On Marxist Theory Of Science-and-technology Productivity: From Marx To Habermas And Deng Xiaoping

This paper is to study the productivity of modern science and technology fromthe Marxist perspective. It is essential for us to review the thoughts of the productiveforce of science and technology originated by Marx and then promoted by Habermasand Deng Xiaoping. As we all know, Marx living in the period of liberal capitalismearlier discovered the fact that the capitalist was aware of the significance of scienceand technology in the process of direct production and made his efforts to apply it inorder to seize the surplus value. Thus science and technology became one new formof productive forces. Based on the liberal capitalism, he studied the trend that scienceand technology would have revolutionary influence on the end of the liberal capitalistproductive relation from the dimension of political and economic view. ThenHabermas focusing on the non-political tendency realized that state intervention andthe interdependence between modern science and technology had become two maintrends of the late capitalism, and pointed out that with modern science and technologybecoming the first productivity, its social function had been changed from theemancipating power to the shackle of the liberation. Finally, Deng Xiaoping combinedChinese basic national conditions with the development trend of the world, to be exact,the western advanced states, put forward the scientific judgment that science andtechnology is the first productivity, and more importantly emphasized that theimplementation of reforming and opening up to the outside world is the realistic pathto the realization of the scientific and technological progress. Therefore, this paper isto interpret Marxist theory of modern science and technology as productivity from theperspective of analyzing Marx, Habermas and Deng Xiaoping.The thesis is divided into three parts: the introduction as the first chapter, themain body from the second chapter to the fifth chapter, and the conclusion as the lastchapter.The first chapter is the introduction. To mainly elaborate the basis andsignificance of topic selection, narrate the current research status quo, and state the train of thought and methods, and the innovation and deficiency of the paper. Firstly,to explain the inherent correlation between Marx, Habermas and Deng Xiaoping ofscience and technology productive force, and state the relationship between scienceand technology, and human freedom and liberation. Secondly, to overview theresearch results and values of the thoughts of science and technology productivitycreated by Marx and promoted by Habermas and Deng Xiaoping. Thirdly, tointroduce the paper’s framework and the relative research methods in the process ofwriting. Finally, to elaborate two main innovations and three deficiencies.The second chapter is Marx’s theory of science-and-technology productivity.This chapter is mainly to state Marx’s thoughts of the science and technologyproductivity. In the period of the liberal capitalism, Marx keenly observed that scienceand technology had been applied to the direct capitalist production process by thecapitalist consciously, and foresaw that it had been having revolutionary influence onsocial development. Thus he put forward the scientific judgment: the productivitysystem also includes science. Here, this chapter will be divided into three parts toelaborate Marx’s theory of science and technology productivity. The first part is toanalyze the generation condition of science-and-technology productivity theory. Theformation of modern science, the rise of modern industry and the birth of historicalmaterialism together promotes the generation of science-and-technology productivitytheory. The second part is the concept that what is science-and-technologyproductivity. To analyze the tendency of the interdependence between science andtechnology, and interpret science-and-technology productivity is one new type ofproductive forces. To be exact, it is the dialectical unity of material and spiritual,natural and social, potential and actual, and capital and general productivity. The lastpart is to elaborate the capital nature of science-and-technology productivity. Duringthe period of liberal capitalism, the social function of science and technology is oneparadox: the capitalist civilization and alienation. On the one hand, with thedevelopment of science-and-technology productivity, modern industry as its materialobject has become the main form of social productive forces; with the promotion ofmodern industry, the capitalist production mode has been expanding from the regional existence and world existence; with the advance of modern industry, the internal unityof man and nature has been realized and human life world has one trend ofrationalization, that is to say, traditional culture authority has been gradually losing itssurvival foundation. On the other hand, due to the fact that science-and-technologyproductivity submits to the nature of capital, it will inevitably lead to the capitalistalienation. As science and technology is widely applied into the direct capitalistproduction process, humanized nature continues to be expanding and at the same timethe nature is suffering from ecological crisis, which will threaten the survival anddevelopment of mankind. With the deep advance of science and technology, theemployee in the production process will be reduced from their dominant position tothe live appendages of large machinery. Besides, the capitalist is not able to controlscience and technology. As a result, there is one social phenomenon that recurrenteconomic crisis exists in the liberal capitalism. Marx thinks that capitalist alienationroots in the capitalist nature of science-and-technology productivity. And the finaltrend of science-and-technology productivity is to sublate the capitalist productionrelations, and realize human freedom and comprehensive development.The third chapter is Habermas’s theory of science-and-technology productivity.This chapter is to elaborate Habermas’s science-and-technology productivity theory.He points out that there are two new tendencies which are the state intervention andthe interdependence between science and technology. These trends lead to the resultthat science and technology has become the legal foundation of governing system. Itis not suitable for Marx’s science-and-technology productivity theory to be theinterpretation framework which will explain the state-governed capitalist society.Thus it is essential to reconstruct one new theory of modern science-and-technologyproductivity. According to Habermas’s thinking logics, the reality that science andtechnology has become the first productivity gives rise to one new form of ideology,which is called technocracy. And the essence of this new ideology is thatobjective-rational activity arrogates communicative-rational activity and its basicproposition human being is able to rebuild society in accordance with theself-regulation model of the objective ration and the corresponding behavior, and can realize the goal of controlling the society in accordance with the way of dominatingthe nature. It is obvious for the state-regulated capitalism to severely suppress politicalinteraction activity of civil society. Thus Habermas criticizes the technocracy and tryto restore the rationalization of communicative activity. In his opinion, only if theobjective rational activity and the communicative rational activity are in harmoniousstate can science and technology become the real power of realizing human freedomand liberation. Moreover, the labor theory of value and the theory of class strugglecreated by Marx need to be in accordance with the social situation. As science andtechnology has becoming the first productive force, it is also an additional source ofcommodity value in any case. For this reason, Habermas advocates Marx’s labortheory of value will be modified from monism to dualism, from labor to labor andscience and technology. Only in this way can it be applied to the situation of the latecapitalist society. As science and technology becomes one independent source ofsurplus value and the government implements the policy of state intervention, theclass struggle between employer and employee has been always in a latent state.The fourth chapter is Deng Xiaoping’s science-and-technology productive theorywith Chinese characteristics. This chapter is to interpret Deng Xiaoping’s productivitytheory of science and technology. Based on a profound summary of experiences andlessons of the broad and home socialist construction practice and one keenobservation the reality that modern science and technology have played a key role inpromoting the economy of the western advanced nations, he puts forward inforward-looking way that science and technology is the first productivity. The authoranalyzes the evolutionary history of science and technology from one productive forceto the first productivity and elaborates the three connotations of the scientificjudgment that science and technology is the first productivity. The first connotation isthat science and technology has the temporal and historical property. In Marx’sopinion, science and technology is by the middle of the nineteenth century; DengXiaoping thinks it is by the middle of the twentieth century. At the same time,academics claim that although Deng Xiaoping does not explicitly point out socialscience is one form of the social productive forces, but he regards social science as science, thus there is the inherent relation between social science and the socialproductive force. The second connotation is that the original form of science andtechnology is knowledge form in twentieth century. While in the nineteenth centurythe original form of science is the form of knowledge and the original existence oftechnology is physical form. The third connotation is “the first” in this scientificjudgment has included these aspects: science and technology advances in the front ofsocial production, that is to say, science and technology has guidance to directproduction; science and technology promotes the optimization of the structure of laborforce, mental workers will gradually occupy the dominant position; the transformationmechanism of science and technology from the potential state to the actual state is“science technology production”;and science and technology has become thefundamental driving force of economic development. More importantly, DengXiaoping is one doer. In the process of social practice, he tries his best to apply thescience-and-technology productivity theory to the socialist modernization. Firstly, toconstruct the great intellectuals who support socialist cause and specialize in one fieldof science and technology. To solve the issue of their class attribute; to establish theconstruction standards of the intellectuals; to vigorously develop the nationaleducation and foster talents majoring in science and technology who can make acontribution to socialist modernization. Secondly, to promote the reform of thescience and technology system and to achieve the combination of science andtechnology, and economic construction. To reform the management system ofscientific research funds; to promote the reform of the leadership system of scientificresearch institution and implement the director responsibility system under theleadership of the party committee; To enhance the macro management of science andtechnology work and expand institute autonomy; To reform the organization structureof scientific research system, promote the horizontal collaboration between theresearch institutes and production unit, and advance the speed of transformation ofscientific and technological results into the realistic productive forces. Thirdly, tocarry out the policy of opening up to the outside world and develop science andtechnology. To introduce and utilize the foreign capitals and realize the optimization and upgrading of technical structure; to introduce the advanced science andtechnology and management methods and advance the technological innovation andmanagement innovation; to adhere to the principal of the combination of“independence and self-reliance”with “foreign aid”.The fifth chapter is dialogue and response: several major issues of Marxistscience-and-technology productivity theory. This chapter is divided into four parts asfollows. The first part is to make a comparison between Habermas and DengXiaoping’s scientific judgment that science and technology is the first productivity.There are three points of similarity between their scientific judgments: both of themdeem that science and technology has the priority over other elements in the system ofsocial productivity; their thoughts originate from Marx’s science-and-technologyproductivity theory; and both of them consider that the transformation mechanism ofscience and technology from the potential state to the actual state is “science technology production”. At the same time, there are three differences in thescientific judgment between Habermas and Deng Xiaoping. Habermas focuses onsummarizing and reflecting upon the social function of science and technology; DengXiaoping pays attention to looking forward and planning the social function ofscience and technology. Habermas takes the critical and negative attitude towards theprospect for science and technology; Deng Xiaoping makes the praiseful and positiveposition on the prospect for science and technology. Habermas corrects the labortheory of value, the theory of class struggle and the theory of ideology; DengXiaoping, based on Chinese characteristics, enriches and develop Marxist theory. Thesecond part is about the relation between science and technology and ideology, andmake a comparison between Marx and Habermas. Marx considers science to be thecategory of productive forces and not to be the category of ideology, to be exact,science is the opposite of ideology. Meanwhile, Marx also points out that there is oneclose relation between science and technology as one productive force and ideology,although they are not the same category. The relation is that science-and-technologyproductivity determines ideology; the later has great influence on the former. On theother hand, Habermas claims that with science and technology becoming the first productivity, the rationalization of science and technology has been graduallyinvading the civil society and become its norms, and thus science and technology hasbeen implementing the function of ideology. The third part is the relationship betweenscience and technology, and human freedom and liberation. Marx has confidence inthe hypothesis that science and technology have the revolutionary influence on humanliberation from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom. With the deeppromotion of modern industry, the capitalist production relation has been sufferingfrom losing the survival foundation. Then, human beings are able to consciouslycontrol material production activity and realize the transition from the realm ofnecessity to the realm of freedom. However, Habermas says with certainty that thereality of the state-regulated capitalism contradicts Marx’s view thatscience-and-technology productivity had the function of liberation. When science andtechnology becomes the first productivity, it also plays a key role in being thelegitimacy foundation of political rule. Technocracy as one new form of ideologysuppresses the communicative activity of civil society. In his opinion, only if theobjective rational activity and the communicative rational activity are in harmoniousstate can science and technology become the real power of realizing human freedomand liberation. When summarizing the experiences and lessons of socialistconstruction practice, Deng Xiaoping does not deny the path of realizing humanfreedom and liberation proposed by Marx, and believes that only the advancedproductivity can make the path become the reality. He emphasizes that ourfundamental task in current stage is to advance the social productive forces andmarket economic system is the best way to promoting productivity. Therefore, DengXiaoping deems that the market economic system can play a key role in the functionof liberation. The fourth part is that the implementation of the real path of advancingscience and technology requires us to reconsider the labor theory of value and thetheory of class struggle. The price mechanism and the function of the entrepreneurhave decisive influence on the optimization and allocation of resources in marketeconomy. So we need to reinstate the labor theory of value. The exploitativerelationship between government and civil society contained by Marx’s theory of class struggle enlightens us that in the process of deepening market reformcomprehensively, the transformation of government functions must be advanced from“omnipotent government” to “limited government” and market economic system willplay a decisive role in allocating the resources. Only in this way can we promote theprogress of science and technology, and provide a solid material foundation for therealization of communism.The last part is the conclusion. Based on the study Marxistscience-and-technology productivity theory, some conclusions can be made as follows:(1) the liberation function of science and technology as the first productivity has aclear limit of application. Once science and technology arrogates the limit, it will bereduced to the shackles of human liberation.(2) To clarify the critical dimension oftechnocracy from Habermas. He is not to completely deny the social function ofscience and technology as the first productivity, or not to impose the “original sin” toscience and technology, but to point out that the essence of this new ideology is thatobjective-rational activity arrogates communicative-rational activity, and thus toremind people to pay attention to the fact that political communicative activity of civilsociety in one democratic community should be viewed as productivity and scienceand technology can not one independent productivity.(3) The market economicsystem is the real path of fostering science-and-technology productivity.