THE NATURE OF THE TAIPING MOVEMENT

The Taiping movement, occurring from the mid-1840s to 1865, was the first
great high tide of the revolutionary changes occurring in the history of
modern China. It was unprecedented in scope and impact. It formed in the
course of its struggle, a whole set of political, economic military educational
and socio-cultural institutions. It even founded its own state power, which
struggled for a considerable period against that of the Manchu dynasty, whose
rule it managed to shake to the very foundations.

In essence, as put by Chesneaux, the Taiping movement was “a social crusade

expressing the poor peasants’ desire for equality, a national campaign against
the foreign dynasty occupying the throne in Peking, and a modernist trend
that developed in response to the challenge presented by the West through
the Opium Wars.” The Taiping movement can basically be seen as an
immediate reaction of the Chinese peasantry to the First Opium War and later
the Second Opium War, and the Unequal Treaties following them.

This period of the mid 19th century was one of major crisis, both internally and
externally. Among the factors contributing to the rise of the Taiping
movement are the staggering rise in China’s population due to a prolonged
period of peace and prosperity given by the Manchus, the attendant rise in
commodity prices, the virtual exhaustion of the supply of new land, the ruin of
small land-holders by fragmentation of inheritance leading to tremendous
debt and tenancy among the peasantry, leading to concentration of land in the
hands of the ruling elite, and the consequential displacement of the peasantry
from the rural areas, providing ready material for the movement. The
stagnation, inefficacy, inefficiency, corruption and demoralization of the
Manchu administration (and army), along with the humiliation of defeat in the
First Opium War under the Manchus, led to a general feeling of dissatisfaction
with the Manchus. The First Opium War and its subsequent treaties increased
problems, with looting by the foreign invaders, a heavy war indemnity,
worsening of opium smuggling, massive influx of foreign goods, and a shift in
the trading centre from Canton to Shanghai, leaving thousands unemployed in
Canton. Finally one can point to the increasingly aggressive Christian
conversions and preaching, ethnic rivalries, and the series of natural
calamites, as causes or contributory factors for the Taiping movement.

1
Many terms have been used to describe the Taiping movement, ranging from
‘nothing less than a complete revolution’, to ‘a typical traditional rebellion’.
These across-the-board and most often opposing terms indicate the great deal
of controversy surrounding the nature of this movement. The two main and
opposing schools of thought are those represented by the Western scholars,
and those represented by the Chinese communist historians. These two
standpoints differ not only in their interpretation of the movement as a
rebellion or revolution, but also of other aspects of the nature of the
movement, such as whether or not the movement was a peasant movement
and anti-feudal, anti-foreign and anti-imperialist or anti-imperialist and pro-
foreign, its uniqueness vis-à -vis all other peasant rebellions, and whether it
can be considered a precursor to the Communist Revolution.

Before getting into a detailed discussion of the academic controversy about

the Taiping movement being a rebellion or a revolution, it is essential to first
understand what exactly these terms mean in the modern context. A rebellion
can be described as an armed struggle, aimed at dethroning a particular
dynasty, and substituting another in its place, without attempting to change
the existing social, political, and economic order. Or more simply as Kung-
chuan Hsiao puts it, rebellion is “open armed opposition to the established
government.” Whereas revolution symbolizes a mass movement having a
concrete ideology and common aims, striving for fundamental change in the
social, political and economic order. Its basic aim goes beyond the overthrow
of a particular dynasty and its substitution by another. Or as Kung-chuan
Hsiao puts it, revolution is “aimed not merely at a change of rulers but at an
alteration of the form of government together with the principles on which it
rests.”

Having thus clarified the implications of both terms, we can proceed to survey
the raging academic controversy over the nature of the Taiping movement. To
the Western scholars’ school of thought belong Vincent Shih, Barrington
Moore Jr., George E. Taylor, JK Fairbank and others. These scholars on the
whole look upon the Taiping movement as a ‘typical traditional rebellion’ that
was bound to fail. According to them any movement, to be called a revolution
in the modern sense, must be successful in its final aims. Whereas even after
the Taiping movement, the Manchus, the prevailing political, social &

2
economic order and the traditional Confucian system remained in place. As
Vincent Shih affirms, “For a movement to be called a revolution, not only must
violence be the means for bringing about change, but the leaders must show a
desire to make changes in the nature of the society. In case of the Taiping
leadership no such desire seems to have existed.”

He goes on to say, “Certain ideals were borrowed from Christianity and the
West which held a genuine possibility of bringing a real revolution but these
ideals were diluted due to the mixing of native Confucianism, Taoism and
Buddhist principles.” This view is criticized by Tan Chung, who points out that
there is no evidence to show that the existence of native cultural aspirations in
the Taiping ideology diluted its revolutionary character; and that to say that
only Western ideas can form a revolution is not correct.

The second school of thought is composed primarily of Chinese communist

historians, such as Hou Wailu, Wu Shimo and Li Tianyu; joined by Tan Chung
and Chesneaux. While accepting its shortcomings, they continue to call the
Taiping movement ‘nothing less than a full-fledged revolution’, and a
‘precursor to the Communist Revolution’ of 1949. These scholars lay emphasis
on the theoretical aspect of the Taipings’ aims and policies. They refer to many
new and unique measures suggested by the Taipings, such as the land
reforms, equality between sexes, trade policy etc., and assert that even if not
fully implemented, their suggestion indicates the revolutionary nature of the
movement. The originality of the Taiping Revolution lay in the unprecedented
blend of modernist impulses with traditional themes.

Thus its varied nature, and the fact that it was linked not only to the political
sphere and was more broad-based than all previous peasant rebellions are
cited as justification for the term ‘revolution’. The various positive impacts of
the movement are emphasized; even some of the negative effects are given
positive undertones, such as the development of regionalism due to the
decentralization of power to the provincial authorities during the movement
to deal with it more effectively.

Some other scholars seem to prefer to avoid joining either of the

aforementioned schools of thought. Prominent among them is Ssu Yu Teng,
according to whom “the first half of the Taiping rebellion”, lasting from 1851

3
to 1856, “marked a proletarian revolutionary movement to overthrow the
Manchu regime and replace it by a new rationalist government with a radical
economic, social, and cultural programme.” Then came the “internal
dissension of 1856”, after which “the later part of the Taiping Rebellion
resembled more a traditional Chinese ‘peasant’ insurrection than a modern
revolution.” However as Tan Chung says, it is difficult to conceive of the
Taiping movement’s degeneration into a traditional rebellion in the second
stage, once it had reached a certain level (of revolution) far ahead of a peasant
rebellion in the first stage.

Also, Teng’s judgement of the Taiping revolutionaries does not include the
Taipings’ serious attempt to build an egalitarian society, whereas its failure is
regarded as a contributing factor for downgrading it.

An unbiased and sound assessment of the Taiping movement can only be done
after a thorough analysis of four basic aspects of the movement — its
objectives, their implementation, participation in the movement and its result
or legacy. Starting with its objectives and aims; although the Taiping
movement had a very strong religious base, its true aim was to establish a
new complete and integrated society, where the religious and temporal
orders, and the military and civilian worlds, were merged into one, making it a
true theocracy. It began essentially as a religious movement, and challenged
Confucian views in various aspects.

Gradually the movement acquired a political character – it included the

Manchus among the ‘devils’ it sought to exterminate. The state envisaged by
the Taipings is most evidently an almost totalitarian theocracy. There is a
hierarchy of officials, elected according to the first rules of the Taipings, and
also selected through competitive examinations patterned on those in the
traditional Chinese system, with the Taiping texts replacing the Confucian
classics.

The anti-imperialist character of the Taiping movement is undisputed. But

less settled is its attitude towards foreigners in general, in which there
appears to be a dichotomy – on one hand, the Taipings firmly resented
‘barbaric’ invasions; on the other hand, foreigners were well-received in the
Taiping zones, and were termed as brothers; all abusive terms were

4
abolished, and missionaries were welcomed. One can reasonably conclude
that while being anti-imperialist, the Taipings were definitely not xenophobic,
and were in fact quite pro-foreign. They were fascinated by various aspects of
foreign thought, and welcomed foreigners to learn from them whatever was
positive; they wanted reform in Chinese polity, society and economy through
this learning from the West.

The socio-economic aspect of the Taipings’ programmes was more

revolutionary. Private ownership of all property, especially land, was
abolished. The entire land was to be owned by the Taiping Commune. This
was to be distributed according to fertility to families, which were the basic
units of society and were organized into groups of 25. These groups were
under one civil-cum-military official, who was in charge of distribution from
and collection for the common Treasury. No tariff was imposed on trade; a
kind of laissez-faire trade policy was followed, which encouraged traders. The
position of women was greatly elevated; they participated in military
campaigns and labour, sat for the examinations etc.

Although the Taipings thus had very lofty and even revolutionary objectives,
the implementation of these objectives was ultimately very limited. The entire
Taiping system was too complex, and the programmes had a utopian
character. Furthermore they required stability and peace to be implemented;
neither of which the Taipings had. As time passed, the effectiveness of the
programmes also became doubtful. Differences in aspirations, motives and
ideology between the original nucleus of the leadership, and the mass base of
the movement worsened the situation.

In spite of these numerous difficulties, life in the Taiping zones seemed to

show the influence of the Taiping system. Peasants were freed from their
heavy obligations to the landowners, and land taxes, though not eliminated,
were considerably reduced. Taxes on commerce were simplified and
lightened, particularly the inland customs tax, and trade appears to have been
brisk. Measures such as the emancipation of women and the prohibition of
opium were also effectively carried out. In fact as put by Chesneaux, “When
the Taiping state collapsed in 1864, hundreds of thousands of Heavenly
followers preferred death to surrender.”

5
The question of participation in the movement is interconnected with the
debate about the peasant and anti-feudal nature of the movement. Here again
the Western and Chinese communist historians disagree sharply. Many
Western historians such as Franz Michael and Vincent Shih deny the anti-
feudal character of the movement. Shih argues that there is no evidence of
peasant consciousness in the minds of the Taiping followers. According to him
the Taiping leaders didn’t seem to have identified themselves and their
ideology with the peasants; many had been sympathetic to the peasants and
genuine in their pronouncements, but their real ambitions lay elsewhere.

It would be appropriate to mention here that non-implementation of the

envisaged land reforms was a major weakness of the Taipings. The landlords’
lands were not always confiscated in Taiping zones. Furthermore, the Taiping
leaders started accumulating land and themselves often became the new
landlords. This, along with other signs of hypocrisy such as the leaders
maintaining harems after advocating celibacy, and leading a luxurious life
while advocating a simple, hard-working austere life, led to negation of the
positive elements of the movement, and contributed to its failure.

On the other hand we have scholars like Chesneaux, George E. Taylor and
Kang who believe in the peasant nature, and anti-feudal nature of the Taiping
movement. Taylor for instance gives primacy to economic factors, and argues
that the Taiping movement must first be considered an agrarian movement.
Kang goes further and calls it a revolt by poor farmers, unemployed miners,
vagabonds, charcoal workers, and scholars; i.e. all belonged to the displaced
peasantry.

One can also refer to other factors with regard to the anti-feudal character of
the Taiping movement. Firstly their land reforms, which no matter how
limitedly applied, were highly anti-feudal; besides the fact that in some
Taiping areas, tenants actually stopped paying rents. Secondly, the fleeing of a
large number of landlords in fear of the Taiping onslaught led to their large
landholdings falling into the peasants’ hands, along with many temple lands.
Thirdly, decrees were passed to attack the feudal elite, such as orders to
surrender grains, precious stones and metals, etc. to the Taiping storehouses.
Lastly, the fact remains that most of the Taiping leaders, and almost all of the
mass following, were drawn from peasant stock, though not exclusively.

6
Finally, one turns to the consequences and legacy that the Taiping movement
left behind. The movement hastened the process of dynastic political
disintegration. The physical damage was tremendous — hundreds of towns
and cites were destroyed, and between 20 and 40 million people were killed.
Power gravitated into the hands of local strong men, particularly provincial
governors, leading to the rise of regionalism in later years. The movement
affected China economically also. It prevented tax collection in many of the
richest provinces. New taxes had to be devised to pay the expenses of
suppression; of these, likin, the internal transit tax levied on commodities in
china was the most important.

The most important influence of the Taiping movement is cultural. The

Taiping movement remained highly popular in Chinese tradition. Survivors of
the “Great Peace” enjoyed considerable prestige among the peasants and kept
its memory alive. For example, Sun Yat-sen, a later leader of the Chinese
revolutionary movement, was greatly stirred as a child by the stories of his
uncle, who had belonged to the Taiping. The movement initiated a century of
rebellions and revolutions. The political, economic, social and cultural reforms
it attempted were models for later attempts of the Chinese Imperial
administration, and even the Communist Revolution.

In conclusion, one can say that both the terms of a full-fledged revolution, and
a mere rebellion are too extreme. The Taiping movement may be designated
as a failed revolution; however, this label is not sufficiently descriptive. The
movement dared for the first time to challenge and attack a system which had
prevailed in China for centuries, its sanctions by religion (Confucianism)
notwithstanding. One might best describe the movement as the first major
popular rebellion with a revolutionary programme and ideology. All said and
done, the Taiping movement remains one of the most enigmatic movements of
modern Chinese history.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

7
1. Beckmann – ‘Modernization Of China And Japan’
2. Chesneaux – ‘China From The Opium Wars To The 1911 Revolution’
3. J.K. Fairbank – ‘East Asia: Tradition And Transformation’
4. Peking Foreign Languages Press – ‘The Taiping Revolution’
5. Philip A. Kuhn – ‘Rebellion and Its Enemies In Late Imperial China’
6. S.Y. Teng – ‘Taiping Rebellion and the Western Powers’
7. Tan Chung – ‘Triton And Dragon’