The Theory of Scientific Socialism Should Be Developed in Practice

Read from the scan by GLM-OCR; expect the odd misread word.

they understand a little about the surface of capitalism but not enough, so they think that capitalism is superior and that our socialism, in comparison, has failed.

What is socialism exactly? It was impossible to have a complete theory of socialism during Marx' time because Marx only laid a foundation for scientific socialism. It is impossible to say that the theory of scientific socialism is complete because socialism has not been carried out. How can there be a complete theory on socialism without the practice? We have tested and developed the theory through Soviet and Chinese practice of socialism in the past several decades. Even today, many questions have yet to be resolved, many objective laws are waiting to be studied and experiences reviewed. As the central government pointed out, we should build a socialism to suit China's national conditions and develop productive forces as soon as possible. This includes absorbing the good experiences of other countries.

This involves the question of how to uphold socialism. First, we should understand what is real and what is fake socialism. Only by thoroughly criticizing the fake socialism of the "Gang of Four" can we uphold real socialism. Second, socialism has more than one model. As long as the general principle is the same, socialism could be carried out in a hundred different ways. Before we only knew how to copy the Soviet Union. We did it because the Soviet Union was the only socialist country at the time. Later we criticized the Soviet Union but we were still thinking in the same way. We thought there was only one way to achieve socialism, no alternatives. Only by comparing can one distinguish and recognize. Only after comparing our methods with those of other countries such as Yugoslavia and Romania did we find out that there could be different methods. Therefore, to uphold socialism, we should have a clear understanding of these issues. This also explains that we cannot uphold socialism unless we emancipate our thinking. Upholding socialism does not mean maintaining the status quo and copying everything indiscriminately. We should not copy the 10 years of the "cultural revolution"; nor should we copy the 17 years before the "cultural revolution." Of course, certain things should still be done in accordance with the methods used during that 17 years, but they are not sufficient. We must create new methods to solve new problems. Failing to solve these problems will make upholding socialism impossible. Because of this, we should not advocate emancipating our thinking under the prerequisite of the four upholds. I disagree with this view. We should reverse it—only by persisting in emancipating thinking can we uphold socialism. You say we need to uphold socialism, but what kind of socialism? There is no fixed model for socialism, then what is the method most suited to China's conditions? We should let the public discuss these questions. How can they discuss anything if their thinking is not emancipated? Some erroneous and popular views of the past are mistaken for the only way to socialism. For instance, socialism does not allow recruits so everybody must be assigned under socialism; otherwise, if workers are

recruited, it would not be socialism. What is this nonsense? For another instance, the planned economy, which is also waiting to be studied, may be practiced in different ways. Only by so doing can we develop the theory of socialism. How can we develop the theory of socialism if we do not emancipate our thinking? Many practices cannot be continued. Since Stalin's problems cropped up, the Soviet Union realized that they could not succeed by copying all of Stalin' methods and that they had to make some changes. Chairman Mao also realized this fact and tried to create some new methods. As a result, when Chairman Mao criticized dogmatism before the year 1957, he urged us to think before copying the Soviet Union so that we could learn from their positive experiences and draw lessons from their negative ones. The Soviet Union also changed. They attached importance to material incentive or material reward—I cannot find much difference between the meanings of these two phrases after consulting with many dictionaries. The Soviet Union has indeed taken this road. In 1958 we put politics in command. Later we engaged in class struggle, using it to determine everything, as the key link, and to promote production. After all these years, if we look back and use practice to test the several theories which guided us through these years, we would find out—we need not to be evasive—that the 10 years of turmoil has pushed the national economy to the brink of collapse. How can you afford not to review this theory? How can you refuse to recognize such a practice?

Many people at home and abroad say that we have turned into "revisionists" and that our line has changed. It is true that our line has changed. It was the ultra-left guiding ideology that occupied a dominant position during the "cultural revolution." How can we afford not to change it? But, changing the line is not the same as revisionism. In fact, the "revisionist line" is not an appropriate term. Why? Revisionism initially was referred to the theory of Bernstein and his like. It was a theoretical issue. If a theory contradicts the basic tenets of Marxism, it is called revisionism. As for the issue of line, it is either Left or Right opportunist line; there is no revisionist line. The basic tenets of Marxism are universal truth which is a criterion for the whole wide world. "Revising" such a criterion is the same as opposing Marxism and thus should be objected. We cannot say a basic tenet was good yesterday but is no good today because it covers a very long period of time. As for the line itself, it should change as situations change. We had one line for the period of democratic revolution and another for the period of socialist revolution. We even had different lines for different stages of the socialist period. Therefore, the term, the revisionist line, gives people an illusion as if there ought to be a permanent line that will stay the same forever like "doing everything according to existing principles" which was advocated by the "Gang of Four." You have to do everything according to existing principles and lines; otherwise, you are revisionists—this is the exact logic Liang Xiao [2733 2400] used in his article carried by the "GUANGMING RIBAO." It says: After Marx died, Engels waged a