Introduction
As a philosopher, Marx is worthy of respect. However, compared to the title of "philosopher," the name "Marx" carries too much blood and fire. Completed works and deeds, like a baby with a severed umbilical cord, have gained independence. Today, I do not want to talk about Marx, but rather about Marx's "baby" - the theory of communism.
Communist education runs through modern China's education system, and I believe that most people are familiar with and yet unfamiliar with this theory. Reciting terms such as "materialism," "primary stage," "class," "economic base," etc., we seem to have memorized these profound concepts, but there are still many doubts. When will the advanced stage of communism be realized? Is Western constitutionalism really serving the bourgeoisie? Why must this world be materialistic and absolute? What comes after communist society? Is it the end of history?
Unfortunately, I am not a deep researcher of Marxism, and I cannot understand many questions. However, from the perspective of seeking truth, everyone should express their true opinions.
The Material Basis from a Legal Perspective
A few days ago, when I mentioned Marx's understanding of the nature of law to a friend, he was shocked. As a cautious Chinese, he believed that the book was too explicit. Marx believed:
"Your law is nothing but the will of your class, which has been elevated to the status of law, and the content of this will is determined by the material conditions of your class's life." - Marx and Engels Collected Works, Draft of the Communist Manifesto
Law is always covered with a mysterious veil. In the early stages of the nation-state era, the theological color inherited from the tribal era was very strong. For example, the "Book of Rites" recorded that during the Shang Dynasty, "the people were led to serve the gods, first the ghosts and then the rituals." After Emperor Wu of Han abolished the Hundred Schools of Thought, the governance model of combining rituals and laws was also supported by a religious "ritual." The mysterious color of Western medieval theology was even stronger, and this imprint made Western law, even after the Renaissance, filled with natural law thinking and worship of reason.
Marx, on the other hand, almost negated all seemingly idealistic concepts with the material conditions of life and class analysis. He believed that the terms used by bourgeois law, such as freedom, democracy, equality, and human rights, are nothing more than a layer of outer clothing. In the past, they used mystery, and now they use these seemingly correct concepts, but they are actually covering up the essence of exploitation under the private ownership of the ruling class.
Therefore, if this material basis does not change, this exploitation will continue to exist, and the law is only the most powerful form of confirming this exploitative relationship.
Methods of Revolution to Change the Material Basis
"In the higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of individuals under division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of cooperative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" - Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme
Since the material basis of private ownership determines the relationship of exploitation, the material basis must be changed. However, the material basis is affected by the counteraction of private ownership, so the state power must be seized first, then private ownership must be changed, and then the material basis must be changed, so that collective wealth will grow and the glorious "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" of the advanced stage of communism will come.
According to this logic, many countries have seized power and entered the nominally socialist society, the transitional stage between capitalist society and communist society. In socialism, in order to change the relationship of exploitation and abolish private ownership, public ownership is introduced. The dilemma faced at this time is that changing the state system does not create wealth. On the contrary, after the abolition of private ownership, the development of public ownership is slow. The material basis has changed, but it has become even more backward. On the other hand, because the means of production under public ownership are actually controlled by power, whoever has power also has the means of production, and how to distribute material wealth relies on power. The previous capitalist relationship of exploitation was still based on market rules and had a relatively independent rule of law, but in the new society after seizing power, there is only arbitrary power, and nothing else.
In order to change the material basis, it is necessary to rely on a series of capitalist institutions. However, as the saying goes, it is easy to invite a god but difficult to send one away. Since power has been released from the cage, it is almost impossible to restraints power for the use of socialism. Therefore, the nature of the state has changed from a nation to a family.
The material basis determines the relationship of exploitation, but can changing the superstructure really change the material basis? Marx and Engels believed that only when power is seized in a developed capitalist society can communism be achieved. The reason is that the change in the material basis is highly objective. Because communism is a highly developed society in terms of material, followed by capitalist society, feudal society, slave society, and finally primitive tribal society. Because material determines consciousness, consciousness can only have an active effect on material, so even if communism has political power, its impact on the material basis is not significant. Therefore, a highly developed capitalist society is theoretically the most capable of achieving a breakthrough to communism. However, attempting to directly transition to communist society in the late stage of a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society, regardless of whether it is in the primary stage or not, is idealistic.
The Change of Material Basis in Different Civilizational Stages
But does the level of material basis have a necessary relationship with entering a "from each according to his needs" society, that is, a society of "distribution according to needs"?
The Material Basis of Hunter-Gatherer Civilization
"In primitive society, there were no soldiers, gendarmes, or police, no nobles, kings, governors, local officials, or judges, no prisons, no lawsuits, and everything was orderly... All problems were solved by the parties involved, and in most cases, the established customs settled everything." - Engels
In "Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind," the author refers to the agricultural revolution from hunter-gatherer civilization to agricultural civilization as the "greatest fraud in history." "The agricultural revolution increased the total amount of food for humans, but an increase in quantity does not mean better eating or more leisure time. On the contrary, it only caused population explosions and created a group of privileged elites." Humans became like addicts, relying on higher energy for food, seeking temporary relief. At this point, land became the foundation for human survival and also the gateway to agricultural civilization. Whoever controls the land controls civilization. And because of the change in the mode of production, surplus wealth increased, and the exploitative class emerged.
At the same time, humans never stopped resisting this exploitative state and attempting to return to a natural state. From Laozi's "small country, few people, and no contact with others until death" to the words of the Peach Blossom Spring people, "not enough to be known by outsiders"... they all wanted to stop development, stop creating new wealth, and stop improving productivity in exchange for harmonious relationships between people and between people and nature. However, it is difficult to resist the temptation of land, and the desire for stability is inherent.
At this time, the material basis relied on land as the means of production, and land could be controlled by certain individuals, which determined the deterioration of human relationships in agricultural civilization and the extreme inequality of class relations. On the other hand, as an ocean civilization, at that time, humans were still unfamiliar with the ocean and not capable of controlling it. It could not be controlled by any class, so the social relations of such a society were natural, and class contradictions were eased.
The Material Basis of Technological Civilization
Agricultural civilization allowed humans to obtain the ability to collect solar energy through the cultivation of crops to meet their needs. With this ability, the population grew rapidly. Humans became like mice in a rice jar, even if they wanted to return to the hunter-gatherer civilization, they had already lost the skills to live in harmony with nature, and more importantly, the population was relatively irreversible due to the rapid expansion of agriculture.
The material basis of agricultural civilization relied on land as the means of production, and land could be controlled by certain individuals, which determined the antagonistic relationship between classes. There is no distinction between capitalism and socialism, as it is determined by the ease of centralization of the material basis.
On the other hand, technological civilization is a process of using technology to more aggressively harness energy to meet human needs. Previously, the carrier of energy was grains, and now it is more diverse materials. We can call it the means of production. In technological civilization, the most important resource is intelligence, and individual intelligence becomes a variable of the means of production.
In the early stages of technological civilization, exploitation becomes the norm under the control of capital due to the relatively controllable means of production. However, as the range of means of production expands, the influence of technology on the means of production becomes immeasurable.
What Kind of Material Basis Can Achieve "Distribution According to Needs"?
From the hunter-gatherer civilization, we can conclude that a high level of civilization development is not a necessary condition for entering a so-called "communist society" or a society of "distribution according to needs." On the contrary, the controllability of the means of production determines the degree of antagonism in class relations. In other words, if everyone can independently control the means of production, which cannot be easily seized by others, then there will be no relationship of exploitation between people. Just like the hunter-gatherer civilization, because of the relative abundance of resources and the relatively stable population of the hunter-gatherer civilization, the material basis is relatively abundant.
On the other hand, in early capitalism and early socialism, the means of production were controlled by capital and bureaucratic power, respectively. At this time, the material basis was unstable. Because capital still has economic laws and market rules to restrict it, while socialist power can be unrestricted, the exploitative relationship in the so-called early socialist stage becomes even more distorted.
Whether it is the control of power or capital, as long as the means of production can be centrally controlled, the relationship between the ruling class and the ruled class will be fundamentally antagonistic. There is no fundamental difference between capitalism and socialism because it is determined by the ease of centralization of the material basis.
Therefore, if humanity wants to escape the fate of exploitation in the future, it is not about creating a society of public ownership and material abundance. Because a society of public ownership is the easiest to be controlled by power. Or, public ownership and private ownership are not the fundamental issue. The fundamental issue lies in the decentralization and non-integrability of individuals' use of the means of production.
In the previous article on decentralization, whether it is the impact of the printing press on religious reform or the impact of emerging technologies like Starlink on telecommunications giants, they are all forms of decentralization that cannot be easily integrated. And this state is the best for individuals. The so-called future development of technology can form a decentralized material basis, utilizing the means of production, we do not know. But from the perspective of the demand for intelligence in technological progress, if individuals themselves are the best irreplaceable means of production, then it is very good.
Due to the complexity brought about by the development of civilization, this state is not fragmented but organic. Once the overall material basis reaches a decentralized level, such social relations will continue to distort.
What Can We Do?
Material determines consciousness, and consciousness has a reactive effect on material. Previously, we exaggerated this reactive effect and tried to establish a new political power to accelerate the arrival of a society of distribution according to needs. However, this approach is not conducive to the formation of a decentralized material basis. We do need to gain political power, but after gaining political power, we should strive to establish a constitutional rule of law system to achieve fairness and justice in the most traditional way for humans under this material basis. To enhance the decentralized material basis by improving intelligence, rather than continuing to be cogs under power.
"What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun." The material basis cannot be easily transformed, and it cannot be achieved through violent revolution. It is a materialistic approach to be modest, conservative, and gradually exert force under the rule of law, in order to achieve gradual progress in society.
Translation: