Annotations on Liu Shaoqi’s Letter to Xu Fanting[1]

(December 17, 1943)

Probably, for those of us who have reached the age of forty and beyond, we are particularly interested in all kinds of philosophical questions, and therefore, this can also be treated as a kind of game. 【This way of putting it is inappropriate.】

Questions concerning human nature, right and wrong, good and evil are the most prominent questions raised in the history of Chinese philosophy in the past, and they are also questions that have been debated throughout the ages for over two thousand years and have still not been correctly resolved up to now. 【Marxism resolved these questions long ago; it is merely that there is a lack of popular propaganda and a lack of work analyzing Chinese history from the Marxist viewpoint. It cannot be said that they have not yet been resolved.】

What is human life?

So-called human life should also be, like the attributes of all matter, namely, the attributes of that thing called man. 【Analysis should start from social relations, not from philosophical definitions.】

All things possess a certain substance, 【i.e., the specific characteristics of that thing.】 by which they are distinguished from other things. The attributes of all matter arise from the substance of each respective thing. When this thing does not come into contact with other things, its attributes are latent and do not manifest themselves

externally, and the substance of this thing cannot then be known. But once this thing comes into contact with other things to a certain degree, its attributes manifest themselves, and people can then understand its substance through its manifested attributes (for example, true gold has the attribute of not fearing fire; after gold comes into contact with fire, people can understand the substance of gold). When this thing has comprehensive (whole-process) and profound contact with other things, its entire substance will be exposed, 【The history of things is infinite, and the interrelations between things are infinite; hence their attributes are infinite. What is commonly called "comprehensive exposure" is in reality only some limited parts, some fragments.】 and its most profound and most fundamental 【comparatively profound.】 substance will also be exposed, i.e., its inherent nature and essence will be exposed. People can then profoundly understand 【Understanding is also infinite.】 the essence of this thing. This is a universal principle. This also applies to man.

Man, this thing, is a material thing, so man also possesses general materiality (or physicality, i.e., what the letter calls "the commonality of the universe," the commonality of all things in the universe, i.e., the materiality of all things). Man, this thing, is also a part of the animal kingdom, so man also possesses general animality (or beastliness, i.e., what the letter calls "the commonality of animals").

But man, this thing, is also a special, highest-order animal, an animal that has developed to the highest form, which not only can be distinguished from other matter but also has a clear, certain substantive distinction from all other animals. Therefore, besides possessing general materiality and animality, man also possesses a special human nature that no other matter and no other animal possesses. So generally speaking, human nature is also a kind of materiality, a kind of animality; but specifically speaking, i.e., to a certain degree, human nature can and should also be distinguished from general materiality and general animality. All philosophies of human nature that absolutely distinguish human nature from materiality and animality (such as many religionists and absolute idealists) are erroneous; but all philosophies that do not distinguish human nature from materiality and animality are also erroneous.

What is the essential distinction between man and other animals?

The most fundamental distinction between man and other animals lies in the fact that man has thought. 【The most fundamental distinction

is man's social nature. Man is an animal that makes tools, man is an animal engaged in social production, man is an animal of class struggle (in certain historical periods). In a word, man is a social animal, not whether or not he has thought. All animals have mental phenomena; higher animals have feelings, memory, and even reasoning ability. Man merely has higher-level mental phenomena, so this is not the most fundamental characteristic.】 Man's brain and his entire nervous system are exceptionally developed (this is the result of long-term labor and long-term struggle), so man can understand the regularities of the development of various things in nature, can recognize the developmental process of the essence of objective things, can recognize the internal interconnections between various phenomena; and thus man can possibly transform objective things according to the regularities of the development of objective things, engage in labor and production, make tools, and transform the world. This is something no other animal possesses (other animals at most have only the rudiments of thought, without complete thought, and cannot make tools). This is something unique to man. This is the most essential distinction between man and other animals. (All other distinctions are formal, not essential). 【This refers to evolved man, not primitive man. The difference between primitive man and monkeys lies only in the single point of whether they can make tools. Ever since man could make stone spears and wooden clubs to engage in production, man for the first time distinguished himself from monkeys and other animals. It was not because he had thoughts superior to monkeys that he distinguished himself from them. This is the watershed between the materialist conception of history and the idealist conception of history.】

Because man is the highest-order animal with complete thought, 【Human thought occurs and develops historically; it was not complete from the very beginning, nor can it ever be complete.】 besides possessing general materiality and animality, man also possesses special subjective initiative, i.e., spirituality 【Animals also have this.】 , rationality, etc. That is, man can think, can use thought to grasp the interconnections between various objective things and various phenomena, and can, after recognizing the regularities of objective things, make his own actions conform to these regularities, making his actions possess consciousness and planning, consciously not transgressing beyond objective laws. That is, the ability of man's thought and action to be consciously regularized. This is also what Confucius referred to as being able to "follow the heart's desires without transgressing the rules." 【These things evolve historically in humanity, and also evolve historically in the life of an individual. A small child does not understand

regularities; Confucius only achieved "not transgressing the rules" at seventy. In class society, declining classes do not understand regularities. Therefore, "Man is the spirit of all things," man is a rational animal. 【This is an idealist view of society. Man is a higher form of the development of matter, not the final form; it will still develop in the future, and is not some "spirit of all things." Man is first of all a social animal. The bourgeoisie always emphasizes human reason (spirit); we should not do so.】

Man can distinguish himself from nature and use nature to transform nature (relatively standing in opposition to nature). 【This also evolves historically, not happening all at once. Initially, man could not distinguish himself from the external world; there was a unified worldview. As man could make more advanced tools and engage in more advanced production, man could gradually distinguish himself from nature and establish a worldview that is both opposed to and unified with nature. This worldview is also historical; the content of the future view of the unity of opposites will again be different from that of the present.】

But this special subjective initiative, spirituality, rationality, etc., that man uniquely possesses—i.e., human thought—is not something else either; it is also a special kind of physical property—an attribute of the human brain. This attribute, like the attributes of other matter, requires the human brain to develop to a certain degree (usually after the age of six or seven) and requires a certain degree of contact with other things (through the senses of the five organs) before it can arise and manifest itself; otherwise, man cannot have thought.

Human thought can never arise or exist independently apart from matter at any time. Because human thought itself is an attribute of a special kind of matter, it is the reflection of the regularities of the development of objective things in the human brain. 【These are problems of two different categories.】

Therefore, no matter how much man is the "spirit of all things," man is absolutely not an immortal, and human thought is absolutely not something mysterious and inexplicable. Man can never become an immortal, i.e., man can never free himself from his own materiality and animality. 【No, man is a social animal; man can never detach himself from society and exist in isolation.】 Subjective initiative can never transcend objective limitations; thought can never arise or exist independently apart from external matter. It is absolutely not as the Buddhists (other religionists are essentially the same) say: "Soundless, colorless, deeply still and silent,"

"No matter what method is used, no waves arise" (terminology from the letter), completely freed from the red dust, 【Red dust is society.】 going to the heavens, going to emptiness, yet seeming to exist. Therefore, man cannot possess divinity. 【Man cannot leave society and become a god.】 Human nature is not divine nature or ghostly nature. Man has no divine nature or ghostly nature. Thought fundamentally cannot exist independently apart from matter. The subjective fundamentally cannot exist independently apart from the objective. 【These are two problems. Thought cannot leave matter; mental phenomena are attributes of the human brain. This speaks of the relationship between the brain and the attributes of the brain, the relationship between one form of material motion and another form of material motion (spirit is a special kind of matter). This is one problem. The subjective reflects the objective; this speaks of existence determining consciousness, social existence determining social consciousness, the relationship between the inner mind and external things. This is another problem. Here they are conflated.】

Distinguishing man from other animals, and also distinguishing man from the immortals in absurd fantasies, this determines the natural essence of man. Distinguishing human nature from general materiality and animality, and also distinguishing human nature from the divine nature and ghostly nature in absurd fantasies, this determines the natural inherent nature of man. 【What constitutes the peculiarities, specific characteristics, and features of man is solely his social nature—man is a social animal. Naturalness, animality, etc., are not the specific characteristics of man. That man is an animal, not a plant or mineral, is undoubtedly true and unproblematic. What kind of animal man is—this becomes a problem. For hundreds of thousands of years[1] up to the bourgeois Feuerbach, it was not answered correctly. Only Marx correctly answered this question. That is to say, regarding man, he has only one basic characteristic—social nature. It should not be said that he has two basic characteristics: one is animality, and one is social nature. Saying so is not good; it is dualism, and in reality, it is idealism.】

Mencius said, "The desire for food and sex is nature." Wang Yangming emphasized the "human nature" of "liking beautiful colors and disliking bad smells." But the human nature spoken of here by Mencius and Wang Yangming not only fails to mention man's social nature, but also fails to mention his natural nature. Because the nature of desiring food and sex, the nature of liking beautiful colors and disliking bad

Annotations on Liu Shaoqi’s Letter to Xu Fanting

smells, is not only possessed by man but also by many other animals. 【Man's food and sex are social, fundamentally different from the food and sex of animals.】 (Many other animals all like to eat good things, some even grow more beautiful colors than humans, and all have the sense of smell to dislike bad smells). 【These are likes and dislikes of two different categories; equating them is vulgar materialism.】 Here they only mention a part of man's animality. 【Man's food and sex are not animality but social nature.】 If this is taken as human nature, it is a one-sided statement, a deviation; it cannot distinguish human nature from beastliness. 【Everything about man is distinguished from beastliness; there is nothing that is not distinguished.】 For example, Wang Yangming advocated "wildness," and the literati of the Six Dynasties even thought that people at that time could go without wearing pants, which is emphasizing man's animality. 【Not wearing pants is not animality; it is still a social animal.】 Cheng Hao, Cheng Yi, and Zhu Xi were the opposite. They seized upon the aspect of human reason, deliberately emphasized it, and subjectively and mechanically created many rules to restrict people's thoughts and actions, to摧残 (wreck/destroy) people's natural nature. 【It should be said: to wreck people's social nature. Cheng-Zhu treated people as non-people, so-called "sages," and thus were wrong.】 (Cheng-Zhu had already perceived man's natural nature and social nature, dividing nature into the nature of principle and the nature of physical endowment. 【This is precisely erroneous dualism, in reality idealism.】 But they believed the nature of principle is good, the nature of physical endowment is evil, and that if man can restrain the nature of physical endowment and develop the nature of principle, he becomes a sage. They took the degree of restraining the nature of physical endowment as the standard, believing the effort of learning the Way lies here. Thus they advocated deliberately wrecking man's natural nature as much as possible.) 【Wrecking proper social nature.】 This is also a deviation. 【It is completely wrong, not just a deviation.】 Therefore, I hope that when you excerpt their words, you should pay attention.

Because man has thought, and thought is the contradictory unity of man's subjective and objective aspects, man has the possibility of making mistakes, even systematic and serious mistakes (only man can make mistakes; almost all other animals have no possibility of making mistakes, 【Inappropriate. The doctrine of competitive survival says that living beings, through competition, heredity, and selection of the fittest to avoid elimination, embody the requirement of avoiding mistakes. Only minerals have no such requirement.】 especially no possibility of making systematic and serious mistakes). Man is also bound to make mistakes (because of the contradiction between subjective and objective; it can be said that one who makes no mistakes at all

is not human). Man constantly makes mistakes and constantly corrects them (although man can avoid making systematic and serious mistakes). Therefore, when man looks at himself, he often neglects his own subjective initiative, reducing man to the level of ordinary animals, or else often exaggerates his own subjective initiative, describing man as an immortal. These are the two deviations when man looks at himself.

The above discusses man's natural nature. 【Man is a social animal; human thought is a product of society. Placing thought in the category of natural nature is exactly what the American "behaviorist school" (subjective idealism manifested as vulgar materialism) does.】 But man's natural nature is only one kind of inherent nature of man; man also has another kind of inherent nature, namely, man's social nature 【dualism】. Man's social nature and man's natural nature are distinct and contradictory, yet they are fused together, and fundamentally protect (the common human) natural nature. The two mutually restrict and also mutually promote each other. 【This viewpoint is inappropriate. As man, he is only a social animal. After man divided into classes, he is only a class person, nothing more. There is no so-called common human natural nature, much less the idea of social nature protecting natural nature. Human life and the continuation of the race exist solely as the continuation of social man, nothing else.】

What is man's social nature?

Because human life is social life, there must be social laws that maintain the common life of all people in society. These social laws restrict people's natural nature and natural desires 【Inappropriate.】 , allowing them to develop only within certain limits.

Because man is the spirit of all things, human thought and action can be consciously regularized. 【Human consciousness is historical, not absolute.】 Therefore, man is also most susceptible to changes in himself under the influence of the objective environment, unlike all other "insentient and unspiritual" things. 【The initial difference between man and the insentient, unspiritual monkey lies solely in using tools for labor.】 In the process of continuous social labor, people transform nature, and at the same time transform themselves, changing their own essence and inherent nature. 【Changing people's own hands, brains, five senses, thoughts, etc., from various different social structures to various different social natures. Only in this way should

the change in human nature be explained; otherwise, it is idealism.】 The ideological forms of people are determined by the forms of the objective environment and the forms of labor with which these people are constantly in contact. The thoughts of people in certain forms, in turn, command people to act in certain forms and gradually change the forms of the objective environment and the forms of labor.

People's productive labor is always social productive labor. On the basis of certain labor patterns, certain patterns of production relations, social relations, political relations, etc. (i.e., the laws of people's common life) arise among people. These certain relations determine people's certain forms of social conceptualization, i.e., determine people's certain patterns of ideals, consciousness, viewpoints, habits, psychology, morality, etc. Long-term certain patterns of production and lifestyles cultivate a certain characteristic in people's thought and action; this is people's social nature. 【These are correct.】

People labor and live according to certain laws (natural laws and social laws) over a long period, 【But for a long time unconsciously; consciousness is a historical process.】 and thus this also causes people's thought and action to become relatively定型化 (stereotyped/fixed in form) according to these laws. A certain economic character and a certain social character determine the character of people's certain social consciousness and the character of their ethics and morality. All human reason is natural, and at the same time, social. 【It is only social.】

Man's natural nature is innate; it arises from the basis of that thing called man. For example, man's physique, intelligence, instincts, etc. (these things are influenced by postnatal factors, but are not fundamentally changed by postnatal factors in a person's lifetime) are innately generated. Man's social nature is acquired; it is cultivated from the social environmental conditions in which each person finds himself. For example, man's thoughts, consciousness, viewpoints, habits, etc., are cultivated and learned by man in production and struggle 【But earlier, thought and consciousness were classified under the natural category, and intelligence was classified under the natural (innate) category.】 (just as taming very young wild beasts can also make them possess a certain tameness).

【Ever since the day man separated from the monkeys, everything has been social. Physique, intelligence, instincts—all are social. We cannot take being in the mother's womb as innate and only after birth as acquired. To speak

of the innate, then the monkey is innate; the entire history of man is acquired. Take physique: the present brain, hands, and five senses have been completely transformed through hundreds of thousands of years of labor and have taken on social nature. Human intelligence and animal intelligence, human instincts and animal instincts, are also completely different. The intelligence and abilities of man's five senses and hundred parts of the body originate from heredity; people often call this innate, to distinguish it from social influence after birth. But all human heredity is social; it is the result of social production over hundreds of thousands of years. If this point is not clearly pointed out, one will fall into idealism.】

But ever since human society developed into class society, man has existed as a person of a certain class. People's social nature is determined by the completely different class positions they occupy in the production struggle. People's social nature manifests as various different, even opposite, class natures of people. The class nature of people of specific classes splits and conceals people's common social nature. 【It splits it, not conceals it.】 For example, the various different characteristics uniquely possessed by people of various classes in present-day society (such as the hierarchical nature, mysticism, and cruelty of feudal landlords; the monopolistic nature, competitiveness, and selfishness of capitalists; the dispersed nature, backwardness, and rebelliousness of peasants; the progressiveness, organizational nature, and concentration of workers, etc.) are manifested very clearly. The highest and most concentrated expression of people's class nature becomes people's party nature. This class nature and party nature of people of specific classes permeates all the concrete thoughts, words, and actions of these people, so that various military, political, doctrinal, artistic, and moral matters all manifest a certain class nature and party nature.

All ruling classes in past history regarded their own class nature as representing the human nature of all mankind, and moreover regarded it as the most good human nature, natural human nature. They regarded the class nature of people of other classes as an exceptional and vile manifestation contrary to natural human nature. They regarded them as people without human nature, as people lacking human dignity. All past ruling classes tabooed speaking of people's class nature, and tabooed speaking of people's social nature. 【In reality, it was also because they did not know; even the best bourgeois enlightenment scholars did not know.】 They all regarded people's class nature

Annotations on Liu Shaoqi’s Letter to Xu Fanting

and social nature as people's innate natural nature, because only in this way could they consolidate the class position of the ruling class. Therefore, in various past doctrines of human nature, their class nature is clearly manifested. Thus there is the theory of human nature of the landlord class, the theory of human nature of the bourgeoisie, and also the theory of human nature of the proletariat.

Man is a part of nature; man is a natural man. Concrete man is also a member of society (and in class society, also a member of a certain class); man is also a social man (or class man). Therefore, man simultaneously possesses natural nature and social nature. These are the two fundamental aspects of human nature; these are the two basic attributes possessed by that thing called man. 【Man is a part of nature—this is correct, but this means he is a social man, not a so-called natural man. Man is a special part of nature—a social man.】

What is good and evil? What determines people's concepts of good and evil?

People's concepts of good and evil reflect the actual objective relations of interests among people. All things beneficial to people are considered good by people; all things harmful to people are considered evil by people. (This is spoken with humanity as the standard. But some Chinese Buddhists' concepts of good and evil also include the animal kingdom, so they abstain from killing, believing that killing animals is also evil). 【Buddhist abstention from killing likely has its social causes, such as Britain prohibiting bird hunting, or Chinese peasants abstaining from killing cattle, because birds and cattle are scarce.】

But man is a concrete man, and human interests are also concrete. For example, between individual interests, partial interests, and overall interests, between temporary interests and long-term interests, contradictions often arise. Especially in class society, the interests of various classes are often opposite, even irreconcilable. These different relations of interests among people are reflected in people's minds as different concepts of good and evil. For instance, what the exploiting class considers good, the exploited class considers evil; what the exploited class considers good, the exploiting class considers evil. If, in a classless society, people's different relations of interests could still be reconciled by the method of the part submitting to the whole and the temporary submitting to the long-term, and if there were still relations of common interest for the entirety of human society, 【The concept of "humanity" actually arose after class differentiation; primitive people could not possibly have had the concept we have now. As for "common interests of humanity," there has never been such a thing; it will only arise after classes are eliminated in the future.】 then, in class society, the relations of interests between antagonistic classes are fundamentally irreconcilable. Therefore, in class society, even if people could truly like good and dislike evil (rather than liking evil and disliking good), the concepts of good and evil and the likes and dislikes among people of different classes could not be consistent. Mencius and Wang Yangming only sought common human likes and dislikes and human commonality in people's desires for food and sex, in liking beautiful colors and disliking bad smells. Beyond this, they probably found it very difficult to find common human good and evil and likes and dislikes. (When Mencius spoke of the mind of right and wrong, the mind of compassion, and other common human psychologies, he could only give the example of a child about to fall into a well. But a child does not yet have thought, 【It is not a question of having thought or not. If Hitler's little pal fell into a well, only those with common interests with him would go to rescue him.】 and cannot be distinguished by good or evil. 【No.】 If speaking of adults, then whether Confucius towards Shao Zhengmao, or Mencius towards Yang Zhu, Mo Di, and Dao Zhi, if these people were about to fall into a well, whether there would still be that mind of compassion which is the beginning of benevolence, is very hard to say.)

In 【the future】 classless society, the entirety of human society will still have common concepts of good and evil, will still have a common mind of right and wrong, mind of compassion, mind of shame and dislike, and mind of deference and yielding. Because at that time, there will be common interests of the entire society. But in class society, people's concepts of good and evil cannot be consistent; each has their own standards of good and evil. The common mind of right and wrong, mind of compassion, mind of shame and dislike, mind of deference and yielding also do not exist (for example, today Hitler's right and wrong and our right and wrong are opposite; if Hitler died a violent death today, we would not have a mind of compassion either). Therefore, the debate on the question of whether human nature is good or human nature is evil 【is an abstract debate.】 cannot receive a consistent answer. Because there is no consistent standard of good and evil. As for saying human nature is neither good nor evil, that can only be abstract, and can only be said with regard to man's natural nature. 【No. So-called right and wrong, good and evil occur and develop historically; they are the unity of historically developing relative truth and absolute truth, different truth views of different classes—this is our

theory of right and wrong. Morality is the reflection of the demands of people's economic life and other social life; different classes have different moral views—this is our theory of good and evil. Dividing human nature into two sides, natural nature and social nature, and acknowledging that natural nature is neither good nor evil, opens a back door to idealism. But people's concepts of good and evil are a kind of social concept of people. Speaking of the good and evil of human nature can only be with regard to man's social nature, and man's social nature is acquired. Therefore, looking at the concrete, social, acquired human nature of concrete people, it is always both good and evil, because this is determined by the good and evil of the concrete social environment in which concrete people find themselves (for certain people). For example, today, standing on a certain standpoint, we can determine the essential goodness or badness of all concrete people, precisely because we stand on a concrete standpoint, have concrete standards of good and evil, and can measure the goodness or badness of all fairly mature 【Immature ones are the same.】 concrete people. Therefore, the statement that human nature is neither good nor evil is still an abstract statement, an idealist statement. If discussed concretely, not only does man's natural substance have good and bad (physical constitution and endowment can be strong or weak) 【Endowment is also social.】 , but man's social substance also has good and evil, only that what is considered good and evil differs among different classes. In the debate between Gaozi and Mencius, Gaozi's shortcoming lies here (naturally, Gaozi's opinion is much more correct than Mencius's).

"The mind of right and wrong is possessed by all people." It seems this is a universal common virtue of humanity. Yes, man is a rational animal, and man naturally also loves truth. Truth also has the power to attract people to love it. But for all exploiting classes, objective right and wrong (objective truth) are often mercilessly contrary to their interests. At such times, all exploiting classes do not love truth, do not love progress; they all love their own interests, love reaction. They all handle things according to their own interests, not according to objective right and wrong. They all deliberately distort right and wrong, distort truth, deceive the masses, to protect their own interests. Moreover, the subjective right and wrong of the exploiting class often cannot be consistent with objective right and wrong (they often treat their own interests as absolute truth). 【These points are all well said.】 Therefore, for the exploiting class, their right and wrong and their likes and dislikes, and their concepts of good and evil

cannot be consistent. 【This point is inappropriate. Although there are cases of knowing clearly yet deliberately doing wrong, the good and evil of the exploiters always take what they consider right and wrong as the standard; the two are generally consistent.】 What is right, they often do not like, do not consider good; what is wrong, they often do like, do not consider evil. Righting right and wronging wrong, gooding good and eviling evil, liking good and disliking evil—no exploiting class can achieve this. 【They right what they consider right, wrong what they consider wrong, good what they consider good, evil what they consider evil.】 No exploiting class can completely unify right and wrong, good and evil, likes and dislikes. 【They unify what they unify.】 Moreover, no exploiting class can thoroughly understand objective truth. Therefore, among the doctrines constructed by scholars of all past exploiting classes linking human nature, right and wrong, good and evil, and likes and dislikes, there is not one that is not full of errors. 【When the exploiting class could still represent the masses, it could speak some truths, such as Confucius[1], Socrates[2], and the bourgeoisie. Only such a view is a historical view.】 You attempt to revise Wang Yangming's four sentences into truth; I think it is very difficult to achieve. 【Wang Yangming[3] also has some truths.】 The four sentences revised in your letter also still have points open to discussion.

China's feudal system persisted for two thousand years, so China's feudal system was the most complete feudal system in the world. The ethical philosophy of China's feudal class was also the most complete feudal ethical philosophy in the world. But this philosophy is feudal; its central ideas are the Three Bonds and Five Constants, and the Three Bonds and Five Constants were simultaneously the political program of the feudal class and the constitution of the feudal state. Therefore, any speech or action today that supports this philosophy in reality supports the remnants of feudalism in China and obstructs China's democratic revolution. We absolutely cannot regard this philosophy, the doctrines of Confucius and Mencius, as the fine tradition of Chinese culture. On the contrary, this is precisely

[1] Confucius (551 BC – 479 BC), given name Qiu, courtesy name Zhongni, from Zouyi, State of Lu (present-day Qufu, Shandong). Thinker and educator of the late Spring and Autumn period, founder of Confucianism.

[2] Socrates (469 BC – 399 BC), ancient Greek idealist philosopher.

[3] Wang Yangming (1472–1528), original name Wang Shouren, courtesy name Bo'an, from Yuyao, Zhejiang. Idealist philosopher of the Ming Dynasty.

Annotations on Liu Shaoqi’s Letter to Xu Fanting

the bad tradition of Chinese culture. 【Confucius and Mencius[1] have some truths; totally negating them is an unhistorical view.】 There is now a person in China who has written a book called "China's Destiny." In this book, he fully accepts and supports the "inherent morality" and ethical philosophy of China's feudal class, and firmly opposes modern thought—Communism and Liberalism. Yet they are also greatly opposing so-called "feudal separatism" (if it were democratic separatism, would they not oppose it?). With such people, what right and wrong can you still discuss? Do they still have a mind of right and wrong?

People's moral concepts reflect the actual objective relations of interests among people. This was clearly seen long ago by Mozi in China. Mozi said, "Righteousness is benefit," benefit is the substance of righteousness. He also said, "Loyalty benefits the ruler," "Filial piety benefits parents," "Merit benefits the people." Mozi advocated taking the benefit of the state, the common people, and the people—i.e., the common interests of all humanity in society—as the standard of morality. Mozi was the first great philosopher to establish morality on the foundation of materialism. The morality of all exploiting classes is the reflection of the interests of those exploiting classes. China's feudal morality, feudal ethical philosophy, is a morality centered on the interests of the feudal monarch (including the father, elder brother, and husband). Building one's own happiness on the basis of making others suffer, on the basis of making the majority of people suffer—this is the nature of all declining exploiting classes and their moral standard. Building one's own happiness on the basis of making others share happiness together, on the basis of the common happiness of all humanity—this is the nature of the proletariat and our moral standard.

The characteristics of all exploiters are the most vile human nature. 【When slave-owners, feudal lords, and capitalists were still destroying old systems and establishing new ones, they had their historical role.】 They all seek the highly organized and systematic venting of their own beastliness (such as three palaces and six courtyards, pools of wine and forests of meat) at the expense of the majority of people. The characteristics of all laboring, oppressed classes are the most good human nature in society at the time; they are the most rational, sacrificing themselves for others.

[1] Meng refers to Mencius (372 BC – 289 BC), given name Ke, courtesy name Ziyu, from Zou (present-day Zou County, Shandong). Thinker of the Warring States period.

Only the awakened proletariat, only genuine Marxists, 【and future humanity,】 can profoundly understand objective truth, 【This is correct, but contradicts the section at the beginning of the article about man being the spirit of all things.】 can possess the highest rationality, can make their own thoughts and actions consciously regularized according to recognized objective truth, can possess the highest degree of conscious discipline and principledness, can completely unify right and wrong, good and evil, likes and dislikes, can fully achieve: righting what is right, wronging what is wrong, gooding what is good, eviling what is evil, liking what is liked, disliking what is disliked, can possess the most excellent virtues among humanity (but not the feudal "inherent virtues," nor the bourgeois "virtues"), can create the most excellent social order. And also can develop the special rationality of humanity, the genius of humanity, to the highest limit, can possess the most excellent human nature. Because only the proletariat 【and future humanity】 have interests that are completely consistent with objective right and wrong (objective truth). Only the proletariat can take the interests of the liberation of all humanity, the interests of the evolution of the entire human society, as its own interests. Therefore, only the awakened proletariat, genuine Marxists, can frankly love truth, 【When the bourgeoisie made its revolution against feudalism, they represented the interests of social evolution. They also loved the truths they could know, such as the theory of the social contract and the theory of evolution.】 love the common interests of all humanity, love the interests of social evolution, as naturally as liking beautiful colors; hate heresies, hate the destroyers of the common interests of humanity, hate reaction, as naturally as disliking bad smells. Also, only the awakened proletariat, genuine Marxists, can correctly explain the questions of human nature, right and wrong, good and evil, and elevate this philosophy to the highest degree.

【Overall Comment: Lacks a materialist historical viewpoint.】