November 11-13, 2011 on the basis of the State University. Sun Yat-sen (Kaohsiung, Taiwan) hosted the international conference "Unfinished Revolution: Revisiting the Ideological Legacy of Sun Yat-sen and his era", which was one of the events dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the Republic of China, founded on January 1, 1912 on the ruins of the Chinese empire. This event could have been lost in a long series of other anniversary events, if not for its purely scientific nature, impressive scale, solid composition of participants, a wide range and acute statement of the problems discussed. Within three days, about 66 scientists from 12 countries, including Russia, presented their reports in 13 sections in two working languages-English and Chinese. Traditionally, each report was accompanied by feedback from the official opponent and was open to questions and discussions.

The unorthodox, non-trivial and open nature of the conference was reflected in its title and official program, which opened with a statement of acute questions about the legitimacy of the Xinhai revolution, the revision of its results and the ideas of Sun Yat-sen. These questions became the leitmotif of the entire academic meeting and were regularly discussed in the following sections: "Reinterpretation of the 1911 Revolution"; "New Approaches to Asian Values"; "Cross-cultural Dialogue"; "Legacy of the principle of democracy"; "Legacy of the principle of nationalism"; "Legacy of the principle of national welfare"; "State-building and cultural identity"; "Conflicts and dialogues between cultures"; "Nationalism and Community Politics"; "The Principle of Democracy and political Transition I"; "The Principle of Democracy and political transition P"; "The Principle of People's Welfare and Justice"; "Taiwan Strait relations and trade and Economic development".

On 12 and 13 November, the section reports were supplemented by two plenary reports: "Freedom and Diversity" and "Flight of Fancy: Dr. Sun Yat-sen's Plan for the Aviation Industry".

As can be seen from the name and the list of sections of the conference, according to the organizers, not only the results of the revolution, but also the theoretical foundations of Sun Yat-sen's ideas and his specific state projects ("flight of fancy"), as well as modern national, regional and world social realities are subject to scientific"revision". In the announcement of the conference, its idea and name are interpreted as follows::

"2011 is the year of the centenary of the founding of the Republic of China. Over the past century... China has undergone a number of reforms and transformations. One hundred years ago, the Chinese witnessed a revolution that transformed the ancient Chinese empire into a modern state. And one of the leaders, Dr. Sun Yat-sen, was hailed as the" founding father " of the new republic. Along with the political leadership, like many intellectuals of the time, Sun... he had far more far-reaching plans than simply overthrowing the old regime. He was also a visionary political thinker. Faced with the country's split soon after the revolution, Sun... he wrote down his vision for the new country, and his thoughts were later summarized in the form of the "Three People's Principles".

In the" Three People's Principles", Sun Yat-sen foresaw a democratic China, where the country is ruled by a sovereign people, a harmonious and unified society, where large countries live in peace with each other, jointly repel invaders, and predicted a powerful industrialized and modernized economy in which everyone will find their due share.

As you know, the" Three People's Principles " also contained some contradictory, even paradoxical ideas, for example, a mixture of concepts of Chinese and Western political cultures, ideas of a multicultural republic with unitary nationalist sentiments, as well as ideas of a prosperous society generated by the capitalist model of the economy. All of these features reflect one particular theme that occupied the minds of intellectuals during Dr. Sun's time: the desire to find a compromise between the ancient Chinese heritage and modern political, social, and economic institutions. Therefore, the question was not only to understand the need for change, but also to convince the Chinese people that these urgent changes were consistent with Chinese culture itself.

In this regard, it is obvious that some of the underlying problems that occupied Dr. Sun and the intelligentsia of that time continue to haunt us today. Is there only one way to upgrade? Or are there many upgrades available? Should we insist on the special significance of culture and on the fact that the perception of modern institutions requires their reworking to take into account the "Chinese specifics"? Should we use the cover of culture to reject such basic moral values, rooted in Western modernization, as respect for human dignity and fundamental human rights? Moreover, if we accept that democracy and nationalism are based on the same modern principle of democracy, then how can we resolve the dilemma between a multicultural society and a single sovereign state? As far as the economic model is concerned, how can one find a delicate balance between the welfare of society and the capitalist economy? Is the lexicon of right and left applicable to the Chinese context?

All these problems not only pop up in Chinese society, but are also present in the political thought of all societies. We live in a time when people's lives are increasingly intertwined politically, economically and culturally. The ideas and controversies that Sun Yat-sen and the thinkers of his time (East-West, right-left, etc.) initiated may have only begun as problems in those times, but they need further discussion in our time. Dr. Sun's political revolution may have ended 100 years ago. But the questions raised by him and his contemporaries still deserve to be understood. In this sense, this revolution is incomplete.

The issue of ambiguity in moral and political assessments of the Xinhai Revolution was raised in the first report on the topic "Assessments and status of the 1911 Revolution-a question of legitimacy in Modern Chinese Politics" (The Appraisals and Status of the 1911 Revolution-The Question of Legitimacy in Modern Chinese Politics). As the speaker (Tsai Meng-han, Chiba University, Japan) noted, despite the differences in the interpretation of the nature and significance of this revolution by historians of the Kuomintang and the PRC, all Chinese historiography traditionally evaluates it as a necessary, positive and correct event. Meanwhile, monarchical opposition to the Republic of China persisted until 1945 and disappeared as a political phenomenon only after the surrender of Japan.

Unlike Chinese scientists, the author of the famous trilogy "Confucian China and its Modern destinies" is an American historian Levinson (Levenson. Confucian China and its Modern Fate, Univ. of California Press: 1958, 1964, 1965) argued that the Xinhai Revolution was successful only because the monarchy and Confucianism that represented Chinese civilization had disintegrated before it began. And the demise of traditional Chinese civilization as a moral, political, and intellectual ideal was a foregone conclusion, regardless of the presence or absence of the Xinhai Revolution.

In contrast to Livinson, the well - known Japanese historian Yuzo Mizoguchi (1932-2010) argued that the Chinese revolutions of 1911 and 1949 stemmed from Chinese political and cultural traditions, particularly neo-Confucianism. While Chinese modernity is rooted in the Chinese tradition, Western influence has been largely a catalyst. As a result, Mizoguchi's views imply a similarity between Confucian and a number of progressive Western moral and political values, which was postulated by some Chinese and Japanese intellectuals in the XIX century, and later reflected in the ideas of Sun Yat-sen and Mao Zedong.

As the speaker pointed out, the Xinhai Revolution led to the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of a republican system. But unlike other successful revolutions, such as the Meiji Revolution in Japan, the success of the 1911 revolution was possible only after the political and moral betrayal of Yuan Shikai, as well as thanks to the persistence of Sun Yat-sen, who was ready to end the monarchy at any cost, without thinking about the possible failures and negative consequences associated with the transfer of power to Yuan Shikai. In other words, the only success of the revolution of 1911 was the overthrow of the monarchy. This revolution did not solve any other state tasks, including protecting the interests and security of citizens.

According to Tsai Meng-han, no amount of fancy talk about an "incomplete revolution" can change the fact that the revolution of 1911 turned out to be a quick defeat, and in the long run caused disastrous consequences, which were overcome only after, according to the Book of Changes, "destruction reached its limit and flourished." At the same time, the main reason for not recognizing the failure of the Xinhai Revolution is that its main beneficiaries and heirs still control political power in the Republic of China and in the PRC.

However, the author does not indicate why his moral assessments and comparisons of the victims of the revolution with "deceived investors" are not shared by many scientists from other countries who are not connected with the political elite of the PRC and Taiwan. According to the speaker, all those who decide people's destinies, including Sun and Yuan Shikai, should bear political and moral responsibility for the decisions they make on behalf of the people. Therefore, the unfinished business of the "unfinished revolution" is to give definitive and firm assessments of the Xinhai Revolution.

Chen Zheng-Guo Chen, author of the report "Politicization of the idea of equality and the 1911 Revolution in China" (Taiwan), recalled that the Xinhai Revolution marked the political end of the ancient regime. And the Republic of China, founded on January 1, 1912, despite numerous shortcomings, failures and fluctuations, still exists successfully today. Civil and constitutional consciousness could not be assimilated by the people of China overnight. They had a long and painful time getting used to the idea that they were no longer subjects of the Chinese emperor, but the "collective masters" of the country. To assimilate the idea of citizenship and equality on a subjective level, social phenomena such as the "May 4 Movement" of 1919 were required, which introduced Chinese people, especially young people, to new views, lifestyles and ideologies. In other words, the constitutional revolution gave people a nominal civil identity and a legal environment in which they adopted a new identity in the course of various socio-political changes, including the "cultural revolution" in the PRC.

These processes and changes took place with the active participation of the Chinese intellectual elite: Sun Yat-sen, Liang Qichao, Kang Yuwei, Yan Fu and other famous figures of the beginning of the last century, whose ideas and activities were also particularly considered in a number of reports at the conference.

Since it is difficult to separate the assessments of the Xinhai Revolution from those of its mastermind, Sun Yat-sen, many of the conference papers were devoted to analyzing the contradictory ideas and practices of the "founding father" of the Republic of China. Thus, M. A. Mercedes (M. A. Mercedes Susana Giujfre, Argentina) expressed the opinion that " Dr. Sun was not a philosopher, but a wise political thinker who often sacrificed or changed his ideas to fulfill the practical needs of his movement."

The influence of Sun's ideas on twentieth-century ideology and political practice was also the focus of many speakers ' attention. For example, D. A. Smirnov (Russia) in his report "The Three Popular Principles of Dr. Sun Yat-sen and Mao Zedong's theory of "new democracy" showed that Sun's ideas seriously influenced the formation of Mao, who directly linked the construction of a" new society "with the" Three Popular Principles". In his report "Dr. Sun Yat-sen's Chinese Nationalism and its incomplete revolutionary ideas", Wang Hong-ren Wang (Germany) showed that the influence of Sun's "incomplete revolutionary ideas "(their interpretation and reinterpretation by Chinese figures of the subsequent period) was one of the key factors of politics and ideology in the United States. modern China.

The issue of equality of human rights and equal opportunities for their implementation on the example of the gender policy of the Kuomintang in Taiwan was presented in the report of E. N. Stepanova (Russia)"The Welfare State and social justice: the Kuomintang and the problem of gender equality". According to the speaker, the gender policy of the Kuomintang, which has its roots in the events of the Xinhai Revolution and Sun's theories, has led to a clear increase in women's political participation in Taiwan in recent decades. And their voices in parliament are much louder than in many other Asian countries, including South Korea and Japan.

A rather unusual approach to assessing the Xinhai Revolution from the point of view of eschatology and demonology was proposed by the Japanese scientist M. Yasutake (Masataka Yasutake, Japan). In the eyes of contemporaries and descendants, as well as politicians and historians, he noted, any revolution looks ambiguous. Even in the case of the English Revolution of the seventeenth century, there is still some debate about whether the dynamic social changes were a "revolution" (say, the "Puritan revolution") or simply a "civil war". Since all revolutions must be conducted under the banner of fighting for justice or justifying justice, their champions demonize their opponents, while simultaneously promoting themselves as the saviors of a society facing an apocalyptic choice between good and evil. The presence of demonology is a necessary element or "prescribed identity" of any revolution designed to establish and maintain a new regime. But in the English Revolution, the apocalypse sometimes served to reject further regime changes as an unrealistic dream that could not be realized.-

to be implemented in the near future. And in revolutionary France, the juxtaposition of good and evil took on a demonology that closely resembled Cold War McCarthyism. As for the revolution of 1911, according to the speaker, the revolutionaries demonized the Manchu rulers of the Qing dynasty, and the idea of the apocalypse was expressed in the ideas of "changing the heavenly mandate" to govern the state, as well as the vital threat to the Chinese nation and society from an external enemy.

Taiwanese researcher Chen Yi-chung's report "Spectra of the Revolution: A Review of Two" Counter-radical "perspectives" was devoted to the analysis of two approaches to assessing the 1911 revolution. and the role of Sun Yat-sen in the history and politics of modern China. The first approach is that the Xinhai Revolution was a political mistake of Sun and his followers. It was caused primarily by Sun's "political radicalism", which prevented an alternative path to a "constitutional monarchy", perhaps more advantageous than a revolutionary explosion. The second approach, focusing on the events immediately following the revolution, suggests that Sun's predilection for endless revolution and his "infantile disorder" were the main reasons for the collapse of post-revolutionary constitutionalism and parliamentary politics, as well as the collapse of the federalist revolutionary movement of the 1920s. According to the speaker, both of these approaches are only partially correct. Doubtfully exaggerating the weight of "political radicalism" and the influence of "radical ideas", they leave aside important socio-political aspects. Moreover, both approaches overlook the fact that, under certain circumstances, even the seemingly benign scenario of "gradual implementation of constitutional democracy" can also be denounced as "politically radical." And the dramatized juxtaposition of "political radicalism" and "democratic gradualism" is untenable and unpromising.

The impact of Sun Yat-sen's "pan-Asian" ideas on regional convergence and competition among East Asian countries (China, Japan, etc.) in the post-Cold War period was examined in a report by Liu Ming-feng (Taiwan).

It is noteworthy that the reports of scientists from the PRC were devoted to the history of political philosophy and rethinking the political ideas of Sun, which, according to some speakers (Xu Chang-fu), removed the eternal "Platonic" contradiction between the rule of the elite or the masses by separating the political power of citizens and the governing ability (competence) of the government. Obviously, the appeal to such topics reflects the ideological search of a new generation of modern Chinese intellectuals, their attempts to overcome the bottlenecks of official Marxist ideology at the expense of "practical wisdom" and identify additional "wiggle room" in the ideological legacy of Sunyatsenism (Xu Zhen-zhou). As noted by Chinese speakers, the Xinhai Revolution created a new political community (republic), but it failed to ensure constitutional rule. Questions of power ownership have overshadowed the question of reviving the authority of State power. The result of this unresolved contradiction was the waves of subsequent revolutions (communist, "cultural"), civil wars, the authoritarianism of central governments, and finally, even after a hundred years, the still not fully established constitutional order (Xu Chi-lin).

Other topics discussed at the conference included the impact of Sunyatsenism and the 1911 revolution on various Asian countries and foreign communities. In particular, the influence on Japanese intellectuals of the early 20th century, on the ideas of "semi-colonialism" and "sub-colonialism", on democratic development and globalization in South Korea (Jin-Ho Jang, Republic of Korea).

The reports of Western scholars actively discussed the use of images of the Xinhai Revolution, Sun Yat-sen, and the idea of nationalism in the nation-building process and identity politics in the official and private spheres (education, media, etc.) of China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan (Lutgard Lams, Belgium; Ryan Brading, United Kingdom).

As shown by the conference, brilliantly prepared and conducted by the Center for Social Sciences at the University. Sun Yat - sen (Director-Roy Tseng), today Taiwan retains its role as a leading center and a lively crossroads in the study of modern and contemporary Chinese history. This is supported by a strong scientific tradition and expert training on the island. The free choice of topics, bold formulation and informal discussion of acute problems made it clear that the revolution of 1911, evaluated in a century-old retrospective, is a real revolution.,

It was a real turning point for the subsequent revival of China. And the ideological and political legacy of Sun Yat-sen, which often seemed like a naive utopia and adventurism in the dashing years of the XX century, is increasingly being implemented in modern political practice (for example, in Taiwan), preserving the potential and relevance for the future of China, Asia and now the whole world in the XXI century. In this sense, we can agree with the organizers of the conference, who are convinced that the Xinhai Revolution is truly incomplete.

Permanent link to this publication: