Torrent Lectures | Chen Chun, Nanshui, Yang Heping: Chinese Social Thought in the Past Forty Years

On the morning of June 10, 2018, Juliu.com held a lecture on the theme of "Chinese Social Thought in the Past Forty Years". The lecture invited Dr. Chen Chun from Sun Yat-Sen University as the keynote speaker, and Mr. Yang Heping and Mr. Nan Shui were the commentators, and sorted out the changes in Chinese social thought in the past forty years. The friends who participated in this lecture had diverse views, the atmosphere was warm, and the sparks of thought collision appeared frequently.

Teacher Chen Chun first started with "liberal conservatism". He believes that the social ideological differences in China in the 1980s were not very big, and the controversy started in the 1990s, and was mainly between "liberalism" and "new left". But he believed that the so-called "liberalism" at that time could not represent the whole of liberalism, and their mainstream was mostly "liberal conservatism". Different from the previous debates in the ideological circles about "the issue of combining the free market with the liberal democratic system", "the issue of taking care of disadvantaged groups", "the issue of criticizing capitalist consumerism", etc., "liberal conservatism" does not. Emphasize these. Its point of view has a lot to do with Gan Yang's discussion of Isaiah Berlin in the 1980s (Gan Yang was the first Chinese scholar to introduce Isaiah Berlin, although he claimed to have changed his mind after the 1990s. "Liberal Left" or "New Left", but his previous discourses still influenced much of the liberal conservatism of the 1990s). Isaiah Berlin's "negative liberty" theory introduced by Gan Yang in the late 1980s, along with Burke's "French Revolution" theory, Hayek's "Spontaneous Order" theory and Francis Fukuyama's "History" introduced later. The final conclusion” together constitute the theoretical source of “liberal conservatism” (although these foreign philosophers do not consider themselves to be liberal conservatives, but their theories are still used by Chinese liberal conservatives), and finally in the Philosophically, a whole set of "farewell to revolution theory" has been formed.

With the help of Hayek and Isaiah Berlin's theories, the Farewell Revolutionists re-distinguish the "Enlightenment" into the "Scottish Enlightenment" and the "French Enlightenment" in the history of Western thought (in order to preserve some room for enlightenment) ). In their view, the "Scottish Enlightenment" promoted "negative liberty" and "evolutionary reason", while the "French Enlightenment" promoted "positive liberty" and "constructive reason". British and American political systems and political practices contain respect for "negative freedom" and awe for "evolutionary rationality" reflected in experience, tradition, and convention, so there has been no violent social revolution in British and American societies. The social cost of transformation is much lower than in Continental. The French Enlightenment, represented by Rousseau, put aside its own empirical tradition and pursued "rational construction", and imagined a kind of freedom that can only be achieved in "general will" - "positive freedom". They believe that this "crazy" idealism not only led to the "bloody horror" of the French Revolution, but was also the source of "totalitarianism" in the twentieth century. "But this theoretical distinction is relatively crude and not particularly convincing."

On this basis, Chinese liberal conservatives conduct a comprehensive "reflection" on China's modern history, claiming that the fault of the century-old Chinese intellectuals is that they have been radicalized since Kang Youwei. The "New Deal" and "preparatory constitution" in the late Qing Dynasty were originally a great opportunity to steadily move towards constitutional government, but the intellectuals did not give the Qing Dynasty enough time. They believed that the government of the Republic of China established by the Revolution of 1911 lacked authority and had very shallow foundations, which led to the chaos that followed. Not only that, but the "New Culture Movement" that started in 1915 conducted a comprehensive criticism of traditional Chinese culture, which "destroyed the moral foundation of traditional China" and eventually led to the outbreak of the Cultural Revolution.

Farewell revolutionists also studied the experience of democratic transition in Taiwan, South Korea, Chile and other countries and regions, and concluded that a period of authoritarian rule is conducive to promoting economic development, and when economic development reaches a certain level, democratic reforms are carried out, and social unrest less likely, and the democracies established after the transition are less likely to evolve into “populist” (as has happened in most Latin American countries). They even believe that China's actual authoritarianism has indeed promoted economic development, and will gradually transform into liberal democracy, completing the transition from "authoritarian-democracy".

"It was these liberal conservatives who were arguing in the '90s, but in the debate with the New Left, that thread was not mainstream."

Chen Chun believes that liberal conservatism gave birth to the later cultural conservatism. They are also consistent in their viewpoints: they all attack China's century-old radical tradition; they are skeptical about "social transformation"; they trace the Cultural Revolution back to the May Fourth Movement; they criticize the concept of continental enlightenment...

Next, Chen Chun gave a detailed introduction to the "Chinese sect".

Since the introduction of the Strauss and Schmidt system by Gan Yang and Liu Xiaofeng in 2000, it has had a great impact on the later social ideological trend. It can be said that there is no faction in the Chinese ideological circle that has more influence than Shi Pai. Even the ideas of mainland New Confucianism and the New Left (such as Wang Hui's "alternative modernity", Wang Shaoguang's concept of the state, and later criticism of the free market, etc.) have been absorbed by the Shi faction, which has a very obvious statist stance.

The Shi faction attempted to establish a humanities academic system and educational system independent of Western standards, to incorporate the Chinese Communist Party into the Confucian Taoist tradition for thousands of years, to establish the "Chinese way" as an example of modernization that could compete with "liberal democracy", to break with the United States. the dominant international order and world system.

They believe that: externally, Maoism represents a tough stance of "declaring war on all hegemonies"; internally, capitalism introduced by Deng will continue to transform everyone's private desires into a driving force for national development; while decades of development The resulting class solidification will be determined through the Confucian "hierarchical order".

In reality, we can also see that the "Belt and Road" is also consistent with this idea. In general, Shi's absorption of Maoism was built on the basis of his opposition to the Cultural Revolution; he recognized Deng Tong's path to enrich the country and developed the economy, but did not advocate capitalism; his respect for Confucianism came from the establishment of a hierarchical order. "But that's not all of their interpretation of the 'Three Traditions', and different people within Shipai will have different choices in different situations."

Then, Mr. Chen Chun continued to introduce another faction that emerged after 2000 - left-wing liberalism. Most of them use Rawls's theoretical system to analyze China's reality.

There is actually a big difference between left-wing liberalism and traditional liberalism. For example, Mr. Zhou Baosong believes that the enemy of liberalism is capitalism, which is incomprehensible from the viewpoint of traditional liberalism. And right-wing liberalism has gradually changed its position to support the current regime or support Trump. In Chen Chun's view, they can no longer be regarded as liberals in the strict sense. Left-wing liberalism believes that democracy has intrinsic value; while right-wing liberalism is more inclined to Pinochet-style characters, only acknowledging the instrumental value of democracy and denying the inherent value of democracy.

The following are several main views of left-wing liberalism (based on Rawls's theory of justice and political liberalism) discussed by Mr. Zhou Baosong in "What is Liberal Left-wing":

First, every citizen enjoys a series of equal personal rights. The most important responsibility of the state is to fully guarantee that citizens can exercise and realize these rights. These rights include the civil rights and political rights of the first generation, such as the rights of speech, thought and belief, the right to assemble, form, and run for elections, as well as the economic, social and cultural rights of the second generation.

Second, the liberal left advocates that sovereignty resides in the people, and requires that the legitimate exercise of power must be authorized by the vote of equal citizens. Therefore, it advocates a democratic system of one person, one vote.

Third, the liberal left advocates that the state has a proper role to serve all Citizens provide basic and even fairly complete social benefits (education, medical care, housing, unemployment and retirement security, etc.), so that every citizen has reasonable opportunities and conditions to live a free and independent life.

Fourth, the liberal left attaches great importance to people’s freedom and autonomy, so they advocate the separation of church and state, encourage cultural diversity, oppose patriarchy, and disapprove of the state’s use of power and resources to promote a particular religion or impose a certain way of life on people. Liberalism believes that we should respect the independence and subjectivity of human beings. Therefore, the most important responsibility of the state is to ensure that every citizen has sufficient freedom and corresponding social and economic conditions to pursue and achieve their own goals in life and live their own lives. imagined life.

“Left-wing liberalism in China is greatly influenced by analytic philosophy, political philosophy and Rawls. But if Chinese scholars today continue to study along Rawls’s problem consciousness, it is of little significance.” “Left-wing liberalism How should socialism be combined with the Chinese context to discuss issues?” Chen Chun believes that the most fundamental question is: in an era of atomization, in the face of the trend of anti-modernization and a quasi-totalitarian system, how to build a political community? "It is undoubtedly very difficult, and we cannot find such a precedent in any previous history of the world."

Based on the development of left-wing liberalism in China, Chen Chun has the following basic assumptions:
• Incremental improvement doesn't work. Liberal methods of struggle (Martin Luther King-style reasoning and petitions, etc.) fail to achieve their ideals.
• The biggest enemy is not capital, not "Mao Left", but nationalism.

Chen Chun believes that the new generation of "anti-nationalist 'Mao Zuo'" should become more allies of liberalism rather than enemies. "I always thought that 'Mao Zuo' must be statist, but today it seems that the new generation of 'Mao Zuo' is very different from the older generation of 'Mao Zuo'." The activists have changed to today's gradual identification with "Mao Zuo". "This process is not easy, after all, the liberals' resentment of the Cultural Revolution and Mao is very deep." He has also communicated directly with some left-wing youths. "It is the emergence of such a group of new left-wing youths that has strengthened my confidence in the whole situation." On the contrary, he is very disappointed with the performance of the liberals today.

"'Anti-statism vs. statism' will be the main battleground for future intellectuals."

Chen Chun believes that various types of statists: Shi faction (cultural-political conservatives), "statist leftists", mainland New Confucians, authoritarian liberals, and those who expect this system to satisfy their demands. The various factions are the ones that require our utmost vigilance.

After Mr. Chen Chun finished speaking, everyone responded with warm applause.

Next, Teacher Nanshui and Teacher Yang made specific comments on today's lecture.

Teacher Nan Shui first talked about the changes in the left and right wing of the new generation: no matter the left wing or the right wing, the new generation is changing. The situation that today’s children of migrant workers and laid-off workers face after graduating from college is completely different from that of the college graduates of their father’s generation. College graduates of that year can still become capitalists and senior white-collar workers through hard work. Today’s opportunities has become less and less. This is a common dilemma faced by a new generation of young people.

How to deal with ideological disputes? It is a normal phenomenon to criticize each other's "idiots" from different positions. At this time, how do you deal with people who have different positions from your own, and how do you deal with ideological disputes? Simply criticizing the other party's fool, obviously did not enter the other party's interior. Different people reflect a part of this society, and when they are added together, we can have a good understanding of this era. While insisting on our position, how to look at different ideological disputes and grasp the totality of the times by looking at ideological disputes, although the main path is to examine the totality of social practice, is an issue that must be paid attention to.

The first feeling is that Mr. Nan Shui believes that Mr. Chen’s ideological factions are mainly distinguished by theoretical sources. Such a narrative method seems to have become a melee between Burke, Strauss, and Rawls in China, which is easy to appear. Deviation, in other words, has not yet entered China to examine these factions.

The second feeling, how did left-wing liberalism come about? In simple terms, it is political liberalism, but political liberalism itself includes distributive justice, so it should be political liberalism + distributive justice. From the perspective of composition, it is a feature of Shenzhen, Hong Kong and Taiwan. They are more embarrassed to face the concept of the state (Shenzhen was developed with the strength of the whole country, but some Shenzhen people feel that they have worked hard), they all want to get rid of the state control, or inability to face the concept of state. Rawls's proposition was also formed in the process of the rise of the United States to become the global leader. One of his propositions is global justice and the other is civic justice. The national consciousness is also very weak. It can be said that Rawls is political liberalism under global justice, while left-wing liberalism in Shenzhen, Hong Kong and Taiwan is a political liberalism under local justice.

Regarding the "nationalist leftist", Teacher Nanshui believes that there has never been a "nationalist leftist" in history. As long as it is statist, it is right. But why did statism become a "leftist" in a period in China? A very important reason is: when China is weak and faced with US repression, those who adhere to the national position will generally appear as "nationalist leftists". In Marx and Mao Zedong, statism has always been a rightist, and it is impossible to impose the concept of statism on Mao Zedong. When Mao emphasized the state, there is a premise, that is, the democratic rights of the workers and peasants must be possessed—the workers and peasants have the power to manage the state. The state image in the concept of Marx and Mao Zedong is similar to nationalism on the surface, but in fact there are essential differences and diametrically opposite.

How did this nationalism (Nan Shui teacher call it "moderate fascism") appear? This is a global trend.
Another phenomenon is that the scientific research process of using machines to do research has begun to be generally transformed into production links. We used to think of science as a set of scientific rationality, which was wrong. The reason why science becomes science is to use machines to do research. Almost all industries that have emerged from factories in the past two or three hundred years are facing elimination, and various emerging industries in the future may be born in laboratories. Under capitalist conditions, this transition is hopeless. Teacher Nan Shui called the current "moderate fascism" (nationalism) "the crisis politics of the big bourgeoisie", and they must take such measures in the face of the crisis. The specific manifestation in China is the generalization of the spy mechanism, from universities to enterprises and institutions. Teacher Nan Shui said: "I support criticizing the liberal democracy of the bourgeoisie from the perspective of proletarian liberal democracy. When liberal democracy cannot be realized, the proletariat must unite with the middle and petty bourgeoisie." Criticizing liberal democracy of the bourgeoisie does not Represents us against liberal democracy itself.

We are faced with a situation where there is currently no hope in sight for the world. "Three Expulsion Movements": factory automation drives out workers from production; intelligent production drives out intellectuals from production; agricultural modernization drives farmers out of production. Major cities have also used their own methods to expel foreign populations. This trend does not appear to be reversing at present.

Teacher Nan Shui believes that Teacher Chen’s theory of farewell to revolution is not actually saying goodbye to revolution, but saying goodbye to French, Russian, and Chinese-style revolutions, and calling for British and American-style revolutions. In the Anglo-American Revolution, the second estate (the nobility) led the third estate (capitalists) to revolutionize, while in France the third estate led the fourth estate to revolution, and China and Russia were the fourth estate (the proletariat) to revolutionize. Many people hope for British-style liberal democracy instead of French-style liberal democracy. However, without anyone between Britain, France, Germany, and Italy, no one will do. Without France, Germany, and Italy, British liberal democracy cannot develop to the later level. When a country is weak, it will inevitably emphasize the concept of the state, and when it is strong, it will weaken. This is a mutual transformation.

Teacher Nan Shui believes that any kind of criticism should not use one's own point of view to measure the other side's point of view. This is just a debate between blind people, and it is necessary to expose and criticize the contradiction of the other side's point of view. All foreign ideas or translations reflect internal contradictions, and we must have an internal perspective in the face of foreign ideas.

Then Mr. Yang also talked about his own views. "Where is the scope of the political concepts of freedom and democracy?" Mr. Yang believes that it is divided into three areas: the private field, the political field, and the production field. The private sphere does not belong to the realm of democracy, the political sphere does. And the production organization form of society determines the organization form of society, so should the field of production belong to the category of democracy? Regarding the various implementation plans for freedom and democracy listed in Mr. Chen's previous lecture, Mr. Yang pointed out: Whoever controls the wealth of society has the greater right to speak. The social wealth is directly linked to the field of production. When most people talk about politics, they ignore the most important thing: how can people who do not control the wealth of society exercise democratic power? Mr. Yang hopes that Mr. Chen can talk more about this aspect.

Teacher Chen Chun also made a specific response to the comments of the two teachers.

Regarding the democracy in the production field that Mr. Yang talked about, Mr. Chen Chun said that he may have been opposed to it before, but now he is open-minded. He hopes that he will gradually change his views and positions through exchanges and debates with left-wing comrades. Regarding the view that "whoever controls the wealth of society has the greater right to speak", he agrees very much, "We can't just talk about the form of democracy, but consider the specific implementation of democracy." As for Teacher Nanshui's comments , he thinks that he has a lot of consensus with Teacher Nanshui, but he will also retain some of his own views.

At noon, the lecture ended successfully in a lively discussion.