Chinese Communism Versus Pragmatism: The Criticism of Hu Shih's Philosophy, 1950–1958

⁴

In addition to the above-mentioned interpretations, the most recent interpretations along this line are to be found in

. and

⁵

For example, such criticisms can be found in the following writings.

. Also his . Yi Tsing (Yeh Ch'ing) . Hu Ch'iu-yuan, “P'in ch'iung ti che-hsüeh” (The Poverty of Philosophy) in Tu-shu tsa-chih I and II. Kuo Mo-jo's criticism of Hu Shih are to be found only in scattered places such as his . and his . Among the Marxist criticisms, however, Ch'en Tu-hsiu's criticism of Hu Shih can perhaps be singled out as the most representative of their mentality at this time. During the debate between science and metaphysics in the early nineteen twenties, Ch'en, as an admirer of Western progressive civilization, was basically sympathetic to the science-minded group and wrote enthusiastically on its behalf. But as a newly converted Marxist, he believed that “only objective materialistic causes could change society, explain history and control views of life” while Hu Shih and other liberals, with their “dualistic-idealistic emphasis on spiritual forces such as knowledge, speech and education” would inevitably be defeated in front of the metaphysicist assault. Hu Shih answered this materialistic challenge as ridiculous and pointed out that Ch'en's preoccupation with dialectical materialism could easily lead to an unbalanced view of all things. This exchange of opinion is recorded in

⁶

The Communists lost no time after their capture of Peking in launching a general attack against Hu Shih. One of the earliest attacks was made by Chen Yuan, then president of Fu Jen University. In an “open letter” published by the

, he accused Hu Shih for having misinterpreted Communism and “run away.” See . Also . In 1950, another vicious attack against Hu Shih was launched, and his son, Hu Shih-tu, was used as the mouthpiece. In his “open letter,” young Hu accused his father as an “enemy of the people” who “intimately associated with the cultural exploitation of imperialism.” This letter, which was reprinted in newspapers throughout the nation, is reproduced in toto in . On December 2, 1951, a “symposium on the Criticism of Hu Shih's Thought” was initiated in Shanghai under the auspices of the Ta Kung Pao. Distinguished scholars such as Shen Yin-mo, Ku Chieh-kang and T'ang Yung-t'ung have all participated in the “symposium” by contributing denunciatory articles on Hu Shih. These articles were subsequently published in the Shanghai . The gist of these confessions was that Hu Shih was a “cultural compradore imbued with the feudal ideology.” Major articles such as Shen Yin-mo's “This Man, Hu Shih” and Chen Yuan's “What Kind of Man Is Hu Shih,” were translated by the American Consulate General in Hong Kong and published in the . See Johnson, Ibid., p. 88. Also see . To this time, however, the attacks were directed against Hu Shih personally. It was not until late 1954, touched off by different interpretation of one of China's most popular novels—The Dream of the Red Chamber—that Hu Shih's thought was for the first time “penetratingly analyzed.” See Johnson, Ibid., p. 89. Also see , and . Starting from late 1954, the campaign was rapidly expanded by the joint effort of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Writers Union so as to embrace not only Hu Shih's literary views but also his philosophical thinking and Weltanschauung as well as his political beliefs and historical interpretations. In due time, institutions of higher learning in various parts of the country also began to respond “enthusiastically” to this undertaking and numerous meetings and forums were organized. The ferocity of the campaign seemed to have rendered only more violent by the passage of time and by the end of 1955, the quantity of the purge literature has well surpassed three million words and the number of participants also registered an unprecedented high over and above all remoulding campaigns previously held in Communist China. See . Also see Kuo Mo-jo, “Shan tien chien i” (Three Proposals), . The various critical essays were later published in an eight-volume work under the title of Hu Shih ssu-hsiang p'i-p'an. In addition to these volumes, criticisms made by leading Communist theoreticians such as Ai Ssu-ch'i, Li Ta, Sun Ting-kuo and Yao P'eng-tzu were also subsequently expanded and issued under separate titles. See footnotes 14, 15 and 51. The attack against pragmatism was once again renewed during the anti-rightist campaign. As Lu Ting-yi pointed out, if there were still places where such reactionary ideas (The thoughts of Hu Shih, Hu Feng and Liang Shu-ming) had not been completely eliminated, the campaign against them must continue and “must not stop halfway.” See Chen, Ibid., pp. 118–20. The recent purge in Communist China under the euphemism of “cultural revolution,” despite its political ramifications, however, seemed to have shown once again the salient features of the earlier campaigns. Spearheaded by what was called “the Movement of Outstanding Politics” launched within the armed forces in November, 1965, it went through different twists and turns, and by April of 1966, began to engage not only numerous ranking party officials who seemed to have doubted the Maoist policies in the past through some realistic viewpoints, but also a host of “pragmatic economists, scientists and technicians who failed to pay heed to ideology.” Chieh-jang Chan Pao, the army's newspaper which started the movement, was reported in May of 1966 as “busily leading the criticism of the pragmatists.” The acme of the “revolution,” however, was not reached until July when Mao Tse-tung was reported as having “personally guided” the campaign as his “crowning gift” to the revolution he has led for forty years. By committing himself and his army firmly behind the campaign, Mao seemed to have made the issue quite clear. Instead of regarding the realistic and pragmatic attitude as something worthy of emulation, he took them once more to task and treated them as one of the leading pawns in his favorite game of ideological reform.

⁷

Hu Shih, “Shih-yung chu-i” (Pragmatism),

. Genetic Methodology is used to denote the Deweyan five-stage methodology which includes the recognition of problem, the observation of data, the formulation of hypothesis, the verification by experiment, and finally, the making of judgment.

¹⁰

Ai Ssu-ch'i was director of the department of philosophical teaching and research of the Marxism-Leninism Institute in Peking. Li Ta, a founding member of the Chinese Communist Party and one-time president of Hunan University, was president of Wuhan University at the time of this criticism. It is recently reported that Mao had written him personally asking him to guide the campaign against Hu Shih in central China. See

. Hu Sheng is a Marxist popularizer. He is the author of many slim volumes such as Hsin-che-hsüeh ti jen-sheng-kuan (Introduction to Dialectical Materialism), Li-hsing yu-tzu-yu (Reason and Liberty) and Ssu-hsiang fang-fa yu tu-shu fang-fa (How to Think), in which the essentials of Marxism are well stated. Wang Jo-shui and Sun Ting-kuo were members of the Chinese Federation of Literature and Arts. Yao P'eng-tzu and Jen Chi-yü have been Communist essayists and writers for many years.

¹⁴

. Also

²⁷

; ; . Also see and

³⁰

; ;

³⁶

. For details, also see

⁴²

For example, immediately after the Bolshevik Revolution, Hu Shih joyfully applauded its success and wrote a poem entitled “Hsin-wo wan-shui” (Long Live the New Russia) to celebrate the event. See Hu Shih, Chang-hui-shih tsa-chi (Diary of Hu Shih), XVI, 1132–33. In his subsequent trip to the Soviet Union, he was so impressed by the Bolshevik policies that he called them “the great and unprecedented political experiments.” He believed that the Bolsheviks “are striving to create a socialistic new age” which “is worthy of our admiration.” He advised his friends Hsu Chih-mo and Chang Wei-tz'u to abondon their “prejudice” against the socialist system. To Hu Shih at this time, “the Soviet system has its universal aspects.” See

. Even as late as 1933 in his Haskell lectures delivered at the University of Chicago, he still held the view that the Soviet example was only an early stage of an integrated democratic movement in the West. See,

⁴⁶

. Also see , and

⁵⁴

Also

⁶⁰

For example, Chang Hsin-ju in his

, provided a typical sample of this kind of criticism. After repeating the general principles of Hu Shih's methodology, he continued: “Let us first of all examine the so-called stage of ‘start with concrete facts and siuations.’ It actually means to start with one's own subjective ideas or, to be more specific, to start with the anti-revolutionary ideology of the American imperialism, to neglect the objective facts and to observe and judge problems from predetermined framework. … Next, there is the so-called stage of ‘hypothesizing method’ or boldness in hypothesizing. This stage means essentially, to fabricate distorted facts by a pair of closed eyes, to neglect and reconcile class contradictions, and to chose among many other facts, the partial, superficial and conforming ones which are capable of being exaggerated for the metaphysical inferences and which will lead to the formulation of the dogmatic conclusions in the name of ‘hypotheses’ … Lastly, there is the stage of testing by experiments or ‘careful verification.’ Actually, this is a stage to create evidence in order to ‘verify’ your own ‘hypotheses’—something which has already been dogmatically asserted in the previous step.… This is the true essence of what the pragmatic philosophers had called ‘laboratory attitude of mind’ and ‘Genetic Method.’ This in effect is a subjective, partial, and superficial metaphysical method. It is also the method of subjective Sophism.” See

⁶⁷

in Friedrich, Ibid., p. 255.

⁷²

. Also see Cohen, Ibid., p. 13, note.

⁹³

Although Hu Shih's liberal thought has not been adequately studied in the past, he did present his justification for freedom and democracy based on pragmatism. His major theoretical writings in this area were rather late in appearing. See

. and his article in . His other political writings, which are voluminous, were written throughout an extended period from the establishment of the , in Peking to February, 1962, when he died in Taipei. Among them, his articles published in , his writings in Tu-li ping-lun (The Independent Critic) between 1932–1937, and his discussion on liberalism in the small pamphlet entitled Wo-men pi-hsu shuan-tze wo-men-ti fan-hsiang (We Must Choose Our Direction), (Hong Kong: Free China Publication Co., 1949) are particularly noteworthy. For a preliminary study of his liberalism in terms of the Anglo-American liberal traditions, see my work “The Criticism of Hu Shih's Thought in Communist China” (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Chicago, 1965), pp. 131 ff.