New Quality Productive Forces; A Tentative Discussion
We Should Further Develop Our Grasp of Historical Materialism as CPC Leadership Proposes the Concept of New Quality Productive Forces
Can the distinction Between Socialism and Capitalism be Made at the Level of Productive Forces?
Author Prof. Hou Huiqin, focuses on Marxist Philosophy, former prominent leader and scholar of Marxism Academy attached to Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
From the Journal of World Socialism Studies No. 5， 2024
Introduction
Looking from the Marxist perspective, the level of labor productivity is not only determined by the quantity of material products produced, but also by factors such as the social status of workers and the social value of labor. Marx has profoundly revealed the contradiction of labor productivity under capitalism: ”Under the modern (capitalist) system, productivity lies not only in the fact that it may make human labor more effective or make natural and social forces more productive, but also in the fact that it makes labor cheaper or makes the productivity of labor for workers lower.”
The advanced character of productive forces is not only reflected in advanced science and technology and material equipment, but also in the workers’ control over the labor process. Especially the latter aspect, we should pay more attention to it when discussing new productive forces today.
The theory of productive forces has been a weak point in the study of historical materialism in China. The proposition of new-quality productive forces by the CPC leadership can promote us to further develop our grasp of historical materialism and we can develop new theories on productive forces. Thus, we can enrich the Marxist theory of productive forces
To deeply understand this profound, and significant scientific assertion of new-quality productive forces, it is necessary to comprehensively review the Marxist theory of productive forces from 2 aspects: One is we should make new innovation in the criteria for defining productive forces to distinguish socialism from capitalism from the perspective of productive forces, thereby laying a solid historical foundation for China’s path to modernization. The second is we should review Marxist productive forces theory’s response to the challenges of our times in terms of how humans should control material technologies and how labor should dominate capital. In short, we need to achieve an overall understanding of new quality productive forces from the perspectives of worldview and methodology.
The new-quality productive forces is a topic of intense academic discussion in China at present, as it offers a solution to the high-quality development issue that we need to address with all our efforts today. However, the new-quality productivity is a profound, rich and significant scientific assertion. It is far from sufficient to interpret it merely from the economic development perspectives such as technological innovation and industrial upgrading. Marx’s theory of productivity itself is a foundational theory of historical materialism, and the new-quality productivity is an idea of innovative significance in terms of world outlook in the new era. Therefore, this article focuses on the development of the materialist conception of history by the new quality of productive forces and aims to gain an overall understanding from the perspective of world outlook and methodology, in the hope of contributing to the elaboration of the new theory of productive forces.
Part 1. How Can Productive Forces Overtake Those of Capitalism?
Engels pointed out that Marxism is a theoretical school that “has found the key to understanding the entire history of society in the history of the development of labor.” Therefore, the theory of productive forces is the theoretical foundation of historical materialism. All innovative developments of historical materialism can be attributed to Marx’s productivity theory.
- Marx’s Subversive Innovation to the Traditional Theory of Productive Forces
To explore the development of Marx’s theory of productive forces, it is necessary to understand how Marx established his own concept of productive forces. Unlike the concept of production relations, the concept of productive forces was not originated by Marx. Before him, there were at least two relatively systematic theories of productive forces: the theory of productive forces in bourgeois classical economics and the theory of productive forces in German trade protectionism. The common point of the two theories of productive forces is to justify the acquisition of surplus value by capitalism. However, due to their different positions in the development of capitalism, their theoretical expressions are quite different. Marx established his own theory of productive forces on the basis of critically absorbing these concepts.
1.Criticism of the Productivity Theory in Classical Economics
Classical economics, represented by Adam Smith, equated wealth with its creation, thus holding that the pursuit of wealth and the continuous realization of “exchange value” through division of labor, free trade, and private property were not only the means of wealth creation but also the essence of wealth. From this perspective, he affirmed that industrial productivity was the best “ability to create wealth”, and the amount of “exchange value” created was the sole criterion for evaluating the superiority or inferiority of productivity. Smith’s concept of productivity has two characteristics: First, wealth and its creation are regarded as a natural process of material increase, involving only quantitative change without qualitative transformation. By treating “exchange value” as a “thing”, it also objectifies the relationship between productivity and all wealth creation, turning it into a purely “natural relationship”. People exist only as “commodities”, thus people are things, human power is material power, and human value is the value of equivalent goods, everything can be reduced to “exchange value”. Second, “exchange value” is the unity of individual and social interests. As long as it can be transformed into “exchange value”, wealth is moral and beyond reproach. The concept of productivity held by Smith and other liberal scholars reflected the unscrupulous pursuit of wealth by the bourgeoisie at that time. Their view of productivity as an objective force for creating material wealth and obtaining material benefits has its rationality. However, their denial of the social and historical nature of productivity, the obliteration of the distinction between the value and use value of commodities, and their use of this to express the inherent rationality and unsurpassability of the capitalist mode of production is a serious mistake.
Theoretically speaking, the mistake made by Smith and others on the issue of productivity lies in their failure to understand that productivity and its way of creating wealth is a “natural history” (that is, the unity of materiality and social historicity) process, and their failure to understand the distinction between use value (material attribute) and value (the social relationship attribute which they wrongly called “exchange value”). As a result, they generalized and quantified it as the accumulation process of material wealth, failing to see its own qualitative change and the inevitable social revolution it would trigger, thus denying the qualitative change and leap in human history. Marx’s theory of productivity criticized the tendency of liberal economics to purely materialize productivity, revealed the fundamental role of productivity in human historical activities, and discovered that the contradictory movement between productivity and production relations is the source of all historical changes. Among them, the concept of production relations is Marx’s original contribution. Through production relations as the medium, Marx established the intrinsic connection between productivity and various social changes, revealing the regularity of human historical development. Lenin pointed out when elaborating on the significance of production relations: “As soon as one analyzes material social relations (that is, social relations formed without people’s consciousness: people establish production relations with each other when exchanging products, without even realizing that there are social production relations here), it is possible to immediately see repetition and regularity, and generalize the systems of various countries into the basic concept of social forms.” Through production relations, the dual attributes of productivity, namely materiality and social historicity, are established, and the view of regarding it as a mere material force (technology, tools, industries, products) cannot hold.
2.Criticism of Friedrich List’s Trade Protectionism in Germany
The trade protectionism of Friedrich List, a contemporary of Marx, has lost the courage to justify capitalism’s wealth-grabbing in a forthright manner and thus is eager to distance itself from the greedy nature of capitalism’s pursuit of profit. Its theory of productivity has a tendency to glorify the capitalist mode of production. The basic approach is to strictly distinguish between wealth and the force that creates wealth, and to strictly differentiate what he regards as the “evil exchange value” (money) as material wealth from productivity as the spiritual force that creates wealth. He believes that productivity, as the true force that creates wealth, is a “spirit that inspires personal enthusiasm” and is the fundamental guarantee of a nation’s strength. Smith’s mistake lies in “explaining spiritual power with material relations and thus going astray”, which is actually to miss the point. Trade protection may cause a country to temporarily sacrifice some material interests, but it can ensure the acquisition of powerful productivity, which is fundamental. “What I sacrifice in the form of exchange value is something extern alto me; what I win in the form of productivity is my self-acquisition.”
In his view, maintaining the creativity of wealth is far more important than the wealth itself.
List’s theory of productivity was also non-historical. However, unlike Smith, it has a distinct idealist tint. He starts entirely from value preferences, spiritualizing productivity and labeling it as an inner force that is human, infinite, and embodies creative passion, while classifying the material achievements of productivity as inhuman, finite, and a trap that leads to human degradation. He artificially severs the relationship between productivity and exchange value. He completely fails to see that “transforming material wealth into exchange value is the result of the existing social system and the outcome of a developed private property society.” This fully demonstrates that wealth and the power to create wealth are inseparable, and the material attributes and social forms of wealth are also inseparable. In response to List’s mistake, Marx’s theory of productivity, while clarifying the objective attributes of productivity and production relations, emphasizes their dialectical unity. There is no such thing as a dichotomy between “good” productivity and “evil” exchange value, and it is even more impossible to imagine that the two can be arbitrarily “decoupled” or “disconnected”.
(1)Marx’s theory of productive forces is the dialectical essence of historical materialism.
Marx’s theory of productive forces embodies the thoroughness of materialist dialectics, forming an organic system of contradictions. Firstly, Marx’s theory of productive forces is a unity of external logic and thinking logic. There is no doubt that productive forces are an objective force that people cannot freely choose, determining that human history has an objective inevitability that is not subject to subjective will. However, productive forces are also the product of human historical activities, reflecting the unremitting pursuit of humans to create conditions more suitable for their own survival and development. Thus, on the one hand, productive forces exhibit an externality that humans must passively accept; on the other hand, they manifest an internality of constantly realizing their own requirements, being a unity of conformity to laws and purposefulness. As Engels summarized, dialectics can be reduced to the science of the general laws governing the movement of the external world and human thinking. “These two series of laws are essentially the same, but they are different in manifestation. This is because the human mind can consciously apply these laws, while in nature these laws are unconsciously realized in the form of external necessity, amid endless superficial contingencies, and for the most part this has also been the case in human history.” Marx’s theory of productive forces reveals the objective trend and internal basis of human history moving from necessity to freedom.
Secondly, productivity is the unity of objective natural relations and material social relations. Although historical activities are human activities, the way, motivation and outcome of these activities are not determined by human subjective will, but by the way and level at which people use their own nature (physical strength and tools) to carry out “material transformation” with the external natural world. The invention and use of tools (and corresponding technologies), the way people survive in nature and their degree of freedom, are all processes of “natural history”. At the same time, productivity is not only the measure of the material transformation relationship between humans and nature, but also the foundation of the “material” social relations among humans. The “division of labor “contained in productivity is not only natural division of labor based on age, gender and skills, but also includes social division of labor and cooperation. Thus, with productivity as the basis of activities and the production and reproduction of material resources as the mode of activity, the social structure theory of historical materialism was formed. Marx thus pointed out: “Under a certain level of development of people’s productive forces, there will be certain forms of exchange and consumption. At a certain stage of development of production, exchange and consumption, there will be corresponding forms of social systems, corresponding family, class or caste organizations, in a word, there will be a corresponding civil society.” ①
“Society” is no longer a collection of concepts, butane organic body of objective relations that can be scientifically grasped.
Ultimately, productivity is the unity of the expansion of the common interests of humanity and the changes in the specific interest pattern. The historical trend is that humanity constantly creates more suitable living conditions through labor. Productivity, which embodies this objective trend, is irresistible. However, the common interests of humanity in reality will form a corresponding social interest pattern based on the state of productivity, and this pattern will be constantly adjusted with the changes in productivity until a revolutionary replacement occurs. Therefore, Marx and Engels asserted: “According to our view, all historical conflicts originate from the contradiction between productive forces and forms of interaction. “②
The law of the contradictory movement between productive forces and production relations not only reveals the general laws of human history full of contingency, making history an object of scientific cognition and the future a field of scientific prediction, but more importantly, it establishes the people’s status as the historical subject. The demands of productivity development are the demands of the common interests of the people; the irresistible nature of productivity development fully demonstrates that the people are supreme and the interests of the people are supreme.
(3) The Development of Marx’s Productivity Criteria by New Quality Productive Forces
Marx’s theory of productive forces has established a scientific criterion for productive forces, namely, whether it is in line with the development requirements of productive forces is the ultimate basis for determining whether a social system and social forces can exist; and whether it can promote the better development of productive forces is the fundamental basis for measuring whether a social system and the social forces it relies on are advanced. Therefore, for socialism to prove its superiority over capitalism, it must create a higher labor productivity than capitalism. But what is the standard for measuring the level of labor productivity?
From the Marxist perspective, the level of labor productivity is not only determined by the quantity of material products produced, but also by factors such as the social status of workers and the social value of labor. Marx profoundly revealed the contradiction of labor productivity under capitalism: ”Under the modern (capitalist) system, productivity lies not only in the fact that it may make human labor more effective or make natural and social forces more productive, but also in the fact that it makes labor cheaper or makes the productivity of labor for workers lower.” ③
The socialized production under capitalism will inevitably, in the process of striving to increase labor productivity, intensify the deprivation and devastation of workers.
Therefore, creating a labor productivity higher than that of capitalism inherently involves two aspects: the efficiency of material production and the efficiency of the labor force. Due to the weak economic foundation before the establishment of the socialist system in China, in terms of the efficiency of material production, it lags behind that of the developed Western countries.
The gap is huge. But China has fully stimulated the creative enthusiasm and dedication of its workers, far outperforming capitalism in terms of the efficiency of labor. China has established the material foundation that capitalism takes hundreds of years to develop in just a few decades, demonstrating the superiority of socialism over capitalism in terms of labor productivity. Facts have proved that the development of productive forces cannot be ignored in the relationship between people in the production process, and the core of this relationship is the workers’ control and management rights over production activities. China’s experience is: “In the management of enterprises, we should adopt a combined cooperation of the a)masses of workers, b) leading cadres and technical personnel. Cadres should participate in labor, and workers should participate in management. Unreasonable rules and regulations should be constantly reformed, etc. These aspects all belong to the relationship between people in the labor process. Whether this relationship is changed or not has a direct impact on promoting or hindering the development of productive forces.”
It can be seen that the advancement of productive forces is not only reflected in advanced science and technology and material equipment, but also in the workers’ control over the labor process. Especially the latter aspect, we should pay more attention to it when discussing new productive forces today.
There is no doubt that under the socialist market economy, to stimulate the creative enthusiasm of workers, we cannot simply copy the practices from non-market economic systems, but we also cannot completely disregard the experiences of previous socialist labor methods. In Marx’s view, ”alienated labor” is essentially not about the hardship of labor or strict management, but rather forced labor; the means of coercion are not the personal dependence and stick rule of slave labor, but rather the dependence on machines and the law of hunger, with the root cause being capital exploitation. Therefore, the key to stimulating the enthusiasm of workers in socialism lies in “voluntary” and “self-reliance (dignity)”. Lenin highly praised the ”Communist Saturday Voluntary Labor”, stating that “it has great historical significance because it shows us the pioneering spirit of workers voluntarily and consciously improving labor productivity, transitioning to new labor discipline, and creating economic and living conditions for socialism.” It is not external coercion but internal voluntary willingness that represents two fundamentally different ways to enhance labor productivity.
The improvement of “total factor productivity” encompasses both the high efficiency of material production and the high efficiency of laborers ‘performance. What is the “leap of optimized combination”? Every optimized combination of laborers, means of labor and objects of labor represents a qualitative change in productive forces. However, the traditional optimized combination was achieved spontaneously through the qualitative change of labor tools, as the saying goes, “The hand mill gave you the feudal society, the steam mill the capitalist society.”④
The “leap of optimized combination “of new productive forces, which are laborers, means of labor and objects of labor, is different from the traditional qualitative change of productive forces: although technological innovation remains the dominant factor in this leap, this dominance is no longer a spontaneous result but a product of conscious control. And the prerequisite for conscious control is the unity of high efficiency in material production and the full play of the efficiency of laborers.
Today, although it has become a consensus that emerging technological innovations such as artificial intelligence are a “double-edged sword”, the issue of how to ensure that these achievements benefit humanity rather than harm it remains far from resolved. In reality, Western developed countries led by the United States have begun to take actions.
Ultimately, the aim is to monopolize scientific and technological achievements, maintain military hegemony, and enjoy the dividends of development alone, which has brought huge uncertainties to scientific and technological innovation and the application of its achievements.
Fundamentally, this is a clear indication that the capitalist mode of production can no longer accommodate new productive forces, and it is an empirical fact that deepens our understanding of new productive forces. Therefore, the correct path to develop new productive forces is to focus on creating a labor productivity higher than that of capitalism. We should integrate the innovation of labor methods with technological innovation to achieve the free development of productive forces, rather than merely focusing on technological innovation for its own sake. Marx scientifically predicted and profoundly expounded on this kind of freedom based on new productive forces: ”In this field, freedom can only be: socialized human beings, producers united together, will rationally regulate the material exchange between themselves and nature, and place it under their common control, rather than allowing it to rule over them as a blind force; they will carry out this material exchange with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions that are most worthy of and suitable for their human nature.”
This is the best interpretation of new productive forces. The most significant difference between it and traditional productive forces lies in that it has transformed from the dual role of construction and destruction to a free and conscious force that promotes the all-round development of human beings and the harmonious coexistence of human beings and nature.
Part II. Can the distinction between socialism and capitalism be made at the level of productive forces?
The new-type productive forces are the advanced productive forces of the contemporary era that are distinct from traditional ones. This raises an unavoidable major question: Are the productive forces of capitalism new-type productive forces? Can they become new-type productive forces? If the new-type productive forces ultimately belong to the socialist mode of production, then how can we distinguish capitalism from socialism at the level of productive forces today? According to historical materialism, the development requirements of productive forces are the root cause of social transformation and the emergence of new social systems. That is to say, the qualitative change of productive forces triggers the qualitative change of production relations and social forms, and eachtype of qualitative productive force is accompanied by a corresponding social form, which is a one-to-one correspondence. However, this self-evident truth has encountered confusion in the socialist transformation that attempts to transcend capitalism: The productive forces of both seem to be the socialized productive forces created by large-scale machine industry. Can we distinguish socialism from capitalism based on the qualitative difference of productive forces?
The Necessity of Distinguishing Capitalism from Socialism from the Perspective of Productive Forces
The issue of differentiating socialism from capitalism in terms of productivity was not urgent in the past for two reasons: First, when Marx discovered historical materialism, his most significant innovation was the formation of the scientific category of “production relations”, thereby establishing the intrinsic connection between the development of productivity and the transformation of social forms. By grasping historical laws from the contradictory movement of productivity and production relations, he opposed the abstract view of productivity that arbitrarily separated it from production relations (such as FriedrichList). Therefore, from the inseparability of production relations and productivity, it was already possible to clearly distinguish socialism from capitalism at the theoretical level. Second, due to the law of uneven development in the era of imperialism, the countries that first experienced socialist revolution and achieved success were mostly in underdeveloped capitalist regions and did not yet have the conditions to contend with capitalism in terms of productivity. Coupled with the long-term “Cold War” situation, we simply regarded planned and proportionate production as the essential attribute of the socialist mode of production to counter the capitalist market economy, and thus got the point of contention wrong. That is to say, for a long period of time in the past, the conditions were no tripe to clarify the superiority of socialism over capitalism from the perspective of productivity.
Today’s situation is quite different. To achieve the second centenary goal of building a modern socialist country by the middle of the 21st century, China needs a modernization that is distinct from capitalism in all respects, and break the illusion that “modernization equals Westernization”.
However, if capitalism and socialism only have quantitative differences in terms of productivity, being merely “developed” and “underdeveloped”, and both now belong to the category of “market economy countries”, then the earliest modernized Western societies would naturally become the model for modernization. How could the myth that “modernization equals Westernization” be broken? This is precisely the basis on which the once highly influential Western “industrial society” theory advocated the convergence of socialism and capitalism. Raymond Aron proposed in 1953 that as industrialization and modernization progress, people will eventually find that socialism and capitalism are merely two varieties of the same type or two forms of the same social type (i.e., the progressive industrial society), and viewing them as opposing poles is merely “ideological dogmatism”. This is also the common view of the main representatives of the Western “industrial society” theory, including Daniel Bell and John Kenneth Galbraith.
The issue is quite clear. If we insist on discussing the fundamental differences between capitalism and socialism merely from the perspectives of production relations (especially ownership) and ideology, we will not be able to effectively refute the fallacies of “convergence of capitalism and socialism” and “modernization equals Westernization”, and it will be difficult to establish the historical confidence of Chinese-style modernization. It is equally clear that merely discussing the differences between socialism and capitalism from the perspective of the inseparability of productive forces and production relations is also insufficient. On the one hand, although productive forces and production relations, as two interdependent aspects of a contradiction, are indeed inseparable, it is also an objective fact that each aspect of the contradiction has its own independence and can be examined separately. On the other hand, merely distinguishing socialism from capitalism based on the connection between productive forces and production relations still focuses on production relations, and the issue of distinguishing them in terms of productive forces has not been truly resolved. From the perspective of ideological confrontations in history, we have been quite assertive in criticizing the “productivism” that detaches from production relations, but the results have not been satisfactory. We have never been able to truly clarify: since productive forces are the decisive aspect of the contradiction and production relations only play a “reactive” role, what advanced productive forces does the advanced socialist production relations aim to maintain, and where exactly is the mistake of the “productivism” standard? Responding to this major issue of historical materialism has become urgent today.
(II) The Possibility of Distinguishing Capitalism from Socialism from the Perspective of Productive Forces
In the past, we had a misunderstanding about productivity, thinking that it only concerned the relationship between humans and nature, and not the social relations among people. Therefore, our previous understanding of productivity was overly focused on its objective and natural attributes, while neglecting its social aspects. There is no doubt that productivity determines the production relations and ultimately the transformation of social forms, which is the most fundamental principle of historical materialism. As the carrier of the common interests of all humanity, productivity has an objective inevitability that is not subject to the subjective will of any class or party. Thus, the development of productivity is an irresistible historical trend. However, in the historical domain, there is no such pure “objectivity” as in nature. The so-called ”objectivity” merely refers to the historical inevitability that is not subject to human will. This historical inevitability must be manifested through people, as the inevitability of people’s historical activities (the inability to freely choose productivity and production relations), the inevitability of the motives and driving forces of historical activities (the objective goal of survival and development cannot be freely chosen), and the inevitability of the direction of historical activities (the free and all-round development of human beings). In this sense, both productivity and production relations are categories of historical materialism that reflect the “natural history” characteristics of human social development and cannot be simply distinguished as “natural” or “social”. In other words, just like production relations, productivity is not only the relationship between humans and nature, but also the social relations among people. Here, “social relations” refer to the common activities of many individuals, regardless of the conditions, methods, or purposes for which they are carried out.
From this, it can be seen that a certain mode of production or a certain stage of industry is always associated with a certain form of common activity ora certain stage of society, and this form of common activity itself is ‘productive forces.’ ⑤
This is an important theoretical basis for distinguishing socialism from capitalism at the level of productive forces.
Since both productive forces and production relations possess dual attributes of nature and society, where lies the distinction between them? The natural material attribute of productive forces is the dominant aspect, which is more often manifested as an external necessity, while the social attribute is the mode of participation through which common production activities are realized. It is the direct basis for the formation of production relations and the focus of the optimal combination and qualitative change of productive forces. Therefore, productive forces are often regarded by people as a “naturally occurring” phenomenon, and their social and historical nature is overlooked. This is not the case with production relations, which are the manifestation of the current interest structure and the most direct interest relationship that determines social interaction among people. They exist in life through the legal form of “property relations”. Therefore, production relations have long been obscured within property relations and misinterpreted as legal relations that people can freely choose. The great contribution of Marx’s materialist conception of history lies in dispelling the idealist veil over production relations and revealing their nature as “material” social relations, which are determined by productive forces and not freely chosen. The choice of production relations does not depend on people’s subjective will but only on the development requirements of productive forces. ”When the material productive forces of society have developed to a certain stage, they come into conflict with the existing relations of production or property relations (which are merely the legal terms for production relations) within which they have hitherto moved. Then these relations turn from being the form of development of the productive forces into their fetters. And with this the epoch of social revolution begins.” Therefore, productive forces have the attribute of social relations, and production relations have the attribute of material relations. These are two key points for accurately grasping the materialist conception of history.
The distinction between productive forces and production relations in social relations provides a theoretical basis for us to differentiate socialism from capitalism at the level of productive forces. The social relations at the level of productive forces are directly determined by the common mode of production activities, and the common mode of activities is in turn dependent on the material force system marked by tools. Therefore, the contradiction of this kind of social relations lies in the relationship between the laborer as a material factor and the laborer as an autonomous factor, which shows a duality of self-affirmation and self-negation. Self-affirmation is an attached combination directly determined by material productive forces, while self-negation is an autonomous collective required after the full development of material productive forces. The integration of capital and machine industry is this self-affirming attached combination: Capital needs the space for unlimited expansion, a unified market for the unobstructed flow of wealth, human resources, technology and industries, and large-scale social division of labor and cooperation, thus promoting modern industry; and since capital is a powerful force that breaks the feudal personal dependence, fragmented state and self-sufficient economy, modern industry has also achieved the expansion of capital. Private ownership has obtained a universal form in modern industry, and Marx thus asserted that “industrial capital is the completed objective form of private property.”
However, negating the autonomy of laborers and making them dependent on the material productive forces of tools is not a sustainable and effective combination of material forces and “social relations”. As laborers grow in strength as a material force factor in “industry” to an unprecedented extent, their autonomy over material productive forces is bound to increase day by day. The self-negation of modern industrial productive forces heralds a new trend of the optimal combination of laborers and material factors. “Tomorrow, these forces will blow up the chains with which the bourgeoisie has separated them from human beings and thus transformed a true social connection into (distorted it into) a social shackle.” ⑥
The “social relations” of productive forces will give way to the autonomous human power of laborers. The objective trend of development is the productive force basis for socialism to surpass capitalism.
(3) New-quality productive forces represent a qualitative change in productive forces that transcends capitalism.
From a superficial perspective, the capitalist productive forces seem to possess the characteristics of new-type productive forces: Firstly, it has an unprecedentedly powerful innovative capacity. “The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionizing the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society.” “Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones.” Secondly, it has the trait of initiating a new stage in human history. “It has created a world market, where the produce of the most distant regions is offered for sale, and where each of the great industrial centers becomes a market for the products of the others. The bourgeoisie, by the exploitation of the world market, has made the country and the town dependent on each other. It has drawn from under the feet of industry the national ground on which it could stand. It has made constant disturbance a permanent condition. “ “It has for the first time created a world history, because it has subjected the production of each nation to the satisfaction of the needs of all the others and because it has thus brought all the nations of the world into contact and interdependence.” With the advent of capitalism, humanity has truly entered a world history. Finally, it has an undeniable historical advancement: “The bourgeoisie, during its rule of less than one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together.” This tremendous capacity for wealth creation was unimaginable in the past. However, this does not mean that it is truly a new-type productive force.
In any case, the high-quality combination of laborers, means of labor and objects of labor achieved by capitalist productive forces and the qualitative change it has brought about are all in the past. When we stress that the new quality of productive forces is different from “traditional productive forces”, it naturally also includes capitalist productive forces. The trend of laborers in the structure of productive forces evolving from “material force” to “autonomous force” foretells that the true new quality of productive forces does not belong to capitalism. Facts have proved that no matter how capitalism is improved, it is impossible to change the nature of laborers’ hired labor. Marx’s profound revelation that capitalism is ruled by “the past” (capital) over “the present” (labor) and its “reification” consequences is always the unchanging nature of this society.
For this reason, capitalism and the development of new-quality productive forces are increasingly out of harmony and even in conflict: The new-quality productive forces led by technological innovation need to address the issue of “AI for good” and other new high-tech challenges, but the nature of capital to pursue maximum profit sets up great uncertainty for solving this problem; the new-quality productive forces that require a fairer competitive environment will inevitably collide with the interests of the international monopolistic capital led by the United States, becoming a real obstacle to the development of this advanced productive force; the development of new-quality productive forces requires sustainable space, but the production and lifestyle of capitalism are essentially unsustainable and cannot meet this demand. In short, new-quality productive forces must be based on maximizing the interests of real human beings and be linked by the harmonious unityof people with people and people with nature. It can be imagined that capitalism will surely be surpassed in the strong development of new quality productive forces.
Part III. Deepening the Understanding of the Modes of Action of Productive Forces: New-Quality Productive Forces Are the Theoretical Cornerstone of China’s Modernization
The development of the materialist conception of history by the new productive forces provides a solid scientific historical perspective for Chinese-style modernization and serves as the theoretical foundation for us to have firm historical confidence and take the initiative in history.
(1)New-quality productive forces determine the nature and characteristics of China’s modernization.
As is well known, according to Marxist theory, all social changes and their corresponding theories originate from the demands of the development of productive forces. Chinese-style modernization is a pioneering achievement of the great social revolution led by the Communist Party of China. It fundamentally differs from Western modernization in terms of the nature of productive forces and the corresponding production relations and social systems. It must be noted that although the concept of “new-type productive forces” was only proposed today, its foundational role in supporting Chinese-style modernization did not start today. It’s just that in the past, we did not explicitly recognize it from the perspective of productive forces. The main reason for this is that we have long remained at the level of the contradiction between productive forces and production relations without delving into the contradictions within productive forces themselves. As a result, we have not revealed the internal mechanism by which productive forces determine production relations, especially how the “social relations” at the level of productive forces determine the “social relations” at the level of production relations. The basis for the emphasis on the decisive role of productive forces in historical materialism is that social division of labor and the corresponding economic forms must adapt to the material productive capacity led by production tools. However, whether production relations adapt to the level of productive forces depends on whether their combination with laborers and production tools is consistent.
The characteristic of private ownership is the direct combination of production tools and individual laborers. Even a large-scale machine tool system that is socialized can be accommodated as long as it can be divided among individuals. Marx thus pointed out: “Up to now we have started from the production tools. It has been shown here that for a certain stage of industrial development, private ownership is necessary. In extractive industries, private ownership and labor are still completely consistent; in small-scale industries and in agriculture up to now, ownership is the inevitable result of the existing production tools.” It can be seen that the adaptation of production relations to productive forces, in terms of outcome, leads to an increase in labor productivity, but in terms of the internal mechanism, its about adapting to the way in which laborers and tools are combined in productive forces.
Similarly, the root cause of the production relations failing to adapt to the development of productive forces lies in the “disconnection” between the laborers and the means of production. With the realization of the electronic and information-based industrial revolution, especially in today’s era of entering the intelligent age, the direct combination of individual laborers and the means of production is increasingly losing its space for existence. Capitalist private ownership has truly entered its historical process of decline. Correspondingly, the “united producers” jointly controlling and consciously applying the new quality of productive forces has become a major historical trend. That is to say, the direct combination of individual laborers and the means of production, as well as the dependence of producers on the means of production, are merely the productive force basis for the existence of private ownership.
It is not difficult to see that the productive forces that support China’s modernization have always been different from those of capitalist modernization: even at the stage when the system of productive tools was not yet well developed, our modernization did not allow for the spontaneous combination of individual laborers and production tools. The trend of producers’ autonomy in material productive forces is the productive basis of the socialist production relations with public ownership as the mainstay. In this sense, meeting the development requirements of new productive forces has always been a solid foundation of China’s modernization. However, as mentioned earlier, since the contradiction between production tools and laborers had not yet reached an antagonistic level on a global scale, the opposition between socialism and capitalism at the level of productive forces was not prominent, and thus this characteristic of socialist productive forces was easily attributed to ideological attributes such as “ideological awareness” and overlooked. Today, we have formed a scientific understanding of “new productive forces”, and we must expound on it as a productive force feature of China’s modernization.
The key here is to take “putting people first” as an inherent requirement for promoting the development of new-quality productive forces. The issue of “material productive forces being jointly controlled by the united producers” proposed by Marx, in the context of promoting the development of new-quality productive forces today, is to address the “people first” principle at the level of productive forces. Different from the “people first” in the political and economic sense, it is not merely a matter of subjectivity.
Cognition and value demands. The people-first principle at the level of productive forces not only reflects the objective human needs and their satisfaction methods that are not subject to human will, but also demonstrates the producers’ autonomy in line with this objective necessity. It is a high-level unity of the two. The people first principle at the level of productive forces determines that Chinese modernization must be socialist modernization that transcends capitalism, and it is bound to have essential attributes such as common prosperity, peaceful development, the coordination of material and spiritual civilizations, and harmonious coexistence between humans and nature.
(II) The guiding role of developing new-quality productive forces in Chinese-style modernization
Productivity is not only the objective foundation of human historical activities but also the leading force in human history creation. Developing new-quality productivity directly targets some deep-seated contradictions and problems in China’s economic development to achieve high-quality growth. To truly open up a path for high-quality development, new-quality productivity requires us to firmly grasp the organic unity of intelligent productivity and autonomous laborers as the fundamental.
Innovation in the conscious control of capital should be emphasized. Self-innovation requires the autonomy of producers, and how to control capital is the key. The development of new quality productivity is prone to “seeing the material but not the people”. By “material”, it not only refers to material productive forces such as industries and technologies, but more fundamentally, it is the “capital” that is active within them. The essence of capital is the value (social transaction) that seizes surplus value, which belongs to the category of social relations. However, due to its inseparable historical connection with use value, it has also become an active factor in material productive forces (“funds”). Therefore, preventing and curbing the social function of capital’s causing polarization, and utilizing capital’s role in activating the funds of material productive forces, is the key to conscious control of capital.
Allowing capital to act recklessly in pursuit for profit is wrong, and being afraid of capital operation is also wrong. Practice has already proven that the controllable utilization of capital under the socialist market economy can be achieved, but there is still a need for new breakthroughs in this regard. The 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China has established the thinking of conscious control of capital from the perspective of systems and mechanisms, that is, “adhering to and improving the basic socialist economic system, unswervingly consolidating and developing the public sector of the economy, unswervingly encouraging, supporting, and guiding the development of the non-public sector of the economy, giving full play to the decisive role of the market in resource allocation, and better playing the role of the government” ⑦.
However, to conscious control capital from the perspective of productive forces, it is still necessary to conduct in-depth research on the reform and innovation of the socialist market economy in adapting to new quality productivity. The socialist market economy is not only the combination of the socialist basic system, core values, and the market economy, but also a market economy supported by new quality productivity. It must constantly make breakthroughs in modern enterprise systems, contemporary market operations, and leading scientific and technological innovation.
Innovation in the way producers unite should be emphasized. The autonomy of producers is mainly reflected in their unity. The key to the optimal combination of production factors lies in the unity of producers. Therefore, the innovation of the way producers unite is of great significance. It should be stressed that the unity of producers is by no means a spontaneous act. It must be based on common interests that transcend personal narrow interests. Organization, education and awareness are indispensable. However, there are the following objective prerequisites for the unity of producers at the level of productive forces: First, the objective historical conditions for realizing the common interests of mankind have been met. In the past long period, the spirit of the times and the common interests were obscured by special interests. The common interests of mankind were “latent” and could only be expressed in a tortuous way, which was called “the cunning of reason” by Hegel. This situation has fundamentally changed today. The common interests of mankind have become an indisputable reality: in China, it is manifested as the “Chinese nation community”, in the world as the “community with a shared future for mankind”, and globally as the “community of life for man and nature”. This indicates that whether you like it or not, “no one can do without the other” is an irresistible historical trend.
Second, the material basis for breaking the monopoly interests has been established. Marx argued that in a situation of widespread poverty, “the struggle for necessities must be resumed, and all the old filth will resurface”⑧, thus making it impossible to truly eliminate polarization. Today’s situation is completely different: both China and the world have a per capita GDP of over 12,000 US dollars, and the material conditions for eradicating absolute poverty have been met. Therefore, changing the development guided by the capricious pursuit of profit by capital and having producers unite to control material production has become an objective requirement of the development of productive forces. This qualitative change at the level of productive forces provides a broad space for us to innovate the way producers unite. We should, on the basis of upholding the leadership of the Party and giving full play to the role of existing labor organizations, pursue the improvement and strengthening of the status of all types of workers as masters, and constantly innovate the way producers unite.
(III) The Historical Significance of New Quality Productive Forces in Establishing Chinese-Style Modernization
From the perspective of developing new productive forces, it is highly necessary to explore the historical significance of achieving the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and creating a new form of human civilization through Chinese-style modernization.
The new type of productive forces have placed before us the unprecedented challenge that humanity must consciously create history, thereby laying the fundamental historical foundation for the historical inevitability of the Chinese-style modernization under the leadership of the Party. On the basis of traditional productive forces, private ownership had its basis for existence, and spontaneity had its rationality. It is precisely for this reason that Western liberals like Hayek could vigorously advocate “spontaneous nature” and “spontaneous freedom”, and use this to attack the consciousness of socialism as an “artificial design” that goes against nature. Today, the development requirements of the new type of productive forces have unambiguously put the issue of the consciousness of historical activities before people. The spontaneous pursuit of personal interests has lost its historical rationality.
The new quality productivity poses challenges that are different from traditional productivity in the following two aspects: First, the challenge of selective innovation. The development of traditional productivity is undoubtedly driven by technological innovation, but the need to make choices before innovation is relatively rare. Today, the development of new quality productivity requires equal emphasis on innovation and selection. There are an increasing number of options that must be prohibited in advance in accordance with the contemporary moral consensus of all humanity, and the common interests of all mankind must be prioritized over the private interests of any individual or country. Second, the challenge of global cooperation and mutual benefit. Traditional productivity (even if it is socialized) is essentially regional and can develop under the “dual” (developed – underdeveloped, center – periphery) pattern. New quality productivity is a global productivity that must develop through mutual cooperation among all countries in the world. Its foundation is mutual benefit and win-win, and its direction is common development. Some monopolistic interests that were once taken for granted will naturally be continuously weakened and even eliminated. The above two points indicate that the development of new quality productivity must consciously be guided by the common interests of humanity in reality, and constantly restrain, overcome and defeat various narrow interests.
The issue of the consciousness of human historical activities raised by the development of new quality productivity has been resolved in Marxist theory and proven in the historical practice of Chinese-style modernization. Building a Marxist advanced political party that does not represent any interest group, has no self-interest, is dedicated to seeking happiness for the Chinese people and rejuvenation for the Chinese nation, and at the same time, to promoting progress for humanity and harmony for the world, is the essential feature and the key to success of Chinese-style modernization. By rallying the strength of the entire Party and the people through ideals and beliefs, achieving the high degree of unity of the Party’s will, the will of the state, and the will of the people through democratic centralism, ensuring the Party’s advanced nature and purity through comprehensive and strict governance of the Party and strengthening and improving the Party’s self-revolutionization, and by persistently pursuing a great cause that is in line with national conditions, the reality of the people consciously creating history is made possible.
The historical trend of new-quality productivity gradually replacing traditional productivity has laid the foundation for the universal significance of Chinese-style modernization from a historical vantage point. Traditional productivity represented by capitalism has led to technological progress and moral decline, control over nature and being controlled by nature.The three paradoxes of revenge, the dehumanization of people and the deification of objects coexist, highlighting the unsustainability of Western modernization. “The victory of technology seems to have been achieved at the cost of moral corruption. As humans increasingly control nature, individuals seem to become slaves to others or to their own base behaviors. Even the pure radiance of science seems to shine only against the backdrop of ignorance and darkness. “ ⑨
What is terrifying is that the identification with the Western modernization model and ideology is not limited to a few Western countries but seems to have become a collective unconsciousness that is difficult to shake.
The development of new quality productivity has issued a stern warning that technological innovation and progress must be in line with moral progress: if humanity continues to follow the old path of technological advancement and moral regression, technological innovation will surely destroy humanity just like a nuclear war. The development of new quality productivity has elevated the fact of the human-nature life community to an unprecedented height. If this life community cannot be built well, not only will future generations be endangered, but also the current human beings will have no place to stand. Ultimately, the development of new quality productivity has raised the era’s question of human control over material technology and labor’s dominance over capital. If humanity cannot master its own destiny, it will have no foothold to solve the conflicts between people, between humans and nature, and between morality and technology.
Therefore, the process of new-quality productivity gradually replacing traditional productivity is also the process of constantly resolving the above-mentioned three paradoxes, thereby highlighting the universal significance of Chinese-style modernization. The value of Chinese-style modernization lies not only in taking its own path without relying on the West but also in adhering to peaceful development, harmonious coexistence between humans and nature, and all-round human development under the condition of still being underdeveloped. Therefore, it is not difficult to understand and that the essential attributes and world-historical significance of Chinese-style modernization is also a process that gradually becomes apparent and cannot be achieved all at once. China will remain in the “primary stage of socialism” for a long time, even after the principal contradiction has changed, which is a proof of keeping a clear mind. It is very clear: without the full development of new-quality productivity, Chinese-style modernization cannot be truly consolidated, a modern socialist country cannot be said to have been built, and it is even less possible to create a new form of human civilization. Therefore, building a modern socialist power by the 100th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China is the second centenary goal that the Communist Party of China is determined to achieve, and it is also a goal that can only be reached through continued hard work.
It should be noted that when producers unite to control material productive forces, it does not mean that the production activities in this necessary labor field are aimed at the producers themselves. It merely indicates that producers have initiative and enthusiasm in the production process. Productivity still mainly pursues the maximization of its own efficiency and will not be relaxed in terms of labor intensity, labor discipline, and production division management due to the autonomy of producers. Therefore, Marx called this necessary labor “a realm of necessity”, and only “beyond this realm of necessity, the full play of human abilities as the purpose itself, the true realm of freedom, begins” ⑩.
It is evident that being the master of productive forces and hard work are not contradictory. The superiority of Chinese-style modernization does not mean that modernization can be achieved easily. On the contrary, the conscious struggle and dedication of millions of awakened workers under the leadership of the Party is our true advantage.
Notes:
1 “Accelerating the Development of New Productive Forces and Promoting High-Quality Development,” People’s Daily, February 2, 2024.
2 Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. 4, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2012, p. 265.
3 Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 1, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2017, p. 110.
4 Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 42, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1979, p. 253.
5 Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 42, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1979, p. 261.
6 Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 42, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1979, p. 254.
7 Marx and Engels Selected Works, Vol. 4, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2012, p. 250.
8 Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 10, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009,
9 Marx and Engels Selected Works, Vol. 1, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2012, Page 263.
10 Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 42, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1979, pp. 42–43. Page 196.
11 Mao Zedong Selected Works, Vol. 8, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1999, p. 135.
12 Lenin Selected Works on Socialism, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 148.
13 “Accelerating the Development of New Productive Forces and Promoting High-Quality Development,” People’s Daily, February 2, 2024.
14 Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 1, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 602.
15 Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 7, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009, pp. 928–929.
16 Daniel Bell (USA): The Coming of Post-Industrial Society, translated by Gao Chuan, Wang Hongzhou, and Wei Zhangling, Beijing: Commercial Press, 1984, p. 86. ·1-0·
17 Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 1, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009, pp. 532–533.
18 Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 2, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009, pp 591–592
19 Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 1, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 182
20 Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 42, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1979, pp. 258–259.
21 Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 2, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 34.
22 Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 1, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 566.
23 Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 2, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 36.
24 Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 1, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 556.
25 Selected Works of Xi Jinping, Vol. 1, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2023, p. 24.
26 Xi Jinping: “Speech at the Third Nuclear Security Summit and During Visits to Four European Countries, the UNESCO Headquarters, and the EU Headquarters,” Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2014, p. 64.
27 Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 1, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 538.
28 [France] Jacques Derrida: The Ghost of Marx, translated by He Yi, Beijing: China Renmin University Press,
29 Marx and Engels Collected Works, Vol. 7, Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 929. ·1-6·1999, p. 7.