Chinese Marxism Research Articles

The struggle for memory: Jian Bozan on historical materialism

AbstractThis paper offers a first analysis of the philosophy of history developed by Jian Bozan (1898–1968), the author of China's earliest comprehensive exposition of historical materialism. Despite his central importance for the establishment of professional historical studies in PRC, the existing studies neglect Jian's original contribution to the development of Chinese Marxism and his pre-war works in general, focusing solely on his participation in the debate over the relation between history and theory in the 1960s. The paper seeks to fill this lacuna by providing a critical account of Jian Bozan's understanding of historical laws, progress, the stages of history, human freedom and the class struggle. Jian's synthesis of historicism and historical materialism, which at a time was seen as an alternative to the Maoist view of history, was officially condemned during the Cultural Revolution and led to his premature death. However, this paper demonstrates that, following the public rehabilitation of the thought of Jian Bozan in 1978, it was his system that had an important impact on the historiography in Dengist China. Furthermore, the paper argues that Jian's approach to historical materialism brought many novelties in relation to the preceding Sino-Marxist views of history.

Making Ecology Developmental: China’s Environmental Sciences and Green Modernization in Global Context

Although the science of ecology is often understood in antimodernizing terms, this article shows how ecology in China has become a means to articulate green modernization and sustainable development. As scholars predominantly focus on the policy rhetoric surrounding China’s national modernization and sustainable development program called “ecological civilization building,” the origins of how ecology came to take on developmental meanings remain obscure. This article highlights moments of global exchange and knowledge production by Chinese Marxists, earth systems scientists, and economists that produced eco-developmental logics. These logics define an interventionist role for the state, frame urbanization as moral progress, and refashion the role of the peasantry from the revolutionary vanguard to a backward social force impeding modernization. Ecological sciences in China, therefore, lay an epistemological foundation for legitimizing state-led technocratic practices of socioenvironmental engineering and naturalizing social inequalities between “urban” and “rural” people. In highlighting Chinese scientists’ agency in producing knowledge, this article counters diffusionist accounts of science as singular systematically organized branches of knowledge that emanate from the West. Instead, I demonstrate how ecology is contingent on the historical and political conditions through which it takes on meaning. In the context of China, ecology has become integral to environmental governance, state formation, and uneven relations of power.

Contemporary Chinese Marxism Solves the Difficult Problems of Ideological and Political Education in Universities

Contemporary Chinese Marxism Solves the Difficult Problems of Ideological and Political Education in Universities

Marx, Chinese Marxism and poverty

ABSTRACT The People’s Republic of China links Marxism to overcoming poverty. Different kinds of poverty include economic and non-economic or developmental forms. China seems to be or at least mainly concerned with economic poverty that, until the onset of the coronavirus pandemic, was widespread but rapidly receding. Marx is especially concerned with non-economic developmental poverty, the inability to go beyond meeting basic reproductive needs to develop as an individual human being. I argue that the Chinese effort to meet basic reproductive needs is directed towards overcoming poverty arising within capitalism, hence it fails to bring about the transition from capitalism to communism that Marx thinks is necessary for realizing human individuality. Contemporary China clearly deserves praise for its role in overcoming economic poverty. Yet poverty due to the inability to develop as a full developed human being in a contemporary social context is not now and was not then decreasing, but at the time of this writing is even increasing. If that is correct, then it is unclear that Chinese Marxism is now or even earlier prior to the pandemic was on the road to successfully alleviating poverty, so it is unclear that Marxism was or is an appropriate model for Chinese development.

The Moscow-Yan’an-Beijing Mode of Chinese Literary Theory

This paper examines the genealogy of Chinese literary theory under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), in terms of Moscow-Yan’an-Beijing Modes from the inception of the CCP to the present. The focus of this paper is the state-sanctioned textbooks of literary theory and criticism from the beginning of the PRC to the present. The story of these textbooks tells us as much about the complex entanglement of Chinese Marxism or Maoism with Soviet Marxism, i.e. Leninism and Stalinism in the Mao era as about the powerful, on-going impact of that ideological lineage today.

Notes from the Editors, October 2020

buy this issue
 This special issue of Monthly Review, "China 2020," is the product of a long period of cooperation with critical Chinese Marxist scholars. This has resulted in an extensive series of articles on contemporary Chinese social and economic relations since 2012, to which most of the authors in the present issue have previously contributed. It takes on a special significance due to the growing conflict between the United States and China, making critical Marxist analysis in this area all the more important.

The Pluralist Interpretation of Chinese Marxist Aesthetics in Contemporary European Scholarship

In Europe there have appeared several important collections on Marxist literary theory, such as Francis Mulhern’s Contemporary Marxist Literary Criticism (1992) and Terry Eagleton and Drew Milne’s Marxist Literary Theory: A Reader (1996). However, Chinese voices are not included at all in these volumes. Maybe this lacuna results from a lack of awareness of Chinese Marxist aesthetics on the part of most European literary historians and critics. In this article, we seek to discuss the circumstances of European scholars’ contacts with Chinese Marxist aesthetics, mainly in the 1960s and 1970s. Starting from the variation theory perspective proposed by Shunqing Cao we will discuss how European scholars read and misread what they perceived as the meaning and universal applicability of what was happening in China at the time. The discussion is divided into three parts: the utopian interpretation of the Chinese theory of revolution in France, the critical reception by Eastern European Marxists, and the sympathetic interpretation by sinologists such as the Dutch diplomat and literary scholar Douwe Fokkema.

From “Construction of Own-Based Culture” to “Sinification”: Historical Meaning of the Discussion of the 1930s

The article focuses on the Chinese discussion of 1935 on “Cultural Construction on a Chinese Basis” ( Zhongguo benwei wenhua jianshe ) and its influence on the subsequent “Sinification” ( Zhongguohua ) movement. The author analyzed the content of the “Manifesto of Cultural Construction on a Chinese Basis” (January 1935), which advocated a selective approach to both Chinese and Western cultures in order to enable China’s politics, society and thought to regain their national characteristics. It is underlined that compromise proposal to “not cling to the old” in Chinese culture and not to “follow blindly” Western culture has drawn critical response from Chinese adherents of Westernization. Hu Shi interpreted the idea of “Chinese own-based culture” as embodiment of the old thesis of combining “Chinese basis” ( Zhong ti ) with “Western application” ( Xi yong ). He maintained that the force of inertia of traditional culture is very strong, and, therefore, anxiety about the disappearance of national characteristics from the life of Chinese society is unfounded. Relying on materials of Chinese primary sources, the article shows that during the discussion the center of attention shifted from the sphere of culture to the outstanding issues of socio-economic development and international relations. Tao Xisheng, a proponent of “construction of own-based culture,” urged the “semicolonial Chinese” to oppose capitalist aggression, to create national thought and to take China as a starting point in assessing all events and trends. He prioritized tasks of gaining national independence and sovereignty, countering the expansion of capitalist powers, carrying out organized and planned advance of China. The emphasis on the factors of time and place demonstrated that the discourse on “own-based culture” was not divorced from practice. Participants of the discussion summarized China’s needs as improving people’s livelihood, developing the economy and ensuring the survival of the nation. The transition from the discussion of cultural construction to deliberating on the problems of the state took place against the background of the growing need for national consolidation in eve of the full-scale conflict with Japan. The pre-war discussion of “own-based culture” strengthened the positions of Chinese nationalism and cultural conservatism. In the late 1930s, Chinese Marxists launched their “Sinification” movement, which helped to bridge the gap between foreign theory and Chinese practice, thus paving the way to a positive understanding of Chinese characteristics. The article concludes that in modern China the contemporary relevance of the ideas of “construction of own-based culture” is determined by the growing attention to the preservation of identity and independence of Chinese culture in the era of rapid economic development and advancement towards the goal of national revival.

Governance Concepts in Chinese Marxist Sociology of the Early 20th Century: Tradition and Revolution

Представлен анализ концепций власти и управления, получивших описание в марксистской социологии Китая 1910–1930 гг. в работах ярких представителей этого направления: Ли Да, Ли Дачжао и Цюй Цюбо. Основные направления, в рамках которых китайские марксисты описывали социальное управление и подходы к нему, – это обоснование марксистских социологических теорий в контексте традиционных властно-управленческих ценностей Китая, критика управленческих концепций других социологических направлений, распространенных в то время, и анализ влияния методов управления иностранных держав на социальные проблемы страны. В данных направлениях отразились разновекторные социальные тенденции времени: движение за сохранение традиций и революционные изменения китайского социума. Китайская марксистская социология в обосновании идей социального управления пытается найти консенсус между традицией и революцией, что стало базовой рамкой построения дискурса обсуждения управленческих концепций.

Some Issues On Internationalization Of Chinese Marxism

Some Issues On Internationalization Of Chinese Marxism

Forging Marxist psychology in China's Cold War geopolitics, 1949-1965.

This article investigates the history of psychology in China from 1949 to 1965, with a focus on the geopolitics involving Western, Soviet, and Chinese schools of psychology. In the early 1950s, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) pressured psychologists to replace existing Western approaches with Pavlov's Soviet-sanctioned psychological theory. The shaky marriage of Pavlovian theory with Marxism, coupled with domestic and international political shifts, paved the way for two leftist criticisms of psychology, one in 1958 and the another before the Cultural Revolution in 1966. Both criticisms demanded that psychologists conceptualize mental phenomena as sociopolitically contingent and replace experimentation with class analysis. The clash between two views of human nature-the natural-biological view, which emphasized intrapersonal mental processes, and the revolutionary view, which highlighted individual connections to the sociopolitical milieu-stemmed from the Cold War ideological division, shifting Sino-Soviet relations, the CCP's conflicting commitments, and the power dynamic between the CCP and psychologists. Both critical movements were self-undermined by their violent enactment and failed to generate a fully developed Marxist psychology. In tracing these historical events, this article explores two questions. First, inspired by postcolonial historiography of psychology, it excavates Chinese Marxist critiques to rethink Western natural-scientific psychology regarding its disciplinary identity, subject matter, research methods, and social commitments. Second, by situating various schools of psychology in China's revolution, it argues that whereas natural scientific approaches of the West served scientific modernization, Chinese revolutionaries' sociopolitical approach to psychological research was tethered to class struggle. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Human Rights, Religion and the Rule of Law: A Response

ABSTRACTThe articles gathered here provide a range of approaches, but there are some topics that should be added to the discussion to provide a fuller picture. These topics include: a Chinese Marxist approach to human rights; socialist rule of law, which frames the revised (2018) regulation on religion; the largest Protestant church organization in the world, the Three-Self Patriotic Movement; and the 2018 Chinese-Vatican agreement. The following is predicated on the need for engagement with the full picture, upon which assessment should be based.

100 Years of Dewey in China, 1919–1921 – A Reassessment

This paper uses the centenary of Dewey’ two years in China as an opportunity to reassess John Dewey’s views on China, based mainly on his Letters and his Lectures in Social and Political Philosophy, 1919–21 given on invitation at the University of Peking. In particular, the paper makes some criticisms of Dewey’s pragmatism (his lack of contextualism in not mentioning the significance of the May 4th Movement) and raises the question of the relationship of his thought with Chinese Marxism. The essay is given a critical reading by three scholars Jessica Ching-Sze Wang, Kang Zhao and, Zhang Huajun, all Dewey scholars.

Hegel and Chinese Marxism

China is presently embarking on the huge task of realizing what President Xi Jinping recently called the Chinese Dream. China is officially Marxist, and Marx thus inspires this dream in his assigned status as the “official guide” to the ongoing Chinese Revolution. This paper will focus on the crucial relation between Hegel and Chinese Marxism. Marx is a key Hegelian, critical of, but strongly dependent on, Hegel. Since the Chinese Dream is not Hegelian, but rather anti-Hegelian, it is unlikely, as I will be arguing, to be realized in a recognizably Marxian form.

Harmony as an Ethical and Political Idea

Although the idea of harmony is one of the basic Confucian ideas, two of its key classic authors, Mengzi and Xunzi, emphasised either the ethical-personal or socio-political aspects, respectively, and this contrast was only maintained and deepened in later Chinese history. The socio-political considerations of harmony often considers an ideal state of community to be static, with social and ethical states being preserved, rather than dynamic. On the other hand, personal and spiritual harmony was valued by artists and autonomous thinkers, which often found themselves in conflict with the state. However, an open conflict between these two lines of thought very seldom if at all appeared in traditional China, and thus the differences often remained implicit. A self-cultivated individual without external social support was condemned to social isolation and personal defeat. Even among contemporary Chinese Marxist politicians and theorists, the idea of a “harmonious society” follows Xunzi’s rather legalist emphasis, even if (in Marx view) the term “social harmony” stands for some surface phenomena of seemingly harmonious societal interrelationship, covering up the brutal reality of social and economic contradictions. I argue that not only in China, but also elsewhere, a better balance is needed between the personal and the social ideas of harmony. However, manifesting harmony can become something worthwhile only if it becomes a part of a broader project, namely that of active solidarity based on the reciprocal and universal cultivation of personal dignity and virtuous humaneness.

From Religion to Revolution…and Nationalism

The work of the Marxist historian Jamāl al-Dīn Bai Shouyi (1909–2000), a member of the Chinese Muslim Hui ethnic group, offers a window into the close and complex relation between the contested categories of politics, religion, and ethnicity in modern Chinese intellectual history, particularly with respect to the historical development of Chinese Muslim identity in its encounter with Marxist historical materialism. In this article, I provide a limited case study of this broader problematic by analysing Bai’s writings on Hui identity. In doing so, I attempt to contextualise his arguments with reference to the changing status of religion in contemporary Chinese Marxist discourse, and reflect on the entanglement of nationalism, religion, and ethnopolitics in modern China.

Marksizm i konfucjanizm w ideologii Komunistycznej Partii Chin

The main thesis of the article is marxism and confucianism in ideology of Communist Party of China. The problem has been explained in the historical, gnoseological and epistemological aspects. The subthesis are: 1. The introduction analyse od Chinese culture and civilisation. 2. Outlet of development of confucianism, the other mainstream philosophies: taoism, mothismlegism, the idealistic and materialistic aspects. The development of the confucianism since the antiquity to collaps of Chinese empire (1911). 3. The confrontation between confucianism versus marxism and the contribution to the Chinese marxism by Mao Zedong. The establishing of the Communist Party of China (2021). 4. The establishing of the People’s Republic of China (1949). The sites of the Chinese revolution: the anticapitalistic, anticolonial, democratic and socialist revolution. The collaps of the confucianism in the time of Mao Zedong, the development of the marxist studies and the marxism-leninism and after maoism in the ideology of the Communist Party of China. The Mao’s leadership battle against confucianist factions in the party in the time of „proletarian revolution”. 5. The establishing of the Socialist Market Economy in the era of Deng Xiaopin and gradual rejuvenation of the neoconfucianism. The socio-economical results of the socialist markets economy. The rejuvenation of the new national bourgeoisie and the new class contradictions. 6. The socialist market economy and the rejuvenation of the neoconfucionism. The adaptation by the contemporary leadership of CPC an humanitarian categories and principles of confucionism in the strengthen of social harmony of the Chinese people and in the building of the socialism with the Chinese characteristics, for example: Datong, Chinese way, Chinese dream and others.

Economic Zeitgeist in Xi Jinping

Purpose Xi Jinping’s speech on the theme of “Continuously Exploring the New Zeitgeist of Marxist Political Economy in China,” dated back to November 2015, has illuminated the historical background, social roots, practical basis, basic characteristics, Zeitgeist, ideological realm and other issues relative to the development of “Systematic Economic Theory” with Chinese characteristics (hereinafter referred to as SETCC). The paper aims to discuss these issues. Design/methodology/approach Exploring the SETCC marks a fundamental postulation for the development of contemporary Chinese Marxist political economy, and an important indicator of the Chinese wisdom thereof. Findings Unswervingly adhering to the new development concept as the leading factor, General Secretary Xi Jinping’s elucidation of the theoretical propositions and practical topics of building a modern economic system has, starting from the five aspects of development mainline, strategic support, fundamental approach, necessary road and institutional guarantee, and their interrelationships, unfolded new connotations and opened up a new realm of Xi’s New Economic Zeitgeist with new explorations on the structure and system of SETCC. Originality/value This paper first explains the development of Xi Jinping’s economic thoughts and reveals its systematization characteristics.

Chinese Rationality in the Modern World

The article focuses on the key issues of contemporary Chinese academic publications on the specifcs of Chinese rationality. Among its most common characteristics, there are focus on practice, attention to everyday life of society and individuals, pursuit of centrality and harmony in the moral sphere. Cross-cultural comparisons serve to justify the role of traditional rationality as a balancer keeping Chinese thought away from subjectivism, irrationalism, abstract reasoning and formalism. The researchers seek to identify the impacts of “applied rationality” upon the formation of positive features of Chinese national character. The widespread interpretation of Chinese practical rationality underlines the priority of practice of political governance over the theoretical reasoning about politics; in the moral sphere it leads to rejection of extremes in human behavior and sets the normative status of the middle path and harmony. The inclination of humans to keep their emotions under control and to take a proactive approach to the world was accompanied by recognition of the higher value of empirical experience and intuition compared to formal and abstract ideas. The focus on the secular life of people deprived the Chinese rationality of the “otherworldly” religious dimension. The participants of the discussion note that the Chinese culture has gained stability and “elasticity,” but it lacks Western formal rationality, which is a prerequisite for scientifc knowledge. Chinese researchers pay much attention to the impact of traditional rationality on the formation of Chinese philosophy in the 20th century and to the choice of socio-political path of national development. The emphasis on the differences between the cultures ofChinaand the West is combined with searches for similarities between Chinese rationality and Marxism. That steers the discussion beyond the sphere of comparative studies and makes its content relevant to the understanding of broader set of contemporary problems.

Disinterring the Transition Debate in Maoist China

This article tries to extricate the rationale behind China’s transition debate in the Maoist era (1949–1978). Using a re-casted theory of historical materialism (HM) to posit the shared ground of engagement of Chinese Marxists, I unpack the emergence of two competing development strategies for socialist transition, one which foregrounds forces of production (FOP) as the prime mover of this transition and the other class struggle to change relations of production (ROP) as the determining factor. I conclude by briefly discussing the shift from Mao Tse-tung to Deng Xiaoping’s era as a resolution of the development strategy in favour of the development of FOP as the key to China’s socialist transition.