Xiao Xiang: The Political Dilemma of Tao Zhu during the Cultural Revolution and His Resignation

Xiao Xiang: The Political Dilemma of Tao Zhu during the Cultural Revolution and His Resignation

Within the CCP, Tao Zhu is known for his upright character, upright conduct, not afraid of offending people, and being brave and good at fighting. In Yan’an, Mao Zedong commented on the characters, saying that “Tao Zhu has two horns on his forehead, and he always bumps into people everywhere”, and also said, “This person is very savage when he does things, and he is also good at firing guns, and he is covered in thorns.” (Zheng Xiaofeng and Shuling “Tao Zhu” Biography”) with ridicule, not without appreciation. At the beginning of the establishment of the government in 1950, Guangxi’s work in suppressing bandits was ineffective. Mao Zedong pointed out that it was “broad and boundless” and made a right-leaning mistake. Tao Zhu did not disgrace his mission, he was drastic, combining leniency and strictness, fighting bandits and anti-hegemony at the same time.

After returning from the bandits, Tao Zhu once again took orders from Mao Zedong and went south to Guangdong to lead the land reform movement in Guangdong Province as soon as he returned to Wuhan. Guangdong originally had Ye Jianying and Fang Fang to preside over the work. According to the characteristics of Guangdong’s location on the southeast coast, adjacent to Hong Kong and Macao, many overseas Chinese, and relatively developed industry and commerce, Ye and Fang formulated relatively stable land reform policies and measures that were in line with the local reality and were accepted by the higher-level leading authorities. criticism and accusations by some. Mao Zedong therefore criticized Guangdong’s land reform as “losing its direction” and “made a right-wing mistake from the very beginning”, and believed that Guangdong “engaged in localism”. According to Mao Zedong’s criticism of Guangdong, Tao Zhu adjusted his thinking and made the soil the overriding work center. On the one hand, he tried to correct the “rightist” mistakes of Ye and Fang, and on the other hand, he actively adopted a series of organizational measures. Let go of mobilizing the masses, and vigorously launched the land reform movement in the province (Zheng Xiaofeng and Shuling’s “Tao Zhu Biography”), so that the pace of land reform in Guangdong quickly caught up with the national rhythm.

It is true that in the era when the country was governed by the left, correcting a so-called “wrong tendency” had to be left-leaning, which would inevitably lead to “overcorrection”. Tao Zhu’s actions in Guangdong and Guangxi, especially in Guangdong, inevitably included “the method was simple, the scope of punishment was too broad, and some cadres were hurt”, and he attacked some enlightened gentry who “supported the revolution” during the war years. (Zheng Xiaofeng and Shuling’s Biography of Tao Zhu, China Youth Publishing House, November 1992, p. 228) Even Ye Jianying later said emotionally: “Tao Zhu kicked Zhang Yunyi away in Guangxi; I kicked away Ye Jianying.” (Yang Li, “Gu Dacun’s Wrongful Record”)

At the beginning of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, Tao Zhu was ordered twice in an emergency, serving as an “imperial minister”. He performed his duties in both Guangxi and Guangxi. Lay a solid foundation for governing Guangdong and then governing Central South. Since then, Tao Zhu has been based in southern Guangdong, earnestly implementing the central guidelines and policies, and became one of the most trusted and relied local officials before the Cultural Revolution.

At the end of 1964, at the Central Four Qing Work Conference, Mao and Liu clashed again because of the focus of the Four Qing’s work. After the meeting, Jiang Qing invited Tao Zhu and Zeng Zhi and his wife to watch the Peking Opera “Red Lantern”. Mao Zedong was very concerned about the meeting and said angrily to Tao Zhu: “Someone just pooped on my head! Well, we can still talk a little bit!” Afterwards, Tao Zhu and his wife were invited to attend Mao Zedong’s birthday banquet and sat around with Mao, while Liu Shaoqi and other district secretaries lined up at the other two tables. (Zeng Zhi, “A Survivor of the Revolution – Memoirs of Zeng Zhi”) This is only one case, which shows that Tao is trusted and extraordinary.

In 1966, when Mao Zedong launched the Cultural Revolution to overthrow Liu in order to reorganize the central power, Tao Zhu stood out and entered the central government from the local area. When Tao Zhu was transferred to the central government, in addition to his ability and level, there was another factor that could not be ignored, that is, there was a gap between Tao Zhu and Liu Shaoqi in history. Tao and Liu first met in Yan’an. During the rectification period, Liu Shaoqi was in charge of the cadre trial affairs, and Tao Zhu served as the secretary general of the Military Commission, and once became a “target”. Ke Qingshi was rectified, and Tao Zhu spoke up in a righteous manner, believing that “Liu Shaoqi is more biased and his comments are not fair”, and he “respected Liu at a distance”. In the Gaogang incident, Tao Zhu “fired a shot at Liu Shaoqi,” (Zeng Zhi, “A Survivor of the Revolution”) forged a grudge.

At the Eleventh Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee, the Politburo Standing Committee was reorganized. “Tao Zhu was originally ranked at the back, but the chairman personally used a red pen to hook Tao Zhu behind the Prime Minister and in front of Chen Boda”, becoming the fourth person. (Zeng Zhi, “A Survivor of the Revolution”) In the new power structure, Tao Zhu was placed in a prominent position. In addition to checks and balances, it is self-evident that his “cannon barrel” role was taken into consideration.

On the eve of the plenary meeting, Jiang Qing found Tao Zhu and told Tao Zhu that Mao Zedong would preside over the democratic life meeting criticizing Liu and Deng, and hoped that he would take the lead in speaking and show some performance. In Jiang Qing’s view, since Tao Zhi was trusted and reused by Mao, coupled with the old grudges between Tao and Liu, it is reasonable for Tao Zhu to push the boat along the way.

After Tao Zhu was knocked down and imprisoned at home, he recalled to Zeng Zhi: “Jiang Qing asked me to take the lead at the meeting, and asked me to fire cannons at Liu and Deng. I didn’t do what she wanted. I told her that I had just come to the central government, and I had no idea about the situation. I don’t understand at all.” “I didn’t take the lead as they intended, and I didn’t even speak from the beginning, Jiang Qing and the others were definitely not happy.” (Zeng Zhi, “A Survivor of the Revolution”)

During the Cultural Revolution, Jiang Qing, especially in the early days of the Cultural Revolution, represented Mao Zedong in his words and deeds. Therefore, Jiang Qing’s visit was to convey Mao Zedong’s will. Tao Zhu unexpectedly declined. “They didn’t take the lead according to their intentions”, “They are definitely not happy”, this “they” should mainly refer to Mao Zedong.

The first shot of the expected “barrel” was “misfired”, and Mao Zedong was naturally displeased. But despite this, the excuses and excuses he just came to the Central Committee did not understand the situation, and it was reasonable. Mao could accept it, and he was basically satisfied with his work for 6-7 months, so it did not affect the subsequent nomination of the Standing Committee. However, after writing “Bombarding the Headquarters” and publicly breaking with Liu, Tao Zhu’s attitude was still ambiguous and his stance was not firm. On issues such as whether to lead the Party committee, carry out the Cultural Revolution in industrial, mining and rural areas, grasp the revolution and promote production, etc., they have been unable to keep up with the development of Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution Thought, and even insisted on going their own way. What Mao Zedong felt was probably far from what the “great disappointment” could convey.

Why is Tao Zhu like this? Why criticize Liu Deng for his ambiguous attitude, poor performance, and delay in keeping up with the development of Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution thought?

Please see Tao Zhu’s own statement:

“After the Fourth Plenary Session of the Seventh Central Committee to resolve the Gao Rao incident, Liu Shaoqi talked to me once. I admitted that I made mistakes on the Gaogang issue, and I also talked about my opinions on Liu. After listening to Liu Shaoqi, not only did he not criticize I, on the contrary, explained patiently to me and admitted that he may be a little biased.”

“After this conversation, my perception of Liu Shaoqi has changed. After Liu Shaoqi went to Guangzhou and I came to Beijing for a meeting, I had more contacts, and my goodwill towards Liu Shaoqi gradually increased. I think Liu Shaoqi has opinions. It can be mentioned that even though I fired a cannon at the Financial and Economic Conference, he ignored his previous complaints and still talked to me, treated me well, and attached great importance to and supported the work of Zhongnan. Especially after the three-year difficult period in 1959, On the leading principles and policies of socialist construction, I agree with Liu Shaoqi’s views.”

As for “the relationship with Deng Xiaoping, it would be even better.” “If the party allows me to be a teacher, I am not qualified to be a student of the chairman, but I would like to be a teacher of Deng Xiaoping.” (Zeng Zhi, “A Survivor of the Revolution”)

All Tao Zhu’s behavior in the central government’s work—implementing Liu Deng’s line, criticizing Liu Deng’s ineffectiveness, being out of rhythm with Mao Zedong’s Cultural Revolution Thought, etc., are all in this self-report, especially “After the three-year difficult period in 1959, On the leading principles and policies of socialist construction, I agree with Liu Shaoqi’s views.” This sentence has been explained.

It turned out that Tao Zhu not only had his personal grievances with Liu Shaoqi cleared up, but also agreed with Liu’s views on the principles and policies of socialist construction. But unfortunately, Liu’s point of view that Tao Zhu agreed with was exactly the opposite of Mao Zedong’s thought, which was the fundamental reason for the conflict between Mao Zedong and Liu Shaoqi, and also the original reason why Mao Zedong wanted to launch the Cultural Revolution to overthrow Liu Shaoqi.

With this understanding, when we replay the historical footage in 1966, we can see that Tao Zhu’s work in the central government, especially after August, was actually in a political predicament and encountered unprecedented challenges.

Deep down in his heart, Tao Zhu did not support “Bombarding the Headquarters”, because the “right deviation in 1962” in the text was exactly correct in Tao Zhu’s opinion, and of course he did not agree with the overthrow of Liu Deng. Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping have made mistakes, including his own mistakes. Of course, they can criticize and fight, they can be demoted and transferred, but that kind of denunciation involving personal attacks and insults cannot be done, let alone a complete overthrow, because after all They are all old revolutionaries who have fought for the party all their lives, and they are the leaders of the party and the state. Moreover, these are differences and contradictions within the party. They should be allowed to exist, and they are bound to exist. The intensification of the internal contradictions of the party into the contradiction between the enemy and ourselves has made it into a conflict between water and fire. Not only that, but it is difficult for Tao Zhu to recognize and accept this kind of movement and struggle to mobilize the broad masses of the country to participate in the chaos of the world.

But he could not publicly express his disapproval. Mao Zedong is the chairman of the party and a leader he heartily supports and admires. The movement was initiated and led by the chairman himself, and the overthrow of Liu Shaoqi was the will and request of the chairman, which must be followed and implemented.

On one side is the chairman of the party who has met him, and on the other is Liu Deng (Zeng Zhi, “A Survivor of the Revolution”). We don’t know what kind of ideological struggles and conflicts Tao Zhu has experienced in the face of choosing sides. But from an observation made by Zeng Zhi after he went from Guangzhou to Beijing in September 1966, it is not difficult to get a glimpse: “Tao Zhu’s eyes suddenly lost the luster of the past. Whenever he sat down to rest, he always unconsciously used his fingers. Drawing and drawing on the sofa; or walking around indoors with his hands behind his back and his head bowed, with gloomy eyes and a pale complexion.” (Zeng Zhi, “A Survivor of the Revolution”)

Tao Zhu must carry out Mao Zedong’s will and criticize Liu Deng’s line in accordance with the deployment requirements of the Cultural Revolution, but his upright and upright character prevents him from going against his conscience too much, slandering his comrades, and doing what he thinks is not conducive to the interests of the party and the people. Decades of political experience are also telling him that the movement cannot be separated from the leadership of the party, and it needs to rely on the party organization to ensure the normal operation of party and government organs at all levels, maintain normal production order and social stability.

So we can see that at the meeting to criticize Liu Deng, Tao Zhu did not say a word and kept silent; in the press and publicity, as always, Liu Deng was treated as a leader of the party and the state. All of them should be reported to the newspaper, even though Liu Deng’s political fortunes were shaky and at stake at this time; he saw that the secretariat was enriched and the work leadership of the secretariat was strengthened; When affected by the impact, he published an editorial on grasping the revolution and promoting production, emphasizing the importance of stabilizing production; in the Anting incident, he insisted on the central government’s decision not to establish cross-industry mass organizations, and disagreed with the legality of the establishment of the Shanghai General Administration of Industry.

In this way, Tao Zhu changed from the Mao faction who originally called himself “only on the left but not the right” (Li Rui’s “Lushan Record”) to a “royalist” who was accused of “forming the left and the right”. Tao Zhu is like this, it is true that he made a self-consistent and correct active choice after experiencing repeated entanglements and painful struggles (Zeng Zhi, “A Survivor of the Revolution”). This kind of choice seems to be a “right” or “wrong” choice made in accordance with the principles of party spirit and conscience. Looking more deeply, it is not the choice of “Tao” and “Situation” that has a profound influence on people’s traditional Chinese political culture.

As we all know, in traditional Chinese politics, “Dao” is a symbol of the ideal social and political order and value system, and “Shi” represents the power and authority of the monarch. There is often a tension between the two in the process of state governance and social governance. . Confucianism advocates and advertises “Tao respects the situation” and “Follows the Tao but not the ruler”, and mediates the contradictions and conflicts between the two.

In modern times, we regard the supreme power as “potential” and the correct policy propositions and measures that conform to the interests of the broad masses of the people as “dao”, then within the CCP, Mao Zedong undoubtedly represented both “potential” and a symbol of the revolutionary war years. “Tao” means “Tao and potential are one”, a combination of the two. However, in the 1960s, after the failure of the Great Leap Forward, this situation changed. “Tao” and “Situation” were separated. The chairman was still the symbol of “Situation”, but “Tao” began to gradually leave it and no longer has the past. The sanctity of “the unity of Tao and potential”.

Whether Tao Zhu had this understanding at the time, we are not sure, but from what he said, “After the three-year difficult period, I agree with Liu Shaoqi’s views on the leadership, principles and policies of socialist construction.” It is certain that he thinks Liu Shaoqi Its policy propositions conform to reality, represent the interests of the broad masses of the people, and are correct. Since it is correct, it lacks legitimacy and justice to overthrow it. If so, using the discourse of the “two lines” at that time, the so-called “Liu-Deng Line” undoubtedly had the meaning of “Tao”. This also means that Tao Zhu is in the center and is caught in the predicament of the conflict between “Tao” and “Situation”. He suffers from the torture and entanglement of “following the Tao” or “choosing the situation”, and faces the dilemma of where to go.

Like the famous ministers who were upright and upright in all dynasties, Tao Zhu followed his conscience and chose “following the Tao” between “following the Tao” and “choosing the situation”. (Tao Zhu has a statement: I can’t follow any longer. If I continue to follow, I will become a sinner in history. See “Dialogue with Du Daozheng”, “Southern People Weekly”, quoted from Love Thought Network http://www.aisixiang .com/data/46647.html) was thus brought down.

The first clear signal of Tao Zhu’s downfall came on November 28, 1966. On the same day at the Capital Literature and Art Circle Conference, Jiang Qing delivered a speech and said: “Chairman Mao and his close comrades-in-arms Lin Biao, Zhou Enlai, Chen Boda, Kang Sheng…” Chairman Mao’s close comrades-in-arms did not have Tao Zhu, was it a negligence or an omission? Not also. Jiang Qing’s speech, which was reviewed and revised by Mao Zedong (Volume 12 of “Mao Zedong’s Manuscripts Since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China”), was intentional, sending a signal to the outside world that Tao Zhu was not one of Chairman Mao’s revolutionary line. Sure enough, some keen people understood, and soon all kinds of news unfavorable to Tao Zhu appeared in the streets of Beijing.

Before that, there were already signs of a dark cloud of political crisis over Tao Zhu’s head. According to Wang Li, who was in the limelight at the time and took over as director of the Central Propaganda Department after Tao Zhu’s collapse, Mao Zedong expressed his dissatisfaction with Tao Zhu in September, believing that Tao Zhu was not so satisfying; The class reactionary line”, the main target is Tao Zhu (“Wang Li Reflections”). And Tao Zhu’s upright personality can’t bear Jiang Qing’s bossy bosses. He clashed with Jiang Qing many times over work issues, and even slapped the table angrily (“Wang Li’s Reflection Records”). Resentment against Jiang Qing became the catalyst for being overthrown and stepping down.

By the end of the year, Tao Zhu’s downfall entered the countdown. On December 27 and 28, Zhou Enlai presided over the Politburo’s Criticism of Pottery Life Meeting, and Chen Boda was promoted as the main speaker (“Wang Li’s Reflections”). Chen Boda and Tao Zhu used to have a “very good” personal relationship. Chen Boda was not sociable, and said: “If I have any friends in the party, then Comrade Tao Zhu is one of my main friends.” However, at the meeting, he unceremoniously acted as the main force in criticizing Tao, and systematically pointed out the mistakes of Tao’s ideological line since he came to work in the Central Committee. Before the Eleventh Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee, Liu Deng’s line was implemented. After that, he not only continued to implement it, but also continued to promote Liu Deng. The line, such as the Central South Bureau led by Tao Zhu, was deployed layer by layer with the spirit of “anti-Rightist” and “catching niggas”, and a large number of incidents of arresting and detaining revolutionary masses occurred. (“Wang Li’s Reflections”)

History shows its paradox and complexity here, and needs a little brush and ink to sort out and identify. In the early days of the Cultural Revolution, Mao Zedong was stationed in Hangzhou and authorized Liu Shaoqi to lead the movement. Because the movement was unprecedented and started in the field of culture and education, Liu Dengsui dispatched a working group in accordance with the traditional practice of Party leaders’ work that had been formed over decades, and in accordance with the anti-rightist model of the year, many authoritative figures in the field of culture and education were the targets of the struggle. The gangsters treat a large number of college teachers and students activists as rightists to fight. It angered a large number of revolutionary masses who had mobilized, including the Red Guards, who had grievances against the bureaucracy. “Bombarding the Headquarters” refers to “encircling and suppressing the revolutionaries, suppressing dissent, and implementing white terror”, which is exactly what it means.

Tao Zhu, as the executive secretary of the Secretariat, carried out the instructions of Liu Deng, who presided over the daily work of the Central Committee, which was an organizational principle and an execution error. After the Eleventh Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee, Tao Zhu, Xiao Gui, and Cao followed him, and he did not change his faults. It was not only the reason for ideological understanding, but also related to personality factors. Adhering to the party’s leadership over the masses and emphasizing that the movement cannot be carried out independently of the party organization is Tao Zhu’s basic view on the movement, and it is also the work experience he has gained from his long-term political leadership and political leadership. Tao Zhu’s stubbornness and stubbornness makes him inclined to stick to his own opinions, to be self-righteous, to follow through to the end, and to change easily.

Tao Zhu believes that giving full play to the leadership role of party organizations at all levels and relying on the backbone of the masses who are striving for progress in peacetime and moving closer to the organization is a consistent practice and model of the party leadership movement, and it needs to be maintained and continued. Therefore, although Liu Dengye has been criticized and stepped aside, Tao Zhu does not think that his approach is wrong. As for the specific implementation process, it is another matter. Therefore, the masses who were instigated by “rebellion is justified” to criticize the bureaucracy and rebel against the Party committee were naturally regarded as unscrupulous people. The leadership of the opposition party is the anti-party, and of course it is necessary to crack down on repression, which was not the case in the anti-rightist era back then.

From the party’s point of view, Tao Zhu’s approach is correct, but from the perspective of the people, and from the perspective of “citizens have the right to freedom of speech, publication, assembly, association, procession, and demonstration” enshrined in the constitution at that time, this approach is worth discussing. Because in a certain period of time in the early days of the Cultural Revolution, because the chairman of the party granted the people a certain freedom for a specific political need (for a short period of time, it will be withdrawn soon), the constitutional rights of citizens were activated, and they have the current legitimacy. Therefore, the right-wing remarks that were labeled as anti-Party in those days are now making a comeback all over the street, and they have become the words and deeds of the revolutionary left. Therefore, there is a conflict between adhering to the interests of the party and safeguarding the interests of the masses. Adhering to the interests of the party means suppressing the interests of the masses, and safeguarding the interests of the masses will inevitably weaken the interests of the party. This is the so-called “this is right and wrong, and that is right and wrong”. Times are changing, but Tao Zhu hasn’t. He didn’t realize this. He kept pace with the times, and even gave him a handle, which became a pretext for being criticized.

Needless to say, Tao Zhu made a mistake on this issue. But despite this, Tao Zhu is mostly right on other major principles and issues of right and wrong, without concealing great virtue. Tao respects the situation, never follows the Tao, and Tao Zhu stands on the right side of history.

Chen Boda’s long speech at the life meeting, systematic criticism of pottery, made Tao Zhu quite surprised (“Wang Li’s Reflections”). Tao Zhu and Chen Boda had greeted him privately before, but Tao Zhu either didn’t pay enough attention, or didn’t take it seriously? But once it is put forward at the meeting, it has a very different meaning and effect. Tao Zhu did not expect his problems to be so serious, and he was deeply affected, and the relationship between the two broke down. In his later years, Chen Boda reflected on this and felt guilty. (“Chen Boda’s Last Oral Memories”)

In fact, Chen Boda and Tao Zhu initially held the same basic views on some issues related to the Cultural Revolution, such as the positioning of the Central Cultural Revolution Group and their attitude towards the Anting incident, but Chen Boda was weak, cowardly, swaying from side to side, easily Change of mind, most of them compromising, can not be consistent, and Tao Zhu’s upright toughness and unswerving, completely different. This difference not only makes the Liu Denghui and the pottery critics have very different performances, which are in sharp contrast, but also makes the two different people and characters stand out. Today, people may think that Chen Boda is not enough of a friend, but it is more necessary to reflect on the practice of inciting friends to come forward to denounce the will of the criticized, and the phenomenon that it has caused interpersonal tensions to deteriorate. For the first time at the meeting, Tao Zhu was given the hats of “China’s largest royalist; the agent of the Liu-Deng line without Liu and Deng”. (Zheng Xiaofeng and Shuling’s Biography of Tao Zhu)

Tao Zhu’s fate is in jeopardy. Under the pressure, I met Lin Biao. Tao Zhu had a good personal relationship with Lin Biao, and was one of the few people who could see Lin directly without an appointment. It is rare for Lin Biao to express his attitude on the issue of pottery casting. In this meeting, what we can see is Lin Biao’s advice to Tao Zhu by “passive passive and passive again”. (Li De and Shu Yun, “The Diary of Lin Biao” (Part 2)).

The real final blow that knocked Tao Zhu down was January 4, 1967. On this day, the Central Cultural Revolution met with the “rebel team dedicated to arresting Wang Renzhong” in the central and southern regions. Jiang Qing, Chen Boda, and Kang Sheng declared that Tao Zhu was “an executor of the reactionary line of the bourgeoisie” and “the largest royalist in China.” The Tao Zhu issue was made public and brought to the society. The slogan “Down with Tao Zhu” came from the loudspeaker outside Zhongnanhai Gate that day. Zhou Enlai called that night and instructed Tao Zhu, “Don’t go out these few days. Rest at home. The Red Guards are chasing you outside. Don’t cause trouble.” Tao Zhu lost his freedom and was soon deprived of his original politics. right. (Zeng Zhi, “A Survivor of the Revolution”) The fourth-ranked political figure in China has left the political stage in an inexplicable way.

The way Tao Zhu stepped down was indeed strange and elusive—there was no discussion at the meeting, and there was no specific written resolution. According to Mao Zedong’s rebuke of Chen Boda and Jiang Qing’s exhortation: “If you beat Tao Zhu, no one else will do anything, but you two did it.” (“The Chronicle of Mao Zedong” Vol. do. Too superficial. Regardless of the fact that this happened on February 10, 1967, more than a month after Ju Taozhu’s downfall, it was to quell the dissatisfaction of the top leaders of the party that Tao Zhu was overthrown without the approval of the Central Committee, and to vent their anger, not to mention Chen Boda. Whether Jiang Qing has the qualifications and ability to overthrow a member of the Standing Committee can only be seen and understood by what Mao Zedong said when he convened a meeting on January 8 to talk about Tao Zhu. Mao Zedong said: “Tao Zhu’s problem is very serious. Tao Zhu was introduced to the Central Committee by Deng Xiaoping, and this person is dishonest. . . He believed that Tao Zhu should not be overthrown. After that, Tao Zhu was criticized and tortured until he died. For nearly three years, why did the Tao Zhu problem not be solved? further clarifies the essence of the problem.

However, there are still doubts after the precipitation of history, which makes it difficult to understand the meaning. On December 29, the day after the Politburo’s criticism of Tao’s life, Mao Zedong presided over the enlarged meeting of the Standing Committee, “criticizing Jiang Qing for accusing Tao Zhu of wrong direction and line without the approval of the central government.” (The Chronicles of Mao Zedong, Vol. 6, 1966-1976) After the meeting, Tao was left alone to talk with him. Mao Zedong first criticized Jiang Qing, saying: “Jiang Qing is a very narrow-minded person, and she can’t tolerate others. You don’t need to mind her words and deeds.” Then he said: “You are a person who is not careful with what you say, and loves to shoot guns. Working in the central government is no better than local work. Be humble and prudent everywhere.” And once again asked Tao Zhu to leave the capital early to inspect and stay for 2 or 3 months. Earlier in November, Mao Zedong instructed Tao Zhu to go down to the central and southern regions to inspect the development of the movement. Tao Zhu has been unable to leave due to troubled affairs, so he explained to Mao Zedong that he would go down after a few days after settling down for work. Mao Zedong had a “very cordial attitude” when talking with Tao Zhu, and there was no sign against Tao Zhu, which made Tao Zhu feel that his problem was not that serious. Me.” (Zeng Zhi, “A Survivor of the Revolution”)

However, within a week, Tao Zhu lost his freedom. What happened in the past week so that Mao Zedong changed his mind? Or as Zeng Zhi pointed out, Tao Zhu was too naive to see that this day was a reflection of his political life? (Zeng Zhi, “A Survivor of the Revolution”)

As readers of history, we have tried our best to guess, but we cannot understand it. The only thing we can understand is that the Tao Zhu incident typically reflects the turbulent and unpredictable central politics during the Cultural Revolution.

2022/6/21

——-
This article is from: https://ift.tt/xtrwSBn
This site is only for inclusion, the copyright belongs to the original author

Leave a Comment