Qi Jieqiang and Liu Xiangdong: An Analysis of the Scientific Socialist Ideology in the "Communist Manifesto"
The publication of the Manifesto of the Communist Party (henceforth the Manifesto) in 1848 occurred over 170 years ago, yet it continues to profoundly influence the transformations of the world today. Academic enthusiasm for its study remains undiminished; in China alone, there are no fewer than 2,000 scholarly works dedicated to the Manifesto. Some scholars explore issues of translation from a linguistic perspective; some investigate the International Communist Movement from a historical angle; others analyze its economic thought from the perspective of economics. However, the majority focus on the underlying ideas and their significance—for example, historical materialism, scientific socialist thought, the idea of the free and comprehensive development of the individual, globalization, systems of ownership, and modernity. The Manifesto was the first time Marx and Engels systematically used the historical materialist [1] outlook to elucidate scientific socialist thought, and thus the Manifesto became the hallmark of the birth of scientific socialism. How, then, did Marx and Engels use the historical materialist outlook to explain scientific socialism? Understanding this question is of great significance for establishing scientific socialist thought and strengthening conviction in socialism with Chinese characteristics.
I. Productive Forces: The Material Basis of Scientific Socialism
(1) Productive forces are the primary tool driving the development of human society
Human history begins with the existence of living individuals, and from the outset, individuals face the problem of survival—food, clothing, shelter, and transport—which is the question of how individuals satisfy their own needs. To solve these survival problems, individuals must produce through labor. Thus, the first historical act of humanity is "the production of material life itself." While producing their material life, humans are also changing themselves. When humans begin to produce their own means of subsistence, they begin to distinguish themselves from animals. The mode in which humans produce their own means of subsistence and the relations of intercourse between people are determined by the productive forces. "The relations of different nations among themselves depend upon the extent to which each has developed its productive forces, the division of labor, and internal intercourse." This demonstrates that the development of productive forces determines the form of ownership of the means of production, the mode of distribution, and the mutual relations between people. When new productive forces emerge, the products they command change in quality and quantity, leading to changes in the material life of the producing subjects; this in turn triggers changes in the social division of labor [2] and fluctuations in the prices of the means of production. New productive forces lead to the further development of the division of labor, which in turn drives changes in the forms of ownership. "The various stages of development in the division of labor are just so many different forms of ownership." It is precisely because of the development and changes in productive forces and the division of labor that we see the transition from tribal ownership, communal ownership, state ownership, and feudal ownership to capitalist ownership. "Slavery cannot be abolished without the steam engine and the spinning jenny; serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture." This indicates that the steam engine and the spinning jenny played a decisive role in the capitalist system replacing the feudal system. As representatives of the new productive forces of that time, they brought about changes in the material life of the producing subjects, leading them to create new modes of social division of labor, which produced new class groups, ultimately resulting in the new social system replacing the old. Without the steam engine and the spinning jenny, the capitalist system would not have emerged, and the feudal system would not have perished.
Evidently, productive forces are the material basis of human social development, and a certain state of productive forces determines the existence of a particular social formation. When the state of productive forces changes, it leads to the emergence of a new social formation, but this requires the development of productive forces to accumulate to a corresponding degree before a change in quality is achieved through a change in quantity. Of course, at certain times, this social formation may moderately lead or lag behind the state of the productive forces, but in general, it always adapts to them. When productive forces develop to a certain stage, they necessitate a change in the ownership of the means of production, thereby altering the social formation. Therefore, Marx said that "for a certain stage of industrial development, private property is necessary," and "the abolition of private property is only possible with the development of large-scale industry." Communism, as a social formation, must also be built upon a certain foundation of productive forces; divorced from the material condition of productive forces, communism is out of the question. Moreover, these productive forces must surpass the current state of development to drive the transformation of the social formation, thereby replacing private property and realizing communism. "We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence." These "premises now in existence" refer primarily to the conditions of material production—that is, the productive forces. "The establishment of communism is essentially of an economic nature; it is the production of the material conditions for this association—the transformation of existing conditions into conditions of association." This shows that productive forces are extremely important for the establishment of communism; without the material conditions of the productive forces, the proletariat cannot unite, and communism cannot be realized. This places communism upon an objective material foundation, discarding the "moral" foundation of utopian socialism and reflecting the objective regularity [3] of scientific socialism.
(2) The bourgeoisie used productive forces to overthrow the feudal system, and will also overthrow itself
In the Manifesto, Marx and Engels analyzed the process of the emergence, development, and eventual demise of the bourgeoisie on the foundation of the development of productive forces. First, the bourgeoisie emerged within the feudal guild mode of industrial operation; at that time, it was still an oppressed class under the rule of feudal lords. This class made full use of the conditions provided by the development of productive forces, allowing its material conditions to continuously enrich, thereby constantly changing the forms of the social division of labor and slowly growing in its antagonism with the feudal class. Second, with the discovery of America and the expansion of overseas colonies, market demand increased continuously. This provided the bourgeoisie with conditions for growth beyond the development of the productive forces themselves, stimulating the material producing subjects internally to create larger-scale production and new forms of social division of labor, creating more material goods to satisfy the needs of overseas markets. Under the stimulus of these external factors, manufacture replaced the feudal guild mode of industrial operation, the strength of the bourgeoisie accumulated, and it became a power capable of contending with the feudal nobility. Finally, with the further expansion of markets, modern large-scale industry based on machine production replaced manufacture. This represented a further leap in the state of productive forces. The bourgeoisie firmly grasped the various impacts brought about by the development of productive forces, guiding them in a planned direction. The continuous expansion of the market was also a change necessitated by the requirements of bourgeois reproduction; the bourgeoisie dominated this change, while the change simultaneously exerted a massive external push on the development of the bourgeoisie. Ultimately, the bourgeoisie grew further, overthrew the feudal system, and became the ruling class. Clearly, the bourgeoisie was born within feudal society along with industrial development; as the representative of new productive forces, the mode of production and the model of social division of labor created by the bourgeoisie were different from those of feudal society. As productive forces and industry developed further, the bourgeoisie strengthened itself and, through the development of productive forces, the expansion of markets, and the continuous innovation of the social division of labor, finally overthrew the feudal system and established the capitalist system. "The modern bourgeoisie is itself the product of a long course of development, of a series of revolutions in the modes of production and of exchange." This explains that the bourgeoisie is a product of the development of productive forces and conformed to the requirements of that development.
Under the rule of the bourgeoisie, the capitalist system allowed productive forces to achieve immense development. "The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together." This immense development of productive forces eliminated feudal relations of ownership. For example, it turned the relations of intercourse between people into self-interested, "naked" relations of trade and exchange; it subjected the countryside to the city; it turned the scattered state of people into association; and it made the production and consumption of nations cosmopolitan. However, to the surprise of the bourgeoisie, the productive forces it created were simultaneously negating the capitalist system itself while they were eliminating the feudal system and establishing capitalism. This is because they could not bring the material resources between various classes into a state of equilibrium, which also created the material conditions for the emergence and development of communism. With the continuous development of productive forces, the social product appropriated by the bourgeoisie increased, but the distribution system created could not satisfy the material means of subsistence required by the workers. This led to a decline in the purchasing power of workers, the continuous appearance of relative surplus products, and the cyclical eruption of economic crises. This demonstrates that the mode of development of productive forces under the capitalist system is something the bourgeoisie created and relies upon, yet the development of productive forces under this system has brought about effects that obstruct the development of the bourgeoisie. For the bourgeoisie, this is no different from "drinking poison to quench thirst" [4]. This also reveals the fact that capitalist private ownership is increasingly failing to adapt to the development of productive forces. "The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have become too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered." Here, the "conditions" or "relations" refer to capitalist relations of production. The bourgeoisie overcomes these obstacles either by "creating more advanced productive forces," "destroying a mass of productive forces," or "conquering new markets," but all are to no avail and instead aggravate the obstacles. Creating more advanced productive forces undoubtedly intensifies the maladaptation of capitalist relations of production, widens the gap in material means of subsistence between classes, leads to more relative surplus products, and creates greater obstacles to capitalist development. Destroying a mass of productive forces intensifies class contradictions, as no class will accept a regression in productive forces and a return to a primitive material life. Conquering new markets also eventually reaches a point of saturation and deepens contradictions between nations. Therefore, the Manifesto points out: "The conditions of bourgeois society are too narrow to comprise the wealth created by them," and "The weapons with which the bourgeoisie felled feudalism to the ground are now turned against the bourgeoisie itself." This shows that the productive forces created by the bourgeoisie, which once overthrew the feudal system as the representative of advanced productive forces, will also overthrow the capitalist system itself as they continue to develop within it.
(3) The proletariat, by mastering the productive forces, will overthrow bourgeois rule through them
If the productive forces created by the bourgeoisie provide the material conditions for communism, then the proletariat it forged provides the class conditions. When the proletariat truly masters the means of production and appropriates the social productive forces, it will establish a new social formation, and the bourgeoisie will inevitably be overthrown. Accordingly, Marx noted: "With the appropriation of the total productive forces by the united individuals, private property comes to an end." This indicates that the proletariat will unite to overthrow bourgeois rule, appropriate the total productive forces, reorganize the social division of labor, generate a new distribution system, and establish communist public ownership. The proletariat's appropriation of the total productive forces requires the abolition of the existing mode of appropriation and the establishment of a new mode of appropriating productive forces. Of course, the proletariat's abolition of the existing mode of appropriation requires certain material conditions—namely, that productive forces are sufficiently developed and the proletariat is strong enough to unite and become a class for itself [5]; otherwise, the proletariat cannot abolish the existing mode of appropriation. As Marx said: "The first attempts of the proletariat to attain its own ends, made in an era of universal excitement, when feudal society was being overthrown, necessarily failed, because of the then undeveloped state of the proletariat, as well as the absence of the economic conditions for its emancipation, which had yet to be produced by the bourgeois epoch alone." This shows that when productive forces are not sufficiently developed, both the means and the modes of production are led and dominated by the bourgeoisie. The power of the bourgeoisie is vast, while the power of the proletariat is too weak, making the early revolutionary movements of the proletariat inevitably fail. However, with the development of productive forces, the bourgeoisie is fettered by the development of its own system, becoming unable to adapt to the state of productive forces, and its strength continuously weakens. When the material conditions necessary for the emancipation of the proletariat are present, its strength will continuously grow, and it will unite to overthrow bourgeois rule.
II. Public Ownership: The Social Condition of Scientific Socialism
(1) Every society always possesses relations of production that correspond to the productive forces
Regarding social structure, Marx once stated: "In the social production of their life, men enter into definite, necessary relations, independent of their will, namely relations of production which correspond to a certain stage of development of their material productive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general." This passage contains at least three layers of meaning. First, social production forms relations of production based on a certain social division of labor; as these relations correspond to the productive forces, they are established upon and constrained by a specific level of development in those forces. Fundamentally, the productive forces determine the mode of social production and ultimately form corresponding relations of production—that is, the nature of the productive forces dictates the nature of the relations of production. Simultaneously, relations of production exert a counter-reaction upon the productive forces. Because relations of production are created by productive forces and exist within human society, they are subject to social influences; thus, they may develop ahead of or lag behind the state of the productive forces. When relations of production correspond to the development of the productive forces, they facilitate their growth; when they do not, they act as a fetter.
Second, the sum total of relations of production constitutes the economic base of a given society, which generates a corresponding superstructure. The state of the economic base determines the developmental direction, adjustments, or transformations of the superstructure; the superstructure is not permitted to lag behind or remain unadapted to the base over the long term. Similar to the model of correspondence between productive forces and relations of production, the superstructure also exerts a counter-reaction on the economic base. This reaction typically manifests as the superstructure facilitating the base when it is adapted to its development, and obstructing the base when it is not.
Third, the mode of production of material life encompasses both productive forces and relations of production. As the foundation and root of human material life, these two elements condition and influence social, political, and intellectual life—that is, they condition and influence the economic base and the superstructure. Thus, we can see that the productive forces constitute the lowest foundation of human material life, followed by the relations of production, the economic base, and the superstructure, each conditioning and developing upward in sequence. Meanwhile, the economic base and superstructure, as products of staged development, also facilitate or obstruct the mode of production. It is evident that for any given social formation, the economic base and the superstructure constitute the basic structure of society. Among these, the economic base is built upon the mode of production and lays the foundation of the social formation; it is the prerequisite for the existence and development of that formation. Without an economic base, a social formation cannot exist, and productive forces cannot function. Since the economic base is the sum total of relations of production, these relations play a crucial role within the social formation.
(2) Capitalist Private Ownership is Increasingly Unable to Adapt to Powerful Productive Forces
In capitalist society, private ownership of the means of production, built upon socialized large-scale production, constitutes the economic base. This private ownership also serves as a tool for the bourgeoisie to exploit and oppress others, forming the basis of capitalist rule. Without private ownership of the means of production, capital accumulation cannot occur, and capitalism cannot be capitalism. The Manifesto points out: "The essential conditions for the existence and for the sway of the bourgeois class is the formation and augmentation of capital; the condition for capital is wage-labour." This clarifies that the system of private ownership of the means of production is the fundamental condition for the existence of capitalist society. The bourgeoisie, by occupying the means of production, oppresses and exploits the surplus labor of workers to obtain surplus value, which is then converted into capital to enslave the workers, thereby achieving continuous capital accumulation.
Of course, private ownership built upon socialized large-scale production was an advancement over the private ownership of slave and feudal societies, and it once spurred a massive development of productive forces, providing the strength necessary to overthrow the feudal system. However, as capitalist socialized production develops, as technology advances and productive forces grow, the relations of production have not undergone a corresponding new transformation. This has led to a situation where capitalist private ownership is increasingly unable to meet the needs of developing productive forces. Due to the inherent limitations of the capitalist system, it cannot create new relations of production and is instead forced to continually broaden the gap between the relations of production and the productive forces. This objectively demands a new system of ownership of the means of production to replace capitalist private ownership. This new system is the public ownership of the means of production. As noted in the Manifesto: "Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells." This indicates that while the bourgeoisie used private ownership to create vast productive forces and brought about a revolutionary change in the mode of production compared to feudalism, it has become increasingly unable to govern that development. The contradiction between the two has become clearer, more irreconcilable, and immutable; capitalist private ownership has become a fetter on the development of productive forces.
(3) Public Ownership is a Necessary Condition for Communism to Replace Capitalism
As the system of capitalist private ownership fails to meet the needs of developing productive forces, the various classes constituting the relations of production reflect and search for alternatives; establishing a nascent communist public ownership thus becomes an inevitability. "The Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations." This rupture is summarized as the "abolition of private property." The most important aspect of this abolition is not the abolition of private property in general, but specifically the abolition of capitalist private property. Therefore, public ownership is the fundamental characteristic of communism and an inevitable requirement for communism to replace capitalism. It is the only way to thoroughly resolve the issue of capitalist private ownership and is a historical necessity of the development of productive forces. Without establishing public ownership, communism is not true communism.
However, communist public ownership does not intend to "transform personal property into social property," but rather to transform "capital into common property, into the property of all members of society." What changes here is merely the social character of the property, such that it no longer possesses a class-based or exploitative nature. In capitalist society, property is the exclusive right of the bourgeoisie, its "proprietary object," and is exploitative because it originates from the surplus value created by the workers' surplus labor. This surplus labor is not created voluntarily by the worker but is forced under bourgeois oppression. Once created, this surplus value does not belong to the worker but is forcibly occupied by the bourgeoisie. In this process, the bourgeoisie exerts both spiritual and material oppression over the worker—an embodiment of the exploitation of the worker by the bourgeoisie and of "dead labor" [6] exploiting "living labor." In communist society, as property loses its class character, it is no longer occupied and controlled by a single class but becomes common; property becomes merely "a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the labourer." Capital is transformed from a means of exploiting workers into a means of improving their lives. Clearly, communist public ownership aims to eliminate the exploitative nature of capital, converting it at its source so that capital serves the worker rather than remaining a tool in the hands of the bourgeoisie to enslave them. Under such public ownership, communism can continuously build its strength to eventually replace capitalism.
III. Class Struggle: The Path to Realizing Scientific Socialism
(1) Class Struggle is the Direct Driving Force of Human Social Development
In discussing "Bourgeois and Proletarians," the Manifesto first notes that the history of all hitherto existing society (written history) is the history of class struggles. This explains that class struggle was not present at the dawn of humanity but emerged as a social phenomenon once productive forces reached a certain stage—specifically, after the advent of writing. Once it appeared, class struggle became the driving force of human historical development, with struggles carried out in different historical periods to defend class interests, running throughout human history. In slave society, it was the struggle between freeman and slave; in feudal society, between lord and serf; and in capitalist society, between bourgeois and proletarian. "The history of all past society has consisted in the development of class antagonisms, antagonisms that assumed different forms at different epochs." This shows that class struggle is a universal phenomenon; history relies on class struggle in various periods to move forward. It drives continuous historical transformation, though the forms of struggle vary by era. Both parties in a class struggle represent their own class interests. Every transition between social formations is the product of class struggle—the result of the exploited rising against the exploiter and the ruled against the ruler. In a class society, there is no historical period without class struggle; it is precisely class struggle that determines the direction and development of history. Without it, there would be no historical succession or social progress. As the Manifesto states, oppressor and oppressed stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.
Then, which class will achieve victory? This is related to the development of the social productive forces of the time. Advanced productive forces represent advanced relations of production, which in turn represent an advanced economic base and superstructure. The class representing advanced productive forces points the direction for social development and will replace the side representing backward productive forces, ultimately achieving victory. Although the class representing advanced productive forces may initially be smaller in scale and weaker than the class representing backward forces—and indeed often germinates within the old system and suffers oppression—as productive forces develop, this class will grow. Eventually, it will surpass the backward class in scale and strength, winning the class struggle and replacing the social system represented by the backward forces. In essence, class struggle is a reflection of the contradiction between productive forces and relations of production. When the two correspond, class contradictions are not prominent; when productive forces develop to a point where the relations of production can no longer adapt, class contradictions escalate and become prominent. These contradictions manifest in various aspects of social life, such as politics, economy, and culture, appearing as severe class struggle until a revolution breaks out. Therefore, class struggle is the direct driving force of social development. As Marx and Engels stated: "For almost forty years we have stressed the class struggle as the immediate driving power of history, and in particular the class struggle between bourgeoisie and proletariat as the great lever of the modern social revolution; it is, therefore, impossible for us to co-operate with people who wish to expunge this class struggle from the movement." This demonstrates that Marx and Engels attached great importance to class struggle, viewing it as an indispensable historical process and the direct driving force for social progress.
(2) The Struggle Between the Bourgeoisie and the Feudal Class Established Capitalist Society
Capitalist society is the result of direct struggle between the bourgeoisie and the feudal class. Initially, the bourgeoisie was merely an oppressed class under the rule of feudal lords; later, by grasping and guiding the state of the development of productive forces, the bourgeoisie became a force capable of counterbalancing the nobility within autocratic monarchies and served as the principal foundation of great monarchies. Finally, in the process of continuously accumulating strength, the bourgeoisie united the peasantry, workshop workers, and artisans to overthrow the feudal ruling class and establish bourgeois rule. In the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the feudal class, the bourgeoisie was the product of a revolution in the modes of production and exchange; it represented the developmental direction of the advanced productive forces of that time, represented the interests of the then-oppressed classes, and was an advanced class. The feudal class, conversely, was the representative of the traditional mode of production and backward productive forces; it was unable to adapt to the requirements of the new productive forces and was ultimately replaced by the bourgeoisie—this was an inevitable trend of historical development. The Manifesto states, "The bourgeoisie, historically, has played a most revolutionary part." This demonstrates that the bourgeoisie once represented the developmental direction of the productive forces; it led the classes long oppressed under feudalism in resistance, possessed a powerful revolutionary will, launched class struggles, and played a highly revolutionary role. Therefore, the bourgeoisie was advanced during that specific stage of historical development. The victory of the bourgeoisie over the feudal class was an inevitable trend of the development of productive forces, and the replacement of feudal society by the capitalist society it created was an objective requirement of that development. However, the replacement of feudalism by capitalism was inseparable from class struggle. As an organization upholding the interests of the bourgeoisie, it had to launch class struggles to create a new social formation. Without class struggle, capitalist society could not have replaced feudal society "naturally"; only through the impetus of class struggle could the goal of safeguarding bourgeois interests be achieved. The history of capitalism replacing feudalism is the process of the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the feudal class, resulting in the victory of the bourgeoisie.
(3) The struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will realize communism
The Manifesto points out that the replacement of feudalism by capitalism did not eliminate class antagonisms; it merely replaced old classes, old conditions of oppression, and old forms of struggle with new ones. This shows that capitalist society remains a class society, still characterized by class antagonisms, contradictions, and struggle. In fact, class struggle has existed since the inception of capitalist society, but this struggle has been simplified: the boundaries between classes have become increasingly distinct and the division clearer, increasingly splitting into the struggle between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. The proletarian struggle against the bourgeoisie began as spontaneous acts of destroying machinery and burning factories, later evolving into a unified, violent revolution to overthrow bourgeois rule. Can the proletariat defeat the bourgeoisie? The answer is affirmative. The proletariat is the truly revolutionary class. Other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of Modern Industry;^{(1)} the proletariat is its special and essential product. From its birth, the proletariat possessed nothing and found it difficult to maintain even a "slave-like" existence. It can only escape bourgeois exploitation and oppression and secure the social productive forces to sustain its own life by destroying the system of capitalist private property. Moreover, the proletarian struggle against the bourgeoisie is an independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority, which can ultimately use "the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie" to "lay the foundation for its own sway." "The fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." Thus, Marx and Engels were full of confidence in the demise of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat. This is precisely where Marx and Engels achieved excellence by transcending Utopian Socialism. Marx and Engels explained the historical conditions for the replacement of feudal society by capitalist society from the perspective of practical struggle, and demonstrated through the historical practice of adapting relations of production to the development of productive forces that the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will inevitably realize communism. Utopian socialists and various "social quacks"^{(2)} sought the emancipation of capitalist society outside the workers' movement; these attempts were either utopian or failed to touch the roots of capitalism, failing to find the source and practicality of socialism or the scientific method for-realizing communism.
The proletariat overthrows the bourgeoisie and replaces capitalist private property with the establishment of a communist society. The Manifesto states: "The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property." This indicates that communism replaces capitalist property with a new form of ownership—namely, replacing private ownership of the means of production with public ownership. This is also a necessary condition for communist society to replace capitalist society. In a communist society characterized by public ownership of the means of production, labor is free and constitutes the most essential human activity. Labor is no longer dominated by capital, nor is it a mere means of subsistence; it is something humans actively create. Conversely, capital is dominated by labor and serves it; capital is no longer a tool for oppressing workers to create surplus labor, but becomes a power to develop labor skills. "In bourgeois society, living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor. In Communist society, accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer." This shows that in capitalist society, the worker's labor is merely a means for capital accumulation; capital controls the worker's means of subsistence by continuously squeezing surplus labor. In communist society, however, labor is not the basic means of maintaining life, and capital has become a means of promoting the worker’s life. "In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." Here, "each" refers to every individual in reality constrained by different conditions, the "particular person"; "all" refers to the concept of people unconstrained by any conditions, the "universal person." Only when each "particular person" achieves free development and is no longer restricted by various conditions can "all people" or the "universal person" achieve free development, ultimately becoming the subjects of communist society. This is fundamentally different from Hegel's thought; for Hegel, the "particular person" was merely the realization of the Idea of the "universal person." Thus, the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will inevitably lead to the freedom and liberation of every member of the proletariat, the overthrow of bourgeois rule and capitalist society, and the realization of communism.
IV. The Communist Party: The Organizational Guarantee of Scientific Socialism
(1) The Communist Party represents the interests of the proletariat
In the struggle against the bourgeoisie, the proletariat needs to establish its own organization to unite every proletarian individual; the Communist Party emerged in response to this need. The Communist Party is a political party that represents the interests of the proletariat. It is composed of proletarians and consistently represents the interests of the proletarian revolution, providing theoretical guidance and practical impetus. As the organization of the proletariat, it leads the class struggle, continuously strengthens itself, and ultimately achieves victory. Therefore, the Communist Party is the organizational guarantee for the victory of the proletarian revolution. As the Manifesto says: the formation of the proletariat into a class, the overthrow of bourgeois supremacy, and the conquest of political power by the proletariat. It is evident that in the proletarian movement, the Communist Party takes the proletariat as its core and aims to overthrow the bourgeois rule that oppresses it to realize proletarian rule, which is consistent with the proletarian mission. First, the Communist Party strives to make the proletariat aware of the commonality of its interests and unites it into a class force to resist the bourgeoisie. Second, the party carefully analyzes the historical prerequisites and laws of development of the proletarian movement, clearly pointing out the differences in roots, positions, and represented interests compared to the bourgeoisie; it continuously accumulates experience and creates theoretical guidance for the proletariat to understand its historical status and the conditions, processes, and results of its movement. Finally, the Communist Party guides the proletariat into revolution through its advanced elements, integrating these elements with the proletariat to expand into a class group with shared ideals and beliefs, thereby achieving revolutionary victory. From a practical standpoint, since the day of its founding, the Communist Party of China (CPC) has taken it as its responsibility to represent and struggle for the interests of the proletariat. It has led the masses in striving for national independence, the liberation of the people, and the realization of national prosperity and people's happiness. This has allowed the Chinese nation, which has endured great suffering in modern times, to welcome the great leap from standing up and becoming prosperous to becoming strong, and to welcome the bright prospects of the Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation. Without the CPC, there would be no victory of the New Democratic Revolution, no New China, no glorious achievements of Reform and Opening-up, no socialism with Chinese characteristics, and no "moderately prosperous"^{(3)} life for the Chinese nation and the masses today. Thus, the Communist Party is the faithful representative of proletarian interests; it is the bridge connecting advanced intellectuals with the proletariat, fusing them to establish the common ideal and belief in achieving the well-rounded development of the person; and it is the organizational guarantee for the victory of the proletarian revolution and the realization of free and well-rounded development for the masses. At all times, the Communist Party stands in a united front with the proletariat, continuously leading it toward the realization of everyone's well-rounded and free development.
(2) The goal of the Communist Party is the abolition of private property
The Manifesto clearly states: "The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property." Here, "private property" refers to capitalist private property. Under capitalist private property, the bourgeoisie owns the means of production and holds a dominant position in productive activities; the proletariat does not own the means of production, and the bourgeoisie produces by employing proletarian labor. This wage-labor relationship only covers the employment of the proletariat within social labor time and does not account for the surplus labor resulting from proletarian oppression and exploitation. In the capitalist production process, capital and wage labor are in opposition. The bourgeoisie obtains property by exploiting wage labor through capital, which includes the surplus value generated by proletarian surplus labor. The proletariat, meanwhile, labor only to increase capital and lacks initiative; they labor only when capital requires it, solely to pay for their physical means of subsistence, ultimately possessing nothing. Therefore, the abolition of capitalist private property is not intended to abolish the personally earned property acquired through one's own labor (of which the proletariat has none anyway), nor is it a negation of private property derived from labor. Rather, it is to abolish property obtained by the bourgeoisie through the exploitation of workers via capital—property not gained through the payment for labor, but through oppression and exploitation. It is not to abolish the power to personally appropriate the products of society, but to abolish the power to use that appropriation to subjugate the labor of others, thereby allowing the proletariat to obtain corresponding remuneration through their own labor and maintaining the personal appropriation of the means of production through labor. "Communism deprives no man of the power to appropriate the products of society; all that it deprives him of is the power to subjugate the labor of others by means of such appropriation." This clearly indicates that individuals can appropriate social products, but such appropriation is conditional: it must be obtained through personal labor, and it emphasizes that one cannot use appropriated social products to exploit or enslave others. Whether it is the direct appropriation of another's labor products, the indirect appropriation of another's labor through controlled social products, or the appropriation of another's labor under any false guise, all are contrary to the tenets of communism. Evidently, the communist abolition of private property is primarily the abolition of private ownership involving exploitation, rather than a prohibition on personal appropriation of social products. The goal of the Communist Party in abolishing capitalist private property is, in essence, to abolish the private appropriation of proletarian labor by the bourgeoisie, to abolish the oppression that strips the proletariat of its initiative in labor, to abolish behaviors that hinder the free and well-rounded development of the proletariat, and to abolish the phenomenon of "alienation" wherein the proletariat suffers exploitation and enslavement. In essence, it is to emancipate the proletariat, liberate the initiative of proletarian labor, and achieve free and well-rounded development for the proletariat. This is what the proletariat seeks to obtain through class struggle and is consistent with its fundamental interests; therefore, the Communist Party can unite the proletariat of the whole world to abolish private property.
(3) Communist parties unite all possible forces to achieve their objectives In order to achieve the liberation of the proletariat, communist political parties do not exclude any forces that can potentially be united. Proceeding from the interests of the proletariat and standing from the proletarian perspective, communist parties unite all alignable forces to realize the free and well-rounded development of every individual within the proletariat. The Manifesto states: “The Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.” This demonstrates that Communists support all revolutionary movements opposed to the feudal or capitalist systems. Communist parties believe that any group, regardless of its primary subject, can be integrated into the proletariat and contribute to its liberation as long as it opposes feudalism or capitalism. This indicates that the communist party is a party that plays a truly revolutionary role, possessing an incomparably broad mind and spirit; it accommodates and receives all revolutionary movements willing to stand in a united front [10] with the proletariat and assists their integration with the proletariat, supporting any revolutionary movement that opposes the existing irrational order. However, in the process of supporting these movements, Communists always emphasize that the question of property is the fundamental question of the movement. This also demonstrates that communist parties consistently maintain their independence and pursue their goals with unswerving determination. They do not change their original aspiration and founding mission simply because they merge with other revolutionary movements; in the final analysis, their goal remains the liberation and free, well-rounded development of the proletariat, ensuring they do not lose their direction amidst the various revolutionary movements of reality. In other words, although Communists support all revolutionary movements against feudal or capitalist systems, no factor can shake their ultimate goal: the final abolition of capitalist private property. Beyond this, to abolish capitalist private property, Communists do not exclude classes that are likewise oppressed by the capitalist system; rather, they strive to unite all forces that can be united. “The Communists everywhere strive for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.” Therefore, the communist party calls upon the proletarians of all countries to unite: “Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.” This shows that the communist party is a party of firm will, indomitability, and skill in unification. It is a party capable of listening to opinions at all times to realize the free and well-rounded development of the proletariat. It serves as the strong backing of the proletariat, lays a sound foundation for the integration and development of the proletariat, and provides the organizational guarantee for the realization of communism.
In summary, the Manifesto explains the material and social conditions of scientific socialism from the perspectives of the productive forces and the relations of production within the historical materialist framework. By linking socialism to the productive forces and relations of production, it places socialism upon the foundation of the laws governing the contradictory movement between the two. This rejects the "moral" foundation of utopian socialism and resolves the issue of utopian socialism’s lack of practical origins, thus embodying the objective regularity [11] of scientific socialism. Simultaneously, the Manifesto explains the path of realization and the organizational guarantee of scientific socialism from the perspectives of class struggle and the communist party. This grounds socialism in the practice of the proletariat and Communists. Through class struggle, it proves that the proletariat can likewise create history and drive historical development, resolving utopian socialism’s lack of a scientific path and embodying the subjective capability [12] of scientific socialism. It is evident that the thought of scientific socialism within the Manifesto embodies the unity of objective regularity and subjective capability; it is a manifestation of historical materialism. Socialism with Chinese characteristics is the result of the unity between scientific socialism and Chinese practice; it both follows the laws of Chinese historical development and reflects the subject-based choice of the masses. It is precisely because the Communist Party of China adheres to the people-centered philosophy, continuously unites the broad masses of the people, and unites all forces that can be united, that it can lead the masses to continuously promote and create new developments and heights in history. We must strengthen our conviction in socialism with Chinese characteristics, maintain full confidence in the path, theory, system, and culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics, continuously enrich and develop socialism with Chinese characteristics, and achieve the Chinese Dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation at an early date.
Disclaimer: This account primarily promotes articles from the New Era Marxist Review (Xīnshídài Mǎkèsì Zhǔyì Lùncóng). The copyright of the promoted articles belongs to the authors and this journal; all rights reserved. Additionally, other information pushed by this account is for exchange and sharing; if there is any infringement, please contact the background staff, and we will handle it actively.
(About the Authors: Qi Jieqiang is a Professor, PhD, and Master’s Supervisor at Guangxi University of Science and Technology; Liu Xiangdong is a graduate student at the School of Marxism, Guangxi University of Science and Technology.)
Web Editor: Tongxin Source: New Era Marxist Review