A Discussion with Professor Wu Jinglian on Comprehensively Deepening Reform, Based on Studying Xi Jinping’s Series of Speeches and Other Central Party Spirit

At

It should be noted: The reason for this, aside from the impossibility of directly consulting Mr. Wu, is more importantly due to Mr. Wu’s extraordinary influence on reform and opening up. This influence, as praised by Mr. Wu’s close friend in a speech at the “Launch Ceremony of the Collected Works of Wu Jinglian and the China Reform Symposium,” is that he is “a very important standard-bearer”; “an economics scholar who calls for constitutional government”; “the cause he promotes is indeed the core of China”; “the current reform, in plain terms, is to free China’s national capital from the devastation of bureaucratic capital”; “he has set an example not only in China’s market-oriented reform and opening up, but also in various reforms including the rule of law and constitutional government”; up to “March 2012’s ‘strengthening top-level design to further advance reform,’ over 32 years, consistently adhering to one set of ideas, one proposition, and unswervingly advancing it, which is worthy of study by everyone.” [ii] That is, for over 30 years, consistently “guided by Western theories” in researching reform and opening up, it proves that Mr. Wu is indeed China’s neoliberal “standard-bearer.” [iii]

I. Can Neoliberalism Be Taken as the Guideline for Comprehensively Deepening Reform?

The day after the Decision of the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the CPC was passed, the *Investment Times* published Ma Guochuan’s vivid portrayal of Mr. Wu taking neoliberalism as the guideline for reform and opening up: Guided by the views of the neoliberal representative Friedman during his visit to China in 1988, over 30 years ago, and those of John McMillan, he argued that “free competition is the soul of the market system,” advocating that the goal of comprehensively deepening reform is to establish a completely free market economy without macroeconomic regulation, along with a “limited government” and an “effective government.” [iv] The discussion of this view will be taken up later; here, the first issue to discuss is the guiding ideology of reform. Everyone, comparing the central Party spirit that comprehensively deepening reform must be guided by Marxism (this article broadly refers to Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, and the theoretical system of socialism with Chinese characteristics), especially wants to ask Mr. Wu: Why take neoliberalism as the guideline? How should we understand that comprehensively deepening reform must be guided by Marxism?

In early 2013 (January 5), Xi Jinping delivered an important speech at the Central Party School, emphasizing: “Comrades of the whole Party must adhere to the guidance of Deng Xiaoping Theory, the important thought of the ‘Three Represents,’ and the Scientific Outlook on Development, and adhere to practice as the sole criterion for testing truth”; “Socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, not any other ism; the basic principles of scientific socialism cannot be abandoned; if abandoned, it is not socialism.” [v] At the end of the year, the Decision of the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the CPC again emphasized: “To comprehensively deepen reform, we must hold high the great banner of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and be guided by Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, the important thought of the ‘Three Represents,’ and the Scientific Outlook on Development.”

Additionally, everyone, combining the “Decision of the Central Committee of the CPC on Several Major Issues Concerning Strengthening and Improving Party Building under the New Situation,” analyzed Mr. Wu’s situation of taking neoliberalism as the guideline for reform and opening up from the perspective of the “four clarifications,” [vi] and felt that Mr. Wu seemed not merely to have failed to clarify the four theoretical boundaries, but to have abandoned Marxism, especially the basic principles of scientific socialism.

Of course, the publication of a contrary view the day after the Decision of the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee was passed might be a coincidence in timing, but how does one explain “over 32 years, consistently”?

II. What Does It Mean to “Eliminate the Administrative Monopoly Privileges of State-Owned Enterprises and Certain Non-State-Owned Enterprises Favored by Government Officials”?

In the past two years, Mr. Wu has repeatedly emphasized that “China’s current economic system is still a semi-command, semi-market mixed system,” advocating “eliminating the administrative monopoly privileges of state-owned enterprises and certain non-state-owned enterprises favored by government officials,” “implementing constitutional government”; “the democracy China should choose can only be constitutional democracy.” [vii] Regarding this, everyone has two questions. First, a question arising from the complexity of the sentence “eliminating the administrative monopoly privileges of state-owned enterprises and certain non-state-owned enterprises favored by government officials”: Why can’t it be put more plainly? Of course, everyone believes that such a complex and obscure sentence indeed demonstrates Mr. Wu’s profound theoretical and literary skill, which ordinary scholars could hardly “extract” even with painstaking effort. Second, a question arising from comprehension. What does “eliminating state-owned enterprises” mean? Is it comprehensive privatization? What does “the administrative monopoly privileges of certain non-state-owned enterprises favored by government officials” mean? Doesn’t it refer to the existing state power of socialism with Chinese characteristics? If so, then this sentence means, through comprehensive privatization, eliminating the economic base of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the state power erected upon it. Grasping the sentence from this perspective, the conclusion is: It is so complex and convoluted precisely to cover up the truth! That is, I venture to believe: Because the sentence about eliminating the economic base and state power of socialism with Chinese characteristics cannot be stated directly, yet not stating it is insufficient to express the true intention, one had to “extract” such a complex and obscure sentence. Of course, this conclusion is based not only on the literal meaning but also on relevant research by Zheng Zhixue. He believes that “the aim of the ‘constitutional government’ proposition is very clear: to abolish the leadership of the CPC in China and

Must we “eliminate state-owned enterprises”? The decision of the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the CPC states: “The basic economic system with public ownership as the mainstay and diverse forms of ownership developing together is an important pillar of the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics and also the foundation of the socialist market economy system”; “We must unswervingly consolidate and develop the public sector of the economy, uphold the dominant position of public ownership, give play to the leading role of the state-owned sector of the economy, and continuously enhance the vitality, control, and influence of the state-owned sector of the economy.” “We must unswervingly encourage, support, and guide the development of the non-public sector of the economy, and stimulate the vitality and creativity of the non-public sector of the economy.” [ix] It can thus be seen that state-owned enterprises are not only not to be “eliminated,” but are to be “consolidated and developed,” with their “vitality, control, and influence continuously enhanced,” so as to ensure their dominant position and leading role in the national economy.

Of course, everyone notes that Mr. Wu made this statement on the eve of the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee [1]1 The “Three-Anti” campaign (1951-1952) targeted corruption, waste, and bureaucracy within the Party, government, army, and state-owned enterprises; the “Five-Anti” campaign (1952) targeted bribery, tax evasion, theft of state property, cheating on government contracts, and stealing state economic intelligence among private industrial and commercial businesses.; that it does not conform to the spirit of the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee does not mean it was intentionally contrary. However, everyone is quite surprised that Mr. Wu, while advocating the “elimination” of state-owned enterprises, simultaneously emphasizes the implementation of “constitutionalism.” As someone who has lived through it, Mr. Wu has not only studied “constitutionalism” but also has personal experience of it; he should be well aware that “constitutionalism” is a synonym for the capitalist system, with its specific historical connotations. For the history of constitutionalism over several centuries proves that the “people” in its “sovereignty resides in the people” refers mainly to the big bourgeoisie, not the broad masses of the people. Its inviolability of private property, multiparty system, parliamentary democracy, separation of powers, and its social ideology, among other things, all serve without exception to maintain the capitalist system and the equilibrium of power and interest distribution among capital groups. So-called “constitutionalism,” to put it bluntly and ultimately, is the use of the state apparatus to solidify the capitalist wage-labor relationship in legal form, hoping to perpetuate it forever. Hence, it is difficult for everyone to understand why Mr. Wu takes “implementing constitutionalism” as the target model for comprehensively deepening reform, because this is almost a wholesale copying of the Western model from the economic system to the political system! In this regard, Deng Xiaoping’s piercing insight is convincing. He said: “The democracy talked about in capitalist society is bourgeois democracy, in fact the democracy of monopoly capital, nothing more than multiparty elections, separation of powers, and a bicameral system. Our system is the people’s congress system, a people’s democratic system under the leadership of the Communist Party; we cannot engage in that Western set.” [x]

III. Was Socialist Construction Before Reform and Opening Up Entirely Worthless? Can It or Must It Be Wholly Negated?

This question arises when everyone, studying Xi Jinping’s important speech on the consistent and undeniable nature of socialist construction in New China, connects it with Mr. Wu’s view of wholly negating socialist construction before reform and opening up. [P

It is quite obvious: if Mr. Wu’s view holds, then on the eve of reform and opening up the disparity between rich and poor, the degree of corruption, and the conflict between officials and the people in our country should have been the most severe in history, because at that time public enterprises were at their largest scale, government power was at its greatest, and the space for rent-seeking was also at its maximum. Yet in fact the opposite was true. As someone who has lived through that period, Mr. Wu’s committing such an error against historical common sense leaves us very puzzled. Of course, the seriousness of the problem does not lie here. When people analyze this common-sense error — which has the objective effect of negating both historical periods before and after reform and opening up in one stroke — together with the “top-level design” target model of “eliminating the administrative monopoly privileges of state-owned enterprises and certain non-state-owned enterprises favored by government officials,” establishing a “limited, effective government” and a completely free-market economy, they once again reach the conclusion of “abolishing the leadership of the Communist

V. Is the Goal of Deepening Comprehensive Reform to Establish a Western “Limited and Effective Government” and a “Free Competition” Market Economy without Macroeconomic Regulation?

The overall goal of deepening comprehensive reform, as determined by the Decision of the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee of the CPC, is to improve and develop the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics and to modernize the national governance system and governance capacity. Around this overall goal, first, it is clearly stated that the focus is on economic system reform, and the core issue is to properly handle the relationship between the government and the market, so that the market plays a decisive role in resource allocation and the government plays its role better. Second, it is clearly stated that China’s people’s government, which “upholds the principal position of the people,” has political and economic responsibilities. The political responsibility is to ensure that the people are the masters of the country, and its purpose is to serve the people. The economic “responsibility and role are to maintain macroeconomic stability, strengthen and optimize public services, ensure fair competition, strengthen market supervision, maintain market order, promote sustainable development, promote common prosperity, and remedy market failures.” When explaining the Decision of the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee, Xi Jinping quoted Deng Xiaoping’s words, emphasizing: “‘If we do not uphold socialism, implement reform and opening up, develop the economy, and improve people’s lives, there is only a dead end.’ Looking back, we have a deeper understanding of Comrade Deng Xiaoping’s words. Therefore, we say that only socialism can save China, and only reform and opening up can develop China, develop socialism, and develop Marxism.” At the same time, he specifically pointed out: “What we practice is a socialist market economy system; we must still persist in giving play to the superiority of our socialist system and the positive role of the Party and the government. The market playing a decisive role in resource allocation does not mean it plays the entire role.” “Emphasizing scientific macroeconomic regulation and effective government governance is an inherent requirement for giving play to the superiority of the socialist market economy system.” After deeply studying this central Party spirit, everyone found Mr. Wu’s theory of the target model for top-level design deeply puzzling.

As mentioned earlier, Mr. Wu cited the views of neoliberal representatives such as Friedman and John McMillan to argue that “free competition is the soul of the market system,” advocating that the goal of deepening comprehensive reform is to establish a completely free market economy without macroeconomic regulation and a “limited government” and “effective government.” At the same time, he severely criticized the view that “‘the socialist market economy’ is a market system under the leadership and control of the Party and government.” Whose view is this? Mr. Wu did not say, and a thorough search of Party and government documents, textbooks, and academic research yielded no results. Judging from Mr. Wu’s specific criticism that “China’s land acquisition market is a typical ‘pseudo-market’” and his long-standing view of a “semi-dominance, semi-market” system, this refers to China’s existing socialist market economy system. Mr. Wu first exaggerates or even distorts the defects of the existing economic system and then negates it. This reminds everyone of the situation mentioned earlier where Mr. Wu first smeared the historical period before reform and opening up as “turning the entire society into a prison and causing hundreds of millions of people to suffer persecution” and then completely negated it. Everyone feels very disappointed: What kind of logic is this?

As is well known, the theories of “limited government” and “effective government” are institutional construction theories of modern Western liberalism. Everyone noticed that when Mr. Wu applies this theory to guide China’s reform, he does not completely copy it but “innovates” the connotation of the categories of “limited government” and “effective government.” “The so-called limited government is a form of government opposite to the omnipotent government (unlimited government) under the planned economy.” “The so-called effective government means that the government, under the supervision of taxpayers, should improve government management, eliminate corruption and waste, and provide services to the public at low cost and high efficiency.” So, what is the “omnipotent government under the planned economy”? Isn’t it the government that has continued from the founding of New China for over 60 years to the present? Now advocating the establishment of a “limited government” and “effective government” is, of course, because the “omnipotent government under the planned economy” is omnipotent and ineffective. Without discussing whether the “omnipotent government under the planned economy” is truly omnipotent and ineffective, regarding the complete negation of the “omnipotent government under the planned economy,” if Mr. Wu’s earlier negation of the historical period before reform and opening up with the historical period after reform and opening up still affirmed the achievements of socialist construction with Chinese characteristics after reform and opening up, then here, he completely negates the entire socialist construction of New China! The impression given is: using the period after reform and opening up to completely negate the period before reform and opening up is only a phased goal, or merely a means, while completely negating the over 60 years of socialist construction of New China is the ultimate goal. Furthermore, regarding the “reform” orientation of establishing a completely free market economy without macroeconomic regulation and a Western “limited government” and “effective government,” Mr. Wu’s goal for deepening comprehensive reform becomes clear at a glance: completely copying the Western model. That is, “deepening the reform” of the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics into the European and American model.

Of course, in improving and developing the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics, attention should be paid to drawing on the reasonable elements of the Western theories of “limited government” and “effective government” that curb bureaucracy and administrative corruption. But the essence of the issue here is not whether or how to draw on Western government theories, but the question of what kind of government and market economy system to establish, and ultimately, what path to take. Therefore, although the answer to the question is self-evident, everyone still wants to ask Mr. Wu to answer directly: Is the goal of deepening comprehensive reform to “reform” China’s people’s government into a Western “limited government” and “effective government,” and to establish a completely “free competition” market economy without macroeconomic regulation?

In fact, the Western “limited government” and “effective government” are fundamentally different in historical essence from the people’s government of New China, and they should not and cannot be mentioned in the same breath without distinction. This is something even middle school students should understand. Why doesn’t Mr. Wu understand it? Moreover, “the 32 years before and after, one continuous thread,” makes it even more incomprehensible to everyone.

Regarding the different natures of Eastern and Western governments and the mutual learning of measures to curb bureaucracy and other issues, perhaps a few more words are needed. China’s government, as a people’s government under the leadership of the Communist Party of China where the people are the masters of the country, has the purpose of serving the people. In terms of its purpose, it has an unlimited nature. Can it be reformed and restricted using the Western theory of limited government? In addition, everyone also feels that Mr. Wu’s advocacy of “serving the public” rather than “serving the people” is too “Westernized.” If “serving the public” were equivalent to “serving the people,” there would be no problem. The issue is that the essence of “serving the public” in Western government theory, within the Western context and society, is serving the monopoly bourgeoisie. Isn’t that so? Even the U.S. government, which has always boasted of democracy and freedom of speech and the press, during the “Occupy Wall Street” movement, how many civilians did it arrest, imprison, or even kill? It did not even spare journalists, revealing its essence as the “night watchman” of the monopoly bourgeoisie all too clearly. Therefore, everyone’s question is: Why not use the term “serving the people,” which is loved and welcomed by everyone, but instead use “serving the public,” a term stamped with a Western brand and having specific historical connotations?

In fact, the views in the Western theories of “limited government” and “effective government” that curb government bureaucracy and administrative corruption are not an invention of the West. Since the day people’s governments at all levels in China were established, they have paid attention to building a clean government, and the connotation of this is far richer and more correct than the relevant discussions in Western government theories. The “Three-Anti” and “Five-Anti” campaigns [1]1 The “Three-Anti” campaign (1951-1952) targeted corruption, waste, and bureaucracy within the Party, government, army, and state-owned enterprises; the “Five-Anti” campaign (1952) targeted bribery, tax evasion, theft of state property, cheating on government contracts, and stealing state economic intelligence among private industrial and commercial businesses. at the beginning of the founding of New China, the subsequent execution of Zhang Zishan and Liu Qingshan [2]2 Zhang Zishan and Liu Qingshan were senior Communist Party officials executed in 1952 for corruption during the “Three-Anti” campaign, a landmark case in the early PRC’s anti-corruption efforts., and the current vigorous anti-corruption efforts that “leave a mark on the stone and a grip on the iron” [3]3 “Leave a mark on the stone and a grip on the iron” (踏石留印，抓铁有痕) is a Chinese idiom used by Xi Jinping, the crackdown on the “Four Forms of Decadence” [4]4 *Selected Works of Cheng Enfu* (程恩富选集): A collection of writings by Cheng Enfu, a prominent Chinese Marxist economist., and the carrying out of the mass line education campaign, etc., all fully illustrate this point. In this regard, it is worth mentioning and also worth being proud of that Mao Zedong, long before the founding of the country, found an effective way to solve problems like bureaucracy and administrative corruption, which is to invite the people to supervise the government and let the people be the masters of the country. It should be affirmed that the people supervising the government and letting the people be the masters of the country is the fundamental method to eliminate phenomena like bureaucracy and corruption, and it is also the best method that does not exist in Western government theories and that Western governments cannot implement. In this sense, we can learn from certain correct practices of Western government theories, but it is difficult for Western governments to learn from our best method. In this regard, if we do not cherish and improve our good things, but instead look up to others and even take them as a golden rule to retreat and learn from the West, it will inevitably make us a laughingstock. Some people accuse Mr. Wu of having a colonial mentality. Although this lacks respect, they are serious and have no ill intentions.

Of course, this does not mean that Mr. Wu’s views are completely worthless. For example, “the main defect of our current economic system lies in the excessive administrative intervention by the government and its deep involvement in microeconomic activities. The extensive administrative intervention and the administrative monopoly of large state-owned enterprises suppress the initiative and creativity of independent enterprises as market entities and technological innovation entities,” etc. Although these statements are not very accurate and mix right and wrong, they do reveal some reasons for comprehensively deepening reform. But the essence here is how to understand these defects. In fact, these defects are not essential phenomena of the socialist market economy system, but rather non-essential phenomena that arise because the system is not yet perfect and the relationship between the government and the market has not been properly handled. They are phenomena to be resolved in the process of perfecting the socialist market economy system. Otherwise, why would they be called defects? It should be believed that as long as the behavioral boundaries of the government and state-owned enterprises are strictly regulated in accordance with the deployment of the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee [5]5 *Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping* (邓小平文选): The official compilation of speeches and writings by Deng Xiaoping, the chief architect of China’s reform and opening up., and the socialist market economy system is urgently perfected, these defects can be completely curbed or eliminated. Even if they cannot be completely eliminated for the time being, we cannot retreat to the capitalist model under the guidance of neoliberalism!

Regarding how to correctly understand the spirit of the decision of the Third Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee on the relationship between the government and the market, many believe that the research of Cheng Enfu, a member of the Academic Division of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, is trustworthy. He said: “The ‘theory of the decisive role of the market’ of socialism with Chinese characteristics is fundamentally different from the ‘theory of the decisive role of the market’ of Chinese and foreign neoliberalism. The former has the following five characteristics: First, it coexists with national macro-control and micro-regulation; second, it is limited to the short-term allocation of general resources, not the allocation of special resources such as underground resources and the long-term allocation of general resources; third, for the allocation of certain non-material resources such as culture and education, only market mechanisms suitable for these fields are introduced, not market determination; fourth, public ownership is the mainstay and the state-owned economy is the leading force, and this is reflected in the market economic system and market activities; fifth, in the field of wealth and income distribution, the market and the government each play their due regulatory roles, with the market playing a larger role in the primary distribution of national income and the government playing a larger role in redistribution.” He also pointed out: “The important significance of the Third Plenary Session’s emphasis on the dual regulation thought is that in the future, the decisive role of the market and the better role of the government should be seen as an organic whole. The excellent functions of market regulation should be used to curb ‘government regulation failure,’ and the excellent functions of government regulation should be used to correct ‘market regulation failure,’ thus forming a ‘double-high’ pattern of an efficient market and an efficient government. This is conducive to giving full play to the benign regulatory functions of the socialist state, while at the top-level design level avoiding falling into the neoliberal trap and the risk of financial and economic crises. This is by no means what some Chinese and foreign neoliberal proponents of the decisive role of the market claim, that China is still engaging in a ‘semi-command economy,’ ‘crony capitalism,’ or ‘state capitalism,’ nor is it advocating a ‘modern market economic system’ that does not require state regulation of the competitive market mechanism, let alone engaging in market fundamentalism and ‘market-only’ reforms, evading necessary government macro-control and micro-regulation.” [xx]

Online Editor: Lan He Shui

[ii] Excerpted from the transcript of the launch ceremony of the “Collected Works of Wu Jinglian” and the China Reform Symposium. Published on Sohu Finance News Network: May 11, 2013.

[iii] Wu Jinglian: “To establish a modern market economy system in our country, ‘without being guided by Western theories, this arduous task cannot be completed.’” The so-called “Western theories” refer to neoliberalism. Xia Xiaolin has conducted systematic research on this (see Xia Xiaolin: “Famous Public Figures Repeatedly Fabricate Central Document Views,” “Hong Kong Fax” No. 2010-7; “Journal of Management” Issues 2 and 3, 2012: “‘Universal Values’ and the ‘European-American Model’ Cannot Save China – A Fourth Commentary on Wu Jinglian’s ‘Socialist Model Theory’ (Parts 1 and 2)”). In this regard, Ma Guochuan has provided the latest portrayal: using the views of neoliberal representatives such as Friedman as a guide to frame the target model for comprehensive deepening of reform. See Ma Guochuan: “Wu Jinglian: The Core Issue of Reform is to Properly Handle the Relationship between the Government and the Market,” published in “Investment Times,” November 13, 2013.

[iv] For details, see Ma Guochuan’s article in “Investment Times” on November 13, 2013: “Wu Jinglian: The Core Issue of Reform is to Properly Handle the Relationship between the Government and the Market.” All quotations in this article not otherwise attributed originate from this source and will not be further annotated below.

[v] “Important Speech by Xi Jinping at the Opening Ceremony of the Study and Implementation of the Spirit of the 18th National Congress of the CPC Seminar for Newly Elected Members and Alternate Members of the Central Committee,” published in “People’s Daily,” January 6, 2013.

[vi] The Four Clarifications refer to: consciously drawing a clear line between Marxism and anti-Marxism; between the basic economic system of socialist public ownership as the mainstay and the common development of multiple forms of ownership, and privatization and单一公有制; between socialist democracy with Chinese characteristics and Western capitalist democracy; and between socialist ideology and culture and decadent feudal and capitalist ideology and culture. “Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Several Major Issues Concerning Strengthening and Improving Party Building under the New Situation,” published in “People’s Daily,” September 28, 2009.

[vii] Wu Jinglian: “The Core Goal of Reform is to Establish a Competitive Market System,” published in “Shanghai Securities News,” April 11, 2013; “China’s Economic and Social Contradictions Have Almost Reached a Critical Point,” published in “Caijing,” Issue 22, 2012.

[viii] Zheng Zhixue: “Recognizing the Essence of ‘Constitutionalism,’” published in “Party Building,” Issue 6, 2013.

[ix] “Decision of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on Several Major Issues Concerning Comprehensively Deepening Reform,” published in “Qiushi,” Issue 22, 2013.

[x] “Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping,” Volume 3, People’s Publishing House, 1993, p. 240.

[xi] “Important Speech by Xi Jinping at the Opening Ceremony of the Study and Implementation of the Spirit of the 18th National Congress of the CPC Seminar for Newly Elected Members and Alternate Members of the Central Committee,” published in “People’s Daily,” January 6, 2013.

[xii] Wu Jinglian: “China’s Economy in 60 Years,” published in “Caijing,” Issue 20, 2009.

[xiii] “These kinds of views” also include democratic socialism and historical nihilism. Please refer to Cheng Yanjun’s viewpoint in the “Collection of Expert Opinions” in *China Social Sciences Today* on December 9, 2013: The most deeply and severely harmful is none other than the false reform and genuine Westernization of neoliberalism’s comprehensive privatization, total marketization, and extreme liberalization, which has led to a serious weakening of the economic, political, and social foundations of socialism with Chinese characteristics; the most reckless and resolute in rhetoric is none other than democratic socialism’s proposal that “only democratic socialism can save China,” in response to the historical conclusion that only socialism can save China; the most hidden and vicious in intent is none other than historical nihilism’s complete denial of the glorious history of the Chinese nation’s realization of the great rejuvenation. See Cheng Yanjun, Xu Min, Cheng Hao, “Tracing the Source: Consolidating the Ideological, Theoretical, and Public Opinion Foundation for Deepening Comprehensive Reform,” *Studies on Marxism*, Issue 5, 2014.

[xiv] “Xi Jinping’s Speech at the Symposium

[xv] *Selected Works of Cheng Enfu*, China Social Sciences Press, 2010, p. 590.

[xvi] *Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping*, Vol. 2, People’s Publishing House, 1994, p. 167.

[xvii] Quoted from *Chinese and Foreign Notable Figures on Mao Zedong*, Masses Publishing House, 1999, pp. 233, 243.

[xviii] “A strong government and large state-owned enterprises” and “the increasingly strengthened power of resource allocation and control over economic activities have produced the most serious consequence: strengthening the institutional basis for rent-seeking activities, leading to the rapid spread of corruption and the widening gap between rich and poor, and intensifying conflicts between officials and the people.” And “a vicious cycle has formed — the stronger the government’s control, the larger the institutional basis for rent-seeking, and the more serious the corruption; and the more serious the corruption, under a certain erroneous orientation of public opinion, the more reason there is to demand strengthening the control of the government and state-owned enterprises.” Wu Jinglian, “The Future Direction of China’s Economy,” published in *China Economic News Network*, August 7, 2013.

[xix] The distribution system according to work and according to human property rights is the distribution system of the human-property-rights-type modern enterprise system. It refers to a system combining distribution according to work, according to capital, and according to human property rights, with distribution according to work and according to human property rights as the main forms. This enterprise distribution system sublates the unfair nature of the capital-property-rights-type modern enterprise system, in which profit distribution is tilted only toward the realization of the human property rights of elite senior management, and profits are basically monopolized by capital property rights. It constructs an enterprise development dynamic mechanism that organically combines distribution according to work and according to human property rights as the main forms, supplemented by distribution according to capital. This is a revolution achieved by the human-property-rights-type modern enterprise system over the capital-property-rights-type modern enterprise system in terms of both the subjects and the shares of enterprise profit sharing, regarding whom (material capital or human capital) is incentivized. Cheng Yanjun, “The Revolution of the Modern Enterprise System: From the Capital-Property-Rights Type to the Human-Property-Rights Type,” published in *Marxist Studies*, Issue 9, 2012.

[xx] Cheng Enfu, “Two Kinds of Theories on the Decisive Role of the Market Must Be Distinguished,” published in *Global Times*, December 10, 2013.