Keen discernment and strong criticism to resist erroneous ideological trends can be summarized as the critical ability of ideology. At the beginning of the founding of the People's Republic of China, Comrade Mao Zedong severely criticized the mistakes of some comrades in the Party who had lost the ability to criticize ideology: "It is particularly noteworthy that some Communist Party members who claim to have learned Marxism are those who have learned Marxism. They have learned the history of social development, historical materialism, but when they encounter concrete historical events, concrete historical figures... and concrete anti-historical ideas, they lose the ability to criticize, and some even surrender to such reactionary ideas. Is it not a fact that bourgeois reactionary ideas have invaded the fighting Communist Party? Where did some Communists claim to have learned Marxism go?" What is even more noteworthy is that history proves that this phenomenon criticized by Comrade Mao Zedong is by no means an isolated case, but a recurring problem in the history of the republic that needs to be taken seriously.
Comrade Xi Jinping clearly pointed out: "In the face of political provocations involving the party's leadership and the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics and other principle issues, the attitude is ambiguous, passive and evasive, dare not show the sword, and even deliberately blur the position, play the slippery head, and so on." Wouldn't it be strange that the party's leading cadres, especially the high-ranking cadres, have no attitude in the face of major issues of right and wrong, have no stand on political incidents, and have no stand or be indifferent when they encounter sensitive issues! "Although these people are playing a personal calculation and can't get on the table, they always have to put forward some reasons on the table that can scare people." In this regard, the things we have heard the most in the past are the so-called "single-mindedly engaging in the economy and not arguing", "letting people speak and be tolerant", "the mistakes of others let people say it themselves, and they want equality" and so on. Now it is more to blur one's own theoretical and political positions by blurring theoretical boundaries.
First, what is pan-politicization and pan-ideology?
The so-called pan-ideologization does not mean that ideology is talked about a lot, and it is not possible to talk about it intermittently because it is necessary to prevent "pan-ideology," sometimes it is not said or not, but it must always be emphasized that ideological work has an extreme importance that has a bearing on the overall situation. "Many" is not "pan". As Deng Xiaoping said: "I speak the most about opposing bourgeois liberalization, and I am the most persistent. And it turns out that Comrade Deng Xiaoping did not generalize against bourgeois liberalization because of this. The second does not mean that ideology is broad, and the importance of ideological work cannot be deliberately limited to the narrow ideological field because it is necessary to prevent "pan-ideologicalization", but it is necessary to comprehensively implement the main responsibility system of party committees for ideological work in all fields. "Wide" is not the same as "generic". The reason why ideology is an overall work of the Party is because its influence and mode of action are all-round and by no means limited to the spiritual and cultural field. With the advancement of the modernization process, ideology has played an important role in the development of economic, social, scientific and technological development and the cultivation of lifestyles through ideals and beliefs and common values in a more comprehensive way. Therefore, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out that while we concentrate on economic construction, we must not relax or weaken ideological work for a moment.
Judging from the history since the reform and opening up, the party's biggest mistake in ideological work is that it once failed to carry out ideological and political work among the entire people, and it was inconsistent and incomplete in opposing bourgeois liberalization. Zhao Ziyang, the former general secretary of the CPC Central Committee, who "planted his head" on the issue of opposing bourgeois liberalization, declared under the banner of preventing pan-ideologicalization that "there will be no 'opposition to spiritual pollution' in the economic field." The result of this move proved to be to abolish the guiding position of Marxism, open the door to the proliferation of bourgeois liberalization, and ultimately endanger the political security of socialist countries. Comrade Deng Xiaoping: "It is not consistent enough to adhere to the four cardinal principles, and it is not taken as a basic idea to educate the people, educate students, and educate all cadres and Communist Party members. "The four insistences, ideological and political work, opposition to bourgeois liberalization, and opposition to spiritual pollution, we do not speak, but we lack consistency, no action, and even very little. The fault lies not in the four persistences themselves, but in the lack of consistency in persistence, and the poor education and ideological and political work. ”
Two coordinates: First, it is identified from the main contradictions and the grasp of the party's central work. Whether it is pan-ideological or not, the objective criterion is whether the party's judgment on the main contradictions in our country and the party's central work at the present stage has been overturned. Today, only by changing the contradiction between the Nineteenth National Congress of the Party that the main contradiction at the present stage of our country is the contradiction between the people's growing need for a better life and the unbalanced and inadequate development, and the thesis that the party's central work is to fully promote socialist modernization, and ideological work is placed in the actual central work position, can we talk about pan-ideology. Complexity: 1, economic construction as the center is not unconditional. In 1978, our Party decided to stop taking the class struggle as its program and shift the center of its work to economic construction on the basis of two judgments: first, that the class struggle is no longer the main contradiction in the country (specifically referring to the Chinese mainland); second, that the new world war "cannot be fought for a long time" or "can be avoided". However, there are two conditions for restriction here: First, the domestic class struggle will exist for a long time within a certain scope, and if it is not handled well, it may be intensified; second, whether the new world war can be fought or not is not up to us, and we can only try our best to maintain and make full use of the strategic opportunity period for peaceful development. That is to say, taking economic construction as the center is not unconditional and absolute. Not only do we have to cope properly ourselves, but we also depend on changes in the world situation.
2. The relationship between ideological work and economic construction is essentially a political and economic relationship, and to be precise, it is the relationship between ideological and political work and economic work in a certain sense. The same: Political work is the lifeblood of economic work. Change: The most fundamental change is manifested in who serves whom. To take the class struggle in the revolutionary period as the program, we must first follow the law of class struggle, and we must obey the needs of class struggle, including economic construction. Although the law of class struggle also reflects the requirements of social and economic development in the final analysis, it cannot be equated with the law of economic development. On the contrary, to take economic construction as the center, we must first follow the laws of economic construction, and all aspects of ideological and political work must be subordinated to the needs of economic construction. The law of economic development not only meets the needs of the globalization of productive forces and transcends the common law of ideology and social system, but also has a special law that stems from the relatively clear differences in the fundamental interest orientation and value pursuit of production relations, and is closely related to social systems and ideologies. With regard to the former, ideology should play the role of emancipating the mind and daring to make innovations; for the latter, it should play the role of grasping the direction and discerning the road.
Second, it is necessary to identify it from the point of view of whether or not to confuse the essential boundaries of contradictions of different natures. In today's China, not only is the class struggle no longer the main contradiction in society, so a large number of social contradictions no longer have the character of class struggle, but even contradictions of the nature of class struggle can generally be resolved not by means of fierce external conflicts, but mainly through the struggle of ideology and public opinion. That's where the complexity of the problem lies.
Major struggles in ideology and public opinion often have a profound background of class struggle and have even become the main means for hostile countries to subvert socialism in our country. The slightest carelessness can be transformed into social unrest and lead to so-called "color revolutions" that brook the slightest indifference. That is why we must attach great importance to the ideological struggle. However, the major ideological and public opinion struggle is also a struggle with many new historical characteristics: it reflects the fundamental opposition of the road, system and political stance in a tortuous way, but generally adopts a non-confrontational (moral commanding heights dispute) method, which shows a large number of differences in understanding, academic debate, and value preferences. Therefore, when we persist in waging the struggle between ideology and public opinion, we must always pay attention to strictly distinguishing between political principles, ideological understanding, and academic viewpoints, and use different methods to solve them. Only by confusing these problems of different nature, simply labeling them as political principles, and dealing with them in a random way, can we prevent pan-ideology. Basic position: Major ideological and theoretical issues, good at political discernment, thorough theoretical and academic explanations, from the ideological position of the contention and protection of the responsibility; that is, oppose the abandonment of the position, but also make it simple and rude.
Non-ideologization is still the main trend at present.
How to distinguish between political principles and academic discussions in ideological studies?
As far as the study of the Marxist philosophical world outlook is concerned, the issues of political principle and academic viewpoints are always inextricably intertwined, and cannot be simply regarded as a question of political principle or academic viewpoint. However, history proves that it is easy to dilute the political nature with academics. Since China's reform and opening up, the major ideological struggles that have emerged along with several major floods of bourgeois liberalization have in essence been political struggles in the form of humanitarian world outlook values. The essence of these struggles is to uphold or negate the four cardinal principles, and is therefore a serious political struggle, and it is correct for us to grasp the nature of the struggle from a political point of view. However, it must be noted that because it is cloaked in the academic cloak of philosophical values, especially the principle of humanity has become an important value consensus in the world today, its distinct political nature is easy to be diluted. Out of jealousy, which hinders academic controversy and practical passivity, covering up the essence of the problem with tolerance is the aftermath of the previous ideological confrontation. How to correctly distinguish between political principles and academic views in similar philosophical worldview debates is a challenge that we must seriously face.
First of all, the philosophical world outlook is undoubtedly a matter of political principle of the highest importance for party building. Marxism is the foundation of the Communist Party of China, of which the philosophical world outlook is the foundation. Whether or not we can adhere to the scientific world outlook has a bearing on the political foundation of the party, that is, adhering to the leadership of the working class and fighting for communism. Marxist philosophy as a world outlook cannot be dissolved on the grounds of academic controversy and emancipation of the mind. Without the monistic scientific world outlook, there would be no unified guiding ideology, no adherence to the guiding position of Marxism in the ideological field and the ideological basis of the Communist Party as the supreme political leading force.
Judging from historical experience, the fundamental reason for the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe lies in the abolition of the leadership of the Communist Party, while the negation of the scientific nature of the Marxist world outlook is the abolition of the theoretical preparation for the leadership of the Communist Party. The most rampant anti-communist rhetoric on the eve of the collapse of the Soviet Union focused on attacks on the Marxist philosophical worldview, and the failure of the philosophical position opened the door to the collapse of mainstream ideology. The result of the liquidation of the world outlook and historical outlook guided by Marxist philosophy is to manifest the "liberation of human nature" of the so-called freedom of the individual. Individualistic philosophy is the basis of the so-called democratic and liberal values in the West, and accepting the individualistic philosophy will inevitably identify with the political values of Western liberal democracy. Only by adhering to the dialectical materialist world outlook and methodology can we adhere to the communist party's leadership and people-centered view of history and ruling philosophy, adhere to the consistency of the leadership of the communist party leadership and the people's mastery, democracy and rule of law, and only then can we have theoretical basis, and only then can socialist values such as freedom, democracy, rule of law, human rights, and public opinion that can compete with Western ideology be established. The dialectical materialist world outlook has laid the original intention and mission of our party in theory. It must be clearly stated that for the Communist Party and its members, the choice of world outlook and historical outlook is a major political principle, and it cannot obscure the position and be ambiguous about erroneous tendencies because it involves academic issues.
Secondly, although the philosophical world outlook is a matter of understanding for most individuals, from the perspective of the nature of ideological understanding, it is a fundamental issue related to the political position of the individual, and it cannot be taken lightly. A basic fact is that in the spiritual world of man, the worldview can be spontaneous or conscious, but it cannot be "vacuum". Unwillingness to study and accept an advanced scientific world outlook is bound to fall into the trap of a superficial and vulgar worldview that seems fashionable and substantive. As Engels pointed out: "Naturalists are subject to philosophy, in spite of the attitudes they may adopt as they wish." The question is only whether they are willing to be governed by some kind of crappy fashion philosophy or by some form of theoretical thinking based on the history of cognitive thinking and its achievements. Both Communists and non-Communists should strive to become builders of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and without the conscious pursuit of a philosophical world outlook, it is difficult to firmly advance toward this goal.
Those who follow Western philosophy in advocating the "humanization" (substantive individualization) of Marxist philosophy, although most of them are problems of ideological understanding, have their own special reasons. Most of them are not interested in adhering to the "Four Cardinal Principles" and opposing bourgeois liberalization; they are eager to become famous and suffer from insufficient skills, looking forward to taking the "shortcut to innovation"; their thinking methods are more one-sided and paranoid, pessimistically viewing the tortuous development of China's socialist road, equating the Temporary Advantages of the West in Economic and Social Development with institutional and cultural advantages, and without criticism or even fanatical worship of Western culture and academic thought. That is to say, those who vigorously promote the transformation of Marxist philosophy from a working-class world outlook to an individualistic philosophy through "humanization" are themselves more prominent in individualism. If it is not examined subjectively, the problem of knowledge will be transformed into a question of political position (especially for Communists).
Therefore, the first ideological boundary that we need to establish is that the problem of world outlook as a problem of cognition presupposes that individuals have the requirements and manifestations of consciously transforming their worldview. If the problem of the worldview is a matter of understanding, it is content to be in a state of intellectual laissez-faire. Even if, on the other hand, we denigrate and resolutely resist the transformation of the worldview and cling to the worldview that is spontaneously formed (in fact, the product of instinctive desire and the infiltration of Western thought), then the problem of ideological understanding will inevitably be transformed into a question of political principle.
Erasing the political nature of the Enlightenment and leading the ideological emancipation of China's reform and opening up to the direction of the "new Enlightenment" is an important trend in the struggle for today's philosophical world outlook. If in the past our struggle against individualism and its derivative money-worship, hedonism, etc., was mainly in terms of the concept of life, then today, the struggle against individualism has become more and more political. Because in the past, individualism was mainly the pursuit of individual values, but today, as intellectuals become more and more the main group of the national civil service, individualism is increasingly influencing the political position and institutional identity of individuals, while playing a major political role. If Marxist philosophy is interpreted as "the practical philosophy of individual ontology", the role of Marxism as the guiding ideology of the party's unity will be dissolved, the philosophical basis of communist ideals and beliefs will be removed, the theoretical foundation of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics will be subverted, and the common struggle of the whole party and society will be the ideological foundation. We have no room for compromise on this major issue of political principle. From this, we can establish the second ideological boundary, that is, to establish that the world outlook issue has exceeded the boundary of "ideological understanding" or "academic controversy": negating the "confrontation between the two armies" of materialism and idealism in the field of world outlook, and negating the dialectical materialist world outlook methodology; under the banner of "innovative development", through the so-called "paradigm shift" at the worldview level, fundamentally subverting Marxist philosophy; under the banner of "academic freedom", adopting "non-ideologicalization" of fundamental opposition and principle differences in the field of world outlook. way to dilute, obscure, and even erase; and so on. The discussion of these issues is already a major issue of political principle, and can no longer be condoned by ideological understanding or academic arguments, but must be countered with a clear-cut critique.
How is the critical and constructive nature of Marxist ideology internally unified?
We often see such a sentence form: the unity of criticism and construction is one of the characteristics of Marxist theory. The original intention of this formulation was to emphasize that Marxism was by no means a negative theory, as attacked by its opponents, but also a constructive theory. However, the use of "critical and constructive unity" as a way of defense undoubtedly regards criticism and constructivity as two external factors of Marxist theory, negating their inner unity, that is, essentially a thing. That is to say, if Marxism is expressed only as essentially revolutionary and critical, it is not comprehensive, and it is necessary to add construction and construction. I think this is a gross misinterpretation of Marxism critically. In fact, the critical nature of Marxism is not simply the negation, destruction, and overthrow, but the self-denial of things, so it is a negation that contains affirmation, transformation and a way out, embodying the essence of revolutionary dialectics, so we regard criticism as the essential characteristic of Marxism.
Reality is not extant. "Dialectics, in its rational form, arouses the irritation and terror of the bourgeoisie and its spokesmans for its rhetoric, for dialectics, in its affirmative understanding of existing things, at the same time contains a negative understanding of what exists, i.e., an understanding of the inevitable demise of existing things; dialectics understands every established form from a constant movement and therefore from its temporary aspect; dialectics does not worship anything, but by its very nature it is critical and revolutionary."
The recognition of the revolutionary critical character of Marxism inherently contains constructive or constructive significance of great theoretical and practical significance. Theoretically, first of all, it determines the intrinsic consistency of persisting in proceeding from reality and upholding communist ideals and beliefs. In the view of Marxism, the world is always changing, history is always developing, and only by promoting revolutionary change can we conform to history. Therefore, insisting on proceeding from reality is to insist on starting from the trend of change and development and promote the metabolism of things. It can be seen that the revolutionary ideal is not an illusion on the other side that exists outside the "reality", but the creative force of the development of reality, and it is a necessary condition for persisting in proceeding from reality. If a revolutionary party regards the loss of revolutionary ideals as a so-called "proceeding from reality", it is to make the weakest justification for submitting to the status quo and going with the flow, to disguise that it has in fact degenerated into a negative factor and the essence of a conservative force in the face of the historical trend. Such a party has lost not only the ability to lead the masses forward, but also the motivation to advance itself.
Second, it determines the inherent unity of destroying the old world and building the new world. There is no doubt that Marxism wants to revolutionize the old world by revolutionary means, as Marx and Engels pointed out: "The whole question is to revolutionize the existing world, to oppose and change what exists in reality." But the negative force for the Old World does not come from the outside, but from within itself. The demise of capitalism is, in the final analysis, the self-denial of capital. "The higher the degree of development of capital, the more it becomes the limit of production and, therefore, the more it becomes the limit of consumption, and the other contradictions which make capital the thorny limit of production and interaction need not be discussed." In the same way, the new world is not a man-made beautiful design, but the result of a revolutionary transformation of the insurmountable shortcomings of the old world itself, and thus has an inherent inevitability. Taken together, these two aspects become the cornerstone of Marxist critical theory, that is, "discovering the new world by criticizing the old world." The old world and the new world, two seemingly different and unrelated things, have unveiled their mysterious veil in the revolutionary criticism of Marxism, showing the essence of interdependence and dialectical transformation. This is the theoretical underpinning of Comrade Mao Zedong's proud proclamation: "We are not only good at destroying an old world, but we will also be good at building a new world."
Third, it determines the inherent consistency of transforming the objective world and transforming the subjective world. The reason why Marxism can "change the world" lies in the revolutionary spirit and scientific attitude of exploring and pursuing the truth without scruples. Marx realized from the very beginning: "To carry out a ruthless criticism of everything that exists, the so-called ruthlessness means that this criticism is not afraid of its own conclusions, nor of conflict with the existing forces." "A thorough critical spirit necessarily leads to a true self-revolution. Whether or not we can truly understand the world and transform the world depends on the state of the subject itself, especially whether the subject can get rid of the shackles of narrow interests. The main body must be able to stand tall and look far, only the blade is inward, insisting on self-revolution. Transforming the subjective world at the same time as transforming the objective world has become a basic principle of Marxism.
From a practical point of view, the revolutionary critical nature of Marxism inherently contains constructiveness, negating the erroneous tendency to oppose adherence to Marxism and innovation. To truly adhere to Marxism, we must adhere to the revolutionary critical spirit of this theory, follow the cosmic law of metabolism, and act as a promoter of historical development. Therefore, they must be revolutionaries and reformers. Linking adherence to Marxism with conservatives who oppose reform is ignorance of Marxism and ideological confusion created by hostile ideologies. Deng Xiaoping once clearly pointed out: "There is no faction in China that is completely opposed to reform. Some people abroad used to see me as a reformist and others as conservatives. I'm a reformist, yes; if I were conservative if I were to insist on the four cardinal principles, I would be a conservative. So, more correctly, I am a truth-seeker. "The reformers of socialism with Chinese characteristics are not bourgeois liberals. The deviation from Marxism and socialism is not called reform, but "taking the evil road."
The revolutionary nature of Marxism is inherently constructive and negates the erroneous tendency to oppose revolution and construction. To interpret the revolution critically one-sidedly as destruction and destruction is bound to create a confrontation between revolution and construction. Since The beginning of China's reform and opening up, there has been incessant noise about the opposition between revolution and modernization, revolution and development. What followed was the so-called "social transformation" theory of reform and opening up as a "traditional society" to a "modern society", and the so-called "role change" theory that required the Cpc to change from a "revolutionary party" to a "ruling party". In fact, revolution is not only the precondition and necessary preparation for China's modernization, but also a powerful driving force for China's socialist modernization. In the final analysis, reform and opening up is also a revolution, a new type of revolution with new historical characteristics. As far as the Communist Party of China is concerned, whether it is revolution, construction, or reform and opening up, if it wants to become the leading core of the Chinese people, it must, as always, maintain the party's ideals, convictions, purpose, nature, and original mission. Revolutionary ideals are always higher than heaven, Marxism has always been the housekeeping skill for winning victories in work, the people have always been the highest concern of the Communist Party, and seeking truth from facts has always been the source of strength for forging ahead in a pioneering spirit. Therefore, fundamentally speaking, the revolution, construction, reform and opening up under the leadership of the Communist Party of China are a consistent process of unified social revolution, and the Communist Party of China has always been the supreme political leading force of this great social revolution, and there is no so-called fundamental change from a revolutionary party to a ruling party.
The revolutionary critical character of Marxism is inherently constructive, negating the erroneous tendency to oppose the struggle of public opinion against the creation of an atmosphere of unity and harmony. The one-sided interpretation of revolutionary criticism as struggle, exclusion and the so-called "thinking of seeking differences" inevitably creates a confrontation between criticism and harmony and stability. Since the beginning of reform and opening up, a crooked wind of negating the "unity of opposites" and stigmatizing the "philosophy of struggle" has been blown up, and efforts have been made to replace the "revolutionary dialectics" with "hehe philosophy." General Secretary Xi Jinping severely criticized some people who do not want to be fighters in the battlefield of ideological and public opinion struggle, but always want to be "enlightened gentlemen", the root of their thinking is that they do not recognize that the correct public opinion struggle is the driving force for the healthy development of the spirit, and not acknowledging and diluting mud can only lead to ideological transformation and spiritual degeneration. In fact, distinguishing between right and wrong, promoting good and punishing evil is always the highest pursuit of human spiritual development, and seeking common ground while reserving differences, seeking perfection through compromise, repaying grievances with virtue, and so on, are all issues at the next level, and we cannot negate the struggle of contradictions and the dialectics of revolution. Marxists always take a clear stand in the face of truth and consider it despicable to conceal their views.
(Author: Hou Huiqin, Director of the National Research Center for Cultural Security and Ideological Construction of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, President of the Chinese Historical Materialism Society; the author authorized the first release of the official micro-network)