红太阳

网上断断续续地听了高先生很多关于党史和新中国史的讲座和讲课录音,对他的学养、见地、胆识和口才很是敬服。成书于上世纪末的《红太阳》应该是他的成名作。全书洋洋数十万言,名为讲述延安整风运动的来龙去脉,实则很像超长版的《太祖本纪.前传》。由于包含大量不合“正史”的故实、评述与解读,大陆读者一直无缘一见庐山真面目。高先生在后记中自许以秉笔直书的太史公为楷模,以“板梁甘坐十年冷,文章不写一字空”为信条。从《红太阳》内容之敢言和参考文献之浩繁来看,他大概当得起“不写一字空”这个评价。所叹者,先生缁铢累计,皓首穷经十余年写成的与人为鉴的历史,到头来落一个“自向荒郊寂寞红”的结局。不知先生泉下有知,是否会自悔当年入错了行?

延安整风在党史和新中国史上占据极为重要的地位,是因为它为中国未来一个世纪设定了意识形态:有中国特色的马克思主义。这标志着党摆脱了莫斯科对理论解释体系的控制,从此以自身的理解来定义革命的目标、主体、对象和方式。

事实证明,有中国特色的马克思主义是个非常有创意的想法,因为它像美国宪法一样,可以通过重新解释达到与时俱进,海纳百川的效果。当然,它比美国宪法灵活高效太多,后来的领袖们会发现,这一颗美丽的羊头下面,可以卖的又岂止是狗肉。高华总结说,在延安整风完成的时候,这个新意识形态有四大原则:一、树立“实用第一”的观点,“坚决抛弃一切对现实革命目标无直接功用的理论。” 二、全力肃清“五四”思想在党内知识分子中的影响,确立集体至上、个人渺小的新观念。三、确定农民为革命主力军。四、把宋明新儒家“向内里用力”的观念融入党内斗争的理论。”

对我而言,上述第四点很是振聋发聩。我知道阳明心学在当今中国是显学,但从没想过它居然也是太祖哲学思想之所本。高华写道,

“(整风运动的)运作方式和操作实践的背后,还有着浓厚的中国内圣之学的痕迹。干部坦白交代和自我剖析与宋明新儒家的「格物致知」,寻求「天人合一」的路向几乎异曲同工,只是词汇和解释系统不同,而在手法上更具强制性”。

回想起前几年回国偶然有机会跟一干政府官员吃饭,席间某副市长侃侃而谈自己研究阳明心学的心得,其他官员纷纷加入讨论,气氛之热烈,不亚于小型的阳明研讨会。当时我对王阳明的所知还停留在《明朝那些事》里看来的一鳞半爪(现在也进益无多),对天朝高级干部哲学素养之高,印象极为深刻。不过,如果真如高华所说,阳明心学跟有中国特色的马克思主义有如此渊源,显学之名确是顺理成章。

在高华看来,延安整风是太祖自井冈山以来惨淡经营的巅峰之作,他老人家精心铸造的马克思主义中国化这柄倚天长剑,终于让全党同志心悦诚服,自觉地团结在以之为核心的的党中央周围。党从缔造以来第一次迎来了一位强势、自信、拥有绝对权威的领袖。整风运动以中共七大为终结,不仅奠定了新中国前二十五年坎坷发展、“砥砺前行”的基调,更开集中先于民主之新风,为党国权力定于一尊之滥觞,对中国政局影响深远,绵延至今。

前面说过,《红太阳》明写延安整风事件,实则处处为太祖立传。在高华笔下,他拥有无可争议的军事天才、超凡入圣的政治直觉和百折不挠的钢铁意志,即使异见者也不能不为之折服,甘为犬马前驱;但作为领导者,他执政则刚愎自用,霸道专横,为达目的不择手段;其性格则多疑善变,翻云覆雨,睚眦必报。他对绝对权力的眷恋与对人格尊严的漠视形成鲜明对比;他对知识分子从由衷的嫌恶和怀疑,发展为有意无意的的羞辱和打压 , 态度颇似孙绍祖之于贾迎春,“窥着那读书种子如蒲柳,作践得教授学究似下流” 。这种“精神消灭法”危害之烈,流弊之广,恐怕两千年前他那位偶像始皇帝的“肉体消灭法”也不能望其项背。

不过话说回来,高华对太祖的判语,出国前的我如果在白纸黑字的出版物上看到,也许会被震到头晕眼花(所谓秉笔直书是也),但对于在舆论宽松的环境里生活了二十年的人来说,其实并无太多新意。我反到觉得他对太祖诛心太过,负面评价过多,仿佛作者心中早有定论,文章笔处龙蛇,无非是为支持这个结论罗织证据而已。作为史家,给读者留下这种印象,不能不说是败笔。另外,全书结构稍显拖沓冗余,前后章节主题相似,而时间跨度颇多重叠,影响阅读体验,也算一个遗憾。文字来说,个人觉得最好的部分还是臧否太祖那些段落。隔着这么多年的岁月,你还是能清楚地感受到,高先生在写下这些文字的时候,心中的那一种沧桑和板荡。

 

Games without rules

Before August 2021 I knew almost nothing about Afghan history. Nor did I care.  As a country, Afghanistan seems neither interesting nor important, culturally or geopolitically.  Yes, it is famous for feverish Islamism, extreme poverty, and brutality against women; but there are plenty of such failed states to go around in the world.  Yes, it is nicknamed the “graveyard of empires”; but to most Chinese, there is nothing mysterious about burying empires in what Chairman Mao would call “boundless ocean of people’s war”.

Then, in April 2021, President Biden announced the plan to withdraw from Afghanistan by the end of August that year.  Shortly after, Taliban soldiers began to emerge from caves and tunnels. As they swept through the country with breathtaking speed, their opponents, more than 300,000 strong and trained, equipped, and paid for by NATO, simply melted away.  To be sure, Americans did not think highly of the Afghan legions procured with their money, initially predicting they could not hold off Taliban offense for more than a year.  Yet, they were still caught completely off guard when the Afghan government collapsed in Mid-August, well before the deadline of the planned withdrawal. If Americans had dreamed about a gracious if melancholy farewell from a country that they thought they had liberated and rebuilt, the dream had turned into a nightmare that will be remembered for generations to come.

Like most observers, I watched the events unfolding in Afghanistan that summer with shock, amusement, and confusion.  How could a poorly trained guerrilla force defeat a larger, better-equipped national army in just a few months? Why did not most Afghans fight harder to protect their political freedom, personal liberty, and women’s rights, the things that Americans insisted they should cherish the most? Even Biden seemed genuinely baffled at Afghans’ lack of will “to fight for their own future” despite Americans had given them “every tool they could need”.  These questions had prompted me to find answers in Afghan history.   The book I stumbled on was Games Without Rules by Tamim Ansary, an Afghan American author who was born in Kabul after WWII. Ansary covers the 250-year history of modern Afghanistan, starting from its legendary founder, Ahmad Shah Baba, and ending with the Islamic Republic in the 21st century.   An easy and enjoyable read, the book did not just answer most of my questions, it answered them head on, as if the author knew the questions would be asked ten years later.

First, a few things that surprised me.

I once thought that Afghans have always been living under a somewhat barbarous regime similar to Taliban, and that it was Americans who incidentally liberated them from the subjection by their antiquated institutions.   I was wrong.

Taliban movement was in fact a new phenomenon that bears little resemblance with most Afghan regimes that came before it.  The reign of Abdur Rahman Khan (1880-1901) ––also known as the Iron Amir––may be a close match in terms of brutality and religious rigidity, but he is also remembered by many as the king who united Afghanistan under one flag and set her on the path toward modernization.  Like many peoples that came in contact with the West in the past two centuries, Afghans had gone through, sometimes not under their own initiatives and terms, multiple iterations of modernization projects.  Amanullah Khan (1919 -1929), who fought for and won Afghan independence from the British Empire, was a radical reformer.  Among his daring edicts was a new law meant to replace Shari’a, which guaranteed many basic human rights, including freedom of religion and women’s rights – yes, a hundred years ago, Amanullah’s code already proclaimed no girls should be denied the right to education and no women should be required to wear burqa.   However, Amanullah’s reform was way ahead of its time.  Afghans rebelled and kicked him out of the country; he ended up in Italy as a refugee, where he spent the rest of his life working as a carpenter.  After a few years of turmoil, the reign of Zahir Shah (1933 – 1973) charted a more moderate and successful trajectory, which culminated in the enactment of the 1964 constitution.   By introducing free elections, a parliament, civil and political rights and universal suffrage––and effectively banning any members of royal family to hold high-level government offices––the constitution created a modern democratic state that is, in principle, similar to the Islamic Republic of 2000s. By early 1960s, Ansary wrote,

“in the big city of Kabul, women were beginning to appear in public showing not just their faces but their arms, their legs, even cleavage. Afghan girls of the elite technocratic class were beginning to cotton to Western fashions. They were wearing miniskirts and low-cut blouses. Nightclubs were popping up, which served beer and wine and whiskey—and not just to foreigners. Afghans were drinking and making no bones about it.”

So, how did Afghanistan descend from this lovely modern democracy to Taliban’s Islamic Emirate? Well, it had much to do with geopolitics.

Contrary to my naïve preconception, Afghanistan has been enormously important to the struggles of great powers, especially those between Russia and the West. In the 19th century, the Russians attempted to reach the Indian Ocean from the central Asia. Determined to protect their enormous trade interests in the region from Russian interferences, the British took Afghanistan as their protectorate by force.  If the objective was to stop Russians, the British succeeded.  However, their control of the country had always been fragile and treacherous.  According to Ansary, they had “won jurisdiction of every patch of Afghan territory their guns could cover—but not one inch more”. Eventually, after countless lives on both sides lost to violence and a world war that permanently weakened Europe, the British granted independence to Afghans. However, the domination of great power politics did not fade away. Instead, it morphed into a form that had briefly become a benefactor, when Russians and Americans, in their attempt to recruit Afghans to fight for their causes in the Cold War, offered extravagant aid packages.  In 1950s and 1960s, the two superpowers “constructed over twelve hundred miles of superb paved roads through some of the planet’s most difficult terrain”, which connected “all of Afghanistan’s major cities”. Unfortunately, this relatively peaceful and prosperous era was interrupted by the rise of the communist movement in the late 1960s.   Social unrest ensued, followed by three coup d’etat in the 1970s.  From the upheavals a deeply unpopular communist regime emerged in 1978, whose internal strife soon killed its pro-Soviet leader, Nur Mohammed Taraki, and forced his slayer and successor, Hafizullah Amin, to consider jumping ship to the Americans. The Soviet Union intervened, plunging into a 10-year war from which she would never recover.  Like the British in the 19th century, Russians soon discovered that their war machine could easily crash the Afghan army and state but not the Afghan people.  Frustrated by the tenacious opposition led by Mujahideen (Islam Jihadists), the Russians resorted to a scorched earth policy that aimed at depopulating rural Afghanistan. Their grotesque tactics did little to win the war but unleashed a humanitarian catastrophe of epic proportion.   According to Ansary, a million Afghans were killed and six million displaced in 1985 alone.

An entire generation of Afghan boys would grow up in the refugee camps and receive education in religious madrassas (schools).  Having suffered through the worst childhood on earth, they were “allowed to imagine that it might be their destiny to establish the community that would save the world”.   From the schools of these refugee camps would rise the loyal followers of Mullah Omar, the founder of the “student movement”, or Taliban (literally means students in Arab).   Under Omar’s leadership, Taliban would win a bloody civil war in 1990s, only to be dethroned a few years later in the wake of America’s anti-terrorist crusade.

The rest is history.

Let me get back to the questions that drew me to this book in the first place. Why didn’t the Afghan people fight harder for their freedom? The short answer is there were two Afghan peoples: westernized urban elites and common folks from the countryside. The “Afghan people” often spoken of in the western media might only refer to the former.  While the elites considered Taliban an archenemy, the masses did not see Taliban’s moral and religious imperatives conflict with theirs.  While the elites were supposedly in charge, they have never gained full control of the other Afghanistan.  Most importantly, when push comes to shove, they had no idea how to “fight the fight and win the war”.

Why is Afghanistan so deeply divided?  As a collection of tribes and ethnic groups that loosely coalesced around an Islamic culture over a tough terrain, Afghanistan is an inherently weak state. This made it very hard for anyone, even the most powerful country in the world, to penetrate through the layers of physical and cultural barriers that historically separate urban centers from rural communities. Without a strong state, most Afghans naturally turned to tribal and religious authorities for such basic state services as security, law enforcement and education. Ansary likened ruling Afghanistan through a puppet government to swinging a pot by grasping its handle: the foreign powers thought they could swing the pot however they wanted; yet, because the handle was never firmly attached to the pot, they often ended up shattering the pot while holding nothing but a useless handle.

The innate weakness of the Afghan state was further reinforced by the powerful legacy of Islam and the recurrent interventions by the West.  Unfortunately, the Islam and the West have long been at odds with each other, and the animosity had only grown stronger in the past century.  As a result, the head of the Afghan state faces a constant dilemma.  On the one hand, as they need the support of the West––money, permission, or both––to secure power and to modernize the country, they must subscribe, or at least pay lip service, to Western values.   On the other hand, they could not afford to alienate the masses who remain loyal to traditional values, or risk being thrown out of the palace like Amanullah.  The balance between the two acts is so delicate that few could make it work, not for a long time anyway.  As a result, modernization in Afghanistan, because it is “foreign” in name and in essence, had actually widened the cultural and wealth chasm between the elites who welcomed the western influences and the masses who continued to resist them.  Any attempt by a foreign power to correct course by direct intervention, regardless of methods or intention, only serves to pour fuel on the fire.

Seen from this light, the Bush plan to rebuild Afghanistan after the 2001 invasion was doomed from the beginning.   On display in that 20-year nation building project, largely funded by American taxpayers, is not so much America’s idealism as her arrogance and ignorance of history.  Biden was right to cut the loss as soon as he could.   In the end, Ansary told us Afghanistan would probably do okay, regardless of who was in charge, if only other countries are willing to leave her alone.   Let’s see if the world will heed his advice this time.

 

胡鑫宇

仔细看了新闻发布会的通告(澎湃新闻),没发现明显的破绽。当然,这个判断的前提是通告里提到的事实没有捏造。大量网民对这些事实本身的质疑一定程度上反映了政府公信力的欠缺。但是,没有大家认可的基本事实,吃瓜群众参与理性讨论的基础将不复存在。

阴谋论支持者的问题是他们除了网上各种截屏,提不出任何有力证据来支持他们的种种理论。提出指控的人需要举证,这是基本常识。有些阴谋论很容易证伪,有些很难;但是很难证伪的阴谋论并不比容易证伪的更靠谱。罗素说,如果我告诉你地球和火星之间有个茶壶在按照椭圆轨道绕太阳飞行,你们看不见只是因为它离太远了,你们该不会觉得我是犯傻吧?(known as Russell’s teapot).

他们更大的问题是没有办法合理解释为什么一个15岁的普通高中生会被想象中权势熏天的幕后黑手相中作为谋杀的对象;当然他们也没有办法解释这个幕后黑手为什么选择这个时间点高调的抛尸;让他永远消失难道不是更好的选择?

每当这类涉及青少年自杀的事件出现疑点,中国网民除了条件反射般地质疑政府掩盖真相,也条件反射般地忽略自杀对青少年的潜在威胁;实际上美国每年死于自杀的人大概是谋杀的两倍还多,在青少年里,自杀已经超越他杀成为非正常死亡的第二大原因 ,研究表明有大约9%的高中生尝试过自杀。在中国,这个数字大概是7%。对胡鑫宇事件更合理的解读似乎应该是青少年心理健康危机的警钟;可惜两千年来对政府的依赖和依恋,让我们习惯了把目光投向政府来进行思考,那里是权力之源,力量之源,信心之源;当然也是一切问题之源。