Introduction
By way of introduction to this page, some years ago I wrote a blog called “Stalin’s Moustache.” As all things do, the blog’s time came to a natural end and I have no desire to reinstate it. Instead, this page is named “Scientific Socialism.” Why? As the mainstream of Marxism has come to agree: Marxist theory includes three main aspects: Marxist philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism. The three are distinct and yet closely related.
Thus, this page contains reflections on scientific socialism. These reflections mostly arise from a conservation with a friend that triggers further thoughts. This page contains what I have written in light of such a conversation and the thinking that follows. To be clear, these are thoughts in process and thus not finished and polished pieces.
On the Mistake of “State-Directed Socialism” (2026.07.06)
In a recent discussion in Chongqing with a friend from Peru, we talked about the tendency among some international Marxist thinkers to see China’s model and Chinese-style development as a type of “state-led” or “politically-led” development. While an understandable perception and perhaps even tactical move in an international environment, this position is ultimately misleading.
There are a number of variations on this proposal, but they boil down to the assumption that a system is determined by its political structure, by the political party or leaders in power. As for the variations, they may be listed as follows:
1) China incorporates a range of capitalist economic relations but these are directed and controlled by the political system, especially the CPC, in a socialist direction. (Related is the notion that China is still in the long transition from capitalism to socialism, but this mistaken perception is the topic for another piece.)
2) China follows a “state-led” and “socialist-oriented” approach, which is on the path to socialism but not yet socialism (assuming one knows what “socialism” entails).
3) The system in China is socialist because the CPC is in charge. It follows that if the CPC was not leading, China would not be socialist.
These main variations – and there are some others minor variations – are understandable in an international context, but ultimately mistaken and misleading. Let me explain why.
To begin with, there is a strong influence of Western assumptions that a “system” means a “political system” that determines the whole. For example, the imperialist interventions of Western countries such as the USA have been based for some time now on changing the political leadership, the political party in power, or even the system of governance. The thinking is that if they can “regime change” a country into a more favourable political leadership or even “Western-style” governance then Western imperialist interests will be served. This approach goes so far as to train and foster new generations of political and intellectual leaders in designated countries so that they may take control in the future. Clearly, it will not do for Marxists in other parts of the world to assume that the form of the state or the “political system” determines everything.
Further and at a deeper level, this assumption at best has the Marxist method “standing on its head.” How so? If we take the base-superstructure metaphor – and note that it is a metaphor – in which the various components are semi-autonomous but ultimately determined by the economic base (as Engels explained clearly), then the political system is part of the superstructure that ultimately relies on the economic base. In this light, it is a category mistake to turn a component of the superstructure – no matter how important – into the determinant of the whole.
Further still, what is required is systems-thinking (系统思维 as they say in China) or a comprehensive approach. Thus, the key question is the structure of the whole system in which each component finds its place. Thus, in a Chinese situation it is empirically and methodologically verifiable that the overall system is a constantly developing socialist system: economically this is clear, with the innovative and dialectical integration of planning and market components in a socialist economy, but it also applies to the constantly developing political structure, society, culture, philosophy, and so on.
It follows that the form of socialist governance led by the CPC is one that is both appropriate to the economic base and to the overall system in question. Obviously, it would be a disaster to take a political structure developed in very different conditions and try to insert it within such an overall system.
Finally, the model of governance in China – socialist democracy or whole-process people’s democracy – has arisen and developed both in light of socialist principles and experiences of governance (as I have shown in my 2023 book Socialism in Power) and in light of China’s long historical experience of governing a large country with a large population. We may say that this is an instance of the “second” integration in the sense of the integration of the basic principles of socialist governance with the best of traditional Chinese governance.
To conclude, a correct approach would be as follows. While the political structure is very important, especially as led by the CPC, it is one that suits China’s socialist system and that is influenced by the distinctive millennia-long tradition of governance. The task of governance, then, is to study and understand the objective facts of economic, social, and cultural development and design appropriate policies – especially long-term plans – in light of this concrete reality. It is these policies and plans that can guide one on and even transform the path ahead.
Roland Theodore Boer 薄国强 