Mao, missä sä oot? Kiinan kulttuurivallankumous Suomen 1960-luvun keskusteluissa by Pirkko-Liisa s> Kastari (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS 373 was something more than a combination of big capital and the priest in cassockand steel helmet portrayedin Kari'scartoons. I like the fact that Smolander, in his analysisof strainsthat were constantly tending to emerge in Finnish Conservatism,employs my favouriteloan word in the Finnish language, namely dilemma. To cap the Social Democrats, who argued that the welfare state was a condition of economic growth, the Conservatives reversed the scenario and saw powerful economic growth as the condition for the creation of the welfarestate. So farso good. But then the dilemma emerged. Voices on the sideline like Tuure Junnila's were for long pointing out that the taxation for the welfare state would recoil negatively upon economic growth. Even the youthful Conservatism of Juha Rihtniemi began to feel alarmed. Raimo Ilaskivi found a way out by insisting upon a wage policy that rewardedindustriousnessand training.In his argumentation,the welfarestate was not a means for producing the dreaded economic equality all Conservatives feared. It was, on the contrary,the best means of holding off Socialismby preventing larger-scale reconstructionsof society and the economy through state action. Ilaskivi saw a compromise being engendered between a Conservatism that accepted the welfare state and a Social Democracy that accepted the market economy. This has come to be, though I should myself fiercely argue that the compromise has left certain key aspects of the welfare state in Finland definitelyin the lurch, as a resultof the fact that the taxpayer has in recent yearshad to bale out a bankingsystemthat could not endure the mistakesof the market. Though allthisgoes beyond the period atwhich Smolandercloseshisbook, his text gives insightful features of what was to come in so many fields of political endeavour. Finlandis not, afterall, Sweden. The Finnish Conservatives have had to strugglenot merely againstCommunism but have also had to cope with a powerfulAgrarianism.Here again let the guide be Ilaskivi,who, in I965, lambasted his own party for not caring enough for the developed areas of Finland,while engaging in rhetoricabout the undeveloped parts.His type of thinking was, thirtyyears later, to take Finland into the EU and into acceptance of the convergence criteriaof the EMU, cost whatever it might for social policy. And Agrarianism,a supporter of a somewhat differenttype of welfare state, has failed to stem the remorselessshift of population intojust a few growth centres. By now, things have become pretty consensual but in a quiescent sortof way. Appended to Smolander's text is a very well-structuredEnglish summary translatedby Anya Pitkanen. University ofTurku, Finland GEORGE MAUDE Kastari, Pirkko-Liisa.Mao, missd sd oot? Kiinankulttuurivallankumous Suomen ig60-luvun keskusteluissa. Bibliotheca Historica, 65. Suomalaisen Kirjallisuuden Seura, Helsinki, 2001. 47I pp. Illustrations.Notes. Bibliography. Index. FIM i6o.oo. PIRKKO-LIISA KASTARI's book, Mao,missasdoot? ('Mao, where artthou?')is an account of an aspect of Finnish politics very different from the developing 374 SEER, 8o, 2, 2002 consensual styledescribed inJyrkiSmolander's workabouttheimpactofthe folkhemmet philosophy on the Finnish ConservativeParty (see review, pp. 372-73). Bothtextsactuallydealwiththe influenceof foreignexamples uponthepoliticalmoodinFinland,butthecaseofSwedenetalwasshownas bindingtheFinnishpoliticalpartiesmorecloselytoeachother,whilethecase of Mao'sChina,inparticular throughtheimageof theCultural Revolution, I966 and all that, served a protestpolitics in Finlandthat never even crystallized into the formationof a distinctMaoistparty.The problemsof temporizing throughparticipation in a systemof formalpoliticsthusnever aroseforthosediverseindividuals in Finlandwhowereattracted to Maoism. Whiletheyremained Maoists,theyremained outsiders. Whatwasin it?Letit be saidrightawaythatneithertheFinnishMaoists northepublicingeneralinFinland knewverymuchaboutwhatwasgoingon inChina.Andthisapplied,too,totheolderendoftheFinland-China Society, whichwasfoundedbeforeMaoismtookon itsworld-beating stance.Those morespecifically drawnto theSocialism oftheChineseRevolution would,in theirturn,havebeen astonished to learnthatthe sympathetically discursive MaoofEdgarSnow'sportrayal (I 937) had,betweenI958 andI96I, launched a GreatLeapForward thatresultedin thedeathsof atleastthirtymillionof his fellow-countrymen. Accordingto otheraccountsmentionedin Kastari's book,themadMaowasalsowillingto provokea globalnuclearwarevenat theriskofhavingFujiancaughtupinit.WhentheCultural Revolutioncame on, onlyrathergarbledversionsofitscruelties becameknowninFinland. Yet something ofitsappalling nastiness didfilterthrough. Anembarrassed silenceinthisquestionfellupontheFinnishestablishment at the Kekkonen-Karjalainen level.An evenmoreembarrassed silencewas evidentamongthe rulingcasteof the FinnishCommunistParty,as Antti Kovanen(mentioned in a footnotebyKastari) revealedin 1970 inanintense littlebookon the crisisof Communism. Whatdrovebothgroupsto silence waslesstheknowledge ofthecruelties perpetrated inChinathanthefactthat ontheworld-stage itwastheSovietUnionthathadbecomethemajorMaoist target.In consequence, by thetimeof theCultural RevolutionthesympathizerswithMaoismin Finlandconsistedof a variedassortment of individuals whotendedto findthepoliticalatmosphere in Finlandunimaginative in the restraint ofitsgoals. Inevitably, therefore,thiswasa revoltthathadmuchto do withyouth.I wellremember thetimewhenascionofFinnishacademia gotupinameeting of hisownbourgeois partyandwavedMao'sbookofpreceptsin thefacesof an astonishedpartyexecutive.This was the superficial side of the protest againsttheelders,withonlya shadowoftheinfiltration strategies ofthemore committed Maoists...