Major Foundational Theoretical and Practical Issues Task Force, Institute of History and Theory: A Review and Commentary on Research into Major Foundational Theoretical Issues Since the Founding of New China [1]
Scientific theory is a product of its era; it must respond to the concerns of the age and lead the development of the times. The Communist Party of China was born from the introduction of Marxism to China and its integration with the Chinese workers' movement. In the process of studying, mastering, and applying the truths of Marxism, it was combined with the concrete realities of the Chinese Revolution, giving rise to Mao Zedong Thought. This, in turn, guided the Chinese Revolution, achieving the great victory of the New Democratic Revolution and the founding of the People’s Republic of China. With the founding of New China, the question of how to further consolidate the people’s democratic political power and explore the paths of socialist revolution and construction became the task of the era facing the CPC and the Chinese people.
At that time, various circles in China, particularly the theoretical community, looked back at history. They hoped to use the guidance of Marxism to explore the stages, characteristics, nature, and developmental laws of Chinese social evolution from a historical perspective. This led to a surge of discussion in the 1950s and 60s regarding the periodization of ancient Chinese history, the feudal land ownership system, peasant wars, the sprouts of capitalism, and the formation of the Han ethnicity—collectively known in historiography as the "Five Golden Flowers" [1]. Discussions also formed around these "Five Golden Flowers" and related issues, such as the long-term stagnation [2] of Chinese feudal society, the evaluation of historical figures, the Asiatic mode of production, and the periodization of modern Chinese history. In the early period of Reform and Opening-up, these issues of historical theory briefly returned to public view, but as times changed, attention to them continually waned, to the point that the grand scale of former debates is difficult to replicate.
Viewed today, although the exploration of these major foundational theoretical issues had historical limitations, it actively responded to the major historical and realistic theoretical concerns of the Party and the state at the time. It met the theoretical needs of the masses engaged in socialist revolution and construction, greatly promoted the enrichment and development of Chinese Marxist historiography, produced a large number of far-reaching historiographical achievements, trained a generation of young scholars, and constructed a historiographical research paradigm with Chinese characteristics. To this day, it continues to provide intellectual nourishment and academic experience for the great cause of building a strong country and national rejuvenation in the New Era and on the new journey; it remains worthy of continued exploration and in-depth study.
I. Research on Marxist Social Formation Theory
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Marxist historical materialism entered China. Following the failure of the Great Revolution [3], it became the theoretical weapon recognized by the intellectual community for exploring where China was headed and for interpreting the nature of Chinese society. In 1930, Guo Moruo published Research on Ancient Chinese Society, the first work to use the social formation theory of historical materialism to explain the periodization of Chinese historical development and its social nature, marking the preliminary formation of Chinese Marxist historiography. The subsequent "Debate on Chinese Social History" [4] led to a wider acceptance and understanding of the research model that uses Marxist social formation theory to examine Chinese history.
In 1938, Stalin’s Dialectical and Historical Materialism was translated into Chinese. Stalin refined and summarized social formation theory into a basic law of human society evolving through five stages: primitive society, slave society, feudal society, capitalist society, and communist society—referred to for short as the "Five-Stage Theory of Social Formations" or "Five-Stage Theory." This theory was quickly and generally accepted by Chinese Marxist historians. As some scholars have noted, for the Chinese Marxist historiographical circles prior to 1949, once the existence of slavery and feudalism in Chinese history was affirmed, the periodization between the two became the central issue. In fact, not only were the periodization of ancient Chinese history, feudal land ownership, and the sprouts of capitalism directly related to Marxist social formation theory, but the discussions on the long-term stagnation of Chinese feudal society and the Asiatic mode of production also originated from different perceptions and understandings formed during the process of integrating Marxist social formation theory with Chinese history.
After the founding of New China, the "Five-Stage Theory" became the guiding theory for all circles in China to understand the laws of human social development. however, in the process of integrating it with the actual history of China, differing viewpoints increased rather than decreased. For instance, the periodization of ancient Chinese history gave rise to the famous "Three Theories and Five Persuasives," while other issues also reached a climax of discussion. Furthermore, some dissenting voices appeared in the academic community; for example, on June 2, 1957, during an academic lecture in Tianjin, Lei Haizong argued that although slavery existed between primitive society and capitalist society, a "slave society" [as a distinct stage] did not exist. In the same year, Li Hongzhe claimed that slave society was not a necessary stage through which human society must pass.
Although the Anti-Rightist Movement of 1957 and the "Historiographical Revolution" [5] of 1958 had a significant negative impact on the development of Chinese Marxist historiography, a new surge of discussion on social formations emerged in the 1960s. After the outbreak of the "Cultural Revolution," the academic community largely lost the environment for normal research. Following Reform and Opening-up—with changes in the Cold War landscape, the penetration of various Western social trends, and continued research into social formations—scholars once again considered whether the complex process of human social evolution contradicted the generalizations of the "Five-Stage Theory." They debated the conflict between unilinear and multilinear theories of social development, whether the thoughts of Marx and Engels in their later years regarding social formations differed from those of Lenin and Stalin, and how to view such differences.
While the discussion of the "Five Golden Flowers" fell into silence after a brief "fleeting bloom" in the early Reform and Opening-up period, the discussion regarding Marxist social formation theory has continued to the present day. For example, regarding the developmental path of human history, in addition to the unilinear theory of sequential evolution according to the "Five-Stage Theory," there have emerged multilinear theories, "unilinear-then-multilinear" theories, "monistic-multilinear" theories, the theory of the unity of generality and diversity, and the "convention and variation" theory. Regarding the types of social formations, there have emerged "Two-Stage," "Three-Stage," "Four-Stage," and "Six-Stage" theories, with the debate between the "Three-Stage" and "Five-Stage" theories being the primary focus.
The discussion of Marxist social formation theory links the Great Debates on social nature and social history of the 1920s and 30s with the "Five Golden Flowers" research of the 50s and 60s, continuing through the new period of Reform and Opening-up into the New Era. This hundred-year continuity persists fundamentally because this theory is not only a practical and theoretical necessity for modern and contemporary China, but also the foundation and prerequisite for research into major theoretical and practical issues since the founding of New China. For example, understanding the nature of pre-industrial societies in Asia, Africa, and Latin America after World War II, or carrying out socialist construction based on a clear recognition of China's specific national, Party, social, and popular conditions, cannot be achieved without the guidance of Marxist social formation theory.
Therefore, discussions on Marxist social formation theory remain ongoing. Scholars such as Wang Weiguang and Pang Zhuoheng emphasize the scientific nature of Marx’s theory of social formations and its guiding significance for historical research, pointing out that it has not lost its theoretical luster due to the changing times. Since the beginning of the New Era, the academic community's continued discussion was not merely a continuation of academic debate, but an intellectual exploration based on our current "changes unseen in a century" and the strategic overall situation of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, seeking a new historical orientation to advance Chinese-path modernization.
II. The Periodization of Ancient Chinese History
While there were "understandings of historical periodization" in the past, the problem of the periodization of ancient Chinese history in the usual sense originated from the debates on the nature of Chinese society and social history in the 1920s and 30s. The goal was to use Chinese history to clearly identify the nature of Chinese society at the time and seek the path toward national independence and liberation. In February 1930, in Research on Ancient Chinese Society, Guo Moruo used Marxist social formation theory to divide the developmental stages of ancient Chinese society. He argued that before the Western Zhou, society was a primitive commune system; the Western Zhou was a slave system; after the Spring and Autumn period, it was feudal; and the last hundred years were capitalist. This theory not only caused a strong reaction in the academic community at the time but also became one of the core topics of the subsequent Debate on Chinese Social History, marking the start of the discussion on the periodization of ancient history.
Lü Zhenyu published Research on Prehistoric Chinese Society and Chinese Society in the Yin-Zhou Era in 1934 and 1936 respectively, establishing the "Yin-Shang Slave Society Theory" and the "Western Zhou Feudalism Theory." During the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, Fan Wenlan oversaw the compilation of the Brief Edition of Chinese General History in Yan'an, adhering to the "Western Zhou Feudalism Theory." Due to his important status in Marxist historiography, he was regarded as the primary representative of this view. Hou Wailu analyzed the clans, property, political structures, class relations, and social thought of ancient China using the Asiatic mode of production, arguing that Chinese slave society began at the end of the Yin and start of the Zhou, ending during the transition from the Qin to the Han. Although these discussions did not reach a consensus on the nature of Chinese society, they laid the foundation for post-1949 discussions.
After the founding of New China, the "Five-Stage Theory" was widely accepted as a universal truth of Marxism. However, the periodization of ancient history—whether a slave society existed in China, when it ended, and when feudal society began—remained a hot topic. In June 1952, Guo Moruo published The Era of Slavery, adjusting his "Spring and Autumn Feudalism Theory" to the "Warring States Feudalism Theory," which launched the periodization debates of the New China era. Marxist historians and "old-school historians" alike participated. In the 1950s and 60s, three major schools (Western Zhou Feudalism, Warring States Feudalism, and Wei-Jin Feudalism) and five specific viewpoints (Spring and Autumn, Qin, Western Han, Eastern Han, and Eastern Jin Feudalism theories) gradually formed, known collectively as the "Three Theories and Five Persuasives."
After the "Cultural Revolution" ended, the periodization of ancient history remained a priority. In October 1978, the journals Historical Research and Social Science Front jointly held an academic seminar on the periodization of ancient Chinese history in Changchun, Jilin Province. Representatives of the "Three Theories and Five Persuasives" and younger scholars expressed their views in a heated discussion, resulting in a "Little Springtime" [6] for the debate. With the re-emergence of the theory that China never had a slave society (the "Non-Slavery Theory") and the discussions since the 1990s regarding the "name and reality" of "feudalism" [7], new theories on periodization have continually appeared. These include: using "Antiquity" and "Middle Ages" to replace slave and feudal societies to avoid defining social nature; periodizing based on prehistoric, agricultural, and industrial society; or dividing history into the eras of Chiefdoms, Feudal Kingdoms, Transformation, and Despotic Empires. Others have used a kinship perspective to divide history into four periods: clan society, aristocratic society, powerful-lineage society, and patriarchal-clan society. While each of these theories has its strengths and weaknesses, they have pushed the academic community toward deeper reflection.
The discussion on the periodization of ancient history has not only deepened the academic understanding of the nature of Chinese society and national conditions but has also promoted the enrichment of Chinese Marxist historiography. In 1992, Lin Ganquan, Tian Renlong, and Li Zude co-authored Fifty Years of Discussion on the Periodization of Ancient Chinese History, providing a comprehensive overview and evaluation of the field. Recently, Zhang Yue, looking at the new characteristics of this research over forty years of Reform and Opening-up, emphasized: "Any academic analysis of the periodization of ancient Chinese history is inseparable from the support of historical facts, the evidence of historical materials, the guidance of theory, and realistic considerations." Although research continues, it has produced high-quality results, improved the level of ancient history research, driven the development of related disciplines, and promoted Marxist historiography. It provides the intellectual nourishment and academic foundation for understanding the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the prominent traits of Chinese civilization.
III. The Question of the Chinese Land System
Ancient China was dominated by agriculture for a long period. This only gradually began to change following the founding of the People's Republic of China, and particularly after the Reform and Opening-up. However, the issues of agriculture, rural areas, and farmers—the so-called "Three Rural Issues" [8]—remain significant problems for the Chinese economy. Since the most fundamental means of production in a large agrarian country is land, the land system determines the economic structure, political structure, class relations, and social nature of ancient Chinese society. Most Chinese "biographical-thematic" histories (jizhuanti) included a "Treatise on Food and Money" (Shihuozhi), in which the land system was a crucial component. Before the founding of the PRC, historians such as Jian Bozan, Hou Wailu, and Deng Tuo addressed this issue in their works to varying degrees, arguing that the feudal landownership system was a system dominated by landlord landownership. During the Agrarian Revolutionary War (1927–1937) [9], the Party led the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army and the revolutionary masses in revolutionary base areas to "strike the local tyrants and distribute the land," [10] abolish feudal exploitation and debt, and satisfy the peasants' demand for land. This formed the land revolution line: relying on poor and landless peasants, uniting with middle peasants, restricting rich peasants, protecting small and medium industrial and commercial interests, eliminating the landlord class, and transforming feudal and semi-feudal landownership into peasant landownership. Consequently, this period is also known as the Land Revolutionary War period.
With the implementation of Land Reform during the Liberation War and the early years of the PRC, understanding Chinese feudal landownership became a practical issue. In 1954, Hou Wailu published "The Question of the Forms of Landownership in Chinese Feudal Society: A Discussion of the Laws of Development of Chinese Feudal Society" in the inaugural issue of Historical Research (Lishi Yanjiu). He proposed that landownership in Chinese feudal society was dominated by the monopoly of the imperial family landlords, characterizing it as "imperial family ownership." This sparked a heated debate in academic circles over whether landownership in feudal society was dominated by state landownership or landlord landownership. In the discussions on feudal landownership from the mid-1950s to the early 1960s, aside from Hou Wailu's "imperial family ownership" theory, several other schools of thought emerged: the dominance of state landownership during the Wei, Jin, Sui, and Tang dynasties; the dominance of landlord landownership; the evolution from manorial landownership to landlord landownership; the coexistence of various types of landownership; and the theory of state dominance in the early period versus private dominance in the later period. To a considerable extent, these academic discussions responded to the Land Reform movement of the time, as well as the Agricultural Cooperation movement of the 1950s and the People’s Commune movement (including the "Grand Land Contracting" [11] experiments) of the 1960s.
Following the Reform and Opening-up and the implementation of the Household Contract Responsibility System, China’s land system underwent a major adjustment. Consequently, research on the history of China’s land system saw a minor peak in the 1980s and 1990s. Representative general histories included Zhao Lisheng's History of the Chinese Land System, alongside numerous period-specific works. Two "new theories" emerged during this period regarding feudal landownership: first, Tian Changwu proposed a theory of "cyclical state and private ownership" based on existing research; second, Bai Shouyi and others established the "stratified landownership" theory. Both expanded the horizons and depth of research. Since the 21st century, research has focused more on contemporary China's current land system and its reform, relatively neglecting the actual state and evolution of land systems in Chinese history. With the trial and expansion of land transfers and the so-called "separation of the three rights" (ownership, entitlement/use, and management/operation rights), there is an urgent need to strengthen research on China's land system in the New Era. This research must address how the land system can adapt to mechanized, large-scale rural economic development and break down the institutional barriers restricting rural revitalization. It should seek wisdom and methods from history to solve practical problems and provide explanatory theories that adapt to the development of new quality productive forces and the construction of a new socialist countryside.
IV. Research on the "Sprouts of Capitalism"
The question of the "sprouts of capitalism" in China reflects the continuous exploration by Marxists using the theory of social forms to analyze the nature of Chinese society and guide revolutionary practice. In his 1935 article, "An Investigation into the 'Long-term Stagnation' of Chinese Social Economy," Deng Tuo pointed out that long before the invasion of Western powers, "factors negating the parent body already existed and were developing within the body of Chinese feudal society," though their development was limited. Lyu Zhenyu argued that the "embryonic form of capitalist-style handicraft workshops" had appeared by the late Ming, and by the Qing dynasty, "capitalist factors were being nurtured." Furthermore, scholars like Hou Wailu and Fu Yiling also touched upon this research. In December 1939, in The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party, Mao Zedong issued a classic verdict on the sprouts of capitalism: "As China's feudal society had developed a commodity economy, and so carried within itself the seeds of capitalism, China would of herself have developed slowly into a capitalist society even without the impact of foreign capitalism." This assertion not only affirmed the existence of these sprouts but also set the tone for the discussions in the 1950s and 60s.
After the founding of the PRC, to dismantle the "stagnation theory" [12] regarding Chinese feudal society, the academic community used the discussion of the 18th-century novel Dream of the Red Chamber as an opportunity to launch a massive debate on the sprouts of capitalism. In 1954, Li Xifan and Lan Ling published "On 'A Brief Theory of Dream of the Red Chamber' and Other Matters," arguing that the book indirectly revealed the historical demand for transforming the feudal system which had not yet matured. On January 9, 1955, Deng Tuo published "On the Social Background and Historical Significance of Dream of the Red Chamber" in the People's Daily. He argued that the reigns of Kangxi, Yongzheng, and Qianlong in the Qing dynasty were a period when Chinese feudal society began to disintegrate and capitalist economic factors were sprouting. This explicit framing of the "sprouts of capitalism" supported Li and Lan while prompting responses from scholars like Shang Yue, Wu Han, Fu Yiling, Hou Wailu, Jian Bozan, Wu Dakun, and Li Shu, creating the first wave of discussion in the 1950s and 60s. The focus was on when the sprouts appeared, their degree of development, specific fields of manifestation, and their profound impact. For instance, regarding the time of emergence, theories suggested the Tang, Northern Song, Yuan, or Ming-Qing dynasties, or even specific periods within the late Ming and early Qing. Some scholars analyzed specific industries in agriculture and handicrafts, leading to differing views on whether development was high or low. There were also different understandings of the impact of these sprouts on the class structure. Most of these discussions echoed the theoretical logic that capitalist sprouts existed and that even without Western invasion, Chinese feudal society would eventually have disintegrated and moved toward capitalism.
With Reform and Opening-up and the increasing vitality of the socialist market economy, discussions on the sprouts of capitalism re-emerged in the 1980s. While continuing to address unresolved questions from previous debates, this wave turned more toward analyzing the reasons for the slow development of these sprouts. Three main views emerged: 1) the stable economic structure of Chinese feudal society made it difficult for capitalist sprouts to attract large amounts of monetary capital; 2) the heavy taxation and plunder by the feudal autocratic regimes during the Ming and Qing dynasties hindered development; and 3) a combination of factors—the landlord economy, the autocratic system, low productive forces, unbalanced national economic development, and Western colonial interference—resulted in slow progress. Chinese scholars also used the Marxist historical materialist outlook to advance socio-economic history through Sino-Western comparisons. After the Reform and Opening-up, the introduction of modernization theory into China revitalized research on this topic. In advancing Chinese-path modernization in the New Era, we must look back at the historical process of China's early modernization and break the academic myth of "modernization = Westernization," providing a vivid theoretical explanation for the great practice of Chinese-path modernization.
V. The Formation of the Han Nationality
The question of the formation of the Han nationality can be traced back to theories of ethnic origins during the late Qing and early Republic periods. While refuting the "Western origin of the Chinese" theory [13], scholars gradually reinforced the narrative of the indigenous formation and development of the Han nationality. With the introduction of Western ethnological theories and research on the relations between various ethnic groups in Chinese history, the concept of the "Zhonghua Minzu" (Chinese Nation/Nationalities) [14] became widely accepted. At its Second National Congress in 1922, the CPC proposed: "Overthrow the oppression of international imperialism and achieve complete independence for the Chinese nation." From then on, national independence became a core component of the New Democratic Revolution. From the 1920s to the 1940s, through the efforts of Chinese academia and the baptism of the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal movements—especially the Chinese People's War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression—research on Chinese ethnic history saw significant development. Early CPC theorists and Marxist historians, such as Cai Hesen, Li Da, Jian Bozan, Li Weihan, and Lyu Zhenyu, used historical materialism to study the formation, development, life, and relations of various ethnic groups in Chinese history. Lyu Zhenyu's A Brief History of Chinese Nationalities was hailed as "China's first Marxist monograph on ethnic history." These achievements accumulated rich historical materials and established a solid academic foundation for post-1949 discussions.
After the founding of the PRC, following ethnic identification work and under the influence of Stalin's theory of nationality [15], the academic community engaged in heated discussions on the definition of a "nationality" (minzu) and the formation of the Han. In the early 1950s, some scholars, based on Stalin's theory—which posited that "nations" (minzu) could not form before capitalism—argued for a late formation. Conversely, Liu Guiwu, Rong Mengyuan, and others argued that the Han nationality formed after the Qin unified the six states. These internal discussions initially drew little outside attention. However, when the Soviet historian G. Efimov published "On the Formation of the Chinese Nation" in the Chinese journal Translated Series on National Questions in April 1954, claiming the Chinese nation formed between the 19th and 20th centuries, it triggered a response. This view clearly contradicted the historical reality of the Han nationality. In June 1954, Fan Wenlan published "A Tentative Discussion on the Reasons Why China Became a Unified Country Since the Qin and Han Dynasties" in Historical Research, asserting that the Han nationality formed during the Qin-Han period. This ignited a wider scholastic debate. Some supported the Qin-Han theory; others argued that while a centralized state appeared then, the Han nationality did not form until the Ming dynasty; still others suggested it formed after the Opium War. As the influence of Stalinist theory waned following the Sino-Soviet split, the focus shifted toward definitions of nationality, ethnic relations, ethnic wars, ethnic fusion, and the evaluation of ethnic policies. Around 1962, when the Philosophy and Social Sciences Department of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau held a meeting on the unified translation of the term "minzu," another wave of discussion on the Han nationality's formation emerged.
The view that the Han nationality formed during the Qin and Han dynasties has gained increasing support, and even the history of the Huaxia [16] people prior to the Qin and their evolution into the Han has received more attention. When exactly did the Huaxia people form? Currently, there are three main theories: the Zhou dynasty, the Xia dynasty, and the Spring and Autumn/Warring States periods. Some scholars believe the Han did not form in the Qin-Han but were the expansion of the "Xia" or "Huaxia" groups. Others argue that while the Huaxia were the main body of the Han, the two are distinct, especially as the structure of the Huaxia changed significantly between the "Three Dynasties" [17] and the Qin-Han period. A newer theory suggests the Han nationality formed in the Han dynasty based on the southern Chu people, breaking the traditional narrative of a northern Huaxia foundation. The question of Han formation concerns not only the origins of Chinese civilization but also ethnic unity, social stability, and national unification. Therefore, the formation of the Huaxia and Han, and the history of interactions, exchanges, and blending (the "three types of ethnic interaction") among various ethnic groups in Chinese history, are crucial components of the discipline of ethnic history. These must be integrated into the New Era project of "forging a sense of community for the Chinese nation" to expose the conspiracies of the U.S. and the West—who use the pretexts of "ethnic" or "religious" issues to instigate ethnic tension and create conflict—and to contribute academic strength to the Chinese Dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.
VI. Research on the Evaluation of Historical Figures
The evaluation of historical figures is "an ancient yet ever-new topic" and "an important dimension of historical research"; it stands as a prominent major theoretical issue within Marxist historiography. Since the founding of New China, the academic community has engaged in spirited discussions regarding the standards, principles, methods, and significance of evaluating historical figures, leaving behind a rich academic legacy. For instance, a classic case began on November 1, 1953, when Yuan Liangyi published "On Cao Cao," affirming Cao Cao's historical contributions; this led to a wave of academic discussions in 1959 aimed at "reversing the verdict" [18] on Cao Cao, culminating in the 1960 publication of the Collected Essays on Cao Cao by the SDX Joint Publishing Company (Living, Reading, and New Knowledge). While different scholars have proposed varying standards, the fact remains that in a class society, all individuals belong to a specific class, and their various activities invariably reflect their class interests. Consequently, adopting the method of class analysis makes it easier to discern the essence of their actions and the historical role they played. Thus, the academic community adopted class analysis as the fundamental method for evaluating historical figures. However, during the era of "the theory of class status," "the theory of bloodline," and "taking class struggle as the key link" [19], the application of class analysis could sometimes lead to the deviation of total negation regarding figures from the exploiting classes. Since the 1960s, some scholars have argued that when evaluating such figures, one must differentiate between different historical periods, perform concrete analyses of individuals, and objectively assess their merits and demerits.
Since the beginning of reform and opening up, the method of class analysis has faced serious challenges. Under the banners of "the theory of motive and effect" or "value pluralism," some have attempted to "reverse the verdict" on specific historical figures. Others have used "one-sided correctness" or trivial details to hide the bigger picture [20], a practice that gradually evolved into or bred historical nihilism [21]. These attempts sought to disrupt mainstream values and vainly hoped to negate the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics; this is no longer a simple matter of evaluating historical figures. Su Shuangbi proposed that such evaluations must adhere to the principle of historicism and the method of concrete analysis of concrete problems, maintaining that the standard should be whether an individual's actions benefited national unity and ethnic solidarity. In summarizing the principles and methods of evaluation, Xu Guoli and Li Tianxing proposed that they primarily include the principle of seeking truth from facts, the principle of historicism, the relationship between subjective motive and objective effect, and the method of class analysis. General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out that when observing problems in a class society, one must adhere to the Marxist political stance, and "the Marxist political stance is, first and foremost, a class stance, involving class analysis." Regarding the evaluation of historical figures, he emphasized the need to "analyze them within the historical conditions of their era and society, without departing from a comprehensive understanding of historical conditions and processes, or a scientific grasp of historical laws; one cannot ignore the relationship between historical necessity and historical contingency. We cannot simply credit successes in favorable historical periods to individuals, nor can we simply blame setbacks in adverse historical periods on individuals." This objective, fair, and truth-seeking stance and method provide a scientific standard and academic guide for evaluating historical figures.
The major fundamental theoretical issues since the founding of New China also include the long duration of Chinese feudal society, theories of historical dynamics, and the systematic clarification of key theoretical concepts such as productive forces, modes of production, class struggle, and class analysis—all of which deserve our in-depth reflection and research. This review has focused on the aforementioned six major issues. All six belong to the category of major fundamental theoretical problems, most of which germinated during the Great Debate on Social History in the 1920s and 30s. They passed through the "Five Golden Flowers" [22] discussions of the 1950s and 60s, continued through the sustained debates and silent reflections of the reform and opening-up era, and persist to this day. They have always been closely linked to the future and destiny of China in the modern era, reflecting the great practices of the Chinese revolution, construction, reform and opening up, and the New Era at a theoretical level. By contemplating the nature of Chinese society, the future and destiny of the Chinese revolution, and the exploration of socialist construction and the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, these issues have profoundly influenced the magnificent century-long epic of rejuvenation from modern China to the present. Faced with changes in domestic and international situations, these inquiries have consistently adhered to the guidance of the Marxist materialist conception of history and kept pace with the Party’s theoretical innovations, advancing with the times.
Although the exploration and debate of these major fundamental theoretical issues were limited by the conditions of their respective historical periods, the academic achievements, theoretical value, and social contributions they produced constitute a monument in the developmental history of Marxist historiography. Specifically: first, they provided theoretical guidance for the CPC and the Chinese people to understand the social nature, characteristics, and developmental laws of different periods in Chinese history, contributing to the victory of the revolution, socialist construction, and reform and opening up. They also provided an ideological foundation for fully understanding the prominent characteristics of Chinese civilization, the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, the promotion of Chinese-path modernization, and the forging of a sense of community for the Chinese nation. Second, they produced a collection of high-quality academic achievements, greatly elevating the level of Chinese historical research and forming new disciplinary fields such as socio-economic history and ethnic history under the guidance of historical materialism. This enriched and developed Chinese Marxist historiography and laid a solid academic foundation for accelerating the construction of the "Three Great Systems" [23] of history with Chinese characteristics. Third, the consciousness of "statecraft and social utility" [24]—which kept pace with the times—and the profound, frank academic contention integrated major theoretical issues into daily life, creating a "theory fever" across society that still offers important lessons today. The foundation of theoretical innovation stems from new, great practices, and the prerequisite for theoretical innovation lies in academic reflection. In the New Era, the Chinese academic community must systematically organize and review the research on major fundamental theoretical issues since the founding of New China. This serves not only to provide historiographical resources, disciplinary foundations, and academic paradigms for constructing an independent knowledge system of history with Chinese characteristics, but also to provide historiographical wisdom and theoretical support for the great cause of building a strong country and national rejuvenation in the New Era.
Network Editor: Tong Xin Source: Historical Theory Research (史学理论研究), Issue 1, 2025