In May 1978, the Guangming Daily published an article titled "Practice is the Sole Criterion for Testing Truth," written by Nanjing University philosophy professor Hu Fuming, though it was published under the name "Commentator." This article sparked the "Great Debate on the Criterion of Truth" and the subsequent practice of reform and opening up. Over forty years have passed since then. How should we evaluate this proposition of the "sole criterion" and this debate? Is it truth or fallacy? If it is fallacy, where does it go wrong? What are its harmful effects? What exactly is Marxist thought on the criterion of truth? Can Marxist thought on the criterion of truth be applied to test Mao Zedong's theory of continuous revolution and Deng Xiaoping's theory? How should they be tested? Building on previous articles, I will continue to delve into these issues and share my personal views.

　　The debate on the "criterion of truth" was directly aimed at Hua Guofeng's "Two Whatevers" doctrine, proposing the view that "practice is the sole criterion for testing truth." At first glance, this seems to uphold the Marxist perspective on practice. However, in reality, it distorts and misrepresents Marxist thought on the criterion of truth and the concept of practice. This viewpoint has two main errors:

　　I. Practice is the Fundamental and Ultimate Standard for Testing Truth, Not the Sole Standard

　　The issue of practice and the criterion of truth is essentially about Marxist epistemology, which inherently involves the relationship between practice and cognition. In the relationship between practice and cognition, dialectical materialism advocates the primacy of practice. Specifically, practice is the source of cognition, the driving force of cognitive development, the standard for testing truth, and the purpose of cognition. However, these are all stated from a fundamental and ultimate perspective. While Marxism posits that practice is the source of cognition, it does not deny that the cognition of any specific historical individual also originates from predecessors and others. It states that practice is the driving force of cognitive development but does not deny that the internal contradictions within cognition also drive cognitive development. It says practice is the purpose of cognition but does not deny that cognition can also be an end in itself. The former is stated in an ultimate and fundamental sense. To say that practice is the source, driving force, and purpose of cognition does not completely deny that predecessors and others are also sources of cognition, that internal contradictions within cognition are also driving forces, or that cognition can be an end in itself. If practice is considered the sole source, driving force, and purpose in an ultimate sense, then this is not a Marxist viewpoint but a metaphysical one. Similarly, when Marxism states that practice is the standard for testing truth, it is in an ultimate and fundamental sense, not denying that theories derived from practice and repeatedly verified by practice can also be standards for testing new theories. These four statements form an integral whole in epistemology, and discussing any one point cannot be separated from the other three, especially the source. When testing a cognition, we must say that this cognition originates from practice. It must be based on a wealth of empirical, realistic perceptual knowledge that has been scientifically refined and summarized before being applied in practice to be tested by practice. If this cognition does not originate from practice at all but is a subjective fabrication without scientific proof, it cannot guide practice and will ultimately be proven wrong by practice.

　　In "On Practice," Mao Zedong stated: "The reason why many natural science theories are considered true is not only because natural scientists formulated these theories scientifically but also because they have been confirmed by subsequent scientific practice. The reason why Marxism-Leninism is considered true is not only because Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin scientifically constituted these theories but also because they have been confirmed by subsequent revolutionary class struggle and national struggle practice." Note that Mao Zedong speaks of two conditions for natural science and Marxism-Leninism being considered true, using "not only" and "but also," rather than "not" and "but." This clearly illustrates that Marxism-Leninism is considered true for two reasons: one, it originates from practice, relying on scientific theory to sift through objective perceptual material, and two, it is ultimately verified by the practice of class struggle among the masses. Mao Zedong did not regard the practice of class struggle as the sole standard for the truth of Marxism but also considered objective truth, already verified by practice, as an important condition and reason for testing new cognitions. Marxism here is not dualistic, equating the two entirely but recognizing practice as the fundamental and ultimate standard for testing truth. The so-called "Great Debate on the Criterion of Truth" proposed that practice is the "sole" standard for testing truth, completely denying the role of theories already proven correct by practice in testing and verifying new cognitions. It had two purposes: one, to completely deny that Mao Zedong's theory of continuous revolution originated from practice and was verified by the logical reasoning and testing of the universal truth of Marxism, proven by millions of people's practice; and two, to deny the role of the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism in guiding, testing, and proving new cognitions arising from practice. Specifically, it aimed to reject the guidance and proof provided by Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought for some so-called "innovative" theories proposed during the so-called practice of reform and opening up that did not originate from practice.

　　For example, the "theory of the essence of socialism." In the classic works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao Zedong, the essence of socialism is clearly defined. Socialism is first and foremost a form of production relations, where the means of production are owned by the entire society (or collectively), and it implements a planned economic system based on distribution according to work. It arises in opposition to private ownership of the means of production. As Marx and Engels stated, their theory resulted from studying the conditions of capitalist society and class struggle. Socialism is also a political system, implementing the dictatorship of the proletariat and the guiding role of Marxist ideology on the basis of public ownership of the means of production. This has been verified by the practice of the Lenin and Mao eras. However, a certain prominent figure in China stated that neither Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, nor Mao Zedong clearly defined the essence of socialism and that he himself did not understand it. He proposed a new definition of socialism's essence, familiar to all: "The essence of socialism is to liberate and develop productive forces, eliminate exploitation and polarization, and ultimately achieve common prosperity." This definition, whether it needs to be tested by practice or not, firstly does not originate from practice and cannot be logically derived. First, any newly established social system initially demonstrates the liberation and development of productive forces. If socialism's essence is defined from the perspective of liberating and developing productive forces, then any new social system that negates the old one upon its establishment would be socialism. Isn't this a ridiculous logic? Second, the liberation and development of productive forces are tasks and goals of the socialist system, not its essence. The essence can only be defined by the qualitative specificity of the system, which is the public ownership of the means of production and the corresponding political system and ideology. Third, eliminating exploitation and polarization to ultimately achieve common prosperity can only be done by "eliminating private ownership." If private ownership is not mentioned, how can exploitation, polarization, and ultimately common prosperity be eliminated? Therefore, based on the fundamental principles of Marxism already proven by practice and logical reasoning, it can be concluded that "the essence of socialism is to liberate and develop productive forces" is not derived from the practical activities of the masses but is a subjective idealist and historical materialist view, inherently absurd. How can it be tested by practice?

　　Similarly, the "theory of socialist market economy" follows the same pattern. This theory has been proposed for nearly 40 years. However, I have found that the theoretical basis for this so-called "innovative" achievement mainly relies on three points:

　　First, in the speech given by that prominent figure during the Southern Tour, it was said that both planning and the market are means that both socialism and capitalism can use. This is correct. However, from this, it was concluded that both planned and market economies can be used, so socialism can have a market economy. This is a complete conceptual shift. Planned and market economies are not means but systems. How can the compatibility of means be used to derive the arbitrary grafting of systems? From this perspective, the concept of a "socialist market economy" is entirely an irrelevant and absurd combination, akin to calling a deer a horse in contemporary China.

　　Second, a specialized book on the "socialist market economy" argues that the market economy indeed leads to polarization under the capitalist private economic and political system. However, under the socialist public system and the leadership of the Communist Party, the market economy can be regulated and controlled, ensuring social equity and preventing polarization. This logic is also flawed. The fundamental starting point of market economy subjects is human selfishness, aimed at making money. This necessarily involves resource control and power seizure, encroaching on others' interests. This economic basis inevitably affects the nature of the ruling party and regime. The leadership of the Communist Party and state power cannot guarantee its purity. The increasing corruption of officials since the reform and opening up is the best proof of this.

　　Third, in a 2015 article published in China Social Sciences Daily, Cheng, the former director of the Institute of Marxism at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, stated that the socialist market economy is a significant theoretical innovation. He argued that the market economy is purely a means of resource allocation without inherent socialist or capitalist attributes. When the market economy is combined with the capitalist system, it leads to many social injustices and conflicts. Therefore, the market economy should not be combined with capitalism but only with the socialist system. This logic is also incorrect. Cheng's article views the "market economy" as a purely "resource allocation" mechanism detached from people and social systems. This premise is flawed. "Resource allocation" must be carried out by people. Who allocates resources? Those who control the resources allocate them. Who controls the resources? It is either the majority or the minority. From this perspective, "resource allocation" itself is a production relation. The "resource allocation" in the market economy is inherently capitalist. From this perspective, the market economy is capitalism. To separate the "market economy" from capitalism and then subjectively combine it with the socialist public system to "create" a so-called "socialist market economy" theory—this is sheer nonsense.

　　Based on the above discussion, the viewpoints of the "theory of the essence of socialism" and the "theory of the socialist market economy" can be shown to be absurd with just a little examination, verification, and proof using the universal truths of Marxism. According to the "sole criterion" viewpoint, he claims that these propositions should be tested by future "practice," thus forcibly requiring the entire Party to accept his erroneous views and providing a false theoretical basis for his implementation of incorrect practical activities. The practice of the so-called "reform and opening up" over the past 40-plus years has clearly demonstrated the absurdity of these viewpoints. However, some leaders in our Communist Party still ignore the fact that these theories are logically and practically absurd, and continue to use them as guiding thoughts for the development of the socialist state. Is this not increasingly harmful to the development of socialism? Meanwhile, some comrades in the ideological and theoretical circles attempt to emphasize the development of socialist state-owned enterprises and curb the growth of private economies in the face of the so-called "axioms" of the "socialist market economy," but this is entirely unachievable.

　　II. The Practice of Verifying the Standard of Truth is Constrained by Class Standpoint and Thinking Method

　　1. The Practice of Verifying the Standard of Truth is Constrained by Class Standpoint

　　Practice is the criterion for testing truth, which is a proposition of Marxism. Similarly, the concept of "practice" as the criterion for testing truth is also a Marxist concept of practice. The scientific meaning of Marxist "practice" is the material activities through which people actively transform the world, referring specifically to the production struggles, class struggles, and scientific experimental activities of the masses. Mao Zedong's "On Practice" and "Where Do Correct Ideas Come From?" make this clear and explicit. Objective practice refers to the objective process and results of practice. In a class society, the understanding of this objective process and results is necessarily constrained by the class standpoint of the subject of understanding. For example, during the Great Revolution in China, the peasant movement in Hunan was praised by the peasant class as "very good," while the landlord class condemned it as "very bad." So should the "very good" peasant movement be used as the criterion for testing truth, or the "very bad" peasant movement? Clearly, we use the former, not the latter. Without considering the issue of class standpoint, it is impossible to make an objective value judgment about the peasant movement, and thus it is impossible to use "practice" as the criterion for truth. Similarly, regarding the "Cultural Revolution" personally initiated and led by Chairman Mao, should it be understood from the standpoint of the long-term and fundamental interests of the proletariat, from the standpoint of consolidating the dictatorship of the proletariat and preventing the restoration of capitalism, or from the standpoint of the overthrown reactionary ruling class, or from the petty-bourgeois standpoint of those individuals who were criticized and felt wronged?

　　2. The Practice of Verifying the Standard of Truth is Constrained by Thinking Method

　　The objective process and results of "practice" as the criterion for testing truth encompass the unity of phenomena, details, examples, and essence, as well as the unity of truth and falsehood, and the unity of mainstream and non-mainstream elements. So, should we use the phenomena, details, examples, falsehoods, and non-mainstream elements of objective things as the criterion for testing truth, or the essence, truth, and mainstream elements of objective things? According to the Marxist scientific practice view, it is clearly the latter. In practice, people first obtain a large number of phenomena (including false phenomena), examples, and details, which are perceptual knowledge. However, perceptual knowledge must be elevated to rational knowledge, which, according to dialectical materialism, requires a scientific, materialist, and dialectical method of thinking. If one cannot use the materialist dialectical method of thinking, or uses idealist and metaphysical methods of thinking, then the understanding of things will either remain at the level of phenomena, false phenomena, details, and examples, or will result in erroneous rational knowledge. Can the use of phenomena, false phenomena, examples, details, or erroneous rational knowledge serve as the criterion for testing truth? Clearly, it cannot. If used as the criterion for truth, the conclusions drawn will inevitably be wrong. Therefore, differences and oppositions in standpoint and thinking method directly affect different understandings of the process and results of practice, leading to erroneous recognition of whether an understanding is true.

　　In the so-called "great debate on the standard of truth," much was said about the concept of "practice," but was their understanding of "practice" consistent with the scientific meaning of Marxist practice, or was it a distorted and revised version of "practice"? I believe it was the latter. They stood on the standpoint of a minority and used idealist and metaphysical methods of thinking. For example, can the so-called "facts" in Hubei Writers Association Chairman Fang Fang's "Soft Burial" serve as the factual basis and standard for verifying the correctness of our Party's land reform direction and policies? Clearly, this is extremely absurd. In 2008, Hu Fuming, the author of "On the Criterion of Truth," mentioned in an interview that one important reason for writing the article was his personal experiences of being criticized during the early stages of the Cultural Revolution. He equated his personal experiences and grievances with the experiences of the entire Party and the country, equating them with the essence of the Cultural Revolution. Can such distorted and erroneous "practical processes and results," such as the extremely absurd "ten-year catastrophe" and "the brink of economic collapse," be used to test Mao Zedong's theory of continuous revolution and yield scientific conclusions? Hu Fuming's way of thinking is somewhat representative. Many people who were impacted or criticized during the Cultural Revolution, especially those in power who followed the revisionist line and took the capitalist road, have consistently resented the Cultural Revolution, never breaking away from their bourgeois and petty-bourgeois standpoint, and attributed the primary or even fundamental cause to Mao Zedong's theory of continuous revolution and the Cultural Revolution he initiated. Some people, although they once verbally acknowledged the correctness of the masses' criticism of them and Mao Zedong's initiation of the Cultural Revolution, and declared "never to reverse the verdict," never fundamentally changed their thoughts. Once the opportunity arose, they openly raised the banner of "reversing the verdict." Can such a standpoint and one-sided thinking method yield objective and scientific conclusions about the "process and results of the Cultural Revolution"? How can such erroneous "practical processes and results" be used to test Mao Zedong's theory?

　　Engels said in Anti-Dühring not to overlook the inherent connections between various views he proposed. All basic principles of Marxism are an internally connected scientific system, and the discussion of the practice standard of truth cannot be separated from dialectics. As Lenin said, without dialectics, truth can turn into falsehood with one step forward. In the "great debate on the standard of truth," those who emphasized that "practice is the sole criterion for testing truth" had, due to their standpoint and metaphysical thinking method, turned the Marxist scientific standard of truth into an absurd viewpoint. Based on this, all their conclusions about current issues are also absurd.

　　2024年5月14日

　　May 14, 2024

× UTOPIA WYZXWK.COM

Your rewards will be used for the daily operation and maintenance of the website.

Scan the QR code below and subscribe to the wechat official account of UTOPIA