Marxism is China’s Basic Guiding Ideology

This point should be ovbious by now: Marxism has been and remains the basic approach in China for 7 decades. But it is worth reminding ourselves, in this piece by Song Wei on the China Daily:

This year marks the 70th anniversary of the founding of New China. In the seven decades since then, China has made remarkable achievements and moved closer to realizing the Chinese Dream of national rejuvenation. To stay true to its mission of realizing the Chinese Dream, the Communist Party of China needs to apply Marxism according to China’s actual conditions.

Since the 18th CPC National Congress, the CPC Central Committee with General Secretary Xi Jinping as the core has been promoting the cause of the Party and nation by applying Marxism to China’s real conditions. In this regard, Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era is a great contribution to Marxism.

Marxism is a practical, scientific, ever-developing and open theory, which not only highlights the social laws of development but also prompts people to make efforts to build a better world. Since its establishment, the CPC has led the Chinese people to many victories, by applying Marxism to solve real problems and promote the localization of Marxism.

Led by the Party, the Chinese people emerged out of thousands of years of feudalism to build people’s democracy through the New Democratic Revolution; China changed its destiny by moving toward prosperity during the socialist revolution and construction period; and the nation stood up by becoming prosperous and strong during the reform and opening-up as well as socialist modernization period.

The reason the CPC could achieve these unprecedented and arduous tasks is that it followed the scientific theory of Marxism, and continuously enriched and developed Marxism both in theory and practice.

Since the 18th Party Congress, the Party has solved many long-term, outstanding problems under the strong leadership of the Party Central Committee, and China has made many achievements in the economic, political, cultural, social and ecological fields under the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, which is the latest addition to Marxist philosophy in China.

Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era makes clear what kind of socialism we should adhere to and develop in the new era, and how we can adhere to and develop socialism with Chinese characteristics.

It also advances a series of major creative and people-oriented arguments, which manifest the power of Marxism and the value of scientific socialism.

Xi’s thought writes a new chapter in Marxism, and serves as a guide to better apply the basic principles of Marxism to China’s actual conditions. In other words, it is a milestone in the process of Marxism’s localization in China.

President Xi Jinping has stressed that Marxism is the basic guiding ideology of our nation and Party. So we should always and under any circumstances adhere to Marxism.

The fundamental reason Marxism has been our guiding philosophy for the past seven decades is that the Party has organically combined the adherence to Marxism with the development of Marxism, and continuously promoted the localization of Marxism in China.

So in the new era, we should review Marxism’s development in China on a broader scale, continuously develop Marxism and further promote the localization of Marxism in China.

Advertisements

Colonial Policy by Other Means: Losurdo on Hong Kong’s Supposed ‘Self-Determination’

A small number of former colonial powers are fond of trotting out the mantra of ‘self-determination’ for parts of the world they would like to control. Hong Kong and Taiwan are good examples (even though the USA has the world’s strongest measures against self-determination of its own states). In the last few days, deliberate misinformation concerning Hong Kong has been peddled in a small number of places. If you want to get a fuller picture, see the reports here, here, here, here and here.

So it is worth recalling Losurdo’s observations on such a matter. The first comes from his essay, ‘Lenin and Herrenvolk Democracy’ (2007):

Colonial domination has left its mark: on the economic level, the inequality of development among different regions has been accentuated; while the hegemonic presence at every level of the great powers and the policy of ethnic engineering, often promoted by them, has accentuated cultural, linguistic, and religious fragmentation. Secessionist tendencies of every kind are once again lying in wait, regularly fed by the ex-colonial powers. When it wrested Hong Kong from China, Great Britain certainly did not conceive of self-determination, and it did not remember it even during the long years in which it exercised its dominion. But, suddenly, on the eve of Hong Kong’s return to China, to the motherland, the governor sent by London, Chris Patten, a conservative, had a species of illumination and improvised conversion: he appealed to the inhabitants of Hong Kong to claim their right to ‘self-determination’ against the motherland, thus remaining within the orbit of the British Empire.

Analogous considerations are true for Taiwan. When, at the beginning of 1947, the Kuomintang, which had fled from continental China and the victorious People’s Army, let loose a terrible repression that provoked about ten thousand deaths, the United States was careful not to invoke the right to self-determination for the inhabitants of the island; on the contrary, it sought to impose the thesis according to which Chiang Kai-shek’s government was the legitimate government not only of Taiwan but also of the whole of China. The great Asian country had to remain united but under the control of Chiang Kai-shek, reduced to a simple pro-consul of Washington’s sovereign imperialism. As the dream of reconquering the mainland slowly faded away, and the stronger became the aspiration of the whole Chinese people to achieve full territorial integration and independence, ending the tragic chapter of colonial history, so the presidents of the United States experienced an illumination and a conversion similar to that of Chris Patten. They too began to caress the idea of ‘self-determination’. Incoherence? Not at all: ‘self-determination’ is the continuation of imperial policy by other means. If it was not really possible to get their hands on China as a whole, it was, meanwhile, convenient to secure control of Hong Kong or Taiwan (249-50).

 

And as he writes in one his last books, Class Struggle (2016):

 

Perhaps it would be better to learn the lesson of old Hegel, who, with the Sanfedista and anti-Semitic agitation of his time in mind, observed that sometimes ‘courage consists not in attacking rulers, but in defending them’. The populist rebel who would be bound to consider Hegel insufficiently revolutionary could always heed Gramsci’s warning against the phraseology of ‘primitive, elementary “rebellionism,” “subversionism” and “anti-statism,” which are ultimately an expression of de facto “a-politicism”’ (337).