On Marx’s Writings of Freedom of Press
By ZHANG Shuguang, Chairman, Unirule Academic Committee
Translated by MA Junjie, Project Researcher, Unirule Institute of Economics
Karl Marx, a world-renowned thinker, has left us a precious legacy that’s worth study, research, and critical reflection. One of the cores of his work is his thought on freedom of the press.
In Review of Book Checks in Prussia 1842, Karl Marx wrote, “without the freedom of the press, all other freedoms are nothing but illusions. […] The freedom of the press itself is a reflection of thoughts, and liberty, and ultimately, kindness.” (Other quotes are also from this article if not referred to otherwise). Such is the truth. As he said, it is not because the freedom of the press laid with fundamental characteristics, but that it constitutes a part, or a form, for the wholeness of freedom. “One form of freedom constrains and influences another form of freedom, just like one part of the body constrains and influences another part of the body. One form of freedom is at issues, so is the wholeness of freedom. One form of freedom is rejected, so is the wholeness of freedom.”
Without freedom of the press and freedom of expression, men are no other than fools. Although they have their own heads, they will come to distorted and misguided conclusions, and conduct false actions as they see and hear warped and false information. Sooner or later, such a man will develop a kind of habit, or reflex, that rejects all true information. To put it in a simile, if waste is put into an exquisite machinery, nothing more than waste should be expected out of it. And the machinery will also fail as time goes.
People may have forgotten that in the long time before the reform and opening up, one message flooded all newspapers, radio stations, and publications in mainland China: socialism is incomparably good, and we are living such a happy life; whereas, people in the capitalist world such as US, Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, are miserable and desperate for emancipation, waiting to be liberated by us. However, after the reform and opening up, the wall was torn down, and Chinese people were amazed to find the whole capitalist world, including the countries and regions aforesaid, was way more developed than mainland China. People in the capitalist countries enjoyed more freedom, and better lives. Comparably speaking, mainland China was less developed with a problematic institution that needed to be changed. Reforms were called for.
Since there was basically no freedom of the press, the other freedoms were hindered too. For instance, various essentials of life were supplied and purchased with tickets and could not be exchanged freely; individuals were not allowed to transfer commodities and sell them from one place to another, otherwise they could face serious criminal charges of speculation and “taking the capitalist path”; farmers were restrained to live in rural areas and not allowed to enter cities freely; urban citizens were not allowed to work from their residential cities, let along travelling freely to Beijing and Shanghai [Page]. Many couples had to live in separate places due to their working location and their homes. Individuals were not allowed to listen to foreign radio, otherwise, they would be charged with listening to enemy broadcast, nor were they allowed to create associations as they could be charged with being an “existing anti-revolutionist.” During the Cultural Revolution, ridiculous as it may sound, people were not allowed to step on, sit on, drawing upon, or hang reversely the portrait of the supreme leader, Chairman Mao. Such examples are numerous. At that time, what freedoms people had was quite apparent.
Marx wrote, “As people had to consider the books containing free thinking as illegal, they tend to consider things illegal free and those free illegal, and vice versa. Censorship is killing the national spirit. The government opens its ears to nothing but itself knowingly. However, it deceives itself and believes it has heard the people’s voice. The government asks the people to support this self deception.” This is straight to the point. Under despotic rule, everything is reversed. The government shifts tactics to deceive itself and others in order to maintain its rule. One fitting example is the great famine during 1959 and 1961 that led to millions of casualties. That was when Mao Zedong advocated “upholding three red flags”, overtaking the UK and the US rapidly, as well as transforming into a communist society. That was also when government officials of almost all levels exaggerated their performances and spoke in favour of Mao’s fantasies. Thanks to the limited disclosure by the press and the “red terror”, those who were famished and witnessed others die of hunger could not speak out what really happened, otherwise, they would be labeled as a rightist and “anti-revolutionist”, which led to severe persecution. Even till today, this period of the history is still concealed by the government, hidden from the citizens. Whoever attempts to reveal this history is smeared as historical nihilism. The press is manipulated against the disclosure of such a history. Therefore, it can be said, the book checks, or censorship, is annihilating the spirit of the nation, the integrity of man, and the benevolence of individuals. Only those who have no conscience whatsoever are in favour of such an institution.
Marx wrote, “You admire the delightful variety, the inexhaustible riches of nature. You do not demand that the rose should smell like the violet, but must the greatest riches of all, the spirit, exist in only one variety … however many the persons and whatever the objects in which it is refracted, must produce only the official color!” How well put is it! The nature is of various forms, shapes, and colours, and so should the human society be: plural and various. Based on this spirit, the Chinese government advocated the policy of "letting a hundred flowers bloom, a hundred schools of thought contend”. It aimed to pump new life to the historic rejuvenation of China, but how did it end? Half a century has passed. Let’s see how many masterpieces have been created in literature, arts, and academic thinking? And how many masters have emerged out of this policy? How many theories have been created? It is not only disappointing, but also humiliating to examine the outcome of this policy.[Page]
There is a tradition that runs thousands of years to suppress the freedom of the press and carry on despotism in thinking. Early examples include “burning of books and burying of scholars” (Fenshu Kengru, 焚书坑儒) by Qin Shi Huangdi, the literary inquisition (Wenziyu,文字狱) of Ming Dynasty and Qing Dynasty that led to dismissal and death penalty of government officials. However, some pedantic scholars distorted the historical literature and claimed there was a free society in ancient China. They even distorted what Confucius said, “The people may be made to follow a path of action, but they may not be made to understand it.” (民可使由之，不可使知之) into “If the people can be mobilised, then mobilise them; if not, educate them. ” (民可使，由之；不可使，知之). Such unorthodoxical interpretation is apparently false and ridiculous.
When it came to the modern times, the wave of liberal democracy was so strong that China had to follow. China consented to, approved of, and granted the the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that recognised the freedom of the press, expression, and opinions as the basic human rights. Article 35 of China’s Constitution also stipulates that “Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.” So how is this Article put into practice? I believe everyone knows.
The anti-rightist movement and the Cultural Revolution were no different from a modern version of literary inquisition. The 1959 Lushan Meeting was also a modern version of discussing court policies. Even up till today, over three decades from the reform and opening up, there is still regulation, censorship, and approval needed for speaking of certain topics and publishing certain articles and books. We don’t have the faintest idea when it is allowed to create a newspaper, a magazine, or a TV station. The Internet is supposed to be a free domain, a virtual free world. However, everything is up to the Internet policy and authorities. They preside the Internet content and determine what should be deleted or blocked at their will. If their orders are not followed, you can be punished. Of course there are countermeasures. Those who are good at Internet technology and learn to “jump over the wall” (the Great Fire Wall) can enjoy a glimpse of the free world outside; and those who are not, well, they’ll have to make do.
Recently there has been a new policy of forbidding “improperly discussing the central government” (Wangyi Zhongyang, 妄议中央), which does not differ much from improperly discussing the court policy in Qing Dynasty. According to some newspaper, some Party officials interpreted this policy by referring to the Party’s “democratic centralism” principle, which does not hold much water. The democratic centralism is an organisational principle of the Communist Party of China, not a principle of opinions. The organisation should follow this principle, not men’s opinions and thinking. Discussion is needed even if actions are being taken, as the actions can be erroneous. Discussion is examination, therefore, supervision. The three red flags, namely, the general line (Zongluxian, [Page]总路线), the Great Leap Forward (Dayuejin, 大跃进), and the people's commune (Renmin Gongshe, 人民公社), were erroneous in the first place and people were not allowed to discuss them. The discussion was even forbidden in meetings of the Party’s Central Committee, which led to the Great Famine and the economic crises that resulted in millions of casualties. Is this lesson not serious enough? Why is discussion and criticism not allowed? Decision makers may decide whether to take or leave the suggestions, but the people should have the right to discuss government policies. The freedom of expression is the freedom of choice for decision makers. Let it be known that silence is not always good, and unanimity is only an illusion. Since the Chinese government claims to be a disciple of Karl Marx, then his teachings should be reviewed and the freedom of the press should be upheld.
|
