The “Three Masters of the Chinese Renaissance” — Li Zhi, Huang Zongxi, Wang Fuzhi
In today’s Chinese bourgeois academic circles, whenever modern democratic ideas are mentioned, they mostly refer to Western Europe, primarily Italy’s Renaissance, often revolving around names like Dante, Leonardo da Vinci, and others. But what about China? To be straightforward, the common view is to label the Ming and Qing dynasties as “ignorant” and “backward,” claiming that China only began to “learn from advanced Western civilization” when Western invasion occurred in modern times; meanwhile, some pretentious experts even bring out the centuries-old Confucian doctrines of Cheng and Zhu, claiming these are as advanced as the Renaissance in China, and shamelessly bestow on Confucian and Mencian teachings the noble titles of “democracy,” “equality,” and “socialism.” So, does China really have modern democratic ideas? The answer is yes, but certainly not from Confucian or Zhu Xi’s Neo-Confucianism, nor from Wang Yangming’s mind philosophy.
In the late Ming Dynasty, wage labor exploitation began to appear in handicraft production, and the landlord-bourgeoisie started developing capitalist management, alongside the emergence of a bourgeois class. Simultaneously, the seeds of capitalism sprouted in China. The bourgeoisie and the landlord class, which began to develop capitalist management alongside the bourgeoisie, their thoughts also evolved toward modern bourgeois democratic ideas. These ideas were the simple legalist materialist philosophy of the time, which is precisely the modern democratic thought in China. This modern democratic thought, like Western European bourgeois democracy, directly targets the idealist theology that defends feudal rule—namely, Chinese Confucian philosophy. It advocates a bourgeois “humanism,” replacing the landlord class’s human nature theory with bourgeois humanism, substituting legalist utilitarianism for Confucian asceticism of “preserving heaven’s principles and extinguishing human desires,” reflecting materialist theory instead of idealist a priori theory, and even, within certain limits and degrees, proposing the implementation of internal democratic governance within the ruling class to oppose the increasingly decadent Chinese feudal autocracy. The representatives of this modern democratic thought include Li Zhi at the end of the Ming Dynasty, and Huang Zongxi and Wang Fuzhi during the transition from Ming to Qing.
(1) Li Zhi — The Great Opponent of Millennium-Old Confucian Rule
Li Zhi was born during the Jiajing era of the Ming Dynasty. After Emperor Jiajing Zhu Houcong ascended the throne in 1522, the Ming Dynasty entered its late stage. During this period, China’s feudal autocratic rule became increasingly rotten, with large landowner estates expanding, land annexation rampant, and by the Chongzhen era, “eleven landowners in the south, nineteen tenant farmers.” Feudal landlords carried out brutal exploitation of peasants, imposing heavy taxes and additional levies, even setting up “public courts” and torturing tenants—doing all kinds of evil, leaving peasants with no way to survive. Meanwhile, from the mid-Ming period, starting with Ye Zongliu and Deng Maoqi and lasting until the uprisings of Liu Liu and Liu Qi, large-scale peasant uprisings struck a heavy blow to the corrupt rule of the landlord class, somewhat loosening the economic grip of large landowner estates, creating conditions for the later implementation of Legalist policies. A group of Legalist landlords led by Zhang Juzheng came to power, initiating reforms across political, economic, and military systems. However, due to the extreme decay and decline of Ming feudal rule, Zhang Juzheng’s reforms lasted only ten years before being reversed. The struggle between Confucian and Legalist lines was particularly fierce and brutal. Nevertheless, under the influence of peasant uprisings and subsequent reforms, the early capitalist seeds in the late Ming gradually developed; small commodity producers differentiated, commercial capital began to evolve into industrial capital, and some scale of hired labor appeared. As a result, a burgeoning bourgeois and proletariat class emerged, along with the resistance of the bourgeois class against the feudal autocracy, leading to waves of bourgeois uprisings. Li Zhi lived in such an era, deeply influenced by peasant uprisings, bourgeois struggles, and Legalist reforms. Having experienced the darkness of late Ming society, he resolutely embarked on a path of legalism and anti-Confucianism, proposing a materialist doctrine with modern democratic ideas.
Li Zhi’s fundamental worldview was naive materialism. Although he did not systematically elaborate on ontology, he firmly opposed the Neo-Confucian view that “li (spirit)” is the origin of the world. In his “Burning Books,” he wrote a treatise on husband and wife, using the reproductive process as a metaphor, concluding that heaven and earth and all things are born from the “yin-yang dual energy,” believing the world was created by the material “yin-yang dual energy,” and opposed the Neo-Confucian idea that “li (spirit) can produce two, li can produce qi, and the Tai Chi can generate the Two Forms,” emphasizing that “all things under heaven are born from two, not from one.”
In Li Zhi’s philosophy, the most prominent features are his anti-feudal democratic ideas and his daring rejection of China’s thousands-year-old Confucian rule, advocating for the rule of law and anti-Confucianism.
Li Zhi’s democratic ideas are based on bourgeois human nature theory. He emphasized desire and greed, believing that humans cannot be without desire, asserting “people must have private interests.” He gave examples from social life, saying farmers work for harvest, exam takers for success, and everyone acts for their own selfish desires. Regarding interpersonal relationships, he also explained on egoistic grounds, likening it to business dealings, saying it is “all about market transactions.” He believed that pursuing private desires and material enjoyment is human nature, “innate to human beings.” Therefore, “even sages cannot be without self-interest,” and the idea that sages avoid wealth and honor is just falsehood. From the bourgeois human nature perspective, Li Zhi exposed the hypocrisy of Neo-Confucian moral pretensions of “preserving heaven’s principles and extinguishing human desires.” He rejected Confucian asceticism and also denied the landlord class’s human nature theory, dismantling the idealist precondition that “heaven’s principles” (i.e., feudal social ethics) are the fundamental pursuit of knowledge. Since everyone is selfish, the notion that people lose “heaven’s principles” due to excessive material desires is meaningless, and there is no need for “preserving heaven’s principles and extinguishing human desires.” For personal greed, believing in “three bonds and five virtues” is unnecessary. Starting from material life and material enjoyment, Li Zhi offered a completely opposite interpretation of the Confucian concept of “li.” He straightforwardly pointed out, “Clothing and eating are human relations and physical needs,” and without clothing and food, there is no “li.” Of course, the clothing and food he refers to are not super-class universal needs but represent the urban bourgeoisie’s lifestyle, not the peasantry’s. Yet, Li Zhi’s view directly challenged the Neo-Confucian doctrine of “preserving heaven’s principles and extinguishing human desires,” which had significant progressive anti-feudal implications under the historical conditions of his time.
Li Zhi, with fearless anti-current spirit, directly targeted Confucius, the patriarch of Confucianism. Since the Han Dynasty’s White Tiger Temple conference, Confucian philosophy officially developed into a religious direction. After the collapse of feudal land nationalization in the mid-Tang, Chinese feudal society declined, and the foundation for the Legalist landlord class weakened, with political power diminishing, making it difficult to sustain Legalist policies; in contrast, Confucianism, with the expansion of large landowner estates, became increasingly dominant. After the Song Dynasty, Confucianism in the form of Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism appeared more reactionary, used by the landlord class to persecute the peasantry and progressive Legalist landlords. For a time, the title of Confucius was increasingly exalted, almost on par with the Western God—Yahweh; Confucius’s words were regarded as absolute truth, and anyone daring to oppose them faced severe punishment. After the Song, the Legalist landlord class generally opposed Confucianism by criticizing Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism, but few dared to expose Confucius’s “wise image.” However, in the oppressive, highly autocratic Ming Dynasty, Li Zhi managed to do so.
Li Zhi launched a comprehensive critique of Confucius and his reactionary followers, based on Legalist utilitarianism and bourgeois human nature theory. He disbelieved the flattery of Confucius’s “three thousand disciples” and “teaching without discrimination,” exposing that Confucius “had no real scholarship to teach his students” and that he “did not understand true learning or education.” He also revealed that Confucius’s “sage” image was a façade, stating: “Even Confucius was a common man.” If even the sage had selfish desires, then Confucius, the great sage of Confucianism, was just a hypocrite full of仁义道德 (benevolence, righteousness, propriety, and wisdom), actually a petty thief and prostitute. Regarding the concept of truth, Li Zhi opposed using Confucius’s judgments as standards of right and wrong. The reactionary exploiters throughout history have always used Confucius’s words to maintain their rule and control people’s thoughts; Confucian classics like the Analects were cloaked in religious mystery, regarded as sacred texts akin to the Bible, with every word and phrase praised as the law of world development. This is a religiousization of Confucian philosophy. Li Zhi angrily countered that since Confucius’s emergence, thousands of years have passed without true right and wrong, because people always judge by Confucius’s standards, which means there are no real right and wrong! As for the Confucian classics based on the teachings of Confucius and Mencius, Li Zhi dismissed them as “pseudo-learning” that merely parrots the official doctrine and pretends to be profound. At this point, Li Zhi’s anti-current ideas did not stop; he centered his critique on Confucius and thoroughly condemned the entire Confucian school, from Mencius and Dong Zhongshu to Zhu Xi. He denounced Neo-Confucianism as “pseudo-learning that harms the country,” and those Confucian followers who spout仁义道德 but exploit the people are “superficial scholars, hypocrites dressed in Confucian elegance, acting like dogs and pigs.” They “step one foot forward, then retreat, unable to go beyond Confucius,” like barking dogs in the dark.
In Chinese society under Confucian rule, Legalist thought, which emphasizes reform, utilitarianism, and advocates for historical evolution—completely opposed to Confucianism—has always been fiercely opposed by the ruling class. Throughout history, Legalist figures have been denounced as national destroyers and tyrants, with countless slanders and attacks. Li Zhi lamented, “Since ancient times, how many grievances and injustices, who can clear them?” He felt like fighting against millions of enemies, determined to “wash away the ancient slanders” of Legalism. He praised Qin Shi Huang as a “hero who overturned the world” and “a hero for all ages”; called Li Si a “talented and famous minister”; praised Wu Zetian as “ten times better than Gaozong, ten thousand times better than Zhongzong,” and even regarded Chen Sheng as “a commoner who initiated the rebellion,” unprecedented in history, completely overturning the standard of right and wrong under Confucian rule. His respect for Legalist ideas and opposition to Confucianism surpassed previous progressive thinkers, leaving a profound influence on the subsequent struggle between Confucianism and Legalism.
Yet, paradoxically, such an advanced thinker was deliberately erased by the ruling bourgeoisie. Official textbooks of the bourgeoisie almost never mention Li Zhi, or if they do, it is only vague and distorted slander. They label him as a “reactionary traditionalist,” only mentioning that he advocated “selfish human nature,” as if he were not a revolutionary anti-Confucian fighter with modern bourgeois democratic ideas, but a “true villain” opposed to “Chinese excellent traditional culture.” Here, the historical achievements of Li Zhi’s doctrines are completely ignored. Moreover, the bourgeoisie even fabricates rumors that Li Zhi inherited Wang Yangming’s mind philosophy, equating a progressive anti-Confucian fighter with a pedantic, reactionary Confucian. Why such concealment? In fact, it is because they fear Li Zhi’s anti-Confucian sharpness. His critique also directly targets the current dominant Confucianist regime!
The bourgeoisie, like all previous reactionary exploiters who revered Confucianism, regards Confucian thought as a guiding principle, venerates Confucius and his disciples as saints, and beautifies the Confucian way as “Chinese excellent traditional culture.” They shamelessly regard Confucianism as another ruling ideology besides revisionism, claiming to “combine the basic principles of (revisionist) theory with China’s specific realities and with Chinese excellent traditional culture (Confucianism—author’s note)” (from the “Decision” issued at the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee in November 2021). As for Legalism, which is difficult to openly slander, they simply erase its existence; those they can openly slander are heavily blackened and distorted. This is what they call “Spring and Autumn brushwork”—a euphemism for historical distortion. Using this method, the bourgeoisie reverses the positive achievements of Legalism, erases its history, and extensively promotes Confucian teachings, bringing Confucian classics onto the podium to poison the Chinese people. In official textbooks, Shang Yang, Han Fei, and Xun Kuang are barely mentioned; Guan Zhong, Wang Chong, and Fan Zhen are completely omitted. For outstanding Legalist thinkers and statesmen like Qin Shi Huang, they hate them with teeth clenched. Even now, the slander that Qin Shi Huang “burned books and buried Confucians,” destroying many precious pre-Qin texts, still appears in official textbooks! Moreover, the slander against Qin Shi Huang is a continuation of the historical slander by reactionary exploiters. Official textbooks have a special section describing Qin’s tyranny, such as:
“After unification, Qin Shi Huang was extravagant, built palaces and tombs, spent huge sums seeking immortality and elixirs. He led grand tours and sacrifices, conscripting heavy labor, causing suffering among the people. Qin’s laws were harsh, society was tightly controlled, and social contradictions intensified.”
Doesn’t this blatantly expose the face of the number one Confucian guardian, the bourgeois regime, as hating Legalists? They hold a different attitude toward Confucianism—completely opposite. Xi Jinping, the leader of the bourgeois regime, has attended Confucius’s birthday multiple times, shamelessly praising Confucian thought as “having profoundly influenced Chinese civilization and being an important part of Chinese traditional culture.” Since the bourgeois regime explicitly proposed to combine revisionism with Confucianism, the four books and five classics have increasingly appeared in textbooks, from the Analects and Mencius to the Great Learning and Doctrine of the Mean, almost without exception. Confucian poetry and essays by Su Shi, Han Yu, and others fill the pages, turning textbooks into Confucian scriptures. In social life, the regime vigorously promotes “National Studies,” spreading “benevolence,” “filial piety,” “respect for teachers,” “integrity,” and other Confucian virtues everywhere, even aiming to promote them globally—imitating the colonialist imperialist America’s establishment of Tsinghua University and building “Confucius Institutes” worldwide for cultural colonization. Such evil deeds of poisoning the nation and harming the world demonstrate that the bourgeois regime’s use of Confucianism to do evil surpasses that of previous exploiters!
However, the more they try to erase, the more they highlight Li Zhi’s anti-Confucian spirit. The greater the historical significance of his progressive ideas, the clearer it becomes that: “Confucius, who teaches no arts,” is not a great educator of “discrimination according to talent” or “teaching without discrimination”; the so-called Confucian representatives like Mencius, Dong Zhongshu, Zhu Xi, and others are all worthless. In the past, Li Zhi dared to oppose Confucianism under the extreme autocratic rule of the Ming Dynasty; today, we must also oppose the imperialist regime’s Confucianism, rebuild the revolutionary spirit of criticizing Lin Biao and Confucius, and criticize legalism and Confucianism. Moreover, we must not only restore the historical contributions of progressive Legalist thinkers who have been erased and slandered but also defend the true proletarian revolutionaries who are still being vilified by the bourgeoisie—“wash away the ancient slanders.” We must directly attack Confucianism and overthrow the entire capitalist order that Confucianism and revisionism jointly uphold!
(2) Huang Zongxi — Viewing the Emperor as a “Despot,” "Hiding the World within the World"Huang Zongxi’s philosophical thought is fundamentally materialist. Although influenced by Wang Yangming’s mind philosophy, he did not follow its subjective idealism. Concerning the relationship between matter and spirit, Huang Zongxi proposed the proposition “Without Qi, there is no principle,” indicating that without matter, there is no spirit, and “Principle roots in Qi, cannot exist independently.” Therefore, Huang Zongxi concluded that the origin of the world is essentially “nothing but one Qi” throughout history. Based on the primacy of matter, Huang Zongxi believed that the principle is “the inherent order of Qi,” and that matter has its own laws of motion. Furthermore, he believed that “matter is inexhaustible,” leading to the conclusion that material motion is eternal. These are all vivid expressions of materialist viewpoints.
Huang Zongxi also deeply hated those Confucian scholars and Confucianists who engaged in empty talk about benevolence and righteousness, and who maintained a hypocritical appearance. He denounced Confucians as “deceivers of the world,” pointing out that “establishing功业 (merit and achievements) and building foundations are separate法门 (methods), not something Confucians are involved in.” However, Huang Zongxi’s most prominent doctrine is his fearless negation of the core feudal ruling system—the monarchic despotism—and his political thought of pursuing a “world law” that represents internal democracy within the ruling class.
Living at the transition from Ming to Qing, Huang Zongxi’s political and philosophical ideas emerged in such a “collapse of heaven and earth” era. During the late Ming Chongzhen years, the large landowning class heavily exploited peasants; at the same time, to plunder more wealth from the people and suppress the budding capitalism, the large landowners dispatched various tax officials to oppress miners, tenant farmers, and small urban bourgeoisie. Under such brutal exploitation and oppression, peasant uprisings erupted from 1627 onwards, ultimately converging into a nationwide peasant rebellion led by Li Zicheng and Zhang Xianzhong. The peasant armies established their own revolutionary regime, and in 1644, Li Zicheng’s Dashun army buried the Ming Dynasty, dealing a heavy blow to feudal rule. However, afterward, Han landowners like Wu Sangui colluded with Manchu aristocrats and slave owners, opening the borders at Shanhai Pass, jointly suppressing the late Ming peasant uprisings. Meanwhile, after the fall of the Ming, remnants of the large landowning class established the Southern Ming regime in the south, but due to its decay, it fell one after another during the Qing army’s southward invasion. Huang Zongxi personally experienced all this; in his youth, he participated in struggles against the most腐朽 (decayed) forces within the ruling class—the eunuchs; after the Ming’s fall, he also participated in anti-Qing struggles led by Xiong Yuxuan. He saw that the once “supreme” Emperor Chongzhen was frightened into hanging himself by peasant uprisings; several short-lived Southern Ming regimes could not withstand the Qing invasion and collapsed one after another; feudal monarchs were incompetent and foolish, and farmers and common people raised anti-Qing banners… The feudal等级秩序 (hierarchical order) of Confucian“三纲五常” (Three Bonds and Five Constants) became increasingly untenable in his mind. To some extent, he recognized these struggles, realizing that feudal imperial power was not an unquestionable existence; on the contrary, the fall of the state was rooted in the corruption of imperial authority. Thus, Huang Zongxi, in summarizing the lessons of the Ming’s fall and opposing idealist Neo-Confucianism, ultimately concluded that monarchic despotism must be opposed.
Huang Zongxi exposed the brutal and tyrannical crimes of the social monarchs at that time to deny the legitimacy of monarchic despotism. He profoundly pointed out that monarchic despotism has long been “the great harm to the world.” Before gaining power, monarchs, under the banner of “establishing功业 (merit and achievements) for descendants,” cruelly persecuted the common people everywhere, “slaughtering the liver and brains of the world, scattering the children and women,” only to seize “the wealth of one person”; after gaining power, they further “exploited the bones and marrow of the world, scattering the children and women to indulge their own淫乐 (pleasure),” shamelessly believing that all this was the interest generated by their personal foundation! Huang Zongxi’s revelations and criticisms not only deny the legitimacy of the highest feudal rulers—the monarchs themselves—but also deny the monarchy system propagated by Confucianism. Throughout history, exploiting classes have always tried to whitewash reactionary monarchs, most classically portraying feudal kings as engaging in dog-eat-dog struggles, brutal suppression, and plunder of laboring people to seize supreme rule, beautifying these facts as the result of personal virtue and ability, especially glorified by Confucianism as upholding “benevolence” and “righteousness,” implementing benevolent governance. But in reality, as Huang Zongxi pointed out, these reactionary monarchs all seized power on the blood and tears of the people.
Therefore, Huang Zongxi believed that since monarchic rule is merely for “one person’s淫乐 (pleasure)” and does not “consider the ten thousand peoples of the world,” ministers need not “kill people to serve the monarch,” which is a bold contempt for the core Confucian moral principle of “君臣” (ruler and minister). Huang Zongxi pointed out that if the monarch does not concern itself with the worries and happiness of the people, then its survival or demise is only about itself—“the rise and fall of one surname.” In this way, Huang Zongxi opposed the people and the feudal monarchs, from the perspective of the bourgeoisie represented by the urban middle class, and grasped a major contradiction in feudal society: the contradiction between the feudal ruling group and the common people. Since Confucius, successive generations of Confucianists have elevated the king to an extremely terrifying height, repeatedly reciting the doctrine of “君臣” (ruler and minister), which in fact promotes the奴才 (slave) philosophy that “the ruler may not be仁 (benevolent), but the minister must be忠 (loyal),” demanding unconditional obedience to despotic monarchs; Confucianists even used various feudal superstitions and divination theology to portray the monarch as a representative of Heaven, thus intimidating laboring people and forcing them to submit to monarchic rule. But Huang Zongxi completely despised the “supreme” status of the monarch, pulling the monarch down from the “Son of Heaven” who rules the mortal realm on behalf of Heaven, and denounced that they only seek profit for “one surname” and “one person,” being “robbers” and “tyrants”! This was a severe blow to Confucian ideology.
Huang Zongxi also pointed out that feudal autocracy had “three harms” in economy, especially in taxation: the first harm is the “accumulation of irretrievable burdens.” He believed that every tax reform in feudal society ultimately increased the tax burden on the people. His misunderstanding of the internal struggle between Confucian and Legalist lines in feudal society, naturally, led to misunderstanding the different differences under the same policies implemented under two different ideological lines. He thought that since the implementation of the single whip law in late Ming, with additional whips and levies, “the people’s ability to survive was also limited,” and fewer and fewer could live. However, the phenomenon Huang Zongxi exposed reflected the inevitable decline of feudal society. Due to increasingly serious land annexation and the swelling of large landowning forces, the Legalist policies promoted by some middle and small landlords became harder to sustain and increasingly powerless. Therefore, especially in the late period of Chinese feudal society, tax reforms were not very effective; even when they showed some results, they were soon counterattacked and reversed by the Confucian landlord class, used as tools for increased taxation. The “two-tax” law and the single whip law were all like this. Thus, Huang Zongxi believed that to thoroughly reform taxation, one must return to the period before accumulation; land must be evenly distributed to farmers, with a one-tenth land tax (for landless farmers, one-twentieth). The second harm is “taxes not based on produce,” meaning taxes on farmers’ crops that do not correspond to their actual production. This was Huang Zongxi’s critique of feudal merchants’ exploitation of farmers during the process of exchanging produce for silver. He believed that due to the silver shortage in the Ming, and farmers paying taxes with grain and cloth converted into silver, even in good years, the taxes were insufficient for tribute, pushing farmers into “famine every year.” The third harm is “land without grades,” meaning the exploitation class’s insatiable greed, taxing land regardless of quality, even barren land being taxed, causing great suffering to poor farmers. In response, Huang Zongxi advocated re-measuring land based on fertility, using land fertility rather than tax amount to assess land quality, to eliminate inequality.
Based on opposition to land annexation, opposition to high cumulative taxes, and opposition to middleman exploitation by feudal merchants, Huang Zongxi proposed in politics to replace “family law” with “world law,” demanding that the rule of law “cover the whole world,” even if all wealth belonged to the people, the law should be based on “the law of the world.” Huang Zongxi’s legal thought is similar to the bourgeois revolutionary philosophy advocating natural rational laws to change society, as seen in Western European Enlightenment movements. He believed that law was originally a set of rules made by people to safeguard common interests, so that everyone would abide by them—this is “the law of the world”; but later, the ruler usurped the law, creating laws to protect personal interests, with no “heart for the world.” Huang Zongxi believed that with公法 (public law), the world could belong to the people, achieving political and economic equality—“nobles are not in the court, and the humble are not in the countryside.” Even if laws are not strict, chaos will not arise; people will jointly uphold公共利益 (public interests), and laws can be created even without formal laws. This is “the law of the void.” If laws are private and all are pocketed by the monarch, then politics and economy become extremely unbalanced. The monarch seeks personal gain, so he must prevent others from doing the same, layering obstacles, causing everyone to be in danger. In such cases, stricter laws lead to more chaos, and laws will be broken even if they exist—called “illegal laws.” This understanding of law differs from all previous landlord class and even Legalist legalist views. It contains a vague bourgeois democratic thought. Huang Zongxi neither advocates that the monarch rules the country through “law” nor that Confucianists govern the world with “benevolence and virtue.” He believed that the nature of law depends on whether it serves the “world” or the “family”; different natures of law lead to different social, political, and economic landscapes, thus determining whether law can function properly. Therefore, he did not believe that human rule could surpass rule of law, even if capable rulers face “illegal laws,” they are helpless. This was a strong rebuttal to Confucian advocates of “benevolent governance.”
In the late Ming, when espionage was rampant and wrongful convictions widespread, there were still progressive thinkers like Huang Zongxi who dared to oppose monarchic despotism. However, today’s self-proclaimed “freedom, equality, justice, rule of law” government in China is extremely hypocritical in glorifying and elevating revisionist leaders like Xi Jinping’s “emperor-style” fascist dictatorship! The Zhongxiu (Chinese revisionist) regime, like many famous Legalist representatives in history, directly erases the core of Huang Zongxi’s thought. They can speak extensively about Cheng-Zhu Neo-Confucianism and Wang Yangming, but they do not promote Huang Zongxi’s anti-monarchic thought. Because what the Zhongxiu regime actually does is precisely what Huang Zongxi’s democratic ideas oppose. Huang Zongxi opposes monarchs, but the Zhongxiu regime tries every means to establish a “monarch,” centralize bureaucratic and bourgeois power, brutally suppress protests, and compete more fiercely with American imperialism for world hegemony—an “autocrat and traitor” regime. The current “monarch” sitting on this throne is Xi Jinping—the Xi Jinping revisionist group.
Xi Jinping’s rule in China is a Hitler-style dictatorship, a fascist regime. The reactionary revisionist leader Xi Jinping inherits the mantle of his predecessor Chiang Kai-shek, the “autocrat and traitor.” After years of internal factional struggles resembling “dog-eat-dog” battles, since the 2018 constitutional amendments, he has become China’s de facto lifelong dictator, akin to Hitler and Mussolini. Yet, this cunning “autocrat” still wears a red disguise, mobilizes state propaganda, uses official media, and dispatches “royalist” and “pink” (pro-government) forces to craft an image of brilliance. Shamelessly, he attempts to align his image with the revolutionary mentors of the Chinese proletariat and the great leader Mao Zedong, but it’s merely a replay of the tragic plays of his revisionist predecessors Khrushchev, Brezhnev, Lin Biao, and Hua Guofeng! Since Xi Jinping took power in 2012, he has tirelessly promoted his status in politics and law, embedding his “thought” into official documents of the Zhongxiu Party. In 2016, the Politburo proposed and officially adopted the phrase “with Comrade Xi Jinping at the core of the Party Central Committee,” directly equating the Zhongxiu Party with Xi Jinping and vice versa. Then, in 2017, the Zhongxiu Party included Xi Jinping’s “Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era”—fabricated by his loyalists—in the Party constitution, and in 2018, it was even written into the Constitution. Since then, all aspects of politics, law, and society within and outside the Party have been centered on “Xi Jinping” as the surname. The 2018 “Constitutional Amendment” abolished the term limits for the presidency. Later, in 2022, Xi Jinping was re-elected at the 20th National Congress of the Zhongxiu Party, becoming the new emperor of this oppressed people’s prison. In ideological terms, the Zhongxiu regime’s praise for Xi Jinping is even more nauseating and shameless. Initially, Xi Jinping sought to portray himself as a “people’s emperor,” visiting the grassroots, showing concern for the people, and using propaganda to create songs like “Baozi Shop” and “Xi Dada Falls in Love with Peng Mama.” Since 2017, he has also promoted stories about Lin Biao and cultivated a cult of “loyalty” and “worship.” Slogans like “People’s Leader,” “Supreme Commander,” and “Chief Designer” fill the streets, banners, and even appear in the military with slogans like “Three Everything” and “Three Never-Changes.” Xi Jinping’s self-packaging is just like the Confucian glorification and packaging of monarchs in the past—nothing more than the “ruler and subject” and “father and son” model. Here, the “Son of Heaven” representing Heaven’s rule over the people turns into the “People’s Leader” representing the entire nation; the “loyalty” to the ruler remains, and the previous flattery of monarchs is now expressed as “gratitude to Xi Jinping.” However, no matter how much these flattery spread, the Xi Jinping revisionist group cannot hide the fact that they treat China’s wealth as “their one person’s property” for their own淫乐 (pleasure). This is fully visible to the broad masses of people in today’s society, where contradictions are extremely sharp. As a result, this “traitor” Xi Jinping mobilizes vast violent forces to maintain his “great image,” thus safeguarding the reactionary rule of the Zhongxiu regime. On the streets, in lecture halls, and on major platforms, anyone openly opposing Xi Jinping faces warnings, investigations, arrests, and is accused of “inciting to subvert state power,” being imprisoned, sent to concentration camps, or “psychiatric hospitals.” Moreover, to establish a dictatorship image, the Zhongxiu regime’s agents plaster Xi Jinping’s ugly face everywhere, even forcing minorities in ethnic regions to convert religions to “Xi” worship, replacing superstitions with images of Xi. It must be said that in defending the rule of the exploiting class, these two images are identical!
Any autocrat is necessarily a traitor to the people, an enemy of the masses. Chairman Mao pointed out: “The people, only the people, are the driving force behind the creation of world history.” Those who dare to oppose the people will ultimately be opposed and isolated by the people, and eventually overthrown—this is an inevitable law of history. Xi Jinping has portrayed himself as the representative of the entire nation, but in fact, he is just an “autocrat who consolidates all benefits for himself and all harms onto others,” a dictator who is “the greatest harm to the world.” Therefore, the survival or demise of the Xi Jinping group is not the survival or demise of the entire nation, but only the survival or demise of his surname—his inevitable end under the resistance of the broad masses. It must be understood that Xi Jinping can come and go, but the Chinese people will always exist. The more Xi Jinping strengthens his dictatorship, the more he faces opposition and isolation from the people, and the more his rule teeters on the brink of collapse. “Numerous facts prove that those who follow the righteous path are supported, and those who stray are few.” As the creators of Chinese history’s great power, the Chinese people will rise up to overthrow Xi Jinping’s dictatorship, and he, this autocrat and traitor, will meet the same fate as his predecessors Chiang Kai-shek and Yuan Shikai—forever nailed to the shameful pillar of history!Wang Fuzhi is the epitome of ancient Chinese naive materialism. His philosophical thought was formed through the struggle against Confucian philosophy such as the teachings of Confucius and Mencius, Cheng Zhu’s Neo-Confucianism, and the critique and summary of previous materialist ideas. Like Huang Zongxi, Wang Fuzhi lived during the late Ming and early Qing periods, a time of “heaven collapsing and earth splitting.” Therefore, at a critical point in history, influenced by numerous events such as peasant uprisings, bourgeois riots, dynastic changes, and the invasion of the Qing army, he saw through the deceitful tricks of Cheng Zhu’s Neo-Confucianism and resolutely stood on the side of Legalist landlords to systematically criticize the long-standing poison of Confucian idealism. Thus, Wang Fuzhi’s attitude towards supporting or opposing, criticizing or absorbing various ideas is very clear. He criticized Lao Tzu’s idealist philosophy of “creating something from nothing,” absorbed Zhang Zai’s ontological materialism of vital energy, and regarded Zhang Zai’s school as “orthodox,” while denouncing Confucianism as “heresy.” This reflects the party principles of Wang Fuzhi’s philosophy.
Therefore, the reason he is called a “great integrator” is that, after critiquing and summarizing the previous materialist philosophies, he systematically and comprehensively explained the relationships among categories such as principle and vital energy, Dao and instrument, existence and non-existence, static and dynamic, knowledge and action, all from a naive materialist standpoint, delivering a devastating blow to Confucian rationalism in philosophy. Of course, even so, the so-called “Zhongxiu” (the contemporary revisionist school) has always chosen to remain silent about what ancient Chinese materialist philosophy truly entails. Up to now, society seems to have formed a mistaken common sense, believing that Chinese ancient philosophical thought has no distinction between materialism and idealism, and that it is all about talking about “benevolence and righteousness,” “rites and morality,” “the Way,” and “heavenly principles.” These abstract “benevolence,” “Dao,” and so on, are packaged as aspirations and pursuits for a better society and standards for moral character. But what is the actual fact? Behind the ornate words of Confucianism, what kind of philosophical views are really expressed? Wang Fuzhi attempted to systematically answer this question.
Any philosophical viewpoint, based on the fundamental questions of philosophy, can be divided into ontology, epistemology, and developmental view. Wang Fuzhi, although not knowing this classification explicitly, presented a very intuitive overview of the three parts of his philosophy through his organization and definition of a series of basic categories in ancient Chinese philosophy that were often debated.
In ancient China, the issue of the relationship between principle (li) and vital energy (qi), or Dao and instrument, is essentially an ontological question—whether matter or spirit is the origin of the world. On this issue, Confucian followers have always liked to talk nonsense. The Neo-Confucianism of Cheng Zhu, which was regarded as the official philosophy of the large landlord class after the Song Dynasty, openly claimed that “li is born from qi,” saying that “before heaven and earth, it is ultimately just li; with this li, heaven and earth come into being.” “Li” represents spirit, and “qi” represents matter. The theory of Neo-Confucianism is that spirit creates matter. Based on this, Neo-Confucianism believes that humans are spiritual creations, and human nature is created by “li.” In summary, matter is created by spirit, and all things are spiritual creations of spirit, including human nature. Neo-Confucianism plays with this logic, often for political purposes. Zhu Xi declared: “Li is for benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and faith.” In fact, the reason Confucians elevate the status of spirit is to elevate the status of feudal moral codes and rituals, to promote the “Three Bonds and Five Constants” theory, and to spread the falsehood that “the ruler and subject, father and son, and husband and wife relationships” existed before the existence of the ruler and subject, father and son, thus deceiving laboring people into believing that these relationships are inviolable.
Wang Fuzhi resolutely does not believe in this nonsense. What is li? Wang Fuzhi pointed out that li is the order of qi, “li is the principle of qi.” There is no spiritual entity in the world that exists independently of matter or matter’s movement. And what is qi? Wang Fuzhi straightforwardly asserted: “All emptiness is qi.” Even emptiness is matter. This fully affirms the materialist view that the world is unified in matter, delivering a fatal blow to dualism that claims matter and emptiness do not interfere with each other. Wang Fuzhi states that seeing nothing does not prove the absence of color; hearing nothing does not prove the absence of sound. Regardless of whether it can be sensed, matter objectively exists. Moreover, he also admits the principle that matter is eternal and indestructible. Using examples like burning wood, boiling water, and mercury encountering fire, Wang Fuzhi pointed out that matter, no matter how it changes, will not disappear but only transform into other forms. This view of matter’s indestructibility powerfully undermines the Confucian denial of matter’s existence or the propagation of the fallacy that matter is limited.
Regarding the relationship between Dao and instrument, Wang Fuzhi not only gives a correct definition but also clarifies new insights. Previously, Neo-Confucianism always talked about the metaphysical Dao and the tangible instrument, claiming that there exists an intangible Dao beyond tangible things—objective spirit. Wang Fuzhi pointed out, “All within heaven and earth are instruments,” and “based on instruments, Dao exists; separated from instruments, Dao is destroyed.” Instruments refer to specific material forms; Dao refers to the laws governing specific matter. Therefore, without specific material forms, there would be no laws of matter. Since instruments determine Dao, there is no formless Dao, no laws beyond matter. This is called “Dao does not arise虚虚, so all Dao are real.” Wang Fuzhi’s materialist view of the relationship between Dao and instrument directly opposes Neo-Confucian idealism. He boldly declared that without bows and arrows, there is no reason for shooting; without chariots and horses, there is no reason for movement; similarly, “without son, there is no fatherly Dao; without younger brother, there is no elder brother Dao.” This sharply contradicts the Neo-Confucian doctrine of the “Three Bonds and Five Constants,” and opposes Zhu Xi’s a priori ideas of ruler-subject and parent-child relationships.
Today, the so-called “Zhongxiu” (revisionist) school still manipulates Neo-Confucian idealist philosophy. Under the guise of “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics,” they superficially talk about “Historical Materialism” and “People’s History,” but regardless of how often these words are repeated, the underlying social science still echoes the old tune of “li is qi first,” and they never analyze problems from the principle that productive forces determine relations of production and the economic base determines the superstructure. This is the official pseudo-science of abstract materialism and specific idealism of Zhongxiu. The modern history officially revised by Zhongxiu is a case in point. We know that modern Chinese history is a history of the peasant and worker classes resisting feudal comprador government and imperialist powers—a glorious revolutionary history. However, Zhongxiu, adhering to imperialist hegemonism, slanders China’s modern history as a “humiliating history,” claiming that the “two great contradictions” are the main focus, but actually emphasizing “struggling for national independence, people’s liberation, and realizing national prosperity and people’s happiness.” “National independence and people’s liberation” are hollow; “national prosperity and people’s happiness” are the real focus Zhongxiu wants to talk about. But how did these tasks come about? It cannot be explained with any principle of historical materialism. Therefore, the pursuit of the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” seems to be an a priori goal—imposed on the “Chinese nation,” running through all of China’s modern history. Isn’t this “li”? First, there is a “li”—the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation—then modern history is born, and “countless patriots and martyrs” explore the path of revival. Lenin said, “The liberalism with rotten insides tries to revive under the opportunism of socialism.” Similarly, the rotten Confucian philosophy inside attempts to revive under the guise of “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.” Zhongxiu essentially mystifies reactionary slogans serving imperialist hegemony, packaging them as the national character, and imposes them on oppressed masses, demanding their obedience to this “li,” i.e., the new “Three Bonds and Five Constants.” Of course, the new “Three Bonds and Five Constants” are not limited to this one; but through the slogan of the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation,” it is not hard to see how Neo-Confucianism has revived in the society of Zhongxiu. Li is the principle of qi, Dao is the way of instrument, and the reactionary slogan of the “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation” is not an innate pursuit of the Chinese people but a product of the bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie for internal repression and external hegemonism. Without the bureaucratic monopoly bourgeoisie, there would be no “great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.” It is clear how Wang Fuzhi’s materialist philosophy directly opposes the official Zhongxiu viewpoint that defends Confucianism.
In Chinese ancient philosophy, epistemology mainly manifests through the relationship between knowledge and action. Generally speaking, materialism in epistemology advocates that matter recognizes matter; idealism advocates that spirit recognizes spirit. Confucian followers regard their set of the “Three Bonds and Five Constants” as the origin of the world, naturally concluding that understanding the world is understanding the “Three Bonds and Five Constants.” However, representative objective idealism of the Cheng Zhu school advocates “gewu zhizhi” (investigating things to know) and “jiwuwuli” (extending from things to principles). It believes that “li”—the “Three Bonds and Five Constants”—is the origin of all things, and the laws of all things are “li,” not their own objective laws. Thus, Neo-Confucianism promotes the idea that understanding things is understanding the “li” within things, effectively imposing the “Three Bonds and Five Constants” onto nature and human society; whereas subjective idealism represented by Wang Yangming’s school of mind advocates “zhi liangzhi” (attaining innate knowledge) and “zhixing heyi” (unity of knowledge and action). It believes that “the mind is li,” and that people inherently possess the “Three Bonds and Five Constants,” needing no external understanding or learning. It even claims that “attaining innate knowledge” means injecting the “li” in the mind into things, so that things can have “li.” It advocates “unity of knowledge and action,” not emphasizing practice, but claiming that “a single thought in motion is already action,” equating thinking with practice. But regardless, both schools of Confucian idealism resolutely oppose materialist reflection theory, viewing it as an enemy.
Wang Fuzhi’s materialist reflection theory is one of the enemies of Confucian idealist apriorism. Wang Fuzhi proposed many advanced views on knowledge and action, systematically elaborating on the opposition between practice and knowledge, subject and object. Compared to dialectical materialist epistemology, Wang Fuzhi generally did not understand that practice ultimately is the social practice of the masses, but only regarded it as personal life experience; he also did not clearly grasp the contradiction and unity between sensory knowledge and rational knowledge, or between matter transforming into spirit and spirit transforming into matter. However, in some specific viewpoints, Wang Fuzhi’s ideas on knowledge and action were very forward-looking.
First, Wang Fuzhi believed that the subject must conform to the object, and the knower must conform to the known, that is, “can compare and complement,” which strongly counters the “attain innate knowledge” doctrine of the school of mind. Second, Wang Fuzhi believed that in the relationship between knowledge and action, action is fundamental; to make the subject conform to the object, one must “strive to act.” Furthermore, he concluded that practice can gain knowledge, but knowledge cannot replace practice. He also emphasized that “knowledge leads to action,” meaning knowledge can guide practice. Third, Wang Fuzhi believed that action is the standard for testing knowledge. Just from these points, he already glimpsed the shadow of dialectical materialism, concluding that practice is the source and criterion of knowledge. Additionally, Wang Fuzhi vaguely recognized the role of rational knowledge. He advocated “shen” (mind/spirit), believing that thinking activities also play a role in generating knowledge, and that contact among form, spirit, and matter produces knowledge. Based on this, Wang Fuzhi opposed empty talk of introspective idealist apriorism, criticized the “unity of knowledge and action” of the school of mind, and pointed out that its core flaw is misunderstanding the effects of knowledge and practice, ultimately leading to “dissolving action and returning to knowledge,” which negates the role of practice. He also criticized the Neo-Confucian “knowledge precedes action” view, pointing out that this is merely a human-imposed order of knowledge that does not exist. In the process of criticizing Neo-Confucianism and the school of mind, he also realized that the common flaw of idealist epistemology is “separating action from knowledge.” This again reflects Wang Fuzhi’s clear understanding of the party nature of philosophy.
The so-called “Zhongxiu” school excessively praises the Neo-Confucian and school of mind epistemology of “investigating things to know” and “unity of knowledge and action,” and strives to beautify these rotten Confucian toxins as “serving socialism.” To revive these decayed Confucian poisons, Zhongxiu has indeed gone to great lengths. Currently, the official Chinese middle school Chinese textbook includes a speech titled “Should Have the Spirit of Investigating Things to Know.” This speech is a typical example of how Zhongxiu has taken Confucianism from the hands of feudal landlords and comprador bourgeoisie for its own use. In the speech, Ding Zhaozhong appears to criticize Song and Ming Confucianism’s “investigating things to know” as “not seeking new knowledge but adapting to a fixed social system,” and begins to promote a so-called “experimental spirit.” But if we peel off the superficial scientific veneer of this bourgeois scientist, we can see that the words and lines of “experimental spirit” are filled with “restoring Confucianism”! Not to mention, in this bourgeois professor’s mouth, science and technology, education system, and experimental spirit all become transcendental concepts. Looking only at the main logic of the speech, it is nothing more than a re-chewing of the logic of Song and Ming Neo-Confucianism. He superficially claims that “new knowledge can only be obtained through field experiments,” but then says that experiments require planning and goals, and these goals depend on “the judgment and inspiration of the experimenter,” even advocating that “successful experiments require insight, courage, and perseverance.” But where do these qualities and spirits come from? Superficially opposing “sage” figures, they actually want super-class scientists and experimenters to replace the old “sages” and become new sages, so that people worship those empirical ideas dressed in the guise of “experimental spirit.” Thus, the Neo-Confucian-style preaching provides a basis, and Ding Zhaozhong immediately begins to criticize the “brain” of Chinese students as inadequate, calling for them to abandon rote learning and cultivate experimental spirit, “maintaining a skeptical and seeking-truth attitude.” Marxism points out, “It is not human consciousness that determines human existence; on the contrary, human social existence determines human consciousness.” Thinkers like Ding Zhaozhong, who are positivists, never talk about social practice, class relations, or social relations. The reason Chinese students’ thoughts are rigid and their style of writing is rigid is not because they lack experimental spirit, but because the education system of Zhongxiu itself inevitably cultivates such students. Conversely, this new “sage” wants to use the “experimental spirit” of new Confucianism to demand that Chinese students introspect, as if simply having good intentions and dedication can gain insight, courage, and perseverance. In fact, it is just replacing old idealism with a more disguised form of idealism. The so-called “doubting and seeking truth” is nothing more than asking students to “make bold hypotheses and carefully verify,” using revisionist logic of imperialist hegemonism to produce results that conform to revisionist logic. It is nothing more than making students see workers oppressed and on strike, concluding “external forces and U.S. imperialist incitement”; seeing students with bleak prospects for employment, concluding they lack “insight, courage, and perseverance”; witnessing reactionary black police suppressing people, concluding “stability above all.” Underlying this set of ideas, isn’t it just Confucian idealism?