In Europe from 65438 to 1940s, there were three major ideological trends and schools: democracy, socialism and * * * productism. Marx and Engels called themselves * * * producers, and called the theories, movements and systems they fought for * * * productism, and the Party called * * * production party. At that time, between democracy, socialism and democracy. They belong to bourgeois thoughts and schools. Marx and Engels strive for unity and coordination among democratic political parties, but they never hide their views, and they are even more opposed to the trading principle. 187 1 years later, Marx and Engels tolerated the word "social democracy" in order to unite more people. After 1874, they used "scientific socialism" in their correspondence with utopian socialism. But he still thinks that the word "* * * productism" is "more accurate" and insists on using it in formal occasions. Even though Engels wrote for the organ of the German Social Democratic Labor Party, he "didn't call himself a social Democrat everywhere, but a producer."
1. Does the third volume of Das Kapital overturn the conclusion of the first volume?
Recently, there is a view in the academic circles that the syllogism about the share system in Volume III of Das Kapital is quoted, and the joint-stock company thus "abandons the capitalist private industry on the basis of the capitalist system itself" (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 2, 1995, page 5 19), and the ownership and management rights are separated, asserting that it "changes the rule of the bourgeoisie. From the perspective of joint-stock companies, "this kind of property is no longer the private property of producers who are separated from each other, but the property of producers who are United, that is, direct social property." (ibid., page 5 17), declaring that "capitalism has thus completed its peaceful transition to socialism, and the third volume of Das Kapital overturns the conclusion of the first volume of Das Kapital, and there is no need to' blow up' capitalism.
The manuscript of the third volume of Das Kapital was basically completed on 1865. In the previous forties, miners' joint-stock company appeared. Marx affirmed that "capitalist joint-stock enterprises, like cooperative factories, should be regarded as a transitional form from capitalist mode of production to joint mode of production" and pointed out that "the transformation to share form itself is still limited within the boundaries of capitalism; Therefore, this change did not overcome the opposition between the nature of wealth as social wealth and the nature of private wealth, but only developed this opposition in a new form (ibid., p. 520). It can be seen that the joint-stock system only turns the separated private property into the common property managed by the company. The so-called "direct social property" in German has two meanings: "society" and "company", which is real here.
It is precisely because of this that Engels explained in brackets at the back of this passage: "Since Marx wrote these words, it is well known that some new forms of industrial enterprises have developed. These forms represent the quadratic and cubic powers of joint-stock companies ... Competition has been replaced by monopoly, and the whole society, that is, the whole nation, has made the most encouraging preparations for future deprivation "(ibid., page 5 17-566)" A certain historical form will be abandoned at a certain mature stage and give way to a higher form "; Then compare the first volume "Violence is the midwife who breeds a new society in every old society"; "This shell will be blown up. The death knell of capitalist private ownership will ring. Those deprived will be deprived "(ibid., pages 5 1 1, 587, 266 and 269); It can be clearly seen that they are in the same strain. The so-called third volume overturns the conclusion of the first volume, and there is no need to "explode", which is purely false and just the wishful thinking of the theorists.
Second, did Engels revise the theory and strategy of the Producers' Party Manifesto in his later years?
Some viewpoints take Engels' criticism of the draft program of the Social Democratic Party in 189 1 as their own needs and make an unacceptable interpretation.
Engels revealed in "Criticism on the Draft Program of the Social Democratic Party in 189 1" that some people "try to convince themselves and the party that' modern society is growing into socialism' without asking whether this society must break through its old social system like dried shrimp and blow up this old shell with violence". It is conceivable that the old society may grow into a new society peacefully. However, Germany is a semi-authoritarian system. "Such a policy will only lead the party astray for a long time." It is pointed out that "our party and the working class can only rule in the form of democracy, democracy and state, or even in the special form of proletarian dictatorship" (ibid., Volume 4, pages 4 1 1, 4 12). It shows that Engels' peaceful way in his later years is consistent with the "hope" in the Principles and the Manifesto of the Producer Party, and the basic viewpoint that class struggle will inevitably lead to proletarian revolution and dictatorship.
However, some people put Engels' "imaginable" together with Germany and wrote: "Engels specifically guided the legal struggle of the German Social Democratic Party, emphasizing that the success of the German Social Democratic Party in the election is of great significance to the entire international workers' movement:' It is conceivable that in a country where people's representative organs concentrate all power in their own hands and can do whatever they want according to the Constitution as long as they get the support of the majority of the people, it is possible for the old society to grow into a new society peacefully, for example. "After such a trick, Engels' serious criticism of German opportunism disappeared. It is conceivable that the situation of "people's peaceful growth" has never happened after the change of conditions, but some people say that Engels gave specific guidance to the German party, "after Marx's death, he continued to lead the international workers' movement for twelve years."
Some people think that Engels "made a final reflection and revision on the whole theoretical system of Marxism" in "An Introduction to Class Struggle in France", which is even more unfounded.
The introduction spoke highly of the incident and revealed its internal relations, which "reached a level that no one can match so far" and stood the test of practice. Only in the "viewpoint on the conditions and process of revolutionary movement" has it changed. Among them, "Our view at that time was only an illusion" said that when the February Revolution occurred in 1848, everyone thought it would be like 1788. Forward, so that the revolution failed, I still expect a new climax in the near future. After studying the economic situation in autumn of 1850, Marx abandoned this mentality forever. History shows that capitalism in Europe is "far from mature enough to be eradicated" and "has great expansion capacity". 1848, it is impossible to realize social transformation just by "one attack". The above is an underestimation of the vacillation and long-term nature of the revolution, which belongs to the viewpoint of "process" of the revolution. According to the introduction, "this is the only major revision we have to make", while "there is absolutely no change in the interpretation of the event and the causal relationship determined there" (ibid.
The struggle method of 1948 is out of date in all aspects today. The "method of struggle" here is by no means "refers to the violent revolution mentioned in the Producers' Party Manifesto", but refers to the fact that from the 1940s to the 1990s, the method of struggle must change with the change of revolutionary "conditions", that is, a few people led the masses and fought by barricades. It is a revolution for most people to occupy various positions through long-term struggle. However, while insisting on revolutionary rights, we should pay more attention to "using the right to vote" and carry out legal activities, including winning more voters, using Congress to crack down on opponents, and publicizing and organizing the masses. Once the reactionary rulers undermine their legitimacy, they should "let go" on the day of "decisive battle" and put the law under the wall like Christians in the Roman Empire. Set fire to the palace. This is the "fight for the right to vote" mentioned in the declaration, and it is the continuation and development of the movement that "for the vast majority of people" finally seized power through revolution. In particular, the introduction reaffirms that "a new revolution ... will come like a new crisis", reiterates the economic transformation formula that "the means of production belong to society", and emphasizes that "all places where social organizations should be completely transformed" must understand what this is for and what they are fighting for "(ibid., vol. 10, pp. 5 10, 55 All these views equate the change of struggle strategy with the abandonment of the revolutionary road, saying that Engels "expected to gain political power through the legitimate struggle of the working class."
Third, did Engels give up the highest ideal of * * * in his later years?
Some people quoted Engels' conversation with le figaro in 1893, and asserted that Engels "abandoned the highest ideal of capitalism" in his later years and had no ultimate goal. This is nonsense.
Please see the original! The reporter asked: "What kind of ultimate goal have you German socialists set for yourself?" Engels said: "We have no ultimate goal. We are evolutionists, and we don't intend to impose any final laws on mankind. What are the predetermined views on the details of future social organizations? " You can't even find their shadow here. When we give the means of production to the whole society, we will be satisfied, but we also know clearly that this is impossible under the current monarchy federal government. "(The Complete Works of Marx and Engels, Volume 22, pp. 628-829) shows that it was the reporter who first put forward the" ultimate goal ". Engels said that we have no ultimate goal, and we are theorists of sustainable development, because there is no "final law" and no "predetermined view" on future social organizations. This is an insistence on dialectical materialism and historical materialism, and has nothing to do with "giving up the highest ideal of materialism". In order to make the reporter not misunderstand that materialism has no goal, Engels put forward a point. "Ownership is the basic problem of this movement" and "the ultimate goal is for the working class to seize political power, so that the whole society can directly possess all the means of production ..." (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 1, pp. 286 and 307, vol. 4, p. 390) are in the same strain.
Did Engels stop talking about the ultimate goal and the highest ideal after 1893, as some viewpoints said?
Engels said in his book Essays on International Issues published in 1894 that the reason why German * * * producers are * * * producers is that they always aim at and pursue the ultimate goal through all "intermediate stations": eliminating classes and establishing a social system in which private ownership of land and means of production no longer exists. (ibid., vol. III, p. 248.
18941October 9, Engels wrote an inscription at the request of a weekly magazine to express the basic idea of the future socialist era. He replied: "I can't find a suitable one anymore:' It will be such a consortium to replace the old bourgeois society with class and class opposition.
1894 65438+1October 26th, Engels wrote an article, asking the Italian Socialist Party to implement the strategy of * * * announcement representing the future of the movement at the same time in the current movement. The "first purpose" is that the proletariat will seize political power as a means to transform society. This "strategy of never ignoring great goals" can prevent disappointment and "lack of foresight" Engels took "an ordinary stage in progress as the ultimate goal" (ibid., vol. 4, p. 454), not only scientifically distinguished "the first great goal" and "the ultimate goal" with the theory of sustainable development, but also expounded the great significance of correctly handling the relationship between them and "never ignoring the great goal".
1on March 6, 895, Engels said in the introduction that 1848 has many evangelists and their panaceas. "Now it is Marx's theory, which is universally recognized, thorough, clear and clearly expresses the ultimate goal" (ibid., Volume 4, page 5 13). Revolutionary instructors consistently and unequivocally adhere to Marx's theory, calling it "the theory that clearly expresses the ultimate goal". However, some viewpoints turn a blind eye, saying that Engels had already "abandoned" the highest ideal, and even perfected the whole theoretical system of Marx, and said these false words were conclusions based on "exquisite Marxist knowledge" and "convincing historical research". This kind of writing and learning can only make people think of one sentence.
4. Were Marx and Engels democratic socialists in his later years?
At present, many arguments and materials used in some viewpoints come from Bernstein's works.
Recently, the above viewpoints generally show that Marx and Engels revised themselves in their later years, and both of them became democratic socialists. But after our investigation and analysis, none of them are valid, so their conclusions are untenable and imposed. So, where did the above anecdote come from?
As we all know, Marx discovered historical materialism and surplus value, which turned * * * productism from fantasy into science. The Manifesto of Producers' Party marks the emergence of scientific productism, and Das Kapital has laid a solid theoretical foundation for it. Engels persisted in and enriched this theory in his later years. Shortly after the death of 1895 on August 5, Bernstein used the new changes in capitalism as an excuse. Slander Marx's theory as "outdated" and openly and systematically criticize and modify it, focusing on attacking that capitalism expounded in these two books has been replaced by capitalism, and proletarian revolution and dictatorship are the fundamental ways to realize the replacement. Recently, related viewpoints have also made a big fuss about the necessity and way of substitution in these two books. Many arguments and materials used even come from Bernstein's works. For example, critics say that with the shareholding system, capitalism has completed a peaceful "revolution", which comes from Bernstein's view that the development of credit, especially joint-stock companies, has caused the "democratization" of capital. There are more and more "socialist factors" within the capitalist system. Commentators say that Engels' introduction modified the strategy of the Producer's Declaration. A few words from Bernstein claimed that the introduction is the theoretical basis of his revisionist thought, and bourgeois democracy can enable the proletariat to seize power through universal suffrage and parliament and "peacefully grow into" socialism; Violent revolution is the remnant of Bronkinism. Critics say that Engels "abandoned" the highest ideal, and the ultimate goal is Christian cultural tradition, which directly comes from Bernstein's "the ultimate goal is nothingness, and movement is everything". When talking about the ultimate goal of the party, he slandered Marx for sacrificing science for "ism" and so on. From this point of view, these views are nothing new in theory, just picking up others' wisdom.
Revolutionary instructors not only always adhere to the thorough proletarian revolutionary spirit and abandon bourgeois reformism, but also always analyze democracy and socialism in class and history.
However, Bernstein admitted that he was a "revisionist". He asked the Social Democratic Party to become a "Democratic Socialist Reform Party". His revisionism was later handed down by various social reformists to fight against Marxism. In order to reverse Bernstein's revisionism, commentators even said in his later years that Marx and Engels were democratic socialists, and democratic socialism was the orthodoxy and the highest achievement of Marxism. Anyone with a little knowledge of theory and history knows that there were three trends of thought and schools in Europe from 65438 to 1940s: democracy, socialism and * * * productism. Marx and Engels called themselves * * * producers, and called the theories, movements and systems they fought for * * * productism, and the Party called * * * production party. At that time, democratic socialism and democratic socialism were still a society in between. Belongs to the bourgeois ideological trend and genre. Marx and Engels strive for the unity and coordination of democratic parties in various places, but they never hide their views, and they are even more opposed to the trading principle. 1968+0864, La Salle School in Germany published Social Democrats, and Engels said, "What a terrible name!" Subsequently, some people used social democracy or democratic socialism in the sense that democracy and socialism are inseparable or from the democratic revolution before the socialist revolution. 187 1 years later, Marx and Engels tolerated the word "social democracy" in order to unite more people. After 1874, it corresponds to utopian socialism. They use "scientific socialism", but they still think that the word "* * * productism" is "more accurate", and Jing insists on using it in formal occasions. Even though Engels wrote for the organ of the German Social Democratic Labor Party, he "called himself a social Democrat everywhere, but a just man of * * *" (5438+0887, he said, "* *" Volume 4, page 395). Until his later years, he also talked about "those who don't write all the means of production on their own flags, claiming to be social Democrats". And "for the political party whose economic program is not simple general socialism but direct * * * productism, and for the political party whose ultimate political goal is to destroy the whole country and thus democracy, this term is still inaccurate" (Manx, pp. 489 and 490). Revolutionary instructors not only always adhere to the thorough proletarian revolutionary spirit and abandon bourgeois reformism, but also always analyze democracy and socialism in class and history, and never talk about democracy or socialism in an abstract way, let alone think that they are the values pursued by all classes and systems.
Some viewpoints label Marx and Engels as "democratic socialism", and they have strictly distinguished capitalism from social democracy or democratic socialism all their lives; We will resolutely struggle with Bernstein to defend and develop Marxism and restore the party's orthodox name-Lenin of the * * production party will be labeled as the "biggest revisionist"; It is said that several generations of leading collectives of our party "combined the universal truth of Marxism with the concrete practice of our country, took their own road, and built socialism with China characteristics", and that "China embarked on the road of democratic socialism". Such a historical reversal is confusing right and wrong, and it is necessary to "clear the way for China's * * * production party to transform into democratic socialism". Does this overestimate their "home" and "length"? 1989 a western politician pointed out that democratic socialism and welfare state are often the most effective ways to counter the attraction of * * * ism, which provides another democratic choice for the * * ism model. Commentators advocate that "only democratic socialism can save China" and want to transform socialism and "peace" that millions of martyrs have exchanged their blood and lives into democratic socialism and a capitalist system recognized by others.