The title of this book is ‘socialism with Chinese characteristics [Zhongguo tese]’. This is the standard term used in China, along with the ‘sinification [zhongguohua] of Marxism’. There is no mystique in such terms, despite efforts in some quarters to espy—with Orientalist assumptions—a deft concealment. Simply put, it means that Marxism has its basic principles and method, but that the method itself needs to take account of the specific historical, economic, and cultural realities of a country. Or, as Qi Yiming puts it, the Chinese characteristics entail China’s specific practice of Marxism, the era in which China finds itself, and China’s culture and history (Qi Y. 2018).
But why not simply call it socialism, rather than adding the ‘Chinese characteristics’? History is important: the desire to express this reality dates back to the Zunyi Conference of January 1935. Held at the early stages of the Long March, the expanded conference of the Politburo finally brought to a head simmering tensions between Mao’s circle and the Moscow-appointed leadership’s effort to impose the model of the Russian Revolution on China. In light of recent military disasters resulting in the need to evacuate the Jiangxi-Fujian Soviet, the former were removed by popular vote and replaced with Mao and other comrades. At last, they were able to enact a revolutionary approach that was sensitive to the specific conditions in China. Not long after this crucial event, Mao began to speak of China’s ‘own laws of development’ and ‘its own national characteristics’. In fact, there is ‘no such thing as abstract Marxism, but only concrete Marxism [juti de makesizhuyi]’, by which Mao meant Marxism that is ‘applied to the concrete struggle in the concrete conditions [juti huanjing] prevailing in China, and not Marxism abstractly used’. Mao urged that the whole Party needed to address the question of ‘the sinification of Marxism [Makesizhuyi zhongguohua]—that is to say, making certain that in all its manifestations it is imbued with Chinese characteristics [Zhongguo de texing], using it according to Chinese peculiarities [Zhongguo de tedian]’ (Mao 1938a, 658–659; 1938b, 538–539; see also 1944, 191–192; 1959, 109). Or, as Mao put it somewhat more poetically a few years later: ‘The “target” is the Chinese revolution, the “arrow” is Marxism-Leninism’ (Mao 1941a, 801; 1941b, 22).
This emphasis on Chinese conditions runs all the way from the strategy of ‘using the countryside to surround the cities [nongcun baowei chengshi]’ to the socialist market economy of the Reform and Opening-Up. Alongside these historical realities are specific philosophical developments in light of dialectical materialism, with which I engage in more detail in Chapter 3. But there is an important consequence of this emphasis on China’s specific conditions for the development of socialism. In the same way that the development of a ‘China Model’ for a proletarian revolution and the subsequent construction of socialism is not dependent on foreign templates or models, so also does China not seek to impose its approach on others. I will have more to say on this question in later chapters, but the fundamental approach of the ‘China Model [Zhongguo moshi]’ is that China will lead by example and urge others to develop approaches suitable to their own conditions (Xu 2010). But is it really socialism? Stress too much the specific characteristics and one risks losing touch with the core Marxist principles and methods. Thus, it always needs to be remembered that socialism with Chinese characteristics ‘is socialism, and not some other -ism’ (Xi 2013a, 22; 2019b, 1).
-Roland Boer, Socialism With Chinese Characteristics: A Guide For Foreigners Pgs. 8-10
