Primary stage of socialism
This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points. (November 2017) |
China portal |
The primary stage of socialism (sometimes referred to as the preliminary stage of socialism),[1] introduced into official discourse by Mao Zedong as the initial stage of socialism, is a sub-theory of Chinese Marxist thought which explains why capitalist techniques are used in the Chinese economy. It maintains that China is in the first stage of building a communist society, in a stage where there is private ownership.[2]
Origins
The concept of a primary stage of socialism was conceived before China introduced economic reforms.
Xue Muqiao's theory of the "immature socialist system"
Xue believed the relations of production were determined by ownership in the economy. At the beginning, Wan chose a conservative reformist approach, stating that:
Prudence is necessary when approaching the reform of the commune institutions. We should not require each level to reform from top to bottom by prescribing a time limit for fulfilment. Until suitable new organizational forms can replace production brigades and teams, we should not recklessly change existing forms and bring about a disorderly situation.[9]
Wan called for the dismantlement of the
Today's household undertakings are very different in nature. Since land is owned by the public, they are restricted by the collective economy in many ways. They represent a level of management in the co-operative economy, and constitute an organic component part of the entire socialist economy... It is feared that the household contracting system will promote the conservative idea of private possession among the peasants. This fear is not without grounds. However, we must be able to see the other side of the matter, which also happens to be the prevailing aspect. Today's peasants are different from those of the past. They are now new-type labourers under the socialist co-operative system.[10]
Su Shaozhi's theory of "undeveloped socialism"
CPC theoretician
The characteristics of undeveloped socialism are the two forms of public ownership, commodity production and commodity exchange. Capitalists have been basically eliminated as a class but there are still capitalist and bourgeois remnants, even feudal remnants. There also exist quite a few small producers, class differences among workers and peasants … and the force of habit of small-scale producers. The production forces are still not highly developed. And there is not an abundance of products … Therefore, the transition toward socialism has not yet been completed.[12]
Su and Feng opposed the party line that the main contradiction in Chinese society was between the "
The socialist system consists mainly of production relations. Whether a production relation is advanced or not is determined by just one criterion, namely, whether or not it can meet the demands of production forces and facilitate their development. Although some production relations, such as commune ownership, may be superior to ownership by the production team in terms of the stage of development, in rural China today, where manual labor remains predominant, only ownership by the production team, rather than by the commune, would be the type of production relations capable of measuring up to the level of production forces and facilitating their development. If ... commune ownership is adopted, it would damage the development of production forces.[13]
The response to Su and Feng's article was mixed. Some responded positively and called for a retreat from socialist practices and a return to the policies of
Formulating the theory of a primary stage of socialism
Su's theory of undeveloped socialism led to the formulation of the primary stage of socialism theory under CPC General Secretary
Of the many lessons we have to sum up, a very important one is this: we should make clear what is socialism and how to build socialism ... The primary task of socialism is to develop production forces and to elevate the standard of the material and cultural life of the people. Our twenty years of experience from 1958 to 1976 have told us: poverty is not socialism, socialism is to eliminate poverty. It is not socialism to not develop production forces and raise the people's living standards.[21]
By this point, Deng had equated upholding socialism with developing the level of the productive forces; the ideal of common equality was postponed until an unspecified time.[21] Su and Zhang reached similar conclusions, saying that Marx had two goals when he wrote about the socialist future: a social system in which the productive forces developed and the individual would be granted a great chance of self-development.[21] However, developing the productive forces became the precondition for the greater self-learning of the individual through common equality; Su and Zhang said that the former would lead to the latter.[21] The left were generally pleased with the theory, which was based upon orthodox Marxist premises. However, some people on the right considered the theory was proof that China needed to reintroduce capitalism to build socialism. Marx had written that socialism developed from capitalism, but China had skipped the capitalist mode of production and went from feudalism to socialism.[22]
Zhao's adviser
Effect on party ideology
Changing views on capitalism
The reconception of socialism led directly to the reconception of capitalism because of their diametric opposition to each other.[24] Previously, the CPC had said supporting capitalism meant supporting a historical retreat and capitalism was considered the diametric opposite of socialism and their relations were considered hostile and incompatible.[24] The official reconception of the two terms was sanctioned in the Political Report to the 13th National Congress.[24] Before the reform efforts, capitalism and socialism were believed to be part of a sequential relationship, the latter developing from the former.[24] A less traditional view was that capitalism had proven it had a "greater capacity for creating human civilization" than Marx expected, which indirectly meant that socialism could learn from capitalism.[24] Another mark of continuity was that the two systems existed alongside each other.[24]
The first change in official discourse was to rebuke
- the decline in ideological conflict in tandem with the creation of nuclear weapons had radically changed East–West relations and the end of colonialism had altered the basis of North–South relations;[25]
- technical and scientific progress had—despite Marx' forecast—strengthened capitalism and changed the international arena since Lenin's death;[25]
- the increased economic interdependence brought by economic globalization had reduced the risks of war;[25]
- the reforms within socialist states had brought socialist economies closer to the world market and the capitalist economies.[25]
Historical materialism: universal law or methodology
At the 13th National Congress, Zhao concluded that the common rightist error when analyzing Chinese development was to question the legitimacy of the revolution and socialist superstructural elements established in its aftermath and that the common leftist error was to believe that you could skip over the primary stage of socialism directly to advanced socialism, a view that Zhao designated as utopian.[27] However, there was a problem; according to official statements, China had an advanced superstructure and a backward productive forces; this went against classical Marxism, which said the superstructure was "solely determined by economic factors"—in China the mode of production was determined by the superstructure.[27] All this went against the general notion of Marx' theory of historical materialism, which states that a mode of production is solely grounded on the material base.[27] However, Su and Zhang did not believe these discrepancies had proven the theory wrong; they concluded that historical materialism should be considered "a scientific methodology for the analysis of the general trend", not a universal law that explained former and future historical processes.[27] According to Su and Zhang, instead of viewing one factor—economy—as dominant, as was previously done, one should analyze how all factors interact with each other, especially the effects of the superstructure on the rest of society.[27] In their view, superstructural elements "played an obvious role in China's 'leap' from semifeudalism to socialism". Socialism in China was safeguarded by the CPC and its commitment to Marxist ideology.[27]
The problem with historical materialism as law-binding was, according to the rightists, what role humans played in historical development and the possibility of the existence of modes of production other than those outlined by Marx.
The role of Marxism
While the CPC pursued non-orthodox economic policies, it believed the party would be able to safeguard China's goal of socialist development by transforming Marxism into a dominant value system.[26] This was reflected by the introduction of the term "socialist spiritual civilization", a concept introduced in 1981 and mentioned in the Political Report to the 13th National Congress.[26] The main function of socialist spiritual civilization was to check against the dangers of ideological retreat in the party's effort to progress toward socialism.[26] A CPC resolution in 1986 said, "we will be not able to guarantee the socialist direction of our modernization course, and our socialist society will lose its goals and ideals" if the party stopped upholding Marxist doctrine.[30] However, because the material base, officially referred to as material civilization, created by the economic reforms did not conform with Marxist analysis of socialism, the CPC concluded that in the new era, Marxism would be given the role as the dominant value system, which entailed that other value systems could be accepted but these systems could not negate Marxism.[31]
See also
- China model
- State capitalism
References
Citations
- ^ Properly Understand Theories Concerning Preliminary Stage of Socialism, by Wei Xinghua and Sang Baichuan. 1998. Journal of Renmin University of China, 1998,V(1): 7-13,126.
- ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 7 August 2022.
- ^ a b c Li 1995, p. 400.
- ^ McCarthy 1985, p. 142.
- ^ a b c d McCarthy 1985, p. 143.
- ^ a b c McCarthy 1985, p. 144.
- ^ a b McCarthy 1985, p. 145.
- ^ a b McCarthy 1985, p. 146.
- ^ a b c McCarthy 1985, p. 147.
- ^ a b McCarthy 1985, p. 148.
- ^ a b c d Sun 1995, p. 184.
- ^ a b Sun 1995, pp. 184–185.
- ^ a b c d Sun 1995, p. 185.
- ^ Sun 1995, pp. 185–186.
- ^ a b c Sun 1995, p. 186.
- ^ Sun 1995, p. 186–187.
- ^ a b c Sun 1995, p. 195.
- ^ a b Sun 1995, pp. 196–197.
- ^ Sun 1995, p. 199–201.
- ^ Sun 1995, p. 202.
- ^ a b c d Sun 1995, p. 203.
- ^ Sun 1995, pp. 203–204.
- ^ a b c Fewsmith 1997, p. 205.
- ^ a b c d e f Sun 1995, p. 206.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Sun 1995, p. 207.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Sun 1995, p. 208.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j Sun 1995, p. 204.
- ^ Sun 1995, pp. 204–205.
- ^ a b Sun 1995, p. 205.
- ^ Sun 1995, pp. 208–209.
- ^ Sun 1995, p. 209.
Sources
- Books cited
- Fewsmith, Joseph (1997). Dilemmas of Reform in China: Political Conflict and Economic Debate. ISBN 978-1-56324-328-8.
- Li, Gucheng (1995). A Glossary of Political Terms of the People's Republic of China. ISBN 9789622016156.
- McCarthy, Greg (1985). Brugger, Bill (ed.). Chinese Marxism in Flux, 1978–84: Essays on Epistemology, Ideology, and Political Economy. ISBN 978-0-87332-323-9.
- Sun, Yan (1995). The Chinese Reassessment of Socialism, 1976–1992. ISBN 978-0-691-02998-6.