How Am I a Marxist?

I’ve recently been wanting to sort out this question again and make my position clear once more — I still call myself a Marxist, and that has never changed since I joined the Party. I have always idealized myself as a maverick, an unruly thinker; as long as I have not resigned from the Party, I will continue to insist on this. Expediency and status can never be reasons for me to remain inside the Party. The only reason I am a Party member is that I genuinely claim to be a Marxist.

So, how am I a Marxist?

Of course, one major reason is that I am a Party member. … This seems like a meaningless tautology, but it is not. First, a Party member ought, as a matter of course, to be a Marxist; this has long been made explicit. Joining the Party is a voluntary act. If one is unwilling to believe in anything at all, one could simply choose not to join. But today’s Party members often do not care about this point. Many people say with complete confidence: we must keep pace with the times; Party members today do not need to emphasize belief. In life, being a good comrade and warmly helping others is enough to make a good Party member. What kind of logic is that? The biggest defect of the Chinese Communist Party is not that there are too few people, but that there are too many. Apart from being a “club of good comrades,” what significance does it still have? What on earth are so many good comrades gathered together to do? Nobody seems to know anymore. All that is known is that Party members are “good comrades”; nobody knows what the Party member’s aspiration is supposed to be. What are these “good comrades” with no shared aspiration doing together? So everyone ends up saying, “You’re good, I’m good, everybody’s good; everybody is a good comrade, good comrade,” praising one another to the skies for fun, while forgetting what this Party was ultimately for.

Party members ought to have some belief. Although each person will have a very different understanding of Marxism — just as each Christian may have a different understanding of God — if you apply to join the church, then of course you must present yourself as a believer in God. Even though different people may understand God in completely opposite ways, someone who utterly denies belief has no right to be a believer. Similarly, the Marxist faith I claim is plainly a kind of “heresy,” but that does not prevent me from joining this “fellowship” of Chinese Marxist believers with a clear conscience.

On the other hand, one must admit — my continued insistence on calling myself a Marxist is directly related to the fact that I am still a Party member. If my application to join the Party had not been approved back then, and I were merely a member of the masses today, I’m afraid I would not still be clinging to this self-designation. And since I am a Party member, I have reason to interpret my faith by every possible means. This is not to say that my present self-description is not sincere; rather, it means that the identity of Party member compels me constantly to renew my religious fervor, constantly to reinterpret my understanding. This can be linked to my long-standing comparison between marriage and joining the Party (in fact, I am not saying that my view of love affects my view of joining the Party, or vice versa; rather, both are directly influenced by my view of religion, and thus there is some comparability between the two). If I pursue a girl and fail, after suffering for a certain period I will very likely look for another way out. I would not promise that, even if rejected, I would persist in entangling myself with one tree for a lifetime. But what I can promise is that once love is accepted and bound by the ritual, contractual “shackles” of marriage, I will certainly find a way to carry that feeling through my whole life. Although, for me, the significance of joining the Party is not worth mentioning compared with marriage, it is not an easy thing for me to give up belief.

Of course, one must also admit that the Marxism I understand now is very different from what I understood in high school (the most important difference is that I have already abandoned the attempt to connect Marxism with the meaning of life). But even in high school, I was by no means an orthodox believer — because I often mention that the first philosophical book I read in my first year of high school, other than political textbooks, was precisely New Marxism in the 20th Century, and I was deeply influenced by it. In other words, from the moment I joined the Party, the Marxism in my mind was already the one far away on the European continent.

So, how do I understand Marxism now? My “Marxism” would surely make the older generation of proletarian revolutionary predecessors either laugh themselves silly or shake their heads vigorously — I am always talking about idealism, metaphysics, and I am forever advocating for religion. It would already be a blessing if they did not classify me as a class enemy. How can I still have the nerve to call myself a Marxist?

First, what is “Marxism”? In the dictionary, the word “ism” refers to a systematic theory, proposition, or doctrine; but in actual usage, “systematic” is not necessarily a required condition. For example, “idealism” often merely refers to a tendency in one’s attitude toward problems, and not necessarily a complete doctrinal system. Even terms formed from personal names as “isms” are sometimes used to designate a mode of thought: for instance, “Platonism” often indicates a tendency to yearn for and revere the world of pure Ideas, while depreciating the bodily and material world, and does not necessarily mean the wholesale acceptance of an entire system of thought — for example, someone with a Platonist view of sexuality is not necessarily also a Platonist in the philosophy of mathematics. This is probably the bottom line of what I can mean by interpreting Marxism — namely, that my perspective on certain issues has a Marxist tendency. But in fact my position may be slightly more radical. Just as names like “neo-Kantianism” imply something similar, Marxism also means advocating a “return to Marx” — that is, taking Marx as the point of departure for thought, and to a certain extent carrying out Marx’s aspirations while drawing on his strategies and methods.

So then, what is meant by the “tendency” of Marxism, and what do Marx’s “point of departure,” “aspiration,” and “strategy” each mean?

I remember Teacher Li Deshun saying something like this back then: Marxist theory can be changed, and should be changed; only one thing must not be changed — “thinking of the people” must not be changed. Everything else can be altered. That is already a very open attitude. But I have a different view of the part of Marxism that “must not be changed” — in my eyes, the most basic aspiration of Marxism is anti-capitalism. Whether it is Marx’s socialist theory, communist ideal, political economy, historical materialism, and so on, the target is consistently capitalism. Critique of and resistance to capitalism is one of Marx’s important starting points. However Marxism is changed or transformed, no matter how much one reinterprets socialism or communism, it can never sing the praises of capitalism; that is what cannot be changed. But the problem is that in today’s China it is already difficult to distinguish what capitalism is. China today is one of the countries with the fastest development of private ownership in the world, one of the countries with the most severe polarization between rich and poor (“one of” can almost be dropped already). If one says China is still not capitalist, one probably means that many of the legal and institutional mechanisms of the market economy are still not fully mature. People look forward with hopeful anticipation to China’s GNP and GDP surpassing Japan and the United States after some number of years, but by then, how much difference will remain between China’s system and those of Western countries?

What many people understand by capitalism and socialism are merely different social and economic systems, but that is not really the case. Since they are called “isms,” they obviously refer to some sort of theory, thought, or position; not merely to a system, but to a spiritual mode of existence as well. Just as “liberalism” and “totalitarianism” are not simply references to a certain sociopolitical-economic structure, but first of all to a kind of thought, or even a kind of culture. And “idealism,” “materialism,” “Platonism,” “Marxism,” and so on are even more so worldviews and value systems, as well as certain perspectives, positions, or methods. The Communist Party has always loved talking about “isms,” but why is it that when it comes to “capitalism” and “socialism,” the entire line of thought keeps circling endlessly around system-level questions such as public ownership, private ownership, market economy, and planned economy? Why do so few people discuss “capitalism” first and foremost as a bona fide “ism”? — I must emphasize: “Capitalism is an ism!” This almost tautological truth has unfortunately been neglected by us for far too long.

What sort of ism is capitalism? First of all, just as we translate “idealism” as “subjective idealism,” “materialism” as “materialism,” and “scientism” explicitly as “scientificism,” so-called “capitalism” is “capital-ism” — that is, a worldview and value system that emphasizes the supremacy of capital and looks at all things through the lens of “capital.”

Capitalism means that capital has become the essence of all things, the standard by which all things are measured, and the supreme governing force. Marx pointed out how money changed from being the medium of exchange between commodities into the medium through which commodities become money and thereby multiply in value. Thus the purpose of commerce is no longer commodities, that is, no longer use-value, but money itself. Hence the accumulation of capital has no other purpose; it is itself the ultimate purpose. That is the defining feature of capitalism. In any other age or culture, people either worship honor, or worship status, or worship gods, but they never take the accumulation of capital as the final and highest end. And further, capital begins to dominate prices. Marx also described how the “value” of commodities is obscured by “price,” until price in turn becomes the determiner of value. Although Marx did not foresee the modern age of media supported by advertising, and therefore did not imagine that prices could deviate from value to such an extent, this phenomenon is less a counterexample to Marx’s theory than a further development of it.

From this perspective, today’s China is indeed capitalist as well. This is not a question of whether state assets account for more than 50 percent or less, but because in today’s China, capital has also become the supreme criterion for measuring whether all undertakings are successful or not. Everything is oriented toward money, toward capital, toward catching up with GDP — this is capitalism. Only when our national policies are no longer dominated by GDP will it be possible to say that we are not capitalist.

But Marx also advocated that the economic base determines the superstructure, and that matter determines spirit. What does this mean? In fact, Marx’s so-called “materialism” is not materialism in the metaphysical and ontological sense. Marx himself disliked the impractical, tangled mess of metaphysics (I do not dislike it), and he probably had no intention of entering into any metaphysical dispute over whether the world is ultimately material or spiritual. So what does Marx’s historical materialism mean? At first I only understood it as historical determinism, and thus found it rather objectionable. But now, on reflection, rather than calling historical materialism “historical determinism,” it would be better to call it “technological determinism”; rather than saying Marx was promoting the “logic of history,” it would be better to say that he first revealed the “logic of technology”! Let us look at what Marx said: “The distinction between the economic epochs is not made by what is produced, but by how it is produced, and with what labor instruments it is produced.” (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 23, p. 204, 1972) This inevitably makes me think of McLuhan’s view that I read some time ago. McLuhan’s “the medium is the message” probably means: “The distinction between different media eras is not made by what is communicated, but by how it is communicated, and with what medium it is communicated.” — Compared with Marx, McLuhan seems to offer little that is new. In Marx’s view, capitalism is determined by “capital,” and capital is a relation of production, which is itself also determined by productive forces; and the productive forces of the capitalist era are represented by industrial technology. Thus, what truly governs this era is industrial technology! From this angle, Marx is the first philosopher of technology in modern times, and the earliest and sharpest critic of technology.

In addition, many people say that Marxism is “scientific,” even “the science of sciences.” But in fact, whether or not Marx considered himself a scientist, one thing is beyond doubt — Marx’s view of science must have been utterly different from that of those interpreters. Those who now say Marxism is “scientific” undoubtedly have in mind modern mathematical experimental science, viewing Marxism through a scientistic lens in which science = correctness, correctness = science, science = the summation of laws, and so on. But in fact, what people often overlook is that Marx and Engels were not only “anti-philosophy,” but also “anti-science”; they even proposed their own answers to the question “What is science?” Let us see what Marx said: “We know only a single science, the science of history. History can be viewed from two sides, it can be divided into the history of nature and the history of humankind. But these two sides are closely connected; as long as human beings exist, the history of nature and the history of humankind will mutually condition each other.” (The German Ideology) What does this mean? Clearly, Marx is not saying: “There is only one science, namely natural science; the humanities and social sciences should all be done according to the model of natural science!” In Marx, science takes natural science not as its model, but history. Marx is not asking history to imitate natural science — to induce laws, make predictions, and so on — but is saying that natural science ultimately also has to return into history. Then such a natural science would probably no longer be mathematical experimental science, but would instead tend more toward “natural history,” that is, “natural history” in the sense of the study of natural objects.

As for Marx’s theory of communism, in my view it more often provides people with an ideal. Some people associate Marx with “millenarianism,” and I think that is actually quite apt. Marx’s basic ideal should be “the all-round liberation of human beings” — not only liberation from the visible exploitation and domination of capitalists, but also liberation from the invisible domination of technology, so that labor itself becomes a kind of joy (rather than laboring to make money in pursuit of joy). Even if this ideal is not very realistic, it is still worth accepting as a “hope.” If we were to imagine a cultural form for the Christian Kingdom of Heaven, then communism would probably be one of the best candidates, right? (I heard one teacher say that when he lectures on the origins of Marx’s thought, he begins with Jesus. Quite creative.)

Today, the basic positions and lines of thought I have in studying philosophy — anti-modernity, anti-capitalism, anti-technology, anti-science, and so on — all take the venerable old Marx as their starting point, so why can’t I call myself a Marxist? When I also consider that many people who sing praises to modernization, GDP, and science and technology can likewise be called Marxists, I feel all the more justified. Although many of my specific positions when thinking about these issues differ greatly from Marx’s, what matters more is not to revere Marx as dogma, but to carry forward his concerns. A true Marxist, of course, should not stop at Marx’s writings, but should inherit the unfinished cause he left behind, and inherit his critical spirit.

11:33 a.m., January 4, 2007

Yangrou Paoju

Latest Comments

• UNIC

  2007-01-05 16:25:27 

  Hahahaha… so that’s how it is!
  It seems I really haven’t studied Marxist philosophy very much at all.
  Once again I’ve been fooled by public opinion, hehe.
  So that’s what you meant, haha. Looks like I may have always been one, or very likely will be one in the future.
  On that basis, your mission in joining the Party is no light one. Keep it up.

• UNIC

  2007-01-05 16:27:05 

  Hahahaha… so that’s how it is!
  It seems I really haven’t studied Marxist philosophy very much at all, and as for capitalism, I haven’t studied that either.
  There really are so many things to learn… I’m very happy.
  Once again I’ve been fooled by public opinion, hehe.
  So that’s what you meant, haha. Looks like I may have always been one, or very likely will be one in the future.
  On that basis, your mission in joining the Party is no light one. Keep it up.

Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.