Online Appendix 2 - Marxist Analysis of China`s Economic Reform

在线技术附录2：从马克思主义角度分析中国经济改革

 China, as a country led by a Communist Party, defined its economic policy in Marxist terms - as did Deng Xiaoping, the principle architect of China`s economic reforms.  China`s economic reform policies were seen as the integration of Marxism with the specific conditions in China. More precisely Deng stated: `We were victorious in the Chinese revolution precisely because we applied the universal principles of Marxism-Leninism to our own realities.` (Deng, 28 August 1985) Consequently: `Our principle is that we should integrate Marxism with Chinese practice and blaze a path of our own. That is what we call building socialism with Chinese characteristics.` (Deng, 21 August 1985)

作为共产党领导下的国家，中国制定的经济政策是在马克思主义框架下进行，正如中国经济改革的总设计师邓小平所做的一样。中国的经济改革政策被视为马克思主义与中国特殊国情的完美结合。更确切地说，正如邓小平所言："中国革命取得成功，就是因为把马列主义的普遍原则用到自己的实际中去。"因此："我们的原则是把马克思主义同中国的实践相结合，走中国自己的道路，我们叫建设有中国特色的社会主义。"

Some authors, including (Hsu, 1991), have contended that Deng`s economic policies were not in accord with those of Marx. However while China`s economic policies clearly differed from those of the USSR after the introduction of the First Five Year Plan in 1929, which introduced comprehensive planning and essentially total state ownership, it is clear that China`s economic policies were in line with those indicated by Marx. This appendix therefore  demonstrates that Deng`s essential concepts in launching China`s economic reform  in 1978 corresponded to Marx`s.

包括罗伯特·徐（Robert Hsu）在内的一些作者声称，邓小平的政府政策与马克思的理论框架不是一脉相承。然而，中国的经济政策明显与1929年出台第一个五年计划后全面实行计划经济，基本上是单一的国有制的苏联不同。显然，中国的经济政策是在马克思理论框架下进行。因此，本附录旨在说明，邓小平1978年启动中国经济改革时的基本理念与马克思的理论框架一致。

The primary stage of socialism

社会主义初级阶段

Regarding China`s economic reform policies Deng noted, as stated in Marxist terms, that China was in the socialist and not the (higher) communist stage of development. Large scale development of the productive forces/output was the prerequisite before China could make the transition to a communist society: `A Communist society is one in which there is no exploitation of man by man, there is great material abundance, and the principle of from each according to their ability, to each according to his needs is applied. It is impossible to apply that principle without overwhelming material wealth. In order to realise communism, we have to accomplish the tasks set in the socialist stage. They are legion, but the fundamental one is to develop the productive forces.` (Deng, 28 August 1985) More precisely, in a characterisation maintained to the present, China was in the `primary stage` of socialism, which was fundamental in defining policy: ``The Thirteenth National Party Congress will explain what stage China is in: the primary stage of socialism. Socialism itself is the first stage of communism, and here in China we are still in the primary stage of socialism - that is, the underdeveloped stage. In everything we do we must proceed from this reality, and all planning must be consistent with it.` (Deng, 29 August 1987)

邓小平就中国的经济改革政策指出："用马克思的话来说，中国正处于社会主义，而非更高级的共产主义发展阶段。中国要想实现向共产主义社会的过渡，前提条件是要大规模发展生产力/产出。共产主义是没有人剥削人的制度，产品极大丰富，各尽所能，按需分配。按需分配，没有极大丰富的物质条件是不可能的。要实现共产主义，一定要完成社会主义阶段的任务。"更确切地说，从中国目前的发展特点来看，中国是处于社会主义的初级阶段，这是制定政策的基本原则："我们党的十三大要阐述中国社会主义是处在一个什么阶段，就是处在初级阶段，是初级阶段的社会主义。社会主义本身是共产主义的初级阶段，而我们中国又处在社会主义的初级阶段，就是不发达的阶段。一切都要从这个实际出发，根据这个实际来制订规划。"

The fundamental characterisations by Deng have been maintained to the present - thus for example Xi Jinping reaffirmed: `the basic foundation for building socialism with Chinese characteristics is that China is in the primary stage of socialism.` (Xi, 2014) -  The conclusion flowing from this as noted by Hsu, was that: `From this perspective, a serious error in the past was the leftist belief that China could skip the primary stage and practice full socialism immediately.` (Hsu, 1991, p. 11)

邓小平所提的基本原则一直保持到现在，譬如习近平重申："建设中国特色社会主义，总依据是社会主义初级阶段。"罗伯特·徐则根据此结论指出："从这个角度看，过去所犯的严重错误是，左派认为中国可以跳过初级阶段，立即全面实行社会主义。"

The conclusion of such a contrast between a primary socialist stage of development and  the principle of a communist society (which, as noted by Deng above, was regulated by `from each according to their ability to each according to each according to his needs`) was that in the present `socialist` period the principle was ` to each according to their work`: `We must adhere to this socialist principle which calls for distribution according to the quantity and quality of an individual`s work.` (Deng, 28 March 1978) In Marxist theory, outlined by Marx in the opening chapter of Capital (Marx, 1867), economic distribution according to work/labour is the fundamental principle of commodity production - and a commodity necessarily implies a market. In this socialist period a market would therefore exist - hence the eventual Chinese terminology of a `socialist market economy.` As presented by Deng Xiaoping and his successors above such Chinese analysis is highly compressed but clearly in line with Marx himself.

社会主义初级发展阶段分配原则与共产主义社会分配原则（即邓小平上文所提的各尽所能，按需分配）相反，现阶段的社会主义分配原则是"按劳分配"："我们一定要坚持按劳分配的社会主义原则。按劳分配就是按劳动的数量和质量进行分配。"在马克思1867年所著的《资本论》第一章所概述的马克思主义理论中，按劳分配是商品生产的基本原则--商品必然意味着市场经济的形成。在社会主义阶段，市场经济会因此存在，中国最终形成并发展了社会主义市场经济体制。正如邓小平和他的继任者上文所提到的，中国的经济理论虽然精炼，但却显然与马克思理论一脉相承。

It is clear Marx envisaged that the transition from capitalism to communism would be a prolonged one, noting in The Communist Manifesto: `The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.` (Marx & Engels, 1848, p. 504) The `by degree` may be noted - Marx therefore clearly envisaged a period during which state owned property and private property would exist. China`s system, after Deng, of simultaneous existence of sectors of state and private ownership is therefore clearly more in line with Marx`s conceptualisation than Stalin`s introduction `all at once` of essentially 100 per cent state ownership in 1929.

显然，按马克思的设想，从资本主义到社会主义的过渡将是一个长期的过程，正如他在《共产党宣言》中指出："无产阶级将利用自己的政治统治，一步一步地夺取资产阶级的全部资本，把一切生产工具集中在国家即组织成为统治阶级的无产阶级手里，并且尽可能快地增加生产力的总量。"文字里的"一步一步"显示，在马克思的设想中，公有制和私有制将在一段时间内同时存在。邓小平启动改革开放后，中国的经济体系中公有制和私有制同时并存。因此，中国的经济体系明显与马克思的构想一致，而与1929年采用"一步到位"的激进方式全面实行国有化的斯大林不同。

Regarding Deng`s formulations on communist society being regulated by `to each according to their need` versus the primary stage of socialism regulated by `each according to their work` Marx noted in the Critique of the Gotha Programme of the post-capitalist transition to a communist society: `What we are dealing with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society, which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birth-marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.` (Marx, 1875, p. 85)

至于邓小平构想的共产主义社会的"按需分配"与社会主义初级阶段的"按劳分配"，马克思在《哥达纲领批判》中就后资本主义社会到共产主义社会的过渡指出："我们这里所说的是这样的共产主义社会，它不是在它自身基础上已经发展的了，恰好相反，是刚刚从资本主义社会中产生出来的，因此它在各方面，在经济，道德和精神各方面都还带着它脱胎出来的那个旧社会的痕迹。"

In such a transition Marx outlined payment in society, and distribution of products and services, necessarily had to be `according to work` even within the state owned sector of the economy:`Accordingly, the individual producer receives back from society - after the deductions have been made - exactly what he gives to it. What he has given to it is his individual quantum of labour. For example, the social working day consists of the sum of the individual hours of work; the individual labour time of the individual producer is the part of the social working day contributed by him, his share in it. He receives a certificate from society that he has furnished such-and-such an amount of labour (after deducting his labour for the common funds); and with this certificate, he draws from the social stock of means of consumption as much as the same amount of labour cost. The same amount of labour which he has given to society in one form, he receives back in another.

马克思就这种过渡提出，社会报酬、产品与服务的分配，必须要"按劳分配"，即使是在国有经济框架内："所以，每一个生产者，在作了各项扣除之後，从社会方面正好领回他所给予社会的一切。他所给予社会的，就是他个人的劳动量。例如，社会劳动日是由所有的个人劳动小时构成的；每一个生产者的个人劳动时间就是社会劳动日中他所提供的部份，就是他在社会劳动日里的一份。他从社会方面领得一张证书，证明他提供了多少劳动（扣除他为社会基金而进行的劳动），而他凭这张证书从社会储存中领得和他所提供的劳动量相当的一份消费资料。他以一种形式给予社会的劳动量，又以另一种形式全部领回来。"

`Here obviously the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values…. as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labour in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labour in another form.

显然，这里通行的就是调节商品交换（就它是等价的交换而言）的同一原则。至于消费资料在各个生产者中间的分配，这里通行的是商品等价物的交换中也同样通行的同一原则，即一种形式的一定量的劳动可以和另一种形式的同量劳动相交换。

`Hence, equal right here is still in principle - bourgeois right… The right of the producers is proportional to the labour they supply; the equality consists in the fact that measurement is made with an equal standard, labour.` (Marx, 1875, p. 86)

所以，在这里平等的权力按照原则仍然是资产阶级的法权。生产者的权力是和他们提供的劳动成比例的；平等就在于以同一的尺度--劳动--来计量。

In such a society inequality would necessarily still exist: `one… is superior to another physically or mentally and so supplies more labour in the same time, or can labour for a longer time; and labour, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labour... it tacitly recognises the unequal individual endowment and thus the productive capacities of the workers as natural privileges. It is, therefore, a right of inequality in its content like every right. Right by its very nature can consist only as the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable by an equal standard only insofar as they are made subject to an equal criterion, are taken from a certain side only, for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Besides, one worker is married, another not; one has more children than another, etc. etc.. Thus, given an equal amount of work done, and hence an equal share in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right would have to be unequal rather than equal.` (Marx, 1875, pp. 86-87)

在这样的社会，不平等现象必然仍将存在："一个人在体力或智力上胜过另外一个人，因此在同一时间内提供较多的劳动，或者能劳动较长的时间；而劳动，为了要使它能够成为一种尺度，就必须按照它的时间或强度来确定，不然它就不成其为尺度了。这种平等的权利，对不同等的劳动来说是不平等的权利．它不承认任何阶级差别，因为每个人都像其它人一样只是劳动者；但它默认劳动者不同等的个人天赋，因而也就默认劳动者不同等的工作能力是天然特权。所以就它的内容来讲，它像一切权利一样是一种不平等的权利。权利，就它的本性来讲，只在於使用同一的尺度；但是不同等的个人（而如果他们不是不同等的，他们就不成其为不同的个人）要用同一的尺度去计量，就只有从同一个角度去看待他们，从一个特定的方面去对待他们，例如现在所讲的这个场合，把他们只当作劳动者；再不把他们看作别的什麽，把其它一切都撇开了。其次，一个劳动者已经结婚，另一个则没有；一个劳动者的子女较多，另一个的子女较少，如此等等。在劳动成果相同，从而由社会消费品中分得的份额相同的条件下，某一个人得到的事实上比另一个人多些，也就比另一个人富些，如此等等。要避免所有这些弊病，权利就不应当是平等的，而应当是不平等的。"

Marx considered only after a prolonged transition would payment according to work be replaced with the ultimately desired goal, distribution of products according to members of society`s needs.

马克思认为，只有经过长时间的过渡时期，才会实现按需分配取代按劳分配的最终目标。

`Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development which this determines.

`In a higher phase of communist society… after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of common 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 abilities, to each according to his needs!` (Marx, 1875, p. 87)

"权利永远不能超出社会的经济结构以及由经济结构所制约的社会的文化发展。在共产主义社会高级阶段上，在随着个人的全面发展生产力也增长起来，而集体财富的一切源泉都充分涌流之后，只有在那个时候，才能完全超出资产阶级法权的狭隘眼界，社会才能在自己的旗帜上写上∶各尽所能，按需分配！"

It is therefore clear that post-Deng policies in China were more in line with Marx`s pre1111ions than post-1929 Stalin policies in the USSR. Given the essentially 100 per cent state ownership of industry in China in 1978 `ZhuadaFangxiao` - maintaining the large enterprises within the state sector and releasing the small ones to the non-state sector - together with the creation of a new private sector created an economic structure clearly more in line with that envisaged by Marx than the essentially 100 per cent state ownership in the USSR after 1929. Deng`s insistence on the formula that in the transitional period reward would be `according to work` and not `according to need` was clearly in line with Marx`s analyses. It is notable that in the USSR itself a number of economists opposed Stalin`s post-1929 policies on the same or related grounds - including Buhkarin (Bukharin, 1925) ,Kondratiev (Kondratiev), and Preobrazhensky (Preobrazhensky, 1926) (Preobrazhensky, 1921-27). Their works were, however, almost unknown as these issues were `resolved` by Stalin killing those economists who disagreed with him and banning their works,although several accounts have been published outside the USSR - see for example (Jasny, 1972) (Lewin, 1975). China`s economic debates therefore appear to have preceded with reference to China`s conditions and Marx and not any preceding debates in the USSR.

由此可见，后邓小平时代中国的政策比1929年后斯大林时代苏联的政策更相符合马克思主义理论。鉴于单一的公有制经济制度，中国于1978年实行了"抓大放小"的政策--即保留大型国有企业为国有制，放活小型国有企业为非国有/私有制，由此催生出的新私有制经济结构明显比1929年后实行单一公有制经济制度的苏联更相符合马克思的构想。邓小平在过渡期间内坚持的"按劳分配"而非"按需分配"模式也明显与马克思的分析一致。值得注意的是，苏联当时有很多经济学家基于相同或相似理由反对斯大林1929年后所实行的政策，包括布哈林(Bukharin）、康德拉捷夫（Kondratiev）和普列奥布拉任斯基（Preobrazhensky）。然而，他们的作品却几乎不为人知，因为斯大林处死了那些反对他的经济学家，并全面禁止出版他们的作品。只有少数几部作品得以在苏联之外的国家发表，比如雅斯尼（Jasny）所著的的《20年代的苏联经济学家》（1972年）和列文(Lewin）所著的《苏联经济论战中的政治暗流》（1975年）。因此，中国的经济论战可提及中国国情与马克思主义，苏联则没有这样的机会进行任何形式的论战。

It is therefore clear that China`s post-reform economic policy is in line with Marx`s analysis and that, as stated in Chinese analysis, post-1929 Soviet policy departed from Marx`s analysis - the argument that the converse is true, by Hsu and others, is clearly invalid.

因此，综上所述，中国改革开放后实行的政策与马克思的经济理论一致，苏联1929年后实行的政策则背离了马克思的经济理论--罗伯特o徐和其他人所得出的相反的结论，显然不能成立。

Bibliography

参考文献

Bukharin, N. (1925). `Critique de la plate-formeéconomique de l`opposition`. In L. Trotsky, E. Préobrajensky, N. Boukharine, Lapidus, &Osttrovitianov, Le DébatSoviétique Sur La Loi de La Valeur (1972 ed., pp. 201-240). Paris: Maspero.

见布哈林（N. Bukharin）1925年所著《对反对派经济纲领的批判》（Critique de la plate-formeéconomique de l`opposition），摘自托洛茨基（L. Trotsky）、普列奥布拉仁斯基（E. Préobrajensky）、布加里宁（N. Boukharine）、拉皮德斯（Lapidus）与Osttrovitianov编撰的《苏联价值规律论战》（1972年版）第201- 240页），由马斯佩罗出版社出版。

Deng, X. (28 March 1978). `Adhere to the principle "to each according to his work`. In X. Deng, Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping (2001 ed., pp. 117-118). Honolulu: University Press of the Pacific.

见邓小平1978年3月28日所发表的讲话《坚持按劳分配原则》，摘自《邓小平文选》第2卷第117-118页（2001版），由太平洋大学出版社。

Deng, X. (21 August 1985). `Two kinds of comments about China`s reform`.In X. Deng, Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping 1982-1992 (1994 ed., pp. 138-9).Foreign Languages Press.

见邓小平1985年8月21日讲话《对中国改革的两种评价》，摘自《邓小平文选》（1982-1992 ）第3卷第138-139页（1994年版），由外文出版社出版

Deng, X. (28 August 1985). `Reform is the only way for China to develop its productive forces`. In X. Deng, Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping 1982-1992 (pp. 140-143). Beijing: Foreign Languages Press.

见邓小平1985年8月28日所发表的讲话《改革是中国发展生产力的必由之路》，摘自《邓小平文选》（1982-1992 ）第3卷第140-143页（1994年版），由外文出版社出版。

Deng, X. (29 August 1987). `In everything we do we must proceed from the realities of the primary stage of socialism`. In X. Deng, Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping 1982-1992 (pp. 247-8). Beijing: Foreign Languages Press.

见邓小平1987年8月29日年讲话《一切从社会主义初级阶段的实际出发》，摘自《邓小平文选》（1982-1992 ）第3卷第247-248页（1994年版），由外文出版社出版。

Hsu, R. C. (1991). Economic Theories in China 1979-1988. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.

见罗伯特·徐1991年所著的《对1979-1988年中国经济理论的分析》（Economic Theories in China 1979-198），由剑桥大学出版社出版。

Jasny, N. (1972). Soviet Economists of the Twenties. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kondratiev, N. D. (n.d.). The Works of Nikolai D Kondratiev (1998 ed.). (N. Makasheva, W. J. Samuels, V. Barnett, Eds., & S. S. Williams, Trans.)Pickering and Chatto.

见雅斯尼（N. Kondratiev）1972年所著的《20年代的苏联经济学家》，由剑桥大学出版社出版；见康德拉捷夫（Kondratiev）所著的《尼古拉o康德拉捷夫作品选集》 (1998 年版)，由玛卡谢娃（N. Makasheva）、塞缪尔斯（W. J. Samuels）和巴内特（V. Barnett）主编（威廉姆斯（S. S. Williams）翻译），由Pickering and Chatto出版。

Lewin, M. (1975). Political Undercurrents in Soviet Economic Debates. London: Pluto Press.

见列文（M. Lewin）1975年所著的《苏联经济论战中的政治暗流》，由Pluto Press出版。

Marx, K. (1867). Capital Vol.1 (1988 ed.). (B. Fowkdes, Trans.) Harmondsworth: Penguin.

见马克思（Karl Marx）1867年所著的《资本论》第1卷（1988年版），由福克斯（B. Fowkdes）翻译，由Penguin出版。

Marx, K. (1875). `Marginal notes on the programme of the German Workers Party`. In K. Marx, Karl Marx Frederich Engels Collected Works (1989 ed., Vol. 24, pp. 81-99). London: Lawrence and Wishart.

见马克思（Karl Marx）1875年所著的《哥达纲领批判》，摘自《马克思恩格斯作品选集》（1989年版）第24卷第81-99页，由Lawrence and Wishart出版。

Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1848).`Manifesto of the Communist Party`. In K. Marx, & F. Engels, Collected Works (1976 ed., Vol. 7, pp. 476-519). London, UK: Lawrence and Wishart.

见马克思和恩格斯1848年所著的《共产党宣言》，摘自《马克思恩格斯作品选集》（1976年版）第7卷第476-519页，由Lawrence and Wishart出版。

Preobrazhensky, E. (1921-27). The Crisis of Soviet Industrialization (1980 ed.). (D. A. Filzer, Ed.) London: MacMillan.

见普列奥布拉任斯基（E. Preobrazhensky）1921-1927年所著的《苏联工业化的危机》（The Crisis of Soviet Industrialization）（1980版），由费尔泽勒（D. A. Filzer）主编，由MacMillan出版。

Preobrazhensky, E. (1926). The New Economics (1967 ed.). (B. Pearce, Trans.) Oxford: Clarendon Press.

见普列奥布拉任斯基（E. Preobrazhensky）1926年所著的《新经济学》（1967年版），由皮尔斯（B. Pearce）翻译，由Clarendon Press出版。

(Xi, Study, Disseminate and Implement the Guiding Principles of the 18th CPC National Congress, 2014, On the Governance of China Kindle Editionpp. Location 245-6)

见习近平讲话《紧紧围绕坚持和发展中国特色社会主义学习宣传贯彻党的十八大精神》，摘自2014年《习近平谈治国理政》第 245-246段落（Kindle电子版）。