Whoever wrote this article had only the most biased and basic idea of Wang Hu Ning and who he really was. He is still very famous among political enthusiasts on the Chinese internet because of his numerous published texts prior his entry into the Central Policy Research Office of the Central Committee of CPC (CPRO is the institution of CPC and China's most top policy entrepreneurs and political advisors with vast experience in almost all aspects of public social management) The most famous of his text "America against America" was completed when he was a 33 years old political science professor in Fudan University and spent time in field researching US society from 1988 to 1989. The text dissected US society, capitalism and social structure in a way that no other academia in China had done before, not simply admiring nor despising US capitalism, but presenting the merits and cons of the US in an unbiased way.
Chinese tradition, ceremony,culture
- Thread starter Hendrik_2000
- Start date
If one actually took the time to read Wang Hu Ning's text and his thoughts prior his political entry, one would certainly discard any stereotypical notions of him being only a imperial philosopher like person that desperately maintain a"broken" system. He was without a doubt the most influential and profound political analyst and policy entrepreneurs in China in the late 80s (a time many Chinese communists felt confused and conflicted due to USSR's "new policy" and the world around them. Wang's ideas and thoughts provided new insight and interpretations of the Marxist-Leninist ideology under the Chinese context.
The fact that the said article author remarked Wang as "a liberal enthusiast but changed heart after 1989" is just so wrong: meant that the author never took any good look on Wang's central idea of "America against America": Wang asked a total of 248 questions based on his field research of US society and its public domain during his entire book. And every single one is debated and analyzed with evidence backings. It's not about liberal or not liberal in China, liberalism in itself had changed meaning in the context of American politics. If one wanted to learn more about agrarian reforms and Three Nong (agrarian) problems in China, Wen Tie Jun's article is another blast to read.
Introduction excerpt of Wang's 1991 "America against America":
这本书的根本目的在于探讨美国这个社会的政治和社会管理过程 有什么样的政治和社会管理，便有什么样的社会发展 人类的社会生活也罢，政治生活也罢，文化生活也罢是无限错综发杂的交织的网络。 这个书名的用意在于表明，美国不是一个简单的均质的整体，用一句话就可以打发掉。在过去的年代，人们从教条主义的观念出发，把美国仅仅看成是“剥削剩余价值”，“资产阶级专政”，看的一无是处，那么现实的美国便会反对这样的美国，僵化观念中的美国。如今又出现了另一种极端，有的人把美国想象成富丽天堂，十全十美，那么现实的美国同样反对这样的美国，理想化的美国 主导政治的权势集团是凌驾于平民百姓之上的 美国的经济决策权主要的控制在私人财团手中，这是民主吗？这是不民主吗？恐怕也不能用一个字来回答
The basic premise of this book was to discuss the political and social management process of the United States. The characteristics and basis of political and social managements will always influenced and led to social development under the aforementioned basis. Humans' social, political or cultural interactions between one another are ultimately intertwined network with endless overlaps and crossovers. The title of this book "America against America" was to show that, United States is not a simplified universal entity that could be summarized by one sentence. In the past, people had, from a dogmatism perspective, viewed America as merely "exploitation of surplus values", "capitalism dictatorship", or anything that demeaned the USA into without any merits. In doing so, the America of reality would surely be against the aforementioned portrays of America, an America with inflexible perception. Nowadays however, there existed a new trend, where some people portraying the US as the Utopia or paradise of plentiful, where everything is perfect. In doing so, the America of reality would likewise be against this portray of America as well, an over-idealized America.
The interest groups, political cohorts and other influential classes that dominated the US politics are in no doubt well above the scope of any commoners in America. The control and making of America's economic policy-making are in the hands of private corporations, banks and institutions. Are the aforementioned two characters symbolism of democracy? Or are they characters of a undemocratic country? Such questions cannot be simply answer by one word or one sentence.
这本书的根本目的在于探讨美国这个社会的政治和社会管理过程 有什么样的政治和社会管理，便有什么样的社会发展 人类的社会生活也罢，政治生活也罢，文化生活也罢是无限错综发杂的交织的网络。 这个书名的用意在于表明，美国不是一个简单的均质的整体，用一句话就可以打发掉。在过去的年代，人们从教条主义的观念出发，把美国仅仅看成是“剥削剩余价值”，“资产阶级专政”，看的一无是处，那么现实的美国便会反对这样的美国，僵化观念中的美国。如今又出现了另一种极端，有的人把美国想象成富丽天堂，十全十美，那么现实的美国同样反对这样的美国，理想化的美国 主导政治的权势集团是凌驾于平民百姓之上的 美国的经济决策权主要的控制在私人财团手中，这是民主吗？这是不民主吗？恐怕也不能用一个字来回答
The basic premise of this book was to discuss the political and social management process of the United States. The characteristics and basis of political and social managements will always influenced and led to social development under the aforementioned basis. Humans' social, political or cultural interactions between one another are ultimately intertwined network with endless overlaps and crossovers. The title of this book "America against America" was to show that, United States is not a simplified universal entity that could be summarized by one sentence. In the past, people had, from a dogmatism perspective, viewed America as merely "exploitation of surplus values", "capitalism dictatorship", or anything that demeaned the USA into without any merits. In doing so, the America of reality would surely be against the aforementioned portrays of America, an America with inflexible perception. Nowadays however, there existed a new trend, where some people portraying the US as the Utopia or paradise of plentiful, where everything is perfect. In doing so, the America of reality would likewise be against this portray of America as well, an over-idealized America.
The interest groups, political cohorts and other influential classes that dominated the US politics are in no doubt well above the scope of any commoners in America. The control and making of America's economic policy-making are in the hands of private corporations, banks and institutions. Are the aforementioned two characters symbolism of democracy? Or are they characters of a undemocratic country? Such questions cannot be simply answer by one word or one sentence.
I don't see anything in what you wrote which contradicts the article I posted. Of course the article is a short synopsis of several long treatise, and made for a western audience who have never heard of Wang Huning. Needs must it summarizes his complex arguments as much as possible. What do you want the article to say? Hello, here's 3000 pages of dense, poorly translated and anyway impenetrable text, please read and understand it all before you can comment? It does as good a job as any 'introductory text to Plato' which does not involve reading 'Republic' and all his other works. Your criticism is a counsel of perfection.
4 part series on Macanese cuisine. Just released on YouTube.
I wonder what would've happened if Hokkien/Minnan was adopted as China's putonghua instead. I think it's a nicer language (iinm it's more closely related to ancient chinese than mandarin, so that would mean nicer ancient poems and texts) and also because it's the language that taiwanese use, so separatist views would likely be lower. It also sounds closer to korean and japanese so could be good for neighbourly relations.
You dumb or something