Dispute between Yuan Shang: There are only a few sharp words between academic contention and the legacy of the Cultural Revolution.
[Editor’s note]Recently, Shang Xiaoming, a young scholar from Peking University, and Yuan Weishi, an old scholar, had differences and even disputes on some historical issues in the early years of the Republic of China. The issues discussed by Yuan and Shang are extremely important in the modern history of China. It is not only about history, but also about how to understand the present and the future. It is of great significance to discuss it within the scope of academic contention. This paper sorts out the main focus of their dispute for readers to think and judge.

Yuan Weishi (left), a retired professor of philosophy at Sun Yat-sen University, and Shang Xiaoming, a professor of history at Peking University.
The debate between Shang Xiaoming, a professor of history at Peking University, and Yuan Weishi, a retired professor of philosophy at Sun Yat-sen University, continued to escalate.
First, Shang Xiaoming wrote in Tuanjie Daily on April 23rd, "Can the contest between Kuomintang and Yuan Shikai be so misinterpreted —— Notes on Yuan Weishi’s Late Civilization" (hereinafter referred to as "Notes"), refuting Yuan Weishi’s argument that in the contest between Kuomintang and Yuan Shikai in the early Republic of China, "the stable situation was repeatedly destroyed" and bluntly saying that Yuan Weishi "some understandings were really superficial and pedantic.
On May 1st, Yuan Weishi responded through the United Network, entitled "Comment on Professor Shang Xiaoming’s Bad Style of Study in Peking University" (hereinafter referred to as "Bad Style of Study"). In this response article, Yuan Weishi responded to Shang Xiaoming’s refutation one by one, taking five major events that Sun Yat-sen and the Kuomintang did in the early Republic of China as examples, and continued to show that they did not understand compromise.
In addition to academic tit-for-tat, Yuan Weishi also commented on Shang Xiaoming from the aspect of personal learning, calling him "sloppy in style of study" and "frivolous in words". In the section "Behind frivolous words", Yuan Weishi even criticized Shang Xiaoming’s comments as "like posters of the Cultural Revolution". He also hinted that Shang Xiaoming had something to do with the forced removal of his own "Late Civilization" and "Great Changes in the Late Qing Dynasty" (the fourth edition).
Six days later, Shang Xiaoming sent a long article "The so-called" bad style of study ",asking Professor Yuan Weishi to speak with facts! "(hereinafter referred to as" Facts Speak "), refuted Yuan Weishi, and returned the" rough and bad style of study "to Yuan Weishi intact. Finally, Shang Xiaoming explained why he had to refute Yuan Weishi with sharp words, saying that "you can’t pretend to be deaf and dumb while watching some erroneous statements mislead readers", otherwise you would be "sorry for your academic conscience". In particular, he declared that he was an out-and-out common people in academic circles, with no power or influence, no help or faction.
It is worth noting that in addition to the debate on specific historical facts and opinions, both sides also raised the banner of "Cultural Revolution Legacy" to denounce each other. So, what is the debate between Shang and Yuan, whether it is "academic contention" or "cultural revolution legacy"? The length of the three articles is quite long, and there are many details and secondary topics. The Paper (www.thepaper.cn) only sorts out the main viewpoints and arguments of the three articles, and asks readers to judge for themselves. In addition, before the publication of this article, Yuan Wei Fashion did not publish another article on this matter. Therefore, the following article ends with Shang Xiaoming’s response to Yuan Weishi, and please pay attention to it.
The core of the debate: Does the Kuomintang know how to compromise in the contest with Yuan Shikai?
Yuan WeishiThe Kuomintang’s "ideological failure to understand politics means compromise, failure to understand that some things in politics should respect reality, and many wrong actions have been made, which has repeatedly destroyed the stable situation". ("Late Civilization")
Shang XiaomingIn fact, the Kuomintang understands that "politics is compromise". During the North-South peace talks, Sun Yat-sen resigned as interim president and recommended Yuan Shikai, so that the country could move from absolute monarchy to democratic republic without violent shocks. At the beginning of the birth of the Kuomintang, Song Jiaoren and others were able to absorb some parties with different opinions and form a big political party, so they could gain an advantage in the first formal parliamentary election. In the autumn of 1912, Sun Yat-sen and Huang Xing discussed with Yuan Shikai the "grand event" of the national economy, supported Yuan Shikai’s cronies Zhao Bingjun to form a cabinet, and Zhao Bingjun joined the Kuomintang. ("Notes")
Yuan WeishiProfessor Shang took it out of context. Sun Wen is a politician, not a street bully. It is impossible to make trouble every day. It is not surprising that some places make some compromises. However, it is an ironclad fact that Sun Wen and the revolutionaries (the League, the Kuomintang and their followers) "made a lot of wrong moves at the critical moment, so that the stable situation was repeatedly destroyed". Give five examples:
First, at the expense of sovereignty and the largest commercial enterprise begging from Japan, undermining the North-South peace talks. Second, concocting the "Provisional Constitution" with major mistakes in an attempt to deprive Yuan Shikai of his administrative power, which created the institutional root of political chaos in the early Republic of China. Third, rashly launching the "second revolution" has set a bad precedent for solving political differences by force. Fourth, after Yuan Shikai’s death, opportunities for the country’s stable development emerged, and Sun Wen launched an illegal "war to protect the law". Fifth, the war of protecting the law has been going on for many years. Due to internal and external pressure, the North and South began to negotiate peace, from which Sun Wen undermined it. (Bad Style of Study)
Shang XiaomingIn "Notes", several events from the abdication of the Qing emperor to the "Song case" (editor’s note: Song Jiaoren was assassinated in Shanghai on March 20, 1913) proved that the Kuomintang actually knew how to compromise, but Mr. Yuan told a lot about what happened after the "Song case" in his response. After the "Song case" occurred, the Kuomintang and Beiyang government quickly broke up because the contradictions between the two sides could not be resolved through legal channels. Since then, with Yuan Shikai’s suppression of the "Second Revolution", the disqualification of members of the Kuomintang, the dissolution of the National Assembly and the abolition of the "provisional constitution", the Kuomintang will definitely not compromise again. This is basic political common sense.
Compromise is both sides, and one side’s compromise is just submission. Mr. Yuan stressed that the Kuomintang did not understand compromise, but he avoided talking about the fact that Yuan Shikai attacked the Kuomintang by various means. Perhaps in Mr. Yuan’s view, Yuan Shikai’s butcher’s knife was placed around the neck of the Kuomintang, and the Kuomintang should not make any resistance, so they could only wait for death, otherwise it would be "a typical example of Lu Mang’s extinction, disregard for reality and unwillingness to compromise". ("Facts Speak"
Derivative question 1: Is judicial approach possible after Song Jiaoren case?

Song Jiaoren was shot after being stabbed to death in Shanghai.
Yuan WeishiAt the beginning of the Republic of China, a rare era of relatively open government affairs and relatively independent judiciary appeared in China in the 20th century. However, Sun Wen has no choice to solve the problem according to law. ("Notes")
After the Song case, the Shanghai District Prosecutor’s Office also publicly summoned the incumbent Premier Zhao Bingjun. Under the strong pressure of public opinion, Yuan Shikai was forced to approve Zhao’s resignation as prime minister. This process shows that the case itself can be solved to some extent by following the principle of investigating according to law, and the improvement of people’s legal concept and the prestige of the Kuomintang are even more incalculable.

Yuan Shikai and his staff and officers.

Zhao Bingjun resigned as Prime Minister after the assassination of Song Jiaoren.
Shang Xiaoming: the theory that makes people laugh. From the fact that Zhao Bingjun refused to appear in court after the Shanghai District Prosecutor’s Office issued two summonses (supported by Yuan Shikai), it was clear that it was impossible to solve the Song case through legal channels at that time. ("Notes")
Yuan WeishiNo matter from the system and the character of judicial personnel, the judicial system in the early Republic of China is not the same as that under the Kuomintang party-state system. Generally speaking, the judiciary is relatively independent, and judicial personnel are relatively able to lead an honest and clean life. Otherwise, there would be no arraignment of the current Prime Minister Zhao Bingjun. (Bad Style of Study)
Derived question 2: Was the early Republic of China an era of "rare openness of government affairs in China in the 20th century"?
Shang XiaomingMr. Yuan regarded the early Republic of China as "a rare era when China’s government affairs were relatively open in the 20th century", but it was just his illusion, which seemed like an idiotic dream. ("Notes")
Yuan WeishiThe institutional basis of open government affairs is mutual restriction of power and freedom of speech. I would like to ask Professor Shang, compared with the Kuomintang party-state system, was the government affairs more open in the early Republic of China when the three powers were separated and there was greater freedom of the press? (Bad Style of Study)
Shang XiaomingDid you really achieve "separation of powers" and "mutual restriction of powers" in the early Republic of China? The actual development trend of politics in the early Republic of China was from the so-called "democracy" which was short at first to centralization soon. By the beginning of 1914, even the National Assembly was dissolved. What is the so-called "institutional basis of open government affairs" of Mr. Yuan? What about "separation of powers"?
Was there really "greater freedom of the press" in the early years of the Republic of China? If so, why did all the newspapers and periodicals of the Kuomintang stop publishing after 1913, or were forced to "reinvent themselves"? Why did someone publish a book "Yuan Shikai in the Mirror" in March 1913, and scolded Yuan Shikai, and Yuan ordered the arrest of the seller and banned the book? ("Facts Speak")

Three days after the abdication of the Qing Emperor, Sun Yat-sen (in the center of the front row) dressed in a military uniform and took officials of the Nanjing Provisional Government to pay a visit to ming tomb. The fifth from the left in the front row is the army chief Huang Xing.
Beyond academic debate: mutual reference to the legacy of the Cultural Revolution
The above are the main points of contention between the two scholars. In addition, there are many details or secondary arguments, mainly to prove each other’s carelessness or intentional distortion. The two men used words fiercely, and even rose to the point of personal attack. Academic contention has reached this point and has gradually changed its taste.
In fact, the issues discussed by Yuan and Shang are extremely important in the modern history of China. Yuan Weishi didn’t agree with some practices of Sun Yat-sen and Kuomintang in the early Republic of China, but he was quite positive about Yuan Shikai’s management in the early Republic of China. Shang Xiaoming defended the Kuomintang, arguing that Yuan Shikai and the Beiyang government could not escape the responsibility for the chaos in the early Republic of China.
These issues involve revolution and improvement, republicanism and constitutionalism. In today’s academic circles, they really need to be re-examined and re-started. This is not only related to historical truth-seeking, but also to how we understand the present and the future. It is of great significance to discuss them within the scope of academic contention. We often say that the more the truth is debated, the clearer it becomes, but we need a calm discussion, not a glaring attack.