Wu Ying: Marx’s Views On The Transition Of Developing Countries To Socialism And Its Practical Significance

Author Wu Ying is the director of the Foreign History Theory and History Research Office of the Institute of History and Theory of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences

Academic Frontiers, November 2021

Since the Second World War, there have been two international orders. One is the current international order established by capitalist countries headed by the United States, which is actually an extremely unequal international order where “hegemons take all”; the other is the socialist camp headed by the Soviet Union, which is actually a hegemonic international order established by the Soviet Union under the banner of socialist internationalism.

The latter has been disintegrated because of its unpopularity; the former has also become the object of calls for change by people of insight because of its unpopularity. China has become a country that people of insight have high hopes of changing the old international order. On the one hand, this is because they have a deeper understanding of Chinese history and culture, and on the other hand, it is because they have some understanding of China’s true practice of socialist values.

In the early and middle stages of his theoretical construction, Marx focused on the advanced capitalist countries in Western Europe, and demonstrated the historical inevitability of the transition from capitalism to socialism from the perspective of the laws of historical development. With the question of how Russia could further develop after the reform of serfdom, Marx expanded his research perspective to the development of non-Western latecomer countries. Marx first affirmed that latecomer countries could directly transition to socialism, and specifically proposed the conditions required for such a transition. It was under the guidance of Marx’s relevant discussions that Russia took the lead in establishing a socialist regime through revolution, and later latecomer countries such as China practiced a direct transition to socialism. The successful development of the socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics has made China’s socialist construction epoch-making in the history of the development of scientific socialism. The various related ideas expounded and practiced by Xi Jinping have laid a solid foundation for scientific socialism to enter a new stage.

Of course, China is still a developing country, and there are still many major challenges to overcome in domestic development, such as how to promote industrial structure upgrading through scientific and technological innovation, thereby crossing the “middle-income trap”; internationally, the United States is still leading the containment of China, creating obstacles to China’s internal and external development. But we firmly believe that the more China adheres to the development path of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the win-win cooperation model of global exchanges, the sooner a more equitable new international order will come.

Chapter  1

Marx’s Discussion on the Possibility and Related Conditions of the Transition of Late-developing Countries to Socialism

In the early and middle stages of his theoretical construction, Marx mainly focused on the study of the advanced capitalist countries in Western Europe, and demonstrated the historical inevitability of the transition from capitalism to a higher level of society from the perspective of the laws of historical development. With the question of how Russia, as a late-developing country, should develop, Marx expanded his research vision to the development of non-Western societies, namely late-developing countries. In the mid-to-late 19th century, Russia was at a crossroads of social transformation: on the one hand, serfdom was in a general crisis and capitalism had achieved a certain degree of development; on the other hand, rural communes with shared land still existed in the vast rural areas, presenting the possibility of non-capitalist development. Under such circumstances, the Russian intellectual class had a fierce debate on the development path of Russian society. The “admirers of the capitalist system” (Marx’s words) represented by Mikhailovsky strongly advocated the destruction of rural communes and the development of capitalism. The radical reformists represented by Zasulich advocated avoiding the capitalist road and taking the socialist road on the basis of preserving rural communes. In order to prove their point of view, the supporters of the capitalist road distorted Marx’s discussion on the laws of human social development and insisted that even Marx himself believed that capitalist society must be developed first before transitioning to socialism. Faced with the problems raised by reality, Marx began to study Russian issues. At the age of 50, he taught himself Russian and reached a proficient reading level. After research, he wrote a series of important documents to explore the path of transition to socialism for late-developing countries like Russia that preserved rural communes. Among them, there are long notes on Kovalevsky’s work on communal land ownership, as well as “Letter to the Editorial Board of the “Fatherland Chronicle” Magazine”, “Reply to V.I. Zasulich” (including the first draft and reply), and Marx and Engels’ preface to the Russian version of “The Communist Manifesto” in 1882.

First, Marx affirmed that Russia, as a late-developing country, could transition directly to socialism without going through the capitalist system. In his letter to the editors of the magazine Fatherland Chronicle, he clearly pointed out that he agreed with Chernyshevsky’s view that Russia “could develop its own unique historical conditions (referring to the widespread existence of rural communes) while achieving all the achievements of the capitalist system without going through the hardships of the capitalist system.” Moreover, he firmly opposed Mikhailovsky’s misunderstanding of his views. “He must completely transform my historical overview of the origin of capitalism in Western Europe into a historical philosophical theory of a general development path. All nations, regardless of their historical circumstances, are destined to follow this path, so that they can finally reach an economic form that guarantees the extremely high development of social labor productivity while ensuring the most comprehensive development of each individual producer. But I ask for his forgiveness. (He would give me too much honor and too much insult if he did so.)” This view was similarly expressed in Marx’s later draft of “Reply to V.I. Zasulich”: The agricultural commune “coexists with Western production that controls the world market, allowing Russia to avoid the Caucasus Gorge of the capitalist system and use all the positive results created by the capitalist system in the commune.” Moreover, Marx emphasized the importance of Russia choosing its own development path. He pointed out: “If Russia continues to follow the path it started on in 1861, it will lose the best opportunity that history can offer to a nation at that time, and suffer all the disastrous twists and turns brought about by the capitalist system.”

Secondly, Marx’s theoretical assumption that late-developing countries may cross the “Caucasus Gorge of the capitalist system” and directly transition to socialism did not stop at merely pointing out the existence of such a possibility, but analyzed the conditions for achieving a successful transition one by one. Therefore, Marx’s view on the direct transition of late-developing countries to socialism is by no means a utopian fantasy, but is operational and feasible. According to Marx’s theoretical assumptions, Russia, as a late-developing country, needs to meet the following conditions to transition to socialism.

First, it is necessary to learn from all the positive results achieved by developed capitalist countries in developing productivity. Late-developing countries lag far behind developed countries in the level of development of productivity. Therefore, the primary task of late-developing countries after seizing power through revolution and establishing a socialist system is to develop productivity. At the same time, because they coexist with developed countries with higher levels of productivity development, late-developing countries can easily learn from and absorb all the positive results achieved by developed countries when developing productivity. As Marx pointed out: “Russia does not exist in isolation from the modern world. … Precisely because it exists at the same time as capitalist production, it can possess all its positive results without experiencing the terrible twists and turns of capitalist production.” This condition is the most important of the conditions for the success of the road to cross the “Caudine Gorge of the capitalist system” envisioned by Marx. The reason for this is that, first, this is a highly condensed summary, and its specific connotation needs to be determined in the practice of socialist construction; second, it is precisely because the cognitive errors on this issue have brought painful lessons to the practice of socialism.

Second, the rural communes need to be democratically reformed. As the rural communes and peasants have long been committed to the Tsarist autocracy, they are not very conscious of developing themselves and mastering their own political and economic destiny. They need to be democratically reformed to raise their consciousness. As Marx pointed out: “The Russian ‘agricultural commune’ has a characteristic that causes its weakness and is disadvantageous to it in all aspects. That is its isolation. There is a lack of connection between the lives of the communes… This isolated little world allows a more or less centralized autocratic system to override the communes.” The specific measures for democratic reform are: “Perhaps it is enough to replace the township government agency with a peasant representative conference elected by each commune. This conference will become an economic and administrative agency to safeguard their interests.” The strengthening of exchanges between communes and the ability of peasants to truly elect agencies that represent their interests are undoubtedly based on the great improvement of peasants’ material production capacity and moral cultivation level.

Third, a Russian revolution was needed to prevent the rural communes from being destroyed by the development of capitalism. As Marx pointed out: “This rural commune is the fulcrum of the rebirth of Russian society; but in order for it to play this role, it is first necessary to eliminate the destructive influences that attack it from all sides, and then to ensure that it has the normal conditions for natural development.” “If the revolution occurs at the right moment, if it can concentrate all its forces to ensure the free development of the rural commune, then the rural commune will quickly become a factor in the rebirth of Russian society and a factor superior to other countries still under the enslavement of the capitalist system.”

From the above discussion, we can see that Marx not only affirmed that Russia, as a late-developing country, could cross the Caucasus Gorge of the capitalist system, but also presupposed the conditions required for such a leap. However, we need to clearly realize that these conditions are all principled assumptions made by Marx. As for how to apply them specifically, late-developing countries need to explore them in their own transition practices. Moreover, because this is a great practice without precedent, it often goes through a process of paying a price in practice, learning from experience, and gradually finding the right path.

Please Download for Full Text