On the Great Challenges Facing China’s Mainstream Ideology

Xu Ming

President and editor in chief of Social Sciences Weekly, a research fellow of the Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences

Abstract: Currently, China’s mainstream ideology is confronted with more and more challenges from a great variety of ideological trends. Those challenges have posed a potential threat to the theoretical foundations and the ruling position of the Communist Party of China. After over two decades’ economic reform, China has achieved commendable accomplishment in social development which has attracted world-wide attention. Nevertheless, due to the backwardness of the mainstream ideology in innovation and development, other trends of thoughts are so influential to contemporary China that there is a chaotic debate in China’s theoretical circle. Among them are the three trends of thoughts, i. e. “classical leftism”, “neo-leftism” and liberalism, which are the most influential in the ideological community. To some extent, these trends of thoughts have affected people’s view on the current society and will shake the confidence and resolution of the Communist Party of China in promoting reform and opening-up. Consequently, the author hereby holds that the best solution to the problem is to establish an innovative mechanism, to promote the building of a theoretical mainstream system, to pay more attention to the great social problems and to usher reform in the publicity of the mainstream theory.

I. The main trends of thoughts that have affected the current Chinese society.

There are several new features and attributes in contemporary Chinese theoretical circle. For instance, public affairs are attracting increasingly great attention and the non-government organizations are all the more active in expressing their opinions and thoughts etc. In face of the existing problems in China, the theoretical communities have presented different and even incompatible comments. Generally speaking, there are four categories.

1. The mainstream ideology: In the past, the ruling party (Communist Party of China) adhered to the strategy of “Crossing the river by feeling the stone” and “No debate on ideology” (i. e. avoiding getting entangled in ideological disputes). Hence, they have enjoyed over one decade in implementing their strategy for economic development. In the spring of 2000, the great thought of “the Three Represents” were presented. It is of great significance for it is one initiative taken by the ruling Communist Party in the ideological field in accordance with the changed national and international situation. With the landmark of a series of viewpoints put forward during the 16^th National Congress of Communist Party of China, CPC’s strategic system and thought on ideology is coming into being. That new system is characterized by new socialist mentality with a symbol of human liberation, with a target of development and with a basis of the market economy. That has stimulated the whole party very much. However, at present, some serious problems still need further and serious consideration and there is still a long way to go in innovation. The contingent of CPC needs to be strengthened; the CPC is lack of some theoretical representatives who have new, broad and profound knowledge and who know well the current Chinese problems.

2. The trend of thought of “classical-leftism”: This school has different views on Den Xiaoping theory and the thought of “the Three Represents” from others’. The “classical leftism” holds that the CPC members have basically deviated from Marxism on the theoretical principles and that revolution should be carried out continuously in our socialist country. The current CPC members are, in their opinions, opportunists, revisionists and totally “betrayalists”. Moreover, this school argues that the thought of “the Three Represents” has transformed the previous proletarian party into the people’s party, and the current CPC leaders only emphasizes on productive force instead of production relations. As a result, the CPC has blurred the difference between proletariat and bourgeoisie. The classical leftism also insists that the ruling party should return to the “the road of continuous revolution under the proletariat dictatorship” and should launch the fourth debate for the purpose of “opposing opportunism and revisionism”. Obviously, such an ultra-left thought of classical leftism ought to be criticized.

3. The trend of thought of “the neo-leftism”: This school consists of some mid-aged and young scholars who have separated from the liberalistic intelligentsia since the 1980s. Some of them have even studied abroad. They borrowed the critical theories from the developed capitalist countries and they criticized the so-called capitalist tendency budding in the society during China’s reform and opening-up period. They hold that China has got involved in “globalization” which results in the flood of capitalism in China. Currently, they think, China’s social problems are nothing but “the western epidemic” or “market epidemic” which the capitalist countries have ever experienced. They believe that the only solution to the diseases is to launch a massive democracy, such as the French Revolution, and even Mao Ze-dong’s mode during the Cultural Revolution are praised. So, they think, efforts should be made to enhance “the systematic innovation on ideology”. The neo-leftism has a sympathetic and positive attitude towards “the Cultural Revolution” and this school looks on Mao as the most modernistic figure in modern Chinese history. Some articles from this school even support “the measure of mass democracy movement prevalent in the Cultural Revolution” and they advocate the radical ideology. Such a school of ideology in fact has a flawed understanding of China’s current reality.

4. The trend of thought of liberalism: Some intelligentsia find themselves incompatible with the current Chinese system, so they crown themselves as liberalists. They regard some slogans in the European Enlightenment Movement as their maxim. At the same time, based on the works by Hayek and other contemporary scholars, they hold that China has yet experienced a full-fledged enlightenment, nor has she entered into the post-modern age, nor has she accessed to the capitalist society or to the process of globalization. In their opinion, the barriers to China’s social advancement are not the foreign capitalism or Multi-National Corporations, but the out-of-dated internal system and ideology. Consequently, the social problems of China cannot be solved openly and squarely unless reform is extended to China’s political restructuring, unless the supervision mechanism over power is established in terms of China’s social system and unless the constitutional government is founded in China. While “neo-leftism” advocates criticizing market-economy mechanism, liberalism calls for the domestic political restructuring. The ultimate object of the latter is to promote China’s great transformation from the constitutional government into multi-party politics and parliamentary democracy. Yet, up till now, they haven’t put too much stress on their ultimate object openly and purposefully. Since the school of liberalism blindly copies the western democracy, it ought to be criticized too.

II. The above non-mainstream ideologies have posed a serious challenge to the mainstream ideology and they have exerted a huge influence on the social development of China. In a sense, however, they are theoretically attractive. For instance:

1. They are all systematic and have their respective theoretical origins. Generally speaking, the three schools of ideology are all systematic and profound in their original theories. The classical-leftism originates from the theory of “continuing with revolution under the proletarian dictatorship”; the neo-leftism originates from the theory of western Marxism; the liberalism originates from the trend of thought of liberalism in Europe and America.

2. They all have a large number of supporters among the mass. The classical-leftism has its increasing influence among some aged cadres and among the grass-root mass; comparatively weak as neo-leftism is, it is easy for the thought to be absorbed by the young intelligentsia who are at the age of 20-30; the trend of thought of liberalism has certain influence on society too.

3. They all, to some extent, aim at the practical problems in China. Theoretically, all the non-mainstream ideologies are well represented. Each of them aims at certain practical social problems, reflecting the requirement of certain strata, such as the problems of wealth polarization, of constitutional government, of globalization and of corruption etc.

III. Some suggestions for the mainstream ideology to cope with challenges from various trends of thoughts

Only the theoretical origins and essence of the non-mainstream trends of thoughts are well-understood, can we carry out a substantial criticism towards them.

1. To establish a mechanism for theoretical innovation: Despite the dramatic influence of all kinds of non-mainstream trends of thoughts, the mainstream theoretical publicity offices at different levels of the Party only play a single role of transmitting and reporting orders from the upper administration. At present, there are very limited articles that are convincing and influential theoretically. That is disadvantageous for us to go on learning the great thought of “the Three Represents” earnestly. Hence, it ought to be a crucial task to establish a mechanism for the theoretical innovation, to stimulate the enthusiasm of the whole Party and all the scientific workers in the society, and particularly to broaden and intensify the research and study in the fields of the history of Communist Party of China, the history of International Communist Movement and so on in the building of the mainstream ideology.

2. To establish a thorough theoretical mainstream system. Only the systematic theory is complete can it be perfect. The classical-leftism, the neo-leftism and the liberalism all have their respective theoretical systems and origins. Except the classical–leftism, the other two are based on the new western social and humanistic sciences. As a result, it is easier for them to get followers. The theory of liberalism, in particular, has a wide influence. Here, intensive and profound theories and accumulated knowledge are needed for the mainstream ideology defenders to compete with the supporters of the non-mainstream thoughts. Yet, unfortunately, some workers and researchers on mainstream theory try to evade some crucial problems and they are not able to propose some constructive suggestions. Most articles are nothing but superficial observation instead of deep analysis; most articles are unnecessary duplication and repetition instead of valuable innovation; most articles are fragmentary, not systematic and orderly in logic. Due to the lack of the background knowledge of the western philosophical and social sciences, the writers and researchers on mainstream ideology don’t have full ideas about the contemporary Marxism in the west, nor do they have a deep understanding of the origins of different thoughts. Hence the study and research on the mainstream ideology theory are not well-grounded due to the lack of internal logic and attraction. Consequently, the establishment of a perfect mainstream theory is a key epoch-making question.

3. We ought to seek truth from facts and answer the vital questions from the society directly. Despite their mutual contradiction and striking divergence, the essences of the classical-leftism, neo-leftism and liberalism are all connected with the crucial problems of China. The discussion of these problems themselves has attracted a great number of youth. However, the articles that elaborate on the mainstream ideology are mostly stereotyped, superficial and vague. They either avoid talking about the important problems or mention them forefetchedly. The essays that some authors have written are not aimed at the solutions to the social problems, but at catering to the wishes of their superiors. Although their essays touch upon all respects, they just cannot satisfy the readers. That basically lies in the fact that the writers do not provide convincing answers to the crucial problems.

As a result, I hereby suggest that we should have a “call a spade a spade” attitude in analyzing the important questions systematically and present persuasive answers to them. For example, how do we define and understand the new connotation of the new concepts related to the collective and the individual, the state and nation, the productive force and production relations, the public and private ownership as well as the market and planned economy in the building of a value system for Marxism or socialism? Facing the problems and crisis in China, how can we propose in a scientific way some answers to a series of problems which have erupted in the sweeping transformation of CPC from the revolutionary party to the ruling party? These problems include: corruption resulting from over-concentration of power and from the advancement of marketization, the structural change of China’s society caused by the split of various classes and strata etc. These are the problems that the mass are really and deeply concerned about.

4. Efforts should be made to create active and interesting study methods. In the past, our study methods are out-of-dated, the contents of study are lack of novelty and the forms of study are only confined to reports and symposium. Personally, I think all the publicity and education of the mainstream ideology should be rich in content and should solve all the problems that the officials and the people are interested in. We ought to be pragmatic and seek truth from reality by means of diversified publicity, including the proficient use of modern media, so that we can create active and interesting methods to study the mainstream ideology.

About the author: Xu Ming, a research fellow of Shanghai Academy of Social Sciences, Dr. of aesthetics, president and editor in chief of Social Sciences Weekly, vice president of China Literature and Art Theory Research Committee. His masterpiece includes: the History of Chinese Aesthetics, the New Ideology Criticism etc. Xu is also the director of Shanghai Research Center, the guide of the key branch of learning for Cultural Development, the vice president of China Sino-Foreign Literature and Art Theory Research Committee, Professor of the Graduate School of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, the specially-appointed professor of Liaoning University, the committee member of the Mid-aged and Young Experts Group of China Human Rights Foundation etc.