Ma Jinrun, Yu Kaiyue, Ding Xiaoqin: An Analysis of Foreign Marxist Perspectives on the Nature of the Path of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics
China's peaceful rise and steady development since the Reform and Opening-up [1] is undoubtedly the most dazzling global event from the late 20th to the early 21st century. China's continuously increasing national strength has exerted a profound influence on global economics and politics, and the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics has become a focal point of attention and research for Marxist scholars worldwide. Within this field, research on the nature of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics has remained the most scrutinized area of study among international Marxists since the Reform and Opening-up began. General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: "Socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism and not any other 'ism.' The basic principles of scientific socialism cannot be abandoned; if they are abandoned, it is no longer socialism. Our Party has always emphasized that socialism with Chinese characteristics both adheres to the basic principles of scientific socialism and endows them with distinct Chinese characteristics according to the conditions of the times." The path of socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialist in nature and absolutely not any other "ism." However, among the existing research conclusions of international Marxist scholars regarding this key issue, debates and fundamental errors persist. Those international Marxist scholars holding the erroneous view that "the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics is non-socialist in nature" are not a small minority. A correct understanding of the nature of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics is vital; it is the prerequisite for a reasonable and objective evaluation of the achievements and world significance of this path. Deviations in understanding this issue lead directly to biased research and conclusions regarding the experiences, challenges, and world significance of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, thereby affecting the international community's perception and evaluation. Therefore, on the basis of understanding the ideological trends of international Marxist scholars, we should deeply analyze the reasons behind their erroneous views and conclusions, respond to theoretical concerns, and ensure the Chinese voice is heard.
1. Analysis of the "Market Socialism" Perspective
Based on their identification with socialism adopting a market economic system, some international Marxists define the nature of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics as "market socialism." Among them, Western market socialist scholars are representative of this view. They argue that the central planning system possesses insurmountable defects and drawbacks, suggesting that it is both necessary and feasible for socialism to adopt a market economic system, and তারা use China's practice of Reform and Opening-up as the empirical basis supporting their theories. David Schweickart, a representative figure of market socialism, argues from the perspective of "Economic Democracy" [2] that China's performance in three areas—democratic management of enterprises, social management of investment, and the status of state-owned enterprises—strongly proves the socialist nature of its path, and that it is impossible for China's future to follow a capitalist road. He believes the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics should be regarded as a form of market socialism, and it is precisely market socialism that has powerfully promoted China's development. G.A. Cohen, a representative of the Analytical Marxist school, believes that the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics is essentially market socialism, which, while not perfect, is conducive to the construction and development of socialism. Another representative of the Analytical Marxist school, John Roemer, believes that China began a market experiment and successfully introduced market mechanisms since the Reform and Opening-up. He points out that although China has faced problems of increasing inequality and wealth concentration during the introduction of market mechanisms, it can still build a socialist society under the condition of using markets.
Apart from market socialist scholars and the Analytical Marxist school, other Marxist scholars also agree that the nature of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics is market socialism. Nat Weinstein argues that the controlling position of state-owned enterprises in core industrial sectors and the financial sector embodies the socialist attributes of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, which allowed China to escape economic crises and inject vitality into the global economy; China's market socialist policies have proven to be effective. M.J. Gordon believes that China's economic reforms since 1978 in the three areas of agriculture, township and village enterprises (TVEs) [3], and urban state-owned enterprises indicate that choosing the developmental path of market socialism is a feasible and successful choice.
The "market socialism" perspective affirms the socialist nature of the Chinese path and has certain reference value for its development. However, the nature of socialism with Chinese characteristics should by no means be equated with market socialism, as the latter lacks a definite meaning or a clear conceptual definition; different scholars hold varying understandings and definitions of market socialism.
The core of the market socialism advocated by representative scholar David Schweickart is economic democracy, the abolition of private ownership of the means of production and the system of wage labor, characterized by three basic features: workers' self-management, a market economy, and social control of investment. However, our country is still in the primary stage of socialism [4], where private ownership of the means of production and the wage labor system still exist; thus, it is not equivalent to the market socialism advocated by Schweickart. Furthermore, the goal of socialism with Chinese characteristics is not to build a market socialism centered on economic democracy as proposed by David. The 18th National Congress of the CPC clearly pointed out that the goal of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics is to build a socialist market economy, socialist democratic politics, advanced socialist culture, a harmonious socialist society, and a socialist ecological civilization [5] (the Five-Sphere Integrated Plan), to promote the all-round development of the individual, gradually achieve common prosperity for all people, and build a prosperous, strong, democratic, civilized, and harmonious socialist modernized country.
John Roemer's version of market socialism focuses more on creating conditions for equality of opportunity and designed a "coupon economy" model of market socialism that allows the entire population to share in total economic profits. This is closely related to his understanding of the socialist goal as "best considered as a kind of egalitarianism." The market socialism model advocated by Roemer does not change the private ownership of the means of production but merely stipulates various restrictions on economic operations, focusing on making citizen income more equal in the sphere of distribution. Therefore, Roemer's market socialism is essentially a plan for capitalist reform; it is not the goal of scientific socialism. Furthermore, he proposed that under the market socialism model, political competition should be realized to ensure the public has the power to achieve democracy, which is completely contrary to the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. General Secretary Xi Jinping has clearly pointed out that the leadership of the Communist Party of China is the most defining feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The market socialism advocated by both David Schweickart and John Roemer is a singular economic model and possesses a utopian [6] character. Moreover, they both believe that socialism should be combined with the market and that market socialism is the final form of socialism, which contradicts the ultimate goal of scientific socialism.
In addition, some scholars holding the "market socialism" view do not provide a definition or theoretical explanation of market socialism but merely make judgments based on the characteristics displayed by the economic development of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Although there are differences in how various scholars understand market socialism, they all define the nature of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics from the perspective of economic development, ignoring its development in other areas such as politics, society, and culture. Such a definition is one-sided and leads to a narrowing of the rich connotations of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics.
2. Analysis of the "Capitalism" Perspective
Some international Marxist scholars believe that the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics is "capitalist" in nature. There are not a few scholars who hold this view, and they primarily base it on two reasons: first, they polarize socialism against the market economic system, believing that socialism and the market economy are incompatible. Robert Weil, based on a negation of socialism adopting a market economic system, points out that China's development is "using socialism to build capitalism." Martin Hart-Landsberg and Paul Burkett hold similar views, stating that "once the path of market-oriented reform is taken, every subsequent step in the reform process will be constrained by the contradictions generated by the reform itself." These scholars believe that the market is not a simple means of developing the economy; once the process of market-oriented reform begins, the market will continuously expand, gradually falling into a trap where public ownership evolves into private ownership, thereby turning socialism into a tool for capitalism. However, in the process of economic system reform, China has always insisted that the dominant position of public ownership remain unshakable and has persisted in developing a market economy under the prerequisite of the basic socialist system. Since the New Era, China has emphasized even more the need to unswervingly develop and strengthen the public sector of the economy, insisting on making state-owned enterprises and state-owned capital stronger, better, and larger. The public sector holds an advantage over the non-public sector not only in quantity but also in quality. Therefore, for international Marxist scholars to identify the nature of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics as capitalist based on the opposition between socialism and the market economy is subjective and erroneous.
Social issues emerging during China's development process, such as the wealth gap and polarization, are another important factor leading these scholars to define the nature of the path of Chinese-path modernization as capitalism. They argue that since the beginning of Reform and Opening-up, China has experienced serious social problems like the wealth gap and polarization, which they believe should only exist under a capitalist development model. For instance, Martin Hart-Landsberg points out that "reforms have produced an increasing process of exploitation, a process that produces massive wealth for a few at a cost that is unacceptable to the vast majority of Chinese laborers." This group of scholars believes that China’s market reforms have led to a capitalist restoration, with the economy increasingly dominated by foreign interests, resulting in enormous social costs domestically and internationally and harming the interests of the working class throughout the region. Robert Weil notes that Reform and Opening-up caused what was once the most egalitarian society to experience a rapidly widening trend of polarization between rich and poor, returning to the "capitalist road" [7]. Li Minqi points out that after Reform and Opening-up, a new capitalist class formed in China, and the rapid intensification of inequality has not only led to the impoverishment of hundreds of millions of workers but has also destroyed the "middle-class dream" of many in the petty bourgeoisie. Barbara Foley argues that the wealth of China’s emerging billionaire class comes from the extraction of high rates of surplus value from labor, and that the extremely difficult situation of workers proves China has already embarked on the capitalist road.
It is undeniable that during the process of Reform and Opening-up, the phenomenon of a widening wealth gap did indeed occur in China. This is because in the primary stage of socialism, in order to liberate and develop the productive forces and improve the people's living standards as quickly as possible, we needed to stimulate the vitality and creativity of various market entities, mobilize the enthusiasm of all types of laborers, and allow various factors of production to play an active role. Thus, it was necessary to adhere to the joint development of multiple forms of ownership, the participation of multiple factors of production in distribution, and a market economy system. This objectively created the possibility for a widening wealth gap and polarization. However, the problem of the widening wealth gap and polarization in China is fundamentally different from the polarization existing under the capitalist system; one cannot identify the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics as having a capitalist nature based solely on the existence of this problem. China’s widening wealth gap is temporary and represents a staged issue in the process of achieving common prosperity. Common prosperity is not achieved overnight; it is a long-term, arduous, and complex project. When discussing the path to achieving common prosperity, Comrade Deng Xiaoping pointed out that some regions and some people should be allowed to get rich first to lead and help others, eventually reaching common prosperity. In the practice of building socialism with Chinese characteristics, we have always persisted in advancing the process of common prosperity. Since the 18th CPC National Congress, China has placed greater emphasis on social fairness and justice in its development process, stressed that development is for the people, and placed the realization of common prosperity for all people in a more prominent position. We have won the battle against poverty, eliminated absolute poverty, achieved the goal of building a moderately prosperous society in all respects as scheduled, and on this basis, set staged goals for realizing common prosperity, clarified the development path, and further explored effective ways to achieve it. In contrast, capitalist polarization is determined by the fundamental contradictions of capitalism; it is universal and eternal, rooted in the capitalist system itself. Therefore, one cannot conclude that the nature of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics is capitalist simply by observing the current phenomenon of the widening wealth gap in China.
Furthermore, some foreign Marxist scholars, while acknowledging the differences between socialism with Chinese characteristics and capitalism, view the former as a special form of capitalism, such as "neoliberalism with Chinese characteristics" or "Chinese state capitalism." David Harvey believes that China has been swept into the global wave of neoliberalism, and that its domestic transformation and reform are a combination of neoliberal elements and authoritarian central control, resulting in social inequality and the reconstruction of bourgeois power—hence, "neoliberalism with Chinese characteristics." Samir Amin, in The Challenge of Global Integration, refers to China’s development path since Reform and Opening-up as the "state-social-capitalist model," meaning that during the gradual process of privatization and marketization under government control, there is also a focus on promoting social justice and balanced regional development. In the article "China 2013," he explicitly defines China’s development path as "Chinese state capitalism." He points out that China has consistently insisted on treating agricultural land as a public good rather than a commodity, distinguishing it from traditional capitalism, yet features of the capitalist system such as the extraction of surplus labor still exist. He further notes that the goal of "Chinese state capitalism" is to achieve three objectives: building a complete and autonomous modern industrial system, properly handling the relationship between the industrial system and small-scale rural production, and controlling China’s integration into the world system dominated by the generalized monopolies of the "Triad" (the United States, Europe, and Japan). In the future pursuit of these three goals, China could lead toward socialism or pursue purely capitalist development. It is obvious that these views essentially remain a negation of the socialist nature of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics; they are erroneous and warrant vigilance.
III. Analysis of the "Combination of Multiple Economic Systems" View
Some foreign Marxist scholars hold a "combination of multiple economic systems" view in their research on the nature of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Scholars holding this view do not discuss social nature but instead regard social development as the addition of ownership, economic systems, and distribution methods. Pivovarova argues that the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, especially after Reform and Opening-up, has completely departed from the original concept of classical socialism (i.e., socialism of the planned economy era) but does not entirely belong to New Economic Policy-style socialism. Rather, it is a kind of mixed economy with different components, containing both the necessary socialist elements of "social regulation of production" and flexible New Economic Policy elements like the market economy. Chan-Galo argues that the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics currently followed by China is a symbiosis of socialism and capitalism. This "symbiosis" of a mixed nature uses a unique set of laws and regulators to allow the social and the private, the planned and the market, and the socialist and the capitalist to operate under one roof, thereby eliminating the original contradictions between socialism and capitalism. This "symbiosis" is also a representative view of the theory of the mixture of multiple economic systems. Adam Schaff believes the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics is a mixed system because many uncertain factors still exist. Therefore, these scholars judge that although capitalist components are increasing within the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, it still falls within the category of a mixed economic system; in any case, one cannot say that today's Chinese system is capitalist.
These scholars who hold the "combination of multiple economic systems" theory see the flexible aspects of the development path of socialism with Chinese characteristics but treat these aspects as a mechanical addition of ownership, economic systems, and distribution methods. Pivovarova’s so-called "mixed economy" completely departs from the category of socialism and ignores the fact that the development path of socialism with Chinese characteristics takes public ownership as the mainstay. An ownership structure with public ownership as the mainstay is precisely the key factor that allows the development path of socialism with Chinese characteristics to maintain its socialist nature. Chan-Galo's understanding of the nature of the development path of socialism with Chinese characteristics as a "symbiosis of capitalism and socialism" is also incorrect. The market economy is not an economic policy unique to capitalism, nor is the planned economy a regulatory policy unique to socialism. One cannot arbitrarily assume something is a capitalist component just by seeing market economy factors in the development path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The distinction between capitalism and socialism should be considered from the perspective of the opposition between private and public ownership, not economic policies. Therefore, the development path of socialism with Chinese characteristics is by no means a "symbiosis" of combined economic systems. Although Adam Schaff denies that the development path of socialism with Chinese characteristics is capitalist in nature, he believes it meets the first two of his three criteria for judging capitalism: "competitive markets and the generalization of wage labor." This undoubtedly makes the judgment of capitalism and socialism one-sided and formulaic. The market economy and the policy of distribution according to work adopted by the development path of socialism with Chinese characteristics are policies derived from the logic of socialist productive forces and modes of production, not capitalist components.
Overall, whether regarding ownership, economic systems, or distribution methods, the theory of a mixture of multiple economic systems based on a simple "mechanical addition" is clearly a far cry from the nature of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Therefore, the reason these foreign Marxist scholars view socialism with Chinese characteristics as a combination of multiple economic systems lies fundamentally in their neglect of the fact that ownership, the market economy, and distribution methods in its development path all uphold the main thread of a socialist direction. They simply assume that the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics mechanically combines the beneficial parts of various ownership, economic, and distribution systems. Their belief that the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics is a mechanical combination of multiple economic systems—that is, that ownership, economic systems, and distribution methods are all imbued with a "mixed" nature—is clearly erroneous. In essence, the "combination of multiple economic systems" view dilutes the fundamental difference between socialism and capitalism, adopting the positive elements of ownership, economic regulation, and distribution from both systems while discarding their drawbacks. While this research perspective has a certain rationality, it cannot fully encapsulate the nature of the current path of socialism with Chinese characteristics.
IV. Analysis of the "Third Way" View
A portion of foreign Marxist scholars acknowledge that the nature of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics possesses socialist components, but they believe that as society develops, the socialist nature has begun to fade and its role in social development has begun to diminish. As new elements join this social formation and play a greater role, these scholars prefer to view the development of this society with a dynamic eye rather than rushing to determine its nature. We categorize these research conclusions as the "Third Way."
First and most representative is Arif Dirlik. Dirlik views the development path of socialism with Chinese characteristics as a "post-socialist" third way. He believes that a post-socialist analysis of this path is an interpretation and reflection of the reality of modern Chinese revolutionary history and Reform and Opening-up. Professor Dirlik, in his article "Post-Socialism Revisited: Reflections on the Past, Present, and Future of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics," points out that the "post" in post-socialism specifically refers to the "ambiguities" of today's Chinese socio-historical situation: "on the one hand, because China, while asserting it has a socialist future, no longer draws its internal momentum from inherent socialist ideas; on the other hand, because socialism as a social structure remains an option for China—as long as the situation requires it, China could return to socialism." However, when commenting on certain problems that emerged during China's Reform and Opening-up process, this view sometimes generalizes them as China’s abandonment of the socialist cause. This ambiguity reflects his lack of confidence, at times, in China's continuation down the socialist road, even while he rejects the "Chinese-style capitalism" rhetoric. Furthermore, he proposes other concepts concerning ambiguity, such as the "ambiguity of the historical situation," the "ambiguity of the Communist Party's self-image," and the "current ambiguity of China's identity," which reveal the fuzziness and limitations of his thinking. Socialism with Chinese characteristics both adheres to the basic principles of scientific socialism and continuously enriches its own connotations according to the conditions of the times; it has a firm direction of development and consistent principled requirements. The "lack of confidence" and "ambiguity" in Dirlik’s views indicate that his Third Way theory does not align with the actual development path of socialism with Chinese characteristics.
Secondly, some foreign Marxist scholars view the path of development of socialism with Chinese characteristics as a "Third Way" characterized by "dynamic development." For example, the American scholar David Laibman believes that although China's current development path maintains its socialist essence—noting that "'socialism' is the key concept for grasping the essence (history) of China today, marking the formation of the Chinese social formation in 1949"—China has nevertheless been deeply influenced and eroded by capitalist factors in subsequent stages of development. He argues: "China is the site of a complex civilization dating back five millennia; it is a developing country whose productive forces (until recently) lagged far behind those of advanced capitalist countries; and it is deeply affected by its presence and interactions within the world capitalist economy. In this situation, our task is to study China's economic and social processes, searching dynamically for their 'intimacy,' rather than taking a passive, empirical (one might even say 'Feuerbachian') stance of actively accumulating 'facts.'" There are certain reasonable elements in Laibman's perspective: he views the path China has taken from a dynamic standpoint and recognizes the transformations and developments in Chinese society over several decades. However, this view also has limitations. The concept of socialism does not only represent China's social formation in 1949; the current path of socialism with Chinese characteristics continues to uphold the basic principles of scientific socialism. Laibman only sees the use of a dynamic and developmental lens to study social change, failing to see that the connotations of socialism are also constantly enriching and developing over time. Although this "Third Way" perspective acknowledges the socialist nature to some extent, it ignores how the dynamic development of socialist connotations simultaneously broadens China’s development path. Theoretically, this severs the close connection between socialism and China's development and denies the socialist nature of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out that socialism with Chinese characteristics has always followed the basic principles of scientific socialism, stating: "socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, not any other 'ism.'" Furthermore, scholars holding the "Third Way" view believe that the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics is a "speculative" path in its development process—that is, the path adopts whatever method fits its own development. This view only sees the flexibility of the path while ignoring its consistent adherence to principles. China’s reform and opening up has always remained unswerving in its socialist direction. For over 40 years, whether in terms of the basic economic system or the fundamental political system, China, under the leadership of the Communist Party, has never deviated from the basic principles of scientific socialism, always upholding the leadership of the Communist Party and the dominant position of public ownership. An excellent system does not rest on its laurels [12]; rather, it must constantly absorb advanced experience. Absorbing advanced experience does not mean changing the original direction. Unlike other countries, China has its own unique history and culture, a unique national spirit, and unique basic national conditions. These factors dictate that the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics will only ever be a socialist path, and not any other path, let alone a "Third Way."
V. Reasons for Erroneous Foreign Marxist Views on the Nature of the Path of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics
Through a review of existing foreign research, it is evident that the erroneous conclusions made by foreign Marxist scholars regarding the nature of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics are mainly related to their understanding of socialism, their criteria for judgment, and the one-sidedness of their research perspectives.
(1) Deviations in the understanding and criteria for judging socialism The conclusions of foreign Marxist scholars are largely based on their specific understandings and evaluative criteria for socialism. Scholars who hold the "market socialism" view affirm the socialist nature of China's path based on their approval of socialism adopting a market economy. Although the definition of "market socialism" affirms the socialist nature of the Chinese path, it is by no means a correct judgment of its nature. For some Marxist scholars, market socialism essentially represents their "standard" understanding of socialism. For instance, David Schweickart and John Roemer have both discussed at length the "market socialism" they advocate—that is, what they believe socialism should be—and based on this, they define China's path as so-called market socialism. As analyzed above, the concept of market socialism they advocate contains aspects that run counter to the principles of scientific socialism; it is by no means scientific socialism, and it also contains areas that conflict with the practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Other Marxist scholars believe that socialism should be antithetical to the market economy, using this as a basis to judge that China has taken the capitalist road, such as Robert Weil and Martin Hart-Landsberg. Other scholars, like Maurice Meisner, deny the socialist nature of the path based on their understanding of the objectives and "ought-to-be" pursuits of socialism. Furthermore, the erroneous "Third Way" conclusions of Arif Dirlik and David Laibman are likewise derived from a "revisionist" understanding of scientific socialism. It is clear that deviations in the understanding of socialism and its criteria for judgment are major reasons for the erroneous conclusions of foreign Marxist scholars on this issue.
(2) One-sidedness in the research perspectives on the nature of the path The connotations of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics are rich, yet foreign Marxist scholars exhibit obvious one-sidedness in their research perspectives. They tend to study the path through the lens of economic development, viewing it merely as a specific mode of economic growth. This leads them to judge the nature of the path solely by examining the methods and means employed in economic development, while ignoring comprehensive research and judgment from political, cultural, social, and ecological dimensions. Some scholars define the path as market socialism or even capitalism based on the adoption of the market economy; some define it as a "mixed economy" based on the common development of multiple forms of ownership; and others believe the path has slid into neoliberalism based on the decline in the proportion of the public ownership economy. Still other foreign Marxist scholars focus on the problems that have emerged in the development process, such as the wealth gap and inequality, asserting that capitalism has been "restored" in China while failing to see China's massive achievements in areas such as poverty alleviation. These erroneous conclusions are heavily related to the one-sidedness of the scholars' research perspectives and their narrow understanding of socialism with Chinese characteristics.
(3) Neglecting the vital role of the leadership of the Communist Party of China In reviewing foreign Marxist scholarship, it is easy to see that they overlook the role of the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC). It is precisely the leadership of the CPC that determines the nature and direction of socialism with Chinese characteristics. This neglect is largely due to their treatment of Western-style democracy as a "gold standard." Many foreign Marxist scholars, influenced by Western constitutional environments and political theories, identify multi-party electoral systems as the only "liberal democratic" systems and interpret the CPC’s governance as totalitarianism. For example, the market socialist John Roemer believes that achieving socialist political equality requires empowering the public: "To empower the public requires political competition, yet Communist parties across the world that held state power in the past have thoroughly suppressed competition." They ignore the new model of political party system characterized by CPC-led multi-party cooperation and political consultation, and they fail to see that the CPC has no special interests of its own but represents the fundamental interests of the broadest possible range of the people. The stereotypical views of foreign Marxists regarding democracy prevent them from correctly recognizing the decisive role of CPC leadership in determining the nature of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics.
VI. Correctly Understanding the Nature of the Path of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics
Responding to the erroneous views of foreign Marxist scholars must be based on a correct understanding of the nature of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. Documents from the Party Central Committee have repeatedly pointed out: socialism with Chinese characteristics both upholds the basic principles of scientific socialism and imbues them with distinct Chinese characteristics according to contemporary conditions. As General Secretary Xi Jinping summarized: "Socialism with Chinese characteristics is a dialectical unity of the theoretical logic of scientific socialism and the historical logic of China’s social development. It is scientific socialism rooted in Chinese soil, reflecting the will of the Chinese people, and adapted to the requirements of the development and progress of China and the times." This is the master key to understanding the nature of the path. Furthermore, the 18th Party Congress clarified the rich connotations of the path, noting: "The path of socialism with Chinese characteristics means, under the leadership of the CPC, basing ourselves on basic national conditions, taking economic construction as the center, adhering to the Four Cardinal Principles [13] and reform and opening up, liberating and developing the productive forces, building a socialist market economy, socialist democratic politics, advanced socialist culture, a socialist harmonious society, and a socialist ecological civilization, promoting all-around human development, gradually achieving common prosperity for all the people, and building a socialist modernized country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, and harmonious." Therefore, to correctly grasp the nature of the path, one should conduct an in-depth analysis across seven aspects: the path's goals, leadership, economic construction, political construction, cultural construction, social construction, and ecological civilization construction.
(1) The goals of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics Looking at the goals, "promoting all-around human development, gradually achieving common prosperity for all the people, and building a socialist modernized country..." is not only a phased goal for realizing the lofty ideal of communism, embodying the basic principles of scientific socialism, but also an inevitable requirement for realizing the Chinese Dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. The ultimate goal of scientific socialism is the realization of communism; practicing the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics is precisely an adherence to communist ideals and beliefs. Comrade Deng Xiaoping once pointed out: "What we are engaged in is the cause of socialism, and the ultimate goal is the realization of communism." A vital essence of communist society is the realization of "the free and all-around development of every individual." The goals of the path—promoting human development and common prosperity—are essentially consistent with communist goals; they are the prerequisites and phased objectives for eventually realizing "the free and all-around development of man" and establishing an "association of free individuals." The goal of "building a socialist modernized country" is not only the foundation for realizing communism but also demonstrates the combination of scientific socialist principles with China’s national conditions. The Chinese nation has pursued the "Great Rejuvenation" as its greatest dream since modern times; "building a modernized country" is the inevitable requirement and inherent meaning of realizing the "Chinese Dream."
(2) The leadership core of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics
The Communist Party of China (CPC) is the leadership core of the path of Chinese-path modernization. Adhering to the leadership core status of the CPC is both an inheritance and development of the Marxist theory of the political party, and an essential requirement verified by the practice of China's revolution, socialist construction, and development. Lenin pointed out: "Only the political party of the working class, i.e., the Communist Party, is capable of uniting, educating and organizing a vanguard of the proletariat and of the whole mass of the working people... capable of guiding the proletariat politically, and through it, the whole mass of the working people." [14] He also noted that "all the political and economic work of the state power is led by the conscious vanguard of the working class—the Communist Party." This reflects the emphasis placed by classical Marxist writers on the core leadership role of the Communist Party. Furthermore, adhering to the CPC's leadership core status is the fundamental reason for the success of the Chinese revolution and the great achievements of the socialist cause. The "Resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party over the Past Century," adopted at the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee, stated: "The Communist Party of China is the core force leading our cause. The fundamental reason why the Chinese people and the Chinese nation have been able to transform their fate in modern times and achieve the great successes of today is the firm leadership of the Communist Party of China." It can be seen that the CPC's leadership core status in the path of Chinese-path modernization is a concrete manifestation of the dialectical unity between the theoretical logic of scientific socialism and the historical logic of Chinese social development.
(3) The Construction of the Socialist Market Economy with Chinese Characteristics
Many foreign Marxist scholars have made erroneous judgments regarding the nature of the path of Chinese-path modernization from the research perspective of economic development; however, it is precisely the construction of the socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics that centrally embodies the dialectical unity of the theoretical logic of scientific socialism and the historical logic of Chinese social development. First, the goal of economic construction and development in Chinese-path modernization is for the people to share the fruits of development and ultimately achieve common prosperity for all, which centrally embodies the fundamental standpoint of Marxist political economy: "taking the people as the center." Comrade Deng Xiaoping clearly pointed out that common prosperity is the essence of socialism, and used whether a policy is conducive to improving the people's standard of living as the criterion for judging the success or failure of reform and opening up. Since the New Era, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has repeatedly emphasized the need to adhere to the people-centered development philosophy, placing the gradual realization of common prosperity for all in a more prominent position. General Secretary Xi Jinping clearly stated: "We must persist in taking the enhancement of people's well-being, the promotion of well-rounded human development, and steady progress toward common prosperity as the starting point and ultimate goal of economic development."
Second, since reform and opening up, the Party and the state have shifted the focus of their work to economic construction, insisting on the liberation and development of productive forces as the fundamental starting point. They have used the reform of relations of production as an important means to promote the development of productive forces, carrying out major adjustments and transformations in ownership structures, economic management systems, distribution systems, and external economic relations. These reforms fully demonstrate that our transformation of the relations of production is based on the level of development of our country's productive forces and aimed at promoting their development; this is an adherence to and development of the fundamental law of the interaction between productive forces and relations of production in scientific socialism. Finally, in the practice of economic construction, by organically combining the principles of scientific socialism with the national conditions of our country's primary stage [15], we have ultimately formed a basic socialist economic system with Chinese characteristics. This system features public ownership as the mainstay with diverse forms of ownership developing together, and distribution according to work as the mainstay with multiple modes of distribution coexisting, thereby promoting the development of the socialist market economy. This basic economic system organically combines the socialist system with the market economy, greatly stimulating the vitality and creativity of various market entities, mobilizing the enthusiasm of the broad masses of laborers, unleashing the role of various factors of production, and effectively combining the "invisible hand" with the "visible hand." This basic economic system has been proven by practice to possess immense superiority; it both adapts to the level of productive forces in our country's primary stage—conducive to the liberation and development of social productive forces and the improvement of people's lives—and facilitates the maintenance of social fairness and justice and the realization of common prosperity.
(4) The Construction of Socialist Democratic Politics with Chinese Characteristics
The essence and fundamental characteristic of democracy is that the people become the masters of the country and enjoy the status of people as masters of the country [16]. This is also a basic political principle of scientific socialism. Marx pointed out in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right: "In democracy, the constitution itself appears only as one determination, and that is the self-determination of the people... It is the unique characteristic of democracy that the constitution is here only a moment in the existence of the people, that the political constitution itself does not constitute the state." Lenin also pointed out that Soviet democracy "means the truly equal and truly universal participation of the entire mass of the population in all state affairs." All of these reflect the pursuit and persistence of classical Marxist writers regarding people's democracy. However, regarding the specific path to realizing people's democracy, the classical Marxist writers did not provide a specific answer. As Lenin pointed out: "All nations will arrive at socialism—this is inevitable, but all will do so in not exactly the same way, each will contribute something of its own to some form of democracy, to some variety of the dictatorship of the proletariat, to the varying rate of socialist transformations in the different aspects of social life." The construction of socialist democratic politics with Chinese characteristics is precisely a whole-process people's democracy developed under the leadership of the CPC based on Chinese national conditions. It is both an adherence to the basic principles of scientific socialism and a manifestation of distinct Chinese characteristics. Our democracy is a whole-process people's democracy under the leadership of the Party, possessing a complete set of institutional procedures and complete participatory practices. it is capable of organically combining two important forms of democracy—electoral democracy and consultative democracy—thereby realizing a democracy that is broad, authentic, and effective. "China implements the state system of a people's democratic dictatorship and the political system of the people's congresses. We persist in and improve the system of multi-party cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the CPC, the system of regional ethnic autonomy, and the system of primary-level self-governance. We consolidate and develop the broadest possible patriotic united front, forming a comprehensive, broad, and organically linked institutional system for the people as masters of the country, constructing diverse, smooth, and orderly democratic channels, thereby forming complete institutional procedures." Furthermore, in the practice of constructing socialist democratic politics with Chinese characteristics, through the organic combination of electoral and consultative democracy, and the connection of the entire process—including democratic elections, democratic consultation, democratic decision-making, democratic management, and democratic oversight—a complete closed loop of participatory practice has been formed. This ensures that the people's will is reflected and the people's voice is heard in all links and aspects of the country's political and social life.
(5) The Construction of Advanced Socialist Culture
Socialist culture with Chinese characteristics is guided by Marxism-Leninism and aimed at cultivating citizens with ideals, morality, culture, and discipline. It is a socialist culture that is national, scientific, and popular, facing modernization, the world, and the future. Engels believed that "every step forward in culture was a step towards freedom." Correct cultural construction should be people-centered and aimed at the well-rounded and free development of the individual. Lenin pointed out: "Proletarian culture must be the logical development of the store of knowledge mankind has accumulated under the yoke of capitalist, landowner and bureaucratic society." The classical Marxist-Engelsian writers provided the answer for correct cultural construction. The cultural construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics has always followed the laws of human historical development. Since its founding in 1921, the CPC has never neglected cultural construction. By integrating the classical Marxist cultural view, red revolutionary culture, and fine traditional Chinese culture, the CPC has innovatively developed socialist culture and initially formed a system of socialist culture with Chinese characteristics. The Party and the state have integrated their own red revolutionary cultural characteristics into it, innovating advanced socialist culture, exploring and forming the system of socialist culture with Chinese characteristics, accumulating rich and valuable practical experience for building a culturally strong nation, and providing a path for the broad masses to achieve free and well-rounded development.
(6) The Construction of a Socialist Harmonious Society with Chinese Characteristics
The construction of a harmonious society revolves around the essential demands of socialism and the developmental task of the people's pursuit of a better life. it is an important manifestation of scientific socialism highlighting the subjectivity of the people in the field of social governance. Marx pointed out: "Above all we must avoid postulating 'society' again as an abstraction vis-à-vis the individual. The individual is the social being." Therefore, in scientific socialism, the relationship between the individual and society is not one of opposition. The construction of a truly harmonious society should always adhere to the people-centered approach, persisting in the value concepts of being built for the people, by the people, and shared by the people through co-construction, co-governance, and sharing. This ensures that the various fruits of social construction truly benefit the people, continuously enhancing the sense of happiness and Gain [17] among the masses. Since reform and opening up, whether it be the proposal of the "Three Represents" or the application of the "Scientific Outlook on Development," all undoubtedly reflect that the construction of a harmonious society is an essential demand of scientific socialism. The 19th CPC National Congress, for the first time, took "elevating the level of social civility" and "building social civility" as inherent and necessary requirements for socialism with Chinese characteristics to embark on a new journey of comprehensively building a modern socialist country. This is a rational judgment and strategic choice based on China's new stage of development. Building social civility and constructing a harmonious society are main components of scientific socialism. They are also strategic goals, strategic links, and strategic supports for the path of Chinese-path modernization, representing the logical progression of the path toward a great modern socialist country at the level of social life.
(7) The Construction of Socialist Ecological Civilization with Chinese Characteristics
Respecting, conforming to, and protecting nature are inherent requirements for comprehensively building a modern socialist country and important components of the development of the path of Chinese-path modernization. Marx pointed out: "This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man—the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species." In classical Marxist literature, whether the relationship between man and nature is harmonious is related to whether the noble goal of communism can be realized. The core essence of ecological civilization construction is to properly handle the relationship between man and nature. The path of Chinese-path modernization has always attached importance to the relationship between man and nature, and the Communist Party has always regarded ecological issues as an important part of social development. "Once the full connotations of ecological civilization are understood, it should be clear that there is no need to speak of a 'socialist' ecological civilization, because in the modern world, ecological civilization can only be socialist." The path of Chinese-path modernization does not follow the old industrialization path of Western countries—"pollute first, treat later"—but rather pursues a path of socialist ecological civilization construction featuring the harmonious coexistence of man and nature. Ecological construction within socialism truly realizes "the reconciliation of mankind with nature and with itself." Although both the path of Chinese-path modernization and capitalist industrial civilization aim to promote human civilizational progress and world economic development, the path of Chinese-path modernization differs from capitalist civilization, which is dominated by the values of profit growth and capital expansion. It places greater emphasis on ecological civilization construction. While promoting progress and development, it focuses more on transforming the economic development model through technological progress, moving from labor-intensive and resource-intensive models to technology-intensive ones. Since the Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee, supported by the integration of policy guidance, institutional guarantees, and practical exploration, China has carved out a path of ecological civilization construction with Chinese characteristics suitable for its own national conditions, providing an important guarantee for the steady and sustained progress of the path of Chinese-path modernization.
(Authors: Ma Jinrun, Postdoctoral Fellow at the School of Marxism, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics; Deputy Secretary-General of the Haipai Economics Professional Committee of the Chinese Association of Political Economy; Yu Kaiyue (Corresponding Author), Doctoral Student at the School of Marxism, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics; Ding Xiaoqin, Chair Professor and Doctoral Supervisor at the School of Marxism, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics; Vice Dean of the Haipai Economics Research Institute, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics; President of the Haipai Economics Professional Committee of the Chinese Association of Political Economy; Secretary-General of the World Association for Political Economy; Researcher at the Shanghai Research Center for Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. Web Editor: Tongxin Source: Haipai Economics, Issue 4, 2022, pp. 170-185.)