記取六七暴動教訓 行事不唯上忌空想

<轉載自2017年5月4日 明報 社評>

1967年5月，香港左派陣營在內地文化大革命極左思潮影響下發起反英鬥爭，演變成暴動，激進分子發動炸彈襲擊，直至12月時任中國總理周恩來表示應當停止炸彈浪潮，暴動才告終。這場暴動給香港留下的烙印，事隔50年仍未磨滅。過去數年，香港社會抗爭出現激進化和暴力化的情况，惹來不少討論，勾起一些港人對六七暴動的歷史記憶。六七暴動的出現，有着獨特的歷史時空，輕率地與現今香港情况相提並論，以今度古，並不恰當。古希臘哲學家赫拉克利特說過，「人不能兩次踏進同一條河流」，歷史不會重複，但是教訓可以記取。行事唯實不唯上、分清理想與空想，是港人值得銘記的教訓。

社會矛盾埋下禍根 文革開潘朵拉盒子

六七暴動是戰後香港最嚴重的動亂，港英政府、左派陣營和市民都付出了血的代價，港英政府統計，暴動中832人受傷，51人喪生，其中15人被炸彈炸死，被捕者達4498人，其中2077人定罪。由於意識形態和政治立場的不同，不少人對六七暴動的成因經過，有着不同理解。一些左派人士認為，暴亂根源是社會矛盾和不公義，加上港英政府鐵腕鎮壓，令抗爭運動變得暴力；港英政府前官員和一些評論則認為，1966年內地爆發文革才是動亂起因，香港左派領袖擔心被批為「走資派」，有必要擺出革命姿態，於是發起「反英抗暴」。兩套說法其實互不排斥，甚至互為補足。

六七暴動既有內因，亦有外因。1960年代香港紡織及成衣等製造業發展蓬勃，惟社會基層卻存在大批飽受剝削的低薪工人。警察貪污腐敗、貧富懸殊加劇、社會缺乏廉價醫療服務，無不加深民怨，為反英反殖提供了發展土壤；至於內地文革爆發，則成為引發反英鬥爭的導火線。文革研究權威馬若德（Roderick MacFarquhar）曾表示，人們對文革的最大誤解，是以為它純粹是一場權鬥，他指出毛澤東的目的，並非僅僅去除劉少奇等「欠缺革命性」的領導人，而是「真心希望實現舉國上下鬧革命的瘋狂想法」，把壓在人民頭上的官僚機器打碎。文革浩劫禍國殃民，然而當年毛澤東的確憑着理想主義，以及年輕人自幼對他的個人崇拜，鼓動千萬人投身革命造反之列，餘波所及牽連港澳。不少參與六七暴動的年輕人，都是滿懷理想主義，希望反抗不公義的政府。

文革引發中共路線之爭，1950年代北京所提出對香港「長期打算，充分利用」的原則會否生變，惹來了揣測。1966年底澳門左派發難，迫使了葡萄牙政府屈服，香港一些左派人士認為，是時候發起反英鬥爭。對於當年中共是否大力支持左派「反英抗暴」，有人援引中國嚴厲譴責港英政府要為暴動負責的聲明，以及《人民日報》鼓勵港人鬥爭的社論，認為中共支持造反，不過亦有時任新華社駐港官員和暴動參與者指出，中央曾下令駐港機構和左派陣營勿將文革極左做法搬到香港，六七暴動開始後，除了口頭聲援和給予少許罷工經費外，並沒有多少實質支持。當年左派領袖發起「反英抗暴」，到底是想向文革當權派展示政治忠誠，還是真心相信反英時機已經成熟，外界難以得知，唯一肯定的是，這場鬥爭不久即陷入死胡同。左派陣營既乏外援，又遭政府大力打壓，苦無出路，部分人一廂情願以為炸彈暴力可以打開缺口，殊不知這反而導致主流社會反感，導致抗爭失敗收場，亦令整個社會付上沉重代價。

揣摩上意盲從附和 理想變空想極危險

六七暴動中，有人處事投機，揣摩上意，錯判形勢，誤信能夠得到外力強大聲援，「港英必敗、我們必勝」；有人盲從附和，上面說什麼，下面就照做；有人徒具理想熱誠卻自以為是，認為自己就是正義，必將戰勝黑暗，行事不顧後果。不同人所犯的錯誤形形色色，然而歸根究柢就是一廂情願，脫離現實，喪失獨立思考和冷靜分析的能力。社會改革需要理想和勇氣，不過當理想變成空想，勇氣變成盲動，很容易被懷有私心者利用，變得相當危險。已故著名哲學家馮友蘭談及毛澤東的極左思想，形容文革是其極致，它的荒謬之處，在於那完全是「空想共產主義」，簡言之就是不再唯物，一味唯心，盲目相信意志可以戰勝一切。六七暴動是文革極左思潮影響下出現的鬥爭運動，同樣存在空想主義的情况，當中最明顯不過的，就是反英鬥爭初期，周恩來已多次強調對英國的鬥爭必須有理有節，也反對在香港動武，可是隨着鬥爭失利，左派鬥爭者仍執意號召群眾「拿起武器」，一廂情願地以為土製炸彈能夠撼動政權，是唯一可以打擊港英政府的方法，走上暴力不歸路。

已故中共元老陳雲強調「不唯上，不唯書，只唯實」，意思就是切勿盲從權威、盲從理論教條，只相信事實。行事不唯上，自然不會揣摩上意，能夠獨立思考，針對現實情况作出合理判斷；分清理想與空想，自然不會自欺欺人，能夠明智根據形勢，有節有理追求目標。

Lesson drawn from 1967 riots

IN May 1967, Hong Kong leftists, influenced by the ultra-leftist thought connected with the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution (GPCR) on the mainland, started a struggle against Britain. The struggle turned into riots, in which radicals carried out bomb attacks. The riots did not end until Chinese Premier Zhou Enlai (as he then was) said the wave of bomb attacks should end. It is fifty years since then, but the mark they left on Hong Kong has yet to vanish. Struggles in Hong Kong have in recent years become radical and violent. That has aroused much debate and brought back many's memories of the 1967 riots. Hong Kong saw those riots at a particular time and in particular circumstances. It is hardly right to mention in the same breath what happened then and what is happening or judge what happened then by present-day standards.

No outsider can readily tell whether the leftist leaders started the "anti-Britain counter-brutality" movement because they wanted to show their political loyalty to those in power during the GPCR or because they genuinely believed the time was ripe for fighting against the British. The only thing one is certain about is that their struggle soon came to a dead end. Lacking outsiders' support and vigorously bashed and squeezed by the government, those in the leftist camp had no way out. They fondly believed they could make a breakthrough with violence and bomb attacks. They little knew that would make them repugnant to the mainstream, cause their struggle to end in failure and cost the whole community dearly.

During the 1967 riots, some were opportunistic. They tried to figure out what their superiors intended, misjudged the situation and wrongly believed they would be so vigorously supported by outside forces that "the Hong Kong British authorities would certainly lose and we would certainly win". Others blindly agreed with and followed their leaders and did whatever they told them to do. Still others were idealistic and sincere and thought themselves to be infallible. Believing what they did was just and they would certainly defeat darkness, they were reckless of consequences. Those people made all sorts of mistakes. However, in the final analysis, they erred because they, divorced from reality and unable to think independently, calmly or analytically, thought what they fondly wished to happen would happen. It takes idealism and courage to push for social reforms. But those who are foolhardy rather than courageous and harbour fantasies rather than ideals are liable to be used by people who have selfish motives and may become rather dangerous. In talking about Mao Zedong's ultra-leftist ideas, Feng Youlan, a famous philosopher who is dead, described the GPCR as its ultimate embodiment. Its absurdity lies in the fact that it is purely "utopian communism". In short, those who subscribe to such ideas are in no way materialistic and in every way idealistic, and they blindly believe will can defeat anything. The 1967 riots, which happened as a result of the influence of the ultra-leftist trend of thought connected with the GPCR, similarly smacked of utopianism. Nothing is clearer than this because, though Zhou Enlai repeatedly stressed in the first days of the anti-Britain struggle he was against using force in Hong Kong and the struggle ought to be carried out on just grounds and with restraint, when they suffered setbacks in the struggle, the leftists who led it fondly believed they could shake the regime with home-made bombs and it was the only way to harm the Hong Kong British authorities to carry out bomb attacks and wilfully called on people to "take up arms" and get on the road of no return called violence.

Chen Yun, an elder of the Communist Party of China who is dead, stressed that "one should heed totally only facts, not things said by one's superiors or in books". What he meant is that one must not blindly follow authorities or heed theoretical doctrines and should believe only facts. Those who do not solely heed what their superiors say do not try to figure out their superiors' intentions and can think independently and make reasoned judgements in the light of actualities. Those who can distinguish between fantasies and ideals are of course incapable of deceiving themselves or others. They can sagaciously pursue their goals on just grounds and with restraint on the basis of the situation.

記取六七暴動教訓 行事不唯上忌空想

1967年5月，香港左派陣營在內地文化大革命極左思潮影響下發起反英鬥爭，演變成暴動，激進分子發動炸彈襲擊，直至12月時任中國總理周恩來表示應當停止炸彈浪潮，暴動才告終。這場暴動給香港留下的烙印，事隔50年仍未磨滅。過去數年，香港社會抗爭出現激進化和暴力化的情况，惹來不少討論，勾起一些港人對六七暴動的歷史記憶。六七暴動的出現，有着獨特的歷史時空，輕率地與現今香港情况相提並論，以今度古，並不恰當。

當年左派領袖發起「反英抗暴」，到底是想向文革當權派展示政治忠誠，還是真心相信反英時機已經成熟，外界難以得知，唯一肯定的是，這場鬥爭不久即陷入死胡同。左派陣營既乏外援，又遭政府大力打壓，苦無出路，部分人一廂情願以為炸彈暴力可以打開缺口，殊不知這反而導致主流社會反感，導致抗爭失敗收場，亦令整個社會付上沉重代價。

六七暴動中，有人處事投機，揣摩上意，錯判形勢，誤信能夠得到外力強大聲援，「港英必敗、我們必勝」；有人盲從附和，上面說什麼，下面就照做；有人徒具理想熱誠卻自以為是，認為自己就是正義，必將戰勝黑暗，行事不顧後果。不同人所犯的錯誤形形色色，然而歸根究柢就是一廂情願，脫離現實，喪失獨立思考和冷靜分析的能力。社會改革需要理想和勇氣，不過當理想變成空想，勇氣變成盲動，很容易被懷有私心者利用，變得相當危險。已故著名哲學家馮友蘭談及毛澤東的極左思想，形容文革是其極致，它的荒謬之處，在於那完全是「空想共產主義」，簡言之就是不再唯物，一味唯心，盲目相信意志可以戰勝一切。六七暴動是文革極左思潮影響下出現的鬥爭運動，同樣存在空想主義的情况，當中最明顯不過的，就是反英鬥爭初期，周恩來已多次強調對英國的鬥爭必須有理有節，也反對在香港動武，可是隨着鬥爭失利，左派鬥爭者仍執意號召群眾「拿起武器」，一廂情願地以為土製炸彈能夠撼動政權，是唯一可以打擊港英政府的方法，走上暴力不歸路。

已故中共元老陳雲強調「不唯上，不唯書，只唯實」，意思就是切勿盲從權威、盲從理論教條，只相信事實。行事不唯上，自然不會揣摩上意，能夠獨立思考，針對現實情况作出合理判斷；分清理想與空想，自然不會自欺欺人，能夠明智根據形勢，有節有理追求目標。