Li Dongming: Lenin's Critique of the "Economists" in "What Is to Be Done?" and Its Contemporary Implications
What Is to Be Done? is a polemical pamphlet written by Lenin between 1901 and 1902. One hundred and twenty years ago, the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party (RSDLP), led by Lenin, was in a state of organizational fragmentation and ideological confusion. Not only was the party plagued by a pervasive "circle spirit" [1] among its scattered local cells, but the erroneous trend of Economism was also spreading. Economism attracted a large number of followers within the RSDLP, forming a sectarian clique headed by Martynov—the "Economists"—which jeopardized the Party’s leadership and its ideological foundations. In response, Lenin wrote What Is to Be Done? with the aim of achieving ideological unity within the Party. By exposing and criticizing the erroneous views of the Economists, he not only politically educated the rank-and-fill members but also largely eliminated the negative influence of their sectarian activities and flawed theories. In doing so, he defended the Party’s leadership core and the guiding status of Marxism, while strengthening the Party’s political leadership over the workers' movement. Based on contemporary political practice, this article revisits Lenin’s What Is to Be Done? to re-examine and historically explore the multiple objectives behind his critique of the Economists, seeking theoretical reference and practical guidance for our own current question of "what is to be done?"
I. Struggling against the words and deeds of the "Economists" that damaged Party leadership; defending the Party's leadership core and centralized, unified leadership
According to Lenin's original plan, the pamphlet What Is to Be Done? was intended only to elaborate in detail on the ideas discussed in his article "Where to Begin?" and was not meant to be very long. However, because the erroneous words and deeds of the "Economists" had seriously undermined Party leadership, Lenin changed his writing plan and significantly expanded the content in order to "resolutely struggle against this trend—a trend that is vague and lacks clarity, yet is relatively stubborn and capable of being revived in various forms" [1] (p. 2). Therefore, the direct reason Lenin put such great effort into writing What Is to Be Done? was the severe harm caused by the Economists—such as organizational division and ideological confusion—to the newly formed RSDLP. One of his primary objectives was to wage a resolute struggle against the Economists' actions that damaged Party leadership and to defend the centralized, unified leadership of the Party.
The "Economists," as an opportunist faction within the RSDLP at the turn of the 20th century, drafted independent programmatic documents and published a series of erroneous political proposals that denied the Party’s unified leadership. Regarding the workers' movement, the Economists worshipped the spontaneity of the movement and belittled the role of the "conscious element"—that is, the role of the Social Democratic Party. They emphasized that workers should "wrest their own fate from the hands of the leaders" [1] (p. 36) and "take it into their own hands" [1] (p. 34), believing that the ultimate outcome of social transformation depended on the spontaneity of the workers' movement rather than the political guidance of the proletarian party. On the organizational form of the workers' movement, the Economists exaggerated the role of economic organizations such as workers' benefit funds and workers' unions, even "confusing these organizations with the organization of revolutionaries" [1] (p. 120). They opposed the establishment of a centralized, secret organization of revolutionaries and denied the necessity of establishing a leadership core within the Party. They even slandered the organization of revolutionaries advocated by Lenin as "Narodnaya Volya-ism" [2], claiming it contradicted "democratic principles" and possessed "anti-democratic tendencies," while they themselves spoke glibly of "broad democratic principles" in total disregard of reality [1] (pp. 129-132). On the relationship between the masses and the leaders, the Economists accused the revolutionary organization’s leadership of the movement as effectively having professional revolutionaries "do the thinking for everyone" [1] (p. 119). They slandered the organization of professional revolutionaries as a "conspiratorial" organization divorced from the masses [1] (p. 127) that "defiled the title of revolutionary" [1] (p. 121), thereby undermining the masses' trust in their leaders and opposing the establishment of an authoritative central leadership core.
The spread of these erroneous political views exacerbated the pre-existing tendencies toward fragmentation and spontaneity within the RSDLP, becoming a serious obstacle to the establishment of a centralized and unified workers' party. In the early days of the RSDLP, many Marxist revolutionaries, including Lenin, were in exile, and the Party lacked a strong leadership core. Meanwhile, the Party suffered heavy blows at its inception due to severe sabotage by the Tsarist police. Lacking unified leadership, local Party organizations were characterized by a deep-seated "circle spirit" and were liberal and disorganized. In this context, the "Economists," who emerged in the mid-1890s, quickly gained dominance within the Party, willfully spreading erroneous views detrimental to centralized, unified leadership. It must be noted that the spontaneous tendencies within the RSDLP fueled the spread of the Economists' errors, which in turn exacerbated the Party's ideological confusion and organizational fragmentation. At that time, internal disagreements and organizational divisions were so severe that fragmentation and a "each going their own way" [3] mentality occurred everywhere; various groups and "Leagues of Struggle" [4] emphasized their own particularities and pursued contradictory struggle tactics. Consequently, there was no necessary linkage between revolutionary circles and a lack of long-term, systematic planning; furthermore, due to weak awareness of security and secrecy, they were easily destroyed by the enemy. In short, the opportunist views of the Economists had a severe negative impact on Party organizations at all levels, causing the Party to fall into a major crisis of instability, confusion, and disruption. Regarding this situation, Plekhanov, another founder of the RSDLP, lamented: "We must rid ourselves of this chaotic and shameful situation at all costs. It is a misfortune for the Party to endure such a state of confusion" [2] (p. 195). Lenin also considered this the "real malady" of the Russian workers' movement [1] (p. 95). Clearly, an urgent task facing Lenin and other Russian Marxists was the necessity of building a centralized and unified workers' party and establishing an authoritative central leadership core. This leadership core had to consist of professional revolutionaries with a high theoretical level, excellent political quality, and the ability to withstand the test of practice. Due to Tsarist autocratic rule and the lack of basic political freedoms, such a revolutionary organization could only exist in a state of extreme secrecy.
Therefore, targeting the Economists' sabotage of unified leadership and the corrosive effect of their views on the Party members and the masses, Lenin maintained constant vigilance. Collaborating with other Marxists in exile, he exposed and criticized the Economist errors within the Party. In fact, before writing What Is to Be Done?, Lenin had authored the "Protest by Russian Social-Democrats" in the name of 17 Marxists in exile to denounce Economism. He also independently wrote articles such as "Our Programme," "Our Immediate Task," "An Urgent Question," "A Retrograde Trend in Russian Social-Democracy," "The Urgent Tasks of Our Movement," "Where to Begin?", and "A Talk with Defenders of Economism," launching a fierce critique of the Economists' erroneous propositions.
However, the Economists ignored the protests and criticisms of Lenin and many other Marxists. Their activities became increasingly rampant, and they formed a sectarian clique led by Martynov. Using newspapers and journals like Rabochaya Mysl (Workers' Thought) and Rabocheye Dyelo (Workers' Cause) as their mouthpieces, they vigorously promoted opportunist views within the Party and brazenly conducted anti-Marxist propaganda. When Lenin refuted their erroneous views, the Economists went so far as to attack the revolutionary Social-Democrats led by Lenin. This had exceeded the scope of "local disagreements" within the Party and led to a "fundamental opposition between two trends" within the RSDLP [1] (p. 2). It should be pointed out that the Economists, while advocating "freedom of criticism," were on one hand terrified of openness and criticism, and on the other hand, spread anti-Marxist rhetoric against the establishment of a centralized workers' party. They slandered the organization of professional revolutionaries Lenin proposed—a classic manifestation of factional activity within the Party.
Given that the sectarian activities of the Economists characterized "a whole period of confusion and vacillation" in the history of the RSDLP [1] (p. 3), Lenin stated that although "we have done everything we could to prevent a complete rupture with the 'Economists,' such a rupture has, after all, become inevitable" [1] (p. 3). Under these circumstances, Lenin felt compelled to write What Is to Be Done? despite his busy schedule. He employed a polemical style to trace the disputes from the beginning, using accessible language and numerous specific examples to thoroughly criticize the Economists' views. In this regard, Lenin quoted a passage from Ferdinand Lassalle’s letter to Marx as the epigraph for What Is to Be Done?: "Internal Party struggles lend a party strength and vitality. The greatest proof of a party’s weakness is its diffuseness and the blurring of clearly defined boundaries. A party becomes stronger by purging itself" [1] (p. 1). This clearly stated his purpose. To end the split and chaos as soon as possible, and to ensure the Party's leadership core and centralized unity, Social-Democrats had to draw a clear line against the Economists and engage in intra-Party struggle.
Through What Is to Be Done?, Lenin explained the dangers of sectarian activities to the whole Party and emphasized the necessity of attaching great importance to "tried and talented political leaders" [1] (p. 115)—the Party's leadership core. It must be noted that the main weakness of the RSDLP at that time was precisely the lack of a strong, unified leadership core and the total absence of secrecy; the Tsarist police could easily destroy Party organizations just by tracking the publication and distribution of one or two issues of a newspaper. Therefore, by exposing the Economists, Lenin warned Social-Democrats that to overcome fragmentation, backwardness, and the state of "each going their own way," they had to strengthen centralized and unified leadership. This required concentrating all secret functions in the hands of a few professional revolutionaries and emphasizing the role of the leadership core. Ultimately, Lenin's critique enhanced the ideological understanding and political level of Russian Social-Democrats and defended the Party's leadership. Lenin’s wife, Nadezhda Krupskaya, noted: "What Is to Be Done? was a tremendous success. It answered a series of the most urgent problems. Everyone felt deeply the need for a secret, planned organization" [3] (pp. 61-62).
II. Exposing the harmfulness of the "Economists'" erroneous ideology and its dissemination; consolidating the ideological foundation of Party unity
Lenin’s What Is to Be Done? is a classic work of the fierce confrontation between Marxism and Economism over ideological territory. It is closely related to the Economists' denial of the guiding status of Marxism. The second objective of the book was to expose and criticize the harm caused by the Economists' erroneous ideas and their dissemination, thereby consolidating the ideological foundation of the Party's unity.
Economism, as the Russian variant of Bernsteinism [5], used "freedom of criticism" as a pretext to deny the guiding status of Marxism. At the end of the 19th century, major changes occurred in the economic conditions, class structure, workers' treatment, and class contradictions of Western European capitalism. These required a timely and convincing Marxist explanation. However, the founders of Marxism, Marx and Engels, passed away during this critical period, providing space for Eduard Bernstein to revise and attack Marxism. As soon as Bernsteinism appeared, it was echoed ideologically, theoretically, and in action by opportunists in various countries, quickly spreading across Europe and America as an international trend. In Russia, the Economists not only translated and introduced Bernstein’s works but also followed his example. Under the flags of "opposing orthodoxy" and "long live freedom of criticism," they "captured almost a monopoly on 'condemning' Marxism" [1] (p. 16). In 1899, in their programmatic document Credo, the Economists proposed that the difficulties of the current political movement proved the "crisis of Marxism" and the correctness of Bernsteinism. They asserted that "dogmatic Marxism, the Marxism that denies everything, primitive Marxism (which holds an overly rigid view of social class division), will give way to democratic Marxism" [4] (p. 148). Furthermore, the Economists declared that Marxism was of "little value" for the practical tasks of the Russian workers' movement [4] (p. 149) and was "even harmful in a practical sense" [4] (p. 149). Most seriously, the Economists even opposed Marxism in the name of innovating and developing it. Using highly seductive and inflammatory slogans, they obscured the reactionary essence of their distortion, trivialization, and disparagement of the scientific theory of Marxism, confounding right and wrong to deceive the people.
It must be pointed out that while the ability of Economism to attract a large following within the Party was certainly related to the fact that the "Economists" "strove to belittle the significance of theory under the pretext of speaking in the name of Marx," [6]23 it was to a greater extent due to the low level of Marxist theoretical proficiency among the majority of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party at that time. On the one hand, during the initial period of the Party's establishment, its organizational composition was complex: "many people with very little or even no theoretical training joined the movement because they saw its practical significance and practical successes." [6]22 Due to their lack of Marxist theoretical grounding, these individuals were easily influenced by Economism. With the development of the workers' movement and the wide dissemination of Marxism, many intellectuals of propertied-class origin joined the Russian Social Democratic movement. Many of them lacked both practical experience in struggle and sufficient theoretical preparation, "often knowing only fragments of Marxism from discussions in legal publications." [6]35 These people drew nourishment not only from the works of Bernstein but also acquired their knowledge of Marxism from legal periodicals; their presence provided a breeding ground for the emergence of revisionism and opportunism within the Party. On the other hand, due to the repressions of the Tsarist government, seasoned Marxists like Lenin were in exile abroad, and many Party members were so preoccupied with practical survival that they relatively neglected the theoretical study of Marxism. Consequently, a chaotic phenomenon emerged within the Party where various trends of thought—Marxism, Narodnism [6], nationalism, "Legal Marxism" [7], and Economism—were layered and intertwined. Many leading cadres within the Party were unable to distinguish the difference between Marxism and opportunism, lacking the vigilance and immunity against Economism, which inevitably left greater room for the distortion of Marxism. For example, the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad was "not yet willing to see 'so-called Economism' as opportunism." [6]19 In this regard, if the Party's leading cadres themselves were unclear in their theoretical understanding and blurred in their political boundaries, then even less need be said for the broad masses of workers.
Clearly, the ideological system of the "Economists" and its spread within the Party posed a serious threat to Marxism. If these erroneous propositions were met with indifference and allowed to take their own course, it would inevitably exacerbate ideological confusion within the Party, eventually leading the Party to abandon the guiding position of Marxism and slide into the quagmire of opportunism, thereby losing the theoretical character of a proletarian party and its role in providing political leadership to the workers' movement. In response, Lenin soberly realized that the masses of Party members—especially certain leading cadres who were deeply influenced by the erroneous ideas of the "Economists"—must be won back. When enumerating the significance of Engels' theoretical struggle, Lenin specifically explained to the whole Party the extreme importance of establishing the guiding position of Marxism: "the role of vanguard fighter can be fulfilled only by a party that is guided by the most advanced theory," [6]24 while cautioning the whole Party that "without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." [6]23 He argued that "at a time when the fashionable preaching of opportunism goes hand in hand with an infatuation for the narrowest forms of practical activity, it is necessary to insist on this idea." [6]23 At the same time, he believed that Social Democrats must systematically expound Marxist theory and "instill from without" this socialist ideological system into the entire workers' movement. Otherwise, it would be equivalent to accepting the bourgeois ideological system, because in a class society there is only "either bourgeois ideology or socialist ideology"; there can be no "third" ideology that is "non-class or supra-class." [6]38 In other words, if the position in the ideological sphere is not occupied by proletarian ideology, it will be occupied by bourgeois ideology; if it is not occupied by Marxism, it will be occupied by various non-Marxist or anti-Marxist thoughts. Based on this understanding, Lenin emphasized that "any belittling of the socialist ideology, any contempt for it, means the strengthening of bourgeois ideology" [6]38 and constitutes a denial of the Party's leadership.
Therefore, to establish the guiding position of Marxism, Social Democrats had to draw a clear line against the erroneous views of Economism and wage a resolute struggle against them. Lenin divided the history of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party since its inception into three periods: the first was the "period of the emergence and consolidation of the theory and program of Social-Democracy" [6]171; the second was the period in which Social-Democracy "appeared as a social movement, as a rising of the masses of the people, and as a political party" [6]171; and the third was the "period of confusion, disintegration, and vacillation" [6]172 caused by erroneous trends such as Economism. He pointed out which conditions would determine "when the third period will come to an end" [6]173 and "when the fourth period" of "consolidating militant Marxism" [6]173 would begin. Here, Lenin undoubtedly intended to express that the prerequisite for establishing the guiding position of Marxism was the elimination of the negative influence of Economist views within the Party. Based on this, Lenin borrowed Marx's words to illustrate his resolute stance in the struggle against the "Economists": "if you must unite, then enter into agreements to satisfy the practical aims of the movement, but do not allow any bargaining over principles, do not make theoretical 'concessions'." [6]23 Through the unremitting efforts and reasoned arguments of Lenin and his comrades-in-arms, the trend of Economism was finally crushed. In Lenin’s words, "the struggle against 'Economism' subsided and came to a complete stop as early as 1902." [10]384 From then on, the "Economists" and their erroneous propositions no longer found a market within the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party. The ideological and public opinion strongholds in which the "Economists" took pride, the newspaper Worker’s Thought and the journal The Workers' Cause, both ceased publication in 1902. Although the "Economists" founded another journal, The Red Banner, in November 1902 in an attempt to continue promoting opportunist views, it ceased publication after only three issues. By writing What Is to Be Done?, Lenin thoroughly crushed Economism ideologically and consolidated the Party's ideological foundation. This not only met the need of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party for ideological Party building but also held significant importance within the Second International for opposing Bernsteinism and defending the guiding position of Marxism.
IV. Contemporary Revelations from Lenin’s Critique of the Erroneous Ideas of the “Economists”
Lenin’s writing of What Is to Be Done? not only resolved the urgent problems in the Russian revolutionary movement at that time but also provided a vivid demonstration of how a proletarian party can establish the Party’s leadership core and the guiding position of scientific theory, and how to enhance the Party's political leadership. It remains of great revelatory significance for our current efforts to uphold the Party's leadership core and the authority of the Central Committee, to promote the whole Party's unity of thought, will, and action, and to strengthen the Party's political leadership.
First, we must struggle against words and deeds that undermine the Party’s leadership core and defend the authority and centralized, unified leadership of the Central Committee. In Lenin's view, no class in history has ever achieved supremacy without producing its own political leaders and advanced representatives [9]336. Similarly, a proletarian party cannot achieve victory in the revolutionary cause without a strong and powerful leadership core. It was precisely for this reason that, in response to the words and deeds of the "Economists" who denied the Party's leadership core, Lenin wrote What Is to Be Done? to refute them, repeatedly emphasizing the extreme urgency of establishing an organization of professional revolutionaries and the Party's leadership core. It must be stated plainly that Party building in the New Era also faces "many problems of blurred understanding and weak action regarding upholding the Party’s leadership, as well as many problems where the implementation of the Party's leadership is weakened, hollowed out, diluted, or marginalized; in particular, there is ineffective execution of the Central Committee's major decisions and deployments, with some people adopting a 'policy at the top, countermeasure at the bottom' approach [8], or even saying one thing while doing another and acting willfully." [13]50 If such erroneous words and deeds are left unchecked or indulged, they will inevitably weaken the authority of the Central Committee and the Party's centralized, unified leadership. If the Party organization is lax, with everyone going their own way like a "sheet of loose sand," [9] it will be difficult to gather the majestic strength needed to realize the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. To this, Xi Jinping emphasized: "The Party and the people have placed us in this position, and the baton of history has been passed to our hands; we must be responsible to the Party, the state, the nation, and the people. We must dare to struggle against behaviors that undermine the Party’s leadership or damage the Party’s health; otherwise, we will become the sinners of history!" [14]17 Therefore, under the new historical conditions, we still need, just as Lenin struggled with the "Economists," to resolutely struggle against all words and deeds that undermine the Party’s leadership core and defend the authority and centralized, unified leadership of the Central Committee.
Second, we must ensure the whole Party’s study of Marxist theory and consolidate the ideological foundation for the Party’s unity and solidarity. Political firmness comes from theoretical clarity, and consistency in action stems from unity in thought. The reason why the erroneous views of the "Economists" found a significant market within the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party was that the Marxist theoretical literacy of many members was not high, to the point that they could not see the demarcation between Marxism and Economism, nor could they see the class interests reflected by Economism or the direction it represented for the workers' movement; they thus became advocates and facilitators for Economism within the Party. Therefore, Lenin wrote What Is to Be Done? to emphasize the importance of "comprehensive mastery of Marxist theory," the "need to raise political and theoretical levels," and the "training of Marxist cadres." [15] Today, the historical parallel is that some leading cadres within our Party have low Marxist theoretical literacy, insufficient learning capacity, and a lack of initiative in study. They are easily influenced by various erroneous theories, leading to wavering convictions, a loss of values, shifting positions, and even political nihilism. Therefore, standing at a new historical starting point, we must similarly perform well in the whole Party’s study of Marxist theory so that the Party maintains a consistent ideology at all times. This is also the location of the advantage and the precious historical experience for the prosperity and growth of the Communist Party of China. As Xi Jinping pointed out: "Looking back at the Party’s history of struggle, we can see that a very important reason why the Communist Party of China has been able to continuously grow and expand through hardships and difficulties is that our Party has always attached importance to ideological Party building and strengthening the Party through theory, enabling the whole Party to always maintain unity of thought, firm will, coordinated action, and powerful combat effectiveness." [16]74 This requires the whole Party to pass down this important historical experience: the more critical the juncture of national and ethnic development, and the more vital the moment for responding to complex situations and various risks and challenges, the more we must strengthen the study of Marxist theory, enhance Marxist theoretical literacy, and consolidate the ideological foundation for the Party's unity and solidarity.
Furthermore, we must resolutely criticize erroneous social trends and use the latest theoretical achievements of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism to grip the masses. The principle that "theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses" [21] is not only known to Marxists; various non-Marxists or anti-Marxists are naturally very clear on this as well. Consequently, within the ideological sphere, should the guiding position of Marxism loosen even slightly, various non-Marxist or anti-Marxist ideologies will take advantage of the vacuum, using every possible means to compete with Marxism for the masses. Erroneous theories represent non-proletarian interests; if they are allowed to spread unchecked, they will inevitably form sectarian cliques within the Party. The erroneous views of the "Economists" took precisely this opportunity—while Marxism had not yet secured a firm footing within the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party—to develop rapidly and capture a significant number of party members and the masses. It must be pointed out that under the new situation, the struggle in the ideological sphere remains sharp and complex. Erroneous social trends such as historical nihilism [10], neoliberalism, "constitutional democracy," and "universal values" [11] are nascent and spreading, interconnecting with one another, and waiting for an opportunity to act. Some people, much like the "Economists" of Lenin’s time, use the guise of "freedom of criticism" and shout "the most fashionable slogans"—ostensibly to critique current affairs, but in reality to shake the people's faith in Marxism and disparage the Party's leadership. Therefore, facing the intricate struggle in the ideological sphere, Lenin’s writing of What Is to Be Done? enlightens us that to establish the Party's leadership core and the guiding position of scientific theory, we must resolutely criticize erroneous social trends. Political steadfastness stems from theoretical clarity, and an important manifestation of theoretical clarity is the criticism of erroneous social trends. Only by criticizing these trends can we profoundly comprehend, interpret, and propagate Marxism, use the latest theoretical achievements of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism to grip the masses, and defend the Party's leadership.
Finally, we must be adept at looking at problems from a political perspective and continuously enhance the Party's political leadership. Lenin stood at a political height to criticize the "Economists'" error of neglecting politics while talking grandly of economic struggle, requiring Social Democrats to look at problems from a political perspective to strengthen the Party's political leadership over the workers' movement. History shows that Lenin led the Bolshevik Party to achieve correct political leadership over the workers' movement, gaining the recognition and support of more people and ultimately winning state power. This forcefully demonstrates that taking the initiative politically is the most advantageous form of initiative, while passivity in politics is the most dangerous form of passivity. To take a clear-cut stand on politics is both a distinctive feature of a Marxist party and a consistent political advantage of our Party. At present, the world's once-in-a-century changes and the strategic overall situation of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation are interwoven and surging together. The various risks and challenges facing our country's development are unprecedented, similarly requiring Party members and cadres to take a clear-cut stand on politics, effectively improving their ability to observe and handle problems from a political perspective and to prevent and defuse political risks. It is undeniable that "political problems existing within our Party have not yet been fundamentally resolved; the issues of some Party organizations and member-cadres neglecting, diluting, or ignoring politics remain prominent, and some even have serious problems of deviating from the direction of socialism with Chinese characteristics" [22]. Based on this, Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasized the need to constantly keep the string of "taking a clear-cut stand on politics" taut, strengthen the Party's political leadership, and enhance the Party's political leadership capacity, ensuring that all undertakings of the Party and the state always develop along the correct political direction. It must be pointed out that "the political direction is the primary issue for the Party's survival and development, concerning the Party's future, destiny, and the rise or fall of its cause" [20]; "if a deviation occurs on the issue of direction, a subversive mistake will be made" [20]. Therefore, "the closer we are to the goal, the more complex the situation, and the more arduous the task, the more we must give play to the political advantages of the leadership of the Communist Party of China" [20] to ensure the political direction does not deviate. This requires the entire Party to enhance its political consciousness, be adept at looking at problems and grasping the overall political situation from a political perspective, and continuously improve its political judgment, political understanding, and political execution.
III. Relying on Unity and Struggle to Create a Bright Future
The successful convening of the 20th CPC National Congress marked that the Party has united and led the people of the whole country onto a new journey toward the second centenary goal [12] of comprehensively building a modern socialist country. The requirement for unity and struggle in the New Era runs through the entire report of the 20th National Congress, clearly reflected in various parts such as the title, theme, introduction, main text, and concluding remarks. Unity and struggle must be consistent throughout. The Communist Party of China led the Chinese people to create a brilliant history by relying on unity and struggle, and it must still rely on unity and struggle to open up a beautiful future.
To unite and struggle, we must uphold the leadership of the Communist Party of China. Lenin pointed out: "As long as millions of laborers are united as one and follow the outstanding figures of their class, victory is guaranteed." The Communist Party of China is the vanguard of the Chinese working class, and at the same time, the vanguard of the Chinese people and the Chinese nation; it is the leadership core of the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The "Resolution of the CPC Central Committee on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party’s Centenary Struggle" adopted at the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee summarized ten precious historical experiences of the Party, the first of which is "upholding the Party's leadership." It clearly stated: the fundamental reason why the Chinese people and the Chinese nation were able to reverse their historical fate after the dawn of modern times and achieve today’s great successes is the strong leadership of the Communist Party of China. History and reality both prove that without the Communist Party of China, there would be no New China and no great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. To govern the world's largest political party and most populous country, we must uphold the Party's overall leadership, especially the centralized and unified leadership of the Party Central Committee, uphold democratic centralism, and ensure the Party always oversees the overall situation and coordinates all parties. As long as we unswervingly uphold the Party's overall leadership, resolutely uphold the Party's core and the authority of the Central Committee, fully leverage the political advantages of the Party's leadership, and implement the Party's leadership in all fields, aspects, and links of the Party and state's cause, we will certainly be able to ensure the entire Party, the entire army, and the people of all ethnic groups across the country advance in unity.
To unite and struggle, we must have the guidance of scientific theory and a common ideal and belief. Lenin pointed out that without revolutionary theory, there can be no strong party, because revolutionary theory can unite the whole party: "They can obtain all their convictions from revolutionary theory, and can apply revolutionary theory to determine methods of struggle and modes of activity." Mao Zedong pointed out: "An 'ism' is like a flag; once the flag is raised, everyone has something to hope for and knows where to go." Deng Xiaoping also pointed out: "The most important thing is the unity of people. To unite, there must be common ideals and firm beliefs. We have struggled hard for decades precisely by relying on firm beliefs to unite the people to struggle for their own interests." "The human factor is important, not referring to ordinary people, but to people with firm beliefs who recognize the people's own interests and struggle for them." Possessing the guidance of Marxist scientific theory is the fundamental reason why the Communist Party of China holds firm to its faith and belief and grasps historical initiative. For a hundred years, the reason why the Party has been able to unite and lead the people to complete arduous tasks that no other political force in China could complete—through repeated explorations, setbacks, and pioneering efforts—is, in the final analysis, because Marxism works, and because Sinicized and modernized Marxism works. On the new journey, we must maintain a firm faith in Marxism and a firm belief in socialism with Chinese characteristics. Under the guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, the latest theoretical innovation of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, we must unite and struggle to comprehensively build a modern socialist country and comprehensively promote the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.
To unite and struggle, we must adhere to the united front. The united front is an important "magic weapon" [13] for the Party to defeat the enemy and succeed in governing and rejuvenating the country; adhering to the united front is also a precious historical experience derived from the Party's centenary struggle. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "The essential requirement of united front work is grand unity and grand association; it solves the problems of winning over hearts and pooling strength." During various historical periods of revolution, construction, and reform, the Party has always placed the united front and united front work in an important position in the work of the entire Party, striving to unite all forces that can be united and mobilize all positive factors that can be mobilized, creating very favorable conditions for the continuous development of the cause of the Party and the people. When people are of one mind, they can move even Mount Tai [14]. Hearts need to be joined; unity is strength. We must uphold and improve the system of multi-party cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, and consolidate and develop the broadest patriotic united front. As the broadest organization of the patriotic united front, the People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC) was born for unity, exists by unity, and prospers through unity. on the new journey, we should give full play to the important role of the CPPCC as a united front organization, effectively use institutional advantages to seek the greatest common denominator and draw the largest possible concentric circles [15], work together with one heart and soul, and gather the majestic strength of the Chinese people's common struggle to write a more brilliant chapter of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era.
To unite and struggle, we must dare to struggle and be adept at struggle. Society advances through the movement of contradictions; where there are contradictions, there will be struggle. Through struggle, once contradictions are resolved, unity can be achieved. Mao Zedong pointed out: "To speak only of unity and not of struggle is not Marxism-Leninism. Starting from a desire for unity, only through struggle can a new unity be reached. Unity transforms into struggle, and struggle transforms again into unity. One cannot merely speak of unity and consistency while ignoring contradiction and struggle." For example, during the nationwide War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, the Communist Party of China always held high the great banner of the Anti-Japanese National United Front, conducting a struggle with reason, advantage, and restraint [16] against the Kuomintang diehards' actions of actively opposing the Communists and passively resisting the Japanese. This maintained the overall situation of anti-Japanese unity, guaranteed the great victory of the national war of resistance, and became the mainstay of the war. History proves that if unity is sought through struggle, unity will survive; if unity is sought through concession, unity will perish. Without struggle, there is no progress; great causes all develop day by day through struggle. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "The great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation will by no means be achieved easily by simply beating drums and clanging gongs"; "to realize a great dream, there must be a great struggle." To dare to struggle does not mean to struggle blindly; one must also be adept at struggle. We must reasonably choose the methods of struggle, grasp the "heat" (timing) of the struggle, grasp the principal contradiction and the principal aspect of the contradiction, persist in acting with reason, advantage, and restraint, refuse to yield an inch on matters of principle, and remain flexible on tactical issues. According to the needs of the situation, we must grasp the "timing, degree, and effectiveness" (shí-dù-xiào), adjust struggle strategies in a timely manner, and eventually seize new victories in the great struggle.