중국혁명시기 모택동 사상에 미친 불교의 영향

김제란(Kim, Je-ran) 불교학연구회 2011 불교학연구 Vol.29 No.-

이 글의 목적은 모택동(毛澤東, 1893-1976) 사상에 영향을 준 중국 전통사상 중 특히 불교 사상이 미친 영향을 찾아보는 것이다. 이 글에서는 마르크스주의의 중국화를 완성한 사상가로 평가되는 모택동이 불교를 어떻게 평가하고 받아들였는가를 살펴보는 방법으로, 거꾸로 그 사상에 미친 불교의 영향을 유추해보고자 하였다. 모택동은 중국철학사가 갖는 생명력은 불교라는 외래 철학을 흡수하여 변화시킨 데 기원한다고 보았다. 그는 ‘개방 정신’이 중국철학사를 추동하는 힘이라고 파악하였다. 그가 중국철학사에서개방정신을 얼마나 중시하였는지는, 당대 한유(韓愈)와 유종원(柳宗元)에 대한 상반된 평가에서 잘 드러난다. 한유가 불교를 전적인 비판대상으로 본 것과 달리, 유종원은 불교의 장점을 인정하고 그것을 새로운 철학으로 발전시켰다는 점에서 긍정적으로 평가하였다. 이러한 평가는 모택동이 외부 것에 대한 ‘개방 정신’을 얼마나 중시하였는지를 잘 보여준다. 그 개방 정신이 결국 사상의 변증법적 발전을 이룬다고 보았기 때문이다. 모택동의 선 불교에 대한 평가는 기존의 마르크스주의의 평가와는 상반되게 긍정적이었다. 그는 사회 변혁과 현실에의 투쟁에 선 불교가 가진 주관적 능동성을 강조하여 긍정적 역할을 하였음을 강조하였다. 또한 그는 혜능이 노동 인민 출신이자 불성론을 통하여 평등 사상을 긍정하였다는 점에 근거하여 선불교 경전인 『육조단경』을 노동 인민적이라고 주장하였다. 그는 또한 인류 인식의 발전사에서 볼 때, 화엄 불교가 인식사의 한 단계로서 인식을 심화 발전시키는 적극적인 작용을 하였다고 긍정적으로 평가하였다. 모택동의 불교에 대해 긍정적인 평가는 다음과 같다. 첫째, 모택동은 불교가 갖는 ‘평등’ 사상에 주목하였다. 그는 서구 마르크시즘의 근대적 평등 개념과 불교의 근원적인 평등을 동시에 받아들임으로써 혁명의 핵심적인 가치를 담보하려 하였다. 둘째, 모택동은 불교의 ‘주관적 능동성’을 긍정적으로 수용하였다. 그는 험난한 혁명의 실전 경험 속에서 외부 조건의 제약을 넘어서서 내면의 의지로 이를 타개해가는 자세를 불교에서 찾으려 하였다. 셋째, 모택동은 불교의 변증법적 요소를 적극적으로 받아들였다. 그는 상대적인 것과 절대적인 것의 상호 연관을 말하는 변증법과 불교, 특히 화엄 불교의 일다상용(一多相用)의 연기 사상을 연관시켜 받아들였다. 결론적으로, 모택동의 불교에 대한 긍정적 평가는 모택동 사상에 미친 불교의 영향을 시사한다. 실제로 중국 근대사회의 전반적인 변혁 작업에 불교가 결정적인 역할을 한 것은 특기할 만한 일이다. 모택동은 당시 중국 사회가 필요로 했던 ‘반봉건, 반외세’의 과제를 해결하는 혁명의 과정에서 불교 사상을 활용하려 하였고, 그런 측면에서 모택동 사상에 불교가 영향을 미쳤다고 할 수 있다. This research aims to study the influence of Buddhism on the ideas of Mao Zedong(毛澤東 1893-1976) in Chinese traditional thoughts. Our concern was how Mao Zedong accepted and estimated Buddhism. In that way we analogized the entire influence of Buddhism on his ideas. Mao Zedong insisted that the vital force of the history of Chinese philosophy was the ‘open spirit’, which absorbed and changed the external philosophy called ‘Buddhism’. This spirit came in sight into the evaluation of Han Yu(韓愈) and Liu Zongyuan(柳宗元). Unlike Han Yu who understood Buddhism critically, Liu Zongyuan accepted Buddhism positively and developed it as a new philosophy. Mao Zedong’s appreciation of Han Yu and Liu Zongyuan showed his open mind to the eternal world. He thought that the ‘open spirit’ resulted in the dialectical development of ideology. Mao Zedong set a high value on Zen Buddhism contrary to the previous evaluation Marxism had given it. Mao emphasized that Zen Buddhism had a positive role in the struggles along with the other part of social reality, ‘Subjective Activeness’. Also he asserted ‘the Sutra of the Sixth Patriarch’(『六祖壇經』) became clear that because its nature emphasized labor and the proletarian, because the author of this sutra was born proletarian. Mao also asserted that Hua Yen Buddhism should be evaluated positively, on the basis of the fact that it acted positively to develop a deepening awareness. Mao Zedong’s positive evaluations of Buddhism are as follows : First, Mao attended to the principle of equality of Buddhism. Second, Mao accepted the ‘Subjective activeness’ of Buddhism. Third, Mao actively received ‘Dialectical elements’ of Buddhism. He connected the dialectical materialism of Marxism and ‘the doctrine of dependent origination’(緣起論) of Hua Yen Buddhism(華嚴宗). We find that there is a strong correlation between this positive evaluation of Buddhism and the fact Buddhism influenced the thoughts of Mao Zedong. Actually, Buddhism has had a substantial role in the reformation of modern China. Our significant conclusion is that Mao Zedong intended to make good use of Buddhism in the course of the revolution of modern China in order to solve the tasks of ‘anti-feudalism’ and ‘anti-foreign forces’.

韓國戰爭期 毛澤東-彭德懷의 戰役遂行戰略 硏究

최윤철 한양대학교 아태지역연구센터 2021 중소연구 Vol.45 No.3

본 연구는 한국전쟁기 항미원조(抗美援朝) 기치 하에 중공군(中共軍)이 참전하여 실질적인 대미(對美) 전투를 수행했던 제1차 戰役으로부터 제5차 戰役기간의 毛澤東과 彭德懷의 국가전략(國家戰略)과 군사전략(軍事戰略)그리고 군사작전(軍事作戰) 등을 다루고 있다. 본 연구의 목적은 毛澤東이 추구했던 국가전략과 이를 군사작전으로 구현하고자 했던 彭德懷의 군사전략을 5차에 걸친 戰役을 통해 분석하고, 毛澤東이 추구하고 달성하고자 했던 국가목표가 실제적으로 달성되었는지를 살펴보는 데 있다. 毛澤東이 한국전쟁에의 참여를 결정하게 된 배경에는 공산주의 국가의 종주국으로서 지도력을 발휘하고 있는 스탈린과의 수직적 서열 관계, 프롤레타리아 국제주의 연대 의무, 2차 국공내전(國共內戰) 기 북한 김일성의 후방지역에서의 지원에 대한 보답 등도 있었으나 기본적으로는 중화중심적 국가전략에 기초한 국가이익이 그 배경이 되고 있다. 중공군의 한국전쟁 참전 후, 중공군에 의한 1~5차 戰役 수행 시, 毛澤東의 국가전략 목표와 彭德懷의 군사작전 목표를 분석하고자 하는 것은, 참전 배경이 되었던 국가전략목표의 변화를 들여다봄으로써 毛澤東의 국가전략목표에 어떠한 변화가 있었으며 이를 달성하기 위한 군사작전 목표는 어떻게 변화되었는가를 통해 중공군의 한국전쟁 참전이 어떠한 의미를 갖는 것인가를 더 명확히 하는 데 있다. 毛澤東은 민족주의자로서, 미국과 일본 등 해양세력으로부터 중국 본토의 최소한의 안전보장을 담보해 줄 수 있는 완충지대(Buffer Zone)를 국경선 일대를 중심으로 최대한 확보하고자 했다. 毛澤東은 참전 후, 제1차 戰役을 통해 중국의 국경선 상에서 미 군사력과의 직접적인 대치공간이 발생되지 않도록 하는 전략목표를 설정했고, 제2차 戰役 이후에는 ‘한반도 석권’을 추구하여 한반도가 해양세력의 교두보가 될 수 있는 가능성을 완전히 제거하는 전략목표로 추구했다. 그러나 제3차·4차·5차 戰役을 거치면서 현대화 된 미군의 전력과의 현격한 격차를 경험하고는 한반도 석권이 실질적으로 불가능함을 인식하였다. 이에 따라 毛澤東은 제2차 戰役 시 설정하였던 한반도 석권이라는 국가전략목표를 수정하여 제1차 戰役시 추구하였던 ‘중국의 국경선 상에서 미 군사력과의 직접적인 대치공간 제거’라는 국가전략목표로 전환하여 전쟁을 수행하게 된다. 中國人民志願軍司令元이었던 군사지도자로의 彭德懷는 毛澤東이 설정한 국가전략목표 달성에 기여하는 방향으로 군사작전목표를 설정하여 戰役을 수행하려 했다. 이에 따라 제1차 戰役에서는 작전목표를 ‘미군의 압록강변 진출 저지’에 두었고, 2차 戰役에서는 단시간에 효율적인 군사작전 수행을 위한 전제조건으로 조중연합사령부 설치를 통한 전투력 발휘의 극대화를 작전목표로 설정하여 한반도 석권을 추구하였다. 그러나 제3차 戰役 이후에는 현대화된 미군과의 힘의 격차를 인정하고 毛澤東으로 하여금 2차 戰役에서의 전략목표인 ‘한반도 석권’이라는 전략목표를 수정하여 ‘한반도 북부에서의 미군과의 직접적인 대치 상황 회피’라는 본래의 참전전략으로 조정할 것을 건의하고 이를 관철했다. 이후 彭德懷는 전쟁의 장기화에 대비하는 ‘군사력의 유지’를 군사작전목표로 설정하여 戰役을 수행하면서 국가전략목표 달성을 추구하였다. This study examines the national and military strategies of Mao Zedong and Peng Dehuai during the 5th Campaign from the 1st Campaign in which the Chinese Communist Army participated in the Korean War under the banner of ‘helping Joseon against the United States’ during the Korean War. The purpose of this study is to analyze the national strategy pursued by China, that is, Mao Zedong, and the military strategy of Peng Dehuai, who tried to implement it as an approximate operation, through the campaign during the 5 campaigns led by the CCP, and pursued by Mao Zedong. The purpose of this study is to examine whether the national goal to be achieved was actually achieved. It appears when a country’s political leaders decide and implement policies that can influence externally. In particular, when a country is in a crisis situation, there are key factors to be considered when the country's political leaders make policy decisions and guide their implementation. The main consideration is the national interest. National interests are complex in nature, including the order between states in international relations, the role played in warfare as a coalition of states, the intensity of the crisis facing the state, the domestic political situation, and the sharing of ideological values ​​under the Cold War system. For Mao Zedong, the background that made the decision of the Chinese Communist Army to participate in the Korean War was the hierarchical relationship with Stalin, who is showing leadership as the suzerain of the communist state, the duty of solidarity with the proletariat, and the area behind Kim Il-sung of North Korea during the Second Civil War. There was also a return for the support of the Chinese government, but the national interest based on the Chinese national power is the background. To analyze the national strategic goals of Mao Zedong and the military strategic goals of Paeng Dehui, when the Chinese army conducts a large-scale campaign after the Chinese military’s participation in the Korean War, from a Chinese perspective, by looking into the changes in the national strategic goals that were the background for the war. What changes were made to the national strategic goals of the country and how the military force goals to achieve them were changed can make it clearer what the Chinese military’s participation in the Korean War means. As a nationalist, Mao Zedong tried to secure as much as possible a buffer zone at the border that could at least guarantee the security of mainland China from maritime powers such as the United States and Japan from a Sino-Chinese perspective. After participating in the war, Mao Zedong sought to completely eliminate the possibility that the Korean Peninsula could become a bridgehead for maritime powers through the first campaign to eliminate the space of direct confrontation with the US military forces on the border of China through the first campaign. However, during the 3rd, 4th, and 5th campaigns, he experienced a significant difference in power with the modernized US military power and recognized that complete conquest of the Korean Peninsula was practically impossible. Accordingly, the national strategic goal set at the time of the 2nd discharge was revised and the national strategic goal pursued during the 1st discharge was reset to the national strategic goal of “removing the space of direct confrontation with the U.S. military forces on the border of China” to carry out the war. As a military leader who was the commander of the People’s Volunteer Army, Peng Dehui tried to set and carry out the military strategic goals in a way that contributed to the achievement of the national strategic goals set by Mao Zedong. Accordingly, in the first campaign, the advance of the U.S. forces was prevented from advancing along the Yalu River, and in the second campaign, as a prerequisite for effective military operations in a short time, the Sino-Korean Combined Forc...

스탈린, 마오쩌둥(毛澤東)의 지정학적 관점이 중국의 6·25전쟁 참전에 미친 영향 연구

최윤철 한양대학교 아태지역연구센터 2021 중소연구 Vol.44 No.4

In this study, the process and background of the Chinese forces' participation in the Korean War in the Korean War were deviated from the state-centered composition of the'Soviet-China relations', and to the state leaders in the'Relationship between Stalin and Mao Zedong' from a geopolitical perspective Focusing. It examines how Stalin and Mao Zedong's geopolitical views on the Korean peninsula influenced China and the Soviet Union as a driving force behind the Korean War. The geopolitical view of Stalin and Mao Zedong put geopolitical interests ahead of the communist duty of proletarian internationalist solidarity, and there is a side in which “mutual distrust” is more internalized in such an extension. Like the monarchs who ruled Russia, Stalin considered the Korean peninsula as a forward base as a non-stop port to advance into the Pacific and as a tool to check maritime forces such as the United States and Japan, and completed the Korean Peninsula through Kim Il-sung (When the U.S. forces intervened in this war, Mao Zedong was transferred to the war so that Chinese forces could be drawn into the war. In addition to maintaining its influence, he attempted to maintain control over Mao Zedong. Mao Zedong viewed the Korean peninsula from relations with China to the relationship between the Korean peninsula, and was excluded from intervention in the early stages of the Korean War. Based on the attempted SunMangChiHanRon (脣亡齒寒論: Losing lips makes teeth cold), the Chinese troops will be engaged in the war. In conclusion, Mao Zedong expected to suffer severe personal and material damage if he participated in the Korean War, and knowing that Stalin's tendency to pursue geopolitical interests would lead to a geopolitical view of the Korean Peninsula. Depending on your point of view, you will participate in the Korean War. In this study, I would like to emphasize that the leaders of the Soviet Union and China, Stalin and Mao Zedong, each intervened in the Korean War in accordance with the geopolitical views that sought to control the Korean Peninsula. 본 연구는 6·25전쟁에 있어서 중공군의 참전과정과 배경을 ‘소련-중국 관계’에서의 국가 중심의 구도에서 벗어나 ‘스탈린-마오쩌둥(毛澤東) 간의 관계’에서의 국가지도자에 지정학적 관점에 초점을 맞추고 있다. 중국과 소련이 6·25전쟁에 개입하게 된 동인으로 스탈린과 마오쩌둥의 한반도에 대한 지정학적 관점이 어떻게 영향을 미쳤는지를 살펴보고 있다. 스탈린과 마오쩌둥의 지정학적 관점은 프롤레타리아 국제주의 연대라는 공산주의자로서의 의무보다는 지정학적 이익을 앞세웠고, 그러한 연장선 상에서 ‘상호불신’이 보다 내재화된 측면이 있다. 스탈린은 제정(帝政) 러시아를 통치한 군주들처럼 한반도를 태평양 진출을 위한 부동항(不凍港)으로서의 전진기지 역할과 미국과 일본 등의 해양세력을 견제하기 위한 도구로써 생각하고 김일성을 통해 한반도를 완정(完征)하고자 했으며, 미군이 이 전쟁에 개입 시에는 중국군을 전쟁에 끌어들일 수 있도록 마오쩌둥을 인계철선화(引繼鐵線化) 하여 미군이 개입함으로써 발생하는 영향력을 상쇄시킴으로써 극동에서의 소련의 영향력을 유지시킴은 물론, 마오쩌둥에 대한 통제력도 유지하고자 하였다. 마오쩌둥은 한반도를 중국과의 관계에서 순망치한(脣亡齒寒)의 관계에서 바라보았고, 6·25전쟁 초기에는 개입에서 배제되었으나, 미군의 참전으로 인해 미국과 일본 등의 해양세력으로부터 중국대륙을 보호하고자 하는 순망치한론(脣亡齒寒論)에 기초하여 주도하여 중국군을 참전시키게 된다. 결론적으로 마오쩌둥은 6·25전쟁에 참전하게 되면 심대한 인적·물적 피해를 받게 될 것을 예상하였음은 물론, 스탈린의 지정학적 이익 추구 성향으로 인해 통제를 받게 될 것이라는 것을 알면서도, 한반도를 바라보는 지정학적 관점에 따라 6·25전쟁에 참전하게 된다. 본 연구에서 스탈린과 마오쩌둥이라는 소련과 중국의 지도자가 각각 한반도를 통제하고자 했던 지정학적 관점에 따라 6·25전쟁에 개입하였음을 강조하고자 한다.

中共 100년의 마오와 마오이즘 — 기원, 해석, 전유 —

박상수(Sang-Soo Park) 중국근현대사학회 2021 중국근현대사연구 Vol.91 No.-

This article explores the origins, interpretations, and appropriations of Maoism over the past 100 years of CCP history. As the concept and reality of Maoism has produced wide-ranging associations, any attempt to formulate a definition of it may unavoidably fall prey to the danger of simplification and bias. To gain a comprehensive understanding of Maoism, this article focuses firstly on the historical context of the Communist revolution in which Mao Zedong"s thought was formed and evolved, and on the series of appropriations of this thought. Specifically, it examines the conditions of an underdeveloped agrarian society, the overwhelming of the Guomindang"s forces, the inner-Party power struggles in Jiangxi and Yan’an, the discourse of class struggle under Mao’s rule, the phenomenon of ‘Mao Zedong-ism’ during the Cultural Revolution, and the official stance of ‘seeking truth from facts’ which was in tension with the non-official Maoist Left’s egalitarianism, which developed in the post-Mao era. Secondly, the paper looks at the orientation of Maoism. Mao Zedong"s thought in its formative stage displayed an inward orientation, with an emphasis on the Chinese national character and Chinese communists’ own practice of Marxism-Leninism. At the end of the 1950s this changed as Mao focused more on the reality of socialism, and a focus on China becoming a self-proclaimed ‘bastion of socialism’ in contrast to Soviet ‘revisionism’. The Cultural Revolution was a milestone for this conception of universally applicable Maoism, with both the First World and the Third World’s revolutionary movements becoming deeply inspired by this model. Post-Mao China largely reverted to its own nation-specific form of socialism through the concept of ‘Socialism with Chinese characteristics’. Thirdly, the status of Maoism relative to Marxism-Leninism is discussed. Fierce debates over the originality and voluntarism of Maoism illustrate the various interpretations and appropriations produced by Western academia in the era of Mao. While a minority of researchers focused on the continuity of Maoism in relation to Marxist theory, and its development of the theory, the dominant strain of scholarship emphasized the ‘break’ and ‘deviation’ of Maoism from Marxist orthodoxy, based on textual comparisons. In a different vein, some ‘radical’ or ‘critical’ leftwing scholars paid attention to Maoist revolutionary objectives with the aim of shedding light on the liberatory potential of Maoism in the midst of what they viewed as the anarchy of the capitalist world. In light of the diverse interpretations and appropriations of Maoism, this paper does not limit itself to Mao’s thought, theories, and orientations as evidenced in his works, but includes his revolutionary praxis and policies, the governance system of his era, and the explicit and implicit symbols embedded in all these facets of the era. Today’s continuing appropriations of Mao and Maoism implies that the thought and practice of Mao Zedong has a fertile afterlife. In that today’s Maoism is becoming both an alternative to capitalism and a competitive means of capitalist achievement, Maoism has not ceased to expand its range of associations and applications. On its centenary, though the CCP is an integral part of global capitalism and an advocate of free trade, the resilience of the unitary Party-state is likely related to the party"s flexible appropriation of Mao and Maoism.

中國 '文革'時期 毛澤東 表象 : <毛澤東去安源>을 중심으로

문정희 미술사학연구회 2007 美術史學報 Vol.- No.29

Presentation of Mao Zedong during the Cultural Revolution Period in China - with the Focus on Mao Zedong Goes to Anyuan Moon Junghee (Center for Art studies) During the Cultural Revolution in China, fine arts played the role of a political tool and were made to serve the people. Fine arts were used in the stark reality of a violent power struggle. The images of Mao Zedong produced in the early period of the Cultural Revolution were different from those made in the 1950s, as they represented different political intentions. A representative one was Mao Zedong Goes to Anyuan, which was made by Liu Chunhua. It has historical significance as a representative work created during the Cultural Revolution, in addition to portraying a generalized image of the Chinese leader and showing an artistic style of the period. To fully understand the fine arts of that era, it is necessary to reflect on what made Mao start the Cultural Revolution. The revolution of the proletarian classes was focused on the need to revolutionize the people’s thinking and culture. At that time, the country’s economy, including farms in rural areas and factories in urban areas, became wholly state-owned under a socialist system, meaning that the economy was no longer a target of class struggle. Thus, the people’s thoughts and creative cultures became the targets of their class struggle. After all, the attempt to revolutionize thought and culture caused all fine art works to become objects in the worship of Mao’s ideas. At present, those images of Mao remain as mementos of the Cultural Revolution. A study of the style and meaning contained in the mass-produced images of Mao during that period will have further significance in that they will enable one to grasp the dual meaning of the Mao icons made by the Chinese fine arts community of that time from the perspective of the current trends of the global fine arts community.

‘끊임없는 반향’과 마오쩌둥 평가의 문제 피경훈의 서평에 대한 답변

임춘성 경상대학교 사회과학연구원 2022 마르크스주의 연구 Vol.19 No.1

이 글은 본인의 저서에 대한 피경훈의 서평에 대한 답변이다. 서평자는 본서에 대해 여러 가지 이야기를 했고 그 가운데 유익한 코멘트도 많았고 그것을 통해 저자의공부와 본서의 문제점도 인지했다. 서평자가 제기한 비판에 대해 저자가 중요하다고 생각하는 것들에 대해 답변과 비판을 해보았다. 본서가 서평자의 평가를 뛰어넘을 만한 수준과 내용을 담보하고 있는 것은 아니다. 그러나 서평자와 본서 사이에는포스트사회주의에 대한 이해에서부터 리쩌허우에 대한 평가까지 상당한 거리가 있고, 그 심층에는 마오쩌둥과 문화대혁명에 대한 평가의 문제가 놓여 있다. 서평자는본서를 꼼꼼하게 읽고 마오쩌둥 및 문화대혁명에 관한 재해석에 근거해 ‘가차 없는비판’을 진행했다. 저자도 그에 부응해 대등한 입장에서 최대한 충실하게 답변하고자 한다. 1) 연구 대상의 자의적 축소. 본서는 ‘포스트사회주의 중국’의 ‘지식인들’의 비판을다루고 있지만, 그 지식인들이 모두 ‘포스트사회주의 중국’을 치열하게 사유한 것으로 설정하지 않았다. 그러나 서평자는 “‘포스트 사회주의 중국을 비판적으로 고민한사상가들’의 사유를 일별하는 것”(피경훈, 2021: 114, 이하 연도 생략)이라고 이해하고 본서에서 다룬 7인의 지식인 가운데 3인을 서평 대상으로 다루고 나머지는 자의적으로 배제했다. 2) 리쩌허우 평가. 저자는 리쩌허우를 “자신의 사상 체계를 구축한 몇 안 되는 사상가”로 평가하고 “그 사상 체계의 핵심은 ‘인류학 역사본체론(a theory of anthropo-historical ontology)”(임춘성, 2021: 50)으로 요약했다. 그리고 리쩌허우를 ‘포스트사회주의 중국 비판 사상의 시원’으로 설정하고는 그의 사상을 두괄식으로 요약(임춘성, 2021: 53)했다. 그러나 서평자는 리쩌허우가 “어떠한 사상가로정의되어야 하는가”(피경훈, 103)에 대해 저자가 답변하지 않았다고 지적하고 있다. 또한 서평자는 적전과 계몽이 “원리적으로는 서로 충돌하는 것”(피경훈, 102)으로 이해하면서, 리쩌허우가 “한편으로는 ‘전승과 축적’을 강조하면서, 다른 한편으로는 ‘계몽과 각성’을 강조”하는데, “이 두 가지가 어떻게 어우러질 수 있는지를 리쩌허우는 자신의 사상 체계 안에서 분명하게 해결하지 못하고 있다”(피경훈, 102)라고비판하고 있다. 저자가 보기에 리쩌허우는 ‘유학 4기설’과 ‘서학의 중국적 응용’을 통해 전통으로부터 근현대로의 전환적 창조, 서평자의 표현에 따르면 적전과 계몽의관계를 훌륭하게 해명했다. 저서의 해당 부분(임춘성, 2021: 1장 4절과 5절)의 설명으로 대신한다. 3) 왕후이와 첸리췬 평가. 서평자는 왕후이와 저자의 마오쩌둥 인식을 비판한다. 하지만 서평자의 마오쩌둥 사상과 실천에 대한 평가는 마오쩌둥 시기 교과서로 환원하고 있다. 4) 마오쩌둥과 문화대혁명 평가. 저자는 마오쩌둥의 3대 이형동질(異形同質, allomorphism)의 오류–반봉건을 유보한 반제 혁명, 제고를 유보한 보급을 선택하며, 사회주의 목표를 공업화에 종속시킨 것–를 지적했다. 그러나 서평자는 이 가운데 ‘반봉건을 유보한 반제’ 혁명이라는 저자의 주장을 “‘구망에 의한 계몽의 압도’라는 공식으로부터 그대로 도출되는 것”(피경훈, 101)으로 치부하고, “사회주의 시대를 중국 당대사의 외부로 배제시켰다”(피경훈, 101)라는 허구이메이의 논의에 기대“계몽과 구망을 이분법적으로 설정하고, 나 ... This article is in response to Kyunghoon Pi’s review of my book. The book reviewer talked about this book in many ways, and among them there were many useful comments, and through it, I recognized the problems of the author's study and this book. In response to the criticism raised by the book reviewer, I tried to answer and criticize the things that the author considers important. This book does not guarantee the level and contents that exceed the evaluation of the reviewers. However, there is a considerable distance between the book reviewer and this book, from the understanding of post-socialism to the evaluation of Li Zehou, and in the depths lies the problem of evaluation of Mao Zedong and the Cultural Revolution. The book reviewer read this book and proceeded with ‘relentless criticism’ based on the reinterpretation of Mao Zedong and the Cultural Revolution. In response, the author tries to answer as faithfully as possible on an equal footing. 1)Arbitrary reduction of research objects. Although this book deals with the criticism of ‘intellectuals’ of ‘post-socialist China’, it does not set all of those intellectuals as intensely thinking about ‘post-socialist China’. However, the book reviewer understood that it was “a glimpse into the thoughts of ‘thinkers who were critically concerned with post-socialist China’” (피경훈 2021, p.114), and treated three of the seven intellectuals covered in this book as the object of book review and arbitrarily excluded the rest. 2) evaluation of Li Zehou. The author evaluated Li Zehou as “one of the few thinkers who built his own ideological system,” and summarized “the core of his ideological system is ‘a theory of anthropoᐨhistorical ontology’ (임춘성 2021, p.50). And I set Li Zehou as the 'origin of post-socialist Chinese critique' and summarized his thoughts in deductive method(임, p.53). However, the book reviewer points out that the author did not answer the question of "what kind of thinker should Li Zehou be defined as" (피, 103). In addition, the book reviewer understands that sedimentation and enlightenment “clash with each other in principle” (피, 102), while Li Zehou “emphasizes ‘transmission and accumulation’ on the one hand, and ‘enlightenment and awakening’ on the other hand. However, he criticizes that “Li Zehou has not been able to clearly resolve how these two can coexist within his ideological system” (피, 102). In the author's opinion, Li Zehou brilliantly elucidated the relationship between sedimentation and enlightenment, as a transitional creation from tradition to modern times through the 'Forth Confucianism Theory' and 'Chinese Application of Western Studies'. It is replaced by the explanation of the relevant part of the book (임, Chapter 1:4 and 5). 3) Evaluation of Wang Hui and Qian Liqun. The book reviewer criticizes Wang Hui and the author's perception of Mao Zedong. However, the reviewer's evaluation of Mao Zedong's thought and practice is reduced to a textbook of the Mao Zedong period. 4) Evaluation of Mao Zedong and the Cultural Revolution. The author pointed out the fallacy of Mao Zedong's three major allomorphisms: the anti-imperialist revolution that deferred anti-feudalism, the propagation with reservation of enhancement, and subordinated socialist goals to industrialization. However, the book reviewer dismissed the author's claim of the 'anti-imperialism with reservations of anti-feudalism' revolution as "derived as it is from the formula of 'overwhelming enlightenment by national salvation'" (피, 101), he concluded that “the claim ... the enlightenment has been overpowered by the national salvation is in fact a non-historical point of view” (피, 101). Li Zehou did not otherize the so-called 'socialist period', and the author does not intend to do so. The criterion for determining this is not a concept or discourse, but the verification of the historical process emphasi...

6·25전쟁기 마오쩌둥(毛澤東)의 군사분계선 설정 전략

최윤철 ( Choi Yooncheol ) 한국세계지역학회 2021 世界地域硏究論叢 Vol.39 No.1

본 연구는 정전협상 논의 초기 시기(1951. 6.∼10.)에 정전협정을 조기에 마무리 짓고자 했던 마오쩌둥이 왜 군사분계선 설정을 조기에 마무리 지을 수 없었는지를 시계열적으로 살펴서 그 함의를 찾는 데 있다. 연구는 6·25전쟁 기 중국, 소련 내부에서 정전협상에 대한 논의가 이루어졌던 1951년 6월 이후로부터, 마오쩌둥의 ‘분사분계선 설정’에 대한 마오쩌둥과 스탈린의 상회관계동학을 다루고 있다. 6·25전쟁 기 전쟁후원국으로서의 소련과 전쟁지원국으로서의 중국의 정치지도자들은 스탈린-마오쩌둥 간에 서열적 관계가 형성되었고, 정전협상 초기 군사분계선 설정 논의 시기에 이르러서 보다 전략적인 형태로 나타난 면이 있다. 마오쩌둥은 ‘정전협상 의제’를 결정하고, ‘군사분계선 설정’ 논의를 시작하면 빠른시일 내에 정전협정을 체결할 수 있을 것으로 보았다. 그러나 그 과정이 순탄치 않았다. 마오쩌둥은 순망치한(脣亡齒寒)이라는 지정학적 관점의 대(對)한반도관에 기초해서 최적의 군사분계선을 설정하고자 하는 한편, 미군 폭격에 의한 군사적 피해를 최소화 하기 위해 조기에 38도선을 중심으로 군사분계선을 설정하여 정전협정을 체결하고자 하였다. 그러나 스탈린의 세계전략이 맞물려 정전협상 타결이 지연되는 상황 속에서 ‘미군과의 접촉선을 중심으로 군사분계선을 설정하되 서부지역에서의 전략적 지역 등을 확보’하는 전략으로 우회하여, 스탈린의 의도를 따르되 지정학적 이점을 확보함과 동시에 내적으로 조기정전 여건을 형성시키고자 한다. This study is to find out the implications of Mao Zedong, who tried to close the armistice agreement early in the early period of discussions on the armistice negotiations (June-10, 1951), and why it was impossible to conclude the military demarcation line early. Have. Since June 1951, when discussions on armistice negotiations were held within North Korea, China, and the Soviet Union during the Korean War, the study investigated whether or not Mao Zedong agreed to’debate on establishing a divisional demarcation line’ and the dynamics of Mao Zedong and Stalin. Dealing with. During the Korean War, the Soviet Union as a supporter of the war, China as a supporter of the war, and North Korea’s political leaders, which were parties to the war, formed a hierarchical relationship ranging from Stalin-Mao Zedong-Kim Il-sung, and this was the result of the five times of the Chinese campaign. Unlike the period during which the campaign was performed (1950.10.~1951.5), there is a new aspect that emerged in the early stages of the armistice negotiations when the demarcation line was established. Mao Zedong thought that if the ‘Agenda for Armistice Negotiation’ was decided and the discussion on ‘Establishing the Military Demarcation Line’ started, an armistice agreement could be concluded as soon as possible. However, the process was not smooth. On the other side, Mao Zedong’s China-centered military demarcation line overlooking the Korean Peninsula aims to establish an optimal military demarcation line from a geopolitical point of view on the Korean peninsula. It was intended to establish an armistice agreement. In a situation where the time to conclude the armistice negotiations is delayed due to the integration of Stalin’s global strategy, the military demarcation line is established around the contact line with the U.S. forces, but the strategy is to secure strategic areas in the western region. It follows Stalin’s intentions, but tries to create conditions for an early blackout internally.

문학과 정치의 기로 - 마오쩌둥(毛澤東) 혁명의 현실적 승리와 루쉰(魯迅) 혁명의 형이상학적 승리

고점복 ( Ko Jumbok ) 고려대학교 중국학연구소 2020 中國學論叢 Vol.0 No.69

In The New Democracy(新民主主義論), written in January 1940, Mao Zedong says, “Luxun is not only a claim to the Chinese cultural revolution, a great litterateur but also a great thinker and a great revolutionary.” It is no exaggeration to say that Mao Zedong’s expression of Lu Xun was the basic guideline for evaluating Lu Xun. This article has raised questions about the roots of the differences between Mao Zedong’s Chinese revolution and the Lu Xun‘s revolution of nationality reform, and I will discuss them through a review of the relationship between politics and literature. To this end, this paper will first examine the political nature of Lu Xun’s interpretation by Mao Zedong Next, after reviewing Mao Zedong’s and Lu Xun’s views on the relationship between literature and politics, we will discuss commonalities and differences between literature and politics. Mao Zedong’s political revolution and Lu Xun’s literary revolution for the reconstruction of nationality primarily seeks objective and rational visualization of reality. In contrast, Mao Zedong’s intervention in reality was a political and military strategy, while Lu Xun’s intervention in reality was a literary strategy that expressed Chinese thoughts and spirit. But both are the same in that they come from objective and rational perceptions of reality and the Chinese. In other words, the visualization of Chinese reality is indispensable whether it is Mao Zedong’s revolution or Lu Xun’s revolution. This is the intersection of politics and literature. But politics seeks to maintain and unify phenomena, while literature urges social evolution to separate. In other words, the distinctive feature of literary art can be said to pioneer a new horizon of perception by continually dismantling and reconstructing the relationship between concepts and things that are fixed politically, ideologically and ideologically. Politics, on the other hand, uses, promotes, inspires and incites such literature to promote revolution and complete revolution. After the completion of the revolution, politics has no choice but to stay away from the literary arts due to its inherent nature: the maintenance of phenomena and the unification (or the maintenance of power). As such, literature and politics go a long way after the success of the revolution.

1949~1976년 中華人民共和國 山水畵에 보이는 정치적 표현

이현아 미술사연구회 2009 미술사연구 Vol.- No.23

This paper aims to examine political expression in Chinese landscape paintings between 1949 and 1976, when the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was founded and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution ended after Mao Zedong’s death. Since the establishment of the PRC, its government carried out a social reformation in diverse aspects in an effort to build a socialist state, including that of art according to the political situation. Theoretical guidelines of the Republic’s art policy were based on the Yan’an Talks on Literature and Art led by Mao Zedong, which originated in 1942. It was mainly concerned with the idea that art should unite and educate the people and be served for the people. Mao Zedong defined art as a political instrument and asserted that politics should take precedence over art. He further suggested that socialist-realism should be the principle of art to be pursued. Based upon his theories, the government carried out a daring reform in general parts of art, including education, exhibition, publication, organization, etc., in order to perform the government’s policy in a systematic manner. In the case of landscape painting, the central reformation concerned the application of the subject and style of socialist-realism to the traditional material and technique of Chinese painting, which was quite difficult to follow in many cases of literati paintings, unlike in the case of realistic oil paintings. With the new demands to follow, traditional painters combined the optimistic subjects that reflect the coming new era and realistic Western techniques. Political expression in the landscape paintings of the PRC can be divided according to their subjects, political settings and objects, as it is a reflection of the current of time with major political events. Firstly, from the establishment of the PRC until 1958, around the time of the Great Leap Forward, there was a prevalence of propaganda paintings that promoted the construction of an idealistic socialist state. These landscape paintings included a kind of documentary landscape that depicted the process of public construction, a landscape that represented the people’s passion for building a socialist state, or a landscape that publicized the result of constructional projects. These were aimed at idealizing government’s policies to make people to pursue them, and also at overstating them to produce an effective result as it had been done with the Great Leap Forward by portraying it as a model of success. In the late 1950s and the early part of the 1960s, many landscape paintings were either based on the poems of Mao Zedong or depicted places that are historically important in relation to Mao Zedong’s life or communist revolution. This was to emphasize that Mao Zedong, the second man since the failure of the Great Leap Forward, was the central figure in the Communist Revolution and the leading figure of the Long March, in order to consolidate his position in the Party by raising his legitimacy and also to raise the memories of the Long March. In many of these landscapes intentionally used red which was the symbol of Communist Party and the Revolution. Lastly, landscape paintings were produced that idealized an optimistic Chinese utopia during the period of the Cultural Revolution. As the Revolutionary Romanticism which exaggerates optimistic sides was emphasized by Mao Zedong, these landscapes depicted the changes of the land by Mao’s revolutionary constructions and beautified the lives of the people living in the transformed nature. Political landscape painting between 1949 and 1976 is significant in that it is a distinctive genre that retains the traditional technique and material while accommodating socialist art and maintaining the unique characteristics of Chinese paintings, yet reflecting the demands of time.

1949~1976년 中華人民共和國 山水畵에 보이는 정치적 표현

李賢俄(Lee Hyuna) 미술사연구회 2009 미술사연구 Vol.- No.23

This paper aims to examine political expression in Chinese landscape paintings between 1949 and 1976, when the People’s Republic of China (PRC) was founded and the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution ended after Mao Zedong’s death. Since the establishment of the PRC, its government carried out a social reformation in diverse aspects in an effort to build a socialist state, including that of art according to the political situation. Theoretical guidelines of the Republic’s art policy were based on the Yan’an Talks on Literature and Art led by Mao Zedong, which originated in 1942. It was mainly concerned with the idea that art should unite and educate the people and be served for the people. Mao Zedong defined art as a political instrument and asserted that politics should take precedence over art. He further suggested that socialist-realism should be the principle of art to be pursued. Based upon his theories, the government carried out a daring reform in general parts of art, including education, exhibition, publication, organization, etc., in order to perform the government’s policy in a systematic manner. In the case of landscape painting, the central reformation concerned the application of the subject and style of socialist-realism to the traditional material and technique of Chinese painting, which was quite difficult to follow in many cases of literati paintings, unlike in the case of realistic oil paintings. With the new demands to follow, traditional painters combined the optimistic subjects that reflect the coming new era and realistic Western techniques. Political expression in the landscape paintings of the PRC can be divided according to their subjects, political settings and objects, as it is a reflection of the current of time with major political events. Firstly, from the establishment of the PRC until 1958, around the time of the Great Leap Forward, there was a prevalence of propaganda paintings that promoted the construction of an idealistic socialist state. These landscape paintings included a kind of documentary landscape that depicted the process of public construction, a landscape that represented the people’s passion for building a socialist state, or a landscape that publicized the result of constructional projects. These were aimed at idealizing government’s policies to make people to pursue them, and also at overstating them to produce an effective result as it had been done with the Great Leap Forward by portraying it as a model of success. In the late 1950s and the early part of the 1960s, many landscape paintings were either based on the poems of Mao Zedong or depicted places that are historically important in relation to Mao Zedong’s life or communist revolution. This was to emphasize that Mao Zedong, the second man since the failure of the Great Leap Forward, was the central figure in the Communist Revolution and the leading figure of the Long March, in order to consolidate his position in the Party by raising his legitimacy and also to raise the memories of the Long March. In many of these landscapes intentionally used red which was the symbol of Communist Party and the Revolution. Lastly, landscape paintings were produced that idealized an optimistic Chinese utopia during the period of the Cultural Revolution. As the Revolutionary Romanticism which exaggerates optimistic sides was emphasized by Mao Zedong, these landscapes depicted the changes of the land by Mao’s revolutionary constructions and beautified the lives of the people living in the transformed nature. Political landscape painting between 1949 and 1976 is significant in that it is a distinctive genre that retains the traditional technique and material while accommodating socialist art and maintaining the unique characteristics of Chinese paintings, yet reflecting the demands of time.