Jia Shupin: Lenin's Critique of Non-Marxist Trends of Thought in Russia and Its Implications for Contemporary China

The turn of the 19th and 20th centuries was not only a period when capitalism entered a phase of relatively "peaceful" prosperity and development, but also a time of rapid growth and dissemination for Marxism. Simultaneously, it was an era of repeated struggle between Marxism and various erroneous non-Marxist trends of thought. As "the theoretical victory of Marxism compelled its enemies to disguise themselves as Marxists," ^[1] non-Marxist trends often donned the mantle of Marxism and flew the banner of "innovating" and "developing" it, which rendered their theories all the more deceptive. At present, the international and domestic ideological struggle is intense and complex, and various non-Marxist trends of thought manifest in different forms. Therefore, taking Lenin's critique of non-Marxist trends as a theoretical point of entry to deeply study and thoroughly understand the basic principles of Marxism still holds important revelatory significance for recognizing and identifying the harms of such trends today.

I. Recognizing and Distinguishing Non-Marxist Trends of Thought

The non-Marxist trends appearing during the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries primarily included Menshevism, Economism, Populism, and Machism.

These non-Marxist trends were Russian variants of Bernsteinism. Eduard Bernstein, known as the "originator" and "godfather" of democratic socialism, was a representative figure of the international communist movement with far-reaching influence during the Second International. He was once considered the "heir to Engels's legacy" and an "orthodox Marxist." However, after Engels's death, Bernstein used the banner of "innovating" and "developing" Marxism to practice revisionism in reality, creating a theoretical system distinct from Marxism. This system is known as Bernsteinism. Bernsteinism is an anti-Marxist, reformist socialist school or trend of thought, often called the "specimen of revisionism."

1. Menshevism: Advocating for a Loose Party Organization and Preaching Anarchism Menshevism, which was heavily influenced by Bernsteinism, consisted of the opportunist views of the Menshevik faction represented by Martov. Between July 17 and August 10, 1903, the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) was held. Intense debates erupted over the party program and the party constitution; this controversy triggered the initial split within the party, pitting the Bolsheviks against the Mensheviks. Regarding the conditions for party membership, the Menshevik faction led by Martov argued that party members did not need to participate in a party organization: "Anyone who accepts the party program and actively works to realize the party's tasks under the supervision and leadership of the party organs [sic!] can be a member of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party." As for organizational principles, they viewed the principle that "the minority is subordinate to the majority and the part is subordinate to the whole" as a provision that damaged the will and freedom of party members. On one hand, they preached anarchism, seeking to turn the party organization into a loosely organized association with complex components that could be entered at will; on the other hand, they claimed that the party's democratic centralism was no different from "bureaucratism" and promoted party autonomy. Lenin pointed out: "This aristocratic anarchism is particularly prominent in the Russian nihilist ^[2]. The party organization appears to them as a terrifying 'factory'; the subordination of the part to the whole and the minority to the majority appears to them as 'serfdom'." Martov and others considered the party organization no different from a "vicious factory," believing the party's tight organizational discipline and constitution oppressed human will and freedom like "serfdom," unabashedly praising anarchic principles.

2. Economism: Absorbed in Economic Struggle, Believing in Pragmatism, and Neglecting the Guiding Role of Ideals, Convictions, and Theory Economism was an erroneous non-Marxist trend of thought that formed within the Russian workers' movement in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Influenced by Bernsteinism, it emerged in Russia as a current that believed in pragmatism and neglected the guiding role of theory. This erroneous trend was the ideological system of the Russian opportunist "Economist" faction, so named because of its excessive absorption in economic struggle and its worship of the spontaneity of the labor movement. In the realm of theory, the "Economists" used the slogan of "freedom of criticism" to critique and revise Marxist theories regarding the proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, attempting to transplant Bernstein's revisionism into Russia. Bernsteinism viewed the communist ideal as "metaphysical speculation about the future" and "a picture of the state of socialist society that calls itself a fantasy." Bernstein stated, "I have very little interest in or feeling for what is usually understood as the 'ultimate goal of socialism.' This goal, whatever it may be, is thin and insignificant to me; the movement is everything." He further stated, "One good factory law can contain more socialism than a whole batch of nationalizations."

Deeply influenced by Bernsteinism, Economism focused only on immediate interests, neglected the guiding role of advanced revolutionary theory, and denied the necessity of the highest political form of the working class—the Marxist-Leninist party—thereby making the proletariat a political appendage of the bourgeoisie. They believed that economic struggle held primary significance in the labor movement, advocating that the working class struggle for immediate economic interests and promoting the claim that "an increase of one kopek ^[3] per rouble of wages is more practical and valuable than any socialism and any politics." They neglected or fundamentally failed to recognize the guiding role of Marxist theory in the workers' movement; instead, they viewed the study of Marxist theory as performing "trivial tasks," believing that "performing these trivial practical tasks is also of little value."

3. Populism: Denying the Objective Necessity of Capitalist Development and the Objective Conditions for Developing Capitalism in Russia Populism (Narodnism) was a trend of peasant socialism that emerged from the Russian village communes (obshchina) in the 1840s and 50s. Revolving around the question of whether Russia should follow the path of capitalist development, the Populists argued that the existence of the Russian communal system—and the mindset of equality and justice that supported it—could provide the basis for Russia’s direct transition to socialism without having to experience the pain of extreme exploitation found in the capitalist industrial revolution. They believed the capitalist elements appearing in the Russian communal economy were caused by "artificial" and accidental factors. In his work The Fate of Capitalism in Russia, the Populist economist Vorontsov argued that capitalism was unfeasible in Russia for two main reasons: first, Russian capitalism lacked a massive domestic market and the necessary foreign markets, making it difficult to realize the value of capitalist products; second, Russia's unique national conditions made the development of capitalism exceptionally difficult. Danielson, a Russian economist and Populist thinker, was more moderate than Vorontsov regarding the historical status of Russian capitalism; he believed that capitalist development was unnecessary for Russian society. The Populist theorist Yuzhakov held a pessimistic view of the reality of capitalist development in Russia, proposing the "theory of the insignificance of Russian capitalism." Yuzhakov's reasoning was primarily that the land currently held by Russian peasants and the land leased to them by landlords both belonged to the national economy. Populist theorists believed Russia could bypass capitalism and transition directly from the village commune to socialism. Their theoretical views possessed a clear character of Utopian Socialism and ignored the foundation of productive forces required for capitalist development. In short, the Populists believed that since the Russian peasantry was bankrupt, lacked foreign markets, and had no social division of labor, Russia lacked the roots and vitality for capitalist development.

4. Machism: Denying the Principle of Partisanship in Philosophy and Social Science and "Boasting of Non-Partisanship" Ernst Mach was a famous Austrian physicist who made significant scientific discoveries; however, he published The Analysis of Sensations in 1885 and Knowledge and Error in 1905, putting forward Machism. Machism is also known as "Empirio-criticism." From the perspective of Machism, both materialism and idealism are one-sided; they argued that because Marxist theory possesses partisanship (party spirit), it inevitably loses objectivity due to preconceived notions when solving problems. Therefore, the Machists vigorously promoted the principle of non-partisanship in philosophy and social sciences, "boasting of their non-partisanship." They believed the opposition between the materialist and idealist schools was unimportant, and that the key was to construct and develop a neutral, non-partisan philosophy that transcended both. Machism holds that neither matter nor spirit is primary; rather, "sensory experience" is primary, and both physical and psychological things are merely "complexes" of such sensory experiences. This was also true of Machism and the Russian followers like Bogdanov. They used terms like "physical" and "psychological" to replace "nature" and "spirit." Under the interference of such fresh terminology, definitions, and pedantic rhetoric, people often overlooked the fundamental opposition and struggle between the two basic lines, two basic schools, and two great camps of materialism and idealism.

II. Lenin's Understanding and Critique of the Harms of Non-Marxist Trends

Faced with the serious harm that non-Marxist trends brought to the international communist movement and the cause of the RSDLP—as well as the new changes in capitalism and the new circumstances in Russian class relations—Lenin took Marxism as a powerful ideological weapon to clear the source and defend Marxist doctrine. Meanwhile, in order to establish and consolidate proletarian political power and achieve the transition to socialism, he drew upon national conditions and the characteristics of the era to analyze the harms of various non-Marxist trends and carry out a forceful critique.

1. Critiquing the Menshevik Errors of Anarchic Autonomism and the Denial of the Social Democratic Party's Leading Role The Menshevik faction, represented by Martov, proposed that joining or not joining a party organization was unimportant; as long as one recognized the party constitution and program and actively carried out party work, one could become a member. Lenin's principle of party building—that one "must personally participate in a party organization"—was slandered by Martov and others as "serfdom." They said this only because they wanted to establish a complex, unorganized, and undisciplined group, which in practice advocated for anarchic autonomy, opposed democratic centralism, and praised the free development of individuality. Martov and others reasoned that the parties of the Second International were perfect models, and since those parties practiced autonomism and did not require members to join a specific party organization, Russia should follow suit. These claims were actually the manifestation of a revisionist line in organizational matters, intended to make the party lose its leading role in the proletarian revolution. Lenin pointed out that if the party were built according to Martov's opinion, it would be turned into a complex, amorphous, talk-shop club that was loosely organized and had no combat effectiveness; this was undoubtedly the establishment of a loose, wavering, opportunist party. Clearly, the party Martov advocated for was a reformist-type party deeply influenced by Bernsteinism, which stripped the party of its leadership over the workers' movement. Such reformist and opportunist ideas are extremely harmful to the centralized and unified leadership of the party.

In May 1904, Lenin published One Step Forward, Two Steps Back, further emphasizing the necessity of implementing the idea of centralism: "The idea of centralism... defines in principle the method of solving all local and detailed organizational problems," and is the "only principled idea that should permeate the entire party constitution." In this work, Lenin elucidated and perfected his own principles of party building—namely, building the party on the basis of centralism. This party should "make the party as the advanced detachment of the class as organized as possible, so that it absorbs only those elements who can at least accept a minimum of organization." Lenin pointed out that the party program "is of great significance for the solidarity and consistent activity of a political party." Regarding organizational principles, Lenin emphasized that the autonomist principles of the opportunist faction of the Social Democrats must be replaced by centralism. In Lenin's view, Martov and his followers had a confused understanding of the conditions for party membership itself, conflating the distinction between the party and the class. Lenin believed that using "the class" and "the party" to confuse the masses denied that the party is the vanguard of the working class and belittled the party's status and role as a leader. As the vanguard of the working class, a proletarian party is not something that all workers and other laborers can join voluntarily.

Lenin’s exposition of the organizational principles of the proletarian party and his criticism of the Mensheviks drew a clear line between the organizational principles of a proletarian party and those of a revisionist one. To relentlessly expose and criticize Martov’s erroneous ideas, Lenin advocated for the establishment of a highly class-conscious, centralized, unified, and well-organized party that actively accepted the guidance of Marxist theory. He required every party member to recognize the Party Program, which had to be formulated based on the specific conditions of Russia. This program needed to both embody the revolutionary nature of the proletariat and clearly define the Party's ultimate goal: the abolition of capitalism and the realization of socialism. Regarding the Party’s revolutionary strategy, Lenin pointed out that the proletarian party must lead the democratic revolution and be adept at uniting all forces that can be united, particularly by establishing a worker-peasant alliance. To ensure the final victory of the revolution, the Party must be skilled at flexibly employing various methods and means of struggle while mobilizing revolutionary forces. Members were required not only to participate personally in party organizations but also to consciously accept the supervision of these organizations and receive "instillation" education ^[4], so that the membership could be unified in both thought and action.

While advocating for the establishment of a tightly organized "elite party," Lenin did not ignore the role of the masses. He pointed out that the Bolshevik Party could only gain the trust, support, and endorsement of the people by maintaining close ties with them. He profoundly noted: "If the organized proletariat is not linked with the millions of laborers, if the proletariat that destroys the old society does not win respect among all laborers through a self-sacrificing struggle, and if the proletariat and the party leading it do not possess such unparalleled influence, then revolution would be impossible." Furthermore, "once the advanced detachment of the proletariat, the organized vanguard, is linked with millions, it becomes hundreds of thousands of times stronger than its original numbers." Lenin believed that trust and support from the people are the motive force for the eternal fountain of strength for the proletarian party, and such trust and support can only be obtained through close ties in which the Party shares the joys and sorrows of the masses. Therefore, Lenin emphasized that for the Communist Party, as the vanguard of the working class, "one of the most serious and terrible dangers is detachment from the masses."

2. Criticizing the erroneous tendency of "Economism" within the Party to negate the organization of revolutionaries and abandon political struggle, along with erroneous views negating the Party's "centralized and unified leadership"; emphasizing the importance of political education and theoretical instillation for the proletarian revolutionary movement.

At the turn of the 20th century, "Economism"—a Russian variant of Bernsteinism—was relatively prevalent. The Economists, an opportunistic faction representing this trend, brazenly promoted the spontaneity of organizational work in society. They opposed the establishment of a general organization of revolutionaries, failed to see the active role of such an organization in leading and organizing the revolution or in exercising subjective initiative, and believed that' establishing a proletarian party held little value in the execution of practical tasks. Lenin subjected this to severe criticism.

Lenin first highly affirmed the important role of the organization of revolutionaries. He stated: "Give us an organization of revolutionaries, and we will overturn Russia!" He believed that for the labor movement to play its proper role, the role of the organization of revolutionaries must be exerted to instill socialist ideas into the working masses, because "the workers can not yet have a Social-Democratic consciousness. This consciousness can only be brought to them from without. The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-unionist consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc." The exercise of socialist-democratic consciousness depends on the organization of revolutionaries; thus, it is necessary to actively establish such organizations and give play to the guiding role of the proletarian revolutionary party and its leaders over the labor movement, thereby achieving the dialectical unity of spontaneity and consciousness. Lenin criticized the Economists' idea that the labor movement would spontaneously generate socialism, while emphasizing the necessity and importance of instilling socialist ideology into the working masses. He condemned the Economists' erroneous practice of adopting bourgeois "trade-unionism" as their theoretical basis to hoodwink the masses.

Lenin was deeply concerned about the organizational laxity of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP), which at the time was influenced by a series of erroneous political propositions from the Economists that negated the Party's centralized and unified leadership. He believed the RSDLP lacked "unified statutes," "unified discipline," "a unified plan," and "unified action." The Party was fragmented into numerous factions, with local party cells scattered everywhere and disconnected from one another; the entire Social Democratic Party had become an amorphous mass composed of loose local organizations. During the Second Congress of the RSDLP, Lenin proposed the establishment of a "centralized party"—that is, the reconstruction of a centralized and unified Marxist workers' party that could truly lead the Russian revolution to victory. This was to be a "truly iron-like organization" with a unified and rigorous structure, unified will, and unified action, established according to the principle of Centralism. However, the Economists desperately opposed the establishment of a centralized, underground organization of professional revolutionaries, slandering such an organization as a violation of democratic principles.

In March 1902, in What Is to Be Done?, Lenin pointed out that the implementation of broad democratic principles was unsuitable for the Russian Socialist Labour Party under Tsarist autocratic rule, and he opposed the "harmful toy" of "broad democratism." He noted, "Under a dark autocracy, with the prevalence of selection by the gendarmes, 'broad democratism' in a party organization is nothing more than a meaningless and harmful toy." He added, "Whoever tries to establish a broad workers' organization under the autocracy, with elections, reports, and universal balloting, etc., is simply an incurable utopian." Lenin believed that while the Party was in an underground state, it did not mean democracy was unnecessary; its leading organs should still be produced through certain representative meetings. Lenin said: "Only the Social-Democratic Labour Party, in the face of all the immense difficulties and even great sacrifices, has truly implemented democratism in its organization." In an imperialist country with a relatively backward economy and culture like Russia, where counter-revolutionary forces remained strong, the Party had to be led by a firm organization of professional revolutionaries to achieve complete victory. Lenin's series of theories and revolutionary practices regarding the establishment of a new type of "elite party" not only exposed the opportunist ideas of the Economists—forcing them to temporarily abandon their revolutionary propositions—but also cleared Marxism of the slanders and vituperations cast by the Economists and crushed their attacks.

3. Lenin’s criticism of the Narodniks’ view of social development and his demonstration of the necessity of capitalist development in Russia.

Lenin conducted an in-depth study of the reality of the Russian rural economy. Adhering to the standpoint of historical materialism and grounded in Marxist political economy, he authored works such as The Development of Capitalism in Russia.

On the one hand, Lenin criticized the Narodniks (represented by Danielson), who viewed Russian capitalism as "artificial" and "cultivated" and insisted on the erroneous "artificial theory" of the Russian social division of labor. Lenin clearly pointed out that the development of Russian capitalism was built on the existing development of Russian industry and agriculture and followed the general laws of capitalist development. Lenin noted that in Danielson's discourse, "this phenomenon perhaps means that the grain produced is distributed more evenly throughout the country, so that the Arkhangelsk fisherman now eats Samara grain, and the Samara peasant seasons his meal with Arkhangelsk fish. In reality, nothing of the sort happens." The reason Danielson and his ilk reached these one-sided judgments was rooted in their failure to see the phenomenon of division of labor in Russia's economic development; instead, they proceeded from subjective imaginings and artificially set the reasons for the Russian social division of labor.

On the other hand, Lenin comprehensively and systematically demonstrated the development and direction of Russian capitalism. Lenin believed that the differentiation of the peasantry and the development of capitalism were facts within the Russian local communes. The Narodniks only saw the positive role of "communal socialism" and failed to see the decline of the village communes and the fact that the "industrial population was increasing while the agricultural population decreased." The Narodniks only saw the disasters and hardships capitalist development brought to the people, lacking a clear understanding of the historically progressive role of capitalism. Lenin pointed out: "The progressive historical role of capitalism may be summed up in two brief propositions: the increase in the productive forces of social labor and the socialization of labor." Through his criticism of the Narodniks' negation of the objective necessity of capitalist development, Lenin illustrated the historical progressiveness of Russian capitalism relative to serfdom. Meanwhile, he also exposed the oppression and exploitation suffered by the workers and peasants under Russian capitalism, illustrating its profound social contradictions. In short, through his criticism of the Narodniks, Lenin pointed out the socialist trajectory inherent in the development of Russian capitalism.

Narodniks like Mikhailovsky were idealists in their view of history. Mikhailovsky used subjective idealist methodology to argue for a "sociology" that considered "human nature" the foundation of society, denying that social development is determined by the development of the mode of material production. This is a subjective idealist view of history that "cannot even speak of viewing social development as a natural-historical process." He did not recognize historical materialism as Marx's new discovery, nor did he recognize it as scientific. This was actually consistent with Bernstein's revision and distortion of Marxism. He also rejected Marx's theory on the pretext that "this view of history has never been scientifically proven." Lenin argued: "The Social-Democrats naturally center all their attention and all their hopes on this class [the proletariat], reduce their program to the development of its class-consciousness, and direct all their activities toward helping it rise to the direct political struggle against the modern regime, and toward drawing the whole Russian proletariat into this struggle." It was precisely through philosophical struggle that Lenin promoted the wide dissemination of Marxism among Russian workers.

4. Criticizing the Machist error of "transcending" materialism and idealism and promoting the so-called "non-partisanship" of philosophy.

Machism directly challenged the theoretical foundations of Marxism—dialectical materialism and historical materialism—by branding itself as the "only scientific" philosophy that "transcended" both materialism and idealism. This not only caused great ideological confusion within the labor movement but also seriously threatened the theoretical basis of the proletarian revolutionary cause. Consequently, the Machists' attempt to "transcend" the binary opposition between materialism and idealism and their promotion of the erroneous idea of philosophical "non-partisanship" ^[5] met with Lenin's serious criticism. Lenin fully exposed the class essence of Machism, which represented modern bourgeois interests, noting that its "non-partisanship" was hypocritical and its doctrines merely wore the protective cloak of "scientificity." He profoundly expounded on the basic principles of Marxist philosophy regarding the materiality of the world, the knowability of matter, the dialectical nature of cognition, and the principle of the "partisanship of philosophy." He pointed out that Mach promoted the "non-partisanship" of science precisely to conceal the idealist partisanship of his philosophy. Lenin criticized the Machist error of treating sensory experience as primary; Machism denied the objective existence of the material world, claiming that "the world is our sensations."

Lenin pointed out not only that the Machist view of experience was wrong, but also criticized Mach's error in pitting practice against theory. He noted that experience is not merely sensation but a reflection of objective existence. Only through practice can we obtain true experience and thus understand the world. He criticized the Machists for attempting to merge materialism and idealism by avoiding ontology and focusing solely on epistemology. This was actually a "reconciliation" trick; they thought that by evading the distinction between materialism and idealism, they could transcend this fundamental question, yet they inevitably fell into idealism. Regarding the purpose of the Machist play on the doctrine of philosophical non-partisanship, Lenin saw through it with piercing clarity, pointing out: "The objective role played by these epistemological machinations is only one: to clear the way for idealism and fideism ^[6], and to serve them faithfully." The influence of Machist erroneous thinking not only led to ideological confusion within the Party but also weakened the revolutionary fighting spirit of the working class. Thus, Lenin said: "Behind the scholastic utterances of the empiriocriticist epistemology, one cannot but see the partisan struggle in philosophy, a struggle which in the last analysis expresses the tendencies and ideology of the antagonistic classes in modern society." Through his criticism of the Russian Machists' attack on Marxist philosophy and his struggle against this so-called "new philosophy," Lenin laid a solid ideological foundation for the Bolshevik Party and completed the "uncovering" ^[7] of early 20th-century bourgeois philosophical ideology.

III. The Enlightenment Provided by Lenin's Criticism of Non-Marxist Trends for Contemporary China

Studying Lenin’s critique of non-Marxist trends of thought offers important practical insights for firming up the guiding status of Marxism, persisting in the Party’s leadership over ideological work, adopting a dialectical approach toward various social trends, and deepening the national education system. In the process of building a modern socialist country and realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, correctly understanding various social trends and deepening the study of Marxist theory can provide the spiritual motivation for the overall improvement of the ideological and moral quality, as well as the scientific and cultural cultivation, of people of all ethnic groups. It further provides spiritual support for comprehensively advancing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

First, we must persist in the guiding status of Marxism, build a solid ideological guarantee system, maintain the Party’s leadership over the ideological and cultural fronts, and critique and distinguish erroneous trends of thought. Only by arming itself with Marxism and building a firm ideological guarantee system can a proletarian party fundamentally eliminate the negative influence of bourgeois ideological concepts and effectively serve as an ideological leader, "never forgetting our ultimate goal, conducting propaganda at all times, and defending the proletarian ideology—the doctrine of scientific socialism, that is, Marxism—from being distorted, and ensuring its continued development." This was also the correct measure by which Lenin led the Russian people to victory in the October Revolution, validating and establishing the scientific nature of socialist ideology with Marxism at its core. Lenin believed that only by publicly exposing the reactionary essence of erroneous trends and striking back against their distortions and revisions of Marxist theory could the true face of Marxism be restored among the masses, thereby consolidating political power. Lenin insisted on implementing Party leadership across all cultural work, including education, propaganda, public opinion, and mass organizations. He not only required all educational and cultural institutions to "openly acknowledge the political leadership of the Communist Party," but also demanded that all Party newspapers, magazines, and other news publications strictly abide by the principle of Party spirit ^[8] and accept the Party’s leadership and supervision. Furthermore, regarding mass cultural organizations and groups such as the Proletkult ^[9], trade unions, and the Communist Youth League, Lenin required them to unconditionally submit to and serve the Soviet regime and the "general leadership of the Russian Communist Party." Benefiting from the guidance of these ideas, the RCP(B) during the Lenin period, despite facing interference from various non-Marxist trends, consistently maintained leadership over cultural and ideological work, ensuring that the Soviet Russian socialist revolution and construction always moved forward along the correct socialist path.

Erroneous trends such as historical nihilism ^[10], cultural nihilism, the "end of ideology" theory, the theory of the "disappearance of ideology in cyberspace," and the "China virus" theory attempt to subtly influence the direction of public opinion, dissolve the cultural identity and national spiritual faith of Chinese people, and weaken the cohesion and influence of Chinese culture. They wait for opportunities to interfere with the construction of the mainstream socialist ideology and obstruct the smooth and in-depth development of the cause of the Party and the state. If these erroneous trends are allowed to spread unchecked, they will inevitably weaken the mainstream value consensus over time, leading to the risk of the mainstream ideology being eroded or marginalized. To this end, we must remain sufficiently clear-headed on the ideological and theoretical fronts, earnestly learn from the lessons of the collapse of the Soviet Union, and "firmly hold the leadership, management, and discourse power ^[11] of ideological work in our hands," avoiding the ruin of the socialist regime due to an ideological collapse or the loss of leadership.

Second, we must clearly recognize the complexity, long-term nature, and difficulty of ideological work, and take a clear-cut stand in struggling against various discords and noises emerging in the ideological field. With the in-depth development of reform and opening up and the socialist market economy, a situation has emerged in the ideological and cultural fields where multiple ideologies of different natures coexist and intertwine. There are ideological remnants from the semi-colonial and semi-feudal period, the consciousness of small producers, as well as many foreign political ideas and moral concepts. Although the institutional advantages of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the leadership and organizational advantages of the CPC have been repeatedly proven by history and reality, there is still no lack of non-Marxist and non-socialist ideologies that attack Marxism, "sing down" ^[12] socialism, slander the CPC, and drive a wedge between the Party and the people. These exist in different forms and exert influence in different ways. Therefore, we must maintain vigilance and take precautions.

First, we must improve our ability to discern and immunize ourselves against various social concepts, trends, and theoretical perspectives, exposing their essence and harm through complex discourse and viewpoints. From the perspective of the history of Marxist development, certain forms of opportunism and revisionism often active in the ideological field under the guise of "developing Marxism." However, once their ideological camouflage is stripped away, they are revealed to be nothing more than erroneous trends propagating backward, decadent, and reactionary ideas. In our country's current social stage, these phenomena likewise exist. Social trends such as "historical nihilism," "neoliberalism," and the "end of ideology" theory, with capitalist ideology at their core, ferment through cyberspace despite their varying forms. They continuously push and instill the hypocritical values of the bourgeoisie into the public, intending to shake the Party's social foundation and ideological roots. Particularly in recent years, active historical nihilists have used the media to hype up filtered and processed photos and videos using gimmicks like "exclusives," "inside stories," and "reveals," pushing them to the vast number of netizens through internet and digital technology. They even maliciously ridicule and joke about serious historical events and important Party leaders, disseminating and peddling erroneous ideological concepts and values in a fragmented manner to dissolve the public's identification with the revolutionary history and traditional culture of the Party and the Chinese nation. A considerable number of netizens lack the ability to distinguish right from wrong and are easily prone to cognitive bias, mistakenly believing that "the moon is rounder in foreign countries" ^[13]. Some people have even been cultivated into "exquisitely pro-American" or "exquisitely pro-Japanese" ^[14] elements, spreading remarks in the internet and other public spheres that worship foreign things, fawn over foreign powers, and violate public order, good customs, and socialist core values, thereby threatening and challenging the guiding status of Marxism in the ideological field. To win the initiative in the ideological and cultural struggle against the "discourse traps" and "dissemination tactics" of various erroneous trends, we must persist in the Party’s leadership, use socialist core values to lead social trends, and simultaneously study the original works and grasp the principles ^[15]. We must strengthen the political discernment of Party members and cadres regarding social trends, looking through the phenomena to perceive the classes and interest groups represented by these erroneous trends, so as to carry out targeted critiques.

Secondly, our banner must be clear and our stance firm. We must resolutely resist the infiltration and erosion of Western capitalist ideology, advocate for "excellence in both professional skills and moral integrity" ^[16], exert a critical spirit that "clears the murky water and lets the clear flow, praising the superior and criticizing the inferior," and reject vulgar cultural artists and products. Regarding erroneous viewpoints and trends appearing in the ideological and theoretical fields, we must never be ambiguous or allow them to develop unchecked; we must refute and stop them with perfect assurance. Only in this way can we lead the healthy development of diverse social trends. Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasized that, in the face of the grim struggle and arduous tasks in the ideological field, "if we do not occupy the position of propaganda and ideology, others will. We must strengthen our sense of position and dare to take charge and manage." Especially on major issues of principle, the majority of Party members and cadres must stand firm, assess the situation, scientifically judge the complex current international and domestic situations, clarify the conflict factors that may exist in the ideological field, and strictly guard against the impact and dissolution of our country’s mainstream ideology by Western capitalist countries.

Third, we must strengthen the theoretical propaganda and spiritual shaping of Marxism and enhance theoretical arming. "Without revolutionary theory there can be no strong socialist party." Marxism is our ideological weapon. Its class nature and revolutionary nature are the essential attributes and distinctive hallmarks that distinguish it from other doctrines, which is also why it invites falsification, revision, and attack from bourgeois opponents and various old forces. In the struggle against erroneous trends, Lenin expounded that the construction of proletarian culture must persist in a Marxist direction and use Marxism to build a solid ideological guarantee to resist the erosion of erroneous trends. Therefore, we must achieve the following two points:

First, we must persist in using Marxism to unmask the true face of erroneous trends. Today, our country faces a developmental situation where a unitary guiding ideology coexists with pluralistic cultures. Particularly with the deepening of economic globalization, some erroneous trends have resurfaced like dregs. Therefore, we must take Marxism as our ideological and theoretical weapon, persist in historical materialism, and strengthen the study of Party history, the history of New China, the history of reform and opening up, and the history of socialist development. We must continuously promote the integration of historical materialism and the "Four Histories" ^[17] into life and education, steadily advance the popularization of Marxism, and improve the masses’ ability to discern and refute erroneous trends, using Marxism to build an ideological guarantee against their erosion.

Second, the proletariat must increase the intensity of Marxist theoretical propaganda, unswervingly explaining the correct propositions and value pursuits of Communists to the people. We must resist and discard old feudal, ignorant, and decadent capitalist thoughts. In the process of clearing the murky water and returning to the source ^[18], we must eliminate the people’s blurred understanding of Marxism and help them comprehend the true essence of Marxist theory. It is in this sense that Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasized that Marxist theory is a "compulsory course" for Communists and is our "true scripture" ^[19]. Furthermore, "theoretical cultivation is the core of the comprehensive quality of cadres, and theoretical maturity is the foundation of political maturity." Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era is the great banner guiding the new journey and new practice; it is the essence of the times of Chinese culture and the Chinese spirit, and a new guideline and strategy for the CPC’s cultural and ideological construction. To this end, the propaganda of this thought must be increased to enable the people to deeply appreciate its rich connotations and core essence.

(Author Profile: Jia Shupin is a Professor, Doctoral Supervisor, and Vice Dean of the School of Marxism at Shanghai Normal University. She is also a researcher at the Shanghai Normal University branch of the Research Center for the Great Founding Spirit of the CPC under the Ministry of Education.)

Online Editor: Tong Xin Source: Marxism Studies (《马克思主义研究》), Issue 12, 2023.