Chapter Twelve Summary: Social Existence Determines Social and Political Consciousness
This chapter of The Logic of Politics: Principles of Marxist Political Science presents a systematic Marxist theory of political culture grounded in historical materialism. Political culture is a specific form of social consciousness, ultimately determined by social existence—particularly material production, economic relations, and the resulting class structure. While political culture reflects political life directly, political life itself is shaped by deeper material conditions. Therefore, political culture cannot be understood or transformed independently of these conditions.
First, this chapter establishes that political culture, comprising political ideas, values, ideals, moral attitudes, national psychology, and political beliefs, is not the product of abstract thought or individual imagination but reflects lived social life. Drawing on Marx and Engels, the idealist explanations that treat ideas as the primary drivers of history are rejected. Refuted as well are some Western behavioralist political culture theories, such as those of Lucian Pye and Gabriel Almond, that would explain political development by cultural typologies alone. While political culture may influence political life, it cannot explain its essence. That must be sought in material relations and class struggle.
People are subjects of political culture, not abstract individuals; real people engaged in material production and social relations. People both create and are shaped by political culture. Class differences result in different political cultures within the same society, creating dominant and subordinate subcultures. Thus, political culture has a clear class character that reflects specific class interests. In class societies, the ruling class’s political culture becomes dominant not only because of its material power but also because it controls the means of ideological production and distribution. This allows the ruling class to shape social consciousness through education, the media, and political socialization.
Chapter Twelve cautions against vulgar Marxism, emphasizing that while political culture is shaped by a society’s material life (economic structure, class relations, everyday social existence), it doesn’t just passively “reflect” those conditions. Once formed, a political culture can feed back into political life — accelerating, steering, stabilizing, or obstructing political development. Political culture has relative autonomy – it does not march in lockstep with social existence as claimed the vulgar Marxists who so infuriated Marx. It may lag behind social change due to tradition or precede it through theoretical foresight and a scientific understanding of historical tendencies. Political culture is “software” for the political system: institutions are the “hardware,” but political culture provides legitimacy narratives (why rule is justified), value hierarchies (what counts as justice, order, equality), behavioral norms (how officials govern, how citizens participate), and expectations about authority (obedience, contestation, consultation).
Each generation inherits ideas, values, and traditions from the past that shape the present, even as they evolve. This inheritance makes political cultures national and so renders the mechanical transplantation of political cultures across societies impossible. Marxism rejects “national nihilism” (mínzú xūwú zhǔyì) — in Chinese ideological usage the blanket rejection or denigration of a nation’s historical experience and cultural tradition in the name of abstracting political culture from historical and national contexts.
Rooted in historical materialism and revolutionary practice, proletarian political culture reflects the interests of the majority and aims to abolish class exploitation and achieve human emancipation. Unlike ruling-class ideologies, proletarian political culture openly breaks with exploitative traditions while critically inheriting humanity’s intellectual achievements.
The Logic of Politics: Principles of Marxist Political Science translated in full with citations to sources and context to sources added:
- 1993-2016: Party Ideologue Wang Huning Led Book on Chinese Communist Orthodoxy
- 1993 – 2016: Party Ideologue Wang Huning on Marxist Political Science Chapter One
- 1993-2016: “The Logic of Politics” Ch. 2 — Wang Huning on Historical Materialism and Lenin’s “Politics is the Concentrated Expression of Economics”
- 2020: PRC Developments of Marxism — Yu Bin: On the Philosophy of “Contradiction”
- 1993-2016: “Politics is Class Struggle” — The Logic of Politics Ch. 3
- 1993 – 2016: “The State is an Instrument of Class Rule” — Chapter 4 of the “Logic of Politics”
- 1993 – 2016: “The State as Governing Institution Set Apart from Society” Chapter Five of “The Logic of Politics” 王沪宁等著《政治的逻辑》
- 1993 – 2016:(6) “Political Power Is the Power of Class Domination” Chapter Six of “The Logic of Politics” 王沪宁等著《政治的逻辑》
- 1993 – 2016: (7) “The Nature of the State Determines Its Political Form” : Chapter Seven of “The Logic of Politics” 王沪宁等著《政治的逻辑》
- 1993 – 2016: (8) : “Political Democracy Is Class Rule” : Chapter Eight of “The Logic of Politics” 王沪宁等著《政治的逻辑》
- 1993 – 2016: (9) : Political Party Divisions Are Based on Class Divisions : Chapter Nine of “The Logic of Politics” 王沪宁等著《政治的逻辑》
- 1993 – 2016: (10) : Politics as a Science and an Art Chapter Ten of “The Logic of Politics” 王沪宁等著《政治的逻辑》
- 1993 – 2016: (11) : The National Question Is Part of the Overall Question of Social Revolution Chapter Eleven of “The Logic of Politics” 王沪宁等著《政治的逻辑》
- 1993 – 2016: (12) : “Social Existence Determines Social and Political Consciousness” Chapter Twelve of “The Logic of Politics” 王沪宁等著《政治的逻辑》
- 1993 – 2016: (13) : “Social Development Promotes Political Development” Chapter Thirteen of “The Logic of Politics” 王沪宁等著《政治的逻辑》
- 1993 – 2016: (14) : “Revolution Is the Locomotive of History” Chapter Fourteen of “The Logic of Politics” 王沪宁等著《政治的逻辑》
- 1993 – 2016: (15) : “The Characteristics of the Era Determine the International Politics of the Day” Chapter Fifteen of “The Logic of Politics” 王沪宁等著《政治的逻辑》
- 1993 – 2016: (16) : “Humanity’s Transition to Communism is Inevitable”, Chapter Sixteen of “The Logic of Politics” 王沪宁等著《政治的逻辑》
Sources of quoted text are usually not provided in the Chinese text. Source citations have been found and added to the translated English text.
The Chinese text of Chapter Twelve follows the English translation.
Chapter Twelve Social Existence Determines Social and Political Consciousness
Political culture, or social and political consciousness, is an important component of social consciousness. It is shaped by real economic relations and the political relations that stem from them, and it reflects these relations. Once social and political consciousness has taken shape in actual social and political life, it functions as a relatively independent force. In turn, it acts upon society and politics, either promoting or retarding their development. Marxism employs the historical-materialist theory of the relationship between social consciousness and social existence to analyze the fundamental principles that govern the formation and development of political culture and to expose its essence, content, and function. Historical materialism gives the Marxist view of political culture a scientific basis, which contrasts sharply with the modern Western bourgeois view of political culture based on behaviorism.
Section One Politics and Culture Reflect Social Existence
- Social existence determines politics and culture
According to Marxism, people’s social consciousness includes political, legal, moral, scientific, artistic, philosophical, and religious ideas and modes of thought. Social and political consciousness is an important component of social consciousness. In modern terms, political consciousness is political culture.
As a subjective domain within political activity, political culture includes elements such as political consciousness, national temperament, national spirit, national political psychology, political thought, political concepts, political ideals, and political morality. Marxists argue that, although the specific causes that form these elements differ, their forms of expression and the roles and influences they exert on political life vary greatly, they are ultimately nothing more than products and reflections of actually lived social life. Marx and Engels pointed out:
“These ideas are the conscious expression (whether true or illusory) of their real relations and activity, of their production, of their intercourse, and of their social and political organization.”
Karl Marx. The German Ideology. 1845, Part I: Feuerbach, Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook, A. Idealism and Materialism, Ideology in General, German Ideology in Particular
Therefore, the nature, content, and ideological orientation of any social political culture are not rooted in theorists’ doctrines and designs or people’s subjective feelings and imaginings. Rather, they are directly rooted in real lived social life and determined by people’s conditions of social existence.
Social existence determines social consciousness. A people’s social existence is their actual life process—the material conditions of social life, primarily the production of material resources, and the social connections and relations that arise from it. This objective reality exists independently of people’s social consciousness. Marx pointed out that
“the mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life.”
Karl Marx 1859, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Preface
Fundamentally, political culture is a form of social consciousness that is determined by the material conditions of social life. However, since political culture is primarily an abstraction of real political life, the influence of material conditions on political culture is indirect. Material conditions first influence real political life, which then determines the corresponding political culture. Marx made this clear in a passage on the “economic foundation.” Marx wrote:
“The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness.”
Karl Marx 1859, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Preface
Therefore, political culture, as a product of social life, is an abstraction of social political life determined by the material conditions of society.
The internal connection between political culture and political life is confined to the realm of the superstructure. Thus, the ultimate causes of the problems they reflect cannot be found within the object itself; they must be sought in social material life. The Marxist view of political culture explicitly opposes two erroneous tendencies.
First, attempting to use the ideational elements of political culture to explain or alter the phenomena of political life. Many thinkers before Marx, such as Hegel, held that
“the ultimate causes of all historical changes are to be sought in people’s changing ideas, and that, among all historical changes, the most important—decisive for the whole of history—are political changes.”
Works of Frederick Engels 1877, “Karl Marx”
In essence, this conception amounts to the following formula: changes in ideas determine political changes, which in turn determine historical changes. Extended further, it becomes the claim that ideas determine the change and development of social and political life. This conception is clearly mistaken. Marx recognized this erroneous tendency in the early period of his intellectual development. In “Justification of the Correspondent from the Mosel,” Marx soberly pointed out:
“In investigating the phenomena of state life, it is easy to go astray, by ignoring the objective nature of various relations and explaining everything by the will of the persons concerned.”
Karl Marx, Justification of the Correspondent from the Mosel, 1843
Rheinische Zeitung, No. 15, January 15, 1843
Later, as Marx deepened his study of social reality—especially after he carried out a thorough reckoning with Hegel’s philosophy of right—he arrived at a still clearer view:
“My inquiry led me to the conclusion that legal relations, as well as forms of state, are to be grasped neither from themselves nor from the so-called general development of the human mind; on the contrary, they have their roots in the material conditions of life,” and that “the anatomy of civil society is to be sought in political economy.”
Karl Marx 1859, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Preface
Engels highly praised Marx’s conclusion. He held that although this
“new world outlook not only inevitably ran counter to the representatives of the bourgeoisie, but also inevitably to a whole crowd of French socialists who wanted to turn the world upside down by means of the magical formula of liberty, equality, fraternity,” nevertheless “the first conclusions from this principle dealt a shattering blow to all idealism, even the most concealed idealism. All traditional and customary views of everything historical were negated by this principle.”
Review by Frederick Engels of Karl Marx, “A Contribution to the Critique of Political economy”
Accordingly, the entire traditional mode of political argumentation—the idealist mode that explains or justifies political and social development by appeal to thoughts and ideas—also collapsed.
Second is the oversimplified treatment of political culture as merely a reflection of political life. This approach directly uses political culture to explain political phenomena and guide political life. This erroneous tendency, unlike the former, does not treat viewpoints and ideas as the decisive factor in social and political development. However, the idealist inclination it displays is essentially no different. This tendency is particularly evident in contemporary Western political science research. Some well-known political scientists today, such as Lucian Pye and Gabriel Almond, when conducting comparative politics research, straightforwardly classify types of political life in different societies on the basis of differences in political culture, pronounce judgment on the level of development of these societies’ political life, and then, on that basis, use the value orientations expressed by Western political culture to delimit the goals and orientation of political development in developing countries—treating the development of political culture as an important precondition for political development in those countries.
This tendency is not only theoretically flawed, but also unworkable, as life in our real world makes clear. According to the Marxist view of political culture, political culture is an abstraction of real social and political life. However, as a social ideology, it fundamentally reflects the material conditions of social life and the social relations that arise from those conditions. Thus, although political culture reflects the content of political life, it cannot explain its essence; therefore, it cannot guide its change and development.
The material conditions of social life and the social relations reflected in political culture should explain the essence of political life and become the force that guides its change and development. In the sphere of political life, these social relations are primarily expressed as class relations and class struggle. Therefore, Marx and Engels repeatedly pointed out:
“The ultimate causes of all social changes and political revolutions are to be sought, not in men’s brains, not in men’s growing insight into eternal truth and justice, but in changes in the modes of production and exchange; they are to be sought, not in the philosophy of the given epoch, but in the economics of the given epoch.”
Frederick Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, III, [Historical Materialism]
According to the Marxist view of political culture, social existence determines political culture. This view not only reveals the essential characteristics of political culture, but also provides a scientific method for studying it. According to this method, to understand the political culture of any society, one must look beyond political culture itself and abstract political life. Instead, one must examine the realm of a society’s material production and social relations. Political cultures formed under different social formations are obviously different, and essential differences cannot be explained by merely comparing political cultures as contemporary Western political scientists do.
As Stalin pointed out, the fact that different periods of social history have different social ideas, theories, views, and political institutions—one set under a slave-owning society, another under feudalism, and another under capitalism—cannot be explained by the “nature” or “attributes” of the ideas, theories, views, or political institutions themselves. Rather, it must be explained by the different material conditions of social life in different periods of social development. Accurately grasping the essence of political culture helps analyze and study various political phenomena.
II. Human beings are the subjects of political culture
Human beings are the creators of their own concepts, ideas, and theories. Political culture, as a form of social ideology, belongs to the domain of human subjective consciousness. Human beings are the subjects of political culture. In this sense, political culture is the subjective reflection, in political life, of human beings whose existence is determined by definite relations of production.
Human beings become the subjects of political culture not only because they create concepts, ideas, and theories, but also because they are the creators and subjects of real social political life and political relations. Marx and Engels pointed out:
“Definite individuals who are productively active in a definite way enter into definite social and political relations.” “The social structure and the state are continually evolving out of the life-process of specific individuals.”
In order to distinguish themselves from earlier thinkers—especially Feuerbach—Marx and Engels repeatedly stressed that the “human beings” they speak of as subjects are not abstract individuals, but real individuals.
“The individuals here in question are not imagined individuals, such as they may appear in their own or other people’s imagination, but real individuals—that is, individuals who are active, who produce materially, and who therefore act and express themselves under definite material limits, presuppositions, and conditions independent of their will.”
By endowing the human subject with such concrete characteristics, Marxism distinguishes itself from other thinkers’ views of political culture. It also establishes a firmer basis for political culture and transforms it into an active force. Thinkers who use political ideas and concepts to explain and determine political phenomena go astray because they abstract the concrete character of human beings as subjects of political culture. Such abstraction inevitably separates ideas and concepts from real people, allowing them to become the dominant force governing people’s lives and social development in the imagination. This leads to idealism.
Human beings are the subjects of political culture. Therefore, the existence and development of political culture are closely related to human activity. As Marx and Engels pointed out:
“The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, is at first directly interwoven with the material activity and the material intercourse of men, the language of real life. Conceptions, thinking, the spiritual intercourse of men, appear here as the direct efflux of their material behaviour. The same applies to mental production as expressed in the language of politics, laws, morality, religion, metaphysics, etc., of a people.”
All three quotes above in this paragraph are from Karl Marx. The German Ideology. 1845, Part I: Feuerbach. Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook. A. Idealism and Materialism
It can be seen from this that the existence and development of political culture are related not only to human political activity but also to human material activity and the material relations formed in that activity, namely relations of production. This conclusion can be understood on two levels.
First, at the level of human societal development, this conclusion shows that the level of social production development simultaneously determines the content and level of a society’s political culture, while also determining relations of production and class relations. Historically, the emergence and development of bourgeois political ideas and ideals cannot be separated from the development of capitalism and the changes in social relations it brought about. When analyzing the French “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen,” Marx noted:
“In 1789, the political question of human rights absorbed in itself the social rights of free competition.”
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels On Poland, Communism, Revolution, and a Free Poland, Marx’s Speech, Speech delivered in French commemorating 2nd anniversary of Krakow Uprising, Brussels, February 22, 1848
Marx also pointed out that since the modern state is the product of civil society, which was forced to cast off the old political fetters through its own development, it therefore recognizes its birthplace and foundation by proclaiming the rights of man. Additionally, the differences in civic political culture between developed and developing countries ultimately arise from differences in the level of social development between these two types of countries.
At the level of a particular country’s social development, this conclusion shows that, within the social relations formed by material production activity, people occupy different positions and play different roles. Consequently, they form different political ideas, value orientations, and ideals in political life, thereby forming sub-political cultural structures within the broader political cultural context of society. In class societies, differences and conflicts in political culture between classes, especially between the ruling and ruled classes, are directly connected to their respective positions in social production relations.
From the perspective of Marxism, when people occupy different positions within relations of social production, they form different personal interests, group interests, and class interests, and
“everything for which men strive is connected with their interests.”
On Freedom of the Press, Proceedings of the Sixth Rhine Province Assembly, Debates on Freedom of the Press and Publication of the Proceedings of the Assembly of the Estates, [Freedom in General]
These interests constitute the foundation of their thinking. Therefore, because social interests are plural in any society, sub-political cultures representing the interests of various groups and classes inevitably arise. The political culture representing the ruling class occupies the dominant position and sets the overall orientation of the political culture of society as a whole (i.e., the overarching political culture).
While seeing human beings as subjects with full, concrete reality, Marxism also enables people to acquire ample initiative and agency with respect to political culture. A person’s social existence determines their ideas, yet the reflection of social conditions in a person’s ideas is active, not passive. In other words, people can reflect on their situation and the conditions and requirements of social development in an active way and, on that basis, form thoughts and ideas.
In terms of political culture, their agency enables people to choose or form political thought, conceptions, theories, and ideals that correspond to the laws and requirements of social and political development. Therefore, a vital political culture reflects real social and political conditions and strives to express or propagate political ideals and theories that are suited to socio-political development. These ideals and theories often promote social and political development. Thus most important is that the way people choose and form theories and ideas corresponds to what they and society need for their development. This largely depends on gaining a scientific understanding of, and correct grasp of, the conditions of one’s own and society’s existence.
Lenin held that social existence does not depend on human consciousness and that the complex laws and processes of social life cannot be fully grasped by social consciousness. Consequently, achieving the most accurate possible understanding of social life becomes a very important task. He said:
“The highest task of humanity is to comprehend the objective logic of economic evolution (the evolution of social being) in all its main features, so that it may be possible to adjust to it one’s social consciousness and the consciousness of the advanced classes of all capitalist countries in as definite, clear, and critical a fashion as possible.”
V. I. Lenin, MATERIALISM and EMPIRIO-CRITICISM, Critical Comments on a Reactionary Philosophy, , ( Chapter Six: Empirio-Criticism and Historical Materialism ) 2. How Bogdanov Corrects and “Develops” Marx
In this sense, the existence and development of political culture depend on two things: the subject’s social, material, productive activity and relations of production; and the level to which people understand the conditions of their own and society’s existence.
III. Political culture is not only acted upon, it also acts upon society
According to the basic principles of historical materialism, social existence determines social consciousness. At the same time, social consciousness has a counter-effect on social existence. Therefore, as an important component of social ideology, political culture exerts a counter-effect on social and political development in the course of its formation and development. Mao Zedong clearly pointed out:
“Any given culture (as an ideological form) is a reflection of the politics and economics of a given society, and in turn has a tremendous influence and effect upon the politics and economics of that society; economics is the base, and politics is the concentrated expression of economics. This is our fundamental view of the relationship among culture and politics and economics, and of the relationship between politics and economics.”
Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, ON NEW DEMOCRACY, January 1940
Lenin pointed out:
“Man’s consciousness not only reflects the objective world, but creates the objective world.”
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Conspectus of Hegel’s Science of Logic — Book III (Subjective Logic or the Doctrine of the Notion)
This “creation” is a concrete manifestation of the way consciousness acts upon being. Plainly, the reflection of the objective world in human consciousness goes hand in hand with human consciousness exerting a counter-effect upon the objective world. The effect running in the other direction of social consciousness upon social existence naturally makes social consciousness a force that influences social development. Therefore, even as Marxism stresses that
“the ultimately determining factor in the historical process is the production and reproduction of real life,”
Marx-Engels Correspondence 1890, Engels to J. Bloch In Königsberg
it also regards social consciousness as an important factor influencing historical development. Engels said:
“The economic situation is the basis, but the various elements of the superstructure also influence the course of historical struggles, and in many cases determine their form for the most part: the political forms of the class struggle and the results of that struggle—constitutions established by the victorious class after it has won, and so forth—legal forms, and even the reflections of all these actual struggles in the minds of the participants: political, legal, and philosophical theories, religious views, and their further development into systems of dogma.”
Marx-Engels Correspondence 1890, Engels to J. Bloch In Königsberg
The primary target of the effects of political culture is, of course, the sphere of political life. These effects often have a profound impact on the development of society and politics.
Political culture begins to affect political life and development from the moment it emerges. This counter-effect can be divided into two forms: positive and negative. The positive form promotes social and political development, while the negative form obstructs it. Which kind of effect a given political culture produces depends on the culture itself and its relationship with real social and political development.
Generally, the emergence of new political ideas, principles, and ideals foreshadows new demands and tendencies in social and political development and exerts a positive influence.
Conversely, old political ideas and backward political ideals will constitute an obstructive force against social and political development. In the historical development of European society, the medieval theological worldview was unquestionably a tremendous force opposed to the development of modern capitalism. For the sake of their own development, the European bourgeoisie first had to remove this obstructive force.
From the Renaissance to the nineteenth century, many political thinkers, in constructing their political theories and ideas, took the critique of religious theology as their point of departure, and on the ruins of the old theological worldview that had been destroyed, built a new worldview. Thus, in summing up the German Peasant War, Engels pointed out:
“All general and overt attacks on feudalism necessarily first became attacks on the Church, and all revolutionary social and political doctrines necessarily, on the whole, became theological heresies; in order to attack the social conditions of the time, it was necessary to strip them of that sacred aureole.”
The Peasant War in Germany by Frederick Engels, Chapter 2 The Main Opposition Groups and their Programmes; Luther and Muenzer
As the foregoing analysis shows, any social or political development requires an advanced political culture. Such a culture plays a guiding and promoting role in social and political development through the new values, ideals, and ideas it embodies. However, the formation and development of a new, advanced political culture and its positive effect on social politics will inevitably face two problems.
- First, how to fully bring into play its own strength in the struggle against the old political culture and ultimately take a dominant position.
- Second, how to make a new political culture widely recognized by society in a manner suited to that struggle and produce positive social effects.
Clearly, resolving these two problems concerns not only the fate of a new, advanced political culture but also the development of society and politics.
First, let us address the initial question. In order for a new political conception, thought, or theory to be effective in challenging an old political culture, it is not important how grand or lofty the realm or ideal it seeks may be compared to the old. Rather, what matters is the depth to which these new conceptions, thoughts, and theories reflect social reality and reveal the laws governing social and political development.
When Lenin evaluated Marx’s materialist conception of history, he noted that Marx expressed his views with the utmost firmness and that these views were wholly “something new” for earlier socialists. They were new because Marx was not satisfied with what earlier socialists had said.
“He did not confine himself to describing the existing system, to judging it and condemning it; he gave a scientific explanation of it, reducing that existing system, which differs in the different European and non-European countries, to a common basis—the capitalist social formation, the laws of the functioning and development of which he subjected to an objective analysis (he showed the necessity of exploitation under that system).”
“By this same objective analysis of the capitalist system, he proved the necessity of its transformation into the socialist system.”
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, What the “Friends of the People” Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats, (A Reply to Articles in Russkoye Bogatstvo Opposing the Marxists)
Part I
Clearly, new thoughts, theories, and conceptions of this kind are vital. As society and politics develop, these ideas will display ever-increasing strength against the old political culture until they assume a dominant position. Historically, the bourgeois, classical, legal worldview replaced the medieval, theological worldview because the old worldview could no longer adapt to changed economic conditions and the new class’s way of life. In contrast, the new worldview was well-suited to these changes and opened up new possibilities for further development. Ultimately, the real force that brings about the disintegration of an old political-cultural system is major changes in the social relations of production and social institutions.
“The dissolution of the old ideas keeps even pace with the dissolution of the old conditions of existence.”
Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto, Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists
For advanced political thought, theory, or conception to replace an old, backward one depends not only on its own vitality but also on the degree to which society accepts and recognizes these new ideas, theories, and conceptions. If the majority of society or the dominant classes accept these new ideas, they will become a powerful force. As Marx said:
“The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses. Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter.”
Works of Karl Marx 1843, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
Introduction
Thoroughness means “grasping the root of the matter.” However, if this theory that “grasps the root of the matter” fails to achieve a high degree of identification among its adherents—due to various reasons, particularly those inherent to the adherents themselves—then such a theory cannot fully transform into a force propelling social and political development. When Engels explained why the German workers’ movement appeared so strong and invincible compared with those of other European countries, he believed that one important reason was that scientific socialism could not enter as deeply into the workers’ flesh and blood in other European countries as it did in Germany.
“On the one hand, the indifference of the English labour movement towards all theory… is one of the reasons why it moves so slowly…; on the other hand, … the mischief and confusion created by Proudhonism… among the Frenchmen and Belgians, and in its caricature form, as presented by Bakunin, among the Spaniards and Italians.”
Friedrich Engels, The Peasant War in Germany, Addendum to the Preface
The facts Engels reflects on here make the point clear.
The history of human society and politics shows that for a new political ideology, theory, or set of ideas to replace an old one and play a positive role in social and political development, it must undergo a complex process of repeated twists and turns. This process requires time. Fundamentally, the length of time depends on how quickly the new social or political formation that constitutes the foundation of the new ideas, theories, and concepts matures.
Section Two Political culture has a class character
I. Political culture reflects class interests
The subject of political culture is human beings. Human beings are the producers and bearers of political culture. According to Marxism, the human being is the subject with full reality; therefore, the “human being” here is a real person engaged in productive and social activities. In a class society, the interactions people form during social production appear as specific class relations. Thus, all productive and social activities can ultimately be reduced to class activity.
As Lenin put it:
“The activity of individuals within the bounds of each socio-economic formation—an activity so diverse that it would seem impossible to systematise it in any way—has been summed up and reduced to the activity of groups of individuals differing from one another in the part they play in the system of production relations, in the conditions of production, and consequently in the conditions of their environment, and in the interests determined by that environment—in a word, has been reduced to class activity; and the struggle of these classes determines the development of society.”
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, The Economic Content of Narodism and the Criticism of it in Mr. Struve’s Book, (The Reflection of Marxism in Bourgeois Literature)
Chapter II A Criticism of Narodnik Sociology
In a class society, people’s activities and relationships are closely tied to class activity and relations. Thus, each person lives and acts from within a specific class position. The class character of political culture determines that political culture itself is class-characterized. It is a comprehensive expression of a particular class’s ideas, notions, theories, values, and emotions. As Mao Zedong pointed out,
“In class society, every person lives as a member of a particular class, and every kind of thinking, without exception, is stamped with the brand of a class.” Taken as a whole, a society’s political culture reflects that society’s class relations.
Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, ON PRACTICE
On the Relation Between Knowledge and Practice, Between Knowing and Doing
July 1937
In a class society, every class has its own political demands, political ideals, and political viewpoints, and these constitute the political culture of each class. The political culture of each class takes shape within the production and exchange activities that determine its class position.
When Engels analyzed the formation of different class moral conceptions, he pointed out:
“If we see that the three classes of modern society—the feudal aristocracy, the bourgeoisie, and the proletariat—each have their own special morality, then we can only draw the conclusion that men, consciously or unconsciously, derive their moral ideas in the last resort from the practical relations on which their class position is based—from the economic relations in which they carry on production and exchange.”
Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels 1877, Part I: Philosophy, IX. Morality and Law.
Eternal Truths
Put simply, the nature and content of the activities a class carries on within the system of production relations constitute the foundation of that class’s political culture.
According to Marxists, each class develops its unique interests through productive and social activities that define its position. The content and value orientation of a class’s political culture are precisely determined by its particular interests. In The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, With brilliant insight, Marx showed how the particular interests of the various classes in French society drove each class to play its own role in this major political movement. He held that the reason France’s small-holding peasants were devoted to the “Napoleonic idea” and chose Bonaparte was largely determined by their common interests. These peasants were unenlightened, superstitious, and biased, and they wanted to continue living under social conditions shaped by small plots of land. However, capitalist development had increasingly torn those plots away from the peasants and thrown them into capitalism’s alchemical furnace.
When Marx analyzed two other roles in this socio-political movement, he likewise noted the decisive role played by class interests. He said:
“While each of the two factions, Orleanists and Legitimists, sought to make itself and the other believe that it was loyalty to two different royal houses which separated them, later facts proved precisely the opposite: it was their divided interests which forbade the uniting of the two royal houses.”
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte. Karl Marx 1852, III
It can be seen from this that class interests have a decisive impact on the thoughts, ideas, and actions of a class’s members. A political culture is determined by and reflects a particular class interest. Therefore, when analyzing and judging a political culture, it is important to consider not only the content of the culture itself, but also the class interests it represents. As Lenin pointed out:
“As long as people do not learn to see behind any moral, religious, political, and social phrases, declarations, and promises the interests of one class or another, they will always, in politics, be the foolish victims of deception by others and of self-deception.”
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism
Political culture is determined by and reflects specific class interests. Therefore, no political culture can be separated from its corresponding class interests and reduced to mere concepts, principles, slogans, and fantasies. If one attempts to do so, the consequences will be extremely dire—indeed, dangerous. Marx and Engels pointed out that, once thought departs from “interest,” it is bound to disgrace itself. For instance, when Germany’s petty bourgeoisie detached French liberalism from its represented class interests, French liberalism was made a spectacle of. Marx and Engels offered a vivid depiction of this phenomenon:
“In Kant we again find the characteristic form which French liberalism, based on real class interests, assumed in Germany. Neither Kant nor the German burghers (Kant was the embellisher of their interests) realised that these theoretical ideas of the bourgeoisie were based on material interests and on a will determined by material relations of production. Kant therefore separated the theoretical expression from the interests it expressed; he transformed the materially motivated determinations of the will of the French bourgeoisie into ‘free will,’ will in and for itself, pure self-determination of the human will, thereby turning this will into purely conceptual determinations and moral postulates. Hence, when the powerful practice of bourgeois liberalism appeared in the form of the Reign of Terror and of shameless bourgeois profiteering, the German petty bourgeois recoiled and drew back in the face of that practice of bourgeois liberalism.”
The German Ideology by Marx and Engels, III “Stirner” Delighted in His Construction
The political culture of any class is determined by its specific material activity and interests. The political cultures of different classes often differ. This difference is especially pronounced between the ruling and ruled classes. In capitalist society,
“The workers, as compared with the bourgeoisie, speak another idiom; they have different ideas and conceptions, different customs and moral principles, a different religion and a different politics. They are two entirely different human beings; they differ from each other as much as though they belonged to different races.”
Friedrich Engels, Condition of the Working Class in England, Results
Differences in political culture are simply an expression of differences in class interests. Struggles and conflicts of interest between different classes are necessarily reflected in political culture as an ideological form. In other words, contradictions and conflicts among the political cultures of different classes are the expression of their real class-based struggles and conflicts. Therefore,
“All historical struggles, whether they proceed in the political, religious, philosophical domain, or in any other ideological domain, are in fact only the more or less clear expression of struggles of social classes.”
Works of Frederick Engels 1885, Preface to the Third German Edition of
The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
From the Renaissance onward, European history has seen continuous waves of religious reform movements and long conflicts and struggles between new political ideas, such as natural rights, the social contract, and natural law, which were advocated by thinkers of the new age, and old political ideas, such as the doctrine of theocracy, original sin, and the divine creation of the state, which dominated the Middle Ages. These conflicts and struggles were precisely the reflection of the struggle between the rising bourgeoisie and the feudal nobility and clergy in social and political ideology. As the text puts it:
“When Christian ideas succumbed in the eighteenth century to Enlightenment ideas, feudal society was fighting its death battle with the then revolutionary bourgeoisie.”
Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto, Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists
By the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, the conflict between socialist theory and bourgeois ideology mirrored the struggle between the growing proletariat and the bourgeoisie in the realm of ideas and culture. This was precisely what Engels predicted.
“From that time forward, Socialism was no longer regarded as the accidental discovery of this or that ingenious brain, but as the necessary outcome of the struggle between two historically developed classes—the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.”
Frederick Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific Part II The Science of Dialectics
II. The ruling class’s ideas occupy the dominant position
In class-divided societies, different classes develop distinct political cultures due to their differing class interests. The position of a political culture in society is determined by the position of the class it represents. The political culture of the ruling class is dominant among the political cultures of the other classes, and this is true in every era and country. Marx and Engels analyzed this phenomenon and pointed it out.
“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas; that is, the class which is the ruling material force of society is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. … The ruling ideas are nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships; they are the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas; hence they are the expression of the relationships that make one class the ruling class, and therefore the ideas of its rule.”
Karl Marx, The German Ideology, Part I: Feuerbach, Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook B. The Illusion of the Epoch, Ruling Class and Ruling Ideas
Along with its rule, the ruling class acquired ideological dominance over society. The ruling class establishes ideas aligned with its interests as the dominant ideology not only because it rules, but also because effective political rule demands it. Throughout the historical development of class societies, it has been repeatedly shown that no can dominate politically without also dominating ideologically — that is, domination in the realm of consciousness. Ideological domination is the ruling class’s control of society as a whole through ideas that represent its interests and will.
However, before obtaining a ruling position, the ideas representing the interests of the ruling class existed only as class ideas. Once the ruling class gains power, these class ideas may become the ideas of the ruling class. This does not mean that they are suitable for political rule from the outset—that is, dominating the thinking of the entire society. History shows that the ruling class gradually acquires the capacity for ideological rule over all of society as it consolidates its position.
In that process, every class attempting to dominate must carry out two necessary tasks.
- First, it must elevate its class interests and the ideas that reflect them into “universal interests” and “universal ideas.”
- Second, it must present its ideas as new against those representing the interests of the old ruling class and ultimately replace them.
The foregoing analysis has demonstrated that the political culture of different classes is determined by their class interests. Political culture is inseparable from class interests. Thus, the ideas of a subordinate class—or a class attempting to obtain a ruling position—initially have only class-specific meaning. When a class seeking to rule confronts the existing ruling class, it must win the support and recognition of all members of society to prevail.
First, the class must secure recognition and a response from society at large for the ideas, aspirations, ideals, principles, and slogans that represent its will and interests. To accomplish this, the class must elevate its interests to the level of society’s “common interest” and give its ideas a universal form. This allows the class to present its interests as representative of all of society and the masses in its opposition to the ruling class.
This is how the class seeking domination gradually shapes its class interests into an ideology that can guide society as a whole. Once the ruling class is in power, these ideas become an ideology that rules over society. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels held that a class seeking domination can do this because
“at the beginning its interest really is more closely connected with the common interest of all other non-ruling classes, and under the pressure of the relations then existing it has not yet had time to develop into the particular interest of a particular class. Therefore, the victory of this class also benefits many individuals of the other classes that do not win a dominant position—but only in the sense that this victory makes it possible for these individuals to rise into the ruling class.”
A Critique of the German Ideology, Ruling Class and Ruling Ideas
A class that seeks to take power confronts the old rulers on behalf of society as a whole. When this class tries to overthrow the old ideology born of the old ruling class, it replaces it with a new ideology. Therefore, alongside the class struggle, there is inevitably a struggle between new and old ideas and cultures.
For the new class to win and consolidate its rule, its ideas must prevail. It must do its utmost to eliminate old ideas and desires.
Only then can the ideas of the new class take shape as a force that guides society as a whole, acquiring the function of ideological rule only after the new class has won a ruling position. Precisely for this reason:
“The bourgeoisie, wherever it has attained dominance, has destroyed all feudal, patriarchal, and idyllic relations. … It has drowned religious devotion, chivalrous enthusiasm, and philistine sentimentalism—those sacred upsurges of feeling—in the icy water of egoistic calculation. It has reduced human dignity to exchange value, and replaced innumerable chartered and hard-won freedoms with a single, unscrupulous freedom of trade. In a word, it has substituted open, shameless, direct, and brutal exploitation for exploitation veiled by religious and political illusions.”
Marx and Engels, The Communist Manifesto
As for the concrete workings of ideological domination, the ruling class exercises intellectual control over society through a specific material basis and the creators of ideas. As Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels point out:
“The class that controls the means of material production also controls the means of mental production; therefore, in general, the ideas of those who lack the means of mental production are subject to the ruling class.”
The ruling class’s control over the means of mental production allows it to create and express its ideas as it wishes.
- This allows the ruling class to disseminate its ideas throughout society and instill them in everyone.
- This allows the ruling class to use its ideas and demands to shape the feelings and attitudes of “qualified” members of society, thereby facilitating class rule.
Thus, the ideological domination of society by the ruling class relies precisely on its control and deployment of the means of mental production.
The ruling class’s ideological dominance depends on its control of the means of producing spiritual life and the ideas it generates using those resources. To preserve its rule, any ruling class must produce its own theories and notions to regulate and determine society and the age as a whole. As Marx and Engels pointed out, the individuals who comprise the ruling class think and act collectively, shaping the overall character of a historical epoch.
Therefore, they rule in every sphere of that epoch as thinking persons and producers of ideas, regulating the production and distribution of ideas in their time. Hence, their ideas become the age’s dominant ideas. Marx and Engels illustrate this with an example: In a given country and period, if monarchy, aristocracy, and the bourgeoisie share power, then the dominant idea will be the doctrine of the separation of powers. To protect their interests, each class will speak of the separation of powers as an “eternal law.”
The ideological production of any ruling class is not carried out by the class as a whole but by its ideologists and thinkers. In Marxist terms, these thinkers transform the conditions of the ruling class’s existence into seemingly independent, self-sufficient conceptual forms. These forms appear in the form of ideas in law, morality, and so on. These conceptual forms appear formally detached from the real interests of the ruling class and are elevated into “life rules” that the ruling class uses against the oppressed classes.
On the other hand, ideologists instill these conceptual forms into the consciousness of every member of the ruling class, making them imagine these ideas and their advocacy as a kind of mission. This ideological production shapes the spiritual principles and modes of expression of the ruling class’s political culture. With the aid of political and economic power, it also determines the basic orientation of the political cultures of other classes. Consequently, the political and spiritual life of society unfolds under the principles they define and support with ruling power.
III. Proletarian political culture is the highest crystallization of human thought
Like any other class, the proletariat formed its own political culture through revolution and struggle. As representatives of the new productive forces of modern society, they have developed a unique political culture. Due to its unique nature and historical mission, which differ fundamentally from those of all other classes in history, proletarian political culture is entirely novel.
This culture emerged and evolved during the prolonged conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. As the proletariat transitioned from a class “in itself” to a class “for itself,” this culture matured alongside it. The historical process by which socialism developed from utopia to science fully demonstrates this maturation. The emergence of historical materialism and Marx’s theory of surplus value marks the maturation of proletarian political culture. Throughout years of revolutionary struggle and practice, proletarian political culture has educated and guided wave after wave of proletarians, providing rich ideological weapons for proletarian revolution. The Paris Commune, the October Revolution, and China’s New Democratic Revolution greatly enriched proletarian political culture, strengthening its practical significance.
The character of proletarian political culture is determined by the class interests of the proletariat as an independent class and its historical mission. In the Afterword to the Second German Edition of Capital, Marx succinctly stated the proletariat’s historical mission: “The proletariat’s historical mission is to overthrow the capitalist mode of production and abolish all classes.”
Accordingly, during a revolution, the proletariat will “make the most radical rupture with traditional property relations and ideas.” These ruptures mean that the proletariat will oppose all existing social and political systems during the revolution, and the proletarian political culture that forms during this time will have entirely new content and a revolutionary spirit. Thus, proletarian political culture reflects the current state of the proletarian movement and foreshadows its future. Additionally, the class interests of the proletariat ensure that their political culture differs from that of other classes.“All previous historical movements were movements of, or in the interest of, minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority.” In such a movement, the resulting political culture reflects the interests and aspirations of the vast majority.
Proletarian political culture has two foundational elements that shaped its formation and development. First, it is based on the scientific worldview and methodology established by Karl Marx. As Friedrich Engels pointed out:
“Marx’s materialist conception of history helped the working class. He proved that people’s ideas about law, politics, philosophy, religion, and so on are ultimately derived from their economic conditions—from their mode of production and exchange. From this arose a worldview suited to the proletariat’s conditions of life and struggle. What corresponds to the propertyless worker is the absence of illusions in their minds.”
Frederick Engels/Karl Kautsky 1886, Lawyers’ Socialism, (excerpt)
Proletarian political culture is also rooted in historical materialism. First, it asserts that the proletarian conception of political culture is fundamentally distinct from those of other classes. This includes conceptions formed by modern Western scholars based on behaviorism.
Second, proletarian political culture is based on the practice of proletarian revolutionary struggle and the scientific analysis of that practice by Marxists. The history of the international communist movement demonstrates that proletarian political culture matures and develops through continuous revolutionary struggle and practice. Regardless of the outcome of each struggle, once the proletariat and Marxists become a “class for itself,” they can make a scientific and comprehensive summation of the struggle and movement process and its results under the guidance of scientific principles. These summaries enrich and develop proletarian political culture, accelerating the maturation and refinement of proletarian struggles and revolutionary experience.
For example, in their summation of workers’ movements in various European countries from 1849 to 1850, Marx and Engels advanced major theories of proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, including “revolution is the locomotive of history,” “the theory of permanent revolution,” “smashing the old state machine,” “the dictatorship of the proletariat,” and “the worker–peasant alliance,” among others. Summing up the experience of the Paris Commune, Marx proposed “the social republic” as a new political form.
Vladimir Lenin developed the theory of “victory in one country” through a historical summary and concrete analysis of imperialism and the proletarian revolutionary movement.
Mao Zedong integrated Marxism with the practical application of the Chinese revolution. He proposed the strategic ideas of “encircling the cities from the countryside” and “transforming the old democratic revolution into a new democratic revolution.”
These rich experiences of struggle and scientific analysis formed a complete system of proletarian political culture, unifying spiritual principles.
Proletarian political culture is an advanced political culture. This is because the class it represents embodies new productive forces, giving it a fully advanced and revolutionary character. Additionally, it is a culmination of the finest intellectual and cultural achievements in human history and a scientific reflection of social development.
As Lenin pointed out:
“Proletarian culture did not drop from the sky, nor was it invented by self-styled experts on proletarian culture. To think so is sheer nonsense.”
Vladimir Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues
“Proletarian culture must be the development of the entire body of knowledge that humanity has created under capitalist, landlord, and bureaucratic oppression, governed by law.” Socialism is the proletariat’s system of ideas. In its theoretical form, it first appeared as a more thorough development of the principles established by 18th-century French Enlightenment thinkers. Marxism is the core of the proletarian system of ideas.
During its formation and development, Marxism did not discard the most valuable achievements of the bourgeois era, such as German philosophy, British political economy, and French utopian socialism. In fact, Marxism absorbed and transformed all that was valuable in more than two millennia of humanity’s intellectual and cultural development. Thus, if proletarian political culture gains a firm practical foundation by objectively reflecting the historical development of the present and future, then proletarian political culture—especially Marxism as its core—attains the highest point of departure by absorbing and inheriting all that is valuable in the development of human thought and culture.
Like the political culture of any other class, the proletariat has its own social and political ideals: communism and the complete emancipation of humankind. According to Marxism, the realization of communism on a worldwide scale is an inevitable outcome of historical development. Although a long process of struggle is required for communism to emerge as a social formation, the movement to abolish the existing state of affairs and bring about humanity’s final emancipation is thoroughly real. The essence of communism, the proletariat’s social and political ideal, is to abolish the current state of affairs and achieve humanity’s ultimate liberation.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels long ago made this clear:
“Communism is for us not a state of affairs to be established, not an ideal to which reality must adapt itself. We call communism the real movement that abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.”
The ultimate goal of this movement is to overthrow the foundations of all old relations of production and exchange. It aims to place the objective, alien powers that have dominated history under the control of individuals and replace the old society of classes and class antagonisms with an association of free individuals. Thus, the ideals of proletarian political culture are both ideal and real. These ideals directly guide the proletariat’s real revolutionary movement, in which the proletariat will completely break with traditional property relations and ideas. Thus, this ideal is not fantasy, but rather a guide to action. These ideals will determine the specific thoughts, concepts, and theories the proletariat develops during their revolution and struggle.
Section III: Political Culture Possesses Both Contemporary Relevance and Historical Continuity
I. Political Culture Exhibits Historical Continuity
Human beings are both subjects and producers of political culture. They develop their ideas and perceptions through social production and practical activity. These activities determine not only people’s ideology, but also the historical development of human society. Therefore, Marxism regards social production and social practice as a kind of historical activity. As Marx said, producing material life is an activity that people must carry out every day simply to survive, and their thoughts and consciousness develop within this activity. In this sense, Marx and Engels believed that “ideology itself is only one aspect of human history.”
While producing the material aspects of their lives, people constantly satisfy their basic needs for survival and livelihood. At the same time, they are continuously creating their own history. However, although people undertake conscious actions—considered, passionate, and purposive—in creating their history, they do not create it at will. Rather, people always create their history under specific conditions. Marx pointed out:
‘People make their own history, but not as they please; not under circumstances of their own choosing, but under circumstances they find themselves confronted with and handed down from the past.’
Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte.I. 1852
This shows that each generation creates its own history by
“encountering definite material results, a definite sum total of productive forces and historically formed relations between human beings and nature, as well as between human beings themselves”.
This includes productive forces, capital, and circumstances handed down from one generation to the next. It also encompasses the preceding generation’s ideas, conceptions, and traditions. Of course, people’s real social production and practices alter the productive forces, capital, and circumstances inherited from history and prior generations. However, it should be recognized that when people inherit all of this and carry out new historical activities based on it, they must accept the living conditions prescribed for them. While these living conditions provide a foundation for the development of the new generation, they also give that development a specific character.
This historical process demonstrates that human beings create their environment, and in turn, the environment creates them. When considering human activity throughout history and recognizing that people produce ideas and concepts, the relationship between human beings and culture mirrors their relationship with their environment. People create culture, and culture likewise shapes people. Ideas, concepts, and traditions inherited from history influence the formation of a new generation’s ideas and concepts, though this influence is not decisive. As Engels pointed out,
“We ourselves make our history, but first we make it under very definite premises and conditions.”
Engels to J. Bloch In Königsberg, London, September 21,1890
Ultimately, the economic premises and conditions are decisive, but political and other premises and conditions—even traditions in people’s minds—also play a role. Thus, the ideas and concepts of any era reflect its material and economic life, as well as the inheritance and development of ideas handed down from history or the preceding generation. In this sense, the political culture of any era has both a contemporary character and historical continuity.
People’s historical activity realizes the historical continuity of political culture. People are both the creators and bearers of political culture. As bearers of political culture, people are shaped by a specific political culture. Through their historical activity, they transmit and carry forward that political culture. As a society’s political culture is sustained and developed generation after generation through the historical activity of its members, a national spirit, national psychology, and customs form, exerting an internal influence on the society’s development.
Because societies differ in their starting points, natural environments, and structural modes of organization, there will inevitably be differences in their national spirits, psychologies, and customs, which exert internal influence. These differences cause the development and selection of political ideas and concepts to differ across societies and nations. Thus, alongside the historical continuity of political culture is its national character. While analyzing the historical development of social thought in Europe, Marx and Engels recognized this national dimension. They wrote that the difference between French and English materialism corresponds to the difference between the two nations. The French imbued English materialism with wit, making it vivid, eloquent, bold, and elegant. They “civilized” it. Similarly, when Engels analyzed why German workers were able to convince workers in other European countries to accept the theory of scientific socialism, he regarded the fact that Germans belonged to the most theoretically cultivated nation in Europe as an important reason.
Regarding political culture itself, the idea of its inheritable nature requires viewing the development of a society’s political culture as grounded in the inheritance, transformation, or sublation of historical ideas and culture. This development is also constrained and influenced by a specific ideological and cultural background. Lenin approached Marxism with precisely this scientific spirit. He said:
“The history of philosophy and social science has shown with perfect clarity that Marxism is not sectarian. It is not a rigid doctrine produced by departing from the broad highway of world civilization’s development. On the contrary, Marx’s genius lies in answering questions that the most advanced human thought has raised. The emergence of his doctrine was the direct continuation of the doctrines of the greatest representatives of philosophy, political economy, and socialism.”
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, The Three Sources and Three Component Parts of Marxism
Therefore, according to the Marxist view, analyzing and studying any form of political culture requires considering its internal historical links and development. Similarly, one cannot abstract Marxism as an ideological form from the historical process of inheritance and sublation through which it was formed and developed. Failing to do so will prevent one from understanding the inner spirit and vitality of a political culture and the necessary tendencies of its development.
Along with the historical inheritability of political culture comes its national character. This national character means that the choices and development of a society’s or nation’s political culture in a new era are regulated and influenced, to varying degrees, by that society’s or nation’s national spirit, psychology, customs, and habits. In countries with long histories and ancient cultures, and in societies where traditional forces are relatively strong, the force of such regulation and influence is comparatively greater. Consequently, it is impossible for one society’s or nation’s political culture to be completely grafted onto another. Therefore, the Marxist view of political culture opposes national nihilism (denigration of entire nations).
This view contrasts sharply with that of modern Western political scientists, who tend to study political culture in isolation. They abstract political culture from its relations with other countries, nations, and history, studying it in isolation. Consequently, their perspective on political cultures exhibits a pronounced tendency toward national and ethnic denigration (national and ethnic nihilism). When comparing, analyzing, and generalizing various forms of political culture around the world, they often ignore or deny the differences and effects of national temperament, spirit, and psychology contained within different political cultures. They also undervalue traditional cultural factors within political culture as a historical product. Consequently, they treat the models of political culture they derive by comparing the surface structures of political culture in abstraction.
For example, Gabriel Almond’s threefold classification of political cultures around the world — parochial, subject, and participant — is used to analyze political phenomena. People endow the political-culture model that represents their own society with the highest value, thereby claiming world-historical significance for it. This view of political culture is mistaken. Essentially, it reflects the fundamental interests of Western capitalist society. It is incapable of revealing the operative relationship between each political culture and the political life of the society to which it is adapted, nor can it reveal the regularities of this relationship.
II. Realism and historical continuity form a unity
People in real life are constantly generating their own thoughts, ideas and ideals. However, this production is not arbitrary. It is constrained by existing real conditions and historical conditions inherited from the past. Therefore, whenever people in any society choose and develop their political culture for certain ends, they inevitably encounter the political traditions, thought and ideals bequeathed by history or preceding generations — that is, traditional political culture. This is precisely what Karl Marx meant when he wrote,
Gabriel Almond’s three-part classification of political cultures — parochial, subject, and participant — is one example of a model used to analyze political phenomena. People tend to value the political-culture model that represents their own society the most, thereby claiming world-historical significance for it. However, this view of political culture is mistaken. Essentially, it reflects the fundamental interests of Western capitalist societies. The model is incapable of revealing the operative relationship between a political culture and the political life of the society to which it is adapted, nor can it reveal the regularities of this relationship.
In real life, people are constantly generating their own thoughts, ideas, and ideals. However, this production is not arbitrary. It is constrained by existing real and historical conditions inherited from the past. Therefore, whenever people in any society develop their political culture for certain purposes, they inevitably encounter the political traditions, thoughts, and ideals bequeathed by history or preceding generations—that is, traditional political culture. This is precisely what Karl Marx meant when he wrote,
‘The tradition of all dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brains of the living.’
Karl Marx, 1852, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, I
Thus, when people choose and develop thei r own political culture, they face the crucial question of how to treat traditional political culture. Marxism holds that the exploiting classes and the proletariat diverge markedly in their treatment of traditional political culture because of their respective class natures.
The Manifesto of the Communist Party contains the following passage:
“The history of all past societies has consisted of the development of class antagonisms that have taken different forms in different eras. But whatever form they may have taken, one fact is common to all past ages: the exploitation of one part of society by another. It is no wonder, then, that the social consciousness of past ages, despite all its multiplicity and variety, moves within certain common forms or general ideas that cannot completely vanish except with the total disappearance of class antagonisms.”
This passage expresses an important viewpoint: before the proletariat seizes political power, abolishes the exploiting classes, and establishes a socialist society, the forms of social consciousness differ completely from those of a socialist society. Although Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels did not explicitly delineate these “common forms,” we can discern how they take shape by examining their disclosure of the essential nature of ideology in class society.
According to Marxism, all social and political consciousness reflects class interests. The ruling ideas of any epoch are the ideas of the ruling class. The ideologies of past ruling classes represented the interests of a minority within their class. To make their ideas rule society, these classes must elevate their interests to “universal social interests,” portray their ideas as the only rational ones with universal validity, and give them a universal form. One basic means they employ to achieve this is drawing on the power of tradition. There are two main methods.
First, they imbue traditional values with an air of eternity even though their content has fundamentally changed under new social conditions. For example, the bourgeoisie treats freedom, equality, fraternity, justice, and other traditional values as eternal truths supposedly shared by all stages of social development. In doing so, the bourgeoisie expresses its own ideas and simultaneously realizes its class interests. Friedrich Engels pointed out that the idea of equality, whether in bourgeois or proletarian form, is a historical product. This idea’s formation requires specific historical conditions, which presuppose a preceding history. Therefore, regardless of its form, the idea of equality is not an eternal truth.
Second, they used traditional methods to pave the way for their rise to dominance, such as beating drums and sounding gongs. Karl Marx believed that, during the bourgeois revolutions in France and England, the bourgeoisie employed the same strategy.
In France, proponents of bourgeois society found the ideals, artistic forms, and illusions necessary to obscure the limited bourgeois nature of their struggle and maintain their passion as a great historical tragedy in the austere tradition of the Roman Republic. However, once they could devote themselves to creating wealth and engaging in peaceful competition, they forgot that ancient Rome had once guarded their cradle.
In England, Cromwell and the English people borrowed the language, fervor, and fantasies of the Old Testament for their bourgeois revolution. Once the real goal was achieved and the bourgeois transformation of English society was accomplished, Locke replaced Habakkuk.
Marx therefore concluded that in these revolutions, “the awakening of the dead” served to glorify new struggles rather than force imitation of old ones. It magnified an imagined task rather than solving it in reality and rediscovered the spirit of revolution rather than letting the ghost of revolution wander again.
Given how social consciousness moves within exploitative societies, it’s clear that the ruling class uses traditional ideas and modes of expression as tools to disguise their interests and achieve political domination. Therefore, even though their new political notions, ideas, and ideals differ greatly from traditional ones, they still preserve certain traditional forms and content. Once this is recognized, it becomes clear why modern Western capitalist societies protect many traditional political forms and concepts as though they were cultural relics.
Unlike previous exploitative classes, the proletariat seeks to advance the interests of the majority of society in its revolution, not a minority. Furthermore, due to its social position and historical mission, the proletariat has nothing to protect in the revolution. In fact, the proletariat must destroy everything that has thus far protected and guaranteed private property. Its historical mission is to eliminate exploitative classes and ultimately class divisions altogether. Therefore, the proletariat must reject traditional social and political ideas based on class exploitation and oppression.
However, this does not mean that the proletariat must sever all ties with prior history or discard tradition entirely. As it develops, the proletariat will actively absorb every outstanding achievement in human thought and culture by negating and superseding traditional thought and culture. As Lenin pointed out:
Unlike previous exploitative classes, the proletariat seeks to advance the interests of the majority of society in its revolution, not a minority. Furthermore, due to its social position and historical mission, the proletariat has nothing to protect in the revolution. In fact, the proletariat must destroy everything that has thus far protected and guaranteed private property. Its historical mission is to eliminate exploitative classes and ultimately class divisions altogether. Therefore, the proletariat must reject traditional social and political ideas based on class exploitation and oppression.
However, this does not mean that the proletariat must sever all ties with prior history or discard tradition entirely. As it develops, the proletariat will actively absorb every outstanding achievement in human thought and culture by negating and superseding traditional thought and culture. As Lenin pointed out:
“Marxism, the ideology of the revolutionary proletariat, has world-historic significance because it has assimilated and refashioned the most valuable achievements of the bourgeois epoch rather than rejecting them. Only further work in this vein, inspired by the practical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat (the proletariat’s final struggle against all exploitation), can be considered the development of genuine proletarian culture.”
V. I. Lenin, On Proletarian Culture
Mao Zedong fully acknowledged the historical continuity of culture. Like Lenin, he believed that the development of proletarian culture should unite cultural inheritance and cultural reality. Mao said: “China today is a development of historical China. We are Marxist historicists and should not cut ourselves off from history. From Confucius to Sun Yat-sen, we must sum up and carry forward this precious legacy. This is of great help in guiding the present movement.”
Regarding how to inherit, Mao stated clearly:
“Reviewing the development of ancient culture, discarding its feudal dross, and absorbing its democratic essence are necessary conditions for developing a new national culture and raising national self-confidence. However, we must never accept everything indiscriminately. We must distinguish between the rotten things created by the ancient feudal ruling classes and the excellent culture of the ancient people—that is, things that bear a democratic and revolutionary character.”
Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, THE ROLE OF THE CHINESE COMMUNIST PARTY IN THE NATIONAL WAR, October 1938
In short, the proletariat differs from other exploitative classes because it does not use traditional political ideas or forms to express its political demands, realize its interests, or secure political rule. In fact, the proletariat must break decisively with all traditional ideas. At the same time, however, the proletariat will adopt the best cultural legacies of the past to enrich and develop proletarian political culture.
III. Political culture develops alongside social development
The political culture of any society is a combination of real-world immediacy and historical continuity. Historical continuity means that the development of political culture is determined by historical development. Real-world immediacy means that political culture develops alongside a society’s actual social life.
According to the basic principles of historical materialism, people establish social relations that correspond to the development of their material production. Then, they create principles, ideas, and categories that correspond to those social relations. Therefore, people’s thinking and ideas—that is, their consciousness—change as real-life conditions, social relations, and modes of existence change. As Marx and Engels pointed out: “With every great historical revolution of social conditions, men’s views and ideas also change.”
Since people’s real life determines their consciousness, the appearance of consciousness’s independence disappears. Thus, Marx and Engels held that consciousness cannot develop independently and therefore has no history. The development and “history” of consciousness merely reflect the development and history of real social life.
“They have no history, no development; but men, developing their material production and their material intercourse, alter, along with this, their real existence, their thinking, and the products of their thinking.”
Karl Marx. The German Ideology. 1845, Part I: Feuerbach.
Opposition of the Materialist and Idealist Outlook
A. Idealism and Materialism, [4. The Essence of the Materialist Conception of History.
Social Being and Social Consciousness]
Therefore, regarding how political culture develops, Marxism arrives at two basic conclusions.
First, the social and political consciousness of any historical period must be explained by that period’s material and economic conditions. Marx provided a vivid explanation of this point when he criticized Proudhon’s metaphysical approach to political economy. Marx wrote:
“Each principle has had its own century in which to manifest itself. The principle of authority, for example, had the 11th century, just as the principle of individualism had the 18th century.” In logical sequence, it was the century that belonged to the principle and not the other way around. Consequently, when we ask why a particular principle manifested in a given century rather than another, we must examine what people were like, their needs, productive forces, mode of production, and raw materials — in short, the relations between people resulting from these conditions of existence.”
Karl Marx, The Poverty of Philosophy,
Chapter Two: The Metaphysics of Political Economy, Fifth Observation
Marx’s point here is perfectly clear. The reason the principles of authority and individualism emerged in the 11th and 18th centuries, respectively, is that they were the necessary reflection of the real requirements of material production and everyday life during those periods. Therefore, when Engels stated this basic idea of Marx’s, he said:
“All social and political relations, all religious and legal systems, and all theoretical conceptions that arise in the course of history can only be understood if the material conditions of life during the relevant epoch are understood, and if these systems are traced back to these conditions…”
Review by Frederick Engels of Karl Marx, “A Contribution to the Critique of Political economy”
Second, because social and political consciousness reflect existing social conditions, the principles, ideas, concepts, and theories it contains are not eternal. They are merely “temporary products of history.” For this reason, Marxism has always rejected the notion that these ideas are eternal truths. These ideas reflect reality and must inevitably change as social reality changes.
The above analysis shows that the development of a society’s political culture is fundamentally grounded in the development and change of real social production and relations. In practical terms, when seeking to advance a society’s political culture, people must consider the historical continuity and inheritances within political culture itself, as well as the concrete social realities on which new political developments are based. If the real foundation is ignored, development will ultimately be like water with no source and a tree with no roots. Before founding the People’s Republic, Mao Zedong recognized this issue and wrote:
“The reactionary elements of the old Chinese culture that we want to eliminate cannot be separated from the old Chinese politics and economy; likewise, the new Chinese culture that we want to build cannot be separated from the new Chinese politics and economy. The old politics and economy are the basis of the old culture, and the new politics and economy are the basis of the new culture.”
Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, ON NEW DEMOCRACY, January 1940
Mao Zedong’s idea fully embodies the spirit of historical materialism. Political culture exerts a certain counter-effect on social and political development. Therefore, understanding the foundation on which political culture develops and promoting it in the correct direction affects not only the development of political culture itself but also the development of society and politics as a whole.
Section Four: Political and cultural development does not necessarily keep pace with social development
I. Political culture retains relative autonomy
The political culture of any society and era is ultimately shaped by its social production conditions, which change over time. For this reason, political culture does not appear to be independent; it cannot exist or develop on its own. However, although political culture changes with changes in the social productive conditions that determine it, the timing of those changes is often not synchronized. It may outpace or lag behind real social development. In this sense, political culture possesses relative autonomy as it develops alongside real social development. This autonomy does not arise from political culture itself as an ideological form. Rather, it stems from the autonomy of the political forms to which political culture adapts, as well as the processes and characteristics through which its producers generate ideas and concepts.
First, the independence of political forms determines the independence of the corresponding political culture. Political forms belong to the superstructure and are determined by the economic base. Fundamentally, the political form of any society changes with changes in the conditions of social production that determine it. However, a political form emerges to address the needs of social development and regulation within society. Specifically, the state system possesses a certain relative independence once it comes into being. This, in turn, shapes the role of political forms as they adapt to the evolution of social production.
From the standpoint of the division of labor within society, Friedrich Engels explained how the relative independence of the state system comes about. According to Engels, society produces certain common functions necessary for its existence. Those appointed to carry out these functions form a new branch of the division of labor within society. In this way, they acquire special interests that oppose those who empowered them. In their relations with the latter group, these individuals become independent, and thus, the state arises.
Generally, this new, independent power follows the movement of production. However, due to its inherent relative independence, which grows once acquired, the state affects the conditions and course of production. Engels further held that when a particular class forms and controls the state system to serve its interests, the state becomes more independent.
Due to the relative independence of political forms, they often do not synchronize with social development, which changes and develops alongside social production. As Engels pointed out,
“Society’s political structure does not change in step with these violent transformations in the conditions of economic life. When society increasingly becomes bourgeois, the state system remains feudal.”
Frederick Engels, Anti-Dühring, 1877
Part I: Philosophy, X. Morality and Law, Equality
The relative independence of socio-political forms, along with the resulting lack of synchronization with social development, determines the degree of autonomy that the corresponding political culture possesses when adapting to social development.
Second, the characteristics of those who produce political culture, as well as their methods of production, determine political culture’s leading and lagging tendencies as it adapts to social development. Human beings produce political culture, and this production is based on active reflection on reality. This active reflection gives cultural production relative autonomy. The resulting ideas and notions depend not only on the reality presented by society, but also on how people understand its conditions, laws of development, and their own interests and ideals that they seek to achieve through social participation.
Thus, the ideas and notions formed through reflection on real life in society may have one of three orientations: conservative, realistic, or idealistic. People’s orientation in this regard directly influences whether political culture adapts to social development ahead of time or lags behind. Generally, political culture lags behind social existence because “people’s thoughts do not keep pace with the course of events.” This can be explained by the fact that reflecting reality takes time. However, the active nature of reflection enables people to grasp the laws of social development and articulate new possibilities or directions in social and political development in advance. When these ideas become the guiding force for the development of political culture, political culture is ahead of social development.
As discussed above, two major sets of factors determine that political culture has a certain degree of autonomy from overall social development. This autonomy is necessary for political culture to influence sociopolitical development. Without relative autonomy, there can be no feedback effect, or dialectical relationship.
The strength and type of the feedback effect depend on the tendencies that political culture displays within this relative autonomy. Generally, the political culture of any society is unlikely to be purely backward or purely advanced. More often, the two tendencies coexist, and the decisive question is which tendency is dominant. V. I. Lenin once said:
“Every nation’s culture contains elements of democratic and socialist culture, even if they are not yet well developed. However, every nation also has bourgeois culture, which is not merely a set of ‘elements’ but the dominant culture.”
V. I. Lenin, Critical Remarks on the National Question, 2.“NATIONAL CULTURE”
The relative autonomy of political culture means that its development follows an internal logic. Friedrich Engels acknowledged this internal logic. He wrote,
“Once any ideology emerges, it develops in conjunction with the existing stock of ideas and further processes that materialize; otherwise, it would not be ideology…”
Frederick Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, Part 4: Marx
This internal logic is expressed through two things: the historical continuity and inheritance of political culture (analyzed above), and the interaction between political culture and contemporary society.
While political culture is ultimately shaped by the material conditions of real society, the process is not simple. Rather, it is a process of mutual interaction with real society. In this process, society selects culture, culture influences society, and society promotes culture. This cycle repeats with each element directly adjusting to the others.
Engels held that history develops through the interaction of a wide variety of factors resting on an economic foundation. These factors include political and legal institutions, as well as political, legal, philosophical, and religious theories. In his view, denying this interaction would make applying the theory to any historical period easier than solving the simplest equation. Since historical development proceeds through the interaction of multiple economic factors, the development of political culture is not simply a one-way process of determination or an arbitrary process of free choice. Rather, it is an interactive process with society.
Political culture establishes the practical and logical starting points necessary for its development through interaction, as well as the distinctive value orientations internal to its development. Proletarian political culture has taken shape based on Marxism, its guiding ideology, through continuous integration with concrete practice and scientific summarization of practical experience.
The internal logic of political-cultural development demonstrates its active, non-mechanical nature as it evolves through ongoing interaction with society. Therefore, promoting the development of a society’s political culture cannot be achieved through socioeconomic development alone or by relying on advanced political theory alone. Rather, interaction is required between ideas, concepts, theory, and social reality.
II. Political culture is anticipatory and predictive
Political culture’s relative independence means its development follows an internal logic. Because of this internal logic, political culture can take the lead in relation to social development. One important expression of this internal logic is historical continuity and inheritance.
Engels concluded that a country that is economically backward can still “play first fiddle” in philosophy based on the historical continuity of ideas. He wrote:
“Each epoch’s philosophy, as a particular domain within the division of labor, presupposes certain intellectual material handed down by its predecessors, which it uses as a point of departure. This is why economically backward countries can play a leading role in philosophy: France in the eighteenth century, for example, as opposed to England (whose philosophy the French adopted), and later Germany, as opposed to both England and France. However, in both France and Germany, philosophy, like the general blossoming of literature at that time, was also the result of an economic upswing.”
Marx-Engels Correspondence 1893, Engels to Franz Mehring, July 14, 1893
Here, Engels not only affirms that ideological and cultural life can be “ahead,” but also explains what this “aheadness” entails. There are two important points to consider.
First, advanced ideological and cultural development does not result from subjective fantasy. Rather, it proceeds according to its own internal logic. During this process, the intellectual materials left by earlier generations provide an important foundation on which ideology and culture can surpass social development. Specifically, the “aheadness” of ideology and culture initially manifests as the “aheadness” of thinkers’ ideas. However, this is not mainly due to the thinkers’ personal merit because:
Historical ideologists (where “history” is shorthand for everything belonging to society rather than nature—politics, law, philosophy, theology, etc.) in every branch of science have a certain material formed independently out of the thinking of earlier generations that has passed through its own independent course of development in the brains of successive generations. Of course, external facts belonging to this or that sphere can also influence this development as concurrent causes.
Therefore, when contemporary thinkers have access to enough historical knowledge to form ideas that go beyond what ongoing social development seems to allow, the ideological and cultural life of that society may surpass its overall social development.
Second, a society’s intellectual and cultural life may surpass what its development seems to allow, but it cannot exceed what its historical era makes possible. When Marx analyzed how German thought could outpace Germany’s social development, he pointed out:
“If speculative jurisprudence—the abstract, remote-from-life thinking about the modern state, whose reality still lies beyond the Rhine—could arise only in Germany, then conversely, the possibility for Germans to abstract the thought-image of the modern state from real man existed only because the modern state itself abstracts from real man or only satisfies the whole man in imagination.” In politics, the Germans have thought what other nations have done. Germany was the theoretical conscience of these nations.”
Works of Karl Marx 1843, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
Introduction
Marx also wrote that “German jurisprudence and the philosophy of the state” constituted “the only German history which stands on a level with the official contemporary reality.” This shows that, in the final analysis, German jurisprudence and the philosophy of the state were nothing more than reflections of the era’s development—only in this case, the reflection went beyond the thinkers’ own country and grasped the movement of the age directly.
From the two viewpoints discussed above, we can see that the “advanced” development of thought and culture is not solely due to inherited intellectual materials. More importantly, advanced thought and culture directly grasp and reflect the newest possibilities in real social development and the necessary outlook toward which that development is heading. In this sense, genuinely “advanced” thought and culture must be foresighted. Such advanced, foresighted thought and culture emerge through the deepest study and understanding of society.
Therefore, the extent to which thought and culture can progress and be foreseen depends on two factors.
First, the level of maturity of the society being studied. This is the condition for forming an advanced culture of ideas that can effectively predict and propel social progress. As is well known, the immaturity of bourgeois social relations was an important reason why socialist doctrines from the late eighteenth to the early nineteenth centuries were utopian. Engels noted:
“As we saw, the Utopians were Utopians because they could be nothing else at a time when capitalist production was so underdeveloped. They had to create the elements of a new society from scratch because the elements of the new society were not yet apparent within the old society. For the basic plan of the new society, they could only appeal to reason because they could not yet appeal to contemporary history.”
Frederick Engels 1877, Anti-Dühring, Part III: Socialism, I. Historical
The second factor is the extent to which thought and culture grasp the overall trend of social development. The more comprehensive and accurate that understanding is, the more profound and foresighted the thought will be. Marxism’s success lies in its comprehensive and accurate grasp of the basic laws governing the development of human society, based on historical materialism. When asked about Marx’s basis for discussing the future of communism, Lenin responded that communism arises from capitalism and develops historically from it. It is the result of the social forces produced by capitalism. Lenin wrote that Marx “did not in the least want to invent Utopias” or “guess at what cannot be known,” and that Marx approached the subject of communism much as the natural sciences approach the development of a new biological species—because we already know how that species arose and in what direction it is evolving.
Advanced (ahead-of-its-time) ideological and cultural thinking will, in turn, exert a positive countervailing influence on the political development of real-world society. This influence rests on two facts:
First, advanced thought and culture can foresee the direction of social development to a certain extent. Accurate foresight can guide society toward the right path. Summing up the revolutionary prospects revealed by Marx’s historical-materialist analysis of capitalist society, Engels wrote:
“The prospect of a gigantic revolution, the most gigantic revolution ever, presents itself as soon as we further pursue our materialist thesis and apply it to the present.”
Review by Frederick Engels of Karl Marx, “A Contribution to the Critique of Political economy”
However advanced, forward-looking thought and culture do not automatically drive social development simply because they are “ahead.” First, they must become an actual necessity for social development. As Karl Marx observed,
“The extent to which a theory is realized in a country depends on the extent to which it satisfies that country’s needs.”
Works of Karl Marx 1843, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
Introduction
However, this does not mean that theory and ideas should submit to reality. For theory to become a real need, theory and ideas must accurately reflect the laws and tendencies of social development and strive to guide reality. In addition, reality itself must adapt to theory and ideas in accordance with the demands of ideals and ideas. Thus, Marx also said:
“It is not enough for thought to strive for realization; reality itself must strive toward thought.”
Works of Karl Marx 1843, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
Introduction
Second, advanced thought and culture can lead real social and political revolutions. In eighteenth-century France, the philosophical revolution preceded the political revolution. This is because the French Enlightenment—especially French materialism—was a struggle not only against the existing political system but also against existing religion and theology. It was also a struggle against seventeenth-century metaphysics and metaphysics of every kind. After forming an ideology suited to their class position through these struggles, the French bourgeoisie began carrying out a thorough revolution—the French Revolution.
Advanced, forward-looking thought and culture do not automatically drive social development simply because they are “ahead.” First, they must become an actual necessity for social development. As Karl Marx observed,
“The extent to which a theory is realized in a country depends on the extent to which it satisfies that country’s needs.”
Works of Karl Marx 1843, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
Introduction
However, this does not mean that theory and ideas should submit to reality. For theory to become a real need, theory and ideas must accurately reflect the laws and tendencies of social development and strive to guide reality. In addition, reality itself must adapt to theory and ideas in accordance with the demands of ideals and ideas. Thus, Marx also said:
“It is not enough for thought to strive for realization; reality itself must strive toward thought.”
Works of Karl Marx 1843, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
Introduction
Second, thought and culture must link up with real social movements. Vladimir Lenin regarded the process of building socialism as a living, creative undertaking of the working class, not a bureaucratic matter of “carrying out” something prearranged.
“The wisdom of millions of creators,” he said, “will create something superior even to the greatest genius’s foresight.”
V. I. Lenin, Fear Of The Collapse Of The Old And The Fight For The New, 1917
Therefore, a forward-looking, predictive theory cannot remain in the realm of ideas; it must enter the realm of practice and combine with social movements. Only through the efforts of millions can it become concrete and come alive. Only then can it be embodied in practical results through their labor and struggle.
III. Political Culture Lags Behind
The relative autonomy of political culture can manifest as being ahead of its time, predictive, or lagging behind. Judged by the basic patterns of human cognition and socio-historical development, lags are extremely common in political culture.
This lag mainly shows up in social consciousness falling behind social existence, or people’s economic position. Residues of old ideas reflecting an old system remain in people’s minds for a long time. In 1919, Lenin gave a vivid description of this lag when speaking of the Russian peasantry:
“Anyone who has spent time in the countryside knows that even thirty years earlier, there were many elderly people in the villages who said, ‘It was better under serfdom—there was more order, things were stricter, and women dressed more plainly.’
Reading the works of Gleb Uspensky, we see descriptions from the 1880s and 1890s of simple, upright old peasants—and sometimes even middle-aged people—who said it was better in the days of serfdom. The old social system has been abolished, but it cannot be abolished all at once in people’s consciousness. There will still be many who long for the past.”
V. I. Lenin, Session Of The Petrograd Soviet, March 12, 1919, I. Report On The Foreign And Home Policy Of The Council Of People’s Commissars
This shows that the disintegration of an old system does not mean that the political culture suited to that system disintegrates immediately. On the contrary, old ideas, viewpoints, and values belonging to the era represented by the old system are preserved for a long time and wither away gradually.
The reasons political culture can lag are connected not only with the relative autonomy of the political forms analyzed above and the processes and characteristics by which cultural producers create culture, but also with tradition. The political culture of any society is formed and develops along a particular historical trajectory based on the selection, inheritance, and continuation of a historical-cultural legacy. Therefore, political culture in any society contains traditional elements. While not all traditional elements hinder social change and development, the longer tradition exists, the more it inevitably includes negative elements that restrict social progress. The existence of these elements is an important reason why political culture can lag. Friedrich Engels said:
“In all ideological domains, tradition forms a great conservative force.”
Frederick Engels, Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy, Part 4: Marx
If the social basis for the advanced character of political culture lies in a society’s few revolutionary thinkers, then the social basis for its lagging character lies in the masses. After a long and continuous process of socialization, the masses inevitably identify with their society to varying degrees and in different ways. They develop life attitudes, habits, patterns of thought, value principles, and personality traits that align with societal expectations. These all take shape through long-term living and have been internalized as basic principles and ways of life that guide people. Therefore, expecting them to immediately change their life principles and ways of life as social life changes in a short period of time is obviously impossible. Hence Marx said:
“People’s ideas do not keep pace with the march of events.”
Karl Marx, The French Crédit Mobilier, 1856, New York Tribune
Before they can form principles and ways of life suited to the requirements of the changed society, the old principles and ways of life they still hold—taken as a kind of culture—become a retarding force in social development.
The negative feedback effect of the lagging character of political culture on real social life is that it obstructs or limits the pace and scope of social transformation and development. This negative feedback effect is expressed in three main ways:
First, there is a lack of identification with social transformation and development. Social change and development require people to abandon old ways of life, habits, patterns of interest, and emotional commitments. However, because people are influenced by old ideas and notions, they do not recognize the practical meaning and value of these changes and developments. Thus, they cannot give comprehensive assent to social change and development in a short time. Consequently, they fail to form a social force that would further propel change and development.
Second, there is resistance to the new ideas and concepts required by the new society. This is essentially a cultural conflict. When this conflict takes the form of class struggle, the resistance of old ideas and notions to social development and new ideas becomes even more confrontational.
Marx and Engels said:
“The greater the contradiction between the forms of intercourse of the existing society and the conditions of the ruling class, on the one hand, and the developing productive forces, on the other, the greater the cleavage within the ruling class itself and between it and the ruled class. The consciousness that originally corresponded to this form of intercourse becomes untrue, i.e., no longer corresponding to it. The old traditional ideas sink down to mere idealistic phrases, conscious illusions, and deliberate hypocrisy.” However, the more life reveals these things for what they are, the less effect they have on consciousness itself. The more resolutely they are defended, the more hypocritical, moralizing, and holy the language of this society becomes.”
Third, the effects on the behavior of social members. Marxism holds that the feelings and ideas people inherit through tradition and education do not determine their behavior; rather, people’s behavior is determined by their interests. However, Marxism also holds that human beings are social animals shaped by culture. Therefore, the culture people inherit influences their social and political behavior to a certain extent. Old ideological culture constrains people’s behavior. When analyzing the British workers’ movement, Engels observed this effect. He said,
“The English still hold a law-abiding outlook that obstructs them from engaging in this kind of violent revolution.”
Friedrich Engels, Condition of the Working Class in England, Labour Movements
Although the old political culture hinders social development in many ways, we should acknowledge that old ideas and notions, no matter how idealistic, hypocritical, or stubborn they are, are only temporary. Ultimately, they will be replaced by new ideas and notions as social development continues. As Friedrich Engels said:
“If our legal, philosophical, and religious ideas are the more or less near or distant offshoots of the economic relations that dominate in a given society, then in the long run, these ideas cannot withstand the impact produced when those economic relations are completely transformed. Unless we believe in supernatural miracles, we must admit that no religious doctrine is sufficient to shore up a tottering society.”
Frederick Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, 1892 English Edition Introduction
[History (the role of Religion) in the English middle-class]
Even though the survival of old ideas and notions is temporary, eliminating their negative effects requires time and people’s active effort.
There are two ways to eliminate the lagging effects of outdated political ideas on social development.
First, they can disappear on their own as development progresses—mainly, those ideas that sit on the surface of people’s consciousness. When people must acknowledge social change and development that has become an irresistible tide, forming new identifications naturally brings with it the abandonment of ideas and notions formed under the old identification. However, eliminating this lag also requires deliberate human effort because some old ideas and notions will not disappear quickly; in fact, they may persist and have negative effects. Vladimir Lenin pointed out:
“There is no Great Wall separating the working class from the old bourgeois society. When a revolution breaks out, it does not happen the way it does when a person dies—where you simply carry the corpse out and that’s that. When the old society perishes, its corpse cannot be packed into a coffin and buried in a grave. It rots and stinks in our midst and leaves us its poisons.”
V. I. Lenin, Joint Session of the All-Russian Entral Executive Committee, the Moscow Soviet of Workers’, Peasants’ and Red Army Deputies and the Trade Unions[1]
June 4, 1918
Clearly, this kind of intentional effort aims to uproot backward, traditional notions deeply ingrained in people’s thinking. This is chiefly achieved by advancing social development and spreading new ideas and notions. In a sense, social transformation and development will be extremely difficult and full of twists and turns—and may even fail—if these deep-seated old ideas and notions are not cleared away. Mao Zedong said,
“For a brand-new social system to be built on the base of the old system, that base must be cleared away. The remnants of old ideas that reflect the old system always linger in people’s minds, unwilling to retreat easily.”
Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, EDITOR’S NOTES FROM SOCIALIST UPSURGE IN CHINA’S COUNTRYSIDE, September and December 1955
Section 5: Political culture must be instilled
- Political culture serves political rule.
In a class society, the ruling class governs not only as the holder of political and economic power, but also as a producer of ideas. In this kind of ideological rule, they
“regulate the production and distribution of the ideas of their age.”
Ideological production involves creating the ideology necessary for the ruling class’s political domination, while ideological distribution uses that formed ideology to shape society’s members, thereby establishing the social basis for consolidating political rule, or political socialization. Thus,
“the conditions of existence of the ruling class (as determined by the preceding development of production), ideally expressed in law, morality, etc., are given by that class’s ideologists a kind of theoretical independence (more or less consciously); in the consciousness of individuals of the ruling class, they are imagined as a ‘vocation,’ and so on; and they are held up to individuals of the oppressed class as principles for living—partly as an embellishment or recognition of domination and partly as the moral means for this domination.”
Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, A Critique of the German Ideology, Abstract of Chapter 3, [Idealist mistakes & Materialist corrections]
In any society, the process of political socialization unfolds under the guidance of specific class and political objectives, serving the political rule of the ruling class.
Political socialization primarily involves political education, which is the distribution of dominant ideas and beliefs through schooling and the media to every member of society so they become “qualified” citizens. Marxists have revealed the significance of political education for political rule, and some bourgeois thinkers have also recognized its importance, calling on the government and society to pay adequate attention to it. American pragmatist John Dewey viewed schools as a safe instrument of political democracy because they can distribute the ideas of the ruling class. He said:
“The school is the essential distributing agency for whatever values and purposes any social group cherishes. It is not the only means, but it is the first means, the primary means and the most deliberate means by which the values that any social group cherishes, the purposes that it wishes to realize, are distributed and brought home to the thought, the observation, judgment and choice of the individual.”
John Dewey, Problems of Men
“No matter what fine ideals or fine resources, the products
of past experience, past human culture, exist somewhere at the
center, they become significant only as they are carried out, or
are distributed. That is true of any society, not simply of a
democratic society; but what is true of a democratic society is,
of course, that its special values and its special purposes and
aims must receive such distribution that they become part of
the mind and the will of the members of society. ”John Dewey, Problems of Men
Although Dewey maintained that recipients can think, observe, judge, and choose in the face of the values and aims distributed to them, ultimately, all of this is just a way of making those “distinctive purposes and aims” part of the psychology and will of society’s members.
Because political socialization ultimately affects class rule, the ruling class uses various means and methods to disseminate its ideas and concepts. In the process, it combats ideas that oppose political domination. In his famous book, The Condition of the Working Class in England, Engels vividly depicts this struggle:
“The various working-class factions, which sometimes unite and sometimes split up—trade union members, Chartists, and Socialists—raised funds to establish schools and reading rooms to improve workers’ knowledge.” Such facilities exist in every socialist organization, almost every chartist organization, and many individual trade unions. Here, children receive a purely proletarian education, free from all bourgeois influence. The reading rooms contain almost exclusively proletarian books and periodicals. The bourgeoisie considers these facilities very dangerous. In some of them — the ‘mechanics’ institutes” — the bourgeoisie has eliminated proletarian influence and turned them into institutions that spread scientific knowledge serving bourgeois interests among the workers.”
Friedrich Engels, Condition of the Working Class in England, 1845, Labour Movements
Here, too, political economy that idolizes free competition is preached. From this “science,” the worker can draw only one conclusion: the wisest course for him is to silently and submissively starve to death. Everything here teaches people to bow their heads and obey political and religious rule. So, what the worker hears here are sermons that urge him to be meek and compliant, to let others push him around, and to resign himself to fate.
Therefore, while political socialization spreads class ideas and conceptions, it also directly serves to safeguard class domination. For a ruling class whose political rule is already relatively secure, political socialization is a fundamental part of daily governance. However, for classes that have recently gained political power or are attempting to establish a new social order, political socialization is essential for securing political rule and establishing a new society.
Mao Zedong said:
“For many years, we communists have struggled not only for China’s political and economic revolutions, but also for its cultural revolution. The purpose of all this is to build a new society and state for the Chinese nation. In this new society and state, there will be new politics, a new economy, and a new culture. In other words, we want to transform China from a country that is politically oppressed and economically exploited into one that is politically free and economically prosperous. We also want to transform old China, which was kept ignorant and backward under the old culture, into a civilized and advanced country under a new culture.”
“At the present time, there is no doubt that we should broaden the promotion of communist ideas and intensify the study of Marxism-Leninism. Without such promotion and study, we will be unable to guide the Chinese revolution to the future socialist stage or direct the present democratic revolution to victory.”
Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, ON NEW DEMOCRACY, January 1940
The study and propaganda process that Mao advocates here is a new process of political socialization that will shape a new generation to establish a new regime and birth a new society.
A socialist society is an entirely new kind of society. As a transitional stage toward communism, its purpose is to eliminate all class exploitation and differences, as well as outdated ways of thinking and ideas, until communism is finally realized. For this reason, a socialist society must establish new production relations and cultivate generation after generation of “new socialist people.”
Marx clearly stated that, during a revolution, the proletariat should discard everything old and corrupt that has accumulated, becoming the new foundation of society.
Engels believed that education was the first of three major measures that would inevitably bring about communism. He said:
“Obviously, educated members of society will benefit society more than ignorant and uneducated people. If it is true that, once educated, the proletariat will be unwilling to endure the oppression they currently face, then, from another angle, only an educated working class can possess the calmness and prudence required for the peaceful transformation of society.”
Works of Frederick Engels, Speeches in Elberfeld, February 8, 1845
The core of political education for shaping “new socialist people” is communist education. In this type of education, establishing communist ideals and convictions occurs simultaneously with eliminating outdated ideas and notions. This is determined by the nature of socialist society itself. Since socialism must completely break with traditional ideas, Lenin believed that:
“The fundamental task of educators and of the Communist Party, the vanguard in the struggle, is to help train and educate the working people so that they overcome the old habits and customs left over from the old system—those habits and customs of private ownership that have taken deep root among the masses.”
Marxism holds that this kind of education is a long-term undertaking requiring sustained effort. When discussing how to transform people’s values about labor, Lenin argued that it would take decades for the ideas of “all for one, one for all” and “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” to replace the existing idea of “every man for himself and God for all” in people’s minds. Thus, in the Marxist view, political socialization should be an uninterrupted process that runs through a person’s entire life and the entire process of socialist construction and development.
II. Indoctrination is an important means of education
In a class-based society, the ruling class disseminates ideas and concepts that represent its interests in various ways. Sometimes it uses positive, direct instruction, and sometimes it uses negative or indirect instruction. Sometimes it embeds “education” in various social activities, and sometimes it works directly through mass communication channels. However, these methods all aim to continually inculcate the ruling class’s ideas and concepts into people so that they become an indispensable part of their thinking and will. Indoctrination is an important method for achieving effective political socialization.
Political socialization requires ongoing ideological inculcation for two main reasons.
First, in a society where exploitative classes are dominant, the ruling class is a numerical minority whose ideas represent only a minority’s thinking. In order to make these ideas the guiding principles of society as a whole, the ruling class must rely on its dominant status to universalize its ideas and present them as independent and sacred. It must also strive to secure recognition from members of other social classes and internalize these ideas in the hearts and minds of the majority. The deeper the internalization, the more solid the rule. Therefore, the ruling class is bound to adopt all kinds of means to instill its ideas in people.
Second, class consciousness does not directly arise from a class’s real social conditions. Rather, it arises only after the ideas of thinkers representing that class are continually instilled in its members. Lenin repeatedly emphasized that the working masses can never create an independent ideological system on their own and thattheir class’s political consciousness can only come from outside the class.
For any class seeking political domination, ideological indoctrination begins before domination is achieved. This is because, in order to ultimately succeed, it must first transform itself from a class “in itself” to a class “for itself.” The proletariat faces this challenge during the revolutionary process, and the bourgeoisie faces it when preparing for revolution. One could argue that the French Revolution would not have occurred without the Enlightenment.
When Engels discussed the eighteenth-century Enlightenment that helped open minds for the French Revolution, especially French materialism, he gave a highly positive assessment of its role. He wrote,
“The French materialists did not confine their criticism to matters of religious belief. They extended it to every scientific tradition and political institution they encountered.”
To prove that their doctrine could be applied universally, they took the shortest route. In the great Encyclopédie, the monumental work from which they took their name, they boldly applied their doctrine to all objects of knowledge. Thus, in one form or another—open materialism or deism—it became the creed of all educated young people in France. Its influence was so great that when the Great Revolution broke out, this doctrine—hatched by English royalists—provided French republicans and terrorists with a theoretical banner and furnished the text for the Declaration of the Rights of Man.“
Frederick Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, 1892 English Edition Introduction
[History (the role of Religion) in the English middle-class]
Similarly, the proletariat can only carry out a successful socialist revolution if it has its own system of ideas and forms its own class consciousness. When analyzing the German workers’ movement, Karl Marx pointed out:
“Philosophy turns the proletariat into its material weapon, and likewise, the proletariat turns philosophy into its spiritual weapon. Once the lightning bolt of thought strikes this virgin soil of the people, the Germans will be emancipated as human beings.”
Works of Karl Marx 1843, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right
Introduction
However, Lenin believed that for this to happen, thought must be introduced consciously from the outside. Lenin wrote,
“We have said that Social-Democratic consciousness could not have arisen among the workers. This consciousness could only be brought to them from outside. The history of all countries shows that the working class, through its own efforts alone, can develop only trade union consciousness—the conviction that it is necessary to organize unions, fight employers, and push the government to pass labor legislation. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophical, historical, and economic theories elaborated by educated representatives of the propertied classes, by intellectuals.”
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, BURNING QUESTIONS of our MOVEMENT, II, The Spontaneity of the Masses and the Consciousness of the Social-Democrats
Confronted with this reality, Joseph Stalin likewise emphasized:
“Our task—the task of Social Democracy—is to divert the spontaneous workers’ movement from the path of trade unionism and bring it onto the path of Social Democracy. Our task is to instill socialist consciousness in this movement and unite the advanced forces of the working class in a centralized party.”
J. V. Stalin, Briefly About Disagreements in the Party, May 1905
Once the proletariat seizes political power and establishes a socialist system, the primary objective of ideological “implantation” becomes instilling communist ideals and convictions among the general population. Lenin noted:
“The purpose of political culture and instruction is to educate genuine communists who can combat falsehoods and prejudices and help the working class overthrow the old order and establish a state free of capitalists, exploiters, and landlords.”
V. I. Lenin, Speech Delivered At An All-Russia Conference Of Political Education Workers Of Gubernia and Uyezd Education Departments
November 3, 1920
In this period, the forms and methods of such education would naturally be far more varied, vivid, and lively.
Marxism holds that ideological “implantation,” or ideological and political education, should run through the entire course of the proletarian revolution. At the same time, Marxism also holds that, in order for such education to have a real effect, one must resolutely oppose dogmatic preaching. Friedrich Engels observed:
“Since socialism has become a science, it must be treated as a science—that is, it must be studied.”
Frederick Engels, The Peasant War in Germany, Addendum to the Preface
Lenin likewise argued that the spirit of Marxism requires examining every proposition
- (1) historically,
- (2) in relation to other propositions, and
- (3) in relation to concrete historical experience.
Thus, communist education and propaganda are not merely the repetition of slogans and stock phrases, but rather, they are educational in nature and include the scientific Marxist worldview and methodology.
According to the Marxist view, effective political education must oppose dogmatic lecturing and be tied to the interests of the masses so that what is taught is easily accepted. V. I. Lenin made this point with particular force when he criticized Russian populism:
“When the thinkers of the working class come to understand and deeply feel this, they will acknowledge that so-called ‘ideals’ should not mean laying out the best and most convenient road, but rather defining the tasks and aims of the ‘stern struggle between social classes’ taking place in our capitalist society. Whether one’s intentions succeed depends not on how cleverly one drafts advice for ‘society’ and the ‘state,’ but on the degree to which these ideals spread within a social class. If you do not know how to bind ideals closely to the interests of those taking part in the economic struggle—linking them to such ‘narrow,’ everyday questions of that class as ‘a fair reward for labor,’ the very questions self-important populists disdain—then even the loftiest ideals are worthless.”
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, The Economic Content of Narodism and the Criticism of it in Mr. Struve’s Book, (The Reflection of Marxism in Bourgeois Literature)
Here, Lenin effectively advances three important points:
- First, any ideal must be connected to concrete, real-world tasks and objectives.
- Second, an ideal’s value lies in the extent to which it is accepted and adopted by society.
- Third, for an ideal to have a real chance of becoming a reality, it must be linked to the interests of those directly involved.
These three points offer important guiding principles for effectively publicizing and teaching communist ideals and convictions.
王沪宁等著 政治的逻辑 马克思主义政治学原理
第十二章社会存在决定社会政治意识形态
社会政治意识，即政治文化，是社会意识的重要组成部分。它由现实的经济关系以及在此基础上的政治关系决定，并反映它们。在实际的社会生活和政治生活中，社会政治意识在其形成后作为相对独立的力量，将反作用于社会和政治，对社会和政治的发展起促进或延缓作用。马克思主义是运用历史唯物主义关于社会意识和社会存在关系的理论，来分析政治文化形成和发展的基本规律，揭示政治文化本质、内容和作用的。历史唯物主义赋予了马克思主义政治文化观以充分的科学性，这与确立在行为主义基础上的现代西方资产阶级政治文化观形成了鲜明的对照。
第一节政治文化反映社会存在
一、社会存在决定政治文化
马克思主义认为，人们的社会意识包括有政治、法律、道德、科学、艺术、哲学、宗教等观念与思想，社会政治意识是社会意识的重要组成部分。用现在的概念表述，社会政治意识即政治文化。
政治文化作为政治活动中的一种主观意识领域，主要包括有政治意识、民族气质、民族精神、民族政治心理、政治思想、政治观念、政治理想、政治道德等方面的内容。在马克思主义者看来，尽管这些内容，形成的具体原因各异，表现形式不同，对政治生活所产生的作用和影响也干差万别，但它们归根到底都只不过是现实社会生活的产物，是现实社会生活的反映。马克思和恩格斯指出：“这些观念都是他们的现实关系和活动，他们的生产，他们的交往、他们的社会政治组织的有意识的表现（不管这种表现是真实的还是虚幻的）。”因此，任何社会政治文化的性质、内容及其观念取向，都不是源于思想家的理论与设想或人们的主观情感与想像，而是直接根源于现实的社会生活，是由人们的社会存在状况决定的。
社会存在决定社会意识。人们的社会存在就是他们的实际生活过程，就是社会物质生活条件，主要是物质资料的生产方式，以及必然由此产生的人们的社会联系和社会关系，它是不依赖于人们的社会意识而存在的客观实在。马克思指出，“物质生活的生产方式制约着整个社会生活、政治生活和精神生活的过程”。从根本上讲，政治文化作为一种社会意识形式，是由社会物质生活条件决定的，但由于政治文化主要是现实的政治生活的抽像，所以从形式上讲，社会物质生活条件，对于政治文化的决定不是直接的，而是间接的，它首先决定现实的政治生活，从而决定与这一定的政治生活相适应的政治文化。马克思在有关“经济基础”的一段论述中，已表明了这种决定关系。马克思说：“这些生产关系的总和构成社会的经济结构，即有法律的和政治的上层建筑竖立其上并有一定的社会意识形态与之相适应的现实基础。”因此，作为社会生活产物的政治文化，实际上是由一定社会物质条件决定的社会政治生活的抽像。
政治文化与政治生活之间的内在联系，仅停留在上层建筑的领域，因此，它们各自所反映的问题，都不能从对像寻求终极原因；它们所反映问题的终极原因，都必须到社会物质生活中去寻找。马克思主义政治文化观明确反对下列两种错误倾向。
第一，试图用政治文化观念性的东西来解释或改变政治生活现像。马克思以前的许多思想家，如黑格尔等人认为，“一切历史变动的最终原因，应当到人们变动的思想中去寻求，并且在一切历史变动中，最重要的，决定全部历史的是政治变动”。这种观念所表达的实际上是这样一种公式：思想变动决定政治变动，政治变动决定历史变动。进一步延伸的结果就是：思想等观念性东西决定社会政治生活的变化与发展。这种观念显然是错误的。对于这种错误倾向，马克思在其思想发展的早期就已有认识。在《摩塞尔记者辩护》一文中，马克思就清醒地指出：“在研究国家生活现像时，很容易走入歧途，即忽视各种关系的客观本性，而用当事人的意志来解释一切。”随后，马克思在对社会现实的进一步研究中，特别是在对黑格尔法哲学作全面清算后，形成了更为明确的思想：“我的研究得出这样一个结果：法的关系正像国家的形式一样，既不能从它们本身来理解，也不能从所谓人类精神的一般发展来理解，相反，它们根源于物质的生活关系”，“而对市民社会的解剖应该到政治经济学中去寻求。”恩格斯对马克思这一研究结果给予了极高评价。他认为，尽管这“新的世界观不仅必然遭到资产阶级代表人物的反对，而且也必然遭到一群想靠自由、平等、博爱的符咒来翻转世界的法国社会主义者的反对”，但“这个原理的最初结论就给一切唯心主义，甚至给最隐蔽的唯心主义当头一棒。关于一切历史性的东西的全部传统的和习惯的观点都被这个原理否定了”。随之，政治论证的全部传统方式，即以思想、观念来说明或论证政治社会发展的唯心主义方式也崩溃了
第二，把政治文化简单化地看作是政治生活的反映，从而直接用政治文化来解释政治现像，引导政治生活。这种错误倾向虽然不像前种错误倾向那样，把思想观点看作社会和政治发展的决定性因素，但它所表现出的唯心主义倾向与前者没有什么两样。这种倾向在当代西方政治学研究中表现得特别明显。当代一些著名的政治学家，如路辛·派伊、阿尔蒙德等人，在进行比较政治学研究时，就直截了当地根据政治文化的差异来划分不同社会的政治生活类型，断定这些社会政治生活的发展水平，然后在此基础上以西方政治文化所表达的价值取向来匡定发展中国家政治发展的目标和取向，并把政治文化的发展看作发展中国家政治发展的重要前提条件。这种倾向，不仅在理论上是错误的，而且现实也已证明是行不通的。马克思主义政治文化观认为，政治文化确实主要是现实社会政治生活的抽像，但作为社会意识形态，从根本上讲，它是社会物质生活条件以及必然由此产生的人们社会关系的反映因而，政治文化虽然反映了政治生活内容，但它还不能说明政治生活的本质，从而它也无法引导政治生活的变化与发展。能说明政治生活本质，并成为引导政治生活变化和发展的力量，应该是政治文化所反映的社会物质生活条件和社会关系，在政治生活领域，这种社会关系，主要体现为阶级关系和阶级斗争。因此，马克思和恩格斯一再指出：“一切社会变迁和政治变革的终极原因，不应当在人们的头脑中，在人们对永恒的真理和正义的日益增进的认识中去寻找，而应当在生产方式和交换方式的变更中去寻找；不应当在有关的时代的哲学中去寻找，而应当在有关的时代的经济学中去寻找。”
社会存在决定政治文化，这是马克思主义政治文化观的根本点。这其中不仅揭示了政治文化的本质特征，而且揭示了政治文化研究的科学方法。这方法要求，对于任何社会政治文化的把握，都不能仅停留在政治文化或抽像的政治生活这一层面上，而应深人到社会物质生产和社会关系的领域中去。在不同社会形态下形成的政治文化显然是不同的，其间的本质差异并不是像现代西方政治学者那样通过不同政治文化间的比较就能说明的。斯大林指出：社会历史的不同时期所以有不同的社会思想、理论、观点和政治设施，——在奴隶占有制下是一种社会思想、理论、观点和政治设施，在封建制度下是另一种，在资本主义制度下又是一种，——那不能用思想、理论、观点和政治设施本身的“本性”和“属性”来解释，而要用不同的社会发展时期的不同的社会物质生活条件来解释。准确地把握住政治文化的本质，将有助于对各种政治现像的分析和研究。
二、人是政治文化的主体
人是自己的观念、思想和理论的创造者。政治文化作为社会意识形态的一种，属于人的主观意识领域。人是政治文化的主体。从这个意义上讲，政治文化，是由一定生产关系决定的人在政治生活中的主观反映。
人成为政治文化的主体，不仅因为人是观念，思想和理论的创造者，而且还因为人也是现实社会政治生活和政治关系的创造者和主体。马克思和恩格斯指出：“以一定的方式进行生产活动的一定的个人，发生一定的社会关系和政治关系。”“社会结构和国家经常是从一定个人的生活过程中产生的”。马克思和恩格斯为了区别于以往思想家，特别是费尔巴哈的理论，一再强调，他们所说的作为主体的人，不是抽像的个人，而是现实的个人。“这里所说的个人不是他们自己或别人想像中的那种个人，而是现实中的个人，也就是说，这些个人是从事活动的，进行物质生产的，因而是在一定的物质的、不受他们任意支配的界限、前提和条件下能动地表现自己的”。马克思主义赋予作为主体的人的如此现实性，不仅使马克思主义政治文化与其他思想家的政治文化观有本质的不同，而且也使得马克思主义所理解的政治文化具有更加坚实的现实基础，并成为一种能动的力量。那些试图用人的政治观念和思想来解释政治现像，决定政治发展的思想家，正是由于抽像掉了作为政治文化主体的人的现实性才走向错误的。因为这种抽像势必使思想、观念与现实的人脱离，并在想像中成为主导人们生活和社会发展的力量，从而陷入唯心主义的泥潭
人是政治文化的主体。因此，政治文化的存在和发展都与人的活动密切相关。马克思和恩格斯指出：“思想、观念的生产最初是直接与人们的物质活动，与人们的物质交往，与现实生活的语言交织在一起的。观念、思维、人们的精神交往在这里还是人们物质关系的直接产物。表现在某一民族的政治、法律、道德、宗教、形而上学等的语言中的精神生产也是这样。”由此可见，政治文化的存在与发展，不仅与人的政治活动有关，更主要的是与人的物质活动以及在这种活动中所结成的物质关系，即生产关系有关。这一结论实际上可以从两个层面去理解：（1）从人类社会发展的层面理解，这结论表明：社会生产发展的水平在决定社会生产关系和阶级关系的同时，也同时决定该社会政治文化的内容与水平。从历史上看，资产阶级政治观念、政治价值理想的出现与发展，是与资本主义生产发展以及所带来的社会关系的变化分不开的。马克思在分析法国的《人权宣言》时指出：“在1789年，人权这一政治问题本身就包含着自由竞争这一社会问题。”马克思还指出：“现代国家既然是由于自身的发展而不得不挣脱旧的政治桎梏的市民社会的产物，所以，它就用宣布人权的办法从自己的方面来承认自己的出生地和自己的基础。”另外，就现实世界各国发展情况而言，发达国家与发展中国家之间公民政治文化差异，从根本上讲，也是源于这两类国家社会发展水平之间的差异。（2）从具体的国家的社会发展层面理解，这结论表明：在社会的物质生产活动所形成的社会关系中，不同的人在这社会关系中所处地位、所扮角色的不同，在政治生活中会形成不同的政治观念，政治价值取向和政治理想，从而在社会大的政治文化背景下，形成亚政治文化结构。在阶级社会，不同阶级，尤其是统治阶级与被统治阶级之间的政治文化差异与冲突，直接与他们在社会生产关系中所处的地位密切相关。在马克思主义看来，人在社会生产关系中所处的地位不同，就会形成不同的个人利益、团体利益和阶级利益，“人们奋斗所争取的一切，都同他们的利益有关”。而正是这些利益构成他们思想的基础。因此，任何社会，由于社会利益的多元，都势必会形成代表各种集团和阶级利益的亚政治文化。代表统治阶级的政治文化占统治地位，并规定全社会政治文化（即母政治文化）的总体倾向。
马克思主义在赋予作为主体的人的完全现实性的同时，也使人对政治文化获得了充分的能动性。人的社会存在决定人的观念。但人的观念对社会存在状况的反映，不是消极的，而是能动的，即人能够根据自身与社会发展的状况与要求，能动地反映这种状况与要求，并在此基础上形成思想与观念。对于政治文化来说，正是这种能动性使得人们能够根据社会和政治的发展规律和要求，选择或形成与这种规律与发展相适应的政治思想、政治观念、政治理论和政治理想。因此，任何一种有生命力的政治文化，在反映现实社会和政治状况的同时，也极力表达或宣扬与社会政治发展相适应的政治理想和政治理论，而这些政治理想和理论往往会对社会政治发展起到一定的促进作用。显然，在这里，人如何选择，形成与自身和社会发展的必然要求相适应的理论、思想或政治理论，就变得十分重要了，而这一点很大程度上取决于人对自身和社会存在状况的科学认识和正确把握。列宁认为，社会存在不依赖于人的意识，而且社会生活的复杂规律与过程也不能完全为社会意识所完全把握，因而对社会生活的尽可能准确的认识就变成一项十分重要的任务。他说：“人类的最高任务，就是把握经济进化（社会存在的进化）这个客观逻辑的一切主要之点，以便使自己的社会意识以及一切资本主义国家的先进阶级的意识尽可能清楚地、明确地、批判地与它相适应。”从这个意义上讲，政治文化的存在与发展不仅要取决于作为主体的人的社会物质生产活动和生产关系，而且还取决于人对自身和社会存在状况的认识水平和把握程度。
三、政治文化具有反作用
历史唯物主义基本原理表明：社会存在决定社会意识，同时，社会意识对社会存在具有反作用。因此，作为社会意识形态重要组成部分的政治文化，在其形成与发展过程中，对社会和政治的发展具有反作用。毛泽东明确指出：“一定的文化（当作观念形态的文化）是一定社会的政治和经济的反映，又给予伟大影响和作用于一定社会的政治和经济；而经济是基础，政治则是经济的集中表现。这是我们对于文化和政治，经济的关系及政治和经济关系的基本观点。”
列宁指出：“人的意识不仅反映客观世界，并且创造客观世界。”这种创造正是意识对存在作用的一种具体体现。显然，人的意识反映客观世界与人的意识反作用于客观世界是相伴随的。社会意识对社会存在的反作用，自然就使得社会意识成为影响社会发展的一股力量。因此，马克思主义在强调“历史过程中的决定性因素归根到底是现实生活的生产和再生产”的同时，也把社会意识看作影响历史发展的一个重要因素。恩格斯说：“经济状况是基础，但是对历史斗争的进程发生影响并且在许多情况下主要是决定着这一斗争的形式的，还有上层建筑的各种因素：阶级斗争的各种政治形式和这个斗争的成果——由胜利了的阶级在获胜以后建立的宪法等等，各种法权形式以及所有这些实际斗争在参加者头脑中的反映，政治的、法律的和哲学的理论，宗教的观点以及它们向教义体系的进一步发展。”政治文化主要作用对像自然是政治生活领域，这种作用对于社会政治的发展往往会产生深刻的影响。
政治文化对政治生活和政治发展的反作用，从它形成或出现的那一刻就开始了。这种反作用可分为两种形式：正作用和负作用。正作用表现为对社会和政治发展的促进；负作用则表现为对社会和政治发展的阻碍。至于一种政治文化将对社会和政治发展产生哪种作用，关键取决于政治文化的本身及其与现实社会和政治发展之间的适应关系。一般来说，一种新的政治观念，新的政治价值原则和政治理想的出现，在预示社会和政治发展的新要求与新倾向的同时，将对社会和政治的发展产生积极的影响。与此相反，一种旧的政治观念和落后的政治理想，将对社会和政治发展形成阻碍作用。在欧洲社会历史发展过程中，中世纪的神学世界观，对于现代资本主义的发展无疑是一个巨大的阻碍力量。欧洲资产阶级为了自身的发展不得不首先搬除这一阻碍力量。从文艺复兴到19世纪的许多政治思想家在构建他们的政治理论与思想时，都以批判宗教神学为起点，在被摧毁的旧的神学世界观上，构筑新的世界观。因此，恩格斯在总结德国农民战争时指出：“一般针对封建制度发出的一切攻击必然首先就是对教会的攻击，而一切革命的社会政治理论大体上必然同时就是神学异端，为要触犯当时的社会制度，就必须从制度身上剥去那一层神圣外衣。”
从以上的分析可以看出：任何社会和政治的发展，都需要一种先进的政治文化，因为，这种政治文化将会以自身所展现的新价值、新理想和新观念，对社会和政治发展起引导和促进作用。但是，一种新的、先进的政治文化的形成、发展并对社会政治产生积极作用，必然要面临两个问题：一是如何在与旧的政治文化斗争中，充分显示自身的力量，并最终占据主导地位；二是与这种斗争相适应，如何使新的政治文化为社会所普遍认同，并产生积极的社会效应。显然，这两个问题的解决，不仅关系到一个新的、先进的政治文化的命运，而且也关系到社会政治的发展
首先看第一个问题。任何一种新的政治观念、政治思想和政治理论，要在与旧的政治文化内容相对抗中显示出自己的力量，并不在于这些新的观念、思想、理论所追求的境界，所表达的理想，与旧的相比有多少的高远和宏大，关键在于这些新观念、思想、理论对社会现实反映的深刻程度和对社会政治发展规律的揭示程度。列宁在评价马克思的唯物史观时指出：马克思万分确定地表述了自己的观点，这些观点对从前的社会主义者来说，完全是“新东西”。其所以是新东西，是因为马克思不以从前的社会主义者的有关论述为满足，“他并不限于评论现代制度，评价和斥责这个制度，他还对这个制度作了科学的解释，把这个在欧洲各国和非欧洲各国表现得不同的现代制度归结为一个共同基础即资本主义社会形态，并对这个社会形态的活动规律和发展规律作了客观分析（他指明了这个制度下的剥削的必然性）”。“他以对资本主义制度的这种客观分析证明了资本主义制度变为社会主义制度的必然性”。显然，只有这种新思想、新理论、新观念，才是最有生命力的，它们将随着构成其现实基础的社会和政治发展，在旧的政治文化面前显示出越来越强大的力量，直至完全占据主导地位。在历史上，资产阶级经典世界观——法学世界观代替中世纪神学世界观，也正是因为旧的世界观已无法适应改变了的经济条件和新阶级的生活方式，而新的世界观不仅适应了这一切，而且也为这一切的进一步发展提供了新的可能。当然，使旧的政治文化体系瓦解的真正力量，最后还是社会生产关系和社会制度的重大变化。“旧思想的瓦解是同旧生活条件的瓦解步调一致的“
一种先进的政治思想、理论、观念要取代旧的、落后的思想、理论、观念，除了取决自身所具有的生命力外，还取决于这些新思想、新理论、新观念，被社会的接受和认同程度。如果这些新的东西被社会大多数人或主要的阶级所接受，那它们就会化成强大的力量。正如马克思所说：“批判的武器当然不能代替武器的批判，物质力量只能用物质力量来摧毁；但是理论一经掌握群众，也会变成物质力量。理论只要说服人，就能掌握群众；而理论上只要彻底，就能说服人。所谓彻底，就是抓住事物的根本。”但是，如果这“抓住事物根本”的理论，由于种种原因，尤其是接受者本身的原因，缺乏对理论本身的高度认同，那么这种理论也就无法完全化为推动社会和政治发展的力量。恩格斯在解释为什么德国工人运动与欧洲其他国家相比，显得那么强大有力和不可战胜时认为，其中的一个重要原因是科学社会主义在欧洲其他国家无法像在德国那样深人工人的血肉。“英国工人运动虽然单个行业有很好的组织，但是前进得非常缓慢，其主要原因之一就是对于一切理论的漠视；另一方面，法国人和比利时人由于原有形式的蒲鲁东主义的传播而发生混乱和动摇，西班牙人和意大利人则由于被巴枯宁滑稽化的蒲鲁东主义的传播而发生混乱和动摇”。恩格斯在此所反映的事实已经说明了问题。
人类社会和政治发展的历史表明：一种新的政治思想、理论和观念要代替旧的政治思想、理论和观念，并对社会和政治发展起积极的推动作用，需经历一个曲折反复的过程。这过程将需要一定的时间，时间的长短，从根本上讲，取决于构成那些新政治思想、理论和观念基础的新社会形态或新政治形态走向成熟的过程和速度
第二节政治文化具有阶级属性
一、政治文化反映阶级利益
政治文化的主体是人，人是政治文化的生产者和承受者。马克思主义赋予作为主体的人充分的现实性，因此，这里的人是现实的，从事生产活动和社会活动的人。在阶级社会，人们在社会生产中结成的交往关系必然反映为一定的阶级关系，因而，人们所从事的生产活动和社会活动，最终都可归结为阶级活动。正如列宁所说：“个人在每个社会经济形态范围内的活动，这些极为多样的似乎不能加以任何系统化的活动，已被综合起来，归结为在生产关系体系中所起的作用上、在生产条件上、因而在生活环境的条件上、在这种环境所决定的利益上彼此不同的个人的集团的活动，一句话，归结为阶级活动，而这些阶级斗争决定着社会的发展。”正是由于在阶级社会中，人的活动与关系都与阶级活动和阶级关系密切地联系在一起，所以，每一个人都是在一定的阶级地位上生活和活动。政治文化主体的阶级性，决定了政治文化都是具有阶级性的，都是一定阶级的思想、观念、理论、价值观和情感的综合体现。这正如毛泽东所指出的那样：“在阶级社会中，每一个人都在一定的阶级地位中生活，各种思想无不打上阶级的烙印。”从总体上讲，一个社会的政治文化，反映了这个社会的阶级关系
在阶级社会，每一阶级都有自己的政治要求、政治理想和政治观点等，这些就构成了每一阶级的政治文化。每一阶级的政治文化都是在决定他们阶级地位的生产和交换活动中形成的。恩格斯在分析不同阶级道德观念形成时指出：“如果我们看到，现代社会的三个阶级即封建贵族、资产阶级和无产阶级都各有自己的特殊的道德，那末我们由此只能得出这样的结论：人们自觉地或不自觉地，归根到底总是从他们阶级地位所依据的实际关系中——从他们进行生产和交换的经济关系中，吸取自己的道德观念。”简单讲，每一阶级在生产关系体系中所进行的活动的性质和内容，构成该阶级政治文化的基础
在马克思主义者看来，任何一个阶级，在决定他们阶级地位的生产活动和社会活动中，形成本阶级特殊的阶级利益。每一阶级政治文化的内容和价值取向正是由本阶级的特殊利益决定的。马克思在《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》一文中，以天才的智慧展现了法国社会各阶级的特殊利益如何驱使各阶级在这场重大的政治运动中扮演各自的角色。马克思认为，法国的小农之所以热衷于“拿破仑观念”，并在此基础上选择了波拿巴，在很大程度上，正是那些不开化的，迷信而富有偏见的，想固守在小块土地所决定的社会存在条件下生活的农民的共同利益决定的，尽管资本主义的发展已使得这些小块土地愈来愈多地脱离农民，并将其投入资本的炼金炉中去。马克思在分析这场社会政治运动中的另外两个角色时，也注意到了阶级利益所起到的决定性作用。他说：“如果奥尔良派和正统派这两个集团中每一个集团，都硬要自己和别人相信它们彼此分离是由于它们对两个不同王朝的眷恋，那末后来的事实所证明的却刚刚相反，正是它们利益的对立才使得这两个王朝不能结合为一”由此可见，阶级利益对于阶级成员的思想、观念和行为都有决定性的意义。一定的政治文化正是由一定的阶级利益决定，并反映一定的阶级利益。因此，在分析和判断一种政治文化时，不仅要看政治文化本身的内容，而且要分析政治文化所代表的阶级利益。列宁指出：“当人们还不会从任何一种有关道德、宗教、政治和社会的言论、声明和诺言中揭示出这些或那些阶级的利益时，他们无论是过去或将来总是在政治上作受人欺骗和自己欺骗自己的愚蠢的牺牲品。”
政治文化由一定的阶级利益决定，并反映一定阶级利益。所以，任何政治文化都不能与相应的阶级利益相分离，变成纯粹的概念、原则、口号和幻想。如果真这样做了，那么后果将是极其可怕的，甚至是危险的。马克思和恩格斯指出：思想一旦离开“利益”，就一定会使自己出丑。例如，德国的小资产阶级在把法国的自由主义与其所代表的阶级利益割裂开来后，自己却在法国的自由主义面前出尽了丑态。对此，马克思和恩格斯有过一段精彩的描绘：“在康德那里，我们又发现了以现实的阶级利益为基础的法国自由主义在德国采取的特有形式。不管是康德或德国市民（康德是他们的利益的粉饰者），都没有觉察到资产阶级的这些理论思想是以物质利益和由物质生产关系所决定的意志为基础的。因此，康德把这种理论的表达与它所表达的利益割裂开来，并把法国资产阶级意志的有物质动机的规定变为‘自由意志’，自在和自为的意志，人类意志的纯粹自我规定，从而就把这种意志变成纯粹思想上的概念规定和道德假设。因此当这种强有力的资产阶级自由主义的实践以恐怖统治和无耻的资产阶级钻营的形态出现的时候，德国小资产者就在这种资产阶级自由主义的实践面前畏缩倒退了。”
任何阶级的政治文化都是由特定的物质活动和阶级利益决定的，不同阶级的政治文化往往存在着差异。这种差异在统治与被统治阶级之间表现得尤其明显。在资本主义社会，“工人比起资产阶级来，说的是另一种习惯语，有另一套思想和观念，另一套习俗和道德原则，另一种宗教和政治。这是两种完全不同的人，他们彼此是这样地不相同，就好像他们是属于不同的种族一样”。政治文化的差异，只不过是阶级利益差异的体现。不同阶级之间的利益斗争与冲突，必然要反映到作为观念形态的政治文化上来，也就是说，不同阶级间政治文化的矛盾和冲突，正是它们之间现实的阶级利益斗争与冲突的必然体现。所以“一切历史上的斗争，无论是在政治、宗教、哲学的领域中进行的，还是在任何其他意识形态领域中进行的，实际上只是各社会阶级的斗争或多或少明显的表现”。在欧洲历史上，从文艺复兴以来不断掀起的宗教改革运动，新时代思想家所倡导的天赋人权、社会契约、自然法等这些充满理性色彩的新政治观与在中世纪占统治地位的神权说、原罪说和神造国家说等旧政治观之间的长时间的冲突、斗争，正是新兴的市民阶级与封建贵族、僧侣之间的斗争在社会政治意识形态上的体现。“当基督教思想在十八世纪被启蒙思想击败的时候，封建社会正在同当时革命的资产阶级进行殊死的斗争”。到了19世纪末20世纪初，社会主义理论与资产阶级意识形态之间的斗争，是日益壮大的无产阶级与资产阶级之间斗争在思想和文化上的反映。这正如恩格斯所说：“社会主义现在已经不再被看做某个天才头脑的偶然发现，而被看做两个历史地产生的阶级无产阶级和资产阶级间斗争的必然产物。”
二、统治阶级思想占统治地位
在划分为阶级的社会中，不同的阶级由于其阶级利益的差异形成不同的政治文化。不同政治文化在社会中所处的地位，是由其所代表的阶级的地位决定的。统治阶级的政治文化在不同阶级政治文化中占据统治地位，这在每一时代，每一国家都是如此。马克思和恩格斯分析指出：“统治阶级的思想在每一时代都是占统治地位的思想。这就是说，一个阶级是社会上占统治地位的物质力量，同时也是社会上占统治地位的精神力量。···占统治地位的思想不过是占统治地位的物质关系在观念上的表现，不过是以思想的形式表现出来的占统治地位的物质关系：因而，这就是那些使某一个阶级成为统治阶级的各种关系的表现，因而这也就是这个阶级的统治的思想”
统治阶级的思想对于社会的统治力量是随着统治阶级的统治地位的获得而获得的。统治阶级把代表自身利益的思想置于统治地位，不仅是它们的阶级地位决定的，而且也是它们进行有效的政治统治的要求。阶级社会的历史发展一再证明，任何阶级的政治统治，都离不开思想统治，即意识形态的统治。意识形态的统治是统治阶级用表达自己利益与意志的思想对全社会的统治。但是当统治阶级尚未取得统治地位之前，代表它们利益的思想也仅仅作为一种阶级思想而存在。尽管后来随着它们统治地位的获得，这种阶级思想也上升为统治阶级思想，但这并不等于它即刻就具有了政治统治所需要的意识形态与统治的功能，即对全社会思想进行统治的功能。历史事实表明：统治阶级思想统治全社会的功能是在统治阶级获得与巩固统治地位这一历史过程中逐步获得的。在这过程中，每一个试图取得统治的阶级，都要进行两项必要的工作：一是把本阶级的利益和反映这利益的思想上升为普遍利益和普遍思想；二是将本阶级的思想作为新思想与代表旧统治阶级利益的思想相对抗，并最终将其涤除。
前面的分析已经表明，不同阶级的政治文化是阶级利益决定的，政治文化与阶级利益是不能割裂开来的。这意味着一个被统治阶级或试图取得统治地位的阶级的思想，在它们的最初都只有阶级意义。但是，一个试图取得统治地位的阶级在与现存的统治阶级对抗时，必须得到社会全体成员的支持与认同，否则，就很难在对抗中获胜。为此，它首先要使代表自己意志和利益的思想、愿望、理想、原则及至一些口号，得到社会全体成员的认同与响应。要做到这一点，它必须把本阶级的利益上升为社会的“共同利益”，相应地赋予自己的思想以普遍性的形式，从而使本阶级俨然以全社会代表的身份，以全体群众的姿态反对惟一的统治阶级。正是在这样的过程中，试图取得统治地位的阶级才逐渐使代表本阶级利益的思想获得指导全社会的意识形态形式。当统治阶级获得统治地位时，它也就成了对全社会进行统治的意识形态。马克思和恩格斯认为，试图取得统治地位的阶级之所以能这样做，“是因为它的利益在开始时的确同其余一切非统治阶级的共同利益还有更多的联系，在当时存在的那些关系的压力下还来不及发展为特殊阶级的特殊利益。因此，这一阶级的胜利对于其他未能争得统治的阶级中的许多个人说来也是有利的，但这只是就这种胜利使这些个人有可能上升到统治阶级行列这一点讲的”。
既然试图取得统治地位的阶级是以全社会的代表身份与旧的统治对抗，那么，它在试图推翻旧的统治的同时，还要摧毁与旧的统治相适应的旧的意识形态，并代之以新的意识形态。因此，伴随着新旧之间的阶级斗争，必然有新旧思想和新旧文化之间的斗争。新的阶级要获得统治，并巩固统治，它就必须使自己的思想在这种斗争中获胜，并尽力清除旧的思想意志的影响。只有在这种斗争中，新阶级的思想才能获得指导全社会的意识形态形式；并在取得统治地位后，获得意识形态统治的功能。正因为如此，所以“资产阶级在它已经取得了统治的地方把一切封建的、宗法的和田园诗般的关系都破坏了。···它把宗教的虔诚、骑士的热忱、小市民的伤感这些情感的神圣激发，淹没在利已主义打算的冰水之中。它把人的尊严变成了交换价值，用一种没有良心的贸易自由代替了无数特许的和自力挣得的自由。总而言之，它用公开的、无耻的、直接的、露骨的剥削代替了由宗教幻想和政治幻想掩盖着的剥削“
就具体思想统治而言，统治阶级思想对社会的统治，是通过一定的物质基础和思想的生产者实现的。马克思和恩格斯指出：“支配着物质生产资料的阶级，同时也支配着精神生产的资料，因此，那些没有精神生产资料的人的思想，一般地是受统治阶级支配的。”统治阶级对精神生产资料的支配，使得它能随心所欲地创造，表达自己的思想，使得它有可能运用所有的手段把自己的思想传播到社会的每一角落，灌进每一个人的思想；使得它能够按照本阶级的意志，用本阶级的思想与要求去塑造“合格”的社会成员的情感与态度，以利于阶级统治。因此，统治阶级思想对社会统治，正是依靠了统治阶级对精神生产资料的支配与运用
统治阶级思想对社会的统治，除了依赖统治阶级对精神的生产资料的支配外，还有赖于统治阶级借助这些精神生产资料所进行的思想生产。任何统治阶级为了维护自身的统治，都必须成为思想的生产者，都必须不断地生产自己的思想、理论、观念，并借此来规范和决定整个社会和时代。马克思和恩格斯指出：“构成统治阶级的各个个人也都具有意识，因而他们也思维；既然他们正是作为一个阶级而进行统治，并且决定着某一个历史时代的整个面貌，不言而喻，他们在这个历史时代的一切领域中也会这样做，就是说，他们还作为思维着的人，作为思想的生产者而进行统治，他们调节着自己时代的思想的生产和分配；而这就意味着他们的思想是一个时代的占统治地位的思想。”对此，马克思和恩格斯予以举例说明。他们认为，如果在某国的某个时期，王权、贵族和资产阶级分享统治，那么在那里占统治地位的思想就会是关于分权的学说：而且为了各自的阶级利益，人们都会把分权当作“永恒的规律”来谈论
任何统治阶级的思想生产，都不是由整个阶级来进行的，而是通过统治阶级的思想家来进行。在马克思主义看来，这些思想家为统治阶级所进行的思想生产，只不过是从理论上把以观念形式表现在法律、道德等等中的统治阶级的存在条件变成某种独立自在的观念形态，从而使这些观念形态在形式上与实际的统治阶级的利益分离，以抽像的形式成为统治阶级用以反对被压迫阶级的个人的生活准则；另一方面，思想家们还将使这些观念形态灌人统治阶级的每个人的意识，使他们在自身的意识中把观念形态与所侣导的东西设想为某种使命。很显然，统治阶级思想家的这种思想的生产，不仅决定了统治阶级政治文化的总体精神原则和表现形态：而且借助统治阶级的政治力量和经济力量，还规范或决定了其他阶级的政治文化的基本取向，从而使整个社会的政治生活和精神生活都在由他们以抽像形式规定的，并得到统治力量支持的社会生活原则下展开。
三、无产阶级政治文化是人类思想的最高结晶
和任何其他阶级一样，作为现代社会新生产力代表的无产阶级在革命和斗争中，也形成了自己的政治文化。由于无产阶级的性质和肩负的历史使命与历史上的所有其他阶级都有本质的不同，因此，无产阶级的政治文化包含有全新的内容。
无产阶级政治文化是无产阶级与资产阶级进行长期斗争的过程中形成和发展起来的。它随着无产阶级从自在阶级走向自为阶级而逐渐趋于成熟。社会主义从空想到科学的发展过程已充分证明了这一点。马克思所创立的历史唯物主义和剩余价值学说的出现，是无产阶级政治文化成熟的标志。在长期的革命斗争实践中，无产阶级政治文化，不仅教育和引导了一批又一批无产阶级，而且为无产阶级革命提供了丰富的思想武器。巴黎公社、十月革命和中国的新民主主义革命，大大丰富和发展了无产阶级政治文化，使无产阶级政治文化更具有实践的指导意义
无产阶级政治文化的性质，是由无产阶级作为一个独立的阶级存在所具有的阶级利益和担负的历史使命决定的。马克思在《资本论》的第二版序言中，以十分简洁的语言表明了无产阶级的历史使命：“这个阶级的历史使命是推翻资本主义生产方式和最后消灭阶级。”因此，无产阶级将在革命中“同传统的所有制关系实行最彻底的决裂；”“同传统的观念实行最彻底的决裂”。这两大决裂，不仅决定了无产阶级将在革命中反对现存的一切社会制度和政治制度，而且决定了在革命过程中形成的无产阶级政治文化将以全新的内容和革命的精神出现。因此，无产阶级政治文化不仅反映无产阶级运动的现在，而且它还将预示运动的未来。另外，无产阶级的阶级利益也决定了无产阶级的政治文化与其他阶级政治文化有本质不同。“过去的一切运动都是少数人的或者为少数人谋利益的运动。无产阶级的运动是绝大多数人的、为绝大多数人谋利益的独立的运动”同时，在这种运动中形成的政治文化是绝大数人利益、愿望的反映
无产阶级政治文化形成与发展的基础有两方面：一是马克思创立的科学世界观和方法论。恩格斯指出：“马克思的唯物史观帮助了工人阶级，他证明：人们的一切法律、政治、哲学、宗教等等观念归根结蒂都是从他们的经济生活条件、从他们的生产方式和产品交换方式中引导出来的。由此便产生了适合于无产阶级的生活条件和斗争条件的世界观，和工人无财产相适应的只能是他们头脑中无幻想”无产阶级政治文化也正是以历史唯物主义为基础的。这决定了无产阶级的政治文化观与其他阶级，包括现代西方学者在行为主义基础上形成的政治文化观有本质的不同。二是无产阶级革命斗争的实践以及马克思主义者对该实践的科学总结。国际共产主义运动历史表明，无产阶级政治文化是在无产阶级不断进行的革命斗争和实践中成熟和发展起来的。每一次斗争的结局不管是失败还是胜利，已成为自为阶级的无产阶级和马克思主义者都能在科学原则指导下对斗争和运动的过程及其结果予以科学而全面的总结。这些总结，丰富和发展了无产阶级政治文化，加速了无产阶级斗争和革命经验的成熟与完善。对1849年至1850年欧洲各国工人运动的总结，马克思和恩格斯提出了。“革命是历史的火车头”，“不断革命论”，“打碎旧的国家机器”，“无产阶级专政”，“工农联盟”等重要的无产阶级革命和无产阶级专政的基本理论；对巴黎公社经验的总结，马克思提出了“社会共和国”这一新的政治形式。列宁对帝国主义与无产阶级革命运动的历史总结和现实分析，提出了“一国胜利”的理论。毛泽东把马克思主义与中国革命的具体实践相结合，提出了“走农村包围城市道路”，“变旧民主主义革命为新民主主义革命”的战略思想。无产阶级政治文化，正是由于这些丰富的斗争经验以及对经验的科学总结，才形成了一个完整的思想理论体系和统一的精神原则。
无产阶级政治文化是一种先进的政治文化，这不仅是因为该文化所代表的阶级是新的生产力的代表，具有充分的先进性和革命性，而且是因为该文化是人类历史上最优秀的思想和文化成果的总结与继承，是对社会发展运动所作的科学反映与预见。列宁指出：“无产阶级文化并不是从天上掉下来的，也不是那些自命为无产阶级文化专家的人杜撰出来的，如果认为是那样，那完全是胡说。无产阶级文化应当是人类在资本主义社会、地主社会和官僚社会压迫下创造出来的全部知识合乎规律的发展。”社会主义是无产阶级的思想体系，“就其理论形式来说，它起初表现为十八世纪法国伟大启蒙学者所提出的各种原则的进一步的、似乎更彻底的发展”。马克思主义是无产阶级思想体系的核心。马克思主义在其形成和发展过程中，也并没有抛弃资产阶级时代最宝贵的成就，如德国的哲学，英国的政治经济学和法国的空想社会主义等，相反，吸收和改造了两千多年人类思想和文化发展中一切有价值的东西。因此，如果说无产阶级政治文化是对眼前的和未来的历史发展作客观的反映使自身获得坚实的现实基础的话，那么无产阶级政治文化，尤其是作为其核心的马克思主义，对人类思想和文化发展的一切有价值东西的吸收和继承，则使其获得了最高的基点。
和世界上的任何其他阶级的政治文化一样，无产阶级政治文化也有自己明确的社会理想及政治理想，这就是实现人类彻底解放的共产主义。马克思主义认为，共产主义在全世界的实现是历史发展的必然。共产主义作为一种社会形态出现，还需经历一个很长时间的奋斗过程，但作为消灭现存的状况，实现人类最后解放的运动，共产主义却是十分现实的。作为无产阶级社会和政治理想的共产主义的主要精神，就是消灭现存的状况，实现人类最终的解放。马克思和恩格斯早就明确指出：“共产主义对我们说来不是应当确立的状况，不是现实应当与之相适应的理想。我们所称为共产主义的是那种消灭现存状况的现实的运动。这个运动的条件是由现有的前提产生的。”运动的最终目标是：推翻一切旧的生产关系和交换关系的基础；将一直统治着历史的客观的异已的力量置于联合起来的个人的支配；以自由人的联合体代替存在若阶级和阶级对立的旧社会。可见，无产阶级政治文化所包含的理想，既是理想的，也是现实的。由于它直接指导着现实的无产阶级革命运动，在这运动中，无产阶级将同传统的所有制关系和传统的观念实行最彻底的决裂，所以，它不是幻想，而是行动的指南。它将决定无产阶级革命和斗争中的具体的思想、观念、理论的选择和形成。
第三节政治文化兼有现实性和历史继承性
一、政治文化具有历史继承性
人是政治文化的主体，是政治文化的生产者和承受者。人是在社会生产和社会实践活动中形成自己的思想和观念的。人们的社会生产和社会实践活动不仅决定人们的意识形态，而且也决定人类社会的历史发展。因而，马克思主义把人的社会生产和社会实践看作是一种历史活动，正如马克思所说，生产物质生活本身就是人们仅仅为了能够生活就必须每日每时都要进行的一种历史活动，人们的思想意识也正是在这种历史活动中形成和发展的。正是在这个意义上，马克思和恩格斯认为，“意识形态本身只不过是人类史的一个方面”2
人们的物质生活的生产，在不断满足自身生存和生活的基本需要的同时，也在不断地创造自己的历史。尽管人们在创造自己历史的活动中所采取的都是有意识的，经过思虑、富有激情的并有自己目的的行动，但是人们并不是随心所欲地创造自己的历史，相反，人们都是在一定的前提下创造自己的历史。马克思指出：“人们自己创造自己的历史，但是他们并不是随心所欲地创造，并不是在他们自己选定的条件下创造，而是在直接碰到的、既定的、从过去承继下来的条件下创造。”这表明，历史上的每一代人在创造自己的时候，“都遇到有一定的物质结果、一定数量的生产力总和，人和自然以及人与人之间在历史上形成的关系，都遇到有前一代传给后一代的大量生产力，资金和环境”，其中自然还包括前一代人的思想、观念和传统。当然，人们现实的社会生产和实践将会改变从历史上、从前代人那里承继下来的生产力、资金和环境；但另一方面应该看到，当人们承继了这一切，并在这基础上进行新的历史活动时，人们也不得不接受这一切预先给他们规定的生活条件，而这些生活条件在为新一代发展提供一定的基础的同时，也赋予了新一代发展以特殊的性质。
这种历史运动过程表明：人创造环境，同样环境也创造人。就人作为思想、观念的生产者在历史上的活动来看，人与文化的关系，就像人与环境的关系一样，即人创造文化，同样文化也塑造人。从历史上承继下来的思想、观念和传统，将对新一代的思想、观念形成产生影响，尽管这种影响不是决定性的。恩格斯指出：“我们自己创造着我们的历史，但是第一，我们是在十分确定的前提和条件下进行创造的。其中经济的前提和条件归根结底是决定性的。但是政治等等的前提和条件，甚至那些存在于人们头脑中的传统，也起着一定的作用，虽然不是决定性的作用。”因此，任何时代人们的思想观念，不仅是对这个时代物质经济生活的反映，而且也包含了历史上或前一代人的思想观念的继承和发挥。从这个意义上讲，任何时代的政治文化，不仅具有现实性，而且也必然具有其历史继承性
政治文化的历史继承性，是通过人的历史活动来实现的。人是政治文化的创造者，同时也是政治文化的承受者。作为政治文化的承受者，人们不仅要受特定的政治文化的影响，而且在自身的历史活动中传递和延续着特定政治文化。任何社会的政治文化在通过该社会成员一代又一代的历史活动而得以延续和发展的过程中，必然会沉淀出对该社会发展起内在影响作用的特定的民族精神、民族心理和风俗习惯。由于各社会发展的起点，所面临的自然环境以及自身的结构方式不同，因此，各社会在发展过程中形成的、并对自身产生内在影响的民族精神、民族心理和风俗习惯，必然存在着不同程度的差异，这种差异决定了不同社会、不同民族的政治思想、观念的发展和选择是不同的。所以，伴随着政治文化历史继承性的是政治文化的民族性。马克思和恩格斯在分析欧洲社会思想发展的历史时意识到了民族性问题。他们说：“法国唯物主义和英国唯物主义的区别是与这两个民族的区别相适应的。法国人赋予英国唯物主义以机智，使它有血有肉，能言善辩。他们给它以它过去所没有的气概和优雅风度。他们使它文明化了。”恩格斯在分析德国工人为什么使欧洲其他国家的工人，能接受科学社会主义理论时，也认为其中的一个重要原因是德国人属于欧洲最有理论修养的民族。
就政治文化本身来说，政治文化的承继性，要求我们要把任何社会政治文化的发展，看作是在历史上形成的思想和文化的继承或扬弃的基础上的发展，看作是受一定思想和文化背景制约和影响的发展。列宁正是以这样科学的态度来看待马克思主义的。他说：“哲学史和社会科学史已经十分清楚地表明：在马克思主义里绝没有与‘宗派主义’相似的东西，它绝不是离开世界文明发展大道而产生的固步自封、僵化不变的学说。恰恰相反，马克思的全部天才正在于他回答了人类先进思想已经提出的种种问题。他的学说的产生正是哲学、政治经济学和社会主义的最伟大代表的学说的直接继续。”因此，在马克思主义看来，分析和研究任何形态的政治文化，就像不能把作为观念形态的马克思主义从其形成和发展的历史继承与扬弃过程中抽像出来一样，把各种政治文化从其发展的内在历史环节中抽像出来。如果那样，不仅无法真正理解一种政治文化的内在精神和生命力，而且也无法把握一种政治文化发展的必然趋向。
伴随着政治文化历史继承性而来的政治文化的民族性，决定了任何社会、任何民族的政治文化在新时代的选择和发展，都在不同程度上受到了该社会或该民族所具有的民族精神、民族心理和风俗习惯的规约和影响。在历史悠久、文化古老的国度和在传统势力比较强大的社会，这种规约和影响的力量相对就大些。同时，这也意味着一个社会或民族的政治文化要完全嫁接到另一个社会或民族上也是不可能的。因此，马克思主义的政治文化观反对民族虚无主义。这与现代西方政治学者所持的政治文化观形成了鲜明对照。由于西方政治学者把政治文化从其他国家、民族和历史的关系中抽像出来研究，所以他们的政治文化观带有浓烈的民族虚无主义。他们在比较、分析和归纳世界上各种形态政治文化时，往往无视或否认各种政治文化所包含的民族气质、民族精神、民族心理的差异及其影响，轻视作为历史产物的政治文化所包含的传统文化因素。结果，他们就把通过抽像出来的政治文化表层结构的比较所归纳出来的政治文化模式（如阿尔蒙德对世界各国政治文化的三种分类：地区政治文化；臣属政治文化；参与政治文化）。作为分析世界各国政治现像的依据，并且赋予代表他们社会的政治文化模式以最高的价值形态，从而具有世界和历史的意义。这种政治文化观是错误的，其实质是西方资本主义社会根本利益的反映。它根本不能揭示各政治文化与其所适应的各社会的政治生活之间的内在作用关系及其规律。
二、现实性与历史继承性是统一的
现实生活中的人们，都在不断地生产自己的思想、观念和理想。但是他们的生产不是随心所欲的，不仅要受到现实条件的限制，而且要受到他们所承继的历史条件的限制。因此，任何社会的人们在其所处的现实状况中，为了一定的目的选择和发展他们的政治文化时，都必然要遇到历史上的或上一代人留下的政治传统，政治思想和未实现的政治理想，即传统政治文化，这正像马克思所说的：“一切已死的先辈们的传统，像梦魔一样纠缠着活人的头脑。”于是，现实生活中的人们在选择和发展自身的政治文化时，就必然会遇到如何对待传统政治文化这一重要问题。马克思主义认为，剥削阶级和无产阶级，由于各自的阶级性质不同，因而在如何对待传统政治文化的问题上，有很大的不同
在《共产党宣言》中有这样一段话：“到目前为止的一切社会的历史都是在阶级对立中运动的，而这种对立在各个不同的时代是各不相同的。但是，不管这种对立具有什么样的形式，社会上一部分人对另一部分人的剥削却是过去各个世纪所共有的事实。因此，毫不奇怪，各个世纪的社会意识，尽管形形色色，千差万别，总是在某种共同的形式中运动的，这些形式，这些意识形式，只有当阶级对立完全消失的时候才会完全消失。”这段话表明一个重要观点：在无产阶级掌握政权、消灭剥削阶级、确立社会主义社会之前的社会意识形式，与社会主义社会的社会意识形式是完全不同的。尽管马克思和恩格斯没有十分明确地描绘出“某种共同的形式”，但是我们从他们对阶级社会意识形态本质的揭示中，还是可以看出这“某种共同形式”的方式和过程的
马克思主义认为，任何社会政治意识都是阶级利益的反映，任何一个时代的统治思想始终都不过是统治阶级的思想。以往的统治阶级思想都是代表本阶级少数人的利益，为了使它们的思想成为统治全社会的力量，它们不得不把自己的利益上升为“普遍的社会利益”，把自己的思想描绘成唯一合理的，有普遍意义的思想，并赋予普遍的形式。为了实现这一日的，它们采用的一个基本手段就是借助传统的力量。主要方法有两种：一是赋予传统的价值观念以永恒性，尽管这些价值观念的实际内含在新的社会条件下已发生了根本性的变化。例如资产阶级把自由，平等、博爱、正义等这些传统的价值观念看作社会发展的一切阶段所共有的永恒真理，在用这些传统的价值观念表达本阶级的思想的同时，实现本阶级的利益。恩格斯指出：平等的观念，无论以资产阶级的形式出现，还是以无产阶级的形式出现，本身都是一种历史的产物，这一观念的形成，需要一定的历史关系，而这种历史关系本身又以长期的以往的历史为前提。所以这样的平等观念什么都是，就不是永恒的真理。二是借助传统思想为取得统治地位鸣锣开道。马克思认为在法国和英国的资产阶级革命中，资产阶级都采取了同样的方法。在法国，“在罗马共和国的高度严格的传统中，资产阶级社会的斗士们找到了为了不让自己看见自己的斗争的资产阶级狭隘内容，为了要把自己的热情保持在伟大历史悲剧的高度上所必需的理想、艺术形式和幻想。”但当它们能安心地埋头于财富的创造与和平竞争时，也就忘记了古罗马的幽灵曾经守护过它们的摇篮。在英国，“克伦威尔和英国人民为了他们的资产阶级革命，就借用过旧约全书的语言、热情和幻想。当真正的目的已经达到，当英国社会的资产阶级改造已经实现时，洛克就排挤了哈巴谷”。因此，马克思总结说：“在这些革命中，使死人复生是为了赞美新的斗争，而不是为了勉强模仿旧的斗争；是为了提高想像中的某一任务的意义，而不是为了回避在现实中解决这个任务；是为了再度找到革命的精神，而不是为了让革命的幽灵重新游荡起来。“
从剥削阶级社会的社会意识在某种共同形式中运动的方式和过程中，人们不难看出，传统的思想与精神及其方式，是剥削阶级掩饰其阶级利益的外衣，是实现其政治统治的工具。因此，尽管它们所要表达的新的政治观念、思想和理想与传统的旧思想、旧观念有很大的不同，但它们还是要保留一些传统的形式，甚至是一些内容。认清了这一点，人们也就不难理解为什么现代西方资本主义社会政治生活和政治文化中，还有许多值得它们像保护出土文物似的保护着的一些传统的政治形式和政治观念
和以往的剥削阶级不同，无产阶级在革命中所要实现的利益，不是少数人的利益，而是社会绝大多数人的利益；而且无产阶级所处的社会地位，以及所担负的历史使命，决定了无产阶级在革命中没有什么自己的东西必须加以保护，相反，他们必须摧毁至今保护和保障私有财产的一切。无产阶级的历史使命是消灭一切剥削阶级，直至最后消灭阶级。所以，无产阶级必须同以往确立在阶级剥削和压迫基础上的传统的社会政治观念实行最彻底的决裂。但是，这并不等于无产阶级要将自身同以往的历史完全割裂开来，并全面抛弃和否定传统。相反，无产阶级在自身发展过程中，将在全面扬弃传统思想和文化的基础上，积极吸收人类思想和文化发展中的一切优秀成果。列宁指出：“马克思主义这一革命无产阶级的思想体系赢得了世界历史性的意义，是因为它并没有抛弃资产阶级时代最宝贵的成就，相反地却吸收和改造了两千多年来人类思想和文化发展中一切有价值的东西。只有在这个基础上，按照这个方向，在无产阶级专政（这是无产阶级反对一切剥削的最后的斗争）的实际经验的鼓舞下继续进行工作，才能认为是发展真正无产阶级的文化“
毛泽东也完全承认文化的历史继承性，并且和列宁一样都认为无产阶级文化的发展，应实现文化的历史继承性和文化的现实性的统一。毛泽东说：“今天的中国是历史的中国的一个发展；我们是马克思主义的历史主义者，我们不应当割断历史。从孔夫子到孙中山，我们应当给以总结，承继这一份珍贵的遗产。这对于指导当前的伟大的运动，是有重要的帮助的。”在如何继承问题上，毛泽东明确指出：“清理古代文化的发展过程，剔除其封建性的糟粕，吸收其民主性的精华，是发展民族新文化提高民族自信心的必要条件；但是决不能无批判地兼收并蓄。必须将古代封建统治阶级的一切腐朽的东西和古代优秀的人民文化即多少带有民主性和革命性的东西区别开来。”
总结以上的分析可以看出，无产阶级在如何实现政治文化的现实性与历史继承性的结合问题上与其他剥削阶级的根本不同之处在于：无产阶级绝不利用，也没有必要利用传统的政治观念和政治形式来表达现实的政治要求，实现现实的政治利益与政治统治；相反，无产阶级要同一切传统的观念决裂。与此同时，无产阶级将积极吸收历史上的优秀文化遗产，并将其用于推动无产阶级政治文化的丰富和发展
三、政治文化随社会发展而发展
任何社会政治文化都是现实性与历史继承性的结合。历史继承性决定了政治文化的发展不能逃离历史发展的内在规定性；现实性则决定了政治文化的发展是随着一定现实社会生活的发展而发展的。
历史唯物主义基本原理表明：人们按照自己的物质生产的发展建立相应的社会关系，又按照这种社会关系创造了相应的原理、观念和范畴。因此，人们的思想、观念，即人们的意识，是随着决定人们意识的现实的生活条件、社会关系以及存在方式的变化而变化的。马克思恩格斯指出：“随着每一次社会制度的巨大历史变革，人们的观点和观念也会发生变革。”
既然是人们的现实生活决定人们的意识，那么人们的意识存在就失去了其独立性的外观。因此，马克思和恩格斯认为，人们的意识是不能自己发展的，因而也就没有自己的历史。人们的意识的发展和历史，只不过是现实社会生活发展和历史的反映。“它们没有历史，没有发展；那些发展着自己的物质生产和物质交往的人们，在改变自己的这个现实的同时也改变着自己的思维和思维的产物。”因此，马克思主义对政治文化的发展问题，得出两个基本的看法
第一，一定历史时期的社会政治意识应由这时期的社会物质经济生活条件来说明。马克思在批判蒲鲁东的形而上学的政治经济学时，对这问题作了生动的阐述。马克思说：“每个原理都有其出现的世纪。例如，与权威原理相适应的是十一世纪，与个人主义原理相适应的是十八世纪。推其因果，我们应当说，不是原理属于世纪，而是世纪属于原理。换句话说，不是历史创造原理，而是原理创造历史。但是，如果为了顾全原理和历史我们再进一步自问一下，为什么该原理出现在十一世纪或者十八世纪，而不出现在其他某一世纪，我们就必须要仔细研究一下：十一世纪的人们是怎样的，十八世纪的人们是怎样的，在每个世纪中，人们的需求、生产力、生产方式以及生产中使用的原料是怎样的；最后，由这一切生存条件所产生的人与人之间的关系是怎样的。”马克思在这里所表达的意思十分明确，权威原理和个人主义原理之所以分别在11世纪、18世纪出现，主要是因为这两个原理只不过是这两个世纪人们的现实社会的物质生产和生活的要求在社会意识领域的必然反映。因此，恩格斯在表述马克思这一基本思想时说：“在历史上出现的一切社会关系和国家关系，一切宗教制度和法律制度，一切理论观点，只有理解了每一个与之相应的时代的物质生活条件，并且从这些物质条件中被引伸出来的时候，才能理解。“
第二，既然社会政治意识都是历史的产物，都是历史地反映社会现实的存在状况，那么社会政治意识所包含的原理、观念、思想和理论都不是永恒的，都只是“历史的暂时的产物”。因此，马克思主义始终认为任何社会政治意识所含的一切观念，都不是永恒的真理，都只是现实的反映，因而也都必然要随着现实社会的变化而发生变化
以上分析表明，从根本上讲，任何社会政治文化的发展都是基于现实社会生产和社会关系的发展与变化。这对于政治文化的实际发展而言，就意味着人们在推动一个社会政治文化发展时，除了要考虑政治文化本身的历史继承性外，也不能忽视新的政治发展所基于的社会现实状况。如果忽视了现实基础，那么这种发展最终将成为无源之水，无根之木。毛泽东在新中国成立之前，就充分意识到了这一问题。他说：“我们要革除的那种中华民族旧文化中的反动成分，它是不能离开中华民族的旧政治和旧经济的；而我们要建立的那种中华民族的新文化，它也不能离开中华民族的新政治和新经济。中华民族的旧政治和旧经济，乃是中华民族的旧文化的根据；而中华民族的新政治和新经济，乃是中华民族新文化的根据。”毛泽东的这一思想充分体现了历史唯物主义的精神。政治文化对社会和政治发展具有一定的反作用，所以把握政治文化发展所基于的现实基础，从而推动政治文化朝着正确的方向发展，不仅关系到政治文化发展本身；而且关系到整个社会和政治的发展。
第四节政治文化发展不一定与社会发展同步
一、政治文化保持相对独立性
从根本上讲，任何社会、任何时代的政治文化，都是由该社会、该时代的现实社会生产条件决定的，并随着这种条件的变化而变化。因此，政治文化不具有独立性的外观，即它不能独立地存在与发展。但是，尽管政治文化最终要随决定它的社会生产条件的变化而变化，然而，这种变化往往是不同步的，要么超越现实社会发展，要么落后现实社会发展。从这个意义上讲，政治文化在随现实社会发展而发展的过程中，又具有相对的独立性。政治文化的相对独立性，并不是来源于作为观念形态的政治文化本身，而是来源于政治文化所适应的那种政治形式的相对独立性和政治文化生产者生产其思想观念的过程和特性。
首先，政治形式的相对独立性决定了与之相适应的政治文化的相对独立性。政治形式是上层建筑，受经济基础决定，因此，从根本上讲，任何社会政治形式必然要随决定它的社会生产条件的变化而变化。但是，作为应社会发展和社会内部调控需要而产生的政治形式，即国家制度，一产生就具有相对的独立性，从而决定了政治形式在适应社会生产发展过程中的作用。对于国家制度的相对独立性如何产生，恩格斯从社会内部分工的角度作了解释。他说，社会生产着它所不能缺少的某些共同职能，被指定去执行这种职能的人，就形成社会内部分工的一个新部门。这样，他们就获得了也和授权给他们的人相对立的特殊利益，他们在对这些人的关系上成为独立的人，于是就出现了国家。这种新的独立的力量总的说来固然应当尾随生产的运动，然而它由于它本来具有的、即它一经获得便逐渐向前发展了的相对独立性，又反过来对生产的条件和进程发生影响。恩格斯进一步认为，当国家制度产生并被某一阶级所掌握，直接为实现这一阶级利益服务时，国家制度也就愈加独立了。政治形式的相对独立性，就使得政治形式在随社会生产发展的过程中，与社会发展往往是不同步。因此，恩格斯指出：“社会的政治结构决不是紧跟着社会的经济生活条件的这种剧烈的变革发生相应的改变。当社会日益成为资产阶级社会的时候，国家制度仍然是封建的。”社会政治形式的相对独立性以及由此产生的与社会发展的不同步性，决定了与一定社会政治形式相适应的政治文化，在适应社会发展过程中，具有一定的相对自主性。
其次，政治文化的生产者的生产特性与生产过程，决定了政治文化在适应社会发展过程中的超前性与滞后性。人是政治文化的生产者，这种生产是人对现实作能动反映的基础上进行的，反映的能动性赋予文化生产以相对自主性。人对现实的能动反映，所形成的思想、观念，除了取决于现实社会所展现的场景外，还取决于人自身对现实社会的状况及其发展规律的把握与理解，取决于人参与社会生活所要实现的利益与理想。这样，人对现实社会反映所形成的思想观念，就可能有三种取向，保守的、现实的和理想的。人们的观念取向，就直接影响政治文化在适应社会发展过程中是超前的，还是滞后的。一般来说，把政治文化作为社会文化意识的一个组成部分看来，政治文化在总体上往往落后于社会存在，因为“人的思想跟不上事变的进程”。这可以从人对现实的反映需要一个过程这一点得到说明。但是，人对现实反映的能动性，使得人有可能根据对社会发展规律的能动把握，超前表达或预测社会和政治发展的新的可能或新的取向。当这种表达与预测所形成的思想成为政治文化的发展的引导性力量时，政治文化相对于社会发展就是超前的了。
上述两大方面的因素，决定了政治文化相对于社会发展而言。具有相对的独立性。政治文化的相对独立性是政治文化对社会政治发展产生反作用的必要条件。没有相对独立性，也就没有反作用，这是辩证的。政治文化对社会政治发展反作用的程度和性质，自然取决于在这种相对独立性中，政治文化所表现出的倾向。一般来说，任何社会的政治文化，都不可能是单一的，即要么纯粹是落后的，要么纯粹是先进的，往往是两种倾向并存，关键取决于哪一种倾向占主导地位。列宁曾经说过：“每个民族的文化里面，都有一些哪怕是还不大发达的民主主义和社会主义的文化成分，因为每个民族里面都有劳动群众和被剥削群众，他们的生活条件必然会产生民主主义的和社会主义的思想体系。但是每个民族里面也都有资产阶级的文化（··），而且这不仅是一些‘成分”，而是占统治地位的文化。”
政治文化的相对独立性，在一定程度上使得政治文化发展具有自身的内在逻辑。恩格斯承认这种内在逻辑。他说：“任何意识形态一经产生，就同现有的观念材料相结合而发展起来，并对这些材料作进一步的加工；不然，它就不是意识形态了，就是说，它就不是把思想当做独立地发展的，仅仅服从自身规律的独立本质来处理了。”这种内在逻辑，一方面通过政治文化的历史继承性得到体现，这在前面已作分析；另一方面，则是在政治文化与现实社会间的交互作用中得到体现。尽管政治文化最终是由现实社会生产条件决定的，但是其形成过程不是简单的被决定过程，而是与现实社会交互作用的过程。在这过程中，社会选择文化，文化影响社会，社会促进文化，循环反复，直接相互适应。恩格斯认为，历史是在以经济状况为基础上的包括各种政治、法律制度和各种政治、法律、哲学、宗教等理论在内的各种各样因素交互作用中发展的。在他看来，如果否认交互作用，那么“把理论应用于任何历史时期，就会比解一个最简单的一次方程式更容易了”。既然历史发展是在以经济为基础的各种因素交互作用中发展，那么，政治文化的发展也就不是简单的被决定过程或任意地选择确定过程，而是它与社会交互作用的过程。在交互作用中，政治文化不仅形成了自身发展所需的现实起点和逻辑起点，而且形成了自身发展所特有的内在价值取向。无产阶级政治文化也正是在作为这种文化指导思想的马克思主义不断与具体实践相结合，并对实践经验进行科学总结基础上形成和发展起来的。政治文化发展的这种内在逻辑性表明：政治文化的发展不是机械的，而是能动的，它是在与社会不断交互作用中发展和变化的。因此，要推动一个社会的政治文化发展，不是简单地靠社会经济发展就能实现的，也不是靠一种先进的政治理论就能达到的，这需要思想、观念、理论与社会现实的交互作用。
二、政治文化存在超前性与预见性
政治文化的相对独立使得政治文化的发展具有自身的内在逻辑，也正是基于这种内在逻辑，政治文化相对于社会发展具有超前性。历史继承性是政治文化发展内在逻辑的一个重要体现。恩格斯从思想的历史继承性，得出了经济上落后的国家在哲学上仍然能够演奏第一提琴的诊断。他说：“每一个时代的哲学作为分工的一个特定的领域，都具有由它的先驱者传给它而它便由以出发的特定的思想资料作为前提。因此，经济上落后的国家在哲学上仍然能够演奏第一提琴：十八世纪的法国对英国（而英国哲学是法国人引为依据的）来说是如此，后来的德国对英法两国来说也是如此。但是，不论在法国或是在德国，哲学和那个时代的文学的普遍繁荣一样，都是经济高涨的结果。”在这里，恩格斯不仅表明了思想文化具有超前性，而且说明了这种超前性的实质，其中包含了两个重要观点：
第一，超前的思想文化并非主观臆想的产物，而是思想文化按自身内在逻辑发展的结果。在这种发展中，前人的思想资料是形成思想文化超前于社会发展的重要基础。从具体形式看，思想文化的超前，首先表现为思想家们思想的超前，但这种超前并非主要是思想家们的功劳，因为“历史思想家（历史在这里只是政治的法律的、哲学的、神学的——总之，一切属于社会而不仅仅属于自然界的领域的集合名词）在这一科学部门中都有一定的材料，这些材料是从以前的各代人的思维中独立形成的，并且在这些世代相继的人们的头脑中经过了自己的独立的发展道路。当然，属于这个或那个领域的外部事实作为并发的原因也能给这种发展以影响···”。因此，当历史上的思想资料的积累足以使现实的思想家形成超越社会发展所提供的可能的思想时，这个社会的思想文化，就可能超前于社会发展
第二，一个社会的思想文化虽然能超前于这个社会发展所提供的可能，但不能超越这个社会所处时代所提供的可能。马克思在分析德国思想超越德国社会发展时指出：“如果说，思辨的法哲学，这种关于现代国家（它的现实还是彼世，虽然这个彼世不过只在莱茵河彼岸）的抽像的、脱离生活的思维只在德国才有可能产生，那末反过来说，德国人之所以有可能从现实人抽像出现代国家的思想形像，也只是因为现代国家本身是从现实人抽像出来的，或者只是幻想地满足整个的人。德国人在政治上考虑过的正是其他国家做过的事情。德国是这些国家理论上的良心。”因此，马克思说：“德国的法哲学和国家哲学是唯一站在正统的当代现实水平上的德国历史。”这就说明，德国的法哲学和国家哲学，从根本上讲，也只不过是那个时代发展的反映，只是这种反映超越了思想家所处的国度，直接把握时代的发展。
从上述两个观点可以看出：思想文化的超前发展，并不仅仅因为前人的思想材料为这种发展提供了可能，更重要的是这种思想文化本身直接把握并反映了现实社会发展的最新可能和必然前景。从这个意义上讲，真正超前的思想文化，必然是具有预见性的。这种超前的，具有预见性的思想文化，正是形成于对现实社会的最深刻的研究与把握之中。因此，思想文化的超前性与预见性取决于两方面：首先是思想文化所试图把握的现实社会的成熟程度，这是形成能有效地预测并推动社会进步的超前的思想文化的条件。众所周知，资产阶级社会关系不成熟，是18世纪末到19世纪初的社会主义学说带有空想性质的重要原因。恩格斯指出：“空想社会主义者之所以是空想主义者，正是因为在资本主义生产还很不发达的时代他们只能是这样。他们不得不从头脑中构思出新社会的轮廓，因为这些轮廓在旧社会本身中还没有普遍地明显地表现出来，他们之所以限于为自己的新建筑的基本特征向理性求助，正是因为他们还不能求助于同时代的历史。”其次是思想文化本身对社会发展的总趋势的把握程度，把握得愈全面、准确，思想也就愈深刻，愈具有预见性。马克思主义的成功，正是在于它在历史唯物主义基础上，全面、准确地把握了人类社会发展的基本规律。列宁在回答马克思有什么根据可以谈论共产主义的未来问题时认为：这里的根据就是，共产主义是从资本主义产生的，它在历史上是从资本主义发展起来的，它是资本主义产生的那种社会力量发生作用的结果。马克思丝毫不制造乌托邦，不想凭空猜测无法知道的事情。马克思提出共产主义的问题正像自然科学提出某一新的生物变种的发展问题一样，因为我们已经知道，这一变种是怎样产生以及朝着哪个方向演变的。
超前的思想文化，将对现实社会的政治发展产生积极的反作用。这种反作用基于两方面事实：一是超前的思想文化能够在一定程度上预见社会的发展趋势。正确的预见，将给社会发展指明正确的道路。恩格斯在总结马克思的历史唯物主义对资本主义社会分析所展现的革命前景时说：“只要进一步发挥我们的唯物主义论点，并且把它应用于现时代，一个伟大的，一切时代中最伟大的革命远景就会立即展现在我们面前。”二是超前的思想文化将对现实的社会政治革命起前导作用。在18世纪的法国，哲学革命是政治革命的前导。因为18世纪法国的启蒙运动，特别是法国唯物主义，不仅是反对现存政治制度的斗争，同时是反对现存宗教和神学的斗争，而且还是反对17世纪的形而上学和反对一切形而上学的斗争。当法国资产阶级在这种斗争中，形成与他们的阶级地位相适应的意识形态时，他们就开始去进行彻底的革命——法国革命
超前的思想文化，要真正成为推动社会发展力量，并不是靠超前的思想文化本身能实现的。首先，这种思想文化要成为现实社会发展的真正需要。马克思说过“理论在一个国家的实现程度，决定于理论满足这个国家需要的程度”。但这并不意味着理论和思想应屈从于现实。理论要成为现实的需要，除理论和思想本身能准确地反映社会发展的规律与趋势并努力指导现实外，现实本身也应按理想与思想的要求，去适应理论和思想。因此，马克思说：“光是思想竭力体现为现实是不够的，现实本身应当力求趋向思想。”其次，这种思想文化应努力与现实的社会运动结合。列宁把建设社会主义的过程看作是工人阶级和全体劳动人民活生生的创造性的事业，而不是官僚主义地“执行”预定的东西。“千百万创造者的智慧却会创造出一种比最伟大的天才预见都还要高明的东西。”因此，一种超前的预见性的理论，不能停留在观念的领域，它必须走入实际，与社会运动相结合。只有凭千百万人的努力，它才能成为有生命力的具体东西，才能在一定的实际结果中，在他们的劳动和斗争中体现出来
三、政治文化具有滞后性
政治文化的相对独立性，在可能体现为超前性和预见性的同时，也可能体现为滞后性。从人的认识过程与社会历史发展的基本规律来看，滞后性在政治文化中表现得十分普遍。
政治文化的滞后性主要体现为社会意识落后于社会存在，落后于人们的经济地位；反映旧制度的旧思想的残余，总是长期留在人们的头脑里。1919年，列宁在谈论俄国农民时，对这种滞后性作了生动的描述：“谁在农村里呆过，谁就知道在三十年前农村中还有不少这样的老年人，他们说，“在农奴制度下要好些，规矩多，很严格，妇女穿得很朴素。如果我们现在读读乌斯宾斯基的著作，就可从80年代和90年代的描写中看到，一些纯朴正直的老农民、有时甚至一些中年人也说，在农奴制度时代要好些，旧的社会制度消灭了，但它在人们的意识中是不能一下子消灭的，还会有不少的人留恋过去”。这就表明：一种旧制度的解体，并不意味着与该制度相适应的旧的政治文化也随之即刻解体；相反，旧制度所代表时代的旧的思想、观点和价值还将保存很久，只能是逐渐消亡下去
政治文化出现滞后性的原因，除与前面分析的政治形式的相对独立性和文化生产者生产的过程与特性有关外，还直接与传统有关。任何社会的政治文化都是在一定的历史轨迹中，并选择和继承了一定的历史文化遗产的基础上形成和发展的。因此，任何社会中政治文化中都包含有传统的因素。尽管并不是所有的传统因素都是有碍于社会变革与发展的，但只要传统存在，只要传统的历史愈悠久，传统中总归多少包含有消极的，可能限制社会进步与发展的因素。这些因素的存在也是政治文化出现滞后性的一个重要原因。恩格斯说，“在一切意识形态领域传统都是一种巨大的保守力量。”
如果说政治文化超前性的社会基础是社会少数先进分子如革命家、思想家，那么政治文化的滞后性的社会基础则是社会大众。在一定社会中生活的大众，在经历了长期的、不断的社会化过程后，都势必在不同程度上，以不同的方式认同于这个社会，并形成与该社会要求相适应的生活态度、生活习惯、思维模式、价值原则和人格心理。这些都是长期生活形成的，并已内化为指导他们人生的基本原则和生活方式。因此，要他们在短时间内，随着社会生活的变化，即刻变化他们的人生原则和生活方式，那显然是不可能的。因此，马克思说：“人的思想跟不上事变的进程。”这样，在他们还没有形成与变化后社会要求相适应的人生原则和生活方式时，他们所持的旧的人生原则和生活方式作为一种文化，就成了社会发展的滞后力量
政治文化的滞后性对现实社会的反作用是消极的，它将阻碍或限制社会的变革与发展的进程和规模。这种消极的反作用主要体现在以下三方面：（1）对社会的变革和发展缺乏认同。社会的变革与发展，势必要求人们改变旧的生活方式和生活习惯，改变旧的利益模式和情感投向，但由于人们受到旧的思想观念的影响，认识不到这些变革与发展所蕴含的实际意义与价值，因此，无法在短时间内对社会变革与发展表示全面的认同，从而形成进一步推动变革和发展的社会力量。（2）对新的社会所需的新思想和新观念的抗拒。这实质上是一种文化冲突。当这种冲突借助阶级斗争的形式表现出来时，旧思想与旧观念对社会发展和新思想新观念的抗拒就将是更为对立的抗拒。马克思和恩格斯说：“当前社会的交往形式以及统治阶级的条件同走在前面的生产力之间的矛盾愈大，由此产生的统治阶级内部的分裂以及它同被统治阶级之间的分裂愈大，那末当初与这种交往形式相适应的意识当然也就愈不真实，也就是说，它不再是与这种交往形式相适应的意识了；这种交往形式中的旧的传统观念也就愈发下降为唯心的词句、有意识的幻想和有目的的虚伪。但是，这些东西被生活揭穿得愈多，它们对意识本身的作用愈小，那末它们对自身的捍卫也就愈坚决，而这个标准社会的语言也就愈加虚伪，愈加道德化，愈加神圣化。”（3）对社会成员行为的影响。马克思主义认为，人们通过传统和教育所承继下来的情感和观念，不是人们行为的真实动机和出发点，人们的行为是受其利益决定的。但马克思主义同时也认为，人是社会的动物，是文化塑造的作品，因此，人们在社会生活中所继承的文化在一定程度上影响人们的社会行为和政治行为。旧的思想文化对人的行为具有限制作用。恩格斯在分析英国工人运动时看到了这种限制作用，他说，“英国人所持有的守法观念还在阻碍着他们从事这种暴力革命。”
尽管旧的政治文化对社会发展具有多重的滞后性作用，但应看到已成为历史的旧的思想，观念，不管其表现形式多么唯心，多么虚伪，自我多么坚持，但它毕竟是暂时的，终究是要被社会发展所摧毁，被新的思想观念所代替。恩格斯说：“如果说，我们的法律的、哲学的和宗教的观念，都是在一定社会内占统治地位的经济关系的或近或远的枝叶，那末，这些观念终究抵抗不住因这种经济关系完全改变面产生的影响。除非我们相信超自然的奇迹，否则，我们就必须承认，任何宗教教义都不足以支持一个摇摇欲坠的社会。”虽然旧思想旧观念的存在是暂时的，但要消除它们的滞后作用，不仅需要一定的时间，而且还需人们的积极努力。
消除旧的政治思想和观念对社会发展的滞后性有两条途径。一方面是在社会发展中自行消除。这主要是那些处于人们意识表层的观念。当人们不得不认同已形成不可阻挡的潮流的社会变革与发展时，伴随新认同的形成，人们也就自然而然地把在旧认同下形成的思想观念抛弃掉了。另一方面，这种滞后性的消除还需人为的努力。因为有些旧的观念、思想，不会在短时间内自行消除，相反，它们将持久存在，从而产生负作用。列宁指出：“在工人阶级和资产阶级旧社会之间并没有一道万里长城。革命大爆发的时候，情形并不像一个人死的时候那样，只要把死尸抬出去就完事了。旧社会灭亡的时候，它的死尸是不能装进棺材，埋入坟墓的。它在我们中间腐烂发臭并且遗害我们。”显然，这种人为的努力主要是要消除人们思想深处落后的传统观念。这主要通过进一步推动社会发展和新思想新观念的传播和教育来实现。从某种意义上，如果这些深层的旧思想、旧观念不清除，社会变革与社会发展就相当艰难曲折，甚至最终夭折。所以毛泽东讲：“一个崭新的社会制度要从旧制度的基地上建立，它就必须清除这个基地。反映旧制度的旧思想的残余，总是长期地留在人们的头脑里，不愿意轻易地退走的。”
第五节政治文化要进行灌输
一、政治文化服务于政治统治
在阶级社会，统治阶级作为政治和经济的权力掌握者进行统治的同时，还作为思想的生产者进行统治。在这种思想统治中，“他们调节着自己时代的思想的生产和分配”。思想的生产，则是形成统治阶级政治统治所需的意识形态；思想的分配，则是将已形成的意识形态来塑造社会成员，为政治统治的巩固奠定社会基础，即政治社会化。因此，“以观念形式表现在法律、道德等等中的统治阶级的存在条件，统治阶级的思想家或多或少有意识地从理论上把它们变成某种独立自在的东西，在统治阶级的个人意识中把它们设想为使命等等；统治阶级为了反对被压迫阶级的个人，把它们提出来作为生活原则，一则是作为对自己统治的粉饰或意识，一则作为这种统治的道德手段”。很显然，在任何社会，政治社会化过程都是在一定的阶级目的和政治目的的指导下展开的，都是为统治阶级政治统治服务的。
政治社会化的核心内容是政治教育，即将占统治地位的思想观念，通过教育和传媒，分配给社会的每一成员，从而使他们成为“合格”的社会公民。不仅马克思主义者揭示了政治教育对政治统治的意义，资产阶级的一些思想家也认识到了政治教育所具有的功能，并要求政府和社会予以足够的重视。美国实用主义思想家杜威，把学校看作政治民主的安全的工具，因为学校的教育能实现统治阶级思想的分配。他说：“教育不是唯一的工具，但这是第一工具，通过这种工具，任何社会团体所珍惜的价值，其所欲实现的目标，都被分配和提供给个人，让其思考、观察、判断和选择。”“在某处中心，不管存在着怎样好的理想、资源、过去经验结果和过去人生文化等，只有当它们被执行和分配后，它们才是有意义的。不仅在民主社会中是如此的，在任何社会中亦是如此的。当然，在民主社会中，其特殊目的和目标必须如此地分配着，致使它们成为社会成员的心理和意志的一部分。”尽管杜威认为接受者面对所分配的价值和目标，可以思考、观察、判断和选择，但这些都只不过是为了使“特殊的目的和目标”成为社会成员的心理和意志的一部分而采取的方式。
由于政治社会化最终关系到阶级统治，所以，统治阶级往往通过各种手段和方法来分配和传播他们的思想、观念，并在此过程中与任何不利于政治统治的思想作斗争。恩格斯在其著名的《英国工人阶级状况》一书中，生动地描绘了这种斗争过程：“这些时合时分的不同的工人派别——工会会员、宪章主义者和社会主义者——自己出经费创办了许多学校和阅览室来提高工人的知识水平。这些设施在每个社会主义的组织里和几乎每个宪章主义的组织里都有，而且在许多单个的工会里也有。在这里，孩子们受到纯粹无产阶级的教育，摆脱了资产阶级的一切影响，阅览室里也只有或几乎只有无产阶级的书刊。资产阶级认为这种设施是很危险的，他们已经在某些设施中，即在‘技术学校’里面消除了无产阶级的影响，并把它们变成在工人中间传播对资产阶级有利的科学知识的机构。”“这里还进行以自由竞争为偶像的政治经济学的说教；工人从这门科学中只能得出一个唯一的结论：对他说来，最明智之举莫过于默默地驯服地饿死。这里的一切都是教人俯首帖耳地顺从统治阶级的政治和宗教，所以工人在这里听到的只是劝他唯唯诺诺、任人摆布和听天由命的说教。”
因此，政治社会化在传播阶级思想和观念的同时，也直接起到了维护阶级统治的作用。对于已经获得较稳固的政治统治阶级来说，政治社会化已成为现实政治统治的基本内容；而对于那些刚刚获得政治统治，或试图建立一个全新的社会阶级来说，政治社会化则是实现政治统治和创立新社会的基础。毛泽东说：“我们共产党人，多年以来，不但为中国的政治革命和经济革命而奋斗，而且为中国的文化革命而奋斗；一切这些的目的，在于建设一个中华民族的新社会和新国家。在这个新社会和新国家中，不但有新政治、新经济，而且有新文化。这就是说，我们不但要把一个政治上受压迫、经济上受剥削的中国，变为一个政治上自由和经济上繁荣的中国，而且要把一个被旧文化统治因而愚昧落后的旧中国，变为一个被新文化统治因而文明先进的中国。”为此，“在现时，毫无疑义，应该扩大共产主义思想的宣传，加紧马克思列宁主义的学习，没有这种宣传和学习，不但不能引导中国革命到将来的社会主义阶段上去，而且也不能指导现时的民主革命达到胜利”。毛泽东在这里提倡的学习和宣传的过程，正是一个全新的政治社会化过程，这个过程将为新政权的确立和新社会的诞生塑造出一代新人
社会主义社会是一个全新的社会，作为向共产主义过渡的阶段，它将消灭一切阶级剥削和阶级差别，消除一切陈腐的思想观念，直至实现共产主义。因此，社会主义社会不仅要确立新的生产关系，而且要塑造一批又一批的社会主义新人。马克思明确指出，无产阶级应在革命中抛掉自己身上的一切陈旧的肮脏东西，成为社会的新基础。恩格斯认为，必然会使共产主义实现的三大措施中，教育是第一措施。恩格斯说，“显而易见，社会成员中受过教育的人会比愚昧无知的没有文化的人给社会带来更多的好处。如果说无产阶级在受了教育之后必然不愿再忍受现代无产阶级所受的那种压迫，那末从另一方面来看，和平改造社会时所必需的那种冷静和慎重只有受过教育的工人阶级才能具有。”
塑造社会主义新人的政治教育核心是共产主义教育。在这种教育中，确立共产主义的理想信念与消除陈腐的思想、观念是同时进行的。这是社会主义社会性质决定的。因为，社会主义要同一切传统的观念进行彻底的决裂。因此，列宁认为：“教育工作者和斗争的先锋队共产党的基本任务，就是帮助培养和教育劳动群众，使他们克服旧制度留下来的旧习惯、旧风气，那些在群众中根深蒂固的私有者的习惯和风气。”马克思主义认为这种教育是长期的，必须作不断的努力。列宁在谈论如何改造人们的劳动价值观念时认为，要想使“人人为我，我为人人”和“各尽所能，各取所需”的观念，完全代替人们头脑中现有的“人人为自己，上帝为大家”的观念，需要几十年的时间。因此，在马克思主义看来，政治社会化应是一个不间断的过程，它不仅要贯穿人的一生，而且要贯穿社会主义建设和发展的全过程
二、灌输是教育的重要手段
在阶级社会，统治阶级在向全社会分配代表他们利益的思想和观念时，具体做法可能是多种多样的，有的是正面的、直接的教育，有的是反面的或间接的教育；有的是寓教育于各种社会活动中，有的则直接通过传播媒介进行。但通过这些方法所试图达到的目的是共同的：即向人们不断地灌输统治阶级的思想、观念，直接使这些思想、观念成为人们思想和意志中一个不可缺少的组成部分。灌输是实现有效的政治社会化的重要方法。
政治社会化过程之所以需要不断的思想灌输，其中主要有两个原因。第一个原因，在剥削阶级占统治地位的社会，统治阶级在人数上占少数，因此统治阶级的思想只代表少数人的思想。要使这种思想成为指导全社会的思想，统治阶级在借助其统治地位，将其思想普遍化，独立化、神圣化的同时，还必须努力使其思想得到社会上其他阶级成员的认同，并使其内化到社会大多数人的心中，内化得越深，统治也就越巩固。因此，他们势必要采取各种各样的手段向人们灌输他们的思想。第二个原因，对于一个阶级来说，阶级意识并非直接从阶级所处的现实社会状况产生出来的，它是在将代表该阶级思想家的思想不断地向本阶级成员不断灌输后产生的。列宁曾一再强调指出：工人群众自己决不能创造独立的思想体系，阶级的政治意识只能从外面灌输给他们。
对于任何一个试图取得统治的阶级来说，思想的灌输在它还没有取得统治之前就开始了。因为，它们若要最终取得统治，首先必须使这个阶级由自发阶级变为自为阶级。无产阶级在革命过程中面临这项任务，资产阶级在革命的准备过程中也面临这项任务。可以说，没有启蒙运动，也就没有法国的大革命。恩格斯在谈论曾为法国革命启发过人们头脑的18世纪启蒙运动，特别是法国的唯物主义时，对它所起的作用给予了高度评价。他说：“法国的唯物主义者没有把他们的批评局限于宗教信仰问题，他们把批评扩大到他们所遇到的每一个科学传统和政治设施；而为了证明他们的学说可以普遍应用，他们选择了最简便的道路：在他们因以得名的巨著《百科全书》中，他们大胆地把这一学说应用于所有的知识对像。这样，唯物主义就以其两种形式中的这种或那种形式——公开的唯物主义或自然神论，成了法国一切有教养的青年的信条。它的影响是如此巨大，以致在大革命爆发时，这个由英国保皇党孕育出来的学说，竞给了法国共和党人和恐怖主义者一面理论旗帜，并且为《人权宣言》提供了底本。”
同样，对于无产阶级来说，无产阶级要想从自发阶级走向自为阶级并成功地进行社会主义革命，就必须有自己的思想体系，形成自己的阶级意识。马克思在分析德国工人运动时，就指出：“哲学把无产阶级当做自己的物质武器，同样地，无产阶级也把哲学当做自己的精神武器，思想的闪电一旦真正射入这块没有触动过的人民园地，德国人就会解放成为人。”但思想要真正射人人民的园地，列宁认为必须通过灌输来实现。列宁指出：“我们已经说过，工人本来也不可能有社会民主主义的意识。这种意识只能从外面灌输进去。各国的历史都证明：工人阶级单靠自身的力量，只能形成工联主义的意识，即必须结成工会，必须同厂主斗争、必须向政府争取颁布工人所必要的某些法律等等的信念。而社会主义学说则是由有产阶级的有教养的人即知识分子创造的哲学、历史和经济的理论中成长起来的。”面对这种现实，斯大林也强调指出：“我们的责任，社会民主党的责任，就是使自发的工人运动离开工联主义的道路而走上社会民主主义的道路。我们的责任就是把社会主义意识灌输到这个运动中去，并把工人阶级的先进力量结成个集中的党。”
当无产阶级夺取政权，确立社会主义制度后，思想灌输的主要目的，则是在广大群众中确立起共产主义理想和信念。列宁指出：“政治文化，政治教育的目的是培养真正的共产主义者，使它们有本领战胜谎言和偏见，能够帮助劳动群众战胜旧秩序，建立一个没有资本家、没有剥削者、没有地主的国家。”当然，在这个时期，思想灌输所采取的形式和方法，将会更加丰富多彩，更加生动活泼。
马克思主义认为，思想灌输或思想政治教育应贯穿无产阶级革命的始终；同时，马克思主义认为，要使这种教育达到真正的效果，应坚持反对教条的说教。恩格斯指出：“社会主义自从成为科学以来，就要求人们把它当做科学看待，就是说，要求人们去研究它。”列宁也认为，马克思主义的全部精神，它的整个体系，要求对每一个原理（一）都要历史地，（二）都要联系其他原理，（三）都要联系具体的历史经验加以考察。这就意味着，共产主义教育与宣传，不是词句的教育与宣传，而是精神的教育和宣传，这其中包括马克思主义科学的世界观和方法论
在马克思主义看来，有效的思想灌输式政治教育，除要反对教条化的政治说教外，还要将这种教育与群众的利益结合起来，使教育的内容易于被他们接受。列宁在批判俄国民粹主义时，深刻地指明了这一点：“当劳动阶级的思想家理解到并深深地体会到这一点的时候，他们就会承认：所谓‘理想’不应当是铺设的最好的和最捷便的道路，而应当是规定我国资本主义社会中眼前进行着的各社会阶级间的严酷斗争”的任务和目标；主观愿望能否顺利实现，不取决于对‘社会’和‘国家’的建议拟定得如何，而取决于这些思想在一定社会阶级中传播的程度，如果你不善于把理想与经济斗争参加者的利益结合起来，与该阶级的公平的劳动报酬这类‘狭隘’的生活问题，即自命不凡的民粹主义者不屑理睬的问题结合起来，那么，最崇高的理想也是一文不值的。”在这里，列宁实际上表达了三个重要观点：（1）任何一种理想都应与现实的任务目标相联系：（2）理想的价值在于被社会接受的程度；（3）理想要成为现实的可能，应将其与有关参加者的利益结合起来。列宁这三个观点，对如何进行有效的共产主义理想和信念的宣传与教育，提供了重要的指导原则。
江西 
高大伟 David Cowhig's Translation Blog 