NATURE OF THE TAIPING MOVEMENT

Throughout the last decades of the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century, scarcely a year passed in China that did not witness a major rebellion or an armed protest. In this period of crisis the first major break from the past was provided in the form of the Taiping rebellion, which is often considered to be the hinge between China’s pre-modern and modern histories.

Many terms have been used to describe the Taiping movement, ranging from ‘nothing less than a complete revolution’, to ‘a typical traditional rebellion’. These terms clearly indicate the great deal of controversy surrounding the nature of this movement. The two opposing schools of thought are those represented by the Western scholars, and those represented by the Chinese communist historians.

These two standpoints differ not only in their interpretation of the movement as a rebellion or revolution, but also of other aspects of the nature of the movement, such as whether or not it was a peasant movement and anti-feudal, anti-foreign and anti-imperialist or anti-imperialist and pro-foreign, its uniqueness vis-à-vis all other peasant rebellions, and whether or not it can be considered a precursor to the Communist Revolution.

Revolution or Rebellion?

Among the most important aspects of the controversy on the nature of the Taiping is the question of whether it can be called a ‘rebellion’ or ‘revolution’. It is first of all essential to understand what exactly these terms mean in the modern context. A rebellion can be described as an armed struggle, aimed at dethroning a particular dynasty, and substituting another in its place, without attempting to change the existing social, political, and economic order. A revolution on the other hand symbolizes a mass movement having a concrete ideology and common aims, striving for fundamental change in the social, political and economic order. Its basic aim goes beyond the overthrow of a particular dynasty and its substitution by another.

Western Scholars – Typical Traditional Rebellion

To Western scholars such as Vincent Shih, Barrington Moore Jr., George Taylor, J.K. Fairbank and others, the Taiping movement appears to be a ‘typical traditional rebellion’ that was bound to fail. According to them for any movement, to be called a revolution it must be successful in its aims.

Barrington Moore Jr. argues that the Taiping movement did not alter the basic structure of society and therefore cannot be called a revolution. In this case however, even after the Taiping movement, the Manchus, the prevailing socio-political order and the traditional Confucian system continued.

Vincent Shih notes, “Certain ideals were borrowed from Christianity and the West which held a genuine possibility of bringing a real revolution but these ideals were diluted due to the mixing of native Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhist principles.” Moreover, he argues that for a movement to be called revolutionary not only must violence be a means of achieving the objectives but the leaders must also show the desire to make changes in the nature of the society. However, in case of the Taiping this does not seem to have happened as the leaders were only interested in taking over the reins of the government but not bring about any fundamental change in the society.

This view is criticized by Tan Chung, who points out that there is no evidence to show that the existence of native cultural aspirations in the Taiping ideology diluted its revolutionary character, and to say that only Western ideas can form a revolution is not correct. Moreover, he believes that if one studies the developments and changes that have take place in China from the beginning of the 20th century it becomes amply clear that the myth that only western ideas can save China is in fact only a myth.

Contradictions of the Movement

These scholars have based their assertion on the results of the Taiping movement. They argue that the The Land Programme was implemented in limited areas, mostly in southern provinces such as Kwangsi and in the Taiping capital of Nanking. Implementation was difficult in the prevailing conditions of shifting boundaries and frequent clashes. No rent was taken from the peasants in these areas and tax payments were cut by 50%. There is evidence of landlords from the lower Yangtze valley area fleeing to Shanghai when their precious metal and surplus was confiscated. However, the newly acquired land was not redistributed and the Taiping leaders amassed great wealth. The landlords’ lands were not always confiscated in Taiping zones. Furthermore, the Taiping leaders started accumulating land and themselves often became the new landlords. The preaching of chastity was accompanied by the keeping of concubines by many of the leaders. Thus, in many ways the movement had come to resemble the regime or system that it was so hell bent on toppling.

In the immediate sense, despite its limited achievements, the Taiping movement was a failure. The impressive military organization of the Taiping was unable to dislodge the Manchus. The leadership factionalized, particularly after 1856, weakening the impact of the movement. Ironically, Manchu power was replaced by the Taiping, which was provincial not centralized, and definitely not authoritarian. The Taiping leaders also lost popular support on ideological grounds. The anti-Manchu appeal of the Taiping cause was compromised by its Christian ideology. Egalitarian principles as well as the destruction of ancient temples resulted in the loss of support of the traditional orthodoxy.

Communist Historians – Precursor to the Communist Revolution

The second school of thought comprises mainly of Chinese communist historians such as Holl Wailu, Li Tianyu, Wu Shimo, Tan Chung and Jean Chesneaux. While accepting its shortcomings, they call the Taiping ‘nothing less than a full-fledged revolution’ and a ‘precursor to the Communist Revolution of 1949’, appreciating its revolutionary character. Some have called it “the first great tide of revolution in the history of modern China”. The Taiping movement, according to Mao Tse Tung, was one of the eight major events in China’s one hundred year history before the Communist Revolution. These scholars lay emphasis on the theoretical aspect of the Taiping aims and policies and refer to many new and unique measures suggested by the Taiping, such as the land reforms, equality between sexes, trade policy etc., and assert that even if not fully implemented, their suggestion indicates the revolutionary nature of the movement.

Thus, the varied nature of the movement and the fact that it was more broad-based than all previous peasant rebellions are cited as justification for the term ‘revolution’. The various positive impacts of the movement are emphasized. In fact some of its negative effects are seen in a positive light, such as the development of regionalism due to the decentralization of power to the provincial authorities during the movement to deal with it more effectively. The originality of the Taiping Revolution lay in the unprecedented blend of modernist impulses with traditional themes.

Impact of the Movement

Karl Marx called it a “formidable Revolution” and The Times hailed Taiping as “the greatest revolution the world as yet seen” and “one of the most important and remarkable movements of mass protest in modern history”. The main argument in support of the Taiping being a peasant revolution was that it battered the superstructure of feudal society; the Taiping sought to transform the feudal society by building an ideal society where people were equal.

Moreover, it is important to note that the Taiping movement was able to achieve a number of its objectives as well. The emancipation of women was truly achieved and women enjoyed the same economic and political opportunities as men. The military organization too included women. Women also occupied bureaucratic posts, were horseback riders and were no longer subjected to an inferior social status. Prohibition of opium was also effectively carried out. Thus, even the puritanical spirit that the Taiping had sought was also achieved.

The most important influence of the Taiping movement is cultural. The Taiping movement remained highly popular in Chinese tradition. Survivors of the “Great Peace” enjoyed considerable prestige among the peasants and kept its memory alive. For example, Sun Yat-Sen was greatly stirred as a child by the stories of his uncle, who had belonged to the Taiping. The movement initiated a century of rebellions and revolutions. The political, economic, social and cultural reforms it attempted were models for later attempts of the Chinese Imperial administration, and even the Communist Revolution.

Basis in Ideology

Franz Michael believes that what set the Taiping movement apart from the earlier peasant uprisings was its strict adherence to an ideology. It was the first movement in China to conform to a particular ideology. Moreover, it was influenced by certain western ideals and even though they were incorporated in a slightly distorted manner their acceptance by the rebels showed that such ideas could find a favourable ground in China. The very fact that large number of Chinese people could abandon their basic traditional beliefs and follow the extraordinary preachings of a fanatical doctrine shows that it was a revolutionary movement. However, he only reluctantly considers this movement to be revolutionary, as he believed that the performance of the heavenly kingdom ended in dismal failure.

Both Proletarian Revolution and Peasant Insurrection

Some scholars avoid joining either the Western or the Communist schools of thought. Prominent among them is Ssu Yu Teng, according to whom “the first half of the Taiping rebellion”, lasting from 1851 to 1856, was “a proletarian revolutionary movement to overthrow the Manchu regime and replace it by a new rationalist government with a radical economic, social, political and cultural programme.” This was followed by the “internal dissension of 1856”, after which “the later part of the Taiping Rebellion resembled more a traditional Chinese ‘peasant’ insurrection than a modern revolution.”

However Tan Chung points out that it is difficult to conceive of the Taiping movement’s degeneration into a traditional rebellion in the second stage, once it had reached a certain level of revolution far ahead of a peasant rebellion in the first stage. Also, Teng’s thesis does not include in his study a consideration of the Taiping attempt to build an egalitarian society and its failure is regarded as a contributing factor for downgrading it.

Peasant/Anti-Feudal Identity

Another important aspect of the nature of the Taiping is the question of its ‘peasant’ or anti-feudal identity. Historians such as Chesneaux and Tan Chung strongly feel that it was a peasant revolution. They believe that the peasants dominated the movement and it was among other things, a social crusade expressing the poor peasants’ desire for equality and the primitive rural collectivism of the Taiping social organization was linked with the utopian tradition of Chinese peasant movements. The Taiping movement has been hailed by historians as the “highest form of peasant wars” and a “very good beginning of modern revolution”. For instance, Chesneux believed that the Taiping movement was in fact a social crusade as it attacked the feudal edifice of the Chinese society besides demanding other major social changes like the emancipation of women. The Taiping movement is thus seen as both a revolution and a peasant movement.

George E. Taylor gives primacy to economic factors, and argues that the Taiping movement must be first considered an agrarian movement, then a religious and moral movement and finally as an anti-dynastic movement. Kang argues that the peasants were indeed the chief architects of the Taiping movement.

The constituent section of the movement included poor farmers, unemployed miners, vagabonds, charcoal workers and scholars forced into agriculture due to lack of remuneration in their fields and constituted the ‘displaced peasantry’. Their mobilization by the Taiping leaders was directed against the feudal system from the beginning. The Heavenly Land System most completely reflected the class interest of the peasantry in the feudal society. It was clearly aimed at demolishing the feudal system and privilege of the landlords. Private ownership was sought to be abolished and a new basis of state power was laid out.

There are a few other factors that can be considered with regard to the anti-feudal character of the Taiping movement. Firstly their land reforms, which no matter how limitedly applied, were highly anti- feudal; besides the fact that in some Taiping areas, tenants actually stopped paying rents. For instance, people around Nanking stopped paying rents altogether, while, the Taiping controlled areas on the whole witnessed rent reduction upto 50%. Secondly, the fleeing of a large number of landlords in fear of the Taiping onslaught led to their large landholdings falling into the peasants’ hands, along with many temple lands. Thirdly, decrees were passed to attack the feudal elite, such as orders to surrender grains, precious stones and metals, etc. to the Taiping storehouses. Lastly, the fact remains that most of the Taiping leaders, and almost all of the mass following, were drawn from peasant stock, though not exclusively.

Wu Shimo has argued that there are four aspects that can be analysed in order to understand the anti- feudal character of the movement. This included: (1) the demand for political equality; (2) demand for economic equality, which included parity for everyone everywhere and food, cloth and land for everyone; (3) sexual equality, advocating brother sister relationship between sexes; (4) International equality advocating the ‘one family idea among nations’.

Vincent Shih however rejects the description of the Taiping as a ‘peasant revolution’. Firstly, he points out, the Taiping leaders did not identify themselves with the interests of the peasantry. Secondly, they did not reflect peasant consciousness. He says that while the Taiping leaders may have had a wide appeal for the poor peasants and landless labourers, they did “not attempt to do away with the landlords and give the land to the tillers and at times even sided with the landlord much as the Manchu regime had done before.” Shih has been criticized for his unclear use of the term “peasant consciousness”. A

series of decrees were passed to attack the feudal elite, such as orders to surrender grains, precious stones and metals, etc. to the Taiping storehouses during the Taiping movement. Though the land programme couldn’t be implemented, in certain areas private property was clearly abolished.

Franz Michael too points out that that while in terms of stated goals the Taiping was a profound social revolution, in reality and contrary to stated ideology, “in the hierarchy of rank which the Taiping established and in which constant promotion and demotion was to be based on merit and demerit in action, the lowest demotion was to the status of husbandman – the worker in the field and the lowest rung in their hierarchy.” It is for this reason that he believes that the Taiping were unable to gain the support of the peasantry. Moreover, he argued against the pro-peasant nature of the Taiping movement, as he believed that the rebels were not fighting to improve the status of the peasantry but to escape from the plight of being peasants. They sought their luck in the opportunities provided by military adventure and tried to gain power, wealth and official status in a career made possible by the turnover produced by the rebellion.

Michael, too, seems to ignore that it was the peasants who dominated the high-ups of their hierarchical structure, which was formed for military efficiency. Tan Chung points out that obviously, at the base of this military formation was the peasant population but it should not be confused with social hierarchy. The closely guarded supremacy of the old brethren developed into a general pattern of preference for the Kwangsi men. It persisted in the movement and expanded. Strangely, Michael thinks that the Taiping did not fight for the peasants’ well being as their counterparts did in the Holy Roman Empire and in modern Germany. Tan Chung however believes that this is an unfair comparison. In deng guijan (equalizing the distinguished and the humble), juntian (equalizing land ownership properties) mian liang (exemption from grain tribute/taxation), the Chinese were way ahead in his estimation.

Anti-Establishment

When looking at the nature of the Taiping we also cannot ignore its anti-establishment nature. The emperor of China, according to the Taiping proclamation, was a keen supporter of the feudal system Thus, the emperor who had hitherto been seen as a born sage was now called ‘The Monster King of Hell’. They believed that for thousands of years the spirit of the people had been tortured and persecuted. The Taiping followers decried Confucius, who had been the supreme teacher of China. They gathered the courage to call the Four Classics and the Five Great Books of Confucius books of sorcery and feudal ideas. Thus, in many ways the Taiping can be called a cultural revolution, as the later revolutions in China targeted these very things.

Religious Nature

As far as the religious nature of the movement is concerned there are a number of different viewpoints on the same. Some scholars assert that the Taiping cannot be considered religious fanatics as they were revolutionary fighters, who only used the medium of religion as a vehicle to disseminate revolutionary ideas. They argue that Hung’s identification with religion enabled him to use Christian tenets to claim that Heaven sent him on a mission.

However, scholars like Jen Yu-Wen have argued that religion was the chief motivating force behind the Taiping leadership, especially Hung. He lays emphasis on his mission viz. to rule China and to perform the sacred task of ridding his country of all pagan idols so as to unite all men in the worship of the one

true God. He also points to the Christian elements within the Taiping regime and the refusal of Hung to align with anyone who was non-Christian.

However, this theory has been criticized by Tan Chung, who believes that it wasn’t clear what was the most important thing for Hung- to rule China; to get rid of the pagan or to unite all men in the worship of one true God as the three aims represented three totally different things and it would not have been possible to give equal importance to all three. Moreover, it is not correct to generalize about a movement on the basis of the motivation of one single person. Prof Lu seems to have taken a middle path, who argues that religion was definitely an important aspect of the Taiping regime but it was emphasized both as a matter of faith and for the means of propaganda.

Anti-Imperialist Character

Another debate on the nature of the Taiping movement, is regarding its anti-imperialist character. This is an extremely complex question if one looks at the ideological aspects of the Taiping foreign outlook. While they were far removed from the concept of Sino-centrism, foreigners were still called dependents. This was one reason that prevented the Taiping from actively seeking support from the foreigners in their struggle against the Manchus, an alliance that could have easily turned the tide of the movement in their favour.

However, it would be wrong to think of the Taiping as being xenophobic or anti-foreign. They welcomed the positive aspects of western influence such as education and science. Foreign missionaries were welcomed with great zeal and they had great admiration for western technology and borrowed heavily from Christianity. They were fascinated by various aspects of foreign thought, and welcomed foreigners to learn from them whatever was positive; they wanted reform in Chinese polity, society and economy through this learning from the West. However, it is important to note that this openness did not succumb to an ‘acceptance of imperial activity’. Thus, it would be correct to view their opinions towards the foreigners as being anti-imperial rather than anti-foreign. They could still oppose western goods and the competition they posed. They continued to oppose western intrusion and free trade never meant exploitation to them. Hence they condemned the westerners just as much as they accepted their positive points. This surface cordiality, however, had a lot of contradictions beneath it. The Taiping always sought to extend the idea of egalitarianism in the sphere of international relations. Behind the openness towards the west lay a certain desire to become like that and emulate it.

Precursor to the Communist Revolution?

This brings us to the question of whether or not the Taiping was a precursor to the Communist movement of the 20th century. The links of the Taiping with the later Communist Movement were acknowledged by Mao Tse Tung who always ‘felt indebted to the Taiping’ as they truly represented a revolutionary programme. Certain points within the Taiping can be made in this regard. Both the Taiping and the Communists were modernists in nature. Sudden impact of the west and scientific, technological and social advances had their influence on the ideology of the Taiping. In the same way, the Communists provided a modern and practical philosophy with which to reject “both the traditions of the Chinese past and the Western domination of the present.”

The Taiping presented a coherent programme of agrarian communism and the Maoist programme of collective ownership can be seen as owing its origins to this. Secondly, the principles of social

egalitarianism also included equality of the sexes, was also something that Mao espoused. Thirdly, both were anti-imperialist in nature. Fourthly, there is the fact that Mao was seeking to build a historical trajectory for building communism in a primarily agrarian country and so the conception of such a link with the Taiping can be seen as a deliberate attempt to construct a history of the movement, since Mao wanted to break away from the models of communism that had been spread in other parts of the world.

However there are other aspects that one cannot ignore and then one sees the basic difference that the Taiping have from the communists. The land programme of the Taiping for instance, resembled that of the communists insofar as ownership was collective. But the basic unit they expound was the family and not the community. Secondly, land distribution was sought to be equalized, but no mention of land redistribution was made. The third thing that distances the Taiping from the Communist movement is that Marxism envisions a classless society and ultimately a stateless society too. The Taiping, on the other hand, never distanced themselves from the concept of absolute benevolent rule. The opposition to monarchy was not only limited, but also superficial.

Another difference between the Communist Chinese historians’ and the western scholarly appraisals of the Taiping movement was in their different spiritual outlooks. Communist scholars have argued that like the revolution that transformed China even the Taiping did not possess any religion and instead they believed in a classless utopia. Though the Communists might try to downplay the importance of religion, scholars like Jen Yu-Wen talk deeply about the religious nature and the Christian ground of Taiping idealism, while others like Fan Wenlan speak of the Protestant link to the Opium wars and the Taiping. Hence, even though the 1949 revolution and its pioneer Mao denied the existence of God, the Taiping did not think so. One can point out that the Taiping had several such aspects that ran contrary to the Maoist revolutionary programme.

In conclusion, one can say that both the terms of a full-fledged revolution and a mere rebellion are too extreme. It should be noted that both the Chinese communist historians and western scholars agree on the unique character of the Taiping movement and its failure. The difference between the two lies in their approach. Advocates of its revolutionary character focus on its programmes and policies, while those who see it as a peasant insurrection emphasize its lack of implementation and leadership. The Taiping movement dared for the first time to challenge and attack a system that had prevailed in China for centuries. More than any other rebellion of their day, they addressed themselves directly to the crisis of the times and offered concrete measures for resolving it. Their vision of a new system of property relations, a new mechanism of local control, and a new relationship between the individual and the state was an authentic response to the distinctive problems of the late imperial age. However, given the utopian nature of their programme and the fact that they were constantly engaged in warfare would have definitely made it difficult for them to achieve their aims and objectives.