Fifty-six. Regarding the Question of the State in Communism

On page 639, it says: “in the higher stage of communism… the state will become unnecessary and gradually wither away.” But the withering away of the state still requires an international condition. If others have a state machine and you do not, this is dangerous. On pages 639–640, it says that even after communism is established, as long as imperialist states still exist, the state will still be necessary. This formulation is correct. Immediately following, the book says: “But the nature and form of the state will depend on the characteristics of the communist system.” This sentence is not easy to understand. The nature of the state is a machine for suppressing hostile forces. Even if there are no hostile forces within the country that need to be suppressed, the oppressive nature of the state with regard to hostile forces abroad has not changed. The so-called forms of the state are nothing but the army, prisons, arresting people, killing people, and so on. As long as imperialism still exists, how will these forms of the state be any different under communism?

Fifty-seven. Regarding the Transition to Communism

On page 641, it says: “In socialist society there are no hostile classes,” but there are still remnants of hostile classes. “The transition from socialism to communism does not need to be realized through social revolution.” One can only say that it does not require a social revolution in which one class overthrows another, but there is still the social revolution of new relations of production replacing old relations of production, and a new social system replacing an old social system.

The book then adds a statement here: “This does not mean that society’s development along the road to communism does not require overcoming internal contradictions.” But this is merely an incidental statement. Although this book does acknowledge contradictions in some places, it is only a passing mention. Explaining problems without starting from an analysis of contradictions is a shortcoming of this book. As a science, it ought to start from the analysis of contradictions.

When we reach communist society, because production will be highly automated, people’s labor and actions will be required to be more precise, and labor discipline at that time will be even stricter than it is now.

We now say that communist society is divided into two stages, namely, a lower stage and a higher stage. This is what Marx and the others foresaw based on the conditions of social development at that time. After entering the higher stage, the development of communist society will certainly see the emergence of new stages, new goals, and new tasks will certainly be put forward again.

Fifty-eight. The Future Development of Collective Ownership

On page 650, it says: “The form of the production relations of the collective farm-cooperative completely conforms to the current level and needs of the development of productive forces in the countryside.” Is this really the case?

There is a Soviet article that introduces the situation of the Red October Collective Farm, saying, “Originally, when the several farms had not merged, many things were difficult to manage. After the merger, these things all became easy to manage.” It says there are now a total of ten thousand people, and there is a plan to build a residential center for three thousand people. This material can illustrate that the current form of the collective farm is already not entirely suited to the development of the productive forces.

This passage in the book says, “It is required to vigorously consolidate and further develop state (all-people) ownership and cooperative-collective farm ownership.” Since it needs to develop and transition, how can it be vigorously consolidated? Socialist relations of production and the social system should be spoken of in terms of consolidation, but it should not be spoken of to excess. The book speaks of a vague future, but when it comes to concrete measures, it is not clear. From certain aspects (mainly production), they have not stagnated; but in terms of relations of production, one can say they have basically stagnated.

The book says that collective ownership must be transitioned to a single communist ownership, but in our view, it is first necessary to turn collective ownership into socialist all-people ownership. The so-called turning of collective ownership into socialist all-people ownership is to turn all agricultural means of production into state ownership, and to turn all peasants into workers, to be taken care of uniformly by the state, which will issue them wages. Currently, the average annual income per peasant in the whole country is 85 yuan. In the future, when it reaches 150 yuan per person, and the majority of it is issued by the commune, it will be possible to implement basic commune ownership. In this way, it will be easier to further transform it into state ownership.

Fifty-nine. Regarding Eliminating the Difference Between City and Countryside

The first paragraph on page 651 has a very good vision for rural construction.

Since the difference between city and countryside is to be eliminated (the book calls it an “essential difference”), why is it specially declared that this does not mean “reducing the role of large cities”? In the future, cities need not be so large. The residents of large cities should be dispersed to the countryside to build many small cities. Under the conditions of atomic warfare, this would also be more advantageous.

Sixty. Regarding the Question of Socialist Countries Establishing Economic Systems

On page 659, it says, “Each country can concentrate its own manpower and financial resources to develop those sectors for which it has the most favorable natural and economic conditions, and has production experience and cadres. Moreover, individual countries may not need to produce products for which their needs can be met by supplies from other countries.”

This formulation is not good. We do not even propose this for our various provinces. We advocate comprehensive development; we do not say that each province need not produce products for which its needs can be met by supplies from other provinces. We want each province to develop all kinds of production as much as possible, as long as it does not hinder the overall situation. One of the good things about Europe is that the countries are independent, each doing its own thing, which has made Europe’s economic development relatively fast. Since the Qin dynasty, our country has been a large state, and for a very long time, the whole country has basically maintained a unified situation. One of its shortcomings is that bureaucratic control is too rigid, localities cannot develop independently, everyone drags their feet, and economic development is very slow. The situation is completely different now. We must achieve a unified country, yet with each province being independent; it is a relative unity and also a relative independence.

The provinces obey the resolutions of the central authorities and accept central control, while independently solving their own problems. And the resolutions of the central authorities on major issues are all made jointly by the central authorities in consultation with the provinces. For example, the resolutions of the Lushan Conference were like this. They met the needs of the whole country as well as the needs of the provinces. Can it be thought that only the central authorities need to oppose right-opportunism, and the localities do not? Under a unified national plan, we advocate that each province do its own thing as much as possible. As long as there are raw materials and markets, as long as it is possible to use local materials and sell locally, anything that can be done should be done as much as possible. Previously, there was a worry that if all provinces developed various industries, the industrial products of cities like Shanghai would have no buyers. Now it seems this is not the case. Shanghai has already put forward the policy of developing toward high-grade, large-scale, precision, and advanced products; they still have things to do.

Why not advocate that each country do as much as it can, but instead advocate that they may not need to produce products for which their needs can be met by supplies from other countries? The correct method should be that each country does as much as it can, with self-reliance as the mainstay, doing as much as possible independently, with the principle of not relying on others. Only what one truly cannot do should not be done. Agriculture, in particular, should be handled as well as possible. Relying on foreign countries or other provinces for food is very dangerous.

Some countries are very small, and the situation is indeed as the book says: “to develop all industrial sectors is economically irrational and also beyond their capacity.” In that case, of course, they should not be forced to do it. In our country, some provinces with small populations, like Qinghai and Ningxia, also find it difficult to do everything now.

Sixty-one. Can the Development of Socialist Countries Be “Leveled Out”?

Page 660, third paragraph: “to gradually level out the general level of economic and cultural development of the socialist countries.” Countries have different populations, different resources, different historical conditions, and revolutions have advanced and backward distinctions. How can they be leveled out? A father has ten sons; some are tall, some are short, some are big, some are small, some are smarter, some are duller. How can they be leveled out? “Leveling out” is Bukharin’s theory of equilibrium. The economic development of socialist countries is uneven; within one country, the provinces are uneven; within one province, the counties are uneven. Take the sanitation in Guangdong province for example: Foshan city and Qile commune have done a good job, so Foshan and Guangzhou are not in equilibrium, and Qile commune and Shaoguan are not in equilibrium. To oppose imbalance is wrong.

Sixty-two. The Fundamental Question Is the Question of the System

Page 668 says that the loans of socialist countries are different from those of imperialist countries. This description is consistent with the facts. Socialist countries are always better than capitalist countries. We must understand this principle. The fundamental question is the question of the system. The system determines the direction a country takes. The socialist system determines that socialist countries will always stand in opposition to imperialist countries; compromise is always temporary.

Sixty-three. Regarding the Relationship Between the Two World Economic Systems

On page 671, it says: “economic competition between the two world systems.” In *Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.*, Stalin put forward the thesis of two world markets. The textbook here puts forward peaceful economic competition between two world systems, emphasizing the economic relations to be “established and developed” between the two world systems. This turns the actually existing two world markets into two economic systems within a unified world market. This is a retreat from Stalin’s viewpoint.

Between the two economic systems, there is in fact not only competition, but also fierce and extensive struggle. The textbook avoids this struggle.

Sixty-four. Regarding the Criticism of Stalin

On page 680, it says that in Stalin’s work *Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R.*, just as in Stalin’s other works, there are some erroneous tenets. The two charges pointed out in the book are not convincing.

One charge says that Stalin held the view that “commodity circulation has seemingly become an obstacle to the development of the productive forces, and that the necessity of a gradual transition to direct products-exchange between industry and agriculture has already matured.”

In that book, Stalin said that where there are two kinds of ownership, there must be commodity production. He said: “In the collective-farm enterprises, although the means of production (land, machines) also belong to the state, the product is the property of the individual collective farms, since the labour in the collective farms, like the seed, is their own, and the land which the state has given the collective farms for perpetual use is in fact managed by the collective farms as their own property.” Under such conditions, “the collective farms are willing to dispose of their products only as commodities, in exchange for which they desire to receive the commodities they need. At the present time the collective farms will not recognize any other economic relation with the town except the commodity relation—except through purchase and sale.”

Stalin criticized the view in the Soviet Union at that time that advocated abolishing commodity production, believing that commodity production was still as necessary then as it was thirty years earlier when Lenin declared that commodity circulation must be expanded with all might.

The textbook’s claim that Stalin seemed to advocate the immediate elimination of commodities is a charge that is difficult to sustain. As for the question of products-exchange, for Stalin it was only a notion, and he also said, “There is no need to be in any particular hurry to introduce this system; it must be introduced as the products of the town accumulate.”

The other charge is underestimating the role of the law of value in the sphere of production, especially with regard to the means of production. “In the sphere of socialist production, the law of value does not play a regulating role. What plays a regulating role is the law of planned, proportionate development and the state planned economy.” This thesis put forward by the textbook is in fact Stalin’s thesis. Although the textbook says that means of production are commodities, first, it cannot but be said that within the scope of all-people ownership, the “buying and selling” of means of production does not change ownership. Second, it cannot but be admitted that the role played by the law of value in the sphere of production and in the sphere of circulation is different. These theses are in reality consistent with Stalin’s theses. A real difference between Stalin and Khrushchev is that the former opposed selling tractors and other means of production to the collective farms, while the latter sold these things to the collective farms.

Sixty-five. Overall View of the “Textbook”

It cannot be said that this book is completely devoid of Marxism-Leninism, because many of its viewpoints are Marxist-Leninist. But neither can it be said that this book is completely Marxist-Leninist, because many of its viewpoints depart from Marxism-Leninism. To basically negate this book—this conclusion cannot yet be drawn.

The book emphasizes that the socialist economy is an economy that serves all the people, not an economy that seeks profit for a few exploiters. The basic economic law of socialism described in the book cannot be said to be completely wrong; this is the basic viewpoint of the book. The book also speaks of being planned, proportionate, high-speed, and so on. In these respects, this book is still socialist and Marxist. As for how to act in proportion after acknowledging planned and proportionate development, that is another question; each has its own methods.

But some of the basic viewpoints in this book are wrong. The book does not emphasize putting politics in command and the mass line, and does not speak of walking on two legs. It one-sidedly emphasizes individual material interest, promotes material incentives, and highlights individualism. These are all erroneous.

In its study of the socialist economy, the book does not proceed from contradictions. They in fact do not recognize the universality of contradiction, do not recognize that social contradiction is the motive force of social development. In fact, in their socialist society there is still class struggle, that is, the struggle between socialism and the remnants of capitalism. But they do not recognize this. In their society there are still three kinds of ownership, namely, all-people ownership, collective ownership, and individual ownership. Of course, this individual ownership is different from the individual ownership before collectivization. At that time, the peasants’ lives were completely based on individual ownership; now they have a foot in two boats, relying mainly on the collective, and at the same time on the individual. Where there are three kinds of ownership, there must be contradiction and struggle. The textbook does not speak of this contradiction and struggle, and does not advocate mass movements. The book does not recognize first transitioning socialist collective ownership to socialist all-people ownership, making the entire society a single socialist all-people ownership, and then transitioning to communism.

The book uses vague terms like “drawing closer” and “merging” to replace the viewpoint of one kind of ownership changing into another, and one kind of production relations changing into another.

In these respects, this book has serious shortcomings, has serious errors, and has partially departed from Marxism-Leninism.

× × ×

The way this book is written is very bad; it is not persuasive and is uninteresting to read. The book does not proceed from a concrete analysis of the contradictions between the productive forces and the relations of production, and between the economic base and the superstructure, to raise and study problems. It always proceeds from concepts, from definitions. It only gives definitions and does not explain the reasoning. In fact, definitions should be the result of analysis, not the starting point of analysis. The book puts forward a series of laws out of thin air, but they are not laws discovered and proven through the analysis of the concrete historical process of development. A law cannot explain itself. Without starting from an analysis of the concrete historical process of development, laws cannot be explained clearly.

The style of this book is not like splitting bamboo or pouring water from a high-roofed building; the issues are not prominent, the writing is not persuasive, and it is uninteresting to read. The writing lacks logic; it does not even follow formal logic.

This book seems to have been written chapter by chapter by several authors separately; there is a division of labor but no unity. It has not formed a scientific system. Coupled with the method of starting from definitions, it makes one feel it is a dictionary of economics. The authors are quite passive; in many places they contradict themselves, with the latter part clashing with the former. Division of labor and cooperation, collective writing, is a method, but the best method is to have one person as the main author, with several assistants, to write. Books written like those by Marx and others are complete, rigorous, systematic, and scientific works.

When writing a book, having an object of criticism gives it vitality. Although this textbook says some correct things, it does not unfold a critique of erroneous viewpoints, so it reads very dully.

In many places, one feels that this book speaks the words of a scholar, not the words of a revolutionary. Economists who do not understand economic practice are not truly experts. It seems this book reflects this situation. People who do practical work lack the ability to generalize, lack this set of concepts and laws, while people who do theoretical work lack practical experience and do not understand economic practice. These two types of people have not been integrated, which is to say, theory and practice have not been integrated.

This book shows that the authors lack dialectics. To write a textbook on political economy, one must have a philosophical mind; philosophers must participate. Without the participation of writers with a philosophical mind, it is impossible to write a good textbook on political economy.

This textbook was first published in 1955, and the third edition was in 1958, but the main framework seems to have been set before that. It seems the framework set by Stalin at that time was not very brilliant.

In the Soviet Union now, there are also people who disagree with the way this book is written. G. Kozlov’s article, “On a Scientific Course in Socialist Political Economy,” criticizes this book and raises opinions of a fundamental nature. He points out the book’s methodological shortcomings. He advocates explaining laws by starting from an analysis of the socialist production process. He puts forward suggestions regarding its structure.

From the criticisms of people like Kozlov, it seems that in the Soviet Union another textbook may emerge as the antithesis of this one. It would be good to have an antithesis.

Having read this book preliminarily, one can understand their writing style and viewpoints, but it cannot yet be considered a study. It would be best in the future to focus on the issues and theses, study it carefully, and also collect some materials, and look at other published articles and books with viewpoints different from this book. On controversial issues, one can understand what different opinions there are. The issues must be clarified; at the very least, one must understand the opinions of both sides.

We must criticize and oppose erroneous opinions, but we must also protect all correct things. We must be brave and also cautious. In any case, that they have written a book on socialist political economy is a great contribution. No matter how many problems it contains, with this book, we at least have something to discuss, and this can lead to further research.

Sixty-six. Regarding How to Write a Textbook on Political Economy

For the Soviet textbook to proceed from ownership is, in principle, acceptable, but it could be written better. When Marx studied the capitalist economy, he also mainly studied the ownership of the means of production under capitalism, studying how the distribution of the means of production determines the distribution of products. In capitalist society, the social nature of production and the private nature of appropriation is a fundamental contradiction. Marx started from the commodity to expose the relations between people concealed behind the relations between things that are commodities. In socialist society, although the commodity still has a dual nature, because of the establishment of public ownership of the means of production, and because labor power is no longer a commodity, the dual nature of the socialist commodity is already different from the dual nature of the capitalist commodity. The relations between people are no longer concealed by the relations between things that are commodities. Therefore, if one still copies Marx’s method of starting from the commodity, from the dual nature of the commodity, to study the socialist economy, it may on the contrary obscure the issues and make them difficult for people to understand.

The object of study of political economy is the relations of production. According to Stalin, the relations of production include three aspects: ownership, the relations between people in labor, and the distribution of products. When we write a political economy, we can also start from ownership. First, write about the transformation of private ownership of the means of production into public ownership of the means of production: changing bureaucrat-capitalist private ownership and capitalist private ownership into socialist all-people ownership; changing landlord private ownership of land into individual peasant private ownership, and then into socialist collective ownership. Then write about the contradiction between the two kinds of socialist public ownership, and how socialist collective ownership transitions to socialist all-people ownership. At the same time, one must also write about the changes within all-people ownership itself, such as the devolution of the system, management at different levels, enterprise autonomy, etc. Here with us, they are at the same time enterprises under all-people ownership, but some are directly managed by central departments, some are managed by provinces, municipalities, or autonomous regions, some by special administrative regions, and some by counties. Enterprises managed by communes are of a semi-all-people, semi-collective nature. Whether managed by the central authorities or by local authorities at various levels, they are all under unified leadership and also have a certain degree of autonomy.

Regarding the question of the relations between people in production and labor, apart from a phrase like “comradely relations of cooperation and mutual assistance,” the textbook does not touch upon the substantive issues at all; it does not analyze or study in this area. After the question of ownership is resolved, the most important question is the question of management, that is, the question of how to manage enterprises under all-people ownership, and the question of how to manage enterprises under collective ownership. This is precisely the question of the relations between people under a certain ownership. There is much that can be written on this aspect. The transformation of ownership, within a certain period, always has its limits. But within this certain period, the relations between people in production and labor can be constantly changing. For the management of enterprises under all-people ownership, we adopt a set of practices such as combining centralized leadership with mass movements, combining the leadership of the Party, the working masses, and technical personnel, having cadres participate in labor and workers participate in management, and constantly changing irrational rules and regulations.

Regarding the distribution of products, it must be rewritten, written in a different way. It should emphasize hard struggle, emphasize expanded reproduction, emphasize the future prospects of communism. It cannot emphasize individual material interest, cannot lead people down the road of “a lover, a villa, a car, a piano, a television set,” a road for the individual and not for society. “A journey of a thousand li begins with a single step.” But if one only sees what is under one’s feet and does not think of the future, does not think of the long-term prospects, what revolutionary interest and enthusiasm can there be?

Sixty-seven. Regarding the Research Method of Proceeding from Phenomenon to Essence

To study a problem, one must start from the phenomena that people can see and touch, to study the essence hidden behind the phenomena, and thereby expose the essential contradictions of objective things.

During the Agrarian Revolutionary War and the War of Resistance Against Japan, when we studied the problems of war, we also started from phenomena. The enemy was large, we were small; the enemy was strong, we were weak. This was the most widespread phenomenon at that time, which everyone could see. We started from this phenomenon to study and solve problems, studying how, under the condition of being small and weak, we could defeat a large and strong enemy. We pointed out that although we were small and weak, we had the support of the masses; although the enemy was large and strong, they had vulnerabilities to exploit. Take the period of the civil war: the enemy had several hundred thousand troops, we only had tens of thousands. Strategically, the enemy was strong and we were weak, the enemy was on the offensive and we were on the defensive. But when they attacked us, they had to divide into several columns, and each column had to divide into many echelons. Often, one echelon would enter a stronghold while the other echelons were still on the move. We would then concentrate our tens of thousands of troops to strike one of their columns, and moreover, concentrate the majority of our forces to annihilate a part of this one column, while using a part of our forces to pin down the enemy still on the move. In this way, at this point, we became superior, becoming the enemy is small and we are large, the enemy is weak and we are strong, the enemy is on the defensive and we are on the offensive. In addition, when they arrive at a place, they are unfamiliar with the situation, and the masses do not support them. We could then completely annihilate this part of the enemy.

× × ×

Ideology becomes a system always after the movement of things, because thought and cognition are reflections of material movement. A law is something that appears repeatedly in the movement of things, not something that appears by chance. Only when a thing appears repeatedly does it become a law and can it be known by people. For example, capitalist crises in the past occurred once every ten years. After many repetitions, it became possible for us to recognize the law of economic crises in capitalist society. In land reform, land had to be distributed according to population, and could not be distributed according to labor power. This too was clearly understood only after repeated experience. In the later period of the Second Revolutionary Civil War, comrades of the “Left” adventurist line advocated distributing land according to labor power and did not approve of equal distribution of land by population, and believed that equal distribution of land by population showed an unclear class viewpoint and an insufficient mass viewpoint. Their slogan was: landlords get no land, rich peasants get bad land, and others get land according to labor power. This method was proven wrong by facts. How land should be distributed was clarified only after many repetitions.

Marxism requires that logic and history be consistent. Thought is a reflection of objective existence; logic comes from history. But a book piled high with materials without analysis has no logic, one cannot see the laws, which is not good. But having no materials is also not good; that would make people see only logic and not history, and this kind of logic is only subjectivist logic. This is precisely the shortcoming of this textbook.

It is very necessary to write a history of the development of Chinese capitalism. Historians who do not study the history of individual societies and individual eras cannot write a good general history. To study an individual society is to find out the particular laws of that individual society. Once the particular laws of an individual society are studied clearly, the general laws of society become easy to recognize. One must see the general from the study of many particulars. If the particular laws are not clear, the general laws cannot be clear. For example, to study the general laws of animals, one must separately study the particular laws of vertebrates, invertebrates, and so on.

Sixty-eight. Philosophy Must Serve Current Politics

All philosophy serves current politics.

Bourgeois philosophy also serves current politics. And every country, in every era, has new theorists who write new theories to serve their current politics. England once produced bourgeois materialists like Bacon and Hobbes; eighteenth-century France produced the materialists of the Encyclopedist school; the German and Russian bourgeoisies also had their materialists. They were all bourgeois materialists, and they all served the politics of the bourgeoisie of their time. Therefore, it was not that because there was English bourgeois materialism, the French was not needed; nor was it that because there were the English and French, the German and Russian were not needed.

The Marxist philosophy of the proletariat, of course, must all the more closely serve current politics. For us, the books of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin must be read; this is the first thing. But the communists of any country, the proletarian intellectual circles of any country, must create new theories, write new works, and produce their own theorists to serve current politics.

In any country, at any time, relying solely on old things is not enough. With only Marx and Engels, without Lenin writing works like *Two Tactics*, it would have been impossible to solve the new problems that appeared in 1905 and after. With only the 1907 *Materialism and Empirio-criticism*, it would not have been sufficient to deal with the new problems that arose around the time of the October Revolution. To meet the needs of that time, Lenin wrote works like *Imperialism* and *The State and Revolution*. After Lenin died, it was necessary for Stalin to write works like *Foundations of Leninism* and *Problems of Leninism* to deal with the reactionaries and defend Leninism. In the late period of the Second Revolutionary Civil War and the early period of the War of Resistance Against Japan, we wrote *On Practice* and *On Contradiction*. These were all written out of the necessity to meet the needs of that time.

Now we have entered the socialist era, and a new series of problems has appeared. If we do not adapt to the new needs, write new works, and form new theories, that too will not do.