Difference between revisions of "Anarchisme en Chine"

Dans la première phase du mouvement, les anarchistes des deux écoles prenaient généralement part au mouvement nationaliste, bien qu’en théorie ils rejetaient le nationalisme et les États-nations.

Attaques nationalistes

Les premières attaques contre le mouvement anarchiste naissant vinrent des nationalistes qui voyaient l’anarchisme comme une menace envers leur effort pour construire une nation forte, unifiée, centralisée et moderne qui puisse tenir tête au pouvoir envahissant de l’impérialisme occidental. Comme un lecteur nationaliste écrivit au journal anarchiste Hsin Shih-chi, publié par le groupe de Paris :

« Si vous, anarchistes, savaient seulement crier stupidement « Nous ne voulons pas de gouvernement, pas de soldats, pas de limites nationales, et pas d’État » et que vous êtes pour l’harmonie universelle, la justice, la liberté et l’égalité, je crains que ceux qui connaissent seulement la force brute et non la justice rassemblent leurs armées pour diviser notre pays et notre peuple. »

Les nationalistes affirmaient aussi que leur mouvement ne pouvait défaire les dynasties Mandchoue et Qing qu’en créant un front populaire, et que sur le long terme, si l’anarchisme avait une chance de réussir, il devrait nécessairement être précédé par un système républicain qui sécuriserait la Chine.

Réponse des anarchistes

La réponse des éditeurs de Hsin Shih-chi, écrite par Li Shih-tseng, était basée sur l’idée que la révolution qu’ils prêchaient serait mondiale, simultanée et spontanée. Donc les impérialistes étrangers seraient trop préoccupés avec les révolutions dans leur propre pays pour penser envahir ou harceler la Chine plus longtemps. Ils affirmaient aussi qu’avoir un gouvernement fort, centralisé et coercitif n’avait pas empêché les ennemis de la Chine de l’attaquer dans le passé, et que sur le long terme la tyrannie restait la tyrannie, indépendamment de son origine étrangère ou chinoise. Ainsi, la seule approche pour les gens qui voulaient accéder à la liberté devait être de s’opposer à toute autorité, fût-elle mandchoue, han, étrangère ou chinoise.

Rétrospectivement, la question évidente est comment espéraient-ils l’arrivée d’une révolution mondiale spontanée. La réponse est que les membres du groupe de Paris, comme le faisaient de nombreux radicaux de tout acabit partout sur le globe à l’époque, croyait que la révolution pouvait être assimilée à une force de la nature. Dans ce contexte, la révolution viendrait car elle était indubitablement nécessaire, et leur rôle était simplement de préparer le peuple pour elle et de l’aider à voir l’absolue nécessité d’un changement social. Cette perspective donne un aperçu important de la nature fondamentalement évolutionnaire du mouvement, et explique l’attention que le mouvement portait sur l’éducation plutôt que sur la construction de l’organisation.

Résultat de la collaboration

L’implication d’éminentes figures nationalistes indique le rôle des relations personnelles au sein de l’organisation du groupe de Paris. Les individus qui ont fondé ce groupe étaient issus du mouvement national et y sont restés fortement liés grâce à un réseau d’amitiés personnelles. Ainsi, il était naturel pour eux d’essayer de faire entrer leurs amis dans l’organisation dans l’espoir qu’ils gagnent leur cause (et de récupérer l’influence qu’ils avaient).

Le vrai résultat d’une telle collaboration fut que ce sont les anarchistes, et non les nationalistes, qui compromirent leur position puisque en agissant ainsi, ils eurent accès à des positions stratégiques dans le gouvernement nationaliste auquel ils étaient théoriquement opposés. Cette même année Jing Meiju et Zhan Ji (un autre anarchiste affilié au groupe de Tokyo) furent tous deux élus au Parlement républicain. Shifu et le groupe de Guangzhou déclarèrent qu’en faisant cela ils étaient traîtres à la cause et qu’ils avaient prouvé leur manque d’engagement dans le mouvement, mais les deux hommes continuèrent de s’appeler anarchistes et furent actifs dans la promotion de l’anarchisme jusqu’à la fin des années 1920.

Toutefois, en contrepoint d’une telle collaboration, il y a une preuve que beaucoup d’autres anarchistes auraient pu rejoindre le nouveau gouvernement nationaliste et acquérir une position de pouvoir et de privilèges mais refusèrent pour ne pas violer leurs principes. Comme l’écrivent Robert Scalapino et G.T. Yu dans Le mouvement anarchiste chinois : « On peut quelque peu douter que beaucoup refusèrent de jouer le type de rôle politique qui était désespérément nécessaire à une période où le personnel entraîné était extrêmement rare comparé aux tâches à accomplir. »

Problèmes stratégiques

Arif Dirlik argumente en disant que ces problèmes sont significatifs de l’ambiguïté persistante dans la définition de l’anarchisme. Plus précisément, le problème était un problème stratégique. Ces gens se considéraient comme anarchistes car ils travaillaient sur le long terme à l’abolition du capitalisme, de l’État, et de toute autorité coercitive en général. De leur point de vue, l’anarchisme était un but sur le très long terme et non quelque chose qu’ils s’attendaient à voir se réaliser de leur vivant. Chiang par exemple, pensait qu’il faudrait 3000 ans pour mener à bien la révolution dont-ils rêvaient.

Ainsi, on comprend mieux pourquoi les anarchistes pouvaient être tentés de faire campagne pour le gouvernement et d’avoir un mandat politique ou de collaborer avec des éléments compatissants du gouvernement, puisque ainsi cela les aiderait à accomplir leurs objectifs sur le long terme. Cette attitude est clairement différente de l’anarchisme révolutionnaire de Kropotkine et de Bakounine, ou même du groupe de Guangzhou, dont le but était la révolution immédiate et la création d’une société anarchiste dans le futur proche.

Cette tendance de certains membres les plus riches du mouvement de travailler à la révolution sur le long terme et de se concentrer sur la philosophie et la théorie plutôt que sur l’organisation concrète a peut-être été enracinée chez les classes sociales les plus basses. La rupture entre anarchistes, marxistes ou socialistes philosophes les plus riches, et les révolutionnaires ouvriers peut être une caractéristique commune des mouvements révolutionnaires.

Croissance du mouvement anarchiste

C’est pour cette raison que le groupe de Paris déclara que l’éducation était l’activité révolutionnaire la plus importante dans laquelle il pouvait être impliqué, et que c’était seulement par l’éducation du peuple qu’une société anarchiste pourrait être créée. (Voir par exemple Wu Zhihui : L’éducation en tant que révolution, La nouvelle ère, septembre 1908)^[1]. En conséquence, les anarchistes du groupe de Paris orientaient leurs activités vers l’éducation plutôt que vers l’assassinat ou vers l’organisation sociale locale (les deux autres formes d’activisme qu’ils pardonnaient en théorie).

À ces fins, le groupe de Paris mit en place de nombreuses activités gérées par des étudiants, comme une usine à tofu, pour financer les études des étudiants radicaux chinois qui voudraient aller étudier à l’étranger. Les étudiants y travaillaient une partie du temps et étudiaient pendant le reste, leur permettant ainsi d’avoir accès à une éducation européenne pour une fraction du coût que cela aurait dû avoir ; et par la même occasion, ils acquéraient directement à la source une expérience de ce que signifierait vivre, travailler et étudier dans une société anarchiste. Ce programme d’études à l’étranger joua un rôle critique dans la diffusion du langage et des idées anarchistes dans les mouvements nationalistes et révolutionnaires chinois à l’étranger puisque des centaines d’étudiants participèrent au programme. L’approche était éminemment pragmatique puisqu’elle était d’une grande aide aux étudiants qui voulaient étudier à l’étranger mais qui n’avaient pas les ressources financières, et elle démontrait que les modèles d’organisation anarchiste basés sur l’entraide et la coopération étaient des alternatives viables aux entreprises capitalistes tournées vers le profit.

En dépit d’une opposition occasionnelle, les groupes de Paris et de Tokyo avaient plutôt tendance à aider la cause nationaliste. En fait, plusieurs membres du groupe de Paris furent parmi les premiers membres du Guomindang et devinrent des proches amis de Sun Yat-sen. À au moins deux occasions, Sun Yat-sen demanda et reçu une assistance financière "considérable" de la part de Chang Ching-Chiang, qui était associé au groupe de Paris.

Cette collaboration peut être comprise par l’importance que les anarchistes et les nationalistes accordaient au fait de travailler ensemble à la révolution, et à cause de l’éclectisme extrême de Sun Yat-sen qui déclara : « le but final des trois principes du peuple [était] le communisme et l’anarchisme. » Cela peut aussi expliquer l’empressement du groupe de Paris quelques années plus tard, pendant la Première guerre mondiale, d’accepter des financements de la part du gouvernement nationaliste pour développer leurs programmes.

L'anarchisme, mouvement de masse

En 1911, l’anarchisme était devenu la force motrice de la mobilisation populaire et, d’un groupement de jeunes gens relativement fortunés étudiant à l’étranger, s’était mué en véritable mouvement révolutionnaire englobant le peuple entier. Il y a certaines preuves que le mouvement ouvrier de base qui se développait à cette époque se félicita du nouvel afflux d’idéaux anarchistes quand les gens qui travaillaient aux États-Unis furent forcés de retourner en Chine à la suite de la proclamation de la loi d’exclusion des chinois ("Chinese Exclusion Act") en 1882. Cet acte limitait sévèrement (mais ne supprimait pas complètement) les flux d’ouvriers chinois à destination et au départ des États-Unis.

L'influence des anarchistes américains

Aux États-Unis, les anarchistes étaient quasiment les seuls au sein du mouvement ouvrier à explicitement s’opposer au racisme envers les asiatiques et les mexicains, et quand Emma Goldman vint parler à San Francisco dans les années 1890, il y avait plusieurs milliers de travailleurs chinois présents. De plus, dès 1908, des milliers d’ouvriers chinois d’Amérique du nord - particulièrement ceux qui travaillaient en Californie et sur la côte nord-ouest - étaient déjà membres de l’Industrial Union, et de l’Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). Les Wobblies (comme étaient appelés les membres de l’IWW) furent les premiers syndicalistes américains à s’opposer à la suprématie blanche de manière organisée et délibérée et à recruter activement des membres asiatiques, noirs, latinos et des travailleurs émigrés. La défense des émigrés chinois qui étaient systématiquement victimes d’harcèlement et de discrimination leur fit acquérir un large engagement parmi les ouvriers chinois et un vaste soutien de la part de la communauté chinoise d’Amérique du nord.

L’influence des membres chinois de l’IWW retournés en Chine n’a pas été suffisamment étudiée, mais la participation importante des anarchistes au mouvement syndical chinois et l’écho attentif qu’ils ont reçu doit quelque chose à cette ancienne relation entre les ouvriers chinois et les anarchistes révolutionnaires.

La révolution nationaliste de 1911

À la suite de la révolution nationaliste de 1911 et de la victoire de l’Alliance Révolutionnaire qui comptait plusieurs anarchistes de premier plan comme anciens membres, les anarchistes à travers la Chine entière eurent l’occasion de s’engager davantage dans l’organisation. D’un autre côté, le pouvoir nationaliste ne garantissait aucunement la capacité de s’organiser librement en collectifs anti-autoritaires, et la persécution du gouvernement alla en s’amplifiant. Quand les objectifs de renversement de la dynastie mandchoue Qing furent atteints, la principale opposition idéologique à l’anarchisme vint des socialistes autoproclamés, dont la Chinese Socialist Society (CSS) et la partie la plus à gauche du mouvement nationaliste qui, à la suite de Sun Yat-sen, se faisait appeler socialiste. Jiang Kanghu, qui fonda la Chinese Socialist Society en 1911, participa à la rédaction de la Nouvelle Ère (une des publications du groupe de Paris), et instaura l’abolition de l’État, la structure familiale traditionnelle et la culture confucéenne comme piliers de son parti.

La source de conflit principale était la volonté de la CSS de conserver les relations commerciales tout en y associant un large filet de protection avec la sécurité sociale, car ils pensaient que sans mécanisme stimulant, les gens ne produiraient rien et la société s’effondrerait. Les autres sources de différend étaient que la CSS se concentrait sur la construction de la révolution chinoise en Chine (et non à partir de l’étranger), et l’utilisation pour cela du gouvernement élu, deux différences majeures avec l’anarchisme "classique". Jiang ne se considérait pas comme un anarchiste, ainsi son parti était généralement perçu comme externe au mouvement, malgré les ressemblances. En 1912, le parti de Jiang se scinda en deux factions : les socialistes purs, dirigés par le moine bouddhiste anarchiste Tai Xu, et les restes du parti menés par Jiang.

Un peu plus tard dans la même année, Shifu, qui peut être considéré comme la figure anarchiste la plus importante du mouvement en Chine continentale, fonda un groupe à Canton (Guangzhou en mandarin), avec une plate-forme explicitement anarcho-communiste.

Les socialistes purs

The Pure Socialists revised platform included the complete abolition of property and an anarchist-communist economic system. Shifu criticized them for retaining the name “Socialist” but their platform was clearly anarchist so the two groups generally considered each other comrades. The emphasis on the importance of the Peasant struggle, which had been pioneered earlier by the Tokyo group, would also become a major subject of discussion and organizing among Chinese anarchists from both the Pure Socialists and the Guangzhou group in this period. It was anarchists who first pointed to the crucial role that the peasants must play in any serious revolutionary attempt in China, and anarchists were the first to engage in any serious attempts to organize the Peasants.

Le groupe de Canton

The main base of anarchist activity in mainland China during this phase was in Guangzhou, and the Paris and Tokyo groups continued to have significant influence. The Pure Socialists were also strongly involved, but because they were as much Buddhists as they were anarchists, were more concerned with promoting virtue and less focused on immediate revolution. By this time the Paris group had rendered their anarchism into an extremely abstract philosophy that was more concerned with the place of the individual in society than with the day-to-day realities of working people. This is perhaps not surprising given the relatively wealthy backgrounds of most of the Paris group, but it would lead to increased friction between them and their more class-struggle oriented comrades in Guangzhou.

The Guangzhou group is usually described as being “led” by Shifu, and this is generally accurate insofar as we understand it as leadership by example since he was never granted any formal position or coercive authority by the group. Their most significant contributions at this stage were the foundation of “an alliance between intellectuals and workers” and their propaganda work which set out to differentiate anarchism from all the other socialisms that were gaining in popularity; and in so doing crystallized for the first time exactly what anarchism was.

Where the Paris group had preferred to outline their ideal in terms of negative freedoms, i.e. freedom from coercion, freedom from tradition, etc; the Guangzhou group used positive assertions of rights and workers, women, peasants, and other oppressed groups to outline their vision of an anarchist society. Noticeably absent was any mention of Ethnic minorities, since a basic part of their platform was the elimination of Ethnic, Racial, and National identities in favor of an internationalist identity that placed primary importance on loyalty to humanity as a whole, instead of to ones ethnic or racial group.

It is important to recognize that this position was formulated in response to the primacy placed on ethnicity by the Anti-Manchu movement, which sought to assert the illegitimacy of the Qing dynasty based in part on the fact that its members were part of an ethnic minority out of touch with the Han majority, a position which anarchists of all four major groups decried as racist and unbefitting a movement that claimed to be working for liberation. Their position, therefore, was that ethnicity-based organizing promoted Racism, and had no place in a Revolution that sought liberation for all of humanity.

While consistent with the stance of the global anarchist movement at the time, this position elicits mixed responses from modern anarchists, many of whom see revolutionary potential in the struggles of oppressed ethnic and racial groups. In terms of the Revolutionary project in China, Ward Churchill cites the declarations of support for ethnic self-determination for China’s ethnic minorities which the Communist movement made as key to winning their movement the support of those groups. This was to prove decisive during the later civil war between the Communist Party of China and Chinese Nationalism. It is ironic that the anarchist movement, which is based on the idea of local political and economic self-determination – and thus fulfills the autonomist aspirations of those groups - was unable to articulate to minority communities how their desire for self-determination would be realized within the context of an anarchist society.

In practical terms, the work of the movement at this stage was propaganda and organizing. Guangzhou anarchists founded a newspaper called Peoples Voice and began organizing workers, while in Taiyuan (Taiwan), Jing Meijiu - who had converted to anarchism as part of the Tokyo group - founded an explicitly anarchafeminist worker-run factory/school to serve as a tool to help women simultaneously earn a living and receive an education.

L'influence du groupe de Paris

The similarity to the Paris groups Diligent Work and Frugal Study program is obvious. In 1912, members of the Paris group that had returned to China established the “Promote Virtue Society,” whose leadership included prominent anarchists like Li Shezeng and Nationalists like Wang Jiangwei.

The focus of that society, in keeping with the tendencies of the Paris group, was as much on virtuous and moral personal behavior as it was on Revolutionary praxis. Their rules for membership delineated different levels of commitment and discouraged members from eating meat and visiting prostitutes; and concretely forbade them from riding in Sedan chairs, taking concubines, or holding public office.

While it may be tempting to see such rules as superfluous, the evidence suggests we should take them seriously, since most of the anarchist organizations in China in this period included similar rules for their members. The goal was to create a cadre of Revolutionaries who would lead by example and help create a model for a new revolutionary culture. There are obvious parallels here to the traditional obligation for people involved in public life to set an example and promote virtue as well.

Le besoin français d'ouvriers

Only a few years later, during World War I, the Paris group would take advantage of the French Governments need for laborers to gain funding from the French and Chinese governments to expand their work-study movement to include Chinese workers. The students continued to come, but part of their program of education now included holding classes and educating the thousands of Chinese workers supplementing the French war effort. In so doing they aided one imperialist capitalist power in its self-defense against another imperialist capitalist power.

While a small number of well-known anarchists, including Peter Kropotkin, supported the French during World War I because they saw France as more progressive than Germany and feared a German victory would undermine their Revolutionary activity in France, this was definitely a minority position in terms of the global movement.

The Paris group was nothing if not pragmatic, and since the Chinese workers were going to come one way or another, they took advantage of the situation and used it as an opportunity to meet their enemies short term needs while fulfilling their long-term goal of educating the workers. The fact that they were able to get government funding for an education program with the goal of training young people and workers in how to become effective revolutionaries is a vindication of their tactics.

La diffusion des idées anarchistes

The practical implications of such a broad diffusion of anarchist ideas, and the setting in which it took place, are both strong indicators of the strong fusion of pragmatism and idealism that typified the Paris groups activities. In any case, the increased contact with actual flesh-and-blood workers had a profound effect on their propaganda and theory, with labor issues suddenly becoming a much more prominent part of their platform.

L'anarchisme, mouvement populaire

By 1914 anarchism had become a genuine popular movement in China as increasing numbers of people from peasants and factory workers to intellectuals and students became disillusioned with the Nationalist government and its inability to realize the peace and prosperity it had promised.

A major liability that the movement had picked up along the way, however, was the extreme diffusion of anarchist idea to the point where it was becoming difficult to define exactly who was and who was not an anarchist. Shifu set out to remedy that situation in a series of articles in Peoples Voice, which attacked Jiang Kanghu, Sun Yet-Sen, and the Pure Socialists.

The debates that ensued served for the first time to really crystallize what exactly was meant by anarchism in the broad sense. These articles were generally friendly in tone. The goal was to clearly differentiate between the different schools of thought that were available at that time. The letters directed at Sun Yet Sen and the Nationalists were aimed at exposing the ambiguities of their use of the word “socialism” to describe their goals, which were clearly not socialist according to any contemporary definition. The attacks on Jiang and the CSS sought to portray their vision of revolution and socialism as too narrow because it was focused on a single country, and to oppose their retention of market relations as part of their platform. The attack on the Pure Socialists was by far the mildest, with the main criticism being that if they were anarchists then they should call themselves anarchists and not socialists. Peoples Voice invited and printed responses from all parties, and their goal seems to have been the creation of an open and respectful debate among friends.

For the next five years the movement would grow slowly but steadily as each of the disparate groups continued their propaganda, education, and organizing projects. In 1915 the anarchist arguments for a Social Revolution that had originated a decade earlier with the original Paris group would find broader acceptance in the New Culture Movement which was pioneered by a small group of intellectuals in Beijing but spread to the rest of the county over the next four years, until it merged into the May Fourth movement.

The New Culture Movement was not anarchist, but in it’s glorification of science and extreme disdain for Confucianism and traditional culture it extended critiques that had originated with the Paris group, and the proliferationof anarchist thought during this period can be seen as a confirmation of the influence anarchists had on the movement from its foundation on. The participants saw it as a conscious attempt to create a Chinese renaissance, and consciously sought to create and live the new culture that they espoused.

Déclin de l'influence et montée du maoïsme

Once the Bolsheviks in Russia had consolidated their power, they immediately sought to expand their sphere of influence. Their interpretation of Karl Marx’s prediction that the revolution would be global was that – as the vanguard — it was their role to use the resources at their disposal to instigate and support Bolshevik-style revolutions all over the world. In keeping with Lenin’s doctrine on imperialism, their focus was on the undeveloped nations, because they believed that once those nations had thrown off imperialism, Western capitalism — deprived of the material support and raw materials it required — would collapse. They also specifically targeted countries with already established revolutionary movements, and China clearly qualified.

In 1919 the anarchists played a significant role in the May 4th Movement which swept the country. It was at this time that first Bolshevik started organising in China and began contacting anarchist groups for aid and support. The anarchists, mistaking the Bolshevicks for allies & unaware of how the Bolsheviks had subordinated the soviets to their party apparatus, helped them set up communist study groups — many of which were originally majority anarchist — and introduced the Bolsheviks into the Chinese labor and student movements.

Installation du Parti Communiste

In 1921, with the establishing of the Communist Party of China (CPC), the anarchist movement almost immediately began to lose ground. Several reasons for this have been suggested. First, the anarchists lacked the ability to coordinate activities across regions. Second, there was a growing awareness that the Bolsheviks were Marxists, not anarchists — which caused an immediate loss of prestige for the anarchists who had previously claimed the success of the Russian Revolution for their own. Third, and perhaps most critical, is the evolutionary nature of large sections of the movement which did not expect to see their goals met any time in the even remotely near future; this appealed less to workers who wanted immediate change. Bolshevism and the CPC platform were immediately attractive to working people because they offered the promise of change in the immediate future, or even present.

When the CPC entered into the First United Front with the Kuomintang against the warlords in 1924, they gained even broader access to the labor movement, and to mass movements in general. In a period of two years, the CPC grew from a membership of only a few hundred to over 50,000 through their support and assimilation of the various mass movements.

Attaques à l'encontre de l'anarchisme

With increased membership, the CPC no longer felt the need to conceal their disdain for the anarchist movement and began a series of attacks against anarchism and anarchists in its internal publications. The purpose of these attacks was to discredit their opposition, and to bring the ideology of their newly-acquired mass base into line. This is particularly critical since virtually all of the CPC’s leadership for the next fifty years would be drawn from people who had started as anarchists. The fact that so many radicals left the anarchist movement and joined the CPC is indicative of the limitations of Chinese anarchism during this period.

As the influence of the CPC grew, their attacks on anarchism became more overt and less friendly. Where the first debates between Ou Shenbai and Chen Duxiu, his former teacher, had been friendly, later debates became actively hostile. As the anarchist movement rapidly shrank into insignificance, the comrades became increasingly desperate.

A minority of anarchists, mostly from the Paris group, had been involved in the Kuomintang almost from its founding; but that the majority of anarchists, in keeping with their stated principles against involvement in the exercise of coercive authority, had declined to participate in this alliance. The "Diligent Work and Frugal Study" program was one product of this collaboration of the anarchists with nationalists. When the Kuomintang purged the CPC from its ranks in 1927, the small minority of anarchists who had long participated in it urged their younger comrades to join the movement and utilize the Nationalist movement as a vehicle to defeat the Communists and realise anarchism. This drew immediate opposition from those anarchist groups that were still functioning. But even those critical of this opportunism, however, eventually joined in — if only because doing so seemed to be the only remaining chance to make their movement relevant again and reclaim its lost momentum.

The result of this last collaboration was the creation of China's first Labor University, which was intended to be a domestic version of the Paris groups educational program and sought to create a new generation of Labor Intellectuals who would finally overcome the gap between "those who work with their hands” and “those who work with their minds." The university would only function for a very few years before the Nationalist government decided they the project was to subversive to allow it too continue and pulled funding.

It had been acceptable for the anarchists to use government funding to promote anarchism as long as they did so in France, but when they began to do so at home, their "allies" were less than pleased. When the KMT initiated a second wave of repression against the few remaining mass movements, anarchists left the organization en masse and were forced underground as hostilities between the KMT and CPC — both of whom were hostile towards anti-authoritarians — escalated.

Les anarchistes aujourd'hui en Chine

Overtly anarchist organizing has ceased to be a factor in modern Chinese politics due to the heavy repression levied against anti-authoritarians by the Maoist state since the time of the Cultural Revolution. However, as an underground resistance movement anarchism remains influential. Libertarian socialist and Anarchist communist currents have been particularly strong in the anti-dictatorship movement and in China's underground Labor Movement. The best known of these in the Western world is the Autonomous Beijing group, one of several groups responsible for organizing the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. More recently, the Associated press has reported the emergence of a distinctly anarchist labor movement in China's old industrial rust-belt and a growing number of assassinations of communist party officials and factory bosses by disgruntled workers. Unfortunately, due to the extreme censorship imposed by the government of the People's Republic of China, it is nearly impossible to accurately catalogue the ideological motivations and affiliations of such movements and groups.

Pour approfondir

• Taoism as early Chinese anarchism by Murray Rothbard in his Histories of Economic Thought.
• Leanings toward anarchism in early Confucianism (PDF format) by philosopher Roderick Long.
• Jean-Jacques Gandini, Aux Sources de la révolution chinoise : les anarchistes. Contribution historique de 1902 à 1927, Lyon : Atelier de Création libertaire, 1986.
• Anarchisme en Chine (1949-1981), Wiebieralski

Réferences