Wang Jinfen: Lenin's Critique of Erroneous Trends of Thought on the Issue of Russia's Development Path
At the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century, the question of "whither Russia?" became a subject of fierce debate within Russian intellectual circles. The essence of this debate was whether an economically and culturally backward Russia should choose capitalism or socialism as its developmental path, and how to perceive and handle the relationship between socialism and capitalism. Centered on this issue, Russia first saw the emergence of Narodnism [1], which advocated a "non-capitalist path," and "Legal Marxism," which extolled the "eternality" of capitalism, prior to the October Revolution. Following the victory of the October Revolution, figures such as Plekhanov, Kautsky, and Sukhanov emerged to question, attack, and disparage Lenin’s leadership in the revolution, the establishment of Soviet power, and socialist construction. They propagated theories such as the "historical catastrophe thesis," the "premature birth thesis," and "economic determinism," as well as "petty-bourgeois reformism" and "petty-bourgeois revolutionism" regarding the New Economic Policy. These erroneous trends of thought seriously eroded the rationality and legitimacy of the Communist Party of Russia (Bolsheviks) in leading the people to carry out revolution, seize power, and conduct socialist construction, causing great ideological confusion in Russian social development. To clear the ideological fog surrounding Russia's path to socialist development, Lenin conducted a profound critique of these erroneous trends. Under new historical conditions, revisiting Lenin's critiques and the ideological perspectives he expounded during these debates is of significant practical importance.
I. Critiquing the Narodnist "Non-Capitalist Path"; Emphasizing that Backward Russia Must Move Toward Socialism by Leveraging the Progressive Role of Capitalism and Clearing Feudal Remnants
In the second half of the 19th century, with the rapid development of European capitalism and the beginning of the spread of Marxism in Russia, a debate erupted in Russian intellectual circles over "whither Russia." During this debate, a highly influential ideological faction represented by Herzen, Chernyshevsky, and Danielson emerged: the Narodniks. This faction was deeply pained by Russia’s backwardness, yet disillusioned by the disasters capitalism had inflicted upon humanity. Consequently, they fantasized about a direct transition to socialism via the Russian village commune (obshchina), which remained based on a small-peasant mode of production, without passing through capitalism. For example, Herzen noted: "What we call Russian socialism is a kind of socialism that originates from the land and the life of the peasants, from the fact that every peasant actually has a share of land, from the redistribution of land, and from communal land ownership and communal administration." [1] Chernyshevsky also viewed the Russian peasant commune as a "means for a new stage of development" transitioning toward a "Western European capitalist society higher than class antagonism." [2] Danielson and others believed that Russia fundamentally lacked "the most elementary conditions for the development of capitalist production." [3] All of this can be summarized as "advocating another path for Russian development, namely, the non-capitalist path." [4] Lenin believed this was "a reactionary and harmful theory, because it confuses social thought and encourages stagnation and all sorts of Asiatic phenomena," [5] and thus maintained that a resolute ideological struggle must be waged against it.
On one hand, Lenin criticized the Narodnist "non-capitalist path" as a "false," "socialist utopia" representing the interests of Russian small producers. According to the Marxist theory of social formations, the driving force governing the succession of human societies is the contradictory movement between productive forces and relations of production. The ultimate decisive factor is the level of development of the productive forces; that is, the hand-mill produced a feudal society, and the steam-mill produced a society of large-scale industrial capitalism. Socialism, as a social formation higher than capitalism, must necessarily take highly developed productive forces as its prerequisite. Yet environmental Narodniks advocated a direct transition to socialism based on communes primarily utilizing small-scale modes of production. This must be called a reactionary trend of thought that violates the laws of social development; its starting point was not the liberation of laborers pursued by socialism, but the preservation of petty-bourgeois interests. On this point, Lenin’s critique of the Narodnist representative Herzen was incisive: "Herzen saw 'socialism' in the emancipation of the peasants with land, in communal land tenure, and in the peasant idea of the 'right to land' ... There is not a grain of socialism in it. Like the various forms of '1848 socialism' in Western Europe, it was a collection of revolutionary-sentimental phrases and well-meaning wishes expressing the revolutionism of the Russian bourgeois peasant democracy." [6] The "1848 socialism in Western Europe" mentioned here refers to the petty-bourgeois socialism fiercely criticized by Marx and Engels in the Manifesto of the Communist Party. It refers to the Western European petty bourgeoisie of the 1840s who, grieving over the worsening of their own status and interests in modern bourgeois society, always criticized capitalism from a petty-bourgeois perspective and scale, fantasizing about returning to old modes of small-scale production and "idyllic" relations. Marx and Engels regarded this as socialism that was "both reactionary and utopian," because they "attempted to cram the modern means of production and exchange back into the framework of the old property relations that had been exploded, and were bound to be exploded, by them." [7] In Lenin’s view, the Russian Narodnists’ view of the Russian commune as the cornerstone of the transition to socialism was exactly the same as the Western European petty-bourgeois socialism of 1848. Regarding the essence of Narodnism, Lenin clearly pointed out: "Its content represents the interests and views of the Russian small producer, i.e., the petty bourgeois. ... One face looks to the past, wishing to consolidate its small economy... the other face looks to the future, hating the capitalism that is bankrupting it." [8] Regarding the reactionary nature of Narodnism, Lenin analyzed: "It is reactionary because it strives to preserve its petty-bourgeois position and seeks to hinder and reverse the development of the country toward capitalism." [9] Regarding the utopian nature of Narodnism, Lenin commented: Narodnist claims reflected the "illusory hope" of millions of petty-bourgeois laborers suffering under feudal exploitation "to abolish the new capitalist exploiters 'along with' the old ones," but "this democracy is false as a socialist utopia." [10]
On the other hand, Lenin forcefully criticized the "artificial capitalism theory" and "capitalist destruction theory" spread by Narodnism, profoundly elucidating the objective necessity and historical progressivity of Russian capitalist development. First, targeting the Liberal Narodnists' "artificiality" argument—the claim that capitalism "is a developmental process in the West, but in our country it is a transplant, an imitation" and "the most elementary conditions for the development of capitalist production do not exist in Russia" [11]—Lenin wrote prolifically, proving with irrefutable facts that Russian capitalism, as the inevitable result of the development of commodity production, had already become the dominant mode of production in both rural and urban areas. He thus powerfully demonstrated that "the development of capitalism is not only possible, but inevitable." [12] Second, targeting the "destruction theory" advocated by Narodniks—which held that capitalism in Russia "has become a means of exploiting the labor of the people for the private interests of a handful of people who not only play no progressive historical role, but on the contrary, hinder the normal development of industry" [13]—Lenin criticized them for being "unable to explain capitalism, indulging in utopia rather than wishing to study and clarify reality, and consequently inevitably denying the significance and power of capitalism." [14] He emphasized that "the progressive role of capitalism lies precisely in the fact that it destroys the old, narrow conditions of life that made the producer dull and unable to take charge of his own destiny." [15] To this end, Lenin specifically used a comparative method to explain: "One need only think of the amazing fragmentation of small producers—this inevitable consequence of patriarchal agriculture—to be convinced of the progressivity of capitalism, for it has completely destroyed the old economic forms and ways of life, as well as their long-standing state of stagnation and routine; it has destroyed the settled state of the peasants trapped within medieval barriers, and created new social classes which, by necessity, strive to connect and unite, and actively participate in the entire economic (and not just economic) life of the country and the whole world." [16] Here, Lenin profoundly elucidated that the progressivity of capitalism lies in its fundamental transformation of the economic and living patterns that caused Russia's long-term stagnation, backwardness, and conservatism. Furthermore, it not only greatly promoted the rapid development of productive forces but also created a burgeoning class with high historical initiative: the proletariat. When analyzing why Chernyshevsky was a utopian socialist, Lenin clearly pointed out that his limitation lay in his failure to recognize that "only the development of capitalism and the proletariat can create the material conditions and social forces for the realization of socialism." [17] Thus, he profoundly indicated that the tremendous development of productive forces and the growing strength of the proletariat brought about by capitalism are the indispensable material conditions and social forces for achieving socialism. Attempting to achieve socialism on the basis of the village commune, without highly developed productive forces and the maturity of the proletariat as the class force for social change, was destined to be a utopian political fantasy. Thus, through his powerful critique of the Narodnist theories of "artificial capitalism" and "capitalist destruction," Lenin not only profoundly elucidated the necessity and progressivity of Russian capitalist development—arguing that the inherent contradictions of capitalism "by no means exclude the possibility of capitalism, nor its progressivity compared with previous socio-economic systems" [18]—but also inherently provided his correct answer to how an economically and culturally backward Russia should treat capitalism on its path toward modern civilization: "The demand that should be realized first of all is to promote the development of capitalism and to clear away the feudal remnants for capitalism." [19]
II. Critiquing "Legal Marxism" for Preaching the "Eternality" of Capitalism; Emphasizing the Historical Transience of Russian Capitalism
In the debate over "whither Russia," another ideological faction, represented by Peter Struve, emerged in Russian intellectual circles. In stark contrast to Narodnism, this faction excessively praised capitalism. Frequently utilizing newspapers and magazines that were "legal"—meaning permitted by the Tsarist government—this faction used Marx’s theoretical viewpoints to argue for the necessity, superiority, and eternality of capitalism. For this reason, Lenin termed them "Legal Marxists."
Because "Legal Marxism" also strongly opposed the Narodnist "non-capitalist path," Lenin maintained a positive attitude toward them during the struggle against Narodnism. He praised Struve’s view that the capitalist commodity economy was "not only a negative but also a positive, enormous cultural force" as being "entirely correct." [20] However, a fundamental divergence existed between the two regarding the developmental prospects of capitalism. Specifically, Lenin’s critique of the Narodnist "non-capitalist path" was based on his belief that relying on the commune to establish socialism was a pipe dream; he advocated that Russia should move toward socialism by fully leveraging the progressive role of capitalism and clearing away feudal remnants. "Legal Marxism," conversely, turned the critique of Narodnism into an exaltation of the capitalist system. They described only the "historical necessity" and "rationality" of capitalist development in Russia, remaining silent on the profound contradictions and disasters it caused, denying proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, and believing that capitalism could endure forever, thus advocating that Russia follow the capitalist path of development. Regarding this, Rosa Luxemburg once incisively pointed out that the Russian "Legal Marxists" went too far in their victory over their Narodnist opponents. While the original "question was whether capitalism in general, and specifically in Russia, had the possibility of development," the "Legal Marxists" in proving the possibility of capitalist development in Russia went as far as proving theoretically that "capitalism can exist forever." [21]
While affirming the historical progressivism of Russian capitalism, Lenin emphasized that one must not for a moment "forget its inherent and profound social contradictions" [32]. Lenin’s critique of "Legal Marxism" was launched precisely through a profound exposure of these "inherent and profound social contradictions" and their hazards. For example, in response to the "Legal Marxists" who strenuously advocated that capitalism had not caused the impoverishment of the masses and that the income gap between the propertied and the proleteriat was narrowing rather than widening, Lenin’s analysis pointed out that this was an attempt to hoodwink and deceive the working masses by beautifying capitalism. He argued that although workers' incomes had increased somewhat compared to the past, the increase in the necessary costs for workers to maintain their labor power far exceeded the increase in their wages: "The wealth of capitalist society grows with incredible speed, while the masses of workers are increasingly impoverished" [33]. Regarding the "Legal Marxists'" claims that Marx’s theory of capitalist economic crisis was obsolete and that capitalist class contradictions were weakening and easing, Lenin sarcastically called those spreading such talk "the most shortsighted people," because "the forms, sequence, and scenery of various crises have changed, yet crises remain an inevitable component of the capitalist system" [34]. There were many such exposures. Lenin’s critique of various "Legal Marxist" speeches praising capitalism aimed to show that although capitalism possesses progressivism, it is by no means a perfect or ideal social system; no matter how the "Legal Marxists" beautified capitalism, they could not cover up its profound contradictions and the disasters it caused. Furthermore, due to the remnants of the Russian serfdom system [11], the inherent contradictions of capitalism manifested more profoundly, complexly, and acutely in Russia than in Western European countries, resulting in a situation where "capital has not only failed to eliminate the oppression, exploitation, and poverty suffered by the masses, but has instead created these disasters in new forms and revived old disasters on a 'modern' basis" [35]. In short, it was precisely the "profound and comprehensive social contradictions" of Russian capitalism that determined "the historical transience of this economic system" [36]. The "Legal Marxists'" hope that capitalism could endure forever was destined to be an illusory utopia. Lenin clearly pointed out: "The various contradictions of capitalism prove its historical transience and explain the conditions and reasons for its disintegration and transformation into higher forms" [37]. This implied that for backward Russia to move toward modern civilization, it had to see both the progressivism of capitalism and its historical transience; summarized in one sentence, it had to both fully utilize capitalism and transcend it.
III. Criticizing the "historical disaster theory," "premature birth theory," and "economic determinism" of Plekhanov and others who denied the October Revolution, and emphasizing that backward Russia could seize power first and then carry out socialist construction
After the victory of the October Revolution, theorists of the Second International and the Mensheviks—such as Plekhanov, Kautsky, and Sukhanov—used the lack of objective prerequisites for building socialism in backward Russia as a pretext to wantonly question, attack, and disparage the October Revolution led by Lenin, the established Soviet power, and the socialist construction being carried out. Plekhanov believed that "Russian history has not yet ground the flour required for the white meat pie of socialism" [38], and pointed out that the October Revolution and the socialism it established were "the path to the greatest historical disaster" [39]. Kautsky attacked the socialist state established by the October Revolution as a "premature infant" and believed that "a child born this way usually cannot survive" [40]. Sukhanov proposed that "Russia's productive forces have not yet developed to the height where socialism can be implemented" [41]. These statements can be summarized as the "premature birth theory," the "historical disaster theory," and "economic determinism." Their intent was to negate the legitimacy and rationality of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) under Lenin's leadership in conducting the revolution, establishing Soviet power, and carrying out socialist construction. If allowed to develop, these views would inevitably have seriously shaken the political identification of the broad masses with the Party and Soviet power, as well as the common ideological foundation for the Party to lead the people in united struggle.
In response to the aforementioned remarks by Plekhanov, Kautsky, Sukhanov, and others, Lenin criticized them for failing to understand the revolutionary dialectics of Marxism. Although Lenin also believed that Russia's economy and culture were very backward, he emphasized: "If it is said that since we admit our country's economic 'strength' is disproportionate to its political strength, 'therefore' we should not have seized power, that is an incorrigible error" [42]. Lenin pointed out that the reason this view was wrong lay in its mechanical understanding of the Marxist view that productive forces are the decisive factor in social development; it isolatedly took Russia's level of development as the sole criterion for judging whether socialist revolution and construction could be carried out, failing to examine the specificity, inevitability, and necessity of the Russian October Revolution from the perspective of the international situation and historical conditions. Lenin criticized: "They all call themselves Marxists, but their understanding of Marxism is pedantic to the nth degree. They do not understand at all the decisive thing in Marxism, namely, its revolutionary dialectics" [43]. The "revolutionary dialectics" in Lenin's discourse refers to the choice of revolutionary and developmental paths; one cannot be entirely confined by certain inherent ideas and a unified path, but must instead combine national realities and be adept at making choices as the situation changes. Regarding this point, Lenin had clearly stated before the October Revolution: "All nations will arrive at socialism—this is inevitable, but all will do so in not quite the same way" [44]. In his final work, Our Revolution, Lenin further clarified: "The general laws of the development of world history not only do not exclude the specificity of individual stages of development in terms of form or sequence, but on the contrary, take this as a prerequisite" [45]. Specifically regarding Russia, although pre-October Revolution Russia had not reached the height of socialist realization in terms of economic conditions, it was at this time—due to the dark, autocratic rule of the Tsar and the inaction of the bourgeois Provisional Government, as well as the intensification of domestic crises following Russia's defeat in the First World War—that various contradictions were further aggravated and polarized. A surging force of worker-peasant revolution and an imminent revolutionary situation emerged. Lenin believed that for the Bolsheviks to seize the favorable opportunity of the revolution, decisively launch the uprising, and establish Soviet power, far from violating the laws of human social development, actually embodied the revolutionary dialectics of Marxism and the proactive spirit of the Bolsheviks in leading the people to create history. Lenin retorted: "Pushed by a situation with no way out, could they not rise up in struggle to seek at least some chance to win for themselves the not-quite-ordinary conditions for further developing civilization?" [46].
It is necessary to point out that Lenin did not deny the view put forward by Plekhanov and others that Russia lacked the objective prerequisites for building socialism; rather, he explicitly admitted that this view was indisputable. Furthermore, the divergence between Lenin and Plekhanov's group did not lie in whether economically and culturally backward Russia possessed the civilized prerequisites required to realize socialism, but rather in whether such a Russia could carry out a socialist revolution and build socialism. On this issue, Plekhanov and others dogmatically understood and clung to the Marxist historical materialism, using the lack of economic conditions for socialism in backward Russia as a reason to emphasize that a bourgeois revolution should be carried out first. Only after the development of capitalism created the objective conditions required for socialism could a socialist revolution be launched and a socialist state power established. Lenin, however, advocated that the proletariat and its party should exercise historical initiative, utilizing the favorable revolutionary situation and timing to seize power first, then strive to create the civilized conditions that meet socialist requirements. That is: "Since the building of socialism requires a certain level of culture... why can't we first use revolutionary means to obtain the prerequisites for reaching this certain level, and then catch up with the people of other countries on the basis of worker-peasant power and the Soviet system?" [47]. From this, it can be seen that the significance of the October Revolution lies in the Bolsheviks under Lenin's leadership, within a specific historical context, adhering to the organic combination of Marxist historical materialism and the exercise of historical initiative. They opened a path for backward Russia different from Western modernization—namely, realizing the transformation of the basic social system through revolution, then striving to create the modern civilization required for socialism, and ultimately establishing socialism.
IV. Criticizing "petit-bourgeois reformism" and "petit-bourgeois revolutionism" on the issue of the New Economic Policy, and emphasizing the need to utilize capitalism while ensuring the socialist direction of NEP Russia
In March 1921, in order to overcome the serious economic difficulties facing Soviet power and the resulting crisis of political identification among the worker-peasant masses toward the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), Lenin led the Party to decisively implement the New Economic Policy (NEP), including replacing surplus-grain appropriation with a tax in kind, implementing leasing and concessions, and allowing the existence of monetary and commodity relations. However, fierce debate arose around this policy. The debate manifested as two diametrically opposed voices: one was the "Smena Vekh" [12] group, who held capitalism as their political faith and trumpeted that the NEP would lead Russia toward capitalism, calling on their members to actively participate in Soviet Russian work to facilitate this transition. They believed the NEP was not a strategy for building socialism, "but an evolution, an internal degeneration; they will surely move toward a common bourgeois state" [48]. Ustryalov, a representative figure of the "Smena Vekh" group, stated explicitly: "I am in favor of supporting Soviet power in Russia; I am in favor because it has stepped onto the path toward a common bourgeois power" [49]. The Smena Vekh magazine even published articles arguing that the socialist nature of Russia had already changed under the influence of the NEP—that is, Russia "is rolling into the common bourgeois mire" [50]. Lenin clearly recognized that the political intention of the "Smena Vekh" group was to use peaceful means to urge Russia down the path of capitalist development; thus, he called it "petit-bourgeois reformism." The other voice, in sharp contrast to the jubilation of the "Smena Vekh" group, consisted of those who questioned or even fiercely opposed the NEP with great anxiety. Proceeding from traditional socialist concepts and simple socialist sentiments, they could not reconcile themselves to the NEP’s permission to develop capitalism, saying things like "capitalism is an evil, socialism is a blessing" [51]. Lenin termed this trend of thought "petit-bourgeois revolutionism."
The emergence of "petit-bourgeois reformism" and "petit-bourgeois revolutionism" surrounding the NEP involved a major theoretical and practical issue that the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) under Lenin's leadership had to face: where would the NEP lead Russia? Toward socialism or capitalism? The essence of the problem was how a country with a backward economy and culture should treat capitalism after choosing the socialist development path. How can communists ensure the direction of socialist development while allowing capitalism to develop?
Facing the dual challenges of "petit-bourgeois reformism" and "petit-bourgeois revolutionism," Lenin clearly recognized that the ideological fog surrounding the NEP must be cleared to ensure that NEP Russia developed in the right direction.
On one hand, Lenin criticized the "petit-bourgeois revolutionism" that questioned and opposed the NEP as unrealistic "revolutionary talk," emphasizing that economically backward Russia must utilize capitalism to build socialism. Regarding the phrase "capitalism is an evil, socialism is a blessing"—which best represented the mental block of the petit-bourgeois revolutionists—Lenin believed this did not proceed from the basic national condition that Russia was primarily a small-peasant economy. Instead, it took capitalism and socialism out of the sum of Russia's existing socio-economic structures and opposed them abstractly. Lenin admitted that if one only made an abstract comparison, capitalism is undoubtedly an evil relative to socialism. However, if one considers the vast existence of fragmented and backward small-peasant production in Russia, capitalism is not only not an evil but a blessing. If communists attempted to block the development of capitalism, it would be extremely foolish and "would inevitably meet with failure" [52]. Based on this, Lenin emphasized that the state capitalism must be used "as an intermediary link between small production and socialism, and as a means, path, method, and mode for increasing productive forces" [53].
On the other hand, in response to the "Smena Vekh" [13] school’s "petty-bourgeois reformism," which advocated that the New Economic Policy (NEP) would lead Russia toward capitalism, Lenin emphasized that Communists must remain vigilant against the danger of capitalist restoration. In the political report to the 11th Congress of the RCP(B), Lenin referred to the Smena Vekh group—who advocated that the NEP represented an "evolution"—as "class enemies." He believed they were speaking the "class truth," noting that "the Smena Vekh reflects the sentiments of thousands and tens of thousands of bourgeois of all kinds, or of Soviet officials who participate in our New Economic Policy. This is the main and real danger" [56]. In August 1922, the resolution "On Anti-Soviet Parties" adopted by the 12th All-Russian Conference of the RCP(B) pointed out: "The tendency toward bourgeois restoration is also very strong among the Smena Vekh" [57]. This also demonstrates that Lenin did not ignore the concerns of "petty-bourgeois revolutionism" regarding the possibility that the NEP might lead Russia down a capitalist path; rather, he attached extreme importance to it, repeatedly emphasizing the need "to prevent capitalist restoration and ensure the path toward communism" [58].
Lenin’s greatness lay in the fact that he was not intimidated by the growth of capitalist elements brought about by the NEP or the resulting danger of capitalist restoration. Instead, he displayed a spirit of struggle characterized by "knowing full well there are tigers in the mountains, yet insisting on heading into those very mountains" [14]. Addressing the Smena Vekh view that the NEP was "not a tactic, but an evolution," Lenin asked in return: "Is it a 'Thermidor' [15]? Taking a sober view, perhaps it is? Will it happen? We shall see. Don't brag as you head into battle!" [59]. Here, Lenin had already likened the contradiction between the RCP(B) and the bourgeoisie emerging from the NEP to a contest concerning the future and destiny of socialism. The key was how to emerge victorious in this contest, "how to ensure that state capitalism is transformed into socialism in the near future" [60]. He said: "We must compel the bourgeoisie to work for us with their own hands, rather than having responsible Communists occupy leadership positions and wear official titles while drifting along with the bourgeois tide. The whole essence of the matter lies here" [61]. Lenin was undoubtedly emphasizing here that if Communists lacks leadership capacity and prove inferior to the bourgeoisie in conducting economic work, they will be led by the nose, and the prospects for socialism will vanish into thin air. It was precisely based on such a sober understanding that Lenin, in his final public speech, further emphasized: "We must move toward socialism, but not treat it as an icon painted in solemn colors" [62]. Instead, efforts must be made to let the broad masses feel that "this is better than the old system," and we "must be adept at overcoming all the negative aspects of the New Economic Policy" [63]. This indicates that socialism was the unswerving pursuit of the RCP(B) under Lenin’s lead and the fundamental purpose of the NEP. While the NEP might bring the danger of capitalist restoration, the most fundamental way for Communists to ensure the state does not change its [political] color while permitting capitalist development lies in the ability to effectively utilize and harness capital, achieving results in socialist construction that satisfy the people. Only in this way will the masses, through comparison, firmly follow the Communist Party on the socialist road, thereby ensuring that "NEP Russia will be transformed into socialist Russia" [64].
(The author is a Researcher at the Center for Marxist Theory and Regional Practice Research, Guangxi Normal University, and a Professor at the School of Marxism, Guangxi Normal University)
[This article is a staged result of the National Social Science Fund Key Project "Lenin’s Critique of Erroneous Trends of Thought After the October Revolution and Its Contemporary Value" (Project No.: 23AKS023)]
Online Editor: Tong Xin Source: Theoretical Horizon, Issue 11, 2023