It was the year after the anti-rightist movement in 1957, when the “Great Leap Forward” was first launched, nearly fifty years ago.
At that Time, the whole country had just gone through the anti-rightist movement and the intellectuals were greatly shocked, and then the political movement of the Great Leap Forward, the People’s Commune and the General Line, the so-called “three red flags”, was launched. The whole country entered socialism “with a gong and a drum”. In the countryside, people’s communes were established, and later the newspapers reported that there were 10,000 or 100,000 catties of grain per mu, and the slogans were “Let go of your belly to eat and work hard to produce” and “Electric light and telephone upstairs and downstairs”; in the cities, there were public-private joint ventures at the beginning of the liberation. In the city, the public-private partnership that emerged at the beginning of the liberation was fully nationalized. Small blast furnaces were invented, good iron doors and steel windows were dismantled and iron was made again, and the city and its outskirts were burned to a red, feverish age. Singing is “catch up with the British in less than fifteen years”, but in fact, the so-called “three years of natural disasters” from the mass starvation is only a step away.
At this time, there was also a study campaign to talk about communism, imagining that the beauty of communism was coming, and asking people to tell their imagination and beliefs about communism. Of course, the rightists had been deprived of their status as people and were not qualified to imagine and discuss communism, but they still had to attend the study to listen to the speeches and discussions of the revolutionary masses and to review and criticize themselves for their past mistakes in relation to their own words and deeds in the “attack on the Party”. The rightists (including me) attended the study in order to be educated, to be criticized and “saved” by the revolutionary masses, to change their reactionary position, to win the people’s leniency, and to return to the people’s ranks. We were treated as an internal conflict between the people and our enemies. We should show sincere gratitude to the Party and the people. Therefore, I always spoke last at the group meetings, and the content of my speech was to scold myself again for my “reactionary remarks” during the “loud and loud release” and to make a statement The company’s main goal is to make a statement that it will “keep its tail between its legs”. If you don’t make that statement, you won’t get through, and you will be seen as still resisting and tucking your tail. In the eyes of the majority of people, the right should act like a rightist.
But there was an advantage to my position, because I was actually an outsider to the big talk about communist activities, so I could calmly observe and see what was going on around me, without having to waste my spirit on talking about communism. In fact, I never had any illusions that I would ever see communism. Looking back, some of the statements made by the “revolutionary masses” at that time were very naive. It seemed to me that some of them had a sense of relief that they had escaped the anti-rightist movement – from my point of view they were a bit light-hearted – in such a serious situation, without the freedom to speak, and still imagined that they could have anything they wanted. Almost all the speeches of the revolutionary masses imagined that they could have whatever they wanted at that time, no matter how much they wanted, they could get it without spending money. Because didn’t they say that they would be distributed according to needs? They thought that if I felt the need, I should be able to get it by the time communism came.
Some people naively asked, “If I want a camera, can I be assigned one?” In those days, it was almost unimaginable to have a camera at Home. So a “gentleman” came out and said, “You don’t know how to take pictures, what do you need the camera for? Then it is not a need, but a waste. It is said to be distributed according to need, is to have the real kind of need before distribution. And not …….” That seems to mean that by the time communism requires the distribution of a what also has to have an application and approval process? We need to measure whether the reasons are sufficient and whether there is a real need according to the poor ideas of the people at that time. Perhaps it is necessary to “go through connections” to be assigned. And I did not think that today, although we are almost infinitely far from the “communism” of each person’s ability, each person’s needs, freedom and equality, my Family has five or six cameras, and even the children can play with them.
Because of poverty, people’s imagination was too low at that time. During the discussion, there were also some disagreements, for example, whether there would be stores on the streets in communism. Why do we need a store when we have already been distributed according to needs? If there were no stores, what would the streets look like? If there were stores, would they charge money? Would there be any need for money at that time? And so on. No one can say what these questions are, and communism is too far away. And it was mainly these questions that the masses had in mind when they talked about communism. I don’t know which intelligent person came up with the idea of raising people’s consciousness so that communism can be realized as soon as possible. A female teacher who usually likes to have a snack while reading, preparing classes or correcting students’ lab reports also talked about her interesting idea that she imagined a communism in which every Food store could be walked into, picked up and eaten, and taken home without paying.
While there were a lot of confusing questions about communism in people’s heads, the message came from above that Saturday afternoon – the time set for political study in those days – was the time to listen to the big report. Secretary Pang of the Party Committee of the university was going to give a school-wide lecture on communism in the large playground. All the teachers and staff of the university and the staff of the affiliated hospitals were eager to clarify the doubts that had been argued over the past few days about what communism was really like, so they all came. Each person brought a small stool or picked up two or three bricks lined with old newspapers and used them as stools. The large playground was filled to capacity. Everyone wanted to hear what the secretary had to say about the controversial questions that had been raised about communism over the past few days. Several large classrooms were also filled with students from all over the school listening to the cablecast. Pang secretary from outside the unit transferred to a short time ago, very stout, tall and big, I heard that the level is very high, the atmosphere is also very full. He was later jokingly referred to as the huge secretary, that should be people find it funny, and no sarcasm. And this name is only after that counseling report. Because before that report people were mostly not familiar with him.
At the beginning of the report, the secretary talked about the importance of talking about communism. He said that during this period of time, through the study of communism, everyone’s awareness had generally improved, but also revealed some ideological problems and other clichés. Then he asked everyone to firmly believe in communism, and he could guarantee that everyone here (except rightists and control elements) would see this day come in their lifetime and live a happy Life of communism. But everyone is required to consciously contribute his or her efforts with the spirit of unselfish labor that would prefer to live ten years less in order to build communism as soon as possible. The phrase “to live ten years less” is probably not an invention of Secretary Pang. There was already an article in the newspaper with such a slogan. According to the newspaper, it was a peasant (director of a people’s commune? Or was it the secretary of the people’s commune? And the editorial in the People’s Daily only supported the slogan. I am very confused about how to calculate this 10 years less life. Can a person who is not the king of hell make his own decision? What if we put on his tombstone: “He lived ten years less to build communism”? “It will take less than fifteen years to catch up with the UK”, then even if it takes ten years, but that is far from communism, the UK is certainly not enough to the edge of communism. And if you live ten years less, you will still see communism? At that time, there were some old professors and cadres in their sixties and seventies, and they could see it? In those days, there were not many old professors and cadres, and there was no formal retirement system, so almost all of them were going to “die in office”. I intuitively feel that this slogan is not smart, asking people to die early is always unpopular. Why not just mention that everyone is required to work for ten more years during their lifetime? That would make people feel better. I suspect that perhaps because our national leaders have fought many wars in their early years, they are used to fighting, and each battle is planned in advance to prepare for the death of how many people. This has probably become a working habit and traditional thinking, right? So when you want to run a campaign, what comes to mind is to plan for people to live less than ten years, that is, to prepare for the number of people to die first, as in a battle. I thought of it at that time to the side.
Secretary Pang went on to say that he himself was also talking about communism during his studies in the “province”. But he declared that the nature of the issues they talked about were different. The implication was that the cadres of his class were considering extraordinary issues that were not considered by the general public, but were of a different class and level, and were not just imagining but studying how to implement them. Everyone listened with awe, and the image of the secretary became even larger. Then he talked about something he said was his own understanding and imagination of communism. But in retrospect, I think the bizarre ideas he spoke of at the time may not have been all his own personal creation, right? It sounds like there might have been something to it. Probably he said that their grade in the province to study the cadres talked about it? Or is the spirit of the instructions issued from above? Because later I heard that the leaders of other units also said similar things. Therefore, I guess maybe his report can basically represent the awareness of the middle-level cadres who were qualified to attend the study in the “province” or what they had heard from the top. He talked about some strange ideas, such as separate militia barracks for men and women, which were later said to have been tried out in some counties and villages in the province.
Then the secretary began to introduce his communist fantasies, or to convey his understanding of how communism was implemented. He began by saying that in communism everyone would have a sofa-like chair, sitting down is a chair, just press on the side of the hand can fly up, think of where to go. At that time the meeting to listen to the report everyone will fly to, do not have to carry the stool to walk. Also do not need to pick up the bricks to sit. The meeting was suddenly lively, of course, no one dared to express doubt that there is that possibility, but are in line with the secretary’s statement blindly a gas, loudly arguing about their fantasies. The fantasy of what the sky and the ground is a scene, enjoy a period of people within the mood of freedom of expression. The cadres presiding over the meeting shouted into the microphone several times “Quiet!” It took several times to quiet down.
After a bit of laughter, the conversation turned to serious and serious topics. The clerk went on to talk about how the central problem in building communism is to solve the problem of private ownership of property – confiscation of all of it! Because everything in communism is publicly owned, there is no private property. Then he said that the family is the basis of private property, so in order to build communism, the family must first be abolished. When we enter communism, there will be no family. How will we live then? According to the secretary, men and women will live in the barracks of the basic militia. The old people will go to the old people’s home, the children will go to the nursery, and the children will be born to the public. The Parents can visit and have the obligation to take care of them. But children are not privately owned. It was new to me to see children as the same as property.
The secretary went on to say that now every family runs its own restaurant, a briquette stove, which wastes a lot of fuel, time and labor every day, all of which is very uneconomical. Not conducive to the development of productivity. The family no longer, after we all change to eat collective canteen. In addition to the variety of fancy, it can also liberate a large amount of labor and transform people’s old ideas and feelings about the family. As for what about those rightists and control elements? According to the secretary, they were put in the middle of the base militia to strengthen supervision and forced to reform, only allowing them to follow rules and regulations, not allowing them to talk and move around. They were certainly not qualified to enjoy the happy life of communism. It occurred to me at that time that if they didn’t want to live such a happy life after the completion of communism, but still opposed to being a rightist, then the rightists should be damned – not satisfied with such a beautiful life, with everything they wanted? Would you rather be excluded from supervised labor? And where is the happy life of communism as described by the secretary? I already felt at that time that the secretary’s statement had actually revealed a situation in which everyone was in danger of losing the qualifications and freedom of the people at any time. There was no longer a clear line between the revolutionary masses and the rightists and control elements. As soon as someone’s bones are crispy and he says something out of the ordinary, he can be considered to be talking nonsense at any time, and he will immediately be disqualified from the people and be controlled. Only those who keep their mouths shut and speak and act in accordance with the rules from above are enough to be considered “people”. Since then, I have understood that according to the secretary, there is no freedom of speech in communism. If you are not careful, you will be disqualified as a people.
The secretary then went on to give an example to clarify his approach to the provision of communist necessities. He said that in a communist society, the toothbrush used for brushing teeth every morning was given by the public, and the ownership of the toothbrush still belonged to the public, and the individual only had the right to use it. If the toothbrush is broken, you have to turn in the broken one and ask for a new one, because the broken toothbrush still belongs to the public. I really don’t see where the “affluence” and “happiness” of communism can be found when even a broken toothbrush has to be surrendered. He then went on to criticize motherhood, saying that it was the most selfish of all feelings, the root of family and private ownership. At that time, there was already a lot of discussion on the field, but after a series of political campaigns with increasing pressure and tightening, such as ideological reform, anti-Hufeng, purge, anti-rightist, etc., the tone was higher than once, and it was still in motion. People have learned a good lesson, know that in order to save their own absolutely not to reveal the true thoughts of the heart. Even among close old friends and colleagues, they are already afraid to speak their minds. They were afraid that others would expose them and classify them as rightists or counterrevolutionaries during the “heart-to-heart” campaign. Therefore, people’s discussions were mostly roundabout and on thin ice.
His words made the women who sat together with their children laugh bitterly. Some also had a face with a kind of indescribable expression, they feel aggrieved and dare not speak. In their hearts, they absolutely cannot accept the statement that motherhood is selfish. Only no one dared to express a different opinion. It occurred to me then that the big secretary was too inexplicable, perhaps having died of motherhood since childhood? He may have never received a mother’s love to say something like that. The secretary went on to say that in order to remove the negative influence of selfish motherhood, children would be born and raised in full-time nurseries. Let them be educated from an early age in the communist ideology, knowing only the collective and not what motherhood is and what home is. In a word, human nature has to be fundamentally transformed. I slowly turned my face to the side to see the expression of the audience next to me, just in time to see a female doctor sitting behind me diagonally, the affiliated hospital with an angry face and eyes that seemed to be full of tears, while she did not dare to touch them with her hand or handkerchief, which would reveal her emotions. Then the secretary went on to say that names were also a sign of private ownership, and that they were a product of the feudal system. Therefore, when communism comes, names will be abolished. What will people be called then? According to him, “it is now being studied”. It sounded as if it was already on the agenda and would soon be put into practice. I guess maybe each person is given a number? In the days of communism when people no longer had names and were not even allowed to identify their parents, would such a thing happen? One could only laugh at the secretary’s fanciful fantasies.
Later, he spoke of the bourgeois style of resting one day a week, which is not suitable for the rhythm of communist life and is not conducive to the development of productive forces. So when communism comes, it will no longer be one day off a week, but perhaps once a month. His use of the word “wind” immediately reminded me of prisoners in jail. He said that by then married couples would find a place to “meet” and bachelors would do some sanitation ……. I was still a bachelor at the time, the secretary’s paragraph of understanding is like talking about communism, probably only once a month to take a shower, haircut, right? And think of so many married people to the wind of the day and are without a home, couples have to find a place to “meet”, where to meet it? Where to meet? In that case, the streets of communism would probably be full of hotels for couples to meet on their monthly vacation. Maybe there would also be bathhouses and barbershops. Would that be a happy communist life? The clerk did not say whether he himself, like the masses, was willing to live separately from his wife, to see her only once a month, and to brush his teeth with a public toothbrush every day. He wore public clothes. It also occurred to me that since homes are gone and motherhood is criticized. What do people need to get married for? The original purpose of Marriage is to establish a family. This is the way of reproduction that human beings have developed in the course of evolution. Since there is no longer a family, the family name is no longer needed and is criticized. After the birth of a child, there is no name for the child care center, so what is the need for the relationship between husband and wife? And why is it necessary for men to men and women to women to live separately? Isn’t that all self-contradictory? Do these bizarre ideas represent progress? Or is history going backwards? It seems that these are just the unsophisticated whims of the cadres who are qualified to study in the “province”, including Secretary Huang (or is it the advanced whims they have heard conveyed?). . In the future, there will be no more family, but men and women are still required to strictly adhere to the communist moral code, and men and women are required to follow the rules. The secretary did not mention the problem of what to do with the unmarried men and women who had not yet “started a family”. And from what I saw later, those senior nonsense really caused social chaos. Later I heard that some places really did it. To do with the men to men, women to women are living in collective barracks – they are controlled, the home stove are dismantled all eat canteen, iron pot are smashed sent to steel. At that time, it was a really wild year, taking such a large country of hundreds of millions of people to do experiments, this impact is too big, right? The understanding of communism is what the secretary said?
The secretary went on to say that life in a communist society is united, intense, serious and lively. The secretary did not mention when unmarried men and women could fall in love, but it seemed that all that was needed was to keep the young people under control. Communism has no content of life that belongs to individuals. The central issue in building communism is to fundamentally transform the worldview and old habits of people. The worldview, character and habits of people must be transformed into a collective life adapted to communism, and only then can we enter a communist society. I wonder if that kind of life would be a paradise? Or would it be a labor camp where everyone would have to live 10 years less? The secretary also said that those who were resistant to communism and did not reform properly should be put into the basic militia company, put on hats, and forced to reform (in that case, the number of rightists and counter-revolutionaries would increase greatly, and people might live less than ten years on average). I was perplexed by the secretary’s statements. What do we need so many base militias for when we reach a communist society? Since it is so ideal and beautiful. Where does “happiness” fit in? It would be damned if there would be any resistance to happiness when it has already arrived, and if we still need to put them all in the basic militia. I wondered if the secretary himself had a clear picture of communism in his mind, and what it would look like. And not just talking in his sleep. I had a vague feeling that the way the secretary was talking about was actually to control people in stages and batches, so that they would all live ten years less. And is he himself among the ten years less?
In addition to this, the secretary’s report did not mention at all what time they, as teachers, doctors, and technicians, put in their regular business studies and knowledge updates. At least there is no longer time in the evening that can be used for business studies, and neither scientists nor writers have personal time for creative thinking. Because they are filled with studying the writings of Chairman Mao and various collective activities, which are essential to change human nature for building communism. If business studies and thinking were done only during working hours, and if collective activities and study of Chairman Mao’s works were required at night, then communism would not be efficient. Then communism will not be efficient. It seems that those big cadres who studied in the “provinces” did not consider this aspect in their minds, and perhaps they did not have this aspect in the messages they heard. They had never had such experience in their own lives, and had never thought of what they needed to study and think about other than the writings of Chairman Mao and current affairs and policies. They probably had no way to understand the need for that, and in their view it was all private or bourgeois. Without them, they can still pat themselves on the back and guarantee that they can build communism. They do not even think about the role of knowledge in the progress of human society and the importance of scientific research in the progress of human society. They think that if they follow their blind command and brute force, they can make everyone live a happy communist life in their lifetime. And what is a happy communist life? It should be that all people have not yet experienced it, probably what the secretary said earlier. Perhaps from the eyes of those cadres who have studied in the provinces, as long as the people are all escorted up, under their command to do this and that, absolute obedience and not allowed to have any discussion is their greatest happiness. Even if they made a mess, a mess, and an unmanageable mess, it was still enjoyable enough. The consequences of the Great Leap Forward that we saw later is not that?
Secretary Huge’s report went on for over three hours. He seemed to be intentionally avoiding the question of whether you have to pay to buy (or pick up) something from the store, and also the question of whether there are still stores on the communist street when you get there. Not a word was said about the beauty of what people wanted and what was available. In the second half of the presentation, people were actually disinterested and not listening. There was a lot of chatter in the playground, people were talking about irrelevant things. The person conducting the meeting also felt the need to shout “Quiet! and “Stop talking!” did not work, so he simply stopped shouting. People found out that the imagined beautiful, happy and fulfilling communism was not in the imagination of the leaders. But when the secretary made those remarks, he was speaking about those strange ideas as a “personal opinion”. Therefore, people may not believe that there will be no home in the future, that children will not be allowed to recognize their mothers at birth, that the elderly will be put in old people’s homes, that men will belong to men and women to women, and that they will live in the barracks of the basic militia. The pots and pans in the kitchen are smashed and sent to the ironworks, the wind is released once a month, the couple meets once a month, so inhumane communism. That is the pursuit of happiness? Perhaps except for cadres like Secretary Huge, people do not want that kind of “happiness” to come from the heart. But these are the secretary’s own words, and who can know how to live in the future? People actually have more doubts after listening to the counseling report, and have a sense of depression. It seems that only people like Secretary Huge and their like-minded people would like that kind of communism. But people kept silent and no one discussed it so as not to invite trouble. I was probably one of the few people there who listened most carefully. Because I wanted to understand how crazy the secretary’s communist fanaticism was.
During that period, school was closed because of the political movement, and often the whole day was spent on political studies, meetings and discussions, or listening to reports. During the group study of Secretary Pang’s report, the Party Committee sent a cadre to attend the group study. He recorded everyone’s speech and often interjected questions to test how people were thinking. The atmosphere was a bit tense for fear of saying the wrong thing. Without exception, people unanimously praised Secretary Pang for his high standing, far-sightedness and high level. Everyone reviewed the fact that they were still looking at the problem from the old world view, and failed to consider that to transform their bourgeois world view was the primary problem to enter communism. No consideration is given to the fact that entering communism is actually a painstaking process of worldview transformation. It takes a transformation of the body and bones to do so. If one wants to enter communism with individualistic selfishness and only thinks of “what one wants”, it is “more difficult than a camel trying to get through a pinhole”, and so on. Some people made a very profound review, as if they had really pulled out all their inner world. When he thought about what the secretary said later, he felt that every point was right. And why he himself did not think that way before? It boils down to the fact that the world view has not been transformed, or the old ……. I listened to it with admiration, but I found it hard to believe, doubting that it was true feelings and thoughts from the heart. But only people who talk like that against their will can rise to the top, or only people like that are fit to enter “communism”.
Then people gave an account of their “private property”. Because didn’t they say that they would all be confiscated? One of the wealthier teachers who lived in a single staff dormitory made a good start. The company said that in addition to clothes, household items and a few books, the main thing worth a little money is a 17-diamond Inag watch, a 70 to 80% new bicycle, a Shanghai brand five-light radio, and a set of newly made woolen clothes and more than 300 savings. He said that in order to respond to the secretary’s call to build communism as soon as possible, he was willing to hand over all his private property to live in a collective life. Everyone spoke and took a stand, as if pushing a mill. In addition to reviewing their own and praising the secretary’s report, about private property, basically a single man said more cheerful, the family has a small family trivial. The unanimous statement of willingness to add to the early establishment of communism to hand over private property to live a collective life in barracks. A female teacher spoke last, repeating what others had said before her, and then stammered that she had a Gold ring that her husband had given her when he was engaged to her. She wished to keep it. But in order to build communism as soon as possible, if the leaders decided to surrender it, she said she would obey the organization’s decision. The party cadres sent to the group to study wrote all this down in their notebooks.
As for the question of home, basically people said against their will that they would not want a home in the future. All said they were willing to live in barracks to live collectively and eat in canteens. One female teacher even made a very vivid point when she said that home for her meant that she had three meals a day to cook for them and a foot basin of clothes to wash every day, all for her. She said home for her was to be an old mother to them. She said she would never want a home again, she was determined not to have one! She was willing to live in the barracks of the basic militia to live a collective life. She said it in an impassioned and decisive way. But probably too excited, mouth trembling, tears suddenly hung down, and the speech was interrupted. The screen for a while finally did not cry out. In this regard, everyone in the audience were silent, even the party committee sent the cadres also surprisingly did not say anything. At that time, the people present were a bit at a loss as to how this would continue, the party committee to remind the next person to speak. After everyone had spoken, the debate turned to the question of whether there were classes and class struggle in communism. But it could be heard because the question was not relevant. Some people were generous with their opinions, mostly to show their theoretical level and “awareness”. It may also be because the study has been very dull for a few days, people use the topic to liven up the atmosphere. I did not comment on this, I was not treated as a class enemy? If it was really my turn to see communism, wouldn’t I have to be put under strict discipline and forced to reform among the base militia? Doesn’t this show that communism still has classes and that some people are ruling others? It is not equal and free as it is said to be. Not only are there classes, but there are large numbers of people who are treated as class enemies. I am afraid that not one of us will see the day when we will all get what we want, so why say anything? And the uneasiness I felt in my heart was the realization that the days ahead would be increasingly grim and gloomy.
The answer to the gold ring came a day later. At the beginning of the morning group study, the cadres sent by the Party Committee began with a lecture, which lasted for nearly 20 to 30 minutes. He said how developed the productive forces of communism were, how abundant the materials were, how rich they were, and so on. Then he said to the female teacher who couldn’t give up her gold ring: “Ji ΧΧ, listen! There is no need to rely on your gold ring to build communism! By the time communism comes, who will care about your gold ring? Comrade Lenin said that when communism comes, gold will be used to pave toilets. Keep it for yourself!” Then he told everyone that when Secretary Pang said in his report that there was no private property, he did not say that private property would be confiscated now. He only wanted to see how conscious everyone was, and he only said that there would be no private property when communism came, and he did not mean to ask everyone to hand over their private property now. Don’t disturb yourself! But I recall that the secretary did say in his speech that all private property would be confiscated, and did not explicitly say that it would be confiscated only after communism. And if we do get to communism, do we need to confiscate all that crap? And how rich would communism be? No one knows, and no one can imagine. But didn’t the secretary say that even the public distribution of broken toothbrushes had to be turned in before a new one could be issued? Perhaps Secretary Pang’s communism requires the collection of rags? Later I heard that in addition to our group, there are several other sections also occurred a similar situation, the unanimous statement willing to hand over private property. There are really too many mediocre people too. The awareness is also too poor, too foolish. It was also too far from communism. At that time, it was surprising that no one could understand the true meaning of the secretary’s speech.
Shortly after listening to Secretary Pang’s counseling report, I was sent to the Shaoxing countryside for labor and reform. I spent more than a year in the rural areas of Shaoxing with the old folks who lived in semi-starvation almost all year round. In their words, “all these years, never had enough to eat ……” Then came the great famine, the school sent to work in the rural areas of Shaoxing, the school was recalled and sent to the slopes of the bottle kiln to open up a farm, in order to immediately grow food to survive the famine. That was like digging a well when you are thirsty! Later I learned that after I left the rural areas of Shaoxing, there began to starve to death in batches, many of my acquaintances with the old folks died of starvation in this way. This was not anticipated in Secretary Pang’s big report full of fantasy and passion. All he said was that people should be prepared to live for ten years less, and presumably that had been over-delivered in advance. And communism was still nowhere in sight.
Secretary Huge’s counseling report that talked about communism was almost fifty years ago. I was extremely impressed by it and still remember it vividly. The practical significance of that report was perhaps to make more people further realize that communism, if done as Secretary Huong said, is certainly something people do not want to see in this life, and should never be realized. Instead, as he said, it was a beautiful sight that all the people here at that time, except the rightists and control elements, could enjoy in their lifetime. What people had in mind was that it would be better not to see the coming of such communism, which would only make people live at least as many years less. Today’s young people may not be able to understand what it was like.
Secretary Pang only stayed in our unit for a very short time. Two years later, he was transferred. Maybe he was promoted. If he is still alive today, he should be nearly ninety years old. I wonder what he would say about his report on communist counseling today? Is there anything else to add? I wonder if he still has the confidence that he will be able to see the communism he imagined before he goes to see Marx? I also wonder if he ever thought about the fact that marriage and family are the evolutionary choice of human beings to reproduce. Marriage is to establish a family, so that you can have children, the human species can continue to reproduce, in order to succeed each other. Pair marriage is the evolution from the primitive promiscuity and group marriage. If the family is to be abolished, as the secretary’s report says, then why get married? And isn’t marriage the preparation for starting a family? I don’t know if he thought it through later, but his words were actually self-contradictory nonsense. The abolition of the family is the same as mankind reverted to the primitive state, back to promiscuity, group marriage. Marriage and men to men, women to women to live separately, and that can prevent the restoration of private family ownership? One wonders whether communism represents a leap forward or a retrogression in human society, as the nonsensical thinking of Secretary Pang suggests. If this whimsy has a basis, then who are the smart people who came up with it? And what people have seen in the past decades is a growing gap between the rich and the poor, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, farther and farther away from the communist ideal.
Recent Comments