Traditional Socialism（2）: Confrontational,Unidimensional, Monolithic

-- A Critique of Rationalism in Modern World Ideologies (IV-4:3-4)

Editor’s Note: This essay is based on the author’s original one in Chinese. It deals with the two contending ideologies of capitalism and communism from a metaphysical point of view. Western Christian advocates of capitalism usually label communism as “atheism”, which is synonymous with “evil” in their diction, while believers in the latter defend their ideology as “scientific socialism” and criticize all religions as “superstition” and “opium” serving to numb people’s mind. Confronted with the reality of today’s world plagued by wide-spread loss of faith, ideological confusion, and all sorts of crises, it is urgently necessary to examine and clarify such basic concepts as “faith”, “rationality”, and “ideology” and their relations with each other. The author hopes this essay can serve as a “brick” cast here to attract “jade”, as the Chinese saying goes, and initiate some meaningful discussion.

For the abstract and outline of the whole essay see:

    Faith vs. Reason: A Critique of Rationalism in Ideologies (0): Abstract & Outline

For preceding installments of the text:

   A Critique of Rationalism in Modern World Ideologies(I): Ultimate Rationality

       A Critique of Rationalism in Modern World Ideologies(II): Ultimate Faith (1-3)

       A Critique of Rationalism in Modern World Ideologies(II): Ultimate Faith (4-5)

    A Critique of Rationalism in Modern World Ideologies (III-1): Mature Ultimate Faith in the Undivided “One”

      A Critique of Rationalism in Modern World Ideologies (III-2)：Multi-Dimensional Balance out of Ultimate Intangibility

A Critique of Rationalism in Modern World Ideologies (III-3): Egocentrism in immature faiths

A Critique of Rationalism in Modern World Ideologies (IV-1,2): Faith Systems as Ideologies

A Critique of Rationalism in Modern World Ideologies (IV-3): Capitalism as ideology

A Critique of Rationalism in Modern World Ideologies (IV-4:1-2): Anthropocentric and materialistic socialism

IV-4(3). Ultimate confrontation-oriented way of thinking

(a) Dualistic absolutization of labor-capital confrontation

(b) “Class struggle as key link” & “dictatorship of the proletariat”

IV-4(4). Unidimensional monolithic collectivism

(a) “People’s democracy” not institutionalized

(b) Great Nation Chauvinism of “the Big Brother”

IV-4(5). Lack of dimensions in political economy

(a) Failure to see “surplus value” from other-than-labor sources

(b) Underestimation of capitalist system’s destruction of social productive forces

IV-4(6). Dualistic theory of “democratic centralism”

The Text

IV. Ideology vs. Ultimate Faith (Continued)

IV-4. Traditional Socialism: Deviations from Ultimate Rationality (Continued)

What is discussed here is the so-called “scientific socialism” initiated by Karl Marx in the 19^th century but interpreted by Soviet Marxists and re-interpreted and practiced by Chinese Marxist-Leninists in the last century. (The author is not able to compare what has been practiced in China against what is meant in Marx’s original works.) To be distinguished from a future reformed socialism which is bound to emerge from a collective reflection on historical experiences, what is referred to in this essay is tentatively labeled as “traditional socialism”.

IV-4(3). Ultimate confrontation-oriented way of thinking

Ultimately-confrontational thinking is the application of the dualistic law of “unity of opposites” to the way of thought. Its difference from the Chinese Yin-Yang balance theory has been discussed in previous context of this essay. Besides its manifestation in man’s overaggressive attitude towards Nature, it also finds expression in its social theories, of which the most typical is that of class struggle. (The author has already made a discussion in Chinese before about the issue of “class struggle within the general framework of a dynamically-balanced whole” and hopes to have it translated into English someday.)

As mentioned above, class antagonism and dictatorship was not an all-time consistent phenomenon in Chinese history before modern times, though in the West, where Marxist socialist theories originated, and in places under Western influence class struggle and dictatorship has INDEED been an unceasing historical reality ever since ancient times and a universal one on this planet since modern times. What the international monopoly capitalist class and their running dogs all over the globe have been doing – their oppression, exploitation and plundering of, their class wars against and their dictatorship over 99% of the human race, rivalry and wars between themselves, a variety of terrorism sponsored, bred and supported by them, and the nuclear war risks provoked by them – all these are the major threats of imbalance confronting the contemporary world.

Therefore, class revolts by peoples of all countries against the above-said exploiter-oppressors are a most fundamental means for enforcing universal justice on behalf of the Heavenly/Godly mandate to restore balance and harmony in global social relations. During the last century, major authority in exercising class struggles and dictatorships in Eastern Eurasian states, where democratic and socialist revolutions led by proletarian parties won a series of victories, was for quite long years held in the hands of the proletariat and other working people. The nature of such struggles and dictatorships stood in stark contrast with that of the capitalist regimes. It was thanks to Marxist-Leninist and Mao Zedong’s theories of class struggle, to the workers and peasants’ tit-for-tat fight against capitalism-induced social injustices under such theories’ guidance and to their dictatorship over a handful of die-hard resistors that they, i.e., the overwhelming majority, could live and work as masters of those countries and builders of a new world for the greater part of a whole century. Under such historical circumstances, the proletariat’s struggles against and dictatorship over the capitalist class was in general in line with the Heavenly Dao of dynamic balance, i.e., with the objective tendency of history towards a balance.

On the other hand, however, the confrontational thinking that runs though traditional class–struggle theory and practice without an awareness of the need for an upper-level-balance has led to results unfavorable to the proletariat. To put it briefly, such a way of thinking views opposition between things as something absolute and denies the possibility of their transformation towards a kind of balance. Here are two major instances:

This absolutization, while rightly pointing out capital’s exploitation of labor, fails to see that capital may also originate in labor (i.e., savings from wage/salary income), that capital can also be owned and benefitted from by a laborer in the same productive process, that capital owner’s management of the productive process is also a kind of labor, and that private capital in some economies in specific historical periods can also play a positive role (especially when properly regulated by public authority) in developing national economy and facilitating all people’s livelihood. As a result, virtues of diligence and frugality that would promote the accumulation and contribution of capital funds used for social production were not encouraged but discredited; small businesses, even those self-employed ones, were labeled as “tail of capitalism” to be “cut off” so that socialist economy was actually weakened…

In a word, thinking in terms of absolute confrontation was the ideological basis for ultra-leftism, which was no less harmful than rightism, and the two apparently mutually opposed tendencies actually took advantage of each other and caused doubly detrimental consequences.

(b) “Class struggle as key link” and “dictatorship of the proletariat”

During the socialist transition period, with foreign capitalist forces encircling and capitalist ideology infiltrating in all directions from outside, bourgeois and petty bourgeois ideologies challenging from inside, and thus the proletariat not in a dominant position yet in terms of ideological strength, though prevailing in political power – under such circumstances, class antagonism finds expression mostly in wide-spread and intense ideological disputes. Then, to execute “class struggle as the key link” and “dictatorship of the proletariat” without proper clarification of their exact meaning in clear-cut terms would inevitably leave big loopholes that made it possible for some people to, wittingly or unwittingly, treat large numbers of ideological issues as political “struggles” between “enemies and ourselves” and take large numbers of non-proletarian individuals as targets of the “dictatorship”, thus actually driving them to the side of capitalist forces bent on a comeback. It has been one of the most effective strategies for serving the cause of a capitalist restoration under the current historical conditions. That is why this “Leftist-in-form-but-Rightist-in-essence” strategy was used by capitalist-roaders and proved to be effective again and again before and during the Cultural Revolution. It, however, obviously ran counter to what Mao rightly instructed in his On Correctly Handling Contradictions among the People: “All issues that are ideological in nature and all disputes within the ranks of the people should be solved in a democratic approach, i.e., through discussion, criticism and persuasion, not through force and coercion”; “the system of dictatorship is not suited within the ranks of the people. The people cannot exercise dictatorship over themselves, nor must one section of the people oppress another”. That is to say, it is not allowed for people belonging to the proletarian class to dictate to and oppress those not belonging to it yet. Not to mention that quite some of such dictator-oppressors (except for those genuinely radical Leftists) did not belong to the proletarian class at all – they were capitalist-roaders, careerists, opportunists, those belonging to the lumpenproletariat, or people with other ulterior motives.

Theoretically, “the dictatorship of the proletariat” was supposed to have another way of saying, that is, “the people’s democratic dictatorship” (人民民主专政). In practice, however, as neither of the two aspects of “democracy” and “dictatorship” in this concept was institutionalized through the rule of law, the government was in a great degree a continuation of rule by man. Class struggle and dictatorship was basically conducted in the form of mass movements mobilized from the above similar to military campaigns in the periods of revolutionary wars, while all political decisions at the grassroots level were made by Communist Party officials or even ordinary members without formal official titles. There was no mechanism to effect supervision by “the people”; there was only manipulation of the masses of “the people” by such Party members and officials. In such circumstances, taking “class struggle as the key link” was easily interpreted as viewing all social disputes and conflicts as expressions of class struggle and handling them in a politically confrontational way. For instances, if a non-Party individual makes (even well-intentioned) criticism of a Party member, he/she would be labeled as “anti-party and anti-socialism element” because a Party member was said to be an “embodiment of the Party”. It was still less allowable for ordinary people to air personal views about state or local public affairs, not even only verbally in private. As holders of different views would be rashly labeled as “anti-Party and anti-socialism elements”, the scope of class struggle and dictatorship were often improperly extended, resulting in suppressing and weakening of “the people’s democracy” and in the “dictatorship” missing the right targets. What were more damaging were those from-time-to-time nation-wide campaigns aiming at resolving ideological “deviations” by political or even paramilitary means (such as manhandling). Consequently, dedicated socialists were replaced batch after batch by all sorts of opportunists in government positions on all levels, ending unexpectedly in the dictatorship of a new bureaucratic bourgeoisie over the proletariat.

IV-4(4). Unidimensional monolithic collectivism

(a) “People’s democracy” not institutionalized

The emancipation of the proletariat is a collective cause of all working people and undoubtedly calls for collective efforts and collectivism. But there are also two diametrically different interpretations of “the collective” and “collectivism”, that is, viewing a collective either as one with dynamically balanced internal relationships or as one monolithic whole like an iron plate.

 In the dynamic-balance perspective, a collective must have at least two levels: the collective as a whole at the top level and each individual member at the bottom level, with possible intermediate levels in between, each being a smaller collective made up of fewer individuals. Each and every one of such levels -- the top-level whole, the bottom-level individuals and all the intermediate sub-groups -- has its undeniable identity as a relatively independent agent. Typical instances of such agency should be the roles played respectively by every member of the masses of the people and by all social organizations in supporting and supervising officials at all levels as well as by the central and local governments in managing and serving the broad masses of the people. Besides, none of the individual members is an indivisible “atom” – each of them might be a mixture of different or even conflicting ideas, wills and/or intentions.

A dynamic balance between all these levels and between all different parts on each level as a manifestation of the multi-dimensional wholeness is a pre-condition for the collective whole to operate effectively and function properly in its relation with other collectives. This also holds true for each and every one of its relatively independent sub-group members. If the individual and sub-group members are treated as “cog wheels” and “screws” on the revolutionary “machine” instead of as acting agents with relatively independent wills and thoughts as well as shared ones, this is mechanicalist monolithism. Monolithic collectivism in both theory and practice harms or damages the relational balances within a collective, resulting in its loss of operational effectiveness or even in a degenerative change of its nature and course of action.

Last century’s world socialist camp was a huge-scale collective, with relationships between different member countries led by Communist parties, between each Party and the people under its leadership, between Party leadership and the rank and file members, between the supreme leader and other high-ranking leaders, and many other relationships constituting a multi-dimensional whole. Of all such relationships, that between the leading body and the people under their leadership on every social level was the pivotal dimension in the relational chain of the whole socialist bloc. And the pivotal factor on this pivotal dimension was the role played by the broadest masses of the people supposedly as the real masters of the cause. The test of the realization of this role should be in the implementation of an effective system of supervision over the officials at every level by all the people under their administration that could make sure that the Party in power remained as the vanguard of all working people, representing their essential interests.

In the writings of leaders of those socialist countries there are plenty of discussions about how to handle the relationships between the party and the masses and between higher and lower ranks within the Party and especially discussions about the people being the fundamental driving force in creating history and about the “mass line” of trusting and relying on the masses. But unfortunately, as history has indicated, the proposed principles in such discussions were not materialized in the system of operation. Even the democratic spirit and some measures embodying this spirit in the revolutionary army during the revolutionary wars, which played an important role in winning the wars, have not be carried on further after the Party took over the power (such was the case at least in China – Mao tried to restore the tradition in some aspects but failed). On the contrary, some extreme ways of doing things that were necessary in times of war but improper in times of peace, such as highly centralized decision-making at the higher levels and indulgence of rough actions towards non-violent class enemies when mobilizing the masses on the grassroots level, instead of being modified, were carried forward on even larger scales.

The new state power held by the Communist Party was nominally a unity of “the people’s democracy” and “the dictatorship of the proletariat”, but in actuality “the people’s democracy” was not institutionally realized, so that any common person could be punished as an “anti-Party and anti-socialism element” if he/she should voice objections even to a rank-and-file Communist Party member, not to say to Party officials. Such punishments were not exceptions but wide-spread and constant happenings. Consequently, people’s supervision over power-holders was basically out of the question. Most of the officials did not hold themselves responsible for people under their management or for other people in general, but only for their superiors. What they cared for was to please higher-ranking officials, become successful in politics and get promoted in office. That was why they often told lies and used to bully those below them and deceive those above them. And this was the very institutional cause for the over-radical trend of premature communist practices (共产风) and for the evil trend of falsifying and exaggerating grain outputs (浮夸风) in late 1950s, when the resulting situation of wide-spread famine in the rural areas was concealed by local authorities from reaching the central government, so that serious errors could not be rectified in time and the top leadership’s being kept in dark about the true situation at the grassroots level aggravated inner-Party ideological conflicts and general political chaos.

In brief, without extensive supervision of officials by the masses of the people, “people’s democracy and dictatorship” became “officials becoming masters” and dictatorship by officials over the people, or even by capitalist-roaders over the proletariat. The root cause for this situation, besides the fact that socialism was an unprecedented enterprise so that both the leaders and the common masses lacked experience and the fact that the encirclement by and threat from imperialist forces gave rise to a sense of crisis and urgency – the root cause in terms of subjective understanding of things and institutional establishment was the failure in paying enough attention to the status and role of the masses of the people, each and everyone of them as individuals, as real masters of the cause and failure to secure this role by setting up proper political and legal institutions and procedures. In terms of social philosophy, the root cause lay in monolithic collectivism, or the other extremism opposite to atomistic individualism, that ignores each and every individual’s agency, initiative and creativeness.

(b) Great Nation Chauvinism of “the Big Brother”

When monolithic collectivism was applied by the Soviet Union to its relationships with other socialist nation-states, pressuring the latter to yield their national interests in the name of promoting the common cause of socialism, it often in fact served the national interests of the USSR herself. When China under Mao stood up against her great nation chauvinist and revisionist policies while the USSR persisted in her wrong stance, the latter metamorphosed into a social-imperialist state. This kind of inter-nation relationship was not much different than that between the capitalist countries adopting atomistic individualism. It was mainly the revisionist political line pursued by this leading socialist state together with her great nation chauvinist/social-imperialist practices that caused the disintegration of the socialist camp and of the Soviet Union herself.

Undoubtedly, the socialist camp as a collective pursuing a common cause did have its common interests and all the member states within the socialist family, including the “Big Brother” herself, should support and co-operate with each other and be ready to sacrifice some national interests for the common cause when necessary but not at the expense of “little brothers”’ basic national interests. Again, the guiding principle should be none other than dynamically-balanced wholeness. It means that there should be dialogues between the member states on an equal footing, instead of the “Big Brother” imposing his will on all other “little brothers”, to achieve a comprehensive balance between the interests of all respective member states and between the interests of each state and the common interests of the collective camp. This is a fundamental guarantee for the success of the collective cause.