Theories and Practices of Scientific Socialism

Zhao Jiaxiang

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• Print ISBN: 9781032336077
• eBook ISBN: 9781000056792
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Philosophy
• Subtopic: Eastern Philosophy

In the four volumes of The Development Trajectory of Eastern Society and the Theories and Practices of Socialism, the author re-examines Marx and Engel's theories on the development trajectory of the Eastern societies by integrating theoretical analysis of Marxist theories and a historical investigation of socialist revolution and construction around the world.

This volume discusses the victories and failures of the 100-year trajectory of socialism. Since the Russian Revolution of October 1917, socialism has been practiced for nearly a hundred years in countries at various stages of development. The author provides a proper synthesis of the lessons derived from socialism's first hundred years as well as China's reforms and interaction with the world. In addition, he analyzes Marx and Engels' socialist theories and their significance for contemporary social development in Eastern societies.

Readers who study Marxism, Marxist philosophy, philosophical history and the history of philosophy will find this volume of immense interest.

1 Nomenclature for the future society

In Marx’s and Engels’ works, the terms “socialist society” and “communist society” are sometimes distinguished as different stages of and playing different roles in the coming of the future society. Other times, they are used in undistinguished reference to the future society that is to displace capitalism. The sequence of the two does not stay consistent either. Sometimes, communism precedes as the condition of socialism; other times, it is the reverse. This often leads to confusion and misunderstanding of the names used by Marx and Engels to refer to the future society. This misunderstanding has been and is still an issue. In many of today’s theories and even in important documents, the misuse of these two terms still occurs occasionally. Therefore, for the sake of clarification and accuracy, it is necessary to investigate the evolution of these two terms as used in Marx’s and Engels’ works.

1.1 Nomenclature before 1844 for the future society

Marx first presented the terms socialism and communism in Communism and the Augsburg Allgemeine Zeitung (hereinafter the Allgemeine Zeitung), written October 15, 1842. At that time, he was an editor of the Rheinische Zeitung in Cologne. This newspaper was attacked by the extremely reactionary Allgemeine Zeitung for discussing socialism and communism. The Allgemeine Zeitung unashamedly bashed the Rheinische Zeitung as “one that fanatically flirts with and platonically ogles communism.” And Marx astutely pointed out that a reporter from the Allgemeine Zeitung “has recently had the notion that monarchy, in its own fashion, must seek to appropriate socialist-communist ideas.” He solemnly emphasized that discussion of socialism and communism was irreproachably appropriate. Then he hurled a question at the Allgemeine Zeitung: “Or should we not consider communism an important current issue because it’s not a current issue privileged to appear at court, since it wears dirty linen and does not smell of rosewater?”¹ In this article, two points in Marx’s attitude toward socialist and communist ideas at the time are noteworthy. First, although Marx advocated discussing socialism and communism, he didn’t totally agree with, or at least had reservations about, socialist and communist ideas at the time. Second, his evaluations of socialist and communist ideas at the time were different. He believed that socialism was superior to communism. He said: The Rheinische Zeitung, which cannot concede the theoretical reality of communist ideas even in their present form, and can even less wish or consider possible their practical realization, will submit these ideas to a thorough criticism. If the Augsburg paper demanded and wanted more than slick phrases, it would see that writings such as those of Leroux, Considerant, and above all Proudhon’s penetrating work, can be criticized, not through superficial notions of the moment, but only after long and deep study.²

Marx’s letter to Arnold Ruge written in Kreuzenach in September 1843 makes it more evident that Marx considered socialism to be superior to communism. He said: I am therefore not in favor of our hoisting a dogmatic banner. Quite the reverse. We must try to help the dogmatists to clarify their ideas. In particular, communism is a dogmatic abstraction and by communism I do not refer to some imagined, possible communism, but to communism as it actually exists in the teachings of Cabet, Dézamy, and Weitling, etc. This communism is itself only a particular manifestation of the humanistic principle and is infected by its opposite, private property. The abolition of private property is therefore by no means identical with communism and communism has seen other socialist theories, such as those of Fourier and Proudhon, rising up in opposition to it, not fortuitously but necessarily, because it is only a particular, one-sided realization of the principle of socialism. Of course, Marx also saw the flaws and shortcomings of socialist theory at that time, and pointed out its fantasy in ignoring theory and reality. He said: And by the same token, the whole principle of socialism is concerned only with one side, namely the reality of the true existence of man. We have also to concern ourselves with the other side, i.e., with man's theoretical existence, and make his religion and science, etc., into the object of our criticism. Furthermore, we wish to influence our contemporaries above all. The problem is how best to achieve this. In this context there are two incontestable facts. Both religion and politics are matters of the very first importance in contemporary Germany. Our task must be to latch onto these as they are and not to oppose them with any ready-made system such as the Voyage en Icarie.³ The Voyage en Icarie, a book about philosophy and society, was written by utopian communist Etienne Cabet and published in 1842. The book describes the utopian future social system as Cabet imagined it.

In Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, Marx explained that he regarded socialism as the ideal social system, and communism as a kind of movement or as the necessary phase in the development of socialism. In this work, Marx talked about three communist theories, of which he criticized the first two and endorsed the third. To Marx, the third theory proposes communism as the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man; communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being—a return accomplished consciously and embracing the entire wealth of previous development. This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man—the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution.⁴ Since Marx was positive about this type of communism, it has long been regarded as Marx’s ideal social system. This is actually a misunderstanding. In several places within this work, Marx mentioned that his ideal social system was socialism, and communism was only a movement and inevitable phase in the movement toward socialism. I wish to draw readers’ attention to several citations from Marx before giving my own interpretation.

For the socialist man, the entire so-called history of the world is nothing but the creation of man through human labor, nothing but the emergence of nature for man, so he has the visible, irrefutable proof of his birth through himself, of his genesis.⁵

Socialism is man’s positive self-consciousness, no longer mediated through the abolition of religion, just as real life is man’s positive reality, no longer mediated through the abolition of private property, through communism. Communism is the positive mode as the negation of the negation, and is hence the actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development in the process of human emancipation and rehabilitation. Communism is the necessary form and the dynamic principle of the immediate future, but communism as such is not the goal of human development, the form of human society.⁶

We have seen what significance, given socialism, the wealth of human needs acquires, and what significance, therefore, both a new mode of production and a new object of production obtain: a new manifestation of the forces of human nature and a new enrichment of human nature.⁷

If we characterize communism itself because of its character as negation of the negation, as the appropriation of the human essence through the intermediary of the negation of private property—as being not yet the true, self-originating position but rather a position originating from private property, […]since with him therefore the real estrangement of the life of man remains, and remains all the more, the more one is conscious of it as such, hence it can be accomplished solely by bringing about communism. In order to abolish the idea of private property, the idea of communism is quite sufficient. It takes actual communist action to abolish actual private property. History will lead to it; and this movement, which in theory we already know to be a self-transcending movement, will constitute in actual fact a very rough and protracted process. But we must regard it as a real advance to have at the outset gained a consciousness of the limited character as well as of the goal of this historical movement—and a consciousness which reaches out beyond it.⁸

The “self-transcending movement” Marx mentions above refers to the communist movement; what he called “the limited character of this historical movement” refers to the limitations of the communist movement; “a consciousness which reaches out beyond it” refers to transcending the communist movement to a socialist society.

Marx, as cited above, believed that communism—a restorative movement to abolish private property, to eliminate alienation of labor, and to realize human essence—is the necessary form and the dynamic principle of the immediate future and the necessary phase on the road to the ideal society. However, the communist movement has its own limitations. It is not the goal of human development, nor the ideal formation of human society. Therefore, it should go beyond itself into the next stage, the stage of socialism. Socialism is the desired form of human society. In a socialist society, human needs are more enriched. People adopt new modes and objects of production. The human essence is fulfilled and native human capacity materialized.

1.2 Nomenclature for the future society in The German Ideology and Manifesto of the Communist Party

From 1845 to 1846, Marx and Engels co-authored the book The German Ideology. In the book, they called the ideal future society a communist society, and they put forward two absolutely necessary premises for realizing communism. The first is greatly increased and developed productivity, without which there will be prevalent poverty. Consequently, a contention for life’s necessities will emerge, reviving all human vices. The second premise for communism is global interaction, without which communism will only be regional. Marx and Engels believed that the communist society eliminates the old division of labor and alienation which was of fixed professions, and realizes the all-round development of human beings. They described the beautiful prospect of the communist society with a vivid metaphor: while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.⁹ In this book, Marx and Engels called the ideal future society a communist society. But why don’t people take this work as an indicator that Marx and Engels no longer called the future ideal society a socialist society? There may be two reasons. First, the work remained unpublished for a long time before and after their deaths, and thus was of little social impact; second, the book still took communism as just a relic of the movement to realize the ideal future society, as indicated in their Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half-Title
• Series
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Introduction
• 1 Nomenclature for the future society
• 2 An overview of the role of capital
• 3 Reflecting on the destiny of socialism
• 4 Marx and Engels’ visions on the basic characteristics of the future society
• 5 The controversy about “whether one country can accomplish socialism”
• 6 Deng Xiaoping’s theory of the primary stage of socialism
• 7 Deng Xiaoping’s contributions to the theory of the essence of socialism
• 8 Deng Xiaoping’s contribution to the historical era theory
• Afterword
• Bibliography
• Index