Template talk:Contemporary Chinese political thought
Page contents not supported in other languages.
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Some proposed criteria for inclusion of individuals here—basically just summarising my own reasoning in putting the template together:
Might also be a good idea to include relevant non-bio articles within roughly these criteria. —Nizolan(talk ·c.)01:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nizolan:
It should be considered to include Old Left in comparison to the New Left, while some Maoist ideas for example influence New Left, the old left is more 'conventionally Maoist' in character, while the New Left is influenced also by both socialist thought/praxis in the West and Eastern philosophy
also noted that Jiang Qinq while certainly a Confucian, is very critical of New Confucian thought, considering them too influenced by western notions of democracy and humanism, I and others consider him more of a national-traditionalist than a New Confucian proper
The main currents in Chinese political thought as of now are those following the orthodox party line: socialism with Chinese characteristics (Deng, Xi, etc), the Old Left (Maoist types), New Left (see above), the liberals, the nationalist-traditionalists, and smaller groups of for example 'Western-style demsocs' or libertarian socialists'
also nationalists are def more of a broad group than traditionalists, with several lines of political thought having their own version of 'nationalism', for traditionalists it encompasses a 'strong China and an embracing of native culture and philosophy', which often aligns with nationalist projects, but should not be conflated
I would suggest making some sort of change wrt New Confucian category-as the current people listed belong to what could arguably be different strains of political thought despite being part of the general group of contemporary Confucianism
It's really cool to see this topic getting more attention, thank you for contributing to awareness of Chinese thoughtLian-nafix (talk)19:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Lian-nafix[reply]
For someone who's primary langauge of publication in the past 3 decades is English and has been living in the U.S. for the better part of his life (born 1969), he should be considered part of left-wing intellectual movement in the U.S.
Gao is a similar case, if not even more so.Juyiscally (talk)14:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that an IP user added Wang Hui, Wang Shaoguang, Hu Angang, and Cui Zhiyuan to the Neoauthoritarianism section, giving the rationale ashttps://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13569317.2024.2370972#abstract. Although the paper is actually well written, it is clear that there is no discussion of Cui Zhiyuan, Wang Hui, Hu Angang, etc. in the abstract section. Even the statement that Cui Zhiyuan and Hu Angang as New Leftists are two sides of the same coin of Neoauthoritarianism is clearly quoted by the author-obviously on behalf of Kang's opinion rather than asserting facts.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10971475.2003.11033467 is one of Cui's papers, and it's more than obvious that it's original research to draw any conclusions from it that aren't the author's original words. I can not find anything related to Wang Shaoguang inhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/2645282.ときさきくるみnot because they are easy,but because they are hard22:01, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
