Political Leftism plus Economic Rightism: If the Names are Wrong, the Words Ring False

Political Leftism plus Economic Rightism:
If the Names are Wrong, the Words Ring False
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, Republic of China)
A Translation
November 13, 2013

Summary: Political leftism plus economic rightism, signaling left while turning right, will eventually lead to political and economic rifts, and left vs. right schisms. If the names are wrong, the words will ring false. If the words ring false, the goals will remain unfulfilled.

Full text below:

The Third Plenary Session of the CCP 18th National Congress has just convened. Inside and outside Mainland China, the media have characterized the session as "political leftism plus economic rightism." For example, the session is characterized everywhere as "signaling left while turning right," and as "political leftism becoming more leftist, and economic rightism becoming more rightist."

The characterization of economic rightism is correct. If by economic rightism one means more capitalism, more free markets, more openness, more liberalization, more cosmopolitanism. Take the Shanghai Free Trade Zone for example. Political simplification and decentralization are indeed rightist.

But the characterization of political leftism becoming more leftist is not particularly valid. Because political leftism means a return to Marxism or Mao Zedong Thought. But today's Mainland is economic rightism becoming more rightist. This is undoubtedly based on the surplus value created by working class industrial and farm labor. They are no longer advocates of class struggle. Instead they advocate a "harmonious society." This is at odds with Marxism. Also, if the Cultural Revolution amounted to "a great victory for Mao Zedong Thought," then politics turning left is unlikely to return to the thinking of the Ten Year Catastrophe or Catastrophic Decade.

Therefore the characterization of politics turning left does not indicate a return to Marxism or Mao Zedong Thought. Besides, Marx advocated the "withering away of the state." Mao advocated a "new democracy." These contain rightist elements as well. Therefore, objectively speaking, so-called politics turning left and economics turning right, is merely another way of saying "strengthening political despotism while promoting economic development." This is closer to fascism. It is certainly not Marxism or Mao Zedong Thought. Because from Marx to Mao, no matter how rightist the Mainland might have become, it was never as brazenly rightist as it is today. Today it has totally turned its back on Marx and Mao, and will turn even further to the right in the future.

If we equate politics turning left while economics turns right with strengthening political despotism while promoting economic development, that is understandable. Both Taiwan and South Korea are successful examples of highly profitable authoritarian capitalism. Mainland China faces a multitude of problems. Despotism to promote economic development may have some justification. It has amassed a universally acknowledged record of success over the past 30 years. But this political leftism plus economic rightism is not really leftist. It is actually a kind of extreme right fascist politics, with a false Marxist or Mao Zedong Thought label attached to it. The danger is that A. A signaling left while turning right policy of political leftism plus economic rightism will eventually lead to a political and economic rift that will tear society appart. B. It will enable the political ghost of Marx and Mao Zedong to hover over Mainland China. Political leftism plus economic rightism is an impossible contradiction that could cause the Beijing regime to lose its political mandate. The right may complain the policy is only half-heartedly rightist. The left may complain that the policy is ersatz leftist. To wit, Bo Xilai. Given the two scenarios, the Mainland cannot signal left while turning right in perpetuity.

Therefore the leftist component in political leftism plus economic rightism is merely leftist Communist dictatorship to promote rightist economic development. It is merely a means to an end. It cannot evolve into economic rightism to maintain permanent Communist rule. It cannot be an end in itself. This sort of leftism is simply untenable, under either Marxism, Mao Zedong Thought, or fascism.

The Third Plenary Session did not touch upon political reform. Instead it spoke of "improving government efficiency," to ensure "long term rule." Also, compared to the Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao administrations, its political leftism was even more pronounced. For example "Document 9" listed "Seven Unmentionables." One of the unmentionables was "universal values." This may be a Western value. But the PRC Constitution embodies "special Chinese characteristics." So why was constitutional rule included among the unmentionables? Take for example, the "Two Undeniables." It was virtually a facsimile of the 1981 "Resolutions on Historical Issues since the Founding of the Party." This sort of leftism presents major ideological problems. A. What is the highest goal of Mainland Chinese rule or the Chinese Dream? Is it Chinese Communist Party single-party dictatorship, and permanent rule? B. Can upholding Marxism and Mao Zedong Thought ensure permanent CCP rule? C. How much leftism is required to ensure permanent CCP rule? D. This sort of permanent leftism may be the CCP's dream. But is it really the Chinese Dream?

To be fair, we must consider historical experience. The world cannot deny that political leftism plus economic rightism, and authoritarian capitalism have been highly profitable. But political leftism plus economic rightism should be defined as "first economics, then politics," and "first the easy, then the difficult." It should be defined as reformist and gradualist. It should not be exclusively economic reform, with no political reform. Its goal should not be one-party dictatorship and permanent rule. The CCP is attempting to use political despotism to promote economic development. Perhaps it must go through this stage. But if Marxism and Mao Zedong Thought are the goal of permanent rule, its decline is likely to be ever more precipitous, and the dilemmas it encounters ever more ridiculous. Therefore the correct political path for the CCP is to reject Marx and Mao and to uphold Deng and Sun (Yatsen). The CCP cannot backtrack. But it can maintain a Chiang Ching-kuo style "democracy by the installment plan." It can gradually use economics to introduce political change. It can start with the easy, then attempt the difficult. This is the way to achieve the Chinese Dream.

Political leftism plus economic rightism, signaling left while turning right, will eventually lead to political and economic rifts, and left vs. right schisms. If the names are wrong, the words will ring false. If the words ring false, the goals will remain unfulfilled.

政左經右：名不正 言不順
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.11.13 02:35 am

中共十八大三中全會閉幕，內外輿論給了一個「政左經右」的總結。例如，「打左燈／向右拐」、「政治左的更左／經濟右的更右」，皆是。

「經右」或許無錯。若「經右」是指更資本主義，更市場經濟，則更開放、更自由化、更國際化，如上海自由經濟區、簡政放權，皆是「右」。

但「政左」卻不太說得通。因為，「政左」若是指回到「馬克思主義」或「毛澤東思想」，則今日大陸的「經右」，一方面無疑是建立在工農勞動階級的「剩餘價值」之上，且又不再主張「階級鬥爭」，反而倡議「和諧社會」，此皆不符馬克思主義；另一方面，若「文革」才是「毛澤東思想的偉大勝利」，則「政左」大概不會是要回到「十年浩劫思維」吧？

所以「政左」應不是要回到馬克思主義，也不是要回到毛澤東思想。何況，馬克思主張「國家終極死滅論」，毛澤東也主張「新民主主義」，其實這裡面也有「右」。因此，客觀而論，所謂「政左經右」，說的只是「強化政治專制／促進經濟發展」；這比較接近「法西斯主義」，而絕不是什麼馬克思主義或毛澤東思想。因為，從馬到毛，無論怎麼「右」，皆走不到今日這種紅紅火火而對馬對毛皆已是離經叛道的「經右」，何況未來還要「更右」。

然而，若說「政左經右」意謂「強化政治專制／促進經濟發展」，則是可以理解的。譬如，台灣和南韓皆曾是「專制紅利」的成功模式；以中國問題之重大，若思以專制政治來帶動經濟發展，或亦有其合理性，何況三十餘年來已有舉世公認的可觀的實績。但是，此種「政左經右」其實不是「左」，卻是一種「極右派」的法西斯式政治，但被冠上了馬克思主義或毛澤東思想；其風險是：一、「打左燈／向右拐」的「政左經右」，終究要出現一個「政經撕裂」與「左右撕裂」的社會。二、讓馬克思與毛澤東兩個政治幽靈繼續盤繞在中國上空，在「政左經右」的矛盾下，北京政權可能因「右的說你半瓶子右／左的說你搞假左」而失去統治正當性（看一看薄熙來）。在以上二種想像中，顯然，無論如何皆不可能永遠「打左燈／向右拐」。

因此，「政左經右」之左，只能是「以共黨一時專政之左／促進經濟發展之右」的「方法論」；而不能演成「以促進經濟發展之右／來維持共產永久執政之左」的「目的論」。這樣的「左」，無論馬克思主義、毛澤東思想或法西斯主義，恐怕皆辦不到。

三中全會仍未碰觸「政治體制改革」，而是以「政府職能改革」來保證「永久執政」為主旋律。而且，相較於江澤民、胡錦濤兩屆政府，似乎還更凸顯了「政治左的更左」。例如，「九號文件」的「七不講」，不可講普世價值，這算它是「西方的」吧；但《中華人民共和國憲法》應是有「中國特色」的，為何也要「反憲政」？再如，「兩個不能否定」，則不啻是對於一九八一年《關於建國以來黨的若干歷史問題的決議》之翻盤。這些「左」，均涉及幾個重大的思想問題：一、中國的治理，或「中國夢」，是否以中國共產黨「一黨專政及永久執政」為最高目標？二、高舉馬克思主義及毛澤東思想，是否即能構成中共永久執政的理由及條件？三、要多「左」，才能支撐這樣的理由及條件？四、這麼左與永遠的左，或許是中共的夢，但中國夢是什麼？

持平而論，就歷史經驗而言，世人皆不能否定「政左經右」的「專制紅利」；但「政左經右」應當是「先經後政」、「由易入難」的「改革方法論」，或「步驟論」，而不應是「只有經改／全無政治體制改革」，卻以「一黨專政／永久執政」為目標的「專政目的論」。中共欲以政治專制促進經濟發展，或許有其階段性的實際需要；但若欲以馬毛思想作為永久執政的理由及條件，即可能墜入愈陷愈深、愈綑愈死的錯謬。因此，在政治上，「去馬去毛→抬鄧→拉孫中山」，或許始是中共政治改革的正路；且不能走回頭路，而應當維持著蔣經國式的「分期付款式的民主」，漸漸由經入政、由易入難，這才是實現「中國夢」的路徑。

政左經右，打左燈、向右拐，終究將政經撕裂，左右撕裂。名不正，則言不順；言不順，則事不成。