Sabotaged Chicken Alive in Darkness

Jin's stories feature situations that cause the reader to question not just Communism or Capitalism, but authority in general. However, he does this in a non-obvious way that ends in the characters continuing to rely on Communism or rejecting Capitalist ideas. No one in the stories explicitly question the authority, responsibility, or response of the state. Jin presents these stories in such a way that someone indoctrinated in the Maoist ideology could think, "Well yeah, he was a bad citizen," "I'm glad to see that the Party helped that poor man," or "I hate that Capitalist!" While a fair percentage of the population may reach conclusions like those I just noted, another sizeable group is going to reach another conclusion that may have a destabilizing effect.

"Saboteur" is blatant in its condemnation of the Party's behavior. In his description of the events that led to Chiu's arrest, Jin clearly shows how unfair and arbitrary the behavior of the police is. He also demonstrates the unwillingness to acknowledge reason and that the Party ultimately creates dissension where none existed before. However, I can totally see the story going over the heads of certain readers rather than getting Jin's point across. Now, I could be 100% wrong here, but I have always been under the impression that the self-criticism letter that Mr. Chiu had to sign was a standard part of Communist re-education or rehabilitation. Due to this, it was a widely understood thing in pre- and post-cultural revolution China (and U.S.S.R.). I never really asked anybody about this while I was in China, but I thought that the personal stories of going into a re-education or rehabilitation facility for counter-revolutionary behavior (less than complete obedience), which is what Mr. Chiu was essentially accused of, was part of the machine that kept everyone in line. If that's the case, I can see how someone would read this as a story detailing the fate of a counter-revolutionary and why the authority of the Party (police) should be respected. It can readily be argued that Chiu's intentional infection of the town represents the Party's failure, but there's a chance that this section could reinforce an interpretation that Mr. Chiu was an anti-social element who was and should be condemned to die from the diseases ravaging his counter-revolutionary innards - That subversive dog!

In "Alive" we see a man who was presumed dead, but eventually returned to his former life. While the state did assist Guhan's family in his absence, the restitution for his death, which came in the process of performing his job for the state run cannery, was rather insignificant. The cannery and state didn't really spend anything to compensate his family for the loss of life and income. They simply shifted resources around by hiring his into a position that provided a smaller income than he originally had. Upon his return they were unwilling to send away the man they imported to fill the vice director position he was set to fill, they refused to demote the man who filled his original position, and they were unwilling to create a new position for him. He indirectly gave his life for the survival of the cannery, but the cannery management and employees, who all seemed to respect him greatly, continued to live as if he never existed. In addition, the director of the cannery may have misled Guhan about the financial state of the cannery. Guhan reappeared around the New Year, yet the cannery seemed to be running just fine without him or the money he was sent to collect. Considering the total destruction of Taifu, I find it hard to believe that the cannery received the money it was owed. I suppose the government could have paid the debt after Taifu's destruction, but who knows. Whether we consider that the cannery director was lying or not, the cannery still had a hand in Guhan's "death." Based upon the Party's promoted ethos, it was more than reasonable to assume he would be re-incorporated into the organization, but the Party simply tossed him aside with a pension, which he should have received eventually anyway, and Guhan accepted this as a reasonable solution to his predicament. Clearly, a story like this could rattle one's faith in their dear leader's party.

I was going to have a longer paragraph about "After Cowboy Chicken Came to Town" right here, but this is getting a tad too long. However, I concluded that this was ultimately a story exposing the faults of both political systems (Communism and Capitalism), but one holds a greater promise of prosperity. While there's an imbalance in Capitalism, as demonstrated in Peter's power and wealth, there is opportunity in the system. As expressed through the narrator's mother and father, Communism can provide stability, but what good is stability if it's outweighed by misery and disappointment? And segue into Conrad talk.

I'm not incredibly familiar with Eastern European history, but I know that the Bolshevik Revolution took place in the early 1920s. So, the late 1800s and early 1900s would have been a time of anti-czarist/anti-imperialist activity and changes in modern political thought (Communism) or revolution. Considering the incredible change sweeping throughout the Russian Empire and nearby areas, I think Heart of Darkness would have been lost in the torrent of competing ideas at the time. There's a slight chance that HoD would have been seized by the anti-Imperialists and used to highlight the errors of imperialism and colonialism. However, there are various comments in Heart of Darkness that would weaken its use as an effective piece of propaganda, which further reduces its appeal in that regard. This isn't to say that changes weren't occurring in England, but there was certainly more stability that would allow for more careful consideration of the text. When examining these factors, it's clear that postcolonial literature would be significantly different because Conrad's voice would be totally absent from the conversation.