生命的價值與標籤的意義

生命的價值是人類文明的核心命題，卻在歷史的黑暗篇章中被無情踐踏。日本侵華期間的南京大屠殺，納粹德國對猶太人的種族滅絕，斯大林的政治清洗，蔣介石在大陸和台灣製造的一次次白色恐怖，毛澤東時代的中國，數千萬人在類似的政治運動、清洗和暴政中無辜死亡。這些事件不僅揭示了人類暴行的殘酷，更提出了一個深刻問題：誰有權定義“無辜”與“有罪”，誰能決定生命是否“該死”？下面通過比較，聚焦於標籤化、權力濫用與監控失控，探討生命價值在不同意識形態下的扭曲，批判特權、公平與合理性的缺失，並反思為何人類在面對死亡時，仍執着於差異化對待。

一、南京大屠殺：生命被徹底物化

1937年的南京大屠殺，三十萬中國平民和戰俘在六周內被屠殺，伴隨大規模的強姦、搶掠和焚燒。日本軍隊的行為不僅是對生命的毀滅，更是對人性尊嚴的系統性踐踏。在軍國主義意識形態下，中國人被視為“劣等民族”，生命被物化為可以隨意處置的“豬”。這種種族主義的極端邏輯，將生命的價值完全剝奪，死亡不再是個體的悲劇，而成為一種集體性的、機械化的“處理”。這種對生命的蔑視並非孤立現象。殖民主義和帝國主義的歷史中，類似的對“他者”的物化屢見不鮮。然而，南京大屠殺的規模和殘忍程度，使其成為人類歷史上最臭名昭著的暴行之一。日本軍方和部分士兵在屠殺中展現的冷漠，甚至以殺人為樂的心態，揭示了一種極端意識形態如何將生命貶為無意義的符號。

二、毛澤東時代：意識形態下的生命犧牲

與南京大屠殺的外部暴行相比，毛澤東時代的中國呈現了一種內部的、意識形態驅動的生命摧殘。從紅軍長征時期的權力鬥爭，到建國後的政治運動，數千萬人在清洗、迫害和政策失誤中喪生。被持續的虐待生不如死的就更是數不勝數。以下幾個關鍵事件凸顯了生命在這一時期的脆弱性：

1. 紅軍內部清洗：長征途中，紅軍因權力鬥爭而多次進行內部清洗。劉志丹在陝北接納了長征的紅軍，卻因被懷疑“叛變”而遭到刻意安排的死亡。井岡山時期和張國燾領導下的紅軍，也因派系鬥爭導致大量功臣被以“莫須有”罪名處決。這些清洗往往伴隨着殘酷的折磨，生命在權力面前變得毫無價值。

2. 建國後的階級劃分：1949年後，中共通過土地改革和“五類分子”劃分，刻意將數百萬人貼上“反革命”或“階級敵人”的標籤。這些人從出生起便被剝奪基本人權，遭受肉體與精神的雙重摧殘。生命的價值被簡化為階級標籤，個人的尊嚴和存在被徹底否定。

3. 文化大革命：文革期間，連國家主席劉少奇都被批鬥、殘酷迫害致死。林彪作為毛澤東的親密戰友，最終因權力鬥爭而被迫逃亡，墜機身亡。文革的混亂將整個社會推向極端，生命在“革命”名義下被隨意犧牲，忠誠與否已不再重要。

這些事件共同揭示了一個事實：在毛澤東的治理下，生命的價值被意識形態綁架。無論是“反革命”還是“忠誠的同志”，只要被貼上不符合意識形態（他自己定義的，帶有很強的個人性和隨意性）的標籤，生命便可被隨意剝奪。這種邏輯與日本軍國主義將中國人視為“豬”並無本質區別——兩者都通過標籤化將生命貶為工具，服務於某種更高的個人或者是小團體的“目標”。

三、納粹的標籤化與中共的“五類分子”：生命的任意裁決

納粹德國對猶太人的迫害與中共對“五類分子”和“反革命”的清洗，在標籤化的邏輯上驚人地相似。希特勒的種族主義將猶太人貼上“劣等種族”的標籤，剝奪他們的公民權利，最終實施系統性滅絕。同樣，中共通過“地主”“富農”“反革命”等標籤，將數百萬中國人劃為社會“毒瘤”（實際上就是劣等人），剝奪其人權，甚至生命。這些標籤的共同特點是缺乏公平的衡量標準，且往往與對掌權者的實際威脅無關。

1. 標籤的任意性：納粹的“猶太人”標籤基於偽科學的種族理論，忽視個體的行為或貢獻。中共的“五類分子”標籤同樣隨意，許多人僅因家庭出身或歷史背景便被定罪，有的甚至只是基層政府需要滿足上級的硬性指標要求。例如，一個地主的後代可能從未剝削他人，卻因被刻上的“階級成分”而被終身歧視。這種標籤化的過程完全繞過了法律程序和道德考量，生命的命運由掌權者單方面裁決。

2. 防範未然的極端邏輯：納粹屠殺猶太人並非因為他們對德國構成了直接威脅，而是出於一種“防範未然”的妄想——希特勒認為猶太人可能威脅“雅利安種族的純潔性”。同樣，中共對“反革命”的清洗往往基於臆測，所謂“潛在威脅”成為處決或迫害的藉口。例如，劉少奇作為國家主席，其忠誠度毋庸置疑，卻因可能威脅毛澤東的權威而被殘酷迫害。這種“寧可錯殺一千，不可放過一個”的邏輯，將生命貶為掌權者焦慮的犧牲品。

3. 標籤的毀滅性後果：納粹的標籤化導致六百萬猶太人死於集中營；中共的標籤化則使數千萬人在政治運動中喪生或受盡折磨。無論是毒氣室還是批鬥會，受害者的生命都被簡化為一個符號，死亡成為掌權者“淨化”社會的工具。

四、特權的根源：誰定義生命的價值？

無論是日本的種族主義、納粹的優生學還是中共的階級鬥爭，生命價值的剝奪都源於一種特權——即某些群體或個人自認為有權定義他人的“價值”。這種特權的根源可以從以下幾個方面分析：

1. 意識形態的絕對化：日本軍國主義將“種族優越”奉為圭臬，納粹推崇“雅利安至上”，中共則以“階級鬥爭”和“革命”為核心信條。這些絕對化的意識形態賦予掌權者無限的道德優越感，使其可以隨意將他人貼上“低端”或“不配做人”的標籤。

2. 權力的集中與失控：無論是日本軍隊的指揮鏈、納粹的黨衛軍還是中共的中央集權，權力的過度集中導致個體生命在決策者眼中變得微不足道。南京大屠殺中，日本軍官對士兵的暴行放任自流；納粹集中營由國家機器系統性運作；文革中，毛澤東的個人意志凌駕於法律和人性之上。權力的高度集中，使生命的毀滅成為一種“必要代價”。

3. 他者的物化：無論是“劣等民族”“猶太威脅”還是“階級敵人”，他者的生命都被簡化為某種符號。這種物化過程剝奪了生命的複雜性和個體性，使屠殺或迫害變得“合理”。在日本兵眼中，中國人只是“豬”；在納粹眼中，猶太人是“害蟲”；在文革紅衛兵眼中，“反革命”必須被消滅。

五、權力罪惡的放大與監控的失控

南京大屠殺、猶太人大屠殺和毛澤東時代暴行的共同點，在於它們都是權力罪惡的極端體現。掌權者不僅濫用權力，還通過放大權力的破壞力，將整個社會推向毀滅的深淵。

1. 權力的罪惡：權力本身並非邪惡，但當它被用來剝奪他人的生命和尊嚴時，便成為罪惡的根源。日本軍國主義的擴張野心、納粹的種族清洗和中共的意識形態鬥爭，都以“崇高目標”掩蓋權力的暴虐。南京的平民、奧斯維辛的猶太人、文革的“反革命”，他們的死亡並非因自身罪行，而是因掌權者將他們視為實現目標的障礙。

2. 權力放大的機制：掌權者通過宣傳、組織和暴力機器，放大權力的破壞力。日本軍隊通過軍國主義教育，將士兵變成殺戮機器；納粹通過黨衛軍和集中營，系統化地實施種族滅絕；中共通過群眾運動和紅色恐怖，將普通人變成迫害他人的工具。文革中的紅衛兵，原本是普通學生，卻在權力的煽動下成為批鬥和殺戮的執行者。

3. 監控的失控：權力的罪惡之所以能夠肆虐，很大程度上是因為缺乏有效的監控機制。日本軍隊在南京的暴行未受約束，納粹的集中營運作無人監督，中共的政治運動則在“革命”名義下繞過一切法律和道德約束。毛澤東的個人崇拜使任何批評或制衡都成為“反革命”，導致權力的失控達到頂峰。監控的缺失，使掌權者的罪惡得以無限放大，生命成為最廉價的犧牲品。

六、公平與合理性的缺失

公平與合理性要求生命的尊嚴被普遍尊重，不因種族、階級或政治立場而異。然而，無論是南京大屠殺、猶太人大屠殺還是毛澤東時代的暴行，這種原則都被徹底違背。以下是對三者實質性相似性的分析：

1. 生命貶值的共同邏輯：日本軍國主義、納粹種族主義和中共的意識形態都通過標籤化將特定群體排除在“人”的範疇之外。這種邏輯使屠殺或迫害不再被視為對生命的侵犯，而成為一種“清理”或“淨化”。

2. 暴行的系統性：南京大屠殺是日本軍隊系統性暴行的結果，猶太人大屠殺是納粹國家機器的產物，毛澤東時代的死亡則源於政策性清洗和運動。它們都不是偶然事件，而是由制度和意識形態驅動的系統性摧殘。

3. 受害者的無助：無論是南京的平民、奧斯維辛的猶太人還是文革的“五類分子”，受害者都無力反抗。他們被剝奪了發聲的機會，生命在暴力面前毫無還手之力。

然而，儘管三者在邏輯和效果上相似，歷史敘述卻往往將它們區別對待。南京大屠殺被視為外敵的暴行，猶太人大屠殺被定性為種族滅絕的罪惡，而毛澤東時代的死亡常被歸為“內部問題”，甚至被美化為“革命的代價”。這種差異化的對待，本身就是對生命價值的不公——同樣是無辜的死亡，為何必須被賦予不同的意義？

七、為何必須差異化對待？

對南京大屠殺、猶太人大屠殺和毛澤東時代暴行的不同對待，源於歷史敘述的複雜性和政治需求：

1. 民族主義與集體記憶：南京大屠殺作為外敵入侵的象徵，被用來凝聚民族認同；猶太人大屠殺則成為西方世界反思種族主義的標誌。相比之下，毛澤東時代的暴行涉及內部矛盾，承認其嚴重性可能動搖執政合法性。因此，官方敘述往往淡化或重新解讀這些事件。

2. 道德的相對性：日本和納粹的暴行被視為“絕對的惡”，因為它們針對的是“無辜的民族”或“無辜的種族”。而中共的清洗常被包裝為“為了革命的必要犧牲”，受害者被指責為“阻礙進步”。這種道德相對性使同樣的死亡被賦予不同的價值。

3. 權力與真相的博弈：掌權者通過控制歷史敘述，決定哪些生命“值得”被悼念，哪些可以被遺忘。南京大屠殺和猶太人大屠殺的受害者被塑造成集體記憶的象徵，而文革的受害者往往被邊緣化，甚至無人知曉。

然而，這種差異化對待並不能掩蓋一個事實：生命的毀滅在本質上是等同的。無論是被日本兵屠殺的南京市民、被納粹毒氣室殺害的猶太人，還是被紅衛兵批鬥致死的“反革命”，他們遭受的痛苦和尊嚴的喪失並無二致。將死亡劃分為“該死”與“不該死”，本身就是對生命價值的褻瀆。

八、批判與反思

生命的價值不應被任何意識形態或權力所綁架。無論是日本的種族主義、納粹的優生學還是中共的階級鬥爭，它們都通過標籤化和物化，將生命貶為工具。這種邏輯的危險在於，它賦予少數人決定他人命運的絕對權力，而這種權力往往導致災難性的後果。

公平與合理性的重建，要求我們放棄對生命的差異化對待。無論是南京大屠殺的受害者、猶太人大屠殺的犧牲者，還是毛澤東時代政治運動的遇難者，他們的死亡都應被平等悼念。歷史的任務不是為暴行辯護或美化，而是揭示真相，讓後人警惕權力的濫用和意識形態的極端化。

更重要的是，我們需要反思“特權”和“權力”的根源。誰有權定義“無辜”與“有罪”？誰有權決定生命的“價值”？答案是：沒有人。生命的尊嚴是普世的，不應因種族、階級或政治立場而異。任何試圖將生命分級的企圖，都是對人性的背叛。權力必須受到監控，無論是通過法律、道德還是社會機制，以防止其罪惡的放大。歷史的教訓告訴我們，失控的權力是生命最大的威脅。

結語：南京大屠殺、猶太人大屠殺和毛澤東時代的暴行，雖然背景各異，但都揭示了生命在極端意識形態和權力濫用下的脆弱性。日本軍國主義將中國人視為“豬”，納粹將猶太人視為“害蟲”，中共將“階級敵人”視為“毒瘤”，這些標籤化的邏輯殊途同歸——生命被剝奪了內在的價值，淪為服務於某種“更高目標”的犧牲品。權力罪惡的放大和監控的失控，使這些暴行成為人類歷史的恥辱。公平與合理性要求我們平等對待每一場死亡，拒絕為暴行尋找藉口。只有當我們承認所有生命的平等尊嚴，並建立對權力的有效制約，歷史才不會重演其悲劇。

The Value of Life and the Meaning of Labels

Introduction

The value of life stands as a cornerstone of human civilization, yet it has been ruthlessly trampled in the darkest chapters of history. The Nanjing Massacre during Japan’s invasion of China, the Nazi genocide of Jews, Stalin’s political purges, Chiang Kai-shek’s repeated White Terror campaigns in mainland China and Taiwan, and Mao Zedong’s China, where tens of millions perished in political movements, purges, and tyrannical policies—these events not only expose the brutality of human atrocities but also pose a profound question: Who has the right to define “innocent” or “guilty,” and who can determine whether a life is “worthy” of death? This essay compares these atrocities, focusing on the mechanisms of labeling, power abuse, and the absence of oversight, to explore the distortion of life’s value under different ideologies. It critiques the privilege of defining life’s worth, the absence of fairness and reason, and the persistent human tendency to differentiate deaths despite their shared essence.

I. The Nanjing Massacre: Life Reduced to Objects

In 1937, the Nanjing Massacre saw 300,000 Chinese civilians and prisoners of war slaughtered over six weeks, accompanied by widespread rape, looting, and arson. The Japanese military’s actions were not merely the destruction of lives but a systematic assault on human dignity. Under the ideology of Japanese militarism, Chinese people were deemed an “inferior race,” their lives reduced to disposable “pigs.” This racist logic stripped life of all value, transforming death from an individual tragedy into a collective, mechanized “processing.” Such dehumanization is not unique; the history of colonialism and imperialism is replete with similar objectifications of the “other.” Yet the scale and cruelty of the Nanjing Massacre mark it as one of humanity’s most infamous atrocities. The indifference of Japanese commanders and the perverse pleasure some soldiers took in killing reveal how an extreme ideology can render life a meaningless symbol.

II. Mao Zedong’s Era: Life Sacrificed to Ideology

In contrast to the external violence of the Nanjing Massacre, Mao Zedong’s China witnessed an internal, ideology-driven destruction of life. From the power struggles during the Long March to the political campaigns after 1949, tens of millions perished in purges, persecutions, and policy failures, with countless others subjected to relentless torment that made life worse than death. Key events highlight the fragility of life in this period:

1. Internal Purges in the Red Army: During the Long March, factional struggles led to repeated purges within the Red Army. Liu Zhidan, who welcomed the Long Marchers in Shaanxi, was deliberately killed after being suspected of “treason.” In the Jinggang Mountains and under Zhang Guotao’s leadership, countless loyalists were executed on baseless charges. These purges, often accompanied by brutal torture, rendered life worthless before the altar of power.

2. Class Divisions Post-1949: After the founding of the People’s Republic, the Communist Party labeled millions as “counterrevolutionaries” or “class enemies” through land reforms and the “Five Black Categories” system. These individuals were stripped of basic rights from birth, enduring physical and psychological torment. Life’s value was reduced to a class label, obliterating personal dignity and existence.

3. The Cultural Revolution: During the Cultural Revolution, even President Liu Shaoqi was denounced, tortured, and died in captivity. Lin Biao, Mao’s close ally, was forced to flee and perished in a plane crash amid power struggles. The chaos of the Cultural Revolution pushed society to extremes, with lives sacrificed in the name of “revolution,” regardless of loyalty.

These events reveal a grim truth: under Mao’s rule, life’s value was hijacked by ideology. Whether labeled “counterrevolutionary” or “loyal comrade,” anyone could be stripped of life if deemed misaligned with an ideology defined by Mao’s personal and arbitrary standards. This logic mirrors Japanese militarism’s view of Chinese as “pigs”—both reduced life to a tool serving a “higher” individual or clique-driven goal.

III. Nazi Labeling and China’s “Five Black Categories”: Arbitrary Judgments on Life

The Nazi persecution of Jews and the Chinese Communist Party’s targeting of the “Five Black Categories” and “counterrevolutionaries” share a chilling similarity in their logic of labeling. Hitler’s racism branded Jews as an “inferior race,” stripping them of citizenship and culminating in systematic extermination. Similarly, the Communist Party labeled millions of Chinese as social “vermin” through tags like “landlord,” “rich peasant,” or “counterrevolutionary,” denying them rights and often life itself. These labels shared a lack of fair standards and were typically unrelated to any tangible threat to those in power.

1. Arbitrary Labeling: The Nazi “Jew” label was rooted in pseudoscientific racial theories, ignoring individual actions or contributions. The “Five Black Categories” were equally capricious, with many condemned solely for their family background or history, sometimes merely to meet quotas imposed by higher authorities. For instance, a landlord’s descendant who never exploited others could face lifelong discrimination due to their “class status.” This labeling process bypassed legal or moral scrutiny, leaving life’s fate to the whims of those in power.

2. Preemptive Extremism: The Nazis massacred Jews not because they posed an immediate threat but out of a paranoid “preemption”—Hitler believed Jews could undermine “Aryan purity.” Similarly, the Communist Party’s purges of “counterrevolutionaries” were often based on speculation, with “potential threats” justifying executions or persecution. Liu Shaoqi, despite his unquestionable loyalty, was brutally targeted for potentially challenging Mao’s authority. This “better to kill a thousand by mistake than let one escape” logic reduced life to a casualty of rulers’ anxieties.

3. Devastating Consequences: Nazi labeling led to six million Jews perishing in concentration camps; Communist labeling caused tens of millions to die or suffer in political campaigns. Whether in gas chambers or denunciation rallies, victims’ lives were reduced to symbols, their deaths tools for “purifying” society.

IV. The Roots of Privilege: Who Defines Life’s Value?

Whether through Japanese racism, Nazi eugenics, or Chinese class struggle, the devaluation of life stems from a privilege—the belief that certain groups or individuals have the authority to define others’ worth. This privilege arises from several sources:

1. Absolute Ideology: Japanese militarism enshrined “racial superiority,” Nazism exalted “Aryan supremacy,” and Chinese Communism centered on “class struggle” and “revolution.” These absolutist ideologies granted rulers an unassailable moral superiority, enabling them to label others as “inferior” or “unworthy of humanity.”

2. Concentrated and Unchecked Power: From the Japanese military’s chain of command to the Nazi SS and the Communist Party’s centralized authority, excessive power concentration rendered individual lives insignificant to decision-makers. In the Nanjing Massacre, Japanese officers turned a blind eye to soldiers’ atrocities; Nazi concentration camps were state-orchestrated; during the Cultural Revolution, Mao’s will superseded law and humanity. Concentrated power made life’s destruction a “necessary cost.”

3. Dehumanization of the Other: Whether “inferior race,” “Jewish threat,” or “class enemy,” the other’s life was reduced to a symbol. This dehumanization stripped away life’s complexity and individuality, making slaughter or persecution “justifiable.” To Japanese soldiers, Chinese were “pigs”; to Nazis, Jews were “vermin”; to Cultural Revolution Red Guards, “counterrevolutionaries” were to be eradicated.

V. The Amplification of Power’s Evil and the Loss of Oversight

The Nanjing Massacre, the Holocaust, and Mao’s purges share a common thread: they are extreme manifestations of power’s evil. Rulers not only abused power but amplified its destructiveness, plunging societies into ruin.

1. The Evil of Power: Power itself is not inherently evil, but when used to strip others of life and dignity, it becomes a source of malevolence. Japanese militarism’s expansionist ambitions, Nazi racial purges, and Communist ideological struggles cloaked power’s tyranny in “noble” aims. The civilians of Nanjing, the Jews of Auschwitz, and the “counterrevolutionaries” of the Cultural Revolution died not for their own crimes but because rulers saw them as obstacles to their goals.

2. Mechanisms of Amplification: Rulers magnified power’s destructiveness through propaganda, organization, and violence. The Japanese military indoctrinated soldiers into killing machines; the Nazis systematized genocide through the SS and camps; the Communist Party turned ordinary citizens into persecutors via mass movements and Red Terror. Cultural Revolution Red Guards, once mere students, became agents of denunciation and murder under power’s incitement.

3. Loss of Oversight: The unchecked nature of these atrocities stemmed from the absence of effective oversight. Japanese troops in Nanjing operated without restraint, Nazi camps functioned beyond scrutiny, and Communist campaigns bypassed all legal and moral boundaries under the guise of “revolution.” Mao’s cult of personality branded any criticism as “counterrevolutionary,” pushing power’s recklessness to its zenith. Without oversight, rulers’ evils were amplified, and life became the cheapest commodity.

VI. The Absence of Fairness and Reason

Fairness and reason demand that life’s dignity be universally respected, regardless of race, class, or political stance. Yet, the Nanjing Massacre, the Holocaust, and Mao’s purges utterly violated this principle. Their similarities include:

1. Shared Logic of Devaluation: Japanese militarism, Nazi racism, and Communist ideology all used labeling to exclude groups from humanity’s scope. This logic transformed slaughter or persecution into “cleansing” or “purification.”

2. Systematic Atrocities: The Nanjing Massacre was a product of Japanese military organization, the Holocaust a Nazi state machinery, and Mao’s deaths the result of orchestrated purges and campaigns. These were not random but institutionally driven destructions.

3. Victims’ Helplessness: Whether Nanjing’s civilians, Auschwitz’s Jews, or the Cultural Revolution’s “Five Black Categories,” victims were powerless. Stripped of voice, their lives were defenseless before violence.

Despite these parallels, historical narratives often treat them differently. The Nanjing Massacre is framed as foreign aggression, the Holocaust as genocidal evil, while Mao’s purges are often downplayed as “internal issues” or glorified as “revolutionary costs.” This differential treatment is itself an injustice—why must identical innocent deaths carry different meanings?

VII. Why the Differential Treatment?

The varying treatment of the Nanjing Massacre, the Holocaust, and Mao’s purges stems from the complexities of historical narratives and political needs:

1. Nationalism and Collective Memory: The Nanjing Massacre, as a symbol of foreign invasion, fuels national unity; the Holocaust anchors Western reflection on racism. Mao’s purges, involving internal conflicts, risk undermining ruling legitimacy, leading official narratives to minimize or reinterpret them.

2. Moral Relativism: Japanese and Nazi atrocities are deemed “absolute evils” for targeting “innocent nations” or “races.” Communist purges, however, are often framed as “necessary sacrifices for revolution,” with victims blamed as “obstacles to progress.” This relativism assigns different values to equivalent deaths.

3. Power and Truth’s Struggle: Rulers shape narratives to decide which lives are “worthy” of mourning and which are forgotten. Victims of the Nanjing Massacre and Holocaust are enshrined in collective memory, while Cultural Revolution victims are marginalized, often unknown.

Yet, this differential treatment cannot obscure a truth: the destruction of life is fundamentally the same. Whether a Nanjing citizen slaughtered by Japanese soldiers, a Jew gassed by Nazis, or a “counterrevolutionary” beaten to death by Red Guards, their suffering and loss of dignity are indistinguishable. Dividing deaths into “deserving” and “undeserving” profanes life’s value.

VIII. Critique and Reflection

Life’s value must not be held hostage by ideology or power. Whether Japanese racism, Nazi eugenics, or Chinese class struggle, these systems used labeling and dehumanization to reduce life to a tool. Their danger lies in granting a few the absolute power to dictate others’ fates, often with catastrophic consequences.

Restoring fairness and reason requires abandoning differential treatment of lives. Victims of the Nanjing Massacre, the Holocaust, and Mao’s purges deserve equal mourning. History’s task is not to justify or glorify atrocities but to uncover truth, warning future generations against power’s abuse and ideological extremism.

Above all, we must reflect on the roots of “privilege” and “power.” Who has the right to define “innocent” or “guilty”? Who can judge life’s “value”? The answer is: no one. Life’s dignity is universal, unbound by race, class, or politics. Any attempt to hierarchize life betrays humanity. Power must be restrained—through law, morality, or societal mechanisms—to prevent its evils’ amplification. History teaches us that unchecked power is life’s greatest threat.

Conclusion

The Nanjing Massacre, the Holocaust, and Mao Zedong’s purges, though distinct in context, expose life’s fragility under extreme ideologies and power’s abuse. Japanese militarism saw Chinese as “pigs,” Nazis branded Jews as “vermin,” and Chinese Communism deemed “class enemies” as “toxins.” These labeling logics converge in stripping life of intrinsic value, reducing it to a sacrifice for some “higher” goal. The amplification of power’s evil and the absence of oversight made these atrocities humanity’s shame. Fairness and reason demand we mourn all deaths equally, rejecting excuses for violence. Only by recognizing the universal dignity of all lives and establishing robust checks on power can history avoid repeating its tragedies.