的直言很耐人寻味。 苏联和东欧的军队敢于抗命甚至反戈一击，是因为他们的民主运动目标明确，就是要推翻共产党的一党专政。那是全民愿望的表达，而不是共产党内斗的帮手。当军人和老百姓的大多数都相信，民主关系到他们的切身利害时，军人们会做出正确的判断。
这就产生了一个大家很少关注的问题： 八十年代的自由民主思想传播，是不是太抽象化，太脱离人民的切身利害？极端的“和平理性非暴力”，和把希望寄托在共产党自身的改革上，是中国八九年民主运动的两大特色。正是这种错误思想的引导，使得那场运动必然走向失败。
现在人们对学生扭送污染毛泽东像的青年， 和刘晓波砸坏市民手中的冲锋枪，已经有了新的评价。可是，多年来大多数人并没有意识到这是错误思想引导的结果。领袖们总是把责任推给别人，甚至还文过饰非，为错误行为辩解。
但是共产党却总结了经验教训。二十年来，中共大力推行“ 和平理性非暴力”，大力推行把希望寄托在党内改革上。他们容忍和保护的一批披着民主外衣的御用文人，为共产党的维稳事业立下了汗马功劳。这批人自觉或者不自觉地，为了利益或者为了胆怯，而成为共产党的帮凶。
如今，又进入到了一个多事之秋。人民的忍耐再一次达到了极限。 中共党内的斗争也再一次达到了白热化。关心国家民族命运的人们，无论持有什么样的观点和理想，都不能忽视二十二年前民主运动失败的教训。二十二年前的历史，不应该再重演了。
聆听魏京生先生的相关录音，请访问：
http://www.weijingsheng.org/RFA/RFA2011/WeiJSon64anniversary110527lessons.mp3
（撰写并录音于2011年5月27日。自由亚洲电台播出。）
Why Did the 1989 Democracy Movement Fail in China? (Commemorating the 22nd Anniversary of the June 4 Massacre)
-- Wei Jingsheng
Among today's youth in China, many already do not know what the "June 4 massacre" was. However, for the middle aged, most memories of this tragedy are just as new as if they were yesterday. That was a time of shame for our nation, as well as an experience of stirring solemnity. For a better Chinese future, for democracy, thousands of heroic Chinese stood in front of the tanks and machine guns without fear. Blood flew like a river. Many died for a noble cause.
Twenty-two years have passed. People have been asking: what really happened? Why were so many heroic Chinese sacrificed yet not much has changed? In the past 22 years, some truths about 1989 have gradually been exposed. What happened behind the scenes has become clearer. After sifting and selection by elimination, varies opinions have also become more and more concentrated.
One of the most well known opinions is the theory that "one should stop when one is ahead". In this theory, since the Chinese Communist authority had yielded some and also had made some reasonable offers, the ones ahead should have stopped there in 1989. The unspoken words in this argument are that the students and civilians who would not stop when they were "ahead" should carry the responsibility of the massacre that killed so many civilians. The Chinese Communist regime immediately grabbed this theory, and pushed the responsibility of the massacre over to "the people with grown beards yet hiding behind the demonstrating students". The Communists took the opportunity to make their excuse of killing in June of 1989 as an action that was forced by the situation.
Is this theory of "one should stop when one is ahead" reasonable? From the gradually exposed history, we know there was not such a possibility at all. One of the reasons that the 1989 democracy movement happened in China was that the internal struggle within the Chinese Communist Party had reached a level which was not compromisable. The Communist officials of the Zhao Ziyang faction were sympathetic to reform, but had taken a lesson from his predecessor Hu Yaobang's resignation. That faction was the majority within the Communist Party and even had the support of public opinion in the Chinese society, so if Zhao Ziyang wanted to yield to the conservative minority, he would not receive other people's support to do so.
However, Zhao Ziyang yielded anyway. Not only that, he yielded all the way. The result is that Deng Xiaoping got the time to assemble and mobilize the military, without any intention to compromise. Thus, that theory of "one should stop when one is ahead", was based on an assumption of untrue reality. It was just impossible.
The key problem then was that Deng Xiaoping's faction was not only the minority, but also unwilling to make a retreat. They were unwilling to resign and to be replaced by the better. The characteristic nature of their autocratic dictatorship determined the only choice that they would make, which was to have a bloody suppression. To say that Deng Xiaoping's massacre "was forced by the situation", is to speak in favor of the dictator while standing in his position. In both Western democracy and the principles of China's own Constitution, the minority should have stepped down. When we look at the different result in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, we know that civilians' "blood flowing like river" should not be the only choice available.
For more than 20 years now, people have been asking one question: why did the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe achieve a peaceful resolution, yet we the Chinese failed? Many countries got the same result, so we cannot claim it as accidental. In particular, the highest authorities of several countries also gave the order of suppression, yet their military refused to carry out that order. The military of Romania even struck the other way and executed its dictator. Why was the Chinese army so lacking of conscience, and used machine guns and tanks to massacre its own people?
Regarding this question, I have asked some military personnel and policemen. My words were not pleasant and I said that their hands were full of the blood of civilians. All of them felt ashamed yet claimed to be wrongfully accused. They said that the situation was not the way given to the public. At that time, as soon as they finished their work, many police would change to civilian clothes and join in the democratic demonstration. I do remember the police who guarded me in jail were just as excited and emotional as I was while watching television those days. In their hearts, they were not much different from the civilians. After all, besides what they had to wear, they were average people.
The situation with the Chinese military was similar. Besides a few soldiers who were extremely lacking in conscience and education, most of the hundreds of thousands of soldiers who went to Beijing had their guns aimed to the sky. At that time, the streets were full of angry resistors. If all the soldiers aimed at these civilians, then the death toll would not be only a few thousand. When they were pushed into the corner, many military personnel thought of rebelling along with the civilians. Xu Qinxian, the military commander of the 38th troops who refused to carry out the massacre order and thus was arrested immediately, was their representative.
So, why was not there a true rebellion at that time? What a high rank military officer said deserve some deep pondering. He said that when you students rebel, you only receive a few years sentence; but for us, rebellion means punishment by execution. When your people were still supporting the Communist leadership and promoting "peace, rationality, and non-violence", we did not know what you really wanted. There was no other order given, so how could I use the lives of tens of thousands of my subordinates for something that was not serious? Our parents generation had sacrificed themselves for people to have better lives, how could we afford the conscience of killing the people? We were pushed to the corner to carry out that order.
The explicit words of this military official provide food for thought. The reason that the military in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe dared to go against orders and even struck the other way, is because the goal of their democratic movement was clear: to overthrow the one party dictatorship of the Communist Party. That was the expression of the will of all the people, instead of being sidelined by one particular faction in the internal fight of the Communist Party. When the majority of the military and people believe that democracy is associated with their best interests, the soldiers and their officers would make correct judgment.
These comments raise an issue that has lacked attention from many about the propagation of the thoughts of freedom and democracy in China during the 1980's. Was democracy too abstract and disassociated from people's own interests? The extreme advocacy of "peace, rationality, and non-violence", and the hope that the Communist Party would reform itself were the two major characteristics of the 1989 democratic movement in China. Exactly the guidance of this kind of wrongful thought brought that movement into a sure failure.
Nowadays, people have already formed their new evaluation for the events of that time. Although in 1989, many people agreed with the students sending the 3 youths who stained Mao Zedong's portrait to the police station and Liu Xiaobo smashing the machine guns that the civilians on the streets had; however, now they have changed their mind and think these actions were wrong. Nevertheless, the majority of people have yet to realize that these wrongful actions exactly resulted from the wrongful thoughts. There are leaders who always push the resonponsability to others, even using skillful words to cover up their own wrongs and defending their wrongful actions.
The Chinese Communist Party has learned a lesson as well. In the past 20 years, the regime has been actively promoting "peace, rationality, and non-violence" and actively pushing people to hold on to their hopes for reform within the Communist Party. The regime tolerated and protected a group of hack-writers who contributed to maintaining the rule of the Communist regime. Knowingly or unknowingly, for their own interests or just because of cowardice, this group of people has become the accomplice of the Communist Party.
Now, China has entered another era of troubled times. The Chinese people's tolerance has reached a new limit. The internal fights within the Chinese Communist Party have also turned white hot. Regardless of the viewpoint and ideology one may have, the people who care about the well-being and future of our nation must not ignore the lessons from the failed democratic movement in China 22 years ago. The history of 1989 should not be repeated again.
To hear Mr. Wei Jingsheng's commentary, please visit:
http://www.weijingsheng.org/RFA/RFA2011/WeiJSon64anniversary110527lessons.mp3
(Written and recorded on May 27, 2011. Broadcasted by Radio Free Asia.)
没有评论:
发表评论