<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="1" > Guo Songmin Press: This article is reproduced on the Internet, the author signs "Young Mao Thought Believer", the article theoretically illustrates several crucial issues, recommended to superstitious Hu Xijin netizens to take a look, the title is added when reprinting. </h1>
Obedient! Hu Bian recently fell in love with "if".
After "What would happen if China were capitalism now?", Lao Hu contributed another one to us:
"If the Communist Party hadn't been in power, what would China be like today?"
……
You "one hundred thousand ifs" ah? Do you think you have a lot of depth??
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="87"> 01</h1>
If you are not confident in two hundred years of life, you will be "hypothetical" for 100,000
Why are you keen on "what if" ???
- It's simple: not "confident enough".
Hu Bian, as specimen figures of contemporary "elite" groups, and their kind, lack, seriously lack, or simply do not have: (1) self-confidence in the path of scientific communism, (2) self-confidence in Marxist-Leninist-Maoist theory, (3) self-confidence in the socialist system, and (4) self-confidence in revolutionary culture.
Or even what? They were originally disgusted with these things; they obviously had a white heart, but because of the stakes, they could not get rid of the red skin that had been draped on their bodies for a long time. Obviously exporting the white theory, but we have to use our red vocabulary - out of that smell, weird. No wonder.
It is not good to talk about red theory, because they do not agree with it in their hearts at all; it is not smooth to talk about white theory, because at the same time they dare not directly plunge into the warm embrace of bourgeois ideology... Yes, "socialism is not good, capitalism is not good" – this is the reality that some people are embarrassed in theory. It's embarrassing.
It is precisely because the society and the capital are not confident in any way, so it is assumed how not to engage in "socialism", how to assume that there is no "party leadership" how to ... Instead of positive arguments, it is explained in a roundabout way, and it is very interesting to be circumvented.
It is a theoretical high-level "turn-in". Sure enough, there is the wind of the "national army"...
This is looking at ourselves from the perspective of American and Western capitalism.
Therefore, we can't blame the nonsense for making up "awkwardness" - they are originally a group of "awkward people".
It is impossible to understand who in modern times Chinese, led by Mao and other advanced elements, has solemnly chosen socialism and the Communist Party in the "era of awakening" and repeatedly confirmed these choices in the "era of action" that is more thrilling than the "era of awakening"?
It is precisely the right-wing imperialists of the United States and the West who are deeply rooted in their thinking, and their lackeys, including the "cultural people" running dogs, especially the "cultural people" running dogs.
It is precisely those noble gentlemen who want to dictate to the choice of socialism and the Communist Party of the Chinese people, to act as teachers of the Chinese people on the question of "what banner to raise and what road to take", to try to make the Chinese people change their choices by means of both soft and hard measures, and to formally embark on the path that they are willing to follow, that is, the dark road of becoming a second- or third-rate capitalist country and the main vassal state of US and Western imperialism in the East - the evil road.
When the Chinese people repeatedly insist on their correct choices, and repeatedly struggle and even clash with US and Western imperialism and their lackeys in China because they insist on their choices, that is, when the imperialists are always unable to "convince" the overwhelming majority of the Chinese people of the capitalist plan from the bottom of their hearts, they sigh and sigh, and they inevitably have some doubts:
Why do Chinese always love "socialism" so much?
Why did Chinese always support the leadership of the (real) "Communist Party"?
To paraphrase, or approximately put it, is:
"What if China were capitalist now?"
"If the Communist Party hadn't been in power, what would China be like today?" (Hu Xijin)
That's right: when Hu Xijin prefers to ask questions in this way, we can glimpse his heart: the fiery beating, (bourgeois) liberal well-known, generally invisible true heart.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="88"> 02</h1>
The naked running of the idealistic view of history
Of course, it is not impossible to discuss it in this way.
The problem is that the discussion should be scientific and should be based on the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist way of thinking, that is, in accordance with the materialist view of history.
Unfortunately, the people who raised these two questions did not have any materialist view of history, and they were precisely looking at the "CCP problem" from the perspective of American and Western capitalism and the history of bourgeois idealism.
In order to "explore this hypothesis", Hu Xijin said a lot of nonsense.
What Indonesia, the Philippines, South Korea, India, Pakistan, Taiwan, Singapore, and what "the whole of Southeast Asia, South Asia and the Korean Peninsula combined", finally came -
"China is a super-society with a large population, many ethnic groups and a vast territory, and the difficulty of governing Chinese mainland is completely different from that of governing the small island of Taiwan. China's success or failure should be measured by the comprehensive situation of Southeast Asia, South Asia, and the Korean Peninsula, which is objective and fair. China can take Europe, the United States and Japan as the goal of further development, but suddenly pulling China out of the historical and geopolitical environment to make comparisons is a lever, rather than seriously answering Lao Hu's assumption at the beginning of this article. ”
He just didn't know how to summarize his main argument in this way:
Only the CCP can adapt to a "super-society" or "super-large-scale state" like China, and only the CCP can govern such a society or country.
Here, Hu Xijin is entangled in the problem of "the scale of governance", that is, the problem of China's "too big": a large population, a wide range of places, a variety of ethnic groups, and so on. This is exactly what some "China experts" love to talk about.
Objectively speaking, are these China's national conditions?
be.
The problem is: it's the context, not the deciding factor.
What are the determinants?
Social internal contradictions.
It is a contradictory movement within Chinese society under the influence of Western capitalism and the international communist movement in modern times, which has promoted the development of history, including pushing the Communist Party and Mao Zedong onto the stage of history.
Hu's problem is still mechanical materialism.
Grasping on a single "super-large-scale" objective national condition, seeing only the social carrier and not the subject and object of society, ignoring the contradictory movement within the same objective society, mainly the contradiction struggle between different classes in society -- this is the concrete manifestation of Hu Xijin's error in understanding of mechanical materialism here.
It should be known that the application of mechanical materialism to the field of social history must lead to the idealistic view of history.
That is, an important manifestation of the incompleteness of mechanical materialism as materialism is that the inability to implement materialism in the field of social history must lead to an idealistic interpretation of social history and its development.
Taking Hu Xijin's view on the relationship between the "super-scale" national conditions and the CCP, he insists on explaining the factors for the SUCCESS of the CCP in terms of the "super-scale" national conditions; according to this logic, it is necessary to "discover" a number of "characteristics" that are compatible with the "super-scale" of the CCP.
However, if we talk about the characteristics of the CCP without a class point of view, we are bound to fall into empty talk, and we will describe as the "characteristics" of the CCP that some things that other political groups can also have.
In this way, "traits" are not traits.
Historically, the Strong Han, the Sheng Tang Dynasty, and the Ming and Qing Dynasties all achieved "successful" governance of such a "super-large-scale" country or society! (According to Hu's standards: unification, strength, relative coordination of multiple nationalities, etc.) Therefore, how can "adaptation to the national conditions of 'super-large-scale' be described as a "characteristic" of the CCP? Obviously, in history, there has been more than one group that can create China's "great unification"!
Therefore, it can be said that Hu Xijin did not understand what the Communist Party was, and his understanding of Communist Party philosophy was almost equal to zero.
In fact, unconsciously, he confused the "Communist Party," which could only emerge after modern times, with those powerful groups (imperial ruling groups) that had ruled in history and "successfully" governed "Super China."
This seems to be a praise for our party, but in fact it is a "high-level black" for our party - equivalent to classifying the people's leader Mao Zedong with the Qin Emperor Han Wu and Tang Zong Song Zu of the exploiting class!
And horizontally: countries like the United States and Russia, although they are not as large as China (such as the population is not so large), but their internal complexity or pluralism cannot be ignored. The United States has acquired capitalism, and Russia has also "chosen" capitalism after the collapse of the Soviet Union... According to Lao Hu's standards, at least the United States has been "successful" in practicing capitalism — after all, it is still the kind of "developed" society that China's development can emulate.
Is it not possible to say that the capitalist ruling clique in the United States can also adapt to and control the complex objective conditions of a "super society" and a "pluralistic society" (although not as good as China's, but in essence) the "super society"?!
It seems like that's the case.
After Hu Xijin retired, he could also write a book called "Complex America".
There is a difficult scripture in every family - in this world, if you want to say "complex", which country cannot be said to be "complex"? There are big difficulties, and there are small entanglements.
<h1 class="pgc-h-arrow-right" data-track="89"> 03</h1>
"Philosophical Poverty"
This just confirms that liberals are known to be blackening China with a bunch of untenable arguments, and "centrist" big Vs with "patriotic" faces such as Hu Xijin are blowing China with a bunch of things that are also untenable and simple phenomena.
Hu Xijin and other generations, who were not armed with Marxist-Leninist-Maoist ideology, were typical in terms of ideological methods of "seeing only the trees, not the forest": they only mechanically piled up some phenomena that were within the reach of the naked eye and used them as "arguments" to "argue" china's "goodness.".
Hu Xijin's theory of "complex China", as Lenin criticized in His Treatise on Imperialism, "shows that the observer sees only the trees and not the forest." It blindly reproduces superficial, accidental, disordered phenomena. It exposes the observer overwhelmed by the original material, completely unaware of the meaning and meaning of these materials. ”
Taking the question of "why the vanguard can" as an example, although it is because the CCP is quite capable of adapting to and controlling the so-called "super society" that Hu Xijin has repeatedly repeated, the more important and fundamental thing is:
As the representative of the toiling masses of the workers and peasants in the "super society", the CPC represents the progressive class and the direction of progressive social development, that is, the direction of socialism and communism, in the fierce and complex social class struggle, and under the leadership of its mentor Mao Zedong, it has successfully applied the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism to China, formed Mao Zedong Thought, and established the correct line of revolutionary Marxism and the specific principles, policies, strategies, and tactics corresponding to it.
As a result, we have successively won great victories in the new-democratic revolution, the socialist revolution, the "continuing revolution," and the cause of construction in various fields, put an end to the history of "one poor and two white," and turned a poor and backward old China into a new China that was initially prosperous and strong in the mid-1970s.
It is in this process that the vanguard appears to be "able".
The reason why the vanguard is "able" and socialism is "good" is, in the final analysis, because Marxism-Leninism "works."
After the October Revolution brought Marxism-Leninism to China, the advanced elements in China were able to apply the most advanced conceptual tool in the human world in modern times, the proletarian cosmology (that is, Marxism-Leninism), to reconsider their own problems, to transcend the old democratic revolution (led by the bourgeoisie) in practice, and to embark on a new road to socialism and communism through "new" democracy.
This is the change that has taken place in China since the "First World War," or the "Age of Awakening," and the road it has taken.
On the one hand, from the specific social conditions of semi-colonial and semi-feudal China in modern times, the need to be led by the proletariat (through the vanguard) and the broadest peasant class to participate in the revolution arises; after Marxism-Leninism came to China, it became in contact with the revolutionary practice being carried out by the Chinese people and was mastered by the Chinese people, so it played a very huge role in "turning spirit into matter".
On the other hand, the Chinese revolution led by Mao Zedong's Communist Party was integrated into the most progressive cause of mankind in modern times, the international communist movement. The Chinese revolution is part of the world revolution, and in particular the Chinese socialist revolution has opened up a new realm of world revolution under the leadership of Mao's teachers.
The new democratic and socialist revolution led by the CPC is part of the inevitable process of human history, which Marx argued that "socialism and communism replace capitalism," is a key part of the world's half of the East, and has become a dynamic and active part under the creative work of the working masses of the Chinese proletariat headed by Mao Zedong, so that the Chinese proletarians have played the role of the vanguard of the communist movement after the German and Russian proletarians -- this is the advanced nature and civilization of the CPC. The fundamental source of the sublime is the true mystery of why it can be.
With Marxism-Leninism and the Communist Party in China, especially with Mao Zedong Thought, which is "unified with the theory of Marxism-Leninism with the practice of the Chinese revolution," and with the Party tempered by the Yan'an rectification, the Chinese the people can no longer be said to be "backward" ideologically and politically, but has advanced and greatly advanced.
As the saying goes, "Since Chinese learned Marxism-Leninism, Chinese have shifted from passive to active in spirit. From this point on, the era in modern world history that looked down on Chinese and chinese culture should come to an end. The great victorious Chinese People's Liberation War and the Great People's Revolution have revived and are reviving the culture of the great Chinese people. This culture of Chinese people has surpassed the capitalist world as a whole in terms of its spiritual aspect. ”
Only then was it possible to defeat the millions of Chiang Kai-shek bandits armed by US imperialism, and later to drive US imperialism itself from the Yalu River to the 38th Parallel.
The train is not pushed, the cowhide is not blown: the superiority of our party and our army is mainly the ideological and political superiority. With this advantage, even if there is no developed economy and culture for the time being, it will certainly be able to create it in time; without this advantage, no matter how high the GDP is, no matter how developed the weapons are, it is inevitable to be the tail of others, and only promises cannot raise their heads.
Looking at the problem differently in this way, it is impossible to explain why in modern history, China and the Chinese people seem to have "suddenly" changed from backward to advanced, as if "suddenly" they had mastered the "rejuvenation code."
＊＊＊
It is quite uncomfortable to look at this kind of guy who makes up a fake Communist Party, or says "a Communist rather than a Communist," to pretend to talk about the Communist Party: he is either a "low-level red" or a "high-level black," or simply both.
Abandoning Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, even if there are 10,000 "ifs," it will not be able to save the "philosophical poverty" of Hu Xijin and his ilk, as well as the mistakes in action and the mistakes of leniency and severity.