Guo Chao and Yu Haiqing: Lenin’s Approach to Resolving Intra-Party Issues and the Self-Revolution of the Communist Party of China
Lenin argued: "A political party’s attitude towards its own mistakes is one of the most important and surest ways of judging how serious the party is... Frankly acknowledging a mistake, ascertaining the reasons for it, analyzing the conditions that have given rise to it, and thoroughly discussing the means of correcting it—that is the hallmark of a serious party." General Secretary Xi Jinping cited this passage by Lenin at the summary meeting of the "staying true to our original aspiration and founding mission" [1] theme education campaign, emphasizing that "the courage to face problems head-on and the willpower to rectify errors are distinct characteristics and advantages of our Party," and that "a powerful political party is forged through self-revolution." Daring to confront problems, uncovering their root causes, analyzing the environment in which they arise, researching methods for their resolution, and transforming scientific methodology into resolute action—this is the process through which a proletarian party conducts self-revolution and continuously strengthens itself.
At the turn of the 20th century, the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP) faced severe internal problems, manifesting as ideological and organizational "confusion, disintegration, and wavering." To address this, Lenin systematically analyzed the substance and causes of these internal issues, pointed out their grave dangers, and refuted the representative arguments of internal opportunism one by one. This culminated in a scientific plan for resolving party issues and the writing of a classic of Marxist party-building theory: What Is to Be Done? Burning Questions of Our Movement (hereafter What Is to Be Done?). Under the guidance of this work, Russian Social Democrats confronted and successfully resolved their internal problems, irrefutably validating the universal truths contained therein. Revisiting the classic What Is to Be Done? and systematically summarizing Lenin’s approach to resolving internal party issues offers significant enlightenment for the Communist Party of China (CPC) as it pursues self-revolution and addresses prominent internal problems in the New Era.
I. The Critical Analysis of Internal Party Issues in Lenin’s What Is to Be Done?
The occurrence of problems within the Party is not to be feared; what is fearsome is turning a blind eye or allowing them to fester, letting a small leak evolve into a major dam collapse. Facing problems is the prerequisite for solving them. Lenin’s approach in What Is to Be Done? is built upon a critical analysis of these internal issues.
(1) Profoundly Uncovering the Roots and Dangers of Internal Party Problems
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the RSDLP suffered from severe internal issues, falling into a state of "confusion, disintegration, and wavering" [2] ideologically and organizationally. Whether the RSDLP could weather this storm depended on whether talented figures would step forward to expose the roots and hazards of these problems, uphold the truth, rectify errors, and achieve unity across the Party under the guidance of correct ideological theory. In the revolutionary cause of the proletariat, shortcomings and mistakes are not fatal; what is fatal is treating them as truths. Only by recognizing shortcomings can they be corrected. As Lenin noted, "in the revolutionary cause, recognizing a shortcoming is more than half-way toward correcting it." Without understanding the ideological roots of the Party’s confusion and organizational looseness, or the erroneous substance of these roots, the problems could not be solved. Lenin pointed out: "The cause of the entire crisis in the Russian Social Democracy is the fact that the spontaneously awakening masses have not yet acquired sufficiently trained, developed, and experienced leaders." In other words, internal problems arose because the unprincipled and inexperienced "Economists" [3] had gained the upper hand. The fundamental error of the Economists "lay in their bowing to spontaneity and their failure to understand that the spontaneity of the masses demands of us Social Democrats a high degree of consciousness." Thus, the ideological and organizational "confusion, disintegration, and wavering" was, in substance, the result of the "worship of spontaneity" gaining dominance within the Party.
The fundamental criterion for judging the Economists' propositions was whether the "worship of spontaneity" benefited the liberation of the Russian working class. Therefore, pointing out the grave hazards of this worship was the prerequisite for overcoming the erroneous ideas of the Economists. In Lenin's view, there is only bourgeois ideology or socialist ideology; there is no such thing as a "non-class" ideology. To worship the spontaneity of the labor movement is to retreat to the politics of trade-unionism, and "trade-unionism means precisely the ideological enslavement of the workers by the bourgeoisie." If the RSDLP failed to exhibit a high degree of consciousness and strengthen the guidance of socialist ideology over the labor movement, it would be equivalent to voluntarily surrendering the leadership of the movement to the bourgeoisie, causing the movement to unwittingly serve bourgeois interests. Furthermore, the "worship of spontaneity" was expressed organizationally as an advocacy for "amateurish" (handicraft) forms of organization, failing to realize the need to "establish an organization of revolutionaries capable of lending energy, stability, and continuity to the political struggle." A loose, weak, and amateurish organization cannot shoulder the historical mission of proletarian liberation and is easily crushed by autocratic governments and the bourgeoisie. Clearly, the "worship of spontaneity" inevitably disintegrates the Party’s strength and damages the fundamental interests of the Russian proletariat.
(2) Systematically Criticizing the Representative Rhetoric of the "Economists"
To resolve the Party’s internal problems, Lenin provided a comprehensive and systematic critique of the Economists’ representative rhetoric in What Is to Be Done?, shattering their "ornate" shells. Regarding the slogan of "freedom of criticism," Lenin viewed it as a demand for the freedom to criticize, distort, and smear revolutionary Marxism; the freedom to infuse the socialist movement with bourgeois ideas; the freedom to corrupt the socialist consciousness of the working masses; and the freedom to defile the great word "freedom." Our attitude, he argued, was the freedom to fight against this "freedom of criticism" quagmire. Regarding the argument that "tactics-as-plan contradicts the fundamental spirit of Marxism," Lenin saw this as a slander against Marxism that vulgarized it in theory and dragged the Party backward in practice. In reality, contempt for planning does not represent a respect for objective factors; on the contrary, it represents a failure to understand the various forces that arise, develop, and change in the objective process—an expression of extreme ignorance.
Regarding the claim that "economic struggle is the most widely applicable means of political agitation," Lenin countered that police oppression and autocratic atrocities were equally "widely applicable" means. As for the rhetoric of "giving the economic struggle itself a political character," Lenin saw these "lofty" and seemingly revolutionary words as nothing more than using political slogans to demand economic reforms, "concealing the traditional intention to degrade Social-Democratic politics to the level of trade-unionist politics." Regarding the magazine Rabocheye Dyelo’s [4] claim that "a nationwide centralized organization is entirely unnecessary," Lenin viewed this as the sanctification and legalization of organizational narrowness and amateurish methods. He insisted that "Social Democrats should first and foremost think of establishing an organization of revolutionaries capable of leading the entire liberation struggle of the proletariat." In What Is to Be Done?, Lenin used the sharpest tone, the most contemptuous language, and the most apt metaphors to expose the opportunist essence hidden beneath these seemingly "revolutionary" and "lofty" slogans. Consequently, What Is to Be Done? itself became a powerful ideological weapon for Russian Social Democrats to clear the ideological mist and overcome the "worship of spontaneity." Historically, the work played a major role, winning the enthusiastic support of Social Democrats and educating a generation of staunch Marxist revolutionaries.
(3) Clarifying the Direction of Efforts to Resolve Internal Party Problems
Solving internal problems and overcoming the "worship of spontaneity" requires a clear grasp of why the Economists gained the upper hand. Lenin pointed out that the eclipse of consciousness by spontaneity occurred "not because two entirely opposite views were locked in an open struggle and one defeated the other, but because an increasing number of 'old guard' revolutionaries were 'plucked off' by the gendarmerie, while the 'V. V.’s of Russian Social-Democracy'—the 'young guard'—increasingly took the stage." In other words, the Economists prevailed not because they held the truth, but because they took advantage of the imprisonment of the "old guard" to delude a large number of youth who lacked struggle experience and "often knew only fragments of Marxism from legal publications."
It follows that the Economists did not possess the truth and were therefore not invincible. So long as an irreconcilable struggle was launched against them—with comprehensive, profound, and systematic critique—the deluded youth would recognize the class essence of "Economism" and thoroughly overcome the "worship of spontaneity." The RSDLP’s organizational looseness was rooted in ideological fallacy. As Lenin emphasized: "Amateurism is connected to 'Economism'; we cannot rid ourselves of organizational narrowness unless we rid ourselves of 'Economism' in general." Therefore, to fundamentally resolve internal problems, the Party’s strength must be focused on solving the ideological problems of its members. Only by centering on ideological issues while simultaneously addressing organizational problems could the Party build a "centralized combat organization," a "staunch revolutionary organization," a "powerful political organization," and a "unified All-Russian organization of revolutionaries." Thus, on one hand, What Is to Be Done? provides a systematic critique of Economist rhetoric to help readers understand its opportunist essence. On the other hand, starting with the resolution of ideological problems, it offers a feasible and scientific approach to overcoming the "worship of spontaneity" and enhancing the Party’s consciousness.
II. The Scientific Approach to Resolving Internal Party Problems in Lenin’s What Is to Be Done?
Lenin’s What Is to Be Done? focuses on the key issue of resolving members' ideological problems. It answers major questions such as: whom to win over, whom to train, whom to fight, what kind of struggle to conduct, and through what basic work and effective pathways to conduct it. This formed a systematic, logically rigorous, theoretically consistent, and highly operational scientific approach to resolving internal party issues.
(1) Taking the Winning Over of the "Deluded" and the Training of Revolutionaries as Key Tasks
"Who are our enemies? Who are our friends? This is a question of the first importance for the revolution." [5] To overcome the "worship of spontaneity" and enhance consciousness, the RSDLP had to clarify whom to fight irreconcilably, whom to win over, and whom to train. Lenin's analysis of this is woven into the logic of What Is to Be Done? and serves as a key to understanding the work. Lenin quoted Karl Kautsky: "Modern socialist consciousness can arise only on the basis of profound scientific knowledge... The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia... Thus, socialist consciousness is something introduced into the proletarian class struggle from without." Following this "theory of infusion," Russian Economism was also conceived in the minds of "talented" bourgeois intellectuals who, from a bourgeois standpoint, intentionally distorted and emasculated revolutionary Marxism to serve bourgeois interests. These intellectuals (whom Lenin called "demagogues") banded together and established papers like Rabochaia Mysl [6] and Rabocheye Dyelo to propagate trade-unionist ideology, thereby influencing social democrats who lacked experience and training (the "deluded"). The targets of Lenin’s struggle were clear; the entire book is a fierce critique of these "demagogues" and their publications. Lenin sharply noted, "You have sunk to the level of demagogy... demagogues are the worst enemies of the working class," and explicitly proposed that "the current slogan of modern Russian Social Democrats should be: a resolute struggle against both the demagogy of Svoboda [7] and the demagogy of Rabocheye Dyelo."
While slamming the "demagogues," What Is to Be Done? simultaneously manifests a sense of care and expectation for the young members of the Social-Democratic Party. In Lenin’s view, the reason these Social-Democrats could be influenced by "demagogues" was twofold: first, because they had just been drawn into the movement and lacked experience, possessed no understanding of the history of the revolutionary movement, held an incomplete understanding of Marxism, and in some cases, were prone to vanity; second, because the older generation of revolutionaries had been arrested by the gendarmerie, causing revolutionary perspectives to be temporarily suppressed and providing "demagogues" with an opportunity for opportunism. In such a polemical work filled with sharp-edged struggle, Lenin does not overly reproach those who were "demystified" [8], nor does he subject them to fierce criticism; this in itself represents a degree of sympathy for their having been influenced, deceived, and misled. Meanwhile, the spontaneous upsurge of the Russian working masses arrived with great rapidity. As the movement developed, massive forces joined its ranks, and all the best elements of the younger generation of the educated classes came over to the Social-Democratic side. However, the Social-Democratic youth, including those who had been "demystified," "showed themselves to be lacking in the cultivation [9] necessary to complete these massive tasks. This lack of cultivation is a misfortune for us all, a misfortune for all Russian Social-Democrats." To rectify this unfortunate state of affairs, it was necessary to raise the cultivation of the Social-Democratic youth and to select Party cadres from among the working masses, training them to be professional revolutionaries. Therefore, Lenin placed special emphasis on the fact that "our task is not to justify the degradation of the revolutionary to the level of an amateur [10], but to raise the amateurs to the level of revolutionaries"; "we should primarily concern ourselves with raising the workers to the level of revolutionaries, and certainly not, as the 'Economists' [11] desire, feel it necessary to degrade ourselves to the level of the 'working masses'"; we ought to "help the intellectual workers and the intellectuals to train themselves into leaders of the political struggle." It is thus evident that Lenin pinned his hopes for overcoming the "worship of spontaneity" and raising the Party’s consciousness upon the vital tasks of winning over the "demystified" and training revolutionaries.
(II) Taking Ideological and Theoretical Struggle as the Primary Form
To continuously strengthen the political consciousness and ideological-theoretical cultivation of the Social-Democratic youth, it was necessary to wage a resolute struggle against the "demagogues." The conditions within the Russian Social-Democratic Party dictated that the form of this struggle must be ideological and theoretical. Lenin pointed out that in Germany, the "critics" [12] wanted to change the original program and tactics that had been elucidated by decades of experience; however, because this school of criticism was a negligible minority and their revisionist intentions were timid, it was understandable why the majority simply rejected their "proposals for renewal" outright. This passage from Lenin contains a clear logical chain: first, the German Social-Democratic Party also adopted an uncompromising and resolute struggle against the revisionist intentions of the "critics," but this struggle was primarily organizational; second, the reason Germany did not engage in a theoretical struggle against the "critics" was simply because their revisionist views had very little influence on Party comrades, making it unnecessary to go to great lengths; third, the situation in the Russian Social-Democratic Party was different, as the internal "Economists" took advantage of various conditions to engage in opportunism, widely publicizing their views and influencing a group of youth who had just joined the movement, thereby gaining the upper hand within the Party; finally, the Russian Social-Democratic Party could not use simple organizational methods to veto the propositions of the "Economists," but instead had to conduct a comprehensive theoretical struggle against them to expose their opportunist essence. Only in this way could their influence on the Party youth be overcome.
Consequently, following this comparative analysis of the German and Russian parties, Lenin immediately argued for the extreme necessity of theoretical struggle for a proletarian party. Lenin emphasized that "without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement"; "Engels recognizes, not two forms of the great struggle of Social-Democracy (political and economic)… but three, placing the theoretical struggle on a par with the first two"; "Social-Democratic ideology gained this first place only through unceasing struggle against all other ideologies, and it is only by continuing this unceasing struggle that it can maintain this first place." Lenin believed that since the Russian Social-Democratic Party was "only just taking shape, only just settling its countenance, and is far from having finished its reckoning with other trends of revolutionary thought which threaten to divert the movement from the proper path," it was all the more important to resolutely conduct theoretical struggle against opportunism and defend revolutionary Marxism. Therefore, Lenin hoped to thoroughly refute the "Economists" through the form of theoretical struggle, disdaining the use of the Party’s official organ (i.e., Rabochaya Gazeta) to organizationally discard their opportunist views. As Lenin said: "We hope to fight unconstrainedly and uncompromisingly against all pseudo-Social-Democrats; we hope that our lead (if that lead is pulled correctly) will be respected because it is pulled correctly, not because it is pulled by an official organ." Thus, it is clear that the resolute struggle Lenin waged against the "demagogues"—for the sake of winning over the "demystified" and training revolutionaries—took ideological and theoretical struggle as its primary form.
(III) Taking the Study and Elucidation of Major Realistic Issues in Russia as the Foundational Work
The essence of theoretical struggle is the struggle between two or more different ideological concepts. The success or failure of a theoretical struggle depends both on the nature of the theory itself and on the choice made by the working masses. Marx once pointed out: "Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. But, for man, the root is man himself." This philosophically rich and famous quote from Marx points to an issue: whoever wishes to be victorious in theoretical struggle must make their theory truly serve the working masses. They should explain to the masses all the major realistic issues concerning proletarian liberation to clear the waters at the source and win their understanding, trust, and support. Therefore, Lenin clearly stated: "The basic content of the activity of our Party organization, the focus of this activity… is political agitation work that elucidates all aspects of practical life, penetrates the broad masses, and is conducted uniformly throughout Russia."
Speaking in the tone of a worker, Lenin said: "We want to know in detail all aspects of political life… for this purpose we need the intellectuals… to give us more… of that which we can never learn from our own factory experience and 'economic' experience, namely: political knowledge… You have no right to 'raise' our activity, because you yourselves lack precisely that activity! Gentlemen, you would do better to worship spontaneity a little less and think more about raising your own activity!" This passage from Lenin contains two extremely important concepts. First, for the Russian Social-Democratic Party, the work of elucidating all aspects of practical life was not only for the purpose of raising the activity of the working masses; an even more important and prerequisite task was to raise the activity of those Social-Democrats who still lacked consciousness. Second, to raise the activity of the working masses and Social-Democrats, one should study those major issues that cannot or are difficult to perceive through general social experience—that is, applying the general principles of proletarian liberation as identified by Marx and Engels to study and elucidate the specific and major realistic issues currently facing the Russian working class. Understanding these issues is the prerequisite for the Russian working class to strive for its own liberation and is therefore an essential requirement for Russian Social-Democrats as vanguard fighters of the proletariat.
To study and elucidate these major realistic issues, one cannot indulge in empty theoretical talk detached from reality; rather, one must integrate Marxism with the concrete realities of Russia. Starting from the typical political events directly encountered by the Russian working masses and Social-Democrats, one must expose the essence hidden within these events to explain the Marxist stance, viewpoint, and method. As Lenin emphasized, "In order to train leaders for the political struggle, it is necessary to constantly and at all times evaluate all aspects of our political life"; "to expose what is happening around us at the present time, to expose what everyone is talking about or even whispering about according to their own views, to expose what is reflected by certain events, certain figures, certain court verdicts, and so on." The "exposure" here refers, of course, to the "materialist analysis and materialist evaluation" of these concrete facts. Only by explaining these typical events—which the masses contact constantly but whose essence they cannot see clearly—fully and thoroughly, can the masses be startled out of their previously relatively shallow understanding, enabled to know "what they did not know," and have their interest and activity piqued. Therefore, only by taking the study and elucidation of the major realistic issues facing the working masses as foundational work (studied and elucidated, of course, from a materialist perspective) can one convince the working masses and Social-Democrats and emerge victorious in the theoretical struggle against the "Economists."
(IV) Taking the Plan for an All-Russian Political Newspaper as the Effective Path
To study and elucidate the major realistic issues facing the working masses and to convince them and the Social-Democrats, one requires rich and typical factual material, and necessitates a materialist synthesis and analysis of this material to form articles that interest the masses and Party members, are understandable, and evoke a resonance. The work of possessing rich, typical factual material and correctly synthesizing and analyzing it cannot be handled by local newspapers that are scattered across different regions and loosely connected. As Lenin pointed out, "A single local organization is simply unable to ensure that its newspaper possesses firmness of principle and raises it to the level of a political organ, unable to collect and utilize sufficient material to illustrate our entire political life," further noting that "all these shortcomings are not accidental phenomena, but the inevitable result of fragmentation." Lenin compared the Party’s cause to the construction of a massive building never seen before, compared Social-Democrats to stonemasons, and compared an All-Russian political newspaper to the stonemason's lead [13]. He thus cleverly explained that the Party’s current problem was that the stonemasons lacked a common lead, resulting in haphazard construction that led to a building that could be knocked over by the enemy with a single push. Therefore, for the Russian Social-Democratic Party to conduct the work of elucidating all aspects of practical life, it had to establish a regularly published All-Russian newspaper to pull a correct lead, allowing Social-Democrats in all locales to work, learn, and advance along the correct political direction indicated by this lead.
The work centered on an All-Russian political newspaper was, in the final analysis, the work of studying, explaining, and publicizing Russia’s major realistic issues under a correct lead and with firm principle. To do this work well required "firmness of principle" as a prerequisite and All-Russian universal typical material as support. It required attention to specific local events and full possession of actual local materials, which in turn required all locales to establish actual connections, exchange learning, and share the experience of the entire Party. Lenin pointed out that such actual connections "would ensure not only the distribution of the newspaper, but also (what is much more important) the exchange of experience, material, personnel, and funds… Success in one locality would often encourage comrades working in another locality to further improve their work and push them to utilize available experience. Local work would be much richer and broader in scope than it is now: political and economic exposures collected from all over Russia would provide mental food for workers of all occupations and all levels of development." The process of consciously conducting research, exchange, and learning for the sake of publishing the newspaper would undoubtedly prompt Social-Democrats to overcome the previous "frog in a well" [14] situation of "not knowing what was happening in the world," greatly increasing their consciousness. Therefore, Lenin pointed out that once the plan for an All-Russian political newspaper was successfully implemented, it would "truly link all committees through actual connections and truly train a group of leaders to lead the entire movement," and "the organization formed naturally around this newspaper, consisting of its contributors, would truly be able to handle anything."
III. Insights from Lenin’s Ideas on Solving Intra-Party Problems for the Self-Revolution of the Communist Party of China
Strengthening the Party’s ideological building and continuously improving the political consciousness and ideological level of Party members and cadres is an eternal task for a Marxist party in strengthening its own development. For the Communist Party of China to conduct self-revolution on the new journey in the New Era, it must grasp ideological building as foundational construction, resolve the ideological problems of Party members and cadres, and forge the sharp ideological weapon of self-revolution. The significance of What Is to Be Done? for the self-revolution of the CPC in the New Era lies in the fact that it contains a systematic and complete set of scientific ideas for resolving intra-party problems starting from ideology.
(1) The Contemporary Value of Lenin’s Approach to Resolving Intra-Party Problems
What Is to Be Done? Burning Questions of Our Movement is a classic work published by Lenin in 1902, more than 120 years ago. Due to differences in global, national, and Party conditions, the specific manifestations of the problems faced by the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party at the turn of the 20th century naturally differ from those faced by the Communist Party of China (CPC) in the New Era, yet their substance remains interconnected. General Secretary Xi Jinping has explicitly pointed out: "From the broad perspective of the 500-year history of world socialism, we are still in the historical era indicated by Marxism." Scholars have added: "The world today remains in the grand historical era specified by Marx and Engels, while simultaneously occupying the specific sub-historical era of financial imperialism described by Lenin." From the standpoint of the broader historical environment, the coexistence of the two systems of capitalism and socialism remains an objective fact. Domestic and foreign hostile forces still maintain strong attempts to distort and vilify Marxism; their actions to dissolve the Socialist Core Value System using Western ideology remain frequent. The danger of the vast number of Party members and cadres being "tempted," "deluded," or "hunted" [15] still exists. The problems Lenin once faced confront us still with undiminished sharpness.
Specifically, the problem of the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party was that certain members and cadres harbored a "worship of spontaneity." The root of this "worship of spontaneity" lay in the agitation of "demagogues" and the insufficient level of Marxist theoretical understanding among the youth. Therefore, in Lenin’s view, the ideological and theoretical struggle was the key to resolving intra-Party problems. On the new journey of the New Era, the CPC faces prominent issues affecting its advanced nature and purity and damaging its image, such as the "four dangers" [16] and the "seven types of misconduct" [17]. A major reason for these problems is the insufficient level of Marxist theory among some Party members and cadres. General Secretary Xi Jinping noted, "In real life, when certain Party members and cadres experience various problems, it ultimately stems from a flickering of faith and a loss of spirit." He further stated, "Firmness in ideals and convictions comes from firmness in thought and theory. Realizing the truth, mastering the truth, believing in the truth, and defending the truth are the spiritual prerequisites for firming up ideals and convictions." For the CPC to resolve its existing problems and promote its great self-revolution in the New Era, it must prioritize ideological building as a foundational task. It must conduct active and healthy ideological and theoretical struggles to ensure that the Party's self-revolution penetrates the very souls of every member and cadre, raising their Marxist theoretical level, replenishing their spiritual "calcium" [18], and continuously tempering the sharp ideological weapon of self-revolution. From this perspective, Lenin’s approach to resolving intra-Party problems retains immense contemporary value and offers important insights for the CPC’s self-revolution in the New Era.
(2) Persisting in the Unity of "Curing the Sickness to Save the Patient" and "High-Pressure Anti-Corruption"
Rescuing those young Social Democrats who had been deluded and preventing the continuously expanding ranks of the Party from further deception was a vital task in Lenin’s fierce critique of and irreconcilable struggle against "demagogues." This embodies Lenin’s attitude of "curing the sickness to save the patient." Carrying out active and healthy intra-Party ideological struggle with this attitude was not only Lenin's correct concept for resolving Party problems but is also a significant historical experience gained by the CPC over a century of addressing ideological issues among members and cadres. Problems of ideals and convictions, unlike corruption, do not always leave a clear trail. The difficulty in resolving them lies in identifying the root; the key lies in encouraging cadres to voice the ideological knots buried in their hearts. We must soberly recognize that under the environment of a socialist market economy, it is inevitable that some cadres will accumulate "ideological dust," harbor doubts about Party theory, or feel confused by major practical issues, thereby losing their faith and spirit. In promoting the resolution of these issues, the Party must not adopt an attitude of "ruthless struggle," but rather "curing the sickness to save the patient." It should encourage members and cadres to be brave and willing to speak of their ideological blockages, providing persuasive and vivid answers to doubts, and offering feedback and clarification for general issues, thereby helping them cast off their mental burdens and move forward unencumbered.
"Curing the sickness to save the patient" and "high-pressure anti-corruption" are inherently consistent and inseparable. While persisting in "curing the sickness," we must resolutely apply the scalpel to incurable tumors and those who seriously violate law and discipline. The Report to the 20th CPC National Congress stated: "Corruption is the largest cancer affecting the Party's vitality and combat effectiveness, and anti-corruption is the most thorough self-revolution." Corruption among cadres, especially leading cadres, not only erodes their own ideals and convictions but also causes irreparable damage to the political ecosystem of their respective regions or departments, invisibly providing a breeding ground for the "virus of spinelessness" [19]. Lenin insisted on an irreconcilable, life-and-death struggle against intra-Party demagogues because they constantly deluded people’s minds and debased the Party's political consciousness. Since the 18th National Congress, a major reason the CPC has engaged in an unprecedented anti-corruption struggle with immense political courage is that corrupt elements are tumors that shake the ideals and convictions of the entire Party. Therefore, to effectively solve ideological problems and push the Party to remain true to its original aspiration and founding mission, the CPC must persist in the unity of "curing the sickness to save the patient" and "high-pressure anti-corruption"—simultaneously washing the dusty skin and excising the life-threatening tumors.
(3) Normalizing Criticism and Self-Criticism through Disciplinary Requirements and Leadership Example
Conducting active and healthy ideological and theoretical struggle is an effective method for a proletarian party to resolve the ideological problems of its members. To address the ideological issues of the Social Democratic youth, Lenin engaged in an irreconcilable theoretical struggle against the "Economists" and "demagogues," using science to defeat utopia, using correctness to oppose error, and using proletarian ideology to defeat bourgeois ideology. On the new journey of the New Era, the ideological struggle faced by the CPC is more acute and complex, and the "demagogues" of domestic and foreign hostile forces are more numerous. They propagate erroneous concepts such as liberalism, historical nihilism, and the "theory that communism is a pipe dream or obsolete," attempting to "paint our Party and our country as a total mess and devoid of merit, enticing people to dance to their magic flute," shaking the convictions of cadres to eventually reach the goal of "inciting the overthrow of the CPC’s leadership and our country’s socialist system." Objectively speaking, some cadres have been influenced by these errors, resulting in ideological knots; a small number have even deviated from Marxism, completely abandoned their ideals, and forgotten their original aspiration and founding mission. Under these circumstances, we should learn from Lenin’s thoughts on theoretical struggle and confidently conduct active and healthy intra-Party ideological struggle. We must make criticism and self-criticism a norm of Party life, using the Party's scientific theory and glorious history as a basis to overcome the influence of these erroneous trends through comrade-like ideological discussion.
Engaging in profound criticism and self-criticism is no easy feat. General Secretary Xi Jinping noted, "Self-criticism is difficult; mutual criticism is even harder." He explained, "The difficulty lies in being trapped by personal favors and lured by interests, fearing the creation of grudges or inviting trouble upon oneself." To dispel these concerns, an important method is to make criticism and self-criticism a collective activity that the majority of cadres must frequently perform, until it becomes a habit and a norm of Party life. As Xi Jinping emphasized: "We must make criticism and self-criticism a norm of Party life and a compulsory course for every member and cadre." This requires Party organizations at all levels to strictly follow the Criteria for Political Life Within the Party Under the New Situation and the Regulations of the Communist Party of China on Internal Supervision to conduct effective democratic life meetings [20]. They must focus on the "key few" [21] and ensure that leaders take the lead, setting an example for subordinates and encouraging the entire Party to engage in ideological exchange and criticism. As long as leading cadres provide a correct example and as long as we persist over the long term, criticism and self-criticism can be transformed from a strict disciplinary requirement into an everyday habit, from passive acceptance into conscious action, and from "listing achievements" into "discussing problems, offering suggestions, and analyzing harms." This will turn the process into an ideological convergence—a true case of "looking in the mirror, straightening one's cap, and taking a bath to cure the sickness" [22].
(4) Selecting Research and Interpretive Results on Major Theoretical and Practical Issues
Lenin placed special emphasis on using the Marxist stand, viewpoint, and method to study the specific and typical social realities facing the worker masses and Social Democrats. He vividly elucidated the essence hidden behind these problems—essence that could not be seen through general experience alone—believing this to be a necessary, regular task for training leaders of the political struggle. On the new journey of the New Era, the CPC must also research and interpret the Party's innovative theories, vividly answer major social questions of concern to the masses, and respond to focal points used by hostile forces to attack the Party and state. This helps cadres "clear the ideological mist and clarify blurred understandings" to firm up the Party's ideals and founding mission. Since the 18th National Congress, under the strong leadership of the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core, our Party has established and persisted in the fundamental system of the guiding position of Marxism in the ideological field, achieving significant results in researching and interpreting major theoretical and practical issues.
A key reason we value this research and interpretation is to help cadres understand the inevitability of the lofty ideal of communism, more clearly grasp the internal logic of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, and more soberly recognize the fundamental significance of the CPC's leadership in this rejuvenation. This firms up the whole Party’s "four confidences" [23] in the path, theory, system, and culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics. In the author’s humble opinion, to achieve this goal, the Party should follow the spirit of "Confucius editing the Six Classics to illuminate the Way" [24]. We should promptly select articles from the vast sea of research that are both academically rigorous and readable for cadres to study. Otherwise, faced with a mountain of works of varying quality, cadres may find it difficult to gain interest or know where to begin. The crux is selecting results with true theoretical penetration that can genuinely interest cadres. This selection process should persist in the centralized and unified leadership of the Party Central Committee to ensure the correct political direction; it should use anonymous expert peer review to ensure high theoretical standards; and it should involve anonymous evaluations from randomly selected cadres across the Party to ensure vividness and readability. Only through this triple evaluation can we select "few but refined" high-level results. By designating these as required reading, we can ensure that cadres enjoy the process of learning, broaden their horizons, and allow the Party's innovative theories to truly enter their minds and hearts, becoming the scientific support for their ideals and mission.
(5) Strengthening the Construction of Platforms for Intra-Party Theoretical Study and Discussion
Lenin proposed the plan for an all-Russian political newspaper, emphasizing that "there is no other way of training strong political organizations except through the medium of an all-Russian newspaper." This was partly because such a newspaper could draw a correct "fuse" or guiding line, directing members along the correct ideological path, and partly because the work surrounding the newspaper could establish practical links between members in different regions, facilitating exchange and broadening their horizons. On the new journey of the New Era, we should also draw on Lenin's scientific thinking by using a specialized platform for intra-Party theoretical study and discussion. This would provide a correct guiding line for the theory studies of all cadres and facilitate ideological exchange and theoretical inquiry among them.
From the perspective of tempering the sharp ideological weapon of self-revolution and advancing the Party's great self-revolution, it is necessary to research and develop a theoretical study and discussion platform specifically oriented toward Party members and cadres, in order to better serve the daily study and work of the entire Party. The works of classical Marxist writers are as vast as the open sea, and the fruits of research and interpretation by Chinese academia are as numerous as "sweat-soaked oxen and rafters filled to the roof" [25]. Where should the study efforts of the vast numbers of Party members and cadres begin? Which specific works and research interpretations should be studied? What kind of study plan is most conducive to helping Party members and cadres understand and master Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era? What is most conducive to helping them strengthen their ideal and convictions and remain true to their original aspiration and founding mission? What is most conducive to helping them grasp the decisive significance of the "Two Establishments" and truly achieve the "Two Upholds"? These are the foundational questions that platform construction must consider.
The platform for internal Party theoretical study and discussion should provide a correct guiding thread for the study of all Party members and cadres. It should integrate classical works with selected research and interpretive results. Through reasonable curriculum design, high-quality course content, and text and video materials that emphasize both analytical penetration and emotional resonance, it should provide an effective handle for the study of Party members and cadres. On this basis, for every theoretical and practical issue covered by the curriculum, the platform should provide a space for ideological exchange and theoretical discussion among Party members and cadres. Research should be conducted to establish mechanisms that encourage Party members and cadres to articulate their points of confusion or doubt, engage in mutual discussion, seek answers, and resolve their uncertainties.
(Author Bios: Guo Chao is a doctoral student at the School of Marxism, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, specializing in Party building and scientific socialism; Yu Haiqing is Deputy Director, Researcher, and Doctoral Supervisor at the Institute of Marxism Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, specializing in world socialism and Party building.)
Online Editor: Tongxin Source: Journal of the Party School of the CPC Fujian Provincial Committee (Fujian Academy of Governance), Issue 1, 2025.