Criticising Xi Jinping Thought

Written by: Xiang Guanqi on 1 December 2024

 

Above; A Quotation from Chairman X     Source: https://news.cgtn.com/

In Australian Left and progressive circles, there are some people who believe that China’s “socialism with Chinese characteristics” really is socialism, and that China’s social-imperialist rivalry with US imperialism really is anti-imperialism. Over the next few months, we will provide some of the writings of Comrade Xiang Guanqi, a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, now in his 80s, who was a leading Red Guard during the Cultural Revolution. We have added some footnotes to our translation of his work where we thought they might be useful – Eds.

Criticism of Xi Jinping’s Thought
Taking the 19th National Congress Political Report as an example

General Secretary Xi Jinping is the biggest revisionist in China, the biggest capitalist-roader in China, and the political representative of the biggest bureaucratic, authoritarian, and monopolistic bourgeoisie in China. When Chairman Mao was alive, the labels and criticisms that were put on revisionists are now very appropriate for General Secretary Xi Jinping.

With such class status and political identity, it is inevitable and understandable that General Secretary Xi Jinping attempted to develop the revisionist "Theory of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" on the basis of betraying Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and put forward the so-called "Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era" (hereinafter referred to as "Xi Jinping Thought").

I have long said that "time will prove that Deng Xiaoping Theory has no theory, while Mao Zedong Thought has real thought". Now, I still hold this view. Like all revisionists, from Bernstein and Kautsky to today, from "movement is everything, there is no ultimate goal", to "beef stew with potatoes is communism"(1), to "it doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice, it is a good cat", "development is the hard truth" (2), etc., what theory do they have?

None, not at all. Similarly, the arrogant General Secretary Xi Jinping has no theory. Is the dream, the Chinese dream, a theory? Of course not. In fact, if we carefully analyse the so-called "Xi Jinping Thought", we can't find any thought - the thought of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. At most, it is a hodgepodge of some bourgeois fashionable empty words and the dregs of feudal autocratic traditions. These things can only be the opposite of the theory of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and the opposite of the theory of scientific socialism. We Communists who adhere to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism must criticise them. I am now fulfilling this obligation.

Revisionists have always claimed to be Marxists. However, they do not really understand Marxism. Deng Xiaoping and his successors Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao did not violate this law. Now, General Secretary Xi Jinping is also like this, and he appears to be more sincere, more high-profile, more innovative, and therefore more deceptive. In this case, we cannot but put the criticism of "Xi Jinping Thought" on the agenda. 

Please understand, General Secretary Xi Jinping

Asking Xi Jinping for permission to criticise

Article 41 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China clearly states: "Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the right to criticize and make suggestions to any state organ or state employee; they have the right to file complaints, accusations or reports to the state organ concerned regarding any illegal or dereliction of duty behaviour by any state organ or state employee, but they must not fabricate or distort facts to make false accusations or frame others.

“The relevant state organs must investigate the facts and handle citizens' complaints, accusations or reports in a responsible manner. No one may suppress or retaliate against them."

This is a fundamental law that every citizen of the People's Republic of China should abide by. Calling the criticism of the masses "unwarranted discussion" is contrary to the provisions of the Constitution and is a gross violation of the Constitution.

As a Communist, we should have a good style of criticism and self-criticism. Chairman Mao said that the presence or absence of criticism and self-criticism is a distinctive mark that distinguishes Communists from other political parties. This is also the difference between a true Communist Party and a revisionist party. Revisionist parties are fascist parties, as Chairman Mao said, and they implement bourgeois fascist dictatorship and do not allow the masses to criticise or even speak. We cannot learn from the revisionist party and cannot do the fascist thing. We should act according to Chairman Mao's correct opinion.

Nowadays, people like to talk about "political rules". Normally carrying out criticism and self-criticism is the political norm for Communists. Whether the party's political life is lively or not depends mainly on whether there is criticism and self-criticism within the party. We still have to listen to Chairman Mao's words, "If people are allowed to speak, the sky will not fall, and we will not collapse. If people are not allowed to speak? Then it is inevitable that one day we will collapse." (People's Daily, June 21, 1967) Especially at present, for such an important and line-significant "Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era" and the "Political Report of the 19th National Congress" prepared according to this thought, criticism and self-criticism should be allowed throughout the party.

To just brag, and to brag without limit, is not the style of the Communists, and even the bourgeois parties would not bother to do it. I am afraid it is still our feudal national essence. This is a vulgar regression. In his late years (February 11, 1891), our ancestor Engels wrote to Karl Kautsky, "It is also necessary to make people stop being overly cautious in treating party officials - their servants, and stop treating them like perfect bureaucrats, obeying them in everything and not criticising them." It seems that this is an old problem, and it is not surprising that the old disease has recurred now. We can only cure them according to the prescription prescribed by our ancestors - criticism.

Criticism must be based on facts and seek truth from facts. Everyone is studying the "Political Report", and several members of the Standing Committee have also asked the whole party and the people of the country to do the same. Well, let's comment directly on the "Political Report". Naturally, our opinions are mainly critical, because we think this "Report" is poorly written. It has neither the high-level theoretical style of our party during the Chairman's era nor true insights. Instead, it is full of errors and even the writing level is very poor. It is a genuine revisionist report, which is both a product of "Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era" and a typical example of "Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era".

Viewed in this light, perhaps the only value of this report is that it is a very good negative example. Criticizing it from the perspective of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is of positive significance for the entire Party and the people of the country, as it enables them to once again recognize the fundamental differences between Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and revisionism on the question of China.

There are only two possibilities for criticism. One possibility is that the criticism is right, and the other possibility is that the criticism is wrong. We cannot only demand that the criticism is right. We should also allow criticism that is wrong. Following the important advice given by Comrade Xi Zhongxun (3)  before his death means protecting different opinions. This is an important summary of the party's historical experience and a major issue concerning whether the party's style is right or not. I hope that General Secretary Xi Jinping, as the core of the Party Central Committee and the core of the Party, will set a good example and handle this issue correctly. We must not be unhappy when we see "little people" raising opinions, and we must not make a fuss, suppress, block, or even arrest people. Let's try it and test whether there is the minimum democratic style that a Communist should have. The fate of this criticism can also be regarded as a small touchstone.

These days, it seems that everyone is too busy to read long articles. It may be because of the fast pace or the impetuousness. Whatever the reason, I have to give in. So, I divide the long articles into sections and titles to make them shorter, and publish them one by one, which may be easier to read.

The term "moderately prosperous society" is not a scientific concept of Marxism

General Secretary Xi Jinping clearly stated in the "Political Report of the 19th National Congress": "The theme of the Congress is: Never forget the original aspiration, keep in mind the mission, hold high the great banner of socialism with Chinese characteristics, win the decisive victory in building a moderately prosperous society in all respects, win the great victory of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era, and work tirelessly to realize the Chinese dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation."

More than 2,000 years ago, the concept of "moderate prosperity" from the Book of Rites had a great influence in China. It briefly describes the transformation of human society from the primitive public ownership society of Datong (4)  to the moderately prosperous private ownership society. This is the memory of ancient history by mankind and the genius summary of thinkers. As far as the moderately prosperous society described in the Book of Rites is concerned, it is nothing more than a relatively self-sufficient and relatively stable class society based on private ownership. The "moderately prosperous society" pursued by later generations is also roughly the same.

What does this have to do with the ideals of the Communists, and with Marxist concepts of socialism and communism, which are scientific socio-economic and social forms? 

Nothing at all. 

This is not a scientific concept about socio-economic and social forms at all.

According to Deng Xiaoping's explanation, a "well-off society" is nothing more than a society that has solved the problem of food and clothing. For a Communist Party guided by scientific Marxist theory, it is ironic to use such a term as a "well-off society" as its own struggle program. Only Deng Xiaoping, a "big party boss who doesn't read books or newspapers", can do such a stupid thing. This reminds us of the famous saying of another clown, Khrushchev, "Beef stew with potatoes is communism." It is really a coincidence that the two revisionist leaders have such a consistent understanding of communism.

It is sad that the CPC, which bears the name of ‘Chinese Marxism’ and the signboard of ‘socialism’, can accept such a programme. Isn't it obvious to what extent this party has degenerated?

What is even more pathetic is that four decades have passed, and the Political Report of the 19th National Congress, which claims to have ushered in a ‘new era of socialism with Chinese characteristics’, still sets the goal of ‘building a moderately prosperous society in all aspects’ as its current goal of struggle. Doesn't this seem to be a deliberate attempt to vilify Xi Jinping Thought, which is written into the Party Constitution?

Do we still need to popularise Marxist common sense to the revisionist masters? 

In the eyes of Marxists, the proletarian communist revolution is, in the final analysis, a change of social system, a revolution to replace the outdated capitalist system that is bound to perish with the communist social system necessary for the new historical development.

This is a social revolution, not a productivity revolution, and certainly not a food and clothing revolution. In the eyes of Marxists, this is a replacement of the socio-economic and social forms. The productivity revolution is the inevitable premise of this social revolution. It is wrong and absurd to set the level of social productivity development as the goal of the Communists. According to the theory demonstrated in the Communist Manifesto, the bourgeoisie has prepared the productivity premise for the realization of socialism and communism. Naturally, the fact of subsequent historical development is that this productivity premise sometimes needs to be supplemented. However, even so, the goal of the Communists' struggle must not be just to put forward the productivity requirements.

As far as China's revolutionary practice is concerned, after the proletariat and the broad masses of working people seized power under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, due to the backward national conditions and backward productivity, there was a very urgent task of developing productivity in order to build socialism. Even Russia, which was much more advanced than China, also had huge deficiencies in productivity. Therefore, Lenin said that Soviet plus electrification is communism. It is not possible to not have electricity. The establishment of a socialist and communist society cannot be solid without its own economic foundation. Developing the economy is the basic task of all socialist countries. This is not a mysterious theoretical issue, it is common sense. As Marx said, human beings cannot survive if they do not produce for a week. People need to eat, wear clothes, and live a better and better life. This is the natural desire of human beings and a matter of course.

However, humans are not ordinary animals. They live in society and in groups. While pursuing material life, humans also pursue spiritual life and social life. In the long history of human private ownership class society, while creating their own material life, humans also created their own social life and spiritual life.

However, as Marx liked to use the "alienation" viewpoint in his youth, all the progress of productivity created by humans has in turn brought endless suffering to humans. It seems that the progress of productivity has brought humans their own regression and the loss of human nature, that is, alienation. This is the fundamental characteristic and fundamental weakness of human class society. The great discovery of Marxism tells us that only when human history has developed to this day can we defeat the last class society, the capitalist society, and create a socialist society and a communist society through hard efforts and struggles. If we only talk about productivity and food and clothing, we will completely deviate from the actual process of human social historical development, and of course we will also deviate from the Marxist view of historical materialism.

The great ideal of communism is to eliminate the historical limitations of class society, eliminate private ownership, eliminate classes, and eliminate the superstructure and ideology corresponding to these foundations through the proletarian communist revolution under the possible conditions provided by history. This is what the "Communist Manifesto" calls for to achieve "two breaks", thereby enabling mankind to reproduce its good nature at a higher historical level and truly realise human freedom, equality, and fraternity (as Engels said at the end of "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State").

This is a difficult historical process of continuous revolution. The Communists exist and take on the responsibility of leading this historical process. In this historical process, any principles, policies, and programs formulated by the Communists cannot deviate from the ultimate goal of achieving communism, which is the overall basic goal of struggle.

Marx discussed socialism, Lenin combined practice with more discussion, and Chairman Mao proposed the theory of socialist continuous revolution. In summary, the discussion of the revolutionary mentors explained that socialism is a process of continuous revolution of the social system from the perspectives of politics, economy, ideology and culture. We should not only talk about the development of productivity and the solution of the problem of food and clothing, but also talk about the historical conditions for the elimination of classes from the perspectives of economic relations, political relations, ideological and cultural relations, and we should also talk about the issue of people, that is, the issue of human liberation. As Lenin said, socialism is the elimination of classes. The elimination of classes is not just a matter of productivity, nor is it a matter of food and clothing. When defining their historical tasks, the Communists must not only have economic indicators, but also, and even more so, political indicators, ideological and cultural indicators, indicators for the transformation of people, and indicators for the entire society. However, the word "moderately prosperous" has obliterated all of this. If we only talk about food and clothing, even pigs and dogs need food and clothing. How can this be written into the Communist Party's program? Isn't this too insulting to the Chinese Communists and the Chinese people?

It is neither surprising nor accidental that such a foolish act has occurred. First, these revisionists are not communists at all. As Deng Xiaoping himself admitted, he himself did not know what socialism is. He was not clear about socialism, let alone communism. In their minds, boosting production is everything, and the so-called "development is the hard truth" means this. This is obviously contrary to the Communist Party's goal of struggle solemnly declared in the Communist Manifesto. 

Second, these revisionists do not understand the theory of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism at all. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is a revolutionary doctrine, but this revolutionary doctrine is based on scientific theory, not a subjective good wish and pursuit. For more than 40 years, from Deng Xiaoping to the present, where is the theoretical cultivation of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism among the revisionist rulers? They only have pragmatism, not scientific research, so they can only say things like "cat theory", "touch theory", "breakthrough theory" (5) , and even "moderately prosperous" which is a vague statement, and they use their power to impose it on the whole party.

Third, the fundamental problem of these revisionists is still their class standpoint. The theory of communism is ultimately for the proletariat and the broad masses of working people to rise up and seek liberation, to replace private ownership with public ownership, to eliminate exploitation and classes; the dictatorship of the proletariat is also for this purpose. Therefore, every step forward in the cause of socialism and communism, the first and foremost consideration is the emancipation of the proletariat and the masses of the working people, which is not just a question of material productive forces or the level of economic development, but a question of what kind of society is to be constructed, or, as it is often said, the question of why the people are there. Deng Xiaoping and other revisionists have no concept of the masses in their minds. Their position is that of the bureaucratic, autocratic, and monopolistic bourgeoisie. Their “don’t care” means that they don’t care about the life and death of the working people, or their liberation. Their “hard truth” results in letting the bourgeoisie get rich first, especially letting the bureaucratic, autocratic, and monopolistic bourgeoisie get rich first. Their so-called “moderately prosperous” is just to give the people “food and clothing”, a minimum condition that can guarantee the reproduction of labour, but they themselves are more than “moderately prosperous”? They have long been wealthy tycoons and big bourgeoisie with huge wealth in their hands. Therefore, they will not and dare not disclose their property. 

When we say "never forget our original aspiration", what is the "original aspiration"? It means building socialism and communism. However, the concept of "moderately prosperous society" cannot express the scientific concept of socialism and communism, the ideal of the Communists, and the "original aspiration" that truly belongs to the proletariat and the broad masses of working people. To paraphrase the words of the revolutionary mentor, throw away the dirty shirt of "moderately prosperous society"! It damages the noble image of the Communists.

We must hold high the red flag of communism and implement into practice the specific requirements of every step forward, from politics, economy, ideology and culture to the development of society as a whole. This is what our great cause of communism requires, this is what embodies the scientific thought of continuous revolution of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, and this is the right path for mankind.

This is not a small matter, but a major one, the so-called ‘what flag to hold and what path to take’. Whether or not we can draw a clear line with Deng Xiaoping's revisionist line, and whether or not we are going back to Deng Xiaoping's evil path of restoring capitalism, are all centrally reflected in this question of the programme. There can only be one choice, and there can be no compromise. Whether to build a ‘moderately prosperous society’ or a socialist or communist society is a test for General Secretary Xi Jinping, for every member of the Communist Party, and for the entire nation.

The correct answer of history is clear and unshakeable: socialism and communism are the only correct choice for the Chinese people.

We want a socialist and communist society, not a ‘moderately prosperous society’!

                                                                                             10th November 2017

(1) Following the 1956 Hungarian Counter-revolution, Hungary’s revisionist leader promised an increase in living standards, referred to approvingly by Khrushchev as “goulash communism” – Trans.

(2) On his infamous Southern Tour at the star of 1992, Deng said “It is necessary to pay attention to the stable and coordinated development of the economy, but stability and coordination are also relative, not absolute. Development is the hard truth. This question needs to be clarified.”  A similar expression in English is “the last word”.  He was advocating that economic development must take precedence over socialist principles – Trans.

(3) Xi Zhongxun  (October 15, 1913 – May 24, 2002) is the father of Xi Jinping.  He became a member of the Communist Party of China in 1928. In 1932, Xi Zhongxun launched the Liangdang Mutiny, and then successively served as the chairman of the Soviet Government of the Shaanxi-Gansu Border Region and the secretary of the Guanzhong Special Committee of the Communist Party of China. After the victory of the Anti-Japanese War, Xi Zhongxun served as secretary of the Northwest Bureau of the CPC Central Committee and political commissar of the Shaanxi-Gansu-Ningjin-Sui Joint Defense Army. After the founding of the People's Republic of China, Xi Zhongxun served as a member of the Central People's Government, and a member of the People's Revolutionary Military Committee of the Central People's Government. Xi Zhongxun was criticised during the Cultural Revolution and emerged from it to follow the revisionist line of Deng Xiaoping – Trans.

(4) Datong is both the name of a city in Shanxi Province and also the title of an ancient book, translated as “The World of Great Harmony”. The book depicts an ideal world where everyone is virtuous, everyone respects the elderly, everyone loves the young, there is no unevenness, and no one is lacking warmth – Trans.

(5) “Cat theory” refers to Deng Xiaoping’s encouragement to ignore the colour of the cat “so long as it catches mice”; "crossing the river by feeling the stones", also known as “touch theory”, was a Chinese folk expression popularised by Chen Yun, an associate of Deng Xiaoping, and advocated ignoring theory and the experience of predecessors to fid one’s way by pragmatism and experiment; “breakthrough theory” is Deng Xiaoping’s call for the courage to try and dare to break into the world as the practical method underlining all reform. Deng said “reform and opening up should be more bold, dare to experiment, do not be like a woman with small feet. If you see what you want, you should try boldly and break through boldly” – Trans.

 

Print Version - new window Email article

-----

Go back