李世默：一個國父的誕辰

本文同時刊發於南華早報，英文版翻頁可見

2013年12月26日，是中華人民共和國締造者毛澤東主席誕辰120週年。在現代中國歷史上，毛澤東的影響遠遠超過任何人。在中國崛起和中華民族復興的歷史性時刻，世界的目光聚焦於中國，毛澤東的遺產無疑是不容忽視的一筆。當然，要給毛澤東這樣重要、複雜的人物蓋棺定論，歷史需要的時間無疑是漫長的，也許永遠也不可能。然而，為了理解當代中國及其與世界的關係，一些根本性的曲解亟待糾正。

在西方，通行的看法是認為中華人民共和國的前三十年，在毛澤東的領導下最終陷入滅頂之災。一黨執政的中共政權為了自救，被迫摒棄了毛澤東的意識形態統治，改弦更轍走改革開放的道路。

但上述觀點是錯誤的。很多人割裂中共64年的執政歷史，聲稱這段歷史可分為正反兩個三十年，其中從1949年到1979年的前三十年，主要領導人是毛澤東；從1979年直到當下的後三十年，以鄧小平的改革為起點。毋庸置疑，鄧小平的改革糾正了前三十年的許多錯誤政策，取得了巨大成就。大約6.5億人在一代人時間裏擺脱貧困，中國也從貧窮的農業國一躍而為工業大國。

然而，如果沒有前三十年奠定的基礎，後三十年的成就是不可能的。前三十年中，毛澤東領導的中共發動全國之力，集中有限資源，完成了現代中國的工業和人力資源積累。僅列舉幾個數據，就可證明這一階段的成績。1949年，中國幾乎沒有工業基礎；除極少數大城市外，全國的通電率微不足道；識字率低於20%；免疫接種率實際為零；人均壽命僅有41歲。

到1979年，鄧小平領導改革開放前夕，中國已建立了基本的工業體系。在全國各地新建了約1萬座水電站，全國通電率躍升到60%以上，一些最貧困的鄉村也通了電（當今全國通電率已接近100%）。識字率躍升到驚人的66%，這意味着超過80%以上的年輕人受過教育——在貧困的發展中國家中，這一數字遙遙領先（當今全國識字率是92%）。接受預防免疫接種的人口多達數億；嬰兒免疫接種率接近100%；全國人均壽命提高到65歲（當今是74歲）。事實上，到1978年時，中國的人類發展指數（HDI）已接近富裕得多的發達國家（數據來自1990年的聯合國開發計劃署《人類發展報告》）。

在改革開放前夕，中國有數億雖仍貧困但身體健康、且受過教育的勞動者，還有基本健全的工業體系。這是中國改革開放後迅速騰飛、成就經濟奇蹟的基礎。而前三十年的巨大積累，都是在底子薄弱、遭受全面外部封鎖的艱苦環境中完成的。當然，在這期間未能避免失誤，甚至巨大的災難，比如“大躍進”和“文化大革命”，但若以此就全盤否定前三十年，不免有以管窺天之失。

毛澤東最重要的政治遺產，是造就了中國的民族獨立。毛澤東領導建立、鞏固的中華人民共和國，結束了近代百年來的國內戰亂和外國瓜分，中國人第一次能牢牢掌握國家命運。冷戰結束後，由於政治上的獨立，中國能以自主姿態融入全球化。許多發展中國家卻無此幸運，不但未能獲益，反而被全球化吞噬。當然不可否認，毛澤東時代出現的政策錯誤造成了巨大損失和危機，中國民眾為此付出了慘痛代價。然而風雨之後，年輕的人民共和國生存下來了，並進入了全面茁壯成長期。毛澤東時代的積澱澤及後人，甚至未來幾代人都將繼續受益匪淺。

最後有一點需要特別闡明。毛澤東常被描繪為意識形態的狂熱信徒，這其實並不符合事實。在西方世界甚至中國國內，有一種觀點很普遍，即認為毛澤東沉迷於意識形態，他領導的前三十年是意識形態掛帥的；而鄧小平則是改革者，他開啓的後三十年是實事求是的。中國崛起的秘密，就在於政治權力從毛澤東交到鄧小平。

毋庸置疑，毛澤東時代的中國在特定時期吃過意識形態狂熱的苦果。然而必須承認的另一面事實是，毛澤東歸根結底是一個務實的政治家。全世界都不應忘記，正是在毛澤東的領導下，中國早在上世紀50年代末，就開始抵制蘇聯的影響和霸權。須知當時的蘇聯不僅是如日中天的超級大國，意識形態上也堪稱新生的中華人民共和國的“老大哥”，毛澤東與蘇聯分道揚鑣的決策，至少在膽略上也是無比驚人的。但毛澤東的手筆遠不止於此，在冷戰最激烈的70年代，他跨越意識形態的天塹，與美國結成事實性的同盟，以遏制蘇聯的擴張。相應地，這一佈局為中國面向西方世界的開放開闢了道路，成為鄧小平時代經濟改革最強勁的動力之一。

所有在歷史上留下深刻烙印的人物都不是簡單的，其遺產總是豐富複雜的。但是，人們往往拘泥於簡單、武斷的裁判。正如歷史學家托馬斯·卡萊爾所言：“世界歷史，不過是偉大人物的傳記。”因此，曲解偉大的歷史人物就是曲解歷史，並可能誤導未來。毛澤東不僅深深影響了十幾億中國人的命運，也觸動了世界歷史的脈搏。對毛澤東主席的認識，需要的是謹慎、深思熟慮的研究，而不是簡單化的道德便利主義。

李世默是上海的風險投資家和政治學學者，春秋綜合研究院研究員、復旦大學中國發展模式研究中心研究員。

毛澤東在開國大典上

翻頁請看英文版

   

THE FOUNDING FATHER

SHANGHAI -- Today, China celebrates the 120th birthdate of the founding father of the People’s Republic – Chairman Mao Zedong. No one looms larger in the narrative of modern China. As the nation continues its ascendency to reclaim its position as a great power, Mao’s legacy is central to its perception in the eyes of the world. The ultimate judgment rendered by history, if such a thing is possible for a man of his significance and complexity, remains far into the horizon. But to understand the state of contemporary China and its relations to the world, some fundamental misconceptions need to be addressed.

The standard narrative in the West is that the first 30 years of the People’s Republic under Mao’s leadership was an unmitigated disaster and the party-state was only able to save itself by repudiating his ideological rule and taking the country in an opposite direction.

But this is false. Many segregate the party’s 64-year leadership into two thirty-year periods: the first from 1949 to 1979, mostly under Mao, and the second from 1979 to the present, starting with Deng Xiaoping’s dramatic reforms.  No doubt Deng’s reforms corrected many previous policy mistakes and delivered enormous successes. Some 650 million people have been lifted out of poverty in one generation and the country went from a poor agrarian economy to one of the world’s preeminent industrial powerhouses.

But without the foundation built in the first 30 years the accomplishments of the second 30 years would not have been possible. In the former, the Chinese Communist Party under Mao’s helm used its centralized political authority to mobilize limited national resources and built the basic industrial and human infrastructures of a modern nation. A few statistics demonstrate the significance of that period. In 1949, industrial infrastructure was negligible. Electricity availability outside small urban areas was near zero. Literacy rate was below 20%. Immunization rate was virtually non-existent and average life expectancy 41 years old.

At the eve of Deng’s reforms in 1979, China had built the framework of basic industrial infrastructures, though still very limited. Extensive national and local grids with about 10,000 newly built hydroelectric dams increased electricity coverage to over 60% even in the poorest rural areas (it is now near 100%). Literacy rate reached an astonishing 66%, meaning well over 80% of youth – among the highest among poor developing nations (now 92%). Hundreds of millions of people were immunized, nearly 100% of children at the age of one, and average life expectancy reached 65 (now 74). In fact, by 1978, China’s human development index was already closing in on much richer developed nations (UNDP Human Development Report 1990).

A still poor but relatively educated and healthy population with basic infrastructure set the stage for the country’s miraculous takeoff. And all this was achieved with very little resource under an international embargo. Certainly, unmitigated disasters did occur, such as the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, but to define the entire period as such would be grossly mistaken. 

Mao’s most significant political legacy was Chinese national independence. After a century of endless civil conflicts and dismemberments in the hands of foreign aggressors, the establishment and consolidation of the People’s Republic under Mao’s leadership at last firmly placed the destiny of the nation into the hands of the Chinese themselves. This ability enabled China to then engage the post Cold War globalization on its own terms. Many developing countries were not so fortunate and were swallowed by globalization instead of taking advantage of it. It should not be denied that the Chinese people paid a heavy price for this independence as Mao’s catastrophic blunders caused deep suffering and severe crises. But the People’s Republic survived. The post-Mao dividends have been significant and in all likelihood will continue for generations to come.

Last but not least, the characterization of Mao as an extreme ideologue is misplaced. The widely accepted narrative in the West, and inside China - to some extent, is that the first 30 years under Mao was ideological and the second 30 years launched by Deng is pragmatic. And this transition from an ideologue to a reformer put China on the road to success.

No doubt China came under destructive spells of ideological fervor at several points during Mao’s rule. But the fact is Mao was a pragmatist through and through. The world should not forget it was Mao who led China out of Soviet domination as early as in the late fifties.  To decisively walk away from a newborn nation’s ideological mentor who was at the zenith of its superpower era was daring, to say the least. But Mao didn’t stop there. At the height of the Cold War, he reached across the ideological divide and built a de facto alliance with the United States to counter the Soviets. This in turn paved the way for China’s engagement with the West, which was one of the strongest propellers of Deng’s economic reforms.

All men of great historical impact were complex and their legacies mixed. Yet we yearn for judgments that are simple and unequivocal. As Thomas Carlyle once said, “the history of the world is but biography of great men.” Then to misjudge them is to misjudge history and risk misguiding the future. Mao Zedong, whose life left indelible marks on the lives of more than a billion people and changed the trajectory of the world, is to be studied with care and thoughtfulness, not to be judged with moral expediency.

Eric X. Li is a venture capitalist and political scientist in Shanghai.