Luo Yuting: The Path to High-Quality Development of Marxist Theory Disciplines in the New Era
High-quality development is the lifeline of Marxist theoretical disciplines in the New Era. The report to the 20th CPC National Congress explicitly stated that "high-quality development is the primary task in building a modern socialist country in all respects" [1]. The high-quality development of Chinese-path modernization is inseparable from the academic and theoretical support provided by the high-quality development of Marxist theoretical disciplines, which serves to consolidate the guiding position of Marxism and to guide and promote Chinese-path modernization. Marxist theoretical disciplines possess a powerful guiding force within China’s philosophy and social sciences. Whether high-quality development can be achieved concerns the exercise of the leading role of Marxist theoretical disciplines in philosophy and social sciences, the strengthening of the guiding position of Marxism in the ideological field, and the consolidation of the common ideological foundation for the united struggle of the entire Party and the people of the whole country. Therefore, on the occasion of the 20th anniversary of the founding of Marxist theoretical disciplines, it is of great and far-reaching significance to explore the path of high-quality development for Marxist theoretical disciplines in the New Era and to accelerate their progress.
I. Standardized Construction
The high-quality development of Marxist theoretical disciplines is inseparable from standardized construction. Standardized construction is the foundation for the high-quality development of Marxist theoretical disciplines and is the fundamental prerequisite for ensuring that the direction of disciplinary construction does not deviate, the foundation does not loosen, and the quality does not decline. Looking back at the 20-year development history of Marxist theoretical disciplines, the speed of their construction, the breadth of their coverage, and the depth of their social influence are obvious to all; they have already become vital disciplines of strategic significance within China's philosophy and social sciences system. However, it is undeniable that during this process of rapid development, some regions and units have paid insufficient attention to standardized construction. This has led to certain differences in cultivation objectives, curriculum settings, and academic norms across different institutions and research directions, and has even resulted in phenomena that deviate from the core connotations of the discipline. This lack of standardization not only hinders the full exercise of disciplinary advantages but also constrains the improvement of overall disciplinary quality, becoming a prominent shortcoming that obstructs high-quality development. Precisely for this reason, promoting the high-quality development of Marxist theoretical disciplines must first begin with strengthening standardized construction. "Standardized construction" means carrying out construction according to the standards and norms formulated by the Marxist Theory Discipline Appraisal Group of the Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council. These institutional norms and requirements—which have been tested by practice and represent the consensus of the academic community—must be integrated into all aspects and the entire process of disciplinary construction.
(1) Standardization of the Condensation of Disciplinary Directions
The standardization of the condensation of disciplinary directions is a core link in the standardized construction of Marxist theoretical disciplines. it directly relates to whether the discipline can focus on core fields, form distinct characteristics, and produce high-quality results. As a discipline with distinct ideological attributes and a strong practice-oriented nature, the condensation of directions for Marxist theoretical disciplines must take the disciplinary connotations, research categories, and construction requirements determined by the State Council’s Discipline Appraisal Group as its fundamental compliance.
Currently, many non-standard problems exist in the condensation of disciplinary directions in some colleges and universities: some units, in order to rapidly expand their scale, blindly add research directions, leading to a surplus of overly miscellaneous directions that make it difficult to form a collective research force; in some units, the setting of directions is decoupled from their own faculty strength and research foundations, resulting in "hollowed-out" phenomena such as "having a direction but no team" or "having a title but no results"; in other units, the division of directions lacks logical connection, failing to reflect the integrity of Marxist theory or to highlight regional and institutional characteristics, which leads to the dispersion of research resources and weak academic influence. The root of these problems lies in the insufficient awareness of standardization in condensing disciplinary directions and the failure to carry out systematic planning strictly according to disciplinary standards.
The standardization of the condensation of disciplinary directions must first ensure that the research directions set by each unit do not deviate from the core categories and frameworks of the first-level discipline of Marxist Theory and its subordinate second-level disciplines as prescribed by the Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council. This avoids "generalization" or "alienation" phenomena characterized by vague directions, unclear boundaries, or deviations from the essence of the discipline. Interdisciplinary content with weak relevance to Marxist theory must not be included at will, nor should "directions" lacking theoretical support be established for the sake of "novelty." One must "accurately grasp the connotations and characteristics of Marxist theoretical disciplines, and seize the fundamental, guiding, and strategic major issues in disciplinary development" [2], standardizing the condensation of research directions within the disciplinary system.
Promoting the standardization of the condensation of research directions requires adhering to three key principles: first, the principle of integrity—one must highlight the relative independence of the research directions of each second-level discipline while emphasizing the overall logic of Marxist theoretical disciplines to ensure mutual support between directions and the formation of a complete system; second, the principle of characterization—while following the disciplinary connotations and requirements determined by the State Council's Discipline Appraisal Group, units should condense distinctive research directions and characteristic fields by combining the institution's academic traditions, regional advantages, and research foundations, though such characteristics must be built upon a standardized foundation and must not deviate from the disciplinary scope; third, the principle of timeliness—the condensation of research directions must respond to the questions of the times within the standardized framework, adjusting the research focus around major propositions such as Chinese-path modernization and digital-intelligent ideological and political education, but such adjustments must undergo scientific demonstration and comply with the laws of disciplinary development.
(2) Standardization of the Conduct of Scientific Research
The standardization of the conduct of scientific research is an important guarantee for ensuring that research in Marxist theoretical disciplines always adheres to the correct political direction, abides by academic ethics, and produces excellent results that can withstand the test of history and practice. As a discipline that takes Marxism as its soul and the service of the Party and state's cause as its mission, scientific research in Marxist theoretical disciplines must be rooted in the land of China and respond to the questions of the times to continuously produce excellent results that possess both theoretical depth and practical warmth.
Currently, some non-standard phenomena still exist in the scientific research of Marxist theoretical disciplines: some research exceeds the disciplinary connotations and boundaries, deviating from the research scope; some research is detached from reality, showing an obsession with abstract theoretical speculation while failing to respond to practical problems; some results, in pursuit of "innovation," deliberately create "new terminology" and "new viewpoints" that lack solid theoretical support; and some research, when citing Western Marxist theories, fails to conduct scientific critical analysis, sometimes even leading to deviations in position. These problems not only affect the quality of scientific research but may also weaken the explanatory power and guiding force of Marxist theory, highlighting the urgency of strengthening the standardization of scientific research.
First, one must adhere to the correct political stance. The selection of research topics must be based on the great practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics, focusing on major theoretical and practical issues of Marxism and its Sinicization and modernization, ensuring a firm political stance and correct value orientation. Second, one must persist in integrating theory with practice. Integrating theory with practice is the fundamental academic style of the Communist Party of China and the fundamental requirement of Marxist research. Only by adhering to this can we reveal the laws of practical development under the guidance of theory, enrich Marxist theory with the understanding of practical patterns, and open up new frontiers for the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. Finally, one must abide by academic norms. In terms of research methods, one must adhere to the fundamental methods of historical materialism and dialectical materialism, while reasonably drawing on the research tools of modern social sciences; however, one must not fall into the trap of "methodological supremacy," let alone mechanically "tailor" Chinese practice using Western theoretical frameworks. In the expression of results, concepts must be clear, logic must be rigorous, and argumentation must be sufficient, avoiding vacuous slogan-style discourse or the accumulation of arcane theories, ensuring the scientific nature and persuasiveness of academic results.
Promoting the standardization of scientific research requires the construction of a multi-layered support mechanism: first, strengthening the guidance mechanism for topic selection by establishing major research projects and publishing guides for key topics to guide researchers toward national strategic needs and disciplinary frontiers; second, improving the academic evaluation mechanism by establishing quality-centered and innovation-oriented evaluation standards, resolutely abandoning the biased tendency toward "only papers, only titles, and only degrees," and focusing instead on the political, theoretical, and practical value of the results; third, perfecting the academic supervision mechanism by strictly implementing measures for investigating academic misconduct, strengthening academic supervision throughout the research process, and creating a clean and upright academic ecosystem [3].
(3) Standardization of Faculty Development
The standardization of faculty development is a fundamental requirement for the high-quality development of Marxist theoretical disciplines and a key guarantee for maintaining the discipline's political attributes, enhancing academic standards, and implementing the fundamental task of "fostering virtue through education" (立德树人). Teachers are the subjects who bear the heavy responsibility of teaching, researching, and propagating Marxist theory. The quality of the faculty directly determines the height and depth of disciplinary construction, and standardized construction is the fundamental prerequisite for ensuring this team is politically sound, professionally proficient, reasonably structured, and of excellent quality.
Currently, the faculty of Marxist theoretical disciplines has exposed many non-standard problems during its rapid expansion: some colleges, to meet the needs of expanded enrollment, have lowered entry thresholds, simply "reassigning" teachers with similar professional backgrounds to fill the team, resulting in gaps in some teachers' understanding of the core categories and theoretical systems of the discipline; some units overemphasize the quantity of papers in title reviews while neglecting teaching effectiveness and political oversight, leading to a tendency of "valuing research over teaching" and "quantity over quality"; in some units, the faculty structure is unbalanced, with an excessively high proportion of young teachers and a lack of leadership from academic figureheads. This reflects a lack of systematic and standardized construction in the faculty of some institutions, failing to strictly implement the construction standards for Marxist theoretical discipline faculty members.
Promoting the standardization of faculty development requires building a full-chain institutional system. In the entry phase, a double-gatekeeper system for political and academic standards must be strictly implemented. Regarding political literacy, teachers are required to possess profound Marxist theoretical accomplishments, sincere faith in Marxism, and firm and correct ideals and convictions—this is the primary norm for teachers in this discipline. Regarding academic background, it should be clarified that a doctoral degree in a major related to Marxist theory is the core entry requirement to ensure teachers possess a solid disciplinary foundation. In the cultivation and assessment phases, a normalized training mechanism should be established to enhance the academic literacy of young teachers; a multi-dimensional evaluation system of "political quality + teaching performance + academic contribution + social service" should be constructed, taking the effectiveness of ideological and political course teaching, Marxist theoretical research results, and the effectiveness of participation in social service activities as core indicators to avoid value deviations caused by single quantitative assessments. In terms of echelon construction, the team structure should be optimized according to the principle of "combining the old, middle-aged, and young, with the experienced guiding the new," clarifying the responsibilities and development paths of academic leaders, backbone teachers, and young reserve forces to ensure the sustainability of team construction.
(4) Standardization of Talent Cultivation
The standardization of talent cultivation is the core support for the high-quality development of Marxist theoretical disciplines and the institutional guarantee for ensuring the discipline always adheres to the fundamental direction of "who to cultivate, how to cultivate, and for whom to cultivate." The standardization of talent cultivation is, in essence, the transformation of the educational laws of Marxist theoretical disciplines into operable, supervisable, and evaluable institutional norms. By practicing cultivation norms in cultivation objectives, curriculum systems, and practical links, it provides solid human resource support for the inheritance and innovation of Marxist theoretical disciplines.
From the perspective of standardizing cultivation objectives, one must firmly anchor the core requirements of the State Council's Academic Degrees Committee regarding talent cultivation in Marxist theoretical disciplines: "to cultivate college students with good political quality, excellent ideological and moral character, and sound basic knowledge of Marxism... to cultivate master's and doctoral students who are developed in an all-around way—morally, intellectually, and physically—possess high political quality, a correct theoretical direction, relatively high Marxist literacy and theoretical substance, and can use Marxist stances, viewpoints, and methods to analyze and study contemporary practical problems" [4]. Currently, some institutions show a tendency toward vague cultivation objectives, either overemphasizing academic nature while neglecting political nature, or one-sidedly pursuing skill development while weakening theoretical depth. Standardized cultivation objectives should strictly follow the guiding opinions of the Academic Degrees Committee of the State Council, ensuring that...
"Political standards" must be placed first, defining graduated objectives for each academic stage (undergraduate, master's, and doctoral) to form a progressive cultivation chain consisting of "solidifying foundational theory—enhancing practical ability—shaping value positions."
The standardization of the curriculum system is the core vehicle for standardizing talent cultivation. The curriculum design for the discipline of Marxist Theory must follow the internal logic of the disciplinary knowledge system, covering core content such as the basic principles of Marxism, the history of the development of Marxism, and the results of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, as well as specialized courses for each sub-discipline, ensuring clear levels and close connections between courses. In reality, however, the curriculum systems of some institutions exhibit obvious shortcomings: some course names are changed arbitrarily, and core courses are insufficiently offered; some course content is outdated and fails to integrate the latest theoretical achievements, such as Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, in a timely manner. A standardized curriculum system should be based on nationally compiled textbooks, combining the characteristics of specific research directions to build "compulsory + elective" modular course groups. Simultaneously, a curriculum update mechanism should be established to regularly transform the Party's innovative theories and major practical achievements into teaching content, ensuring the political, scientific, and contemporary nature of the courses.
The standardization of practical teaching links is equally indispensable. The practical quality of Marxist theory dictates that talent cultivation cannot be confined to classroom lectures; it must deepen theoretical cognition and enhance practical ability through "Great Ideological and Political Courses" [5] in practical settings. Standardized practical teaching should include a clear system of objectives—such as conducting social research to understand national and local conditions, participating in grassroots governance to practice the mass line, and organizing theoretical outreach to spread the Party’s voice. It should involve the establishment of stable practice bases and long-term cooperation mechanisms with Party and government organs, enterprises, public institutions, communities, and rural villages. Furthermore, standardized practical assessment criteria should be formulated, incorporating practice reports, the transformation of results, and service evaluations into the assessment system to prevent practical links from becoming a mere formality. Currently, the practice of "going through the motions" [6] exists in the practical teaching of some institutions, characterized by a lack of clear goals and standardized assessment, which seriously affects the quality of talent cultivation. This is precisely a key link that needs to be corrected through standardization.
(5) Standardization of Social Consultative Services Social consultative service is an important vehicle for the practical character of the Marxist Theory discipline, and its standardization is an indispensable component of the discipline’s high-quality development. Marxist theory is not only an ideological weapon for understanding the world but also a guide for action to transform it. Social consultative service is the direct path for the discipline to transform theoretical wisdom into practical efficacy and respond to the needs of the age, enabling the unification of academic and social value. The standardization of social consultative services ensures they truly become a bridge connecting the halls of academia with social reality, allowing Marxist theory to demonstrate the power of truth in solving practical problems while feeding back into disciplinary research through service practice, providing fresh material for theoretical innovation, and ultimately achieving a virtuous cycle between the discipline's social value and its own development.
Social consultative services within the discipline of Marxist Theory must assemble academic teams to focus on major practical issues closely related to Marxist theory, always taking the explanation of the Party's innovative theories, the interpretation of major national strategies, and the resolution of social ideological confusion as core tasks. The outputs of social consultative services in Marxist Theory—whether they be policy recommendation reports, theoretical outreach materials, or special research white papers—must embody distinct political character, rigorous scientific rigor, and strong practicality. They must follow the Party's principles and policies to propose countermeasures and suggestions that possess both theoretical height and operational feasibility. Currently, some consultative results suffer from being "overly academic" or "lacking operability"; these issues should be effectively resolved during the process of standardizing social consultative services to eliminate impractical "empty talk."
The standardization of social consultative services also requires the establishment and improvement of supervision and guarantee mechanisms. On one hand, a consultative service review committee should be established at the disciplinary level to conduct full-process supervision of the initiation, process, and results of service projects, timely halting and rectifying any services that violate standards. On the other hand, social consultative services should be included in the disciplinary evaluation system, with a clear orientation that "quality is superior to quantity," avoiding the substitution of quality assessment with quantitative indicators such as the number of services or contract amounts. Simultaneously, a filing system for consultative services should be established to archive the service process and results, providing a basis for subsequent standardized improvements.
II. Integrated Development Integration is a distinct characteristic of the Marxist Theory discipline and the necessary path to promoting the discipline's high-quality development. As a systematic and complete scientific ideological system, the vitality of Marxist theory stems not only from the scientific nature of its constituent parts but also from the totality formed by the organic unity among these parts. Only by adhering to the direction of integrated development can we break the phenomena of fragmentation and decentralization in disciplinary construction, truly demonstrate the scientific nature and vitality of Marxist theory, and build a solid foundation for the high-quality development of the discipline.
(1) Horizontal Integration The core of horizontal integration in the Marxist Theory discipline lies in breaking down the barriers within the discipline and between it and related disciplines to form an organic whole characterized by mutual support and synergistic development.
From the perspective of the internal system of Marxist theory, Marxist philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism are not three isolated parts but the three pillars constituting the edifice of Marxist theory, possessing inseparable and mutually supportive essential connections and internal laws. Marxist philosophy provides the scientific worldview and methodology for the entire theoretical system and is the "key" to understanding the laws of social development; political economy, by analyzing the internal contradictions of the capitalist mode of production, reveals the inevitable law of socialism replacing capitalism; scientific socialism points out the future direction of human social development, reveals the laws of socialist development, and presents the ideal blueprint of communist society. The three together constitute the complete Marxist system of "interpreting the world—critiquing the world—transforming the world." Currently, a tendency exists in some research to divorce the three components of Marxism: either focusing purely on philosophical speculation while detached from real economic analysis, or being confined to textual research in political economy while ignoring methodological guidance, or talking abstractly about the ideal goals of scientific socialism while lacking theoretical support. Such fragmented research not only weakens the overall explanatory power of Marxism but also struggles to respond to the complex issues raised by the times. Advancing the integrated development of Marxist Theory is about breaking these barriers, studying Marxist philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism as a whole, and deeply exploring the continuity of their internal logic. Only by grasping these internal connections can one truly understand the scientific character of the totality of Marxist theory, break through the limitations of fragmented interpretation, and truly reveal the essence of Marxism, as well as the internal linkage mechanism of Marxist philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism in explaining Chinese practice and responding to contemporary issues.
The horizontal integration of the Marxist Theory discipline requires strengthening the mutual connections and collaborative research among its various sub-disciplines. Research on the basic principles of Marxism constitutes the foundation for research in all sub-disciplines. Only by strengthening the study of the basic principles of Marxism and placing them within the perspective of the historical development of Marxism and comparative studies with foreign Marxism can we better understand and master these principles. This lays the foundation for exploring and grasping the "Two Combinations"—combining the basic principles of Marxism with China's specific reality and with fine traditional Chinese culture—and for promoting the Sinicization and popularization of Marxism. The basic principles of Marxism must also explore the worldview and methodological foundations of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. Furthermore, the Sinicization of Marxism and Ideological and Political Education (which promotes the popularization of Marxism) are inseparable from the study of the basic principles of Marxism. Only with a solid theoretical foundation in these principles can research in the Sinicization of Marxism and Ideological and Political Education achieve better development. Synergy between sub-disciplines can provide powerful support for each other's development and provide a solid foundation for the integrated development of the Marxist Theory discipline.
Horizontal integration also requires properly handling the relationship between Marxist Theory and related disciplines, achieving collaborative innovation while maintaining its own subjectivity. In its relationship with history, the Marxist materialist conception of history is the "golden key" to unlocking historical mysteries; it transcends the idealist "Great Man" theory of history [7] by attributing historical development to the contradictory movement between the productive forces and relations of production. Conversely, empirical research in history on specific historical events and figures can test and enrich the content of the materialist conception of history, preventing it from falling into abstraction or dogma. In its relationship with cultural studies, Marxist theory provides scientific tools for analyzing the ideological attributes, class nature, and people-oriented nature of culture. At the same time, cultural studies' research on fine traditional Chinese culture, revolutionary culture, and advanced socialist culture provides a practical path for the combination of Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture, promoting the innovative development of Marxist cultural theory. What must be guarded against are two tendencies in the horizontal interaction between Marxist Theory and related disciplines: first, "substitutionism," i.e., using Marxist theory to simply replace the specific research of other disciplines while ignoring their unique laws; and second, "dependency," where the theoretical leadership of Marxism is lost in cross-disciplinary research, reducing it to a "vassal" of other disciplines. The key to integrated development lies in leading the research of related disciplines with Marxist positions, viewpoints, and methods, while absorbing the beneficial results of various disciplines to enrich its own system, thereby building a disciplinary landscape of symbiosis and synergistic development.
(2) Vertical Integration Vertical integration is essentially the holistic grasp of the historical process of Marxist development, exploring the internal connections and objective laws of the vertical development of Marxism and Sinicized and modernized Marxism. Marxism was born in the mid-19th century and revealed the general laws of human social development. With its scientific, revolutionary, practical, and people-oriented nature, it provided a powerful ideological weapon and guide for action for the proletarian revolution, socialist construction, and the development of human society. When Marxism was introduced to China, it was combined with China's specific reality, promoting the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. During the period of the New Democratic Revolution, the combination of the basic principles of Marxist-Leninism with China's specific reality led to the creation of Mao Zedong Thought, which guided the Chinese people to achieve national independence and liberation. During the period of socialist revolution and construction, the "second combination" of Marxist-Leninism with China's specific reality enriched and developed Mao Zedong Thought in light of new realities. Since the beginning of reform and opening up, a series of results in Sinicized Marxism, such as Deng Xiaoping Theory, the Theory of Three Represents, and the Scientific Outlook on Development, emerged successively, guiding China onto the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics and promoting rapid economic and social development. Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, within the historical coordinates of the New Era, focuses on major contemporary questions: "what kind of socialism with Chinese characteristics should we uphold and develop in the New Era and how should we uphold and develop it; what kind of a great modern socialist country should we build and how should we build it; and what kind of a long-term governing Marxist party should we build and how should we build it?" [8]. With a brand-new perspective, it has deepened the understanding of the laws of governance by a communist party, the laws of socialist construction, and the laws of the development of human society.
Vertical integrated research is the key to understanding the theoretical character of Marxism as being both "descended from the same origin" [9] and "advancing with the times." Marxism and Sinicized/modernized Marxism are descended from the same origin—always adhering to Marxist positions, viewpoints, and methods—while also advancing with the times, enriching and developing Marxism according to the specific realities and characteristics of different historical periods, forming a vertically developing organic whole. It is necessary to clearly trace the inheritance of core categories between various theoretical forms—for example, the "people's position," from the proposition by Marx and Engels that "the proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority" [10]...
...to Comrade Mao Zedong’s "serving the people," and finally to General Secretary Xi Jinping’s "people-centered philosophy of development," this has remained the consistent primary thread of values throughout. We must profoundly expound upon the response of theoretical innovation to the issues of the times—from the creative development of Marxist revolutionary theory by the road of "encircling the cities from the rural areas" [11], to the breakthrough in Marxist political economy represented by the "socialist market economy," and to the original contribution to scientific socialism made by "Chinese-path modernization." These show how Marxism advances with the times under different historical conditions.
The high-quality development of the discipline of Marxist theory requires us to delve deep into the ideological essence of Marxism within the context of historical development. We must also comprehensively grasp the theoretical innovations and developmental threads of Marxism and Sinicized and epochalized Marxism in every historical period. By clearly recognizing the continuity and stage-specific nature of the development of Marxist theory, we can better grasp the laws of its evolution and promote the longitudinal integrity of the discipline’s high-quality development.
(3) Integrated Hierarchization The core of the integrated hierarchization of the discipline of Marxist theory lies in properly handling the dialectical relationship between the primary discipline and the sub-disciplines. This relationship is manifest both in the overarching command and guidance the primary discipline exercises over the sub-disciplines, and in the support and "back-feeding" [12] that sub-disciplines provide to the primary discipline. The two are interdependent and mutually reinforcing, together forming a disciplinary ecosystem with distinct levels and coordinated functions.
The primary discipline plays a fundamental role in guiding and dominating the sub-disciplines. Strengthening the guidance of the primary discipline of Marxist Theory over sub-disciplines—such as Basic Principles of Marxism, Sinicization of Marxism, and Ideological and Political Education—is intended to ensure that when sub-disciplines explore issues in specific fields, they do not deviate from the core themes and overall framework of Marxism. They must always uphold the essential attributes of the discipline of Marxist theory, thereby maintaining the integrity of the disciplinary system and avoiding the pitfall of fragmented research caused by an overemphasis on the specific characteristics of individual sub-disciplines. As branches of the primary discipline of Marxist Theory, the setting of research directions, the unfolding of research content, and the selection of research methods for all sub-disciplines must follow the overarching logic of the primary discipline.
The development of the primary discipline also cannot proceed without the autonomous exploration and integrated back-feeding of the sub-disciplines. As branches of the discipline of Marxist theory, each sub-discipline has its specific research objects and fields. Some focus on textual interpretations of classic works; some concentrate on the historical process and theoretical results of combining Marxism with China’s specific realities; others conduct in-depth research on ideological guidance and value shaping in specific domains. This autonomous exploration is not a fragmentation of the whole; rather, it deepens the research of the discipline of Marxist theory through intensive cultivation in specific directions. At the same time, emphasis must be placed on the comprehensive distillation of results from various sub-disciplines, gathering scattered research findings into a systematic theoretical understanding. This in turn enriches and perfects the theoretical system of the primary discipline of Marxist Theory, preventing the discipline from falling into the trap of becoming vacuous or abstract. The more profound and rich the research results of the sub-disciplines are, the stronger their supporting role for the primary discipline will be after integration and distillation. Through this process of "autonomous exploration—integrated distillation—holistic back-feeding," the results of various sub-disciplines are transformed into the endogenous driving force for the development of the primary discipline, promoting a healthy developmental pattern in which the "whole guides the branches, and the branches support the whole."
The key to integrated hierarchization lies in achieving a dynamic balance between "holistic guidance" and "hierarchical support." Without the overall guidance of the primary discipline, sub-disciplinary research may lose its direction and fall into blindness; without the support of the sub-disciplines, the primary discipline would become an empty framework lacking a solid foundation of content. Only by stimulating the research vitality of sub-disciplines under the command of the primary discipline, while simultaneously integrating the research results of sub-disciplines to back-feed the overall development of the primary discipline, can we ensure that the discipline of Marxist theory maintains both systemic rigor and correct orientation, while possessing richness of content and adaptability to the times. This is the true realization of the integrated hierarchization of the discipline.
Therefore, the integrated development of the discipline of Marxist theory encompasses three aspects: the completeness of the theoretical system, the continuity of historical development, and the systematic nature of the disciplinary structure. Only by achieving horizontal systemic linkage, longitudinal logical consistency, and the coordinated advancement of all levels can we break through the limitation of "seeing the trees but not the forest" in discipline building. Only then can we truly release the holistic efficacy of Marxist theory and inject lasting impetus into the high-quality development of the discipline, allowing it to better perform its important role in guiding practice, leading direction, and cultivating talent in the New Era.
III. Innovative Exploration The high-quality development of the discipline of Marxist theory in the New Era is inseparable from innovative exploration of Marxist theory, from opening up new frontiers in the Sinicization and epochalization of Marxism, and from the enrichment of the treasure house of Marxist theory and the guidance of practical development by innovative research results. "Unifying the persistence in Marxism with the development of Marxism, and continuously making new theoretical creations in combination with new practices—this is the secret to Marxism remaining forever possessed of youthful vigor and vitality." [13] This is also the inevitable requirement and realistic path for the high-quality development of the discipline of Marxist theory. The breakthrough power of original innovation, the integrating power of synthetic innovation, the fusing power of transformative innovation, the penetrating power of interpretative innovation, and the communicative power of pedagogical innovation together construct the innovative exploration of the discipline of Marxist theory.
(1) Original Innovation Original innovation is the most breakthrough and revolutionary source of power in the development of the discipline of Marxist theory. It begins by directly facing the fundamental questions of the era, takes original theoretical exploration as its core, and aims for forward-looking ideological leadership. "Revealing a law is innovation, proposing a theory is innovation, elucidating a principle is innovation, and creating a method to solve a problem is also innovation." [14] This kind of innovation is not the patching up of existing theories or simple conceptual rebranding. Rather, it is an original Marxist response to the fundamental issues facing the development of human society, based on a profound grasp of the pulse of the times. It is a deep inquiry into the laws of human social development, the laws of a political party’s governance, and the laws of socialist construction—either revealing new characteristics of the movement of social contradictions under new historical conditions, proposing new theoretical paradigms to explain Chinese practice and global shifts, or predicting the development trends of the era with a forward-looking vision. Major questions such as "What is happening to the world? Where is humanity headed?", "What is the Communist Party of China? What is it trying to do?", "What kind of socialism with Chinese characteristics should we uphold and develop in the New Era, and how should we uphold and develop it?", and "What kind of great modern socialist power should we build, and how should we build it?" are both "mandatory questions" posed by the era and "core propositions" that Marxist theory and the discipline of Marxist theory must answer. Original innovation requires applying the standpoints, viewpoints, and methods of Marxism, grounding oneself in new practical contexts, and proposing new ideas, judgments, and views characterized by creativity, persuasiveness, and leadership. This allows Marxist theory to continuously open up new frontiers while responding to new problems and challenges, and enables the discipline of Marxist theory to demonstrate powerful innovative and leading strength while answering the questions of the times.
(2) Synthetic Innovation The synthetic innovation of the discipline of Marxist theory is a systemic theoretical leap achieved on the basis of the discipline’s accumulated development. Its core essence lies in constructing new theoretical forms with internal consistency and explanatory power through the deep sorting, logical convergence, academic distillation, and systemic integration of existing research results. This type of innovation is not a simple addition or mechanical splicing of existing results. Instead, it follows the internal logic of theoretical development, achieving a theoretical sublimation from the scattered to the systemic, from the partial to the holistic, and from the concrete to the abstract in the process of "gathering the Great Achievement" [15]. It manifests the holistic and open character of the Marxist theoretical system.
The systematic organization of existing results is the foundational link in synthetic innovation; its core lies in establishing a scientific academic pedigree and historical thread. Synthetic innovation requires the guidance of historical materialism as a methodology. Longitudinally, it involves tracing the evolutionary trajectory of Marxist theory from its founding to its development, and from its classical form to its Sinicized and epochalized forms, clarifying the core propositions and logical shifts of different theoretical stages. Horizontally, it involves integrating the research results of sub-disciplines such as the Basic Principles of Marxism, Research on the Sinicization of Marxism, and Ideological and Political Education, defining the theoretical boundaries and crossover points of each field. The logical convergence of results is the key step in synthetic innovation. it emphasizes finding commonalities amidst differences and discovering connections amidst dispersion. It uses dialectical thinking to grasp the internal links between results: for complementary research results, it forms multi-dimensional elucidations of specific problems through logical association; for theoretical views characterized by tension or even divergence, it identifies their boundaries of rationality and scope of application through historical contextualization and practical testing; for cross-disciplinary research results, it breaks down disciplinary barriers to extract the common value positions and methodological principles contained within. The distillation of academic theory is the deepening link of synthetic innovation, aimed at extracting universal theoretical categories and understandings of laws from complex and diverse results. In essence, this is a cognitive leap from the "perceptual concrete" to "scientific abstraction" and then to the "thought concrete." Its goal is to form a theoretical core with universality and explanatory power. Synthetic innovation is an inevitable requirement for the discipline of Marxist theory to maintain its own unity and continuity of development. In the New Era, it is not only an important path for promoting the high-quality development of the discipline of Marxist theory but also an innovative way to demonstrate the holistic power of Marxism as a "scientific worldview and methodology."
(3) Transformative Innovation The transformative innovation of the discipline of Marxist theory is a key path for the discipline to maintain its openness and epochal character. Its essence lies in staying true to the Marxist standpoint, viewpoints, and methods while actively absorbing the scientific value of technological innovation and the theoretical nourishment of related disciplines. Through cross-penetration, it achieves the creative transformation of external results into the discipline’s internal theoretical resources, ultimately forming new results with explanatory power and vitality. This kind of innovation is not simple "borrowing" (Nalaizhuyi) [16]. Rather, while upholding the theoretical core, it endows Marxist theory with new forms of expression, research perspectives, and practical functions. Regarding the results of technological innovation: while using information technologies such as big data and artificial intelligence to empower Marxist theoretical research, we must strip away the technical shell to peer into philosophical propositions such as the ethical boundaries of AI, the value creation of digital labor, and the power structures within the platform economy. We must extract the theoretical cores of social relations and value conflicts contained therein and incorporate them into the field of Marxist research, thereby sublimating technological results from "instrumental rationality" to "value rationality." Regarding the results of related disciplines: we must discern their points of agreement and difference with Marxist theory, performing a Marxist theoretical reshaping of the compatible parts and engaging in a critical borrowing of the parts characterized by tension. The purpose of transformative innovation is to achieve the goal of "making things serve us," ensuring that cross-disciplinary research does not deviate from the value coordinates of Marxism. Through transformation, the discipline of Marxist theory can maintain its own theoretical purity while constantly absorbing the nourishment of the times. It achieves theoretical breakthroughs in the dialectical unity of upholding the fundamentals and breaking new ground, ensuring the discipline maintains vitality through openness and avoids falling into theoretical predicaments caused by closure or ossification. This provides more vibrant ideological resources for answering the "Questions of China, the World, the People, and the Times." [17]
(4) Interpretative Innovation Interpretative innovation in the discipline of Marxist theory shoulders the important mission of "explaining the words, knowing the meaning, and clarifying the principles." Its core task lies in transforming the rich connotations of Marxism and Sinicized and epochalized Marxism into perceptible theoretical forms through systematized and academicized deep interpretation. It reveals the logic of facts, academic logic, philosophical logic, and underlying principles behind them, ensuring the theory maintains its ideological penetration and its affinity in communication. This innovation is not a simple restatement of theoretical texts, nor is it a pursuit of obscure or difficult academic expressions. Instead, it involves the multi-dimensional, deep-level decoding and reconstruction of the theory. It must both uphold the Marxist standpoint, viewpoints, and methods to ensure the correct direction of interpretation, and possess the courage and wisdom to innovate, constantly exploring new paths and methods of interpretation. Through profound theoretical thinking, rigorous academic standards, and popular language, it fully demonstrates the power of truth and the practical might of Marxism and Sinicized and epochalized Marxism.
Systematized and academicized interpretation is the foundational project and core link of interpretative innovation, aimed at constructing a logically rigorous and clearly layered theoretical system.
"The study and research of Marxism must not adopt an attitude of scratching the surface or touching upon it like a dragonfly skimming the water" [18].
(8) Theoretical innovation in the form of interpretation requires the systemic sorting and integration of theoretical achievements dispersed across different historical contexts and practical scenarios. It necessitates clarifying the logical main thread of theoretical innovation, building theoretical frameworks, and defining the internal connections between core concepts, basic propositions, and important judgments. This ensures both an accurate grasp of the "full picture" of the theory and a clear understanding of the "positioning" of its various parts, thereby avoiding comprehension biases caused by fragmented cognition. On the basis of adhering to systematic and academic interpretation, interpretive innovation must also transform abstruse theories into vivid discourse and abstract concepts into concrete cases. By employing forms well-liked by the masses [19] and adopting differentiated interpretation strategies tailored to the cognitive characteristics of different groups—utilizing new media platforms, literary and artistic works, and theoretical preaching—theoretical interpretation can become more grounded and attractive. This avoids the "self-talk" of academic idling and ensures that Marxism and Sinicized and temporalized Marxism truly become ideological weapons for guiding people in understanding and transforming the world.
IV. Autonomous Construction
The autonomous construction of the discipline of Marxist theory is the core proposition and fundamental hallmark of the discipline's high-quality development. This construction is by no means an utopia divorced from reality or a closed-door effort [20]; rather, it is based on Chinese soil and rooted in the era. On the basis of profoundly grasping the theoretical logic of Marxism and the practical logic of China, it aims to arrive at an autonomous knowledge system characterized by subjectivity and originality through the construction and refinement of the disciplinary system, academic system, discourse system, and textbook system. "Whether our philosophy and social sciences possess Chinese characteristics depends, in the final analysis, on whether they possess subjectivity and originality" [21]. The autonomous construction of the discipline of Marxist theory is the concentrated expression of this subjectivity and originality, and it serves as the foundation and soul of the discipline's high-quality development.
(1) Construction and Refinement of the Disciplinary System The construction and refinement of the knowledge system of the discipline of Marxist theory is a systemic project. It requires realizing a precise division of labor among sub-disciplines (secondary disciplines) and the deep expansion of specialized branches (tertiary disciplines) while clarifying the core positioning of the primary discipline. Through the coordinated linkage of "disciplinary clusters," a disciplinary ecosystem that is clearly layered, logically rigorous, and dynamically balanced should be formed. This system must both hold fast to the theoretical source of Marxism and respond to the practical needs of the era's development, providing solid structural support for the high-quality development of the discipline.
As the "main pillar" of the disciplinary system, the primary discipline of Marxist theory undertakes the core function of commanding the overall situation. Its core positioning lies in upholding the integrity and scientific nature of Marxism, taking the basic principles, stances, viewpoints, and methods of Marxism as the "red thread" running through it, and providing unified theoretical guidance and value coordinates for various branch disciplines. The construction of the primary discipline must focus on the original research of Marxist theory while remaining grounded in contemporary Chinese practice.
Secondary disciplines, as the "main branches" of the primary discipline, are the key levels for achieving detailed theoretical research and specialized development. The currently established secondary disciplines—such as Basic Principles of Marxism, History of Marxist Development, Research on the Sinicization of Marxism, Ideological and Political Education, Research on Foreign Marxism, and Research on Basic Issues of Modern and Contemporary Chinese History—each carry distinct research missions and together constitute the "four beams and eight pillars" [22] of the primary discipline. The refinement of secondary disciplines requires consolidating existing research advantages and deepening theoretical depth in their respective fields, while dynamically adjusting research directions according to the needs of the times to ensure they remain in sync with innovative theories and practical developments.
Tertiary disciplines, as the "peripheral nerves" of the secondary disciplines, provide important support for achieving refined, professional, and frontier theoretical research. Under the framework of secondary disciplines, they focus on more specific research fields and problems, forming a research character of "micro-entry and deep excavation." The key to their refinement lies in following a "problem-oriented" approach, maintaining logical cohesion with secondary disciplines, and avoiding research fragmentation caused by excessive specialization.
The Marxist theory disciplinary cluster, with the primary discipline of Marxist theory at its core, links related disciplines such as philosophy, economics, political science, sociology, and law to form a cross-disciplinary research pattern of collaborative innovation. This synergism not only enhances the explanatory power of Marxist theory regarding complex realities but also promotes theoretical innovation in related disciplines under the guidance of Marxism, creating a virtuous interaction.
(2) Construction and Refinement of the Academic System The construction and refinement of the academic system is the core link in the autonomous development of the discipline. It is reflected in the profound grasp and creative application of the laws of Marxist theoretical development, with its core being the advancement of the systematization, Sinicization, temporalization, and popularization of Marxism. Systematic research requires deepening the holistic exploration of Marxism, combing through the historical trajectory of its development, and exploring the internal links between its stances, viewpoints, and methods to avoid fragmented cognition. Research on the Sinicization of Marxism focuses on deeply integrating the basic principles of Marxism with China's specific realities and fine traditional Chinese culture, extracting theoretical categories with Chinese characteristics, and summarizing the original contributions of Chinese practice to form "identifying concepts" and original academic discourse rooted in Chinese soil. Research on the temporalization of Marxism requires grasping the pulse of the era and achieving theoretical innovation by answering new questions and meeting new challenges, ensuring the academic system can both explain and lead the era. Research on the popularization of Marxism is not only a means of dissemination but a manifestation of the academic system's grounding in the people, transforming abstruse theories into ideological weapons that the masses can understand and accept, thereby demonstrating the practical power of Marxism as a "tool for transforming the world" rather than just "scholarship in the study."
Logical systematization is the foundation; Sinicized practice is the core; temporalized vitality is the driving force; and popularization is the goal. The fundamental objective is to form an academic paradigm and system with Chinese characteristics, Chinese style, and Chinese spirit.
(3) Construction and Refinement of the Discourse System The construction and refinement of the discourse system is a crucial link that directly relates to the academic influence, popular appeal, and practical leadership of Marxist theory. The key lies in enhancing the autonomy of the discourse system, breaking the shackles of Western discourse hegemony, and constructing a discourse system capable of accurately expressing Chinese theory and practice.
First, we must deepen research on Marxist concepts and their conceptual systems to ensure the academic rigor and systematic nature of the discourse of Marxism and its Sinicized and temporalized forms. This involves tracing back to classic Marxist works to excavate core concepts like historical materialism, surplus value, and class struggle, while also innovating new concepts—such as "digital labor," "data factors," and "digital ideology"—based on contemporary digital economic practices. Second, we must focus on the discourse expression of the achievements of Sinicized and temporalized Marxism, particularly the construction of the discourse system for Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. This transforms the Party's innovative theories into discourse forms that are simultaneously political, academic, ideological, and communicative. Third, we must promote the transformation and integration of different discourse types, achieving an effective link between precise academic discourse, forward-looking innovative discourse, authoritative policy discourse, vivid grassroots discourse, and interactive online discourse.
(4) Construction and Refinement of the Textbook System The construction and refinement of the textbook system is a strategic task concerning national ideological security and the direction of talent cultivation. As a matter of state power, textbooks carry the mission of transmitting mainstream values and shaping the "new people of the era" [23]. As the crystallization of the autonomous knowledge system, they are the concentrated manifestation of the Sinicized and temporalized achievements of Marxism.
In terms of direction, textbooks must resonate with national development strategies and integrate the Party’s educational policies and the fundamental task of "fostering virtue through education" [24] throughout the entire process. We must establish scientific review mechanisms to ensure political correctness, theoretical scientificity, and practical guidance. In terms of principles, we must adhere to the correct direction guided by Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era; reflect Chinese characteristics by rooting content in Chinese soil; enhance relevance for different student demographics; and emphasize innovation in methods, such as developing multimedia and interactive textbooks to suit the digital age.
The autonomous textbook system of the Marxist theory discipline is not a simple compilation of existing knowledge but an integration of the essence of Marxist theory with Chinese practical wisdom and the gems of fine traditional Chinese culture.
From the structural support of the disciplinary system to the academic deepening of the academic system, and from the communicative bridge of the discourse system to the inheritance carrier of the textbook system, the construction of these four systems ultimately aims to build the autonomous knowledge system of the discipline of Marxist theory. This system, guided by Marxism, sourced from Chinese practice, rooted in fine traditional Chinese culture, and oriented toward the problems of the era, possesses the power to both explain China and lead the future. Its formation marks the fundamental hallmark and inexhaustible driving force for the high-quality development of the discipline.
Source: World Socialism Studies (Issue 12, 2025) Editor: Huihui