以下內容乃K.W.Ho之補習教材，於課堂教授，內容乃配合K.W.Ho之答題方法及風格所製作，同時內容可能有錯誤之處以供在課堂上糾正。非補習學生在未有得到課堂教學的情況下錯誤使用，恕不負責，同學請敬請留意。
【Free】6000頁筆記及60份5**考卷免費使用：按此
Youtube教學：按此
_________________________________________________________________________
「文化大革命對中國而言是禍多於福。」參考二十世紀下半葉的中國歷史，評論此說能否成立。
背景文化大革命歷時十年(1966-76年)，對中國造成了翻天覆地的影響。 //架構及立場 其中，文革帶來的禍遠遠多於福，在政治、經濟、社會、教育、外交等方面可清楚反映。因此，題目所言確能成立。
主旨句 政治方面，文革對中國造成的禍遠多於福。 // 項目A(福)儘管從毛澤東角度，文革成功打倒了劉少奇和鄧小平等「走資派」，結果令中國重新走回社會主義道路，糾正了原本的「右傾」方向，對中國而言是福。 // 項目B(禍) 然而，文革導致了政黨機關癱瘓，群眾不依法治理據，盲目群起批鬥，超過230萬幹部被立案調查，使國家和地方的政黨機構陷入長期的癱瘓。而且，文革也導致許多領導、人才被批鬥、罷黜甚至迫害，其中原國家主席劉少奇便是其中例子，以致人才凋零。加上，文革中許多人顛倒是非，為求私利及權力而奉承毛澤東思想，如林彪、四人幫等，結果政變、鬥爭不斷，使人民產生「三信危機」，對共產主義失去信仰，並對中共施政失去信任及信心，削弱了中共推動社會主義現代化的號召力。 // 對比(~20%) 相比之下，就政治現代化及穩定性而言，雖然文革使中國重新走回社會主義道路，但卻使中國政黨機關長期癱瘓，同時大量人才盡失，也令人民產生「三信危機」，故對中國政治帶來了極大的禍害，嚴重損害了政治現代化的進程，是禍多於福。
經濟方面，文革對中國經濟帶來災難性損失，是禍多於福。雖然文革對於中國農村經濟建設不無貢獻。因毛澤東於1968年發起「上山下鄉」運動，號召城市青年到農村定居及勞動。估計文革期間合共約有1600萬知識青年到農村或偏遠地區勞動，協助修橋鋪路、開墾耕作，因此有助了中國農村的基礎建設及農業發展。然而，文革對中國帶來了更多的禍。由於文革期間，全國均陷於政治運動之中，忽視生產，加上毛澤東「重紅不重專」的思想濃厚，忽視知識與技術，因此大大阻礙了中國的經濟發展。在文革的十年期間，估計就令中國的國民收入損失達5000億，此一數字就超過了建國30年全國固定資產的總和，損失嚴重。相比之下，就經濟得失而言，儘管文革時期的上山下鄉運動對於推動農村經濟有所幫助，但成效不宜高估，因文革時期大量工人、農民忽視生產，結果以致經濟倒退，加上1960-70年代是歐、美及亞洲國家的經濟起飛時期，中國卻陷於政治鬥爭之中，嚴重阻礙了中國的經濟發展，不利於中國經濟現代化的進程，禍遠多於福。
社會方面，文革同樣也帶來禍遠多於福。雖然文革有助提高女性地位，因文革時期，江青作為領導的角色，成為女性參與政治、社會運動的典範。同時，文革領袖號召女性積極參與批鬥運動，加上政治宣傳中用上了大量的女性形象，強化了男女平等的思想，促進了婦女的解放運動，對於提高中國的女權主義起了意義非凡的作用。然而，文革同時令中國倫理道德崩潰，禍害更大。由於文革強調革命思想，號召紅衛兵起而揭發、批鬥「走資派」、「修正分子」。更甚，許多年輕人基於對毛澤東的崇拜，認為「爹親娘親不如毛主席親」的思想，擁護毛澤東而批鬥父母、師長，薄熙来批鬥其父就為其中的代表例子，結果使社會倫理道德崩潰，造成難以修補和挽回的創傷，不利於建設和諧、團結的現代化社會。相比之下，就塑造文明社會而言，儘管文革有助提高中國女性的地位，但卻令中國陷入長期社會鬥爭，造成嚴重的社會分化及仇恨，令到中國累積幾千年的道德倫理毀於一旦，禍害之大實難以修補，故是禍多於福。
教育方面，文革對中國帶來的禍也遠多於福。文革期間，毛澤東發動「上山下鄉運動」，號召城市的知識青年到農村勞動，其中，許多知識青年在農村地區辦學講課，大大推動了基礎教育的發展，使小學入學率由1963年的57%增至1976年的96%，對中國的基礎教育發展而言起了積極性的作用。然而，文革使教育發展大受阻礙，為禍更大。由於教育在文革時期被視為是不事生產的項目，「讀書無用﹑愈讀愈蠢」及「知識愈多愈反動」等論調瀰漫全國，文化創作等更陷於停頓，嚴重妨礙了中國的文教發展。加上，大量知識分子、專業人才被視為是「反動權威」或「臭老九」而飽受批鬥、迫害。因此，中國的教育事業大受中斷，據估計，1982年時全國的文盲及半文盲人數就超過2億人，造就出一代人才真空，對於中國教育現代化而言是不進反退的一頁。相比之下，就教育發展的進度而言，雖然文革時期的「上山下鄉運動」對於中國基礎教育起了正面作用，但知識分子在此時期卻受到社會鄙視，中國高等教育及學術發展大大中斷，進入了空白的一頁，教育發展不進反退，實令遺禍甚深，禍多於福。
外交方面，文革對中國而言也是禍多於福。文革時期，毛澤東號召紅衛兵打倒劉少奇等國內「走資派」，從而影射打倒蘇聯領導人赫魯曉夫，因赫魯曉夫與西方關係改善關係的舉動被視為是向資本主義國家靠近。結果，有助提高中國在共產主義陣營內的影響力。然而，文革令到中國外交孤立，為禍更大。因毛澤東煽動群眾打倒「帝國主義」、「修正主義」、「資本主義」，這些均無疑與西方國家和蘇聯等國拉上關係，因此使中國的仇外、排外情緒高漲。其中，紅衛兵公然衝擊外國使館，毆打外國駐華使節，而在華的外國人也受到嚴密的監視，甚至乎與外國關係密切的中國人也會被批為「走資派」或「漢奸」。結果，中外關係惡化至幾近絕交的地步。相比之下，就中國在國際舞台的參與而言，儘管文革有助強化中國作為一個徹底的社會主義國家，藉打擊蘇聯的國際形象從而提高中國在共產主義陣營內的重要性，但卻令中國外交陷於孤立，與大部分國家斷絕了來往，有礙中國吸納外國知識和技術以推動中國現代化，因此是禍多於福。
總括而言，文革對中國政治、經濟、社會、教育、外交等各方面均帶來了災難性禍害，禍遠多福。因此，文革被稱為是「十年浩劫」實為不過。
‘The Cultural Revolution brought China more losses than gains.’ Comment on the validity of this statement with reference to the history of China in the second half of the 20th century.
Spanning ten years from 1966 to 1976, the Cultural Revolution caused sweeping changes in China. Among these changes, the losses brought by the revolution vastly outweighed the gains, and this was clearly demonstrated in political, economic, social, educational and diplomatic aspects. Therefore, what the question suggests is valid.
In political aspect, the Cultural Revolution brought far more loss than gains to China. It was true that from Mao’s perspective, the Cultural Revolution would be a success in the sense that capitalist roaders走資派 such as Liu Xiaoqi劉少奇 and Deng Xiaoping鄧小平 were purged and China was guided back on the track to socialism with the original right deviation rectified. This could be seen as a gain for China. However, the Cultural Revolution paralyzed party and government institutions. Without any justification, the masses blindly made purges out of conformity and put more than 2.3 million cadres under investigation. This caused enduring paralysis affecting party, national and regional government institutions. Also, many capable leaders were purged, removed from power or even persecuted because of the revolution. Liu Xiaoqi劉少奇, the former President, was one of the examples. This led to a lack of capable leaders. Moreover, many people swore that black was white and praised Mao Zedong thoughts just for self-interest and power as exemplified by Lin Biao林彪 and the Gang of Four四人幫. This led to repeated coups and struggles and created the ‘San Xin Weiji三信危機’ among the people, who lost faith in communism as well as trust and confidence in the governance of the CCP. The Communist Party was losing its ability to rally support for its social modernization efforts. In comparison, in terms of political modernization and stability, although the Cultural Revolution brought China back on the track to socialism, it caused enduring paralysis affecting government and party institutions, a great loss of capable leaders and the ‘San Xin Weiji’, being particularly harmful to China’s politics and its political modernization. Therefore, the gains were overshadowed by the losses.
In economic aspect, the Cultural Revolution caused dramatic losses and they outweighed the gains. True, the revolution had some contributions to the economic construction in China’s rural areas because of the ‘Up to the Mountains and down to the countryside movement上山下鄉’ initiated by Mao in 1968 that encouraged the youth in cities to live and work in rural areas. It is estimated that about 16 million ‘sent-down youth’ had moved to rural or remote areas to work during the revolution, helping with the construction of infrastructure and farming. The revolution was therefore conducive to the development of infrastructure and agriculture in China’s rural areas. Nevertheless, the Cultural Revolution brought way more losses to China. During the revolution, the whole population was preoccupied with political movements and ignored economic activities. In addition to the lopsided emphasis placed by Mao on ‘redness’ at the expense of ‘expertise’ 重紅不重專 that neglected knowledge and technology, China’s economic development was greatly hampered. It is estimated that the ten years of the revolution cost China 500 billion yuan of national income, which exceeded the aggregate of gross national fixed assets in the first 30 years of the PRC. The economic losses were tremendous. In comparison, in terms of economic gains and losses, the ‘Up to the Mountains and down to the countryside movement’ was conducive to economic development in rural areas, but its effectiveness should not be overestimated because the majority of workers and peasants ignored production during the revolution and economic recession was resulted. The 1960s and 1970s were when Europe, the US and Asian countries enjoyed economic boom, but China at that time was caught up in political struggles and its economic development was seriously hindered. Being unfavourable to China’s economic modernization, the revolution brought far more losses than gains.
In social aspect, the Cultural Revolution also brought more losses than gains. The Cultural Revolution did help improve women’s status. During the revolution, Jiang Qing江青, as one of the leaders of the movement, became the role model for women of political participation and involvement in social movements. Also, the revolution leaders called on women to take the initiative in purges. In addition to the extensive use of representations of women in propaganda, the idea of gender equality was reinforced and women’s liberation movement facilitated. It had therefore significant positive effects on feminism in China. However, the revolution also led to moral decline in China and caused even greater harm. The revolution emphasized revolutionary ideas and mobilized the Red Guards to purge ‘capitalist roaders’ and ‘revisionists’. Worse still, many teenagers, influenced by their cult of Mao, believed that ‘parents may love me, but not as much as Chairman Mao爹親娘親不如毛主席親’. They supported Mao and struggled against their parents and teachers. Bo Xilai薄熙来 who purged his father was a typical example. This resulted in moral decline and caused irreversible damage to society, working against social harmony and cohesion that symbolize modernization. In comparison, in terms of shaping a civilized society, although the Cultural Revolution helped promote women’s status, it embroiled China into continued social conflicts and caused severe division and hatred, destroying morality and ethics that took several thousand years to build. Given that the destruction it caused was too large to be fixed, it did bring more losses than gains.
In educational aspect, the Cultural Revolution also brought more losses than gains. During the Cultural Revolution, Mao launched the ‘Up to the mountains and down to the countryside movement上山下鄉運動’ and called upon the educated youth in cities to work in rural areas. Many of them started schools and gave lessons there, greatly promoting the development of elementary education. As a result, the enrolment rate in primary schools increased from 57% in 1963 to 96% in 1976. The revolution therefore had positive effects on the development of elementary education in China. Nevertheless, the revolution itself was a great obstacle to educational development and brought way more losses. Education was degraded as unproductive and worthless during the revolution, and beliefs such as ‘study is useless: the more you study, the more foolish you become讀書無用﹑愈讀愈蠢’ and ‘the more knowledge, the more reactionary知識愈多愈反動’ prevailed across the country. Cultural and creative activities were also brought to a standstill. These seriously hindered China’s cultural and educational development. Moreover, many intellectuals and professionals were purged and persecuted after being labeled as ‘reactionary authorities反動權威’ or ‘stinking old ninth臭老九’. As a result, education in China was greatly interrupted. It is estimated that more than 200 million people were illiterate or semiliterate in 1982. The revolution created a generation lacking education and was a period of deterioration instead of improvement with respect to educational modernization. In comparison, with respect to the progress of educational development, although the ‘Up to the mountains and down to the countryside movement’ had positive effects on elementary education in China, the educated were treated with contempt by society, and the development of academia and tertiary education was seriously interrupted. It led to a period lacking education, during which educational development was not facilitated but disrupted. Therefore, it caused enduring negative effects and the losses were greater than the gains.
In diplomatic aspect, the Cultural Revolution again brought more losses than gains to China. During the revolution, Mao called upon the Red Guards to struggle against ‘capitalist roaders’ in the country like Liu Xiaoqi, insinuating that Soviet leader Khrushchev should also be struggled against because he was deemed to be acting together with capitalist countries for trying to improve relations with the West. This enhanced China’s influence within the communist bloc. However, the Cultural Revolution led to diplomatic isolation of China and had much greater negative impact. Mao incited people to struggle against ‘imperialism帝國主義’, ‘revisionism修正主義’ and ‘capitalism資本主義’, all of which were apparently related to Western countries and the Soviet Union. This aroused anti-foreign feelings in China. The Red Guards attacked foreign legations and assaulted ambassadors. Other foreigners in China were closely watched over. On top of that, Chinese people in close contact with foreigners were persecuted as ‘capitalist roaders走資派’ or ‘traitors漢奸’. As a result, China’s relations with foreign countries deteriorated to a point that they nearly broke off. In comparison, concerning China’s international participation, the Cultural Revolution strengthened China’s status as a completely socialist country and gave China a more significant role in the communist bloc by damaging the international image of the Soviet Union, but it led to diplomatic isolation of China and cut off its interactions with most countries. This prevented China from introducing foreign know-how and technology for modernization. The revolution therefore brought more losses than gains.
In conclusion, the Cultural Revolution caused drastic losses in political, economic, social, educational and diplomatic aspects and these considerably outweighed the gains it brought. Therefore, it would be no exaggeration to say the revolution was a ‘ten-year disaster’.
Commenti