I wouldnāt say āextremelyā reactionary but it does have reactionary elements. Probably not more than Abrahamic religions do
Thatās like saying āHeās not āextremelyā violent, probably not more than Mengeleā
Whether it should be combated or not is not for me to say since iām not from that region or culture.
This is extremely backwards, anti-marxist thinking. To get a good grasp on the nature of things might take you much more investigation because of your lack of baseline familiarity, but you are not fundamentally and unalterably excluded from criticism. Chinese people arenāt space aliens.
Should all of Christianity and all of Islam be combated as well? Once upon a time i might have said yes, but now i donāt know. Maybe eventually.
But is it really a priority at the moment? Is this the primary contradiction that we are facing? Would adopting such an uncompromisingly hostile line be a strategically smart thing to do at the moment, or would it be counter-productive from the point of view of bringing about the success of the revolution?
Would it not be more prudent to focus on denouncing specifically the most reactionary elements of these philosophies/religions while ignoring the more benign ones, at least for the time being? I acknowledge your point that everyone is able to familiarize themselves with and judge what elements of these things are detrimental and which are less so, but we should also be careful to not fall into the trap of cultural chauvinism.
Would it not be more prudent to focus on denouncing specifically the most reactionary elements of these philosophies/religions while ignoring the more benign ones, at least for the time being? I acknowledge your point that everyone is able to familiarize themselves with and judge what elements of these things are detrimental and which are less so, but we should also be careful to not fall into the trap of cultural chauvinism.
Exactly, Mao fusing elements of confucianism with Marxism is a huge part of itās success in China. Rejecting the impact of culture and traditions developed in any given society is not marxism but a vulgarization of marxism, and an efficient way of getting dismissed by the people.
āI want no part of the kind of Marxism which infers all phenomena and all changes in the ideological superstructure of society directly and blandly from its economic basis, for things are not as simple as all that.ā ā V. I. Lenin, 1920.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/zetkin/1925/lenin/zetkin2.htm
Rejecting the impact of culture and traditions developed in any given society is not marxism but a vulgarization of marxism, and an efficient way of getting dismissed by the people.
This is the view that i have come around to accepting as well.
Coming from a scientific background for me this is ultimately a matter of pragmatism. We can have abstract ideological and philosophical debates all we want but what it really comes down to when we are considering whether to adopt a political line or a policy is this: will it advance the goals of the revolution or hinder them? Ultimately that is the most important thing because all further progress depends on the success of the revolution.
A correct line/policy is that which helps the cause of the revolution to succeed. An erroneous one does the oppositeā¦whether we call it vulgarization or idealism or just ultra-left deviation (that is trying to advance socially and ideologically too far ahead of where the material and cultural basis of a society is currently at) is less important to me than what the practical result is in relation to the success of the revolution and the building of socialism.
The tricky part is that often we can only know what works and what doesnāt with the benefit of hindsight, which is why proceeding according to trial and error is important (China for example often does this by trying out new and experimental policies on a smaller local scale first before adopting the successful ones on a larger scale), but also studying and learning from past revolutionaries and their successes and failures.
I think it depends on where you are. In my area, it would be pointless as the presence has significantly waned for religion compared to a time only a bit ago. In some Latin American countries, or in other exploited nations; I could see an argument to be made to have it as one of the struggles. Certainly not the prime contradiction.
Should all of Christianity and all of Islam be combated as well? Once upon a time i might have said yes, but now i donāt know. Maybe eventually.
Let me point out first that thereās a difference between a religion/philosophy as a major component of a countries superstructure vs something that merely exists in personal practices here and there.
With that caveat, I think most of us who live in America would say that Christianity absolutely does need to be rooted out of the culture because it is monstrous.
But is it really a priority at the moment? Is this the primary contradiction that we are facing?
You canāt accomplish revolutionary change by focusing on exactly one thing at a time while letting all other forms of reaction flourish. That is a form of tailism.
Would it not be more prudent to focus on denouncing specifically the most reactionary elements of these philosophies/religions while ignoring the more benign ones, at least for the time being?
What matters is if it is actually actionably reactionary. Confucianism, being a philosophy and not a religion, really loses wiggle room that religions have in terms of benign beliefs like āmee-maw is looking down on me from Heavenā or whatever. Itās almost entirely things that have real, practical significance, like filial piety and ren (which are reactionary).
I think most of us who live in America would say that Christianity absolutely does need to be rooted out of the culture because it is monstrous.
On a personal level i agree with you, but politically that is probably a non-starter. You have to work with the material you have in front of you, not the material you wish you had. The masses that form the basis of a revolution exist in a real cultural context and ignoring that reality is idealism.
I donāt know what the right answer is here, but itās probably going to involve some sort of pragmatic compromise, otherwise your revolutionary movement will remain small, sectarian, insular, dogmatic and isolated from the masses. It goes without saying that this is a recipe for perpetual failure, and the bourgeois state knows this too which is why COINTELPRO has always strived to encourage that sort of narrow ideological dogmatism.
And before anyone misunderstands what i am saying, this does not mean that we should be tailing the masses. Absolutely we should continue to denounce the reactionary elements of our culture, because it is precisely these which are the biggest hindrance to waging a successful revolution (false consciousness, etc.).
Confucianism, being a philosophy and not a religion, really loses wiggle room that religions have in terms of benign beliefs
Iām actually inclined to give Confucianism more leeway because of this. Religions, especially theistic ones, are fundamentally anti-materialist, whereas an atheistic philosophy at least could be compatible with materialism (not saying that it isā¦again: i just donāt know enough about it).
Itās almost entirely things that have real, practical significance, like filial piety and ren (which are reactionary).
I am not a big fan of the whole āfilial pietyā thing myself, but then again i didnāt grow up in that culture. Iām sure if you asked Chinese communists many of them would disagree with your view that filial piety is necessarily reactionary. They might acknowledge some downsides but ultimately view it as a net positive.
I just think we could all do with a little more humility and not be so quick to dismiss other culturesā mores just because they donāt align with our own cultural ideas of what it means to be progressive.
What matters is if it is actually actionably reactionary. Confucianism, being a philosophy and not a religion, really loses wiggle room that religions have in terms of benign beliefs like āmee-maw is looking down on me from Heavenā or whatever. Itās almost entirely things that have real, practical significance, like filial piety and ren (which are reactionary).
I think this is a very poor interpretation of confucianism. Confucianism as a political system, used by feudal rulers to enforce control over society, has been practically completed rooted out, and most of the reactionary elements you mention are more complicated than you make them seemā¦ Are they reactionary? Maybe partially, but a respect for parents doesnāt mean that Chinese will take shit from the people raising them lying down, and likewise ren doesnāt mean theyāll let people walk over them. Confucius himself discussed these concepts in his original teachings, where you can clearly see that he gives different concepts to different students depending on their own situations, which I would argue ironically is the best approach to applying marxism to various movements today.
