JIANG ZEMIN’S THREE REPRESENTS: INCORPORATING NEO-CONSERVATISM INTO MARXISM-LENINISM
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
The article examines the Three Represents theory of the Communist Party of China as an important stage in the development of Sinified Marxism, analyzes the historical background of its formation, its practical goals and main provisions, theoretical connection with Marxism- Leninism, as well as the ideas of Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping theory. It is noted that the need to introduce a new theory was due to the necessity to overcome ideological and political fragmentation, which negatively affected the legitimacy of the central government. It is shown that the Three Represents does not rely on the revolutionary history of the CPC and ideological dogmas, but offers a response to new challenges. Furthermore, it was determined that the Three Represents as a whole was aimed at the all-around development of the socialist economy, politics, culture, and society with Chinese characteristics, and this, at its core, should correspond to the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of Chinese citizens. It is noted that such an ideological discourse is not characteristic of socialist construction, and this should be understood as a significant change in the orientation of the CPC – from the “vanguard of the working class” to the “nationwide party”. The process of incorporating neo-conservatism into Marxism-Leninism in the theory of the Three Represents is analyzed, which manifested itself in a pragmatic orientation towards economic growth, Chinese culture, promoting the interests of the majority of Chinese citizens and transforming the CPC into a means of social, economic and cultural progress. It is argued that in the PRC in this historical period, neo-authoritarianism was primarily a political discourse, which was adapted and used in the concept of the Three Represents. Then, the perception, discussion, and criticism of the Three Represents are analyzed separately in China itself as well as in the West. It is noted that Chinese scholars generally consider the Three Represents to be the latest achievement of Sinified Marxism, a product of historical materialism, and an answer to the practical questions of modernity. For Western scholars, the opinion is inherent that this theory is not an ideology as such, but is a compendium of insignificant slogans designed to perpetuate Jiang Zemin’s power. Most Western researchers believe that the Three Represents should be interpreted as the creation of a new party identity, its image in modern society, and the goals of the activity. It is concluded that in the Three Represents there was a rejection of utopian ideals and focus was made on the practical tasks of building socialism with Chinese characteristics.
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
ideology, Marxism-Leninism, CCP, ideas of Mao Zedong, Deng Xiaoping theory, Three Represents, neo-conservatism, neo-authoritarianism
Манхейм К. Избранное: диагноз нашего времени. Москва : Изд-во «РАО Говорящая книга», 2010. 744 с.
Brown K. The Communist Party of China and Ideology. China: An International Journal. 2012. Vol. 10. No. 2. P. 52–68.
Bruce J. Red Capitalist in China: The Party, Private Entrepreneurs, and Prospects for Political Change. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2003. x, 187 p.
De Bary Wm. Th., Tu Weiming (Eds.). Confucianism and Human Rights. New York : Columbia University Press, 1998. xxiii, 327 p.
Dickson B.J. Who Does the Party Represent? From “Three Revolutionary Classes” to “Three Represents”. American Asian Review. 2003b. Vol. 21. No.1. PP. 1–24.
Fewsmith J. China Since Tiananmen. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 2001. xvii, 313 p.
Kelly D. China: Major Ideological Trends of 1995. / In Cheng J.Y.S. (Ed.). China in the Post-Deng Era. Hong Kong : The Chinese University Press, 1998. PP. 55–79.
Lam Wo-lap W. The Era of Jiang Zemin. London, Singapore : Prentice Hall, 1999. xi, 452 p.
Misra K. Neo-Left and Neo-Right in Post-Tiananmen China. Asian Survey. 2003. Vol. 43. No. 5. PP. 717–744.
Oksenberg M. Will China Democratize? Confronting a Classic Dilemma. Journal of Democracy. 1998. Vol. 9. No. 1. Pp. 27–34.
Song Xianlin. Signs of the Times: The Discourse of “Three Represents” and Globalisation. East Asia. 2005. Vol. 22. No. 3. Pp. 25–40.
Woo-Cumings M. The “New-Authoritarianism” in East Asia. Current History. 1994. Vol. 93. No. 587. Pp. 413–416.
包心鉴。中国共产党人认识真理、改造世界的新成就——江泽民“七一” 讲话提出的十大创新问题。马克思主义研究。2002。第1期。页2–11。
江泽民。江泽民在庆祝建党八十周年大会上的讲话学习辅导，中央党史 出版社，2001a, available at: https://www.chinanews.com/2001-07-02/26/101847.html (accessed 11 January 2021).
江泽民。论三个代表。北京：中央文献出版社，2001b。258页。
江泽民。提出“以德治国”的理念。人民日报，2001c。available at: http://cpc.people.com.cn/GB/33837/2535095.html (accessed 27 December 2020).
江泽民。全面建设小康社会,开创中国特色社会主义事业新局面——在中
国共产党第十六次全国代表大会上的报告 (2002年11月8日), 2002a。, available at: http://old.moe.gov.cn/publicfiles/business/htmlfiles/moe/moe_44/200412/5009.html (accessed 2 January 2021).
江泽民。江泽民“5.31”重要讲话学习读本。中共中央党校出版社, 2002b, available at: http://www.cctv.com/special/777/1/51955.html (accessed 13 January 2021).
江泽民。江泽民文选, 第 1 卷。北京：人民出版社 , 2006。660页。
侯惠勤。试论把握“三个代表”思想的方法论原则。马克思主义研究。2001。 第6期。页11–17。
李崇富。“三个代表”的重要思想与历史唯物主义。马克思主义研究。2001。 第4期。页2–9。
李铁映。马克思主义中国化的最新成果——学习江泽民同志“七·一”讲 话和“三个代表”重要思想。马克思主义研究。2002。第3期。 页2–11。
政哲。“三个代表”思想是与时俱进的马克思主义——兼论“三个代表” 思想的科学内涵与时代特征。马克思主义研究。2002。第2期。页2–7。