Materialism – A Brief Introduction

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Materialism is a set of related theories which hold that entitles and processes are composed of – or are reducible to – matter, material forms or physical processes. All events and facts are explainable, actually or in principle, in terms of body, material objects or dynamic material changes or movements. In general, the metaphysical theory of materialism entails the denial of the reality of spiritual beings, consciousness and mental or psychic states or processes, as ontologically distinct form, or independent of material changes or processes. Since it denies the existence of spiritual beings or forces, materialism typically is allied with atheism and agnosticism.’

The English word ‘matter’ has its origins in the Latin words ‘mater’ (i.e. ‘mother’), and ‘materia’ (i.e. ‘all physical things’). As existence is composed of matter, matter is viewed as the foundation of all things. Generally speaking, all matter is said to possess both volume and mass. Within the Chinese language, the concept of ‘matter’ can be expressed using the ideograms ‘物质’ (wu4zhi2). ‘物’ (wu4) is written using the left-hand particle ‘牛’ (nui2) – meaning ‘cow’, ‘bull’, or ‘ox’, and the right-hand particle ‘勿’ (wu4) – originally meaning ‘flag’. When combined together, the ideogram ‘物’ (wu4) literally means ‘matter’, ‘things’, and ‘objects’. ‘质’ (zhi2) is written using the ideogram ‘贝’ (bei4) – meaning a hard sea shell, and the right-hand particle ‘斦’ (yin2) – originally written as ‘two axes’, but also used to refer to a measure of weight equalling around one kilogram (i.e. ‘two catty’). Within Chinese thought, when taken together, the concept of ‘物质’ (wu4zhi2) represents the entirety of existence, or by implication, that physical substance which possesses  (measurable) mass and volume. Ancient India, despite its association with spirituality within popular culture, developed a school of materialist thinking named ‘Lokayata’ (लोकायत) in Sanskrit, which suggests a system of developed thought grounded in the observation (or perception) of the physical world (which is directly accessible to the senses). This school rejected all religious thought that advocated karma and karmic retribution, a belief in ‘invisible’ theistic constructs, and any notion of ‘rebirth’ or ‘reincarnation’. Therefore, the validity of inference and the authority of scripture are firmly rejected. For the Lokayata followers, only that information directly perceived through the senses is real. The Lokayata developed a theory of physical existence that involved four basic elements which combine to generate all of material reality. As a consequence of this thinking, Lokayata is associated with ‘atheism’. The origin of this school is problematic (due to the loss of primary texts), but evidence suggests a date anywhere between 600 – 300 BCE – with the possibility that the ideas associated with this school could be far older.

Whatever the case, the Buddhist Pali suttas mention the Lokayata, which is associated within the tradition of Buddhist commentary, as representing a ‘hard materialism’ (not favoured by the Buddha). However, detailed with the ‘five aggregates’ teaching of the Buddha, it is clear that his system of mind-matter integration is a form of ‘soft materialism’, which recognises a plurality, (but not a duality). This is because the Buddha’s system is premised upon ‘rupa’ (रूप) – or ‘physical matter’, which he defines as particles (paramanu) that flash in and out of existence (similar to the observed behaviour of sub-atomic particles within quantum physics). The Buddha sees the physical world as ‘existing’, but being non-substantial and changeable in nature. This ‘Buddhist’ definition of matter is different to that of the ‘Ucchedavada’ (ဥေစၧဒ) – which the Buddha criticised for assuming a permanent and unchanging physical world – despite the fact that the Buddha agreed with the Ucchedavda that there is no ‘atma’, or permanent soul. The Buddha’s soft materialism deviates away from the hard materialism of the Ucchedavada (which maybe directly linked to the Lokayata), by stressing that karma does function (in a limited, non-theistic sense), and that moral behaviour is required to escape worldly suffering.

Western scholars tend to date the Buddha as living either 563-480 BCE, or 483-400 BCE, whilst within traditional Chinese Buddhism, his date is given as 1028/29-948/49. Obviously, the Buddha’s existence, if dated accurately, would determine the antiquity of the Indian schools of materialism. In ancient Greece, however, the materialist origins of philosophy are said to have developed through the thinking of Democritus (460-370 BCE), who conceived of the universe as being composed of tiny, irreducible atoms unobservable to the naked eye. These atoms operate in a deterministic fashion, and combine to form the various forms associated with physical existence. Epicurus (341-270 BCE) – the student of Democritus, developed this thinking by asserting that every so often atoms ‘swerved’, as a means to explain unusual behaviour or happenings in the physical world. Ancient India developed a theory of materialism, whilst Buddhism developed a theory of the atom, but the (modern) Western world follows the ancient atomic models as devised within the Greek philosophical tradition. Whatever the origin, the doctrine of materialism stands in philosophical opposition to that of ‘idealism’. Idealism is usually understood as advocating that ‘mind’ is primary, and that the physical world exists only as an expression or appearance of that mind. This suggests that the physical world is not truly ‘material’, but rather ‘psychological’, or ‘mental’ in origination and nature. Within the Western philosophical tradition, theistic idealism is associated with Berkley, transcendental idealism of Kant, and the absolute idealism of Hegel. Idealism is often interpreted as being a secular version of theology, and directly related to ‘creationism’, whereby the physical world is viewed as being created by an unseen theistic entity (theology), or ‘projected’ into existence by the agency of mind (idealism), as if by an act of will and/or perception.

Within the subject of ‘philosophy of mind’, the theory of materialism has three distinct definitions, the first two of which represent ‘hard’ materialism, and the third ‘soft’ materialism:

  1. Eliminativism. This theory seeks to ‘eliminate’ entirely any notion of ‘mind’, and all theories of ‘psychology’ from modern science, on the grounds that such notions are the product of misunderstanding, and akin to ‘fairy tales’ that are the product of the residue of religious thinking. How human beings perceive their own minds is viewed as erroneous and the consequence of historical and cultural conditioning. As a consequence, as there is ‘no mind’ in reality, there can be no true experience of ‘raw feelings’ (qualia), or the exercise of intentionality. Theories of psychology are viewed as expressions of out-dated science which need to be abandoned as a necessary means to progress scientific understanding.
  2. Reductionism. In its simplest form, ‘reductionism’ reduces all psychological states to that of easily observable and measurable behaviour (i.e. ‘behavourism’). This reduces mind states to a mode of expression acceptable to modern science. Mind processes might exist as a function of the physical brain, but are viewed as knowable only through the measuring of behaviour. Other than as a producer of behaviour, the mind cannot be directly understood (because although it might generate qualia and intentionality, it does not ‘independently’ exist), and is of no further interest to reductionist.
  3. Irreducibility of mind. Although it might be accepted that ‘mind’ could exist as an apparent independent entity, nevertheless, its existence is so inherently related to matter, that this apparent ‘independence’ is not an issue. The mind is related to matter in a matter far more profound than mere causal independence. This means that the irreducibility of the mind is not a threat to the primacy of the materialist theory. Mind is a product of matter, even if the exact process of the emergence of consciousness from matter is as yet not fully understood.

Karl Marx studied Hegel’s absolute idealism, and understood it (through the work of Feuerbach) to be ‘inverted’ in nature. When turned the right way around, Marx developed the theory of ‘historical materialism’ (which replaced Hegel’s theory of ‘historical idealism’). The theory of historical materialism is ‘scientific’ in nature, and states that it is the economic reality of a society that determines the physical reality of that society. This is an ongoing historical process that does not allow for any ‘divine intervention’ in the affairs of humanity. It is through this materialist theory that Marx explains the historical reasons why it is that the impoverished working class (i.e. proletariat) exists in a subordinated and exploited manner, whilst being dominated by affluent middle class (i.e. bourgeisie), and how it is that this situation contains within itself, the seeds of its own inevitable transformation (through the agency of ‘revolution’). On this point, Marx states ‘In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensable and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.’ (Preface: A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy). Marx goes on to say that at some point in time, the material productive forces if become so strong that they out-grow the current organisation of society, and come into direct conflict with the existing (bourgeois) relations of society. As the workers become aware of their own material and productive powers, they mass organise and initiate an era of social revolution, eventually seizing the means of production, and radically transforming society through the agency of a socialist revolution. This is the playing-out of class antagonisms, and explains why Russian Marxist Georgi Plekhanov further developed this idea (in 1891), by referring to this process as ‘dialectical materialism’. This was developed from the work of Friedrich Engels (found in his book entitled ‘Dialectics of Nature’) whereby Engels uses the term ‘materialist dialectics’ as a means to combat and neutralise ‘idealistic dialectics’. The theory of scientific socialism as developed by Marx and Engels adopts a materialist outlook to explain human society and the human condition, but Marx and Engels rejected two forms of materialism prevalent in the 19th century, namely those of the ‘mechanistic’ and the ‘metaphysical’ variety. Marx rejected the mechanistic view because it suggested nothing could be changed, and he rejected metaphysical view because he recognised the existence and purpose of a human consciousness – even if it is generated from the brain and conditioned by outer circumstances and events. Marx views the immense productive forces of labour as the driving force behind the unfolding of history. The unfolding of the historical process is not a passive or indifferent passing of events, but is a dynamic, directing and transformative force within human affairs. Metaphysical materialism, strictly speaking denies the existence of this dialectical and historical materialism that Marx clearly sees as operating throughout human history, where it has reached a particular intensity after the Industrial Revolution. The concept of ‘dialectics’ within Marxism can also be applied to personal education, and the development of a proletariat mind that is freed of the oppression and limitations of the past, and which is collective in outlook, and thoroughly progressive and scientific in nature. This maybe taken as the use of Hegel’s dialectic of thesis, antitheses and synthesis – reworked to interpret the changes of the material world (through the negation of the negation) rather than the changes of the ‘idealistic’ (or ‘religious’) world.

 

 

Communist University in South London (CUiSL)

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

COMMUNIST UNIVERSITY IN SOUTH LONDON

Ruskin House (Croydon)

Communist Party of Britain

Croydon Communists (Blog)

Venue:  Party Centre, (Top Floor) of Ruskin House, 23 Coombe Road, Croydon CR0 1BD

(Please attend these classes if possible, however, as these classes are preceded by a Branch Meeting, please continue to send apologies to croydon@communist-party.org.uk if you cannot attend).

Details Provided By Dr Martin Graham – Branch Secretary:

The Communist University in South London is facilitated by the Croydon (South London) Branch of the Communist Party of Britain (CPB), and is held on the 3rd Thursday of each month (possibly excepting August and December), running from 19hrs – 21hrs (with those participating arriving at least 10 minutes before the start time to ensure ‘promptness’ of schedule). The first 30 minutes is taken-up with Branch Meeting details, followed by 90 minutes of educational discussion and debate focused around a specific topic, interpreted through a Marxist-Leninist dialectical analysis. There are no fees or top-down lecturing, with the discussion delivered in a democratic forum open to everyone who wishes to learn about Marxism, and how to apply it, so as to effect change in the world.

 

 

Trumpism: The New Neo-Liberal Mythology

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

The first and primary rule of the capitalist system is that as a vicious, one-dimensional economic ideology, it will always protect itself, and present itself in the best expedient light. Although justifying capitalist ideology runs through endless cycles of ‘re-invention’ and ‘new’ perspective, the underlying reality of the pathological search for monetary profit and the political power it attracts, remains exactly the same, even if its surface nature twists and turns in its attempt to appear contemporary and relevant.  The simple fact of the matter is that those (as a distinct class) who possess control of the greater part of profit, also possess the decisive balance of political power. This is why, within liberal (capitalist) societies, capitalism can never be ‘voted’ out of power as part of a democratic process, but merely permits the electorate to ‘choose’ (every four or five years) who is to represent and administer the capitalist system in their name. This supposedly ‘democratic’ system ‘ropes’ everybody into the lie that ‘capitalism’ is the ideology of choice for the majority of voters.  In reality, capitalism is the ideology of choice of those in a society that already own the means of production and possess the greater part of the profit, and the corresponding majority of the political power. In other words, regardless of what politicians say to gain your vote, capitalism always wins.  The concept of ‘choice’ within the capitalist system is nothing other than a bourgeois sham.

What does this mean for the recent election of the billionaire Donald Trump to the Presidency of the United States of America?  It means that those who possess the most money within the capitalist system, have access to the greatest amount of political power.  The ‘new’ mythology developing throughout the political spectrum is that Donald Trump’s election is ‘unusual’, or marks some-kind of substantial ‘shift’ in the balance of capitalist power, or ideological emphasis amongst the electorate.  This idea of ‘specialness’ has infiltrated not only the political rightwing (which is to be expected, as Trump for this group, represents something akin to the second-coming of ‘White’, racist Christ), but has also permeated the (Marxist-Leninist) Communist and Socialist left.  This demonstrates the moribund nature of those who refer to themselves as ‘Revolutionaries’, or ‘Marxist-Leninists’, when in fact they are nothing but ‘fetish’ capitalists that use a form of leftist nostalgia to co-operate with the forces of capital, operating under the false flag narrative that the victory of capitalism is inevitable.  Of course, outside of this distorted interpretation of Marxist-Leninism, the Trotskyites have always adhered to this of co-operating with the forces of capitalism..  True Marxist-Leninist critique does not ascribe ‘specialness’ to any capitalist leader, regardless of that leader’s political views.  Capitalism as an ideology, is the enemy of the people it exploits, and all capitalist leaders are, by definition, exploiters of the people.

Capitalism was invented by rich, White Europeans, and has always favoured that class and ethnicity.  Non-Whites are tolerated providing they align themselves with Eurocentric ideology and ‘know’ their subordinate place within it (take the example of President Barak Obama – a Black man – who along with Hilary Clinton, presided over the Nazification of Eastern Europe, and allowed US police to embark upon an epidemic of the murder of unarmed Black men during his term in office).  The election of Donald Trump is not the ‘end’ of the neo-liberal, capitalist system, but rather its dramatic confirmation.  The USA is an institutionally racist country that routinely votes in White racists, or in the case of Barak Obama – an African-American who fully aligns himself with the Eurocentric project.  Why has there been so much ‘mock’ surprise and horror at the election of Donald Trump, when the same country has in the past elected the rightwing (and senile) Ronald Reagan (who reduced life in the real world to films he had once starred in), as well as the father and son Bush team, and of course the corrupt Bill Clinton?  Going back further, there was Harry Truman – a rightwing Christian bigot and architect of the Cold War.  US election history is strewn with examples of White, racist bigots elected to political office.  Making Donald Trump out to be something ‘special’ is the misreading of history, and the misuse of historical materialism.

Such a flawed analysis attempts to elevate Donald Trump to the status of religious martyr – nothing less than a White man standing up for the White race.  This ‘new’mythology suggests that the White race, after centuries of vicious imperialist expansion and colonisation, is ‘re-invented’ as some-how being the victim of its own success.  All of a sudden, the non-White victims of White imperialism are forced to ‘change places’ with their White oppressors without question.  Those whose hands firmly held the whip in the past, re-interpret their own history as being victims of the very whip they once held.  Donald Trump is not special in any historical manner.  He is symptomatic of the ‘inverted’ bourgeois mentality that turns reality upon its head.  White people are not the victims of imperialism, because as a class and an ethnicity, they are the perpetuaters of imperialism.  White people, as a class and an ethnicity, invented and applied ‘racism’ to all non-White peoples.  In the world that Donald Trump inhabits, it is the White race that is ‘beleaguered’ by its own political power and economic success.  The only distinguishing feature about Donald Trump is that he has been open and honest about his racism from start to finish.  This honesty is merely a matter of political expediency, and does not make Donald Trump ‘special’.  Nor does his election mean the end of the neo-liberal establishment – on the contrary – a White racist nation  has elected a White racist billionaire.  The excesses of capitalism cannot be ‘reformed’ out of existence, and the natural division of labour it practises (and the logical development of racism that division entails), cannot be legislated out of existence.  The election of Donald Trump is not an aberration, but rather a confirmation of the racist American system.

Discovering Utopia: Lost Archives of Soviet Design – London (10.9.2016)

20160910_160711

DEDICATED TO THE SOVIET PEOPLE WHO LED THE WORLD IN WORKING CLASS REVOLUTION AND DEFEATED FASCISM AT A TERRIBLE PRICE!

20160509_115308

 

20160910_152938

Soviet Technological Designs 1960-1980 Exhibition

By Adrian Chan-Wyles (PhD)

leaflet1

Moscow Design Museum – Facebook

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) covers the time period 1917 – 1991, and marks one of the greatest and progressive epochs in the history of the developmet and evolution of humanity, the world has ever known.  Founded by Lenin (and the Bolshevik Communist Party he led), and inspired by the theory of Scientific Socialism (as developed by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels), the ideology of the USSR sought to uproot and eradicate the ‘inverse’ bourgeois mind-set (that viewed reality the wrong way around), and which was the underlying and guiding principle of a ruthless and predatory capitalism (that split the world into competing classes that saw the proletariat doing all the work in poor conditions, whilst the Bourgeoisie controlled society and took all the profits of this labour for its own benefit).  The Soviet Communist Revolution put an end to society being controlled by theology, (or a historical idealism that assumed that physical matter was created as ‘an act of will’ by a theistic-entity), and replaced it with a progressive proletariat mind-set that saw the human mind used the right way around.  This non-inverted mind-set understood that the physical world was not the consequence of gods creating matter out of thin air, or of talented individuals creating, dissipating or displacing matter simply by choosing to do so, but was rather the clearly observable consequence of a chain of cause and effect events, manifesting in the material world.  Marx referred to this understanding as ‘historical materialism’.

20160910_154201

Reality, according to Marx, cannot be reduced to the interior of an individual brain (idealism), operating within a single skull, but is in fact the product of concrete causes leading directly to equally concrete effects manifesting in the physical world, fuelled by dialectical (class) antagonisms (materialism).  When the working class is permanently ‘freed’ from living in the state of oppression, and takes power from the bourgeoisie, (as happened in Russia in 1917), then that class takes over the means and forces of production throughout society, and is ample to start afresh, using the human mind in an entirely ‘new’ and ‘refreshing’ manner to that of the greed-infested and selfish bourgeoisie.  Instead of being hemmed-in by the concerns of exploitative capitalism with its perpetual search for profit, the proletariat mind-set is able to harness the progression of science without ideological constraint, and through the use of an enhanced imagination, seek-out and create new designs for technology that permeate the entirety of society, and which are premised on making life ‘better’ for every citizen.  This is effectively the application of the Communist ideal of ending all suffering and exploitation throughout society through the use of ‘futurism’, or the principle of formulating in theory new ways of doing things (a process unencumbered by convention), and striving to advance science as it exists today, to meet the new ‘imagined’ designs of tomorrow.  Imagination in this progressive sense, is not that associated with theology, but is rather a speculative use of the cause and effect of science (historical materialism), and the theorising without limit of how things could or might develop, given the right or appropriate creative stimulus.

utopia-leaflet

The Moscow Design Museum was founded in 2012 and charged with assembling and preserving a Soviet Era Archive that records Communist technological endeavour in both theory and practice.  This exhibition is currently being held in London at the West Wing of Somerset House, and is comprised of hundreds of black and white, and colour photographs mounted on a lighted background, with videos projected onto the wall featuring subtitled interviews with former Soviet scientists, designers and other innovators of the era.  Usually a single Russian administrator from the Moscow Design Museum over-sees the room, and is tasked with explaining each and every aspect of the exhibition to those attending.  Of course, the USSR was far advanced than its capitalist counter-parts, so much so, that at different times in history between 1960’s and the 1980’s, France and Italy collaborated with a Soviet system both country’s officially opposed, to better the design of products manufactured in the West.  It was implicitly acknowledged that the capitalist system was limited by its need to keep manufacturing prices down, whilst simultaneously attempting to manufacture a product that the exploited masses wanted to consume.

20160910_154231

The Soviet system did not suffer from this limitation, but instead created goods and devices that were made entirely with the well-being of the Soviet citizen in mind.  It is interesting to note that many Soviet innovations were ‘integrated’ into Western capitalist designs (making the products immeasurably more sellable), without ever acknowledging (in public) the Soviet contribution, as this would have undermined and contradicted the anti-Soviet rhetoric of the US-inspired ‘Cold War’.  The middle of the room contained cardboard chairs which were lightweight, and yet very strong.  These were developed in the USSR to accommodate large meetings of people – such as government officials – in a manner that did not unnecessarily absorb valuable resources, or descend into the bourgeois excess of pointless self-indulgence or self-aggrandisement.

20160910_155011

As modern Russia strives to come to terms with the collapse of the USSR coupled with the continuous anti-Russian racism emanating from the US and the EU, the message is clear – when the mind operates the right way around there exists a natural and advanced science that not only brings order out of chaos, but develops that order beyond the limits of bourgeois hypocrisy.  ACW 11.9.2016

20160910_153825

leaflet-info

20160910_154147

20160910_153759

20160910_154213

20160910_153839

20160910_154002

20160910_154136

20160910_154125

20160910_154243

20160910_155055

20160910_154324

20160910_155110

20160910_153909

20160910_155043

20160910_154407

20160910_155348

20160910_154253

 

 

Be Vigilant Against Those who Denigrate Chinese Communism

005Ke8Pyjw1ewybcdlmojj3096064dg1

Original Chinese Language Article By: Tian Xinming (田心铭)

Source: ‘Red Flag Article’ 2015/19

(Translated by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD)

Translator’s Note:  This is an English translation of the original political Chinese language text entitled ‘警惕“共产主义虚无缥缈”论’, or ‘Be Vigilant Against the “Communism is an Illusion” Theory’.  I have retained the original Chinese language text to assist historical and political researchers.  This text was published on the Chinese internet in 2015, and concerns (General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party) Xi Jinping’s guidance and advice concerning the correct interpretation and application of Marxist-Leninist thinking in relation to the historical and socio-economic conditions that exist in China. Although there are many such texts like this extant in China, very few exist in the West due to capitalist political bias, and the racist attitudes of the Western bourgeoisie.  This has left an unchallenged and ignorantly defined ‘free interpretive space’ in the West, which has been filled with all kinds of anti-China propaganda and deliberately false political and cultural misinterpretation, alternative commentary, disinformation and non-fact related paradigms.  All this has been to the continued misrepresentation and detriment of Communist China.  This rightwing and racist misrepresentative attitude toward China has been actively assisted by the Trotskyite left, and elements of Eurocentricism hiding-out within the otherwise legitimate Marxist-Leninist movements in the West.  In fact, the anti-Chinese racism that exists in the West is extraordinarily potent and hate-filled.  It is aimed at ALL Chinese people – whether capitalist or Communist – but is particularly virulent in its continued attacks upon Mainland Communist China.  As Xi Jinping points-out, ignorance is a matter of bad education, that is rectified through the application of good education.  This text provides a reliable foundation for the factual reality that China is a Socialist country that is pursuing the Revolutionary path toward Communism as defined by Marx-Engels and Marxist-Leninism.  General Secretary Xi Jinping explains that China is adhering to a ‘minimum’ and ‘maximum’ developmental plan.  Lenin mentions this plan in his 1904 text entitled ‘Two Steps Forward and One Step Back’.  This plan was adopted at the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in 1903, and more details can be found in the text entitled the ‘History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolshevik), Short Course (Page 41).  The maximum aspect of this programme deals directly with a working class party achieving a Socialist Revolution, through the over-throw of capitalism and the full and effective establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, whereas the minimum aspect of this programme covers the immediate aims of the Party, and the policy direction required to achieve the over-throw of capitalism and the establishment Socialism.  This means working towards making life better for the workers within a post-revolutionary society, as it develops toward a Socialist society.  Obviously China has achieved her ‘Socialist’ Revolution, but has not yet achieved a fully ‘Socialistic’ society.  According to General Secretary Xi Jinping, China is in the initial stage of building a Socialist society, and is applying Marxist theory to progress to Socialism as a precursor to the realisation of Communism in China.  This process, according to Marx and Engels, will take a varying length of time depending upon local socio-economic conditions, and the conditions prevailing in various world-wide historical epochs. ACW 16.8.2016

Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (2012), Xi Jinping (习近平), the General Secretary of Communist Party of China (CPC), has continuously stressed to Members and Leading Party Cadres at all levels of the CPC, that they must be determined to uphold all noble ideals of Communism, and strengthen its presence across the broad masses.  He has also criticised those who have expressed the false notion that ‘Communism is an Illusion’.  In this regard, Xi Jinping has stated:

‘Communism as an ideal, is not as simple as cooking ‘potatoes and roast beef’.  The principles of Communism are not that easy to obtain, and the development of Communism cannot be rushed, as its construction requires a long and drawn-out process that does not immediately exist at your finger-tips.  To think that Communism is an illusion simply because it is not readily observable here and now (in its fully developed state), is a betrayal of the Communist Party and all that it stands for.  Furthermore, such an opinion betrays the true Revolutionary ideals of the past, which must be retained with vigour, from one generation to the next.  The realisation of Communism is the ideal of all true Communists without exception, and its pursuance of this struggle from one generation to the next, represents the upholding of the highest Revolutionary ideals.’

(Xi Jinping: To Jiao Yulu [焦裕禄] – County Party Secretary – 2015, p. 15)

This speech, delivered by General Secretary Xi Jinping, had a strong practical relevance to it.  It inspired the majority of Party Members and Cadres firmly toward the continuing pursuance of the Communist ideal, so that the nation may advance along the road of Socialist development (with Chinese characteristics).

1) Communism is premised Upon the Rational Theory of Scientific Socialism. 

Marxism is the guiding ideology of the Communist Party of China.  The ultimate aim of the Party is to realise Communism (through the study and application of the Scientific Socialism of Marx) – these two aspects are inseparable.  Some have advocated the false ‘Communism is an Illusion’ theory, claiming that this is an observable fact. This is in reality a denial of all Communist ideals, and is an attack on Marxism.  For instance, these people have stated such things as ‘Marxism is utopian’, or ‘Communism is a fiction’, etc.  This misrepresentation of Communist ideals stems from a lack of understanding of Marxism.  To firmly understand the genuine Communism ideals, there must first be an in-depth study of Marxism, so that it is understood that its ideals and beliefs are premised upon scientific theory, and the rational use of the mind.

General Secretary Xi Jinping, stated that Leading Cadres must study deeply the ideals and perspectives, so that the Marxist theory may be mastered in all its profound aspects. For Leading Cadres, he demanded that very high standards should be expected and upheld.  He said:

‘Learn to master Marxist theory as a special skill’, ‘Continue to comprehend, and constantly penetrate through study, so that everything is learned properly, and thought is enlightened’ and ‘Truly devout Marxists are dedicated to developing a deep ideological understanding and sound conviction’. (Ibid., P. 5)

Why should individuals only study the correct Marxist communist ideals? It is because the core ideals of Communism emerge from within the theory of Marxism.  Marxist rational thought is Scientific Socialism (which is also termed Scientific Communism).  Before Karl Marx formulated his theory, the material conditions for the emancipation of the proletariat were not yet present, and therefore notions of Socialism and Communism were only utopic or fantastical in nature (i.e. lacking any scientific basis). In his 1890 Preface to the German Edition of the ‘Communist Manifesto’, Frederick Engels, whilst discussing 1847 (the year that Karl Marx and himself wrote this text), states that Communism ‘was still a rough-hewn, only instinctive and frequently somewhat crude communism’ pursued by the workers.  He continued ‘Yet, it was powerful enough to bring into being two systems of utopian communism — in France, the “Icarian” communists of Cabet, and in Germany that of Weitling.’  (Collected Works of Marx and Engels. Vol. 2, p. 21).  From this observation it can be seen that the workers did not yet possess a scientific theory to guide them.  Marx and Engels created a new scientific world view, and transformed utopic Socialism and Communism from fantasy into a science.  They also created the world’s first Marxist Workers’ Party – known as the Communist League. The drafting of the ‘Communist Manifesto’ was requested by the General Assembly on behalf of the Alliance, as a means to clearly explain and define its political programme.  The publishing of the ‘Communist Manifesto’ was both a sign of the advent of Marxism, and also a sign of the birth of the Communist Party. This fact indicates that the Communist ideal of Marxists, from the outset, was premised entirely upon a scientific theory that drew a line between ‘utopic’ Communism and Socialism, and the Communism of Scientific Socialism.  Marxism is a complete and rigorous scientific system.  Marx provides a comprehensive Communist theory premised upon a rigorous and logical argument. Practical Marxism was born well over a hundred years ago, and millions of people have striven to apply the teachings of Socialism, and transform it from a theory to reality, as it has spread from one country to another.  Of special interest, is the development of Socialism with Chinese characteristics, a process which has not only enriched the content of Marxism, but which has also provided a strong practical example of its efficacy in material reality.

Party Members and Cadres should establish a thorough and conscientious study of the Marxist Communist ideal (as contained in the Classic works of Marx and Engels), as directed by the General Secretary Xi Jinping.  This study should be both honest and sincere.  This study should not be superficial, but deep and profound, as it must be understood how Marx and Engels developed the Communist theory of Scientific Socialism, and how this Socialism is separate and distinct from ‘utopic’ Socialism.  True Scientific Communism can be established in the material world, if the Marxist theory of Scientific Socialism is properly understood.  In 1877, Engels wrote a brief biography of Karl Marx, and in March, 1883, Engels published his ‘Speech at the Grave of Marx’.  Engels clarified that Marx identified two important and fundamental elements of the theory of Scientific Socialism, which were the materialist conception of history, and the special capitalist mode of production that gives rise to bourgeois society.  Engels said that the application of the materialist conception of history, revealed the hitherto hidden concept of capitalist production and profit accumulation through surplus value.  These are the ‘two great discoveries’ of Marx’s life.   ‘Modern Scientific Socialism is based on these two important evidence-based findings.’ ‘Because of these two discoveries, Socialism became a Science.’ (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 3, pp. 545,461,546).  These facts demonstrate to us that to establish the Marxist ideal of Communism, the key is to study and master the materialist conception of history and the theory of capitalist production.

Shortly after the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (2012), General Secretary Xi Jinping, in a profound and precise Study Seminar Speech, advised the New Central Committee Members, and Alternate Members that they should ‘uphold the noble ideals of Communism’, through the correct application of historical materialism, and the law of capitalism production. First, it is important to fully understand and master the subject of the materialist concept of history. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out:

‘Some comrades think that Communism is unobtainable, and even that it is a matter of ‘faith’ in something that cannot be seen, because their understanding is incomplete. This is a false argument that mistakes the theory of Communist historical materialism with that of historical idealism.  World history is the unfolding of historical materialism, and not that of historical idealism.  This false attitude towards Communism occurs because of a poor and weak understanding of historical materialism, and a sinking into wavering idealism that lacks the scientific understanding to correctly interpret and explain history.’

(Selected Important Documents from the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (2012), p. 116)

Historical materialism is a ‘fundamental’ and key aspect of the theory of Scientific Socialism.

Before the emergence of Marxism, due to historical conditions involving the limitations associated with the exploiting class prejudices, theories within the field of the study of social history had been dominated by idealism.  The power of this idea can be observed influencing even an outstanding materialist in the field of social history, such as Feuerbach, who eventually fell into idealism.  With the development of the machine, there simultaneously emerged on the stage of history, the large-scale industrial proletariat, as an independent political force.  It is exactly the development of this proletariat that inspired the revolutionary thinker Karl Marx to formulate his theory, which included a summation of the outstanding achievements of human civilization, as interpreted through the rubric of historical materialism.  Therefore, the concept of historical materialism ‘Changed the entire manner in which world history was interpreted’, so that ‘For the first time in human existence, the interpretation of history was premised upon its true foundation.’  (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 3, p. 457, 459).  Marx convincingly proved that people must first eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, and that first there must be work before there can be a fight for domination, or the pursuance of politics, religion and philosophy.  Therefore, the mode of production of material life (which is defined by its conditions), constitutes the social, developmental process of life.  It is not the consciousness of women and men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their social consciousness. The antagonistic (dialectical) forces that exist between the productive forces and relations of production, together with the economic base and superstructure, promote social development and social forms of replacement.  The development of social forms is a process of unfolding natural history, which is intrinsically governed by this general rule. Since Marx formulated this clear and objective scientific theory of social development as a historical necessity, Communism could no longer be viewed as a fantasy, or a utopic matter of wishful thinking.  In fact, historical materialism marks a radical shift in the study of the history of world thought.  This is a matter that all Party Members must study and thoroughly understand.  Through the ‘turning about’ of understanding (in the mind), the entire reality of the world (and its functionality) becomes clear.  Those who think that Communism is unattainable, or a matter of ‘faith’ are mistaken, because they are interpreting Communism from the false perspective of historical idealism, and not from the correct (scientific) perspective of historical materialism.  The foundation of Communism (through which it will be attained) is that of historical materialism.

The two fundamental contradictions within capitalist society will ensure a) its collapse and b) the inevitable victory of Socialism.  General Secretary Xi Jinping said:

‘The observable and verifiable facts have repeatedly confirmed to us, that Marx and Engels’ analysis of the fundamental contradictions of capitalist society, are not obsolete.  Therefore, the study of historical materialism demonstrates that the collapse of capitalism will eventually happen, and that the victory of Socialism is inevitable.  This theory is not outdated for the study of the historical development of society.  The general trend is that of reversal (away from the dominance of capital), but the road to the eventual demise of capitalism is very difficult and arduous at times, meaning that the final victory of Socialism requires a very long historical process.’

(Selected Important Documents from the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (2012), p. 117)

This statement clearly presents the inevitable development (toward Socialism) as being driven by basic contradiction, and demonstrates how Marx revealed the underlying functionality of capitalist society, whilst pointing out the inevitability of the realisation of the Communist ideal in the long-term.

Prior to Marx, economists and sociologists were steeped in idealistic thinking, and defined ‘normal society’ from the perspective of pure fantasy.  Marx abandoned this fictitious ‘generalised notion of society’, and instead dedicated himself to the study of the material conditions of existential capitalist society.  In his ‘Das Kapital’ (Preface to the first edition – Volume 1) he states: ‘I want to study in this book, the capitalist mode of production, the relations of production, relations of exchange, and how these forces interact and transform one another.’  ‘The ultimate goal of this book is to reveal the economic law of motion within modern society.’  (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 5, p. 8, 10) Marx devoted his entire life to the study capitalist, a developmental process that was the basis for his writing of ‘Das Kapital’.  He studied a literal mountain of material evidence, and analysed in considerable detail, the functionality of the law of capitalism.  As Lenin pointed out, Marx reveals the development of capitalism in the law, his analysis ‘Is limited to production relations between members of society’, and ‘Marx did not use any of these relations of production factors, for anything other than to illustrate the problem.’ (Collected Works of Lenin topic · On dialectical and historical materialism, page 162).  With this study, Marx thoroughly clarified the relationship between capital and labour, and reveals the fundamental contradiction that exists within capitalism.  Engels pointed out that the forces of production are generally active within society, but that the social products are owned solely by the individual capitalists.  Socialized production and capitalist possession are incompatible, therefore, ‘This is the generation of all the contradictions within modern society. This fundamental contradiction within modern society is the basis of all transformative movement.’ (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 3, p. 565).  This explains the basic contradiction of all conflicts within capitalist society.  It is this unstable nature of capitalism which determines its inevitable demise, and the equally inevitable victory of Socialism.  Marx clarified the relationship between capitalists and wage-labourers, as being the main mode of capitalist production, which is succinctly expressed as the exploitative (and antagonistic) relationship between ‘capital’ and ‘labour’.  This means that regardless of how subjectively unique an individual appears to be, or what position within society they occupy, he or she possesses a mind (and body) very much conditioned by the relations of production as they manifest as ‘society’ and ‘social relations’.  It is never a matter of isolated individuals confronting the all-embracing capitalist state, but is rather the confrontation (or ‘antagonisms’) that exist between the social relations within which an individual exists.  Therefore, the inherent contradictions that exist within the exploitative system that is capitalism, possess the transformative power to bring capitalism to an end, and transition productive forces (and social relations) into the state of Socialism.  Thus, in the final demise of capitalism, Socialism will eventually triumph.  This process is not determined by what an individual subjectively decides or wills, but is the direct consequence of the conflict of productive forces and the production of conflicting social relations.  The class antagonisms that exist between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, inevitably lead to confrontation and struggle.  This trend of confrontation and struggle is an observable law of social development within a capitalist society.

The long-term success of the attainment of Communism is never a matter of idealistic or ‘blind’ faith.  Such an attitude demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the (rational) mechanisms of Scientific Socialism.  Therefore, General Secretary Xi Jinping stressed that ‘The demise of capitalism is inevitable, just as the victory of socialism is inevitable’, while also noting that ‘This must be the product of a very long historical process.’  He emphasised:

‘We must profoundly study the ability of capitalist societies to self-regulate, and rationally engage the Western, developed countries, to understand the objective advantage that the capitalist system produced for a long time, in economic, scientific, technological, and military development.  We must earnestly prepare for two kinds of social systems operating over the long-term, clearly defining the conditions that suggest cooperation, and the conditions that suggest struggle, in all their various aspects.’

(Selected Important Documents from the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (2012), p. 117)

The final victory of Socialism ‘Must be a very long historical process’, is, in itself, the objective law of social development in operation.  Marx states in his ‘(Abstracted) Preface of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy’ that ‘No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before the material conditions of their existence have matured in the womb of the old society itself.’ (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 2, 592).  After the development of the monopoly stage of capitalism, the imperialist era of economic and political development ushered in a period of the imbalance (between economic and political forces), creating the conditions for the first socialist revolutions to break-out.  As Czarist Russia was a weak link in the chain of imperialist countries, it was the first place to successfully achieve a Socialist Revolution, to be later followed by semi feudal and semi colonial countries such as China.  This fact indicates the special circumstances prevalent in these countries which formed the material conditions necessary for Socialism.  On the other hand, capitalism still occupies the dominant position in the contemporary world, particularly after the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries, which created drastic change.  Economic globalization and the revolution in information technology (as well as other high-tech revolutions) has promoted the development of the productive forces contained within capitalist society.  This has meant that the basic contradictions within capitalist society, to a certain extent, have eased, demonstrating that capitalism can still productively accommodate change, and that its productive forces have not yet been brought fully into play.  Therefore, after quite a long time, the primary stage of socialism must also be more productive to match the development of capitalist countries, in a long-term policy of cooperation and struggle. We must have a deep understanding and be well prepared.  Marx continues in his ‘(Abstracted) Preface of A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy’: ‘The bourgeois relations of production are the last antagonistic form of the social process of production — antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonisms, but of one arising from the social conditions of life of the individuals; at the same time the productive forces developing in the womb of bourgeois society create the material conditions for the solution of that antagonism. This social formation brings, therefore, the prehistory of society to a close.’  (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 2, 592).  This explains how the capitalist means of production, has within it, the seeds of its own demise.  And the inevitable demise of capitalism, the inevitable victory of socialism both “inevitable” unified together, this unity is the development of the objective laws of social performance.  The conditions that will inevitably develop Socialism are directly found within the contradictions that define capitalism – so that the two states are inherently linked – with capitalism forming the former (earlier) stage, and Socialism the later (developed) stage.

The two issues are these; in the long-term, capitalism will wither away due to its own fundamental contradictions, and this withering away of capitalism is due to its contradictions that are observable here and now.  After the international financial crisis in 2008, ‘Das Kapital’ became a bestseller in the Western developed countries, as Marx’s critique of capitalism again attracted worldwide attention.  This is because people have re-engaged the writings of Marx to seek answers to contemporary social issues.  This fact once again proves that Marx’s analysis of the basic contradictions of capitalist society, is not obsolete.  We must recognize that the ideal of communism is both long-term and inevitable.  We must stay united, with a strong strategic focus upon assisting the creation of the conditions that lead to Communism.

2) Unify the Pursuance of Socialism (with Chinese Characteristics), with the Building of Communism

Be vigilant against the so-called ‘Communism is an illusory’ theory.  This false idealism has the potential to erode the progressive thought of Party Members and Cadres, who must instead adhere to correct Communist theory, practice, ideals and material reality.  It must be understood in the clearest terms, that the pursuance of Socialism (with Chinese characteristics), is the highest ideal of unity at this stage, which requires an in-depth understanding of the relationship between Communism and Socialism, so that the ideal of Communism can be eventually achieved.

a) Persist in the correct study of Communist theory and practice, so that the theory and the reality are forever unified. The Constitution of Communist Party of China stipulates that the Probationary Party Member must face the Red Party Flag, and take certain oaths, before being admitted to the Party. The Party Constitution oath states: ‘The struggle to establish Communism is a lifelong endeavour’.  This is why it is inappropriate for Party Members and Cadres to ‘laugh and entertain the false idea that ‘Communism is an illusion’, or that Marxist theory is ineffective, or not dependent on the achieving of Communism.’  Some Party Members and Cadres do not clearly understand the epistemological roots of this fallacy, and therefore confuse the Marxist theory of the acquisition of Communism, making all kinds of errors and mistakes in their assessment and analysis.  Marx and Engels founded Scientific Communism, and from the base-up, emphasised the unity of theory and practice.  In their mature work on historical materialism, entitled ‘The German Ideology’, they criticize Young Hegelians for using ‘shocking words’, but not taking any decisive action in the physical world – the Young Hegelians attacked the outer, superficial expressions of the time, but did not get to the root of the systemic problem.  The historical idealism practised by the Young Hegelians was opposite to the historical materialism advocated by Marx and Engels, who stated: ‘The practice of historical materialism is the correct Communist path that questions all underlying causes and effects extant in the physical world, as a means to make revolution, and change things permanently.’   They also pointed out that: ‘We are called Communists because we want to completely eliminate the extant conditions prevalent in the physical world.’  (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 1, p. 527-539).  Obviously, Communism is not only a scientific ideology, but is also an instruction for social practice that carefully guides the development of society toward Communism.  Since the birth of Marxism, there has been a Communist movement that continues to substantially move forward in both its practice and development.  As noted during the 12th National Congress of the Communist Party of China: ‘The spread of Communist ideology has the primary goal of building and achieving Communism in the material world.  This process began with the establishment of the Communist Party of China, and continued through the New Democratic Revolution.  Now this movement in our country is emerging out of the stage of Socialism, into the primary stage of Communism.’  Therefore, the thought and practice of Communism already exists in our everyday experience of life, and it is true to say that Scientific Communism has been subjected to more than one hundred years of practical testing.

There are some people who do not understand the theory of Communism, and who have only an incorrect idealistic interpretation of it.  As they cannot see their mistaken ‘ideal’ manifesting in the material conditions of society, they then think ‘Communism’ is not real.  This is tantamount to denying the validity of all social theory and social function.  Idealist imaginations are not scientific because they are not based upon material research.  Scientific Socialism is a science simply because it is a set of observations premised upon a careful empirical research of society (and its function) as it exists now, as it existed in the past, and as it will exist in the future.  Science is not imagination or speculation, and it is not a ‘faith’ in something non-existent, nor is it premised upon an irrational ‘belief system’ for its efficacy. Individuals who remain unaware of how society ‘evolves’, do not understand the subtle changes that occur from one epoch to another, or even from one generation to another. This is why some ignorant people cannot understand or see the reality of Scientific Communism.  They do not understand that today’s theoretical understanding can become tomorrow’s social reality. This is why it is said that today’s social reality is premised upon the function of theory that might not be apparent in its ‘immediate’ manifestation.  As this is not a matter of belief in the operation of metaphysics within material society, Scientific Communism cannot be said to be ‘non-existent’ (like a god construct), but is entirely visible to individuals living within progressive societies, who have been educated and trained to understand the theories associated with Communism and its development within society.  Ignorance of this theory does not invalidate the theory, or prove that it is not valid.  Ignorance of the efficacy of the Communist theory simply means that misunderstanding or a lack of knowledge exists in the mind of the person who does not yet comprehend.  This is exactly the same situation regarding any subject whereby an individual has a lack of knowledge.  A bias against Communist theory is simply a matter of a lack of appropriate education, nothing more. However, such a biased attitude is often used by the supporters of capitalism as a means to advocate ‘greed’ over the scientific understanding of the Communist theory (outside of China).  One such supporter once declared the ‘end of history’ following the collapse of the USSR.  This was a mistaken (and foolish) ideological attack upon the Marxist theory of historical materialism, which continues to function regardless of any and all social change.

The difference between Scientific Communism and utopic Communist theories, lies not in a ‘seen’ or ‘unseen’ theoretical basis, but rather in whether that theory has been derived from the concrete fact of material existence, or simply from religious imagination.  Communist theory has an objective basis, which is the rational and logical analysis of the material reality of existence within a capitalist society. Lenin said: ‘Marx treated the question of communism in the same way as a naturalist would treat the question of the development of, say, a new biological variety, once he knew that it had originated in such and such a way and was changing in such and such a definite direction.’ (Collected Works of Lenin topic · Marxism’, p. 255-256).  According to Marx, Communism is an inevitable historical development out of capitalism, driven by social forces that function within society.  These basic contradictions not only mean the eventual end of capitalism, but also that capitalism plays a vital role in the establishment of Communism. However, Marx did not make a dogma about what exactly a Communist society would look like, as he had no intention of establishing a prediction about the future. Instead, Marx pointed out certain important characteristics and trends, and avoided speculative fantasy.  In 1881, the Dutch Social Democrats wrote to Marx to ask: ‘If you came to power, in order to ensure the victory of Socialism, what should be the first legislative measures with regard to the correct economic and political direction?’ Marx replied with a stern letter, stating that the question itself was irrelevant because it was premised upon a fantasy.  Marx said: ‘The only answer to this question should be critical of the question itself.’ Because, (he continued) ‘No equation can be solved unless the elements of its solution are involved in its terms.’ (Collected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 10, p. 458).  Precisely because of that strict scientific spirit, the Marxist Communists did not fall into fantasy, but advanced step by step, toward the realisation (and practical application) of the Scientific Communist theory.  Prior to the establishment of New China in 1949, no one could envisage the democratic dictatorship of the working people – and yet such an achievement historically unfolded.  Again, no one foresaw the moderate economic success of China in the late 20th century – and yet it historically happened.  The Chinese people must continue this struggle to establish Communism and never give-up on this most important of transformative tasks.  This onward struggles requires the continued building of a moderately prosperous society, as well as a truly democratic, civilized, and harmonious modern Socialist country.  This is how to achieve a great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.  We must all work toward the Communist-inspired ‘China Dream’.  Although this is still just a beautiful ambition, as a nation, the Chinese people are already closer to its realization than at any other time in Chinese history. The goal will be established through the guidance of Marxism – step by step – from the theory into reality.  This is the most powerful proof of the practice of hundreds of millions of Chinese people working together, which will make the achievement of Communism inevitable.

b) Adhere to the theory of the establishment of Communism, which will be achieved through the development of Socialism (with Chinese characteristics).

Two misconceived questions that arise from those who think ‘Communism is an illusion’: 1) ‘Why hasn’t the Communist government confiscated all private property?’, and 2) ‘Why are there Communists in China who are co-owners of private businesses?’ The purpose of these types of misconstrued views, are to undermine the development of Socialism with Chinese characteristics.  This shows a thorough misunderstanding of the theory of Scientific Communism and its application to the development of a ‘Socialist’ society.  Although it is true that some people hold these views because of a lack of genuine understanding, it is equally true that some people deliberately propagate such views to directly attack and do harm to the Chinese Socialist State.  The Marxist theory of radical transformation, is not only one of permanent revolution, but also the continued revolutionary development of a unified society. The achievement of Communism is the highest stage of development pursued by Scientific Communists, which unfolds during different and specific phases of history, and that represent the interests of the overwhelming majority of the people in their struggle.  Therefore, the Programme of the Communist Party of China, carefully recognises each historical stage, and ensures the unity of the people by representing their best developmental interests as a collective.  Mao Zedong (毛泽东) devised the New China Democratic Revolution theory, which placed the revolution in a correct context for Chinese Communists.  This understanding eradicated the ‘left-deviation’ confusion that existed between ‘Democratic Revolution’ and ‘Socialist Revolution’, and specifically pointed out that China’s revolutionary process must be divided into the ‘New China Democratic Revolution’ and the ‘Socialist Revolution’ developmental stages.  This theory proposes a minimum programme and the maximum programme, as a two-part organic structure of guiding principles, designed to ensure the success of the Chinese Revolution. Since beginning in our country to construct Socialism comprehensively overtime, there has necessarily been a thorough analysis of mistakes made, such as the early emphasis upon ‘excessive and inappropriate common ownership’, and other ‘left deviation’ errors.  These mistakes and setbacks have educated us, and caused us to become mature.  The Chinese Communist Party has passed through many stages of difficult exploration, and through careful analysis of prevailing conditions, has clearly recognized that China is in the initial stages of Socialist development. This initial stage of Socialist development directly represents the fundamental realities that currently exist within the country.  Socialism with Chinese characteristics, is the implementation of the minimum programme for building Socialism within China.  It recognises the unique historical and socio-economic conditions that are relevant for the Chinese people here and now, and is a matter of material fact, and not idealistic speculation.

General Secretary Xi Jinping stated that the ultimate realization of the great objective of Communism, must be based on the successful achievement of the Communist Party’s specific objectives at this stage:

‘Socialism with Chinese characteristics is the unification of the Party’s maximum programme and the minimum programme.  The minimum programme of building Socialism with Chinese characteristics, has the objectives of building a modern Socialist country that is prosperous, democratic, civilized and harmonious. The highest ideal of achieving Communism will evolve from the correct establishment at this present time, of Socialism with Chinese characteristics’

(Selected Important Documents from the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (2012), p. 116)

The initial stage of Socialism in China, exists to build the conditions through which Communism can be realised overtime.  Therefore, the initial stage of Socialism in China is an important step toward building Communism that cannot be ignored or negated – as it is a necessary historical stage.   Deng Xiaoping (邓小平) pointed out the relationship between the advanced Communist stage and this initial stage of Socialism in China.  He said that Socialism itself is the primary stage of Communism, and that China – existing as it does within the initial stage of Socialism – is economically underdeveloped.  Every achievement must be planned for, from reality as it exists here and now. This is how careful planning is formulated by taking into account the prevailing conditions.  During the Democratic Revolution, the Chinese Communist Party stated that the objective was to achieve a successful revolution, and build the conditions for the development of Socialism.  Therefore, it was clarified that Communist theory had two separate and distinct objectives to be pursued from the Democratic Revolutionary base; 1) the immediate building of Socialism, and 2) the future realisation of Communism.  When planning for the future, neither of these two stages can be ignored, and each must be clearly achieved.

Despite all of modern China’s achievements, it is important not to lose sight of the prevailing socio-economic conditions.  This forms the material reality that is the basis of Socialist and Communist thinking.  With regards to the achievement of Socialism, China is only in the ‘initial’ stage of its acquisition.  Do not lose sight of the eventual goal of the establishment of Communism, or the essential spirit of the Revolution will be lost.  China will establish Socialism and then Communism once the correct conditions have been produced by the Chinese people through their labour. The Chinese Communist Party is building Socialism with Chinese characteristics because this is exactly what the prevailing national (material) conditions demand at this present time.  This is why General Secretary Xi Jinping said:

‘We must firmly follow the path of building Socialism with Chinese characteristics with conviction, whilst keeping the mind focused on the eventual attainment of Communism.  The Chinese Communist Party will pursue this path with effort and tenacity, so that the initial stage of Socialism, (through the initiation of the minimum programme), will be successfully completed.’

(Selected Important Documents from the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China (2012), p. 116)

Therefore, we persist in the initial stage of Socialism with the public ownership system for the main part, supplemented by a number of other ownership systems, all premised upon a basic communal, developmental, economic system.  Therefore, the Party strives to build the initial stage of Socialism, whilst working conscientiously toward Communism.  Those who think that property must be confiscated to achieve the future realisation of Communism, do not understand the prevailing socio-economic situation in China, or the theory of Marxism (and Marxist-Leninism).  We must, therefore, as a nation, remain vigilant against the false propaganda that deliberately misrepresents the Chinese people, the Chinese Communist Party, Chinese Communism, and Socialism with Chinese characteristics.

(Author: Ministry of Education and Social Sciences & Formerly Director of the Development Research Centre)

©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2016.

Original Chinese Language Source Text:

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_139be646c0102vnm8.html

警惕“共产主义虚无缥缈”论

来源:《红旗文稿》2015/19  作者:田心铭

党的十八大以来,习近平总书记反复强调共产党员和党的各级领导干部必须坚定共产主义远大理想,多次批评了那种认为“共产主义虚无缥缈”的观点。他指出:“共产主义决不是‘土豆烧牛肉’那么简单,不可能唾手可得、一蹴而就,但我们不能因为实现共产主义理想是一个漫长的过程,就认为那是虚无缥缈的海市蜃楼,就不去做一个忠诚的共产党员。革命理想高于天。实现共产主义是我们共产党人的最高理想,而这个最高理想是需要一代又一代人接力奋斗的。”(习近平:《做焦裕禄式的县委书记》,中央文献出版社2015年,第5页)习近平总书记的讲话具有强烈的现实针对性。它激励着广大党员干部坚定地沿着中国特色社会主义道路向着共产主义理想前进。与此同时我们也看到,有些人老调重弹,宣扬“共产主义虚无缥缈”的鼓噪声再次泛起。为了抵御错误思想的侵袭,我们一定要深入学习习近平总书记讲话中关于坚持共产主义最高理想的论述,坚定共产主义理想信念。

一、把理想信念建立在对科学理论的理性认同上

马克思主义是中国共产党的指导思想,党的最终目的是实现共产主义,这二者是密不可分的。某些鼓吹“共产主义虚无缥缈”的人,也看到了这个事实,所以总是通过攻击马克思主义来否定共产主义理想。他们说:“马克思主义是空想”,“共产主义是虚构”。这从反面告诉我们,坚定共产主义理想,必须深入学习马克思主义,把理想信念建立在对科学理论的理性认同上。

习近平总书记把坚定理想信念同学习掌握马克思主义理论联系在一起,对领导干部的学习提出了很高的要求。他说:“要把学习掌握马克思主义理论作为看家本领”,“不断领悟,不断参透,做到学有所得、思有所悟”,“真正做到对马克思主义虔诚而执着、至信而深厚”。(同上书,第5页)

为什么只有学好马克思主义才能坚定共产主义理想呢?因为共产主义理想是建立在马克思主义的理论基础之上的。马克思主义是以科学社会主义(也可称为科学共产主义)为核心的思想体系。在马克思主义产生之前,由于无产阶级解放的物质条件还没有具备,社会主义和共产主义只能是空想。恩格斯在《共产党宣言》1890年德文版序言中说,当马克思和他在1847年写《共产党宣言》的时候,工人运动中的共产主义还是一种“只是出于本能的、往往有些粗陋的共产主义”,“但它已经强大到足以形成两种空想的共产主义体系:在法国有卡贝的‘伊加利亚’共产主义,在德国有魏特林的共产主义。” (《马克思恩格斯文集》第2卷,第21页)这时工人运动还没有科学理论来指导。马克思和恩格斯创立了新的科学世界观,使社会主义和共产主义从空想变成了科学,同时也创立了世界上第一个马克思主义的工人政党,即共产主义者同盟。《共产党宣言》就是受这个同盟的代表大会委托为它起草的纲领。《共产党宣言》的发表,既是马克思主义问世的标志,同时又是共产党诞生的标志。这一事实表明,共产党人的共产主义理想从一开始就建立在科学理论的基础之上,同空想的社会主义和共产主义划清了界限。

马克思主义是完备而严整的科学体系。它的全部理论为共产主义理想提供了逻辑严谨的论证。马克思主义诞生一百多年来亿万人民的实践,社会主义从理论到现实、从一国到多国,特别是中国特色社会主义阔步前进的历程,既丰富了马克思主义的内容,也为它提供了强有力的实践证明。

党员干部通过学习马克思主义确立共产主义理想,就要像习近平总书记所要求的那样,认真学习马克思主义经典著作,老老实实、原原本本地研读。对于社会主义如何从空想变成科学的问题,恩格斯在《社会主义从空想到科学的发展》这本被马克思称为“科学社会主义的入门”的著作中做了系统论述。这是我们树立共产主义理想不能不认真研读的著作。恩格斯1877年撰写的马克思传略《卡尔·马克思》和1883年3月发表的《在马克思墓前的讲话》,是论述马克思生平和思想的两篇重要著作。在这些著作中,恩格斯着重指出,马克思创立了唯物主义历史观;发现了资本主义生产方式和它所产生的资产阶级社会的特殊运动规律。他说,唯物主义历史观和通过剩余价值揭开资本主义生产的秘密,这是马克思一生中“两个伟大的发现”。“现代科学社会主义就是以这两个重要事实为依据的。”“由于这两个发现,社会主义变成了科学”。(《马克思恩格斯文集》第3卷,第545、461、546页)这些论述告诉我们,通过学习马克思主义来确立共产主义理想,关键是要学习掌握唯物主义历史观和关于资本主义发展规律的理论。

党的十八大后不久,习近平总书记在新进中央委员会的委员、候补委员学习研讨班上的讲话中论述“坚持共产主义远大理想”时,对唯物史观和资本主义发展规律做了深刻阐述。

第一,学习掌握唯物史观是树立共产主义理想的根本。习近平总书记指出:“一些人认为共产主义是可望而不可及的,甚至认为是望都望不到、看都看不见的,是虚无缥缈的。这就涉及是唯物史观还是唯心史观的世界观问题。我们一些同志之所以理想渺茫、信仰动摇,根本的就是历史唯物主义观点不牢固。”(《十八大以来重要文献选编》〈上〉,第116页)这个论断一语中的,指明了能不能树立共产主义远大理想的“根本”就在于历史唯物主义观点是否牢固。

在马克思主义产生之前,由于历史条件的局限和剥削阶级偏见的影响,关于社会历史的理论领域被唯心史观所统治,即使是费尔巴哈那样杰出的唯物主义者,一旦进入社会历史领域,也陷入了唯心史观。直到随着机器大工业的发展无产阶级作为独立的政治力量登上了历史舞台,代表无产阶级的革命家和思想家马克思总结人类文明发展优秀成果,创立了唯物史观,才“在整个世界观史观上实现了变革”,使“历史破天荒第一次被置于它的真正基础上”。(《马克思恩格斯文集》第3卷,第457、459页)马克思令人信服地证明了:人们首先必须吃、喝、住、穿,就是说首先必须劳动,然后才能争取统治,从事政治、宗教和哲学等等,因此,物质生活的生产方式制约着整个社会生活的过程;不是人们的意识决定人们的存在,而是人们的社会存在决定人们的社会意识;生产力和生产关系、经济基础和上层建筑的矛盾运动推动着社会的发展和社会形态的更替;社会形态的发展是一种自然史的过程,社会发展是由内在的一般规律支配的。从此,社会主义不再被看作某个天才头脑的偶然发现,共产主义不再是空想,而是被马克思揭示出来的、由社会发展客观规律决定的历史的必然。可见,对于人类思想史来说,唯物史观的产生是一个根本变革;而对于每一个共产党员来说,通过学习树立唯物史观,就是解决好世界观这个“总开关”的问题。因此,一些人认为共产主义是可望而不可及的,这就涉及是唯物史观还是唯心史观的世界观问题。只有解决好这个问题,才能为确立共产主义理想奠定世界观、历史观的基础。

第二,资本主义社会基本矛盾决定了资本主义必然消亡、社会主义必然胜利。习近平总书记说:“事实一再告诉我们,马克思、恩格斯关于资本主义社会基本矛盾的分析没有过时,关于资本主义必然消亡、社会主义必然胜利的历史唯物主义观点也没有过时。这是社会历史发展不可逆转的总趋势,但道路是曲折的。资本主义最终消亡、社会主义最终胜利,必然是一个很长的历史过程。”(《十八大以来重要文献选编》〈上〉,第117页)这一论述根据马克思所揭示的资本主义社会的基本矛盾和运动规律,指出了实现共产主义理想的必然性和长期性。

在马克思之前,经济学家、社会学家们在唯心史观支配下,都是从空想出发去谈论所谓“一般社会”应当如何如何,而马克思抛弃了他们虚构出来的“一般社会”,专门去研究现实存在的资本主义社会。他在《资本论》第一卷第一版的序言中说:“我要在本书研究的,是资本主义生产方式以及和它相适应的生产关系和交换关系。”“本书的最终目的就是揭示现代社会的经济运动规律”。(《马克思恩格斯文集》第5卷,第8、10页)马克思倾注毕生心血研究资本主义,写作《资本论》。他研究了堆积如山的实际材料,根据这些材料极其详尽地分析了资本主义的活动规律。如列宁所指出的,马克思揭示资本主义发展规律时,他的分析“仅限于社会成员之间的生产关系”,“马克思一次也没有利用这些生产关系以外的任何因素来说明问题”。(《列宁专题文集·论辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义》,第162页)通过这样的研究,马克思彻底弄清了资本和劳动的关系,揭示了资本主义的基本矛盾。恩格斯概括地指出,生产已经是社会的活动,而社会的产品被个别资本家占有,社会化生产和资本主义占有不相容,“这就是产生现代社会的一切矛盾的基本矛盾,现代社会就在这一切矛盾中运动”。(《马克思恩格斯文集》第3卷,第565页)这一基本矛盾包含着资本主义社会一切冲突的萌芽,正是它决定了资本主义必然消亡、社会主义必然胜利。在马克思看来,资本家和雇佣工人作为资本主义生产方式的主要当事人,不过是资本和雇佣劳动的体现者、人格化。不管个人在主观上怎样超脱各种社会关系,他在社会意义上总是一定的社会生产关系的产物。资本主义社会的对抗不是个人的对抗,而是个人生活于其中的社会关系的对抗。因此,资本主义最终消亡、社会主义最终胜利,并不是由哪一个人的主观意志决定的,而是生产力和生产关系的冲突、无产阶级和资产阶级的对立和斗争必然导致的结果,是由资本主义社会基本矛盾决定的社会发展的客观规律、必然趋势。

看不到实现共产主义理想的长期性,就不能深刻理解它的必然性。所以,习近平总书记在强调“资本主义必然消亡、社会主义必然胜利”的同时,又指出这“必然是一个很长的历史过程”。他还强调:“我们要深刻认识资本主义社会的自我调节能力,充分估计到西方发达国家在经济科技军事方面长期占优势的客观现实,认真做好两种社会制度长期合作和斗争的各方面准备。”(《十八大以来重要文献选编》〈上〉,第117页)

社会主义最终胜利“必然是一个很长的历史过程”,这本身就是社会发展客观规律的表现。马克思在《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》中做出了两个“决不会”的论断,他说:“无论哪一个社会形态,在它所能容纳的全部生产力发挥出来以前,是决不会灭亡的;而新的更高的生产关系,在它的物质存在条件在旧社会的胎胞里成熟以前,是决不会出现的。”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第2卷,第592页)资本主义发展到垄断阶段后,由于帝国主义时代经济、政治发展的不平衡性,社会主义革命首先在帝国主义统治链条的薄弱环节沙皇俄国,后来又在半封建半殖民地的中国等国家取得了胜利,表明这些国家的特殊国情已经使其形成了实现社会主义所必需的物质条件。另一方面,资本主义在当代世界仍然占据着优势地位。尤其是在苏联解体、东欧剧变之后,国际垄断资本在全球迅速加强。经济全球化和信息技术革命等高新科技革命推动了资本主义社会生产力的发展,使资本主义社会的基本矛盾在一定程度上得到缓解,显示出资本主义所能容纳的生产力还没有全部发挥出来。因此在相当长时期内,初级阶段的社会主义还必须同生产力更发达的资本主义长期合作和斗争。我们对此必须有深刻的认识和充分的准备。在《〈政治经济学批判〉序言》中,马克思在提出两个“决不会”的同时,明确指出了资产阶级社会的历史地位,他说:“资产阶级的生产关系是社会生产过程的最后一个对抗形式”,“人类社会的史前时期就以这种社会形态而告终”。(《马克思恩格斯文集》第2卷,第592页)这就告诉我们,两个“决不会”与资本主义必然消亡、社会主义必然胜利的两个“必然”是统一在一起的,这种统一正是社会发展客观规律的表现。我们既要看到资本主义最终消亡的长期性,又要看到由资本主义基本矛盾所决定的最终消亡的必然性。2008年国际金融危机爆发后,《资本论》在西方发达国家成为畅销书,马克思对资本主义的批判重新引起世人重视,人们纷纷到马克思的著作中去寻求当代社会问题的答案。这一事实再次证明,马克思对资本主义社会基本矛盾的分析没有过时。我们必须把认识共产主义理想的长期性和它的必然性统一起来,以强大的战略定力向着远大理想前进。

二、把坚持共产主义理想和坚持中国特色社会主义统一起来

警惕“共产主义虚无缥缈”论对党员、干部思想的侵蚀,必须坚持理论和实践、理想和现实、最高理想和现阶段理想的统一,深入理解中国特色社会主义和共产主义的关系,在建设中国特色社会主义的实践中坚定共产主义理想。

1.坚持理论和实践、理想和现实的统一。中国共产党章程规定,预备党员必须面向党旗进行入党宣誓。党章规定的誓词包括“为共产主义奋斗终身”。某些宣扬“共产主义虚无缥缈”的人嘲笑说:“没有见过共产主义,愣是要为此奋斗终身!” 还有人说,马克思主义把实践当作检验真理的唯一标准,而共产主义没有经过实践检验。在这些观点背后,隐藏着一种把理论和实践、理想和现实割裂开来去看共产主义的思维方法。这种思维方法,也是有些党员干部不能认清“共产主义虚无缥缈”论的谬误的一个认识论根源。

马克思和恩格斯从创立科学共产主义开始,就把它看作是理论与实践的统一。在标志着唯物史观成熟的著作《德意志意识形态》中,他们批判青年黑格尔派尽管讲的都是“震撼世界”的词句,却只是为反对“词句”而斗争,决不是反对现实的现存世界。与青年黑格尔派的唯心史观相反,马克思和恩格斯说:“对实践的唯物主义者即共产主义者来说,全部问题都在于使现存世界革命化,实际地反对并改变现存的事物。”他们指出:“我们所称为共产主义的是那种消灭现存状况的现实的运动。”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第1卷,第527、539页)可见,共产主义既是科学的思想体系,又是这一思想体系指导下的社会实践;既是一种社会制度,要是以实现这一社会制度为最终目标的现实的运动。自从马克思主义诞生以来,就有了共产主义运动。它在实践中不断前进,得到了巨大的发展。正如1982年党的十二大所指出的:“在我国,共产主义思想的传播,人们为最终实现共产主义理想而进行的运动,早在中国共产党成立和领导进行新民主主义革命的时候就开始了。现在这个运动在我国已经发展到建立起作为共产主义社会初级阶段的社会主义社会。”共产主义的思想和实践早已存在于我们的现实生活中。科学共产主义已经经受了一百多年的实践检验。

某些人以“没有见过”为理由讥讽为崇高理想奋斗,这无异于根本否认一切社会理想。因为理想之所以为理想,正因为它还不是实际存在的事物。科学的理想来自现实,又高于现实,可以通过人们的实践转化为新的现实。今天的现实,可能曾经是昨天的理想;今天的理想,可能成为明天的现实。“没有见过”,才名之曰“理想”。理想一旦成为人皆见之的现实存在,就不再是理想,而被新的更高的理想所取代了。只有形而上学思维方式支配下的不思进取的庸人,才拒斥和嘲讽一切“没有见过”的理想,把现存社会凝固化、永恒化,当作他们的“理想”。某些人宣扬“共产主义虚无缥缈”论的实质,就是把资本主义永恒化,宣布为“历史的终结”,对抗社会发展客观规律,阻挡历史前进的脚步。这就是他们的“理想”。

科学共产主义理想与空想的区别,不在于人们“见过”或“没有见过”,而在于现实中是否有其客观根据。共产主义理想的客观根据,就存在于现实的资本主义社会之中。列宁说:“马克思提出共产主义的问题,正像一个自然科学家已经知道某一新的生物变种是怎样产生以及朝着哪个方向演变才提出该生物变种的发展问题一样。”(《列宁专题文集·论马克思主义》,第255—256页)马克思所根据的是,共产主义是历史地从资本主义中发展出来的,是资本主义的社会基本矛盾、资本主义内部所产生的社会力量发生作用的必然结果。对于未来的共产主义社会,马克思主义只是指出其发展趋势和基本特征,历来反对幻想式地去预测未来。1881年,荷兰社会民主党人写信向马克思请教:假如取得了政权,为了保证社会主义的胜利,在经济和政治方面的首要的立法措施应当是什么?马克思在复信中严肃地指出,现在提出这个问题是不着边际的,这是一个幻想的问题。“对这个问题的唯一的答复应当是对问题本身的批判”。因为,“如果一个方程式的已知各项中不包含解这个方程式的因素,那我们就无法解这个方程式。”(《马克思恩格斯文集》第10卷,第458页)正是因为具有这种严格的科学精神,共产党人没有陷入空想,而是一步一个脚印地向着远大理想前进。人民民主专政的社会主义的新中国在1949年之前是“没人见过”的理想,基本建成小康社会在20世纪末之前也是“没人见过”的理想,但它们都已经在中国共产党人和中国人民的奋斗中变成了现实。全面建成小康社会、建成富强民主文明和谐的社会主义现代化国家、实现中华民族伟大复兴的“中国梦”,尽管今天仍然只是美好的梦想,但是已经比历史上任何时期都更接近于实现。马克思主义指导下确立的奋斗目标一个接着一个从理想变成现实,这是亿万中国人民的实践对共产主义理想必然实现的最强有力的证明。

  1. 坚持共产主义远大理想和中国特色社会主义共同理想的统一。某些宣扬“共产主义虚无缥缈”论的人质问:“假如你们真的相信共产主义,为什么不把财产都充公呢?”还有人说:“听说又要搞共产主义了,是不是要共私营企业主的产啊?”散布这样的论调,如果不是无知,就是居心叵测:或者是企图用“激将法”诱导超越阶段的错误,或者是把对共产主义思想的宣传曲解为对私营经济方针政策的改变,蛊惑人心,都是要危害中国特色社会主义事业。

马克思主义的革命论是不断革命论和革命发展阶段论的统一。共产党人以实现共产主义为最高理想,在不同历史阶段又有代表那个阶段最广大人民利益的奋斗纲领。中国共产党的纲领,是最高纲领和各个历史阶段的基本纲领的统一。以毛泽东为代表的中国共产党人创立的中国新民主主义革命理论,纠正了混淆民主革命和社会主义革命界限的“左”倾路线的错误,明确指出中国革命必须分为新民主主义革命和社会主义革命两步走,提出了由最低纲领和最高纲领两部分有机构成的纲领,指引中国革命取得了成功。在我国开始全面建设社会主义的时期,曾经发生过超越阶段的刮“共产风”的“左”倾错误。错误和挫折教育了我们,使我们变得成熟起来。党经过艰难探索,认清了中国处于社会主义初级阶段的基本国情,制定了社会主义初级阶段的基本纲领和基本路线,成功地开创了中国特色社会主义事业。

习近平总书记指出,朝着最终实现共产主义这个大目标前进,必须立足党在现阶段的奋斗目标。“中国特色社会主义是党的最高纲领和基本纲领的统一。中国特色社会主义的基本纲领,概言之,就是建立富强民主文明和谐的社会主义现代化国家。这既是从我国正处于并将长期处于社会主义初级阶段的基本国情出发的,也没有脱离党的最高理想。”(《十八大以来重要文献选编》〈上〉,第116页)

中国社会主义初级阶段是实现共产主义理想必经的阶段。邓小平明确指出了这个阶段同共产主义之间的关系。他说,社会主义本身是共产主义的初级阶段,而我们中国又处在社会主义的初级阶段,就是不发达的阶段。一切都要从这个实际出发,根据这个实际来制定规划。在民主革命时期,党要求每个共产党员都在心中悬着为现在的新民主主义革命而奋斗和为将来的社会主义、共产主义而奋斗这两个明确的目标,同时又把对于共产主义思想体系和社会制度的宣传同对于新民主主义纲领的实践区分开来,既不能失掉将来的大目标,又不能超越现阶段的目标和政策。在今天,如果忘记了共产主义远大目标,就会模糊社会主义初级阶段的“社会主义”性质,迷失前进的方向,失去精神动力;如果忘记了中国的社会主义还处于不发达的“初级阶段”,就会脱离基本国情,背离党在现阶段的路线、方针、政策。习近平总书记指出:“我们既要坚定走中国特色社会主义道路的信念,也要胸怀共产主义的崇高理想,矢志不移贯彻执行党在社会主义初级阶段的基本路线和基本纲领,做好当前每一项工作。”(《十八大以来重要文献选编》〈上〉,第116页)我们坚持社会主义初级阶段公有制为主体、多种所有制共同发展的基本经济制度,坚持党在社会主义初级阶段的方针政策,为现阶段的目标奋斗,就是脚踏实地向着共产主义远大目标前进。某些人宣扬只有把财产“充公”,才能证明“真的相信共产主义”,这是把共产党人的最终目标同现阶段方针政策对立起来,设置一个要么否定最终目标、要么否定现阶段方针政策的陷阱。某些人把我们宣传共产主义思想曲解为要改变现行方针政策,是把共产党人的最终目标同现阶段方针政策混同起来,造谣生事。对于这一类论调,我们必须保持警惕。

(作者:教育部高等学校社会科学发展研究中心原主任)

Communist Party of Nepal (Maosim)

download (4)

Original Chinese Language Article By: http://www.midigg.com

(Translated by Adrian Chan-Wyles PhD)

Their Red Flag is that of Communism!  Many different Communist factions have joined to form the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist).  Since the dissolution of the Monarchy, the Communist Party has become a dominant force in the governance of Nepal by popular demand.  This Maoist Movement – which has fought the Nepalese State for freedom – and that has ruled Nepal in the past (through democratic vote) continues to be very popular amongst the masses, and advocates the development of the Nepalese people through education and the introduction of modern technology and the internet.  Maoism is viewed as the best method for the Nepalese people to free themselves from tyranny and oppression, through the correct application and interpretation of dialectical and historical materialism.

300001174781130889295935102_950

free_4977793

©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2016.

Original Chinese Language Source Text:

http://www.midigg.com/detail/s760661.html

尼泊尔共产主义,共产主义,尼泊尔毛主义

我们的旗帜是共产主义!

这就是尼泊尔毛 主义 者的斗争策略和目标

昔日尼泊尔共产主义运动的众多派别逐步形成为尼共

但是王权瓦解后诞生了以共产主义政党为核心的政府

在岩石的共产主义登记在 尼泊尔

客观判断尼泊尔国内的种种矛盾

通过海量数据抓取处理技术,融合互联网图片网,精准选优尼泊尔共产主义,共产主义,尼泊

尔毛主义最相关图片、视频和专题图文。

Lucid Marx

Shining Wisdom,

Shining Wisdom,

Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) reminds all Marxists of a free and lucid psychological-physical space within which existence and the machinations of life unfold. This is the historical materialism of Marx (and Engels) understood free of any unnatural or ideological constraint, or artificial boundary. In a very real (and unimagined) sense, this reality represents what can be referred to as a ‘spiritual’ state whereby all human beings exist together in an uncontrived and unforced togetherness, that offers the security of group existence (and shared progression), and the flexibility of individual self-determination. As this existential reality is reliant upon the perceptual and cognitive awareness of its presence, it can be termed ‘spiritual’ if spirituality is directly related to the development of the mind, and the enhancing of its functionality. Even the old Soviet Union (1917-1991), in its English translations of Marxist texts, used the term ‘spiritual’ to refer to ‘consciousness’, and in so doing, marked a clear separation between socialist and communist theory, with that of the theology of the established Judeo-Christian tradition that had dominated Europe with its ecclesiastical imaginations for over a thousand years. The body of work recognised as ‘Marxism’ (whether or not Karl Marx himself would have agreed with this description), is in fact an unfolding understanding of the physical world and its functioning, from the point of view of the advanced and evolved conscious mind that is doing the observing and the defining. In this regard, the understanding of Marx resembles the teachings of the Buddha who lived in ancient India. This is because Buddhism is not a religion but a philosophy that includes the expansion of awareness through mind development, and an explanation and critique of the socio-economic situation (i.e. caste function and caste relations) prevalent at the time of the Buddha. Both Men – that is Marx and Buddha – possessed advanced minds that saw through the relative nature of the socio-economic situations of their times, and which further formulated a method for others to follow, so that they might achieve the same level of progressive freedom.

Eurocentricism in the British Left

BJP-300514

The above Excellent letter appeared in the New Worker newspaper of the New Communist Party of Britain No. 1777, dated 30.5.14, Page 8.  My letter of reply (see below) was published in the New Worker, No. 1778, dated 6.6.14, on Pages 8-9:

Dear Comrades of the NCPB

I write with appreciation for the letter written by Comrade Kumar Sarkar which appeared in the New Worker dated the 30.5.14. This important letter documents the important historical conditions that existed in India during the 18th and 19th century at the development and height of the British imperialist presence. Imperialism, is of course, by default, racist – but comrade Sarkar makes the valid point of ‘Eurocentricism’ within the Communist Party, and how this prevented the full support of the revolutionary forces in India generated through the presence of British capitalism, and how the bourgeois simply forged links with Brahmanic religion. This inevitably has led to the election victory of the racist (and capitalist) BJP.

This letter further demonstrates the actual application of Marxist dialectics and is to be applauded. It sometimes can be, unfortunately, a modern habit of the ‘left’ to decide things ideologically without conveying the method used to arrive at that decision. All individuals can assess the history of their own lives, and the history of the country they live, through the correct application of the analysis of historical materialism. This must not be confused with ‘gross materialism’ which has no connection with the theory of Marx and Engels. Those on the left must learn to think again for themselves as part of the leftwing cause, and not just accept what they are told by ideologues who believe ‘one size fits alls’.

Marx and Engels were born in Europe, but the system of analysis that they developed transcended their own ethnocentric predicament, making the Marxist conception of history and dialectical analysis truly universal. Professor Yang Geng of mainland China, comments in his 2010 book entitled ‘Defense for Marx’, that Marx, through his genius, saw through his own historical conditioning, simultaneously completing, and transcending the entire philosophical project of the West. No individual can intellectually go beyond Marx, because his thinking transcends all contrived systems of thought, which now are understood to exist in a pre-Marxist state of incompletion. The world is not just Europe, and all comrades should strive to forge a truly internationalist paradigm that does not fall into the trap of ethnocentric bias.

 

 

%d bloggers like this: