Cao Jialiang and Li Hong: Historical Achievements and Limitations of Chen Duxiu’s Atheist Thought
Chen Duxiu, a central figure in the charming historical narrative of "Chen in the south and Li in the north, coordinating to found the Party," [1] was an outstanding thinker and pioneer who possessed immense influence in the history of Chinese Marxist atheism. He made significant contributions to the dissemination and establishment of Marxist atheism in our country. Even today, a century after the founding of the Party, it remains of great significance to scientifically understand and correctly evaluate the historical achievements and limitations of Chen Duxiu’s atheistic thought.
I. The Historical Achievements of Chen Duxiu’s Atheistic Thought
At the beginning of the 20th century, in order to help the slumbering masses of China at that time to "attain scholarship and understand current affairs," revolutionary pioneers represented by Chen Duxiu carried out a profound exposure and critique of the various superstitious customs and religious theistic ideas of our country’s feudal society. From opposing superstitious activities—such as burning incense, performing Taoist rituals (daojiao), and conducting fasting rites (zhaizhou)—to questioning the actual existence of ghosts and gods; from resisting the restoration of the imperial system to exposing the colonial essence of Western Christianity, Chen Duxiu engaged in fierce ideological confrontations with figures such as Yi Yixuan, who maintained the existence of ghosts, and Kang Youwei, who promoted Confucianism as a religion (Kongjiao). Through these efforts, he enriched and developed modern Chinese atheistic thought in several aspects. Specifically, his contributions include the following:
(1) Chen Duxiu’s profound critique of feudal "ghost and god" culture
First, he argued that ghosts and gods are not an objective material existence. In Chen’s view, the popular theories concerning the physical form and substance of ghosts and gods were mostly absurd and preposterous. From the perspective of the primacy of matter, he resolutely questioned their existence. Chen pointed out: "If it is said that a ghost is a thing so mysterious that it is not contained within matter, cannot be reached by sensation, and cannot be explained by science, then why is the form of a ghost seen by people, and the voice of a ghost heard by people?" To him, the claim that ghosts and gods are a type of formless and substance-less matter was clearly a self-contradictory piece of sophistry; if ghosts and gods possessed both form and substance, then their existence and activities must be explicable through science. Regarding the claims that ghosts have substance but no form, or form but no substance, Chen also considered these to be erroneous. He noted: "If a ghost has substance, why does it not occupy a position in space and create an obstruction, or serve as an obstruction to other substances?" "In the universe, there are only two things that have form but no substance: one is an illusion, and the other is an image. An illusion is non-existent, and an image itself is also non-existent." Clearly, from a dual perspective of form and substance, Chen used materialist dialectics to prove the absurdity of the theory that ghosts and gods exist in the world, thereby negating the fallacy that "ghosts and gods are an objective material reality."
Second, he argued that ghosts and gods are human fabrications of the objective world. Chen believed that so-called ghosts and gods are subjectively fabricated and concocted by people based on the real world upon which they depend for survival; they are, in fact, "unnecessary worries of the mediocre." In his "Questioning the Theory of the Existence of Ghosts" (Youguilun zhiyi), he pointed out: "If ghosts belong to a spiritual realm and follow a different path from the material world—such that the concepts of the material world cannot be used to infer their existence—then why is it that those who speak of ghosts today see them as having distinct nationalities, languages, customs, and clothing, all just like the human world?" In his view, the various forms of "ghost and god" culture that persisted and ran rampant in our country’s feudal society were essentially just distorted, warped, and inverted reflections of the objective world in the human brain, born out of fear of the unknown. As Engels stated: "All religion, however, is nothing but the fantastic reflection in men’s minds of those external forces which control their daily life, a reflection in which the terrestrial forces assume the form of supernatural forces."
Finally, he argued that feudal superstitious thought centered on "ghost and god" culture was extremely harmful. In Chen’s view, the harms of these superstitions to our society were manifold, and their severity could not be underestimated. In particular, erroneous concepts within this culture—such as fatalism, reincarnation, and karmic retribution—not only imprisoned people's souls and swindled them of their wealth but even endangered the survival of the nation-state. when evaluating Chinese political issues, Chen pointed out: "Our China has already been ruined beyond recognition by the perverse doctrines of successive generations." He pointed out with grief: "Yet we Chinese, no matter the matter, always submit to the will of Heaven and fate, not knowing that all things depend entirely on human effort. Consequently, the state has weakened to such a stage, yet people are still muddled and talking in their sleep, saying things like 'this is the mandate of Heaven' or 'it is a matter of destiny, and human effort cannot reverse it'." Chen believed that this culture was not only a major obstacle to the scientific spirit taking root in our feudal society but also a significant ideological resistance to the New Culture Movement [2]. Regarding the chaos and harm brought by feudal "ghost and god" culture, he noted with no small anxiety: "If the national policy of conservatism versus reform is not decided early, the political and social contradictions, disorder, and degeneration will ultimately be irreversible!"
(2) Chen Duxiu’s relentless exposure of the worship of deities
First, he argued that worshipping lifeless, man-made deities was useless. In Chen’s view, the practice of many Chinese people—burning incense, performing Taoist rituals, attending religious assemblies, and conducting fasts to worship various lifeless, man-made deities in an attempt to gain wealth, blessings, sons, or longevity—was all in vain. In "Venerating Bodhisattvas" (Jing Pusa), he pointed out: "In fact, after the incense is burned and the money is spent, there are untold numbers who still do not gain wealth, blessings, sons, or longevity." "Even if there are Bodhisattvas, if you are without sin, why do you need to perform fasts to absolve yourself? If you are guilty, even performing a hundred fasts will not grant you liberation." Chen believed that all man-made idols respected or even deified by society—"though they may be legacies of the ancestors, teachings handed down by sages, promoted by the government, or esteemed by society—are all worth not a single penny!" That is to say, worshipping lifeless, man-made deities is a futile act.
Second, he opposed artificial "god-making" movements. In his 1916 article "A Letter Refuting Kang Youwei to the President and Premier," Chen resolutely disagreed with Kang Youwei and others who "re-proposed the promotion of Confucianism" after Yuan Shikai proclaimed himself emperor [3]. In Chen’s view, "Religion in our China was originally not held in high esteem," so he found it unsurprising that "regarding Mr. Kang’s telegram requesting the government to worship Confucius and revere the religion, not a single northern or southern newspaper agreed; while regarding the Parliament’s proposal to delete the clause revering Confucius from the Constitution and the Ministry of Interior’s cancellation of kneeling rituals, not a single newspaper opposed it." In his view, Kang Youwei’s attempt to restore the imperial system by forcibly promoting ecclesiastical power was merely a low-level act of "seeking divine help from Confucianism from afar" that went against the tide of history and was destined to fail. Chen profoundly noted: "Great figures of the religious world are not born in this land; even if one forces the concoction of a religion and establishes a leader of that faith, they will surely possess no authority or glory." He believed that all movements that engage in personality cults—whether through peaceful or violent means—inevitably lead to autocracy. They are the shackles and enemies of the broad dissemination and true realization of democratic thought, and we must resolutely oppose them.
(3) Chen Duxiu’s dialectical reflections on basic religious issues
First, he argued that religion would not vanish in the short term. Chen believed that whether in the past, present, or future, religion is an existence that cannot be ignored. However, he did not agree with Bertrand Russell’s prediction that "there must be a new religion in the future." He pointed out: "I believe a 'new religion' lacks a solid foundation for faith; if one removes the legendary, far-fetched, and unscientific superstitions of old religions, that could be considered a new religion." Clearly, in Chen’s view, no truly new religion would be produced, but old religions stripped of superstitious theology could continue to exist. He further pointed out that the persistence of religion has nothing to do with whether it relies on "other-power" (tali) or whether it has absolute value. He reminded those in China who advocated for the abolition of religion: "People currently advocating the New Culture Movement neither pay attention to fine arts and music, yet want to oppose religion; I do not know what kind of mechanical state they intend to turn human life into. This is a complete failure to understand the source of our life activities; it is a major error, and I am the first to admit this mistake." Based on this, he concluded: "Religion occupies a large part of the old culture, and naturally, the new culture cannot be without it."
Second, he argued that the social function of religion is dualistic. In Chen’s view, the existence of religion has both positive significance and, more importantly, a negative side that must be examined. This is true of all religions. As early as his 1915 article "The French and Modern Civilization," he pointed out: "The merit of religion lies in overcoming brutality and encouraging goodness, which is not without benefit to the human race; however, its superstition regarding divine power and its obscuring of human wisdom are its shortcomings." In Chen’s view, although the existence of religion possesses a certain positive significance, the disadvantages of its persistence outweigh the benefits, particularly in the case of Buddhism and Confucianism. In the opening of his "Second Reply to Yu Songhua," he stated: "However, I have appealed to intuition and weighed the various religions; without exception, the harms are many and the benefits are few." He accused Buddhism of "loving to speak of 'protecting the Dharma' and not hesitating to fawn upon the powerful to expand the great undertaking of the faith, seeking support from the chief of all evils in the world—such as those who honored Wu Zetian [4] as an incarnation of the Bodhisattva; such people have existed since ancient times." He criticized Confucianism, saying: "If we use this to unify the people's minds and seek to preserve and develop it, then in this Republic, I do not know to what extent the ethical code of 'revering the monarch, the parents, and the male' would develop before it is considered perfect." His attitude toward the evaluation of Christianity was slightly different. Although he still "divided one into two" [5], he first affirmed the social role of Christianity. Chen actively advocated for cultivating "Jesus's lofty and great personality and his warm, deep emotions within our blood." At the same time, he pointed out: "Looking broadly at the history of the Christian Church, its past tyranny and its current corruption are enough to make one indignant and shutter; there is truly no 'solemnity' or 'sanctity' to speak of."
Third, he believed that freedom of religious belief is not one-sided. Chen argued that while citizens have the freedom to respect and believe in religion, they also have the freedom to oppose and denounce religion. "No matter the ism or doctrine, one should be permitted the freedom to support or oppose it. You gentlemen proclaim a respect for the freedom of religious belief, yet why do you not grant the same allowance for the freedom of those who oppose religion? Is religion truly sacrosanct and inviolable?" Clearly, in his view, believing in religion is a freedom, but criticizing religion is also a freedom. Chen believed that freedom of religious belief is bi-directional and cannot be restricted to one side. Allowing non-believers to criticize religion would not evolve into "the first step toward banning thoughts outside of belief in the future," nor is it the oppression of a weak minority by a strong majority, and it certainly does not infringe upon the freedom of believers; rather, it is precisely what protects the freedom of religious belief.
Fourth, he opposed replacing domestic school education with foreign religious education. In Chen’s view, Christianity and the missionary schools it established in China were not only cultural tools for Western colonialists to colonize our country but also accomplices who joined with China’s old ruling cliques to fool the lower-level masses. He pointed out: "Countless missionaries are unproductive vagrants who, conversely, persuade productive laborers to obey capitalists... the schools established by the church in China invariably emphasize their own national language and literature while slighting science. A certain missionary school in Guangdong even used the introduction of female students to entice students to join the faith, and others used the prospect of marriage to lure a certain educator into the church. In addition to power and money, they even use 'the beauty trap' to propagate their religion; how base!" Given such despicable "religious activities," it is no wonder he was "completely in favor of the anti-Christian movement among the student world." On February 27, 1924, upon learning that Turkey had exiled the Caliph [6], Chen Duxiu expressed the hope that China could one day, like Turkey, "destroy the educational rights of foreigners in China." Chen also pointed out: "It is beyond reproach that young students enter missionary schools because they are eager for an education; however, once they enter a missionary school, not only do they fail to receive a good education, they also become 'modern lackeys' who worship foreign countries and foreigners while despising their own country and people. In that case, having an education is worse than having no education at all!" Clearly, Chen believed that this kind of lackey-style missionary school education was by no means the good education needed by Chinese youth, and foreign religious education must never replace domestic school education. In his view, the harm of national spirit self-corruption caused by receiving a poor missionary school education was far more severe than military or economic aggression.
Finally, he argued that pantheism is not a religion, and pantheism is not religious theology. In Chen’s view, pantheism—which worships numerous deities—could no longer be regarded as a religion, and pantheism was not religious theology. This is because: "Every religion must speak of gods and must discuss life and death; this major premise is likely not in error," whereas "Confucius did not speak of the supernatural or strange, nor did he understand life and death—thus Confucianism itself is not a religion." The Confucian saying that "ghosts and gods manifest in all things without omission" can at most be considered a form of pantheism, distinct from the theory of a "ruling God" found in religions. Clearly, Chen Duxiu believed there was a clear logical progression between pantheism and religious theology in terms of the number and degree of deity worship. Chen also agreed with the statement by Gelt Hecker [7] that pantheism is simply atheism. But is pantheism then the same as atheism? Chen did not answer directly. However, he pointed out: "Atheism is a type of philosophical view that opposes religion; to call it a religion is inherently improper." From this, we can infer that Chen Duxiu likely identified pantheism as a transition from theism to atheism, situated between religion and non-religion.
II. The Historical Limitations of Chen Duxiu’s Atheistic Thought
Constrained by the era and various other factors, Chen Duxiu’s atheistic thought possessed certain historical limitations. He not only failed to thoroughly uphold a Marxist atheistic standpoint but also remained entangled with various religious theologies. Specifically, these can be summarized in the following aspects.
(1) Failure to Thoroughly Maintain a Materialist Standpoint in Worldview
Chen Duxiu's critique of ghost and spirit culture and religious thought was primarily grounded in evolutionary theory. In his view, "the investigation of the evolution of species and the origin of humanity through science is indeed an unprecedentedly great undertaking"; consequently, "survival of the fittest and the triumph of the superior over the inferior" served as the fundamental law for the continuous transformation and evolution of all things in the world. Chen Duxiu clearly grasped the fundamental attribute of matter—motion—which undoubtedly held immense philosophical significance in the struggle against feudal superstition, religious theology, and other forms of idealism.
Since the world is in a state of constant development and change, what is the origin of the world? Regarding this question, Chen Duxiu did not explicitly point out, as Li Dazhao [8] did, that "matter and economy determine ideas, 'isms,' philosophy, religion, morality, the legal system, and so forth." Instead, in "Call to Youth" [9], he merely noted: "What is science? It is our conceptualization of things, which synthesizes objective phenomena and appeals to subjective reason without contradiction." Does meeting the standard of "subjective reason without contradiction" necessarily constitute the origin of the world? Clearly not. So-called non-contradictory subjective reason is, at most, a certain reflection of matter within human consciousness. By neglecting the primacy of matter, "non-contradictory subjective reason" can only ultimately slide toward idealism.
Chen Duxiu held European realism in high esteem. "This spirit is majestic and reaches everywhere... in philosophy it is known as empiricism and materialism; ...all thoughts and actions are rooted in real life." It is evident that, in Chen's view, the spirit of realism was an existence that transcended materialism. This obviously misinterprets the relationship between materialism and idealism. Yu Zhanhong has pointed out that Chen Duxiu once "viewed the universe as the sum of a great flow of energy, yet avoided making a clear definition of the nature of that energy." Was this great flow of energy material or spiritual? Or a synthesis of spirit and matter? Chen Duxiu did not further clarify this. Such evasion essentially fell into the quagmire of agnosticism.
(2) Failure to Thoroughly Draw a Clear Line of Demarcation from Religious Theology in Belief
From Chen Duxiu’s published articles, it is clear he did not and had no intention to draw a clear line against religious theology. In "A Reply to Li Dakui," he praised the Buddhist dharma as vast and profound, stating it was "what I have always believed in without doubt." In his view, if the Buddhist dharma did not propagate superstition, it could be "called perfect beyond doubt." If this were the case, could the Buddhist dharma or other religious doctrines—once stripped of superstitious theology—become the correct belief system we must adhere to? Chen Duxiu provided no explanation for this in "A Reply to Li Dakui" or other essays. In "Christianity and the Chinese People," Chen Duxiu did not, as Lu Xun [10] did, profoundly expose the nature of how followers of Jesus "ate from religion" [11] to exploit the people and fawn over politics. Instead, he ignored the fundamental fact that Christianity acted as a vanguard for cultural obscurantism during the aggression against China by modern Western powers, and disagreed with "viewing Christianity merely as a heterodox cult." In his view, "the question of Christianity is a major issue our society should study; I hope our youth do not follow the ignorant elders in closing their eyes and talking nonsense!"
Given Chen Duxiu's aforementioned attitude toward religion, it is not difficult to understand why he insisted: "Since society still needs religion, it is futile for us to oppose it; the only beneficial thing is to advocate for a better religion to supply this need and replace a less good religion." Is it true that if society needs religion, our opposition is futile? Is it not futile if the need is not that of the broad masses of proletarian revolutionary people, but rather the need of imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucrat-capitalism? Chen Duxiu clearly failed to clarify this point. Was Christianity a "better religion" a hundred years ago? Chen Duxiu also thought not. However, among various religions, his "hostility" toward Christianity was clearly milder than his attitude toward others. He once publicly stated, "It is quite laughable that all sorts of corrupt reactionaries follow contemporary opinion in attacking Christianity." The "better religion" in Chen Duxiu’s mind was clearly based on pragmatism; in essence, it "allowed the bourgeoisie to enjoy to the fullest their usurped and predatory happiness in this world, while comforting the proletariat for their worldly exploitation and suffering with an illusory and mysterious kingdom of heaven."
From the above, it can be seen that Chen Duxiu exhibited a contradictory attitude of love and hate toward religion, especially Christianity. On one hand, he resolutely opposed religious theology and superstitious thought; on the other, he maintained expectations and illusions regarding religious philosophy and the specific roles a particular religion might play at a specific historical stage. Religious theology, religious philosophy, and the social role of religion are an integrated whole that cannot be severed. The elaboration of religious philosophy and the realization of religion’s social role are inseparable from religious theology. Theology is the core of religion; without theology, religion is no longer religion in the original sense—it cannot even be called religion. In this sense, Chen Duxiu's preference for religious philosophy and his positive evaluation of the social role of religion meant he did not and could not thoroughly draw a clear line against religious theology. True Marxist atheists critique religious theology theoretically because the religious theology it propagates is completely contrary to the ideological liberation of all humanity. When true Marxist atheists study religious philosophy and evaluate the social role of religion, they do not harbor more personal emotional preferences; rather, they must stand on a proletarian footing and follow the basic principles of historical materialism.
(3) Failure to Thoroughly Secure Leadership over Anti-Theist Work in the Revolutionary Struggle
Although he held high the banner of opposing feudal superstition and critiquing religious theology ideologically, Chen Duxiu lacked not only sympathy but also an objective understanding and fair evaluation of the victimized masses who were deceived by feudal ideology and theism during China’s New Democratic Revolution. When evaluating the Boxers [12], Chen Duxiu pointed out: "I have personally experienced the barbarity of the Boxers, their stubbornness and superstition, and the atmosphere of terror during their time." In series of articles such as "On the So-Called 'Red Army' Problem," he even disparagingly referred to the grassroots resisting masses—who were oppressed by the Three Great Mountains [13]—as the "lumpenproletariat," "bandits and routed soldiers," and the "dregs of displaced elements from various classes."
In fact, in the semi-colonial and semi-feudal society of old China, these so-called "lumpenproletarians" lived in deep water and scorching fire [14] because they suffered under the triple oppression of imperialism, bureaucrat-capitalism, and feudalism; the disasters and pains they endured were particularly severe. Their participation in the Spirit Soldiers (shénbīng), the Big Sword Society (dàdāohuì), or the Red Spear Society (hóngqiānghuì) was merely an instinctive act of self-preservation necessitated by survival. Their capture by feudal superstition and religious deism was merely a search for spiritual solace amid cruel oppression. It was precisely these people living at the bottom of semi-colonial and semi-feudal society who had the greatest revolutionary needs and the firmest stance against oppression. As early as 1925, Mao Zedong pointed out in his article "Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society": "There is also a fairly large number of lumpenproletarians... they are the most unstable elements in human life. They have secret organizations in various places, such as the 'Triads' in Fujian and Guangdong, the 'Gelaohui' in Hunan, Hubei, Guizhou and Sichuan, the 'Big Sword Society' in Anhui, Henan and Shandong, the 'Zailihui' in Zhili and the three Northeastern provinces, and the 'Green Gang' in Shanghai and elsewhere—all of which used to be their mutual aid groups in political and economic struggle. To handle these people is one of China's difficult problems. These people are capable of fighting very bravely but are destructive; if led in the right way, they can become a revolutionary force." In July 1926, at the insistence of Li Dazhao and others, the Third Enlarged Plenum of the Central Executive Committee of the fourth CPC National Congress passed the "Resolution on the Red Spear Society Movement," emphasizing: "The Red Spear Society is a product of warlord politics. It is a primitive self-defense organization of peasants who could not endure the extortions of corrupt officials, the exploitation of heavy taxes, the destruction of warlord wars, the harassment of bandits and routed soldiers, as well as the bankruptcy caused by imperialist economic aggression and the exploitation by local tyrants and evil gentry. ...Attention should be paid to making the Peasant Associations the comprehensive peasant organization, and the Red Spear Society the peasant armed organization." The victory of the New Democratic Revolution proved that, after the baptism of cruel revolutionary struggle and strict ideological and political education, and the realization of a complete transformation of their belief system, those who were once "disaster victims, spirit soldiers, bandits, and routed soldiers" could certainly grow into the "guards and pillars" of the Red Army. This has long been a historical fact, rather than the "revolutionary tactics of traitors" as Chen Duxiu claimed.
Admittedly, the large-scale entry of what Chen Duxiu called "wandering bandits" and "routed soldiers" into the ranks of the Red Army would, for a certain time and within a certain scope, bring a serious impact to the Red Army's Marxist belief system. Regarding this, Comrade Mao Zedong emphasized that Communists, in leading the peasant movement, should actively guide and be skilled at inspiring and educating the peasants to raise their consciousness, so that they would consciously break with superstition and cast aside the bodhisattvas. Chen Duxiu himself noted that "the true Red Army is born of revolution"; then why were the peasants who had undergone the baptism of cruel revolutionary struggle not acceptable? Was it merely because they had once been deceived and poisoned by feudal superstitious thoughts? Chen Duxiu clearly committed the error of subjective, a priori negation regarding the possibility of belief transformation for what he termed the "lumpenproletariat." Such an error also caused him to lose accurate judgment regarding the actual development of proletarian revolutionary forces. Thus, Chen Duxiu first abandoned leadership over anti-theist work in practice, and subsequently abandoned the leadership of the proletariat in the practice of the New Democratic Revolution. Behind his choice of the "Rightist capitulationist" line lay deeper ideological roots of biased cognition in Marxist atheist thought.
Conclusion
Chen Duxiu's atheist thought is rich in content, and a scientific evaluation of it is not an easy task. We cannot deny the basic fact that the insights contained in Chen Duxiu’s series of articles a hundred years ago greatly promoted the spread of Marxist atheist thought in China and opened a historical precedent for the Sinicization of Marxist atheist thought; his historical contributions cannot be erased. At the same time, we cannot ignore the negative influence of the erroneous parts and debatable viewpoints in Chen Duxiu’s atheist thought. Since Marxism was introduced to China over a hundred years ago, its integration with the Chinese revolution and construction has spanned a century, and Sinicized Marxist atheist thought has also developed for over a hundred years. As we stand at a new historical starting point, advancing toward the Second Centenary Goal, we can easily discover the fallacies and historical limitations of early revolutionaries using our modern understanding of Marxist atheist thought. However, we should place the evaluation of Chen Duxiu's atheist thought within the historical conditions of that time. Only in this way can we arrive at an evaluation that is both historically consistent and objectively fair.