https://orcid.org/0009-0004-9058-822X
![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Focusing on Ng Chung-yin’s (1946–1994) anarchism in early 1970s Hong Kong, this study explores the interplay between New Left internationalism and national experiences. Contrary to the existing scholarship, which holds that New Left internationalism requires nationalization for implementation, this study illustrates the opposite, showing how national experiences are reinterpreted, reshaped, and rearticulated through the lens of New Left internationalism. The analysis begins by debunking the diverse imaginings of China during the 1950s and 1960s as offered by New Left internationalism and diasporic Chinese nationalism. This multiplicity of China’s representations contributed to the emergence of the anarchist movement in early 1970s Hong Kong. This study also undertakes a critical reading of Ng’s revolutionary proposal, “The Third Revolution.” This proposal envisions the ancestral national homeland as a futuristic internationalist utopia, demonstrating how diasporic Chinese nationalism is rearticulated using the language of internationalism. Concluding with David Scott’s notion of “futures past,” the study argues that New Left internationalism offers powerful utopian expectations of the future, based on which diverse national pasts are subject to revision. By examining the ideological backbones and politics of the anarchist movement in early 1970s Hong Kong, the study aims to contribute to understanding the dynamics between New Left internationalist politics and national experiences during the global Sixties.
Acknowledgments
I am deeply grateful to Professor Pang Laikwan, Tan Jia, and Lim Song Hwee for their invaluable feedback on the article. I would also like to express my gratitude to the anonymous reviewers, whose critical insights and constructive comments have greatly improved the quality of this paper. My sincere thanks are extended to Philip Ho Nam, Chow Sze Chung, and Chan Tsz Him for generously sharing their private archives of The 70s’ Biweekly, which proved to be an invaluable resource for my research. Finally, special thanks go to Amy Pikki Lau for her unwavering support throughout the writing process.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. See, e.g. Murphy, “The Countercultural New Left ‘Down Under’;” Klimke, The Other Alliance; Schieder, Coed Revolution.
2. Varon, Bringing the War Home.
3. Ibid., 6.
4. See, e.g. Mohandesi, “Bringing Vietnam Home,” 241.
5. Duara, “Hong Kong as a Global Frontier,” 219; Fu, “Cultural Cold War in Hong Kong,” 79.
6. S.-H. Chan, “Chinese Nationality and Coloniality of Hong Kong Student Movement, 1960–1970s,” 250.
7. S.-M. Leung,“Imagining a National/Local Identity in the Colony,” 319.
8. Chung, “The Red without the Homeland State.”
9. Yeung, The Silver-Haired Who Moved on from the Fiery Era, 30.
10. Case 890–2–36, 1975, Annex A: The “70”s Bi-Weekly’ Magazine, SWD 10/112/71C, HKRS890–2, General Correspondence Files, Hong Kong Record Series, Hong Kong Public Records, Hong Kong.
11. Case 934–3–30, 1974, “The New Left”, CNTA/SD/CON/1/44, HKRS934–3 General Correspondence Files, Hong Kong Record Series, Hong Kong Public Records, Hong Kong.
12. Chaplin and Mooney, “Introduction,” 2.
13. Davis, “The Origin of the British New Left,” 45–47.
14. Rossinow, “The New Left,” 27.
15. Suga, “1968 and the Post War Regime of Emperor-System Democracy,” 111–114.
16. NLR, “On Internationalism.”
17. Ibid., 3–4.
18. Jameson, “Periodizing the 60s,” 182–189.
19. Lovell, Maoism.
20. Brick and Phelps, Radicals in America, 116.
21. Sjøli, “Maoism in Norway;” Piccini, “‘Light from the East’,” 28; Pang (2020), “Maoist Revolutionary Subjectivity.”
22. Wu, Radicals on the Road, 4.
23. Colin, “An Interview with Stuart Hall, December 2007,” 24.
24. Matthews, Ma, and Lui, Hong Kong, China, 15.
25. Yang, The Great Exodus from China.
26. Ibid., 130.
27. Au, “The Academic Role of Hong Kong in the Development of Chinese Culture, 1950s–70s,” 68–74.
28. Chou, Confucianism, Colonialism, and the Cold War, 18.
29. C.-K. Li, “A Hong Kong Intellectual and Mass Publication During the Cultural Revolutionization,” 9.
30. S. Chan, Diaspora’s Homeland, 148–149.
31. Eperjesi, “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon,” 28.
32. Law, Collaborative Colonial Power, 156.
33. Ng, “From Dream to Despair,” 31.
34. Law, Thinking Hong Kong, 86–88.
35. Marks, “Interview with Herbert Marcuse.”
36. Ng, “The Student Revolution.”
37. The 70’s Biweekly Editorial Board, Bangla Desh Special Issue.
38. Y.-C. Leung, I Live in this way, Staunchly and Enduringly, 35.
39. Woodcock, Anarchism, 1.
40. P. Li, “The Radical ’70s Magazine That Shaped the Hong Kong Left.”
41. Kausat, “The ‘Black Hands’ in the Chinese Revolution.”
42. Ko, “HK Marxists and European Connection.”
43. Ng, “The August Note.”
44. T.-H. Chan, “The Explorations of Identity and Literature in Hong Kong’s Youth Journals During the ‘Fiery Years’.”
45. Ng, “The Third Revolution.”
46. Ibid.
47. Ibid.
48. Fanon observes that the independence of the formerly colonized African nations did not really end their colonial oppression. The colonized subject of Africa is fabricated by the colonist, and that fabrication remains intact in the era of independence and continues to dominate the newly independent nations. As such, the colonial legacies linger in every aspect of the newly independent nation-states: “Colonialism … is now back on its feet.” Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth, 107. If Ng urges the Hong Kong masses to revolutionize their consciousness before any political revolution, this may be because he had read Fanon before offering this proposal, as evident in his occasional advice to The 1970’s Biweekly to reprint all Fanon’s writings in Chinese. Ng, “The August Note.”
49. Boggs, “Rethinking the Sixties Legacy,” 337.
50. Ng, “The Third Revolution.”
51. Scott, Conscripts of Modernity.
52. Ibid., 31–32.
53. Chow, “Between Colonizers.”