No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Contradictions in a Totalitarian Society
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 17 February 2009
Extract
Some aspects of the Chinese People's Republic have been explained as reversions to traditional Chinese patterns. There are resemblances between the Chinese Communist ideal for society and the traditional Confucian ideal. Both assume that, in a properly ordered society, there should be universal acceptance of a true doctrine and universal agreement on what is right. Paul Linebarger, describing the Confucian ideal, wrote, “Government, once cheng ming has been set in motion, is not a policy making body. There is no question of policy, no room for disagreement, no alternative; what is right is apparent. … government needs only to administer for … the maintenance of the ideology. Once right views are established, no individual is entitled to think otherwise. … control of the individual will devolves upon persons making up his immediate social environment. …” One can compare this with the frequent Chinese Communist statements about the universal validity of Marxism-Leninism and the thought of Mao Tse-tung and the continually appearing assumption that a process of discussion must end with unanimous agreement on what is right. Also, control of the individual by persons in his immediate social environment is a characteristic feature of the Chinese Communist system.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © The China Quarterly 1969
References
1 Linebarger, P. M. A., The Political Doctrines of Sun Yat-sen (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1937.) Quotation summarized from pp. 34–38.Google Scholar
2 Eastman, Max, Love and Revolution (New York: Random House, 1964), p. 229.Google Scholar
3 An-p'ing, Ch'u was editor of the Kuang-ming jih pao. One statement of his view about the “Party Empire” can be found in an editorial in the (Kuang-ming jih-pao of 2 June 1957. Ch'u was later severely criticized for putting forward this theory.Google Scholar
4 Peking Review 10 June 1966, p. 7.Google Scholar