Wang Zhongru: On the Historical Dialectics of Socialist Revolution and Construction
The complex relationship between necessity and contingency in the process of human social development is a vital focus of historical materialism. Counting from the 1917 October Revolution, socialist states have a history of over a century. Differing from the theoretical predictions of Marx and Engels, the two largest socialist countries in the historical process of world socialism—the Soviet Union and China—were both born in nations characterized by insufficient development of material conditions, underdeveloped science and technology, and relatively backward economies and cultures. After the Second World War, countries practicing the socialist system expanded from the Soviet Union alone to multiple countries across the world, including China, forming a powerful and influential socialist camp. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, the world socialist movement encountered major setbacks, and the number of socialist states decreased sharply. While the world socialist movement fell into a low ebb, China unswervingly followed the socialist path and created "two great miracles" [1]; its economic scale climbed to second in the world in 2010, and the gap between it and the world's number one has become smaller and smaller, making it the socialist country and developing nation with the strongest comprehensive strength. What factors of necessity and contingency have existed in the historical evolution of socialist states over the past century? How do they reflect the action and power of historical materialism? What lessons can be drawn by countries that continue to follow the socialist path? How should we look forward to the future development of the world socialist movement from the perspective of historical necessity and contingency? Clarifying these issues theoretically and historically is of immense theoretical value and practical significance for strengthening our historical confidence in continuing the socialist path, stimulating a spirit of historical initiative in our endeavors, and devoting ourselves heart and soul to the great cause of building a great modern socialist country and achieving national rejuvenation.
I. The Necessity and Contingency of Socialist Revolution
According to the historical materialist [2] view, economic necessity is the fundamental factor determining the direction and trend of development. However, this does not mean that economic necessity is the sole factor. Regarding the revolution of the Paris Commune, Marx pointed out: "World history would indeed be very mystical if 'contingency' played no role." "Acceleration and delay [of development] are to a considerable extent dependent upon such 'contingencies'." In the failure of the Paris Commune, the decisive roles were played by contingent circumstances such as "the Prussians being ensconced in France and standing before the gates of Paris," rather than a historical necessity hidden within "the general conditions of French society." What manifested the necessity of capitalist development was that "the struggle of the working class against the capitalist class and its state has entered upon a new phase with the struggle in Paris. Whatever the immediate results may be, a new point of departure of world-historic importance has been gained." In elucidating the historical materialist view, Engels also noted: "What we find here is an interaction of all these elements in which, amid all the endless host of contingencies (that is, of things and events whose inner connection is so remote or so difficult to prove that we may regard it as non-existent, as negligible), the economic movement finally asserts itself as necessary."
Regarding the entire historical process of socialism, Marx and Engels proposed the famous scientific thesis of the "Two Necessities" in the Manifesto of the Communist Party, namely, that "the fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." Prior to this, Engels had proposed the "theory of simultaneous victory" in the Principles of Communism, stating that "the communist revolution will not merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries—that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany." After the failure of the 1848 revolutions, Marx and Engels, at different stages and based on the actual development of socio-economic and class relations in different countries, successively placed their hopes for the first victory of the socialist revolution on the proletariats of Britain, France, and Russia. After capitalism moved from the stage of free competition into the stage of monopoly, i.e., imperialism, Lenin, based on new realities, creatively discovered and proposed the law of the uneven economic and political development of capitalist powers in the era of imperialism. This discovery of new realities and new scientific laws added new variables to the realization of the "Two Necessities," modified Marx and Engels' "theory of simultaneous victory," and provided a new ideological weapon for the socialist revolution. The historical necessity for the success of the socialist revolution did not first exert its influence in advanced capitalist countries, but rather in relatively economically and culturally backward countries. This historical necessity manifested its historical role in promoting socialist transformation primarily through the interlacing of specific realities, such as the weak links in the imperialist chain, a certain degree of capitalist development, the existence of an advanced proletariat, and the strong leadership of the Communist Party.
In the era of imperialism, the increasingly frequent international interactions of advanced capitalist countries formed collective interests while simultaneously containing an inherent and sharp fragmentation of interests. Along with the waxing and waning of power and the rise and fall of international status, the struggle among advanced capitalist countries to carve up the world and compete for spheres of influence became increasingly antagonistic. Based on this reality, Lenin proposed the scientific theory that revolution would first achieve a breakthrough at the "weak link" in the imperialist chain, and under the guidance of this theory, he led the Russian Revolution to victory. While the colonial expansion of imperialist countries brought heavy disasters to countries in pre-capitalist stages of development, it also caused the civilizational achievements nurtured under the capitalist system—including science, technology, and industrial experience—to overflow to varying degrees. This promoted a limited development of national capitalism in these countries, creating the necessary material conditions for their revolutions. Precisely for this reason, when Nikolai Bukharin, in his book The Economics of the Transition Period, proposed the view that the collapse of the world capitalist system begins from the weakest national economic systems where state-capitalist organization is least developed, Lenin immediately corrected him: "Not so: it begins from the 'relatively weaker' systems. Without a certain degree of capitalism, we can achieve nothing." This view of Lenin's highlighted the importance of certain material conditions for revolution and served as a side-glance warning against the dangers of acting recklessly while ignoring material conditions and historical heritage. More importantly, the existence of a certain number of proletarians subjected to the dual oppression of domestic and foreign capital, and the strong leadership of a new type of proletarian political party—namely, the Communist Party—were the necessary revolutionary subjects and leadership forces for carrying out the revolution. Marx and Engels had already fully elucidated the leading role of the proletariat and its party in the Manifesto of the Communist Party. In the practice of the Russian Revolution, Lenin attached great importance to the fact that "the strength of the proletariat in the historical movement is much greater than its proportion of the total population" and that it exerts a "leading role." He emphasized that the exercise of the leadership of the proletariat's "own vanguard, its Social-Democratic Party," was "not merely to strive for better terms for the sale of labor power, but to abolish the social system that forces the propertyless to sell themselves to the rich." These aforementioned elements constitute the fundamental basis for the necessity of socialist revolutions in economically and culturally backward countries.
Furthermore, achieving social transformation through violence also possessed a certain historical necessity in backward countries. Lenin once pointed out: "In our country, there is neither a high level of civilization nor a habit of compromise." Taking the October Revolution as an example, he noted: "How many proposals for compromise did the Bolsheviks offer to the bourgeoisie," hoping to "settle the matter without a fuss," i.e., a peaceful transfer of power; however, "we know that there was not only a fuss but also attempts at insurrection organized and supported by the Mensheviks and the Socialist-Revolutionaries." In the face of counter-revolutionary violence, one must naturally use revolutionary violence. The viewpoint that negates revolutionary violence across the board, regardless of specific historical conditions, cannot withstand the test of history. Of course, after the success of the revolution, effectively raising the level of civilization of the entire society and nurturing a social atmosphere of tolerance, understanding, and peace are also important tasks for revolutionaries.
The relevant views of Marx, Engels, and Lenin were creatively applied and developed by Chinese revolutionary leaders such as Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping. In 1939, Mao Zedong, in The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party, clarified the characteristics of China as a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society, one of which was: "National capitalism has developed to a certain extent and has played a considerable role in China's political and cultural life; however, it has not become the primary form of China's social economy; its strength is very weak, and most of it is connected more or less with foreign imperialism and domestic feudalism." As the primary leader of the Chinese revolution, the reason Mao Zedong paid high attention to the development of Chinese national capitalism was that, besides it being a force that "played a considerable role" in itself, more importantly, the development of Chinese national capitalism was directly related to the developmental status of the Chinese proletariat as the leading force of the revolution. "The birth and development of the Chinese proletariat occurred not only alongside the birth and development of the Chinese national bourgeoisie but also alongside the direct operation of enterprises in China by imperialism. Therefore, a large part of the Chinese proletariat is older and more senior than the Chinese bourgeoisie, and thus its social strength and social foundation are broader." Although the specific national conditions of China and Russia differed, the position and role of the proletariat in their respective class structures and revolutionary processes showed a high degree of similarity. With the help of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and following Lenin's theory of party building—especially the principle of democratic centralism—the Communist Party of China was established. The leadership of the Chinese revolution "is placed upon the shoulders of the party of the Chinese proletariat—the Communist Party of China. Without the leadership of the Communist Party of China, no revolution can succeed." Deng Xiaoping also pointed out in 1943: "How do the four forces—arms, political power, the masses, and the Party—connect and coordinate? First is the question of Party leadership; the Party is the core that leads everything." In 1963, Deng Xiaoping further proposed the significance of the "weak link" for the Chinese revolution: "The October Revolution arose at the focal point of imperialist contradictions at that time, which is what Lenin called the weakest link in the imperialist chain—Russia... China was also a weak link in the imperialist chain." The victory of the Chinese revolution under the leadership of the Communist Party of China fundamentally changed the future and destiny of the Chinese nation.
The rich practice of socialist states over the past century has fully validated the historical necessity of socialist revolutions occurring in backward countries. Factors such as the weak links in the imperialist chain, a certain degree of capitalist development, the existence of an advanced proletariat, and the strong leadership of the Communist Party inherently reflect the dialectics of socialist revolution. A "weak link" means that the ruling foundation of the ruling class is insecure and its governing capacity is weak; a certain degree of capitalist development (including both domestic and foreign capitalism) provides the necessary material basis for the emergence of the advanced proletariat and its party; and the strong leadership of the proletarian party fully demonstrates the active agency of the revolutionary subject. Historical necessity in revolution exerts its influence and manifests its existence through the historical process in which these factors interlace and resonate. Lenin pointed out that in the Russian Revolution of 1905, "due to many completely unique historical conditions, backward Russia was the first to show the world not only a leap in the initiative of the oppressed masses during a revolution (as is the case in all great revolutions) but also that the role of the proletariat far exceeded its proportion in the population... showing how the classes oppressed by capitalism created the Soviets, a new form of mass struggle and mass organization." In 1923, as he was about to completely lose his capacity for work, he further elucidated...
“The decisive thing in Marxism is its revolutionary dialectics.” [3] Furthermore, “the general laws of world history, far from excluding individual phases of development that present peculiarities in either form or order, rather presuppose them... Such peculiarities, of course, must be in keeping with the general line of world development.” [4] Lenin admitted that, from the perspective of economic necessity alone, the material conditions for launching a socialist revolution in Russia were insufficient; however, this was not the whole story. Seizing upon the historical opportunity provided by another momentous fact, he pointed out: “In a revolutionary situation created by the first imperialist war, could a people placed in a hopeless situation not fling themselves into a struggle that offered them at least some chance of winning for themselves conditions for the further development of civilization that were somewhat out of the ordinary?” [5] This “flinging themselves into a struggle” by a people in a “hopeless situation” is his best interpretation of the historical necessity of the Russian Revolution from the perspective of the subjective agency of the revolutionary subject.
the logic Lenin articulated is equally applicable to countries with backward economies and cultures, including China. The First World War was a war among imperialist powers to carve up the world; it possessed historical necessity. Conversely, the weakness of the bourgeois Provisional Government after Russia's February Revolution; the armed rebellion of Lavr Kornilov in his attempt to establish a military dictatorship; and the state of social anarchy caused by the complex maneuvering of various political forces—all these possessed a considerable degree of historical contingency. The rule of the bourgeoisie is not necessarily weak by definition, but the rule of the Russian bourgeoisie was weak. Kornilov's rebellion was not inevitable, yet its occurrence remains a historical fact. It was precisely within the interaction of a series of contingencies that the Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, were able to play the role of executors of historical necessity and lead the revolution to success.
The necessity and contingency of historical development are interdependent. As Engels pointed out: “Contingency is only one pole of an interdependence, the other pole of which is called necessity. In nature, where contingency also seems to predominate, we have long ago demonstrated in every field the inner necessity and regularity that asserts itself through this contingency.” [6] In economically and culturally backward countries, the outbreak of socialist revolution and the contingent factors affecting its success include the specific conditions of the revolutionary target, the timing and process of the outbreak, and the insight and capacity of the Party's leadership.
The outbreak of the Russian October Revolution possessed historical necessity, yet the specific timing of the Bolshevik uprising involved significant contingency. Similarly, while both were violent revolutions, the Russian Revolution took the form of urban-centered armed uprisings, whereas the Chinese Revolution followed the path of armed agrarian struggle and encircling the cities from the countryside. Relative to the historical necessity of revolution, these different paths demonstrate the contingency caused by differing national conditions. Yet, for Russia and China themselves, these contingencies possessed a certain internal necessity.
The contingency of revolution in backward countries is most vividly embodied in the revolutionary leaders. Had it not been for Lenin's farsightedness and his stubborn will to filter out the internal noise of the Party, the October Revolution could not have succeeded at that time and place. The success of the Chinese Revolution is likewise inseparable from the outstanding contributions of Mao Zedong. In 1978, Deng Xiaoping pointed out: “Looking back at the failure of the revolution in 1927, if it were not for the brilliant leadership of Comrade Mao Zedong, there is a great possibility that the Chinese Revolution would not have triumphed even today. In that case, the people of all ethnic groups in China would still be under the reactionary rule of imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucrat-capitalism, and our Party would still be struggling in the dark.” [7] Subsequently, he emphasized many times: “Without Chairman Mao, at least we Chinese people would have had to grope in the dark for a much longer time,” [8] and “The course of the Chinese Revolution has proved that without the leadership of Comrade Mao Zedong, the Chinese people would have had to grope in the dark for many more years to achieve victory.” [9] The assertion that without Mao’s correct leadership, the revolution might not have succeeded to this day, leaving the Party and people struggling in the dark, highlights the indispensability of farsighted and strong-willed leaders to revolutionary success. Deng Xiaoping's repeated emphasis on this point demonstrates the importance he attached to the issue. That revolution requires strong leadership reflects historical necessity, but the timing of a great leader's emergence possesses a high degree of contingency. The development of history advances precisely through the intertwining and interaction of necessity and contingency.
II. The Necessity and Contingency of Socialist Construction
Revolution and construction are distinct social processes with close internal links; socialist construction also involves the dialectic of necessity and contingency. The necessity of socialist construction is the necessity of following the socialist path. Compared to revolution, which focuses on “breaking” before “building,” the necessity of construction is reflected in “building” as the priority—either building before breaking or building and breaking simultaneously. Revolution, particularly political revolution, drives the transformation of the superstructure in a short period, clearing obstacles to the growth of new things and creating the conditions for a qualitative leap in social development. Unlike political revolution, construction is a relatively slow process that requires continuous advancement through exploration and reform. The necessity and contingency factors faced by backward countries in building socialism possess different connotations and requirements than those faced during the revolutionary stage.
Liberating and developing the productive forces and creating a growth rate faster than that of capitalism is an absolute necessity for socialist construction in backward countries. Economic and cultural backwardness means underdeveloped science and technology, low levels of productive forces, and poor cultural literacy among the people. According to the logic of revolution revealed by Lenin—where the rulers cannot carry on in the old way and the ruled cannot live in the old way—backward national conditions not only fail to hinder the success of the revolution but can, under specific conditions, be a vital factor for its success. Conversely, the logic of construction requires a practical change in the backward state of the productive forces. Without achieving this, there can be no talk of socialism in any degree, and the fruits of the revolution will inevitably be lost. Liberating and developing the productive forces is the iron necessity of socialist construction.
In "Our Revolution," [10] Lenin exposed the rigidity and pedantry of the Second International theorists who opposed the Russian Revolution on the grounds of low productive forces. He argued that while the point that “the productive forces of Russia have not yet attained the level that makes socialism possible” was “indisputable,” it was “not at all the decisive point for evaluating our revolution.” On the other hand, he emphasized that the revolutionary agency of the Party and the people must ultimately manifest in the liberation and development of productive forces—that is, “to create the fundamental premises of civilization in a way different from that of the West European countries.” This did not change the “general line of world history.” While the level of productive forces is not the decisive factor for the success of a revolution, it is the necessary factor determining the life or death of the socialist system. Lenin understood this well, emphasizing that “it was easy for Russia... to start the socialist revolution, but it will be more difficult for her than for the advanced countries to continue it and carry it through to final victory, i.e., to the complete organization of a socialist society.” [11]
Whether a socialist society can be “completely organized” is fundamentally determined by the necessity of economic development. “The revolution has resulted in Russia catching up with the advanced countries in a few months, as far as her political system is concerned. But that is not enough. The war is inexorable; it puts the issue with terrible sharpness: either perish, or overtake and outstrip the advanced countries economically as well.” [12] The essence of the socialist system inherently dictates this material necessity of liberating and developing the productive forces.
The revolutionary class is the core element of the social productive forces and the actual carrier and embodiment of human agency as the social subject. Marx pointed out that “of all the instruments of production, the greatest productive power is the revolutionary class itself.” In the different stages of revolution and construction, the proletariat, as the most revolutionary class, represents the developmental direction of advanced productive forces. Forming a solid alliance with the peasantry and led by its vanguard, the Communist Party, it overthrew the old system that restricted its subjective agency and established a new socialist society. It is an internal requirement of socialism that the people can independently determine their own destiny, change their poverty and backwardness through hard work, and lead a decent, dignified, and happy life.
For this reason, Lenin pointed out: “Socialism is not created by orders from above. It is a stranger to the official-bureaucratic automatism; living, creative socialism is the product of the masses themselves.” [13] He emphasized that after the success of the revolution, communists “must take the right line; we must check everything, and the whole population must check our path and say: ‘Yes, this is better than the old system.’ That is the task we have set ourselves.” [14] All achievements in socialist construction are the results of the masses giving full play to their subjective agency; all measures of socialist construction must undergo the rigorous test of the people's practice in production and life. To be sure, people make mistakes, especially under conditions of economic and cultural backwardness. But in the long run, as Lenin emphasized: “Excellent spirit is possessed by the few, but the outcome of history is decided by the vast masses, who, if the few do not suit them, may at times treat those few none too politely.” [15]
Deng Xiaoping also pointed out that “mobilizing enthusiasm is the greatest democracy.” He noted, “The reason our rural reforms have been effective is that we gave the farmers more autonomy and mobilized their enthusiasm. Now we are applying this experience to all walks of life.” [16] Since the beginning of reform and opening up, the CPC has always taken the people's support, approval, happiness, and consent as the starting point and objective for formulating various principles and policies, fully reflecting respect for the people's status as subjects and their agency. Adhering to the people-centered position, respecting the people’s status as subjects, and ensuring that the people share the fruits of development are vivid manifestations of the historical necessity of socialist construction.
In the practice of promoting the development of the productive forces and the play of the people’s subjective agency, an important component is the exploration and formation of relations of production that meet the needs of those productive forces—particularly property relations. After the victory of the October Revolution, the Soviet Russian socialist construction led by Lenin underwent two periods: War Communism and the New Economic Policy (NEP). The former was characterized by public ownership and state planning, while the latter, premised on public ownership and state planning as the mainstay, allowed non-public ownership and the market economy to function within certain limits. War Communism, which was essentially a state-run system, was unsuitable for national conditions where individual peasant economies and small-scale production predominated. It was eventually replaced by the NEP, which permitted individual and private economies to exist and function.
In 1962, Deng Xiaoping proposed that the problem of relations of production boils down to mobilizing the enthusiasm of the workers: “As to what form the relations of production should take, I think we should adopt the attitude that whichever form can more easily and quickly restore and develop agricultural production in a given place should be adopted; whichever form the masses are willing to adopt should be adopted—if it is illegal, make it legal.” [17] After the start of reform and opening up, under the guidance of Deng’s aforementioned thoughts, China formed an ownership structure where public ownership is the mainstay and multiple forms of ownership develop together. This gave rise to the private economy, which has made significant contributions to the rapid development of the national economy and the steady improvement of people’s living standards. As Chinese-path modernization entered the New Era, Xi Jinping emphasized that the private economy contributes “more than 50% of tax revenue, more than 60% of GDP, more than 70% of technological innovation, more than 80% of urban employment, and more than 90% of the total number of enterprises.” The revolutionary changes and enormous achievements in China's relations of production vividly reflect the status and agency of the people as subjects, and they constitute a life-affirming practice of socialist economic necessity under contemporary Chinese conditions.
The historical necessity of socialist construction must ultimately be manifested through the continuous improvement of the people's living standards. Marx and Engels pointed out that socialist society is an economic formation that “ensures the most complete development of each individual producer alongside the highest development of the social productivity of labor.”
...it is "a higher form of society, a society in which the full and free development of every individual forms the ruling principle." Under the condition of social ownership of the means of production, "the possibility of securing for every member of society, by means of socialized production, an existence not only fully sufficient materially, and becoming day by day more full, but an existence guaranteeing to all the free development and exercise of their physical and mental faculties—this possibility is now for the first time here, but it is here." From the perspective of human development, Marx and Engels defined the essence of socialism as the free and well-rounded development of the individual based on the premise of highly developed productive forces. Free and well-rounded development implies a material and spiritual life of abundance, as well as the balanced development of physical and mental capacities. The material foundation laid by capitalism is the fundamental prerequisite for the "first appearance of the possibility" of human free and well-rounded development.
Due to economic and cultural backwardness, socialist countries temporarily lack the material prerequisites to fully realize this development; however, gradually improving the people's standard of living and ensuring the development of their physical and mental faculties within certain historical limits remains an inevitable requirement of the socialist system. The primary purpose of the New Economic Policy, which Lenin creatively proposed and vigorously implemented in his later years, was to strive to change the poverty of peasants and workers caused by backwardness and prolonged warfare, and to vigorously develop the productive forces and national education to raise the people's material and cultural levels. Deng Xiaoping's 1992 criteria for judging whether a pursuit was "capitalist" or "socialist" [18] and his scientific thesis on the essence of socialism—which took "improving the people's standard of living" and "achieving common prosperity" as its ultimate goals—as well as Xi Jinping's proposition that common prosperity is "affluence in both the material and spiritual lives of the masses," are identical in spirit to Lenin's practice of leading socialist construction in his later years. They are all theoretical and practical achievements of practicing the historical necessity of socialist construction. Only by gradually improving the people's material life and raising their moral standards and ideological consciousness on the basis of developing the productive forces can socialist society develop steadily.
As in the revolutionary period, the leadership of the Communist Party is the key factor constituting the historical necessity of socialist construction. In 1957, Deng Xiaoping proposed: "Whether the past problems of revolution were solved well depended on the Party's leadership; whether the current problems of construction are solved well also depends on the Party's leadership." In 1979, in his famous speech "Uphold the Four Cardinal Principles," Deng pointed out: "Since the beginning of the international communist movement, it has been proven that there can be no international communist movement without a proletarian party. Since the October Revolution, it has been further proven that without the leadership of the Communist Party, there can be no socialist revolution, no dictatorship of the proletariat, and no socialist construction." In 1989, as turmoil began to emerge in the socialist countries of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, he emphasized again: "The core of the Four Upholds [19] is the Party's leadership and socialism. Without the leadership of the Communist Party, without practicing socialism, and without reform and opening up, then everything is finished—how could we have the China of today?" Since the 18th National Congress, Xi Jinping has similarly repeatedly emphasized: "The most essential feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics is the leadership of the Communist Party of China." The leadership of the Communist Party is primarily reflected in the completion of many tasks of historical necessity, such as continuously liberating and developing the productive forces, always ensuring the principal status of the people, giving full play to the people’s subjective initiative to form relations of production that meet the requirements of productive forces, and continuously elevating the material life and moral standards of the people.
Naturally, the political prerequisite for ensuring the Party's correct leadership is to consistently attach importance to Party building, continuously improving the health of the Party's organism and its strong capacity for leadership. Party leadership is a requirement of necessity for socialism, just as Party building is a requirement of necessity for the Party's correct leadership. As socialism with Chinese characteristics entered the New Era, the Communist Party of China clearly proposed that advancing with the times is the basic law that must be grasped in strengthening Party building. It proposed that political building is the fundamental construction that occupies the primary position, and that to persist in and strengthen the Party's overall leadership, we must deeply advance the comprehensive and strict governance of the Party and have the courage to carry out the Party's self-revolution. These understandings and practices have provided scientific guidance and a basic framework for Party building.
Due to economic and cultural backwardness, the generally low scientific and cultural literacy of the people, and a global landscape where socialist countries are generally weaker than developed capitalist countries, socialist construction in backward countries is bound to encounter more contingent factors. These factors include but are not limited to: the Marxist literacy of leaders, sudden domestic and international events with major influence, the degree of importance attached to Party building, and the spiritual outlook of the Party.
Lenin possessed superb Marxist theoretical literacy. He was able to overcome the phenomenon of treating Marxism rigidly, which was prevalent both inside and outside the Party at that time, and creatively applied the basic principles of Marxism to guide the Russian Revolution to success, victoriously defending the nascent socialist regime in an exceptionally cruel domestic and international environment, and successfully leading socialist construction. Deng Xiaoping noted: "What socialism exactly is—the Soviet Union worked at it for many years, but they did not fully figure it out. Perhaps Lenin’s thinking was better, as he implemented the New Economic Policy, but later the Soviet model became rigid." An important reason for the rigidity of the Soviet model was the insufficient Marxist theoretical cultivation of Soviet leaders after Lenin. A rigid system, formed and persisting within a specific understanding, environment, and soil, is not an existence of necessity. If the Party leadership, especially the top leaders, could have recognized this problem and innovated socialist systems and mechanisms, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) might have avoided the fate of collapse. Regretfully, the CPSU after Lenin did not produce such a leader, which ultimately led to the Party becoming so deeply ill that it was beyond cure. In the years before the collapse, "the struggle in the ideological field was extremely fierce, with a total negation of Soviet history and the history of the CPSU," and the "ideals and convictions of Communists had vanished." In the relationship between the Party and the people, "the CPSU became detached from the people and became a privileged bureaucratic clique that only protected its own interests." In other words, the CPSU degenerated, losing the nature, purpose, and mission that a Communist Party ought to have. This degeneration cannot be said to be a historical necessity, but the interaction of various contingent historical factors, including the Marxist theoretical literacy of the leaders, led to a tragic outcome with a certain degree of necessity. "Circumsances create the hero" [20]; at the critical juncture of a historical turning point, the character, ability, and role of the leader become even more prominent.
In 2004, when answering why "the Soviet Union, such a powerful socialist superpower, would completely disintegrate in just a few years," Mikhail Gorbachev gave the answer: "We didn't have a Deng Xiaoping there." At that time, Deng had been deceased for over seven years. Gorbachev’s answer is a matter of opinion and certainly not the only answer, but it highlights the complex interaction between historical necessity and contingency—Deng Xiaoping successfully initiated the historical process of China's reform and opening up, "determining the basic ideas and principles" for upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics, whereas the Soviet Union in the 1980s did not have a leader like him.
After the success of the Chinese Revolution, Mao Zedong creatively applied the basic principles of Marxism to complete the socialist transformation through peaceful means, avoiding the social turmoil often associated with social transitions that come at the cost of destroying the productive forces, and established the basic socialist system. However, in the subsequent period of socialist construction, China also took many detours. The "Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China" [21] pointed out that after 1957, the Party lacked "sufficient ideological preparation and scientific research" regarding China's reality. "These subjectivist ideas and practices, detached from real life, appeared to have a 'theoretical basis' because they misunderstood or dogmatized certain conjectures and arguments from the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin." Furthermore, there were factors such as the Sino-Soviet polemics, opposition to Soviet great-power chauvinism, the weakening or even destruction of the Party's system of democratic centralism, and negative factors within China's historical and cultural traditions. These factors that caused setbacks in China's socialist construction cannot be said to be historical necessities. Errors caused by individual leaders intertwined with complex historical traditions and the context of the era belong to a considerable extent to contingent factors. Xi Jinping pointed out: "A fortress is most easily breached from within. In a certain sense, since its founding, the greatest risk our Party has faced is internal degeneration, changing color, or losing its flavor—losing the political character of a Marxist party, deviating from the Party's purpose, and losing the support and endorsement of the broad masses. The hundred-year history of the Party is also a history of our Party continuously maintaining its advanced nature and purity, and continuously guarding against the dangers of being disintegrated or corrupted." The Communist Party of China, having traversed more than a century, has always attached importance to the Party's self-revolution, maintained flesh-and-blood ties with the people, and ensured that the Party never degenerates or changes color—this is what embodies historical necessity.
III. Future Development and Inspirations for Socialist Countries
A distinctive feature of Marx and Engels' scientific socialist theory is that their research and understanding of capitalism became increasingly profound, and their judgments on the historical process of world socialism became increasingly cautious. The Communist Manifesto proposed the "Two Necessities" [22]. Das Kapital proposed that the material conditions required for socialism are the "natural product of a long and painful history of development." Socialism: Utopian and Scientific stated: "The appropriation of all means of production by society... can only become a possibility and a historical necessity when the actual conditions for its realization are present." In the "Introduction to Karl Marx’s The Class Struggles in France, 1848–1850," written just a few months before his death in 1895, Engels wrote: "The state of economic development on the Continent at that time (1848—Ed.) was not by a long way ripe for the elimination of capitalist production; history proved this through the economic revolution"; "the inevitable neglect of the contemporaneous changes in the economic situation (the real basis of all the processes to be investigated) must be a source of error"; "history went even further: it not only dispelled our erroneous views of the time, but it also completely transformed the conditions under which the proletariat has to fight."
The aforementioned judgments of Marx and Engels were based on the reality of the developed capitalist countries of their time. The socialist revolution first achieved victory and gained a foothold in economically and culturally backward countries. For these countries to build socialism under conditions far behind those of developed capitalist countries, they undoubtedly face far more difficulties, challenges, and contingencies than Marx and Engels' theoretical predictions.
The drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe caused the number of socialist countries to drop sharply from the once-acknowledged 15 down to 5. The world socialist movement suffered a major setback, falling into an unprecedented low ebb since World War II. Aside from the generally poor material conditions and low starting points, this ebb was closely related to the different roles played by historical necessity and contingency in the establishment of different socialist countries, and was closely related to the state of the parties and the reform and development strategies adopted by these countries. In countries like China and Vietnam, the socialist system possesses a distinct endogeneity. Powerful Communist Parties, having withstood cruel tests, led the people in prolonged struggle and bloody combat, winning national independence and people's liberation, and established the socialist system. After deeply recognizing the shortcomings of the traditional system, the Communist Party of China, with a high degree of political consciousness and a strong sense of historical mission, took the lead in initiating the historical process of reform and opening up. China's reform and opening up had clear tasks and a distinct direction—centering on the fundamental task of liberating and developing the productive forces, with the depth and intensity of a "second revolution," it comprehensively promoted reforms in the economic, political, and cultural fields, including opening to the outside world, especially to developed capitalist countries. However, the leadership of the Communist Party and the direction of socialism could only be strengthened and not weakened in the slightest. In the Eastern European countries, the influence of Western European culture and historical tradition was relatively large, and the foundations of the Communist Parties were not very solid. During the specific historical period following World War II, the Soviet Union dominated the establishment of socialist systems in these countries. The socialist systems of the Eastern European countries could be said to have been established primarily through external force. In most of these countries, the Communist Parties were not powerful forces that had stood the test of cruel environments with solid roots.
In the 1980s, external control from the Soviet Union began to loosen, and the nations of Eastern Europe also initiated historical processes of reform. Yet at the very start of these processes, the ruling Communist Parties lost their leading capacity, and reform rapidly deviated from the socialist direction. By comparison, in countries such as China and Vietnam, the establishment and development of the socialist system—much like the establishment of the Soviet Union under Lenin’s leadership—possessed a great degree of historical necessity. That the Eastern European nations embarked on the socialist path owed less to historical necessity than it did to historical contingency [23]. Once external forces underwent a fundamental change, the Communist Parties, which lacked firm foundations and relied on external support, proved unstable. The powerful shockwaves generated by the synergy of these two factors were a primary cause behind the destruction of the socialist systems in those countries.
Following the drastic changes [24] in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, the developed capitalist world, led by the United States, adopted various means of blockade, sanction, and suppression against the remaining socialist states in an attempt to achieve a global monopoly for capitalism. For a time, the "End of History" [25] thesis was clamorous. Upon entering the 21st century, capitalist countries adopted more complex strategies and tactics toward socialist states: they maintained tough sanctions and pressure on countries like North Korea and Cuba, while adopting soft tactics of dilution and control through engagement toward countries like China and Vietnam, including allowing them to join international organizations under their control, such as the World Trade Organization. In recent years, along with China’s rapid rise, U.S. strategy and tactics toward China have seen new changes: economic engagement, strategic intimidation, and containment-suppression are used alternately across different fields. Nevertheless, the practice since the late 1980s and early 1990s has fully proven that the existing socialist states have basically secured their footing; the once-boisterous "End of History" has itself ended.
The greatest variable in the world socialist movement is the steady development of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The Resolution of the CPC Central Committee on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party’s Centennial Endeavor points out: “The continuous success of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism has allowed Marxism to present a brand-new image to the world, causing the historical evolution and competition between the two ideologies and two social systems of socialism and capitalism on a global scale to undergo a major shift in favor of socialism.” Of course, a major shift in favor of socialism does not mean that the capitalist system is about to collapse immediately, or that a large number of socialist states will appear at once. According to the historical materialist view, under conditions where the productive forces of capitalist society are still capable of developing at a certain speed, it is difficult for a large volume of Communist Party-led socialist states to emerge worldwide. The major shift in favor of socialism primarily refers to the fact that the success of socialism with Chinese characteristics has greatly changed, and continues to change, the global balance of power.
Under the new conditions of information interconnection, the realization of socialist historical necessity is undergoing new changes. In the foreseeable future, a considerable number of non-capitalist factors will emerge in developing countries practicing capitalist systems and will also ferment within developed capitalist countries that are exhibiting a downward trend. Having experienced great surges and falls, the future of world socialism remains bright.
In today’s world, China is the most dynamic socialist country with the strongest comprehensive national power. To a certain extent, the fate of world socialism depends on the fate of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Internally, we must persist in the "Two Combinations" [26], adhere to the Party’s basic line, rely closely on the people to comprehensively deepen reform and opening up, and continuously strengthen the endogenous drive of socialism with Chinese characteristics. We must forge a solid practical and cultural foundation for socialism with Chinese characteristics, successfully embark on the new journey of comprehensively building a modern socialist country, and smoothly promote the great leap from "standing up" and "growing rich" to "becoming strong." Externally, we must uphold international fairness and justice, promote the concept of a community with a shared future for humanity, and provide Chinese wisdom and Chinese solutions for the resolution of issues such as poverty alleviation and environmental protection. We must earnestly help the broad ranks of developing countries achieve development and fully demonstrate the moral power of socialism. Only in this way can we remain sober-minded, discover the historical necessity of socialism "where on the surface contingency holds sway" [27], always persist in self-confidence and self-strengthening, and always maintain historical initiative. While promoting the steady and sustained progress of socialism with Chinese characteristics, we shall make new contributions to the development of world socialism.
[Author’s Affiliation: Department of Scientific Socialism, Central Party School (National Academy of Governance)] Source: Contemporary World and Socialism, Issue 3, 2025. Web Editor: Jing Mu.