Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.

Karl Marx, The German Ideology (1845)

Introduction: Towards Scientific Socialism

In establishing a clear understanding of Actually-Existing Socialism, that is, Scientific Socialism, Socialism in the real, or Socialism as a tangible thing within the world rather than merely an ideal existing outside of it, one is met immediately with the question of whether or not any given country in the world today may be considered “truly” Socialist, and by what measure to assess such existence.

It is necessary to establish, most immediately, that aestheticism as a metric for Socialist emergence has never stood the test of time. If all things which merely claim to be Socialist are taken at face value, then one would quickly find their pool of historical references contaminated with the likes of Adolf Hitler’s “National Socialism.” It is all too clear from historical precedent alone that merely claiming or announcing oneself to be Socialist does not magically make it so. All the more in the present period, as “Socialists” emerge from all corners to proclaim their “trueness,” only to be unmasked as racists, imperialists, revisionists, anti-Communists, and, on more than one occasion, outright fascists. It may thus be understood with full certainty that aestheticism is not Socialism.

This rejection of mere appearance or claim of Socialism is fundamental to the materialist orientation of Marxism-Leninism; that the mere description of, or wishing for, a certain thing, or a certain state of affairs, is altogether worthless when considering the actual material reality of the thing or state of affairs itself. Words and wishes, on their own, devoid of practical or material actionability, do not affect material reality any more than magical incantations affect the spirits of the hereafter; such is the realm of idealism and metaphysics.

In analyzing the world of political economy, this materialist orientation is most pronounced, and, for Marxist-Leninists, most vital. For example, while it is hypothetically possible for a monarchy to exist within which the ruling class willingly gives away luxurious rights and pleasantries to all of their subjects, this hypothetical possibility is a material impossibility, due precisely to the power relations of the ancien régime¹ as emergent from the class antagonisms of feudalism. That is, that no such monarchy is known to have ever retained its power (or at least did not survive for very long) by granting power to the peasant class over and above itself; rather, the economic system of feudalism arose precisely from the exploitation of the peasants, and its political power derived precisely from their oppression, establishing a clear and direct primary antagonism between the toiling masses and the ruling class comprised of the first and second estates.²In the epoch of capitalism, we have merely replaced the estates of the realm with the bourgeoisie and proletariat.

It is therefore fundamental from the Marxist-Leninist perspective that such antagonism between social classes be understood as the central point from which all other societal analysis proceeds; that just as the dictatorship of the first and second estates reigned over the third estate to form the system of feudalism, the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie reigned over the proletariat to form the system of capitalism. Socialism, then, most fundamentally appears as the dictatorship of the working and oppressed peoples themselves. This material reality is the basis of Socialism as a living, breathing reality over and above the ideals and metaphysical aspirations of any others; that is, of Scientific Socialism that arises from a material basis within reality, and is therefore also subjected to the laws and forces thereof.

In Socialism, Utopian and Scientific (1880), Friedrich Engels observes that:

The materialist conception of history starts from the proposition that the production of the means to support human life and, next to production, the exchange of things produced, is the basis of all social structure; that in every society that has appeared in history, the manner in which wealth is distributed and society divided into classes or orders is dependent upon what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged. From this point of view, the final causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men’s brains, not in men’s better insights into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange. They are to be sought, not in the philosophy, but in the economics of each particular epoch.

It is, thus, clear that the Marxist-Leninist orientation towards the question of political economy is that of Scientific Socialism: of establishing Socialism through affecting what is produced, how it is produced, and how the products are exchanged, that is, in affecting the modes of production and exchange. While other “socialisms” do and may continue to exist in other forms, “true” or Actually-Existing Socialism is that which is constructed within material reality through developments in the mode and relations of production, and the process of that construction towards Communism. The principle of Scientific Socialism is, thus, the Marxist-Leninist orientation towards Socialism as being a fundamentally real and material state or process, that is therefore also bound by the laws of material reality and the forces thereof.

Socialism and Communism

While often used interchangeably, Socialism and Communism are not completely synonymous within the context of Marxist-Leninist thought. Rather, for Marxist-Leninists, Socialism represents both the period of transition from capitalism towards Communism, as well as the lower stage of economic development towards a Communist society. Therefore, in the general contemporary usage, Socialism may refer to the broader construction of Communist society, or more specifically to the period of earliest development beyond capitalism.

In Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Program (1875), he asserts that:

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

This fundamental Marxist formulation on the development of Communism is thus arrayed (deceptively) as a straightforward linear progression from capitalism to Communism, with the intermediate period (the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat) characterized by the transition from the one to the other. This essentially forms the basis of Marxist-Leninist understanding when considering Socialism as a distinct period of political-economic development: that Socialism is the transitionary period wherein political power is held by the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. While different interpretations of such a transition have risen and fallen throughout history since the time of Marx, the Marxist-Leninist methodology, so far, has achieved the highest and most long-lasting results.

Inspired by the wisdom of Marx and Engels, V. I. Lenin applied the conception of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat to the conditions of early-20th century Russia through the establishment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics under the leadership of the Communist Party. That is, that, under the leadership of the Communist Party as the vanguard of the working and oppressed peoples, the dictatorship of the proletariat could be developed and nurtured from the lower stage (Socialism) to the higher stage (Communism), whereupon the State itself would wither away.

Reading from The State and Revolution (1917):

The first fact that has been established most accurately by the whole theory of development, by science as a whole—a fact that was ignored by the utopians, and is ignored by the present-day opportunists, who are afraid of the socialist revolution—is that, historically, there must undoubtedly be a special stage, or a special phase, of transition from capitalism to communism.

In reading the works of Marx and Lenin from their respective periods, it appears acutely and fundamentally to both that the period of Socialism (that is, the period of the revolutionary dictatorship, the first phase or lower stage of Communism) in and of itself denotes the movement away from capitalism and towards Communism. This period, however, is not a brief one. Rather, it occurs to both that this period is necessarily one of continued social and economic development, and of maintaining the State’s monopoly on violence as a means for preventing the resurgence of capitalism.

Continuing from Lenin (1917):

The economic basis for the complete withering away of the state is such a high state of development of communism at which the antithesis between mental and physical labor disappears, at which there consequently disappears one of the principal sources of modern social inequality—a source, moreover, which cannot on any account be removed immediately by the mere conversion of the means of production into public property, by the mere expropriation of the capitalists.

This expropriation will make it possible for the productive forces to develop to a tremendous extent. And when we see how incredibly capitalism is already retarding this development, when we see how much progress could be achieved on the basis of the level of technique already attained, we are entitled to say with the fullest confidence that the expropriation of the capitalists will inevitably result in an enormous development of the productive forces of human society. But how rapidly this development will proceed, how soon it will reach the point of breaking away from the division of labor, of doing away with the antithesis between mental and physical labor, of transforming labor into “life’s prime want”³—we do not and cannot know.

Both Marx and Lenin recognized well over a century ago that the transition from capitalist to Communist society, the period of Socialism itself, is one of developing productive forces towards freedom from the division of labor.

Thus, from this position, we may further elaborate our understanding of Socialist economy as the period of scientifically developing productive forces towards the abolition of the division of labor. Of considerable importance, however, is the difference that arises between Socialism as the period of transition and Socialism as the state of affairs during the overarching transition; as, despite their general conflation in common parlance, they are not identical.

This difference arises most clearly in the history of the Soviet Union itself, and two key events:

Firstly, in his 1921 report On the New Economic Policy, Lenin elaborated on the non-linear nature of the early Soviets’ own development, and the path that lay ahead in developing Socialist economy:

Ever since 1917, when the problem of taking power arose and the Bolsheviks explained it to the whole people, our theoretical literature has been definitely stressing the necessity for a prolonged, complex transition through socialist accounting and control from capitalist society (and the less developed it is the longer the transition will take) to even one of the approaches to communist society…

The New Economic Policy means substituting a tax for the requisitioning of food; it means reverting to capitalism to a considerable extent—to what extent we do not know. Concessions to foreign capitalists (true, only very few have been accepted, especially when compared with the number we have offered) and leasing enterprises to private capitalists definitely mean restoring capitalism, and this is part and parcel of the New Economic Policy; for the abolition of the surplus-food appropriation system means allowing the peasants to trade freely in their surplus agricultural produce, in whatever is left over after the tax is collected—and the tax takes only a small share of that produce. The peasants constitute a huge section of our population and of our entire economy, and that is why capitalism must grow out of this soil of free trading.

The so-called New Economic Policy (NEP) thus represents with clarity the distinction between the two Socialisms we have here discussed, as well as the fact that this development is not by any means necessarily linear in its development. Rather, Lenin goes to great lengths to elaborate on how this defeat will ultimately bear greater fruit for the ongoing revolutionary struggle, and elsewhere asserts the importance of the Bolsheviks’ achievements in having successfully taken and maintained control over the commanding heights of the economy: that while the economy writ large continued to develop in this self-admittedly capitalist manner, the key industries and power remained in the hands of the vanguard of the people, and thus unceasingly oriented towards continued Socialist development. In this period, then, it would be both accurate and inaccurate to describe the newly-founded Soviet Union as Socialist; a situation that will appear again in all ensuing revolutionary countries. For the sake of total clarity, the Marxist-Leninist position has remained since that time that the early Soviets would be accurately described as Socialist precisely because of their material orientation and action of developing scientifically from capitalism to Communism.

Secondly, in his 1936 report On the Draft Constitution of the USSR during the Extraordinary 8th Congress of Soviets, Joseph Stalin elaborated on the achievements of Soviet development since Lenin’s time:

Our Soviet society has already, in the main, succeeded in achieving Socialism; it has created a Socialist system, i.e., it has brought about what Marxists in other words call the first, or lower, phase of Communism. Hence, in the main, we have already achieved the first phase of Communism… The fundamental principle of this phase of Communism is, as you know, the formula: “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his work.” Should our Constitution reflect this fact, the fact that Socialism has been achieved? … Unquestionably, it should. It should, because for the USSR Socialism is something already achieved and won.

But Soviet society has not yet reached the higher phase of Communism, in which the ruling principle will be the formula: “From each according to [their] abilities, to each according to [their] needs,” although it sets itself the aim of achieving the higher phase of Communism in the future. Can our Constitution be based on the higher phase of Communism, which does not yet exist and which has still to be achieved?

No, it cannot, because for the USSR the higher phase of Communism is something that has not yet been realized, and which has to be realized in the future. It cannot, if it is not to be converted into a program or a declaration of future achievements.

Stalin’s report, later reflected in the adoption of the 1936 constitution of the USSR, proclaimed that the Soviets had, in fact, by that time achieved the development of Socialism by virtue of the new situation in terms of both political power and productive relations. Thus, it appears with fuller clarity that Socialism, from the Marxist-Leninist perspective, encompasses both the period of transition between capitalism and Communism, as well as the achievement of the lower phase of Communism through the implementation of the people’s dictatorship.

Taken together, Stalin’s two formulas and Lenin’s elaboration on the commanding heights and productive forces provide clear guideposts for the establishment of Socialism in orientation and Socialism in transition. From the Marxist-Leninist perspective, this clearly answers the question of what a Socialist economy is or isn’t, but does so only in the broadest possible terms.

Breaking the Orthodoxy

Following the birth of the Soviet Union in 1922 and its official achievement of Socialism in 1936, the experience of the Soviets entered into the realm of dogmatic orthodoxy; the Soviet experience was the experience of Marxism-Leninism, and thus any other experience of Marxism-Leninism must necessarily conform to the characteristics of that experience. This dogmatism would inevitably find itself untenable as the principles of Marxism-Leninism spread around the globe, and even into societies which did not fit the traditional (European) model of capitalist development. Rather, Scientific Socialism achieved what even its own dogmatic adherents claimed to be impossible: the birth of new Socialist powers in countries that had not yet fully developed into capitalism.

In his 1940 essay On New Democracy, Mao Zedong observed:

Since the invasion of foreign capitalism and the gradual growth of capitalist elements in Chinese society, the country has changed by degrees into a colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal society. China today is colonial in the Japanese-occupied areas and basically semi-colonial in the Kuomintang areas, and it is predominantly feudal or semi-feudal in both. Such, then, is the character of present-day Chinese society and the state of affairs in our country. The politics and the economy of this society are predominantly colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal, and the predominant culture, reflecting the politics and economy, is also colonial, semi-colonial and semi-feudal.

As agents of the Communist International (Comintern) wove their way throughout the world, colonial revolutionaries would be the first outside of Europe to adopt the Marxist-Leninist orientation, and begin to adapt Scientific Socialism to their own national characteristics. Such development, however, as formulated by Marxist thinkers for over a century, had always presumed that Socialism would arise from capitalist societies and capitalist economies. How, then, could colonial and feudal societies achieve any semblance of Socialism?

The key to this question, for the embattled revolutionaries of mid-20th century east and southeast Asia, rested in understanding Socialism not only as the state of affairs that has been established, but also as the state of affairs that is being born. Scientific Socialism as not only Socialism that has been achieved, but also Socialism as is being developed. Furthermore, these revolutionaries would establish that not only could Socialism thus be developed in the very heart of the colonized world, but, even further, that Scientific Socialism itself represented their greatest hope for freedom and national liberation. As capitalist-aligned national movements faltered throughout the east and southeast, it would be the Communists themselves who would arise and establish new democracies unlike any that had been seen before—even by the Soviets.

The birth of new political and economic systems in Cuba, China, Laos, Vietnam, and Korea represented not only the great achievement of national liberation for their peoples, but, even more acutely, the breaking of Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy: Scientific Socialism overcoming itself and arising out of even the most unbelievable conditions. This achievement in and of itself necessitated a further elaboration on the nature of Socialist development, with each of the fraternal peoples developing their own theories on the matter to understand and explain their past achievements and future trajectories.

The Scientific Socialist Economy

Having thus established that the pursuit of Scientific Socialist development rested not on the development of capitalist industrialization alone, but more broadly on the revolutionary development of the working and oppressed masses, a more acute question arises of the precise relations and methods by which to establish what might be described as a “real” Scientific Socialist economic system.

In his book Revolution in Laos: Practice and Prospects (1981), Lao revolutionary leader Kaysone Phomvihane recounts that:

Guided by Marxist-Leninist principles and basing itself on a thorough analysis of the current conditions and the course of revolutionary development in Laos, the 2nd Congress of [the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party] (1972) defined its paramount task as follows: “The conditions necessary for a direct transition to socialism bypassing the capitalist stage of development must be established.” The Central Committee then gradually elaborated, amended and specified the general policy and the particular tasks of the revolution at the new stage of its development. The general policy adopted by the 2nd Party Congress and the subsequent decisions taken by the plenary sessions of the Central Committee fully meet the objective requirements of revolutionary development in our country and reflect the deep aspirations of our people. Thus they correspond to the realities of the modern age.

Just as the Communist Parties of China and Vietnam sought to achieve great leaps in the establishment of Socialism in their respective countries from semi-feudalism and colonialism, respectively, the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party likewise set about the course of direct transition to Socialism bypassing the capitalist stage of development. Thus, three clear, disparate cases appear with starkly different starting-points and focuses:

• The People’s Republic of China, developing from a position of semi-feudal and semi-colonial economic relations characterized by minimal (although not entirely nonexistent) industrial development in its eastern regions,

• The Socialist Republic of Vietnam, developing from a position of developed colonial economic relations characterized by the near-total domination of the national economy by foreign expropriation, and

• The Lao People’s Democratic Republic, developing from a position of under-developed colonial economic relations characterized by the near-total neglect of the nation’s development by both its colonial oppressors and feudal overseers.

Where the Soviet model had (deceptively) appeared straightforward in terms of its emphasis on collectivization, industrialization, and centralized planning at the State level, Socialist development in the imperialized Global South began first and foremost from a position of crippling underdevelopment, and was thus primarily and most immediately oriented towards so-called catch-up growth and innovation. This orientation, derived from the prevailing economic relations in the pre-revolutionary periods of these countries, necessarily resulted in their paths to Socialism taking on a different form from Soviet orthodoxy.

From the beginning position, it is necessary to understand this disparity in concrete terms:

In his 1988 work Soviet Economic Growth: 1928-1985⁴, Gur Ofer⁵ estimated Soviet GNP in 1928 to have been equivalent to around $3,035.70 USD per capita when adjusted for inflation; the year in which the Soviet economy shifted from the NEP policy back towards collectivization, etc. Soviet GNP then grew by an average of 5.8% per year through to 1940, inclusive of 1936, the year of the Soviet proclamation of achieving Socialism.

According to China’s Socio-Economic Achievements during the past 60 years (2009)⁶, published by the People’s Republic of China’s embassy in the Syrian Arab Republic:

*At the time of New China’s founding in 1949, most of the Chinese people led a poor life. According to statistics, the per-capita annual income was less than 100 Yuan.⁷

According to Li Hanwei’s Investigating the course of the ‘Innovation and Opening Up’ model in Vietnam (2023)⁸, at the time of reunification, “per capita GDP [in Vietnam] was less than $100 [USD], and people’s livelihoods remained very low.” Neighboring Laos, meanwhile, is estimated to have stood at around $71 USD per capita.

These harsh economic realities thus underscore the necessity experienced by the peoples of China, Laos, and Vietnam in specific to explore alternative methods for achieving rapid Socialist development. While each would, initially, largely maintain the Soviet model, by the mid-1980s each began to gravitate towards a new economic orientation modeled after the NEP ⁹. This shift would be necessitated by the need for faster development and an emphasis on modernization in the digital age that had only then begun to receive attention from Soviet planners as well ¹⁰. Under the heading of improving the people’s livelihood, these new models of Scientific Socialist economy would take shape:

• The Socialist-Oriented Market Economy in China
• The Socialist Market Economy in Vietnam
• The New Economic Mechanism in Laos

Each of these new models would maintain the core of centralized planning and State ownership, as well as the Party’s leading position in State governance, while simultaneously adopting the usage of (controlled) markets for the distribution of goods and services. While continuing to support the formation of Socialist productive relations in the forms of collectives, cooperatives, etc., the governments of each country began to allow (or even encourage) private business to develop as a means for accelerating the development of productive forces throughout each country.

This logic of centering the development of productive forces over and above the immediate relations of production typically identified with the Socialist mode of production must necessarily be understood as vital for achieving not only a more long-lasting and stable Socialism ¹¹, but also, eventually, Communism. Thus the emphasis on developing productive forces is not only a matter of theoretically approaching post-scarcity and building an economic system that is materially merely more efficient, but of materially reshaping both the mode and relations of production towards higher Socialism while simultaneously gradually implementing lower Socialism in a manner that is both stable and sustainable.

In all cases, it thus appears that Scientific Socialism distinguishes itself as the conception of establishing Socialism through the adaptation of economic and social forces to the material realities and developmental needs of a given country. Laos’ decision to forego the development of traditional capitalist relations (including the mass-industrialization typically associated therewith) alone stands as a testament to the adaptability of Marxist-Leninist theory and the creativity of Laos’ leadership in applying Marxism-Leninism to their peoples’ development needs. So too, in the case of a hypothetical “Socialist America,” it is very likely that American industrialization and development of productive forces would already be at such a level as to not necessitate a focus in that particular direction.

Scientific Socialism in the New Era

In his 2025 address¹² on the occasion of the Chinese New Year, Xi Jinping declared that:

2025 is the final year of the 14th Five-Year Plan. We must adhere to the guidance of the new era of socialism with Chinese characteristics, fully implement the spirit of the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China and the Second and Third Plenary Sessions of the 20th Central Committee, adhere to the general tone of work of seeking progress while maintaining stability, insist on putting the foothold of development on high-quality development, fully and accurately implement the new development concept, accelerate the construction of a new development pattern, further comprehensively deepen reform, expand high-level opening up, prevent and resolve risks and external shocks in key areas, promote the sustained recovery of the economy, maintain social harmony and stability, and deepen the comprehensive and strict governance of the Party. We will formulate the 15th Five-Year Plan proposals and continue to forge ahead towards the grand goal.

Just as the dawn of the age of computers caught the Soviet Union on the backfoot, so too today we stand at the dawn of technologies even higher still, which will inevitably lead to the fall of those who are unable to adapt to its emergence. Specifically, the People’s Republic of China and Socialist Republic of Vietnam have both identified new productive forces emerging with immediate relevance to the pursuit of Socialist development.

• Technological innovation:
  Artificial intelligence (AI), cellular network technology (5G, 6G), quantum computing, biotechnology, renewable energy, etc.

• Economic digitization:
  E-commerce, fintech, digital services and infrastructure, etc.

• Environmentalism and sustainable development:
  Renewable energy, electric vehicles (EVs), energy efficiency, new energy sources, environmental protection, climate resilience, etc.

• Production development:
  Developing high-tech industries, electronics, robotics, vehicle manufacturing, automation, etc.

• Human development:
  Education, training, talent acquisition, etc.

While many of these characteristics individually comprised key factors of Socialist development in the previous era, it is precisely from their inter- and intra-action with one-another that Scientific Socialism in the New Era appears well-positioned for the achievement of all new heights in Socialist development unlike anything that has yet been seen before in history.

---