In the process of reform and opening up, we often hear the cries and sighs of the crisis of faith. The crisis of belief should refer to the crisis that arises when the ideals and beliefs of communism are shaken, as some people often say, and does such a crisis have anything to do with feudal traditional ideas? The answer is yes, because in my opinion, the so-called crisis of faith is actually a crisis of feudal traditional ideas in many cases.

(a)

China has a long history of feudalism, and thousands of years of feudal society have created a proud ancient civilization and left us a rich legacy. However, it is precisely because of its long history that the historical sediment left behind is particularly heavy, the historical burden is very heavy, and the historical inertia formed by the huge traditional force is difficult to compare with other countries. For a country like ours, the task of fighting feudalism is destined to be very strong and arduous, and what we lack is precisely a serious and in-depth clean-up of feudalism. Although China's anti-feudal history has been more than 100 years long, and it has also experienced several major social revolutions, such as the Wuxu Restoration, the Xinhai Revolution, and the May Fourth Movement, China's anti-feudalism is very different from that of some countries in Western Europe. Therefore, the reason for opposing feudalism is that the feudal dynasty is weak and incompetent in the face of foreign invasion and the corruption and backwardness of the feudal system, which will inevitably limit anti-feudalism to a limited scope.

The Xinhai Revolution put an end to the rule of the feudal dynasty, but the foundations of feudalism, such as an agrarian society, a self-sufficient natural economy, and a vast sea of small production, remained for a long time.

In an agrarian country, the main body of the revolution can only be the peasantry. As the vanguard of the working class, how can the Communist Party of China maintain its nature as the vanguard of the working class when its members are mainly peasants? Our party's countermeasure is to build the party ideologically, that is, to use the ideology of the working class to transform the peasants and correct all kinds of non-proletarian thinking within the party. However, the transformation is always mutual, and the peasants consciously or unconsciously use the feudal consciousness to transform the party, bring the feudal consciousness into the party, and accept the ideas of the proletariat in their own way. For example, we believe in Marxism as if we were religious, engage in a cult of personality, deify the leaders of the proletariat, and turn the lofty goals of communist society into ideals on the other side.

Due to the peculiarities of the Chinese revolution, criticism of capitalism has come one after another under the condition that the anti-feudal struggle has not yet been very deep. The weapon used to criticize capitalism is Marxism, as many people have rightly pointed out: Marxism was introduced to China in a very hasty manner, and the Communist Party of China was involved in practical struggles as soon as it was founded, and it is a Marxist party that is ideologically and theoretically ill-prepared. On the one hand, we criticize capitalism on the basis of a very low level of productive forces, and on the other hand, we are not good at using Marxism as an ideological weapon, and feudalism, which is opposed to capitalism, is very handy in using it, and this is done in the name of Marxism. That is to say, at some point we use feudalism to criticize capitalism, and this criticism makes us regard certain feudal things as Marxism. With the development of the commodity economy, the foundation of feudalism was gradually eradicated, and when these feudal traditional concepts, which had always been regarded as Marxism, became obstacles to the development of production and economic operation and fell into crisis, the so-called crisis of belief appeared.

In our country, feudalism has long been notorious, and feudalism has no market in its original form, but when it appears in another form, it has to be a different matter.

The basic characteristics of the feudal system are autocracy, privilege, hierarchy, closure, and personal dependence. Whether a person is noble or lowly, rich or poor is predestined by birth, and generally cannot be changed. In order to make people willingly accept the feudal order, asceticism naturally became the most important moral precept, the so-called "preserve the principles of heaven and destroy human desires". Everything is predestined in the past life, and man is born sinful, and he came to this world to atone for his sins, and he should endure all the sufferings of the world. Who will respond to the open proclamation of asceticism? But it is different if asceticism has become "not self-interested and exclusively benefiting others." Even now, do not many people still firmly believe that the latter is the morality of communism? Marx said: Generally speaking, the principle of feudal society is to despise and despise people, so that people will not become their own people. And isn't collectivism, which we have always enshrined as the moral principle of socialism, the same? Isn't it also a kind of autocracy when we emphasize obedience and execution without restrictions?

(b)

Now let's discuss: Is it communist morality to benefit others without self-interest?

For a long time, we have always regarded the pursuit of personal gain as the root of all evil, regarded "selflessness" and "selflessness" as the moral requirements for people, and believed that in order to realize communism, it is necessary to train people to be people who are not self-interested and benefit others. We cannot forget what a sad and ridiculous scene it was in the years when we were fighting fiercely and in the flashes of thought, the more people who were good at drilling camps were more and more ashamed to proclaim how selfless they were, and those who were honest kept condemning themselves in pain because they could not do anything for the benefit of themselves!

In fact, a fact that anyone can determine with experience is that it is impossible for people not to seek personal gain, and the greatest gain of reform and opening up is to realize the importance of the interest-driven mechanism. Historical materialism reveals a simple fact that has traditionally been obscured by a flourishing ideology: people must first eat, drink, shelter, and clothe before they can engage in other activities. Satisfying the needs of eating, drinking, sheltering, and clothing is the most basic self-interest of the people, and what will happen after the basic needs are satisfied? Marx said: The satisfaction of needs and the means of satisfying needs will give rise to new needs. Need--satisfaction-need, and the unsatisfied pursuit of new needs is the inexhaustible driving force of human beings and the real source of power for human society. If people do not seek personal gain, how can human society move forward?

There is also a fact that can be empirically determined by anyone: man is a social animal, and individuals cannot live without the group, and individual interests must be combined into common interests. That is to say, since it is not a person and not an individual interest, it is also necessary to deal with the relationship between the individual and the individual, the individual and the group, the individual and the individual, and the individual and the common interest. Under certain historical conditions, it is more attractive to seek profit for oneself by appropriating the labor of others, and there is also the opposition and division of labor between labor and enjoyment, and the contradictions and antagonisms between individuals and individuals, individuals and groups, individual interests and personal interests, and personal interests and common interests. Engels said: "From the time of the development of private ownership of movable property, in all societies where such private property exists, the moral precept must be the same, and do not steal." Does this precept thus become an eternal moral precept? Absolutely not. In a society where the motive for stealing has been eliminated, what kind of ridicule will a moral propagator be given if he wants to proclaim an eternal truth, not to steal!" (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 3, p. 133) When society develops to the point where the opposition between labor and enjoyment and the division of labor have disappeared, and labor itself has become enjoyment. The contradictions and antagonisms between the individual and the common good have died out, and their unity has disappeared, that is to say, in a communist society, if anyone proclaims morality such as the unselfish and the interests of others, will not they also be ridiculed?

Some people may say that communist society is far away from us, and there is no point in discussing the question of morality in communist society, and that it is always good for us to advocate morality that is not self-interested and only benefits others, right?

Is it really good for us to promote a morality that is not self-interested and that is devoted to others?

We also talked about the fact that under the conditions of contradictions and antagonisms between individuals and individuals, between individuals and groups, between individual interests and between individual interests and between individual interests and common interests, it is necessary to restrict and regulate individual profit-seeking activities. At different stages of human development, there have been different perceptions and restrictions on people's profit-making activities. The feudal society pursued asceticism, but in fact it was engaged in the discarding of food, and the result was long-term stagnation. Under the capitalist system, it is an empty phrase to talk about equal opportunities between people, but free competition does provide a broad space for everyone to display their talents, and it also injects unprecedented vitality into human society. "The bourgeoisie reveals that the bravery and aggressiveness, which was so much appreciated by the reactionaries in the Middle Ages, was supplemented by laziness and laziness. It proved for the first time what human activity can achieve. It created miracles completely different from the Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts and Gothic churches, and it completed expeditions completely different from the Great Migration and the Crusades". (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. I, p. 254)

Shouldn't socialism create a social environment in which everyone can do his or her best to seek his own personal interests through his own efforts, but he must not harm others or the group, but he must only act within the limits of the law, as long as he fulfills his obligations to others and to the group. Just like the flow of water, the water can flow freely in the channel, but the water can only flow in the channel, because if it breaks out of the embankment, it will overflow.

All behaviors that harm the common interests are to satisfy personal interests. However, self-interest does not necessarily harm others, and if self-interest and self-interest are beneficial to others, and both personal and common interests are not the main theme of our social life, our society cannot be formed at all. Those who are virtuous, who are helpful and enthusiastic about public welfare, do not lie in their selflessness, but in their far-sightedness in the pursuit of personal interests. Selfishness, on the other hand, is manifested in the pursuit of personal interests.

Next, we have to discuss the second question: Is collectivism a moral principle of socialism?

What do we mean by the principle of collectivism? If the so-called collectivism is the negation of individual interests, it is obvious that this is nothing more than a change of clothing of feudal asceticism and a reaction against social progress. Like autocracy, superstition, and worship, it is the precipitation of the vast sea of petty production. If what we mean by collectivism is that in order to safeguard the common interest, it is necessary to exercise effective restrictions and supervision over individual interests, and this is of course beyond reproach, but this collectivism is indispensable to any society and any group, including capitalist society, and has no special significance in socialist society. This is not a denial of individual interests, but an affirmation of individual interests, because the collective contains many individuals, and the common interests contain many individual interests, which is destined to be more important than a single individual and individual interests. And this obedience should never be absolute, but only relative, and can only be within the scope of the obligations that the individual must assume to the collective, and the individual to the common good. Otherwise, collectivism would have evolved into feudal autocracy.

Another point that needs to be clarified is the relationship between personal interests and common interests.

In the past, we used to say that a big river has water and a small river is full, and a big river has no water and a small river is dry. Now there is also a new saying, which is called that a small river has water and a big river is full, and a small river has no water and a large river is dry, which talks about the fact that individual interests determine common interests. What is the relationship between individual interests and common interests? Marx and Engels revealed the essence of the problem: "The outstanding point of the few communist theorists who have had time to engage in historical research is that they are the only ones who have discovered that the 'common interest' is created by individuals as 'privates' at all times in history. They know that this antagonism is only superficial, because this antagonism, the so-called 'ordinary' side, is always constantly produced by the other side, that is, the side of private interests, and it is by no means opposed to private interests as an independent force with an independent history, so this antagonism always produces and disappears in practice. (The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 3, p. 275) People are not as ferocious as tigers and leopards, and they can become the masters of this world by the power of the group. It is universally recognized that individuals cannot survive without the group, and that individual interests cannot exist without common interests, and that individual interests must be formed into common interests. However, in the final analysis, the common interest is a collection of individual interests, and without personal interests, the common interests will be water without a source, a tree without roots, and must be an impostor.

(c)

Feudal autocracy is built on the basis of the ignorance and superstition of the ruled, and it is compatible with the small-scale production that depends on the sky, isolated, and inactive, and the more a person despises himself, the more he worships authority. Engels said: "Slavery took place throughout the Middle Ages and was still seen in Germany until after the Thirty Years' War." After the defeat of Prussia in 1806 and 1807, dependency relations were abolished, and the obligation of the merciful lords to care for the poor, sick and old dependent peasants was abolished, and the peasants petitioned the king to keep them in a position of servitude – otherwise who would take care of them in their misfortunes" (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. III, pp. 138-139)

What the commodity economy needs is an independent and fully capable commodity owner. Equivalent exchange can only be achieved in complete equality. The premise of the exchange of equal amounts of labor must be the equality of different forms of labor, which is absolutely incompatible with privileges and ranks. There is also freedom, the combination of the need for capital and free labor, the freedom of trade, the freedom of competition, the free flow of resources...... This set of requirements is also incompatible with personal dependency, hierarchy, and privilege. Economic needs will inevitably become political demands, arouse people's self-consciousness, turn people's eyes from the ideal kingdom of heaven and the afterlife to real life, and return from the "world on the other side" to the "world on this shore", and the feudal shackles of asceticism must be broken. We can see that all the enlightenment movements of feudalism related to the development of the commodity economy were centered on the emancipation of individuality. Emphasizing the self and paying attention to personal interests and practical interests is undoubtedly the modern personality required by the commodity economy. Knowing this, it is easy to understand why ascetic morals and values are now being met with cold reception and criticism.

Man is the most active factor among the elements of the productive forces, and the emancipation of the productive forces is, first of all, the emancipation of man, the enhancement of man's self-consciousness, and the enhancement of democratic consciousness itself an important aspect of historical progress. Far from being a crisis of socialism, this is where the hope of socialism lies.