Talk:Chinese Communist Party

On the question of the definition of ideology

I think we're spliting too-fine hairs about what constitutes "ideology" here. Remember that the question even of whether ideology is a thing is not fully settled. Per Anti-Oedipus, Capitalism institutes or restores all sorts of residual and artificial, imaginary, or symbolic territorialities, thereby attempting, as best it can, to recode, to rechannel persons who have been defined in terms of abstract quantities. Everything returns or recurs: States, nations, families. That is what makes the ideology of capitalism "a motley painting of everything that has ever been believed." The real is not impossible; it is simply more and more artificial. As ideology is not entirely a settled academic concept I think it probably is best for us to use a relatively colloquial description - which would probably include treating the Three Represents, Xi Jinping Thought and others as ideological material. We should, of course, make sure our descriptions of this ideological material adheres strictly to reliable sources. Simonm223 (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Would you accept as reliable the Chinese Communist Party? They themselves define their ideology ... DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

The page should match that of other pages where only concepts that are specifically defined and cited as a political ideology on their respective Wikipedia page are listed in the infobox. We don't need to get into a philosophical debate on what is and is not a political ideology. Helper201 (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Yes Simonm223 (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

and they probably define their ideology truthfully ... as most movements do. TheUzbek (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

What ideologies should be the infobox?

DOR (HK), Simonm223, TheUzbek, Amigao what ideologies should be the infobox? Helper201 (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Communism, Marxism–Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, Three Represents, Scientific Outlook on Development, Xi Jinping Thought. I'm open to discussion on most of these apart from communism and Marxism–Leninism, which I absolutely think should be included. Socialism with Chinese characteristics is a set of political theories and policies, not an ideology. Three Represents is a sociopolitical theory and Scientific Outlook on Development is a socio-economic principle, again both not political ideologies, so these should be removed. Helper201 (talk) 07:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Make it simple: communism suffices, or more clearly, "Marxism–Leninism", and if you must, "Marxism–Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Theoretical system of socialism with Chinese characteristics"

Officially, Mao Zedong Though combines "the basic tenets of Marxism-Leninism with the actual practice of the Chinese revolution."

The "Theoretical System of Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is a continuation and development of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought, and is composed of Deng Xiaoping Theory, Three Represents, the Scientific Outlook on Develpoment and Xi Jinping Thought... While people (and commentators) often write that Xi Jinping Thought is on the same level as Mao Zedong Thought, the party constitution writes that is an "important component of the theoretical system of socialism with Chinese characteristics", which is officially inferior to Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought.

The problem is that WP only has an article on "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" and not an article on the "Theoretical System of Socialism with Chinese characteristics". TheUzbek (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Those for which we have reliable sources - which, yes, should include (but not be limited to) internal CPC sources as this is a WP:ABOUTSELF situation. Simonm223 (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

While looking for refs that relate to this topic on Wikipedia library I found this article:

Different Discursive Constructions of Chinese Political Congresses in China Daily and The New York Times: A Corpus-based Discourse Study. By: Du, Lijuan, Critical Arts: A South-North Journal of Cultural & Media Studies, 02560046, Oct-Dec2021, Vol. 35, Issue 5/6 - and it is absolutely fascinating and would definitely be useful for this article if not this specific topic. It may also still be useful for this specific topic. I am still reading. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I've been saying this regarding the use of news sources by Wikipedia for years: As suggested by Fairclough ([12]), the news discourse is not a direct reflection of reality but constructs reality in the way that news producers expect and serves the interests of specific groups Simonm223 (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Interestingly the article could probably serve to support Communism, without adjectives, (weakly) as an ideology of the CPC through statements about the significance of anti-communism, saying Anti-communism was "a national religion and control mechanism" in Western media (Herman and Chomsky [15], 2), because the concept of communism posed a danger to the United States-led capitalist economic order and Western democracy. Generally I think it's going to be more useful elsewhere in the article though. I'll keep looking. Simonm223 (talk) 12:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I get it, but this is becoming very abstract. Marxism is only (in its bare essence) a materialist conception (that is, materialism as in philosophy): the belief that everything is matter and human construct and labour is influenced by matter. They also believe that given human constructions, such as the level of society, is bound by certain objective material constraints. A given set of individuals with close or nearly identical relations to material productiojn are defined as a class. The communist party represents a given material relation, and is considered a tool by those wielding it to interpret the objective laws of material relations so that humanity can build the society they deserve. That is, literally what Marxism is. Whatever one wants to say, there are no indications that the CPC is not materialist. You could argue that they don't represent the working class, but again, Marxism is very loose. TheUzbek (talk) 16:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

We should keep MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE in mind, as infoboxes tend to get cluttered which limits their overall effectiveness. - Amigao (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree, communism should suffice. TheUzbek (talk) 16:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I should note that the novel source I introduced for Communism was pretty weak. I think, if we are going to keep things very simple, then something like Socialism with Chinese characteristics would be preferable to other options. In general I think we should go with wherever the most reliable sources point us. Simonm223 (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I concur, and most recent sources say they are communists. The whole point of Kevin Rudd's book, On Xi Jinping: How Xi's Marxist Nationalism is Shaping China and the World, is that people should stop pretending that the ideological documents emanating from the CPC are lies. Steve Tsang and Olivia Cheung also conclude that Xi, and by extension the CPC, is communists in their book The Political Thought of Xi Jinping. The best academic book on Xi Jinping, Xi Jinping: Political Career, Governance, and Leadership, 1953-2018 by Alfred L. Chan, also conclusively concludes that Xi and the CPC are communists and Marxist-Leninists. Don't make this more controversial than it is. A communist party believes in communism; that should be obvious and non-surprising! TheUzbek (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Could you please provide some page citations for these statements because these are perfect - so we should make sure the cites are high quality. Simonm223 (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Who is the most authoritative source on the ideology of the CCP? The CCP.

Anything else is (at best) analysis by a subject expert, rather than a statement of fact by the best possible source. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Let's not deviate away from also maintaining Marxism–Leninism as well as communism. Amigao brings up a good point in MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. However, I think reducing it down to a single ideology is overboard in terms of simplification and doesn't reflect the vast majority of infoboxes on Wikipedia and would be far too oversimplified. I think 2 to 4 ideologies is usually a good number in terms being informative without being overbearing. I strongly disagree with having Socialism with Chinese characteristics under the ideology section as its a set of political theories and policies, not a political ideology in-of-itself. I think we do have a general consensus for communism and Marxism–Leninism, so are we okay to keep the ideology section of the infobox to these two? Helper201 (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Fine by me unless I can squeak in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as more specific. Simonm223 (talk) 19:02, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry slow response, here is a long quote by Kevin Rudd (pp 35-36 & 48):

"Therefore, given the positive value the CCP has attached to ideological innovation for much of its history, we return to the question of defining the irreducible elements of Chinese Marxism that make up its essential, ideational canon and which have survived tumultuous political change. Based on the detailed studies of Schurmann and others and drawing on the conclusions outlined in the earlier sections of this chapter, I argue that there are seven. First, Chinese Marxism represents a definitively materialist rather than idealist view of history, meaning that knowledge proceeds from human interaction with the material universe rather than any form of metaphysics. Second, this knowledge forms part of a consistent set of irresistible, scientific laws of development which apply across both the physical and social sciences. Third, one such set of universal laws is the theory of historical determinism of Marx and Engels, which ultimately sees a communist society emerge through immutable dialectical processes from the injustices of slave, feudal, capitalist, and even socialist societies. Fourth, the machinery of change in this process is dialectical materialism, based on the concept of the unity of opposites, the inter- permeation of phenomena, and the theory of contradiction. Fifth, within this framework of dialectical materialism, the law of contradictions operates when opposites (i.e. progressive and reactionary forces) collide, requiring resolution through either violent or non- violent struggle, depending on whether those contradictions are with ‘the enemy’ or among ‘the people’. Sixth, these universal laws apply as much to contradictions between classes within a society as they do to contradictions between states of the capitalist and imperialist world, and between these states and the socialist world. Struggle is, therefore, universally applicable, both within states and between them. Finally, the various laws described above are both determinist and voluntarist— that is, although the irresistible forces of world history are propelling the world in this direction, the pace at which the world advances is also determined by the active political agency of individual and collective actors.
"This book rests unapologetically on this latter proposition, namely that Xi’s Marxist- Leninist Nationalism is actually believed."

TheUzbek (talk) 17:54, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree! The problem with that arguement is that ideology becomes an empty-vessel, but that is politics. They call themselves communist, and yes, obviously the meaning of what communism is has changed since Mao, but they use that term nontheless. That change is extremely interesting; the label, not so much! It is only interesting in the sense in what that label entail: if you call yourself a communist you oppose the world capitalist system led by the USA. That is the consequence of that label. TheUzbek (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

The word "ideology" in Chinese could mean 意识形态 (literally "form of consciousness") and the only mention of this word in the CCP Party Constitution says that Marxism is the leading position within the field of ideology. It is also important to note that "ideology" also means a 思想（体系）（literally "system of thoughts") in Chinese as well according to https://dictionary.cambridge.org/zhs/%E8%AF%8D%E5%85%B8/%E8%8B%B1%E8%AF%AD-%E6%B1%89%E8%AF%AD-%E7%B9%81%E4%BD%93/ideology. Therefore Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, which is also a theoretical system of thoughts, is also an ideology. Ideology doesn't translate directly into Chinese so completely discarding Socialism with Chinese Characteristics makes no sense to me. OrientalTraveller (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

K.I.S.S.: Commie Dogs. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 05:18, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

? TheUzbek (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

The Chinese Communist Party's ideology is communism. Shade it or leave it alone, it is still communism. DOR (ex-HK) (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Unwarranted insult. 60.137.14.25 (talk) 20:54, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

For everyone, here's an official CCP website which describes the Party's official ideology as Marxism-Leninism, Mao Zedong Thought, Deng Xiaoping Theory, Three Represents, the Scientific Outlook on Development, and Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. The Account 2 (talk) 13:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Third-party sources are far more preferable to first-party ones. WP:PRIMARY. Also, even if this is 100% factual, it doesn't mean we should list all of them in the infobox, per WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Helper201 (talk) 14:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

How do you feel about replacing it all with just socialism with Chinese characteristics? It seems to be a vague but good description of CCP's ideology today (and includes all the concepts mentioned in this discussion). The Account 2 (talk) 14:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Though I will add, the current version is fine by me too. The Account 2 (talk) 14:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

Strongly oppose, that is a set of political theories and policies, not an ideology. Helper201 (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't know which ultra-specific definitions you prefer, but by that logic we shouldn't include Marxism–Leninism because it's also a set of political theories. Yue🌙 20:54, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Please, for the love of Christ, change the name to CPC.

If we go by the "common name" rule, the name of the Poaceae page should be changed to Grass, since more people call it grass. Also, the term "CCP" is used in orientalist and racist sources, while CPC is used in more trustworthy & less racist sources. the reason why people call it "CCP" is to evoke red scare memories of "СССР", the Cyrillic acronym for the Soviet Union, and thus, promote Sinophobia and aggression against China. JohnInnvoation (talk) 19:46, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I opposed the original move in 2020, but please read FAQ Q1 above. Wikipedia has a process, and since that move there have been five failed formal proposals to revert it and countless failed informal proposals. Yue🌙 20:52, 22 March 2025 (UTC)