"Min Chao Phenomenon" to Discuss the State of the Marxist Discipline and Its Roots 

Hao Guisheng,  Wuyouzhixiang, on January 26, 2026.

The current state of China's Marxist troops is not isolated; it is a significant manifestation of the inversion of right and wrong, beauty and ugliness, good and evil throughout society. Its main deep-rooted cause lies in the direction and path of privatization and marketization reforms that have persisted for many years. A considerable number of so-called "Marxist scholars" have already become slaves to power, fame, status, and money, with not a trace of Marxism left on them.Everyone knows that not long ago, a not-too-big but not-too-small incident occurred in the ideological and theoretical circles: Zhejiang University appointed Min Chao, a 26-year-old PhD student from its School of Marxism, as a doctoral supervisor , which sparked doubts from netizens regarding the student's academic level, Zhejiang University's response, and related phenomena. The author refers to the "Min Chao appointment as doctoral supervisor" and the resulting social phenomena collectively as the "Min Chao Phenomenon." While "Min Chao Phenomenon" is individual, dialectics holds that the individual contains the general, and phenomena contain essence. The author uses the "Min Chao Phenomenon" to discuss issues concerning the state of the Marxist discipline and its roots.I. What exactly does the theoretical level of Min Chao's representative papers illustrate?Min Chao was appointed as a doctoral supervisor. According to Zhejiang University's official report in February 2025, Min Chao is a 2023-level PhD student in the School of Marxism, under the supervision of Professor Liu Tongfang, with a research focus on the basic principles of Marxism. Under Professor Liu Tongfang's guidance, he published academic papers as sole author or first author in journals such as Ideological and Theoretical Education Herald, Jiangsu Social Sciences, Shandong Social Sciences, and Ideological and Theoretical Education. He participated in three National Social Science Fund projects; his papers won first prize at the national "Ma Yan Cup" Marxist Discipline Doctoral Forum and other university-organized national Marxist theory graduate academic forums; he received honors such as the "National Scholarship for Doctoral Students" and the "Second Higher Education Marxist Theory Discipline Student Reward Fund." In the first issue of Marxism Research in 2025, Min Chao published an academic paper titled "Marx's Study of the 1848 French Revolution and the Specific Turn of Historical Materialism." This article represents the highest level of Min Chao's scholarship and is the most important basis for his appointment as a doctoral supervisor. Most netizens question whether, even if Min Chao is at a relatively high level among his peers, his Marxist theoretical knowledge and foundation are not particularly solid or firm. Appointing someone so young as a doctoral supervisor so early—does this not smack of "pulling up seedlings to help them grow" or急功近利 (seeking quick success and instant benefits)? This doubt from netizens is entirely reasonable.Min Chao's representative paper falls within the field of Marxist philosophical history. The author has spent a lifetime researching Marxist basic theory, especially the history of Marxist development, and naturally took great interest in this paper. However, after careful reading, I was shocked. The central thesis of the paper is that before 1848, Marx's study of historical materialism remained at the level of abstract general principles without examining social reality. Only with his study of the 1848 French Revolution did Marx undergo a "specific turn" toward social reality. The author believes this paper not only lacks quality but has an erroneous central view and confused logical thinking. From the moment historical materialism was established, Marx immediately turned to studying social reality, especially the three major workers' movements in England, France, and Germany. The Communist Manifesto is precisely the typical product and representative work of applying historical materialism to study class struggle and the state of capitalism. (See my article "Does Historical Materialism Really Have a 'Specific Turn'?" for details.)The reasons Min Chao produced such an error-filled article are: first, he fundamentally does not understand the essence and function of historical materialism; second, he does not understand the essence of The Communist Manifesto and its differences and internal connections with Marx's major works after the Manifesto, nor the distinctions and connections between Marxism, Leninism, and Mao Zedong Thought; third, it objectively belittles and erases the extremely important theoretical status of The Communist Manifesto as the representative work of Marxism's founding in the entire history of Marxism's emergence and development; fourth, it shows that his Marxist theoretical foundation is extremely superficial, shallow, and unsteady. Yet such so-called academic research level was recommended for Zhejiang University's School of Marxism "New Hundred Talents Plan" researcher and doctoral supervisor position.II. The "Min Chao Phenomenon" reflects a series of problems in Zhejiang University and the national construction of the Marxist disciplineMin Chao's paper is not just a personal issue; it essentially mirrors serious problems in the mentors of Zhejiang University's School of Marxism and the discipline itself. A PhD student's paper—from topic selection, writing, to publication—must first pass review and approval by the doctoral supervisor and the discipline group. Zhejiang University's report states that the supervisor is Professor Liu Tongfang, who was reportedly once the dean of the School of Marxism. The problems in Min's paper are actually those of the supervisor and discipline group. Why, from topic selection and writing to the entire defense process, did no one in the supervisor or group clearly point out the errors and their substance? This inevitably raises doubts about the level and Marxist theoretical foundation of the supervisor and group. "With one's own confusion, how can one enlighten others?" Can doctoral supervisors in such a state truly train genuine Marxist scholars?The "Min Chao Phenomenon" is, in a sense, a microcosm of the national state of Marxist discipline research. The author has spent a lifetime teaching and researching Marxist basic principles, original works, and development history, read numerous research papers and books, published multiple articles in Marxism Research, Philosophical Research, etc., and attended many academic conferences on philosophy and Marxism. Thus, I have a relatively good understanding of the state of Marxist and philosophical research. It is undeniable that the ideological and theoretical circles have achieved much in Marxist research, but the problems in Marxist discipline research are far more severe than the "Min Chao Phenomenon." The author briefly points out a few:

1. Not truly understanding what the essence of Marxism really is?
   After the Central Committee established Marxism as a first-level discipline in 2004, the number of Marxist professors, doctoral supervisors, and graduate students grew like mushrooms after rain. But the author finds that while scholars all study "Marxism," most works, papers, and research  results fail to clearly explain what the essence and characteristics of Marxism are. The author believes Marxism is the open scientific system founded by Marx and Engels, guided by historical materialism, studying the fundamental opposition between socialism and capitalism, ultimately abolishing private ownership and classes, and realizing the liberation of the proletariat. Its core is class struggle, the fundamental opposition between socialism and capitalism, abolishing private ownership and classes, and achieving proletarian liberation and communism. Yet most contemporary papers and works on Marxism deliberately avoid this fundamental issue, even consciously or unconsciously opposing and criticizing Marxism's class struggle thought and the essential distinctions and oppositions between socialism and capitalism, paving the way for the rampant revisionist trends and capitalist restoration in China today. Avoiding, denying, or opposing Marxist class struggle theory essentially denies and castrates the marrow and soul of Marxism.

2. Not conscientiously and solidly studying and researching Marxist original works.
   Engels repeatedly emphasized studying the theory "based on the original works." But many scholars do not seriously study the originals, habitually relying on second-hand, third-hand, or even distorted and attacking materials to study Marxism. The author estimates that Min Chao has absolutely not carefully read The Communist Manifesto. He confuses the "general principles" mentioned in the Manifesto's first preface with the "general principles" of historical materialism. He even exaggerates Marx's The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850 and The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, yet probably has not seriously studied them—otherwise, he would have noted Marx's emphasis on class struggle, proletarian dictatorship, and permanent revolution in those works. The Communist Manifesto is Marxism's most important work. Its core is the statement: "The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." Yet in recent years, ideological circles have directly or indirectly denied this sentence. Professor Zhou Xincheng even wrote an article on this sentence, facing encirclement from hostile forces and criticism from many so-called "Marxist" theorists and scholars.

3. Not emphasizing the popularization and propagation of Marxism, remaining stuck in abstract, obscure, purely academic theoretical research.
   Marx pointed out in 1844 that philosophy takes the proletariat as its material weapon, and the proletariat takes philosophy as its spiritual weapon. Marxism is not only to scientifically interpret the world but, more importantly, to "change the world," with the masses as the主体. Chairman Mao said to liberate philosophy from philosophers' classrooms and books and turn it into a sharp weapon in the hands of the masses. Marxist research should be the same. An extremely important task for professional Marxist theoretical scholars, professors, and doctoral supervisors is to propagate and educate the masses with Marxism in its original, authentic form, influencing various disciplines to apply Marxism. But many contemporary so-called Marxist scholars in China have long thrown Marx's and Chairman Mao's words and this sense of social responsibility out the window. They treat Marxism as pure academic research, a rice bowl for livelihood, or a means and stepping stone for personal fame, status, and profit. Their articles are not written for the masses but for self-admiration in small circles. Marx in 1842 described German philosophers as fond of quiet solitude, closed-off self-contemplation, intoxicated with indifferent self-introspection... not accessible; their profound self-deepening appears to laymen as bizarre as away from real life; treated as a magician solemnly chanting spells no one understands. Aren't many of China's current Marxist scholars' research results similar? Besides erroneous views and logical confusion, Min Chao's paper has two flaws: obscure language (e.g., "specific turn," "perspective shift," "specific operational mechanisms") and failure to clarify the theoretical and practical significance of the article.

4. Consciously or unconsciously using Western theories, especially "Western Marxism" and Western economics, to interpret Marxism.
   In the 1980s and 1990s, some Chinese scholars believed China's Marxism came from the Soviet Union—a "Marxism" revised by Lenin. They proposed "return to origins and innovate," claiming to study so-called "authentic Marxism," but instead of learning from original works, they used "Western Marxism" to interpret it. For example, they severed the Marx-Engels relationship, saying Marx studied human studies and subjectivity, Engels studied matter and objectivity; Engels only played an explanatory role in Marxism's founding and got it wrong. Lenin and Mao followed Engels' path, so the "Marxism" upheld by the Communist Party of China is not true Marxism. This phenomenon exists not only in philosophy but is even more severe in economics. A certain former Politburo Standing Committee member of the Communist Party actually called on Communist Party members and theoretical scholars to seriously study Adam Smith's two books and use them as guiding ideology for the Party's reforms. Last year's Xinhua News Agency report on "ideological colonization" included such conditions in theoretical circles. This not only fails to achieve true "return to origins and innovate" but deviates further from Marxism's track.

5. Adopting an idealistic and metaphysical mindset of "power supreme."
   Marxism emphasizes materialism and seeking truth from facts, but deviations from materialism and seeking truth from facts are quite serious in ideological circles. Instead of studying Marxism from original works or social reality, they consciously or unconsciously treat official documents and leaders' speeches as absolute truths and interpret Marxism accordingly. For example, when officials promote privatization reform, they claim the "abolition of private property" in the Manifesto was mistranslated, proposed too early, or revised by Marx and Engels in later years. When officials call for integrating with the world, some scholars treat the "globalization" thought in the Manifesto as its core. Peking University's Marxist Research Center published Marxism and Globalization and The Communist Manifesto and Globalization in 2000. When officials promote marketization reform, they treat the unscientifically proven "socialist market economy" as self-evident truth to interpret original works and reality. Ignoring Marx's "capital is a social relation," they insist on interpreting capital as a "socialist factor of production," that Communists should greenlight "capital," and Marx's theory of capital's essence is outdated. Many "Marxist scholars" in China today blindly follow power, turning themselves into imperial literati. Most media and journals are filled with sycophantic, bootlicking garbage research  results. The author has seen many articles by Min Chao's supervisor that are typical of this kind.

6. Not studying social reality, seriously detached from it.
   The most basic principle of Marxist theory is integrating theory with practice. During the Yan'an Rectification, Chairman Mao particularly emphasized studying history and current conditions, focusing on Marxism's application. But many Chinese Marxist scholars' so-called "studying reality" is just annotating and justifying official documents and leaders' speeches, with no concern for living social ideological conditions or sharp social contradictions—like extreme polarization, escalating corruption, extreme ideological confusion, rampant money worship, etc. Mainstream public media and journals show no research results on social reality. They even dare not confront problems within theoretical circles. One branch of the Marxist discipline is ideological and political education. The author has taught ideological and political education for a lifetime and found its biggest problem is not studying specific ideological issues in society and students, not studying standards for being a person today, not studying being both red and expert. It just turns Marxist book knowledge and accumulated Party ideological work theory into dry dogma for rote memorization. In department meetings, the author once said our department has an ideological and political education major, but does it have real ideological and political work? Today, not only universities but almost all Party and government organs, enterprises, and institutions lack ideological work.

7. Daring not or unwilling to criticize various anti-Marxist or revisionist erroneous trends in society.
   Marxism is critical and revolutionary. From its emergence and development, it has always formed and developed by criticizing all kinds of bourgeois erroneous ideas, anti-Marxist, revisionist, and opportunist trends. Today, China has various feudal, bourgeois erroneous ideas, anti-Marxist and anti-socialist trends, and revisionist thoughts. Yet Marxist theoretical circles, mainstream media, and numerous academic journals basically show no critical articles using Marxist standpoints, views, and methods to criticize erroneous trends, losing revolutionary spirit and combativeness on the sharp battlefield of ideology. In 2010, People, Oh People, What Exactly Are You? by former Hainan Military Region Political Commissar Liu Dingxin, published by Central Party School Press and highly praised by many theorists, had completely erroneous anti-Marxist views aimed at subverting the Party's class-education-centered ideological work. The author published multiple online articles criticizing it, but over the years, few other scholars exposed and criticized it. China's escalating corruption, especially high-level military corruption, is directly or indirectly related to that book. Marxism's critical and revolutionary nature includes self-critique. While materialism and dialectics are Marxism's most basic views, idealism and metaphysics in Marxist theoretical circles are, in some sense, more severe than in other disciplines.

8. Extremely chaotic evaluation standards for Marxist research results.
   First, evaluation is based on publication in academic journals, newspapers—especially at different levels, particularly core or discipline-level journals—and quantity. This has become consensus in universities and research institutions. Higher level means higher quality, easier awards, higher bonuses, and key basis for promotion. Min Chao's exceptional promotion to doctoral supervisor was mainly because his paper was published in Marxism's highest-level journal. But does publication—even in top journals—guarantee high quality? Almost all academic journals now have explicit pricing; are money-bought publications necessarily high-quality? One wonders if Marxism Research received payment for publishing Min's article.Second, evaluation is based on closely following power holders. In recent years, annual national, provincial, and municipal research projects mostly interpret and expound official documents and leaders' speeches. Various academic conference themes revolve around this, producing massive repetitive, low-level works. Many scholars and professors rely on such  results for awards, promotions, and appointments as master's/doctoral supervisors. Universities use them to boost rankings. Genuine projects studying Marxism's essence or social reality issues cannot get funded or awarded—like class struggle theory, anti-corruption, questioning Xiaogang Village or state-owned enterprise reforms.Third, universities engage in serious malpractice and academic corruption in paper publication, evaluation, promotions, etc. Some power holders steal others' results without writing a word, using power or as project leaders. Guest-gifting and bribery abound during awards and promotions; mutual voting among peers; severe academic clique culture. Those without power or outside circles, no matter how high their level, face extreme difficulty in awards or promotions.

III. The roots of the state of Marxist discipline research

1. The whole society's failure to understand learning, love learning, or know how to learn is equally serious in Marxist ranks
   The author has interacted most with students and observed learning phenomena in students and society. Since entering university teaching and research, one major feeling is too many student learning problems. As Tianjin education expert Zheng Bingru summarized: "not understanding learning, not loving learning, not knowing how to learn"—not just students but most in-service teachers, most society members, and even most power holders exhibit the "three nos." This leads to extremely low learning efficiency and achievement for students, teachers, and society. As a philosophy and education worker teaching materialism, the author first applies materialist thought to own teaching and research. In the 1980s-90s, the author spent much time researching student and societal learning phenomena, treating "learning" as a key philosophical topic, writing many articles and three books (e.g., University Student Learning Theory and Methods, People's Publishing House, 2010). Learning's essence is acquiring knowledge through various paths in practice and internalizing it into personal qualities and abilities for comprehensive development. Key points: acquisition and internalization (internalization more important); purpose is not just diplomas, official careers, money, but personal development to serve world transformation; through multiple paths, especially practice. Today's learners focus on acquisition without internalization, diplomas/status/money/wealth without qualities, book knowledge without practice or integration. A fundamental cause of the "Min Chao Phenomenon" and overall Marxist discipline state is most Marxist scholars' "three nos." Thus, the most important aspect of strengthening Marxist discipline construction is starting from Marxist scholars themselves, changing their own learning state.

2. A major manifestation of extreme utilitarianism and impetuosity in contemporary education
   China's biggest education problem is consciously or unconsciously abandoning the function of teaching and nurturing people, forgetting intellectuals' pursuit of truth. Educator Tao Xingzhi said: teach thousands to seek truth; learn thousands to become true persons. Yet Chinese schools and most intellectuals prioritize personal fame, status, becoming famous experts; universities become intellectuals' fame-and-profit arenas. Peking University Professor Qian Liqun said contemporary intellectuals have become refined egoists to varying degrees. The deep root behind Min Chao's paper and Zhejiang University's so-called "exceptional" promotion is a typical manifestation of refined egoism. Meanwhile, society's money-worship trend seriously influences intellectuals and Marxist theoretical research, leading to急功近利, impetuosity, exaggeration, and fraud in the discipline.

3. Forgetting and deviating from Marxism as itself a science of how to be a person
   According to historical materialism, culture's essence: first, it reflects certain economic bases and serves them and politics; second, culture's essence is transforming people—shaping an era's standards for being human. Different cultures shape different personalities: feudal culture creates slavish people bowing to power; capitalist culture creates money-supreme people. Marxism is also a culture, including theories of human development, shaping owner-type people who fight lifelong to abolish private ownership, classes, and realize communism. Marxism's key distinction from other cultures: what it demands of others, it first demands of itself. Marxism educates not just with pure knowledge/theory but with one's true faith, qualities, and behavior. From observations of China's contemporary so-called Marxist professors, doctoral supervisors, scholars, etc., they themselves do not understand Marxism's standards for being human, let alone how to be one—saying one thing, doing another; hypocrisy, inconsistency. This is typical of many so-called "Marxist scholars" in contemporary China. Min Chao and his so-called mentor manifest varying degrees of the above "being human." They are the alienated, incomplete, one-sided people Marx long criticized; Marcuse's one-dimensional people; distorted, deformed people.

4. The distorted product of contemporary China's "privatization and marketization" reforms
   The current state of China's Marxist队伍 is not isolated; it is a major manifestation of society's inversion of right/wrong, beauty/ugliness, good/evil. Its main deep root is the direction and path of privatization and marketization reforms over many years. The greatest harm: first, private ownership ideas spreads unprecedentedly across China; second, commodity exchange principles penetrate every corner and level of social life—all resources (material, research, power, fame, status, even bodies) become exchangeable for wealth. Power-money exchange, power-academia exchange, money-academia exchange abound. Schools apply for graduate programs, projects, paper publications—even allocate funds to encourage bribery. Society has become power-supreme and money-supreme. As The Communist Manifesto says of capitalist society: "It has pitilessly torn asunder the motley feudal ties... and has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest, than callous 'cash payment.' It has drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervour, of chivalrous enthusiasm, of philistine sentimentalism, in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value... The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers... The bourgeoisie has torn away from the family its sentimental veil, and has reduced the family relation to a mere money relation." Isn't contemporary Chinese society similar? Many so-called "Marxist scholars" have become slaves to power, fame, status, and money, with not a trace of Marxism left.

Marxist research is a very noble undertaking. Marxism is science, the theoretical weapon for proletarian revolution and construction. Marxist scholars' responsibility and mission is to "fight for truth" and serve the proletariat and people. As Engels said at Marx's graveside: Marx's true lifelong mission was, in one way or another, to participate in overthrowing capitalist society and its state institutions, and in the liberation of the modern proletariat; he first made the modern proletariat conscious of its position and needs, and of the conditions for its emancipation. Struggle was his element. Few fought with such passion, perseverance, and effectiveness. We should learn from Marx; do not treat Marxism as a stepping stone or means for a few to gain personal fame and status. Marxist scholars must first become conscious believers, practitioners, fighters, and vanguard warriors of communism, influencing and educating others with their fearless sacrifice, qualities, behavior, and ability. Those merely pursuing personal fame and status cannot consciously forge themselves into true communists. No matter how high your fame, status, or awards, you do not deserve the glorious title of "Marxist scholar"—you are a hypocritical, fake Marxist, a theoretical charlatan of Marxism.