Democratic movement and independent personality

"Everyone who wants to be a philosopher must first be a Spinozist." - Hegel

Independent and equal personality is the philosophical basis of human rights, the most important concept in modern society. It is difficult for us to judge the moral merits of letting God manage personality or insisting that personality is inalienable. However, we categorically refuse to let personality be controlled by dissidents (others, political parties, countries, etc.). Human rights, as well as free individuals and democratic organizational forms based on human rights, are the inevitable outcome of the development of modern society. Spinoza's own philosophical contribution was not the greatest, and many people surpassed him. But he practiced his philosophy in his own life. The church offered him a high price to buy him the freedom to express his thoughts, but he flatly refused. Spinoza, who was excommunicated at the age of 24, spent the other half of his life grinding lenses. Russell said: "In the history of philosophy, it is not easy to achieve Spinoza's achievements, and it is impossible to achieve Spinoza's personality."

The so-called democracy is just a way to adapt to modern large-scale organizational forms, and a means to overcome the bureaucratic drawbacks caused by the strict and complex division of labor in large-scale organizational forms. Humans may be able to find a better way to adapt to modern society, but we haven't found it yet. As a means and method, democracy is only an accessory phenomenon of social form and can have different manifestations. Of course, this epiphenomenon is also very meaningful and must be fought for at the cost of life, such as the Tiananmen Incident. However, the independence of personality is an eternal and universal essence that transcends times and regions, rather than a form. Therefore, there is no such concept as "bourgeois personality" and "proletarian personality". The nature of the 1989 Chinese democracy movement, understood in this moral sense, has a value that far exceeds the political requirements of democracy. The so-called "democracy movement leaders" can be understood as "political elites," but the essence of this movement is represented by students who went on hunger strikes and sit-ins, and citizens who blocked tanks. The participation and support of all walks of life are based on the inspiration of personality. It is a pity and tragedy that almost all "democracy leaders" do not have the consensus and quality in this regard, and do not have the strength of personality at all. It is absolutely correct in a moral sense to refuse "help" from forces within the Communist Party during the student movement. Don't accuse students of being "naive". Are there "forces" within the Communist Party that can work together? No!

Of course, most of the broad masses of members of the Communist Party have personalities. How many Communists are there in the million-strong march? There is no need for the democratic movement to raise the slogan "Down with the Communist Party" (it is also unrealistic). However, the so-called "reformist" "bureaucrats within the system" and those "elites" who want to climb up this ladder, although their background and experience make them want to "democracy", because "democracy" can enable them to beg for more power and benefits from Deng Xiaoping. His personality is in no way different from that of the privileged class of the Communist Party.

The "reformers" in my impression are like this: a promising young man who "accidentally" revealed a letter of introduction from the State Council's Restructuring Commission on a crowded train; mysteriously revealed that "I had a long all-night talk with Chen Yizi about China's future" - I didn't know at the time who Chen Yizi was or what his views on China's future were, and that he deserved to be so proud; "Yan Jiaqi asked me to return to China to preside over a newly opened research institute" - I know nothing about Yan Jiaqi's personality. "History of Florence", although innovative, is far from comparable to Machiavelli's "History of Florence", which pioneered modern historiography; at the climax of the movement, he finally "sacrifice himself to join the democratic movement" and had to be a "leader". Once he became famous, he secretly They began to arrange a way out... These people are probably what people refer to as "new authoritarians"! Compared with thousands of "all living beings" students and citizens like Wang Weilin, who is blocking a tank alone, their personalities are worse than dirt!

The so-called debate between "reform within the system" and "reform outside the system" is purely a boring word game. From the perspective of personality, there is no distinction between the general secretary of the Communist Party of China, the vice president of the Communist Party of universities, ordinary civilians, rightists and "counter-revolutionaries". Each of these people promotes the democratization process in his or her own status and way.

Furthermore, the Chinese nation can still progress without these individuals, and without their dedication to the nation, they have no value in existence. How do organizations and individuals who claim to "inherit the spirit of the 1989 Democracy Movement" understand the spirit of the 1989 Democracy Movement? If the "disclosure of factions" listed in the Democratic Front's charter is a prerequisite for a universally recognized and helpless form of social organization, then the actual operation can be said to have made full use of the cover-up that "democracy" can provide. Mr. Sun Yat-sen once required members of the Kuomintang, and the Communist Party also required its members in its early days, to have a higher personality and dedication than ordinary citizens. All those who are engaged in the democratic movement should reflect on themselves. If they cannot do this, there is no need to use the name of "democratic movement". The establishment of the Kuomintang and the Communist Party was far more noble than today's democratic movement. The reason why we stand up against the dictatorship of the Communist Party today is mainly because dictatorship is inevitable and has brought about social corruption and low moral character. We have no interest in fighting for democracy if corruption can be reduced and avoided in any way other than democracy. If we do not have the minimum dedication ourselves, there will be no need to repeat the tragedy of history.

China's modern history has the most glorious records: the founding of Asia's first republic, the first national victory in the fight against aggression, the victory of communism supported by everyone, and the expectations that Mr. Deng Xiaoping brought to the people when he just came out of the Cultural Revolution. But today we finally realize that in this era of rapid development, China has returned to the old path of more than a hundred years ago and started a new "Westernization Movement" with "two basic points" (a hybrid of "reform, opening up" and the "four basic principles"). The fundamental reason for this stagnation is that the independent personality consciousness of the entire nation has not been established. Mr. Feng Youlan, who aspired to be a "contemporary Confucius and Mencius", said in his later years, "How did I go from respecting Confucius to opposing Confucius" and "Mao Zedong Thought is the pinnacle of contemporary Chinese philosophy" are such examples.

Rousseau once distinguished between "general will" and "public will." The general will refers to the will that represents the interests of the entire society, but not necessarily the majority. For example, "political modernization" is the general will; the public will refers to the will expressed by the "majority principle", and its forms vary from the presidential election in the United States to the "all stand" method of Taiwan's Kuomintang to recommend candidates. Since China has no basis for individual independent personality, it is impossible to talk about the form of "general will". Therefore, although every Chinese person sometimes has an intellectual advantage over foreigners alone, he cannot escape the fate of the decline of the entire civilization. Sadly, the democratic movement has always been stuck at the level of "public opinion" (although it is far from the level of parliamentary democracy in Europe and the United States), entangled in issues such as interpersonal relationships and methods of action. The goal of the democratic movement is to transform the general will into public opinion. Without the formation of an independent personality consciousness, the democratic movement will only repeat the history of the Kuomintang and the Communist Party: growing due to moral inspiration and collapsing due to moral corruption, and the democratic movement organizations will become institutions that serve the interests of their own groups and seek personal gains for the upper class. The spirit of the 1989 Chinese democracy movement is the awakening and revival of the moral consciousness of national rejuvenation. It once again calls for the formation of an independent personality consciousness of the Chinese nation to meet the challenges of the development of modern social civilization. For this reason, I want to speak loudly:

Everyone who engages in the democratic movement must first be a Spinozist!

[Jing Zhao, first published in the July 1990 issue of "Democratic China" monthly in Tokyo]