Huang Chaochun: Chinese-style Modernization Based on a Holistic National Perspective | Marxism Research Network

Huang Chaochun, Party Secretary of the Guizhou Academy of Social Sciences, proposes that advancing Chinese-path modernization through a holistic national model breaks the narrative logic that equates "modernization with Westernization and de-traditionalization." Chinese-path modernization is a socialist modernization led by the Communist Party of China (CPC), which transcends the capital-centered and fragmented Western models by embedding national subjectivity throughout the entire process of theoretical construction, value orientation, and practical pathways. Its core logic is rooted in the historical continuity of Chinese civilization ^[1], the governance demands of a hyper-scale state ^[2], and the integrative capacity of the socialist system. By utilizing the holistic nature of top-level design ^[3] and the systemic scope of resource allocation, it resolves governance challenges and creates a new paradigm for the modernization of a nation with a hyper-scale population.

Regarding institutional guarantees, this model relies on the centralized and unified leadership of the Party Central Committee and the coordinating mechanism of "the whole country as a single chessboard" ^[4], providing comprehensive and fundamental institutional safeguards for modernization and addressing uncertainty with institutional certainty. The holistic national model is also reflected in its mission and tasks, emphasizing a holistic leap in national objectives, efficacy, and strength. This differs from the focus on economic "hard power" found in "developed countries," as it instead highlights the core status of the modernization of the national governance system and capacity ^[5]. This perspective provides guidance for the formulation of local "15th Five-Year Plans" ^[6], avoiding the simplistic equalization of modernization with mere levels of economic development or the continuation of the "moderately prosperous society in all respects" ^[7] advancement model.

Notes

↩ [1] 中华文明历史连续性 (Zhōnghuá wénmíng lìshǐ liánxùxìng): A key concept in contemporary Chinese official discourse emphasizing that the People's Republic is not a rupture from the past but a modern manifestation of a 5,000-year-old civilization. This underpins the "Second Integration" (combining Marxism with China's fine traditional culture).

↩ [2] 超大规模 (chāo dà guīmó): Literally "hyper-scale" or "ultra-large scale." In Chinese political economy, this refers to the unique governance challenges and advantages posed by China's population size, geographic diversity, and market volume, which are seen as requiring a different developmental logic than smaller European nation-states.

↩ [3] 顶层设计 (dǐngcéng shèjì): "Top-level design." A term borrowed from engineering and systems theory, used by the CPC to describe a holistic, macro-level strategic planning process that precedes and guides specific reforms, ensuring different policies are mutually reinforcing.

↩ [4] 全国一盘棋 (quánguó yī pán qí): Literally "the whole country as one chessboard." An idiom meaning that the entire nation must work in coordination under a central plan, sacrificing local or short-term interests for the sake of the overall national strategic objective.

↩ [5] 国家治理体系和治理能力现代化 (guójiā zhìlǐ tǐxì hé zhìlǐ nénglì xiàndàihuà): Often called the "Fifth Modernization" (following the original Four Modernizations of industry, agriculture, national defense, and science/technology). It refers to making the bureaucratic and legal structures of the state more efficient, rule-based, and technologically advanced.

↩ [6] 十五五 (shí-wǔ-wǔ): Abbreviation for the 15th Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development (2026–2030). Planning for this period is currently a major focus of scholarly and policy research in China.

↩ [7] 全面小康 (quánmiàn xiǎokāng): "A moderately prosperous society in all respects." This was the Party's primary developmental goal for the period leading up to 2021 (the centenary of the CPC). The text warns against treating "modernization" as merely an extension of this previous stage rather than a qualitative shift into the "New Era."