Simon has a link to an (unlinkable) South China Morning Post piece on how the CCP plans to "modernize" Marxism, thus keeping it at the center of official ideology:

Professor Cheng said Beijing
aimed to modernise Marxism by building a theoretical system with
Chinese characteristics and style, adding that this would contribute to
advance and modernise the ideology worldwide.

     This sparks several thoughts:

     – First, for anyone genuinely interested in what the vast corpus of Marxist thought might tell us about contemporary China – and there may well be some interesting insights there – this state-sponsored effort in China, which will be apparently very well funded (leading one commenter to a lisrserv I read to say: this is "welfare for leftist Chinese academics"), will not – repeat: will not – be a font of theoretical innovation and excitement.  This is all about the legitimation of highly centralized state power in the hands of the Party.  Yes, some versions of Marxism – i.e. Leninism – can be used to rationalize that concentration of power.  But other Marxist insights would press against the very idea that a "state socialist" political system is historically appropriate for an obviously unsocialist place like contemporary China.  Indeed, the PRC is a shining example of Marx’s notion (obviously rejected by both Lenin and Mao) that socialism can only grow out of capitalism.  If a place has not experienced a full and deep development of capitalism it cannot be "socialist."  Something tells me that idea will not get into the handbook of CCP ideology.  Do you think they will just drop all references to socialism and declare the country in a "primary stage of capitalism"?

    –  Second, the revival of Marxism comes at the same time as the resurgence of Confucianism.   At  what point will the two converge?  Again, there might be interesting philosophical parallels and cross-overs between the two systems of thought.  But I would be surprised if that happens at the highest levels of ideology-making in China.  Rather, we might see some truly bizarre attempts to refurbish the Venerable Sage as a "revolutionary" historical actor.  Even though Confucius refers to himself as merely a transmitter of tradition, various Western analysts suggest that he was changing China in significant ways, especially through his emphasis on meritocracy over hereditary rule.   Will the "official line" on Confucius begin to change in this manner?  Will he be placed in the pantheon of progressive historical forces?  Will he become Comrade Confucius?

    Of course, the danger for the CCP is that the oppositional potential of Confucianism might be revealed.  Remember this gem from Mencius:

    Emperor Hsuan of Ch’i asked: "It it true that Emperor T’ang banished the tyrant Chieh, and Emperor Wu overthrew the tyrant Chou?"
    "Yes, according to the histories," replied Mencius.
    "So is the murder of a sovereign acceptable?"
    "A thief of Humanity is called a thief," replied Mencius.  "A thief of Duty is called a felon.  Someone who’s both a thief and a felon is called a commoner.  I’ve  heard of the commoner Chou’s punishment, but I’ve never heard of a sovereign’s murder."

     In other word, if a ruler fails in his duty as a ruler, if he becomes a tyrant, if he robs from the people, then he is not a true "sovereign" and he can be killed as a mere "commoner." 

    Has the CCP leadership stolen from the people?  Ask the folks of Dongzhou and Panlong…