Talk:Campaign against spiritual pollution

Duration of the campaign

Quote: "The Anti-Spiritual Pollution Campaign was a Chinese political campaign from October 1983 to February 1984, started by political factions in the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party that feared the spreading of Western liberal ideas among the Chinese populace, a product of the then relatively recent open door policy. It was among the final of the CCP's political campaigns, lasting less than a month." October 1983 to February 1984 is not less than a month. Source? Less than a year? /Julle (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Legacy

The author mentions in the intro that elements of the Anti-Spiritual Pollution Campaign were brought back during the Anti-Bourgeois Liberalization Campaign, but does not go into much more detail than that in the rest of the article. It may be beneficial to add a small section on the "legacy" of this campaign explaining possibly what specific aspects of the Anti-Spiritual Pollution Campaign were rehashed in the Anti-Bourgeois Liberalization Campaign and the impact/role they had in this later movement — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owenpmoore (talk • contribs) 01:59, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment on the section "Intellectual Background"

The discussion of Maoist views on human nature reminded me of my article on Maoist ethics that was not published yet. I would have suggested that the author considers including a link to this page if the page had existed. Since it does not exist yet, I will share some of the facts I collected.

Quoting from my page on Maoist view of rights: "Maoist philosophical thought is flexible: practical necessity has higher priority than theoretical consistency and unchangeability. Maoist view on human rights is in line with the overall characteristic of his philosophy. Rights are not natural or innate. Rights are rather attributed on the basis of one's class position and political views. A particular political situation determines whether rights should be given to a particular group of people. For example, during the Sino-Japanese conflict, Mao reasoned that the rights had to be given to the landlords provided that the landlords would support the Communists in resisting the Japanese.[3] The same happened during the War of Resistance, when the CCP was combating the GMD. [4] This flexibility in defining rights served an important practical role in achieving the overall Communist goal."

Quoting from my page on the points of comparison between Maoist and Marxist ethics: "One point of comparison between Maoist ethics and Marxist ethics is interpretation of the concept of rights. Marx was ambiguous about the notion of rights in the pre-communist societies. According to Marx, rights contribute to the development of atomized self-centered bourgeoisie society. Marx thought that humans are “species beings”, and flourish in the society from their relations with each other. Rights discourse in the US, for example, protects individuals and individual behaviors, reducing the desire or possibility of people to engage with each other. Nevertheless, there was a right that Marx recognized: a fundamental right to receive according to one's labor.[4] The similarity with Maoist understanding of rights would be that for a consistent Marxist it is possible to advocate for “revolutionary human rights” (opposed to “human rights”), namely, rights granted to people who are committed to the revolutionary mission.[4] Another similarity is that Marxists did not consider rights as innate. The third similarity is that Marxists would not advocate for the rights of all. Rather rights are defined only in relation to a proper class.[4] Similarly, Maoist ethics is selective in granting rights to people."

[3] Kraus, Richard; Angle, Stephen C.; Svensson, Marina (2002). "The Chinese Human Rights Reader: Documents and Commentary, 1900-2000". Pacific Affairs. 75 (4): 593. doi:10.2307/4127353. ISSN 0030-851X.

[4] Angle, Stephen C. (2002). Human Rights and Chinese Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 9780511499227.

I hope that the author will find some of the information here useful for the section on intellectual background.

AsyaVitko (talk) 08:12, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions

The section on the intellectual background of the campaign is very well-written and the author offers a concise synthesis of key topics of disagreement and the major player's opinion on each topic. However, I am not sure that the section title "point of departure" precisely captures the content of that section. Also, there seems to be minor argumentative looseness in this section. The section starts with the question of "means and ends," and it goes on to talk about two notions of man in the debate of Marxist humanism. I would like to hear more explanation on why these two points follow––the notions both seem to be viewing man as the end, they just differ in the lens through which "man" is viewed. In regard to David Kelly's criticism in the "limitation" section, I was a bit confused about what the "four basic principles" are. Explaining what they are may give the readers a clearer sense of the limitations of Wang's arguments.

Also, the section on "the campaign" seems a bit disproportioned compared to the "intellectual background" section. It can perhaps be expanded to include more details of the exact policies carried out during the campaign and their aftermath. Also, I would like to learn more about Chinese people's perception toward the campaign during and after this campaign, if relevant information is available.

Xzhang01 (talk) 03:58, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 October 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

---

Anti-Spiritual Pollution Campaign → Campaign against spiritual pollution – per MOS:ISMCAPS – or at least Anti–spiritual pollution campaign or Anti–Spiritual Pollution Campaign or Anti–Spiritual Pollution campaign per MOS:PREFIXDASH and MOS:HYPHENCAPS. The current title sounds like a pollution campaign that is anti-spiritual. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 22:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

• Support. The current title is a bit cumbersome. Rreagan007 (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
• Support, or Campaign to eliminate spiritual pollution, which is also found in sources and seems very clear. Dicklyon (talk) 03:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.