Maoist Criticism

September 7 2025 updated

Nanjie Village and Xiaogang Village: 

China's Rural Prosperity Path and Decline Path

Author: Zhong Zhishuo

Today I happened to read an article titled "Path to Death or Path to Light—Looking at the Path Dispute Between Xiaogang Village and Nanjie Village." The author begins by discussing: "All along, Nanjie Village, known as a 'communist village,' along with other villages following collective economy, have been subjects of controversy. Liberal factions represented by Southern Media [note: influential Chinese media group] view them as thorns in their side, constantly anticipating the bankruptcy of these collective economy villages and even fabricating many bankruptcy rumors. Meanwhile, many in leftist circles strongly support these collective economy villages, considering them exemplars of socialist economy whose achievements demonstrate the superiority of socialist systems and believing rural areas should vigorously develop this model."

The two paths of Nanjie Village and Xiaogang Village actually represent two development paths for Chinese rural areas: the collective economy development path and the individual management path.

I. From Mutual Aid Cooperation to People's Communes: China's Rural Path to Prosperity

After the founding of New China, public ownership of production means was not implemented from the beginning. After achieving victory in the New Democratic Revolution, the Communist Party of China responded to farmers' interest demands of "those who till should own the land," conducting land reform and establishing individual ownership of farmers' land and production means.

In our country, farmers' individual ownership originated from the farming-warfare system formed during the Qin State's Duke Xiao and Shang Yang's reforms in pre-Qin times. This system existed and developed for over two thousand years from the Qin State until the founding of the nation in 1949. From the Qin Dynasty through the Song and Yuan periods, this basic system was advanced globally. However, after Western Europe's capitalist production mode represented by workshop handicrafts emerged, social production gradually transformed toward modern production modes of division of labor and cooperation. Our country continued this self-sufficient, individual family management model through the Ming and Qing periods. Therefore, by New China's establishment in 1949, this family-unit individual production method was already at least two hundred years behind Western countries.

The Enclosure Movement in 16th-18th century England was a typical event of Western countries eliminating small-scale agriculture. Due to wool export growth and sheep farming development, landlords used violence or deception to forcibly occupy farmers' common and share lands, enclosing land with fences, hedges, and moats, transforming it into large pastures or farms owned by landlords and nobles, forcing farmers to become hired workers, flow to cities, or become beggars and vagrants. This was England's process of eliminating small-scale agriculture and England's agricultural capitalization process. "The bourgeoisie has subjected the country to the rule of the towns. It has created enormous cities, has greatly increased the urban population as compared with the rural, and has thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. Just as it has made the country dependent on the towns, so it has made barbarian and semi-barbarian countries dependent on the civilized ones, nations of peasants on nations of bourgeois, the East on the West" (Marx and Engels, "The Communist Manifesto," p. 28, 1949 edition). The 1840 Opium War, where tiny England defeated the Qing Empire with its hundreds of millions of people using just over ten thousand troops and warships within a few years, was not only due to capitalist production mode's rise, but more importantly because the Qing Dynasty, inheriting over two thousand years of feudal imperial system, had become thoroughly corrupt, morally bankrupt, and lost popular support, lacking the ability to organize masses against foreign enemies.

Against the backdrop of capitalism's two-to-three-hundred-year development, small farmers' individual management was already a backward, outdated production mode. This production mode would either be eliminated by capitalism (similar to England's Enclosure Movement) or gradually transition through cooperation to modern production modes based on public ownership of land and production means. Therefore, household individual management could only be a temporary transitional production mode.

Precisely under this international background, particularly after individual farming led to polarization trends, mutual aid groups emerged as farmers' cooperative methods in our rural areas, later developing into cooperatives. Cooperatives developed from elementary to advanced stages, completing the transformation from individual to collective ownership of farmers' land and production means. Finally, advanced cooperatives were further standardized into the People's Commune system. After three years of trials revealed problems, the central government adjusted the People's Commune system to "three-level ownership with production teams as the foundation." From 1962 onward, People's Communes actually entered normal development tracks. In fact, excluding the exploration period from 1958-1961, People's Communes' normal development lasted only about twenty years from 1962-1983. However, during these twenty-plus years, People's Communes created favorable environments suitable for laborers' survival and development.

Farmers had their own collective organization. Many things previously impossible were accomplished during the People's Commune period, enabling Chinese agriculture to fundamentally transform from primitive to scientific cultivation within just over twenty years. Production teams established basic systems fully embodying labor ownership rights. Every commune member could both decide production teams' major affairs and determine team leaders' appointments and dismissals through member assemblies, and participate in production teams' output distribution based on labor input. This system embodying laborers' democratic control and distribution according to labor was unique to People's Communes. Commune members participating in collective production could truly achieve "more work, more gain," satisfying themselves and their families' needs through honest labor, meeting their public needs. During the People's Commune period, families with couples raising three, four, or five children were very common. This was because the labor rights system made members' income directly connected both to their labor input and collective production results, creating an ecological environment where more labor could yield more returns. Additionally, members had collective care for struggling families and guarantees for childless elderly. Some families temporarily fell into difficulty due to many children and few laborers; production teams would provide care based on actual situations to help them through difficulties. For childless elderly, five-guarantee systems ensured their later years. People's Commune members' advantages also manifested in good educational environments.

From having no schools to production brigades having elementary schools and communes having middle and high schools; from having no books to read to 2-3 yuan per semester fees—for members, this was blessing. People's Communes popularized healthcare systems. When members fell ill, brigades had clinics, communes had hospitals; only serious illnesses required county trips—convenient and inexpensive. People's Commune members' prosperity also showed in low marriage costs. Young men and women advocated prospering through hard work; ordinary people faced little pressure in starting families and careers. More importantly, People's Communes' advantages included cadre teams truly serving people and connecting with masses. Cadres working deeply in communes and brigades, eating and laboring with farmers, became prevalent good practices then.

Though People's Communes ended in 1983, they fundamentally reformed our agricultural production's basic conditions, achieving agricultural electrification and irrigation, scientific farming and management, and beginning agricultural mechanization and rural industrialization trends. However, since our agricultural modernization process had just completed its startup period without entering the harvest period of significantly increased farmer income from improved labor productivity after agricultural mechanization and rural industrialization, plus the benefits of rural urbanization in place, this caused much dissatisfaction with People's Communes. Fortunately, units like Zhoujia Village, Huaxi Village, and Nanjie Village persisting with collective economy continued developing, actually completing the three development stages People's Communes hadn't finished: agricultural mechanization development, rural industrialization development, and rural urbanization in place. With collective economy's further development, the portion meeting public needs in distribution according to labor has achieved distribution according to need for collective members' major family expenses like food, housing, education, marriage, healthcare, and elderly care in places like Zhoujia Village and Nanjie Village, realizing fundamental transformation from primarily distribution according to labor to primarily distribution according to need.

Connecting the development of collective economy units like Zhoujia Village, Huaxi Village, and Nanjie Village with People's Communes' complete development process, we see our agriculture and rural areas developing from primitive production and living conditions toward modern agriculture and rural development. This is a development picture from common hard struggle to common prosperity, from socialist production modes toward communist production and living modes.

II. From Production Teams to Individual Farming: China's Rural Path to Decline

Browsing headlines, I saw netizens upload two photos of farmers' field work after the dissolution of large collectives in the 1980s: one shows a couple pulling and pushing while plowing; another shows a family of three with the woman supporting the plow from behind while father and son pull in front. Such scenes are heartbreaking. Actually, these situations aren't rare. Even today, forty years later, visiting rural areas, you'll still see such primitive cultivation scenes. When land was first divided, farmers faced enormous pressure. With individual cultivation, you needed production tools, but with collectives dissolved, everything had to be figured out yourself. For example, without tractors for plowing, and individual households unable to afford draft animals, only manual labor remained for land preparation. You also had to establish your own threshing machinery—700-800 yuan expense—plus equip yourself with sprayers, etc. Logically, our industrial development had long provided conditions for comprehensive agricultural mechanization. But individual household farming made mechanization very impractical: each family's contracted land was just a few mu divided into several plots. Establishing agricultural machinery yourself lacked both capability and cost-effectiveness. Hiring specialized machinery services, your small plots couldn't generate sufficient work volume—machines just turned circles in fields. After coming once or twice, they stopped coming. What could you do? Either farm manually or abandon the fields.

For farmers, initially dividing into individual households seemed liberating—they were free. Without collective constraints, they could decide how to work themselves. For instance, while collectives required intensive cultivation, now they could be casual, choosing the easiest methods. But this brought various problems: among individual farming households, those capable of specialized sideline businesses and developing into individual bosses were very few, while the vast majority could only grow grain. As market-oriented reforms deepened, departments that previously provided public services in communes became profit-seeking units, fundamentally changing farmers' living environments and conditions. On one hand, while grain prices rose somewhat, the increase was limited, while costs for fertilizer, pesticides, seeds, mechanized farming, etc., rose dramatically, determining that farmers' income from farming increased limitedly or even declined. On the other hand, commercialized education and healthcare, plus the shift from "Labor is Most Glorious" to "Everything Looks Toward Money," significantly increased living costs. "Can't afford medical care, can't afford education, can't afford housing, can't afford wives, can't afford children" became reality.

The farming industry that once could support large families and rural areas that could support three to five children now couldn't even support the farmers themselves through farming. Thus, working outside became young people's inevitable choice, gradually turning rural areas into empty shells. When large numbers of young people chose to leave rural areas, agriculture was actually abandoned. Online doggerel describes today's rural areas: "Returning to villages during New Year, tears fill the handkerchief upon return; abandoned fields hide wild rabbits, no farmers seen. Hard to find childhood companions, mostly see elderly and grandchildren. Young adults play mahjong, grandparents tend young ones. Many children left behind, parents nowhere seen. Occasionally see two students, constantly playing phones. Blue sky remains, but clear water nowhere found. Though local accent unchanged, faces now strange. Red brick, green tile buildings—luxurious houses empty of people."

Recently, I met a village official and learned about current farmers' situations: ordinary contracted households no longer farm themselves, transferring responsibility fields to large farming households for 1,200 yuan rent. In this rent, large farmers pay 400 yuan themselves, the state subsidizes 400 yuan, and village committees supplement 400 yuan. This means in today's rural areas, even farmers must be supported by others.

I saw an article "China Youth Daily | Rural Elderly Suicide... Shocking!" (Liu Yanwu, Kunlun Policy Network, April 20, 2024, Anhui) specifically introducing rural elderly suicide situations. Liu Yanwu, a lecturer in Wuhan University's Sociology Department and principal investigator of the National Social Science Fund project "Sociological Research on Rural Elderly Suicide," visited over 40 villages in 11 provinces including Hubei, Shandong, Jiangsu, Shanxi, Henan, and Guizhou. The article mentions Liu Yanwu's findings: Using 400-plus days of village survey data, he drew a curve of "rural elderly suicide rates": starting from 1990, Chinese rural elderly suicide rates rose dramatically and remained high. This contrasts sharply with a recent University of Hong Kong research report stating China's suicide rate plummeted by half over the past decade-plus, "falling to among the world's lowest," with fewer than 10 suicides per 100,000 people. "China's overall suicide rate is declining," Liu Yanwu told China Youth Daily reporters, then continued in heavy tones, "But rural elderly find it increasingly difficult to escape this path (suicide), perhaps their unique way of diluting and digesting modern aging society's pain." Compared to biological sons, "medicine son" (drinking pesticide), "rope son" (hanging), "water son" (drowning) are more reliable. Lin Muwen's death caused few ripples in the village where the elderly had lived his whole life. Even the elderly's son, a former village party secretary, didn't blame his wife as Liu Yanwu expected, but was "very calm": "People must live with the living; you can't live with the dead, right?" Liu Yanwu said suicide was viewed as normal, even reasonable locally. Villagers felt no need to discuss and offend his son—"the dead are dead." Not only ordinary villagers, but rural doctors often shared villagers' attitudes toward suicide, "viewing it as normalized death." Especially when elderly got sick and "couldn't endure," choosing suicide, rural doctors "don't even consider this suicide."

The article mentions: "After 2000, rural elderly suicide rates rose particularly fast and reached extremely high levels.' Liu Yanwu said with considerable worry, describing this situation as 'extremely severe' wouldn't be excessive." Liu Yanwu believes behind the pathological suicide wave is collective anxiety brought to middle-aged people by extreme economic differentiation—how to travel light in market society, participate in fierce social competition and win. Undoubtedly, elderly, being more vulnerable than them, became burdens they wanted to shed. "My own burden is so heavy, how can I care for the old?" some interviewed farmers told Liu Yanwu frankly. As China's aging deepens, today's Jingshan [note: county mentioned in study] might be many places' tomorrow. Each year, Liu Yanwu spends three months doing fieldwork in farmers' homes.

According to Liu Yanwu's statistics, the main cause of rural elderly suicide is survival difficulties, followed by escaping disease pain—together accounting for 60% of direct causes, followed by emotional problems. "In other words, reducing elderly non-natural deaths requires solving three problems: not starving to death, not dying from disease, not dying from loneliness." Liu Yanwu suggests establishing "new collectivism" through semi-market, semi-state home care to alleviate current rural elderly care and medical contradictions. Frequent rural elderly suicide reflects many problems in today's rural areas and provides bad omens for the future. Facing elderly's living conditions makes young people doubt the meaning of having children or even marrying.

Practice is the standard for testing truth. As a reform pioneer, Xiaogang Village, through their actions, revealed the correctness and merits of individual versus collective management. Xiaogang, the "first reform village," hasn't lived better than other places due to land division and individual farming. In modern social competition, individual farming is the least competitive method. Xiaogang Village's changes temporarily solved food problems but didn't solve prosperity problems for twenty to thirty years. Hence came provincial government-dispatched first secretaries, repeated collectivization efforts, and movements learning from Nanjie Village and Dazhai Village...

Editor: Feizhou

That Path, If Taken to Today

 — A Speculation about "New China 2025"

Original Author: Zi Hengmo
Zi Mo Listening to Rain
August 4, 2025, 21:13

History is not a one-way street. At every crossroads that determines destiny, there exist countless possibilities leading to the future. Today, let us temporarily withdraw from the complex reality, close our eyes, and conduct the boldest and most exciting thought experiment. Let us spread the wings of imagination to explore one possibility: If, from that magnificent era until today, we had never deviated from the glorious path that Chairman Mao pointed out for us—independence, self-reliance, people being masters of their own fate, and continuously marching toward communism—then what kind of world would today's "New China" and hundreds of millions of Chinese people be living in?

This is no fantasy. Because every direction forward on this path has long been illuminated by scientific theory; every blueprint for construction on this path once had solid foundations laid by that generation. All we need to do is follow its internal logic and extrapolate it to the present.

So, what would such a China look like?

01 Farmers of the New Era — "Red Aristocrats" on the Vast Fields

First, let us turn our gaze to the land that occupies China's vastest area—the countryside. Here, we see no "hollowed-out" villages, no "migrant workers" forced to leave home for livelihood, and certainly no landless farmers in tears after capital enclosure.

After decades of development, people's communes have evolved from their rudimentary "large and public" prototype into highly modernized, intelligent "agricultural cities" that integrate agriculture, industry, commerce, education, and military.

"Farmer," a term once bearing identity stigma, has long been eliminated by history. Living here are "commune members"—they are agricultural workers, technical experts, and truly the masters of this land.

The heavy physical labor that once made hundreds of millions of ancestors "face the yellow earth with backs to the sky" has completely disappeared. Operating across the vast fields are massive, intelligent, unmanned agricultural machinery clusters guided by the Beidou navigation system. From sowing and fertilizing to harvesting and storage, complete automation and mechanization have been achieved.

What is the work of commune members like? Perhaps it's in the commune's central dispatch center, enjoying air conditioning and sipping tea while monitoring and coordinating the entire farm's operations through giant electronic screens. Perhaps it's in the commune's agricultural science academy, conducting cutting-edge research in biotechnology and seed improvement.

Their working hours strictly follow the eight-hour workday. After work, they take free public transportation back to well-equipped, uniformly planned modern residential areas. Their children study in the commune's free, high-quality schools; their elders enjoy their twilight years in the commune's free, well-equipped hospitals.

Cinemas, libraries, gymnasiums, cultural palaces... these cultural facilities once considered "urban monopolies" have long been popularized in every "agricultural city."

Just as Marx and Engels predicted in "The Communist Manifesto," the distinction between city and countryside is being historically and irreversibly eliminated on this path.

The commune members here enjoy more comprehensive and dignified security than any "farm owner" in any capitalist country. They are the true "red aristocrats" living on the vast fields.

02 Workers of the New Era — Factory Masters under the "Anshan Constitution"

Now, let us enter a factory. This factory is bright and clean with humming machinery, but you hear no boss's scolding, see no supervisor's cold stare, and smell no stale air of "996 blessing" [note: referring to working 9am-9pm, 6 days a week].

Because every factory here belongs to one sole master—all working people.

The highest management principle practiced here is the great creation praised by Chairman Mao as the "Anshan Constitution." "Two participations, one reform, three combinations" (cadres participate in labor, workers participate in management; reform unreasonable rules and regulations; combination of engineering technicians, managers, and workers in production practice and technological innovation) has long transformed from a charter into the daily, vibrant practice of every worker.

Today's production plans are jointly decided by management committees democratically elected by workers and higher-level planning departments. Today's technological innovations are conquered through "brainstorming" sessions by "three-combination" groups composed of frontline master craftsmen, young technicians, and workshop cadres. Today's factory cadres must regularly remove their cadre uniforms, put on work clothes, and eat, live, and work alongside workers to prevent any bureaucratic tendencies.

"Workers" here are not managed subjects, much less "human costs" that can be arbitrarily "optimized." They are the rightful masters of the factory.

This position as masters is reflected in every aspect of their lives:

Cradle-to-grave free healthcare. From minor colds and fevers to major surgeries, everything is covered by the state. Workers' healthy bodies are considered society's most precious wealth.

Completely free education. From nurseries to universities, workers' children can enjoy the highest quality education without any burden.

Welfare housing allocation. Every worker family has the right to be allocated a spacious, bright home built uniformly by the state, based on family size and years of service.

"Unemployment," capitalism's most terrifying nightmare, has long become an ancient historical term that no one can understand here.

As Lenin envisioned: "All citizens become employees and workers of one nationwide state 'syndicate'... The whole of society will become one office and one factory with equal work and equal pay."

03 Youth of the New Era — Broad Horizons without "Involution"

In such a society, what would the spiritual outlook of young people be like?

One word: spirited.

On their faces, there is no fatigue and anxiety brought by "involution" [note: intense internal competition], no despair and resignation brought by high housing prices, and certainly no emptiness and decadence shaped by consumerism.

Their education, from the beginning, is not designed to make them slaughter each other in the cruel "talent market" to compete for a few positions as "superior people." The sole purpose of education is to serve the people—to cultivate "laborers with socialist consciousness and culture," to nurture "successors to the proletarian revolutionary cause."

Theory and practice are closely combined. Students must not only learn knowledge from books but also regularly go to factories, countryside, and military units to participate in passionate practice and learn from workers, peasants, and soldiers.

After graduation, they face no employment pressure. The state will arrange the most suitable positions for them based on social development needs and their personal strengths. Whether becoming a glorious worker, a new-type farmer, a brave soldier, or a fearless scientific researcher, in their view, these are merely different social divisions of labor with absolutely no distinction of superiority or inferiority.

Their youth is full of infinite possibilities. They can respond to the nation's call, form "youth shock brigades," go to the most challenging frontiers to build new cities and paint the newest canvases. They can devote themselves to various literary, artistic, sports, and technological creative activities in their spare time, because their time and energy are not consumed by endless overtime and commuting.

Their love also becomes purer, because it no longer needs to be bound by the chains of capitalist logic like houses, cars, and money.

They are truly vigorous, dignified, liberated youth.

04 Women of the New Era — Truly "Holding Up Half the Sky"

That bold declaration "women hold up half the sky" has long become the most common, no-longer-needing-emphasis social reality in this "New China 2025."

Women's liberation is considered one of the most fundamental measures of social progress.

The decadent culture of capitalizing on and objectifying women's bodies and appearance in capitalist society is regarded here as the ugliest garbage, long swept into history's dustbin.

The decadent feudal thinking that bound women to families and "three obediences and four virtues" has become a despised social pariah.

The state, through establishing numerous free, high-quality public nurseries, public canteens, and public laundries, has completely liberated women from heavy, unpaid domestic labor.

"Childcare," "cooking," and "housework" are no longer women's "natural duties" but public enterprises shared by the entire society.

As Engels pointed out in "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State," only when women can "participate in social production on a large scale," only when "domestic work no longer takes up any of their time," can women's liberation truly be achieved.

On this land, women's figures appear in every important position. They are commanding strategists, scientists conquering cutting-edge technologies, astronauts piloting interstellar spacecraft, agricultural experts in fields...

Their liberation is not an empty slogan but the most solid material reality guaranteed by powerful socialist public ownership.

05 Culture of the New Era — People's Battle Songs, Not Capital's Decadent Music

The culture here is people's culture, fighting culture.

Turn on the television, and you see no garbage promoting individualism, luxury and pleasure, talented scholars and beauties, or emperors and generals. You see none of those contentless "traffic stars" packaged by capital.

Literature and art belong to the people. Every film, every drama celebrates the great creations of working people, praises the heroic deeds of revolutionary martyrs, and criticizes bourgeois decadent thinking.

Literature and art serve proletarian politics. As Chairman Mao demanded in "Talks at the Yan'an Forum on Literature and Art": "Our literature and art are for the broad masses of the people, and in the first place for the workers, peasants and soldiers; they are created for the workers, peasants and soldiers and are for their use."

The culture here is also participatory culture. Every factory, every commune, every neighborhood has its own workers' club, youth palace, and cultural propaganda team. After work, workers don't indulge in virtual world anesthesia but enthusiastically rehearse self-created dramas, hold their own poetry recitals, and conduct their own sports competitions.

The entire society radiates a healthy, upward, revolutionary optimistic cultural atmosphere.

06 New Era China and the World — Beacon of the Third World

Internationally, what kind of existence is this "New China 2025"?

It is definitely not a "new superpower" seeking hegemony. It is the most solid, most reliable revolutionary rear base for oppressed nations and peoples worldwide, a never-extinguishing beacon in the eyes of Third World countries.

By consistently adhering to the principle of "self-reliance," its economy and technology are no longer subject to any imperialist country's "chokehold." It possesses the world's most complete and independent industrial and national economic systems.

It leads by example, proving to the world: without exploitation, without colonization, without dependence, a truly socialist country can absolutely develop, and develop even better.

It selflessly shares its advanced technology and mature experience with Asian, African, and Latin American brother countries fighting for national liberation and development. It uses its powerful national strength to check American imperialist hegemonic behavior and support all just struggles worldwide.

As Chairman Mao hoped, it truly achieves: "China should make a greater contribution to humanity."

Its friends are found throughout the world.

Epilogue

Well, comrades, now let us slowly open our eyes from this beautiful vision.

This "New China 2025," this country without "involution," without "996," without "mortgages" and "unemployment," this society where people are truly masters and both material and spiritual wealth are greatly abundant—is it merely an unrealistic "utopia"?

No.

We must clearly recognize that every scene in this picture has incomparably solid, scientific theory as support. It is not fantasy but the glorious shore that can inevitably be reached by following the internal logic of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

History has carved out its own trajectory. Reality has complexities we must face. But this absolutely does not mean we should forget the possibility of that more glorious, more magnificent path.

That path is still there. That shore still glimmers with undying light in the distance.

It deserves our generation, and future thousands upon thousands of generations, to study for it, think for it, and struggle for it tirelessly and forever.

As that great poem says: "Nothing in the world is difficult for one who sets his mind to it."

Critique of Khrushchev's "Potato and Beef-style Communist Theory"

—Starting from the Russian Communist Party's 19th Congress 

Criticism of Khrushchev's Rehabilitation of Stalin

By Hao Guisheng · July 22, 2025 

After reading the Russian Communist Party's 19th Congress resolution criticizing Khrushchev's rehabilitation of Stalin, the author believes that while it has highlights, it also contains serious defects and shortcomings.

Recently, a major event occurred in the history of the world communist movement: the "Resolution on Comprehensively and Thoroughly Restoring the Historical Justice of Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin" passed by the Russian Communist Party's 19th Congress on July 5, 2025. The resolution highly evaluated Stalin's enormous role in Soviet socialist modernization construction, especially in the Soviet Patriotic War, and focused on criticizing and exposing Khrushchev's criticism and wholesale negation of Stalin at the 20th and 22nd Congresses of the CPSU. After this resolution was published, it caused an extremely significant social response internationally and in contemporary China. The author believes that this resolution, at a stage when the world socialist cause is at a low ebb, is like a thunderclap that will surely reawaken the determination and confidence of Communist Party members and oppressed peoples and nations in various countries around the world to oppose capitalism and take the socialist path. It particularly provides great encouragement and inspiration for contemporary Chinese Communists and the Chinese people to unswervingly follow the scientific socialist path guided by Chairman Mao and oppose capitalist restoration.

We are Marxists, and we must also conduct dialectical materialist analysis of this resolution. The greatest highlight of this resolution is its high affirmation of Comrade Stalin's historical achievements, its criticism of Khrushchev's wholesale negation of Comrade Stalin under the name of criticizing "personality cult," and its exposure of Khrushchev's extreme individualism, fanaticism and divisive tendencies and the extremely serious harm this negation caused to the Soviet Union's socialist cause and the international communist movement. However, after reading this resolution, the author believes it also has serious defects and shortcomings: First, it lacks Marxist theoretical analysis and exposure of the historical and class roots of Khrushchev's negation of Stalin. Second, it basically does not involve or criticize the series of anti-Marxist revisionist viewpoints that Khrushchev spread and advocated at the 20th and 22nd CPSU congresses and during that period, such as negating proletarian revolution and proletarian dictatorship, negating class and class struggle in the socialist historical stage, advocating the party of the whole people and state of the whole people, and distorting the scientific meaning of communism. Third, its view that the Chinese Communist Party's "wise evaluation of Mao Zedong's merits and demerits" is correct is wrong. This resolution considers the Chinese Communist Party resolution's evaluation of Mao Zedong's merits and demerits to be correct, and by comparison, Khrushchev's wholesale negation of Stalin is wrong. But while China's resolution did not wholesale negate Mao Zedong, its wholesale negation of the theory of continuing revolution under proletarian dictatorship—the most core, essential, and outstanding part of Mao Zedong Thought—is equally not seeking truth from facts. The author will elaborate on this issue specifically in the future.

After the 20th and 22nd CPSU congresses, Khrushchev was not merely opposing Stalin. The essence of his opposition to Stalin was opposition to Marxism and socialism. He was the second representative figure in the history of the world communist movement who, after Bernstein—the first representative of revisionism—continued to comprehensively revise Marxism in philosophy, economics, and scientific socialism. The Chinese Communists represented by Chairman Mao began comprehensively exposing and criticizing Khrushchev's revisionist line after the 20th CPSU Congress, such as in "On the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" and "More on the Historical Experience of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" in 1956, "A Proposal Concerning the General Line of the International Communist Movement" in 1963, and the "Nine Commentaries," which comprehensively exposed and criticized Khrushchev's revisionist line. Particularly the scientific evaluation of Stalin in the second commentary and "On Khrushchev's Phoney Communism and Its Historical Lessons for the World" in the ninth commentary are extremely rich and profound in content. They not only exposed and criticized the essence, harm, and roots of Khrushchev's errors, but more importantly, comprehensively and deeply elaborated a series of basic viewpoints of Marxist philosophy, economics, and scientific socialism. This represents a comprehensive exposition and rich development of Marxist theory by Chinese Communists represented by Mao Zedong. This content also constitutes extremely important content of Chairman Mao's theory of continuing revolution under proletarian dictatorship and is the third milestone in the history of Marxist development.

This article today does not comprehensively expose and criticize Khrushchev's revisionism, but starting from the Russian Communist Party's 19th Congress rehabilitation of Stalin, focuses on criticizing Khrushchev's "potato and beef-style communist theory."

I. The Erroneous Essence of Khrushchev's "Potato and Beef-style Communism"

Khrushchev was a member of the Soviet Communist Party and also General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. He naturally knew the concept of "communism" very well. But from his life history, he was obviously not a mature, genuine Marxist-Leninist. His vicious attacks on Stalin and wholesale negation of Stalin demonstrate his extremely deficient and low level of worldview, outlook on life, and Marxist theoretical understanding. This was particularly manifested in his understanding of "communism." The Soviet Union was indeed the first country in human history to enter the first stage of communism—socialism. But Marxism holds that humanity's transition from socialism to ultimately eliminating private ownership, eliminating classes, and realizing communist society with distribution according to need requires a considerable historical period. Soviet socialist construction indeed achieved extremely great results during Stalin's era and played a decisive role in the victory against fascism in World War II. Khrushchev's emphasis on Communists continuing to build socialism and communism was undoubtedly correct. Therefore, at the 20th CPSU Congress, he proposed "comprehensive construction of communism" in the Soviet Union. But precisely on the question of what exactly "communism" is, Khrushchev fell into the revisionist quagmire. According to Marxist views, communism has two meanings: first, high-stage communism with highly developed productive forces, elimination of private ownership, elimination of classes, elimination of the state, and realization of distribution according to need; second, low-stage communism, i.e., the socialist stage, where productive forces have also developed greatly, but disparities between rich and poor, urban and rural areas, and mental and physical labor still exist, class struggle still exists, and the danger of capitalist restoration still exists. Although the Soviet Union's socialist construction achievements were extremely great, it absolutely could not be said that it had entered the high stage of communism. But Khrushchev's comprehensive construction of "communism" considered it the high stage of "communism" in the "developed stage of socialism," "communism" without classes and class struggle, "communism" of the "party of the whole people" and "state of the whole people" that abolished proletarian dictatorship. This is typically anti-Marxist revisionist viewpoint. Another important manifestation of this distortion of "communism" was defining the scientific meaning of "communism" only from the perspective of productive force development, material living standards, and economics. His "potato and beef" communism interpreted "communism" from this angle. In 1959, when Khrushchev returned from the United States and got off the plane, he exclaimed how rich Americans really were, so he proposed a slogan to build communism in the Soviet Union by 1980, and interpreted communism as "letting Soviet people eat good dishes like potato and beef stew anytime."

First, this viewpoint of Khrushchev's is a distortion and fundamental betrayal of scientific socialism. Historical materialism emphasizes that social development is the contradictory movement process of productive forces and production relations, economic base and superstructure—it is the comprehensive development of economy, politics, and culture. No society develops its productive forces and economy in isolation, let alone communist society. Scientific communism has its precise meaning. According to the basic theory of Marxism-Leninism, communist society is a society that has thoroughly eliminated classes and class differences, a society where all people possess high communist ideological consciousness and moral qualities, a society where all people have high labor enthusiasm and consciousness, a society with extremely abundant social products, a society that implements the principle of "from each according to ability, to each according to need," and a society where the state has withered away. Khrushchev only viewed "extremely abundant social products" and "improvement of material production levels" as the main or even sole content of communism—this is obviously extremely one-sided and a distortion and fundamental negation of Marxism's scientific communist doctrine.

Second, this viewpoint of Khrushchev's copied the American bourgeois lifestyle and used America as a model. As the "Nine Commentaries" said, his communism "is essentially a variant of bourgeois socialism... He does not view the working class struggle for communism as a struggle for the thorough liberation of themselves and all humanity, but describes it as struggling 'for a plate of good potato and beef stew.' In Khrushchev's mind, there is not even a shadow of scientific communism—there is only bourgeois philistine society." Khrushchev "elevated learning American capitalist management methods and bourgeois lifestyles to the status of national policy. He said he had 'great respect' for American achievements. He greatly envied the American way of life, insisting that the American people under monopoly capital rule and enslavement 'lived quite well.' He also hoped to use American loans to build communism. He repeatedly expressed willingness to 'get loans from the devil.'"

Third, this viewpoint of Khrushchev's negated the proletarian thought of politics in command. "Potato and beef-style communism" in real life manifested as immediate partial economic interests and material interests taking primary position—essentially putting economic construction above political construction in the relationship between economy and politics, implementing "material incentive," "profit in command," and "money in command" thinking in guiding ideology. Lenin pointed out long ago that politics cannot but take first place compared to economics. Chairman Mao, based on Lenin's thought, repeatedly pointed out that politics is the lifeline of all economic work. Chairman Mao's "politics in command" in the "Anshan Constitution" was actually severe criticism of the "profit in command" thinking in the Soviet "Magnitogorsk Constitution."

Finally, this viewpoint of Khrushchev's was essentially using the "communist" banner to comprehensively restore capitalism in the Soviet Union. Khrushchev's advocacy of this viewpoint was completely consistent with his advocacy of the party of the whole people, state of the whole people, and abolition of class struggle and proletarian dictatorship—it was actually using the "communist" banner to peddle bourgeois ideology and lifestyle and comprehensively restore capitalism in the Soviet Union. Therefore, his "communism," as the "Nine Commentaries" said, "received appreciation from imperialism and the monopoly bourgeoisie." Then-US Secretary of State Rusk said: "As 'potato and beef' and second trousers and this type of issue become more important in the Soviet Union, I think a moderating force has appeared on the current stage." Then-British Prime Minister Home also said: "Mr. Khrushchev also said that Russian-brand communism puts education and potato and beef first. This is good. Potato and beef communism is better than war communism, and I'm pleased that this confirms our view: fat and comfortable Communists are better than thin and hungry Communists." This thinking of Khrushchev's was also the result of peaceful evolution by Dulles and others toward socialist countries. Analyzed with Chairman Mao's thought, he was the first capitalist roader in power within the Soviet Party.

During the Sino-Soviet great debate of the 1960s, the Chinese Communist Party had already severely criticized and exposed the essence and harmfulness of Khrushchev's "potato and beef-style communism." At that time, Khrushchev actually rebutted. Khrushchev said: The Chinese "actually doubt the right of our party and our people to build communism," and "CCP leaders, targeting our party's declaration that striving for a good life for the people is our task, hint at some kind of 'bourgeoisification' and 'degeneration' of Soviet society." This shows how far Khrushchev had gone on his anti-Marxist revisionist path!

II. The Historical Roots of Khrushchev's "Potato and Beef-style Communism"

Any kind of erroneous social thought has its profound historical and social roots. Khrushchev's "potato and beef-style" communist theory also has its historical roots. These historical roots are essentially the continuation and development of opportunist and revisionist currents in the history of Marxist development that denied class struggle and advocated economism.

An extremely important content of the opportunist currents that appeared during Marx and Engels' time—such as Lassalle, Bakunin, the Zurich Triumvirate, British trade unionism—was using Marx's theory of productive forces as a pretext to confine working-class struggle merely to the economic sphere. The main representative figure among them was Bernstein, one of the Zurich Triumvirate. After Engels' death, he became a leader of the Second International and began systematically spreading and advocating his revisionist viewpoint that "the movement is everything." He mainly confined working-class struggle to fighting for immediate, partial, material, and economic interests, while great goals like eliminating private ownership and eliminating classes and communism could all be abandoned. This erroneous current, at the beginning of the 19th century, manifested among some young Russian intellectuals who accepted Marxism but were influenced by the revisionist viewpoint of "the movement is everything" and began advocating economism among workers. They believed "the workers' movement motto is struggle for improved economic conditions," "According to Marx and Engels' doctrine, the economic interests of various classes have decisive historical significance, so the proletariat's struggle for its own economic interests should have primary significance for its class development and liberation struggle." "Adding one kopeck to every ruble of wages is more practical and valuable than socialism and any politics." This economism first worshipped the spontaneity of the workers' movement, falsely claiming that spontaneous workers' movements could peacefully reach the shores of socialism. Second, it denied the guiding role of revolutionary theory in the workers' movement, opposed instilling scientific socialist thought into the worker masses, and opposed combining Marxism with the workers' movement. Third, it opposed establishing a unified proletarian revolutionary party and opposed party leadership of the workers' movement. Fourth, it separated the working class's economic struggle from political struggle, only engaging in economic struggle while opposing political struggle.

Lenin wrote a series of articles criticizing Bernstein's revisionist viewpoint that "the movement is everything." He said: "'The movement is everything, the ultimate aim is nothing'—this catchword of Bernstein's expresses the essence of revisionism better than many long dissertations. To determine one's conduct from case to case, to adapt oneself to the events of the day and to the chopping and changing of petty politics, to forget the primary interests of the proletariat and the basic features of the whole capitalist system, of capitalist evolution as a whole, to sacrifice these primary interests for the real or assumed advantages of the moment—such is the policy of revisionism." Regarding Russian economism, Lenin said this was "nothing but a new variant of opportunism," repeating "the arguments of the Bernstein trend in German Social-Democracy," and they were "the freedom of the opportunist trend within Social-Democracy, the freedom to convert Social-Democracy into a democratic party of reform, the freedom to introduce bourgeois ideas and bourgeois elements into the socialist movement." Lenin also pointed out that this viewpoint borrowed from Bernstein actually "corrupts the socialist consciousness of the working masses (and socialist consciousness is the only basis that can guarantee our victory), and what is obtained in exchange is some high-sounding schemes for petty reforms, reforms so petty that much more could be obtained from bourgeois governments!" Lenin believed "from the fact that economic interests play a decisive role, it should not be concluded that the economic (i.e., trade union) struggle is of prime importance, because the most essential and 'decisive' interests of classes can be satisfied only by radical political changes in general; in particular, the basic economic interests of the proletariat can be satisfied only by a political revolution that will substitute the dictatorship of the proletariat for that of the bourgeoisie." Lenin particularly emphasized that in socialist movement practice, "Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. This idea cannot be insisted upon too strongly at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity." "We wish to say only that only a party guided by an advanced theory can fulfill the role of a vanguard fighter." The working class by its own efforts can only develop trade-union consciousness, while Social-Democratic consciousness among workers can only be brought from outside. To achieve this, uncompromising struggle against the bourgeois ideological system is necessary.

Therefore, "potato and beef communism" is essentially the continuation and development of the Second International's Bernstein "movement is everything" revisionist thought. If there is a difference, it is that while Bernstein advocated his economism, he waved the Marxist banner while abandoning the great goal of communism. But Khrushchev's revisionism directly used the banner and goal of "communism," distorting the meaning of communism as purely economic interests, material life, and purely economic and productive force development. Khrushchev's revisionism had extremely serious influence and harm in the history of the international communist movement. If Bernstein's revisionism was the first representative figure in the history of Marxist development, then Khrushchev was the second representative figure of revisionism development. Later figures like Brezhnev and Gorbachev essentially continued down Khrushchev's revisionist path and were also the ideological-theoretical roots of the Soviet Union's ultimate dissolution.

III. The Extremely Serious Influence and Harm of Khrushchev's "Potato and Beef-style Communism" on Contemporary China

This "potato and beef-style communist" revisionist thought of Khrushchev's received extremely severe exposure and criticism during Chairman Mao's era. But as an anti-Marxist erroneous current, it did not disappear. Particularly after Chairman Mao's death, with the thorough negation of Chairman Mao's later theories and practices, "potato and beef-style communist" currents revived and became rampant again in the Chinese Communist Party and society under the name of "Chinese characteristics." Its main manifestations are:

First, using the theory of productive forces only to interpret "the essence of socialism." Chairman Mao led the Chinese Communist Party and Chinese people to unswervingly take the socialist path. Chinese revisionists first had to revise the essence of scientific socialism. In Marxism, the essence of socialism economically is public ownership of means of production, planned economic system, and distribution according to work; politically it is proletarian dictatorship, people being masters, and party leadership; ideologically it is guidance by Marxism. Chinese revisionists, under the banner of "correcting chaos and liberating thought," tampered with the essence of scientific socialism to "liberating and developing productive forces, eliminating exploitation, eliminating polarization, and achieving common prosperity." Socialism is first and foremost an economic and political system—its essence can only be defined from production relations and political systems. How can its essence be understood from the perspective of productive forces? Without "eliminating private ownership," how can we talk about eliminating exploitation, eliminating polarization, and achieving common prosperity? This has similarities with Khrushchev's "potato and beef-style communism."

Second, interpreting the essential characteristics of future communism as "letting people live good lives." Since "reform and opening-up," certain domestic "Marxist masters," to cater to certain power holders' erroneous current of not talking about eliminating private ownership or class struggle, have also interpreted the scientific meaning of "communism" from the perspective of productive forces and economic development. For example, at the First World Marxism Congress held at Peking University in 2015, the former director of Peking University's School of Marxism gave a speech titled "The True Essence of Marxism is Letting Workers Live Good Lives." Certain academic journals also published large amounts advocating that communism is letting people "eat well, drink well, play well."

Third, erroneous interpretation and expression of the party's basic line. Since reform and opening-up, multiple party congresses have defined the party's basic line as "leading and uniting people of all ethnic groups nationwide, taking economic construction as the center, adhering to the Four Cardinal Principles, adhering to reform and opening-up, self-reliance, hard work and entrepreneurship, to build our country into a prosperous, democratic, and civilized modern socialist power." Officials and most people simplify this basic line to "one center, two basic points." The author has written multiple articles commenting on this basic line. This basic line and its simplified expression have multiple errors: First, elevating "economic construction as the center" to a position higher than the goal of "prosperous, democratic, and civilized modern socialist power." Second, treating the "Four Cardinal Principles" as means for "economic construction as the center" is wrong—it should not be the latter guiding the former, but the former guiding the latter. In the author's view, the complete expression of the party's basic line should be "guided by the Four Cardinal Principles, leading and uniting people of all ethnic groups nationwide, taking economic construction as the center, adhering to self-reliance and hard work, adhering to reform and opening-up, to build our country into a prosperous, democratic, and civilized modern socialist power!"

Fourth, advocating profit in command and money in command, seriously corroding people's ideological souls. "Potato and beef-style communism" essentially also advocates "material incentive," "profit in command," and "money in command" thinking. Since reform and opening-up, Yu Zuomin, former party secretary of Tianjin's Daqiuzhuang, proposed "Look up and forward, look down at money; only by looking at money can you look forward." Shenzhen, the front line of reform and opening-up, hung large banners everywhere saying "Time is money." Not only private enterprises, but almost all state-owned enterprises, and even party and government organs, schools, hospitals, etc., all implement money-in-command thinking. In January 2023, a banner hung in a year-end summary meeting room of a certain department in a major Guangdong hospital read "Welcome the New Year with tiger-like vigor, the operating room is full of money."

Fifth, a certain major figure called for China to get rich by following America. In an article by reporter Yao Yang about economic growth models published in Outlook magazine on September 23, 2009, it mentioned that in the 1980s, when a certain major figure first governed and first visited America, an American reporter asked "Why is America the first country you visit as vice premier?" This major figure replied: "You see that after the war, all those who followed America became rich, and after the war, all those who opposed America are still poor." Isn't this exactly the same tune as Khrushchev's?

Emphasizing improving people's material living standards in socialist modernization construction is not wrong in itself—what's wrong is highlighting only this point without talking about political and cultural construction, without talking about proletarian dictatorship, without talking about eliminating private ownership or eliminating classes, and moreover, under this guidance of the theory of productive forces only, engaging in privatization and marketization reforms. Practice is the fundamental and ultimate standard for testing truth. Objectively speaking, China today has indeed achieved considerable results in economic construction, and people's material living standards have greatly improved. But we must also acknowledge objective facts: the gap between rich and poor has widened, the urban-rural gap has widened, the coastal-inland gap has widened, social morals have deteriorated, corruption is extremely serious, and feudalist-capitalist ideological concepts like private ownership concepts, money supremacy, and power supremacy have become rampant disasters. The moral quality of the entire society, especially various levels of power holders and intellectuals, has sharply declined, becoming deformed, one-sided, and unidimensional people to varying degrees. Contemporary big capitalists like Xu Jiayin are still eating human flesh and drinking human blood, capitalist roaders within the party are still taking that path, and the entire society's democratic civilization construction and moral standards have suffered extremely serious damage. Just as Chairman Mao predicted: "satellites in the sky, red flags falling to earth." This is the extremely serious harm of Khrushchev's "potato and beef-style communism" to contemporary China.

IV. Enlightenment for Contemporary Chinese Communists from Criticizing Khrushchev's "Potato and Beef-style Communism"

The Russian Communist Party's 19th Congress criticism of Khrushchev's rehabilitation of Stalin is absolutely correct, but genuine Communists and Marxists should not stop at restoring Stalin's reputation. On this foundation, they should continue exposing and criticizing the deep theoretical roots of Khrushchev's negation of Stalin, deeply study and promote the series of basic theories of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought, and carry the struggle against revisionism to the end!

1. The struggle against revisionism must be elevated to the extremely important strategic position of adhering to the socialist path and opposing capitalist restoration.

An extremely important content of Chairman Mao's theory of continuing revolution is pointing out that classes and class struggle always exist in the socialist historical stage, and the danger of capitalist restoration exists. An important reason leading to capitalist restoration is revisionist currents appearing within the Communist Party—Khrushchev was the revisionist representative within the CPSU. This was true for the Soviet Union, and also for China. Therefore, when Chairman Mao was alive, he repeatedly warned us: "What if revisionism appears in the Central Committee? It's very likely—this is most dangerous." "We must guard against revisionism, especially guard against revisionism appearing in the Central Committee." Chinese-style Khrushchev-type figures might emerge. "When revisionism comes to power, capitalism comes to power, and moreover it's the worst capitalism—fascism." Historical development completely confirmed Chairman Mao's predictions—China indeed experienced revisionism and produced the third representative figure of revisionism in the history of Marxist development. The extremely serious economic, political, and cultural capitalist restoration phenomena in contemporary Chinese society are certainly greatly influenced by Khrushchev's revisionism, but the more important internal reason is that China's revisionist representative figure's comprehensive revision and distortion of Marxism is no less than Khrushchev's, and his destructive effect on Marxism and the socialist cause exceeds Khrushchev's. Therefore, criticizing modern revisionism requires both criticizing Khrushchev's revisionism and more importantly criticizing China's revisionist representative figure and the subsequent series of systematic revisionist currents with "Chinese characteristics" and their influence on contemporary China.

2. Communists must "seriously study books and learning, understand and master Marxism."

Lenin said there can be no revolutionary movement without revolutionary theory. Without the guidance of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought, it's impossible to carry the struggle against revisionism and preventing capitalist restoration to the end. So when Chairman Mao was alive, he repeatedly and earnestly warned the entire party: "Our party doesn't have many who understand Marxism-Leninism." "We must educate cadres to understand some Marxism-Leninism—understanding more would be even better—that is, we must engage in Marxism-Leninism, not revisionism." An important reason for the rampant spread of contemporary Chinese revisionism and various capitalist erroneous currents is that after Chairman Mao's death, the party's atmosphere of studying Marxism-Leninism sharply declined, the entire party's theoretical quality level in Marxism-Leninism sharply declined, and people couldn't distinguish what is Marxism-Leninism and what is revisionism, what is socialism and what is capitalism. Everyone can carefully observe current official media and power holders' speeches—how much contains genuine Marxist-Leninist-Mao Zedong Thought positions, viewpoints, and methods? Especially not talking about class struggle and class analysis methods. Therefore, the urgent task is organizing the entire party to study basic theories and works of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought and launching a Marxist-Leninist study movement throughout the party and society. Especially party schools at all levels and university Schools of Marxism should play exemplary leading roles.

3. Persist in linking theory with practice, consciously using Marxist-Leninist positions, viewpoints, and methods to criticize various manifestations of contemporary Chinese revisionist and capitalist currents.

In articles like "Reform Our Study" and "Rectify the Party's Style of Work," Chairman Mao repeatedly emphasized that the purpose of mastering Marxism lies entirely in application—if you can use theory to explain one or two practical problems, you'll receive praise and achieve results. The more you explain, the greater your achievement. In today's study movement of Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought, we must closely combine specific viewpoints, phenomena, and harms of contemporary revisionism and capitalist restoration for deep exposure and criticism. Learn and master basic Marxist positions, viewpoints, and methods through analysis, comparison, and contrast. Khrushchev's "potato and beef-style communism" and various "Chinese characteristic" "potato and beef-style communist" arguments are all directly connected to their distortion and negation of Marxist class struggle viewpoints. Contemporary China's negation, distortion, and vicious attacks on Marxist class struggle thought are extremely rampant, particularly prominent in official media and online. Without understanding and truly mastering Marxist class struggle viewpoints, it's absolutely impossible to genuinely expose and criticize various erroneous currents of revisionism and capitalism.

4. Persist in "fighting self and criticizing revisionism," consciously transform the subjective world, and forge oneself into a genuine communist fighter who defends socialism and opposes capitalist restoration.

In the "Nine Commentaries," after deeply exposing and criticizing Khrushchev's revisionism, Chairman Mao summarized the experience by saying: "To ensure that our party and state do not change color, we need not only correct lines and policies, but also to cultivate and train millions of successors to the proletarian revolutionary cause." He proposed five basic conditions for revolutionary successors: First, they must be genuine Marxist-Leninists, not revisionists like Khrushchev who wave Marxist-Leninist banners. Second, they must be revolutionaries who wholeheartedly serve the vast majority of people in China and the world. Third, they must be proletarian politicians capable of uniting with the vast majority of people. Fourth, they must be model implementers of the party's democratic centralism. Fifth, they must be modest and prudent, guard against arrogance and rashness, be rich in self-critical spirit, and brave in correcting shortcomings and errors in their work. Chairman Mao's five basic conditions for proletarian revolutionary successors have extremely important practical significance in contemporary China. In persisting to oppose revisionism and capitalist restoration, every Communist Party member and young comrade with communist ideals, beliefs, and aspirations should consciously develop and improve themselves according to these five basic conditions, consciously "fight self and criticize revisionism," consciously transform their worldview, transform basic Marxist theory into their own quality and capability—especially the ability to distinguish genuine from false Marxism and genuine from false socialism—and carry Chairman Mao's great cause of continuing revolution under proletarian dictatorship opposing revisionism and capitalist restoration to the end!

July 22, 2025

On the Essence of Culture and Chinese Traditional Culture 

By Hao Guisheng, April 2, 2025

[Author's Note] Recently, I have been explaining Marx's "Theses on Feuerbach" to red comrades on the Renjing website. The sixth lecture covered the sixth thesis regarding Marx's view of human essence and human nature theory. After explaining the original text, I supplemented several specific theoretical and practical issues related to human nature theory. On Sunday, April 6th at 7 PM, I plan to lecture on "On the Essence of Culture and Chinese Traditional Culture." This article was originally written in December 2023, primarily addressing the relationship between Marxism and Chinese traditional culture. This issue is essentially also a question about human beings, because the essence of culture is to transform people, to shape people. Different cultures shape different concrete historical people; in class society, they shape people according to different class standards. The core of feudal culture is the supremacy of power, shaping people who are absolutely obedient slaves prostrating before power. The core of capitalist culture is the supremacy of money (money worship), shaping selfish people who are also servile slaves prostrating before money. The economic foundation of both cultures is private ownership, and their advocated models of being human share many commonalities. Marxism is also a culture, but its standard for shaping people is fundamentally different from feudal and capitalist culture; its core is to shape people with a master-of-society mentality. China is a country that experienced thousands of years of feudal society, with deeply rooted feudal culture. So how exactly should we handle the relationship between Marxism and Chinese traditional culture? How should we choose our model of being human? This is the basic thinking of this article. I have made some revisions to the original text and republish it on red websites for reference by party members, red comrades, and people studying Marxist theories of human essence and human nature. Criticism and corrections are welcome!

Recently, the media has repeatedly emphasized the relationship between Marxism and Chinese traditional culture. How should we understand and recognize this issue? This article focuses on discussing the essence of culture and the essence of Chinese traditional culture.

I. The Essence and Nature of Culture

"Culture" is a concept most familiar to the vast majority of people. As far as I know, it roughly has four meanings: First, in the narrowest sense, culture means literacy—being able to read and write. In old society, anyone who had attended school, could recognize characters, write letters, and read books was called "cultured" or a "cultural person," as opposed to "illiterate." Second, it specifically refers to work in literature, arts, music, painting, and other creative fields as "cultural work." The "culture" in our country's "Ministry of Culture and Tourism" has this meaning. Third, it refers to specific social ideologies in social life, distinguished from economy and politics in social life, and together with these two forms the three basic phenomena of human society: economic, political, and cultural phenomena. Most people in real life use "culture" in this sense. Fourth, culture in the broadest sense means humanization—the sum total of all material and spiritual wealth created by humanity through labor. Language and writing are special material symbols formed by humans in the process of material production and interaction; they are also "culture" in the broadest sense. For example, studying ancient culture means researching that era's culture through excavated material artifacts. The "culture" and its essence studied in this article mainly refers to the third meaning—specifically social ideology.

Historical materialism holds that the basic structure of human society consists of material productive forces, production relations (whose totality constitutes society's economic base), and superstructure. Productive forces determine production relations; economic base determines superstructure. Superstructure is further divided into political superstructure and ideological superstructure. Material facilities like state government departments, political parties, laws, armies, police, and prisons constitute society's political superstructure, while philosophy, literature and arts, morality, religion, and political-legal thought constitute ideological superstructure. Culture refers to ideological superstructure. Historical materialism also distinguishes all social phenomena into social being and social consciousness. Social being refers to all material phenomena in social life; social consciousness refers to all spiritual phenomena in social life. Social being determines social consciousness; social consciousness reacts upon social being. Social consciousness has hierarchical levels: lower-level social consciousness is social psychology, connected to daily social life, representing an unsystematic, indefinite, spontaneous form of reflection manifested as emotions, customs, habits, prejudices, spontaneous tendencies, and beliefs. Higher-level social consciousness is social ideology—a systematic, conscious, theoretical form of reflection abstracted and refined from social life. This ideology has clear divisions of labor and internally possesses relatively stable systems of concepts, judgments, and reasoning, forming relatively independent disciplinary systems. Social psychology and social ideology differ in being lower/higher level, direct/indirect, but they are also internally connected. Social ideology depends on social psychology and influences and guides it, but cannot be reduced to social psychology. In terms of the division between social consciousness and social being, "culture" or "cultural construction" in the general sense mainly refers to social ideology—the highest level of social consciousness. Additionally, social consciousness is divided into superstructural social consciousness and non-superstructural social consciousness. Logic and natural sciences belong to this latter type of social consciousness and are also important content of "culture."

Because culture mainly belongs to the ideological part of superstructure and to social ideology within social consciousness, this leads to the following basic characteristics of "culture":

1. Culture's Historicity or Era-Based Nature

Due to social consciousness's absolute dependence on social being and superstructure's absolute dependence on economic base, and because humanity's productive forces and production relations develop and change, and social being develops and changes, culture's specific content also develops and changes. Humanity has experienced primitive society, slave society, feudal society, capitalist society, and socialist society. Therefore, cultures built on economic foundations are also primitive society culture, slave society culture, feudal society culture, capitalist society culture, and socialist culture or Marxist culture. Although these cultures have continuity and commonalities, they are essentially different and possess historicity or era-based characteristics. The essential differences between different cultures of different eras absolutely cannot be confused. There absolutely cannot exist "universal values" of culture that transcend social economic foundations and historical eras and apply to all historical periods. The cultures with greater influence on today's world are feudal culture, capitalist culture, and socialist culture. The cultures with greater influence on contemporary China are Chinese traditional culture, religious culture, Western culture (capitalist culture), and socialist culture.

2. Culture's National Character

Because social ideology depends on social psychology, and different countries and nations differ in their economic systems, geographical environments, social psychology, habits, and customs, their cultures also carry extremely strong national characteristics. Studying "cultural" phenomena must examine a nation's economy, politics, living environment, customs, history, and other unique characteristics. Our Chinese nation's culture differs tremendously from Indian culture, Arab culture, and ancient Greek-Roman culture.

3. Culture's Class Nature

Humanity's primitive society was based on primitive communism, and the primitive culture formed on this basis was basically applicable to all primitive people of that era. But private ownership appeared at the end of primitive society, and real-life humanity split into two parts: those who possessed means of production and those who did not. They differed in their positions, roles, and appropriation of labor products in the production process, with one part appropriating another part's labor. This marked the emergence of antagonistic classes. Antagonistic classes, based on their different production relations and positions, inevitably produce antagonistic ideologies—actually different cultural content. As Chairman Mao said, everyone lives in a certain class position, and all thoughts bear class imprints. Slave masters and slave classes in slave society, landlords and peasant classes in feudal society, bourgeoisie and proletariat in capitalist society—their ideologies and cultural content inevitably carry strong class consciousness with essential fundamental differences. This is culture's class nature.

4. Culture's Historical Continuity and Mutual Interaction

Culture originates from economic base, but once specific cultural content is produced, it doesn't immediately disappear with changes to the economic base that formed it. Instead, it exists for long periods in new social formations. Its dross content negatively affects new social formations, while its positive, essential content is absorbed and inherited by new social formations' cultural content. Similarly, cultures of different countries and nations also have various degrees of influence and impact on each other through national and various exchange activities.

5. Culture's Reactive Effect on Social Economic Base and Social Being

Culture's existence and development are absolutely constrained by economic base and social being, but it also has relative independence—not only its own developmental laws but also enormous reactive effects on social being. When cultural content adapts to economic base and social development, it has positive promoting and driving effects on society; otherwise, it has obstructive effects. We cannot generally say all culture has progressive effects, nor that all has negative or obstructive effects; specific culture must be analyzed under specific historical eras and conditions.

6. Culture's Shaping Effect on People or People-Transforming Nature

Human social development manifests not only as development of productive forces, economic base, and superstructure—society's basic contradictions—but also as human development. Historical materialism holds that human essence and nature are not natural eating, drinking, and sexual behavior, but humans in social relations—the totality of social relations. Humans in class society are concrete, historical, class-based humans. Culture is also concrete, historical, class-based culture. Any culture's effect on history and society must work through people, transforming into people's concrete qualities and abilities. Essentially, different eras and different classes' cultures shape different human standards. Feudal culture's core is power supremacy, shaping people who are absolutely obedient slaves prostrating before those in power—this serves feudal ruling class needs. Capitalist culture's core is money supremacy, shaping selfish, self-interested people prostrating before money—this serves bourgeois ruling needs. Socialist culture's core is master consciousness and subject consciousness, shaping people with a master-of-society mentality—this serves the needs of socialism's essence based on public ownership.

II. The Essence of Chinese Traditional Culture and Its Social Function

Chinese traditional culture first possesses national character—it is national culture formed on the Chinese land over thousands of years of productive forces and economic foundations. Chinese traditional culture mainly refers to the Chinese nation's culture, but not all of the Chinese nation's culture. Rather, it refers to feudal society's culture built on thousands of years of feudal economic and political foundations—the culture that dominated Chinese society before the May Fourth Movement.

(I) The Dross Content in Chinese Traditional Culture

Marx said that the dominant ideology is the culture of the economically dominant ruling class. Feudal culture's essence is the culture of the feudal ruling class that dominated feudal society—the culture of landlord class rule, exploitation, and oppression of peasants. From its basic content, it has the following characteristics:

1. Power Supremacy and Power Worship

Feudal culture, especially its typical thought of Confucianism, emphasizes ruler-ruler, minister-minister, father-father, son-son; father as son's guiding principle, husband as wife's guiding principle, ruler as minister's guiding principle. When the ruler orders a minister to die, the minister cannot refuse. This forms strict hierarchical systems, creating power supremacy, power worship, awe of power, pursuit of power, and dependence on power. It forms power-based truth, calling a deer a horse [note: idiom meaning to deliberately misrepresent facts], and divine right of kings. It demands most people absolutely submit to powerful forces. These powerful forces include both domestic supreme feudal emperors and foreign powerful forces. The continuous phenomenon of traitors throughout China's thousands of years stems from submission to such foreign powerful forces. China has a common saying: "Those who understand current affairs are outstanding people." This "current affairs" means "domestic and foreign powerful forces." Almost all "traitors" use this phrase as "theoretical basis" for betraying people, nation, and country.

2. "Cannibalistic" Culture

While Confucianism emphasizes the "Three Cardinal Guides," it also emphasizes the "Five Constants"—benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and trustworthiness. "Benevolence" seems to emphasize people's mutual love. But Lu Xun said in "Diary of a Madman": "I opened history books to check—this history has no dates, but on every crooked page are written the words 'benevolence, righteousness, and morality.' I couldn't sleep anyway, so I looked carefully for half the night, finally seeing between the lines throughout the book two words: 'Cannibalism'!" The "cannibalism" here doesn't mean physical cannibalism, but spiritual cannibalism—turning people into those who are absolutely obedient before those in power, not permitted to have any questioning or resistance consciousness or behavior, and who are forever "sinners" before those in power. In the TV drama "Liu Luoguo," whenever He Shen sees the emperor, he says: "Your Majesty is wise, your servant is guilty." But to subordinates and common people, he always says: "I am wise, you are guilty." Actor Wang Gang, who played He Shen, once met a grassroots official who tightly grasped Wang Gang's hand saying: "You played He Shen so well, I learned so much from He Shen." He actually learned the "cannibalistic" culture of being a slave to superiors and master to subordinates. In real life, this manifests as bullying the weak while fearing the strong, bullying the good while fearing evil, acting like a dog relying on its master's power, using power to bully others, etc.

3. Inverted View of Righteousness and Profit

In cultural dictionaries, "profit" is generally interpreted as "material interests" and "righteousness" as "spiritual pursuits." In Chinese traditional culture, people's pursuit of material interests is extremely denigrated while spiritual pursuits are extremely elevated. Confucius said: "The gentleman understands righteousness, the petty person understands profit." "The gentleman cherishes virtue, the petty person cherishes land; the gentleman cherishes punishment, the petty person cherishes favor." Song Dynasty Confucian Zhu Xi said "preserve heavenly principles, eliminate human desires"—all typical thoughts of righteousness-profit inversion leading to good-evil, right-wrong, beautiful-ugly inversions. This is extremely similar to "asceticism" in Western religious culture.

4. Selfishness and Self-Interest

Feudal society is also a typical private ownership society that inevitably promotes private ownership concepts based on this economic foundation. Feudal culture vigorously promotes "If one doesn't look out for oneself, heaven and earth will destroy him" and "People die for wealth, birds die for food." But in official circles and among some thinkers, it also promotes "the world belongs to everyone." But this "public" absolutely doesn't refer to the common interests of the vast majority—broadly it refers to the "family world" of feudal emperors, narrowly to individual small families, essentially still "selfish and self-interested" in nature. Like the "inverted righteousness-profit view," this displays this culture's typical hypocritical characteristics.

5. Disdain for Labor and Ignorant People Culture

How to treat people's material production labor is also important cultural content. The dominant parts of Chinese traditional culture all disdain laboring people and material production labor. For example, Mencius's "Those who labor with their minds rule others, those who labor with their bodies are ruled by others," and Confucius's "Only the highest wisdom and lowest ignorance cannot be changed." Confucius also divided people into four ranks: "Those born knowing are highest, those learning to know are next, those knowing through difficulty are next again, those in difficulty but not learning—these people are lowest." "The people can be made to follow, but cannot be made to understand."

6. Study-to-Become-Official Theory

Chinese traditional culture extremely disdains labor and laborers while promoting strict social hierarchy concepts, thus vigorously encouraging a few people to pursue culture. But the goal of pursuing culture isn't to improve and develop oneself or serve society, but to pursue personal fame, profit, and status, striving to climb to society's highest levels, pursuing power and status. Examples include "Excel in study, then become official," "Without scholarly sons in the family, where do officials come from," "Ten years of cold study with no one asking, one success brings fame throughout the world," etc.

From analyzing the core Confucian doctrine among Chinese traditional culture's dross content, Chinese traditional culture shapes distorted, one-sided personality characteristics with extremely serious selfishness, servility, hypocrisy, indifference, and internal consumption traits. It is spiritual opium paralyzing people, a spiritual weapon maintaining feudal ruling class interests, an ideological source obstructing China's productive force and technological development, and an extremely important reason for China's feudal society lasting thousands of years. This is why it became the main target of May Fourth Movement criticism and attack—the slogan "Down with Confucian shops" deeply criticized and negated this culture's dross content. The dross content in Chinese traditional culture still spreads extremely putrid odors like corpses in coffins throughout Chinese land today, especially "power supremacy" and its "cannibalistic" culture, causing extremely serious harm to contemporary Chinese society, particularly among cadres and intellectuals. Especially after reform and opening up, this has colluded with incoming Western capitalist culture, forming the corrupt characteristics of contemporary China's unique cultural mixture. Not recognizing and acknowledging its extremely serious corrosive and destructive effects on contemporary China is absolutely not being a Marxist.

(II) The Essential Content in Chinese Traditional Culture

Materialist dialectics requires adopting materialist dialectical analytical methods toward all things; we should treat Chinese traditional culture likewise. Culture's prominent characteristic in class society is class nature—its dross content represents typical characteristics of feudal landlord class nature. But Chinese traditional culture is also human culture, a product of human civilizational development, spiritual achievements of civilization accumulated by people of that era. Meanwhile, as the oppressed class, the peasant class also formed its own relatively unique peasant class culture based on its economic relations and political position. Even within ruling classes, there inevitably exist oppositions between justice and evil, progress and reaction, also forming different degrees of opposing cultural content. In this sense, Chinese traditional culture inevitably contains extremely abundant essential content.

1. Social Responsibility Consciousness

Feudal society is private ownership society that inevitably forms exploiting classes' selfish worldviews and life philosophies. But humans are social beings; some ruling class members can also start from most people's interests, thus forming strong social responsibility consciousness. Examples include Song Dynasty Fan Zhongyan's "Worry before the world worries, rejoice after the world rejoices," Ming Dynasty Donglin Academy's couplet "Wind sounds, rain sounds, reading sounds—all sounds enter the ear; family affairs, state affairs, world affairs—all affairs concern the heart," Qing Dynasty Gu Yanwu's "Everyone is responsible for the rise and fall of the world," etc.

2. Patriotic Sentiment

Based on social responsibility consciousness, each historical dynasty produced many officials and literati with deep patriotic sentiment. Examples include Warring States period Chu state's Qu Yuan, Song Dynasty's Yue Fei ("Thirty achievements are dust and dirt, eight thousand li of road under clouds and moon. Strong ambition hungers for barbarian flesh, laughing conversation thirsts for Hun blood"), Lu You ("Though lowly positioned, dare not forget worrying for the country"), Wen Tianxiang ("Since ancient times, who hasn't died? Leave a loyal heart to illuminate history"), Qing Dynasty's Lin Zexu ("If beneficial to the country's life and death, how can one avoid due to fortune or misfortune"), etc.

3. Clear Right-Wrong Independent Personality Characteristics

Dominant feudal culture's important personality characteristic is complete submission to power, lacking ability to distinguish right-wrong, beautiful-ugly, good-evil. But some intellectuals don't submit to powerful forces and evil influences; they demand "clear discernment," pursuing independent personality: "Might cannot bend, poverty cannot move, wealth cannot corrupt." Especially Qu Yuan's clear right-wrong distinction, personal integrity, self-purification, and courage to offer advice upward. As he said: "The whole world is muddy while I alone am clean; everyone is drunk while I alone am sober." (Everyone in society is polluted while only I am clean; everyone is intoxicated while only I am awake.) He repeatedly offered the Chu king direct advice on national strengthening and development strategies, but never gained the king's understanding and often suffered slanderous retaliation, yet remained unwavering. As he said: "The ruler doesn't examine my burning heart, instead believing slander and getting angry; I deeply know direct speech brings disaster, but cannot bear to refrain." (The ruler doesn't understand my passionate heart, instead believing slander and getting furious at me. I deeply know direct speech will bring calamity, but I cannot control myself from speaking.) Three Kingdoms literary figure Li Kang's "Theory of Fate" points out social phenomena that destroy those with independent views and outstanding talents: "Trees excelling the forest will be destroyed by wind; banks protruding from shores will be washed by currents; conduct higher than others will be criticized by crowds." But he also points out: "However, people with lofty ideals and benevolence still tread this path without regret"—those with great ideals, aspirations, and determination to achieve something still remain unmoved, firmly walking their original path forward. This expresses intellectuals' independent consciousness and persistent beliefs. Qing Dynasty Zheng Banqiao, discussing intellectuals' standards for being human, said: "Rare to be clever, rare to be confused."

4. Pursuit of Equality and Resistance Struggle Consciousness Against Powerful Forces and Evil Influences

Feudal culture's core is power-supremacist inequality, but oppressed classes and people vigorously oppose this inequality concept. Throughout dynasties, countless peasant uprisings of various scales occurred, resisting feudal rule's economic and political systems. Examples include Spring-Autumn Warring States period "Robber Zhi" uprising, late Qin Chen Sheng-Wu Guang uprising, late Western Han Greenwood uprising, late Eastern Han Yellow Turban uprising, late Tang Huang Chao uprising, Song Dynasty Chao Gai-Fang La uprising, late Yuan Zhu Yuanzhang uprising, late Ming Li Zicheng-Zhang Xianzhong uprising, late Qing Taiping Heavenly Kingdom uprising, etc. They raised slogans like "The blue sky is dead, the yellow sky should stand," "Equalize rich and poor," "Equalize heaven, exempt taxes," etc., resisting feudal exploitation and oppression systems. Due to peasants not representing advanced productive forces and their own class limitations, all peasant uprisings failed. But as Chairman Mao said, in China's feudal society, only this kind of peasant class struggle, peasant uprisings, and peasant wars were history's true driving force. Because each major peasant uprising and war's result struck contemporary feudal rule, thus more or less promoting social productive force development.

5. People-Valuing Consciousness

While feudal culture promoted disdain for labor and laborers, it also produced opposing people-valuing thought. For example, Spring-Autumn Warring States period saw emergence of "take people as foundation" and "water can carry boats, can also overturn boats" thoughts. Some intellectuals, through long-term contact with laboring people, also deeply felt labor and laborers' greatness. Tao Yuanming's abundant pastoral poetry, especially his famous article "Peach Blossom Spring," praised peasant class industriousness, simplicity, and great noble character. Song Dynasty patriotic poet Lu You had even deeper feelings for peasants. Though he neither established nor could establish mass historical viewpoint thinking, his works praised peasants engaged in material production labor as great heroes. In a seven-character regulated verse reflecting rural pastoral life, he said: "Personal farming is originally heroic work; dying old in Nanyang might not be wrong" (referring to Zhuge Liang originally being a peasant; if Liu Bei hadn't visited the thatched cottage three times and he hadn't emerged, remaining lifelong farming in his hometown wouldn't necessarily mean he wasn't a hero).

Chinese traditional culture's essence also includes excellent ideological achievements in philosophy's simple materialism and simple dialectics, educational learning thought, literature, calligraphy, painting, poetry, and many other aspects.

Although the above thoughts in Chinese traditional culture weren't mainstream, during China's thousands of years of feudal history, they also shaped extremely numerous great heroes and outstanding figures with independent personalities, critical struggle spirit, uprightness, and honesty. They also played certain promoting roles in Chinese social development. But overall, Chinese traditional culture's excellent and essential content didn't dominate during thousands of years of feudal society development; their impact was much, much smaller than dross content. Using the excuse that Chinese traditional culture contains considerable essence and excellent content to view entire feudal culture, especially core Confucian doctrine, as compatible with Marxism is absolutely wrong.

III. Marxism and Chinese Traditional Culture Are Essentially "Discard the Dross, Take the Essence"—Absolutely Not a Combining Relationship

Recognizing culture and Chinese traditional culture's essence requires understanding Chinese traditional culture from the unity of culture's general and particular aspects. Chinese traditional culture must be placed in historical development processes, understood from its era-based nature, class nature, and dialectical nature. Particularly, its essence must be understood from its class nature. We cannot abstractly discuss only its essential content while leaving aside class nature, cannot abstractly discuss only inheritance and development of Chinese traditional culture while leaving aside criticism, and especially cannot abstractly discuss compatibility and mutual combination between Marxism and Chinese traditional culture while leaving aside era-based and class nature. Marxism's essence and soul are eliminating private ownership and class struggle; Chinese traditional culture's essence and mainstream are ideological theoretical weapons maintaining feudal private ownership and feudal ruling class interests. How can these two possibly combine? Mao Zedong Thought is the product of combining Marxism with Chinese revolutionary construction practice. Chinese revolutionary construction practice includes Chinese historical development. Chairman Mao developed Marxism by using Marxist general principles like class struggle to study China's class struggle practice and its history, including cultural development history, studying China's current situation, especially class struggle practice resisting imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic capitalism. In China's revolutionary practice, he maximally conducted materialist dialectical and class analysis of Chinese traditional culture, and on this basis discarded the dross, took the essence, made the ancient serve the present, and promoted the new while discarding the old.

Chairman Mao discussed how to treat Western culture in "On New Democracy." He said: "Our culture is revolutionary national culture. China should absorb large amounts of foreign progressive culture as raw materials for its own cultural nourishment—this work has been very insufficient in the past. This includes not only current socialist culture and new democratic culture, but also foreign ancient cultures, such as Enlightenment-era culture of capitalist countries—everything useful to us today should be absorbed. But all foreign things, like our treatment of food, must pass through our own mouth chewing and stomach-intestine movement, mixed with saliva, gastric juice, and intestinal juice, decomposed into essence and dross parts, then excrete the dross and absorb the essence, only then beneficial to our bodies. We absolutely cannot swallow whole and raw without any criticism." Similarly, when discussing Chinese traditional culture, he also advocated decomposing into essence and dross parts. He said: "In China's long feudal society, brilliant ancient culture was created. Sorting out ancient culture's development process, eliminating its feudal dross, absorbing its democratic essence, is a necessary condition for developing new national culture and improving national self-confidence; but we absolutely cannot uncritically accept everything wholesale. We must distinguish between all corrupt things of ancient feudal ruling classes and ancient excellent people's culture that somewhat carries democratic and revolutionary characteristics." Chairman Mao's thinking completely applies to contemporary China's cultural construction and to the relationship between Marxism and Chinese traditional culture—the relationship of "take the essence, discard the dross."

Perhaps some comrades say the Marxism-Chinese traditional culture combination discussed here doesn't mean combining with everything including both essence and dross, but refers to combining with excellent Chinese traditional culture—that is, combining with "essential" content. I believe this is also wrong. "Combination" means two phenomena, two cultures' mutual interaction, mutual supplementation, improvement, influence, and common development. Like theory-practice combination. Theory should influence and act on practice, promoting deeper practical activities. Practice should also influence, act on theory, correcting, supplementing, enriching, and improving theoretical development. When two different national cultures exist simultaneously in one country, they can mutually interact, influence, and combine. But cultures of different eras and different opposing classes cannot mutually combine. German classical philosophy, British classical economics, and French utopian socialism played crucial roles in creating Marxist philosophy, economics, and scientific socialism. They share certain commonalities with Marxism, but absolutely not mutual combination relationships—rather dialectical negation relationships, critical inheritance relationships. Only the former can influence and act on Marxism, but we absolutely cannot say Marxism influences and acts on the former. Similarly, no matter how much "excellent" and "essential" content Chinese traditional culture characterized by feudal despotism contains, Marxism's relationship with it can only be critical inheritance, absolutely not "mutual combination."

Chairman Mao's "discard the dross, take the essence" critical inheritance relationship between Marxism and Chinese traditional culture emphasizes dialectical class analytical methods toward Chinese traditional culture. But some people's loud shouting about "Marxism combining with Chinese excellent culture" essentially abandons Marxist dialectical, class analytical methods. For example, they believe Confucian culture as typical representative thought of Chinese traditional culture has compatibility—mutual compatibility—with Marxism. Isn't this using the banner of combining with excellent culture to demand that proletarian revolutionary theoretical weapons combine with the most dross, corrupt content in Chinese traditional culture, using hierarchical and slave culture maintaining feudal hierarchy systems to supplement, correct, improve, and essentially castrate Marxism's proletarian culture's class nature, revolutionary nature, and critical nature? Their proposal of "Marxism combining with Chinese excellent traditional culture" is absolutely wrong. This isn't developing Marxism but typical revision, distortion, and tampering with Marxism. Essentially, they consciously or unconsciously use feudal culture or mixtures with capitalist culture to shape distorted, one-sided, servile people prostrating before power and money, suitable for their subversion of socialism and restoration of capitalism. Essentially, in today's society, our study, inheritance, and promotion of excellent and essential content in Chinese traditional culture is very insufficient; enriching and developing Marxism is also very insufficient. Meanwhile, exposure and criticism of its dross content is also very insufficient. Dross content in feudal culture, especially its mutual collusion with capitalist money-supremacist concepts, has already caused extremely serious destructive, harmful, and obstructive effects on contemporary China's socialist modernization construction. The extremely numerous distorted, one-sided, one-dimensional, numb, right-wrong good-evil beautiful-ugly undifferentiated, servile people appearing in contemporary China are products of feudal culture's dross content colluding with capitalist culture—nondescript mixtures.

Marxist culture's essence is critical and revolutionary. Today's Chinese Communists, to truly uphold Marxism and the socialist path, while strengthening criticism of capitalist culture, must also emphasize and deeply criticize dross content in Chinese traditional culture, especially criticism of Confucian culture. Use Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought's cultural content to shape truly socialist historical era human standards.

Reflections on July 1st Party Founding Day: 

Why Was There "Not a Single Real Man" During the Soviet Collapse? 

On the "Spiritual Calcium" of a Revolutionary Party

By Zi Hengmo, July 1, 2025

"If the foundation is not solid, the earth will shake and the mountains will tremble." This simple yet profound Chinese wisdom applies not only to material engineering construction but also reveals, in a heart-stopping way, the iron law governing the spiritual world and the rise and fall of political power. As General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: "When beliefs are not firm, there will also be earth-shaking and mountain-trembling." Looking back at that world-shocking historical upheaval at the end of the 20th century, a massive red alliance that once made the entire capitalist world tremble collapsed thunderously with almost no meaningful resistance. Among all this, the most lamentable and thought-provoking was the collapse of the Soviet Communist Party itself.

The General Secretary incisively pointed out that historical paradox and tragedy: "The Soviet Communist Party seized power with 200,000 members, defeated Hitler with 2 million members, but lost power with nearly 20 million members... In that upheaval, there was not a single real man among them, no one came forward to resist." This deafening "question of manhood" transcends time and space, striking directly at each of our souls.

Why would a ruling party with nearly 20 million members, controlling the most powerful nuclear arsenal, display such unbelievable political numbness, ideological confusion, and paralysis of action at the moment of life and death? The answer, as the General Secretary profoundly revealed: "It was because ideals and beliefs had completely vanished." This article aims to use this as a framework to deeply analyze how the Soviet Communist Party step by step lost its "spiritual calcium," ultimately leading to that unprecedented great collapse.

I. The Source of Faith: The Transformation from "Vanguard Warriors" to "Parasitic Party Members"

The nature of a political party is ultimately determined by the composition and spiritual state of its members. The tragedy of the Soviet Communist Party began with its organizational pathology—the qualitative change in party member composition from revolutionaries to bureaucrats.

1.1 The Bolsheviks: Revolutionary Vanguard Forged from "Special Material"

In Lenin's era, Bolshevik party members were made of "special material." They were battle-tested, indomitable professional revolutionaries. Becoming a party member at that time did not mean any material benefits; instead, it meant imprisonment, exile, and even sacrifice. What sustained their relentless struggle was that well-worn copy of The Communist Manifesto in their hands and the unshakeable, burning ideal of achieving world communism in their hearts. It was precisely such a small but steel-willed force that unleashed enough tremendous energy to "move the earth," creating humanity's first socialist state.

1.2 "Nomenklatura": The Rise of a New Self-Serving Class

However, after seizing power, especially when the country entered a period of long-term peaceful construction and during what was called the "developed socialism" stage of the Brezhnev era, a profound and fatal transformation occurred. A privileged class called "Nomenklatura" [注: номенклатура, the Soviet system of party-controlled appointments] gradually formed and solidified. For this new class, party membership was no longer a symbol of sacrifice and dedication but a "ticket" to power, status, and various material privileges. Joining the party was for getting better housing, shopping at special supply stores, and securing brighter futures for one's children. The oath to "struggle for communism for life" was quietly replaced by the unspoken rule of "scheming for personal and family interests for life." Party membership transformed from a lofty political faith into a kind of "political sinecure" that could be exchanged for practical benefits.

1.3 The "Quantity" and "Quality" of Twenty Million Party Members

When the Soviet Communist Party's membership swelled to nearly 20 million, its numbers reached a historic peak, but its "quality" as a revolutionary vanguard plummeted to a historic low. Countless opportunists, careerists, bureaucrats, and mediocre "fair-weather party members" filled its ranks. They might be familiar with party charter provisions but had long forgotten the color of the party flag; they might shout Marxist-Leninist slogans at meetings, but in their hearts, they calculated their own fame and fortune. This massive body of 20 million members had already become loose and fragile in its internal "spiritual skeleton" due to the loss of ideals and beliefs. Once history's storm arrived, the seemingly powerful muscles, without strong bones for support, would only become a pile of rotten flesh collapsing thunderously.

II. The Ideological "Master Switch": Theoretical Betrayal Beginning with Khrushchev's "Secret Report"

If the degeneration of party members was the shaking of the organizational foundation, then the revisionist transformation of guiding ideology was the complete opening of the "master switch" for the Soviet Communist Party's collapse. This process began with the 20th Congress of the Soviet Communist Party in 1956.

2.1 The "Secret Report": A Dagger Thrust at History and Faith

Khrushchev's "Secret Report" completely negated Stalin in an extremely crude, anti-historical manner, and through this, completely negated the magnificent, though arduous and error-filled but also brilliantly successful, construction history under the leadership of the Soviet Communist Party. This dagger was not only thrust at a historical figure but, more profoundly, at the entire party's, army's, and people's faith in their past path. It caused unprecedented ideological chaos throughout the international communist movement, allowing "historical nihilism"—this most powerful ideological virus—to invade the heart of the Communist Party for the first time from the enemy camp. From then on, Pandora's box of doubting everything and negating everything was opened, and the first fatal crack appeared in the Soviet Communist Party's ideological dam.

2.2 "Three Peacefuls and Two Alls": A Revisionist Program of Self-Destruction

After opening the breach of historical nihilism, Khrushchev and his successors further proposed a complete systematic revisionist theory—the so-called "Three Peacefuls and Two Alls" [注: 三和两全: peaceful coexistence, peaceful competition, peaceful transition; all-people's state, all-people's party]. The line of "peaceful coexistence, peaceful competition, peaceful transition" completely abandoned Lenin's basic views on war and peace in the imperialist era, blurred the irreconcilable antagonistic contradictions between socialism and capitalism, and ideologically disarmed vigilance against Western "peaceful evolution."

The theory of "all-people's state, all-people's party" fundamentally betrayed Marxist theories of state and party. It declared that Soviet society no longer had classes and class struggle, that the dictatorship of the proletariat was "outdated," and that the Soviet Communist Party was therefore no longer the vanguard of the proletariat. This theory was tantamount to announcing to the world that the Soviet Communist Party had voluntarily and consciously laid down the most core and fundamental weapon of self-defense—the dictatorship of the proletariat.

2.3 The Vacuum of Faith and the Prevalence of Cynicism

Under the long-term erosion of this revisionist theory, Marxism-Leninism in the Soviet Union was gradually "dogmatized" and "hollowed out." It became a set of dead vocabulary used only for meetings and writing reports, no longer the scientific truth that could guide practice and inspire people. When the leaders of the Soviet Communist Party themselves no longer believed in the theories they espoused, how could they expect ordinary party members and the masses to believe in them? Thus, a vacuum of ideals and beliefs inevitably appeared. In its place came widespread, cynical nihilism and vulgar materialism. People no longer believed in lofty ideals but only in immediate interests. The entire society fell into a spiritual state of "weightlessness."

III. Political Consequences: From "Privileged Corruption" to the Proliferation of "Open Betrayal"

Ideological confusion and betrayal inevitably led to political corruption and wavering. From the Brezhnev era to the Gorbachev era, the political body of the Soviet Communist Party was already riddled with diseases and terminally ill.

3.1 The Solidification of the Privileged Class and the Spread of Corruption

The theory of "all-people's party" provided the best protective talisman for the existence of the bureaucratic privileged class. Since there were no longer classes, the various privileges they enjoyed were no longer manifestations of class oppression but became "natural" treatment. During the Brezhnev period, corruption among the upper echelons of the Soviet Communist Party had developed to an outrageous degree. They engaged in embezzlement and bribery, nepotism, and luxurious living, with their distance from the people being farther than from Earth to the moon. When a political party no longer represents the people's interests but only represents the interests of a corrupt bureaucratic group fundamentally opposed to the people's interests, it fundamentally loses the legitimacy to govern.

3.2 Gorbachev's "New Thinking": From Revision to Open Betrayal

If Khrushchev still operated under the banner of "restoring Leninism" when "revising" theory, then Gorbachev simply tore off the last fig leaf, sliding from "revision" to "open betrayal." His advocated "glasnost" and "pluralism" were essentially the complete lifting of propaganda controls on Western bourgeois liberalization ideology, allowing it to run rampant domestically. He completely negated Soviet history and the socialist path, promoting so-called "common human values." His "new thinking" was not theoretical innovation but thorough, unconditional surrender to bourgeois ideology. As General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party, he personally dug away the last theoretical pillar of the Soviet Communist Party's ruling edifice.

IV. The Final Collapse: A Political Psychological Analysis of "Not a Single Real Man"

When Yeltsin and others launched the "August 19th Incident" [注: 八一九事件, referring to the 1991 coup attempt], delivering a fatal blow to the Soviet Communist Party and Soviet Union, why did that massive group of nearly 20 million party members, already devoid of ideals and beliefs, perform so weakly and numbly?

4.1 The "Total Collapse" of Ideals and Beliefs Led to "Total Paralysis" of Political Will

An army cannot have the will to fight after its flag has been negated and humiliated by the enemy, especially by its own commanders. For Soviet Communist Party members, this was exactly the situation. When they were told by their own General Secretary that the red flag they had struggled for seventy years, and everything that red flag represented—revolution, leaders, the socialist system—were all "wrong" and "evil," what were they fighting for? For whom were they fighting? Without the banner of faith, there was no reason to fight. Ideological disarmament inevitably led to paralysis of action. They had been completely disarmed spiritually by their own leadership.

4.2 The "Self-Preservation" and "Betrayal" of the Privileged Class

For the middle and upper-level bureaucrats and privileged class within the Soviet Communist Party, their choice was more "pragmatic." Many of them had long established countless connections with the Western world through various channels. For them, the choice was no longer between "defending socialism" or "surrendering to capitalism" but how to use their power during the regime's collapse to legally and safely transform the "state wealth" they had previously appropriated into "personal private property." This was indeed the case—after the Soviet Union's dissolution, those who got rich first and became "oligarchs" overnight were precisely the former highest-level party and government officials. They were the most active promoters and biggest beneficiaries of that collapse. They were not "real men" but the most shameless "traitors" who had long been prepared.

4.3 The "Silence" of the People

The broad masses of ordinary Soviet people witnessed all this with heartbreaking "silence." They remained silent not because they yearned for capitalism, but because the Soviet Communist Party that once represented and led them had become unrecognizable. That corrupt, privileged, people-alienated party was no longer "their party." They didn't feel they were losing their country but rather watching a power struggle within the "Kremlin" that had nothing to do with them. How could a party abandoned by its own people expect the people to stand up and defend it at the final moment?

V. Historical Mirror: How to Forge the Spiritual "Calcium" of Communists

The Soviet tragedy provides the most profound and painful mirror for Marxist parties worldwide in the most extreme form. It tells us that what ultimately determines a party's life or death is not the number of party members, not economic growth, not even military strength, but whether it possesses rock-solid ideals and beliefs.

5.1 The Source of "Spiritual Calcium"

As the General Secretary metaphorically puts it, ideals and beliefs are the spiritual "calcium" of Communists. Without "calcium," one gets "rickets" spiritually and falls at the slightest push. So where does this "spiritual calcium" come from?

It comes from profound mastery of Marxist scientific theory—not dogmatic recitation, but truly using it as a powerful weapon for understanding and transforming the world.

It comes from flesh-and-blood connections with the people. Only by always breathing with the people, sharing their destiny, and connecting hearts can one obtain the deepest and most lasting source of strength.

It comes from serious, regular inner-party political life. We must use criticism and self-criticism, through relentless ideological struggle, to cleanse various political dust and microorganisms from our ranks.

It comes from a scientific attitude toward history. We must both acknowledge the hardships and twists of the struggle process and confidently defend the mainstream and essence of revolutionary history, resolutely struggling against any form of historical nihilism.

5.2 An Eternal Lifelong Task

The firmness of ideals and beliefs is not achieved once and for all. It needs to be "cultivated and refined as a lifelong task." In peaceful environments and conditions of holding power, the erosion of various non-proletarian thoughts becomes more hidden and dangerous. Therefore, the only way to prevent "earth-shaking and mountain-trembling" is to constantly and meticulously reinforce the "ideological foundation" of our ideals and beliefs.

Conclusion

In summary, the Soviet tragedy of "not a single real man" was not a sudden event but a systematic great collapse spanning decades—from ideological theory to political line to organizational form. Its root cause was the open betrayal of Marxism-Leninism beginning with the Khrushchev clique and the resulting complete collapse of ideals and beliefs throughout the party.

A party that has lost its soul, no matter how many members it has or how massive its body, is nothing but a walking corpse whose ultimate fate can only be to turn into a pile of decayed dust in history's storms.

The collapse of the Soviet Communist Party profoundly demonstrates an unshakeable truth: for a Marxist party, ideals and beliefs are its lifeline, the foundation of its existence, and the fundamental mark distinguishing it from all other parties. Whenever this spiritual banner is no longer bright red, then regardless of what glorious past it may have had, its final outcome is already predetermined.

This is the most painful lesson that Moscow has left for Communists worldwide—one that must be forever remembered.

By Zi Hengmo

文 /子珩墨

During the Cultural Revolution, New China was one of the fastest growing countries in the world.

Jinggangshan View Jinggangshan View 1927

May 18, 2025 20: 48

Many people say that the first three decades of the PRC developed too slowly, especially during the Cultural Revolution, when development stagnated and the economy collapsed.

Whether development was fast or slow during the first three decades of the PRC and the Cultural Revolution was supported by data.

I. Speed of industrial development in major economies

1. Industrial production index of the United States, the Soviet Union, Japan, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France, India. Data Source: Foreign Economic Statistics 1949-1976, edited by the Editorial Group of Foreign Economic Statisticians, published by China Financial and Economic Press.

2. China's Industrial Production Index 1949-1978. Source: National Bureau of Statistics, "Summary of National Economic Statistics for the 30 Years Since the Founding of New China"

3. On the basis of the above data, the average annual industrial growth rate of countries from 1949 to 1976 was calculated as follows:

It can be seen that between 1949 and 1976, the industrial growth rate in New China was the fastest. The following diagram shows:

It can be seen that New China has leapfrogged ahead of Japan, one of the fastest growing countries after the war.

It was said that the Liberation War had just ended in 1949 , and that it would be unfair to use 1952 , after the recovery period , as the benchmark .

We calculated the industrial growth rates of countries from 1952 to 1976:

It can be seen that even on a 1952 basis, the development of New China ranked second, behind Japan, one of the fastest developing countries after the war.

I cannot find the four tigers - Taiwan, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, and South Korea - for their average annual industrial growth rates from 1949 to 1978. By default, the average annual industrial growth rate of the tigers is higher than that of New China.

Let us look again at what some call stagnant industrial growth rates during the Cultural Revolution, when they were compared to the countries mentioned above.

On the basis of 1965, the average annual growth rate of industry in 1966-1976 was 9.53 per cent.

It can be seen that during the Cultural Revolution, the average annual industrial growth rate of New China ranked second only to Japan during the period of high development. The diagram is as follows:

II. The pace of industrial development before and after reform and opening up

1. The industrial production index from 1949 to 1978 is as shown above.

II. Industrial production index, 1978-2008. Source: National Bureau of Statistics, China Statistical Yearbook 2009

The industrial production of the first three decades of New China included manufacturing and construction, and thus corresponded to the secondary industry in the table.

In 1949-1978 (29 years), the average annual industrial growth rate in New China was 13.48%, corresponding to 11.47% in 1978-2007 (29 years after the reopening of the economy).

Similarly, some would say that using 1949 as a base is unfair. For the sake of equity, I made four control groups based on the same length of time to calculate the average annual industrial growth rate.

Each of the above-mentioned control groups used the same amount of years, for example, the first control group was from 1949 to 1978 before the change, a total of 29 years; The reopening also took 29 years, from 1978 to 2007. Other control groups went the same way.

The pace of development in the various intervals is as follows:

The diagram is as follows (blue is before the change, orange is after the change):

According to some, "the decade was a catastrophe that destroyed production and stagnated development." What are the facts like?

On the basis of 1965, the average annual growth rate of industry in 1966-1976 was 9.53 per cent;

When based on 1978, the first decade after the reopening, the annual industrial growth rate in 1979-1989 was 10.33%.

If the annual industrial growth rate for the period 1980 - 1990 is 9.85 per cent, based on 1979, starting with 1980, when contract production began to reach the household level. This is basically the same as 9.53 percent in the decade of the Cultural Revolution, or a relatively small gap.

III. Growth rate of agriculture in major economies

1. Agricultural production index for the United States, the Soviet Union, Japan, West Germany, the United Kingdom, France and India. Data Source: Foreign Economic Statistics 1949-1976, edited by the Editorial Group of Foreign Economic Statisticians, published by China Financial and Economic Press.

2. China Agricultural Production Index 1949-1978. Source: National Bureau of Statistics, "Summary of National Economic Statistics for the 30 Years Since the Founding of New China"

3. On the basis of the above data, the average annual growth rate of agriculture in all countries from 1949 to 1976 was calculated as follows:

It can be seen that between 1949 and 1976, the agricultural growth rate in New China was the fastest.

To everyone's complete surprise, agricultural development in the new China has been said to be slow, and the results have been so bright - brilliant. The graphics are more obvious:

As with industrial data, the annual growth rate of agricultural production in New China remains exceptional, outpacing that of other major economies.

In particular, it is worth noting that Soviet agriculture was hacked for so many years, and from the data, the Soviet Union's agricultural production growth rate was also higher than that of major capitalist countries such as Europe, the United States and Japan.

Similarly, some would say that using data from 1950 is not fair. Then let's look at the rate of agricultural development in all countries between 1952 and 1976, using the year 1952 as a base.

It can be seen that between 1952 and 1976, the pace of agricultural development in New China was second only to that of the Soviet Union.

IV. The pace of agricultural development before and after reform and opening up

1. The agricultural production index from 1949 to 1978 is as shown above.

2. Index of agricultural production, 1978-2008. Source: National Bureau of Statistics, China Statistical Yearbook 2009

In 1949-1978 (29 years), the average annual growth rate of agriculture in New China was 4.32 percent, compared with 4.58 percent in 1978-2007 (29 years after the reopening of the country).

If the annual growth rate of agriculture was 4.55% starting in 1980, when production was distributed to households, using 1979 as the basis for 29 years, 1979-2008.

Arguably, it was almost flat.

V. Comparison of GDP growth rates between New China and countries (regions) in the world

The author inquired about the GDP growth data of various countries (regions) of the World Bank, the earliest data is 1961. Based on this data, I have calculated the average annual GDP growth rate of these countries (regions) between 1961 and 1978. Some countries (region) are not included in the statistics because of lack of data, and several countries (region), because they do not have complete data, can only make partial statistics.

According to the data in the 1982 China Statistical Yearbook of the National Bureau of Statistics, the annual growth rate of China's total social product from 1949 to 1978 was 9.37%.

The statistical ranking results are as follows:

A total of 103 countries (regions) can be counted, and it can be seen that the annual growth rate of the GDP of New China ranks fourth, exceeding that of developed countries such as Europe, the United States and Japan, and also exceeding that in most developing countries. Ahead of New China are Oman (No. 1), Botswana (No. 2) and South Korea (No. 3).

If we look at the top three, the first is Oman, the country that discovered oil in 1964 and the GDP started to take off. The following diagram shows:

Second place is Botswana, which gained independence in 1966 and discovered diamond mines soon after, from which GDP took off. The following diagram shows:

Former socialist countries (such as Romania, Bulgaria, Poland and Hungary in Eastern Europe) and Taiwan, China, do not have pre-1978 data in the World Bank database and are therefore not included in the rankings.

Some would still say that it is unfair to use 1949 as a baseline, and that the average annual growth rate of the GDP of the People's Republic of China was 7.92%, based on 1952.

The statistical ranking is as follows:

It can be seen that even based on 1952, the annual growth rate of New China was very impressive, ranking eighth.Singapore, Hong Kong, China, Côte d'Ivoire and Iran are added.

Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan, also known as the Asian tigers, mainly inherited industrial transfers from Europe and the United States and received significant investment from developed capitalist countries in Europe and the U.S., thus creating a miracle of economic boom. Iran's rapid development is due to the heavy investment by the United States in oil and developed capitalist countries in Europe and the United States.Côte d'Ivoire's rapid economic growth after independence in the 1960s was largely driven by increased exports of coffee, cocoa and timber, as well as heavy investment by its colonial power, France.

It can be said that none of the countries (regions) ahead of New China achieved their rapid development without the joint embargo of the developed capitalist bloc led by the United States, and without exception they received significant investment from the United States and Europe. The exception is New China.

Under the joint embargo imposed by the world's leading developed capitalist countries, no country (region) has been able to grow normally, let alone develop rapidly - except in New China under Chairman Mao Zedong. Chairman Mao's new China achieved rapid economic growth, which in itself was a wonder of the world - especially since the United States in America coerced the major capitalist countries into embargoing on the new China.

Apart from New China, perhaps there is only Lenin and Stalin's socialist Soviet Union (the author has not verified this, only on subjective guesswork). Not rigorous enough).

VI. Comparison of GDP growth rates between New China and countries (regions) in the world during the Cultural Revolution

The vast majority of people say that the economy stagnated and collapsed during the Cultural Revolution.

Deng, vol. II, Speech at the Opening of the National Scientific Congress (18 March 1978):

[ We had a sharp and bitter struggle with the Gang of Four over the question of whether or not to carry out the Four Modernizations。The "Gang of Four" said nonsense that "the day of the realization of the four modernization period is the time of the restoration of capitalism" and carried out crazed destruction, which left China's national economy once on the verge of collapse, and the gap between science and technology and the world's advanced level was widening.]

The author has written several articles before that on the economic and financial situation during the Cultural Revolution.

Recommended reading:

The first three decades of New China left great dividends for reform and opening up

Learning from Deng's Selected Essays (24) Poor for thousands of years (1)

The First Three Decades of New China and Reform and opening up - accumulation and borrowing

"Don't want to go back to the past anymore, because the poor are afraid" is completely against historical materialism.

Study in Deng's Selected Essays (13) Did the economy collapse during the Cultural Revolution?

Previous sections of this article compared the economic growth data of the People's Republic of China from 1949 to 1978 and from 1952 to 1978 with countries (regions) around the world. This section separately compares the average annual growth rate during the Cultural Revolution with countries (regions) around the world. Data sources are the same as in Part V of this article.

Based on 1965, before the Cultural Revolution, the average annual economic growth rate of the New China during the Cultural revolution was 7.66%, ranking tenth, still surpassing all developed countries (regions) as well as most developing countries (region).

VII.

Managing the World, No. 3, 2022: The theoretical and practical logics of the formation and development of the basic economic system since the founding of New China

[ By the end of the 1970s , China had almost all the industrial sectors that the Western countries had .

The famous American scholar Maurice Mysner once said:“In fact, Mao Zedong's era was far from what is now widely rumored to be an era of economic stagnation. It was the greatest modern era in the history of the world, no less than the most violent period of industrialization experienced by several of the major upstarts on the modern industrial stage, including Germany, Japan, and Russia.

Before the end of 1978, New China had a complete and independent industrial system, which was of particular significance. Such countries (regions) were a very, very small minority at the time.

Academic Monthly, No. 5, 1996, Economic Changes and Trends in New China - Three Questions with Mr. Zhang Wuchang (Author: Cheng Enfu)

Contrast between the early years of industrialization. In the early years of capitalist industrialization in the United States, industrial production grew at the fastest rate. In 1850-1859 it was 6.1 per cent, in 1860-1869 it was 8.2 per cent, 1870-1879 it was 3.1 per cent, 1880-1889 it was 5.5 per cent and 1890-1899 it was 3.3 per cent. During the first five-year plan period of normal economic functioning in China, industrial production increased by an average of 18 per cent per year. Fourth, periods of similar starting point are compared. China's industrial production base in 1952 was always larger than that of the United States in 1860, and China's industry growth rate from these two years started much faster than that of America. From 1860 to 1880, the US industrial output value increased from 1.89 billion US dollars to 5.37 billion US dollars, which increased by 180% in 20 years; From 1952 to 1957, China's total industrial output value (excluding handicrafts) rose from 27.02 billion yuan to 65.02 billion yuan, an increase of 141 percent in five years.]

Compared with the early industrialization of developed countries, I once wrote an article using data to prove that the industrialization process of New China was much faster than that of developed nations in Europe and the United States.

Recommended reading:

Study of the Deng Elect (twenty-seven) Compare the pace of development before and after the reopening

Excerpts are as follows:

It took 26 years for the People's Republic of China to go from 1.3 million tons to 31.7 million tons. It took 33 years for the US, 90 years for the UK (with a peak production of 28.29 million tonnes in 1970), 76 years for France (with a peak production of 25.26 million tonnes in 1973), 26 years for the USSR (like New China) and 63 years for India - until 2003.

It took the People's Republic of China 26 years to produce iron from 1.9 million tons to 35 million tons. The United States took 42 years, the United Kingdom 120 (with a maximum annual output of 17.74 million tonnes in 1965), France 93 (with a maximum annual output of 22.51 million tonnes in 1973), the Soviet Union 58 years and India 67 years - until 2007.]

VIII. Indicators per capita

Some people say that if you measured per capita, the development of New China is slower than that of other countries (regions), and slower still than it was after the reopening.

On the development of per capita indicators before and after the reopening, I wrote a previous article. Data have shown that the gap between the per capita indicators and the world's major countries (regions) after the reform has increased relative to that before the reform, and it does not become the same until 10 or even 20 years later.

Recommended reading:

Study of Deng's Selected Papers (Thirty-six) Compare the pace of development before and after the reopening (2) Also answered to Weibo user @ Kong Meng Marle

Excerpts:

[China's per capita GDP to France's per capita GDP ratio, after the reform, except in 1984, 1985, other years of per capita GDP is lower than 1976, until 20 years later in 1996, beyond 1976.It took 20 years to surpass that.

China's per capita GDP to Italy's per capita GDP ratio, even more exaggerated, per capita GDP is lower than 1976, until 24 years later in 2000, it surpassed 1976. Twenty-four years.

China's share of per capita GDP in Germany is similar to France's, but a year later, and it wasn't until 21 years later, in 1997, that its share of per capita GDP exceeded that of 1976. 21 years.

For the United Kingdom, it was not until 2003 that the share of GDP per capita exceeded that of 1976. A full 27 years.

China's per capita GDP as a share of Japan's GDP did not exceed its share in 1976 until 26 years later, in 2002. 26 years.

After 19 years, in 1994, China's per capita GDP as a share of the United States surpassed 1976.

The ratio of China's per capita GDP to South Korea's per capita GDP is even worse, and until 2003 it did not surpass its 1976 ratio.]

Let's look at the rate of population growth.

China's population, 541.67 million in 1949; In 1978, 962.59 million; :: 1.32129 billion in 2007.

During the 27 years before the reopening of the country, from 1949 to 1978, the population grew at an average annual rate of 2%. During the 27 years following the reopening, from 1978 to 2007, the population grew at an average annual rate of 1.1%.

Before the reopening, the population in 1978 was 77.71% higher than in 1949; After the reopening in 2007, the population increased by 37.26% compared to 1978.

Before the reopening, New China's population grew at an average annual rate of 2.05%, second only to India among major economies. After the reopening, China's population grew at an average annual rate of 1.1%.

It is common sense that, with the same aggregate economic indicators, the per capita economic indicators of economies with fast population growth must be lower. Even under the above-mentioned growth rates, the post-restructuring per capita indicator did not surpass the pre-restructurings (1978), when compared with the world's major capitalist per capita indicators, until a few decades later.

IX. The Ninety Years of the Communist Party of China Assessment of the First Three Decades of New China

Published in June 2016 by the CPC Party History Press and Party Literature Publishing House, "Ninety Years of the Communist Party of China" by the Research Office of the Party History of the Central Committee of the CCPC:

First, an independent and relatively complete industrial system and national economic system were established on the basis of "one poverty and two whites."

...... Before Mao Zedong's death, China had not only been able to independently design and mass-produce cars, airplanes, tanks, tractors, etc., but also successfully exploded atomic bombs and hydrogen bombs, tested and successfully launched medium- and long-range missiles and artificial satellites. These developments have shocked the whole world. At the same time, we have significantly improved the level of food production and resilience to natural disasters by building waterways, carrying out agricultural infrastructure, cultivating and promoting good seeds, and promoting science-based farming.

Deng Xiaoping stated clearly in 1979:“The socialist revolution has made it possible for our country to significantly reduce the gap in economic development with the developed capitalist countries. . In the past 30 years, we have achieved progress not achieved in the past hundreds and thousands of years in the old China.”]

The Lost 40 Years

Zhao Zimo, written May 9, 2025

The sky that truly belongs to us will shine again. As long as someone still remembers, dawn will come no matter how long the night.

Yesterday evening, a young man stopped me. His eyes were dark and bright, like a hungry dog's eyes on a rainy night. He asked, "Have we lost more than forty years?"

I looked at his patched coat and remained silent for a moment. The wind blew, and he shrank his neck like a frozen bird. I nodded and said, "Not just forty years—they've taken that plus interest."

I

Some say the past was gray, while today is colorful. But walking through alleys at night, I always hear strange sounds: coughing, gasping, and sighs like sleep-talking. As if someone is struggling in the darkness, wanting to call out but swallowing it back.

More than forty years ago, a light went out. Not an oil lamp hanging under the eaves, but a kind of light that refused to bow. It once shone on wheat seedlings in the fields, on iron filings in factories, and on the flickering hope in children's eyes.

Back then, the sky was high, the earth was thick, and people's backbones were straight. Everyone felt that as long as they gritted their teeth, even mud could turn to gold, and destiny could be grasped in their own hands.

Later, someone changed the frame, mounted the simplest words, and hung them on the highest floor of tall buildings, allowing only distant gazing—no touching, no using, only reminiscing. Like a sealed jar of aged wine, even its fragrance gradually soured.

So, this is how we quietly lost more than forty years.

II

Some people lost their bowls; some lost their bones; and some have even forgotten how they lost anything.

"Let's all get rich together," some shouted. But behind every pleasant-sounding word stood rows of people with bent backs. Like wheat planted in cement ground, breaking at the slightest breeze.

I know a worker who entered the factory at sixteen, had a hunched back by forty, with fingers like withered branches. He whispered, "When I was little, my grandfather told me that workers were the most honorable people under heaven." After speaking, he raised his eyes slightly, then quickly lowered his head, as if afraid of disturbing something.

If this is called progress, what does regression look like? If this is called reform, whose life exactly has been reformed away?

III

Someone once said that all distant places in the world are related to me. Someone also said we should serve the majority with utmost loyalty until our last breath.

Later, these words were written into textbooks, hung on walls, becoming exhibits in museums. Children recited them fluently, adults listened numbly, like hearing an old melody—the tune remains, but the flavor is lost.

True progress isn't building golden houses for a few people, but letting millions have smoke from their chimneys, laughter, and inner strength that grows from their bones.

A true future isn't turning a group of people into numbers, stuffing them into the shining decimal points of reports, line after line.

But now, "struggle" has become a rat crossing the street, "revolution" has become after-dinner jokes, and "class" has become a dusty monument in the corner of a museum.

People dressed sharply on stage talk about "inclusiveness" and "innovation," like slowly boiling frogs in warm water. People below, heads down, carrying bags, running blurred in the rain.

Does anyone still remember who originally farmed the land, who built the buildings, who raised this family while holding broken bowls?

IV

Forty years can turn infants into white-haired elders, can build cities and then let them collapse, can simmer ideals into a pot of bitter soup.

Some laugh, saying, "Don't mention those old stories, be more realistic!"

But children can't afford school, the elderly dare not get sick, young people sleep under bridges, and middle-aged people sell their lives working overtime—is this reality?

What should really change are the stones pressing on people, not the rules that make people accustomed to bending; What should really be discarded are the iron chains that steal dignity, not the courage to once clench fists.

The red flags taken down in those years shouldn't become ribbons packaging capital. They originally had a sentence embroidered on them:

"The people, only the people, are the driving force in the creation of history."

We haven't lost forty years—the forty years were quietly taken away. Stripped bit by bit by soft fingers, coaxed bit by bit by slick tongues, packaged bit by bit by shiny terminology.

Faith was stolen. Backbone was stolen. Even the future was secretly stuffed into someone else's pocket.

Epilogue

However, no matter how thick the dust, it cannot kill the seeds.

A hundred years ago, someone carried a pen into the night, cutting open festering flesh, one stroke at a time. Bloody as it was, at least one could still smell the scent of being alive.

Today, we should also learn to pick up that pen. Even if there are thorns underfoot, even if there is mist ahead, we must remember:

As long as there are still people who refuse to kneel, as long as there is still a fist slowly clenching in a pocket, as long as there is still a word faintly glowing in the dark night—

Then these forty years will not have been lost in vain.

The sky that truly belongs to us will shine again. As long as someone still remembers, no matter how long the night, dawn will come.

May 20, 2025, Updated

"No Debates" - The Shield of the Privileged

By Zhao Zimo, written May 6, 2025

In recent years, "no debates" has become an all-purpose shield in the public opinion arena. When you question American hegemony, they say "no debates"; when you question private ownership, they say "no debates"; when you ask where Chairman Mao went wrong, they immediately say: "That's all in the past, no debates." This isn't tolerance or rationality—it's a fig leaf covering contradictions and protecting privilege.

Behind this stand "elites" who eat from capitalism's table and drink foreigners' blood—in plain terms, they are the old society's advisors and the new imperialism's lackeys . Who Invented "No Debates"?

The masses didn't invent this. Ordinary people have never feared debate. They debate which vendor has the freshest pork at the market and argue on their kang beds about whether children should go to school. Those who fear debate are the "opinion leaders" living in Western-style mansions, drinking red wine, and educated at Harvard.

The originators of "no debates" were those public intellectuals from the reform faction. When they were cutting down public ownership, they forbade debate, saying "practice is the sole criterion for testing truth"; later, when their privatization led to bank failures and skyrocketing land prices, they said "these are phase-specific issues, no debates." With one phrase—"no debates"—they transformed class struggle into academic disagreement and people's anger into an emotional problem.

They don't fear debate. They fear losing the debate. They know well that if Chairman Mao were brought back, their little "free market treasuries" would be smashed.

II. "No Debates" Is a Shield Protecting Privilege

Let's break down this phrase: "No debates" actually means "shut up."

When you say the wealth gap is widening, they say: "Don't be emotional, no debates"; When you mention the importance of state-owned enterprises, they say: "Don't promote extremist resurgence, no debates"; When you say Chairman Mao's era shouldn't be stigmatized, they immediately bring out: "That's all in the past, no debates."

Don't you find it strange? If contentious matters can't be debated, what's the point of public opinion? What's the point of thought? What's the point of the masses?

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism teaches us that class struggle is society's fundamental contradiction. Debate itself reflects political and class positions. And "no debates" precisely reflects certain people's class position: they fear the awakening consciousness of the lower classes, fear another era of "sweeping away all monsters and demons."

III. "No Debates" Is Fake Neutrality, Real Surrender

They often say: "We should look at issues objectively, not ideologically." Doesn't this sound familiar? Isn't it like Wang Jingwei's "curved road to save the country"? Like the traitor merchants' "economy has no borders"? The essence is the same: put down your knife and stretch out your neck; don't talk about class, let me talk about markets; don't mention struggle, let me talk about making money peacefully.

What is "no debates"? It's a fig leaf covering class surrender, a lubricant for cultural colonization. Today you don't debate about Chairman Mao, tomorrow you won't debate about Japanese army massacres. In a few more years, they can use the New York Times as a textbook, claiming "the atomic bomb saved China."

They say "truth becomes clearer through debate"? Try debating about Chairman Mao, and they'll immediately label you "ultra-left" or "Cultural Revolution poison." These people aren't afraid of debate; they're afraid that after you win, you'll come to collect debts with sickle and hammer in hand.

IV. Debate Is the Weapon of the Proletariat

What did Chairman Mao say? "Without correct political views, one has no soul."

And correct political views come from debate. What was the Yan'an Rectification about? Debate! How was the primary stage of socialism positioned? Through debate! Every major line, policy, and measure—none came through "no debates." They came through the masses, through struggle, through exposing shortcomings and ugliness, through table-pounding confrontations.

Only servants fear debate, only running dogs want to silence others. Behind debate lie questions of political line, questions of the future, questions of whether to continue the revolution.

So behind every voice saying "no debates," someone is building their own tower, creating a silent majority. They know that once you start debating, others might begin to wonder: can they also be overthrown?

V. Why Must We Debate?

We don't debate to win or lose, but for truth, political line, and the masses. If you don't debate today, you're accepting lies by default; if you want to debate tomorrow, you might not even have a microphone.

"No debates" is the elites' last fig leaf. They can no longer say Chairman Mao was bad because too many people have begun to miss him. They can no longer directly call the masses stupid because the masses have begun to awaken. They have only one last card: use "no debates" to drive you out of the public opinion arena, make you an "outlier," and then label you an "extremist."

This is a new form of class oppression, a new packaging of ideological colonization, a new rhetoric of cultural betrayal.

So we must debate. We must debate "who truly represents the people"; debate "who is exploiting whom"; debate "whether to continue private ownership or return to public ownership"; debate "whether it's American father's freedom or Chairman Mao's people's democracy."

This is the right of the proletariat, and even more, our responsibility.

Author's Conclusion

How many people's livelihoods are hidden behind the phrase "no debates"? How many traitors' disguises? How many truths haven't been spoken for years?

In today's era where "anti-communism isn't illegal, but anti-Americanism gets you banned," we must debate even more, we must loudly proclaim: debate isn't a bad thing—it's the prelude to revolution, the awakening of the people, the first step toward a new world.

Don't listen when they say "times have changed"; they fear people returning to settle accounts. They fear Chairman Mao's mass line rising again, fear that "long live the people" might truly be more than just a slogan.

So, debate! Not to debate is to help them kill us.

Sichuan Yibin: Workers Set Factory Ablaze Over Wage Dispute, Netizens Overwhelmingly Support Worker (May 20-22, 2025)

A 22-year-old textile worker in Sichuan Yibin set fire to a factory after his wages were deducted and his attempts to recover the money failed, causing a fire that lasted three days. According to multiple netizen reports and eyewitness accounts, at 11 AM on May 20, a fire broke out at Jinyu Textile Factory in Pingshan County, Yibin City. A young male worker stabbed a financial staff member who was closely related to the factory owner, then set the factory on fire.

Informed netizens said that the worker had previously been denied permission to resign and had 800 yuan arbitrarily deducted from his wages. After multiple failed attempts to recover his wages, he lost emotional control and ultimately chose this extreme form of protest. Other netizens pointed out that the financial staff member was a relative of the factory owner, behaved arrogantly, and escalated the conflict.

"A worker wanted to quit, they deducted 800 from him, he asked for it several times but they didn't give it to him, so this person set the fire."

"They don't owe wages but they deduct money. Why deduct? Because the financial staff is a connected person in the factory."

"I heard they deducted 800 yuan and the employee burned down a factory."

"I heard it was deliberate, over 800 yuan in wages. The boss wouldn't give it and hit him, so in anger he set fire to the factory. Don't know if it's true or false."

"The second and third workshops were burned, only the first workshop wasn't burned."

"Yibin textile factory, a 22-year-old guy couldn't get his wages, so he set the factory on fire. I'm watching the news. Once a person has no weak spots, they won't fear anything 😭."

"It started burning yesterday at 11 AM, still burning now."

"The boss was stabbed."

"Wrong, it was the financial staff who was stabbed."

After the incident, the event spread widely on Chinese social platforms, with public opinion overwhelmingly supporting the worker involved, calling him a hero and viewing his actions as "the rage of working people."

"This is the people's fury." "Workers' rage." "People's hero." "The people's power is bright." "That brother realized the anger in many people's hearts, salute." "You can be weak, afraid, and retreat, but don't be afraid of being deceived and treated meanly. Because they won't remember your kindness and might disappoint you." "Workers' anger." "He is a symbol of the awakened fearless." "Burn himself to illuminate others." "The young man is truly brave, worth learning from." "Thumbs up for him!" "I only care about how the hero is doing."

Meanwhile, the Jinyu Textile Factory owner became the target of criticism. Netizens generally believed that while the incident had extreme elements, the root cause was the enterprise's exploitation of workers, wage deductions, and arrogant attitude. One comment read: "Gave all unscrupulous bosses a lesson." Others sarcastically noted: "This time the boss finally experienced what it feels like for a worker to lose 800 yuan." Some netizens pointed out that such labor disputes and difficulties in rights protection are not isolated cases, but common oppression that grassroots workers have long endured.

"800 yuan is nothing to a boss, but for a worker it might be their bottom line!" "800 yuan isn't much, but when you're penniless, it's life-saving money that can buy half a month's food." "Does anyone believe that 800 yuan is my monthly living expenses? Money is hard to earn now." "A few hundred yuan doesn't sound like much, but for ordinary families it can do many things." "To some people it's just a few hundred yuan, but to others it's already their stress tolerance limit. There are no winners here." "800 yuan might just be the cost of one bottle of wine for the boss, but for many grassroots people it's a month's living expenses. With that 800 they could survive." "800 yuan is also life-saving money."

Netizens also believed that grassroots people live too difficult lives - 800 yuan is just the cost of one bottle of wine for a boss, but for grassroots laborers it might be their bottom line.

Beyond expressions of support, many netizens also expressed willingness to donate money for the worker's family and fundraise for a lawyer.

"If the young hero makes his account public, no matter how poor I am, I'm willing to support him with 300-500." "Really worth crowdfunding, his light illuminated all working people." "If the young man's family needs help, count me in." "We poor people should form a points association. Anyone who fights gloriously for rights should receive salary support for their families according to the scale." "Donate money for him to hire a lawyer, I'll contribute 100." "Donate to this family, it's his actions that illuminated everyone." "Just saw this, many people in the comments saying to donate to the young man's parents, he held up a bright sky for us." "If the young hero makes his account public, no matter how poor I am, I'm willing to support him with 300-500." "If the big brother needs people to come forward, I'll also donate to him. Donations should be spent on places like this! Those who carry firewood for others shouldn't freeze to death in wind and snow!" "Still hope the guy's parents can come forward, everyone donate a little, let the elders have support for old age." "I'll donate 300 to the young man, because I've also been exploited, including now - 2 months' performance bonuses haven't been paid!" "I'll donate 1000 to the young man, he's a role model for working people." "I'll donate 100 for the brave young man!" "I'll donate 3000 to him." "Need to donate 3000." "When donations are needed, please @ me, however small the contribution." "Can I donate to the young man? I personally contribute 500." "My dream is to meet this brother who set the fire, want to transfer 500 yuan to him." "How do I donate to the young man?" "Those who carry firewood for others shouldn't freeze to death in wind and snow."

This incident was like a fuse, igniting countless people's resonance and anger. The suffering of grassroots laborers has long been ignored, living precariously step by step. People seem to all be waiting for that critical point that triggers change.