以上幾點，就是說明 1987 年中央領導班子改組、耀邦辭職以後，面臨著一個聲勢浩大的反自由化運動。在這種情况下，不反是不可能的。當時有一種很大的力量，要乘反自由化來大肆批判三中全會的路綫，要否定改革開放政策。而我如何頂住這股勢力，如何把反自由化控制起來。不使擴大化，不涉及經濟領域；儘量縮小範圍，儘量减少一些思想混亂，這是一個方面。再一個方面就是對人的處理的問題。要不要處理人、傷害人。如何少處理人，不過多傷害人，這也是我當時面對最頭痛的問題。
反自由化以來，一些老人們勁頭很大，極左勢力也很大，想要整很多人。鄧小平一向主張對黨內一些搞自由化的人作出嚴肅處理。王震等其他幾位老人也是如此。鄧力群、胡喬木等人更是想乘機把這些人置于死地而後快。在這種情况下，如何在這次反自由化中儘量少傷害一些人，保護一些人，即使沒法避免也力求傷害得輕一些，這是一件比較麻煩的事情。一開始，在制定中央四號文件時，爲了少傷害一些人，對如何處理在反自由化中犯錯誤的人作出了嚴格的規定。文件提出：需要在報刊上點名批判和組織處理的，只是個別公開鼓吹資産階級自由化、屢教不改而影響很大的黨員，並且應經中央批准。還指出，對有些持系統錯誤觀點的人，可以在黨的生活會上進行同志式的批評，允許保留意見，采取和緩的方式。我在宣傳部長會議上和其他場合還講了在思想文化領域要團結絕大多數人的問題，指出包括有這樣或那樣片面錯誤觀點的人都要團結。我還指出，在從事思想理論文化領域工作的黨員中，既鮮明堅持四項基本原則，又熱心改革開放的人固然不少，但也有些人擁護四項基本原則，而有些保守僵化；也有些人熱心改革開放，而講了些過頭的話，出格的話。既不要把前者看成是教條主義，也不要把後者看成是自由化分子，都是要教育團結的人。我當時有意識地强調反自由化時把有點自由化錯誤的人和有點僵化保守的人，都說成屬于認識上的片面性，就是爲了儘量避免或少傷害人。 |
Another issue was how to deal with people implicated in all of this. The Anti-Liberalization Campaign was not just a theoretical issue. My biggest headaches came from the issues of whether to punish people, how to reduce the harm done to people, and how to contain the circle of people being harmed. From the beginning of the campaign, some Party elders were also very enthusiastic and wanted to punish a lot of people. Deng Xiaoping had always believed that those who proceeded with liberalization within the Party should be severely punished. Wang Zhen and other elders believed this as well. People like Deng Liqun and Hu Qiaomu were even more eager to take the opportunity to destroy certain people and take pleasure in the aftermath.
Under these circumstances, it was difficult to protect certain people, or limit the number being hurt or even to reduce the degree of harm that was done. Hence when it was drafted, the Number Four Document set strict limits on the punishment of those designated by the campaign as having made mistakes. The document defined this as: “Punishments that will be publicized and administrative punishments must first be approved by the Central Committee, and are to be meted out to those few Party members who openly promote bourgeois liberalism, refuse to mend their ways despite repeated admonitions, and have extensive influence.” The document also stated, “For those who hold some mistaken views, criticisms by fellow Party members may be carried out in Party group administrative meetings. They should be allowed to hold to their own views and the method of carrying out the criticism must be calm.”
At the meeting of national Propaganda Department leaders and on other occasions, I also spoke on how to win over the vast majority of people in the theoretical and cultural domains. I suggested we cooperate even with people with biased or false ideas. I pointed out, “Among Party members working in the theoretical and cultural fields, there are those who clearly uphold the Four Cardinal Principles but are a bit conservative and rigid; some are enthusiastic about reform yet have made statements that are inappropriate. We cannot just label the former as dogmatic or the latter as pursuers of liberalization. We should educate and cooperate with them all.”
When proceeding with the Anti-Liberalization Campaign, I had intentionally emphasized that we should classify those who had taken faulty liberal actions as well as those who were too conservative and rigid into the same group of people who were too biased. The purpose was to avoid or reduce the harm being done to people. |
