Three Major Debates in History on the Relationship between Economy and Politics: Lenin, Bernstein, Left-communists, Preobrazhensky, Stalin Brezhnev, Gorbachev, Deng Xiaoping, Daron Acemoglu
Author: Wang Lisheng, Secretary of the Party Committee and Deputy Director of the Institute of Philosophy, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.
From the Journal of the Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (National School of Administration), Issue 2, 2019, www.cwzg.cn.]
April 2019
Building a socialist market economy theory with Chinese characteristics requires a scientific understanding of the materialist historical perspective and an accurate grasp of the dialectical relationship between economy and politics. There have been three debates in the theoretical community regarding the relationship between economy and politics in the materialist view of history, which have been historically tested by socialist revolution and construction practices. Reviewing these three debates and their historical tests, combined with various viewpoints arising from the debates, and analyzing the dialectical relationship between economy and politics, can provide theoretical references for studying the market economy system of socialism with Chinese characteristics and developing the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The socialist market economy is a dialectical unity of politics and economy, and its inherent political and economic politicization requires the establishment and development of the socialist market economy to fully leverage the advantages of both economy and politics.
To develop the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics and accurately understand the market economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics, it is necessary to scientifically understand the relationship between economy and politics.
The materialist view of history is the methodological foundation of Marxist political economy and provides methodological principles for accurately grasping the relationship between economy and politics.
Based on these principles, the relationship between economy and politics cannot be simplified or dogmatically understood but should be understood dialectically through the mutual influence and integration of “economic politicization and political economicization”.
“Economic politicization and political economicization should be the concentrated embodiment of the harmonious development of the dialectical unity of economy and politics. However, in social practice, due to the constraints of various subjective and objective factors, the relationship between politics and economy is often distorted, sometimes rigidly separated, and sometimes replaced by one aspect” [2].
There were many views in history that distort the materialist view of history and misjudge the relationship between economy and politics. For example, social democrats of the Second International argued that a socialist system ruled by the proletariat could not be established until all the productive forces accommodated in the capitalist market economy were fully utilized. Also some rigid orthodox theorists of Soviet economic theory argued that socialist countries cannot retain commodity currency relations and implement market regulation in the field of means of production.
Gorbachev and other promoters of the Soviet and Eastern Bloc socialist countries argued that in order to implement market-oriented economic reforms, it was necessary to abandon the basic socialist system. In response to these viewpoints, there have also been three debates in history regarding the materialist view of history.
Three Global debates in history regarding the materialist view of history & the relation between economy and politics
Practice is the sole criterion for testing truth. The historical practice of socialist revolution, construction, and reform has tested the three debates, denied erroneous views on the relationship between economy and politics, and revealed the principle of dialectical relationship between economy and politics.
Reviewing these three historical debates helps to scientifically understand the dialectical relationship between economy and politics, avoiding the distortion, sometimes rigid separation, and sometimes substitution of one aspect for another. This is of great significance for a correct understanding of the great practice of China’s socialist market economy since the reform and opening up, and for improving the socialist market economy theory of socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics. In chronological order, these three debates can be summarized as follows: firstly, from the 1890s to the 1920s, the Second International debated whether to abandon violent revolution. Secondly in the 1920s and 1950s, socialist countries debated the scope of the role of commodity economy and the law of value. Thirdly, in the 1960s and 1990s, there was a debate in socialist countries about whether socialist regimes could be combined with market economies.
Below we will take the themes and historical test of each debate as the main clues for accurately understanding the relationship between economy and politics in the materialist historical view.
1. The First Debate: Revolution or Not (1890-1920s): The Determining Role of Productive Forces Should Not be Rigidly Understood
The first debate took place in the Second International, and whether to abandon Marx and Engels’ ideas of armed revolution was the focus of the debate. The “economic determinism” held by social democrats in the Second International had a profound impact. Scholars who hold this view had rigidly understood the decisive role of productive forces. On the one hand, they argued that with the development of productive forces, advanced production methods in Western Europe can achieve a peaceful transition to socialism. On the other hand, it was argued that conducting armed revolution in Russia, where productive forces was not yet developed, lacks historical legitimacy. The achievements of socialist construction in the Soviet Union and the decline of European socialist parties ultimately proved the errors of “economic determinism” and social democracy, proving that Leninism’s dialectical understanding of the relationship between economy and politics in the materialist historical view was the only correct viewpoint in the debate.
(1) First stage: Debate on the Peaceful Transition Idea of Social Democracy into Socialism
In the second year after Engels’ death (1896), Bernstein, who was once known as an “orthodox Marxist”, began publishing a series of papers on “socialism issues” in the magazine “New Era”, reiterating the socialist viewpoint of “peaceful growth into socialism” that had been sharply criticized by Marx and Engels. In 1899, his book “The Premise of Socialism and the Mission of Socialized Democracy” proposed that: The reforms that required a bloody revolution a hundred years ago can be achieved today through voting, demonstrations, and/or similar coercive measures,…..the so-called proletarian seizure of power can only be achieved through political disasters”. Bernstein’s revisionist views gained widespread recognition in the Second International. Scholars such as Luxembourg and Lenin engaged in a fierce struggle against these ideas. The abandonment of armed revolution by the Second International was related to their rigid understanding of the materialist historical perspective, which is linked to the Second International’s “economic determinism” viewpoint. Lafarge argued that “economic determinism is a new tool that Marx has given to socialists ” [6].
Many scholars in the Second International had a rigid understanding of “economic determinism”, believing that in the most developed European countries, as long as productive forces continues to improve, for capitalism to enter socialism would be a natural development. Marx and Engels’ affirmation of the historical progress of the capitalist mode of production in their later years, as well as their judgment that capitalism is still in a period of historical rise, also to some extent influenced the formation of this viewpoint. However, this idea was not in line with what Marx and Engels always advocated. For example, this rigid economic determinism was explicitly refuted by Engels in his letter to Bloch in 1890.
[“If anyone here distorts it by saying that the economic factor is the only determining factor, he is turning this proposition into a contentless, abstract, absurd and empty statement. The economic situation is the basis, but what influences the course of the historical struggle, and in many cases primarily determines the form of this struggle, are also the factors of the superstructure”] [7].
According to the scientific dialectical point of view, “economic determinism” can be defined as the dialectical and unifying relationship between economy and politics, but because many scholars of the Second International adopted a rigid thinking, directly limiting the relationship between the two to the mechanical determining role of the economy on politics, and Marx-Engels’ referring to “economic determinism” often refers to this kind of dialectical relationship.
However, since many scholars of the Second International have adopted a rigid mindset, directly limiting the relationship between the two to the mechanical determinism of the economy over politics, the reference to “economic determinism” often refers to this rigid mindset, and the reference to “economic determinism” in the following lines refers to this mindset. However, this does not negate the existence of a more dialectical and correct grasp of economic determinism and its scientific and rational theoretical expression.
Some scholars think that the theorists of the Second International did not define “economic determinism” at such a rigid level, but no matter how it is understood, it is certain that Engels emphasized very clearly the role of the superstructure, and Engels advocated that the economy could not be taken as the only determining factor.
The rigid understanding of the decisive role of productive forces has led to a lack of sufficient understanding of the class nature of capitalist regimes among leaders and theorists of the Second International, who are easily attracted by the rulers’ “appeasement” policies. For example, before 1890, Prussian Germany implemented an “extraordinary anti-socialist law” to suppress the Social Democratic Party, which led to a “counter current” within the party that abandoned revolutionary struggle methods.
Under the resolute struggle of Marx and Engels, this opportunistic ‘counter current’ was defeated, and the revolutionary forces increased instead of decreasing. The parliamentary seats of the German Social Democratic Party increased to 35.
The German government therefore abolished the “extraordinary anti-socialist law” and adopted a “new approach” and “appeasement” policy, ultimately leading to a shift in the struggle direction of the German Social Democratic Party from achieving socialism to increasing parliamentary seats.
By the 1912 parliamentary elections, the Social Democratic Party’s parliamentary seats had increased to 110, causing the German Social Democratic Party to become even more obsessed with the political status formed by parliamentary elections. When World War I broke out in 1914, most leaders of the German Social Democratic Party sided with their own government and supported workers in the war to “defend their homeland” – the political mission of socialist revolution began to give way to the political goal of improving the status of parliament.
(2) Second stage of the first debate: Debate on the Historical Legitimacy of Leninism and Historical Legitimacy of the October Revolution
The greater impact of the Second International’s “economic determinism” was the criticism of Lenin and the October Revolution by Second International theorists. The core of these accusations was that relatively backward countries took the lead in carrying out socialist revolutions, which goes against Marx and Engels ‘ assumption that socialist revolutions would first erupt in the most developed capitalist countries and violated the decisive principle of productive forces in the materialist historical view. The debate first arose between Plekhanov and Lenin. Plekhanov’s summary of the “determinism of productive forces” has broad representativeness.
Firstly, Plekhanov quoted Marx’s famous proposition of ‘Two Never Will’: “No social form will perish until all the productive forces it can accommodate are fully utilized, and new and higher relations of production will never emerge until their material conditions mature in the womb of the old society”.
Based on this, Plekhanov argued that: “If a country’s capitalism has not yet reached the advanced stage that hinders the development of its own productive forces, then calling on urban and rural workers and the poorest farmers to overthrow capitalism is absurd”. Thus, Plekhanov made his famous statement: ‘Russian history has not yet ground the flour that will be used to bake socialist pies in the future.’ [10].
Lenin refuted this viewpoint based on the theory of the transition from imperialism to socialism: “Imperialism is nothing but monopoly capitalism, “” Russian capitalism has also become monopoly capitalism, “[11]” War has exceptionally accelerated the transformation of monopoly capitalism to state monopoly capitalism, thereby bringing humanity exceptionally quickly closer to socialism. This is the dialectics of history”.
It is not difficult to see the direct confrontation between the rigid understanding of materialist historical view and the correct dialectical logic. The victory of the October Revolution in Russia proved Lenin’s correctness. However, the theorists of the Second International did not give up their rigid understanding of the decisive role of productive forces and still insisted on using “economic determinism” to criticize the October Revolution. For example, Bernstein argued that: “The adventurous cause of Bolshevism is actually – or so far – an attempt to bypass necessary social development through a series of arbitrary acts”. Kautsky argued that: “Not only do we oppose the belief in the West that backward countries like Russia can surpass industry on the socialist road, but we also oppose the delusion that socialism can be built with a few brutal blows”.
But scholars who supported the October Revolution refute the rigid “productive forces determinism” with Marxist dialectics. In response to criticism from the German Social Democratic Party, Luxembourg pointed out that “the true dialectics of revolution have reversed this narrow-minded parliamentary truth: not by implementing revolutionary strategies through the majority, but by achieving the majority through revolutionary strategies” [15]. It is worth mentioning that the two main representatives of Western Marxist philosophy, Gramsci and Lukacs, who were still in their youth at the time, also participated in this debate. Gramsci immediately wrote his article “The Counter Revolution” after the outbreak of the October Revolution, refuting the “economic determinism” of the Second International and supporting the October Revolution. The overall refutation of the rigid views of the Second International was completed by Lenin , who wrote in his essay “On the Revolution of Our Country” before his death: [“Why can’t we first achieve this level by revolutionary means, and then catch up with the people of other countries on the basis of the worker peasant regime and the Soviet system?”] [17] Lenin, 4th year of October Revolution.
Armed seizure of political power and then promoting the development of productive forces on the basis of political power was Lenin’s core concept of socialist economic construction, and it was also a historical choice for the development path of socialist countries that inherited Leninism. Lenin’s ideas clashed with Kautsky’s judgment, and history is the best judge: in 1937, the Soviet Union’s industrial output jumped to the top level within Europe, with a growth rate significantly exceeding that of all capitalist countries. In 1937, the industrial output of the capitalist world had increased by 44.3 % compared to 1913, while the Soviet Union increased by 7.5 times during the same period, which was 14.3 times faster than the development speed of the capitalist world. On the other hand, European democratic socialist parties with the belief in “economic determinism” failed to achieve socialism in Europe with the “development of productive forces”.
If we look from a longer period historical perspective, the “endgame” of the above debate continued in one way or other. For example, after World War II, developed capitalist countries achieved a “golden twenty years” of rapid economic growth through mixed economy and welfare state policies. Many European social democratic parties declared the victory of their “socialist policies” and even re-established themselves as the “orthodox” defenders of Marxism and socialism. During the “Soviet Eastern Socialist Bloc” of the 1980s and 1990s, social democracy also became an important theory for the “peaceful evolution” strategy the of West big powers especially USA. However, history still tested it – under the impact of the 2008 financial crisis, the essential characteristics of capitalism in Europe’s so-called “democratic socialism” were once again revealed.
Tr. “Peaceful evolution” strategy the of West big powers means toppling socialist regimes by peaceful means instead of using confrontation ( Mao’s evaluation)
Generally speaking, social democracy estimated that after a capitalist economic crisis occurred, the capitalist world would undergo institutional adjustments to control capital and improve worker welfare. However, this adjustment did not occur after the crisis: the social democratic parties in power in Europe after the crisis failed to implement policies to control capital and failed improve social welfare again. On the contrary, The social-democratic parties that came to power in Europe after the crisis have failed to pursue policies to restrain capital and improve social welfare; on the contrary, with the prevalence of “neo-liberalism” for more than 20 years, the constraints imposed by the economic crisis on the power of capital have virtually disappeared, and in its place, under the coercion of the state debt market and finance capital, the developed countries of the West, faced with sovereign debt crises and fiscal cliffs, have had to respond to the crisis by reducing social security and workers’ benefits. Social democracy’s role of “reformist improvement” by adding the so-called “socialist element” to the capitalist system has come to an end and has even gone in the opposite direction.
The growing protests of the underclasses in the capitalist world (e.g. the Occupy Wall Street movement in the US and the “Stand in the Dark” movement in France) have once again proved that the realization of socialism on the social-democratic line is the “opposite” of socialism. This proved once again that the socialist realization of socialism on the social-democratic line was the “opposite of what it should be” and confirmed the correctness of Leninism. Bernstein’s fantasy of abandoning armed revolution and “peacefully growing” into socialism was disproved by history.
Please Download for Full Text