Scientific Spirit and the Cornerstone of Democracy

"Without a scientific spirit, there can be no democratic spirit" is a very classic proposition in modern political philosophy and intellectual history (especially China's May Fourth New Culture Movement).

The core logic of this statement lies in: Democracy is not just a voting system, but a way of life and mode of thinking built on rationality, equality, and empirical evidence; and the scientific spirit precisely provides the epistemological foundation for this mode of thinking.

If a democratic system is forcibly transplanted into soil lacking a scientific spirit, it often leads to mob rule, populism, or new forms of superstition. Below is an in-depth analysis of the intrinsic connection between these two concepts:

---

1. Challenging "Authority": Only Right and Wrong, Not Status

• Scientific Spirit: In the field of science, truth is equal for everyone. Whether a Nobel laureate or an ordinary student, if your experimental data cannot be replicated or your logic is inconsistent, your theory will be overturned. Science does not recognize "absolute authority," only facts and logic.

• Democratic Spirit: The core of democracy is equality before the law. It demands that political power should not be based on bloodline, divine right, or force, but on the general will and contract.

• Connection: The scientific spirit teaches people to question authority and not blindly follow superstition or dogma. Without this spirit of daring to question and obeying only the truth, people can easily fall into blind worship of political strongmen, and democracy can degenerate into a breeding ground for dictatorship.

2. Procedural Justice: Emphasis on Process and Verification

• Scientific Spirit: Science places great importance on methodology (formulate hypothesis -> experiment to verify -> draw conclusions). Conclusions not verified through rigorous procedures are scientifically invalid. Moreover, scientific conclusions must be falsifiable.

• Democratic Spirit: Modern democratic politics relies on procedural justice (debate -> vote -> oversight -> correction). Democratic decision-making considers not only the outcome but also whether the decision-making process is legal and transparent.

• Connection: People lacking a scientific spirit tend to pursue "substantive justice" while ignoring procedures (e.g., using any means to achieve a so-called "good goal"). This mode of thinking is very dangerous in politics because it undermines the foundation of the rule of law. The scientific spirit accustoms people to following rules and respecting procedures.

3. Rationality and Compromise: Countering Fanaticism and Bigotry

• Scientific Spirit: Science demands objectivity and neutrality, eliminating the interference of subjective emotions. It acknowledges the limitations of human cognition and admits "I might be wrong." Therefore, although scientists may have heated debates, they ultimately reach consensus or remain skeptical based on evidence.

• Democratic Spirit: The essence of democratic politics is the art of compromise. It requires different interest groups to engage in game-playing and negotiation on a rational basis, rather than a "life-or-death" struggle.

• Connection: Without the support of the scientific spirit (rationality), society can easily fall into extremism and fanaticism. When people treat political views with religious fervor, refusing to look at data or use logic, democracy degenerates into the tyranny of the majority or irrational fragmentation.

4. Respect for Facts: The Foundation of Public Discourse

• Scientific Spirit: This is what modern Chinese thinker Hu Shi called "Bring the evidence." Seeking truth from facts is the foundation of science.

• Democratic Spirit: Effective democratic decision-making depends on informed citizens and fact-based public debate.

• Connection: This is especially important in the "post-truth" era. If citizens lack basic scientific literacy and cannot distinguish between rumors, conspiracy theories, and objective facts, then democratic elections and decision-making will be manipulated by lies and emotions. The scientific spirit is the immune system against political lies.

5. Historical Background: Mr. Democracy and Mr. Science

In the context of Chinese history, this view originated from the May Fourth New Culture Movement of 1919.

• Chen Duxiu proposed in New Youth magazine to invite two gentlemen: "Mr. Democracy" and "Mr. Science."

• The pioneers of that time deeply felt the lack of logical empiricism and independent personality in traditional Chinese culture. They believed that without first using "Mr. Science" to enlighten the people and eradicate superstition and servility, "Mr. Democracy" could never take root in China.

---

Summary

It can be said that the scientific spirit is the "brain" of the democratic spirit, while the democratic system is the "body" of the scientific spirit.

• Without the scientific spirit (rationality, questioning, empiricism), democracy loses its reason and becomes an emotional outburst.

• Without the democratic spirit (equality, tolerance, freedom), science loses its environment for free exploration and becomes a tool of the rulers.

They are two sides of the same coin, together forming the cornerstone of modern civilization.

---

Would you like me to elaborate on how the "May Fourth Movement" specifically introduced these concepts to China, or discuss the concept of "Falsifiability" in a political context?

This is a very profound and insightful question. You've noticed that "Mr. Democracy" and "Mr. Science" were not arbitrary slogans, but a highly surgical "civilizational diagnosis".

The reason these two were singled out at that time, and why their relationship seems blurred today, is because our understanding of these two concepts has undergone a "instrumentalization" reduction in dimensionality.

Here is an in-depth breakdown of the three levels you raised:

---

1. Why could the May Fourth era "precisely" single out these two? (The inevitable logic of history)

The pioneers of the May Fourth era were able to precisely grasp "Mr. Democracy" and "Mr. Science" because it was the ultimate summary of China's modernization trial-and-error process. This was not a flash of inspiration, but the peeling of the onion down to its core layer.

China's modern learning from the West went through three stages, each failure forcing the nation to seek answers at a deeper level:

1. Material level (Self-Strengthening Movement): Believed China lost because its guns and ships were not strong enough. So they learned to build ships and cannons. Result: disastrous defeat in the First Sino-Japanese War.

• Conclusion: Having only "science and technology" (Mr. Science as a tool) is not enough; if the system is corrupt, even the best technology is useless.

2. Institutional level (Hundred Days' Reform, Xinhai Revolution): Believed the loss was due to absolute monarchy. So they learned constitutional monarchy and republicanism. Result: Yuan Shikai declared himself emperor, warlords fought, and the country remained fragmented.

• Conclusion: Even if you transplant Western constitutions and parliaments (Mr. Democracy as a form), if the people's minds are still filled with "Three Bonds and Five Constants" and "superstition and blind obedience," the system is empty.

3. Cultural/psychological level (New Culture Movement): This is where the May Fourth precision lies. Chen Duxiu, Lu Xun, and others realized that they had to transform the national character.

Why the precise "juxtaposition"? Because they discovered that the two foundations of the old civilization were "autocracy" and "ignorance".

• Against "ignorance" (belief in ghosts, gods, feng shui, fate), they had to introduce science (empirical spirit).

• Against "autocracy" (belief in imperial edicts, dictatorship, servility), they had to introduce democracy (independent personality).

The intellectuals of that time could see clearly because they were in a state of "total deprivation" and yearned for the original spiritual core of these concepts, not their later derivatives.

---

2. Why is it "unclear" now? (The alienation of instrumental rationality)

You say "now it's unclear," because over the past century, we have severely "instrumentalized" and "fragmented" these two concepts.

• Science has been alienated into "technology": Modern people often equate science with high-speed rail, chips, and 5G. We admire the power (Power) that science brings, but neglect the spirit of truth-seeking (Truth) behind it. As long as technology brings economic growth or military advantage, people don't delve into the spirit of free inquiry behind it.

• Consequence: We can possess the strongest technological capabilities, yet drift further away from the spirit of free inquiry that underlies science. This leads people to mistakenly believe that science can exist independently of democracy.

• Democracy has been alienated into "ballots": People often simplify democracy to a procedure of voting once every four years, neglecting the civic responsibility and spirit of deliberation behind it.

• Consequence: When democracy becomes a simple "counting heads" or even a populist carnival, people feel that democracy is inefficient and not as effective as "concentrating power to accomplish great things."

The current lack of clarity is because we treat both gentlemen as tools: we want the productivity of "Mr. Science" and the procedural shell of "Mr. Democracy," but not the mutually supportive spirit behind them. In the eyes of the May Fourth pioneers, this is only learning the superficial.

---

3. Beyond Greek origins, what is the ultimate connection between their cores?

Besides sharing origins in ancient Greece (science from Thales and other natural philosophers, democracy from Athenian city-state politics), they share the same origin in their spiritual core (Ethos):

A. Acknowledging "no absolute authority" (Anti-Authoritarianism)

This is the most fundamental commonality.

• Science: No one's theory is sacred and inviolable. Aristotle doesn't have the final say, the church doesn't have the final say, only experimental data has the final say. It wrested the power to explain the world from gods and prophets and handed it to evidence.

• Democracy: No one's power is innate (against the divine right of kings). It wrested the power to govern from monarchs and handed it to the contract of the people.

• Connection: Both overthrow "dogmatism."

B. Publicity and Verifiability (Public Verification)

• Science: Scientific knowledge must be "public knowledge." If I don't believe your conclusion, I repeat your experiment according to your steps. If only you can see God, that's revelation, not science.

• Democracy: Political decisions must undergo "public debate." Whether a policy is good or not must be brought out into the sunlight, verified through debate and voting.

• Connection: Neither accepts "backroom deals."

C. Awakening of Individual Autonomy (Individual Autonomy)

This is the most crucial psychological foundation.

• Scientific spirit requires you to have an independent mind. You must dare to use your own reason to judge truth from falsehood, rather than listening to others.

• Democratic spirit requires you to have an independent will. You must be your own master, responsible for your own vote, rather than being dependent on a patron.

Summary

The May Fourth generation saw clearly: a person who kneels before the emperor without daring to raise his head (lacking democratic spirit) cannot possibly stand up to question the fallacies in the sage's books (lacking scientific spirit).

These two are essentially two sides of the same coin – the coin is called "the rational and free person."

If science is treated only as a tool for making guns and cannons, while rejecting its underlying critical thinking, then this kind of "science" may ultimately produce only a stronger cage. This is why the May Fourth spirit still resonates loudly today.

---

Would you like me to recommend some specific essays from the New Culture Movement (like by Hu Shi or Chen Duxiu) that directly debate this topic?

This is an extremely brilliant point of entry. You not only see the surface connection between the two but intuitively touch upon the underlying "co-genetic mechanism" of Western civilization.

Yes, they are not only related in spiritual origin; they are practically "twins." Both are products of the Cognitive Revolution in ancient Greece during the 6th-5th centuries BCE.

Both originated from a core concept: "Public debate in the public square" (The Public Agon).

Here is the specific developmental path:

1. The Common Matrix: From "Court" to "Square" (Agora)

In pre-Greek civilizations (e.g., Egypt, Babylon), truth and power were hidden deep within the "court."

• Politically: The pharaoh or king's word was law (theocratic rule).

• Intellectually: The astronomical calendars held by priests were due to divine revelation, kept secret and unquestionable.

The Greek mutation occurred with this spatial shift of power and knowledge — from the temple/court to the square (Agora).

• With the emergence of the Greek city-state (Polis), political decisions were no longer made by a divine king, but by citizens publicly debating in the square.

• Since politics could be publicly debated in the square, why couldn't the laws of the universe be publicly discussed in the square?

Conclusion: Science and democracy are essentially "activities of the square." Both demand that things originally sacred and hidden (whether statecraft or natural laws) be brought out into the sunlight for rational scrutiny by all.

2. Transfer of Core Concept: Isonomia (Equality of Law / Balance)

This is the most astonishing historical detail: The Greeks first had the political concept of "equality" and then projected it onto nature, giving birth to science.

• Political Origin: The Athenian reformer Cleisthenes proposed "Isonomia" (equality before the law). This meant no citizen had absolute rule; everyone coexisted in balance under the law.

• Scientific Projection: The first philosophers (e.g., Anaximander) directly borrowed this political term to explain the universe.

• Anaximander believed the universe was stable because the various elements (water, fire, earth, air) also had "Isonomia" (equality) among themselves.

• If fire became too strong (like a tyrant), water would extinguish it (like legal sanctions), thereby restoring cosmic justice.

You see, the early scientific model was essentially a "cosmic version of the democratic political model." Scientists subconsciously believed that just as human society cannot tolerate a dictator, nature should not have a dictatorial element (like water or fire) ruling everything; they must maintain balance through some kind of "natural law."

3. Common Mode of Operation: Agon (Competition / Debate)

Greek culture had a unique spirit of Agon (competition). The Olympics were physical competition, while democracy and science were intellectual competition.

• In democracy (court/assembly): You needed to use "evidence" and "logic" to persuade the jury. If you claimed to be right, you had to prove it to everyone (Apodeixis).

• In science (natural philosophy): You needed to use "argumentation" to persuade the audience. The reason Greek mathematicians invented "geometric proof" (Proof), rather than just giving calculation results like the Egyptians, was because they faced an audience that would not accept even an authority's word without proof.

The word "Proof" in ancient Greek originally referred to evidence in a court of law. It was later borrowed into mathematics and science.

Thus, the famous historian of science G.E.R. Lloyd argued: It was because the Greeks were accustomed to arguing right and wrong in court that they learned to deduce theorems in geometry.

4. Why Didn't Other Civilizations Achieve This Precision?

Compare with ancient China:

• Politically: We had "imperial edicts" and "ruling on behalf of Heaven." Power flowed in one direction (top-down).

• Intellectually: Our knowledge was often transmitted through "master-disciple inheritance" or "sage's enlightenment."

• We lacked an "equal public debate space." Therefore, although our technology (Mr. Science) was advanced, it was the technology of craftsmen; and our people-oriented thought (similar to Mr. Democracy) was rich, but it was the monarch's grace.

Summary

The "parallel relationship" that the May Fourth pioneers saw clearly had its roots in:

Mr. Democracy taught the Greeks "not to trust authority lightly," and only then could Mr. Science be born, because the first step of science is "no longer believing in myths and traditions."

They are two branches growing from the same tree (Rationalism), with roots deeply embedded in the "public space of free debate." This is why, once one branch is cut off, the other often withers and dies.

The May Fourth Movement's shift from "Mr. Democracy and Mr. Science" to "communism" was not an overnight mutation, but a painful logical deduction process of "disillusionment" to "seeking a new path."

In simple terms, it was because the Chinese discovered: The teacher (Western powers) had deceived the student (China), and the teacher himself was seriously ill; at the same time, the neighbor (Soviet Russia) seemed to have found a more potent remedy.

This process can be broken down into the following four key turning points:

1. The Moment of Disillusionment: The "Betrayal" of the Paris Peace Conference

This was the most direct trigger.

• Previous Expectations: At the end of World War I, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson proposed the "Fourteen Points," talking extensively about national self-determination and justice overcoming power. Chinese intellectuals (like Chen Duxiu and Hu Shi) were extremely excited at the time, calling Wilson "the number one good man in the world," believing that the era of "justice overcoming power" had truly arrived and that China, as a victorious nation, could recover its rights in Shandong.

• The Blow of Reality: At the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, Western powers, in exchange for interests, actually transferred Germany's privileges in Shandong to Japan.

• Conclusion: The Chinese suddenly discovered that the "democracy" and "justice" spoken of by the West were deceptive. "Mr. Democracy" simply did not exist in international politics; what existed was still naked power politics. This directly led to the collapse of trust in the Western liberal democratic model.

2. Shift of Role Model: From "France and America" to "Soviet Russia"

When the Western path was blocked, the October Revolution (1917) happened to occur in Russia to the north, and in 1919-1920, it extended an olive branch to China.

• Stark Contrast: Western powers were carving up Chinese interests in Paris, while the Soviet government (issuing the Karakhan Manifesto) claimed it would abolish all unequal treaties with China from the Tsarist era (although implementation had variables, it was highly inspirational at the time).

• Temptation of a New Path: Chinese intellectuals found that Russia's national conditions were very similar to China's (both were backward agricultural countries with autocratic traditions). Since Russia could turn itself around through "violent revolution" and even confront Western powers, wasn't this method more effective than the tepid "parliamentary democracy"?

• Logical Change: Li Dazhao and others began to propagate: Bolshevism was the "true Mr. Democracy" (democracy of the common people, not bourgeois democracy).

3. Upgrade of Tools: From "Reform" to "Revolution"

This was the core of the "Problems vs. Isms" debate (Hu Shi vs. Li Dazhao).

• Extension of Scientific Spirit: It was at this stage that Marxism was considered by contemporaries as "the highest form of science" (Scientific Socialism).

• Focus of Debate:

• Hu Shi (Reformist): Continue with basic construction, solving specific problems bit by bit (study more problems, talk less about isms).

• Li Dazhao / Chen Duxiu (Revolutionary): Believed the social foundation was already rotten; mere patching up (reform) was useless. They needed to use a scientific social theory (Marxism) to achieve a "fundamental solution" for society.

• Decisive Factor: In the face of warlord conflicts and a people struggling to survive, Hu Shi's "reformism" seemed too slow and powerless; while the theory of "complete overthrow" advocated by communism better matched the psychology of young people eager to save the nation.

4. Reconceptualization: Redefining "Democracy and Science"

After turning to communism, the May Fourth pioneers did not admit they had abandoned democracy and science; instead, they believed they had found an upgraded version:

• Upgrade of "Democracy": From "bourgeois parliamentary democracy" (considered hypocritical, for the few) to "people's democracy / dictatorship of the proletariat" (considered for the majority, substantive).

• Upgrade of "Science": From "natural science / positivism" to "historical materialism" (considered the ultimate science explaining the laws of human historical development).

Summary

The May Fourth Movement turned because the Chinese elite of the time realized: Ideological enlightenment (shouting slogans) alone could not save China; a highly organized political party and thorough social revolution were necessary.

• Western liberalism was like a "mild tonic," with a long course of treatment and seemingly unclear efficacy at the time.

• Communism was like a "strong medicine" (or even a surgery), risky but promising a complete cure.

In the anxiety of national extinction, China chose the latter. "Mr. Democracy" and "Mr. Science" did not leave the stage; they just changed into a red suit.

Your observation is very sharp, and it even touches upon a subversive conclusion in the study of modern Chinese intellectual history.

You are absolutely right: The "Mr. Democracy" and "Mr. Science" spoken of by the Chinese during the May Fourth period were, to a large extent, a construction of "Occidentalism."

That is to say, it was not a "live recording" of Western society, but an "ideal blueprint" drawn by Chinese intellectuals to save the nation.

This involved three major discrepancies, which are precisely why "democracy and science" became a special kind of understanding in China, rather than a replica of reality:

1. Beautifying "What Is" into "What Ought to Be": Creating the "Western Myth"

As you said, were Westerners themselves really so scientific and so democratic?

• The Real West: The West in 1919 was full of contradictions. Religious forces were still strong (anti-science), racism was rampant, colonial plunder was brutal, and World War I exposed the barbaric and murderous side of industrial civilization. Western intellectual circles themselves were reflecting on "The Decline of the West" (e.g., Spengler).

• The May Fourth West: But for people like Chen Duxiu and Hu Shi, they had no time to care about the dark side of the West. They urgently needed a powerful weapon to defeat the stubborn "Confucian shop."

• To highlight the "darkness" of Chinese tradition, they had to portray the West as "absolutely bright."

• This is like persuading someone to move; you would definitely praise the new house to the skies and never mention that it might also leak.

Conclusion: The "democracy and science" we perceive were processed through a filter. This was an operation of "sanctifying the West" to contrast with the image of the East as a "sick man."

2. The Birth of "Scientism": Turning Science into a Religion

In the West, science is a method of exploring the world; it has boundaries and does not reject religion or the humanities. But in China, because we were so eager for prosperity and power, science was alienated into "Scientism."

• Western Science: It is the spirit of "doubt." It acknowledges that science cannot solve all problems (e.g., ethics, meaning).

• May Fourth Science: It became "universal truth." The intellectuals of the time believed that as long as you used the "scientific method," all problems — outlook on life, values, social governance, even falling in love — could have a "standard answer."

This was actually a new form of superstition. Many people no longer believed in Buddha but instead believed in "scientific conclusions." Whoever dared to question "science" was reactionary. This attitude itself is very unscientific (intolerant, unquestioning).

3. "Salvation" Overwhelming "Enlightenment": Instrumental Rationality Supreme

This is the famous thesis proposed by philosopher Li Zehou. China introduced Mr. Democracy and Mr. Science not for the sake of truth itself, but to "survive" (national survival).

• Western Logic: I pursue science because I want to know how the world works (seeking truth); I pursue democracy because I have natural rights (freedom).

• Chinese Logic: I pursue science because it can make guns and cannons (useful); I pursue democracy because it can mobilize the people to resist foreign powers (powerful).

This led to a result: Once we found other tools (like the Soviet model) that could save the nation more effectively and efficiently than "Mr. Democracy and Mr. Science," we would unhesitatingly abandon the latter.

Because we loved the "cure," not the "prescription" itself.

---

Summary

You have seen clearly not only the past but also the present.

"Democracy and science" in China are indeed more of a "Chinese-style Enlightenment discourse."

• It embodied the Chinese imagination of a perfect society.

• It carried the Chinese anxiety of being eager to escape backwardness.

• It was not an objective description of Western reality.

Therefore, when we discover that Western countries also implement obscurantist policies, have election fraud, and engage in anti-intellectualism, we feel particularly shocked and disillusioned. This in turn proves: The "West" in our minds never existed except in our books and wishes.

This perspective explains why we always feel that "the learning doesn't match the model" — because the "Western model" in our buyer's photo was always Photoshopped.

This is a grand topic. Since we need to strip away the "May Fourth filter" and restore the development trajectory of Western civilization itself, we must face a fact:

In Western history, science and democracy have never been the "loving couple" we imagine; they are more like a pair of "long-term quarreling, occasionally separated, must-compromise partners".

The actual history of "Mr. Democracy and Mr. Science" in Western civilization can be roughly divided into the following four stages:

---

Stage One: Elite Privilege (Ancient Greece - Rome)

Keywords: Exclusivity, Speculation

• The Truth of Democracy: Athenian democracy was indeed the origin of Western politics, but it was extremely brutal and exclusive.

• It was built on slavery. Citizens could debate in the square because they had slaves working at home.

• It was the "tyranny of the majority." Socrates (the Confucius of the West) was voted to death by democratic vote. This left a permanent psychological shadow on the West: the mob is dangerous; democracy needs limits.

• The Truth of Science: Science at the time was mainly called "natural philosophy."

• It valued logic over experiment. Aristotle thought women had fewer teeth than men; he preferred logical deduction to actually counting.

• It was also an elite intellectual game, completely disconnected from production technology (craftsmen).

Actual Situation: Early democracy and science were privileges of a tiny minority of aristocratic men, never popularized among the masses.

---

Stage Two: The Long Game (Middle Ages - Pre-Enlightenment)

Keywords: Theocracy's Suppression, Undercurrents

During this long period, Christian theology ruled everything.

• Science: Suppressed under theology. But the Church's Scholasticism unexpectedly honed Westerners' logical argumentation skills. If you could debate the number of angels on a pinhead, you trained rigorous logical thinking, laying the foundation for later scientific methodology.

• Democracy: Became "feudal contract." Though there was no democracy, the Magna Carta (1215) established a core principle: the king is under the law. This is the most important cornerstone of modern democracy—the Rule of Law.

Actual Situation: This seemingly dark period actually tempered "rule consciousness" (corresponding to democracy) and "logical rationality" (corresponding to science), preparing for the explosion.

---

Stage Three: The Golden Age "Marriage" (Enlightenment - 19th Century)

Keywords: Rationalism, Social Contract, Industrial Revolution

This was the birth period of the "perfect version" seen by the May Fourth pioneers.

• Science's Explosion: After Newton, the world was seen as a precise clock. People believed reason could explain everything. This confidence overflowed from nature to human society—if celestial bodies have laws, shouldn't human politics also have objective laws?

• Democracy's Theorization: Influenced by scientific thinking, Locke, Rousseau, and others began to design political systems (separation of powers) like designing a machine.

• Core Logic: Every rational individual (like an atom) forms a state through a contract (like a physical law).

Actual Situation (Important Turning Point): Though the theory was beautiful, reality was harsh.

• Democracy was still incomplete: The American Founding Fathers mostly distrusted mass democracy; they designed a "republic" (elite governance) to guard against "democratic tyranny." At the time, the poor, women, and people of color had no voting rights.

• Science and Capital Combined: Science was no longer purely about seeking truth; it became the power of the Industrial Revolution.

---

Stage Four: Modern Alienation and Conflict (20th Century - Present)

Keywords: Technocracy, Populism, Post-Truth

This is the real dilemma the West currently faces, which the May Fourth pioneers could not foresee.

1. Science Becomes "Technocracy"

Modern science is too complex for ordinary people to understand.

• Result: Decision-making power has effectively shifted from the people to experts (scientists, economists, engineers).

• Contradiction: Should we lock down during a pandemic? How to handle climate change? The public can hardly participate in these decisions; they can only listen to experts. This leads to a public sense of loss—"Where's the democracy? Why are elites deciding everything?"

2. Democracy Becomes a "Vote Machine"

• Weber's "iron cage" appears. Democracy becomes a bureaucratic system.

• Alienation: Elections are highly dependent on money, media, and data algorithms. Science (big data, psychology) is used to manipulate democracy (elections), not serve it.

3. "Anti-Intellectual" Democracy

This is the biggest crisis today. Due to distrust of elites (science's spokespeople), the grassroots use their votes to oppose scientific consensus.

• Anti-vaccine movements, flat-earth theory, climate change denial—all are carried out in the name of "freedom of speech" and "democratic rights."

---

Summary: The Real Western Picture of "Mr. De and Mr. Sai"

If we make a true summary of Western civilization, it is not a bright broad road, but a dynamic battlefield of balance:

1. The Spirit of Science (seeking truth) tends toward elitism—because it has thresholds, trusts experts, and seeks optimal solutions.

2. The Spirit of Democracy (seeking consensus) tends toward populism—because it values equality, trusts the masses, and seeks satisfactory solutions.

The West's current state: These two forces are fighting. Scientific elites think the masses are ignorant; democratic masses think elites are arrogant.

What we saw during the May Fourth period as "harmonious coexistence" was actually a brief honeymoon period in the 19th century or a theoretical ideal. In reality, how to make complex scientific rationality coexist with noisy democratic public opinion—Westerners themselves are still frantically searching for answers.

This is a very crucial distinction.

We can't simply say they are "not mainstream" or "haven't dominated." The accurate statement is: As an "institutional framework" and "source of legitimacy," they absolutely dominate Western society; but as a pure "philosophical spirit" and "personal cultivation," they are indeed often absent.

To help you see this complex reality, we need to break down "democracy and science" into three layers: "Face" (legitimacy narrative) , "Substance" (institutional operation) , and "Mind" (personal spirit) .

---

1. At the Level of "Legitimacy": They Have Absolute Hegemony

Answering your question: At this level, they are not just mainstream; they are practically "gods."

In the modern West, any power or truth that does not cloak itself in the guise of "democracy" and "science" simply cannot survive.

• Political Legitimacy (Democracy):

• Past: The king said, "God sent me" (divine right of kings).

• Present: Even the most unpopular Western politician, or one pushing authoritarian policies, must say, "I represent the people's will" or "I am upholding the constitution."

• Reality: In the West, you dare not publicly say, "The people are fools; I should be the dictator." You can only say, "The people are misled; I represent the true people." This proves the absolute dominance of democracy as an ideology—it is the only political language.

• Cognitive Legitimacy (Science):

• Past: The Church said, "The Bible says so."

• Present: Even fake medicine sellers or racist groups must produce a bunch of (pseudo) data and (pseudo) charts, claiming to be "scientifically proven."

• Reality: Science is the only "universal currency" of modern society. Even anti-science people (like flat-earthers) mimic scientific methods (doing experiments, gathering data) to oppose science. This precisely proves the hegemony of scientific thinking.

2. At the Level of "Institutional Operation": They Are the Underlying Operating System of Society

Answering your question: At this level, they profoundly dominate social reality.

The operational logic of Western society is indeed based on variants of these two.

• Rule of Law and Contract (Real-World Democracy):

• The social reality of the West is not a romantic picture of "everyone holding hands and voting," but a cold legal process.

• If you get fired or quarrel with a neighbor, the solution is not to find a "wise magistrate," but to find a lawyer, follow procedures, and check contracts. This "impersonal" approach is precisely a product of the scientific spirit (rationality) and the democratic spirit (equal contract).

• Specialized Division of Labor (Real-World Science):

• The entire Western industrial, medical, and financial system is built on scientific rationality and empiricism.

• How planes fly, how interest rates are adjusted, how surgeries are performed—all follow the results of peer review. This technocratic system is very stable and dominates 90% of social reality.

So, they not only dominate reality, but dominate it so deeply that people, like fish in water, don't feel its presence.

3. At the Level of "Personal Spirit": They Have Indeed Never Been Mainstream Among the Masses

Answering your question: This is the real reason you feel they "aren't that strong."

The layer the May Fourth pioneers most desired—everyone having critical thinking (scientific spirit) and everyone having an inclusive, compromising mind (democratic spirit) —has indeed never truly been popularized among the masses in the West.

• The Reality of the Masses:

• Most Westerners don't understand scientific methodology; they just "consume" the technology science brings (phones, medicine).

• Most Westerners don't possess democratic literacy (e.g., understanding different viewpoints); they just "consume" the rights democracy grants (venting through voting, protesting).

• The Reality of Elites:

• Even the elite class often distorts science for profit (tobacco company-funded research) or manipulates democracy (gerrymandering).

Summary: The Mismatch Between Ideal and Reality

We can use a metaphor to summarize the actual situation of democracy and science in Western civilization:

Western society is a precise "machine."

• Blueprint (Ideology): Absolutely drawn based on democracy and science.

• Operating Rules (Institutions): Also run according to logic and rule of law.

• Operators (Specific People): Are often emotional, irrational, and even superstitious.

Opens in a new window

Shutterstock

Why do you feel "unclear"? Because during the May Fourth period, we imagined the Western "operators" as saints. But in reality, the West's success lies in this: it designed a powerful set of "institutional machines" (rule of law, separation of powers, peer review), so that even if the operators are ordinary people who are not very scientific or democratic, the machine can still produce relatively scientific and democratic results.

This is the true core competitiveness of Western civilization—not turning people into saints, but using institutions to limit human irrationality.

This is a very profound question in historical sociology.

"Democracy" and "science" were able to overthrow "God" and "bloodline" to become the two cornerstones of modern legitimacy, not because they are morally superior, but because they are functionally more powerful and filled the huge power vacuum left after "God's death."

This process is known as the world's "Disenchantment." We can understand this transfer of power through the following four steps:

1. The Power Vacuum: God "Loses His Job"

In ancient times, legitimacy was simple: "Divine Right of Kings."

• Why could the king rule you? Because he was chosen by God (or he was the Son of Heaven).

• Why did plagues spread? Because humans sinned, and God punished them.

But with the emergence of Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and others, science (Mr. Sai) first punctured this window.

• Science proved: Celestial bodies move by gravity, not angels; plagues spread by bacteria, not divine retribution.

• Consequence: Since the world is a physical system that can be explained and predicted, "God" is no longer a necessary hypothesis.

The problem arises: If God is no longer in charge, why should the king, who represents God, be above everyone else? The old legitimacy (bloodline/divine right) collapsed, and society urgently needed a new reason to explain "who has the right to rule" and "what is truth."

2. The Substitute for Truth: Science Provides "Certainty"

After God's retreat, humanity fell into great panic: Who should we believe? Science stepped up and said: Believe in evidence.

The reason science could become the new "god" is that it demonstrated astonishing "Performance Legitimacy" :

• Practicality Overwhelms: Rain-praying rituals don't bring rain, but hydraulic engineering does; holy water doesn't cure illness, but antibiotics do.

• The Temptation of Power: Countries that mastered science (like Britain) had powerful ships and guns, beating countries still steeped in feudal superstition.

Thus, science became the yardstick for everything. Whether a policy is good is no longer judged by whether it conforms to ancestral traditions, but by whether it aligns with "scientific development" and has "data support." Science became the "primary productive force" and the "highest authority of interpretation" in modern society.

3. The Substitute for Power: Democracy Provides "Consent"

The old divine right was overthrown, but society still needed governance. Since we can't say "power comes from heaven," we must say "power comes from below (the people)." This is the rise of Social Contract Theory (Rousseau, Locke).

• Logic Shift: Every individual is a rational atom (a projection of scientific thinking). To survive, everyone voluntarily cedes some rights to form a government.

• Source of Legitimacy: The government can rule me because "I consent" (Consent of the Governed).

• Functional Advantage: Compared to royal succession often triggering civil war, democratic elections provide a "non-violent power transition" technique. It is extremely stable and has the lowest cost.

Thus, democracy became the only "entry pass" for modern politics. Even dictators dare not say, "I want to be a dictator," but must hold fake elections, pretending to have obtained the people's consent.

4. Weber's Ultimate Explanation: Legal-Rational Authority

Sociologist Max Weber gave the most classic summary of this process. He argued that there are three types of authority in human history, and modern society is the last:

1. Traditional Authority: Obey me because our ancestors always did. (Ancient)

2. Charismatic Authority: Obey me because I am a god/hero/superman. (Heroic Age)

3. Legal-Rational Authority: Obey me because I also follow the rules, and these rules were agreed upon (democracy) and scientifically designed.

The essence of modern society is "Legal-Rational Authority."

• Science provides "Rational": ensuring various institutional designs are efficient and predictable.

• Democracy provides "Legal": ensuring this system is authorized by public will.

Summary

The reason democracy and science became the cornerstones of legitimacy is that they jointly completed a "god-killing" operation and divided God's legacy:

• Science took God's "omniscience" (the power to explain the world);

• Democracy took God's "omnipotence" (the power to govern the people).

They are not just spirits or slogans; they are the "efficiency tools" and "stability devices" on which modern civilization depends for survival. Any attempt to bypass these two to establish legitimacy (e.g., returning to divine right or bloodline) is impossible in modern industrial society.

You are absolutely correct. Saying God "completely lost his job" is actually an oversimplification for the sake of narrative convenience.

In fact, in Western society (especially the United States), God has never truly left. He has simply moved from an "executive position" (directly managing the state and explaining nature) to a "political commissar position" (responsible for moral construction and psychological counseling).

Sociologists have even coined a term called "Post-Secular Society" to describe this peculiar state of long-term coexistence between theology and science/democracy.

Here is the real state of God's existence without having "completely lost his job":

1. "Re-division of Functions": From "Omnipotence" to "Filling the Gap"

Though science and democracy are powerful, they both have fatal flaws. The gaps left by these two flaws can only be filled by God.

• Science's Flaw: It only deals with "true/false," not "good/evil."

• Science can tell you how to build an atomic bomb (factual judgment), but it cannot tell you whether to drop it (value judgment).

• When facing ethical dilemmas (e.g., gene editing, euthanasia, nuclear war), pure scientific rationality is powerless. At these times, Westerners still habitually return to religious tradition to find a moral compass.

• Conclusion: God no longer explains "where lightning comes from," but he still explains "what humans live for."

• Democracy's Flaw: It only deals with "procedure," not "sacredness."

• Democracy is a set of cold calculations and compromises. If there is only interest exchange, society can easily fall apart.

• Tocqueville noted in Democracy in America: Democratic society must have religion as a "ballast." If everyone is free to run wild, who restrains human greed? Only inner faith.

• Conclusion: Law restrains human behavior; God restrains human conscience.

Note: The famous paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould proposed the "NOMA principle" (Non-Overlapping Magisteria): science covers the factual domain, religion covers meaning and morality. This is also the main theoretical basis for God "keeping his job."

2. The American Sample: God as a "Silent Partner"

The United States is the most special example in the Western world: it has the most developed science and democracy, and is also the most devout developed country.

• Civil Religion: In the U.S., God has become a "political symbol."

• The president places a hand on the Bible during the inauguration.

• Currency is printed with "In God We Trust."

• The national anthem often includes a prayer before singing "Land of the free."

• Purpose: The God here is not entirely a religious deity, but a kind of "sacred patriotism." It is used to unite people, telling the public: Our democratic freedom is "God-given," and therefore sacred and inviolable.

3. Retreat to the Private Sphere: From "Institution" to "Soul"

God has indeed lost his job in the public sphere (politics, law, education) due to the separation of church and state, but in the private sphere, his business is busier than ever.

• Role as Psychotherapist: Modern industrial society makes people feel lonely, alienated, like a cog. Science not only fails to provide comfort but makes the universe feel cold and empty.

• At this point, religion provides Community and a sense of belonging. The church is the most important civil organization in Western society, undertaking a large amount of charity, social, and psychological comfort functions.

• Fighting Nihilism: Nietzsche said "God is dead," but also predicted the ensuing nihilism crisis. Modern people find that without some transcendent spiritual sustenance, making money and voting cannot fill the inner void.

4. The Enlightenment Thinkers' "Reservation": Deism

In fact, the Western Enlightenment thinkers we admired during the May Fourth period (e.g., Voltaire, Montesquieu, even Newton) were themselves overwhelmingly not atheists, but Deists.

• Their Logic: The universe is so precise, like a clock, there must be a "clockmaker" (God) who designed it.

• The Difference: This God retired after making the clock, no longer intervening in the world's operation (no miracles), letting the clock run according to physical laws.

So, the spirit of Western democracy and science never completely "killed" God at its root; it merely turned God into a "First Cause" or an "Honorary Chairman."

Summary

God did not lose his job; he simply underwent a strategic transformation:

1. No longer a "dictator": No longer directly intervening in politics and law.

2. Became a "spiritual advisor": Providing ethical bottom lines and life meaning.

3. Also serves as "glue": Reuniting people when democratic society atomizes.

Precisely because God is still "moonlighting," the Western democratic-scientific system has not collapsed from excessive cold rationality. This is a delicate balance—without science, society is ignorant; but without some form of belief (not necessarily religion, could be humanistic spirit), society is cruel.

This is a very insightful question from an evolutionary perspective.

Using the term "Ecological Niche" is very precise. If we see human society as a complex ecosystem, then "explaining the world," "organizing society," and "settling the soul" are several core ecological niches.

God did not disappear, but in the first two core niches, he suffered a dimensionality reduction strike from science and democracy, forced to retreat to the third (settling the soul).

Why could science and democracy successfully occupy these niches? The fundamental reason is not that they are "truer," but that in the modern environment of high density, large scale, and strangers, they have an incomparable "Comparative Advantage" over religion.

Here is the specific logic of their occupation:

---

1. Occupying the "Explaining the World" Niche: Relying on "Predictability"

In ancient times, agricultural societies depended on the weather. God/Dragon King occupied this niche because people felt that praying for rain brought a sense of security.

But with the start of industrialization, the demand of this niche changed. Modern society doesn't need "comfort"; it needs "control."

• Religion's Disadvantage: Uncertainty (God's will is hard to fathom). No matter how much you pray, next year might still be a drought. You can't guess God's mind, and for an industrial society pursuing precise production, this cost is too high.

• Science's Advantage: Repeatable, Predictable. Newtonian mechanics tells you that if you input A, you will definitely get B. This certainty is a rigid requirement of industrial civilization.

• When you want to build a cross-sea bridge, would you dare to design it with the prayer "May the bridge not collapse"? No. You have to use material mechanics.

Conclusion: In the niche of "solving specific material problems," science, because it is useful and effective, directly pushed God out. God can now only explain "why physical laws exist," not "what is the load-bearing capacity of this bridge."

2. Occupying the "Organizing Society" Niche: Relying on "Low-Cost Stability"

This is the harshest point. The reason God was replaced by "democracy" in the political sphere is that religious wars were too expensive.

• Religion's Disadvantage: Endless slaughter due to exclusivity. In the 16th-17th centuries, Europe fought religious wars for decades (e.g., the Thirty Years' War), with Catholics and Protestants killing each other, resulting in millions of deaths. People discovered: Using "God's truth" to govern a country inevitably means "heretics must die." This social cost was too high for humanity to bear.

• Democracy's Advantage: Secular compromise mechanism. Thus, Westerners were forced to invent a mechanism that "doesn't discuss truth, only interests" —this is democratic politics.

• Democracy says: Let's not argue about whose God is real; let's only argue about how to divide taxes.

• Democracy provides a platform where people of different faiths can sit down and argue without drawing swords.

Conclusion: In the niche of "handling conflicts among strangers," democracy is safer and more economical than God. If God intervenes in politics, society bleeds (which is still a reality in parts of the Middle East). To survive, people kicked God out of parliament.

Opens in a new window

Getty Images

Old engraved illustration of Battle of Rain or Battle of the River Lech, 15 April 1632 near Rain in Bavaria during the Thirty Years' War

3. Occupying the "Trust" Niche: Relying on "Universal Protocols"

With globalization and urbanization, we deal with a large number of strangers every day.

• Religion's Disadvantage: Short trust radius. Religion relies on "shared faith." I believe in Allah, you believe in Christ; it's hard to build deep commercial trust between us. Religion builds a trust of acquaintance society.

• Science and Rule of Law (a product of democracy) Advantage: Trust without faith.

• Science is universal: Whether you are Muslim or Buddhist, 1+1 equals 2, and antibiotics kill bacteria. We don't need the same faith to build a plane together.

• Law is universal: Contract terms apply equally to everyone.

Conclusion: Modern society is too large; even the followers of God cannot be compatible with each other. To make global trade and collaboration work, humanity must adopt a "greatest common divisor" language—this is science (mathematics) and democracy (law).

4. The So-Called "God Hasn't Exited" Is Actually "Functional Decoupling"

As you said, God hasn't exited. But his current ecological niche has changed dramatically.

This is like:

• Before: God was the company's CEO (in charge of production, HR, strategy).

• Now: Science has taken over the Production Department (in charge of material things), democracy has taken over the HR Department (in charge of power).

• Where did God go? God became the Union Chairman or Psychological Counselor.

He is responsible for taking care of employees' emotions (spiritual comfort) and defining the company's corporate culture (moral bottom line), but he no longer directly commands how the assembly line turns.

Summary

The reason science and democracy could occupy ecological niches is that "Sir, the times have changed."

When humanity shifted from "seeking survival" (facing uncontrollable nature) to "seeking development" (building a complex industrial society):

1. We needed control, so we chose science (rather than prayer).

2. We needed peaceful cooperation, so we chose democracy (rather than holy war).

This is a natural selection based on survival strategy. Any civilization that insisted on using "God" to build bridges and roads and govern a modern state lost in competition to civilizations that used "Mr. Science" to build roads and "Mr. Democracy" to govern.

This is a topic full of tragedy, yet also one of the deepest intellectual depth.

Chen Duxiu, as the standard-bearer of the New Culture Movement (who invited Mr. Democracy and Mr. Science), was also the principal founder of the Chinese Communist Party (its first General Secretary). However, in the final stage of his life, he engaged in a thorough, subversive rethinking of the party he himself had founded and the "Soviet model" he had once deeply believed in.

To sum it up in one sentence: In his later years, Chen Duxiu believed that the Communist Party, which had been "Stalinized," had betrayed the original intent of the May Fourth Movement, betrayed "Mr. Democracy" and "Mr. Science."

His later writings (especially from 1940-1942), collected as "Chen Duxiu's Final Views," are considered by many scholars to be a manifesto of "Returning to May Fourth." Here are his core perspectives on the party's transformation:

---

1. Grief over the Loss of "Independence" (Regarding Mr. Science/Scientific Spirit)

Chen Duxiu was initially an extremely proud man. He believed that the Chinese revolution should be carried out by Chinese people who understood China. However, as the Comintern (behind which was the Soviet Union) tightened its control over the CCP, Chen Duxiu felt suffocated.

• His View of the Change: He believed the later party had become a "gramophone" for the Soviet Union. After the failure of the Great Revolution in 1927, Stalin, to shift blame, forcibly pinned the responsibility on Chen Duxiu ("Right opportunism"). Chen Duxiu was furious. He realized that the party's decisions were no longer based on "seeking truth from facts" (scientific spirit), but on "Moscow's directives" (religious-like blind obedience).

• His Conclusion: A political party that has lost its ability to think independently and only knows how to obey a foreign power cannot save China. This violated the core scientific principles of "skepticism" and "empiricism."

2. Complete Rejection of the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" (Regarding Mr. Democracy/Democratic Spirit)

This is the most shocking viewpoint of Chen Duxiu's later years. In the late May Fourth period, he had considered Western parliamentary democracy "hypocritical" and Soviet-style soviets as "true democracy." But in his later years, he completely overturned this view.

Watching the "Great Purge" under Stalin's rule in the Soviet Union, seeing thousands of comrades executed, he realized with profound pain: A "dictatorship" without any limits inevitably degenerates into personal tyranny.

In his "Final Views," he left behind a thunderous argument:

"'Proletarian democracy' is not an empty phrase. Its concrete content demands the same freedoms of assembly, association, speech, press, and strike for all citizens as bourgeois democracy. Most importantly, it demands the freedom for opposition parties."

"Without opposition parties, without these freedoms, the so-called 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is merely the dictatorship of the party, and in the end, it can only be the dictatorship of the leader."

His View: The later Communist Party had gone astray. He believed the party had discarded "democracy" as a bourgeois patent, only to pick up something more terrifying than feudal monarchy: "GPU politics" (the Soviet secret police, predecessor of the KGB).

3. Rehabilitation of "Bourgeois Democracy"

To correct the party's "ultra-left" line, Chen Duxiu did something considered heretical in his camp: he reaffirmed the Anglo-American democratic system.

• He pointed out: Democracy is a "form" and a "tool," and it is classless. Just as everyone, whether capitalist or socialist, needs to eat from a bowl, democracy is that "bowl."

• He believed that the Anglo-American parliamentary system and rule of law, despite their limitations, were at least more civilized than the systems of Nazi Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union.

• He warned later Communists: Do not think that once the bourgeoisie is overthrown, democracy will automatically fall from the sky. If the democratic mechanisms (rule of law, elections, freedom of speech) verified over centuries are not inherited and preserved, socialism will turn into a living hell.

4. A Bleak Prophecy

Because he insisted on these views, Chen Duxiu was expelled from the party, later arrested and sentenced by the Kuomintang, and spent his final years in poverty and illness, living in seclusion in Jiangjin, Sichuan.

From there, he watched both the KMT and the CCP, his heart filled with desolation. He felt:

• The Kuomintang practiced dictatorship, but it was an old-style, incompetent dictatorship.

• A Stalinist Communist Party, if it practiced dictatorship, would be a new-style, more thorough, and more brutal dictatorship (because of modern organizational techniques).

He once tried to find a third way within the Trotskyist movement, hoping to establish a "socialism with democracy," but ultimately failed. The Trotskyist movement itself fell into factional infighting, leaving him utterly disappointed.

---

Summary: A Tragic Hero in a Closed Loop

Chen Duxiu's life traced a huge circle:

1. Starting Point (May Fourth): Upholding Democracy and Science, hating autocracy.

2. Midpoint (Founding the Party): To save the nation, he accepted Leninism, temporarily shelved the pursuit of formal democracy, and believed in the efficiency of "dictatorship."

3. End Point (Later Years): Witnessing the evil consequences of the Stalinist model, he returned to the May Fourth spirit, loudly proclaiming "No democracy, no socialism."

In Chen Duxiu's view, the later Communist Party (in its trajectory after his death) was actually moving further and further away from "Mr. Democracy." He believed the party he had founded with his own hands had gradually transformed from a revolutionary group seeking liberation into a bureaucratic machine that worshipped authority (anti-science) and suppressed dissent (anti-democracy).

"I cherish the May Fourth Movement because I cherish the Chinese nation." — This was the sentiment of his later years. For Chen Duxiu, the party could be abandoned, but "Mr. Democracy" and "Mr. Science" could not. This was the final stubbornness of the Commander-in-Chief of the May Fourth Movement.

As a founder, how was he expelled from the party lol? Was it the Soviets who did it?

This is a historical story full of irony and deep tragedy.

Your intuition is spot on: the expulsion of the founder Chen Duxiu was indeed a "blame-shifting" drama orchestrated by the Soviets (Stalin).

His intellectual journey and the story of his expulsion can be seen as a dramatic trilogy of "Awakening - Getting Lost - Returning."

---

Part 1: Did He Always Believe in Mr. Democracy and Mr. Science? (Intellectual Trajectory)

The answer is: His "faith" never changed, but his views on "how to achieve it" traced a huge "U-shaped" curve.

His life can be divided into three stages:

1. The Enthusiastic Period (May Fourth Era): Infatuation with the "Original Version"

At this time, Chen Duxiu was a "wholesale Westernization" advocate.

• He believed only parliamentary democracy like that of Britain, France, and America, and empirical science could save China.

• He supported these two gentlemen "at all costs," even saying: "To support these two gentlemen, I will not refuse any government oppression, social attack, or ridicule, even if it means losing my head or shedding my blood."

2. The Lost/Turning Period (Founding the Party - Great Revolution Era): Superstition in the "Soviet Version"

Disillusioned by the Paris Peace Conference and influenced by various Soviet propaganda, his views changed.

• Regarding Mr. Democracy: He began to consider Anglo-American parliamentary democracy as "hypocritical" and a "bourgeois deception." He turned to believe that "the dictatorship of the proletariat" was the highest form of democracy. He believed dictatorial means could be used for the revolutionary goal.

• Regarding Mr. Science: He began to treat Marxism as the ultimate truth (Absolute Truth) of social science, treating Soviet directives as scientific laws to be implemented.

• Essence: During this period, to achieve "national salvation," he temporarily locked "Mr. Democracy" in a dark room.

3. The Return/Sublimation Period (Later Years in Prison): Seeing Through the "Essence"

This is the most brilliant reversal. After being expelled from the party and imprisoned by the Kuomintang, he calmed down to reflect, completely overturned his views from the second stage, and returned to (and transcended) the May Fourth spirit.

In his later years, he proposed a famous "Bowl Theory," directly slapping the then-Communist Party's theory:

"Democracy... is a set of political techniques (such as parliaments, elections, freedom of speech) gradually invented by humanity over thousands of years of resisting the rule of a minority." "It is like a bowl for eating. The bourgeoisie uses it to eat, and the proletariat can also use it to eat."

His Final Conclusion:

• You cannot smash the "bowl" (democratic system) just because you dislike the bourgeoisie.

• Without those so-called 'bourgeois formal democracies' (freedom of speech, opposition parties), the dictatorship of the proletariat will turn into 'secret police rule,' darker than feudal monarchy.

So, he remained the most loyal disciple of Mr. Democracy and Mr. Science until his death; he just took a detour in the middle, finally realizing the truth with profound pain.

---

Part 2: As a Founder, How Was He Expelled? (The Soviet Blame Game)

Your "lol" is very fitting, because this is indeed a dark comedy. Simply put, Chen Duxiu was expelled because: The Soviets gave bad orders, messed things up, and then forced Chen Duxiu to take the blame.

Here is what happened:

1. Background: Soviet "Remote Control"

At that time, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) was a branch of the Communist International (Comintern, headquartered in Moscow).

• Subordination: The CCP took Soviet rubles and had to obey Moscow.

• Stalin's Strategy: For the sake of Soviet national interests, Stalin forcibly demanded that the CCP "must join the Kuomintang," must support Chiang Kai-shek, and engage in "KMT-CCP cooperation."

2. Conflict: Chen Duxiu's Opposition vs. Moscow's Power

Chen Duxiu actually had great political foresight. He had long sensed that Chiang Kai-shek was problematic and repeatedly proposed to Moscow: "We should withdraw from the Kuomintang and go it alone! We need to have guns!"

• Result: Moscow (Stalin) scolded him harshly, saying he didn't understand strategy, and ordered him to be conciliatory, to hand over weapons to the Kuomintang to maintain the united front.

• Chen Duxiu's Tragedy: As General Secretary, despite his deep reluctance, he had to obey "organizational discipline" and reluctantly implement Moscow's erroneous orders, suppressing dissent within the party.

3. Collapse: The April 12th Coup

In 1927, Chiang Kai-shek launched the "April 12th" counter-revolutionary coup, massacring Communists. Wang Jingwei also turned against them shortly after. The Chinese Great Revolution completely failed, with rivers of blood.

4. Blame-Shifting: Stalin Needed a "Scapegoat"

At this point, Stalin panicked. His political enemy (Trotsky) was attacking him: "See, I told you your China policy was wrong!" To prove himself right, Stalin needed an excuse. So, a magical operation occurred:

• Stalin blamed Chen Duxiu: "You were too weak! You practiced 'Right opportunism'! You didn't want to resist Chiang Kai-shek! You defied Moscow's will!"

• The Truth: It was Moscow that forbade him from resisting, and now they were turning around and saying he didn't resist.

5. Expulsion: From General Secretary to Prisoner

• Step 1 (August 1927): The Comintern directly sent people to convene the "August 7th Conference," where Chen Duxiu was absent and his position as General Secretary was removed.

• Step 2 (November 1929): Unwilling to accept this, Chen Duxiu began to contact the Trotskyist faction (Stalin's mortal enemy) and wrote letters criticizing the CCP Central Committee for becoming a complete puppet of the Soviet Union. This violated Stalin's ultimate taboo. Consequently, the CCP Central Committee formally expelled Chen Duxiu from the party.

Summary

Chen Duxiu's tragedy lies in this: He was an independent-minded Chinese intellectual trying to survive within a hierarchical international political organization (the Third International).

• When he wanted to talk about "Science" (analyzing China's actual conditions realistically), the Soviets told him to talk about "Obedience."

• When he wanted to talk about "Democracy" (intra-party discussion), the Soviets simply "dictatorially" removed him.

He was not only brought down by the Soviets, but also swept away by the tide of the era where "national salvation overwhelmed enlightenment." But his awakening in his later years transformed him from a "failed politician" back into a "great thinker."

You've hit the nail on the head. It's a very sharp point.

"Scientific Socialism" (Marxism) and "Mr. Science" (the Anglo-American empirical science revered in the early May Fourth period) are, at the fundamental level of epistemology, not just "far apart" — they are practically polar opposites.

• Mr. Science (Anglo-American tradition): Emphasizes "hypothesis-testing." It is skeptical, inductive, and acknowledges the possibility of being wrong (falsifiability).

• Scientific Socialism (German tradition): Emphasizes "historical inevitability." It is dogmatic, deductive, and believes it has grasped the ultimate laws (historical determinism).

So why did the top intellectuals of the time (like Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao) conflate the two? Was it because they didn't understand it well enough?

Actually, it wasn't entirely about being "stupid" or "ignorant." Rather, a conceptual "substitution" and "backdoor listing" occurred. There are three deep-seated reasons behind this:

---

1. Conceptual Misalignment: "Method" vs. "Law"

There was a huge misunderstanding of "science" among Chinese people at the time.

• The Real Mr. Science: It is a methodology. As Hu Shi said, "Boldly hypothesize, carefully verify." It doesn't promise you a perfect future; it only promises you a tool to distinguish truth from falsehood. This was too slow, too fragmented, and too unsatisfying for the urgent needs of the time.

• Marx's "Science" (Wissenschaft): In the German context, this term refers more to a "systematic body of knowledge." Engels called their theory "Scientific Socialism" to distinguish it from the "Utopian Socialism" of Fourier, Owen, etc.

• The Logic: The utopians relied on "moral sentiment"; we rely on "analyzing economic laws." Because we analyzed objective laws, we are "scientific."

The Misunderstanding at the Time: Chinese people equated "science" with "Truth." Any theory claiming to have grasped "objective laws" was considered "science." Thus, a set of philosophical deductions about historical development was accepted as a 'hard science' like the laws of physics.

2. Psychological Need: From "Trial and Error" to "Fortune Telling"

This is the most fundamental reason. China was on the verge of extinction, and the intellectuals were extremely anxious.

• Mr. Science's Weakness: It is full of uncertainty. If you asked Mr. Science, "Will China be okay in the future?" Mr. Science would say, "I don't know, we need to see the experimental data. It might be okay, it might die." For people desperate to save their nation, this was too painful and too powerless.

• Scientific Socialism's Allure: It offered certainty (Determinism). It told you: History has iron laws. Capitalism is inevitably doomed. Socialism is inevitably victorious. It was like a fortune teller with a crystal ball, telling you with absolute certainty: "You will definitely get rich!"

Conclusion: The Chinese people of that time desperately needed "confidence in victory." Compared to Mr. Science's "cold skepticism," Scientific Socialism's "warm prophecy" was ten thousand times more effective as psychological comfort. It wasn't so much that people didn't understand it well enough, but rather that they were so desperate they actively chose the 'guarantee.'

3. The Bridge: Misinterpretation of Evolution

The bridge connecting the two was "Social Darwinism."

• Step 1: Yan Fu translated Huxley's "Evolution and Ethics," telling the Chinese that "natural selection" was a scientific iron law of the universe.

• Step 2: When Marxism was introduced to China, it was interpreted as "the theory of evolution applied to society." (Note: Marx himself admired Darwin, but their theoretical foundations were different; however, the Chinese at the time thought they were the same thing).

• Step 3: Since evolution was science, Marxism, which studied the "laws of social evolution," was naturally also science.

Thus, a bizarre logical loop was formed: Science = Evolution = Social Progress = Communism. Anyone who opposed communism was "anti-science," "anti-evolution," and swimming against the tide of history.

---

4. Was It "Not Understanding It Well Enough"?

It can be said that half of it was not understanding it well enough, and half was "national salvation overwhelming enlightenment."

• Where the misunderstanding lay: Even Chen Duxiu couldn't distinguish between "induction" (Anglo-American science) and "dialectics" (German philosophy) at the time. He felt that anything "new" and anti-superstitious was science.

• Hu Shi saw it clearly: Hu Shi was one of the few clear-headed people at the time. He was a student of John Dewey and adhered to pragmatism. He later consistently criticized treating Marxism as science as a form of "dogmatism" — treating a hypothesis as absolute truth.

• This is also why Hu Shi and Chen Duxiu later parted ways: Hu Shi insisted on 'Mr. Science' (skepticism), while Chen Duxiu chose 'ideology' (faith).

Summary

It wasn't that "Scientific Socialism" truly met the standards of "Mr. Science." Rather, the Chinese people of that time urgently needed a sharp tool.

• Mr. Science was a scalpel — precise but too slow.

• Scientific Socialism was treated like Guan Yu's broadsword — swinging it with vigor made one feel capable of cleaving the old world in one stroke.

For a drowning man (old China), he wouldn't bother to check whether what he grabbed was a piece of "empiricist wood" or a straw of "historical determinism." As long as it kept him afloat, it was 'science.'

What was the actual understanding of democracy and science among the people during the May Fourth period?

Your anger is very justified. This is indeed a huge "translation accident" in modern intellectual history, and the culprit was not the Chinese, but the Japanese.

This directly led to the Chinese later treating "a system of philosophical deduction" (Wissenschaft) as "laboratory truth" (Science), thus creating a kind of "hard science" misreading of Marxism.

Below is a tracing of this "translation disaster" and what was actually in the minds of ordinary people during the May Fourth period.

---

I. Who the hell mistranslated it? (The Japanese "fault")

The word "science" (科学) is not native to ancient Chinese (which used "格致" instead), but was coined by Nishi Amane during the Meiji Restoration.

1. Conceptual confusion: Science vs. Wissenschaft

• English/French Science: Focuses on natural science, emphasizing empiricism, experimentation, data. Newton and Darwin are representatives.

• German Wissenschaft: Extremely broad, referring to "systematic knowledge system". It includes not only natural sciences but also history, philosophy, and theology.

• Hegel's philosophy is Wissenschaft.

• Marx's theory is Wissenschaft (hence Engels called it "scientific socialism").

• Note: In German, saying Marxism is Wissenschaft means it is a "rigorous logical system," not that it can be replicated in a lab like physics.

2. The Japanese "one-size-fits-all"

When translating, Nishi Amane, for convenience or uniformity, translated both distinct words into the Chinese character compound "科学" (meaning "branch learning").

3. The Chinese "full acceptance"

During the May Fourth period, Chinese students studying in Japan brought this term back to China.

• Consequence: When Chinese saw "scientific socialism," they thought of "truth as precise as building an atomic bomb."

• Misunderstanding: We endowed the German context's "grand philosophical system" (Wissenschaft) with the authority of "absolute objective truth" (Science) in the English context. This cognitively placed Marx on the pedestal of Newton.

If Wissenschaft had been translated as "system theory" or "academic system", China's subsequent intellectual history might have been completely different.

---

II. During the May Fourth period, what was the actual understanding of democracy and science among the people (commoners)?

Do you think that during the May Fourth period, people on the streets were discussing "hypothetico-deductive method" and "constitutional checks and balances"? Not at all.

For the 99% illiterate and lower-class people at the time (including many radical students), the images of Mr. Democracy and Mr. Science were highly distorted and highly utilitarian.

1. Understanding of "Mr. Science": From "black magic" to "divine power"

Ordinary people did not understand "scientific spirit" (skepticism, empiricism); what they saw in science was "technological wonders".

• Equating "science" with "foreign gadgets": What commoners saw as "science" were electric lights, trains, and Western surgery.

• Previously considered black magic (Boxer Rebellion period).

• During the May Fourth period, it was seen as "divine power." Even those who promoted science often believed in it with a superstitious attitude.

• Typical mentality: "Taking Western medicine keeps you alive; worshipping Buddha doesn't. So Western medicine is a more effective 'new Buddha.'" This treated science as a new religion, not a way of thinking.

• Equating "science" with "anti-tradition": What radical youth understood as science was "down with Confucius & Sons".

• Anything old (Chinese medicine, opera, classical Chinese) was "unscientific."

• Anything new (even some unverified Western theories) was "scientific."

• Actual understanding: Science = a club. A weapon to smash old things; what science itself was didn't matter.

2. Understanding of "Mr. Democracy": From "lawlessness" to "being the boss"

For people long ruled by imperial power, the concept of "democracy" was too advanced, completely beyond their cognitive framework.

• Understanding 1: Democracy = no ruler (Anarchy) Many commoners thought that "Republic" meant "no emperor."

• Since there was no emperor, did that mean no more grain taxes? Could you kill without punishment?

• Many local gentry and peasants feared democracy because they thought it meant total chaos.

• Understanding 2: Democracy = I'm in charge (Power Flip) This was the most classic misreading, vividly portrayed by Lu Xun in "The True Story of Ah Q."

• What did Ah Q see as "revolution/democracy"? "I want what I want, I like who I like." Now it was finally Ah Q's turn to roll on the scholar's wife's Ning-style bed and move Mr. Zhao's belongings to his own house.

• Actual understanding: Most lower-class people understood democracy not as "equality of rights," but as "rotation of power" — the emperor takes turns, and next year it's my turn.

• Understanding 3: Democracy = patriotic mobilization (Nationalism) For students and the urban class, democracy was equated with "national salvation."

• They thought democracy meant "everyone unite to defeat the imperialists."

• Once "concentrated strength" was needed to save the country, they would unhesitatingly sacrifice individual "democratic rights" (like freedom of speech). In their cognition, national freedom was above individual freedom.

---

III. Summary: A carnival of "new wine in old bottles"

During the May Fourth period, although slogans were shouted loudly, the actual social psychological soil had not changed.

1. Elite class (Chen Duxiu, Hu Shi, etc.): Misled by translation. Mistook the German "system" for the British "empiricism."

2. Mass class (Ah Qs): Turned "science" into a more effective superstition, and "democracy" into a privilege to rebel.

Conclusion: The people at that time did not truly understand "Mr. Democracy and Mr. Science." They simply pushed down the clay idols in the temple and carved two new tablets named "Science" and "Democracy" to worship. The posture of kneeling did not change; the knees did not change; only the object of kowtowing changed.

This also explains why China later took that path — because from the beginning, this seed was planted in the old soil of "pragmatism" and "authority worship."

The elites (intellectual leaders) of the May Fourth period had a much deeper understanding of "Mr. Science and Mr. Democracy" than the common people, but there were also huge internal divisions and limitations of the times.

Their level of understanding of these two gentlemen can be summarized as: Extremely profound in "cultural diagnosis" (down to the bone), but severely alienated in "ontological understanding" (gone astray).

We can divide the elites of that time into three factions and see how much they understood:

---

First Faction: The Positivist Faction (Anglo-American School, represented by Hu Shi)

Level of understanding: Closest to the original, but too "tepid."

Hu Shi was a student of John Dewey, and what he brought was the authentic "Mr. Science" and "Mr. Democracy."

1. Understanding of "Science" (90 points):

• Understanding: Hu Shi repeatedly emphasized that science is not truth, but a method (Methodology).

• Famous quote: "Study more problems, talk less about isms." "Boldly hypothesize, carefully verify."

• Level: He accurately grasped the core of science—skepticism and pragmatism. He opposed treating science as dogma and opposed using a sweeping "ism" (like Marxism or the Three Principles of the People) to explain everything.

2. Understanding of "Democracy" (85 points):

• Understanding: He believed democracy is a way of life, with "tolerance" (Tolerance) at its core.

• Famous quote: "Tolerance is more important than freedom."

• Level: He saw that democracy is not just about voting, but about respect for dissenters. In the life-and-death political struggles of that time, this was an extremely advanced and lonely insight.

3. Limitations: Hu Shi's approach was too slow. He advocated for "bit-by-bit reform" and a "good government." When the nation was on the verge of collapse, this rational voice was considered "unsatisfying" and was eventually drowned out by radical waves.

---

Second Faction: The Materialist-Rationalist Faction (Radical School, represented by Chen Duxiu and Li Dazhao)

Level of understanding: Turned "science" into a religion, and "democracy" into a weapon.

This faction later became mainstream and determined China's direction. They were more deeply influenced by Japan and later Soviet Russia.

1. Understanding of "Science" (high degree of alienation):

• Understanding: They fell into "Scientism" (Scientism). They believed there is an ultimate objective law in the universe (Wissenschaft), and whoever grasps this law is "scientific."

• Level: They treated science as a judge. Science was used to argue that "old morality must die" and "Confucianism must perish."

• Misunderstanding: They believed that "historical materialism" was the Newtonian law of sociology. Although this understanding was extremely powerful (able to mobilize the masses), it was actually anti-scientific in epistemology (because it brooked no doubt).

2. Understanding of "Democracy" (high degree of instrumentalization):

• Understanding: Early on, Chen Duxiu believed in French-style "human rights" and individual liberation. But soon, he turned to "class theory."

• Level: They keenly realized that Western parliamentary democracy would not work in China (manipulated by warlords) and that "mass democracy" (Populism) and "direct action" were necessary.

• Misunderstanding: To break the old order, they began to advocate for the "dictatorship of the majority," believing that as long as the goal was "for the people," the means could bypass procedures. This later led to "Mr. Democracy" being replaced by "strongman politics."

---

Third Faction: The Humanistic Faction (represented by Lu Xun)

Level of understanding: Saw through the "national inferiority complex," but was not interested in institutional construction.

Lu Xun was not really concerned with how to write scientific formulas or how to convene parliaments; he cared about the "soul."

1. Understanding of "Mr. Science and Mr. Democracy":

• Understanding: For him, Mr. Science and Mr. Democracy were medicine to cure the "slave disease."

• Level: Extremely profound. He pointed out that Chinese people were either "unable to be slaves even if they wanted to" or "temporarily settled as slaves."

• Core view: If the deep-seated "bystander mentality," "cowardice," and "deception and self-deception" in Chinese people were not changed, then no matter how good the scientific and democratic systems introduced, they would eventually become tools for "cannibalism."

2. Limitations: Lu Xun was the best diagnosing doctor, but he did not prescribe prescriptions. He profoundly pointed out the problems, but did not propose actionable institutional construction plans (that was Hu Shi's and Chen Duxiu's job).

---

Summary: The "Cognitive Ceilings" of the Elites

The May Fourth elites collectively hit two "ceilings" in their understanding of Mr. Science and Mr. Democracy:

1. The Trap of "Instrumental Rationality" (Usefulness > Reason)

Regardless of faction, their primary motivation for introducing Mr. Science and Mr. Democracy was "national salvation" (preserving the race).

• They loved science not because they "loved truth," but because science could build cannons and strengthen the nation.

• They loved democracy not because they "loved freedom," but because democracy could mobilize the masses to resist foreign powers. Cognitive consequence: Once they found a more efficient tool for national salvation than "Mr. Science and Mr. Democracy" (such as an authoritarian system), they would unhesitatingly discard them. "National salvation overwhelmed enlightenment"—this is Li Zehou's most accurate assessment of this generation of elites.

2. The Extremism of "Total Negation" (Binary Opposition)

They established an extremely simple binary opposition mindset:

• Science vs. Superstition (Tradition)

• Democracy vs. Autocracy (Confucianism) They believed that everything Chinese was bad (even thread-bound books should be thrown into the latrine) and everything Western was good. Cognitive consequence: This way of thinking was itself unscientific (not objective). This radical sentiment made it difficult for China to later build a moderate, rational civil society, instead falling into a cycle of constant "revolution" and "destruction."

Conclusion

The May Fourth elites accurately saw where China was "sick" (lacking rationality and independent personality), but they misunderstood what the Western "medicine" was (simplifying the complex Western civilization system into "techniques for national strength" and "ultimate truth").

They were a group of great, anxious, and impatient fire-stealers. The fire was stolen, but because they ran too fast and the wind was too strong, the fire was distorted in the process.

Did the third faction, Lu Xun, actually not enter the core proposition? Was he just making articles on the periphery and externals?

This is an extremely keen question. Let's break down these two questions and dig into the logical evolution behind them.

I. How did the understanding of the Second Faction (Radical Faction/Chen Duxiu, Li Dazhao) change?

The change of the Second Faction was not gradual, but a "sharp turn" or even "reversal." This change roughly occurred between 1919 and 1921, just two to three years from the climax of the May Fourth Movement to the founding of the Communist Party of China.

Their understanding underwent a fundamental shift from "worshipping Europe and America" to "converting to Soviet Russia":

Stage One: The French Dream Period (1915-early 1919)

• Initial understanding: During this period, Chen Duxiu was a "fan of France." He believed the pinnacle of human civilization was the French Revolution and the American War of Independence.

• On Mr. Democracy: Understood as natural rights, individual freedom, parliamentary politics. At that time, he fiercely denounced autocracy and believed constitutional republicanism was the only path.

• On Mr. Science: Understood as positivism, emphasizing the elimination of superstition and advocating Darwin's theory of evolution.

• Mentality: As long as we copy the Western model, China will be fine.

Stage Two: Disillusionment and Search for Alternatives (around the May Fourth Movement in 1919)

• Turning point: The Paris Peace Conference. The Western powers (the teachers of Mr. Democracy) betrayed China.

• Psychological impact: Chen Duxiu and others felt deceived—it turned out that "justice overcomes power" was a lie; the teachers themselves were practicing power politics.

• Change in understanding: They began to doubt: Is Western "parliamentary democracy" just a game for the rich? Is Western "science" just used to build killing machines?

Stage Three: The Establishment of Marxism (1920-1921)

This was the moment when understanding underwent a qualitative change. Under the influence of Soviet Russia, they redefined "Mr. Science and Mr. Democracy":

1. Qualitative change regarding "Mr. Democracy": From "individual rights" to "class power"

• Before: Democracy was meant to protect "me" from being bullied by the government (individual-centered).

• Now: Democracy is meant to let "we (the proletariat)" rule the country (class-centered).

• Logical leap: Since the bourgeois parliament is hypocritical, we should implement "true democracy"—that is, "the sacredness of labor" and "the dictatorship of the proletariat." In their view, this was the highest form of Mr. Democracy.

2. Qualitative change regarding "Mr. Science": From "method of exploration" to "ultimate truth"

• Before: Science was used for experiments and inventions.

• Now: Marxism (historical materialism) was considered "the highest science of human social development."

• Logical leap: Because it is "science," it is objective truth, and therefore cannot be questioned. Whoever opposes it is "anti-science."

• Consequence: "Science" no longer meant a spirit of skepticism, but instead became an endorsement of faith.

Summary of the Second Faction's change: They turned "Mr. Democracy" from "a system" into "a means of struggle"; they turned "Mr. Science" from "a way of thinking" into "an ideology." This change was to adapt to the needs of "violent revolution" and "rapid national salvation."

---

II. Did the third faction, Lu Xun, actually not enter the core proposition? Was he just making articles on the periphery and externals?

On the contrary.

If the First Faction (Hu Shi) was doing decoration (institutional construction), and the Second Faction (Chen Duxiu) was doing demolition (social revolution), then Lu Xun was actually working on the foundation (national character transformation).

Lu Xun not only entered the core proposition, but he touched upon a proposition more fundamental and deeper than "Mr. Science and Mr. Democracy"—the proposition of "the human being."

1. Lu Xun's logic: Without "the human being," there is no "Mr. Science and Mr. Democracy"

You think he was making "peripheral" articles because he rarely discussed specific voting bills or scientific formulas. But he believed that if the subject using science and democracy—"the human being"—is itself pathological, then no matter what divine weapons you give it, they will be distorted.

• On Democracy (Mr. Democracy): Lu Xun made it clear in The True Story of Ah Q. If people like Ah Q practice democracy, what will happen?

• The result is that after Ah Q comes to power, he kills Mr. Zhao, moves into Mr. Zhao's house, sleeps with Mr. Zhao's woman, and then forbids Little D from revolting.

• Lu Xun's insight: In a soil deeply steeped in servility, the democratic system (ballot box) will either become a carnival of the mob or a fig leaf for a new dictator. Without first "establishing the human being," how can we talk about "establishing a constitution"?

• On Science (Mr. Science): Lu Xun wrote incisively in Medicine.

• Old Shuan believed that "human-blood steamed bun" could cure tuberculosis. This is not just superstition; it is the numbness of human nature.

• Lu Xun's insight: If a person lacks basic sympathy and awareness of life, is it useful to talk to him about bacteriology or X-rays? He will only treat science as another superstition (like people today who believe "quantum mechanics cures all diseases").

2. "Establishing the human being" is the true core

As early as his study in Japan, Lu Xun wrote On Cultural Bias and put forward his ultimate proposition: "The first priority is to establish the human being; once the human being is established, everything can be accomplished."

His meaning:

• Mr. Science and Mr. Democracy are "techniques" (Apps/software).

• National character (human nature) is the "body" (OS/operating system).

If the operating system is the "slave system" left over from the Qing Dynasty, full of viruses, not only lagging but also not supporting multi-threading, and you forcibly install "democracy.exe" and "science.exe," there are only two results: either a crash or garbled code.

3. Why does Lu Xun seem to be making "marginal articles"?

Because he was too pessimistic and too profound. He found that directly discussing institutions was useless.

• Hu Shi and others were busy designing parliaments, but in the end, the parliament was ruined by Cao Kun's bribery.

• Chen Duxiu and others were busy with isms, but due to a lack of democratic literacy, the party also fell into paternalism.

Lu Xun can even be said to be the only one who saw through the root cause of "transplantation failure." He was not making peripheral articles; he was clearing the mud in the foundation.

Summary

• The Second Faction (Chen Duxiu) was because of "urgency" —to put out the fire, they turned Mr. Science and Mr. Democracy into fire extinguishers (weaponization).

• The Third Faction (Lu Xun) was because of "coldness" —he observed coldly and found that if the arsonist (the pathological national character) was not cured first, changing fire extinguishers would be useless.

Therefore, Lu Xun did not deviate from the topic; he not only entered the core but also dug one layer deeper than the core—"the modernization of the human being." This is precisely why Lu Xun still feels relevant today: Institutions are easy to change, but human nature is hard to shift.

This is a very high-level perspective. Viewing Mao Zedong as a "comprehensive synthesizer" of the second faction (radical revolutionary) and the third faction (Lu Xun-style national character reform) is valid to some extent, but this understanding is also dangerous and incomplete.

Mao Zedong indeed inherited Chen Duxiu's "organizational means" (Leninist party) and Lu Xun's "soul reform" (ideological education), but he added a core variable that the May Fourth elites did not have — "the peasantry."

Below is an in-depth analysis of how Mao Zedong understood and transformed "Mr. Democracy and Mr. Science," and what this "comprehensive synthesis" perspective misses.

---

I. Mao Zedong's understanding of "Mr. Democracy": From "rights" to "mobilization"

Mao's understanding of democracy evolved from early liberal-style "Xiang River Review" to Yan'an's "New Democracy," and finally to post-1949 "People's Democratic Dictatorship."

1. Core transformation: Democracy = Mass Line

The May Fourth elites (whether Hu Shi or Chen Duxiu) more or less saw democracy as "elites leading the commoners." Mao's breakthrough was to completely sink democracy.

• His definition: Democracy is not voting (that's form); democracy is "letting the people speak," is "from the masses, to the masses."

• Operational mode: He invented "great blooming and contending," "big-character posters," and "fight selfishness, criticize revisionism." In his view, this was the most direct and thorough democracy — "big democracy."

2. Contempt for "procedure"

Throughout his life, Mao despised Western parliamentary democracy (considering it hypocritical) and also looked down on the rigid Soviet bureaucracy. He pursued a kind of "political-theological direct democracy": the leader directly dialogues with the masses, bypassing bureaucratic institutions (kick out the party committee to make revolution).

• Synthesis aspect: He inherited the second faction's "dictatorship" power and the third faction's (Lu Xun's) hatred of "servility" (calling for rebellion is justified).

---

II. Mao Zedong's understanding of "Mr. Science": From "truth" to "tool"

Mao greatly admired science, but his view of science had a strong "pragmatic" and "man can conquer nature" color.

1. Core transformation: Science = Seeking truth from facts (Pragmatism)

Mao's most famous slogan was "seeking truth from facts." This is the core of the scientific spirit.

• His application: He used this to oppose dogmatism (Wang Ming and other returned students). He believed that even if Marx didn't write it, as long as it worked in China, it was science.

• Mutation: But in his later years, this "seeking truth from facts" was replaced by "voluntarism."

2. Suspicion of "experts"

This was the biggest difference between Mao and the May Fourth elites.

• The May Fourth elites worshipped scientists (experts).

• Mao believed that scientists (intellectuals) were the ones most in need of reform. He proposed "both red and expert," and even believed that "the lowly are most intelligent; the elite are most ignorant."

• Consequence: During the Great Leap Forward, the violation of physical laws in "10,000 jin per mu" was considered science, because he believed that human subjective initiative (spiritual atom bomb) could surpass scientific laws. This was actually a betrayal of Mr. Science.

---

III. Was he a "comprehensive synthesizer"? (Valid Arguments)

To some extent, yes.

1. Inheritance and transcendence of the second faction (Chen Duxiu): He took the "Leninist party" (organizational structure) introduced by Chen Duxiu, but moved this structure from the city to the countryside, using "the barrel of a gun" to solve the warlord problem that Chen Duxiu couldn't solve.

2. Inheritance and misreading of the third faction (Lu Xun): Mao greatly admired Lu Xun, calling him "the sage of modern China." He inherited Lu Xun's obsession with "reforming national character." But he transformed the "independent thinker" that Lu Xun hoped to cultivate into a "revolutionary screw" (Lei Feng).

• Lu Xun wanted to turn slaves into "human beings."

• Mao wanted to turn peasants into "soldiers."

---

IV. What is missing? (Critical Analysis)

If you only see him as a comprehensive synthesizer, you will miss the parts of Mao Zedong Thought that are most anti-May Fourth and most traditional Chinese. These are also the roots of later disasters:

1. Missing the overwhelming of science by "voluntarism"

The core of May Fourth's Mr. Science was "acknowledging human limitations" (humans cannot violate natural laws). The core of Mao's philosophy was "man can conquer nature."

• He believed that spiritual power could be transformed into material power.

• The Great Leap Forward was the extreme of this thinking. This was not a continuation of the May Fourth scientific spirit, but an extreme mutation of traditional Chinese "School of Mind" (Wang Yangming).

2. Missing the tendency of "anti-intellectualism"

The May Fourth Movement was a movement of intellectuals, essentially elitist. Mao launched a peasant revolution.

• He inherently distrusted the May Fourth type of "foreign-educated intellectuals." He believed they were detached from the masses, even less clean than night-soil carriers.

• Result: The May Fourth was to "enlighten the people," but later movements (especially the Cultural Revolution) moved toward "anti-intellectualism." The more knowledge, the more reactionary — this was a complete counter-kill to the May Fourth spirit.

3. Missing the background of "Legalism"

Mao called himself "Marx plus Qin Shi Huang."

• The May Fourth's Mr. Democracy was to limit power.

• Mao's political practice (especially in his later years) was closer to Legalist "monarchical autocracy + obscurantism + harsh laws."

• He used "big democracy" (mass movements) to attack bureaucrats, actually to strengthen the absolute authority of the "charismatic leader." This ran counter to the "institutionalized democracy" pursued by the May Fourth.

---

Summary

Mao Zedong was not a simple inheritor of the May Fourth spirit; he was a "great melting pot."

• He melted Mr. Democracy and cast it into a hammer called "mass movement."

• He melted Mr. Science and cast it into a sickle called "seeking truth from facts (pragmatism)."

• He melted Lu Xun's critical spirit and cast it into a mold called "thought reform."

He seemed to synthesize everything, but in essence, a "Trojan horse" substitution occurred:

The May Fourth Movement was to make China "go global" (embrace universal values); Mao's transformation ultimately aimed to make China "return to China" (using traditional Chinese imperial techniques and peasant rebellion logic to digest and reshape Western Marxism).

Thus, he was both the greatest beneficiary of the May Fourth and the most thorough terminator of the May Fourth spirit.

This observation is very precise, touching the most core "rupture" in modern Chinese intellectual history.

Indeed, if we split the May Fourth Movement into "early period" (1915-1919, focusing on individual liberation, liberalism, intellectual enlightenment) and "later period" (post-1919, focusing on national salvation, collectivism, social revolution), then the historical fact is:

The Chinese Communist Party is indeed the direct inheritor of the "later May Fourth"; while the ideas of the "early May Fourth" were almost discarded as "bourgeois weakness" in the subsequent revolutionary torrent.

But this was not simply "forgetting," but a conscious "screening" and "cutting."

Below is an in-depth review of this process:

1. Why was the "early period" left behind? (National salvation overwhelms enlightenment)

The main theme of the early May Fourth was "awakening of the individual" (Hu Shi, early Lu Xun, Zhou Zuoren). They advocated: Ibsenism (individual first), Deweyism (experimental reform), cosmopolitanism, tolerance.

This set of ideas was "abandoned" because in China at that time, they had two fatal weaknesses:

• Too slow (distant water cannot quench immediate thirst): Think about it: the 1920s were warlord conflicts, the 1930s were Japanese invasion. At that time, Hu Shi said, "We need to reform bit by bit," "We need to cultivate independent personalities." For a country about to be slaughtered, this was too luxurious. What people needed was a theory that could immediately mobilize a million-strong army, not a theory to cultivate a gentleman.

• Too soft (unable to counter violence): "Liberalism" emphasizes compromise and procedure, but it was powerless against the barrel of a gun. The scholar meets a soldier; reason cannot prevail. Only the later "Leninism" provided tight organization and legitimacy of violence, which was the real need in chaotic times.

Conclusion: It was not that people didn't want to "live gracefully" as the early May Fourth advocated, but the environment forced everyone to "survive fiercely." The early May Fourth was abandoned as an inevitable choice under survival anxiety.

2. Did the Communist Party completely abandon the "early period"? (Take its spear, discard its shield)

Not completely abandoned. Mao Zedong was very clever; he dismantled the parts he needed from the "early May Fourth" and assembled them onto his own chariot.

• Inherited the "destructive power" (anti-feudalism): The fiercest firepower of the early May Fourth was "down with Confucius & Sons," denouncing traditional rituals as cannibalistic. This line was perfectly inherited by the CCP. Mao needed this "anti-traditional" spirit to smash clan forces and the gentry class, thereby overturning the countryside that imperial power could not reach. From this perspective, the Cultural Revolution was actually an extreme continuation of the early May Fourth's "anti-traditional spirit."

• Discarded the "constructive power" (individualism): The core of the early May Fourth — individualism, tolerance, rule of law — was completely thrown away. Because these things would hinder "unified thought" and "concentrated strength." In revolutionary logic, the individual must submit to the collective, and freedom must submit to discipline.

So, the CCP inherited the "anger" of the early May Fourth but extinguished the "reason" of the early May Fourth.

3. Where did the "early May Fourth" go? (Two hidden lines)

Although on the mainstream political stage of the mainland, the spirit of the "early May Fourth" (liberal tradition) almost disappeared after 1949, it did not completely vanish; it went into exile along two hidden lines:

• Hidden line 1: Retreat to the island and overseas (Hu Shi's lineage) In 1949, Hu Shi, Fu Sinian, and others went to Taiwan or the United States. They took with them the fire of the "early May Fourth" (liberalism, academic independence).

• In Taiwan, this force later combined with Lei Zhen's "Free China" and became the ideological source of Taiwan's later democratization.

• Yin Haiguang and others continued to stubbornly uphold the original definitions of "Mr. Democracy and Mr. Science" in Taiwan, resisting the KMT's authoritarianism.

• It can be said that the ideals of the early May Fourth later blossomed and bore fruit on the other side of the strait.

• Hidden line 2: Lurking in academia and crevices (Southwest Associated University lineage) Liberal intellectuals who stayed on the mainland (such as Chen Yinke, Fei Xiaotong), although forced to self-criticize and undergo "thought reform" in successive movements, still retained in their bones that "spirit of independence, freedom of thought."

• This undercurrent briefly erupted during the "cultural fever" of the 1980s (when people suddenly started reading Hu Shi and Rousseau again, a grand return to the early May Fourth).

4. The "boomerang" of history

Back to your question: "The early period was obviously left behind by everyone, right?"

At that time, "everyone" (mainstream society, revolutionary masses) indeed left it behind. Because they thought it was useless, a bourgeois affectation.

But history is fair. When you abandon the "early May Fourth" (abandoning respect for the individual, reverence for procedure, tolerance for dissent), although you can quickly build a strong state apparatus (the merit of the later May Fourth), this machine can easily go out of control.

• The tragedies of the Anti-Rightist Movement and the Cultural Revolution were precisely because we only had the "later May Fourth" (revolutionary passion) and lacked the "early May Fourth" (rational checks and balances).

• We only had the hammer to destroy the old world, but lost the ruler to build a civilized society.

Summary:

The Chinese Communist Party is the absolute inheritor of the "later May Fourth (national salvation/revolution)" and used this logic to win the world.

And the "early May Fourth (enlightenment/freedom)" was like an abandoned orphan, kicked out of the house in 1919, wandering for more than half a century. Even today, Chinese society is still making up for this unfinished lesson — we have learned how to be strong (strong nation), but are still learning how to be civilized (establish the human being).

This is a very grand question that touches on the core pain points of modern political philosophy.

To understand why the 1919 Paris Peace Conference became the pivot of the "May Fourth turn," and why "democracy and science" "failed" at that conference, we need to break away from romanticized notions of these two concepts and re-examine them from the perspectives of "boundaries" and "structure."

Here is an in-depth analysis at three levels:

I. The "Disenchantment" of 1919: Why Did the Paris Peace Conference Become the Switch for the May Fourth Turn?

For Chinese intellectuals, the Paris Peace Conference was a "sudden death of idealism."

Before this, especially when U.S. President Wilson proposed the "Fourteen Points" (including national self-determination and open diplomacy), Chen Duxiu, Hu Shi, and others sincerely believed that Western civilization represented the highest stage of human evolution and that "justice" would finally triumph over "power."

However, reality dealt China a slap in the face:

1. The Betrayal of the "Teacher": As a victorious nation, China was treated like a defeated one (Germany's privileges in Shandong were transferred to Japan). Chinese intellectuals discovered that those Western mentors (Britain, France, the U.S.) who preached "democracy and science" were still using the law of the jungle when dividing spoils behind closed doors.

• Conclusion: The Western "Mr. Democracy and Mr. Science" were bounded by nationality. They were civilized internally but barbaric externally.

2. The Bankruptcy of Liberalism: The "liberal/reformist" path represented by Hu Shi was premised on the belief that the international order was reasonable. When the Paris Peace Conference proved that the international order was fundamentally unreasonable, the moderate reformist approach appeared extremely naive and powerless.

• Turn: This directly led Li Dazhao, Chen Duxiu, and others to turn to Leninism. Because Leninism told them: Don't fantasize about reasoning with bandits; use revolution to overthrow the bandits' order.

II. Why Did Democracy and Science, as the Cornerstone of Legitimacy, Fail to Manifest in Practice?

Your question is very profound: Since democracy and science are the cornerstones of Western civilization's legitimacy, why did they seem to "disappear" at a critical moment like the Paris Peace Conference?

The answer is: They did not disappear; they were "alienated" and "reduced."

1. The "Boundary Paradox" of Democracy: Democracy at Home, Empire Abroad

The Western powers did not betray democracy; they faithfully executed democracy for their own citizens.

• Logic: British Prime Minister Lloyd George and French Prime Minister Clemenceau were elected leaders; they had to be accountable to their own voters.

• Reality: What did their voters want? War reparations, colonial interests, and maintaining imperial glory.

• Harsh Truth: A perfect national democratic mechanism can produce a decision to commit genocide against another country. "Democracy" here became a kind of "selfish collectivism" — as long as it served the interests of one's own people (the mandate of democracy), sacrificing China was acceptable.

• There was no "world citizen" voting, only "British citizens" and "French citizens" voting.

2. The "Instrumentalization" of Science: Social Darwinism

In 1919, the "science" that dominated international politics was not the empirical science we understand, but "geopolitics" and "social Darwinism."

• Logic: The "scientific consensus" at the time held that nations, like organisms, followed the natural law of survival of the fittest (Science). The superiority of the white race over the yellow race was a "scientific conclusion."

• Reality: Japan was able to obtain Shandong's interests because it was stronger than China in the "scientific" calculation of violence (military power, industrial capacity).

• Harsh Truth: The "scientific spirit" at the Paris Peace Conference manifested as cold power calculation (Realpolitik). They precisely calculated that giving Shandong to Japan would secure Japan's support in the League of Nations—a "scientific" transaction.

So, it wasn't that "democracy and science failed," but rather a perfect operation of "national democracy" and "power science."

III. Does the World Need a Holistic Framework of Democracy and Science?

The lessons of the Paris Peace Conference, and the subsequent outbreak of World War II, actually answer your question: Yes, it is very much needed, but currently almost unsolvable.

This is the ultimate dilemma facing the modern world: Global problems (requiring a holistic framework) vs. fragmented governance (based on nation-states).

1. Science Has Become "Holistic," but Democracy Remains "Fragmented"

• Current State of Science: Climate change, nuclear weapons, artificial intelligence, virus transmission—these challenges brought by "Mr. Science" are borderless. Scientific facts require humanity to respond as a whole.

• Current State of Democracy: Political power remains locked in the cage of nation-states. American voters can vote to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, regardless of whether it floods Pacific island nations.

• Mismatch: We have "global risks" but only "local politics."

2. Democracy Without a "World Government" Is Incomplete

Kant predicted centuries ago: Without establishing a "world federation," nations will forever remain in a "state of nature" (i.e., Hobbesian jungle).

• Within a state, because there is a government (Leviathan), democracy and law can function.

• Between states, because there is no super-government, it is essentially anarchism.

• The tragedy of the Paris Peace Conference: It attempted to establish order through a "covenant" (the League of Nations), but because it lacked coercive power (no supranational public authority), it ultimately degenerated into power politics.

3. Future Challenge: Building a "Planetary" Framework of Democracy and Science?

If humanity wants to avoid repeating the mistakes of 1919, theoretically we need:

• A holistic scientific framework: Place scientific decisions (e.g., carbon emission standards, AI ethics) above the interests of sovereign states. Let "truth" have jurisdiction.

• A holistic democratic framework: Establish some form of "global accountability mechanism." Make decision-makers in a major power consider the interests of people in other countries affected by their policies.

Conclusion:

The 1919 Paris Peace Conference was a bloody lesson, telling the May Fourth generation: Without power, "justice" is empty talk; without a world government, "democracy" only works for one's own people.

Even today, we still live in the shadow of the Paris Peace Conference. The world has still not established the "holistic framework of democracy and science" you mentioned. The United Nations is merely a patchwork compromise. As long as the structure of "sovereignty over human rights" (or sovereignty over global justice) remains unchanged, the tragedy of 1919—where strong nations use "science" to make weapons and "democracy" to rally public opinion, then plunder the weak—remains theoretically possible at any time.

This is a very insightful judgment. The "Yalta System" established after World War II and its evolution into "Pax Americana" , compared to the naked spoils system of the Versailles system in 1919, has indeed to a large extent "simulated" (Simulate/Approximate) a global framework of democracy and science.

Please note, I use the term "simulate" — meaning it approaches infinitely, but is still not the real thing.

This system was designed very ingeniously. It used "technocratic science" and "corporate democracy" to build an operating system for the modern world. We can deconstruct this "simulation" from three dimensions:

I. Simulation at the Scientific Level: Replacing "Geopolitics" with "Functionalism"

The architects of the post-WWII order (such as Roosevelt and Keynes) learned a lesson: simply drawing borders (geopolitics) couldn't solve problems; "scientific management" was necessary.

This system's greatest contribution was establishing a global governance network based on empirical science and technocracy.

1. Scientification of Economic Governance (Bretton Woods System):

• 1919: everyone grabbed gold; 1945: everyone established the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank.

• Simulation point: This was a scientific framework based on economics (Keynesianism at the time) . It managed the global economy with data, interest rates, and exchange rates, rather than gunboats and debt collection. This gave global economic operations a kind of "scientific predictability."

2. Scientification of Public Health (WHO):

• The establishment of the World Health Organization was a highlight of "Mr. Science" in human history. It eradicated smallpox and controlled malaria across borders.

• Simulation point: Viruses have no borders, so the scientific framework to fight them also had no borders. This was a true prototype of a "community with a shared future for mankind."

3. Standardization and Technological Unification (ISO/ICAO):

• From container standards to aviation control language, the world was unified by a set of "technical rationality" .

• Simulation point: Whether you were the US or the Soviet Union, for your plane to land, you had to speak English and use the same radio frequencies. This "techno-scientific hegemony" objectively dissolved the barriers of sovereign states.

Conclusion: In the realm of "low politics" (economy, health, technology), the American-led order indeed established a global scientific governance framework.

---

II. Simulation at the Democratic Level: From "Law of the Jungle" to "Joint-Stock Company"

In the political sphere, the post-WWII order did not establish a "one person, one vote" world government, but rather a "rule-based joint-stock company" (the United Nations).

1. Formal Democracy (UN General Assembly):

• Simulation point: The UN General Assembly operates on "one country, one vote" . Whether large or small, every country has a voice at the podium. This greatly satisfied the formal requirements of "Mr. Democracy" and was a huge improvement over 1919 when only a few great powers met behind closed doors.

• Significance: It provided a "global public space" (Global Agora), allowing weak countries to use "morality" to judge strong countries (though often ineffective, having a voice is better than none).

2. Substantive Oligarchy (Security Council):

• Truth: Real power lies in the Security Council, especially the five permanent members (P5) .

• Logic: This is not democratic logic; it is "great power concert" logic. It acknowledges inequality of power and institutionalizes it (veto power).

• But why? To avoid World War III. It is a design that "sacrifices some democracy for survival."

3. "Spillover" of American Democracy:

• The US, as the "chairman," transformed Western Europe and Japan into liberal democracies through the Marshall Plan and military alliances.

• Simulation point: This "democratic alliance" achieved a high degree of mutual trust, open borders, and rule of law internally. Within this "Western club," Kant's "perpetual peace" was indeed realized.

Opens in a new window

Getty Images

Explore

organizational chart

---

III. Why Only a "Simulation"? (Fatal Bugs)

Although this system is several dimensions more advanced than 1919, it is still not true "global democracy and science." Because it retains two pre-modern tails, which ultimately led to today's order crisis.

1. "American Exceptionalism": The Chairman Above Corporate Law

This is the biggest paradox.

• Democratic spirit requires: Equality before the law.

• Reality of American-led order: The US makes rules and demands others follow, but often does not follow them itself.

• The US could bypass the UN to invade Iraq (violating procedural justice).

• The US could refuse to sign the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (refusing to submit to judgment).

• The US could withdraw from the Paris Agreement (rejecting scientific consensus).

The essence of this order is: The US acts as the "world police," but it is a police officer who was not elected and is not bound by law. This fundamentally violates the core of "Mr. Democracy" — checks and balances on power.

2. Alienation of "Instrumental Rationality": Science Serving Capital

The post-WWII "scientific framework" was often hijacked by Neoliberalism.

• The so-called "scientific advice" of the IMF and World Bank (e.g., the Washington Consensus) often required developing countries to cut welfare and open markets, facilitating Western capital harvesting.

• Here, "science" is no longer objective truth but becomes a "disguise for ideology" . When economic data looks good but people go hungry, the system still insists it is "scientific."

---

Summary

The US-led order after WWII was both a "great attempt" and a "clever disguise" .

1. Its progressiveness: It successfully introduced "Mr. Science" into global governance (functionalism, international organizations), making the world run like a precise machine; it also gave "Mr. Democracy" a big stage (the UN), making the world look like a civilized community.

2. Its limitations: It is essentially a "hierarchical liberal order" .

• In this order, science is a management tool, democracy is a negotiation mechanism, but sovereignty (American hegemony) remains the final decision-maker.

To answer your question: It functionally highly simulates global democracy and science; but ontologically, it is still a giant Leviathan cloaked in a civilized guise.

This explains why this order is collapsing today — because other shareholders (like China, India, the Global South) have grown up and found that the chairman has been cooking the books for a long time and is unregulated. So they demand "to make the simulation real" or "to start anew."

And what is the difference from the Enlightenment generation of the 1980s?

This is a very grand and historically profound question.

We can view these three generations—the May Fourth Generation (1919), the December 9th Generation (1935), and the 1980s Enlightenment Generation—as three "peaks" in the fate of Chinese intellectuals in the 20th century.

They respectively represent three distinct modes of relationship between Chinese intellectuals and the state, politics, and the ideal of modernization.

We can use "spiritual godfathers", "revolutionary craftsmen", and "wounded revivalists" to metaphorically describe these three generations.

---

I. May Fourth Generation vs. December 9th Generation: From "Individual" to "Collective"

The generational shift between these two generations marks the complete transition of modern China's theme from "Enlightenment" to "Salvation".

1. Different Core Motivations: Soul vs. Flesh

• May Fourth Generation (1919): To "transform people"

• Background: They faced a decaying tradition and warlords. They believed China was weak because the "people" were inadequate, and the culture was inadequate.

• Pursuit: Individual liberation, independent personality, science and democracy.

• Mentality: A "looking down" posture. They were enlighteners, pulling the masses out of ignorance. They talked about "what happens after Nora leaves home," about individual dignity.

• December 9th Generation (1935): To "survive"

• Background: The North China Incident, with Japanese swords at their throats. "North China is so vast that it can no longer accommodate a peaceful desk."

• Pursuit: National liberation, resistance against Japan, organizational discipline.

• Mentality: A "merging" posture. Facing the fear of national subjugation and genocide, individual freedom seemed trivial. They urgently needed a strong organization to protect the nation (the flesh), so they chose collectivism.

2. Relationship with Politics: Critics vs. Participants

• May Fourth Generation: Mostly maintained the liberal intellectual foundation. Even if some later joined political parties, they carried a strong "literati temperament," preferring independent thinking and not accustomed to blind obedience (e.g., Chen Duxiu, Hu Shi).

• December 9th Generation: A "party-ized" generation. They were the most core source of intellectuals in the CCP's cadre ranks. They took off their scholar's robes, put on military uniforms, and went to Yan'an. They voluntarily surrendered their "self" in exchange for "strength."

• Historical footnote: After the founding of the PRC, a large portion of the technical bureaucrats and literary leaders came from this generation. In various political movements, they were often not only victims but also executors (because of their strong organizational discipline).

---

II. The 1980s Enlightenment Generation: A "Return" After Injury

The 1980s generation (such as Li Zehou, Liu Zaifu, Jin Guantao, etc.) actually inherited the May Fourth spirit across generations, but they carried deep "Cultural Revolution trauma".

1. Different Historical Tasks: Anti-Imperialism vs. Anti-Feudalism (Totalitarianism)

• May Fourth/December 9th: Ultimately pointed to external enemies (imperial powers, Japan). To defeat external enemies, they often did not hesitate to sacrifice internal freedom.

• 1980s: Faced internal trauma. They had just emerged from the catastrophe of the Cultural Revolution and reflected painfully: Why did the system we built to save the nation end up devouring us?

• Difference: Their enlightenment was not for national salvation but for "healing" and "disease prevention". They picked up "Mr. Democracy" and "Mr. Science" again to prevent the tragedy from recurring.

2. Rupture and Reassembly of Knowledge Structure

• May Fourth Generation: Well-versed in both Chinese and Western learning. They read original Kant and Russell, while also mastering the Four Books and Five Classics. Their foundation was extremely solid.

• December 9th Generation: Only half. They read half the books and then went to revolution. Their knowledge structure was politicized and militarized.

• 1980s Generation: Congenitally deficient, but cramming afterwards. They grew up in a "cultural desert."

• Their characteristic was "hungry for knowledge" but "swallowing raw". Sartre, Nietzsche, Freud all rushed in at once. Their understanding of the West might not be as precise as the May Fourth Generation, but that vitality and passion were astonishing.

3. Relationship with the System: Dissidents Within the System

• May Fourth: Outside the system (Peking University professors, freelance writers).

• December 9th: System builders (revolutionaries, officials).

• 1980s: Wanderers at the edge of the system. Most were within the system (Academy of Social Sciences, universities, research institutes), having a subtle "patron-client" relationship with the then enlightened reformist leaders. They tried to "promote enlightenment from within the system".

---

III. Comparison of Ultimate Fates

We can use a table to summarize the final destinations of these three generations:

Summary

• May Fourth Generation were "sowers": They scattered the seeds of modern civilization. Although many did not sprout or grew crooked, they were the origin.

• December 9th Generation were "reapers": They harvested the patriotic fervor ignited by May Fourth, transformed it into immense political energy, built the nation, but thereby sacrificed the spirit of freedom inherent in May Fourth.

• 1980s Generation were "ruminants": After suffering enough from the "December 9th model" (collectivism overriding everything), they tried to spit out what they had swallowed and re-chew it, attempting to leap over December 9th and directly engage in a cross-generational dialogue with May Fourth.

The tragedy is: This "cross-generational dialogue" in the 1980s was short-lived. With the onslaught of the market economy tide in the 1990s and changes in the political environment, "enlightenment" was again overwhelmed by "utilitarianism."

• May Fourth was overwhelmed by national salvation.

• December 9th was overwhelmed by revolution.

• The 1980s were overwhelmed by commerce and stability maintenance.

This seems to be the "Sisyphean fate" that Chinese intellectuals could not escape in the 20th century.