Sources of Chinese Tradition, Volume 2

by Wm. Theodore de Bary

  Consequently, I would like to argue in defense of humanism, especially Marxist humanism.

  What Is Humanism?

  “Humanism is the ideology of the bourgeoisie”—If this statement means humanism was the ideology of the bourgeoisie, this is an objective, historical fact and there is nothing to dispute. If, however, this statement means that humanism can only be the ideology of the bourgeoisie, then it must be questioned. The meanings of these two statements cannot be confused; the second meaning cannot be inferred from the first.

  Materialism was also the ideology of the bourgeoisie (and even of the slave-owner and feudal classes), and yet this has not prevented materialism from becoming the worldview of the proletariat. Indeed, there is a huge difference between Marxist materialism and old-style materialism, and yet this is the difference between one type of materialism and another, not materialism and idealism.

  Can a similar distinction be made concerning humanism?

  It depends on the content of this concept of humanism. If the concept of humanism is substantially and necessarily linked to the special class characteristics of the bourgeoisie (for example, “individualism” is this kind of concept), then humanism can only be the ideology of the bourgeoisie. Otherwise, such is not the case.

  What is humanism? Humanism is a term borrowed from abroad, and many people in our country are not sure what it means precisely. Yet they judge it on the basis of this hazy understanding. Of course, the schools of humanism are numerous, and the various theories differ. However, there is still a generally accepted explanation. . . .

  In essence, the term humanism at the earliest indicated the central intellectual theme of the Renaissance (this is humanism in the narrow sense, in general it is also translated as renwen zhuyi—the doctrine of humane learning); later it came to refer to all concepts or philosophical thought that placed primary importance on humanity, the value of humanity, the dignity of humanity, the interests or well-being of humanity, the development or freedom of humanity (this is humanism in the broader sense, which is discussed in this essay).

  In my view, some of the comrades who evaluate humanism negatively may be starting with a mistaken conception of humanism. Humanism is a longstanding and well-established intellectual trend, going back at least six hundred years in the West. After the Renaissance, there was the humanism of the Enlightenment, the humanism of utopian socialism, the humanism of Feuerbach (renbenxue) and also the multifarious modern humanisms. . . . So many intellectual schools are all called “humanism” because they have a common principle. This common principle, simply put, is the value of humanity. This is the same as the many philosophical systems called “materialism” because they all recognize the “primacy of material substance.” The understanding of the value of humanity by the different humanisms may differ greatly, but as long as they emphasize the value of humanity, then these differences are distinctions between different types of humanisms, and not differences between humanism and non-humanism or anti-humanism.

  Socialism Needs Humanism

  In carrying out socialist modernization reconstruction today we need socialist humanism. What does this humanism mean to us?

  It means firmly abandoning the “total dictatorship” and cruel struggle of the ten years of internal chaos, abandoning the cult of personality that deified an individual and demeaned the people, and insisting that human equality, the personal freedom of citizens, and human dignity not be encroached upon in fact or in law.

  It means opposing the feudal notions of rank and special privilege, opposing capitalism’s money-worshiping philosophy, opposing viewing people as commodities or mere tools; it means demanding that people be seen as people and valued not for their background, position, or property but for themselves.

  It means recognizing that people are the end, not only the end of socialist production, but the end of all work; it means constructing and realizing socialist spiritual civilization’s new social relations of mutual respect, mutual care, mutual aid, and friendly cooperation; it means opposing bureaucratism that neglects the people and extreme individualism that benefits oneself at the expense of others.

  It means emphasizing the people factor in socialist construction, enhancing the prominence and creativity of the working classes; it means emphasizing education, emphasizing the cultivation of talent, and emphasizing the complete development of humanity. . . .

  Isn’t this socialist humanism already existing in our practice, and isn’t it increasingly developing? Why treat it as something strange and alien?

  A specter haunts the intellectual world. . . .

  “Who are you?”

  “I am humanity.”

  [From Wenhuibao, January 17, 1983, p. 3—RL]

  ASSESSING THE NEW POLICIES

  DENG XIAOPING: “BUILD SOCIALISM WITH CHINESE CHARACTERISTICS”

  This excerpt is from a talk with the Japanese delegation to the second session of the council of Sino-Japanese nongovernmental figures, June 30, 1984. Although he did not always hold top positions in the party or government, Deng Xiaoping clearly led the nation from the late seventies to the late eighties. As the regime adopted more and more capitalist-style practices over that period, however, it was forced into an ideological corner. How could the Chinese Communist Party (ccp) introduce capitalist practices? It looked back to a more orthodox theory of development from capitalism to socialism to provide it with an ideological fig leaf. Since socialist revolution, according to this theory, could take place only in an advanced capitalist country, it was the task of the ccp to build up the forces of production that would eventually serve as the premise and basis for socialism.

  People may ask, If China had taken the capitalist instead of the socialist road, could the Chinese people have liberated themselves and could China have finally stood up? The Nationalists took that road for more than twenty years and proved that it does not work. By contrast, the Chinese Communists, by adhering to Marxism and integrating Marxism with actual conditions in China in accordance with Mao Zedong Thought, took their own road and succeeded in the revolution by encircling the cities from the countryside. Conversely, if we had not been Marxists, or if we had not integrated Marxism with Chinese conditions and followed our own road, China would have remained fragmented, with neither independence nor unity. China simply had to adhere to Marxism. If we had not fully believed in Marxism, the Chinese revolution would never have succeeded. That belief was the motive force. After the founding of the People’s Republic, if we had taken the capitalist rather than the socialist road, we would not have ended the chaos in the country or changed its conditions—inflation, unstable prices, poverty, and backwardness. We started from a backward past. There was virtually no industry for us to inherit from old China, and we did not have enough grain for food. Some people ask why we chose socialism. We answer that we had to, because capitalism would get China nowhere. We must solve the problems of feeding and employing the population and of reunifying China. That is why we have repeatedly declared that we shall adhere to Marxism and keep to the socialist road. But by Marxism we mean Marxism that is integrated with Chinese conditions, and by socialism we mean socialism that is tailored to Chinese conditions and has Chinese characteristics.

  What is socialism and what is Marxism? We were not quite clear about this before. Marxism attaches utmost importance to developing the productive forces. We advocate communism. But what does that mean? It means the principle of from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs, which calls for highly developed productive forces and overwhelming material wealth. Therefore, the fundamental task for the socialist stage is to develop the productive forces. The superiority of the socialist system is demonstrated by faster and greater development of the productive forces than under the capitalist system. One of our shortcomings since the founding of the People’s Republic was that we neglected the development of the productive forces. Socialism means eliminating poverty. Pauperism is not socialism, still less communism.
The superiority of the socialist system lies above all in its ability to increasingly develop the productive forces and to improve the people’s material and cultural life. The problem facing us now is how China, which is still backward, is to develop the productive forces and improve the people’s living standard. This brings us back to the point of whether to continue on the socialist road or to stop and turn onto the capitalist road. The capitalist road can only enrich less than 10 percent of the Chinese population; it can never enrich the 90 percent. That is why we must adhere to socialism. The socialist principle of distribution to each according to his work will not create an excessive gap in wealth. Consequently, no polarization will occur as our productive forces become developed over the next twenty to thirty years.

  The minimum target of our Four Modernizations is to achieve a comparatively comfortable standard of living by the end of the century. . . . By a “comfortable standard” we mean that per capita GNP will reach U.S. $800. That is a low level for you, but it is really ambitious for us. China has a population of 1 billion now and it will reach 1.2 billion by then. If, when the GNP reached $1,000 billion, we applied the capitalist principle of distribution, it would not amount to much and could not help to eliminate poverty and backwardness. Less than 10 percent of the population would enjoy a better life, while more than 90 percent remained in poverty. But the socialist principle of distribution can enable all the people to become relatively comfortable. This is why we want to uphold socialism. Without socialism, China can never achieve that goal.

  However, only talking about this is not enough. The present world is an open one. China’s past backwardness was due to its closed-door policy. After the founding of the People’s Republic, we were blockaded by others, and so the country remained closed to some extent, which created difficulties for us. Some “left” policies and the Cultural Revolution in particular were disastrous for us. In short, the experience of the past thirty years or more proves that a closed-door policy would hinder construction and inhibit development. Therefore, the ideological line formulated at the Third Plenary Session of the Party’s Eleventh Central Committee is to adhere to the principles of integrating Marxism with Chinese conditions, seeking truth from facts, linking theory with practice, and proceeding from reality. In other words, the line is to adhere to the essence of Comrade Mao Zedong’s thought. Our political line focuses on the four modernizations, on continuing to develop the productive forces. Nothing short of world war would make us release our grip on this essential point. Even should world war break out, we would engage in reconstruction after the war. A closed-door policy would not help construction. There are two kinds of exclusion: one is directed against other countries; the other is directed against China itself, with one region or department closing its doors to the others. We are suggesting that we should develop a little faster—just a little, because it would be unrealistic to go too fast. To do this, we have to invigorate the domestic economy and open up to the outside. We must first of all solve the problem of the countryside, which contains 80 percent of the population. China’s stability depends on the stability of the countryside with this 80 percent—this is the reality of China from which we should proceed. No matter how successful our work in the cities is, it will not mean much without the stable base of the countryside. Therefore, we must first of all solve the problem of the countryside by invigorating the economy and adopting an open policy so as to bring the initiative of 80 percent of the population into full play. We adopted this policy at the end of 1978, and after several years in operation it has produced the desired results. . . .

  As for our relations with foreign countries, we shall pursue the policy of opening up still wider to the outside world. We have opened fourteen medium and large coastal cities. We welcome foreign investment and advanced techniques. Management is also a kind of technique. Will they undermine our socialism? Not likely, because the socialist economy is our mainstay. Our socialist economic base is so huge that it can absorb tens and hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of foreign funds without shaking the socialist foundation. Besides, we adhere to the socialist principle of distribution and do not tolerate economic polarization. Thus, foreign investment will doubtless serve as a major supplement to the building of socialism in our country. And as things stand now, this supplement is indispensable. Naturally, some problems will arise in the wake of foreign investment. But the negative aspects are far less significant than the positive use we can make of it to accelerate our development. It may entail a slight risk, but not much.

  Well, those are our plans. We shall accumulate experience and try new solutions as new problems arise. In general, we believe the road we have chosen—building socialism with Chinese characteristics—is the right one and will work. We have followed this road for five and a half years and have achieved satisfactory results. We want to quadruple China’s GNP by the end of the century. The pace of development so far exceeded our projections. And so I can tell our friends that we are even more confident now.

  [From Deng, Speeches and Writings, pp. 95–98]

  CHEN YUN: SPEECH GIVEN AT THE CHINESE COMMUNIST NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE CONFERENCE, SEPTEMBER 23, 1985

  Chen Yun, a veteran party leader and specialist in economic affairs, had opposed Mao’s Great Leap Forward during the late 1950s but by the mid-1980s found that the policies of the post-Cultural Revolution regime had moved too far in adopting capitalist practices. Chen’s advocacy of a stable economy based upon agriculture and his rejection of commerce echo the views of conservatives throughout the imperial era (221 B.C.E.–1912 C.E.).

  We still must pay close attention to and master grain production. . . .

  There are now some peasants who have no interest in growing grain, and we must pay attention to this problem. . . . Raising pigs and growing vegetables are looked upon with contempt since “industry is wealth.” . . . The problem is that the voices yelling “industry is wealth” drown out those yelling “agriculture is stability.”

  Clothing and food for one billion people is a great economic problem for our country, and also a great political problem. The matter of “no grain means chaos” cannot be ignored.

  In a socialist economy, there still must be proportionate planning.

  We are a Communist party, and Communist parties work for socialism.

  The current reform of the socialist economic system is the self-perfecting and development of the socialist system.

  The reform of the economic system is meant to develop the productive forces and gradually improve the lives of the people. The rural reforms have already achieved noticeable results. As for the reforms of the urban economic system, the general direction is correct, while the concrete steps and measures are now being explored. We’ll proceed step by step, summing up our experience as we go, and persevere in carrying out reform.

  From the perspective of national work, the planned economy is the mainstay, while regulated markets remain supplementary. This notion is not obsolete.

  Of course, planning includes command planning and guided planning. The two methods of planning are different, but both make planned use of various methods of economic regulation. The guided plan really is not the equivalent of market regulation. Market regulation—that is, no planning—carries out production only according to changes in market supply and demand—that is blind regulation.

  The plan is the foundation of macroscopic control. Only having achieved macroscopic control can we profitably achieve microscopic [control] to prosper without chaos.

  The resolution concerning the seventh five-year plan, which was passed at this meeting, proposed that the speed of industrial and agricultural development over the course of the five-year plan be divided into 7 percent and 6 percent [annual growth, respectively]. This speed is quite moderate and can be exceeded as we proceed, but there is no need to subjectively set even higher targets.

  On August 2 when receiving foreign guests, Comrade Xiaoping, in discussing the excessive speed of indust
rial development in our country, said, “It sounds wonderful, but there are unhealthy aspects.” I agree with him.

  In 1984 total industrial output value increased 14 percent over the previous year; in the first half of this year it increased 22.8 percent over the same period last year. We cannot sustain this high rate of growth because our present energy sources, transportation and natural resources and the like are inadequate.

  In the end, we must still steadily advance in accordance with proportionate planning; only then can we achieve the highest rate of speed. Otherwise, we will create all kinds of strains and loss of control and be unable to avoid redundancies, and the results will instead be slow. Haste makes waste.

  Improving the Party’s work style is still the great task of the entire Party.

  In recent years [Party] Central has taken on the problem of the Party’s work style. However, the mission of improving the Party’s work style is still extremely important.

  At present there definitely is a minority of Party members and party cadres, especially individual old Party members and old cadres, who are unable to uphold the principles of Party loyalty and have indulged in every harmful trend.

  Serious violations of Party discipline and national laws such as counterfeiting medicines and alcohol have occurred throughout the Party.

  That vast numbers of cadres, both inside and outside of the Party, and the masses are extremely dissatisfied about these matters should draw the serious attention of the whole Party. . . .