Wang Juanjuan and Wu Hanquan: The Origins of "Revolutionary Discourse" in Modern China: Early Explorations of the Sinicization of Marxist "Revolutionary Discourse"

In recent years, the academic community has increasingly focused on the study of "revolutionary discourse" in modern China. This holds profound academic significance for uncovering the characteristics and external manifestations of modern thought; however, the question of the origins of "revolutionary discourse" within modern thought has seldom been addressed. Theoretically speaking, any influential intellectual discourse in modern China is the external expression of relevant theories and possesses its own inherent theoretical foundation. For a discourse to form, develop, and establish a systemic structure, it must rely on the society in which it exists. From the perspective of social history, a discourse system—as an expression of people's intellectual aspirations and a reflection of social change—is constrained by the actual conditions of social operation and its related elements on the one hand, and exerts a significant influence on social change on the other, constituting the intellectual resources of society through this influence. Based on these reflections, this article first outlines the basic connotations of the Marxist "revolutionary discourse." Then, using the intellectual evolution in China between 1919 and 1927 as the investigative text, it explores the internal factors and initial forms related to the origin of "revolutionary discourse" in modern China within the horizon of social history, striving to provide new insights into the logical genealogy of modern Chinese thought.

I. The Basic Connotations of Classical Marxist "Revolutionary Discourse"

To study the origins of "revolutionary discourse" in modern China, one must first delineate the basic connotations of Marxist "revolutionary discourse," particularly recognizing the guiding theoretical role and foundational status played by historical materialism and class theory. From a theoretical standpoint, the discourses of classical Marxist writers on social revolution constitute a distinct theme and essential content of the theory of scientific socialism. Marx and Engels adhered to historical materialism in studying the phenomenon of social revolution, which was centrally and systematically elucidated in classic texts such as On the Jewish Question, The German Ideology, and particularly the later Manifesto of the Communist Party, Capital, and Critique of the Gotha Programme. The Marxist "revolutionary discourse" takes the category of "class" as its core, forming a categorical system that includes "political party," "the people," "the state," "the nation," and "liberation." Following the discursive path of "discovering the new world through the critique of the old," it clearly points toward the proletarian revolution.

First, the root of revolution lies in the needs of the development of productive forces. Examining the origins of social revolution based on historical materialism, Marx argued: "At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or—this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms—with the property relations within which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution." Although Marx analyzed the roots of social revolution from the perspective of productive forces, this does not imply that he was a proponent of "productive force determinism" who passively awaited social revolution. In Marx's view, as an objective material force independent of human will, the productive forces also possess distinct characteristics of social practice. This is because "of all the instruments of production, the greatest productive power is the revolutionary class itself. The organization of revolutionary elements as a class supposes the existence of all the productive forces which could be engendered in the bosom of the old society." Therefore, social revolution in classical Marxist "revolutionary discourse" is not a certain established condition to be waited for passively; on the contrary, the existing world must be continuously revolutionized through the "real movement which abolishes the present state of things."

Second, the essence of revolution is the transformation of the social system. Marxism holds that social revolution is the product of irreconcilable contradictions between the productive forces and the relations of production. From the perspective of the relations of production, the essence of revolution is to achieve a fundamental transformation of the social system. In the speaking system of classical Marxist "revolutionary discourse," the essence of social revolution lies in opposing "old, obsolete social relations" and realizing a transformation of the social system centered on property relations. Marx used the transformation of social institutions to explain the essence of the British and French bourgeois revolutions, arguing that "the victory of the bourgeoisie was then the victory of a new social order," namely "the victory of bourgeois property over feudal property." As Engels stated, "All revolutions up to the present day have been revolutions for the protection of one kind of property against another kind of property." Clearly, the essence of revolution lies not in reforming the existing society, but in achieving a fundamental transformation of the social system, as this is the key to solving the crisis wherein acquired productive forces and existing social relations can no longer coexist. Thus, viewing the historical role and political influence of revolution at the level of the social system is precisely the understanding of how revolution acts upon the relations of production within the horizon of historical materialism.

Third, the subject of revolution is the oppressed proletarian laborers. From the perspective of the Marxist view of class and the theory of class struggle, oppressors and the oppressed coexist in class society. Marx and Engels borrowed terms such as "servants," "cattle," "puppets," "vassals," and "labor slaves" to refer to proletarian laborers under the capitalist wage-labor relationship. They further used terms like "poverty," "slavery," "degeneracy," "exploitation," and "the agony of toil" to express the lived situation of the oppressed proletariat, while never ignoring "the fact of national oppression." "Either starve or revolt"—the proletariat, as a product of large-scale industry, had become the "really revolutionary class" in confrontation with the bourgeoisie. With the growth of discontent among proletarian laborers and the expansion of their strength, the revolutionary movement carried out "openly in the interest of the masses of the people, i.e., the masses of producers" became unstoppable. As Marx said, "The proletarian movement is the independent movement of the immense majority"; it is a mass social revolutionary movement with proletarian laborers as the revolutionary subject. This is the concrete application of Marxist class and class struggle theory in socio-political transformation.

Fourth, the leader of the revolution is the proletarian party. Marx and Engels' focus on the question of revolution centered primarily on how the proletariat should lead the revolution, emphasizing the extreme importance of organizing a Communist Party. In their view, "The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties. They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole. They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mould the proletarian movement." Clearly, the reason classical Marxist writers placed the leadership of social revolution in the hands of the proletarian party was that only such a party could truly strive "in the name of the masses of the people," an incomparable and unique advantage over other party organizations. As Marx stated, "To ensure the triumph of the social revolution and the realization of its ultimate goal—the abolition of classes—the organization of the proletariat into a political party is necessary." The position of the classical writers was clear: to continuously advance the social revolution and build a new society until the realization of a communist society, the strong leadership of a proletarian party must be maintained. In the vision of the classical writers, revolution is not only focused on the question of how the proletariat revolts but is also closely linked to the historical mission and practical tasks of the proletarian party.

Fifth, the path of revolution is violent armed struggle. Marxist "revolutionary discourse" emphasizes that the proletarian revolution "does not aim at changing private property, but at its annihilation; not at the cloking of class antagonisms, but at the abolition of classes." Marx and Engels had a clear prediction for the future of the revolution: "The fall of the bourgeoisie and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable." However, no reactionary exploiting class will ever exit the stage of history of its own accord. The social revolution of the proletariat can never "take the so-called path of peaceful development." This is because the agenda of thoroughly smashing the bourgeois ruling order leads to "the development of the proletariat in almost all civilized countries being forcibly suppressed." "Either fight or die; a bloody struggle or nothing," this is the fundamental reason why the proletarian social revolution must choose the path of violent armed struggle. In this sense, within the system of Marxist "revolutionary discourse," revolution is defined as "an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon—ideally authoritative means." As the Manifesto of the Communist Party states, the social revolution of the proletariat "can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions."

Sixth, the goal of revolution is the establishment of a new communist society. Classical Marxist "revolutionary discourse" holds that the goal of social revolution is to achieve the "full and free development of every individual" and to establish a new communist society. However, Marx resolutely opposed treating communism as a final, perfect endpoint of social revolution, because "we call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things," and "the conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence"—that is, viewing communism as "the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat." In the eyes of the classical writers, "Every real revolution is a social revolution, because it brings a new class to power and allows it to remodel society in its own image." Following this, Lenin identified the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the "primary and fundamental sign" of a social revolution, the purpose of which is to consolidate the achievements gained by the proletariat in the revolutionary struggle, thereby laying the political foundation for building socialism and transitioning to a classless communist society.

Adhering to historical materialism and historical dialectics, Marxist "revolutionary discourse" exhibits systematic dimensions: In the historical dimension, social revolution is not a qualitative change achieved in a single leap, but a historical process that is "much more protracted, arduous, and difficult." In the national dimension, it pursues national liberation, holding that the proletarian revolution "is possible only within the framework of an independent nation." In the realistic dimension, it advocates that social revolution should transform "actual private property" through "actual communist action." In the global dimension, it reveals the intrinsic link between the "spark" of the Chinese revolution and the "political revolution of the European continent," calling for "Workers of the world, unite!" In the practical dimension, it believes that the proletariat becomes "fit to work at the reconstruction of society" through the practice of social revolution, preparing the practical links from "revolution" to "construction." Early Chinese Marxists interpreted revolutionary phenomena based on this "revolutionary discourse." Under the premise of synthesizing historical materialism and class struggle theory, they focused heavily on how the proletariat should conduct revolution. They regarded the leadership of the Communist Party, the conduct of armed struggle, and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat as key elements, thereby establishing a "theory of revolution" system with distinct dimensional characteristics, rooted in class struggle and centered on social revolution.

II. The Socio-Historical Conditions for the Formation of Modern Chinese "Revolutionary Discourse"

Modern Chinese "revolutionary discourse" originated in Chinese society during the May Fourth ^[1] period. Therefore, studying the origins and generative logic of "revolutionary discourse" naturally requires a basis in the study of Chinese society during that time. From the perspective of the interaction between social change and thought, three aspects are worth noting: first, the Republican society and its intellectual trends established after the 1911 Revolution ^[2]; second, the immense influence exerted by the Russian October Revolution; and third, the radicalization of the choice of paths for social transformation during the May Fourth period. These three elements provided the socio-historical conditions for the formation of "revolutionary discourse" in modern China.

(1) The Discursive Environment of "Revolution" Provided by the Bourgeois Revolution

In studying the origins of modern Chinese "revolutionary discourse," one cannot overlook the pre-existing intellectual presence of the "revolutionary outlook" of Chinese bourgeois democrats. Theoretically, the "revolutionary" propositions formed during China’s modern bourgeois revolution differed fundamentally from the Marxist theory of revolution in terms of intellectual content, class nature, logical genealogy, and direction of travel. Nevertheless, the Chinese bourgeois revolutionary outlook was, after all, formed within the class struggles of modern China. Regarding the formation of a "revolutionary discourse" guided by Marxism, it exerted an influence that cannot be ignored, at least in terms of the discursive environment.

Bourgeois revolutionaries, represented by Sun Yat-sen ^[3], had already formed bourgeois revolutionary thought before the 1911 Revolution—namely, the systematized "Three People's Principles" ^[4]. Following the 1911 Revolution, Chinese bourgeois revolutionary thought, with the "Three People's Principles" at its core, was inherited and developed, continuing to exert great influence. In the early years of the Republic, Sun Yat-sen further elaborated on the causes and goals of revolution. He stated: "The sole product of an utterly evil government is called revolution," and "The intention of our revolutionary party is to unite the four hundred million people of China, topple the wicked government, and create benefits for the country and...

subsequently, in order to meet the needs of social construction following the founding of the Republic, Sun Yat-sen linked "revolution" with "construction," proposing the concept of "revolutionary construction." He argued that the significance of revolution lay in "having a plan for construction first, and then proceeding with the work of destruction." Bourgeois revolutionaries such as Zhu Zhixin and Zhang Taiyan actively propagated Sun Yat-sen's ideas on revolution and construction, advocating that "social revolution and political revolution should proceed in parallel." They hoped the bourgeoisie could preserve its revolutionary spirit to initiate the construction of a bourgeois state while consolidating the political fruits of the bourgeois revolution. Before the early Chinese Marxists accepted Marxism, their revolutionary ideas were largely inherited from Chinese bourgeois thinkers, which was naturally and closely related to the political system established by the Republic.

The ideology in the early years of the Republic was complex, with new and old ideas coexisting while society was in transition. During this period, there were not only the ideas of the bourgeois revolutionaries represented by Sun Yat-sen, but also the bourgeois reformist ideas represented by Liang Qichao, and simultaneously, feudalistic ideas which still possessed great influence. Overall, however, Chinese bourgeois revolutionary thought occupied a dominant position and exerted significant social influence from the early Republic through the May Fourth period. "Revolution" could be described as a recently formed and important tradition within intellectual circles, which served as one of the extremely favorable intellectual conditions for the subsequent dissemination of the Marxist theory of revolution.

(2) The Revolutionary Vision Provided by the October Revolution

To study the origins of "revolutionary discourse" in modern China, one must recognize the significant influence that the revolutionary ideas transmitted by the Russian October Revolution exerted on Chinese intellectual and academic circles. It was under the influence of the October Revolution that early Chinese Marxists began the path of "taking Russia as a teacher" and creatively "using its theory and practice to interpret and explain the Chinese revolution," thereby accelerating the process of constructing modern China's "revolutionary discourse."

As early as 1918, Li Dazhao published articles such as "A Comparative View of the French and Russian Revolutions," "The Victory of the Common People," and "The Victory of Bolshevism," interpreting the October Revolution in terms of social transformation and transmitting the idea of "social revolution." From the October Revolution, Li Dazhao realized that its guiding theory was the Marxist theory of social revolution, noting that the Bolsheviks "revere the German socialist economist Marx as their founder." Comparing the October Revolution with the French Revolution, Li believed the former was a "revolution based on socialism" and was essentially an anti-capitalist revolution, which the French Revolution was not. Therefore, "The French Revolution of 1789 was the precursor to the revolutions of various countries in the 19th century. The Russian Revolution of 1917 is the precursor to the world revolution of the 20th century." Li Dazhao fully affirmed the revolutionary impact of the October Revolution, pointing out that the Russian Revolution was the fuse for world revolution, and that the Hungarian, Austrian, and German revolutions "can be said to be entirely Russian-style revolutions, or 20th-century-style revolutions." Although Li was still in the process of transitioning from a democrat to a Marxist at this time, his support for the October Revolution was sincere and resolute. He sought to draw on the experience of "mass movements" and "social revolution" from the October Revolution to provide a powerful reference for China's "social transformation."

The revolutionary consciousness of the October Revolution initially influenced progressive youth groups in China. The Shanghai political journal Zhengheng published "A Discussion on Our Country's Recognition of New Russia," arguing that the policies pursued by Soviet Russia "strictly abide by international peace and respect the integrity of other countries," and therefore China should grant diplomatic recognition to the nascent Russia as soon as possible and establish friendly diplomatic relations. In his article "The Great Union of the Popular Masses," Mao Zedong argued that the October Revolution exerted a major global influence: "England, France, Italy, and the United States have already performed many great strikes; in India and Korea, several great revolutions have arisen," while in China, "the May Fourth Movement ^[5] occurred. Banners turned southward, crossing the Yellow River to reach the Yangtze; in Huangpu and Hangao ^[6], dramas were repeatedly performed; in Dongting and the Min River, high tides rose even further. Heaven and earth were cleared for rejuvenation, and the treacherous and evil were driven away." Here, Mao not only saw the internal connection between the October Revolution and the May Fourth Movement but also clearly advocated adopting the methods of the Russian October Revolution and following the revolutionary path of "taking Russia as a teacher."

The revolutionary concepts transmitted by the October Revolution had a massive impact during the May Fourth period, with the intellectual world continuously citing the example of the October Revolution to criticize the incumbent government. An article in the Nankai Daily used the October Revolution to warn the government: "Think of the situation of the officers and aristocrats during the Russian Revolution, and then look at China; I truly worry for the gentlemen of the government. It is both pitiable and terrifying." An article titled "Idle Thoughts" in the Kaifeng, Henan semi-monthly Youth said: "If I were a bandit, I would raise a great banner of 'Democracy,' summon some greenwood heroes ^[7], compile some Bolshevism textbooks, and implement Bolshevism education. I would tell them to struggle against those aristocrats and bureaucrats! Destroy unequal classes! Be the vanguard of a society of public property! Open a new era of practicing public property in the world history of the 20th century!" The author, identifying as a so-called "bandit," proposed a radical Russian-style revolutionary plan to resist the current aristocratic-bureaucratic government based on the methods of Bolshevism. The fact that the May Fourth intellectual world attacked the government by citing the October Revolution is sufficient evidence that the October Revolution had already become an important resource for revolutionary thought in the Chinese intellectual world.

(3) The Revolutionary Trend of "Social Transformation" During the May Fourth Period

To study the origins of "revolutionary discourse" in modern China, one must see the pivotal status of the May Fourth Movement in Chinese social transformation and its important influence on the discourse of "social transformation." The Chinese intellectual world formed a trend of "social transformation" ^[8] at the juncture of the May Fourth period. Although this social transformation trend was divided between revolution and reform, within the overall radicalized atmosphere of society, it ultimately embarked on a revolutionary path. It is evident that the revolutionary outlook was a product of the choice for "social transformation" during the May Fourth period, adapting to the urgent needs of social transformation at that time.

The idea of "social transformation" during the May Fourth period became increasingly radical, finally moving toward a path of "fundamental transformation" ^[9] aimed at changing the existing socio-economic system—that is, adopting the means of political revolution to carry out a fundamental shift in the socio-economic structure. Taking Hunan as an example, Mao Zedong not only gradually directed the spearhead of the May Fourth Movement in Hunan toward the "Drive out Zhang" movement ^[10], but also launched the Hunan Autonomy Movement after that. He examined both movements with the goal of "fundamental social transformation," believing that the movement to drive out Zhang and the subsequent autonomy movement "were only expedients for dealing with the current environment... they were means to reach fundamental transformation." Regarding the issue of "fundamental transformation," Shi Cuntong published "Why We Must Engage in Fundamental Transformation" in Awakening, a supplement to the Republic Daily, in May 1920. He argued that "social transformation" must take the path of "fundamental transformation," and that discussion of any social problem "must be led to the path of fundamental transformation," directly expressing his advocacy for radical change. Through the baptism of the May Fourth Movement, progressive youth opposed piecemeal reforms of the existing society and instead advocated for a fundamental solution using revolutionary methods.

As social transformation entered the stage of seeking a "fundamental solution" during the May Fourth period, public identification with "revolution" continuously increased. An article in the Awakening supplement of the Republic Daily stated: "I have since realized: it is impossible to take the Work-Study Mutual Aid Corps as a means of transforming society... So what is to be done? It is this: transforming society requires urgent and violent methods, diving into society to seek a total transformation from the roots." It was precisely because of the rapid changes in social psychology and the trend toward radicalization that the concept of "revolution" possessed prospects for further development. After the baptism of the May Fourth Movement, the public showed clear distrust toward the government and subsequently put forward demands to overthrow the authorities. Through the May Fourth Movement, student youth realized that regarding the warlord government, "the means taken cannot be a peaceful settlement; there is only one violent method, which is revolution." This meant "reforming the social system and economic organization anew so that the dictatorship of labor can be realized." Thus, as a radical means of transforming society during the May Fourth period, "revolution" was endowed with the explicit requirement for social "systemic" change.

III. The Main Content of "Revolutionary Discourse" in Modern China

The origin and development of Marxist "revolutionary discourse" in China was the specific application of the Marxist "revolutionary discourse" by early Chinese Marxists and early members of the Communist Party of China (CPC). It followed Marxist positions, viewpoints, and methods, but was premised on a cognition of China's basic national conditions and the determination of the nature of semi-colonial and semi-feudal society. This is to say, what was carried out in China was not a proletarian revolution in the general sense, but a New Democratic Revolution led by the Chinese proletariat (through the Communist Party). Therefore, it was necessary to study the nature of the revolution, the revolutionary leadership, the revolutionary forces, the revolutionary united front, and the revolutionary tasks under Chinese conditions, thereby forming a "revolutionary discourse" with Chinese characteristics that reflected the laws of China's New Democratic Revolution. Specifically, this was manifested in the following eight aspects:

(1) Concerning the Social Nature of Modern China and the Revolutionary Process

The combination of Marxist revolutionary theory with Chinese reality by early Chinese Marxists was premised on an understanding of the social nature of modern China. Simultaneously, based on the Marxist theory of class struggle, they provided a revolutionary interpretation of the evolution of modern Chinese society. The conclusion that modern China was a "semi-colonial and semi-feudal society" was established during the 1930s debates on the nature of Chinese society, but early Chinese Marxists had explored this before then. In a June 1923 lecture at the Guangdong Higher Normal School, Chen Duxiu explicitly stated that China was in a "semi-colonial" position. Chen pointed out: "Although China is said to be an independent country on the surface, it is actually a semi-colony... It is only because the name of the Beijing Government exists that it is not considered a complete colony." Li Dazhao, guided by historical materialism, interpreted modern Chinese history, considering modern China as "a semi-colonial China of the Great Powers." In his speech at the First National Congress of the Kuomintang, Li mentioned twice that modern Chinese society was "semi-colonial." It can be seen that the concept of "semi-colonial" was not mentioned by chance, but was a relatively well-formed understanding in Li Dazhao's thought. Interpreting modern Chinese history as a history of revolution was also a major effort by early Chinese Marxists. Through his investigation of modern Chinese history—specifically unique analyses of major national revolutionary events from the Sanyuanli Anti-British Corps to the Taiping Rebellion, from the constitutional movements of the Qiangxuehui and Baoguohui to the revolutionary movements of the Xingzhonghui and Tongmenghui, and through the anti-imperialist patriotic movements that spread across the country from "May Fourth" to "May Thirtieth"—Li Dazhao argued that modern Chinese history was "a history of thoroughgoing imperialist oppression of the Chinese nation," and simultaneously "a history of thoroughgoing national revolution by the Chinese people against imperialism." In 1926, Yun Daiying wrote A History of the Chinese National Revolutionary Movement, which used Marxist viewpoints to provide a popularized narrative of over eighty years of history since the mid-19th century, praising the revolutionary fighting spirit of the masses in resisting foreign aggression and maintaining national independence. This work contributed as a pioneer to the later construction of a more complete system of revolutionary history. Guided by the theory of class struggle, early Chinese Marxists used the category of "revolution" to interpret the evolution of modern Chinese history, providing historical and academic grounds for the CPC to lead the New Democratic Revolution.

(2) Concerning the Aims and Tasks of the Chinese Revolution

The Chinese revolution was the main issue explored by early Chinese Marxists, characterizing the historical features of China's New Democratic Revolution. Cai Hesen argued that China's political problem was essentially the problem of "how to overthrow the warlords," which was the problem of "how to conduct a revolution." This could not be "solved by the 'federal province autonomy' ^[11]," and therefore China's "only way out is to carry through the democratic revolution." Applying Marxist revolutionary theory to China, early Marxists clearly stated that the Chinese revolution was a "National Revolution." Regarding the necessity of China's "National Revolution," Qu Qiubai provided a classic discourse in 1923:

"Under China’s current conditions, the bourgeoisie cannot fully develop, and consequently, the proletariat cannot fully develop either. The entire populace, whose class differentiation remains incomplete, is subject to the constraints of capitalism and domestic warlords; thus, they must pursue the Nationalist Revolution for the sake of economic development." Therefore, the objectives of China’s "Nationalist Revolution" ^[12] differed from those of the global proletarian revolution. Comparing the Chinese revolution with the global proletarian revolution, Zhao Shiyan focused on explaining the particularity of the former. Zhao pointed out: "The immediate goal of the global workers' revolution is to overthrow the rule of the imperialist bourgeoisie and establish a state governed by the laborers; the immediate goal of the Chinese working class is to strike down the government of warlords and bureaucrats, while its more distant goal is the same as that of the global workers... The only party leading the Chinese workers into this long-term struggle is the Chinese workers' own party—the Communist Party of China." Early Chinese Marxists not only explicitly identified the "Nationalist Revolution" characteristics of the Chinese revolution but also linked it to the leadership and historical activities of the CPC, making valuable explorations in the search for the laws governing the Chinese revolution.

(III) Regarding the Guiding Ideology of the Chinese Revolution Early Chinese Marxists emerged during the process of Marxism’s dissemination in China. They not only made significant contributions to the further spread of Marxism but also, in the process of studying the Chinese revolution, actively promoted the integration of Marxism with Chinese reality and emphasized the guiding status of Marxism for the Chinese revolution. Li Dazhao, a pioneer of Chinese Marxism, believed that China’s social transformation must pursue a "fundamental solution" based on the Marxist materialist conception of history, because "once the economic organization changes, everything else follows. In other words, the solution to economic problems is the fundamental solution. Once economic problems are solved, all issues regarding politics, law, the family system, women’s liberation, and workers’ liberation can be resolved." Li Dazhao further pointed out that in carrying out the national-democratic revolution in China, one "should meticulously examine how Marx’s materialist conception of history applies to China's current political and economic situation. To be more specific, it means using Marx’s materialist conception of history to study how China’s current political and economic state came to be, and how we should conduct the movement for national independence to rescue China from the oppression of the Great Powers." Qu Qiubai argued for the necessity of Marxism guiding the Chinese revolution based on the essence of Marxist theory and the historical process of the Chinese revolution since the May Fourth Movement ^[13]. Qu noted that the years from "May Fourth" to the "May Thirtieth Movement" ^[14] had "confirmed that Marxism can indeed explain the developing situation of the Chinese revolution and indicate its future," and "proven that Marxist historical, economic, philosophical, and political doctrines are guiding the Chinese revolution toward the path of victory." Taking Marxism as the guide for the Chinese revolution not only laid the theoretical foundation for "revolutionary discourse" but also embodied the fundamental Marxist spirit within that discourse.

(IV) Regarding the Communist Party’s Leadership of the Chinese Revolution By studying the class conditions of Chinese society and the uniqueness of the Chinese revolution, early Chinese Marxists concluded that "Party organization is very important." The reasoning was: "Which of the problems occurring in China today can be solved under the current society and system? Therefore, China’s social revolution is absolutely inevitable. If we do not take this opportunity to apply thorough organization, the future bloodshed and terror will naturally be far more severe than if we were organized. With a strong organization, perhaps these can be avoided. Thus, I believe Party organization is very important." Following the founding of the CPC, early Chinese Marxists recognized more deeply the extreme importance of proletarian leadership, emphasizing that the leadership of the Chinese revolution could only belong to the Chinese proletariat—specifically, the Chinese revolution must be led by the party of the Chinese proletariat, the CPC. Between 1923 and 1924, Deng Zhongxia identified the "three masses of the main revolutionary force—workers, peasants, and soldiers," arguing that "only the proletariat has great, concentrated masses and a spirit of revolution to the end; only it is fit to be the leader of the Nationalist Revolution." Qu Qiubai argued for the vital importance of Communist leadership in China's democratic revolution from the perspectives of the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal tasks to be completed, the thoroughness of class struggle, and the united front. In Qu’s view, only by adhering to "Bolshevik leadership" could they "overthrow the rule of the gentry and bourgeoisie, eliminate feudal-style exploitation, and confiscate the land of the landlord class," thereby thoroughly completing the tasks of China’s bourgeois revolution. The exploration of the Chinese proletariat's leading position in the Chinese democratic revolution constitutes a fundamental element of New Democratic Revolution theory and the core meaning of the "revolutionary discourse" constructed by early Chinese Marxists and Communists.

(V) Regarding the Mass Character of the Chinese Revolution Early Chinese Marxists adhered to the Marxist view of the masses, believing that the Chinese revolution possessed a broad mass character and that the broad populace must be mobilized and united to participate. Yun Daiying believed that the revolution occurring in China was of a popular nature: "China’s revolution must guarantee the interests of the laborers, soldiers, peasants, and even the generally oppressed classes to gain their support and protection; moreover, after the revolution, it must first seek opportunities for them to live and work in peace." Li Dazhao believed that the Chinese revolution could not succeed without the participation of the peasants: "If China’s vast peasant masses can be organized to participate in the Nationalist Revolution, the success of the Chinese Nationalist Revolution will not be far off." To this end, first, it was necessary to help peasants organize "peasant associations," because "only peasant associations organized by the peasants themselves can protect their class interests." Second, it was necessary to raise the class consciousness and cultural level of the peasants, conducting "various types of propaganda on common knowledge and education for the Nationalist Revolution" to "enable the general peasantry to understand their class position, gradually developing their localist sentiments into class consciousness." Based on the nature of China’s New Democratic Revolution, early Chinese Marxists and Communists formed a cognition of the revolution’s mass character. This not only suited the conditions of various revolutionary classes in Chinese society and the basic requirements of the Chinese people's democratic revolution but also served as a precursor to the later idea of the "driving forces of the Chinese revolution," while representing the people-centered concept inherent in "revolutionary discourse."

(VI) Regarding the Form of Armed Struggle in the Chinese Revolution After the founding of the CPC, early Communists discussed the form of the Chinese revolution, advocating for violent revolution. Zhao Shiyan believed that "force itself is one of the revolutionary actions of the masses," and thus "national revolutions (i.e., Nationalist Revolutions) in colonies and semi-colonies are popular uprisings directed against the economic aggression of the suzerain state's imperialism and the oppression of the domestic ruling class." He argued that "this uprising must naturally be armed" and "become a military force." Qu Qiubai believed that "the experience of the Chinese revolutionary struggle has already created the necessary conditions for armed revolution," and therefore "the central problem of the current revolutionary movement is to implement preparations for revolutionary war and seek to overthrow China’s current rule—the political rule of imperialism in China and the warlord system—in the shortest possible time." To develop this "armed revolution," importance had to be placed on arming the peasants, because "this peasant uprising movement is truly a momentous event in Chinese history—the peasants already have weapons in their hands, demanding a solution to the peasant problem." Li Dazhao also believed that in conducting armed struggle, one must attach great importance to the power of the peasants, particularly by developing peasant armed organizations, "transforming the old-style Red Spear Societies ^[15] into proper modern armed peasant self-defense corps." The discussions and conclusions of early Chinese Marxists and Communists regarding the necessary form of armed struggle became an indispensable part of "revolutionary discourse."

(VII) Regarding the "United Front" in the Chinese Revolution The Second National Congress of the CPC established a revolutionary program of anti-imperialism and anti-feudalism. The Third National Congress passed the "Resolution on the National Movement and the Kuomintang (KMT) Question," which stated that "among the existing parties in China, only the KMT is relatively a party of the Nationalist Revolution," and decided to "strive to expand the KMT's organization throughout China, concentrating all Chinese revolutionary elements within the KMT to meet the current needs of the Chinese Nationalist Revolution." Thus, early Chinese Marxists advocated that China could not immediately undergo a proletarian socialist revolution but must first carry out an anti-imperialist and anti-feudal bourgeois-democratic revolution—the "Nationalist Revolution." They believed that to defeat imperialism and feudalism, it was necessary to conduct "class cooperation" among revolutionary classes within the Nationalist Revolution. Given the need for KMT-CPC cooperation, Chen Duxiu argued that the proletariat must "act as a supervisor of the battle" in the Nationalist Revolution, "urging all allied forces prone to compromise—peasants, handicraftsmen, the revolutionary intellectual class, the lumpenproletariat (soldiers and bandits), and small merchants... to achieve the true goals of the Nationalist Revolution." Zhou Enlai pointed out that Communists advocate "class revolution" and acknowledge that after the Nationalist Revolution, there will be a "class revolution" of the proletariat against the propertied classes; "however, the Nationalist Revolution we are engaged in now is a Three People's Principles ^[16] revolution; it is a 'class revolution' where the proletariat and the propertied classes cooperate to overthrow the ruling feudal class." Subsequently, Chinese Communists used the term "united front" to describe this "class cooperation" in the Nationalist Revolution. For instance, Qu Qiubai emphasized the extreme importance of the "united front" in the Nationalist Revolution, believing that it was through the "realization of the united front of the Nationalist Revolution that the various classes across the country rose up to merge into an unprecedented revolutionary mass movement." Furthermore, within the "united front of the Nationalist Revolution, the proletarian leadership and political guidance were not only realized in actual action" but also demonstrated that "the proletariat is the primary force for the liberation of the Chinese nation" and possesses the "most courageous and self-sacrificing revolutionary spirit."

(VIII) Regarding the Chinese Revolution as Part of the World Revolution In view of the new situation of KMT-CPC cooperation, early Chinese Marxists and Communists studied the global status of the Chinese revolution and proposed the thesis that "the Chinese revolution is part of the world revolution." Cai Hesen placed the Chinese revolution in a global perspective, arguing that "the Chinese revolutionary movement must merge with the world revolutionary movement for the Chinese revolution to succeed and for its problems to be truly solved." Thereafter, Chinese Communists further elaborated on the proposition. Li Dazhao noted: "The Chinese Nationalist Revolution movement has been a part of the world's from the beginning. The success of the Chinese revolution will have a magnificent impact on Europe and even the whole world." In Qu Qiubai’s view, "not only must the ultimate liberation of the Chinese proletariat be realized through the world social revolution, but even the Nationalist Revolution of the Chinese nation must unite with the international proletariat to achieve final victory." Xie Juezai emphasized that "the Chinese revolution is part of the world revolution" meant that "separated from the world revolution, the Chinese revolution can never succeed," a fact determined by the relationship between the two. Through the active exploration of Chinese Communists, Deng Zhongxia reached a summary conclusion in 1927: "Proletarian revolution and national revolution are important strategies of the world revolution to overthrow capital-imperialism. Proletarian revolution certainly aids national revolution, and national revolution also aids proletarian revolution; their ultimate goal is the fundamental overthrow of capital-imperialism to achieve the complete liberation of oppressed classes and nations. Therefore, we all say ‘the Chinese revolution is part of the world revolution’." This consensus and its influence were later noted by Mao Zedong in On New Democracy: "the Chinese revolution is part of the world revolution" was a "correct proposition" put forward by Chinese Communists during "the period of China’s First Great Revolution from 1924 to 1927," which "was approved by all who participated in the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal struggle at the time." Linking the Chinese revolution with the global proletarian revolution and clarifying that the former is a part of the latter is an extremely important component of "revolutionary discourse."

The basic conclusion of the research in this article is that modern Chinese...

The "discourse of revolution" originated from the dissemination of Marxism during the May Fourth period ^[17]. It represents the cognitive crystallization of China's early Marxists, who interpreted revolutionary phenomena based on the "discourse of revolution" found in classical Marxism and creatively applied the theory of class struggle to explore social revolution within the Chinese context. In the process of its formation, the "discourse of revolution" naturally possessed a context shaped by the social fluctuations and intellectual developments of the May Fourth era. However, of even greater importance were the efforts of early Chinese Marxists and early members of the Communist Party of China to promote the "Sinicization" of Marxist revolutionary theory. These efforts, in turn, were built upon the foundation of the CPC's political practice in transforming Chinese society. The construction of the "discourse of revolution" in modern China is an important manifestation of the development of modern Chinese thought. It not only provided the logical starting point and discursive conditions for the formation and development of the Theory of the New Democratic Revolution ^[18], but also ensured that Marxist revolutionary theory became an essential component of the system of Chinese Marxist political science.

(The authors are, respectively: Associate Professor at the Party School of the CPC Shanghai Xuhui District Committee and the Xuhui District Institute of Urban Governance; and Level-2 Professor and Doctoral Supervisor at the School of Marxism, Hangzhou Normal University) Source: Socialism Studies (Shehuizhuyi Yanjiu) Issue 3, 2025 Web Editor: Ma Jingren