In the middle of the 19th century, the development of natural science advanced by leaps and bounds, and a large number of major achievements of epoch-making significance emerged. The most influential are the cell theory, the law of conservation and transformation of energy, and the theory of biological evolution, which are known as the three major discoveries.

The cell theory proposes that both animals and plants are made up of cells. Cells have a membrane, cytoplasm, and nucleus that reproduce by division. It reveals the unity of the organic world, showing that there is a common material basis and law for the growth, development, and reproduction of organisms.

The law of conservation of energy and transformation refers to the fact that all energy in nature can be converted into each other according to a certain proportion under certain conditions, and the total energy remains unchanged before and after transformation. It shows that energy can neither be created out of thin air nor disappear on its own, but can only be transformed from one form to another.

The theory of biological evolution convincingly proves that all living things have a common ancestor. Organisms have undergone an evolutionary process from simple to complex, from low to high.

The three discoveries and other achievements of the natural sciences shattered the myths about the Creator and triggered a profound revolution in the view of nature, revealing the dialectical relationship of natural processes and the universal connections and interactions of the material world. Engels noted: "As a result of these three discoveries and other great advances in the natural sciences, we are now in a position to point out not only the connections between processes in the various fields of nature, but also in general the connections between the various fields, so that we can draw a clear picture of the connections of nature in an almost systematic form, relying on the facts provided by empirical natural science itself." (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. IV, p. 241)

Since the development of the natural world has its own internal objective laws that are not subject to anyone's will, does our human society also have internal laws of development?

"However, there is one thing about the history of social development that is fundamentally different from the history of natural development. In nature (if we leave aside the reaction of man to the natural world) there are all unconscious, blind dynamics that act on each other, and the general law is expressed in the interaction of these dynamics. In anything that happens, neither in the innumerable superficial contingencies that appear on the outside, nor in the final result that can confirm the regularity within these contingencies, nothing happens as an intended conscious purpose. On the other hand, those who carry out activities in the field of social history are all conscious, deliberate or passionate people who pursue a certain purpose; (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. IV, p. 243) Since human behavior is a conscious, expected and conscious activity that can be controlled by itself, it seems that human beings can put the activities of human society under the control of their own reason and consciousness, which also forms a typical long-term dominant view of history. Therefore, we always see in history the great achievements of outstanding people, emperors and heads of state. For example, the great Enlightenment scholars of eighteenth-century France, where the contemplative understanding became the only measure of everything. In their view: "True reason and justice have not yet ruled the world, and this is only because they have not been correctly recognized." What is lacking is only a few geniuses who have now appeared and have known the truth; as for the geniuses appearing in the present and the truth being recognized in the present, this is not an inevitable and inevitable thing that arises from the course of historical development, but is purely a fluke and accidental phenomenon. It is also possible that such a genius could have been born five hundred years ago, so that he would have saved mankind from five hundred years of error, struggle and suffering. (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. III, pp. 406, 407) But, as Engels pointed out: "What is expected is seldom fulfilled, and many of the intended ends are in most cases in conflict with each other, contradicting each other, or these ends themselves are not attainable in the first place, or lack the means to achieve them." ...... But, on the one hand, we have seen that many individual aspirations that have been active in history have in most cases not at all the intended result, but are often the opposite, and thus their motives are equally subordinate to the whole result. On the other hand, a new question arises: what are the motives behind these motives, and what are the historical reasons for them in the form of motives in the minds of the actors?" (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 4, pp. 243, 244) – It can be seen that the traditional view of history cannot explain history.

The purpose of action is expected, but the result of action is often not expected, and historical events seem to be governed by chance, is it here, as in nature, ostensibly by chance, that this chance is always governed by an internal objective law? The answer is yes, because this law has already been discovered. As Engels said, "Just as Darwin discovered the law of development of the organic world, Marx discovered the law of development of human society,...... (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. III, p. 574) "For the first time, history has been placed on its very real foundations, a fact that is evident and completely ignored before, namely, that people must first eat, drink, shelter, and clothe, that is to say, they must first work, and then they can fight for domination, politics, religion, philosophy, and so on...... (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. III, p. 41)

In the final analysis, the material production and material living standards of a certain place at that time were determined by the material production and material living standards of that place. This discovery of Marx is what we often call historical materialism.

With Marx's great discovery, when we look back and re-examine history, the history that appears before our eyes is no longer "luxuriant".

The first human society was a primitive society, and most of the time of human society has been spent in this state to this day. In this society, people mainly rely on gathering wild fruits, wild vegetables, fishing and hunting to obtain means of subsistence, and rely on the blessings of nature to survive. People work and consume together in groups, they are as poor as animals, nature is opposed to man as a completely alien, infinitely powerful and unconquerable force, people are subject to its power like livestock, production is not yet able to create surplus, there is no savings, material production and material living standards are very low.

I can't tell when it began, but love of labor has become a common word used by almost all ethnic groups when praising their ancestors. But what is expressed here is nothing more than the attitude of people to labor today. Just as when a eulogy is given to the deceased, no matter how exaggerated the praise of the deceased, no one will hold it accountable. But to explain the problem scientifically, the conclusion can only be that our ancestors did not love labor but only disgusted it. And the further back we go back in history, the stronger the aversion to labor becomes. If this is not clear in a primitive society where there is no surplus, where people work together and distribute together, it will be clear at a glance that once labor creates surplus, it will become possible to earn a living and obtain the means of enjoyment through the labor of others without working. Although there is very little material left from that era to study, it is sufficient to paint a picture of looting, as Marx put it: "There is a traditional notion that in certain periods people lived only by plundering. (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. II, p. 100) Labor became a despicable act that only slaves and inferior people were worthy of. "What can be obtained by blood, if obtained by sweat, is too weak and incompetent. (Tacitus, Agasila Chronicles of Germania, Triptych 58 Edition, p. 67) This sentence fully expresses the attitude of the people at that time towards labor, and the Karamoja people who now live in Uganda still practice plundering as a secondary production activity. In the plunder, whoever has the greatest merit will be slashed on the left arm, and the more scars there are, the more respected they are. When the young man courted the girl, he had to repeat his exploits in the plunder.

Plunder is certainly much more affordable than labor, but what is obtained by "bloodshed" must first be created by "sweat". Human society cannot do without labor, but people hate labor, and where there is no consciousness, it is necessary to spontaneously force and open up a way for human society to move forward, so that a social system in which some people force another part of people to work by barbaric and cruel means is created, which is a slave society.

The barbaric and brutal system of slavery is usually treated as a disgrace to human society. But as Engels put it: "It is easiest to denounce slavery and other similar phenomena in general terms, and to vent noble righteous indignation at these shameful phenomena." Unfortunately, this says only one thing that is well known, and that is that this ancient system is no longer suitable for our present situation and for our feelings that are determined by it. But how did this system come about, why did it exist, and what role did it play in history. We have not received any clarification on these issues. If we delve into these issues, we will say – no matter how contradictory and bizarre it may sound,—— the adoption of slavery was a great step forward under the conditions of the time. (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. III, p. 220) Any domination, at least in its ascending phase, must reflect the need for such domination, and the barbarism of the slave society is commensurate with the degree of aversion to labor.

The slave society was built on such a level of material production that labor had created a surplus and that labor had gained value, but individual labor had not yet been realized. The main sector of production in ancient societies was agriculture, and agriculture was undoubtedly the easiest to achieve individual labor. However, due to the low labor skills of the laborers at that time, the poverty of production experience, the clumsiness, and rudimentary production tools, the use of iron tools was not widespread, and the livestock and more complex agricultural tools such as the plough were very limited and could only be used by the collective, and the individual could not undertake the main field farming. Such a social existence determined the values of the slaves—their contempt for themselves and their inaction—that enabled them to accept and approve of the brutal servitude of their slave owners. Individual labor could only rely on the power of cooperation if it could not form productive forces, and the large estate economy of slave societies adapted to this need.

But a slave society could only be built on the above level of material production. Although the development was very slow, with the widespread use of iron tools, the spread of livestock and production tools, the improvement of labor skills of laborers, and the continuous improvement of production knowledge and experience, individual labor was gradually realized in agriculture and handicrafts. In this way, collective labor, which compensates for the lack of individual labor, naturally becomes obsolete. The developed level of material production has injected new values into the laborers, and the laborers are no longer interested in the kind of labor that does not bring them any benefits, and the labor of the slaves can no longer even bring benefits to the slave owners. "The large estate economy, based on slave labour, was no longer profitable; Small-scale operations are now the only possible form. (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, Vol. IV, p. 145)

The large estates were divided into small plots of land and rented to individual tenant farmers who paid a certain amount or a part of the product of their labor, and a new kind of production relations emerged, the feudal system.

In feudal society, the peasants, who were the direct producers, had much better production and living conditions than slaves under the slave system. Peasants can master a certain amount of means of production, obtain a certain amount of labor time and labor fruits at their disposal, and can improve their own livelihood through their own efforts. Compared with slaves, the peasants' interest and enthusiasm for labor have increased significantly. Slave societies began with small territories, at best, the union of several tribes, while feudal societies united vast areas into kingdoms, thus further expanding the range of human interaction. It is possible to concentrate human, material, and financial resources to make large-scale investments, such as building water conservancy. By uniting large regions in the kingdom, it will be able to provide a relatively stable living environment for the masses of the people, which will also be conducive to the development of production.

The production relations of feudal society are based on such a level of material production: individual labor has been realized, but the production of basic means of subsistence still occupies the vast majority of labor time, the rural population accounts for the vast majority of the total population, the power used in production is mainly human and animal power, and the occasional application of other natural forces such as wind power and water power is only a simple use, and there is no ability to reprocess.

In feudal society, individual labor was fully developed, and the level of craftsmanship was particularly impressive. Rural households, on the other hand, produce almost all of the means of subsistence and are a self-sufficient natural economy. However, the relations of production in feudal society limited the development of the productive forces to the scope of individual labor, and therefore these relations of production were destined to be eliminated in further development.

Feudal society is characterized by decentralization, and the forces that break the production relations of feudal society are concentrated, and it is the productive forces that renew the demand for joint labor. The starting point of feudal society was the countryside, and the natural economy of rural self-sufficiency was exclusionary and united. Under the feudal system, the highest achievement of the peasant was nothing more than struggling to freely occupy a piece of land and become a yeoman farmer through hard work. And once he freely occupies a piece of land, he gains the freedom to lose this land, and once he breaks free from the shackles of feudal patriarchal relations, he loses the protection of feudal patriarchy, but this is only a symptom of the disintegration of feudal society, and it only prepares the conditions for the coming revolution. For the small producers of freedom will always be the real preparatory school for the free proletarians who have nothing, but hope is not in the countryside.

Within the feudal society, the handicraft industry has always served the countryside, the market is fixed, the scale is fixed, and the craftsmanship is also passed down from generation to generation, and the natural economy of rural self-sufficiency coexists for generations. However, the discovery of the Americas, the voyage around Africa, and the development of markets such as China and India made the market expand all at once, and the original handicraft industry could no longer meet the expanding market demand. By pooling a group of scattered craftsmen and taking advantage of the division of labor and cooperation, the handicraft industry was replaced by the factory handicraft industry. The factory handicraft industry was, by its very nature, a capitalist mode of operation, but it was only an injection of capitalist elements into feudal society, and it did not yet have the power to destroy the old world in itself. What really sounded the death knell for feudal society was the power revolution, the emergence of the steam engine and the machine industry associated with it. Tens of thousands of workers were organized like an army, the dynamic revolution and joint labor gained absolute superiority in competition, the traditional handicraft industry went bankrupt, and the labor force in the countryside was liberated in large numbers.

The bourgeoisie is a class that has made outstanding contributions to human society. Marx and Engels wrote in the Communist Manifesto: "The bourgeoisie has revealed that the courage and ruthlessness of the reactionaries, which were so much praised by the reactionaries in the Middle Ages, are supplemented by laziness and laziness. It proved for the first time what human activity can achieve. It created miracles completely different from the Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, and Gothic churches, and it completed expeditions completely different from the Great Migration and the Crusades. ...... The bourgeoisie has created more productive forces in less than a hundred years of its class rule than all the productive forces of all previous epochs. The conquest of the forces of nature, the adoption of machinery, the application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, the movement of steamships, the passage of railways, the use of the telegraph, the reclamation of whole continents, the navigation of rivers, the enormous population summoned from the ground as if by magic,-—— what century in the past century could have imagined such productive forces lurking in social labour?" (Selected Works of Marx and Engels, vol. 1, pp. 254, 256) Marx, What Engels enumerated more than 100 years ago is really nothing compared with the achievements of capitalism today, how can capitalism be able to create such miracles? What kind of magic does it use to tap out such productive forces that are latent in social labor?

In the feudal society before capitalism, under the strict hierarchical system, people could almost only be content with the destiny of heaven, noble or lowly, rich or poor, they were born destined and generally could not be changed. Under the capitalist system, it is an empty phrase to talk about equal opportunities for all people, but free competition does provide everyone with more opportunities and broad space to change their social status and living conditions through their own subjective efforts, which the previous society could not provide. At the same time, it is precisely competition that throws people into crisis, not only in order to get rich, but also to struggle for a minimum of survival, which gives capitalist society unprecedented vitality.

Above we have listed the three social systems that have existed or are existing in our human society and the evolution between them, these three social systems are the inevitable existence of adapting to a certain material production and material living standards, in fact, these three social systems have a common basis, that is, the opposition between labor and enjoyment. Human society cannot do without labor, and when people cannot consciously and voluntarily work, there must be some means to force labor, whether it is slavery, feudalism or the domination of capital over labor. They are all performing the social function of forced labor. As long as there is an opposition between labour and enjoyment, and as long as labour is still a means of subsistence, there must be some means of compulsion of labour, whether it is based on violence or attraction through profit. But this is not to say that the coercion of labor is always indispensable. On the contrary, when the development of our human society has created the material conditions for the elimination of the opposition between labor and enjoyment, when the material production and material living standards of human beings have reached such a height, labor itself has become enjoyment, and has become the first need for people's survival, and no form of forced labor has become superfluous? Is it possible to make labor itself enjoyable and the first need of people's lives?

A person with the simplest mind can tell you clearly what kind of activity is labor and what kind of activity is enjoyment. However, it is almost impossible to determine what is labor and what is enjoyment. For for some an activity may be labor, while for others it may be enjoyment. For example, football is definitely high-intensity labor for professional football players, but it is enjoyable for amateurs; Operating a computer is labor for the computer operator, but for the person who plays the computer game, it becomes a pleasure; Driving a car is labor for car drivers, but it is a rare enjoyment for those who have thought about addicting to cars; In fact, some Western tycoons would rather pay to go to the countryside to do farm work for a period of time to enjoy the pleasure of the countryside. However, if we say that operating a computer, driving a car, and working on the field are still acceptable to everyone. On the other hand, if we say that these are enjoyment, we will be criticized, because this is what most people know today. It can be seen that the determination of whether an activity is labor or enjoyment does not depend on the activity itself, but on people's perception of the activity. In the final analysis, people's understanding comes from the reality of people's production and life, and is a reflection of certain production and living conditions, and when production and living conditions change, people's understanding will of course also change.

Of course, by eliminating the opposition between labor and enjoyment, human society will enter what we call a communist society.