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.
Is It Possible to Understand Another Culture? On the Question of Cultural Dialogue and Mutual Learning (2026.07.10)
In a recent conversation in the village where was living, my interlocutor argued that it is very difficult to understand (很难理解) Chinese culture and thus China itself. In other words, she felt that foreigners ultimately cannot understand China. Although there is a constant emphasis at an international level on cultural dialogue and mutual learning (I have lost count of the meetings and conferences emphasising this), it is not uncommon to encounter the other perspective: foreigners ultimately cannot understand China and Chinese culture.
The are a number of aspects to this question:
1) Many a foreigner has indeed misunderstood and continues to misunderstand China. It seems to me that when my Chinese friends and comrades encounter such material, they throw up their hands and resign themselves to this fact. To be added here, I have noticed from time to a time an implicit competition between so-called 中国通 Zhongguotong, foreign China hands or China experts, as to who (mis)understands China better than the others.
2) Thus, it should be no surprise that given the profound cultural and philosophical differences between China and many other parts of the world, some in China feel that foreigners will never grasp such a distinctive culture. For example, there is no need in Chinese culture for ontological transcendence, since 天人合一 tianren-heyi, heaven and human beings are as one, or nature and human beings are one. Or 和而不同 he’er-butong, harmony without sameness, harmony through diversity; 相反相成 xiangfan-xiangcheng, things that oppose one another also complement one another. This collection of sayings could on almost endlessly, but the point made is that foreigners cannot fully grasp such concepts and assumptions.
3) That said, for historical reasons the tendency is to contrast Chinese culture with “Western” culture – the few countries of the world that make up less than fifteen percent of the world’s population. Less attention is given to the different parts of Africa, Muslim-majority and Arab countries, Pacific Island countries, Latin America, and so on. As I write, however, this situation is changing.
4) Of course, all of this may be no more than saying “you are wrong”; or “I disagree with you.” One might say in China, “my understanding is a little different from yours,” or “maybe we can talk about this later,” or – pertinent here – “it is very difficult to understand China.”
By way of reply to my conversation partner, along with subsequent reflections after the conversation, I made and would like to make the following points.
To begin with the question of history, or more specifically, the history of cultural exchange. This happened especially along the ancient Silk Road, with the Dunhuang Grottoes (dating from 366 CE) in what is now Gansu Province a telling example of influences from all along the Silk Road. It happened also with Marco Polo, who brought back with him noodles (which became pasta) and flat breads (which became pizza). As a historian put it, perhaps he should have brought back tea and chopsticks, since these hygienic inventions would have saved Europe from much disease and misery. Further, the European Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries would not have happened without Chinese influence. Voltaire and Leibniz, for example, were notable Sinophiles. And of course there is Marxism, which came to China from Western Europe, via the Soviet Union (and translations from Japanese), and became a type of Chinese Enlightenment that has brought one of the poorest countries in the world a century ago to where it is today. In other words, cultures would not be what they are without constant process of dialogue and mutual learning.
Further, there is a short Chinese poem that I like to quote from time to time. It is by the northern Song Dynasty poet, Su Shi (苏轼 1037-1101 CE):
横看成岭侧成峰
远近高低各不同
不识庐山真面目
只缘身在此山中
We may translate as follows, with the caveat that translating poetry is almost impossible:
From the front it seems like a ridge, from the side like a peak,
Far and near, high and low, the perspectives are not the same.
You cannot discern the true face of Lu Mountain,
If you happen to be within the mountain.
Exegesis of this poem need only be minimal. The point is that if you are within, if you are part of system, if you inherit the cultural assumptions and live according to these values, you cannot discern completely the nature of this culture and its values. In other words, while you may instinctively know your own culture, you need the perspective of an outsider to point out what is distinctive about your own culture so as to understand it more fully. What I am not saying is that outsiders know it better; instead, it is simply that outsiders see aspects that those “within the mountain” assume as normal, as part of the furniture.
Finally, if you emphasise too much the uniqueness and distinctness of each cultural tradition and civilisation, you end up putting an end to any dialogue, exchange, or mutual learning. History tells us that the reality is otherwise.
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 