Gao Jiankun and Cheng Enfu: Engels' Economic Thought on Communism and Its Contemporary Value
Engels's exposition of the economic morphology of communism occupies an extremely important historical position within political economy and the theory of scientific socialism. On the occasion of the 200th anniversary of Engels's birth, systematically organizing his economic thoughts on communism from the key aspects of productive forces and relations of production, and exploring their contemporary value, offers significant enlightenment for the development of the economic theory and practice of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in the New Era.
I. Engels's Exposition on the Development of Productive Forces under Communism
At the level of productive forces, Engels believed that the potential for their development could only be fully realized in a communist society. At that stage, "the productive forces at the disposal of mankind are immeasurable," and "once this immeasurable productive capacity is consciously applied and utilized for the benefit of the masses, the labor burdening humanity will quickly be reduced to a minimum."
(1) Great Progress in the Mode of Labor
In Engels's view, due to the abolition of capitalist private ownership, the mode of labor—as a vital manifestation of the state of productive forces in a communist society—will achieve immense progress over the capitalist mode of labor in terms of labor time, the nature of labor, and the division of labor.
Regarding labor time, the time spent on labor in a communist society will be greatly shortened. At the level of labor power utilization, Engels argued that the rational organization of labor power in a communist society could utilize "labor power that is completely unused or inappropriately used" in capitalist society, such that "the average working time of every individual would be reduced by half compared to the present." At the level of the utilization of products and means of production, even under current conditions of productive force development, "the increase in production resulting from the very fact of the socialization of the productive forces, together with the elimination of the obstructions and disruptions and the waste of products and means of production caused by the capitalist mode of production, would be sufficient—given universal participation in labor—to reduce labor time to an extent that would seem miniscule by current standards."
Regarding the nature of labor, because the coercive nature of capitalist wage labor is eliminated, labor in a communist society achieves an organic unity between labor and enjoyment. Engels fully affirmed Charles Fourier’s theory of free labor—namely, that if every individual in society engages in some form of labor for which they have a "natural inclination or preference," the needs of the entire society will inevitably be met. Therefore, the coercive means of labor employed by the capitalist system are unnecessary. Furthermore, the capitalist system severs labor from enjoyment, "turning labor into a painful affair and making joy something inaccessible to the majority of workers." So long as "everyone can work according to their own interests" under a rational system, labor can "become a form of enjoyment."
In the Communist Manifesto, Engels and Marx elucidated the subordinate nature of labor to capital in capitalist society: "living labor is but a means to increase accumulated labor," whereby "capital is independent and has individuality, while the living person is dependent and has no individuality." They pointed out that labor in a communist society possesses autonomy: "accumulated labor is but a means to widen, to enrich, to promote the existence of the laborer." In Anti-Dühring, Engels further clarified the joyful quality of labor in a communist society: "on the one hand, no individual can share out among others his own share in productive labor, this natural condition of human existence; on the other hand, productive labor, instead of being a means to the subjection of men, will become a means to their emancipation, by giving each individual the opportunity to develop and exercise all his faculties, physical and mental, in all directions." On this basis, Engels proposed the conditions for transforming "productive labor from a burden into a pleasure": the comprehensive public ownership of the means of production and their use according to a social plan. The reason lies in the fact that "when society becomes the master of all means of production to use them in accordance with a social plan, it puts an end to the former subjection of men to their own means of production."
Regarding the division of labor, due to the abolition of capitalist private ownership and the great development of productive forces, communist society eliminates the old division of labor—including the fixed division between physical and mental labor—thereby achieving a rational division of labor and the all-around development of the person.
First, he pointed out the drawbacks of the old division of labor. In The German Ideology, Marx and Engels jointly noted the negative consequences of the old division of labor: a division that arises naturally rather than voluntarily makes man's own activity an alien power opposed to and oppressing him. In Principles of Communism, Engels pointed out that the industrial division of labor restricts the all-around development of the individual: "each individual is restricted to a single branch of production, or even a part of one, and has developed only one of his faculties at the expense of all others; he knows only one branch, or even one part of a branch, of the whole of production. Even present-day industry is finding such people less and less useful." In Anti-Dühring, Engels further clarified that in all societies where production develops spontaneously, the division of labor becomes a means by which "the means of production enslave the producers"; in capitalist society, large-scale industrial machinery ensures that "not only the workers, but also the classes directly or indirectly exploiting the workers, are enslaved by the instruments of their own activity through the division of labor."
Second, he pointed out the objective necessity of abolishing the old division of labor. In Principles of Communism, Engels argued that "industry managed by the whole of society in common and according to a plan requires people whose faculties are developed in all directions and who are able to master the whole system of production." Communist society eliminates the division of labor that restricts free development: "no one has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the entire production." In particular, by eliminating the ruling class's monopoly on mental labor, the division between physical and mental labor is abolished, achieving a state where "there are no mere painters, but only people who, among other activities, engage in painting."
Third, he proposed the conditions and pathways for eliminating the old division of labor. In The German Ideology, Marx and Engels jointly pointed out the essence of abolishing the division of labor: "the abolition of private property and of the division of labor is at the same time the union of individuals on the basis created by modern productive forces and world intercourse." In Principles of Communism, Engels proposed that industrial education is an important way to eliminate the old industrial division of labor: "education will enable young people quickly to familiarize themselves with the whole system of production and to pass from one branch of production to another in response to the needs of society or their own inclinations. It will, therefore, deliver them from the one-sided character which the present-day division of labor impresses upon every individual. Thus, the society organized on communist principles will enable its members to put their all-around developed faculties to all-around use." Simultaneously, Engels emphasized that the abolition of private ownership, especially capitalist private ownership, is a prerequisite for eliminating the old division of labor. For instance, in Principles of Communism, Engels noted that the elimination of the old division of labor to achieve all-around human development is a consequence of the abolition of private property; in Anti-Dühring, he noted that "the society which frees itself from the barriers of capitalist production... will create a generation of producers with all-around development who understand the scientific basis of industrial production as a whole, and each of whom has had practical experience in a whole series of branches of production from beginning to end."
Fourth, he proposed the significant meaning of the rational division of labor under communism. In The Housing Question, Engels wrote: "It is precisely this industrial revolution which has raised the productive power of human labor to such a high level that—for the first time in the history of humanity—the possibility exists, given a rational division of labor among all, of producing not only enough for the plentiful consumption of all members of society and for an abundant reserve fund, but also of leaving each individual sufficient leisure time so that what is really worth preserving in historically inherited culture—science, art, forms of intercourse—may not only be preserved but converted from a monopoly of the ruling class into the common property of the whole of society, and may be further developed."
(2) The Integrated Development of All Sectors Far Surpassing the Level of Capitalist Society
First, Engels believed that the level of productive forces in every sector of communism would far exceed those of capitalist society. Engels pointed out that even under the capitalist mode of production, human productive forces could achieve greater development than in the past. Taking agriculture under capitalist conditions as an example: "the application of capital, labor, and science can increase the productive capacity of the land infinitely"; "Great Britain, which is 'overpopulated,' will within ten years produce enough grain to supply six times its current population"; "capital increases daily, labor power grows with the population, and science increasingly subjects natural forces to human control." [1]
However, the development of productive forces under the capitalist mode of production is obstructed by capitalist production goals and class relations, such that "the limit of production is determined not by the number of hungry bellies, but by the number of purses able to buy and to pay," to the extent that "bourgeois society does not wish, and cannot wish, to produce more." Engels believed that in the short term, if capitalist relations of production and class relations were eliminated, the existing means of production and exchange would be sufficient to form much greater productive forces far exceeding current levels: "the productive power of every individual is increased to the point where he can produce enough for the consumption of two, three, four, five, or six people; then city industry will be able to release enough personnel to provide agriculture with a totally different strength than before; science will finally be applied to agriculture on a large scale and as thoroughly as in industry; the naturally fertile and extremely rich regions of Southeastern Europe and Western America will be developed on an unprecedentedly vast scale."
Second, Engels believed that communist society could truly abolish the antithesis between town and country and achieve the integration of industry and agriculture, thereby further liberating productive forces.
One point was the significance of abolishing the town-country antithesis and integrating industry and agriculture. Regarding industrial development, abolishing the antithesis is a direct requirement of industrial production itself, as well as a requirement for agricultural production and public health. This is because "only through the fusion of town and country can the current poisoning of air, water, and soil be removed; only through this fusion can the fecal matter of the increasingly sickly masses in the cities be used not to cause disease, but as fertilizer for plants." Regarding human development, this fusion can promote all-around development and create new, higher productive forces. Among the agricultural population, "only by distributing the population as evenly as possible over the whole country, only by achieving a close internal connection between industrial and agricultural production and expanding means of transport accordingly—presupposing the abolition of the capitalist mode of production—can the rural population be delivered from the isolation and ignorance in which they have vegetated almost unchanged for thousands of years." For industrial workers, this fusion could "create a generation of producers with all-around development who understand the scientific basis of industrial production as a whole... Such a society will create a new productive force that more than compensates for the labor spent on transporting raw materials or fuel from greater distances."
Another point was that the abolition of the capitalist mode of production is the prerequisite for ending the town-country antithesis. Capitalist society can never eliminate this antithesis; instead, it inevitably intensifies it: "factory cities turn all water into stinking sewage. Thus, although concentration in cities is a basic condition of capitalist production, every industrial capitalist is always trying to leave the large cities necessarily created by capitalist production and move to rural areas to operate." Therefore, Engels proposed: "to eliminate this new vicious circle, to eliminate this constantly recurring contradiction of modern industry, is only possible by eliminating the capitalist character of industry"; "only a society which can arrange its productive forces in a harmonious way according to a single general plan can allow industry to be distributed over the whole country in the way best suited to its own development and the preservation or development of other elements of production."
In summary, Engels's exposition on the development of communist productive forces was not imagined out of thin air but was a necessary conclusion reached through a dialectical analysis of the reality of capitalist development. These expositions revealed the basic conditions for the great development of communist productive forces: namely, conscious production according to a plan (including the possible planned regulation of population growth) and distribution according to a plan, based on the comprehensive public ownership of the means of production.
II. Engels’s Exposition on Communist Relations of Production
At the level of the relations of production, Engels not only expounded upon the primary characteristics of the development of communist relations of production but also elucidated their vital role and significance for the economic and social development of communism.
(I) The Institutional Establishment of Public Ownership of the Means of Production for the Whole of Society: The Working People’s Collective Possession of the Means of Production
1. The connotation and realization of public ownership of the means of production In Engels’ view, the connotation and mode of realization of the public ownership of the means of production in a communist society can only be elucidated by proceeding from the reality of the contradictions within capitalist relations of production.
First, Engels believed that a key feature of communism is the establishment of public ownership of the means of production based on the abolition of capitalist private property. In the Principles of Communism, Engels emphasized that the "common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement" is a vital characteristic of communist society; communist society "will, in place of competition, institute association," because "competition is only the manner in which the individual private owners exercise their industry, and therefore private property is inseparable from the individual management of industry and from competition." In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx and Engels clearly stated: "The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property," because "modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few." Yet they simultaneously emphasized: "Communism deprives no man of the power to occupy the products of society; all that it does is to deprive him of the power to subjugate the labour of others by means of such occupation." They also refuted the view that "the abolition of private property will lead to the cessation of productive activity and the rise of universal laziness," pointing out that the characteristic of capitalist exploitation is that "those of its members who work, acquire nothing, and those who acquire anything, do not work." In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Engels noted that public ownership of the means of production marks "the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom," because "once society has taken possession of the means of production, the production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer," which is to say, "anarchy in social production is replaced by plan-conforming, conscious organization." The laws of man's own social action, which "have hitherto stood face to face with man as laws of nature foreign to, and dominating him," are replaced by the planning and consciousness of social production through public ownership. This allows humanity to "apply them with full understanding," thereby becoming "the conscious, real masters of nature for the first time," and only then do they "themselves, with full consciousness, make their own history."
Second, proceeding from the reality of the contradictions in capitalist relations of production, Engels proposed the means of realizing public ownership of the means of production. First, he pointed out that the proletariat, after achieving political dominance, must gradually implement state ownership as the fundamental method for realizing public ownership. In The Holy Family, Marx and Engels jointly noted that the proletariat can only achieve victory by abolishing its opposite (i.e., private property), and both will disappear. In the Principles of Communism, Engels proposed that the democratic state system established after the victory of the proletarian revolution must gradually implement twelve measures that "directly attack private property and ensure the survival of the proletariat," so as to gradually realize state ownership of the means of production—that is, "to concentrate all capital, all agriculture, all industry, all transport, and all exchange increasingly in the hands of the State." In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx and Engels clearly pointed out that the measures the proletariat needs to take to gradually realize state ownership are coercive in nature, emphasizing that "the Communist revolution is the most radical rupture with traditional property relations." After the proletariat rises to the position of the ruling class through a workers' revolution, it "will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible." They noted that although these coercive measures will differ from country to country, the most advanced countries can generally adopt ten main measures: "Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes," "A heavy progressive or graduated income tax," "Abolition of all rights of inheritance," "Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels," "Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly," "Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State," "Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan," "Equal liability of all to work; establishment of industrial armies," "Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country," and "Free education for all children in public schools; abolition of children's factory labour in its present form; combination of education with industrial production," etc. Second, he pointed out that cooperative production is an intermediate link in the transition to a fully communist economy. In Engels' Letter to August Bebel, Engels suggested that during the transition to a fully communist economy, "we shall have to make widespread use of cooperative production as a middle stage," but must "ensure that society (i.e., at first the State) retains ownership of the means of production," thereby ensuring that "the special interests of a cooperative could not prevail over the general interest of society as a whole."
2. The comprehensive establishment of public ownership can thoroughly eliminate the waste of human and material resources In Engels’ view, only by abolishing private property, especially capitalist private property, can the waste of human and material resources be eliminated, thereby creating conditions for the great development of productive forces.
First, Engels believed that the comprehensive establishment of public ownership can eliminate the labor waste inherent in capitalist society. One aspect is the elimination of labor waste caused by the luxurious lifestyles of the wealthy in capitalist society. In his Speeches in Elberfeld, he illustrated this by citing the mansions and inner chambers of the rich, where many servants attend to one person, "consequently they have nothing to do, or at most work which results from the isolation of humans in their individual small worlds," spending only a small part of the day "making their masters' lives pleasant, making it easy for their masters to freely display and utilize their human characteristics and talents," while spending most of their time on things "that arise only because of the poor arrangement of our social relations." Therefore, Engels proposed that in a rationally organized society, "the labor-power currently wasted on serving people in luxury would naturally turn" toward benefiting society and the laborers themselves. Another aspect is the elimination of unemployment caused by capitalist competition. In the Speeches in Elberfeld, Engels pointed out that capitalist competition leaves large numbers of people who want to work unable to find jobs, resulting in a waste of labor-power; if competition forces "everyone to grab someone else's bread, to squeeze others out of their jobs by any means," unemployment becomes even more severe. Engels analyzed that although a large number of "unemployed people who have to sell themselves in some way... are of no use to society, society still has to support them in some way," yet "in modern society where competition reigns supreme (i.e., capitalist society—Editor's note)," there is no way for these unemployed people to "earn an honorable and upright living." Thus, Engels emphasized that only when communist society, through public ownership, "combines individual forces into a social collective force and arranges everything based on this concentration of forces that were formerly opposed to each other, can the greatest economy of labor-power be achieved."
Second, Engels believed that the comprehensive establishment of public ownership can eliminate the waste of material resources in capitalist society. In Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, Engels revealed that the bourgeoisie's private appropriation of the means of production and products—"and thereby the appropriation of political dominance, the monopoly of education and spiritual leadership"—has not only "become superfluous, but economically, politically, and intellectually a hindrance to development." Among these, the economic bankruptcy of the bourgeoisie (i.e., capitalist economic crises) "recurs regularly ogni dieci anni" [every ten years]. Such periodically erupting capitalist economic crises mean that capitalist society cannot fully utilize existing productive forces and products, resulting in the waste and destruction of productive forces and products, and "this waste and destruction is at present the inescapable companion of production and reaches its climax in the period of crisis." From this, Engels proposed that "the taking over of the means of production by society not only eliminates the existing artificial barriers to production, but also the positive waste and destruction of productive forces and products," while "also saving for the whole of society a mass of means of production and products by doing away with the senseless luxury and extravagance of the now ruling class and its political representatives."
3. The comprehensive establishment of public ownership can realize genuine equality between men and women in the economic and social spheres In Engels’ view, only by abolishing private property can inequality between men and women in labor relations and family/marriage relations be eliminated, thereby achieving true women’s liberation in the economic and social spheres.
First, Engels believed that only the abolition of private property can eliminate gender inequality in labor relations, thereby achieving true women's liberation. In The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Engels pointed out the decisive significance of establishing public ownership for the realization of women’s liberation: "the first condition for the liberation of the wife is to bring the whole female sex back into public industry, and that this in turn demands that the characteristic of the individual family as the economic unit of society be abolished"; "with the transfer of the means of production into common ownership, the individual family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry." In Engels' Letter to Gertrude Guillaume-Schack, Engels pointed out that only by abolishing capitalist private property and thus capitalist exploitation can true equality between men and women be realized: "true equality between men and women can only become a reality when the exploitation of both by capital has been abolished and private housework has been transformed into a public industry."
Second, Engels believed that the comprehensive establishment of public ownership can eliminate gender inequality in family and marriage relations. One aspect is the abolition of the community of women [2] based on capitalist private property, rather than its implementation. In the Principles of Communism, Engels noted: "The community of women is a condition which belongs entirely to bourgeois society and which today finds its complete expression in prostitution. But prostitution is based on private property and falls with it." In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx and Engels pointed out that both formal and informal prostitution in capitalist society are based on capitalist private property: the bourgeois family is "based on capital, on private gain," while "the practical absence of the family among the proletarians, and public prostitution" are its complements, to the extent that "our bourgeois, not content with having wives and daughters of their proletarians at their disposal, not to speak of common prostitutes, take the greatest pleasure in seducing each other's wives"; "the abolition of the present system of production (i.e., capitalist relations of production—Editor's note) must bring with it the abolition of the community of women springing from that system, i.e., of prostitution both public and private." Another aspect is the realization of true monogamy. In The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Engels pointed out the limitations of monogamy in capitalist society—namely, that it is monogamy only for the wife, not in the true sense for the husband. He wrote: "Monogamy arose from the concentration of great wealth in the hands of a single individual—a man—and from the need to bequeath this wealth to the children of that man and of no other. For this purpose, the monogamy of the woman was required, not that of the man, so that this monogamy of the woman did not in any way interfere with open or concealed polygamy on the part of the man." Engels believed that as the means of production are transferred to social ownership, the economic basis for women surrendering themselves for money can be eliminated, thus realizing true monogamy. Engels also proposed a vision for the order of relations between the sexes after the abolition of capitalist relations of production: "A race of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman’s surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a race of women who have never been obliged to surrender to a man from any other consideration than that of real love, or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences."
(II) The Institutional Establishment of Distribution According to Need for the Whole Society: Individual, Rational, and Equal Direct Possession of Means of Consumption
By pointing out the defects of capitalist distribution principles, Engels clarified erroneous understandings of the communist principle of "distribution according to need" and systematically expounded upon that principle.
First, Engels provided a dialectical analysis of the standards and principles of distribution as an embodiment of equality. One point he made was that the principle of distribution according to talent is detrimental to achieving distributive equality. In The Progress of Social Reform on the Continent, Engels pointed out the limitations of the Saint-Simonian communal principle of distributing according to a member's talent, agreeing with the view of the German republican Ludwig Börne [3] that distributing according to talent is unfavorable to distributive equality: "talent, instead of being rewarded, should be rather considered as a natural advantage, and a certain deduction made from the share of the talented, to restore the equality." Second, he pointed out that due to the elimination of the division of labor and the assumption of educational costs by society, the distinction between simple and complex labor does not serve as the basis for allocating means of subsistence in a communist society. In Anti-Dühring, Engels noted that "in a society of private producers, the cost of training the qualified worker is paid by private persons or their families; then the higher price paid for qualified labor-power accrues first of all to private persons"; however, "in a socialistically organized society [referring here to communist society — Editor's note], these costs are borne by society, and to it therefore belong the fruits, the greater values produced by composite labor," while "the worker himself has no claim to extra pay." Third, he emphasized that the entirety of society, composed of laborers, receives the whole product of labor, rather than each individual laborer receiving his own total product of labor. In The Housing Question, Engels pointed out that under the conditions of social production constrained by modern large-scale industry, the idea of each individual obtaining "the full proceeds of his own labor" should be understood as: "the whole of society, consisting purely of workers, becomes the owner of the total product of their labor, which it partly distributes among its members for consumption, partly uses for replacing and increasing its means of production, and partly stores up as a reserve fund for production and consumption."
Next, Engels systematically explained the modes of distribution for social products in communism. First, he pointed out that in communist society, means of production and means of subsistence follow different distribution principles: means of production are socially owned, while means of subsistence and enjoyment are individually owned. In Anti-Dühring, Engels noted that the flaw of the capitalist mode of appropriation lies in how "the product first enslaves the producer and then the appropriator," which must inevitably "give place to the mode of appropriation of the products that is based upon the nature of the modern means of production; upon the one hand, direct social appropriation, as means to the maintenance and extension of production — on the other, direct individual appropriation, as means of subsistence and enjoyment." The condition for the capitalist mode of appropriation to exit the historical stage is "the socialized appropriation of the productive forces, which have outgrown all forms of management except that of society itself," allowing "men to treat this today's productive forces according to their nature, which is finally understood," so that "the social anarchy of production gives place to a social regulation of production upon a definite plan, according to the needs of the community and of each individual." Second, he emphasized that the degree to which people's rational needs are satisfied in communist society increases progressively on the basis of continuous progress in the productive forces. In his "Speeches in Elberfeld," Engels started from reality to propose reform plans embodying communist principles, such as the total reorganization of poorhouses (i.e., settling all unemployed citizens in colonies and having them perform labor for the benefit of the whole colony) and the levying of a universal progressive tax on capital. In Karl Marx, Engels proposed that in the new system established after the united proletariat gains control of the social productive forces, "every member of society will be enabled to participate not only in the production but also in the distribution and administration of social wealth, and which so increases the social productive forces and their yield by planned operation of the whole of production that the satisfaction of all reasonable needs of each will be assured in an ever-increasing measure." Third, he emphasized that the mode of distribution is not immutable but changes alongside the progress of production and social organization. In "Engels to Conrad Schmidt (August 5)," Engels pointed out: "the method of distribution essentially depends on how much there is to distribute, and that this must surely change with the progress of production and social organization, so that the method of distribution may also change." Fourth, he proposed that inequality in living conditions in communist society could be reduced to a minimum, but never completely eliminated. In "Engels to August Bebel," Engels noted that "between one country and another, one province and another and even one locality and another there will always exist a certain inequality in the conditions of life, which it will be possible to reduce to a minimum but never entirely remove."
(III) The Establishment of a System of Planned Economic Regulation by the Whole Society: Conscious Regulation of Production, Exchange, and Distribution
Based on pointing out the flaws of the anarchy of capitalist production, Engels systematically demonstrated the significance of the whole of society consciously and plannedly regulating production, exchange, and distribution, and clarified the core essence of the planned regulation of the entire national economy.
First, Engels systematically demonstrated the objective historical necessity of communist society's conscious and planned regulation of economic activities. One point made is that only with such regulation can the serious flaws of the capitalist mode of production be overcome. In "Speeches in Elberfeld," Engels used the circulation of North American cotton as an example to show that middlemen such as speculators, agents, exporters, brokers, forwarders, wholesalers, and retailers take a profit without participating in production, causing a massive waste of labor-power; "in a rationally organized society there would be no such complicated methods of transport," and by determining consumption needs in advance at the right time, "labor-power would be greatly saved, and there would be no need to pay profits to speculators and small or large traders." In Anti-Dühring, Engels illustrated that to eliminate the de-citification [4] caused by polluting large-scale capitalist industry moving from the city to the countryside, "it is only possible by the abolition of the capitalist character of modern industry"; "only a society which makes it possible for its productive forces to dovetail harmoniously into each other on the basis of one single vast plan can allow industry to be distributed over the whole country in the way best adapted to its own development, and to the maintenance and development of the other elements of production." A second point is that only through conscious, planned regulation of economic activities by the whole society can immense socio-economic progress be advanced. In the Dialectics of Nature, Engels pointed out that this regulation would, socially speaking, lift humans out of the rest of the animal kingdom, thereby allowing the productive forces to develop by leaps and bounds. Engels agreed with Darwin’s view that "free competition, the struggle for existence, which the economists celebrate as the highest historical achievement, is the normal state of the animal kingdom," and proposed that "only a conscious organization of social production, in which production and distribution are carried on in a planned way, can lift mankind above the rest of the animal world as regards the social aspect," so that "man himself and all branches of his activity, and especially natural science, will take a leap forward and leave everything that has been achieved before completely in the shade."
Next, Engels pointed out the means of realizing this conscious, planned regulation of economic activities. First, the foundation for such regulation is the social appropriation of all means of production. In Anti-Dühring, Engels proposed that "when society becomes the master of all means of production and uses them in a planned way on a social scale, society eliminates the previous slavery of man to his own means of production." Second, he pointed out the basic content of this regulation. In Outlines of a Critique of Political Economy, Engels proposed that in a rational society, "the community will have to calculate what it can produce with the means at its disposal; and in accordance with the relationship of this productive power to the mass of consumers it will determine how far it has to raise or lower production, how far it has to give way to, or curtail, luxury." In Anti-Dühring, Engels emphasized that under conditions where society possesses the means of production—making individual labor directly social labor—"society must also know how much labor each article of consumption requires to produce it"; it must arrange its plan of production in accordance with its means of production and labor-power; "the useful effects of the various articles of consumption, compared with one another and with the quantities of labor required for their production, will in the end determine the plan." Third, he proposed that the disappearance of money is the inevitable result of this conscious regulation. In Principles of Communism, Engels wrote: "When all capital, all production, and all exchange have been concentrated in the hands of the nation, private property will disappear of its own accord, and money will become superfluous."
III. The Contemporary Value of Engels's Economic Thought on Communism
Xi Jinping has pointed out: "We must profoundly understand the dialectical relationship between the lofty ideal of communism and the common ideal of socialism with Chinese characteristics." Engels’s exposition on the communist economic formation provides us with a scientific guide for dialectically viewing the historical process of communism from an economic perspective, as well as the relationship between the lofty ideal and the common ideal of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Analysis can be conducted from the following dimensions.
(I) The Inner Connection and Dialectical Unity of Communism and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in Terms of the Productive Forces
Engels's theory on the development of productive forces in communist society inspires us to recognize that communism and socialism with Chinese characteristics possess an inner connection and dialectical unity regarding their productive force foundations; in the New Era, we must develop the productive forces with high quality.
First, although significant differences exist in their stages of development, both are built upon the foundation of relatively advanced large-scale socialized production. As mentioned earlier, Engels noted that communist society allows the full potential of productive forces to be realized, far exceeding existing developed capitalist societies in terms of various industrial sectors, the integration of industry and agriculture, and the progress of labor methods. Socialism with Chinese characteristics already possesses an independent and relatively complete industrial system and national economic system, having "created a miracle of the longest duration of high-speed economic growth for any country since the end of World War II." In the New Era, China will build a modern socialist country with high-quality development, gradually bringing the development of productive forces to the world's top level, thereby laying the cornerstone for the ultimate transition to a communist society.
Second, although differences exist in the maturity of the institutional conditions for development, both are based on public ownership of the means of production and utilize conscious economic regulation. This allows for the fuller release of the potential of the productive forces, which is restricted under capitalist private ownership. As mentioned earlier, Engels’s exposition on the development of communist productive forces clarifies the basic conditions for their great development: production and distribution according to a conscious plan based on the comprehensive public ownership of the means of production. Socialism with Chinese characteristics maintains public ownership as the mainstay and the state sector as the lead, implements the principle of distribution according to labor, and, under market economy conditions, better utilizes the state's leading role in economic regulation—especially the establishment of the new-type whole-of-nation system in key core technological fields crucial for the great development of productive forces.
(II) The Inner Connection and Dialectical Unity of Communism and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in Terms of the Relations of Production
Engels's theory on the development of the relations of production in communist society inspires us to recognize the inner connection and dialectical unity between communism and socialism with Chinese characteristics in this regard. In the New Era, we must uphold and improve the basic economic system of the primary stage of socialism.
First, communism and socialism with Chinese characteristics possess an internal connection and dialectical unity regarding property rights systems. Engels emphasized the fundamental determining significance of the ownership of the means of production for the development of productive forces, distribution, economic regulation, the state and class, and cultural development. He stressed that only by the whole of society possessing the means of production on the basis of abolishing capitalist private ownership can the waste of human and material resources be eliminated. He argued that the gradual implementation of state ownership after the proletariat attains political rule is the fundamental way to realize public ownership of the means of production. Furthermore, in the stage of transition toward a fully communist economy, large-scale cooperative production serves as an intermediary link in realizing public ownership of the means of production, provided that society (socialized first through the state) maintains ownership over these means of production. Socialism with Chinese characteristics implements a system where public ownership (including ownership by the whole people and collective ownership by the laboring masses) is the mainstay, with state ownership playing the leading role. Within this framework, "socialist state-owned enterprises, as people’s enterprises owned by the whole people, naturally possess a people-centered character [6]—relying on and serving the people—and a planned character that complies with the objective laws of large-scale socialized production." It can thus be seen that the public ownership of the means of production in socialism with Chinese characteristics conforms to the principles of hierarchy and gradualism in the realization of public ownership after the proletariat gains political rule, as elucidated by Engels. It shares an internal unity in qualitative terms with communist public ownership; the difference lies primarily in the quantitative degree of maturity. In the New Era, we must persist in a property rights system where public ownership is the mainstay and non-public ownership is supplementary. While regulating the development of and guiding the non-public economy, we must make state-owned and collective enterprises stronger, better, and larger.
Second, communism and socialism with Chinese characteristics possess an internal connection and dialectical unity regarding the principles of distribution. Engels elucidated that the scientific connotation of the communist principle of distribution according to need is the direct, rational, and equal possession of means of consumption by individuals. While means of subsistence and means of enjoyment are possessed by individuals, the degree to which people's rational needs are satisfied increases progressively on the basis of the continuous advancement of the productive forces; the mode of distribution essentially depends on the volume of products available for distribution. Based on the level of productive forces in the primary stage of socialism, socialism with Chinese characteristics implements the principle of distribution according to work as the mainstay, with multiple modes of distribution coexisting. Therefore, the principle of distribution according to work, which holds the mainstay position in socialism with Chinese characteristics, and the distribution principles of the higher stage of communism are both essentially based on the dialectical sublation of the capitalist distribution principle where "those who labor do not gain, and those who gain do not labor." Both implement a laboring-people-centered distribution principle, thus possessing internal unity. In the New Era, our country must persist in a distribution system where distribution according to work is the mainstay and distribution according to capital is supplementary, continuously narrowing excessive gaps in wealth and income while raising the level of distribution characterized by common prosperity and shared benefits.
Third, communism and socialism with Chinese characteristics possess an internal connection and dialectical unity regarding economic regulation. Engels elucidated that only when the whole of society consciously and plannedly regulates economic activity can the waste of human and material resources caused by the anarchy of capitalist production be overcome and great social and economic progress be promoted. Socialism with Chinese characteristics combines the laws of state regulation (or the law of planning) with the laws of market regulation (or the law of value), thereby forming an organic whole of economic regulation characterized by functional complementarity and synergistic effects, in order to realize the objective law of the proportional distribution of social labor. Therefore, state economic regulation in socialism with Chinese characteristics and the conscious, planned regulation of economic activity by the whole society in the higher stage of communism are qualitatively aimed at overcoming the anarchy of capitalist production to achieve varying degrees of conscious and proactive economic regulation, thus possessing internal unity. In the New Era, our country must persist in a regulatory system where state regulation of the national economy is the lead and market regulation of general economic resources is the base. We must continuously improve the socialist market economy system and promote the level of comprehensive and reciprocal opening-up within the dual circulation model, where internal circulation is the mainstay.
In short, Engels’s systematic exposition of the communist economy possesses important guiding significance for dialectically viewing the economic formations and historical processes of communism, and for deeply understanding the internal connection and dialectical relationship between the ultimate ideal of communism and the common ideal of socialism with Chinese characteristics. It suggests that as the primary stage of socialism within a broad conception of communist society (whereas communism in the narrow sense refers to the higher stage of communism in the broad sense), socialism with Chinese characteristics—despite huge gaps in the level of productive forces and the maturity of relations of production compared to the higher stage of communism—possesses internal unity and gradual transitionality in terms of its productive force foundation and the nature of its relations of production. The view that "the 'primary stage of socialism' is not the 'primary stage of the primary stage (the first stage) of communist society' essentially fails to recognize that our country's actual socialism today belongs to scientific socialism, and fails to grasp the scientific connotation of the primary stage of socialism." In the economic practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era, we must organically unify the ultimate ideal of communism with the common ideal of socialism with Chinese characteristics. "We cannot talk vacuously about the ultimate ideal while departing from the reality of developing socialism with Chinese characteristics and achieving national rejuvenation; nor can we avoid or even discard our ultimate ideal just because the realization of communism is a long historical process." "Our current persistence in and development of socialism with Chinese characteristics is a concrete effort toward the highest ideal."