Purging the Gang of Four Followers

Those whom the CR had favored and those who had been victims differed on the nature of the Gang of Four's mistakes and the number of their followers. Viewing the radicals as a conspiratorial group, the beneficiaries tried to limit the scope of the purges and rehabilitation and to uphold all of Mao's decisions, whereas the victims were determined to remove their luckier or more politically adroit confreres in order to reverse any of Mao's decisions that seemed wrong to them.

[11] Dangshi Tongxun , no. 2, 20 January 1983.

During Hua's leadership public criticism of the Jiang Qing group—which was carried out under tight control of the party organization, lest embarrassing questions for the beneficiaries were raised—underwent three different stages as Hua had originally envisioned: the first focused on the exposure of the Gang's "plot to usurp power," the second dealt with their "past criminal records," and the last condemned the "ultrarightist essence of their counterrevolutionary revisionist line."^[12]

The central leadership headed by Hua prepared official criticism materials, setting the tone for each stage of the campaign. Taking cues from official materials, various units published criticism of the radicals' concrete crimes in their units. Condemning the Gang of Four as "typical representatives of the bourgeois inside the party" who had "subverted the dictatorship of the proletariat in order to restore capitalism," the first batch of official materials focused largely on their characters and class backgrounds, which they had allegedly falsified to "sneak into positions of authority." The second batch stressed the radicals' efforts to usurp political power against Mao's will since the campaign to criticize Confucius and Lin Biao, while failing to touch upon the radicals' activities in the earlier stages of the CR.^[13]

The official view—that the radicals were an "ultrarightist conspiratorial" group that had betrayed Mao's instructions in an attempt to seize power—turned the thrust of the campaign to those who "endeavored to restore capitalism," while failing to correct "leftist errors" in the official line.^[14] Arguing that investigating the Gang of Four would create an atmosphere favorable to capitalist trends, the beneficiaries initiated the "double-blow movement" to investigate the Gang's followers and to check the "destructive activities of the class enemy," who undermined the collective economy at the basic level.^[15]

As to the question of who should be regarded as the Gang of Four's followers, the beneficiaries insisted that "only a few [had] participated in the Gang's conspiracy." In particular, the central

[12] Zhonggong Yanjiu 12(19) (15 September 1978):99–108.

[13] "Document of the Central Committee (Zhongfa ), No. 37, 1977," Issues and Studies , 14(7), July 1978, 81–102.

[14] Renmin Ribao , 7 April 1977.

[15] Beijing Review , 1 January 1977; 10 March 1978.

organizational department specified in October 1976 who should be purged. First, only close associates of the Gang of Four were vulnerable, whereas those who "involuntarily cooperated with the Gang" were to be forgiven. Second, close associates were safe if they recanted. Third, people who had merely done or said something wrong were not be included in any punitive measures. Hua Guofeng reiterated a similar line in all his public speeches, stressing that most of the cadres who had done or said something wrong deserved education, not punishment.^[16] He divided even the "backbone elements" into those who recanted by exposing the crimes of the Gang of Four and the "stubborn elements."^[17] Thus, even the radicals who had genuinely sympathized with the Gang could defend themselves by insisting that their relationship was merely organizational and that "my problem was that of carrying out orders, and [the mistakes] cannot be charged to my account."^[18] As for who should replace the Gang's associates, Hua reiterated Mao's five requirements for a revolutionary successor and the three-in-one formula of young, middle-aged, and old cadres.^[19]

Hua Guofeng was very slow in changing the provincial leadership, either because of his limited organizational capabilities or because of his desire to protect Gang of Four sympathizers. For instance, before Deng's formal comeback in July only seven provincial first party secretaries had been replaced, while many leaders suspected of having had close connections with the Gang were allowed to stay in power.^[20] Guo Yufeng, who later turned out be a Gang of Four associate, stayed on as director of the organizational department, formally heading the campaign against the radicals until the end of 1977.

Furthermore, rank-and-file cadres were not eager aggressively to pursus the Gang's followers. At that time they were confused and totally demoralized by the constant changes in official policy. Many of them had learned that making too many enemies was not

[16] Renmin Ribao , 13 April 1977.

[17] Zhonggong Yanjiu 12(19) (15 September 1978):99–108.

[18] Renmin Ribao , 16 April 1978; 12 June 1978.

[19] Ibid., 20 March 1978.

[20] Some of the provincial leaders Hua appointed turned out to have close relationships with the Gang of Four. For instance, Liu Guangtao was made first secretary of Heilongjiang province in January 1977, only to be removed by the end of the year.

good for their careers. Moreover, the leadership of each unit was still so splintered that carrying out an objective and fair investigation was impossible.^[21]

Despite the proliferating articles denouncing the Gang of Four, the campaign to "expose and criticize" did not have much impact in 1977. According to his opponents, Hua's campaign "investigated only small matters, but not big matters; investigated only the lower level, not the upper level; investigated only outside matters, not inside matters; investigated only matters tangentially related, not immediate matters."^[22] As a result, only a few very well-known radicals were investigated and dismissed.^[23]

As more victims of the CR were reinstated to politically influential positions, the campaign against the radicals was bound to expose Hua's tactics of "tacit discontinuity and overt defense" of the CR and Mao Zedong's thought.^[24] When the public campaign expanded to touch upon the Gang's specific policies—particularly "production relations" versus productive forces and the role of profit and material incentives in economic management—it became obvious that the Gang's policy was ultraleft rather than ultraright.^[25] This compelled the beneficiaries to change the official label to "ultraleft in appearance, but ultraright in essence."^[26]

Nonetheless, the victims of the CR were not willing to accept the validity of this new label. For instance, Renmin Ribao questioned whether the Gang of Four carried out a "proletarian dictatorship or fascist dictatorship?"^[27] Once the Gang's dictatorship was labeled fascist and its ties with Lin Biao openly discussed, it was a matter of time before the radicals were condemned as ultraleftists.^[28] The change in terminology brought about an upsurge of articles de-

[21] Renmin Ribao , 22 June 1978.

[22] Ibid., 13 January 1978.

[23] For instance, the Gang of Four's followers in Shanghai—Ma Tianxiu and Xu Jingxian—and at Beijing University—Wang Lianglong, Li Jiaokun, and Guo Conglin—were arrested and investigated.

[24] Lowell Dittmer, China's Continuous Revolution: The Post-Liberation Epoch, 1949–1981 (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1987).

[25] For instance, see "The Gang of Four's Attack on 'Sole Productive Forces' Is an Attack on Historical Dialectics," Renmin Ribao , 11 January 1978.

[26] Ibid., 6 February 1977; October 14, 1977; 7 March 1978.

[27] Ibid., 11 June 1977.

[28] Joseph, Critique of Ultra-Leftism , 184, 168; Renmin Ribao , 23 March 1978; 3 April 1978.

manding the correction of ultraleftism and, by implication, the Maoist line on beneficiaries. A Renmin Ribao article argued that if the Gang of Four's mistakes were not correctly identified as ultraleftist, there would be no way to correct them. As evidence, the article explained how Wang Ming's error in calling Li Lisan's policy ultraright justified the ultraleftist mistakes that Wang continued to make. Other articles made it plainer that without a thorough criticism of the Gang of Four's ultraleftism, the old cadres could not be rehabilitated.^[29]

Public criticism eventually expanded to raise the question of those who had benefited from the CR by managing to muddle through the mass movements ("remaining faction"), by adjusting themselves to whatever was the prevailing trend ("wind faction"), and by shaking up the political structure ("earthquake faction").^[30] The translations of these picturesque Chinese terms point to the questionable relationship of the beneficiaries with the Gang of Four at the early stage of the CR.

From the beginning, Deng Xiaoping advocated the removal of broader categories of radicals. In his speech to the municipal party secretaries on 27 December 1977, he established three criteria for determining who should be purged.^[31] First, all those who collected materials against Zhou Enlai and Zhu De during the CR, "irrespective of intentions, positions, abilities, and political performance," should be investigated and removed from office. This applied also to the masses, who had acted without ulterior political motives. Second, all those who had developed close relationships with Lin Biao and the Gang of Four, had acted on their instructions, and had cultivated them before and during the CR were to be dismissed from positions of leadership regardless of seniority and whether or not their actions caused any bad effects. Those who did not incur the people's resentment should not be punished, but instead of staying in leadership positions, such cadres should be forced "to earn their bread through laboring." Third, all cadres who had persecuted old cadres and collected "black materials"

[29] Renmin Ribao , 3 March 1979.

[30] Ibid., 10 January 1978.

[31] Feijing Yuebao , 21(7), January 1989, 25–30.

should be dismissed even if they had done so in the name of Mao Zedong's thought.^[32]

Scrutiny of the Gang of Four's followers stepped up when Hu Yaobang assumed responsibility for the central organizational department in December 1977. He acted decisively, changing the leadership of organizational departments at lower levels and appointing newly rehabilitated cadres to leadership positions at the provincial level. Local newspapers began to criticize several provincial leaders for their close ties with the Gang of Four and for their efforts to keep the lid on the campaign against the Gang.^[33] The newly reinstated cadres had many political reasons thoroughly to investigate the radicals who had attacked them. They adjusted the leading personnel on the lower levels and dispatched work teams to supervise the criticism. For instance, the new provincial party secretary of Shanxi province organized ten investigation teams with 100 cadres to check the results of the previous campaign to criticize the Gang of Four.^[34] The Jilin provincial party committee first rehabilitated five old cadres who "had suffered the most from the Gang of Four's persecution" and then placed them in charge of organizing the work teams to be sent out to the various units. Even lower-level units organized and sent out work teams to subordinate units.^[35] By mid-1978, the issue of how to handle cadres promoted in "the two surprise attacks" had surfaced.^[36] Although official policy was to decide cases individually, it seems very likely that almost all of those who had benefited from "helicopter promotion" eventually lost their positions.

[32] Ibid.

[33] Xie Xuekong of Tianjin was removed from his office in June, Wu De in October, Zeng Shaosha of Liaoning and Yu Daiching of Inner Mongolia in October, Li Ruishan of Shaanxi in December, Liu Zhenxun of Henan in October, and Saifudin of Xinjiang in February. The reorganization of the State Council removed such persons as Wang Yang, Li Chitai, and Sha Feng, who were not yet criticized by name. Through the summer of 1978 a few more provincial leaders, whose connection with the Gang of Four was not very obvious, came under attack too and eventually were removed from office. Provincial party leaders who came under public attack during this period in early 1978 include Saifudin of Xinjiang, Li Ruishan of Shanxi, Lung Daichung of Inner Mongolia, and Zhang Boshan of Hunan. See Beijing Ribao , 7 December 1979; Renmin Ribao , 30 March 1978.

[34] Renmin Ribao , 11 June 1979.

[35] Ibid., 13 February 1978.

[36] Ibid., 28 June 1978; 4 September 1979.

After the third plenum in December 1978, Hua Guofeng declared that the check on the Gang's followers had been completed. But rehabilitated cadres continued to stress the importance of thorough checking, and they launched what they called reexamination (fu cha ) of the radicals.^[37] More stringent criteria to verify previous campaign investigations were set up by various units. For instance, the Anshan Steel Mill Corporation organized sixteen inspection teams that used thirty criteria to see whether a unit had carried out its campaign properly.^[38]Renmin Ribao recommended that six conditions be met before ending the campaign against the Gang of Four.^[39] The rehabilitated cadres eventually put the Gang on public trial and adopted the "Resolution on Some Historical Questions," which officially acknowledged Mao's mistakes in the CR. The Gang's associates were further investigated as the "three types of people" during the party rectification campaign of 1983–85.