Zhang Jiansong: Plekhanov's Critique of "God-building" and Interpretation of Marxist Atheism
Plekhanov was a steadfast Marxist, evaluated by Engels as one of only two people who truly understood or mastered Marxism. Throughout a revolutionary career spanning several decades, he consistently adhered to Marxist positions, viewpoints, and methods in his theoretical research, particularly in his explorations of philosophical issues. Plekhanov was praised by Lenin as an outstanding Marxist philosopher, asserting that all of his philosophical works should be listed as required textbooks for Communism.
In 1905, Russia's first bourgeois-democratic revolution failed, and Tsarist Russia, under the reactionary rule of Stolypin [1], shifted toward the frenzied persecution of the proletariat and the broad masses. During this low ebb and extremely difficult period for the revolution, some individuals left the revolutionary ranks due to pessimism and despair regarding the future; most were in a state of vacillation and confusion. At this time, various forms of idealism proliferated within the ideological sphere, with mysticism being one of its primary manifestations. Bourgeois scholars attributed the failure of the revolution to "divine punishment" and advocated that the current task for Russians was to recover the "lost God." Within the revolutionary Social Democratic Party, "God-building" [2] also emerged, advocating for the creation of a new "socialist religion." This situation was extremely detrimental to the revolution.
Adopting an attitude of extreme responsibility toward the revolution, Plekhanov authored works to theoretically clear away the fog of "religious seeking," elucidate its ideological dangers, bolster people’s revolutionary spirit, and guide them to continue the revolution. It was in this context that On the So-called Religious Seekings in Russia was born. This work, exceeding 90,000 words and divided into three parts, is rich in content, rigorous in reasoning, and thorough in explanation. Its language is humorous and vivid, possessing a resonant power within its plainness; it is a rare theoretical masterpiece for criticizing erroneous trends of thought. Lenin stated that it played a great role in the philosophical "consolidation" carried out by the advanced classes in Russia during the Stolypin reaction, similar to the role the Encyclopedists played in 18th-century France, or the enlightenment role played by German Classical Philosophy, represented primarily by Kant and Hegel. Scrupulously analyzing and studying this text by Plekhanov holds significant practical importance and far-reaching historical significance for our own success in religious theoretical research, for conducting religious work under the current complex and volatile situation, for unifying the thinking of the whole Party and the people of the whole country, and for realizing the Chinese Dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.
I. Elucidating Basic Religious Issues under the Guidance of Marxist Theory
On the So-called Religious Seekings in Russia is actually a collection of articles. According to Plekhanov’s original writing plan, there were to be four articles or more. The first was an introductory article to lay the groundwork, while the second, third, and fourth were to provide specific analysis and critique of erroneous religious issues. Ultimately, he completed only three. The fourth article was intended to expose and criticize the idealism, religious gospel, and mysticism of the reactionary essay collection Vekhi [3] (Landmarks), but for some reason, it was not completed according to the original plan. According to textual research, the outline for the fourth article had already been prepared, as reflected in the syllabus of his special report, "Lectures on Religion." We shall now conduct our analysis and study based on the three articles publicly published and included in the third volume of the Selected Philosophical Works of G. V. Plekhanov.
The first article, "On Religion," is 44 pages long and exceeds 30,000 words—roughly the same length as the other two. Its content primarily focuses on basic theories of religion. Plekhanov devoted substantial effort and time to this section. First, Plekhanov was himself a revolutionary, not a professional researcher; to reach a professional level where his critiques would hit the mark [4] and serve their intended purpose, he had to apply himself with great diligence. Second, as an introduction to the subsequent articles—essentially serving as the tools and weapons for critique—it would not do if they were not sharpened to be invincible. Judging from the content, Plekhanov extensively studied and researched the latest religious theory results from the top ethnographic and religious scholars of the time. Based on this, he conducted in-depth analysis and reflection, proposing his own unique insights. From his citations and notes, it is evident that Plekhanov was well-acquainted with these experts and their numerous works. As for the discourses on religion by Marx and Engels, Plekhanov knew them by heart and could draw upon them with ease.
In "On Religion," Plekhanov first briefly explains the origin of his study of religious issues. After the failure of the bourgeois February Revolution [5], all of Russia was under the White Terror of Stolypin, and people generally felt stifled and oppressed. Religious seeking became one of the most notable issues in Russia at the time. This situation was reflected in an article by Aleksandr Yablonovsky, who wrote: "Currently, our country's social attention seems to be divided into three parts, focused respectively on God-seeking, erotic literature, and wrestling." Therefore, Plekhanov concentrated his attention on Russian "God-seeking" [6].
However, some people in society exhibited considerable ignorance regarding religious issues. Bulgakov (who "retreated from Marxism to idealism" spiritually), one of the most famous figures of the Russian God-seeking movement, argued in his writing: "What is most startling about Russian atheism is its dogmatism, or one might say, its flippant attitude toward religion... The ignorance of our country's intellectuals regarding religious issues is startling... I say this to diagnose their spiritual state. The attitude of our intellectuals toward religion is simply childish; they have not yet seriously considered religion." Plekhanov agreed with Bulgakov’s view but pointed out that Bulgakov was not stating the whole truth. He neglected to mention that "in our country, not only those who propagate atheism but also those who study 'God-seeking' or 'God-building' in one way or another exhibit ignorance regarding religious issues. Our 'God-seekers' and 'God-builders' have also not yet seriously considered religion, and their religious propaganda is not as unrelated to politics as it might seem at first glance." Based on this situation, Plekhanov clarified his own direction and research task: to establish basic knowledge about religion, pay attention to and study the tendency of "unswervingly leaning toward religious dogmatism," and simultaneously "identify the social causes that produce this tendency." Thus, the subsequent basic theories regarding religion emerged from this foundation.
Regarding the concept of religion, Plekhanov believed that "religion is a rather well-ordered system of ideas, moods, and activities. Ideas are the mythological elements of religion, moods belong to the sphere of religious feeling, and activities belong to the aspect of religious worship—in other words, the aspect of religious ritual." This definition is profound and comprehensive, revealing the essence of the phenomenon of religion; however, it remains slightly simple and lacks professional systematic discourse. This is primarily because Plekhanov was not a professional religious researcher. Even so, this definition has been affirmed and praised by both Russian and Chinese academic circles. The Soviet scholar Chagin pointed out: "Plekhanov believed that within religion there exist: (1) ideological factors, (2) psychological factors, and (3) organizational factors. This categorization of the important links of religion must be recognized as correct." He did not merely reduce religion to the sphere of ideology; he paid attention to the psychological aspects and the organizational forms of clerical activity—worship. Another Soviet scholar, B.D. Parygin, believed that Plekhanov’s concept possessed great theoretical and practical significance. Theoretically, reducing religion to ideology in the past was incorrect as it impoverished the content of religion and simplified its structure. From the practice of atheist propaganda, criticizing religious dogma theoretically without considering social psychology makes it difficult to overcome the religious sentiments of believers. The late Chinese expert in basic religious theory, Mr. Lü Daji, placed Plekhanov’s achievements in the Marxist view of religion on par with Lenin’s, expressing heartfelt admiration. Over 100 years ago, and only twenty-odd years after the emergence of Religious Studies as a scientific humanities discipline, it was truly remarkable for Plekhanov—a scholar not specializing in the field—to propose such a profound, accurate, and complete concept of religion, despite lacking full demonstration and theoretical system construction. This also fully demonstrates Plekhanov’s deep erudition, solid theoretical foundation, profound insight, and superior capacity for theoretical creation and innovation.
Mythological factors occupy a core position in religion, and Plekhanov explored them seriously. In Greek, "myth" means story. When people feel wonder at a certain phenomenon and try to clarify its process of occurrence, myth is produced. Plekhanov conducted a brief analysis using examples such as the creation of the Greek goddess Athena, the ancient Jews’ questions about the origin of the world, and the Australian Aborigines' conjectures regarding the origin of the moon. All of these constitute myths or mythological stories. Consequently, Plekhanov believed: "Myth is a story that answers the questions of 'why' and 'how.' Myth is the initial manifestation of human consciousness regarding the causal connection between phenomena." Plekhanov further argued: "Believing in the existence of spirits is one thing, worshipping them is another; myth is one thing, religious ritual is another. Primitive people believed in the existence of many spirits, yet they worshipped only a few of them." "Religious ritual is produced by the combination of animistic ideas with specific religious activities." These perceptions are the results of Plekhanov’s research on myth and possess unique theoretical value. Next, Plekhanov turned his attention to the origins of animism, probing deeper to pull back the veil of mystery from religion.
Regarding how natural phenomena were understood in the age of savagery, Plekhanov stated: "The productive forces of primitive people were very underdeveloped; their ability to control nature was very low. In the development of human thought, practice always precedes theory: the broader the scope of man’s action upon nature, the broader and more correct his understanding of nature becomes. conversely, the narrower this scope, the more impoverished man’s theory. The more impoverished his theory, the more he seeks to use fantasy to explain those phenomena that attract his attention for unknown reasons. Analogical judgment is the basis for all illusory explanations of natural life." "The hypothesis that natural phenomena are caused by the will of beings that cannot be perceived by the external senses, or can only be perceived to a minimal degree, gradually developed and consolidated under the influence of the hunting lifestyle of man." Here, Plekhanov utilized the historical materialist viewpoint to point out that primitive people with low productive forces basically used the method of analogy to explain natural phenomena, which was also the origin of religion.
Regarding the mode of thought of "savages," Plekhanov believed that "hunting determined the entire mode of thought of the 'savage'." The worldview of the savage, and even his aesthetic view, was the worldview and aesthetic view of a hunter. Plekhanov cited the research of Stein, claiming: "The entirety of their exceptionally rich art is rooted in the hunting life. The entirety of their mythology is also rooted in this life." "When 'savages' use analogy to judge natural phenomena, they compare natural phenomena not only to themselves but to the entire animal kingdom." "The death of animals, like the death of humans, is due to their souls leaving their bodies... Gradually the entire world became populated by spirits, and primitive people attributed every natural phenomenon that caught their attention to 'spirits'." All of this reflects that the entire way of thinking of primitive people was inseparable from their own hunting life; the formation of the concept of "spirits" and of animism was based on this foundation. This, in turn, proves the scientific nature of the principle that "social existence determines social consciousness."
An analysis of the viewpoints on magic and science follows. According to James George Frazer, author of The Golden Bough, the basic conviction of magic is the foundation of modern science; its entire system is based on the belief that order and unity exist within nature. Naturally, this faith is blind, yet it is firm and concrete. From this, it might seem that magic, like science, stands in opposition to religion: the religious individual explains natural phenomena through the will of a subject (spirits, gods), whereas the practitioner of magic strives to discover the objective causes that determine such a will. However, the distinction between science and magic remains vast. "Science strives to discover the causal relationships of phenomena, while magic contents itself with simple association or simple symbolism; such simple association or symbolism can only be based on an insufficiently clear distinction between what arises in the human brain and what is realized in reality." In essence, magic commits the same error as modern empirio-monism—namely, confusing objective phenomena with subjective phenomena. It is for this very reason that the thought processes inherent in magic did not exclude the thought processes inherent in animism.
In short, within the worldview of the "savage," the boundary between humans and animals indeed did not exist. Initially, humans created gods in the likeness of animals. Anthropomorphic gods emerged later, the product of the development of the productive forces to a certain stage.
What is a god? Drawing on the research of C. P. Tiele, Plekhanov wrote: "A god is a 'benevolent' spirit, embodied in a certain material object, usually an idol; people offer him sacrifices of food, wine, and so forth, hoping for his protection in daily affairs." The scope of this definition applies to the stage of human civilization; it is difficult to guarantee its correctness at the earliest stages of human development. When humans imagined their gods as wild beasts, the god was not an abstract non-animal entity, but was embodied in a specific species of animal. Consequently, animals regarded as totems should be considered the original gods, worshipped by humanity.
During the era of totemism, it was not one or several individuals who were consecrated as gods, but rather a species or a category of animal. Since the human individual had not yet detached from the consanguineous collective [7], the process of the individualization of gods had not yet begun. During this period, gods appeared in the form of divine clans and were not concerned with human morality in the way modern religions are. Primitive divine clans punished people only when they were offended. At this stage of social development, morality existed independently of animistic concepts. It was only later, with social differentiation and the emergence of classes, that "establishing religion to institute education" [8] was utilized to civilize and restrain people, leading to the tight integration of morality and animism.
What led to the disintegration and disappearance of totemism? Plekhanov believed it was changes in the material conditions of human life. Changes in material life conditions lay primarily in the development of the productive forces of primitive society; that is, in the face of nature, the development of productive forces enhanced human capacity for control, thereby changing the human attitude toward nature. As attitudes toward nature changed, religious concepts also changed, faster or slower, to a greater or lesser degree. In the period when totemism emerged, humans viewed animals as superior to themselves, a rank above. With social development, humans came to believe they were superior to animals and set themselves in opposition to them; this was the moment totemism disintegrated and vanished. When humans domesticated animals and used them as means to satisfy their own needs, there appeared what Bogdanov called the "authoritative" relationship of humans over animals. This period coincided with the stage where social development reached a high level of agricultural production. From worshipping animals to domesticating animals, and then to employing animals for labor—this path was both straight and long. The employment of animals by humans greatly increased labor productivity. Conversely, the increase in productive forces drove the development of socio-economic relations. A question arises here: does this theory contradict the basic Marxist principle that "being determines consciousness"? Scholars unfamiliar with historical materialism and revisionists like Bernstein held a skeptical attitude toward this, viewing it as a theoretical "defect" of the founders of scientific socialism. Plekhanov argued that, in reality, Marx and Engels consistently maintained: human consciousness, arising from a certain social being, will in turn influence that being, thereby promoting its further development, which in turn causes new changes in the realm of ideology. This means that the basic principles of Marxism do not deny the interaction between social being and social consciousness.
Social being determines social consciousness. As society develops and progresses, the forms of religion also undergo change. Morgan [9] believed that "the religious triumph of ancient Rome initially had more to do with the gens than with the family." This is because the consanguineous clan [10] preceded the family. The Roman patriarchal family emerged after humans passed through long stages of development and after the clan way of life disintegrated under the influence of agriculture and slavery. With the emergence of the family, household gods and family sacrifices appeared, with the patriarch playing a leading role in the rites. The god of the patriarchal family was the ancestral god, a result of family members transferring their feelings for the patriarch onto the ancestral spirits. The emergence of the family and the disintegration of the consanguineous clan signaled further social progress. The emergence of the state as an organizational form became inevitable, replacing the previously existing tribal organizational forms. Once government arose, social relations between rulers and the ruled were formed. This relationship, reflected in religion, meant that gods became the rulers and judges of a heavenly kingdom.
Plekhanov further analyzed how the ideas, emotions, and rituals in his definition of religion were produced. Religious ideas possess an animistic nature; they arose from a lack of understanding of natural phenomena and were later combined with animistic concepts by which people personalized and explained the relationships between natural phenomena. Religious emotions are rooted in the feelings and desires of people grown upon the foundation of certain social relations, changing as social relations change.
When people worship gods, they perform a series of activities with the aim of expecting certain help from the deity. Initially, the relationship between gods and humans was very much like one established on the basis of a mutual contract. With the development of social power relations, people increasingly viewed themselves as subordinate to gods. This situation was particularly prominent in absolute monarchies. In modern civilized society, following the struggle for democratic rights, tendencies toward "natural religion" and "deism" formed, using natural laws to limit the power of God in various respects.
Overall, in this section, Plekhanov explored various topics such as the definition of religion, mythological factors, animism, magic, animal totemism, and beliefs in metempsychosis. Using the principles of historical materialism, he conducted an in-depth and meticulous analysis, clearly introducing many things that people previously did not understand, enabling a comprehensive, complete, and correct grasp of this knowledge. This laid a solid foundation for the subsequent critique of erroneous religious views existing in Russian society.
II. Upholding the Marxist View of Religion: Analysis and Critique of the Erroneous Religious Understandings of Famous Russian Writers
The second article of On the So-called Religious Seekings in Russia is "Religion Once More." In this section, Plekhanov utilized the basic theory constructed in the first article as a tool, upholding the Marxist standpoint, viewpoint, and method to expose and critique the erroneous religious views of several influential representative figures, including the famous Russian writers Tolstoy and Gorki.
First, he analyzed and critiqued the erroneous cognitive understanding of religion held by the famous Russian writer Tolstoy. Tolstoy believed his religion was one without any "supernatural" factors. Tolstoy defined religion thus: "Religion identifies the relation of man to the origin of all things, and determines the mission of man arising therefrom, and the rules of conduct caused by this mission." Elsewhere, he also stated: "True religion is a relation, accordant with reason and knowledge, which man establishes with the infinite life surrounding him, and which is bound up with his life and that of the infinite, and guides his conduct."
Where did the problem lie in Tolstoy’s religious view? Plekhanov stated clearly that it lay in the word "mission" within his definition. Tolstoy presumed that "once a person identifies his relation to the 'origin of all things,' he identifies his 'mission.' However, this 'mission' requires two premises: first, the object or entity receiving the mission—in the case we are discussing, the human being; and second, the entity or power that proposes the 'mission' to the human." Plekhanov believed that Tolstoy disliked current religious concepts and their preaching. He was convinced that it would be much better if children were "instilled with and proved the idea that God is a spirit whose concrete manifestation exists within us, and that we can increase its power through our own lives"—that is, instilling children with a certain animism. From this, it becomes perfectly clear: the conscious entity that proposes a mission to humans turns out to be a spirit. This was Tolstoy’s religious view. As for how to define "spirit," Plekhanov also noted that a spirit is an entity that uses its will to cause natural phenomena. It stands above nature; that is, it is a supernatural entity. Thus, it can be seen that Tolstoy’s claim that his religion held no belief in the "supernatural" was false.
Second, he analyzed and critiqued in detail the so-called "religious seeking" of Lunacharsky. Why did Plekhanov do this? First, because his "religion" was far less famous than Tolstoy’s; second, because he had previously held a certain positive attitude toward Russian Marxism. Plekhanov pointed out the logical contradiction in Lunacharsky's assertion that "animism has now been replaced by scientific energetics," yet "to deify energy... deification is personification, and personification in this case is a leaning toward animism." How to resolve this? Lunacharsky could only talk in endless circles without finding a true answer. The value of the religion created by Lunacharsky lay in the fact that "it can produce a very pleasant mood in the serious reader. The more serious the reader, the more pleasure he will feel upon reading the books and articles of our prophet." "In concocting his own religion, Mr. Lunacharsky is simply playing to the social mood currently dominant in our country. Now, for many social reasons, there is a massive demand for 'religion' in our country. And where there is demand, there will be supply." Here, Plekhanov revealed the purpose behind Lunacharsky’s creation of a new religion. "When there is a demand for religion, he plays the role of the prophet of the 'Fifth Religion.' If the reader expresses a negative attitude toward religion, he will happen to remember that his religion was originally planned to be an atheistic one; and he will timely remember that an atheistic religion is actually not a religion at all, but a simple play on words."
Why could Lunacharsky play the role of the prophet of the "Fifth Religion"—that is, why was there a demand for religion in Russia at that time? Plekhanov wrote: "Among modern Russians, there is 'distress,' and it is very intense. This was caused by the major events Russia has experienced in recent years. Under the influence of these events, many, many 'intellectuals' lost faith in the imminent victory of any advanced social ideal. When people lose faith in the victory of social ideals, 'concern' for their own precious persons moves to the forefront." Regarding the "concern" for the self after death, Lunacharsky had already said that science speaks of it with disappointment and terror—that the individual may cease to exist. In this situation, taking an ambiguous, fence-sitting attitude is a good solution: one does not discard science, yet one obtains consolation. Lunacharsky and his followers said: "Knowledge is one thing, faith is another; science is one thing, religion is another. Science has not guaranteed me my personal immortality, but religion has given me this guarantee. Long live religion!" Social being determines social consciousness. Those with weak revolutionary will often experience confusion, such as doubting the revolution, deserting, or even betraying it when the revolution suffers setbacks. Lunacharsky, as a member of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, was a typical example of ideological muddle-headedness within the revolutionary ranks.
“All of Mr. Lunacharsky's ‘vividly colored’ prophecies are intended to heal the spiritual wounds of the All-Russian ‘intelligentsia’ suffering from hypochondria. This is the defining characteristic of his religious-seeking.” Here, Plekhanov points out the true intention behind Lunacharsky’s religious-seeking. “Our prophet loves to speak of the proletariat, the proletarian perspective, the proletarian struggle, and so forth. However, he has absolutely ‘nothing in common’ with the proletariat itself, with the proletariat for-itself, or with the working class that has attained self-consciousness. He is a typical ‘intellectual’ among the most sentimental, superficial, and therefore most unstable of the Russian intelligentsia... The only reason he wishes to drape socialism in a religious cloak, and even compose ridiculous hymns to the God-man [11], is that the despondent Russian ‘intelligentsia’ is wallowing in religion.” In these few sentences, Plekhanov summarizes the typical “intellectual” lack of understanding of the proletariat in Lunacharsky, pointing out that when the revolutionary movement faced setbacks and failures, he became pessimistic, lost, and took the lead in seeking consolation in religion.
Lunacharsky’s view of religion is incompatible with and diametrically opposed to the Marxist view of religion. Plekhanov writes: Lunacharsky calls upon everyone to cast off the old coat of grey materialism. What the proletariat needs is a harmonious synthesis. This synthesis marks out two opposites, absorbing and annihilating them within itself. We all strive to seek this synthesis. This demonstrates that in order to tailor a religious cloak for socialism, Lunacharsky moved backward like a crab, retreating to the religious views of the majority of utopian socialists. His attitude toward religion is fundamentally opposed to that of Marx and Engels. Lunacharsky—this prophet of the “Fifth Religion” [12] and certain German utopian socialists—displays the same arrogant contempt for materialism as the Russian empirio-monists [13]. Here, Plekhanov also specifies that the primary problem with Lunacharsky’s religious view is that, like the Machists, he despises materialism and throws himself into the arms of clericalism.
Regarding Lunacharsky’s entire process of religious-seeking, Plekhanov concludes: “Religious ideas at all times possess an animistic character. Your (Lunacharsky's—Ed.) religion is nothing but a fashionable game... Those who are infatuated with this game, despite lacking the faith possessed by animists, involuntarily speak the language of animists. The logic of religion compels them!” Here, Plekhanov exposes the falsehood and shallowness of Lunacharsky’s godless religion. No religion can do without “spirits.”
Finally, he critiques the erroneous religious views of the famous Russian writer Gorky. In Russia, even extremely gifted artists demonstrated limitations or weaknesses in theoretical thinking. This was true of Gogol, Dostoevsky, and Tolstoy; the eminent artist Gorky was no exception. Belinsky once remarked that “the artist’s wisdom is transformed into artistic talent.” Contrasting Gorky's works that possess strong political-discursive elements but remain unsuccessful, one could say Gorky’s wisdom also transformed into artistic talent. He was unsuited for the roles of thinker and propagandist, as evidenced by his work A Confession (Ispoved).
Plekhanov analyzes and critiques Gorky’s promotion of Lunacharsky’s “Fifth Religion.” Lunacharsky, himself a member of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party, wrote Religion and Socialism after the failure of the bourgeois revolution, appearing as a prophet of the “Fifth Religion.” Under his instigation and influence, Gorky took on the role of a religious propagandist. Gorky’s promotion of the religion created by Lunacharsky is mainly embodied in his novella A Confession, spoken through the characters Matvei the monk, Iona the pilgrim, and Mikhailo the factory teacher. However, the role of religious propagandist was one Gorky was unfit for; it had the comical flavor of “a sharp-toothed pike trying to do the Work of a cat.” “The impression left by Gorky’s religious thoughts is precisely that of cucumbers from someone else's garden; such cucumbers did not grow in the soil upon which modern socialist thought grows and matures. Gorky wants to give us a philosophy of religion, but in reality, what he gives us... is only one thought: how little he understands this philosophy!” Here, Plekhanov utters such a sigh with a mixture of respect and regret for Gorky. From this, we can see that mastering Marxist theory is also very important for a great man of letters who sympathizes with and supports the democratic revolution.
Plekhanov criticizes Gorky’s erroneous cognition of the concept of God. According to Gorky’s understanding, “God is born in the flames of the pleasant consciousness of the spiritual proximity of each individual to all people.” Plekhanov had conducted in-depth research and held profound insights into the basic theory of religion, as demonstrated in “On Religion,” the first article of On the So-Called Religious-Seeking in Russia. Seeing Gorky’s erroneous cognition of God, he unequivocally rejected and explained it. Plekhanov writes: “God arises when a certain blood alliance believes it has a close connection with a certain spirit. The members of this alliance gradually come to love and respect this spirit; that is, they begin to project onto this spirit the social feelings aroused and consolidated by their common struggle for existence.” This scholarly analysis by Plekhanov, grounded in the principles of historical materialism, very clearly explains the concept of “God,” removing the figurative and emotional coloring and adding rational and profound academic analysis, bringing the understanding of this concept closer to social reality.
Plekhanov conducts an in-depth analysis and critique of the “God of the future” described by Gorky. According to Gorky’s view, the God of the future is “built” through the cooperation of the proletariat, which has attained self-consciousness, with all the people. The people who build God are not the people of a distant future, but a group of pilgrims in contemporary society marching ecstatically with icons of the Virgin Mary—plainly speaking, a band of religious believers. Gorky even believed that such “people” could perform miracles of healing terminal illnesses. The miracle of healing terminal illness is the symbol of the future, and from this, the “God-building [14] journey” envisioned by Gorky slowly unfolds.
The “symbols of the future” described by Gorky may be more than one, but there is nothing symbolic in these symbols. The “masses of the people” unite as a “unified whole of will” not only when performing religious rituals but also on other occasions. “To find the image of future religious creation in such manifestations of collective life requires a great deal of good will. Here the collective is artificially established, and the power of the collective is idolized in the minds of the collective’s participants; however, the collective has, after all, been established, and the power does, after all, exist.” Here, addressing Gorky’s descriptions, Plekhanov analyzes them one by one, pointing out the errors latent in his exposition.
Plekhanov tells us: “That the conscious proletariat, in realizing its own great historical tasks, repeatedly manifests its ‘common sentiment’ and ‘common will’ is self-evident and requires no explanation. However... it does not follow... that this ‘common sentiment’ and ‘common will’ will possess a religious character... Only those who are satisfied with ‘etymological tricks’ that equate the word ‘religion’ with the word ‘bond’ (religare) will believe Mr. Lunacharsky.” Plekhanov continues: “‘The power of the collective is idolized in the minds of the collective’s participants’... Lunacharsky and Gorky hope it will always be so.” Because “they see that the old idols are partly obsolete and partly soon to be obsolete, they intend to turn humanity itself into an idol.” To this end, they stamp humanity with the brand of God. “They begin by recognizing God as a fiction and end by recognizing humanity as God.” Humanity is not a fiction, so why call humanity God? To praise the greatness of humanity? Engels once said that to express human greatness and respect for humans, we have no need to resort to the abstract concept of God or to stamp humans with the brand of God.
The error of Gorky’s religious view does not stop there; there is another aspect: he divides “humanity into two kinds: one kind ‘eternally’ engaged in God-building, and another kind who ‘always’ wants to make the eternal God-builders subject to themselves. It seems this mutual relationship between ‘two kinds of people’ can explain the origin of the concept of a God existing outside of man.” Plekhanov says bluntly, “This is in fact erroneous again; the emergence of the concept of a God existing outside of man is not due to the division of people into two ‘kinds’ or two classes, but due to primitive animism. Therefore, it is also erroneous to say that God is created ‘due to the excess of people’s power.’ Finally, the belief that the teachings of Christ ‘oppose the rule of man over others’ is utterly groundless.”
Gorky’s theoretical confusion stemmed from a lack of cultivation in Marxist philosophical theory. Plekhanov believes that Gorky, through the mouths of the characters Matvei and Mikhailo in A Confession, expresses the confusion: “Where on earth is man?” How to escape this confusion, and where is the way out? “Only those who hold the latest perspectives of dialectical materialism can correctly understand this answer... while those inclined toward Kantian doctrine or those generally indifferent to philosophy have no theoretical possibility of reconciling the concepts of freedom and necessity; therefore, sooner or later, through one path or another, they return to the theoretical position of the subjectivists.” Here, Plekhanov clearly provides the way to solve the problem: one must use dialectical materialism and historical materialism to analyze, think about, and resolve issues, which can then be solved correctly and thoroughly.
Plekhanov concludes, “It can be said with certainty that only those ‘Marxists’ who cannot handle the most important theoretical principles of the doctrines of Marx and Engels would create or accept the ‘Fifth Religion.’” “There are some variants in our modern God-building theory, each reflecting specific psychological moods and specific social ‘seeking.’” “They all possess a common trait: that is, the complete inability to resolve the antinomy between freedom and necessity.” Furthermore, “dialectical materialism is completely inapplicable to God-building theory. Anyone who engages in God-building by making concessions to the prevailing moods among our modern ‘intelligentsia’ will inevitably betray dialectical materialism and commit theoretical errors.” “Our current God-builders do not yet know the many extremely precious achievements attained by the Western European intellectual world in its historical development, including the achievements of Marx and Engels.” Plekhanov continues by saying that great artistic geniuses like Gogol, Dostoevsky, Tolstoy, and Gorky were all stumped by religion, each in his own unique way. How was Gorky stumped? He passionately sang of people performing heroic deeds but understood little of the historical conditions under which the advanced people of modern Russia performed such deeds. In theoretical terms, he lagged too far behind the times. There was still a space for mysticism in his soul. He praised the beauty of heroic deeds while at the same time not opposing the viewing of such deeds from a religious perspective. This was his major weakness, and it is deeply regrettable!
In this article, utilizing the basic theoretical results achieved in the first part and guided by the fundamental principles of historical materialism, Plekhanov first refutes the idea that Buddhism is a godless religion, pointing out that no religion exists without “God.” On this basis, he conducts a serious and meticulous analysis and critique of Tolstoy, Lunacharsky, and Gorky—typical representatives who claimed to create “godless” religions during the Russian religious-seeking process—allowing everyone to truly understand the falsity and deceptiveness of “godless” religion. The religions they created not only have a God, but also require everyone to throw themselves into the arms of the religion they created, thereby losing the fighting spirit and perseverance needed to seek happiness in real society. This makes them willing to be ruled and manipulated by a real “God,” making the success of the revolution a distant prospect until it becomes a mere illusion. Therefore, Plekhanov’s exposure and critique were timely and correct; they served as a sobering injection on the revolutionary journey—stopping decadence, boosting morale, and enabling revolutionaries to continue forging ahead in the correct direction.
III. Utilizing Marxist Religious Theory to Analyze and Critique the Erroneous Religious Cognition of the Decadents
Since a critique and analysis of the "Gospel of the Decadents" is required, it is necessary first to explain the emergence of the Decadent movement. This school originated in France in the 1880s as a decadent and reactionary faction within the realm of bourgeois art during the era of imperialism. It encompasses a diverse variety of anti-realist schools and trends across all forms of artistic creation. The Russian Decadents emerged in the 1890s, with primary representatives including Merezhkovsky, Minsky, Berdyaev, Gippius, Balmont, Bely, Sologub, Vyacheslav [Ivanov], and [Georgy] Ivanov.
Plekhanov analyzed and critiqued the erroneous understanding of Merezhkovsky, a representative of the Decadents, regarding the binding of morality to belief in God. According to Merezhkovsky, the existence of human reason denies the absoluteness of man within God (absolute freedom and absolute existence); yet, humans are subjected to the arbitrary whims of natural laws, existing in a state of absolute enslavement and absolute nothingness within the world order, thus becoming unfree beings. To change this situation, Merezhkovsky argued that man needs to flee from reason into the irrational, and from the world order into "destruction and chaos."
In fact, regarding the cognitive grasp of the philosophical categories of "freedom" and "necessity," Merezhkovsky had already fallen far behind the times. More than a hundred years earlier, the German classical philosopher Schelling offered a brilliant exposition: "The free activity of man presupposes necessity; necessity is the basis of human action." On this point, Merezhkovsky was entirely ignorant, yet he acted as if he had discovered a new truth. Plekhanov sarcastically remarked that in his treatment of the concepts of "freedom" and "necessity," the self-proclaimed "erudite" Merezhkovsky was significantly out of date.
According to Merezhkovsky’s view, the common metaphysical starting point for both the intelligentsia and the "hooligans" [15] is a mechanistic worldview—that is, the idea that man is powerless before the laws of nature. He argued that all supporters of this "mechanistic worldview" inevitably view man as "piano keys" or "organ keys" played upon by blind natural forces. Plekhanov pointed out that the reason Merezhkovsky thought this way lay in his own inherent "animism."
Merezhkovsky believed that materialists were immoral, a problem stemming from his "animistic" conception: the belief that morality is based on faith in the existence of God. If this faith is lost, morality is lost along with it—meaning that if there is no God, everything is permitted. Plekhanov pointed out that this idealist viewpoint precisely conforms to the kind of philistine [16] understanding of materialism criticized by Engels.
Plekhanov wrote that none of the above could be understood by the likes of Merezhkovsky. They held an extremely naive view, believing that the emotions and actions of people are determined by whether they believe in the existence of supernatural entities. "In his eyes, all that is morally noble, all that is sublime, all that is truly human, does not belong to man, but to the otherworldly phantom created by man." Consequently, he regarded phantoms as a necessary condition for the moral revival of humanity and all social progress.
Plekhanov further analyzed and critiqued the hypocritical behavior of the Decadents Merezhkovsky and Minsky, who slandered the proletarian revolutionary struggle for economic interests as "the philistinism and vulgarity of the future."
Merezhkovsky believed that the Russian intelligentsia would face the same problem as Herzen: the issue of "the philistinism and vulgarity of the future." The strength to overcome this problem could only be found in the "Christianity of the future." Merezhkovsky stated: "The limit of the entire modern European culture—positivism, or what Herzen called 'scientific realism'... having emerged in science and philosophy, has developed from a scientific and philosophical consciousness into an unconscious religion, and strives to abolish and replace all previous religions." Positivism affirms the real world and denies the supersensible world; it affirms that the world exists without beginning or end, and it affirms the golden mean, the ordinary, and absolute philistinism.
Plekhanov conducted an in-depth analysis of Merezhkovsky’s claim regarding Herzen's "God-seeking." Although Merezhkovsky said that Herzen was greatly enraged by the philistinism prevalent in Western Europe, he offered no solution to overcome it. This was because Herzen did not want to adopt a religious standpoint, fearing "the abyss of religion more than the shallows of positivism." Thus, in Merezhkovsky’s view, Herzen unconsciously sought God while consciously overthrowing Him, leading to a "cleft" within himself. Here, Merezhkovsky’s logic was that Herzen’s hatred of "philistinism" arose from a pursuit of happiness, and the pursuit of happiness is itself God-seeking. In this way, Herzen—whether consciously or not—became a God-seeker [17].
Merezhkovsky believed that "absolute philistinism" consists of the individual sacrificing themselves for the "clan, nation, and humanity" for the sake of a future Golden Age. In modern Europe, the bourgeoisie holds the dominant position and also pursues a future Golden Age. Where did this come from? Plekhanov pointed out that it was stolen from the socialists.
Plekhanov exposed and critiqued the hypocritical behavior of Merezhkovsky, Minsky, and their ilk, who chased economic interests themselves while rebuking the proletariat for their "vulgarity." Merezhkovsky wondered: the proletariat could sacrifice their personal interests for the Golden Age, so why do they only seek food and shelter without any moral interest? Plekhanov used a poem by Heine to satirize Merezhkovsky’s demands on the proletariat: "They drink wine in secret, while loudly advising others to drink water." The proletarians live on the margins of survival; when they present certain economic demands to the bourgeoisie, they are denounced for "vulgar materialism." Plekhanov went on to point out that for the hungry proletarian, real economic demands are equivalent to guaranteeing the possibility of satisfying at least a few "spiritual" needs. Moreover, "the struggle to realize these economic demands can evoke and cultivate in the hearts of the hungry proletarians extremely noble feelings such as courage, human dignity, self-sacrifice, and loyalty to the common cause." Plekhanov noted that the bourgeoisie struggles daily for economic interests without ever mentioning moral revival, yet they look down their noses at the proletariat's struggle for economic interests, dismissing it as "philistinism." This point was fully endorsed by Merezhkovsky and, not just him, but Mr. Minsky as well.
Minsky believed that both the socialist workers and the capitalists shared the same goal and worshipped material interests, differing only in degree. The socialist ideal, he argued, was a philistine idea of continuing to lower material welfare to the minimum level that everyone could enjoy. "If we Russian intellectuals forget our mission and our universal human ideals to fully accept the doctrines of European Social Democracy [18] and all its philosophical arguments and psychological content, it would be spiritual suicide." He added, "European socialism, like European aristocracy and philistinism, was conceived in the original sin of individualism." Plekhanov pointed out that these people, who hated "philistinism" and considered themselves "honest and sublime," included the entirety of civilized humanity of their time within the scope of philistinism. With truly ridiculous indignation, they accused that great historical movement—which aimed to end the vulgar mode of production and thereby eradicate philistinism in the moral sphere—of being itself unbearably philistine. Plekhanov then critiqued how this ridiculous contempt for the so-called philistinism of the proletarian liberation struggle passed from the Parnassians [19] to the Decadents—first to the French Decadents and later to the Russian Decadents. Among the Russian Decadents, Minsky and Merezhkovsky were the typical representatives. In order to spiritually lecture the Russian intelligentsia, they painted this psychology with truly vulgar colors.
Plekhanov further exposed the hypocrisy of the Decadents, clearly pointing out that the "gospel" of Merezhkovsky, Minsky, and their associates was merely a refurbished version of old, worn-out ideas. The philistinism they used to accuse the proletariat was originally permeated with the spirit of capitalism. The French Parnassians and Decadents accused the "hungry proletarians" struggling for survival of being vulgar, yet they themselves did not despise the enjoyments of life. On the contrary, they expressed indignation because modern bourgeois society did not guarantee them sufficient enjoyment. They viewed the movements of the proletariat as a product of a low emotion—envy—yet they raised no objection to the phenomenon of society being divided into classes. It is no wonder that the Parnassians and Decadents, despite their intense hatred for philistinism, supported the revolutionary intentions of bourgeois society against the proletariat; nor is it surprising that all of them, before retreating into their "ivory towers," strove to arrange their material lives in bourgeois society as comfortably as possible.
Regarding the fact that Decadents like Minsky sympathized with modern social movements, Plekhanov held the following view. He noted that Minsky had briefly served as the nominal editor of the Bolshevik newspaper Novaya Zhizn (New Life) in 1905. Many people found his behavior amusing or incomprehensible. Minsky defended himself, saying: "At least half of the surprise and reproach directed at me should be attributed to the fundamental misunderstanding created by our liberals in their critique of Symbolist and Mystic poetry—the belief that poets with 'new moods' are, if not direct enemies of political freedom, at least people indifferent to politics." He emphasized: "All representatives of the 'new mood'—I emphasize this word—Balmont, Sologub, Bryusov, Merezhkovsky, Andrei Bely, Blok, Vyacheslav Ivanov, are without exception singers in the camp of the Russian revolution."
Plekhanov concluded that it was impossible for Minsky to convince us that "the alliance between symbolism and revolution is a phenomenon of internal necessity." Even if Minsky cited various examples, they lacked the persuasive power to directly link symbolism with revolution. Plekhanov pointed out that despite the fickleness of Decadents (including the "new school") such as Minsky, Merezhkovsky, and Berdyaev, one aspect remained constant: they always held the liberation movement of the working class in contempt.
Plekhanov provided a profound analysis of how Decadents like Merezhkovsky and Minsky utilized religion to dissolve gloom and worry. Plekhanov wrote that Minsky commented on Merezhkovsky’s belief in Christ’s resurrection as being rooted in his fear of death and desire for immortality. Merezhkovsky’s arguments for the existence of "immortal things" were meager, weak, untenable, and incapable of withstanding scrutiny. Despite this, Minsky followed the same path as Merezhkovsky, using his created "religion of the future" to dispel the boredom and listlessness caused by "nihilistic joy." This raises another question: why did "nihilistic joy" make Minsky feel unpleasant? Plekhanov joked half-seriously that perhaps Minsky felt that solving eternal questions was a solemn matter, and that joking about them was unseemly. In reality, people approach serious problems with a serious attitude; only after solving the relevant problems do people feel a sense of relief and a "joyful" mood—the so-called expression of "ridicule." Regarding this, the founders of Marxism once offered a classic statement: "If I ridicule what is ridiculous, it shows that I am taking it seriously." [20] Often, Minsky lacked the necessary scientific knowledge and became angry or depressed because he could not fully grasp the answers provided by others. In the 1870s and 1880s, advanced thinkers had already seriously explored and answered questions regarding the unity of the universe, the evolution of species, and the eternal alternation of life forms. This greatly expanded humanity's understanding of nature and further liberated human thought. However, Minsky commented on these answers using terms like "apes," "the fate of all men," and "burdock," appearing dismissive. The reason people felt "joy" was that modern civilized humanity, looking back at the worldview of "savages" (such as animism), found it too simplistic and thin. Plekhanov summarized Minsky’s shallow "boredom," "contempt," and "joy," pointing out that this "boredom" was caused by the psychological characteristics of the modern "ubermensch." These characteristics were closely related to philistinism. Minsky despised "joy" without any basis, yet there are different kinds of joy. Voltaire’s "joy-haha" was used to denounce fanaticism and superstition; Feuerbach elevated "laughter" to the level of a characteristic that distinguishes humans from animals. Conversely, it is extremely baffling that the God-seekers dislike laughter.
Plekhanov argued that the reason the "God-seekers" turn to visions of the "beyond" is that the exhilarating feeling of the unity and intimacy between man and nature is either utterly useless to their empty souls or vanishingly rare. For this reason, they seek consolation in religion. Is such consolation useful? Not at all. Plekhanov emphasized that Feuerbach regarded religious consolation as a simple hallucination. When a child loses a father, or a poor child suffers from chronic illness, can the concept of a loving Heavenly Father provide consolation? It cannot. Consolation is possible through man, but religion is incapable of it.
How does Mr. Merezhkovsky understand "religious consolation"? Plekhanov pointed out that he comments with great contempt on the "immortality of the burdock" [21]. This is because he cannot experience the exhilarating feeling of unity and intimacy between man and nature. He believes that only so-called "crude materialists" are satisfied with the "immortality of the burdock," and further asserts that his own concept of "immortality" is identical to it. Plekhanov invoked the language of Feuerbach to refute this, arguing that the doctrine of supernatural, superhuman immortality is a doctrine of egoism, while the doctrine of man’s continued existence within mankind is a doctrine of love. The reason Merezhkovsky and his associates view the question of individual immortality as the fundamental problem of existence is that they are thoroughgoing individualists and egoists. "Individualists, tormented by the agony of spiritual loneliness and unable to escape that loneliness by using ideas regarding the real earthly life of our sinful humanity, turn to the heavens in search of a 'common God.'" But this achieves nothing. "The tragedy of man’s earthly life will disappear only when the mutual (earthly) relations of men are no longer expressed by the principle of 'man is a wolf to man.'"
Plekhanov's analysis suggested that, judging by the psychology of the "God-builders" among the Decadents, it is impossible for them to sympathize with the liberation movement of the working class. The Decadents are convinced that the hearts of the hungry proletarians are filled with vulgarity. Although these Decadents display a certain "contempt" for the capitalist economic system, it is a system that allows them to live without working and to eat their fill all day long. This essentially exposes their own true bourgeois philistinism. This bourgeois philistinism is also manifested in another aspect: extreme individualism. They cherish the "self," becoming what Leibniz described as monads "without windows opening outward." Due to the "boredom" of life and the fear of death, they transform into God-fearing monads. The storm of revolution swept them into earthly life, altering their "art for art's sake" monadic state. Yet they remain restless, seeking instead to assert their influence: "Sprinkling the holy water of their new religion upon the economic aspirations of modern struggling humanity, and lighting the 'new' incense of their own mysticism." They oppose the solidarity and self-sacrifice displayed in the working-class liberation movement, fearing it risks making them "anonymous." They oppose the socialist ideal and favor revolutionary syndicalism (believing the Marxist school to be "power-hungry" and the anarchists to be too "self-respecting").
Minsky's favorites were the "liberal" socialists—that is, the Bakunin-Kropotkinite anarchists, also known as communist anarchists. These individuals deny private property, yet they deny both organized and unorganized political power. Consequently, Minsky believed that liberal socialists had "uprooted the poison of the vulgar view of life and the vulgar way of life." Plekhanov pointed out that this is a simple paradox, as in practice one cannot deny all restrictions on individual rights while simultaneously denying private property—the right of an individual to possess certain objects.
Plekhanov stated that the prominent characteristic of the modern philistine is the "opposition of human love and self-forgetfulness" to the struggle for economic interests. Minsky is exactly such a person, which is why he feels an urgent need to use the dark curtain of religious "mystery plays" to conceal them. Compared to Minsky, Merezhkovsky is more inclined toward "infinite anarchy." He believes that "this anarchy is the latent soul of the Russian Revolution." Other Decadent figures holding this view include Hippius and Filosofov. Plekhanov issued a grave warning that this conflates the Russian Revolution with mere anarchy. The only "respectable" thing about the likes of the Merezhkovsky mystics is their admission that a characteristic of their mystical essence is that they are not walking or running, but flying and falling—and "flying" in an unusual manner: headfirst. Due to this headfirst posture, the rush of blood to the brain, and abnormal thinking, Decadent mysticism is produced.
Plekhanov concluded that Lunacharsky's "religion without God" and the gospels of the Decadents were far from exhausting all variants of modern Russian religious "seeking." Indeed, the Vekhi [22] group was not included and would require a separate analytical essay to explore how they "retreated from Marxism to idealism" and then back to the Vekhi position. Regrettably, Plekhanov never wrote that targeted critique.
IV. Concluding Remarks
On the So-Called Religious Seekings in Russia is a famous work that played a major role during a critical period of the Russian Revolution and was highly praised by Lenin. By studying and reading this work of Plekhanov’s, we can reap much edification. Facing today's complex and volatile international situation and the emerging social problems on the journey toward the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, we must respond calmly, correctly, and effectively. This requires us to do the following two things:
First, we must adhere to Marxism and be firm Marxists. Marxism is a science, a truth proven by time and history; it is a scientific worldview and methodology with important guiding significance for both revolution and construction. Adhering to Marxism, the Russian Revolution achieved the victory of the October Revolution under the correct leadership of Lenin and established the world's first socialist state—the Soviet Union. In the decades that followed, the Soviet Union persisted in Marxism, weathered countless difficulties and setbacks, and became a powerful socialist country capable of standing shoulder-to-shoulder with and contending against the United States. However, after Gorbachev became the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, he abandoned the guiding position of Marxism and promoted ideological pluralism, which quickly caused domestic chaos until the entire country disintegrated and dissolved.
After the May Fourth Movement [23], some advanced individuals in China studied the Russian Revolution and founded the Communist Party of China with Marxism as its guide, using it to direct the revolutionary movement that changed the destiny of the Chinese nation and the liberation of the Chinese people. Since then, our Party has consistently adhered to Marxism and integrated it with China's national conditions, promoting the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. Simultaneously, our Party overcame errors such as ossified dogmatism and narrow empiricism during implementation, leading the revolution toward continuous victory and finally succeeding in establishing the People's Republic of China, thoroughly ending the humiliating history of plunder and oppression China had suffered since the Opium War. During the periods of socialist revolution and construction, the new period of reform, opening up, and socialist modernization, and the New Era of socialism with Chinese characteristics, our Party has always adhered to Marxism, enabling China to usher in the great leap from standing up and getting rich to becoming strong. In the New Era of socialism with Chinese characteristics, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has further emphasized and adhered to the guiding position of Marxism, comprehensively strengthened Party building, and pushed the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation into an irreversible historical process.
Throughout his revolutionary career, Plekhanov consistently adhered to the Marxist standpoint, viewpoint, and method, implementing them in his theoretical research to achieve brilliant successes and becoming an outstanding Marxist philosopher praised by Lenin. Plekhanov set a glorious example for us. As successors, we must learn from his revolutionary spirit and his unswerving will, be firm Marxists, and continuously promote the development of Marxism to ensure its perpetual youth and vitality.
Second, in the face of erroneous trends of thought, we must dare to struggle and be adept at struggle. After the failure of the [1925] Russian Revolution, under the reactionary and terroristic rule of Stolypin [24], some individuals abandoned the revolution. Most people were in a state of panic and confusion; a segment of the intelligentsia, including famous writers such as Tolstoy and Gorky, began to seek religion. "God-seeking" and "God-building" became a trend, with hopes pinned on finding liberation and consolation in religion. Such a decadent situation was extremely detrimental to the revolution, causing genuine revolutionaries like Lenin and Plekhanov great pain and worry. Seeing this, they felt an urgent anxiety. Holding a firm belief in the inevitable victory of the revolution and an attitude of extreme responsibility toward it, they devoted enormous time and effort with great passion to writing works that theoretically cleared the fog of religious seeking, elucidated its ideological harms, bolstered the people’s revolutionary spirit, and guided them to continue the revolution and complete the unfinished Great Cause. Plekhanov’s "sword-drawing" spirit and fighting spirit in the face of erroneous trends are worthy of our study.
In recent years, regarding the erroneous trends that once appeared in society—such as historical nihilism [25], constitutional democracy, "universal values," neoliberalism, and Western views of journalism—as well as abnormal religious phenomena like "Saudization," "Arabization," and "de-Sinicization" occurring in some parts of our country, some people turned a blind eye while others were outraged but afraid to speak. This caused great harm to our country's ethnic unity, social harmony and stability, and the Sinicization of religion in China. Therefore, in the face of erroneous trends, we need Plekhanov's fighting spirit and responsible attitude to take action and dare to draw the sword, ensuring that our cause develops healthily and moves from victory to even greater victory.
(About the Author: Zhang Jiansong is an invited researcher at the World Socialism Research Center of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)