The Great Opportunity the Chinese Nation May Face (Part 2)
2006/2/28 22:56:40
(Continued from above)
Comrade Lenin, What Mistake Did You Actually Make? — A Critique of Lenin's Problems and Their Influence (Please approve this post)
[Sneeze Sneeze] posted on 2003-06-05 19:25:17
Lenin was one of the rare people in world history who truly understood things. I won't bother discussing his famous writings on imperialism and such — today I'm only picking faults. Even someone who understands things has moments of confusion, and only by summarizing the past can we better face the future.
I mentioned before that the idea of the unity of history and logic was mainly inspired by Lenin's Philosophical Notebooks. Lenin also said things like "Without understanding Hegel's Logic, one cannot fully understand the first chapter of Marx's Capital." Whether or not these words reflected Lenin's true thoughts, they certainly had an enormous influence on Stalin and those who came later. One obvious consequence is that many so-called laws of materialist dialectics were naturally transformed from Hegelian form into Stalinist form through "turning Hegel on his head" materialist revision, and thus spread across the world. However, there's something most people overlook: Marx himself never cited any Hegelian or inverted-Hegelian laws to prove anything. Statements like "Without understanding Hegel's Logic, one cannot fully understand the first chapter of Marx's Capital" would absolutely never have come from Marx's mouth. Those who draw wild conclusions from superficial similarities between the two — how could they truly know Marx?
Since Lenin only made scattered remarks on this topic, and his influence on Stalin is certain, I won't probe further into his true thoughts. But the following point is probably the biggest problem in Lenin's thinking, involving his most famous idea about being able to build socialism in one country. This issue is extremely sensitive but must be faced — otherwise, its past influence will continue to confound the future. Let's analyze it logically:
- Socialism can be built in one country. 2. Socialism cannot be built in one country. The first is Lenin's position, the second is Marx's. When both share the same understanding of socialism's essential content, these two propositions are logically contradictory — it must be one or the other. So there are the following possibilities: 1. Both share the same understanding, Marx was wrong, Lenin was right. 2. Both share the same understanding, Marx was right, Lenin was wrong. 3. Their understandings of socialism's essential content were fundamentally different, so on this level, neither is right or wrong — they were just talking past each other. The crux of all three possibilities lies in whether the two shared the same understanding of socialism's essential content. Unfortunately, I believe they were indeed talking past each other, and everyone who came later understood socialism in Lenin's sense. Given Lenin's exalted status, no one thought he could possibly differ from Marx in his understanding, so everyone unwittingly perpetuated the error.
Both agree that socialism is the preliminary stage of communism — there's no dispute on that. But the crucial difference lies in what distinguishes socialism from capitalism: Lenin probably misunderstood the phrase "abolish private property" from the Communist Manifesto and used public vs. private ownership as the distinguishing criterion (here you can see his Hegelian character). Marx, however, analyzed this question from the dual real-world relationships of human-to-human and human-to-nature. The two are fundamentally different. Someone might ask: "Isn't public ownership the criterion then?" No — it's merely a corollary, though an inevitable corollary under real-world conditions on Earth. But it is only a corollary, possessing necessity without sufficiency. Socialism necessarily entails public ownership, but public ownership doesn't necessarily mean socialism. If you turn a corollary into a premise — or even the sole premise — it becomes a crippled maxim that ultimately obscures the truth. Here, the perceptive reader should have no difficulty understanding why every instance of Leninist socialism emerged by leaping directly from feudal society, and why they all inevitably tended toward Stalinism. (Mao's greatest insight was precisely seeing this point, and he made his own efforts accordingly. One can say that Mao was closer to Marx than Lenin was. I'll discuss this further tomorrow.)
Comrade Mao Zedong, Closer to Marx Than Lenin — What Mistake Did You Actually Make? — A Critique of Mao Zedong's Problems and Their Influence
Sneeze Sneeze: 2003-06-06 21:31:41
Yesterday I said that Marx and Lenin had fundamentally different understandings of socialism's essential content. Given Lenin's exalted status, no one thought he could possibly differ from Marx, and later generations unwittingly perpetuated the error — everyone understanding socialism in Lenin's sense. Probably until before the Cultural Revolution, Mao Zedong also hadn't escaped this same mindset: from the declaration in 1956 that socialist transformation was complete, to the later People's Communes, the logical foundation of their theoretical guidance was all Leninist understanding of socialism. But what was most admirable about Mao Zedong was his innate instinct for learning from failure — the failure of 1927 led to "encircling the cities from the countryside," and the difficulties of the early 1960s gave rise to the initial thinking behind the Cultural Revolution.
Here, we must face a difficult topic: the Cultural Revolution. I don't intend to address any specific issues about the Cultural Revolution here — I'm only examining the most fundamental logical elements of Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution thinking. First, Mao acutely perceived a certain inevitable relationship between Leninism and Stalinism. Second, the traditional Chinese theme of human-to-human relationships and Mao's innate populist character enabled him to bypass Lenin from another angle and approach Marx more closely.
Since the analysis proceeds from the dual real-world relationships of human-to-human and human-to-nature: feudal society is one where, under the premise of dependence on nature, one part of society's dependence on another is no longer based on personal servitude but rather on external things such as land, power, etc.; capitalist society is one where no one is subordinate to another, but everyone without exception depends on a non-natural external thing: capital. And every instance of Leninist socialism, without exception, emerged from feudal society. Simply taking the "abolition of private property" — which was premised on capitalist society — as the premise for socialist transformation meant that Leninism would inevitably lead to Stalinism. After Mao acutely perceived this problem, the Cultural Revolution became a great attempt to escape this fate. This was also the most core theoretical-logical divergence between Mao and Liu.
Just as in 1927 Mao struggled against fate amid bitter storms, the Cultural Revolution's struggle was in a sense also a lonely voyage. More importantly, in the former case, his fellow travelers quickly came to understand, but in the latter, an old man could only face it alone.
"When fortune aligns, heaven and earth lend their forces; when fortune departs, even heroes lose their freedom." Was Mao Zedong's problem merely accidental, merely a matter of fortune? Why did he succeed in 1927, finding fellow travelers, while 1966 was a clamoring solitude? There lies a pitiless inevitability, one that once again cruelly proclaims Marx's correctness — the correctness of his analysis from the dual real-world relationships of human-to-human and human-to-nature.
Today, the iron hooves of capital are sweeping the globe exactly as Marx revealed, just as they previously did within many individual nations. Global capitalization is already a reality, and anyone who dares not face this reality is nothing but a coward. Yet the globalization of capital will make the time for capital's sublation draw ever closer. What can we do? Blame the past? Whitewash reality? No — Mao Zedong's greatness lay precisely in bravely facing reality and ceaselessly struggling against all inequality in the world. Today we can probably better understand Mao Zedong and better escape that historical fatalism. (This discussion is rather long; I plan to continue tomorrow. It may be extremely pointed, so I'll try posting it — if it doesn't pass moderation, so be it.)
From the Inevitability of the Cultural Revolution's Failure: The Historic Choice Facing China's Left Today
Sneeze Sneeze: 2003-06-07 20:45:50
Yesterday I said the Cultural Revolution was Mao Zedong's great attempt to escape the historical fate whereby Leninism inevitably leads to Stalinism, and that its failure embodied a cruel inevitability. Every instance of Leninist socialism, without exception, emerged from feudal society. If we simply replace "capital" in the sentence "capitalist society is one where no one is subordinate to another, but everyone without exception depends on a non-natural external thing: capital" with "power" or "power-capital," we get the best definition of Stalinism. From this, it's not hard to understand the following somewhat incredible statement: Stalinism is merely a certain type of capitalism. From this, we can understand an even more shocking statement: The Leninist socialist revolutions that swept the 20th century were essentially nothing more than a certain type of capitalist process. The speed with which power or power-capital transformed into capital after the Soviet-Eastern European upheavals demonstrates their common origin.
I believe that when Mao Zedong suddenly understood this at some moment in the early 1960s, the shock was probably beyond description. From this, it's not hard to understand why Mao regarded the Cultural Revolution as one of his two most important achievements, nor is it hard to understand the significance of those slogans most frequently seen during the Cultural Revolution. Of course, at that time, perhaps only Mao Zedong alone understood this matter — Lenin's intentional or unintentional prank was really too enormous.
Then what was the historical significance of Leninist socialism? It was the best nationalist strategy available at the time. A backward feudal nation, under the circumstances of that era, would inevitably face total destruction if it followed the conventional path. Lenin's intentional or unintentional strategy saved the largest number of backward nations in the world at the time, giving them a breathing space to catch up. In essence, Leninist socialism was a nationalist process — an anti-capitalist capitalist movement undertaken by backward nations to avoid being devoured by nations that had entered capitalism first. In this regard, Lenin is immortal — the teacher of all weak and small nations in the world. What a formidable strategy! (Did Lenin consciously understand this? This is a particularly interesting question. If he truly understood and deliberately put forward positions different from Marx's, then my admiration for Lenin surges even more like the mighty Yangtze, flowing endlessly.) Actually, from a nationalist standpoint, this strategy was the most successful strategy — just as Mao Zedong was China's great hero and Lenin was Russia's great hero. Is there any doubt about this?
Lucidity is often painful. Mao Zedong's resistance during the Cultural Revolution was destined to fail in its lucidity. Opposing Stalinization was essentially opposing a process of capitalization. But in the dual real-world relationships of human-to-human and human-to-nature, the human-to-nature relationship plays the decisive role. The human-to-human relationship undoubtedly has a reactive effect, but attempting to oppose a certain realistic trend in the human-to-nature relationship by adjusting the human-to-human relationship — the impossibility of this constitutes the inevitability of failure for all Cultural Revolution-type activities. Any contingent factor is insignificant before this inevitability. In this regard, Mao Zedong is undoubtedly tragic — but it is the tragedy of a hero.
Given the inevitability of the Cultural Revolution's failure, what historic choice faces China's Left today? First, global capitalization is an inescapable reality that must be faced. Second, how to make one's voice heard before this great trend, and even to lead this process, is the most important and core question. Here, Lenin's strategy will provide us many valuable lessons, and Mao Zedong's experiences in actual struggles provide even better models. In a word, the historic choice facing China's Left today is: standing firmly on a nationalist position, facing the challenge of global capitalization head-on, defeating the Right's attempt to turn China into a vassal and sacrificial lamb of global competition, employing the best strategy, seizing the best opportunity, and making China ultimately triumph in global competition. (This involves many issues; I'll continue explaining tomorrow.)
Feuerbach, the N Models of Capitalism, and the Essential Significance of the Cold War in the Second Half of the 20th Century
Sneeze Sneeze: 2003-06-08 13:55:05
The greater importance of Feuerbach as Marx's precursor compared to Hegel has often been intentionally or unintentionally overlooked (this is probably also related to the influence of Lenin's intentional or unintentional strategy). The historical fact is that Feuerbach settled accounts with Hegel, and Marx, standing on Feuerbach's shoulders, ultimately transcended him. Engels' "Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy" has correspondingly had its extremely important significance overlooked. In a sense, Feuerbach was the true beginning of the great philosophical turn (Kant being the precursor goes without saying). Look at Heidegger's bashful demeanor, and you can appreciate Feuerbach's significance even more. Starting from Feuerbach, all God-like divine and ontological hypotheses became jokes. Marx used Feuerbach's concept of alienation to write his famous manuscripts, and then one day suddenly discovered that Feuerbach's concepts of Man, Species, and Alienation were equally jokes. He discarded all of these, discarded all illusions, and for the first time stood on the ground of reality, directly facing real people, directly facing the real relationships of human-to-human and human-to-nature — green mountains everywhere, bodhi at every touch. Marx began to become Marx.
From his analysis of the real-world relationships of human-to-human and human-to-nature, Marx derived the Five Stages classification. Here I'll first discuss the N possible developmental models from feudal society to capitalist society. The key change from feudal to capitalist society is that one part of society is no longer subordinate to another — the old dependency relations are broken, and everyone in society without exception depends on a non-natural external thing: X. However many real possibilities there are for this X, there are that many types of capitalism. From this analysis, it's not hard to understand yesterday's point that Stalinism is a type of capitalism. And the following statement also becomes not hard to understand: From the 17th century to the present, all changes and struggles have merely been the process of different types of capitalism emerging, growing strong, and competing with each other for ultimate dominance. All ideological disputes at the level of real nations are, in their fundamental significance, conducted within the premises of capitalism.
With the above analysis, the essential significance of the Cold War in the second half of the 20th century is not hard to understand: it was the struggle between Anglo-American capitalism and Stalinist capitalism for ultimate dominance. Mao Zedong saw through all of this and proposed the Three Worlds theory, but this was fundamentally a nationalist strategy, unrelated to socialism.
Sublating the Cultural Revolution and Other Historical Legacies: The Strategy China's Left Should Adopt Under Global Capitalization, and the Historic Opportunities and Challenges
Sneeze Sneeze: 2003-06-08 20:27:09
Continuing from yesterday — sublating the Cultural Revolution and other historical legacies, the strategies China's Left should adopt under global capitalization are as follows:
First: Resolutely raise high the banner of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, defend the constitutionally mandated worker-peasant alliance and people's democratic dictatorship. Someone might ask: "Didn't you say yesterday that Leninist socialist revolution was essentially just a type of capitalist process? Why still wave this banner?" But didn't I also highly praise the great significance of Lenin's strategy yesterday? Socialism in the Marxist sense — as the preliminary stage of communism — cannot possibly be achieved in a single country; it can only be a global event after global capitalization. As I made very clear yesterday, Lenin's strategy was a nationalist strategy, and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and the Primary Stage of Socialism are both nationalist strategies. Without this nationalist anti-capitalist capitalist movement of Leninist socialism, many weak nations might have long since ceased to exist. This strategy is called fighting illusion with illusion — the Left's fishing in troubled waters to counter the Right's fishing in troubled waters. "Theory is grey, but the tree of life is evergreen." Surely I don't need to draw anatomical diagrams?
Second: In domestic politics, re-establish the principles of the Paris Commune, namely: (1) entrust all positions in administration, justice, and national education to universally elected officials, with voters retaining the right to recall them at any time; (2) pay all public servants, regardless of rank, the same wages as other workers. These principles are powerful weapons against the Right's so-called democratic strategies of separation of powers.
Third: In the domestic economy, resolutely struggle against all liberal and neoliberal garbage strategies, exposing their attempts to turn China into a vassal and sacrificial lamb of global competition. Beyond theoretical debates, we should swiftly reverse the rightward drift of economic policy, quickly perfect regulatory measures including inheritance tax to prevent the widening of wealth disparity. We must strictly prevent the Right's attempt to legalize illicit gains through so-called "protection of private property," strengthen anti-corruption legal infrastructure, rigorously investigate and block illegal capital flight and loss of state-owned assets, resolutely crack down on illegal practices in private and similar enterprises, and protect the rights of workers and peasants.
Fourth: In domestic culture, resolutely struggle against all old and new elitisms, fight for the right to discourse, expose the hypocrisy of all so-called noble words like democracy and human rights, tear off every mask of Right-wing enlightenment, firmly maintain a nationalist stance, and use a nationalist globalization strategy to counter all cultural, religious, and ideological aggression and infiltration flying the banner of globalization.
Fifth: On international issues, we should gradually change the purely defensive strategy of "keeping a low profile," change our passive integration into globalization, and in globalization must proceed with China's interests paramount. We should gradually strengthen our voice in international competition and learn to say no. On key issues like RMB exchange rates, we must have our own comprehensive plan and not be swayed by the Right or other countries. In the medium to long term, we should fully exploit the favorable timing as the 90-year 250-million-level dominant cycle that began in 1929 enters its declining phase, seize the opportunity, and strive to make China win the competition at the 1.25-billion-level dominant cycle, ultimately making China the leading force in global capitalization.
If socialism as the preliminary stage of communism will be and can only be a global event after global capitalization, then the Left of China — the world's most populous country — faces the following historic opportunity and challenge: first make China the leading force of globalization, accomplish the great rejuvenation of the nation, and then lead the entire world into socialism. Does this thing that sounds very distant and very mythical really sound so distant and mythical?
Sneeze Sneeze's One-Month Summary and Farewell to the Forum
2003-06-09 13:26:09
I was fortunate to come to the Qiangguo Forum to sneeze and sneeze. From May 10 to today is exactly one month, and it's time to leave. If I've offended any moderators or netizens during this time, I apologize in advance. Now let me summarize the most important things I wrote this month:
First: In "From the Cyclical Similarity in Chinese Dynastic Succession: The Great Opportunity the Chinese Nation May Face," by analyzing the similarities between Han, Tang, and the present, I suggested that history may be giving the Chinese nation yet another opportunity for glorious prosperity — it just depends on whether we can seize it.
Second: In a series of articles, I traced the following picture: Marx's Five Stages theory is a complete classification based on the real-world relationships of human-to-human and human-to-nature. Leninist socialism was a strategic misreading based on nationalism — an anti-capitalist capitalist process. The resistance against the fate whereby Leninism inevitably leads to Stalinism constituted the most fundamental logic of Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution thinking. And the inevitability of the Cultural Revolution's failure made facing global capitalization an unavoidable reality.
Third: In another series of articles, I traced the following picture: In capitalist economic cycles, the relationship between overall saturation and population exhibits a 5-fold incremental structure similar to the quantization of electron orbitals. In 1929, the old 50-million-level dominant cycle of Britain and Germany ended, and the 250-million-level dominant cycle of the US and USSR began. This 90-year cycle produced a medium-scale adjustment in the form of the 1974 oil crisis at its halfway point. The competition between these two different types of capitalism at the same level ended with America's victory. But this cycle's high point already appeared in 2000, and the enormous adjustment to come will reach a severity comparable to 1929 by 2019, thereby declaring the end of that level and the beginning of the 1.25-billion level. China is a candidate competitor at that level — whether it ultimately becomes the leader depends on whether we seize the opportunity.
Fourth: Socialism as the preliminary stage of communism will be and can only be a global event after global capitalization. The Left of the world's most populous country should sublate the Cultural Revolution and other historical legacies, bravely face the reality of global capitalization, seize the transition moment between two different levels of cycles, make China the leading force of globalization, accomplish the great rejuvenation of the nation, and lay the foundation for ultimately leading the entire world into socialism.
Fifth: In "From the US-India Plot to Build an Asian NATO: The Necessity and Urgency of Deconstructing the 'Flying Geese' Model and Constructing a 'Triangle' in China's New Geopolitical Strategy," I provided a specific geopolitical strategy configuration combining offense with defense for China. This has important strategic significance for meeting the great upheaval of 2019. In "Whoever Takes a Wrong Step on Full RMB Convertibility Will Become an Eternal Sinner of the Chinese Nation," I briefly outlined a medium-to-long-term currency strategy for China. Due to time constraints, I couldn't write about strategic concepts in other areas.
These five points are closely interconnected and can be viewed as a whole. Other important articles mainly related to philosophy and religion — I had originally intended to systematically develop them into a complete whole, but time constraints prevent that.
Before departing, I'll fully reveal all the alternate accounts I've used — one person should take responsibility for their own deeds. They are: Troublemaker, Left Left and Left Again, Right Right and Right Again. Finally, here are six classical poems as my farewell, wishing all moderators and netizens smooth sailing and double blessings:
Without self, the heart grows vast; forgetting words, meaning grows more true. Heaven and earth upon a single page; each character, a star in view.
Could my verse rival Yellow Crane's height? Democracy and freedom — both abhorrent sights. Ghosts, monsters, men, and demons each have their delight; which enlightener truly serves as guiding light?
In August, treading waves across the azure sea; whale surges and fierce billows swallowing the sky. Savage dragons crack the rocks, clouds spew ink black; startled steeds overturn carts, the sun loses its red.
Since ancient times, heroes had blood of fire; today's figures are all of gold and bronze. The great roc spreads its wings embracing the heavens — through ten thousand kalpas, heaven and earth shake in a single surge.
Following the current, clinging to love — forever without end; hair unbound amid the dust, a single-minded devotion. The moon surges over mountains, the vast sea stills; clouds float past a lone island, cliff edges perilous.
Rock cottage by the sand, standing defiant in the wind; straw horse, mud ox, cleaving through the waves. The Northern Dipper tilts, the Southern Dipper glows red; the Milky Way flows rushing, cracking with spring ice.
Heavy mist, mountains shatter; the slanting sun spews blood, plunging past the clouds' edge. In the human world, October, the sky raining fire; beneath one's feet the long river, ten thousand miles of azure dragon locked.
Beyond the trees, a red cloud torn in half; overturned to form a pillow, resting atop the boulder's peak. The clear breeze has nothing to do, idle as I; the ghost's court, the dragon's palace — merely wrapped in dust.
In non-birth, endless joy all day — whence comes the doubt of life and death? Doubt arises from fearing possession; afflictions of themselves entangle like silk. Floating clouds — fame across ten thousand ages; dung and dirt — monuments of a thousand years.
This body has nowhere further to lodge; before dwelling, already departed. Willows by the river, swaying tenderly; deer in the forest, calling gently. Every day is a fine day; every moment is the time of blossoming.
Tides rise and tides fall; the moon waxes and the moon wanes. The world originally has few affairs — why fuss over action or inaction? Do not steal the pearl atop the dust; do not cling to wonders within the dharma.
How could the bright pearl belong to 'existence'? To declare 'non-existence' is also folly. Neither being nor non-being stands at all — still caught in ghostly thinking. Sitting, watch heaven and earth revolve; standing, watch heaven and earth descend.
Wild geese cross, wind passes over water; flowers fall, the moon visits the branch. Every dharma is without stain; every mote of dust is not left behind. Vast and boundless, ordinary and sacred merge; leisurely, one enters joy and sorrow.
Life and death are settled with a single laugh; purity and defilement — let both be as they will. Life and death — the grace of all beings; purity and defilement — the compassion of all beings. Flowers of emptiness perform the Buddha's work; the illusory mirror plays games with the demon master.
A thousand bodies rush toward calamity; one vow follows through all hardship. Avici Hell — empty yet not empty; Bodhi — awaited yet not awaited. Songs of the zither drift languid and wide — do not peer into the moon.