As the title says, i am interested in understanding xi’s idealogy as we understand it at this moment.
Xi is a marxist-leninist but the PRC recognizes Xi Jinping Thought (like they had MZT etc for all general secretaries) https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping_Thought
Here are some common “criticisms” of Xi from different angles (not meant to be serious):
- West (imperialists, neoliberals, anarchists, racists): Xitler
- Ultras: revisionist, nationalist
- Maoists: Dengist, revisionist, pacifist
- Dengists: Maoist
Jokes aside, I think Socialism with Chinese characteristics focuses more on how to maintain and build upon a socialist country, rather than how to become a socialist country (Mao’s great achievement). That doesn’t mean other countries can’t learn from China’s experience, but it means keeping in mind China’s historical background when researching. This includes its 5000 year-old history as a civilization with some setbacks but still going strong today. If you learn Chinese, you’ll be able to read text from ye olden days. Ancient Chinese philosophies still have influence in modern-day China, like how people still read the works of ancient Greek philosophers.
How is any of this relevant to Xi’s ideology? Xi Jinping Thought is the latest theory of the CPC put into practice, it includes new theory, but also builds upon tried and tested theory from past leaders. Xi is an important foreman of this period (since 2012), but also part of the collective leadership of the CPC. Collectivism doesn’t exclude individual ideas, but is more resilient to corosion from individualism. The CPC upholds a long list of theory from Marxist-Leninism, Mao, Deng, Jiang, Hu and now Xi, so when we talk about “Xi’s ideology”, do not forget the collective body of knowledge and people surrounding it in the background.
To be fair, China is “revisionist” in that it no longer follows a thoroughly centrally-planned economy, publicly advocates for class war against the international bourgeoisie by exporting revolution, and makes defense pacts with other left-wing governments out of ideological solidarity; similar to what existed in the USSR. However, this is not necessarily a bad thing. The Chinese saw that their current model wasn’t improving the quality of life of the people - at least, not as much as they had hoped for; so, they decided to stave from political fundamentalism and strive to do whatever it takes to objectively raise the living standards of the common person; and to accomplish that goal, a mixed economy where the public sector remains dominant was adopted.
At the end of the day, reality is the final arbiter of theory; and reality has greatly rewarded the Chinese.
I think a more interesting question is what China would be like if the reforms and opening up didn’t occur; whether the PRC would have survived, or even thrived, if its’ mode of production wasn’t revamped.
Reform and opening up has always been controversial up to this day, but it doesn’t stop there, market economy, One Country Two Systems, supporting private enterprises, not meddling in the internal affairs of other countries, largest trading partner of the US, all used as evidence by different people to call the CPC “revisionist”/“class traitor”.
History has no ifs or buts, the Cultural Revolution has shown that those who claim to be Maoists could not defend their ideals, even from within a socialist country, this is a disgrace to Mao whose banner they hold high. High respect for Mao is one thing, but using said respect to lure people into a cult of Mao is what some people are doing now in China to erode the legitimacy of the CPC.
Maybe there was another path, maybe not, doesn’t matter now to China, and other countries should definitely learn from the lessons and mistakes of the CPC. Turns out that running a country isn’t as easy as what people imagine, and the dictatorship of the proletariat isn’t easy when you have to worry about underdevelopment, poverty, corruption, global imperialists, the list goes on.
Theory is nice and all, but it only matters when you put it into practice, that’s why Marxism is scientific socialism, and that’s what kept the CPC going for 102 years. If you don’t hold the reins, nothing else will matter, and any ideals you’d want to protect won’t be worth a damn.
The same way in liberal states there are decades-long eras of defining liberal thought that both build on yet rupture from one other (“Jeffersonians” “New Deal Liberals” “Reaganism”, etc.), so are there dominant ideological trends in Marxist countries. Frustratingly, the majority of Westerners can’t help but view Chinese politics through a chauvanist lens when their own politics showcase a very similar evolutionary process, just in a different language.
He’s a Communist. He’s people first, so he is a good Communist. He ran a poverty alleviation program as a provincial secretary which got him the national position, which he has been overseeing poverty alleviation at the national level. The program he ran took wealth and Capital from his coastal province Fujian and built up the Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region. The poverty alleviation in Xinjiang that occured in the last decade is a continuation of Xi’s work. He was really the guy Xinjiang needed in a time of crisis with deep poverty where the citizens there have a larger barrier to migrant labor opportunities due to language barriers (many older Uighurs don’t know Mandarin or Chinese script and only use Uighur script).
Xi’s ideology in terms of which theories he upholds is honestly less relevant (even so, he upholds ML), because he is the lead organizer of an AES state where attending to the needs of the people is most important. For him and China’s context this means improving peoples’ lives without bringing too much chaos, but always identifying problems by their primary contradictions so that they are eventually solved.
Socialism with Chinese characteristics (SWCC)
He is “redder than red” according to an article I read in the New Yorker. But some Americans think Joe Biden is communist so I don’t know what that entails.
