Question: What do you think are the reasons for further colonization in China?
Wang Xiaoming: In the beginning it was due to the joint crash from imperialism and capitalism, which has destroyed local language, culture and skills. It had fundamentally changed our original lifestyle. Among these changes some of them are progressive, like healthcare, etc. But the larger side effect is that they have destroyed local culture. China’s traditional culture is very strong and it was difficult to be destroyed right away. In the beginning of modernity it still played an important role and at that time people still had different ways of thinking. I feel people at that time had different brains, they had the brain for Western knowledge, for traditional Chinese culture and for Buddhism. But what about now? Our brain is very simple. We know a bit of the West, which is basically the United States, but we don’t know more than people of that era. Our understanding of Chinese tradition is much less than people of earlier generations. There are also much fewer people who know about Buddhism. Our university system is actually Western, same as the division of disciplines. Because of some internal reasons there are more flaws.
王晓明：最早是因为帝国主义和资本主义的联合冲击，把本地的语言、文化、技艺都摧毁掉，把原有的生活彻底改变了。这些改变中，应该说有一些是有进步意义的，像医疗卫生之类。但更大的副作用是把本地的传统文化摧毁了。中国是本身的传统文化比较厉害，一下子摧毁不了，在现代之初依然在起作用，所以当时人的想法就各种各样。那个时候的人，我觉得他们同时有好几个脑子：现代西方知识的脑子，中国传统文化的脑子，还有佛学的脑子。而我们现在呢?头脑很简单的，就对西方尤其是美国了解一点，但也超不过那个时候的人;我们对中国传统的了解比他们少了很多;今人有当时那些人的佛学头脑的更是少之又少。而当你自己的东西少了，外来的东西就能特别容易地进入。现在整个知识生产系统也是一边倒。我们的大学体制就是西方式的体制，我们的学科分类也是一样。然后再加上内部的一些原因，加深了弊病。
If we simply conclude “the third world” as “developing countries”, then we are ignoring the reality that developing countries and so-called Capitalist countries have different histories and life experiences. Therefore when there is revolution, we can’t copy theories formed during the historical process of Capitalist countries to have our own revolution, rather, we need to develop our own revolutionary path. This path should not only be political, but also economical, social, cultural and intellectual.
如果把“第三世界”简单概括为“发展中的国家”，那么发展中国家和所谓的发达资本主义国家拥有不同的历史和生活经验。因此在革命的时候，我们不能主要按照那些在发达资本主义国家历史中形成的理论来展开自己的革命，而必须开辟自己的革命道路。而这个道路不只是政治的、经济的、社会的，也是文化的和知识的。
This is a very long (and I find fair and well-written) essay published by Xiuyuan (Longway Foundation) a think tank founded in 2009. Their academy committee is consisted of very well respected scholars.
Here is some of the quotes:
When socialism as a global movement had started to decline, only China completed its socialist self-transformation through reform and open up, as a large country of socialism. However, we can’t negate the fact that the socialism with Chinese characteristics is facing some serious challenges. People have doubts on what is “socialism” and the necessity and even possibility of socialism. While facing this difficulty, on one hand, as a socialist country, we can’t avoid discussions on socialism; on the other hand, we can’t get trapped in the war of concepts. We can’t focus our attention on ideological attacks, but should rather see socialism as a challenge and opportunity in the process of industrialization and full transformation of material production. It is also part of the continuous efforts people have made for the pursuit of more fair and just life.
在社会主义作为一种全球运动式微的时候，只有中国作为社会主义大国，以改革开放完成了社会主义的自我转型。然而，不可否认的是，今天中国特色的社会主义也面临严峻的挑战。人们对于“社会主义”是什么、社会主义是否还有必要性和可能性，都存在着种种疑惑。面对这样的困境，一方面，作为社会主义国家，我们不能回避对社会主义的讨论;另一方面，我们也不能陷入概念的论争，不能把注意力集中在意识形态层面上的攻击，而是要将社会主义看做是进入工业化以来，面对物质生产模式的全新变革带来的机遇与挑战，人们为了追求更为公平、更为正义的生活的持续努力。
We try to describe the socialist implementation in Mao Zedong’s era as China’s Socialism 1.0, and the exploration of socialist market economy since reform and open up as China’s Socialism 2.0. While analyzing the current new setting of political and economical transformation, we try to point out that China in the future needs to develop a Socialism 3.0 that keeps the merits of Socialism 1.0 and 2.0 and gets rid of their flaws.
我们尝试将毛泽东时代的社会主义实践描述为中国的社会主义1.0版本，将改革开放以来的社会主义市场经济探索概括为社会主义2.0版本。在分析当前新的政治经济变革的背景下，我们试图指出，未来的中国需要发展出一种在继承和扬弃社会主义1.0版本和2.0版本基础之上的3.0版本的社会主义。
Deng Xiaoping had always stressed that “Capitalism can have plans and Socialism can have markets”. The most striking characteristics in political economics of Socialism 2.0 is the issue of whether and how socialism could merge with market economy.
邓小平一直强调的是“资本主义可以有计划，社会主义也可以搞市场”。社会主义2.0版本最为重要的政治经济学特征就是社会主义与市场经济可否及如何兼容的问题。
The “theory of the primary phase” used the historical framework of Socialism 1.0, but it didn’t reiterate or explain this framework - it also didn’t answer two key questions: whether there is the supreme phase after the primary phase? Whether it is going towards Communism? At that time they were incapable and it was impossible to answer this question. They could just postpone the problem and say “there is no discussion now”. For the public, this means the belief crisis of socialism; for the ruling party, this means the crisis of ideology.
“初级阶段论”运用了社会主义1.0版本的历史观框架，却没有对这个框架进行重新叙事和解释——没有回答两个关键性问题：到底初级阶段后有没有高级阶段?最终是否要走向共产主义?当时没有能力也没有办法回答这个问题，只能以“不争论”把问题往后延。对于公众而言，这意味着社会主义信仰危机，对于执政党而言，这意味着意识形态层面的危机。
Particularly for China, socialism can’t stay on the level of the ruling party’s proclamation. It should be a concept and resources for implementation as a way to rethink public space and reshape the political community. Under the backdrop of new world structure and new emerging ideologies, the new direction of socialism deserves serious consideration.
尤其是对于中国而言，社会主义不能停留在执政宣言的层面，它也应该作为一种重新思考公共性和重新塑造政治共同体的观念和实践资源。在新的世界格局和新的生产形态兴起的背景下，社会主义的新方向，应该被严肃地加以思考。
No comments:
Post a Comment