Marxism Research Network
Unofficial English Translation

Xin Xiangyang: The Scientific Connotation and Contemporary Value of the "Two Inevitabilities"

Academy News

It has been a century and a half since the principle of the "Two Never-alks" was proposed. During these 150 years, human society has undergone massive transformations. This period witnessed countless revolutions, including the Paris Commune, the Russian October Revolution, China's New Democratic Revolution and socialist revolution, as well as the Cuban and Vietnamese revolutions. It saw internal changes within social formations as capitalism moved from free competition to monopoly, giving rise to imperialism. It also saw the emergence of many new social formations, producing Soviet socialism, the socialist camp, and Chinese socialism. Behind every revolution and the appearance of every new social formation, there have been debates surrounding the "Two Never-alks."

In 1859, Marx pointed out in his Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: in human history, "No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society. Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation." It is particularly noteworthy that immediately following this statement, Marx noted, "In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic development of society. The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production—antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social conditions of existence; but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism. The prehistory of human society accordingly closes with this social formation." [1] This passage contains profound ideas that require our deep reflection.

I. The assertion of the "Two Never-alks" was not an off-the-cuff remark, but a mature conclusion with a process of historical development.

Some argue that Marx only mentioned the "Two Never-alks" once in 1859 and provided no further elaboration before or after, thus making it an "impromptu" assertion. This view is inconsistent with the history of the development of Marxism.

1. The preliminary stage of establishing the "Two Never-alks" principle (prior to 1848)

In The German Ideology, a key work expounding the materialist conception of history, Marx and Engels already possessed the basic concepts of the "Two Never-alks." They pointed out: "Real liberation' is an historical act and not a mental one, and it is brought about by historical conditions, the development of industry, commerce, agriculture, the conditions of intercourse... slavery cannot be abolished without the steam-engine and the mule and spinning-jenny, serfdom cannot be abolished without improved agriculture... people cannot be liberated as long as they are unable to obtain food and drink, housing and clothing in adequate quality and quantity." It can be said that the state of the development of productive forces—including industry, commerce, agriculture, and intercourse—is the key factor determining whether new relations of production and social formations can emerge. Divorced from the development of productive forces such as industry, new social formations cannot arise. To understand the history of the development of social formations, one must understand the history of commerce, industry, and agriculture. In Marx’s work Moralizing Criticism and Critical Morality, written in October 1847, this concept became even clearer. He pointed out: before the material conditions are formed in the historical process—in history's "movement"—that make the bourgeois mode of production necessarily perish and thus the political rule of the bourgeoisie necessarily be overturned, even if the proletariat were to overthrow the political rule of the bourgeoisie, its victory would only be temporary. At this stage, the "Two Never-alks" thought was consistent with the formation of Marx and Engels' historical materialism.

2. The mature stage of the "Two Never-alks" principle (1848–1859)

During this stage, the "Two Never-alks" thought was linked to the post-1848 economic and social conditions, particularly the entry of capitalism into a period of relatively peaceful and stable development. To grasp the "Two Never-alks" proposed in 1859, one must return to that era and think within the context of those times.

After the failure of the 1848 European revolutions, Marx and Engels predicted that a new revolutionary high tide would soon arrive and the proletariat would achieve final victory. However, the actual course of historical development exceeded their initial expectations. Regarding this point, Engels recalled in 1895: "If in the first three articles... (published in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung. Politisch-ökonomische Revue, Hamburg, 1850), the expectation was still maintained that a new upsurge of revolutionary energy would take place before long, the historical review... written by Marx and myself for the last double issue (May–October), published in the autumn of 1850, broke once and for all with these illusions." He further pointed out: "History has proved us, and all who thought like us, wrong. It has made it clear that the state of economic development on the Continent at that time was not, by a long way, ripe for the removal of capitalist production; it has proved this by the economic revolution which, since 1848, has seized the whole of the Continent, and has for the first time was really established large-scale industry in France, Austria, Hungary, Poland and, recently, in Russia, while it has made Germany positively a first-class industrial country—all on a capitalist basis, which in the year 1848, therefore, still had great capacity for expansion." Just how strong was the expansionary capacity of capitalism after the failure of the 1848 revolutions?

Eric Hobsbawm, a scholar known as one of the most important historians of the modern era, wrote his epic "Age" tetralogy in the 1980s, one of which was The Age of Capital (1848–1875). In it, he described the great economic and social development of European countries after the 1848 failures. The second part of the book is titled "Development," and the second chapter is titled "The Great Boom." We can follow Hobsbawm’s description to review that era of grand capitalist development and prosperity. Hobsbawm summarized this period in several aspects: First, what happened after 1850 was so anomalous that no precedent could be found. For instance, British exports never grew faster than in the seven years after 1850. The actual growth rate of British cotton cloth exports exceeded that of previous decades. Between 1850 and 1860, it grew by about double, with export volume increasing by roughly 1.3 billion yards, whereas in the 30 years from 1820 to 1850, it only grew by about 1.1 billion yards; ten years of growth exceeded the previous 30. Second, emerging industries continued to surface, such as the massive proliferation of joint-stock companies. Between 1825 and 1850, 67 joint-stock companies appeared in Prussia with a total capital of 45 million thalers, while in the short six years from 1851 to 1857, 115 companies were established with capital totaling 114.5 million thalers. During this dazzling period, the capital profit rate of the Crédit Mobilier in Paris once reached as high as 50%. Third, the demand for industrial workers grew steadily, and unemployment was almost nowhere to be seen in Europe. In 1851 in London alone, the construction industry employed over 66,000 people. Fourth, capitalism began to use industrial exhibitions to celebrate its victories and show off its economic achievements and industrial development. In 1851, the first World Expo was held in London with 14,000 exhibitors. The 1855 Paris Expo had 24,000; the 1862 London Expo 29,000; and the 1867 Paris Expo 50,000. Engels said: "British trade reached fabulous dimensions; the industrial monopoly of England in the world market appeared more firmly established than ever; new ironworks and new textile mills arose in large numbers and new branches of industry were being established everywhere." Fifth, a brand-new world economy had emerged. Hobsbawm said: "Hyndman (who was a Victorian businessman and a Marxist, though not representative of either) looking back on this period nearly half a century later, quite rightly compared the decade 1847-1857 to the age of discovery and the conquests of Columbus, Vasco da Gama, Cortes and Pizarro... a brand-new economic world has been added to the old and fused with it." This new world economy included new economic rules, new modes of capital operation, and the birth of world-wide market sales. Sixth, politics entered a period of hibernation. "In Britain, Chartism died out... Jones, the most persistent of the Chartist mass leaders, even he gave up the attempt to revive an independent working-class movement after 1850." Coincidentally, the veteran Reuters journalist Mary Gabriel also said in her 2017 book Love and Capital: Karl and Jenny Marx and the Birth of a Revolution that "In effect, capital had been crowned throughout Europe." The Church of England declared industry the new faith, and the golden age of British capitalism thus began. During this period, industry and agriculture in France and Germany also saw significant advancement.

It can be said that by entering the 1850s, capitalist relations of production were truly established across the entire European continent; feudalism was replaced in all aspects, and the newly established capitalist relations of production were able to adapt well to the development of capitalist productive forces. Regarding new systems, Marx and Engels mentioned several during this period. First, the emergence and development of joint-stock companies. In June 1856, Marx pointed out that the statutes of the Crédit Mobilier stipulated it could only protect industrial enterprises managed by anonymous companies or joint-stock companies. The result was an inevitable tendency to establish as many such companies as possible, giving all industrial enterprises this form. Of course, it cannot be denied that applying the form of the joint-stock company to industry marked a new era in the economic life of modern nations. On one hand, it demonstrated an unprecedented capacity for associated production and allowed industrial enterprises to reach a scale impossible for individual capitalists; on the other hand, it must not be forgotten that what is associated in a joint-stock company is not individuals, but capital. Second, the emergence of new systems drove the development of infrastructure such as railways, greatly increasing capitalist productive forces. In the article "The Economic Crisis in France" written on November 7, 1856, Marx pointed out: "On the whole, the railroads for which concessions have been granted total 5,584 miles, of which only 2,884 miles are completed and open for traffic. Consequently, there are 2,700 miles more to be built... the French Government is building several lines in the Pyrenees... it has just ordered the construction of new lines... in fact, France is at present building more railroads than she already possesses." Under these conditions of relatively peaceful capitalist development, it was relatively difficult for the socialist system to replace capitalism. Therefore, Marx emphasized: No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed.

3. The stage of continued development of the "Two Never-alks" principle (post-1859)

After 1859, Marx and Engels continued to develop this principle. The reasons for developing this principle were multifaceted.

First, the transition of capitalism from the stage of free competition to the stage of monopoly enabled a qualitative leap in the expansionary capacity of capital. In the historical process of nearly 40 years from 1859 to Engels' death in 1895, no major social revolutions occurred—with the exception of the Paris Commune in 1871. Relatively speaking, the degree of capitalist development during this period was quite high. Productive capacity leaped forward substantially, the key being a major shift in management methods; a governance model suited to the development of modern capitalism began to emerge, greatly promoting the development of the productive forces. On one hand, meeting the requirements of economic laws, the scale of economic concentration grew ever larger. In 1880, the Standard Oil Company controlled 90%–95% of American refined oil; in 1893, the German "Rhenish-Westphalian Coal Syndicate" controlled 90% of local coal production. The emergence of these monopoly enterprises brought fundamental changes to the mode of production and productive efficiency. On the other hand, there was the emergence of Taylorism. In 1881, the American steel industry adopted this management system. In his book The Principles of Scientific Management, Taylor stated that scientific management, like labor-saving machinery, aims to increase the output per unit of labor. The purpose of increasing labor productivity is to increase corporate profits or achieve the goal of profit maximization. The characteristic of Taylorist scientific management is to start from every individual worker, every tool, and every process; on the basis of scientific experiments, it designs the optimal workstation setup, the most rational labor quotas, standardized operation methods, and the most suitable labor tools. Marx and Engels were both keenly aware of these new changes.

Second, cyclical crises appeared in capitalism, while its capacity to overcome these crises also improved. In 1892, Engels pointed out: "All the past results of the application of steam and machinery are as nothing compared with the immense leap in production in the twenty years from 1850 to 1870, with the enormous figures of exports and imports, with the colossal wealth accumulating in the hands of the capitalists and of the human working power concentrated in the large towns. True, the progress was interrupted, as before, by a crisis every ten years: in 1857 as well as 1866; but these recurrences are now looked upon as natural, inevitable events, which must be undergone as a matter of course, and which finally settle down into the old track again." Capitalist society began to adapt to these crises to a certain extent, using various means to alleviate and overcome them, even Mato the point of resorting to war to shift the burden of crisis [3]. Although this capacity to overcome crises is temporary, it demonstrates that capitalism still has room to exist. The emergence of new space brings new crises because capitalism has its Achilles' heel: the necessity of the infinite expansion of production. Engels noted: "But what if the increase of production each year should come to a standstill? This is the vulnerable point of capitalist production, its Achilles' heel. The necessity of continuous expansion is the very basis of its existence, and this continuous expansion is now becoming more and more impossible. Capitalist production is running into a dead end. England is being faced with the question more urgently every year: either the nation must perish or capitalist production must. Which of the two is it to be?"

During this stage, the development of the "Two Never-Wills" principle by Marx and Engels was mainly reflected in the following two aspects:

First, without the full development of capitalism on a global scale and the maturity of the bourgeoisie, the emergence and development of socialism is impossible. In "Social Relations in Russia," written between 1874 and 1875, Engels criticized the absurd view of the Russian Populist theorist Pyotr Tkachev—who argued that because Russia had neither an urban bourgeoisie nor an urban proletariat, it would be much easier to realize a proletarian socialist revolution there than in Western Europe. Engels pointed out: "The revolution at which modern socialism aims is, in short, the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie and the reorganization of society by the abolition of all class distinctions. This requires not only a proletariat that carries out this revolution, but also a bourgeoisie in whose hands the productive forces of society have developed so far that they allow of the final destruction of class distinctions." Engels believed that "only at a certain level of development of the productive forces of society, an even very high level for our modern conditions, does it become possible to raise production to such an extent that the abolition of class distinctions can be a real progress, can be lasting without bringing about stagnation or even decline in the mode of social production. But the productive forces have reached this level of development only in the hands of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie, therefore, in this respect also is just as necessary a precondition for the socialist revolution as is the proletariat itself. Hence a man who says that this revolution can be more easily carried out in a country, because, although it has no proletariat, it has no bourgeoisie either, only proves that he has still to learn the ABC of socialism."

Second, the "Two Never-Wills" refers to objective laws; however, the socialist revolution also requires an important subjective condition: the proletarian revolution led by a proletarian party. In his September 1890 letter to Joseph Bloch, Engels discussed: "According to the materialist conception of history, the ultimately determining element in history is the production and reproduction of real life. Other than this neither Marx nor I have ever asserted. Hence if somebody twists this into saying that the economic element is the only determining one, he transforms that proposition into a meaningless, abstract, senseless phrase. The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure—political forms of the class struggle and its results, to wit: constitutions established by the victorious class after a successful battle, etc., juridical forms, and even the reflexes of all these actual struggles in the brains of the participants, political, juristic, philosophical theories, religious views and their further development into systems of dogmas—also exercise their influence upon the course of the historical struggles and in many cases preponderate in determining their form." The proletarian revolution plays a massive driving role in historical development; without it, the "Two Never-Wills" could turn socialism into an unreachable phantom. In November 1875, Engels wrote in a letter to Pyotr Lavrov: "If, as has been the case until now, the capitalist mode of production produces far more means of subsistence and development than capitalist society can consume, because it artificially keeps the great mass of real producers away from these means of subsistence and development; if this society is forced by its own law of existence to keep on increasing production which is already too great for it, and thus periodically, every ten years, destroys not only a mass of products but the productive forces themselves—what sense is there in all this talk of a 'struggle for existence'? The struggle for existence can then only take the form of the producing class taking the leadership of production and distribution out of the hands of the class which has hitherto been entrusted with it but has now become incapable of exercising it, and that is precisely the socialist revolution." The socialist revolution is a revolution that accords with the trends of historical development, but it simultaneously requires the proletariat to organize and seize leadership.

II. The Rich Meaning of the "Two Never-Wills"

The "Two Never-Wills" principle is a fundamental principle of scientific socialism, containing very rich content that requires our deep and correct grasp.

1. No social formation is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed

First, as long as a social formation’s relations of production can still promote the development of productive forces at a relatively fast pace, the destruction of that social formation will not occur immediately. It was based precisely on this judgment that Marx, in his long article "The Class Struggles in France, 1848–1850," written at the end of 1850 to summarize the experience of the 1848 revolutions, pointed out: "Given this general prosperity, wherein the productive forces of bourgeois society develop as luxuriantly as is at all possible within bourgeois relationships, there can be no talk of a real revolution. Such a revolution is only possible in those periods when these two factors, the modern productive forces and the bourgeois forms of production, come into contradiction with each other." This passage has three layers of meaning: General prosperity means that capitalist relations of production can well adapt to the development of capitalist productive forces and can timely and proactively adjust their own conditions to promote that development—capitalist relations of production have undergone continuous self-adjustment over these 180-plus years; as long as capitalist productive forces can continue to grow at a geometric rate, the historical mission of the bourgeoisie can still be sustained, and the social revolution for the proletariat to seize power will not occur; as long as the capitalist mode of production enters into a fundamental conflict with the development of its productive forces, causing its productive forces to grow only at a diminishing arithmetic rate, the historical mission of the bourgeoisie will end, and the proletarian revolution will break out.

Second, the "all the productive forces" that a social formation can accommodate refers to the overall state of the productive forces of all countries within that social formation, not merely the productive forces of one or a few countries, nor just the productive forces of representative countries within that social formation. "All the productive forces" includes two aspects: the productive forces of all countries and all nations within that social formation—a social formation might include dozens or even hundreds of countries and nations, and in Marx's time, it might also include dozens or even hundreds of states, territories, principalities, fiefdoms, and manors; it also includes all conditions and levels of development of the productive forces from the lower to the higher stages within a social formation. For example, all the productive forces accommodated by the slave society formation refers to the comprehensive state of the productive forces of all countries under the slave system; all the productive forces accommodated by the feudal society formation refers to the comprehensive state of the productive forces of all countries under the feudal system; and all the productive forces accommodated by the capitalist society formation refers to the comprehensive state of the productive forces of all countries under the capitalist system.

Third, the process by which all the productive forces accommodated by a social formation are developed is a very long one. Sometimes it may take several centuries or even longer. Therefore, the decline of a previous social formation is also a long process. Slavery emerged in Egypt in 4000 BC, and Europe began to establish slave systems more generally during the Ancient Greek and Roman eras; the history of this social formation's emergence and development in the world lasted as long as 5,000 years. Regarding the feudal social formation, China began to develop it as early as the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods [4], while its general establishment on the European continent occurred during the Middle Ages, with a total developmental history also spanning around 1,500 years. The capitalist social formation began to be established after the British Bourgeois Revolution in 1640, yet France did not destroy the feudal system until 100 years later after the Great Revolution in 1789, and Germany only gradually eliminated the "Augean stables" [5] of the feudal system after the February Revolution of 1848. That is to say, the decline of the feudal system underwent a historical process of nearly 200 years. During these 200 years, the overall social productive forces under the feudal social formation were generally higher than those of capitalism; it was only after the Revolution of 1848 that the level of productive forces of capitalist society across Europe began to surpass that of the feudal social formation. After another half-century of evolution, capitalist productive forces became several times those of the feudal social formation, and the feudal social formation gradually exited the stage of history. For socialism to finally triumph over capitalism, a basic prerequisite is that the overall productive forces of all socialist countries must be higher than those of all capitalist countries.

2. New superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society

First, the emergence of new and higher relations of production is based on productive forces compatible with such relations; that is to say, every social formation has social productive forces compatible with it. Marx said: "The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lord; the steam-mill, society with the industrial capitalist." A feudal social formation could not arise on the basis of the productive forces of primitive society; the establishment of the feudal social formation was based on the state of social productive forces developed over thousands of years within the slave-holding social formation. A capitalist social formation could not arise on the basis of the productive forces of slave society; the establishment of the capitalist social formation was based on the state of social productive forces developed over several centuries within the feudal social formation, including the foundations of national governance methods and cultural achievements. A socialist social formation could not arise on the basis of the productive forces of feudal society; the establishment of the socialist social formation is based on the state of social productive forces developed over several centuries within the capitalist social formation, including the foundations of science and technology, political institutions, and cultural achievements. The higher stage of communism cannot arise on the basis of the productive forces of capitalism; the higher stage of communism must be based on several centuries of development of the socialist social formation itself—without such a foundation, communism would be difficult to realize.

Second, as long as the material conditions of existence have matured, the social formation compatible with those material conditions will emerge. The "material conditions of existence" mentioned here contain very rich content and cannot be simply equated with productive forces, much less simply equated with GDP. Material conditions of existence include at least the following: the degree of development of productive forces, the status of industrial and commercial development, the total volume of GDP development, the scale of market transactions, the situation of agricultural development, the state of national infrastructure, the size and role of the government in managing economic affairs, the smoothness of transportation and the resulting state of logistics, and so on. Material conditions of existence are comprehensive conditions; they are by no means unilateral conditions.

3. The "Two Never-Wells" is an integral whole linked with the "Two Inevitabilities" and the theory of the five social formations

The principle of the "Two Never-Wells" does not exist in isolation but is closely linked with many other principles and theories, especially with the "Two Inevitabilities" and the theory of the five social formations.

First, divorced from the "Two Inevitabilities," there would be no "Two Never-Wells." The insurmountable internal contradictions of capitalism determine that socialism will inevitably replace capitalism. From the perspective of long-term historical trends, Marx always emphasized that the victory of socialism is unavoidable. In the capitalist era, because of its inherent fundamental contradictions, capitalism causes economic, political, and social life to exhibit startling contradictions everywhere. Technologies that reduce human labor become the source of worker poverty; economic progress brings about a massive regression in social morality. This is also true in politics; the development of political institutions has caused the political power of the masses to shrink rather than expand.

Second, the scientific connotation of the "Two Never-Wells" must be understood within the context of the evolution of social formations. Marx spoke of the "Two Never-Wells" in the sense of the replacement of social formations, not within the category of a specific country or nation. Therefore, after discussing the "Two Never-Wells," Marx clearly stated: In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient, feudal, and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic development of society. That is to say, the "Two Never-Wells" refers to a "never" in the evolution of social formations; it does not refer to any single country or any single nation. One must never discuss the "Two Never-Wells" apart from social formations. Divorced from social formations, the "Two Never-Wells" becomes water without a source—it becomes merely an abstract assertion. When we look at the evolution of these social formations—the Asiatic, ancient, feudal, and modern bourgeois modes of production—it is precisely this that proves the correctness of the "Two Never-Wells." When the productive forces within the Asiatic mode of production reached their limit, it was eventually replaced by the ancient social formation; similarly, when the ancient social formation allowed the development of productive forces to reach its own limit within its scope, it was eventually replaced by the feudal social formation; when the feudal social formation allowed the development of productive forces to reach its limit within its scope, it was eventually replaced by capitalism. Some people do not mention the "five-formation theory" or even deny it, with the fundamental goal of denying the inevitability of socialism replacing capitalism. In 2012, a publishing house in Beijing published a work titled Reversing the "Red Wheel": A Retrospective of the Mental Journey of Russian Intellectuals. In the opening preface, the author claimed that the "five-formation theory" was a "paradigm trap" constructed by Stalin. She said: "Because the traditional explanatory model has obvious drawbacks and too many paradigm traps, especially after Stalin's 'five social formations' theory of sequential progression was established, the theory of social evolution under the class struggle model obscured all other social contradictions. This regularized method of induction categorizes all countries and nations according to five social formations, and even if they do not fit, they are 'cut to fit the shoes' [6]." Such a statement is groundless. The "five social formations theory" is not some fabricated paradigm trap, much less a creation of Stalin; it is a monumental original contribution to human thought by the founders of Marxism.

It can be said that for Marx, following the "Two Never-Wells" inevitably leads to the "five-formation theory"; the limits of the development of productive forces exist within the social formation. Divorced from the five social formations, the "Two Never-Wells" is empty talk. Only on the basis of the evolution of the five social formations can the "Two Never-Wells" be scientifically understood and grasped. To adhere to the principle of the "Two Never-Wells," one must defend the "five-formation theory." Regarding the "five-formation theory," Fuwa Tetsuzo—former Chairman of the Japanese Communist Party and current president of its Central Party Institute—used the history of Japanese social development to prove the correctness of Marx's "five-formation theory" in his 2009 book Marx is Still Alive. He said: "As previously introduced, Marx divided the historical stages experienced by human society into the primitive community society, the ancient slave-holding society, the medieval and early modern feudal society, and the modern capitalist society. Regarding the understanding of Japanese history, the division of eras is generally conducted in a similar manner. In the ancient society following the primitive community, Japan did not form an ancient state that made local communities completely subordinate to the central power because it lacked the conditions to produce a slave society like ancient Greece or Rome." "Following the ancient society, through a series of revolutions, Japan's typical feudal society came into being. Later, as everyone knows, with the Meiji Restoration as a turning point, Japan embarked on the path of development for a capitalist society." Mr. Fuwa Tetsuzo's view has an objective basis.

III. The "Two Never-Wells" Possesses Important Contemporary Value

The basic principle of the "Two Never-Wells" has stood the test of various historical events and transformations for over 150 years, and its value as a truth has become increasingly apparent with the development of history.

1. Correctly understanding and grasping the "Two Never-Wells" allows one to understand the historical inevitability of the October Revolution

At the beginning of the 20th century, Bernstein believed that with the emergence of monopolies such as cartels and trusts, capitalism had acquired great adaptability; economic crises could already be prevented or even eliminated entirely, and the contradictions of capitalism were not sharpening but rather easing. He argued that with the development of science, technology, and social organization, the number of people in the middle classes was increasing, and the sharpening of social relations had not materialized as depicted in the Communist Manifesto; thus, a capitalist economic collapse was impossible. He also believed that political freedom, democracy, and universal suffrage had caused the foundation of class struggle to gradually disappear. With the growth of the number and knowledge of workers, universal suffrage could become a tool to transform people's representatives from masters of the people into true servants of the people, while class dictatorship belonged to a lower culture—a form of political atavism. His basic conclusion was: Marx's doctrine of the proletarian violent revolution was outdated; transformations that 100 years ago required a bloody revolution to achieve could now be realized through voting, demonstrations, and similar means of pressure. The entire practical activity of the Social Democratic Party should be reduced to creating conditions to facilitate and ensure that the modern social system transforms into a higher social system without spasmodic outbursts—that is, through reform to achieve the peaceful transition of capitalism into socialism. Therefore, he was full of hostility toward the Bolshevik Party, which seized power through violent revolution. In his 1924 article "The Evolution of a Socialist," he said: "The title of the eighth lecture is 'The Bolshevik Variety of Socialism.' It explains that the Bolshevik Party's doctrine and the slogans it took from the Marxist arsenal are a very crude form of Marxism. Marxism is precisely intended to make people recognize the limits of the power of will in history, whereas Bolshevism as a doctrine calculatedly ignores these limits, falling into a superstition regarding the infinite creative power of violence, which in practice became the progenitor of a disastrously clumsy experiment." Bernstein fetishized the developmental achievements of capitalism, leading to a deviation from the basic principles of Marxism, which inevitably led to his erroneous conclusions.

Shortly after the October Revolution occurred, Kautsky—a theorist of the German and international workers' movement and leader of the Second International—wrote the article "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat," denying the socialist nature of the Soviet regime and the basis for its existence. His reason was a one-sided understanding of the "Two Never-Wells," viewing the degree of development of productive forces as the most important basis for social revolution. Kautsky emphasized: only through the large-scale development of productive forces brought about by capitalism, and only by relying on the huge wealth created by capitalism and concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie, could socialism—namely, universal welfare under modern culture—become possible. He also said: "Wherever capitalist production cannot be immediately transformed into socialist production, capitalist production must continue to exist; otherwise, the production process will be interrupted, thereby causing universal poverty, which modern proletarians greatly fear because it would lead to universal unemployment." This absoluteized the principle of the "Two Never-Wells." In Kautsky's view, socialism could only be the result of capitalism being completely "ripe"; the task of the proletariat was to wait for capitalism to fully mature and then "automatically and peacefully grow into socialism" themselves. The proletariat was merely to fight for seats in parliament, not to organize to seize power. After absoluteizing the "Two Never-Wells" principle, Kautsky proposed that it was impossible to establish a mature socialist regime in economically relatively backward countries. He said: "In a country that is still so economically underdeveloped that the proletariat constitutes only a minority of the population, one cannot expect the proletariat to possess this maturity." Not only that, Kautsky also likened the socialism established by the October Revolution to a "premature infant," believing that this "premature infant" would not live long. He repeatedly said that the dictatorship of the proletariat promoted and practiced by the Bolsheviks was nothing more than a large-scale experiment attempting to bypass or use decrees to cancel natural stages of development. "They believe this is the most painless method to bring socialism into being, the most painless method to 'shorten and alleviate the birth pangs' of socialism. If we wish to continue using metaphors to explain, then this practice reminds us even more of a pregnant woman who jumps frantically in order to shorten the pregnancy she cannot endure and induce premature labor... a child born in this way usually cannot survive." Plekhanov held similar views. After the Second Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in 1903, Plekhanov parted ways with the Bolsheviks, turned toward Menshevism, and became a representative figure of the Mensheviks. He always held an opposing attitude toward the October Revolution. Before the October Revolution, he asserted that Russia's social productive forces were backward and lacked the conditions for a socialist revolution. After the victory of the October Revolution, he criticized Russian socialism as a "premature infant" that "cannot survive." The claims of both Kautsky and Plekhanov were groundless; the socialist regime produced by the October Revolution was a "natural birth," a "full-term natural delivery."

The occurrence of the October Revolution possessed historical necessity and accords with the Marxist principle of the "Two Never-Preals." The eruption of the Russian October Revolution was, on the one hand, the result of the development of global capitalism as a whole. That is to say, by the first decade of the 20th century, the level of development of the productive forces and the inherent contradiction between the socialization of production and the private appropriation of the means of production had already laid the foundation for the Russian October Revolution. On the other hand, the development of Russian capitalism caused social contradictions in Russia to become acute; the Bolshevik Party seized these various contradictions in a timely manner and led the Russian working class to seize political power. The October Revolution was a revolution that conformed to the demands of the people; the people were no longer willing to be ruled over. Lenin said: "What was the entire key to 1917? It was to get out of the war; this was the demand of the entire people, and therefore it overrode everything." In 1917, the people were no longer willing to be ruled; what they demanded was peace, not imperialist war. Only a socialist revolution could halt the imperialist war and win true peace for the people. First, the broad masses of workers demanded peace and work. On January 22, 1917, to commemorate "Bloody Sunday" [7] of 1905, workers in Petrograd, Moscow, Baku, and other places held large-scale strikes and demonstrations. In early March, over 30,000 workers from the Putilov Plant in Petrograd began a massive strike, pulling back the curtain on the February Revolution. On March 10, a general strike of 250,000 workers erupted in Petrograd, demanding peace and bread. In his Letters from Afar written on March 7, Lenin stated that the "Soviets of Workers' Deputies" established during this revolution "are organizations of the workers, the embryo of a workers' government, the representative of the interests of the entire mass of the poor population, i.e., nine-tenths of the inhabitants, who are striving for peace, bread, and liberty." Second, the broad masses of peasants demanded peace and land. The First World War had a devastating impact on the Russian agricultural economy. By early 1917, approximately 40% of the rural labor force had been conscripted into the military, a large number of horses and livestock had been requisitioned, and agricultural output had plummeted. The peasant movement surged; they opposed government conscription and began to seize the grain and property of landlords. It can be said that in the Russia of 1917, almost all social grassroots levels were demanding an end to the war and the realization of peace. Who could fulfill this task? It was the Bolshevik Party.

2. Correctly understanding and grasping the "Two Never-Prevals" allows one to understand why China transitioned to socialism after the victory of the New Democratic Revolution, rather than undergoing an independent stage of New Democratic social formation.

After our Party proposed the theory of the primary stage of socialism, a certain narrative emerged suggesting that China's undertaking of socialist transformation in 1956 was "too early" and "a mess," and that we should "return to a New Democratic society" or "reconstruct a New Democratic society." In fact, in the early days of the founding of New China, some believed that because our productive forces were underdeveloped, there was no foundation for practicing socialism—that the productive forces gestating a socialist society were insufficient—and that we could first practice a period of capitalism, entering socialism only after the productive forces were fully developed. Mao Zedong resolutely disagreed with this proposition, decisively choosing the second path of development and clearly and severely criticizing the aforementioned views. He pointed out that the formulation "establishing the New Democratic social order" was harmful, inconsistent with the reality of the struggle, and an obstacle to the development of the socialist cause. On June 15, 1953, while reviewing Li Weihan's report Several Issues Regarding the Utilization, Restriction, and Transformation of Capitalist Industry and Commerce (Draft), Mao Zedong pointed out several erroneous viewpoints: "(1) establishing the New Democratic social order; (2) moving from New Democracy toward socialism; (3) ensuring private property." In his speech while presiding over a meeting of the Political Bureau of the Central Committee on the evening of June 15, 1953, where he heard and discussed Li Weihan's report, he noted: "Some people, after the success of the democratic revolution, remain stuck in the same place. They have not understood the change in the nature of the revolution and continue to practice their 'New Democracy' instead of carrying out socialist transformation. This will result in right-deviationist errors." On September 7, 1954, while reviewing and revising the printed Report on the Draft Constitution of the People's Republic of China (Revised Draft), he pointed out: "As everyone knows, our country is in a period of transition toward building a socialist society. In our country, this period is also called the New Democratic period. The economic characteristic of this period is the coexistence of both socialism and capitalism. Some people hope to preserve this state of affairs forever, thinking it best not to change. They say: having the Common Program [8] is enough, why bother with a constitution? In recent years, we have also frequently heard the phrase 'consolidating the New Democratic order,' which reflects this thought of maintaining the status quo." Mao Zedong also explicitly criticized the so-called "moving from New Democracy toward socialism" associated with "establishing the New Democratic social order." The reason Mao Zedong emphasized taking the socialist road was that he believed that by developing socialist relations of production, the development of productive forces would be better promoted. In October 1953, he pointed out: the General Line [9] can also be said to be about solving the problem of ownership; only when state ownership is expanded and private ownership is changed into collective and state ownership can the productive forces be raised. In December 1953, he emphasized: "The reason we must do this is because only by completing the transition from private ownership of the means of production to socialist ownership can we facilitate the rapid forward development of social productive forces; only then can we facilitate a revolution in technology, changing the situation in which simple and backward tools and farm implements are used in the vast majority of our country's social economy into a situation where various types of machinery, up to the most advanced machinery, are used, thereby achieving large-scale production of various industrial and agricultural products to meet the growing needs of the people and improve their living standards." This understanding conforms to the basic principles of Marxism and was consistent with China's reality at the time.

China's choice of the socialist road after the founding of New China did not violate the principle of the "Two Never-Prevals" but was rather a historical necessity. First, the establishment of a state-owned economy of a socialist nature created an important material prerequisite for socialist transformation. The state-owned economy was the result of confiscating Kuomintang (KMT) bureaucratic capital. On the eve of the founding of New China, KMT bureaucratic capital accounted for about 80% of the fixed assets in the country’s mining, manufacturing, and transport industries. By the end of 1949, the People’s Government had taken over 2,858 industrial and mining enterprises belonging to bureaucratic capital, causing the output value of state-owned industry to account for 34.7% of the national industrial output in 1949; by 1952, this proportion had increased to 56%. The share of state-owned wholesale trade in the total national wholesale turnover increased from 23% in 1949 to 60% by 1952. By the end of 1949, the People's Government had confiscated 2,400 financial enterprises belonging to bureaucratic capital, and banks were basically operated by the state. Second, the implementation of the First Five-Year Plan established the preliminary foundation for China's socialist industrialization. The focus of national economic construction during the "First Five-Year Plan" was to lay the foundation for industrialization and create the prerequisites for socialist transformation and the establishment of an independent and relatively complete industrial system and national economic system. Third, socialist political institutions were established. On September 15, 1954, the First Session of the First National People's Congress of the People's Republic of China was grandly convened in Beijing, attended by 1,211 deputies. The congress formulated the first Constitution of New China, which defined the nature of our state and other fundamental systems in the form of fundamental law. The Constitution of the People's Republic of China adopted at this session clearly stipulated: all power in the People's Republic of China belongs to the people; the organs through which the people exercise power are the National People's Congress and local people's congresses at various levels; and both the National People's Congress and local people's congresses at various levels implement democratic centralism. The establishment of the National People's Congress and the promulgation and implementation of the Constitution initiated a brand-new stage of our country's people's democracy. The system of people's congresses is a good system that conforms to China’s national conditions and reality, embodies the nature of a socialist state, ensures that the people are masters of the country, and guarantees the realization of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. This system politically secured our country's choice of the socialist road. The renowned scholars Fan Ruoyu and Jiang Liu once mentioned a viewpoint in their book An Introduction to Scientific Socialism—Basic Issues of Chinese Socialism: "To enable objective historical trends to become reality as quickly as possible with fewer relapses and twists, it is necessary to exercise human subjective agency. China's embarkation on the socialist road is the result of the close integration of historical initiative and historical necessity." China's turn toward socialism was driven by historical laws and, even more so, was the result of the unremitting struggle of the Chinese people led by the Chinese Communists.

3. Correctly understanding and grasping the "Two Never-Prevals" can better allow us to maintain strategic resolve.

Our Party has always attached great importance to the "Two Never-Prevals." In 2000, Comrade Jiang Zemin spoke about the "Two Never-Prevals" on two occasions. One was on May 14, 2000, in a speech at a symposium on Party building work for Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and Shanghai held in Shanghai. He said: "Marx stated in the Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy that no social formation is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society." After quoting this passage, Comrade Jiang Zemin pointed out: "However, Lenin broke through this thesis, proposing that due to the law of uneven economic and political development of imperialism, socialist revolution can first achieve victory in the weak links of imperialism, in one country or a few countries, and led the October Revolution to success." He discussed the "Two Never-Prevals" from the perspective of Lenin’s development of Marxism and from the perspective of advancing with the times. The other occasion was on June 28, 2000, in a speech at the Central Work Conference on Ideological and Political Work, where Comrade Jiang Zemin explicitly noted: "In 1859, Marx pointed out in the Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: 'No social formation is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.'" Applying the principle of the "Two Never-Prevals," Comrade Jiang Zemin pointed out two things: First, to maintain the survival and development of the capitalist system, the bourgeoisie has carried out considerable self-regulation, reform, and improvement of certain links in the capitalist relations of production and the operation and management mechanisms of capitalist economy and society. This includes drawing lessons from some socialist practices and absorbing and utilizing the latest achievements of contemporary scientific and technological development, providing new space for the development of productive forces in capitalist society. Consequently, capitalist relations of production are not only able to accommodate current productive forces but these forces are still developing, and class and social contradictions under capitalist rule have eased to a certain extent. Second, the self-reforms and improvements carried out by Western capitalist countries have not touched the foundations of capitalist rule, have not changed the nature of the capitalist system, and—more importantly—have been unable to solve the inherent basic contradictions of capitalism or change the truth of basic Marxist principles regarding capitalism.

General Secretary Xi Jinping attaches even greater importance to the thought of the "two never-at-any-times." On May 13, 2011, Comrade Xi Jinping—then a member of the Standing Committee of the CPC Central Committee Political Bureau and President of the Central Party School—emphasized that leading cadres must prioritize the study of Marxist classical works while attending the opening ceremony for the second intake of students in the spring semester at the Central Party School. When discussing which classics to study, Comrade Xi Jinping mentioned Marx’s Preface to a Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. He stated that in this preface, Marx provided a profound exposition of the materialist conception of history, scientifically elucidating the basic principles of historical materialism—such as productive forces determining the relations of production, the economic base determining the superstructure, and social existence determining social consciousness. Marx revealed the general laws of human social development and the general progression of social formations, demonstrating the historical law by which old social formations are replaced by new ones. On December 3, 2013, while presiding over the 11th collective study session of the Political Bureau of the 18th CPC Central Committee, General Secretary Xi Jinping specifically discussed the "two never-at-any-times." General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "We must also mention the 'two never-at-any-times' proposed by Marx. Marx said: 'No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.' This important argument of Marx can help us understand why capitalism has not yet completely perished, why socialism experienced setbacks such as the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe [10], and why the communism foreseen by Marxism requires a long period of historical development to be realized. Once we have mastered this scientific worldview and methodology for understanding and researching the development of social history, we can steady the 'backbone' of our ideals, reinforce the 'ballast' of our convictions, and maintain strong strategic resolve." One source of maintaining strong strategic resolve is the accurate mastery of the principles of the "two never-at-any-times."

The reason the "two never-at-any-times" enables us to maintain strong strategic resolve lies in the following points: First, the socialist social formation is superior to the capitalist social formation. Regardless of how convoluted history may be, the growth of productive forces and other material conditions will cause socialism to grow and thrive. Even if historical changes like the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe occur, they cannot change the overarching trend of human development. Socialism is built upon the foundation of the productive forces created by capitalism; it is a social formation possessing infinite vitality. The more capitalist productive forces develop, the stronger the foundation of the socialist social formation becomes. Second, as social formations evolve forward, the duration required for a more advanced formation to replace its predecessor becomes shorter. That is to say, the evolution of human social formations is accelerating: the replacement of primitive society by the slave system took over 4,000 years; the replacement of the slave system by feudal society took 3,000 years; the replacement of feudal society by capitalist society has spanned over 500 years; and the time for socialism to replace capitalism will be even shorter. Third, after years of development, China's socialism has accumulated a powerful material foundation, and its material conditions for existence have become increasingly robust. Not only did China’s total GDP reach the scale of 101 trillion RMB in 2020, but China has also formed an independent and complete modern industrial system, being the only country in the world to possess all the industrial categories listed in the United Nations industrial classification. China not only possesses substantial infrastructure—including transport, power, and water conservancy—but major scientific and technological innovations are also emerging in quick succession. Some frontier fields have begun to enter the stages of "running alongside" or "leading" [11], and scientific and technological strength is currently in an important period of transitioning from quantitative accumulation to a qualitative leap, and from point-specific breakthroughs to the enhancement of systemic capacities. These material conditions provide a solid foundational guarantee for consolidating and developing socialism and for the advancement of the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

(The author is a Distinguished Professor at the University of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and the Party Committee Secretary and Researcher at the Institute of Marxism Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences)

Web Editor: Lian Yu Source: Marxist Studies, 2021, Issue 9