Marxism

Posted on March 12, 2011 by Socialism and Democracy Online

There are many points of interest pertaining to the development of Marxist philosophy in contemporary China. This paper will focus on the following areas and problems: the debate about the criterion of truth; Marxist philosophical textbook reform; the inquiry into the human agent and subjectivity; Marxism and Confucianism; Deng Xiaoping’s theory; and the socialist market economic system. Let’s start with the debate about the criterion of truth, for this is the historical starting-point of contemporary Marxist philosophy in China.

1. The Debate about the Criterion of Truth

Academically, the real development of Marxist philosophy in contemporary China started in 1978. In that year, China’s intellectual life witnessed a great event. People in every walk of life were engaged in a debate: What is the criterion of truth?

Initially, the debate was related to the political struggle and the ideological debates within the Chinese Communist Party. Chairman Mao Zedong died in 1976, and the Cultural Revolution was officially declared to be ended. However, in ideology nothing seems to change much. The Chair of the Communist Party at that time was handpicked by Mao. As a way to maintain his position, he insisted on the doctrine of the “two whatevers”: (1) whatever policy decisions Mao had made must be firmly upheld; (2) whatever instructions Mao had given must be followed unswervingly. Hence, for the opposite faction, led by Deng Xiaoping (who was purged by Mao in 1975) to come back to power, it was necessary to break these “two whatevers.”

On May 11, 1978, a prominent Chinese newspaper, the Guangming Daily, published an article entitled “Practice Is the Only Criterion for Judging the Truth,” signed by “the Special Commentator.” The article argued that for all forms of knowledge, including Marxism, the nature of their truth must be judged and proved by practice. All scientific knowledge, including Marxism, should be amenable to revision, supplementation, and development in practice, in accordance with the specific conditions under which it is to be applied. This paper was widely echoed and provoked lively discussions throughout China. These led to a consensus that it is practice, not Mao’s words, that can tell us what is right and what is wrong. The immediate consequence of this great debate was that the advocates of the “two whatevers” lost their power, and Deng Xiaoping regained his power and started the Chinese economic reform. In contrast to the “two whatevers,” Deng’s motto is, “It does not matter whether a cat is black or white; as long as it can catch mice, it is a good cat.”

However, the debate has had a far-reaching influence on Chinese social science, in particular, on the study of Marxism itself. Since the Communist party came to power in 1949, Marxism, and its Chinese representative, Mao Zedong’s thought, has been regarded as the absolute and as a completed truth system. The only role philosophers could play¾and were required to play¾was to prove the rightness or truth of Marxism and Mao’s theory. Only political leaders, actually only Mao himself, could establish new truth and develop Marxism. Just as philosophy was the handmaiden of theology in the medieval West, so in China philosophy became the servant of Mao’s politics. Any question or criticism put to Marxism and Mao’s theory was regarded as a political challenge. For Mao, the most important thing that Marxist philosophy can teach is its theory of class struggle and the theory of proletarian dictatorship. Mao’s philosophy actually became a kind of “Struggle Philosophy.”

Now the debate about the criterion of truth and the establishment of practice as that criterion broke this myth of Marxism and of Mao’s theory. Marxism became a subject that could be reflected upon, examined, renewed, and developed. The truth-criterion discussion of 1978 was indeed a movement of enlightenment, a movement of thought liberation. It paved the way for contemporary China’s economic development, and it also paved the way for any possible new contributions to Marxism. It used to be the case that one could only “insist” on Marxism; now we could “develop” Marxism, and many now believed that only by developing Marxist philosophy could one really insist on it. It used to be the case that academic philosophy was always subordinate to the leaders’ thought and did not have any independent status. Since 1978, however, philosophical research has won a relatively independent academic position.

2. Reform of the Philosophical Textbook

The immediate effect of these developments for Chinese Marxism was the publication of new editions of the Marxist textbook. One would think that a new edition of a textbook is a matter of pedagogy, of the teaching of philosophy, rather than a matter of philosophical development, or development in philosophical thought. This is not the case in China, however.  For, generally speaking, it is only the Marxism embodied in the textbook that is regarded as the orthodox Marxism, the “true” Marxism that should be learned. A change in the textbook means therefore a change of attitude towards Marxism. To a great extent, the changes of the textbook mirror the situation of Marxist philosophical research.  To get a new edition of the Marxist textbook published, what is essential is not the approval of the referees, but that of the government. Now the situation has changed significantly, yet the reform and reconstruction of the official textbook is still regarded as an important aspect of the progress of Marxist philosophy.

Until 1978, the main textbook of Marxist philosophy in China was Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism (edited by Ai Siqi, the former leader of the Party School of the Communist Party). Its contents and structure were basically transplanted and transferred from the textbook of Marxist philosophy in the former Soviet Union, and it was deeply influenced by Stalinist dogmatism. Though political relations between the Soviet Union and China were broken in the early 1960s, this type of official philosophical textbook had remained unchanged.

Since 1978, Chinese philosophers have introduced important modifications or re-formulations to different aspects and levels of Marxist philosophy.

First, breaking away from the constraint of the traditional textbook, they returned to the original works of Marx, Engels, and Lenin. Many concepts have been redefined, such as matter, consciousness, existence, spirit, static, motion, ideals, struggle, social existence, social consciousness, knowledge, truth, practice. Various basic views and positions were re-evaluated, such as, “the basic problem of philosophy,”  “the challenge of epistemological skepticism,” “the relationship between dialectics and metaphysics,” “the relationship between materialism and idealism,” “the basic contradictions in human society,” “epistemological methods,” and so on. Some Marxist theories were abandoned, whereas others were re-formulated.

Second, many new concepts and views, mainly derived from Western philosophy and/or sciences, were introduced into the Marxist philosophic textbook, including concepts such as: subject and subjectivity, object and objectivity, medium, element, structure, function, information, feedback, control, social system, social organism, purpose, emotion, will, cognitive model, thinking world, value, evaluation, and so on; and views such as:  “the idealist way and the practical way of human understanding of the World”; “the interactive law between subject and object”; “the farsightedness, selection, and creativity of human cognition”; “subjective principle and the system principle in cognition”; “the unity of truth and value”, “the concrete and historical unity among Truth, Good, and Beauty.” Some new research methods were transplanted, and applied to Marxist philosophical research, for example, the methods of genetic theory, atomic analysis, constructive explanation, and functional analysis.

Third, many new domains have been explored, and many new branches have been introduced and developed, for example, axiology, theory of practice, philosophical methodology, philosophical anthropology, the theory of social organisms, the theory of social control, the genetic theory of cognition, the theory of cognitive evolution, philosophy of man, philosophy of science, philosophy of humanities and social science, scientific epistemology, social epistemology, philosophy of daily life, feminist philosophy, philosophy of environment and ecology, and so on.

These philosophical achievements provided the new foundation to the textbook reform and reconstruction of Marxism in China. There are many textbooks with different outlooks. I would like to mention briefly the following four that are the most influential.

a. Dialectic Materialism and Historical Materialism, editor-in-chief, Xiao Qian, a professor at the People’s University of China. The book maintains the main structure of Ai Siqi’s textbook but thoroughly absorbs the new achievements of the sciences. It includes sub-divisions such as materialism, dialectics, and epistemology, theory of society and history, and methodology. It is the most influential textbook of Marxist philosophy in China. The problem of this book is that some of the new contents of the philosophy could not find their suitable place in the old system.

b. The Basic Principles of Marxist Philosophy, chief editor, Gao Qinghai, a professor at Jilin University. It is based on the historical development of Western philosophy and of Marxist philosophy. The major strength of the book lies in its attempt to locate the historical sources of the main philosophical concepts and its emphasis on understanding Marxist philosophy historically. The problem of this book is its difficulty in distinguishing the content of Marxist philosophy from that of Western philosophy. The other problem is that it is too historical, and somewhat weak in the construction of philosophical arguments.

c. Professor Huang Danshen, of Beijing University, tries to compile a system of Marxist philosophy according to his understanding of Lenin’s Philosophical Notebooks. The structure of his textbook system is based on 36 pairs of concepts. Since Lenin’s philosophical notebooks are his reading notes on Hegel’s Logic, Huang’s plan carries the obvious influence of Hegel’s philosophy. The other problem of his system is that 36 pairs of concepts are not enough to include all aspects of philosophy.

d. Professor Xia Zhentao of the People’s University of China, and Ouyang Kang [the present author], a professor at Wuhan University, have created another new system of Marxist philosophy according to their understanding to Karl Marx’s “Practical Materialism.” We understand that the major characteristic of Marxist philosophy is its emphasis on “practice.” This is also the basic point of difference between Marxist and non-Marxist philosophy. It is a fact that Karl Marx never called his philosophy dialectical materialism or historical materialism; instead he referred to it as “Practical Materialism” in his Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts (1844). His most famous sentence was the one that appeared on his tombstone: “Philosophers only explain the world, but the problem is to change it.” Based on Marx’s ideas, we developed a comprehensive understanding of the concept of “practice” and redefined the nature of Marxist philosophy as a kind of Dialectical, Historical, Humanistic, and Practical Materialism. Marxist philosophy is a philosophy of the relationship between Man and the World. The highest function of Marxist philosophy is to help people to recognize, to understand, to evaluate, to control, to develop, and to deal with this relationship more rationally and more efficiently. The new outlook of Marxist philosophy will be a kind of new Subjective-Methodological system.

At the present time, the reform and the reconstruction of the textbook of Marxist philosophy is still going on. We believe that further developments of Marxist philosophy in China should be individualized and personalized, rather than following a unified pattern. Different Marxist philosophers should be encouraged to develop their own philosophical systems based on their own understanding of Marxist philosophy, and they should use their special research methodology.          

3. Exploring the Human Agent and Subjectivity

In the past, human beings had little standing in Chinese Marxist philosophy. Even when the notion of man was mentioned occasionally, it mainly referred to the collective, group, class and nation, but not to the individual. This has been criticized as “stressing nature but forgetting man” – i.e., stressing the collective man but forgetting the individual person. Now it is agreed that the individual human being should be the main topic of Marxist philosophy.

With the publication of Marx’s newly discovered  Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts,* Chinese philosophers have become more interested in the problems of humanism and alienation. Some claim that the individual human being should be the starting point of Marxist philosophy. Others think that problems of the individual human being should be the highest target, the primary task, the central subject-matter and the final destination of Marxist philosophy. Still others suggest that humanism can be included in Marxism if it is defined as a basis for ethical consideration. The discussion, however, suffered a setback in the anti-liberalism movement of 1984.

Another related topic is subjectivity. Both subject and object are new concepts of Chinese Marxist philosophy that did not appear in the old philosophical textbook. In the 1980s, discussion of this issue was not limited to Marxist philosophy, but was also found in the literatures of critical theory, ethics, aesthetics, and so on. Why were Chinese intellectuals so interested in the problems of subject, subjectivity, and the subjective principle? The answer is that in discussing subjectivity, the central philosophical position of the individual human being could be established. There are many different positions in the inquiry into subjectivity. Some argue against it on the ground that to emphasize subjectivity would lead to the denial of cognitive objectivity. Others, on the other hand, push the subjective principle to the extreme of advocating an absolute free will. My M.A. thesis is entitled “On Subjective Ability,” and I have published many papers on this topic. I believe that the subjective movement in contemporary Chinese philosophy was actually a thought liberation movement.

In May 1997, Professor Huang Danshen of Beijing University organized a National Association of the Philosophy of Man, which held its first conference in Beijing. The Philosophy of Man has become a very hot topic in China today. One strong feature is to connect this topic with the new outlook of Marxist philosophy. Some claim that the Philosophy of Man is the hallmark of contemporary Marxist philosophy. Others think that the Philosophy of Man is only a part of Marxist philosophy. Nevertheless, the efforts to establish the Philosophy of Man have stimulated much philosophical research and have greatly extended the development of Marxist philosophy in China.

4. Marxist Philosophy and Confucianism

How should Marxist philosophy deal with its relationship to the traditional Chinese value system?           

The controversy between traditionalism and anti-traditionalism has been hot in modern China for many decades. Since the New Cultural Movement of May 4, 1919, anti-traditionalism was the main trend. To some, revolution means rejecting traditional Chinese culture, especially Confucianism. Mao Zedong was deeply influenced by traditional Chinese culture in his early years. But one of the most important aims of his Cultural Revolution was to get rid of Confucianism, and even of all traditional Chinese culture. Traditional Chinese culture is regarded as an obstacle to China’s modernization. Others looked down upon Chinese philosophy, and believed that Chinese philosophy was not mature, and that it lacked logic. They admired only Western civilization and philosophy. Meanwhile, the more traditionally-minded scholars insisted that Chinese culture and philosophy should be the mainstream in China. Now the problem is whether it is possible to combine Marxist philosophy with traditional Chinese culture. Can Marxist philosophy be developed without learning from Chinese culture and philosophy? How can Marxist philosophy become intrinsic to contemporary Chinese culture? How can Marxist philosophy find its foundation and roots in Chinese soil?Almost all Chinese philosophers now realize the necessity of combining Marxist philosophy and traditional Chinese philosophy. Integrating Chinese philosophy and culture into Marxist philosophy is the necessary way to develop Marxist philosophy in China. It is also the necessary way to discover and recognize the contemporary meaning of traditional Chinese culture and philosophy.  There are many positive elements in traditional Chinese culture and philosophy that may be profitably absorbed into Marxist philosophy. Here we briefly list some of them:           

The idea of the unity of Man and Heaven (Nature)
Now our entire world is deeply involved in the ecological controversy surrounding the relationship between Man and Nature. The sharp opposition between man and nature has been characteristic of much traditional Western culture and philosophy, and Marxism itself is a product of that tradition. To find possible ways to achieve a harmony of man and nature has from the beginning been a basic theme in traditional Chinese philosophy. Chinese philosophers insisted that nature is to be regarded not as the slave of man but as the equal partner in human life and in the formation of humanity. Man should stay on good terms with nature. Human beings should respect and protect nature. To protect nature is to protect the necessary environment of human life. Traditional Chinese philosophy is full of ecological insights and anticipations.  The same ecological concerns can be found in Karl Marx’s Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts.   
The outlook and method of the Mean (Zhong Yong).
The Mean, also called “the Impartiality” or “the Doctrine of the Mean,” is the Middle Way.  Epistemologically, the method of the Mean seeks to master the object in a complete and rounded way by avoiding any kind of extreme, excess, and partiality. In the context of social life, the Middle Way prescribes that each human being should form his own judgment regardless of the opinions of others. 

Harmony among peoples
Chinese philosophy emphasizes peace and harmony among peoples and condemns irrational and unnecessary conflicts and unjust wars. Chinese philosophers insisted that human beings should respect and help each other. And their harmonious relationship is to be based on the common understanding of virtues. Rulers should treat their people as they treat their children. To show respect to the old and to protect youth were regarded as the basic virtues in ancient China. Traditional Chinese virtues, such as diligence and filial piety, have their contemporary meanings in today’s human life and should become the intrinsic content of Marxist ethics.

Recently there have been heated discussions on Asian Values in the East and also in the West.. It is generally agreed that Confucianism is the main core of Asian values, which include in particular “Family Values.”   Many Chinese philosophers believe that the teachings of traditional Chinese philosophy could still be applicable to human life today.  They retain their relevance in contemporary world culture.
5. Deng Xiaoping Theory

Deng Xiaoping theory is regarded as the new stage and new outlook of Marxist philosophy in contemporary China. It is the guiding ideology in building Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. Deng’s thought has been intensively studied.

I think that the most important contributions of Deng Xiaoping theory lie in the liberation of the human spirit in contemporary China. The core and key point of Deng’s theory is “emancipating the mind” and “seeking truth from facts.”  Seeking truth from facts is the quintessence of Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought. Deng emphasized this in 1978 and used it to counter the “two whatevers,” thus opening up a new area for China. It was called the first Spirit Liberation Movement in China.  After the political incidents in 1989, there were some arguments about where China should go, especially whether China should continue its reform and open policy. Deng stressed the emancipation of the mind in his trip to South China in 1992. This affirmation cleared up many important misconceptions about Socialism, and advanced the reform to a new stage. This was called the second Spirit Liberation Movement, which initiated the socialist market system in China. After Deng’s death, there have been some debates regarding his theory and practice. Secretary-General Jiang Zemin and the central committee of CPC stressed these two aspects again in its 15th National Congress in September 1997. This was regarded as the third Spirit Liberation in today’s China.

Deng Xiaoping’s other important contribution to Marxist philosophy is to establish a new criterion for socialist theories. He claimed that the fundamental questions we should ask about socialism are what socialism is and how to build it. He raised three fundamental criteria for judging a proposal or a policy: whether it is favorable for promoting growth of the productive forces in a socialist society, whether it is favorable for increasing the overall strength of the socialist state, and whether it is favorable for raising the people’s living standards. The criteria were called the “three favorables.”  By these three value criteria, people could actually evaluate all social policy and social administration and could judge between right and wrong and between good and bad.

Deng Xiaoping theory is a system with rich contents. He has greatly contributed to the contemporary development of China. His philosophical ideas give us enlightenment although they do not complete the development of Marxist philosophy in China. Deng’s theory itself should be developed in time.

6. Marxism and Chinese Socialist Market System

One special and current problem facing Chinese Marxist philosophers is how Marxist philosophy answers the challenges of constructing a socialist market economic system in China. In the past 20 years, the economic system in China has been changed from the central planning system via planned commercial system to a socialist free market system. The economy has developed rapidly. The new market system has thrown all traditional disciplines, such as philosophy, literature, and history into turmoil. As everyone knows, Marxism in China had a privileged political position in the planning of the social system. Now Marxist philosophical research has become a kind of academic research. The authority of Marxist philosophy can only be based on its content and function, depending on whether it is recognized by society. Marxist philosophers stand on the same level as other scholars. It is not only a kind of challenge but also a fair competition. This situation forces and stimulates Marxist philosophers in China to do their work better than ever. It is the motivating force underlying the development of Marxist philosophy as an academic discipline.

The socialist market economy, as a part of Chinese Marxism, is both a heritage and a development of Marxist economics. In our prior understanding of Marxism, socialism is the opposite of capitalism. The basic nature of capitalism is private ownership, free market economic system, and wealth distribution according to the ownership of capital. As the opposite of capitalism, the basic nature of socialism lies in the public ownership of capital, planned economic system, and wealth distribution according to work. The former Soviet Union, some Eastern European countries, and China had tried for many years to follow these criteria for socialism, and the consequence is not good at all. This situation led the Chinese Communist Party to re-think and re-understand Marx and Engels, especially the ideas of their later years. If one inquires more deeply into why they contrasted socialism with capitalism, one will discover that in their understanding, the highest goal of socialism is to create the higher productive forces, to get rid of social inequality, to destroy poverty, and to make all social groups richer. Socialism is thus a more advanced system than capitalism. But these ideas are not easy to actualize. Each country has to find its own effective and possible way according to its own history and reality. Only when your socialist theory succeeds can it be proved to be true socialism, and only then can your practice be accepted and followed by your people. Otherwise socialism will have no reason and no power to attract the people. Here we should insist that practice is the only criterion to judge the truth of socialism and of Marxism.

The Chinese socialist market economic system is based on following arguments.           

1). Marxist socialism is not a kind of dogma but an active and practical movement. The highest goal of socialism is to develop productive forces in the most effective way. The basic doctrine of socialism is to enrich all members of society. To meet its goals, the development models of socialism in the world are not universal and unique but variable and multiple. In different countries, socialism requires different models and different ways. This is a necessary way to realize and to develop socialist theory.

2). The market, as an economic form, is neutral in relation to political and ideological systems. The market system does not belong only to capitalism but can also be used by socialism. Today’s world is basically a global market economic system. Any individual country should consciously join in the world market system if they want to become a member of international society rather than being isolated. This also applies to China.

3). It is impossible to complete the transition from capitalism to communism in one step. There are some middle stages between them. Socialism is a middle stage in the transitional process. It should contain the characteristics of these two societies.

4). The Socialist free market system with Chinese Characteristics is a new development of Chinese Marxism. On the one hand, it insists that the highest aims of socialism are to develop the productive forces and to enrich people’s lives to the greatest extent. On the other hand, it fits with the down-to-earth situation of contemporary China.

5). It has been proven through many years’ unsuccessful practice in China before 1978 that the pure central planning economic system was a way neither to develop productive forces nor to raise the people’s living standard. The fastest continuous economic development in China since 1978, especially since 1992, has strongly proved the benefits of the socialist market system.

Reference

Ai Siqi ed.: Dialectic Materialism and Historical Materialism, People’s Press, Beijing, 1970.

The Special Commentator: “Practice Is the Only Criterion for Judging the Truth”, Guang-ming Daily, May 11, 1978.

Gao Qinghai: The Basic Principles of Marxist Philosophy, Jilin Press, Changchun 1989.

Xiaoqian etc. ed. The Basic Principles of Marxist Philosophy, The Chinese People’s University Press, Beijing, 1992.
Ouyang Kang: An Introduction to Social Epistemology, China Social Science Press, Beijing, 1990.

Ouyang Kang: The Methodology of Philosophy Research, Wuhan University Press, Wuhan, 1998.

Ouyang Kang: From the Discussion of Truth Criterion to the Construction of the New Morphology of Marxist Philosophy, TIANJING SOCIAL SCIENCES, 1998(6)

The author: Prof. Dr. Ouyang Kang, Dean of the School of Humanities, Head of the Department of Philosophy, Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei 430072, P. R. China, Tel/Fax +86-27-87882755 , Email: kouyang@whu.edu.cn.

*[Ed. note: Although Marx’s 1844 manuscripts were first published in 1932 (in Berlin), it was not until 1979 that they were published in China.]

Unlike Hegel, Theodor Adorno rejected the idea the outcome of the dialectic will always be positive, and preordained

‘Adorno criticised Hegel, above, for presenting a positive and affirmative dialectic in which ‘everything that is real is rational’.’

By Peter Thompson

The Guardian, UK

April 1, 2013 – Already in the comments about the first instalment of this series, a problem of traditions has emerged. For a predominantly Anglo-Saxon audience, raised in the empirical and positivist tradition, understanding a group of thinkers schooled in speculative Hegelianism and Marxist dialectics is always going to require a leap of faith. This is also compounded by the fact that the largely monoglot Anglo-Saxon tradition has to work with translations of these thinkers, which are not always the best that can be achieved.

For example, terms such as Wissenschaft and Geist traditionally get translated into "science" and "spirit", apparently irreconcilable opposites, whereas in philosophical terms the difference between the two is much less marked. In fact, you might argue that in the original German they could both be translated as "knowledge", albeit different types of knowledge bounded by speculation. When it comes to the Frankfurt school, the Anglo-Saxon tradition is confronted with all of its worst nightmares in one torrid night of speculative muscle flexing.

Theodor Adorno opens his treatise on negative dialectics with the statement that "[it] is a phrase that flouts tradition. As early as Plato, dialectics meant to achieve something positive by means of negation; the thought figure of the ‘negation of the negation’ later became the succinct term. This book seeks to free dialectics from such affirmative traits without reducing its determinacy." In other words, he asks us to reject the idea that the outcome of the dialectic will always be positive but that we do so without leaving the dialectic behind as an explanatory model. We simply have to make it an open rather than a closed process.

continue

The Frankfurt school united Marx and Freud to become the most influential thinkers of the 20th century left. The respectable right are suspicious, and the far right loathes them. An ongoing series, others will follow.

‘Anders Behring Breivik is the perfect example of the authoritarian personality Theodor Adorno wrote about.’ Photograph: Heiko Junge/AFP/Getty Images

By Peter Thompson

The Guardian, UK, March 25, 2013

When Anders Breivik launched his murderous attack in Norway in July 2011, he left behind a rambling manifesto which attacked not only what he saw as Europe’s Islamicisation but also its undermining by the cultural Marxism of the Frankfurt school. So what is the Frankfurt school? Has its influence has been as deep as Breivik feared and many of the rest of us have hoped?

Many will have heard of the most prominent names from that tradition: Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse and Max Horkheimer, but its reach goes much further, taking in many of the 20th century’s most important continental philosophers and socio-political developments.

The Frankfurt school was officially called the Institute for Social Research and was attached to the University of Frankfurt but functioned as an independent group of Marxist intellectuals who sought, under the leadership of Felix Weil, to expand Marxist thought beyond what had become a somewhat dogmatic and reductionist tradition increasingly dominated by both Stalinism and social democracy. Most famously they sought to marry up a combination of Marxist social analysis with Freudian psychoanalytical theories, searching for the roots of what made people tick in modern consumer capitalist society as well as what made people turn to fascism in the 1930s.

The Frankfurt school went back to Marx’s early theoretical works from the 1840s and tapped into his more humanist impulses found in the German-French Annals and in his correspondence with Arnold Ruge. It is in these early writings that we find many of Marx’s most important writings on the role of religion in history and society. His ideas about the way materialism worked in the world were still being formulated and he had not yet become the economic theoretician he was later known as. It is not that Marx left ideas of religion behind after these early years, but he felt he had dealt with them properly and could move on to more tangible affairs. In a letter to Arnold Ruge in 1842 he wrote:

"Our motto must be: reform of consciousness not through dogmas, but by analysing the mystical consciousness that is unintelligible to itself, whether it manifests itself in a religious or a political form. It will then become evident that the world has long dreamed of possessing something of which it has only to be conscious in order to possess it in reality. It will become evident that it is not a question of drawing a great mental dividing line between past and future, but of realising the thoughts of the past. Lastly, it will become evident that mankind is not beginning a new work, but is consciously carrying into effect its old work."

But the idea that what was required was a reform of consciousness which had become unintelligible to itself is the central working principle of the Frankfurt school. Religious thought, which Marx saw as a part of false consciousness, was to be combated not by a full frontal attack in some sort of Dawkins-like crusade, but by removing the social conditions that created it. Marx was, therefore, not an atheist. Indeed he said of the term atheism that it "reminds one of children, assuring everyone who is ready to listen to them that they are not afraid of the bogey man". But the Frankfurt school did not believe that this reform of consciousness could come about simply by changing the socio-economic base of capitalist society. Religion was, for them, not only the opium of the people, but also a repository of hope that had become unintelligible to itself.

continue

interview with Hugo Moldiz, Bolivian Marxist

Hugo Moldiz interviewed by Coral Wynter and Jim McIlroy

April 24, 2013 — Links International Journal of Socialist Renewal — Hugo Moldiz is a respected Marxist journalist and author living in La Paz. He has written several books, including Bolivia in the Times of Evo, published by Ocean Sur in 2009. He is editor of the weekly La Epoca and has also contributed many articles to the magazine America XXI. We interviewed him during a recent visit to La Paz, Bolivia. Translation from the Spanish by Coral Wynter.

* * *

What is the significance of the election of an Indigenous president in Bolivia?

The very fact of the election of an Indian to the highest level of government, to the presidency, was a revolutionary act. This may not mean so much in other parts of the world, but when we understand the nature of the social formation in Bolivia, it is very significant. This is due to the way the republic was established [in 1825] and its development based on the past colonial period, involving the development of forms of capitalist control over work and the stealing of our natural resources (the source of the original capital).

Successive governments further entrenched this by the almost total exclusion of the majority of people, the Indigenous people, from political participation. It was a double exclusion for the Indigenous people — from political power as well as from participation in society. If you want to look at it in class terms and also from the point of view of the national culture, capitalism in countries like Bolivia has been sustained by colonialism. Thus from this perspective, the arrival of Evo Morales was very significant and resulted from the emergence of an Indigenous, peasant and popular movement and the formation of a new power bloc that is moving to displace the old power structure.

What is the proportion of Indigenous people among the overall population of Bolivia?

In the last census in 2001, 64% of the Bolivian population was recognised as Indigenous. The proportion could be even higher because, before the victory of Evo Morales, before the inclusion process, the Indigenous and peasant movement was only just emerging. From about 2000, or even a little before, there was a process of construction of collectives, of an increase of Indigenous self-esteem. In the previous census of 1991, there was a minimal percentage of Indians who considered themselves Indigenous. This happened not only because the census didn’t ask the question whether people identified as Indigenous. On top of this, people of Indigenous origin viewed the census as an instrument of oppression in society.

For Indians who lived in the city, they considered themselves anything but Indian, because the word “Indio” was a bad word. If I were Indian, I had to present an identity card as an Indian, which would not open doors for me, but rather close them.

I think in this census [which was held on November 21, 2012], the number of people who identify as Indian will be more than 64%. When we speak of “Indio”, we are not just speaking of peasants: we are talking about the Indigenous people. Peasant is a concept of class: we are talking about Indigenous people who live in both rural and urban areas.

In addition, we are going to see the planning of the economy in the period up to 2025. A second major aim is to have a better distribution of national wealth. Until now, the distribution of wealth in Bolivia has been regulated by the number of people who live in a certain area. Today the proposal is to change that criterion, or at least complement it, to establish a better basis for access to basic services, which is one of the 2025 objectives of the president.

continue

An Examination of Hardt and Negri’s Postmodern Mistakes

By Sean Sayers
Practice & Text, Nanjing University

ABSTRACT

Work in advanced industrial society is changing rapidly. According to Hardt and Negri industrial labour that produces material goods is being superseded by new post-industrial forms of work. These cannot be comprehended by Marx’s account of labour which is based on an industrial model. New concepts of `immaterial’ labour and `biopolitical’ production are needed. This paper criticizes these arguments from a Marxist perspective. Marx’s account of labour is explained, and Hardt and Negri’s criticisms of it are shown to be mistaken. Their account of post-industrial labour, it is argued, is confused and unhelpful. Properly understood and suitably developed Marx’s theory continues to provide a more satisfactory basis for understanding the nature of work in the modern world.

10 October 2006

In recent years the character of work in advanced industrial society has been changing rapidly. Production is being automated and computerized. The factory operated by massed workers is being superseded. Industrial labour is ceasing to be the dominant form of work. Work in offices that used to require intellectual skills is now done by computers. With the enormous growth of jobs in the service sector and the increasing use of information technology, new kinds of work are being created.

These changes are often summed up by saying that these societies are moving from the industrial to the post-industrial stage. In some important respects this notion is highly questionable. Arguably, the economic system is still industrial, but it now operates on a global scale. If industry is ceasing to be the predominant form of work in Western Europe and North America, that is mainly because it is being relocated to other parts of the world in a new global division of labour.

Nevertheless, it is beyond dispute that work is changing. With the widespread use of computers and information technology new kinds of work have developed. Hardt and Negri’s (2000; 2005) attempt to theorize these changes has been particularly influential. The older industrial forms of labour which produced material goods, they argue, are no longer dominant. They are being superseded by new `immaterial’ forms of work involved in the media, management, public relations, information technology, the caring professions, etc.. Jobs in these areas do not make material products, rather they produce ideas, images and other symbolic and cultural contents, and they create and alter social relations. They are `biopolitical’ activities which produce `subjectivities’ and human relations rather than material goods.

Hardt and Negri situated their thought within the Marxist tradition. However, they maintain, Marx’s ideas need to be rethought in the light of the new conditions of post-industrial society.  Marx takes material production as the paradigm of work, his concept of labour is based on an industrial model. In order to describe the new post-industrial forms of work, Marx’s account must be supplemented with the concepts of `immaterial’ labour and `biopolitical’ production.

My aim in this paper is to criticize these ideas. First I will explain Marx’s account of labour and show that Hardt and Negri’s criticisms are based on a fundamental misreading of his thought. Then I will argue that Hardt and Negri’s own account is confused and unhelpful. Properly understood and suitably developed Marx’s concept of labour continues to provide a more satisfactory basis for understanding the nature of work in the modern world.

I MARX’S CONCEPT OF LABOUR

According to Marx, labour is an intentional activity designed to produce a change in the material world. In his early writings, he conceives of work as a process of `objectification’ through which labour is `embodied and made material in an object’ (1975, 324). Later he describes labour as activity through which human beings give form to materials and thus realize themselves in the world. In the labour-process

. . . man’s activity, with the help of the instruments of labour, effects an alteration, designed from the commencement, in the material worked upon. The process disappears in the product, the latter is a use-value, Nature’s material adapted by a change of form to the wants of man. Labour has incorporated itself with its subject: the former is materialized, the latter transformed. (Marx, 1961, 180)

This account is often taken to assume a `productivist’ model that regards work which creates a material product as the paradigm for all work. It is much criticized on this basis. Hardt and Negri along with many others point out that many kinds of work do not seem to fit this picture, some with which Marx was familiar, others that have newly developed.

continue

Socialism and the Global Information War

By Heiko Khoo

China.org.cn, April 14, 2013

The battle of ideas is central to the struggle for world socialism. Leaflets, newspapers, books, theatre troupes, radio, film and television have all played an important role in ideological warfare over the last 100 years. Recently the Internet has facilitated the rapid mobilization of rebellions in North Africa and the Middle East, which shattered apparently stable regimes.

However, what Marx wrote in 1845 remains true:

“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force.”

The world hegemony of capitalism remains a fact. It is backed by powerful instruments of propaganda, which constantly seek to anchor the outlook of the ruling class within wider society. This continues despite a profound transformation in the balance of power that has accompanied the world economic crisis.

Analysts working for the People’s Liberation Army have long understood the need to study and develop methods of “people’s warfare in the information age.” As early as 1996, the Liberation Army Daily carried an excellent article by Wei Jincheng, where he explained that: “A people’s war in the context of information warfare is carried out by hundreds of millions of people using open-type modern information systems.” The era that he prophesied is now reality. But the tools available are inadequately used to transform global consciousness. Today’s world of network-centric information war, where public perceptions and attitudes are shaped by interaction with the Internet and the global mass media, necessitates a constant struggle to explain reality, and to win hearts and minds to the socialist cause.

Capitalist governments are waging war against their own people in the name of everyone “tightening their belts” meanwhile the super-rich have stashed away US$32tn in offshore tax havens. The justification for the system of wealth distribution is undermined by ruthless cuts targeting the working classes and poor. Nevertheless a barrage of absurd and persistent propaganda seeks to blame the poor for being poor. It accuses public sector workers of being selfish and lazy and promotes the concept of national-patriotic unity to confuse people during times of crisis.

continue

A Critique of Heinrich in MR on Technology, Value and Crisis

By Keith Joseph

The Kasama Project

Monthly Review published an essay by Michael Heinrich critiquing Marx’s work on the falling rate of profit called:Crisis Theory and the Falling Rate of Profit.  I haven’t seen any response yet.  Here’s mine.

Heirnrich puts forth three basic theses: 1. Marx, at the end of the day, does not present a coherent and final crisis theory.  2. Marx had two more or less distinct economic projects.  The first begins with the Grundrisse (although this text appears to the public last) and includes the three volumes of Das Kapital and the Theories of Surplus Value. This was the project as Marx originally conceived it and announced it in the Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (the six book plan). The second, lesser known, project begins after 1865 and see Marx re-working his earlier formulations in light of new evidence and even scaling down his ambitions.  He now believes he will only be able to complete part of his work and others will have to finish it.  3. The math on the falling rate of profit doesn’t add up.

The essay is very interesting and I am certainly eager to investigate Marx’s “second” project more thoroughly.  Heinrich does a fine job of explaining how Marx conceived the critique of political economy  at various moments and his emphasis on Marx’s willingness to continually question and re-think his findings is important and worthy of emulation.

I found Heinrich’s refutation of the falling rate of profit’s math unconvincing because it is not clear that Heinrich understands the falling rate of profit at the conceptual level.  Setting the rate of profit and the rate of surplus value into mathematical formula  is an important step in the proof of the theory and the formalization of theory can bring clarity but the way that Heinrich proceeds obfuscates more than it reveals.  

Simply put, rising productivity of labor manifests itself in a falling profitability of capital.  It is not clear in Heinrich’s critique that he understands this basic point at the conceptual level.

Rising labor productivity means less labor embedded per unit of output so the commodity bears increasingly less value. Additionally, rising labor productivity destroys existing values since value is determined by socially necessary labor times and rising labor productivity shortens socially necessary labor times. So, existing values must compete in the market with values created under the new conditions of production.  Any labor time above the new socially necessary standard is disappeared in the market as a result of competition.  A falling rate of profit can co-exist, for a time, with a rising mass of profit if the capital relation is reaching new places and markets are expanding.  Heinrich ignores all this.  Now he does mention the importance of the credit system (which is the most developed form of money under capitalism) and its importance to understanding modern crisis.  The credit system is no doubt crucial.

Heinrich’s error, I think, is revealed in the following. Heinrich quotes a famous passage from the Grundrisse and then he argues that it is mistaken. 

“In the so-called “Fragment on Machines,” one finds an outline of a theory of capitalist collapse. With the increasing application of science and technology in the capitalist production process, “the immediate labour performed by man himself” is no longer important, but rather “the appropriation of his own general productive power,” which leads Marx to a sweeping conclusion: “As soon as labour in its immediate form has ceased to be the great source of wealth, labour time ceases and must cease to be its measure, and therefore exchange value [must cease to be the measure] of use value. The surplus labour of the masses has ceased to be the condition for the development of general wealth, just as the non-labour of the few has ceased to be the condition for the development of the general powers of the human head. As a result, production based upon exchange value collapses.”

Heinrich’s then says:

These lines have often been quoted, but without regard for how insufficiently secure the categorical foundations of the Grundrisse are. The distinction between concrete and abstract labor, which Marx refers to in Capital as “crucial to an understanding of political economy,” is not at all present in the Grundrisse.6 And in Capital, “labor in the immediate form” is also not the source of wealth. The sources of material wealth are concrete, useful labor and nature. The social substance of wealth or value in capitalism is abstract labor, whereby it does not matter whether this abstract labor can be traced back to labor-power expended in the process of production, or to the transfer of value of used means of production. If abstract labor remains the substance of value, then it is not clear why labor time can no longer be its intrinsic measure, and it’s not clear why “production based on exchange value” should necessarily collapse. When, for example, Hardt and Negri argue that labor is no longer the measure of value, they do not really refer to the value theory of Capital but to the unclear statements of the Grundrisse.7”

Hardt and Negri’s arguments, regardless of what they may assert, are not consistent with the Grundrisse and that they appeal to the authority of the Grundrisse is not a mark against that text.  But that is a minor point.  Heinrich points out that value embedded in a machine (that is the labor time embedded in the machine) is transferred from the machine to the product.  This is correct. 

But when Heinrich says:

continue

‘Bombard Those in Power with Strategically Well-selected, Precise, Finite Demands…’

By Slavoj Žižek

London Review of Books

One of the clearest lessons of the last few decades is that capitalism is indestructible. Marx compared it to a vampire, and one of the salient points of comparison now appears to be that vampires always rise up again after being stabbed to death. Even Mao’s attempt, in the Cultural Revolution, to wipe out the traces of capitalism, ended up in its triumphant return.

Today’s Left reacts in a wide variety of ways to the hegemony of global capitalism and its political supplement, liberal democracy. It might, for example, accept the hegemony, but continue to fight for reform within its rules (this is Third Way social democracy).

Or, it accepts that the hegemony is here to stay, but should nonetheless be resisted from its ‘interstices’.

Or, it accepts the futility of all struggle, since the hegemony is so all-encompassing that nothing can really be done except wait for an outburst of ‘divine violence’ – a revolutionary version of Heidegger’s ‘only God can save us.’

Or, it recognises the temporary futility of the struggle. In today’s triumph of global capitalism, the argument goes, true resistance is not possible, so all we can do till the revolutionary spirit of the global working class is renewed is defend what remains of the welfare state, confronting those in power with demands we know they cannot fulfil, and otherwise withdraw into cultural studies, where one can quietly pursue the work of criticism.

continue

By Noam Chomsky
Alternet.org, March 5, 2013

There is “capitalism” and then there is “really existing capitalism.”

The term “capitalism” is commonly used to refer to the U.S. economic system, with substantial state intervention ranging from subsidies for creative innovation to the “too-big-to-fail” government insurance policy for banks.

The system is highly monopolized, further limiting reliance on the market, and increasingly so: In the past 20 years the share of profits of the 200 largest enterprises has risen sharply, reports scholar Robert W. McChesney in his new book “Digital Disconnect.”

“Capitalism” is a term now commonly used to describe systems in which there are no capitalists: for example, the worker-owned Mondragon conglomerate in the Basque region of Spain, or the worker-owned enterprises expanding in northern Ohio, often with conservative support – both are discussed in important work by the scholar Gar Alperovitz.

Some might even use the term “capitalism” to refer to the industrial democracy advocated by John Dewey, America’s leading social philosopher, in the late 19th century and early 20th century.

Dewey called for workers to be “masters of their own industrial fate” and for all institutions to be brought under public control, including the means of production, exchange, publicity, transportation and communication. Short of this, Dewey argued, politics will remain “the shadow cast on society by big business.”

The truncated democracy that Dewey condemned has been left in tatters in recent years. Now control of government is narrowly concentrated at the peak of the income scale, while the large majority “down below” has been virtually disenfranchised. The current political-economic system is a form of plutocracy, diverging sharply from democracy, if by that concept we mean political arrangements in which policy is significantly influenced by the public will.

There have been serious debates over the years about whether capitalism is compatible with democracy. If we keep to really existing capitalist democracy – RECD for short – the question is effectively answered: They are radically incompatible.

continue

‘Seek Truth from Facts’ carved in stone

By Hu Angang and Mao Jie

From: English Edition of Qiushi Journal

Vol.5 No.1 January 1, 2013 | Updated:2013-02-19 10:51

To understand a country as complicated as China, one must delve into China’s complex national conditions, history, and national policies, and seek to identify both the core elements affecting change in the country and the key forces influencing its long-term development.

China’s huge social progress is the result of constant efforts to understand China, to draw plans for China, to develop China, and to transform China. It is the result of a perpetual process of practice, policy-making, appraisal, and adjustment which has played out since the beginning of efforts to establish socialism in what was an underdeveloped Oriental nation. The history of the People’s Republic of China tells us that no success is greater than the formulation of a good overall strategy, while no failure is greater than the formulation of a bad one. Any attempt to identify the “China road” or summarize the “China experience” must begin with an examination into the success of China’s policy-making.

Deng Xiaoping once said, “Just as in the past we achieved all the victories in our revolution by following this principle (of seeking truth from facts), so today we must rely on it in our effort to accomplish the four modernizations.” Representing a major achievement in the adaptation of Marxism to suit conditions in China, and being the quintessence and soul of Mao Zedong Thought, seeking truth from facts is the ideology, the organizational line, the core values, and the paramount principle that the CPC adheres to in its policy-making activities.

In summarizing the experiences and lessons of China’s policy-making, Hu Jintao pointed out that above all else, the reason why we made mistakes at certain points in the past, and even encountered serious setbacks, was because the guiding principles we adhered to at those times were detached from the realities in China. In addition, he also pointed out that above all else, the reason why the Party, drawing on its own strength and that of the people, was able to correct its mistakes, overcome its setbacks, and forge ahead triumphantly, was because it reasserted its commitment to the principle of seeking truth from facts. Past experience clearly indicates that if we are able to uphold the principle of seeking truth from facts, the likelihood is that we will make the right policies; whereas if we are unable to uphold this principle, the likelihood is that we will make the wrong ones. Seeking truth from facts is the policy-making philosophy of the CPC, and the secret to the success of China’s policy-making.

Seeking truth from facts is the unique policy-making philosophy of the CPC

The Constitution of the CPC clearly states that the Party’s ideological line is to proceed from reality in handling all matters, to integrate theory with practice, to seek truth from facts, and to verify and develop the truth through practice. It says that all Party members are required to adhere to this ideological line, explore new approaches, boldly experiment with new methods, be enterprising and innovative, work creatively, constantly assess new developments, review new experiences, solve new problems, enrich and develop Marxism in practice, and advance the endeavor to adapt Marxism to Chinese conditions.

There is no governing political party in the West that has been able to do what the CPC has done: to define a policy-making philosophy in the form of a supreme political document. Taking the recently held national conventions of the Republican Party and Democratic Party of the United States for example, we can see that these events revolved around one thing: “running for the presidency.” That is to say, the purpose of each party’s convention was to present an “election program” for the presidency, and to choose a presidential nominee and his running mate (candidates for the vice-president). The only measure of success for a party’s convention is to have its candidates “elected.” This is a typical feature of bourgeois politicians. There is a saying in the West: “A politician thinks about the next elections—the statesman thinks about the next generations.”

No governing party in the world except the CPC has the experience of combining the most enduring search for a policy-making philosophy with the policy-making practice of the largest scale.

This dictates the uniqueness of seeking truth from facts as a policy-making philosophy. Being both unique and highly original, seeking truth from facts is a policy-making philosophy with distinctly Chinese characteristics. As a policy-making philosophy, it represents a meeting point between theory and practice, a vividly rendered epistemology and methodology, and an action guide for the CPC in policy-making. Moreover, seeking truth from facts is the theoretical sum of China’s experiences in policy-making, representing an original theoretical achievement. Western scholars are accustomed to interpreting China using Western conceptual models, with some even believing that seeking truth from facts is a localized form of Western pragmatism. This not only shows that they lack a clear understanding of themselves, but also demonstrates the bias with which they typically view China.

The policy-making philosophy of seeking truth from facts can be attributed to three sources

Mao Zedong classically defined seeking truth from facts as follows: “facts” refers to all things that exist objectively in the world; “truth” refers to the intrinsic links that exist between objective things, or in other words, objective laws; and “seeking” refers to the act of identifying these laws through the process of study.

The policy-making philosophy of seeking truth from facts has three important sources: classical Chinese philosophy, Marxism, and Mao Zedong Thought.

First, seeking truth from facts both draws from and transcends classical Chinese philosophy. In this sense, it is a historical concept. On one hand, seeking truth from facts has drawn from and remodeled the idea of “rule by the Tao” in classical Chinese philosophy. Advocating the grasping of objective laws during the process of development, seeking truth from facts has actively discarded the idealistic and metaphysical aspects of classical policy-making philosophies and clearly defined that the basis for “seeking truth” must be “facts.” In other words, decisions must be based on ample understanding and consideration of objective facts. This is an embodiment of the Marxist principle of proceeding from facts in everything, and it is able to avoid the randomness and misuse that are associated with “rule by the Tao.” On the other hand, seeking truth from facts has overhauled the explanatory philosophy of classical Chinese thought, which was attached to feudal politics, by freeing policy-making philosophy from the role of providing justification for feudal rule and safeguarding feudal authority, and turning it into an action philosophy and practice philosophy for contemporary China in its revolution, construction and reforms.

Second, seeking truth from facts has inherited and built on the principles of Marxism. In this sense, it is a scientific concept. Marxism is a science. Its historical materialism and materialist dialectics have laid down an epistemological and methodological foundation for seeking truth from facts. Marxism holds that the first nature of science is objectivity. Seeking truth from facts demands that policy makers respect objective national conditions, act according to local conditions, and do the right thing at the right time. In other words, it demands that policy makers adhere to the principle of scientific policy-making. In a certain sense, the process of adapting Marxism to suit Chinese conditions has revolved around the formation and development of the idea of seeking truth from facts. The very essence of adapting Marxism to suit Chinese conditions is to combine the universal truths of Marxism with China’s revolution, development, and reforms in an attempt to identify a scientific philosophy that can be used to guide China.

Third, seeking truth from facts is the quintessence and soul of Mao Zedong Thought. In this sense, it is a developing concept. The two basic principles of Mao Zedong Thought are the dialectic unity of theory and practice and the dialectic unity of subjectivity and objectivity. On one hand, seeking truth from facts is a policy-making philosophy that emphasizes retrospection, believing that in making policy decisions one must continuously study new conditions, summarize new experiences, and solve new problems along with the development of practice and objective changes. On the other hand, seeking truth from facts believes in the evolution of policy-making, holding that correct policy decisions are not made in one go, but through a continuously repeating process. On this basis it advocates that one must properly balance the dialectic relations between relative truth and absolute truth, and between the realm of necessity and the realm of freedom. Viewing truth as a developing concept dictates that policy-making must be viewed as a developing process. Meanwhile, seeking truth from facts is also a people-oriented policy-making philosophy. Mao Zedong pointed out that the most important aspect of Marxist philosophy does not lie in understanding the laws of the objective world, and thus being able to explain it, but in applying the knowledge of these laws actively to change the world. One of the greatest contributions to Marxism made in the adaption of Marxist theories to suit China has been to further emancipate the factor of “people” by stressing the significance of subjective initiative during the policy-making process. This transcends the basic principle of proceeding from reality alone in all endeavors. In Deng Xiaoping’s words, this is what we refer to as the “emancipation of the mind.” In order to give play to subjective activity, a policy maker is required to adhere to the principle of emancipating the mind. Emancipating the mind is a prerequisite for seeking truth from facts, and seeking truth from facts is an inherent requirement for emancipating the mind. To make a decision in line with the principle of seeking truth from facts does not mean that one is taking measures without considering changes in circumstances, nor does it mean that we can rest on our laurels once that decision has been made. On the contrary, seeking truth from facts is a concept that pertains to constant development and constant renewal.

How are policy decisions made according to the philosophy of seeking truth from facts?

Seeking truth from facts is a historical concept, a scientific concept, and a developing concept. Therefore, only by adhering to a historical, scientific and developing approach to decision making, and ensuring that we proceed from China’s realities in everything, can we make policy decisions that accord to the philosophy of seeking truth from facts. Then, what is the methodology for this kind of policy-making? The answer does not come from a text book, but from experience in policy-making, from the experience of the people, and from local experience. On this basis, we can sum up this methodology in three aspects:

First, true knowledge comes from practice. This refers to the fact that knowledge and theory come from practice, and must also be applied in practice. Mao Zedong said, “Knowledge begins with practice, and theoretical knowledge is acquired through practice and must then return to practice. The active function of knowledge manifests itself not only in the active leap from perceptual to rational knowledge, but—and this is more important—it must manifest itself in the leap from rational knowledge to revolutionary practice.” Practice is both the criterion for verifying truth and correctness and the criterion for verifying falsehoods and mistakes. Therefore, in the course of policy-making, we need to attach great importance to the application of policies/trials in practice. The success of contemporary China can primarily be attributed to the importance that has been attached to practice. China has become the most active and creative practitioner of policies in the world.

Second, policies come from the people. This refers to the fact that policy decisions come from the people, and must return to the people again. This was the basic method of leadership advocated by Mao Zedong. The policies of the Party are guidelines under which the Party leads the people in taking action. A good policy should reflect the social situation, comply with the aspirations of the people, and conform to popular will. Therefore, we need to fully listen to the opinions of the people during the decision making process. This is what we refer to as “consulting the people.” At the same time, we need to adapt to the needs of the people to the greatest extent. This is what we refer to as “asking the people what they need.” In its policy-making activities, the CPC strives to gather as much information as possible, channel as much wisdom as possible, and represent as many opinions as possible, so as to turn the aspirations, demands, and interests of the people into a means of action that can be put into practice. Unlike in the West, where policy-making power is yielded, democratic participation in China involves the all-round participation of the people in the policy-making process. China has developed brand new experience with regard to achieving a dialectic unity between scientific policy-making and democratic policy-making.

Third, decisions originate locally. This refers to the fact that policy decisions are made locally, and must be implemented locally. This was the methodology that Deng Xiaoping advocated for China’s reforms. Making policies in a country as large, as populous, and as developmentally unbalanced as China, one not only has to deal with the significant uncertainty, dissymmetry, and incompleteness of information and knowledge, but must also assume all manner of political, social, and economic risks. It is impossible to govern China with one kind of innovation, one model, one policy, or one standard. This dictates that local authorities, who have access to more information, are closer to the people, and who are more familiar with local conditions, should be given greater power and room to maneuver in policy-making. Local policy-making should become the “springhead” of policy-making by the central authorities, whose decisions should be made on the basis of having integrated local policies from around the country.

These three aspects constitute the methodology of seeking truth from facts. They are not only interlinking and interactive, but also embody an inherent logical relationship: a particular kind of social practice results in a particular kind of social theory; and a particular kind of social theory guides the development of a particular kind of social practice. All three of these aspects can be found throughout the process of historical, scientific, and developing policy-making, progressing constantly as the policy-making process goes on. Both theory and practice involve risks, and there is no such thing as automatic success. Under many circumstances failure is a common occurrence. This is very similar to the practice of repeated experimentation in natural science, in which new discoveries and new successes always come after many failures. Scientific policy-making is not about not making mistakes, but about making fewer mistakes, and learning from failures. In particular, it is about avoiding the repetition of past mistakes and blunders, and being good at achieving greater success from fewer failures.

A policy-making philosophy is a philosophy of making comprehensive policies. Seeking truth from facts is not an isolated policy-making philosophy, but a collection of ideas on policy-making. In order to be able to seek the truth from facts, we must perform a penetrating analysis of the ideological connotations of seeking truth from facts and strengthen the development of systems, mechanisms, and talent in policy-making. Then, how do we strengthen the development of systems and mechanisms in policy-making? And how do we guarantee successful policy-making whilst also ensuring that mistakes are able to be promptly corrected?

There are two foundations of seeking truth from facts: investigation and study; and democratic centralism. These are fine traditions that the Party has held to in its policy-making activities over a long period of time. They also constitute the basic method and the core mechanism of policy-making activities. Much like the policy-making philosophy of seeking truth from facts, they are also original approaches to policy-making that China has created, being the product of our long-term experiences in revolution, development, and reforms.

Firstly, investigation and study. Investigation and study embody the values of scientific policy-making. Deng Xiaoping said that one only has the right to speak after he has conducted investigation and study. We must proceed from objective realities in raising issues, summarizing experiences, and working out policies, regardless of whether we are in a meeting, making a proposal, or drafting a document. This is what seeking truth from facts is about. The CPC has always regarded investigation and study as the prerequisite for all policy-making efforts. In his essay “Oppose Book Worship,” Mao Zedong said, “Investigation may be likened to the long months of pregnancy, and solving a problem to the day of birth. To investigate a problem is, indeed, to solve it.” A correct strategy can only come from practical experience, and from investigation and study. Chen Yun said the hardest thing about making a decision is getting the facts straight first. Ninety percent of our time should be devoted to studying the situation, and ten percent to making a decision. Only then will a policy decision be well founded.

There are two basic characteristics of investigation and study:

First, investigation and study emphasize the mass line. In order to do a good job of investigation and study, we need to be truly in touch with the people. The people play the principal role in creating history and engaging in social practice. Seeking truth from facts is a historically materialistic policy-making philosophy that is based around the people. Only by recognizing the experiences of the people and channeling their wisdom is it possible to point out the right way forward. Where the experiences and opinions of the people are discarded, not even the most talented of leaders will be able to lead well. The mass line is an effective means of preventing dogmatism and subjectivism. Getting into communities, ascertaining the situation among the people, and “from the masses, to the masses” constitute the basic methods for investigation and study.

Second, investigation and study emphasize a developing approach to policy-making. Given that facts are constantly changing, developing, and progressing, the search for the truth must also keep up with the pace of progress. Seeking truth from facts is a policy-making philosophy that takes changing national conditions as its object of study. This means that it is a dialectical, materialist policy-making philosophy. Mao Zedong said that our investigation will be a long-term one. He also said that we are the ones conducting investigations today, but in the future, it will be our sons and our grandsons, and only this way will we be able to constantly understand new things and obtain new knowledge.

Secondly, democratic centralism. Democratic centralism embodies the values of democratic policy-making. It is the fundamental organizational principle of the CPC, as well as the fundamental organizational principle of the Party for policy-making. By establishing centralized policy-making on the basis of the mass line, China has created a model for driving scientific policy-making through democratic policy-making.

On one hand, democratic centralism requires that we follow the mass line. To do this, we must provide widespread opportunities for the public to express their views, bring the opinions (scattered, unsystematic) of the public together (and turn them into centralized, systematic opinions after studying them), relay these opinions back to the public by means of publicity and turn them into the opinions of the public, ensure that the public can adhere to these opinions, put them into practice, and test whether or not these opinions are correct. After this, we must gather together public opinions again, and see to it that the public continue adhering to these opinions. This is an endless repeating process. Each time the decisions we make will become more correct, more vivid, and richer than before. This is the Marxist theory of knowledge and a basic method of leadership. It is an important mechanism for collecting information for policy-making, and a channel which allows us to gain a grasp of facts.

On the other hand, democratic centralism requires that we implement collective policy-making with democratic supervision, and establish a leadership which not only has a core, but which is also a collective, so as to guard against the dangers of personality cults and patriarchal styles of work. The basic principle of policy-making under democratic centralism is that the individual is subordinate to the organization, the minority is subordinate to the majority, and the lower level is subordinate to the higher level. All major issues must be collectively discussed and concluded by Party committees on an issue by issue basis in accordance with the principles of collective leadership, democratic centralism, deliberation case by case and decision by meetings. This is an important mechanism for preventing and controlling risks in policy-making. It is a safety catch to ensure that the truth is sought.

Likewise, democratic centralism is also a repeating process that goes from democracy to centralism and then back again. This is conducive to both drawing on collective wisdom and reaching consensus, and conducive to both making the right policy decisions efficiently and correcting erroneous policy decisions promptly.

Seeking truth from facts is the secret to the success of China’s policy-making and the magic key to winning victories

Seeking truth from facts is the secret to the success of China’s policy-making. A country’s capacity and potential for policy-making are fundamentally determined by that country’s policy-making philosophy. The policy-making philosophy of seeking truth from facts has become China’s core soft power in national governance. We should fully uncover the theoretical connotations of seeking truth from facts, draw from historical experiences and lessons, continuously promote the improvement of China’s policy-making capacity, and enhance China’s ability to make strategic decisions as well as its ability to adjust and adapt.

The eruption and spread of the international financial crisis, for example, has fully exposed the fact that the political parties and governments of the West are unable to promptly correct erroneous policies, that they are unable to agree on counter proposals despite repeated discussions, that they are unable to take action even after a decision has been made, and that they are powerless to do anything at all. The result is that they are still in the midst of crisis. This has smashed the blind faith that people have long had in the West. Rarely do we see a better or more relevant example of how the West is powerless to cope with the onset of crisis.

In contrast, China’s performance in this global test has been the best. In 2007, before the international financial crisis erupted, the GDP of the United States was 4 times that of China. But by 2011, this gap had shrunk rapidly, with the GDP of the US being only 2.1 times that of China. In the same period, the number of employed people in the United States decreased from 146.1 million to 139.9 million, whereas the number of people employed in China’s urban areas increased from 309.5 million to 359.1 million. These figures reflect the uniqueness and superiority of China’s distinctive policy-making approach of seeking truth from facts.

In the past, China’s success depended on seeking truth from facts; in the future, China will continue to rely on seeking truth from facts to succeed. We must adhere to a historical, scientific, and developing approach to policy-making, proceed from reality in all endeavors, adhere only to the facts and refrain from blind faith in books, in higher authority, and in things foreign, continue to independently identify China’s experiences in scientific policy-making and democratic policy-making, and guide our great endeavors through our conscientious and confident application of theoretical achievements in adapting Marxism to suit Chinese conditions.

In a word, seeking truth from facts has always been the fundamental requirement of Chinese Communists in understanding and transforming the world, the basic method of thinking, working, and leadership adhered to by our Party, and the key that has allowed the Party to lead the people to constant victories in revolution, development, and reform.

(Originally appeared in Red Flag Manuscript, No.22, 2012)
Note: The authors are from Tsinghua University.