Midterm Discussion Outline for “Deng San” (On the Scientific Outlook on Development and Coordinating the Harmonious Development of Humanity and Nature)

……Would the teachers in the School of Marxism go insane after reading this?

Outline for the Midterm Discussion of “Deng San”

Requirement: choose one aspect of the “five coordinated balances” in the concept of scientific development and talk about your reflections.

“The scientific outlook on development is, in essence, people-oriented, comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable development.”

We say that “people-oriented” is the essence and core of the scientific outlook on development—“Adhering to people-oriented development means taking the all-round development of people as the goal, seeking and promoting development from the fundamental interests of the people, continuously satisfying the people’s ever-growing material and cultural needs, earnestly safeguarding the people’s economic, political, and cultural rights and interests, and ensuring that the fruits of development benefit all the people.”

So, here there is first of all a question worth discussing: why is this outlook on development not called “people-oriented development” or something else, but instead specifically called the “scientific outlook on development”? What exactly does the word “scientific” mean here? When names are put in order, discourse becomes smooth; the issue of “proper naming” should be extremely important, yet this question has received almost no discussion in the relevant textbooks or articles—why not use words such as “people-oriented,” “harmonious,” “coordinated,” or “comprehensive,” which bear a more obvious relation to the concrete content of the scientific outlook on development, and instead give it the name “scientific”?

One must know that in the West, “scientific” and “people-oriented” in many contexts are not merely not synonymous, but are in fact a pair of categories that oppose or even contradict one another. For example, Chinese scholars somewhat earlier generally divided the schools of modern Western philosophy into two major opposing camps, “scientism” and “humanism,” and argued about it endlessly. This shows that “scientific” and “people-oriented” are by no means terms that can be equated lightly. If Chinese scholars understand these terms differently from Western scholars, if in the eyes of Chinese scholars science and people-orientation are not only not contradictory but are two sides of the same coin, then at the very least the clarification of concepts should be given attention—what exactly does “scientific” refer to?

Generally speaking, science pursues “dehumanization,” and demands objectivity (excluding human factors), abstraction, universality, transcendence of culture, detachment from feeling, and dogmatism (truth is not determined by the opinions of the majority). By comparison, however, the scientific outlook on development calls for emphasizing the role of the people, focusing on specific, real-world problems, concentrating only on conditions specific to China, linking itself to the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, being human-centered, and pursuing democracy. Thus, on the surface, the scientific outlook on development not only fails to align with the original meaning of “scientific,” but is in fact downright at odds with it!

In everyday usage, “scientific” is often equated with words like “correct” and “good.” But theoretical scholars clearly cannot be satisfied with such an ambiguous definition. In fact, science is not always “correct” (truth is always historical), and what is “correct” is not necessarily scientific. For example, it is correct that I am a boy, but science does not seem to include such trivial judgments; and an absolutely correct proposition—such as, if I am a boy then I am a boy—is absolutely not science at all, but merely a meaningless tautology.

Why exactly the scientific outlook on development must “invoke the name of science” should be a question for more theoretical scholars to take greater notice of. Here I will only offer one point for reference:

Science has an important meaning, namely, that it stands opposed to “superstition.” “Superstition” refers to blind, irrational, or fanatical worship. And the emphasis on the scientific outlook on development is, I am afraid, directed at one important problem: superstition about development!

So, what is a superstitious outlook on development? It is blind worship of “development” while lacking rational reflection on the essence of development, the complex connotations of development, the effects brought about by development, the ultimate purpose of development, and so on. This superstition is especially evident in the blind worship of GDP figures: focusing only on formalized, single-dimensional so-called development indicators, thinking that merely increasing the total output of products means developing productive forces, thinking that merely increasing the total economic aggregate means improving people’s living conditions, and so on. But the scientific outlook on development requires breaking all these superstitions. We recognize that even if one-sided development is rapid, it is not always a good thing; development cannot solve all contradictions, and may instead be accompanied by new problems. We recognize that it is not enough to emphasize “development” alone; what is needed even more is comprehensive development, coordinated development, harmonious development, sustainable development, and so on.

“To establish and implement the scientific outlook on development, we must coordinate urban and rural development, coordinate regional development, coordinate economic and social development, coordinate the harmonious development of humankind and nature, and coordinate domestic development and opening to the outside world.”

Regarding the coordination of the harmonious relationship between humankind and nature, I will excerpt and rewrite my own paper from two years ago to share some views.

First, the word “coordination” inevitably calls to mind the planned economy—of course, these are concepts belonging to different categories and cannot be equated, but indeed the word “coordination” indicates something different from the traditional capitalist market economy.

We recognize that for some problems, reliance solely on the market’s “invisible hand” is absolutely insufficient. Moreover, further, relying solely on economics cannot solve all problems; we emphasize “political economy,” and economic problems cannot be separated from political problems. More specifically here, what we emphasize is the “scientific outlook on development”: this means introducing an entire theoretical system to guide the economy, and this theory that guides economic development is called scientific, rather than a theory belonging exclusively to economics. This differs from many Western scholars who are superstitious that development problems can and should be solved only within the economic sphere.

Economic regulation is indeed an effective way of alleviating natural resource and environmental problems, but it is by no means the fundamental way, and many economists are overly superstitious about the power of the economy. This can in turn be divided into two views: one believes that a market economy can spontaneously play a regulatory role, using the “invisible hand” to resolve environmental crises—for example, scarcity of resources leads to price increases, which prompts people to seek substitute resources or new technologies; another, more rational view holds that the current economic model does indeed need adjustment, but that the fundamental way to resolve the crisis still lies in economic means. Yet both of these views are wishful thinking.

The essence of modern economics is the endless pursuit of the valorization of wealth: “The essence of capitalism has not changed; its essence is the endless pursuit of profit, the endless pursuit of the valorization of capital—that is, the endless pursuit of economic growth.” “Capitalism is built on individual greed”[①] Capitalism rationalizes “greed” and makes it into human nature and the fundamental driving force of social development. The basic economic theory of capitalism is that when everyone pursues the maximization of their own interests, that is most beneficial to the development of society as a whole. Thus, “liberal economists often sneer at the hypocrisy of moralists; they trust too much in the regulatory and integrative functions of the market, believing that people without morality, or more precisely, people without virtue, can contribute more to others and to society than moral or virtuous people. In their view, there is no need for humanity to cultivate so many virtues; under the drive of greed, a wealthy and powerful society can be created”[②] Of course, their views have their basis: capitalism is indeed the system most capable, in history, of ensuring wealth and power. But the key issue is people’s understanding of the meaning and value of society. If one simply regards the meaning of society as endlessly accumulating wealth, then perhaps their view is right. But is human existence only for material wealth? When humans become materially affluent, they are spiritually empty; possessing wealth, they do not know what to use it for, and so they spend wealth in order to gain wealth—people call this behavior “investment.” Thus people fall into a vicious circle: the purpose of wealth is investment, and the purpose of investment is wealth…… Of course, as a result, people obtain a luxurious life and enjoy material abundance, yet they can never feel satisfied. “Blinded by consumerist culture, we have been futilely trying to satisfy indispensable social, psychological, and spiritual needs with material things.”[③]

It seems the author is about to become the moralist mocked by liberal economists…… Well then, let us for the moment not talk about morality, not talk about spiritual crisis (we shall return to that later), and let us look at whether economics is sufficient to deal with environmental problems.

Like many sciences, a basic problem of economics is “abstraction” and “formalization”: it seeks to simplify complex real-world problems into abstract models that can be mathematically calculated. This is certainly necessary for scientific analysis, but when facing social reality, this kind of abstract thinking becomes a certain congenital deficiency in economics. As the author of Earth, Fatherland says: “In economics, mathematization and formalization have become increasingly precise yet contrived. One defect of this tendency is that it leads to abstraction detached from social, cultural, and political contexts. Economics has won formal precision, yet forgotten the complexity of its actual situation—that is, it has forgotten everything else that is interdependent with the economy.”[④]

Abstraction and formalization require economics to handle the value of all things quantitatively: the environment, resources, living things, and even human beings themselves all become commodities; all value will be describable in numbers—that is, converted into money—only in this way is model-based analysis possible. Thus “modern economics makes no distinction between renewable materials and non-renewable materials, because it converts everything into monetary price.”[⑤] The result is that there is no difference in nature or in fundamental meaning between using renewable resources and non-renewable resources, or between using environmentally friendly materials and polluting materials; there is only the question of how much it costs. Of course, discerning people can still tell the difference, because some practices may yield higher returns in the short term while being unfavorable in the long run. But as the dilemma revealed to us by the “tragedy of the commons” shows—within a group competing for interests, when one person sacrifices immediate gain for long-term gain, because others move faster, he may not even obtain the long-term gain; yet when everyone focuses only on their own immediate interests, the entire environmental resource base will tend toward collapse. Economics, which emphasizes individual freedom, cannot avoid confronting this problem.

The achievements of the modern West in the economic sphere were built on plunder, exploitation, and shifting burdens onto others. Japan’s environmental protection is very good, but without its mines in the Philippines, without cutting down forests in Indonesia, without importing paper and disposable chopsticks from abroad, its natural environment could never have become what it is now. And now some Westerners and some Easterners are advocating applying the Western economic model globally, which is simply impossible!

In the face of the many crises brought about by modern industrial civilization, including environmental problems, people of insight have begun to think and reflect, and have proposed strategies for reform. In my view, the first to offer a comprehensive and profound reflection and critique of industrial civilization was Marx.

Living in the nineteenth century, Marx and Engels had not yet experienced the severe ecological and cultural crises of modern civilization; nevertheless, Marx’s profound insight transcended his own era, revealing with equal depth the various problems of today’s society, and providing important inspiration and rich intellectual resources for overcoming the crisis.

Because the Western Marxism that developed under Marx’s inspiration, and even eco-Marxism, eco-socialism, and other currents of thought, are complex in content, and because of my limited ability and the limits of space, I will not discuss them for now. Below, I will mainly examine Marx’s own ecological wisdom.

One of Marx’s greatest creations is the “materialist conception of history,” or so-called historical materialism. It should be noted that although “Marx’s method for explaining how society evolves is fundamentally materialist. This does not mean that Marx was an ‘ontological’ or ‘epistemological’ materialist.”[⑥] Engels pointed out: “We are day by day learning to understand the laws of nature more correctly…… the more people once again feel, and also recognize, the unity of themselves and nature, the more impossible it becomes for that absurd, anti-natural view which opposes spirit and matter, humanity and nature, soul and body, to continue to exist.”[⑦]

Marx himself also made statements about transcending the dual opposition between materialism and idealism: “Thoroughgoing naturalism or humanism, whether it differs from idealism or materialism, is at the same time the truth that combines these two. We also see at the same time that only naturalism can understand the activity of world history.”[⑧] It is precisely through “history” that Marx unified subject and object, the natural sciences and the social sciences, humankind and nature. Marxism holds that: “There is no separation between nature and humanity; each is part of the other. They continuously permeate and act upon one another in a circular, mutually influential relation.”[⑨]

In The German Ideology, Marx said: “We know only a single science, the science of history. History can be considered from two sides, and divided into the history of nature and the history of humanity. But these two sides are closely connected: as long as human beings exist, natural history and human history mutually constrain one another.” Marxist philosophy is organized around “human beings,” but human beings must and inevitably do remain closely connected with nature, because “history itself is the true part of natural history, the real process of the transformation from nature to humanity. But the natural sciences will later include the human sciences, just as the human sciences will include the natural sciences.”[⑩]

Regarding the relationship between humankind and nature, Marx discussed more often the issue of the “humanization” of nature; starting from human beings, Marx emphasized the unity of humankind and nature. Marx believed that: “Nature, insofar as it is not itself the human body, is the human inorganic body. Human beings live from nature. That is to say, nature is the human body with which man must remain in a continuous and reciprocal process in order not to die. The so-called connection of human physical and spiritual life with nature means nothing other than that nature is connected with itself, because human beings are a part of nature.”[11]

On the one hand, nature is “the human inorganic body”; on the other hand, “human beings are a part of nature.” So what, exactly, is nature in reality? Marx opposed abstract, speculative “philosophy” that wallows in metaphysics and cannot face the real world. Marx did not investigate an abstract, self-sufficient metaphysical “nature” external to human beings; rather, he focused on real, historical, human nature—“Nature generated within human history, that is, within the process of the formation of human society, is the real nature of human beings.”[12] Marx pointed out: “The human essence of nature exists only for social human beings; for only in society is nature for human beings the bond connecting person to person, the being of one person for another and of another for that person; only in society is nature the basis of human existence as human beings, and the real element of human life. Only in society is the basis of human natural existence the real element of human life. Only in society is human natural existence for them their own human existence, and only then does nature become for them human. Therefore society is the completed essential unity of human beings with nature, the true resurrection of nature, the accomplished naturalism of human beings and the accomplished humanism of nature.”[13] Clearly, Marx was not a “non-anthropocentrist” who advocated the “intrinsic rights of nature”—even though we can also find in Marx some statements about the rights of natural objects, such as “land ownership inherently includes the right of the landowner to exploit the land, exploit underground resources, exploit the air, and thus exploit the maintenance and development of life.” “To appropriate a living tree, one must violently sever the organic connections of its body; this is an obviously abusive act toward the tree.”[14] But when Marx considered value and rights, he did so more from a human perspective. Yet Marx’s thought is consonant with the organic whole view of “humanity–society–nature” in deep ecology!

The neo-Marxist Gründelmann believes: “the fundamental cause of ecological crisis lies in the lack of human self-development.”[15] In fact, Marxism’s fundamental pursuit lies in “human liberation,” or rather “the all-round development of the human being”; Marx’s discussion of human nature is profoundly thought-provoking. Marx believed that humankind’s endless plunder and destruction of nature, as well as the exploitation and enslavement of human beings by other human beings, are precisely caused by the “alienation” of human nature. Marx pointed out that alienated labor leads to: “the species-being of man—whether nature, or the spiritual species-power of man—becomes an alien being for him, a means to maintain his individual existence. Alienated labor alienates from man his own body, as well as nature outside him, his spiritual essence, his human essence.”[16] Marx also pointed out in Volume III of Capital that, in dealing with nature, people should “rationally regulate the material interchange between them and nature … carry out this material interchange under conditions most worthy of, and most in keeping with, their human nature.”[17] In Marx’s view, the way to live in harmony with nature lies precisely in remaining faithful to the nature of what it is to be human. Only when humankind truly eliminates alienation, regains the essence of human nature, and upholds the dignity of being human will it be a time when human beings and nature are harmoniously one.

And the requirement in the Scientific Outlook on Development to coordinate the harmonious development of human beings and nature inherits Marx’s ideal of combining naturalism and humanism, as well as his concern for the modern relationship between human beings and nature.

May 7, 2007

---

[①] Lu Feng: “Applied Ethics—A Philosophical Reflection on Modern Lifestyles,” Central Compilation & Translation Press, 2004, p. 241

[②] Lu Feng: “Applied Ethics—A Philosophical Reflection on Modern Lifestyles,” Central Compilation & Translation Press, 2004, p. 26 (note 1)

[③] [U.S.] Alan Durning: “How Much Is Enough,” trans. Bi Yu, ed. Liu Xiaojun, Jilin People’s Publishing House, 1997, pp. 6–7

[④] [France] Edgar Morin and Anne Kern: “Earth, Fatherland,” trans. Ma Shengli, SDX Joint Publishing Company, 1997, p. 62

[⑤] [U.S.] Herman E. Daly and Kenneth N. Townsend, eds.: “Valuing the Earth,” trans. Ma Jie et al., The Commercial Press, 2001, p. 204

[⑥] [U.K.] David Pepper: “Ecological Socialism,” trans. Liu Ying, Shandong University Press, 2005, p. 100

[⑦] Quoted in (9) Wang Zhengping, “Environmental Philosophy—An Interdisciplinary Study of Environmental Ethics,” p. 81

[⑧] Marx: “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” People’s Publishing House, 2000, p. 105

[⑨] [U.K.] David Pepper: “Ecological Socialism,” trans. Liu Ying, Shandong University Press, 2005, p. 155

[⑩] Quoted in [France] Serge Moscovici: “Society Against Nature,” trans. Huang Yulan, Tianjin People’s Publishing House, 2002, p. 123

[11] Marx: “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” People’s Publishing House, 2000, pp. 56–57

[12] Marx: “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” People’s Publishing House, 2000, p. 89

[13] Marx: “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” People’s Publishing House, 2000, p. 83

[14] Quoted in Yu Mouchang: “Ecological Ethics—From Theory to Practice,” Capital Normal University Press, 1999, p. 99

[15] [U.K.] David Pepper: “Ecological Socialism,” trans. Liu Ying, Shandong University Press, 2005, p. 141

[16] Marx: “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” People’s Publishing House, 2000, p. 58

[17] Quoted in He Huaihong, ed.: “Ecological Ethics—Spiritual Resources and Philosophical Foundations,” Hebei University Press, 2002, p. 370

Latest comments

Translated from the Chinese original with AI assistance. The original text is authoritative.

Subscribe to new posts

Subscribe

After submitting, click the confirmation link in your inbox to complete the subscription.

Advanced: subscribe only to selected topics

AI 与技术未来 Web3 与密码朋克 哲学与思想 教学与课程 文化与公共评论 生活与随记 科学史与学术 站务与琐事

勾选后只收所选主题的新文章；不勾选则订阅全部。