During a period of national crisis within China Anarchism evolved into a strong force within radical intellectual discourse. It succeeded in making a lasting impact on Chinese thinking by forming a new consciousness of society and awareness of the self. A key aspect of Anarchism was its introduction of novel themes, as Chang Hao wrote that it encouraged people to “re-examine the institutional foundation of the Chinese socio-political order”.1 Socialism was another radical political movement at the beginning of the Twentieth Century in China that propagated a belief in building a revolution through the use of the elected office as an implement for social change. Therefore despite similarities in their desire for the transformation of society we can detect variation between these two radical movements.
By analysing chapter’s 2 (“Nationalism, Utopianism and Revolutionary Politics”) and 4 (“Anarchists against Socialists in Early Republican China”), I have identified differences in these movements approaches. A large part of these differences can be attributed to their attitude towards revolution and consequently how the transformation of society should be approached. This is the aspect the following article with chiefly concentrate on.
-
Interpretation of ‘revolution’
Whilst both movements wanted to alter society there was a discrepency between their visions for achieving social change through revolution. Therefore an underlying reason for their differences was their vision of how the revolution should occur and thus their concept of political space.
The Anarchists wanted to “transform society at its very base”, and did not believe in replacing one government with another.2 For instance, they “believed revolution could not be imposed… through inherently authoritarian institutions”.3 This reveals that for the Anarchists the revolution meant a total abolishment of all existing institutions, not the use of them as a method for gaining control. This explains the friction and conflicting interests between the Anarchists and Socialists as this use of the elected office as a tool deviated from the spontaneous revolution that the Anarchists envisaged. As shown by their awareness of “the rift between political structures and society”.4 This difference is highlighted by how the Communist Party of China (CPC) regarded social revolution as the “basis of a new world of politics but not a substitute for it”, making clear the two movements varied outlooks.5
2. Organisation
On another note, the newly formed CPC began to take influence from the Anarchist movement after its formation in 1921, predominantly due to its superior organisation and the use of institutions to aid cross-regional synchronisation.6 The early Socialists had also succeeded in creating a distinct policy and identity, resulting in less inconsistency within the Socialist movement and therefore increased support. In comparison the Anarchists had the disadvantage of the diffusion of their concepts and ideas to the point where is was difficult to “define the contours of anarchism as a movement”.7 This lack of a clear-cut identity meant that it was unable to distinguish itself against other schools of thought, leading to its loss of support to the CPC who showed organisational skills that the Anarchists lacked.
- Arif, Dirlik, Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution, (London, 1991), p.53 [↩]
- Ibid., p.118 [↩]
- Ibid., p.86 [↩]
- Viren, Murthy, “Reviewed Work: Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution”, Philosophy East and West 46 (Hawai, 1996), p.123 [↩]
- Arif, Dirlik, Anarchism in the Chinese Revolution, (London, 1991), p.147 [↩]
- Ibid., p.147 [↩]
- Ibid., p.12 [↩]