Comparing the Different Views of Eastern and the Western Socialism: Their System, Origin and Generation Path & the Destiny of Chinese Socialism
From Journal of Peking University Journal of Peking University, April 2022
Author Dr. Huang Fei is Lecturer at the School of International Relations, Renmin University of China
Abstract: In the history of world socialism in the 20th century, the East and the West formed two typical interpretation systems of socialism: Soviet socialism and democratic socialism. These two formed two interpretation modes in terms of basic connotation, in terms of general principles and in terms of policy propositions.
The formation of these two views of socialism is closely related to the origin and dual meaning of socialist thought: the two major schools as a) early period socialism and b) early period communism which are differentiated from “utopianism”; they show the duality of homogeneity and heterogeneity, which makes the scientific socialism born from their fusion naturally have dual genes.
The diversified generation path of world socialism is the result of the comprehensive effect of the four dimensions of economic development, political structure, class relations and ideological concepts in different time and space on the basis of the dual genes of socialism.
Along this path, China has formed socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era (Xi Jinping) in the process of exploring the path of socialist development, which in the 21st century will lead the world socialism to a new direction.
Keywords: Soviet socialism; democratic socialism; scientific socialism; world socialism; socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era (Xi Jinping)
Contents of the Article:
1. Two Interpretative Systems of Socialism in the East and the West
2. The Origin and Dual Implications of Socialist Thought
3. The Paths of the Two Socialist Views
4. Socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era leads the new direction of world socialism in the 21st century
Text begins here
Since the emergence of socialism, there have been many controversies about what socialism is and how to achieve socialism. Especially since the late 19th century and early 20th century, socialism has become a powerful force to check capitalism, but socialism has also become a controversial concept. In this process, two typical interpretation systems have been formed in the East and the West: Soviet socialism and democratic socialism.
The two are different in theoretical basis, value orientation, in their line and policy, and have completely different views on the relationship between socialism and communism. The differences in the understanding of basic concepts have caused the academic circles in the East and the West to still have difficulties in discourse communication when discussing the relevant issues of socialism and communism. In practice, the huge differences about socialism in the context of the East and the West have profoundly affected the contemporary world economic and political landscape, and China’s socialist development process is also closely linked to this. Although the world in the 21st century has undergone tremendous changes, how to clarify the relevant issues of socialism and demonstrate the superiority of socialism which is under the siege and questioning of capitalism is still a topic of the times.
This article attempts to use the differences between Eastern and Western views of socialism as a starting point to analyze their systematic differences in basic connotations, overall principles and policy propositions, and then explore the formation mechanism and internal motivation of the differences from the perspective of the interactive evolution of theoretical origins and historical conditions, and further analyze the Chinese paradigm for developing world socialism in the 21st century, thereby providing an analytical and interpretative path for the diversified development of socialism.
Part 1. Two Interpretative Systems of Socialism in the East and the West
Soviet socialism and democratic socialism have been the two major socialist trends in the 20th century. In the East, after the October Revolution in Russia in 1917, the first socialist country, the Soviet Union, was established, and socialism achieved a leap from theory (idea) to institutional reality. Under its influence, the proletarian revolutionary movement and the national liberation movement once surged, together forming the sonata of the world socialist movement. By the middle of the 20th century, the formation of the socialist camp headed by the Soviet Union broke through the capitalist global order and shook the international system dominated by the West. In the West, democratic socialism has been the mainstream left-wing thought since the 20th century.
After the Second World War, some Western social democratic parties came to power, which made post-war Western capitalism incorporate a strong democratic socialist color. Since the end of the 19th century, the theory of democratic socialism has gone through three stages of development: “social democracy-democratic socialism-social democracy”. Among them, the “democratic socialism” from the 1950s to the 1990s is the most distinctive and practically influential version in its development history, and therefore best represents the ideological core of democratic socialism.
As typical socialist interpretation systems in the 20th century, Soviet socialism and democratic socialism show obvious differences in the three levels of “basic connotation”, “overall principles” and “policy propositions”. The different connotations of “socialism” constitute the cornerstone of these two theoretical systems. These two have formed their own overall principles around the basic connotation, including guiding ideology, basic line, ultimate goal, etc.
These overall principles are further externalized into policy propositions in the economic, political, social, cultural and other aspects through political parties and organizations. The above three levels radiate outward in turn and together constitute the theoretical system structure. The formation of a theoretical system is a dynamic process. When the theory acts on reality (practice), then practice in turn adjusts and consolidates the socialism concept. The theoretical system of Soviet socialism and democratic socialism was established in this process.
The theoretical system of Soviet socialism was formed during the Lenin period and was established during the Stalin period. Although the Soviet model of socialism during the Stalin period and later was far from Leninism in some aspects, especially far from Lenin’s thoughts in his later years, Leninism basically laid the foundation for the theoretical system of Soviet socialism in the 20th century.
The theoretical system of Soviet socialism argues that socialism is a system form higher than capitalism, and the replacement of capitalism by socialism is the inevitable result of historical development. Around the understanding of the socialist connotation of “system replacement theory”, this system has formed several general principles:
First, Marxism-Leninism is the guiding ideology. Lenin achieved a new development of the orientalization of Marxism by combining Marxism with Russian reality. Since then, Leninism has become a guiding ideology that occupies a dominant position in the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, parallel to Marxism. The “Brief Course of the History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks)” clearly points out that “the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) has been and is guided by the revolutionary doctrine of Marxism-Leninism”.
Second, the revolutionary struggle is the main line and policy, and the party occupies a dominant position in the proletarian revolution. “The victory of the proletarian revolution, the victory of the proletarian dictatorship, is impossible without the revolutionary proletarian party.”
Third, communism is the ultimate goal, and socialism is the primary stage of communism. When Marx expounded on the distribution method of the future society in “Critique of the Gotha Program”, Marx divided the communist society into the first stage and the higher stage. On this basis, Lenin regarded socialism as “the ‘first’ stage or lower stage of communist society.” From then on, in socialist countries, socialism as a social system specifically referred to the primary stage of communism.
Under the guidance of the general principles, the theoretical system of Soviet socialism has formed distinct policy propositions:
First, implement socialist public ownership in the economy and promote a command-based planned economy. In “Problems of Soviet Socialist Economy”, Stalin proposed that the public ownership of the means of production “eliminated the exploitation system and created a socialist economic form”, and “the socialist national economy can only be developed on the basis of the economic law of planned development of the national economy”.
In practice, the Soviet Union has formed a highly centralized economic system in terms of ownership structure, economic management and industrial and agricultural development strategies.
Second, implemented the dictatorship of the proletariat led by the Communist Party in politics. Lenin argued that “the transition from capitalism to communism will certainly produce very rich and diverse political forms, but the essence must be the same: all should be proletarian dictatorship”.
Third, promoted monism in social culture, and the importance of subjective conditions such as thought and will is greatly strengthened. Although later Soviet leaders have made partial adjustments to these concepts at different times, they have basically not deviated from this general framework. Countries in the socialist camp headed by the Soviet Union have been deeply influenced by this interpretation path for a long time.
Democratic socialism
As a theoretical system opposite to Soviet socialism, democratic socialism was theorized by Bernstein, a theorist of the Second International, in the late 19th century and it took shape in the mid-20th century. Different from the “system replacement theory” of Soviet socialism, democratic socialism understands the connotation of socialism as a series of value goals with “democracy” as the core. “Without democracy, there is no socialism, and without socialism, there is no democracy.” Around “democracy”, the three basic value orientations of “freedom, justice and solidarity and mutual assistance” have been formed. The shift from “system replacement theory” to “value goal theory” reflects the change in the Western social democratic parties’ understanding of the source of the legitimacy of socialism. Democratic socialism has abandoned the belief in the historical inevitability of socialism and advocates that the legitimacy of socialism mainly comes from its ethical justice.
Overall Principles of Democratic Socialism
Based on the value connotation of socialism, the overall principles of democratic socialism include:
First, the diversification in guiding ideology.
In 1951, the Socialist International’s “Frankfurt Declaration” attempted to downplay the importance of political beliefs by aiming to “struggle for a system of social justice, good life, freedom and world peace”.
In 1959, the German Social Democratic Party’s “Godesberg Program” further clearly stated that “democratic socialism is rooted in Western Europe’s Christian ethics, humanism and classical philosophy”.
Second, gradual reform is the main line and policy. In the important conference statements of the Socialist International, socialism is regarded as a long-term and lasting task in the pursuit of basic values.
Third, the ultimate goal is to achieve “democratic” socialism. The purpose of socialism is no longer to achieve the socialization of the means of production through a revolutionary leap, but to implement “comprehensive democratization” of society.
On the basis of these principles, Western social democratic parties have launched a series of policy propositions, the common characteristics of which include:
First, abandoning the single public ownership of the means of production and implementing a mixed economic system in the economy, advocating the use of macroeconomic control policies to ensure fair distribution;
Second, advocating parliamentary democracy and multi-party system in politics, advocating the realization of socialism through parliamentary democracy;
Third, promoting a welfare system in social policy, and the state guarantees citizens’ employment, education, medical care, pension, housing and other rights. In a nutshell, the policy proposition of democratic socialism is a combination of a mixed economic system, political liberalism and the construction of a welfare society. Western social democratic parties once regarded communism as the opposite of socialism. Willy Brandt, former chairman of the Socialist International, once said that “drawing a clear line with communism has become the decisive criterion in the self-expression of post-war social democratic parties.”
The communism here referred to Soviet socialism. The “Statement on Socialism and Communism” of the London Conference of the Executive Bureau of the Socialist International in 1956 declared that “socialism and communism have nothing in common.” In the course of historical evolution, democratic socialism has evolved into a form of social regulation within the capitalist order and no longer pursues fundamental changes in the social system. In the process of transformation of capitalism, democratic socialism was also transformed in reverse and eventually integrated into the capitalist system.
Part II. The Origin and Dual Implications of Socialist Thought
Soviet socialism and democratic socialism have always been closely related to the ideas of Marx and Engels. So why did socialism split in history? The traditional view attributes this to the split of the Second International, believing that the right and center within the Second International betrayed Marxism and moved towards reformism and revisionism. According to the socialism interpretation system of Western social democratic parties, the revolutionary claims of the left faction within the Second International were not applicable to the actual situation at the time.
“At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the rift between socialist theory and practice widened, and under such circumstances, revisionism within the socialist workers’ movement emerged.” If we go deep into the depths of social history, we will find that the split of the Second International is not the cause of the division between Eastern and Western socialism, but instead split of the Second International is only result.
Some scholars have explained the diversified development of socialism from the perspective of different social and historical conditions and proposed that “the characteristics of the social organizational structures of different regions entering ‘world history’ and their different positions in the world system make the conditions for the development and function of socialism inevitably different, and even very different. This is the objective root cause of the irresistible diversification of world socialism as it developed in the 20th century.” The socialist movement is “part of the overall world historical process. While socialism influences history, it is also essentially changing itself under the influence of history.” This perspective is very inspiring for us to understand the deep-seated reasons for the division of socialism, and it also prompts us to further think about whether there are other important reasons besides the objective basis? Tracing back to the source, we can find that the origin of socialist thought and connotation evolution of socialist thought can answer this question to some extent.
Definitions of “socialism”
If there are several most difficult words in the history of human thought, “socialism” should be one of them. Researchers have counted that there are more than 500 definitions of “socialism”. Among the various definitions, we rarely find the connotation of “socialism” in comparison with “communism”. In socialist countries, “socialism is the primary stage of communism” has always been regarded as the orthodox view, so the study of the relationship between the two has not been deeply studied for a long time.
In fact, the conceptual connotations and relationship of “socialism” and “communism” have gone through different stages of development before the 20th century and generally formed the development path of “a)utopianism—-b)socialism and communism—-c) scientific socialism”.
Although we now often regard the publication of the book “Utopia” by Moore as a symbol of the birth of modern socialism, as a concept opposite to capitalism, the word “socialism” did not officially appear until the early 19th century.
Due to the limitations of productive forces and class development, although the knowledgeable people who shouted for the proletariat before the 19th century criticized private ownership, their cognition often had a strong feudal or religious color, and their understanding of capitalism mostly remained at the perceptual level. The concepts that we later called “socialism” and “communism” were in a chaotic, unformed but about to break out of the ground during this period.
So in this sense, the anti-capitalist thoughts and movements before the 19th century can be called “utopianism”. In the early 19th century, the capitalist economy developed rapidly and class contradictions became increasingly fierce, which finally led to the development of “utopianism” into two major schools of thought: “socialism” and “communism”.
According many researches, the term “socialism” in the modern sense first appeared in the French Saint-Simonian official newspaper “The Earth” in 1832, and then became popular in Europe and the United States. The term “communism” was originally used mainly in some secret revolutionary societies in Paris in the 1830s. Due to the common critical attitude towards capitalism, the common pursuit of building an ideal society beyond capitalism, and the common pursuit of collective and collaborative social organization forms, there is a considerable degree of homogeneity between the connotations of “socialism” and “communism”, so these two terms are often used together. But if the two are completely consistent, why haven’t they become a unified concept? In fact, in the first half of the 19th century, socialists and communists were usually not the same group.
Saint-Simon, Fourier and their followers were considered representatives of socialists, while communists mainly referred to Cabet, Blanqui, De Samy, Weitling and their followers. Later, they were also called utopian socialists and communists. These two groups showed obvious differences on some key issues.
First, on the issue of private ownership
Socialists criticized private ownership but do not advocate its abolition. For example, Saint-Simon’s “industrial system” allows the existence of private property. Communists usually clearly advocated the abolition of private ownership. For example, Cabet firmly argued that the way to eradicate social ills is to “eliminate inequality, abolish private ownership and currency, and replace them with all systems of equality and common property.” Weitling shouted that “private property is the root of all evil.”
Second, on the issue of class recognition
Socialists usually do not have clear class attributes. They advocate class reconciliation to ease social contradictions. They “do not want to liberate a certain class first, but want to liberate all mankind immediately.”
On the other hand Communists have clear proletarian attributes. They understand social relations through class struggle and emphasize class oppression and class antagonism. Blanqui once denounced the so-called wages for “passing down two parallel legacies of poverty and wealth, enjoyment and pain from generation to generation.”
Third, on the issue of how to realize the new society.
Socialism is mainly manifested in advocating moderate social reforms. The ideal society envisioned by Saint-Simon is a society coordinated by “new Christianity,” and social change “should be achieved in a peaceful way.” Fourier’s cooperative system was mainly realized through peaceful propaganda and exemplary demonstration, and everyone is “based on voluntary loyalty”. On the contrary, communism is generally associated with violent struggle, revolutionary dictatorship, etc. This feature is deeply influenced by Babeuf, Blanqui, De Samy, Weitling and others who actively participated in the revolutionary movement at that time.
Fourth, on the issue of relying on force
The realization of socialism mainly relies on the ideological enlightenment and generous help of the bourgeoisie and the upper middle class, while the realization of communism relies on the proletariat and the masses at the bottom of society. Among these pioneers, Owen was a relatively special one. In terms of attitude towards private ownership and class attributes, Owen was close to communists, but in terms of the way to realize a new society and relying on strength, Owen was close to socialists. This characteristic precisely illustrates the complexity of the ideological relationship between socialism and communism. The dual relationship attributes of homogeneity and heterogeneity have become the inherent genes of the evolution of the relationship between socialism and communism. In different social and historical conditions, the two reflect the contradictory tension of confluence or separation.
By the mid-19th century, various socialist and communist thoughts filled the minds of the proletariat, bringing ideological progress while also causing ideological confusion. Out of the practical need to unify thoughts and promote the proletarian movement, Marx and Engels put the creation of a set of scientific theories on the agenda.
This scientific attempt was more comprehensively reflected in the revolutionary program “The Communist Manifesto” written by them for the Communist League. The “Manifesto” is a treatise with a distinct communist color. From its emphasis on the abolition of private ownership, class struggle, and proletarian revolution, it is not difficult to see its relevance to the early 19th century communist thought.
But the “Manifesto” not only embodied a single communist tendency. Instead, the ideas of the “Manifesto” in terms of social history and political economy were also influenced by early 19th century socialists. For example, Saint-Simon has realized the decisive role of economic issues in society and advocated that “the establishment of property rights and the laws that respect them are the only basis that can be provided for political society.”
Engels once said that the recognition that economic conditions are the basis of the political system has already been expressed in Saint-Simon in its embryonic state. Fourier’s views on social history were also prominent among his contemporaries. Fourier divided human history into four stages: barbarism, savagery, patriarchy, and civilization. Each stage developed in contradiction. In the civilized era, that is, the capitalist era, “everything is a vicious cycle.” Fourier also raised the issue of economic crisis caused by capitalist overproduction. Engels commented that “Fourier mastered dialectics as skillfully as his contemporary Hegel,” and clearly stated that he and Marx “inherited Saint-Simon, Fourier and Owen.” These socialist and communist ideas were creatively developed by Marx and Engels. It can be said that the communism in the Manifesto is essentially “social communism” – here, socialist and communist ideas are integrated.
Of course, Marx and Engels did not simply blend these two ideas, but achieved innovation and transcendence in the fusion. For utopian socialists and communists, “society only shows ills, and eliminating these ills is the task of thinking rationality”, so they always show theoretical poverty in practice. Because Marx and Engels applied the two major discoveries of historical materialism and surplus value theory to the pursuit of socialism and communism that criticized capitalism and focused on the happiness of the people, scientific socialist theory was formed. On the other hand, it was the “unfinished” exploration by utopian socialism and communism that prompted Marx and Engels to study related theories in depth.
This attempt at fusion and innovation by Marx and Engels had very realistic political considerations at the time, that is, to unite more forces to join the proletarian revolutionary cause. By the 1870s, as the term “socialism” became increasingly accepted by the working class, Marx and Engels began to use the term “socialism” more and more. The spread of the book “The Development of Socialism from Utopia to Science” made “scientific socialism” widely spread as a synonym for Marx and Engels’s doctrine. The change in the use of terms does not represent a change in the thoughts of Marx and Engels, but because by this period, “scientific socialism” in their context was actually equivalent to “scientific communism”. The theory of scientific socialism was created by Marx and Engels after integrating and transcending the previous socialist and communist ideas using their outstanding social history theory and exploitation theory. The formation of the theory of scientific socialism has greatly promoted the confluence of socialist and communist ideas and the workers’ movement.
On the other hand, the duality of the relationship between socialism and communism has also made the socialist discourse after integration always contain complex dual genes, which in turn affects the direction of the socialist historical process.
Part 3. The Paths of the Two Socialist Views
Scientific socialism became an important guiding ideology of the European socialist movement in the mid-to-late 19th century because it was a theory that met the needs of the working class under the social conditions at that time.
At that time, the capitalist system itself did not have sufficient regulatory and repair capabilities, and workers’ rights could not be guaranteed. The proletariat had a strong sense of struggle, and the way of fighting for power by radical means was recognized by many proletarians, so they needed ideological theories that matched their needs. At that time, people paid more attention to the anti-capitalist commonality of socialism and communism and tended to unite various forces that criticized capitalism.
Revolutionary Marxism was deeply rooted in people’s hearts at that time. However, due to the inherent complex genes of socialist discourse, when the level of economic development, political and social structure, class relations and class power comparison changed, as a reuslt people’s value judgments and intellectual levels change, socialist discourse has changed and underwent corresponding changes. The history of ideological development shows the history of the economic and social structure behind it.
In a constantly changing environment, the development, change, and division of theories are all possible. But thoughts, concepts, morality, etc. also have their own independence and affect the development of society to a considerable extent. Therefore, whether it is Soviet socialism or democratic socialism, we must analyze their formation from an overall basis and pay attention to the internal motivation and generation logic of these changes. This is also the inspiration brought to us by Marx’s historical materialism methodology. The historical evolution and diversified generation path of world socialism are fundamentally the result of the comprehensive effects of the four dimensions of economic development, political structure, class relations and ideological concepts in different time and space on the basis of the dual genes of socialism.
In Western Europe, socialism was an endogenous existence.
The systematic socialist concept was born in Western Europe, where capitalism was the most developed in the world at that time and the proletariat had already formed. This endogenous socialist thought was based on the development of productive forces, development of capital, social and political structure and class relations, and therefore it would inevitably change accordingly in response to their changes. At the end of the 19th century, Western Europe developed a prosperous market economy.
Taking Germany as an example, Germany experienced a period of rapid economic development in the 20 years around 1900. “Between 1890 and 1914 alone, Germany’s net national product almost tripled; the average annual economic growth rate exceeded 3% – the level of economic development achieved was not surpassed until the “economic miracle” period after World War II.” The continuous expansion of the market and the enhanced adaptability of industry and commerce have improved the crisis regulation ability of the capitalist system to a certain extent. With the rapid development of the economy, the democratic system has also gradually become popular. At the same time, changes have also occurred in labor relations and social class structures. Workers’ wages have increased, working hours have shortened, and labor-capital relations have been eased to a certain extent. The ownership and management rights of enterprises were increasingly separated, and the number of new professional groups, the “staff class”, has increased significantly, which constituted an important source of the middle class. These groups have become dependent on the capitalist economy and have agreed that the development of capitalism can enable them to have a better life, thus they lost the enthusiasm to overthrow the capitalist system. As a result, there has been a shift from radical revolutionary socialist ideology to moderate reformist socialist ideology in Western Europe. The “socialism” connotation that originally emphasized economic rights and which advocated reform has become prominent, while the “communism” connotation that emphasized political struggle and violent revolution has become less “attractive”. Although the Second International had a fierce debate on revolutionism and reformism, reformism has increasingly gained the upper hand in reality, and revisionism represented by Bernstein was formed ideologically.
Regarding the meaning of revisionism, Bernstein explained it this way: “Revisionism, a word that is basically only meaningful for theoretical issues, it is translated into political terms as reformism, that is, a policy of systematic reform work, which is opposed to the policy of treating revolutionary catastrophes as a desirable or recognized inevitable stage of the movement.” Bernstein also argued that capitalism has the ability to self-regulate and self-repair.
The development of parliamentary democracy has given the working class the opportunity to use legal means to fight for rights and interests and even gain political power. The middle class has expanded, and society has not moved towards polarization between the rich and the poor. Bernstein did not regard socialism as a distant goal, but an ongoing process. “The movement is everything” was his most well-known proposition.
To a certain extent, revisionism can be said to be a new development of the socialist ideas of the early 19th century at the end of the 19th century. At that time, similar disputes over the line occurred in Germany, France, Britain, Belgium, Italy, Russia, etc. Lenin also admitted that the emergence of revisionism has its social roots: “The inevitability of revisionism is determined by its class roots in modern society. Revisionism is an international phenomenon.”
Most of the main ideas of democratic socialism in the 20th century came from the concretization and further elaboration of revisionism. When a political concept forms a tradition, principle and operating model, it will develop a set of institutional inertia. Over time, the means of management and regulation replaced the goal of abolishing the capitalist system. The prosperous economy, “abundant society” and welfare system of the Western “Golden Age” after World War II almost eliminated the democratic socialists’ resistance to capitalism. Thus democratic socialists changed from opponents of capitalism to defenders, although their defense often appeared in the form of criticism and reform.
In Russia, socialism was exogenous at first.
When the advanced socialist thoughts from the West acted on Russia, where productive forces was relatively backward, it would inevitably produce a chemical reaction different from that of the West. At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, compared with the early industrialization of Western Europe, the development of democratic system, the diversification of class structure and the easing of class conflicts, Russia was still a typical monarchy. Although the Tsarist reforms greatly accelerated the pace of modernization in Russia, their essence was to defend the interests of the autocratic ruling class. The domestic economic structure and regional development in Russia were uneven, a large number of class privileges and remnants of serfdom were still retained, the vast majority of the people lived in poverty, and class contradictions were very acute. According to statistics, “from 1901 to 1904, there were more than 500,000 registered strikers in Russia, and strikes were often accompanied by political demonstrations.” “During the revolution from January 1905 to June 1907, nearly 4.6 million people participated in strikes.”
The suppression of the struggles of the lower classes by the ruling class further stimulated the public’s resistance consciousness and struggle practice. Therefore, when people came into contact with socialist ideas from the West, they naturally tended to accept the communist genes in these socialist ideas. When revolutionary Marxism was questioned in the West, it became a good way for backward countries in the East to catch up with the West and overcome the shortcomings of capitalism. Lenin proposed in What is to be Done? that the emergence of Russian socialist thought was “the natural and inevitable result of the ideological development of revolutionary socialist intellectuals.” When the revolutionary consciousness that emerged internally collided with foreign ideological theories, Russia’s unique authoritative, prestigious socialist concept, Leninism, was formed.
Russia’s historical and cultural traditions and social conditions made Lenin emphasize the centralized and unified leadership of the party and the inculcation of socialist consciousness to the people. “The characteristic of Russia lacks political liberalism and democratic traditions. Parliamentary politics, freedom of the press and publication, and free trade union activities are almost unheard of. Socialist parties could not work legally. The number of Russian workers was still small. Most of them have just changed from farmers to workers. They lacked organizational experience and have not reached the level of knowledge and consciousness comparable to that of Western European workers at that time. More than 90% of the workers were farmers, and the vast majority of them were illiterate.”
Lenin’s emphasis on the group of professional revolutionaries, the requirement for strict organizational discipline, and the emphasis on the power of the masses all reflect typical elements of communist genes. Lenin’s thoughts laid the foundation for the Soviet socialist outlook in the 20th century and also made communism a distinctive feature of the Communist Party that distinguishes it from the Social Democratic Party.
Unlike the Western European Social Democratic Party, the task facing the Communist Party of Russia and other late-developing countries was to completely smash the old society and build a new society. Socialism in Russia and in other late-developing countries was closely linked to the needs of national rejuvenation. Therefore, the socialist construction of late-developing countries usually has clear modernization and industrialization goals. This model is called “developmental socialism” by British scholar Donald Sassoon, which “can be described as an ideology of modernization or development.
Although their ultimate goal is to build a socialist society, their actual tasks included building an industrialized society.” In order to achieve rapid development and gain an advantageous position in the competition with advanced modernized countries, the state led system has become a realistic choice. The reason why the theoretical system of Soviet socialism in the 20th century had a huge impact is that it broadened the theoretical connotation and extension of socialism, created a precedent for the integration of socialism with national independence and national modernization, and created a brand-new social development path that has never appeared in human history.
However, the shortcomings of the ideology of this Soviet socialism and its political system also laid the groundwork for the ill-fated fate of socialism in the 20th century.
Part 4. Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era Leading the new direction of world socialism in the 21st century
In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the dramatic changes in Eastern Europe and the disintegration of the Soviet Union dealt a heavy blow to socialism, and democratic socialism also declined in the late 20th century. In order to survive, Western social democratic parties turned to neoliberalism, but the “middle-of-the-road” transformation of Western social democratic parties brought a brief respite to the social democratic parties while also making them increasingly deviate from the direction of socialism. In recent years, the rise of right-wing populist forces has once again brought severe challenges to the social democratic parties. In sharp contrast, China’s socialist cause has achieved great success. China’s socialist theory and practice were deeply influenced by the Soviet Union, which was also the result of multiple factors such as China’s political and economic conditions, social class relations and ideology in the past.
China was poor and weak in the early 20th century, and the Chinese nation suffered from severe suffering. Progressive Chinese people tried to save China in a Western way, but when the ancient Eastern civilization collided with Western civilization, various rejection reactions occurred. Although the people with lofty ideals were determined to completely change society, they suffered from ideological confusion and had no way to save the country. The success of the October Revolution in Russia provided a new choice for the Chinese people who were looking for a way out for national liberation at that time. The introduction of Marxism-Leninism made people realize the realistic possibility of combining socialism with national rejuvenation. As a result, advanced leaders of the Chinese people turned to socialism. For a long time, the Soviet model was regarded as the only correct socialist model by the socialist camp, and China was also deeply influenced by it. Since the reform and opening up, China has broken through the Soviet model, formed socialism with Chinese characteristics, and experienced a transformation from “developmental socialism” to “shared socialism”.
China combines socialist principles with the market, and while using market tools, Chinese socialism exerts the government’s macro-control capabilities, forming a unique development pattern of “socialist principles-market-government” which are in three-dimensional interaction. China’s socialist construction in the new era presents a distinct sharing orientation, striving to “achieve high-quality development with innovation as the first driving force, coordination as an endogenous feature, green as a universal form, openness as the only way, and sharing as the fundamental purpose”.(Xi Jinping)
From development orientation to sharing orientation, socialism with Chinese characteristics has gone through a process from being based on the local to going global, and socialism has been continuously endowed with new contemporary connotations and world significance. The latest achievement of Chinese Marxism, socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era, will become the banner representing the new direction of world socialism in the 21st century.
On the one hand, Chinese Marxism strives to achieve the unity of socialism with Chinese characteristics and world socialism. China’s socialist development has been deeply influenced by the wave of world socialism, and China has also made important contributions to the advancement of world socialism. China has played an important role in the process of socialism advancing from one country to multiple countries, from a single model to diversified development models, encountering developmental crises and striving in low tides.
At present, the core force of world socialism has moved eastward, and China has become the mainstay of world socialism. Socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era has created a new realm of Marxism in the 21st century, opened up a new path for socialist practice, and will lead the new direction of world socialism in the 21st century.
On the other hand, Chinese Marxism strives to achieve the unity of China’s modernization and world development. In his speech at the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China, CPC General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized that “we adhere to and develop socialism with Chinese characteristics, promote the coordinated development of material civilization, political civilization, spiritual civilization, social civilization, and ecological civilization, create a new path of Chinese-style modernization, and create a new form of human civilization.”
The Chinese path of modernization has broken the monopoly of Western modernization, declared the bankruptcy of the Western unilinear historical view, successfully opened up a new form of development for latecomer countries, and expanded the path for developing countries to modernize.
China’s achievements have demonstrated the strong vitality of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the long-term development potential of socialism and have profoundly influenced the development trend and pattern of the world. In the future, China will become the most reliable and solid bastion for the revitalization of world socialism, and will continue to contribute Chinese wisdom, Chinese solutions and Chinese strength to world development and human civilization.