Hou Huiqin: The Logical Innovation of the Worldview and Methodology of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era
Elucidating the worldview and methodology of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era through its logic of innovation is key to profoundly grasping the new leap in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. This logical characteristic, following the line of thought of responding to the questions of the times with Chinese answers, can be summarized as: expanding historical materialism with a "Great View of History" [1] that leads the times to firm up historical confidence; innovating state governance through the historical coordinates of the "New Era" to firm up political confidence; sublimating self-revolution through "remaining true to our original aspiration and founding mission" to firm up "exam-taking" confidence [2]; and deepening dialectical thinking through a "sense of community" [3] to firm up moral confidence.
Keywords: Great View of History; historical confidence; political confidence; "exam-taking" confidence; moral confidence
A major leap in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism is not merely a concrete application of basic Marxist theory; it must also be a major innovation in the Marxist worldview and methodology. The Report to the 20th CPC National Congress pointed out: "To continue advancing theoretical innovation based on practice, we must first master the worldview and methodology of the Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era." Within this, putting the people first, maintaining self-confidence and self-reliance, upholding the fundamentals and breaking new ground, staying problem-oriented, applying systems thinking, and maintaining a global vision are its basic positions, viewpoints, and methods, which must be thoroughly understood. Centering on this ideological essence, it is essential to elucidate the logic of innovation in worldview and methodology from the perspectives of the themes of the times, historical laws, the questions of the world, Chinese answers, and thinking characteristics. Amidst the unique historical winds of the 21st century, distilling the creative application of dialectical materialism and historical materialism into the core concepts of governing the Party and the country in the New Era—thereby opening up the path of Chinese-path modernization—is the key to decoding the worldview and methodology of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era.
I. Expanding Historical Materialism with a Great View of History that Leads the Times to Firm Up Historical Confidence
The fundamental task of the Marxist worldview and methodology is to grasp laws and lead the times. "Historical materialism is the basis of our Party's philosophy." Persisting in and innovating historical materialism is a basic skill for adhering to ideological Party building and strengthening the Party through theory. Since the 18th CPC National Congress, in response to the complex situation where China and the world are increasingly integrated and the world has entered a period of holistic turbulence and change, Xi Jinping has repeatedly proposed the need to adhere to the worldview and methodology of dialectical and historical materialism from a "Great View of History." He emphasized using a "Great View of History" to view history and summarize experience—especially the major achievements and historical experience of the Party's century-long struggle; he emphasized using a "Great View of History" to observe the world amidst the great changes unseen in a century, striving to respond to the questions of the world, the times, and the people, and to grasp the historical process and the general trend of the times; and he emphasized using a "Great View of History" to recognize and grasp the Party's basic theory, basic line, and basic strategy in the New Era, continuously persisting in and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics.
The so-called "Great View of History" involves using the Marxist worldview and methodology to observe and grasp historical laws. It constitutes a strategic vision formed from the organic unity of the path of Chinese-path modernization, a new form of human civilization, and fine traditional Chinese culture; it expands, in both quality and quantity, the Marxist historical evolution based on "social formations." It is the overarching approach for us to understand and handle various current contradictions, and the source of our strategic resolve to respond to all changes by remaining unchanged. This represents a breakthrough in the holistic elucidation and grasping of historical materialism.
1. Grasping Historical Materialism Precisely from a Great View of History to Solidify the Party's Philosophical Foundation
Entering the 21st century, the contest between those following the trend of the world and those going against it has become intertwined, and confusion over where the world is headed increases daily. Western liberal individualism, which has long held a dominant position in the world, manifests an egoistic "de-centering," adheres to a "zero-sum game" of maximizing self-interest, and mythologizes capital and its institutional framework through the "end of history" [4] thesis—creating thick mists that shroud the future and destiny of humanity. To disperse the mist and see the sun, one must take up the "long-range telescope" of history: historical materialism. As is well known, historical materialism looks through the subjective appearances of human social interest disputes, conceptual collisions, and motivational conflicts to ground historical activities—which are full of contingency—upon the basis of objective necessity, thereby providing theoretical support for a scientific understanding of history.
However, the denial of the objectivity of historical activities and the necessity of historical laws manifests today prominently as a tendency to subjectivize historical materialism. Constant "noise" characterizes productive forces as human spiritual creativity, relations of production as selective modes of interaction, historical development as "interest game theory," and cognitive activity as "subjective construction," even openly renaming historical materialism as "historical human-ism." While this is certainly a manifestation of the still sharp and complex ideological struggle today, the reason it can gain momentum and a market is rooted in the philosophy of liberal individualism. Today, simply emphasizing a specific basic principle of historical materialism is hardly effective; one must grasp its spiritual essence as a whole, which is the philosophical vision of the Great View of History.
Objective purpose, sensuous activity, and the people as the subject are the three major categories supporting the basic principles of historical materialism, and these three categories can only be confirmed by focusing on a Great View of History.
First, historical activity cannot be separated from human motives, and it seems self-evident that motives belong to the realm of subjectivity. However, this is only looking at the problem from the appearance of individual capriciousness. After a little deeper reflection, one finds that some motives are accidental while others are inevitable; some are purely individual desires while others are common to all; some are fleeting while others are enduring; and so on. Therefore, Marxism holds that in researching the motives of historical activity, "the question is not so much the motives of even very eminent individuals, as those motives which set in motion great masses, whole peoples, and again whole classes of the people in every nation; and this, too, not for a momentary flare-up or a quickly dying flame, but for a lasting action resulting in a great historical transformation." This kind of historical motive proves the existence of an objective purpose and proves that purposiveness is not the exclusive domain of subjectivity. Undoubtedly, to capture the objective purpose that can set the masses of people in lasting motion and create new history, one must possess a "Great View of History" that breaks through the narrow individual vision—this is what is meant by "whole peoples" and "lasting transformation."
Second, although it is common sense that food, clothing, and shelter are human necessities, their value for the conception of history was long obscured. It was only when "Marx discovered the law of development of human history: the simple fact, hitherto concealed by an overgrowth of ideology, that mankind must first of all eat, drink, have shelter and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, art, religion, etc.; that therefore the production of the immediate material means, and consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people or during a given epoch, form the foundation." Yet, why did such a simple fact fail to enter the vision of the conception of history for so long? Aside from the ruling class's deliberate exaggeration of the role of the spirit, from the perspective of intellectual cognition, it is because it seemed that only ideas had a constantly updating "history," while eating, drinking, and housing were merely simple repetitions day after day, without "story" or history. Indeed, confined to a partial, empirical, and intuitive vision, history is naturally the history of emperors, generals, gifted scholars, and beautiful ladies; it is naturally a moral or religious history of human goodness and evil, of this life and the afterlife. Only within the vision of the Great View of History are there qualitative changes in productive forces, such as the distinction between tools of the Old and New Stone Ages, the Bronze Age, the Iron Age, the hand-mill, and the steam engine; only then is there the historical replacement of relations of production, such as the social formations of primitive society, slave society, feudal society, and capitalist society. Historical materialism was formed within this historical vision, which Lenin summarized as the "natural-historical process of the development of socio-economic formations." He believed that to grasp Marx's theoretical innovation, one must seize the key of "singling out the economic sphere from the various spheres of social life, and singling out relations of production from all social relations as being basic, primary, and determining all other relations." However, neither relations of production nor socio-economic formations are intuitive departures; they are definitively impossible to understand without a dialectically synthesized Great View of History.
Third, observing history as limited to the intuitive, empirical, and even phenomenal levels stems from a subjective view of the abstract individual. The isolated, abstract individual is the unproven subject of historical activity and the false premise of the historical view manufactured by idealist ideology. Therefore, when Marx founded historical materialism, he particularly emphasized: "This method of approach is not devoid of premises... Its premises are men, not in any fantastic isolation and rigidity, but in their actual, empirically perceptible process of development under definite conditions." The abstract individual and the real person are two opposing views of the historical subject. The abstract individual is a product of capitalist society. The operation of capital abstracts the person into a carrier for the production of surplus value, thus becoming a "reified" individual. This "abstract individual" not only constitutes the social basis of capitalist rule but is also fictionalized as the historical subject of all human society to prove that capitalism is unsurpassable. In reality, the subject of human historical activity in primitive society was the clan, and the most important historical subject since entering class society has been the class, including the abstract individual of capitalist society. That cloak of the atomistic independent individual is merely an illusion packaged by capitalist relations of production; its essence is the personification of capital. From a Marxist perspective, consistent with the fact that the laborer is the primary productive force, the subject of human historical activity has always been centered on the people. The decisive role of social productive forces in historical development, the necessity of transforming relations of production to adapt to the development of productive forces, and the concentrated expression of the masses' historical initiative and creativity during revolutionary periods all fully prove that the people are the creators of history and the true subject. However, because the formation of the people as the historical subject requires a long historical process, recognizing that the people create history requires specific social and historical conditions. Due to the historical variability of the category of "the people"—including exploitative classes that started as revolutionary classes and formed the core of the people but degenerated into the opposite of the people after taking power, and the historical variations of non-laboring groups that complied with historical development—the difficulty of grasping the whole is increased. Consequently, without a Great View of History, one naturally sees only heroes and great men creating history. In opposition to the idealist conception of history, Marx explicitly declared that "the standpoint of the new materialism is human society, or social humanity," establishing the theory of the people as the subject in historical materialism. The Great View of History is the standpoint from which we today return to the source to grasp historical materialism completely and accurately.
2. Scientifically Positioning the Era from a Great View of History to Firm Up the Party's Marxist Faith
Marxism is the foundation upon which the working-class party is built. As Lenin said: "We take our stand entirely on the side of Marx's theory, for it was the first to transform socialism from a utopia into a science, to lay a firm foundation for this science, and to indicate the path that must be followed in further developing and studying it in all its parts." To persist in Marxism without wavering, we must continuously strike back against the theory that this doctrine is "obsolete." From Bernstein at the end of the 19th century to Gorbachev at the end of the 20th century, all departed from Marxism on the grounds of "obsolescence," using the excuse that historical conditions had changed and the era had shifted, necessitating a "transcendence of Marx."
Indeed, regarding the specific characteristics of the era, the times in which later Marxists lived have indeed undergone significant changes compared to the era in which Marx lived. At the end of the 19th century, the major capitalist countries moved from free capitalism into the stage of monopoly capitalism, namely imperialism; since the second half of the 20th century, the theme of the era shifted toward peace and development. These qualitative changes in stages inevitably brought many new problems and challenges. However, why is it wrong to conclude from this that Marxism is "outdated"? The key here lies in the scientific definition of the "era." And the key to scientifically defining the era lies in deciphering the "questions of the times." Although people perceive the challenges of the era to varying degrees, the difficulty lies in correctly posing the questions. "An urgent question of a time has the same fate as any question which is well-grounded in its content and therefore reasonable: the main difficulty is not the answer, but the question." [5] Questions are the "mottoes of the era," the "open, undaunted, and all-dominating voice of the era." Lenin repeatedly guided people, at junctures when responding to various major challenges, to consider "how Marx posed the question." In Marx's time, "human liberation" had been shouted for several hundred years, but it remained a hollow fantasy and a slogan divorced from reality. How could it be transformed into a slogan of the era with practical significance? It was only Marx, with his profound historical materialist vision, who first proposed that human liberation must be reduced to the liberation of the proletariat. Therefore: "The secret of the 19th-century revolution: the liberation of the proletariat." The liberation of the proletariat thus truly became the question of the era for human liberation. The questions of the times determine the period-specific vitality of the thought that poses them; as long as the human liberation led by the working class (and its party) has not been realized, one cannot talk about Marxism being outdated.
Xi Jinping resolutely defends the epochal value of the scientific and truthful nature of Marxism. He has proposed the task of answering the "micro-era" questions covered by the "macro-era" and the micro-era questions covered by the macro-era questions. Fundamentally speaking, an "era" is a comprehensive category determined by basic social contradictions and the groups of laws that constitute them; it is itself a unity of macro-, meso-, and micro-eras. A macro-era is determined by the foundational movement patterns of basic social contradictions and reflects the general laws of historical development, such as humanity’s age of barbarism or age of civilization. A meso-era is determined by specific movement patterns of basic social contradictions and forms an era category that basically coincides with a social formation, such as the era of feudalism or the era of capitalism. A micro-era is determined by the staged evolution of specific forms of basic social contradictions, forming the staged characteristics of the same social formation and special intersections of different social formations, such as the era of free capitalism or the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution. Although Marxism arose in the era of free capitalism, the historical space-time covered by this scientific theoretical system far exceeds the era that gave birth to it. It not only reveals the general laws of human society but also reveals the specific laws of the transition from capitalism to socialism; thus, it remains the guiding ideology for the working class and its parties pursuing human liberation. In no sense can one use changes in the times as an excuse to claim it is "outdated."
Today’s world once again stands at a crossroads of history: on the one hand, the expectations of people in all countries for peaceful development are more earnest, the call for equity and justice is more intense, and the pursuit of win-win cooperation is firmer. On the other hand, the combined impact of the world's once-in-a-century profound changes and the global COVID-19 pandemic has led to a weak recovery of the world economy; unilateralism, protectionism, and bullying behavior are intensifying, while the governance deficit, trust deficit, development deficit, and peace deficit continue to grow. This contradictory phenomenon indicates that today’s "question of the times"—"where is the world going?"—is essentially still a question of a path that transcends capitalist civilization. Therefore, Xi Jinping has made two important theoretical judgments regarding the questions of the era.
First, Marxism reveals the universal laws of human historical development and therefore possesses epochal significance covering the entire process of human history. "Marx’s thought and theory originated in that era but transcended that era; they are both the essence of the spirit of that era and the essence of the entire human spirit." That is to say, Marx’s thought not only laid the scientific foundation for human liberation with the liberation of the working class as its political form, but also laid the foundation for the law-based understanding of the entire history of human civilization. This fundamentally overthrows the theory that Marxism is "outdated."
Second, Marxism reveals the specific laws that capitalism will inevitably perish and communism will inevitably be realized; thus, it possesses epochal value covering the different developmental stages of this historical process. "Although the era we live in has undergone tremendous and profound changes compared to the era in which Marx lived, from the broad perspective of 500 years of world socialism, we are still in the historical era specified by Marxism. This is the scientific basis for our firm confidence in Marxism and our conviction in the inevitable victory of socialism. Marxism is the 'root' of the towering tree of our Party’s and people’s cause and the 'source' of the ten-thousand-mile river of our Party’s and people’s continuous progress." That we are still in the era specified by Marxism is the scientific basis for our firm belief in Marxism; that our era has undergone "tremendous and profound changes" compared to Marx’s era is the objective basis for our resolute advancement of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. This fundamentally establishes a scientific attitude toward Marxism.
3. Starting from the "Big View of History" to profoundly grasp Chinese-path socialism and establish the theme of all the Party's theory and practice
As soon as "Chinese-path socialism" was proposed, it was subjected to wanton distortion and attack by hostile ideologies; the fallacy that Chinese-path socialism is capitalism rather than socialism was for a time rampant. While categorically pointing out that Chinese-path socialism "is socialism, and not any other 'ism'," Xi Jinping utilized worldview and methodology to clear away the misconceptions denying the socialist nature of Chinese-path socialism.
First, the nature of Chinese-path socialism is determined by the historical convergence of world trends and possesses objective standards for scientific judgment. It is an irresistible historical trend that the development history of the Chinese nation merges into the trend of world history, that the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation merges into the trend of world socialist modernization, and that the vitality of Chinese civilization merges into the trend of creating a new form of human civilization. Chinese-path socialism is the product of the convergence of these three historical trends: the first trend exposed the historical truth of China being backward and attacked in modern times, posing the historical mission of the Chinese nation to stand on its own among the nations of the world and achieve national rejuvenation; the second trend highlighted the historical fact that the capitalist path was a "dead end" and signaled the historical trend that "only socialism can save China"; the third trend proclaimed that the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation is the innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture in the contemporary era, posing the historical task of creating a Chinese-path modernization and a new form of human civilization. The great cause of the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation initiated by Chinese-path socialism is a concrete manifestation and enrichment of the laws of human social development revealed by the materialist conception of history.
Second, the nature of Chinese-path socialism is determined by the endogeneity of the inheritance of human civilization and possesses deep historical roots. The laws of human civilization’s inheritance show that the future development of a civilization depends on the extent to which it stimulates its own vitality—that is, the historical creativity of the people and the efficacy of all natural and social resources. Chinese-path socialism, taking the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation as its own responsibility, has not only fully stimulated its own vitality but has also made increasingly significant contributions to contemporary human civilizational progress. The reason for this is that it is the internal requirement of the continuous development of the 5,000-year-plus uninterrupted Chinese civilization. "Chinese-path socialism... was obtained during the historical process of over 170 years in which the Chinese nation went from decline to prosperity in modern times; it was obtained from the inheritance and development of Chinese civilization over 5,000 years; and it is a precious result achieved by the Party and the people through untold hardships and at various costs." This fully demonstrates that Chinese-path socialism has not only not departed from the main road of human civilization but is a great rejuvenation of the fine traditional Chinese culture full of vitality, and is a great cause that always stands on the right side of history to promote the progress of human civilization.
Third, the scientific method for accurately judging things is the "Big View of History" [6] rather than the so-called "majority" of a moment or a single event. The misjudgment of some people on the issue of Chinese-path socialism, in addition to the problem of their political stance, stems from a major error in methodology: using the number of countries currently practicing a certain institutional model as the yardstick, as if having a large number means there is a future and having a small number means it is difficult to sustain. This is a shallow and static way of thinking. In reality, reality is constantly changing and developing: growing from small to large and from weak to strong is the law of development for new things, while being strong in appearance but weak in reality [7] and engaging in empty bluster are the appearances of dying things. Today's so-called "liberal democratic" system in the West is in a state of transition from prosperity to decline; the superficial "majority" cannot conceal its substantial decay. Therefore, "regarding political systems, to simply think there is a deficiency and that we must relocate it here because we see other countries have it and we do not, or to simply think something is redundant and must be removed because we have it and other countries do not—both views are simplistic, one-sided, and therefore incorrect." Thus, political self-confidence is fundamental. This is confidence in the scientific faith of Marxism, confidence in the academic style of seeking truth from facts and integrating theory with practice, and confidence in the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and the cause of communism under the guidance of Marxism. This confidence, built on the Big View of History, is a characteristic and major achievement of the worldview and methodology of Chinese-path socialism in the New Era. The base point of this Big View of History "is to stand on the vast land of over 9.6 million square kilometers, absorb the cultural nutrients accumulated through the long struggle of the Chinese nation, and possess the majestic power converged from more than 1.3 billion Chinese people. As we walk our own path, we have an incomparably broad stage, incomparably deep historical roots, and incomparably strong determination to move forward."
To solve the historical task of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation starting from the grand pattern of world development, the key lies in using the Marxist worldview to grasp historical trends, correctly handle the relationship between China and the world, and establish historical self-confidence. Only by establishing a Big View of History—analyzing the mechanisms of evolution and exploring historical laws from the long river of history, the tide of the times, and the shifting winds of global affairs—can we accurately grasp the relationship between the strategic overall situation of realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and the world's once-in-a-century profound changes. Only then can we scientifically predict the direction of Chinese-path socialism, human civilization, and world socialism, maintain strategic resolve, and calmly respond to a world of increasing uncertainty with our own certainty, thereby grasping historical initiative.
II. Innovating Governance with the Historical Orientation of the "New Era" and Strengthening Political Confidence
Objective laws are the basis for the Marxist worldview and methodology used to establish scientific faith, analyze situations and tasks, and formulate principles and policies. Therefore, continuously deepening the understanding of objective laws and scientifically judging the characteristics of the current era is a concentrated expression of implementing and developing the Marxist worldview and methodology. Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, we have focused closely on in-depth explorations of the laws of governance by a communist party, the laws of socialist construction, and the laws of the development of human society, greatly enriching the Marxist understanding of objective laws. This achievement in understanding is concentrated in the scientific concept of the "historical orientation of the New Era." The "New Era" is a conceptual result of "adhering to the methodology of dialectical materialism and historical materialism, and thinking through the combination of history and reality, theory and practice, and domestic and international factors," providing a scientific basis for us to accurately grasp the staged characteristics of the new historical starting point and the comprehensive strategic layout.
1. The "historical orientation of the New Era" scientifically elucidates the Marxist characteristic of the space-time unity of objective laws
Marxism always emphasizes grasping historical laws from the "sum total of contradictory relations," illustrating that historical laws are not a "determinism" of a single cause, nor a single-threaded theory of linear development; rather, they are historical necessity and unity manifesting within diversity. Therefore, to study laws, one must conduct a systematic analysis of all relevant contradictions to find the path to resolving them. As Lenin pointed out: "People make their own history, but what determines the motives of people, and particularly of the masses of people, what comprises the sum total of all these clashes, what are the objective conditions of production of material life that form the basis of all of man's historical activity, what is the law of development of these conditions—to all these Marx drew attention and indicated the way to a scientific study of history as a single process which, with all its immense variety and contradictoriness, is governed by definite laws."
However, the misinterpretation of the Marxist theory of historical laws as a so-called "historical determinism" featuring a single motive force for historical development (of which the term "economic historical perspective" is one iteration) remains a persistent phenomenon. Aside from the interference of hostile ideologies, an important reason for this may be the lack of a concise concept regarding the dynamic evolution of objective laws. Marx and Engels focused on elucidating historical laws from the basic aspect of "socio-economic formations"; this was a necessity for the initial establishment of the theory at that time, but it does not mean that historical laws are a singular process. As Engels pointed out in his later years: "Younger people sometimes lay more stress on the economic side than is due to it. Marx and I are ourselves partly to blame for this. We had to emphasize the main principle vis-à-vis our adversaries, who denied it, and we had not always the time, the place or the opportunity to give their due to the other elements involved in the interaction." Those things for which Marx and his contemporaries lacked the time and opportunity have increasingly become the problems that Marxists today must strive to resolve.
In reality, because various historical factors participate in mutual interaction, historical laws manifest not only a complexity of contradictions but also a diversity of processes. As Lenin pointed out: "What Marx denies is that the laws of economic life are one and the same, for the past and the present. On the contrary, every historical period has laws of its own." The "historical locus of the New Era" highlights the comprehensive characteristic of the historical convergence of various contemporary Chinese contradictions. It is the historical unfolding and real-world blending of social contradictions, allowing for the precise grasping of developmental stages under specific social formations, thereby deepening the understanding of the laws of social contradiction. Effectively establishing a "historical locus" requires the following components: First, the formation of stage-specific characteristics in the development of the same social formation, where its interconnections with other developmental stages are clear. Stage-specific characteristics represent partial qualitative changes in the developmental process of a social formation; they possess new qualitative stipulations that previous developmental stages lacked. Establishing these new qualitative stipulations is the basic grounds for judging the historical locus. Second, a major change occurs in the connection between a nation’s historical development and world development. The development of each country has its own uniqueness, but after entering world history, it is by no means an isolated process cut off from the world; rather, it is always realized through interaction with world development. The degree and manner of this reciprocal influence become important bases for judging the historical locus. Third, when the above two points are reflected in people's ideological horizons, the "questions of the times, questions of the world, and questions of practice" emerge which must be answered, and new challenges arise regarding the unity of Marxist theory and practice. The ability to accurately grasp these answers to the times—and to promote a new integration of theory and practice on the basis of theoretical innovation—is where the skill in judging a historical locus lies.
2. That Chinese-path socialism has entered a New Era is a major judgment derived from the "historical locus"
Using the "historical locus" to judge the stages of our country's historical development, the most important conclusion is that "the New Era of socialism with Chinese characteristics is the new historical locus of our country's development."
First, this is a stage-based judgment made on the synthesis of internal contradictions based on China's own developmental characteristics. The great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation led by the Communist Party of China began with the New Democratic Revolution [8] against imperialism and feudalism. Due to changes in the principal contradiction during this process, several distinct historical periods were formed. If one fails to see the internal links between these contradictions, it is easy to set one period against another, such as the period of revolution versus the period of construction, or the history of New China before and after reform and opening up. The "historical locus" highlights the continuity of historical development, emphasizing the phases of a unified historical process. Proceeding from this, it reveals the epochal connotation of the New Era: "It means that the Chinese nation, which since modern times began has endured so much adversity, has stood up, grown rich, and is becoming strong and has embraced the brilliant prospects of rejuvenation." "Standing up," "growing rich," and "becoming strong" are the historical stages that the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation must undergo. They are at once a unified historical process and distinct stages with major differences in their principal contradictions, primary tasks, and methods of resolution. In short, "standing up" primarily solved the problem of "being beaten" (ethnic independence and people’s liberation); "growing rich" primarily solved the problem of "going hungry" (development of production and prosperous life); while "becoming strong" must solve the problem of the superiority of socialism (national strength and prosperity, and people's happiness), destroying the possibility of the West placing us in a position of "being scolded" [9] through both hard and soft power. "Chinese-path socialism entering a New Era" not only reveals the historical starting point where we stand today but also resolves the long-debated issue of the historical unity between the periods before and after reform and opening up, and between the history of revolution and the history of modernization. This expands socialism with Chinese characteristics from a narrow sense to a broad sense, covering the entire historical process of the cause of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation led by the Party.
Second, this is a forward-looking judgment made based on the new situation of the relationship between contemporary China and the world, where internal and external contradictions are increasingly intertwined. The international environment has always been an important external factor affecting our country's development, but with our continuous and all-round opening up, China and the world have gradually moved toward an integrated community with a shared future. The "historical locus of the New Era" allows us to transcend the cognitive mode of simply applying the relationship between "internal and external causes," obtaining a brand-new perspective on China and the world today. The most significant change in the relationship between contemporary China and the world is that the strategic goal of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and the "world’s great changes unseen in a century" [10] are "synchronized, intertwined, and mutually reinforcing." This is a blending of two major complexes of contradictions that determine the direction of today's world and China; it is a deeper grasp of the laws of contemporary human history. It reveals the profound historical meaning that contemporary China is increasingly approaching the center of the world stage, and that the resolution of its own development and the making of greater contributions to humanity are becoming increasingly unified. It shows that for today's China, not only is reform and opening up always "on the road," but also that "only by leading the times can one move toward the world." That is to say, contemporary China increasingly bears the historical responsibility of exploring paths for world development and expanding human civilization. Today's "world questions" are also "China questions," and today's "world answers" are also "China answers." That Chinese-path socialism has entered a New Era "means that scientific socialism is full of vitality in 21st-century China, and that the great banner of socialism with Chinese characteristics is now flying high and proud for all to see. It means that the path, theory, system, and culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics have kept developing, blazing a new trail for other developing countries to achieve modernization." The "historical locus of the New Era" encompasses this great historical turning point.
Third, this is a concrete elaboration based on the complexity of the transition between historical stages, where the shift in the principal contradiction is not entirely synchronized with the shift in the historical stage. Historical stages are determined by the principal contradiction, but the two are not perfectly synchronized. The decisive role of the principal contradiction possesses not only reality but also directionality, and thus does not completely overlap with the historical stage. For example, the principal contradiction in the stage of the New Democratic Revolution was the contradiction between imperialism and the Chinese nation, and between feudalism and the masses; the principal contradiction in the stage of the socialist revolution was the contradiction between the two roads of socialism and capitalism and the two social systems; and the principal contradiction in the stage of socialist society is the contradiction in which the relations of production and the productive forces are both compatible and incompatible. However, the replacement of historical stages is not as crisp and clear as flipping a card; there are often overlapping or blurred periods. The root cause lies in the fact that the change in the principal contradiction is not synchronized with the stage. Historically, from the founding of the People's Republic of China to the comprehensive implementation of the "Three Great Transformations" [11], the stage of social development was still generally within the New Democratic Revolution, yet the principal social contradiction had already transformed into the contradiction between socialism and capitalism. Mao Zedong clearly pointed out: "After the landlord class and the bureaucrat-bourgeoisie are overthrown, the internal principal contradiction in China is the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie." He noted that what "marks the change in the nature of the revolution, the basic end of the New Democratic Revolution stage, and the beginning of the socialist revolution stage is the change in political power—the demise of the Kuomintang counter-revolutionary regime and the establishment of the People's Republic of China." Yet on the other hand, "we still must resolve the contradiction between feudalism and democracy, i.e., between landlords and peasants, in the vast countryside." Mao used the "Transition Period" [12] to theoretically resolve this historical complexity, but there remained a discrepancy in the unity of the social nature and the principal contradiction during this historical stage.
The "historical locus of the New Era" deepens the understanding of the relationship between historical stages and principal contradictions. The principal contradiction is the driving force for the development of historical stages and plays a leading role. Although a change in the principal contradiction is a historical change affecting the whole situation, it is not equivalent to the global change itself. A historical stage is the actual state of the whole situation; it is the basic national condition of that stage. Equating a change in the principal contradiction with a change in the historical stage may lead to the error of "transcending the stage." Therefore, "the change in the principal contradiction in our society has not changed our judgment on the historical stage in which our country’s socialism is situated; the basic national condition that our country is still in, and will long remain in, the primary stage of socialism has not changed; and our country's international status as the world's largest developing nation has not changed." The "historical locus of the New Era" requires both firmly grasping the changes in the principal contradiction to pose and solve problems, plan and deploy the overall situation, and continuously push socialism with Chinese characteristics to create new horizons; and firmly relying on the "primary stage of socialism" as the greatest reality, discarding all grandiose illusions, speaking the truth, doing practical work, and moving forward one step at a time. This is the innovative development of the dialectics of change and permanence.
Regarding the so-called "primary stage of socialism," Deng Xiaoping provided an annotation: "Though we say we are building socialism, in reality we are 'not up to the mark' (bù gòugé)." This refers to a socialism where the productive forces are not advanced enough, the people's lives are not prosperous enough, and the superiority of the socialist system cannot be fully displayed. The "primary stage of socialism" is a historical legacy of the tortuous development of world socialism. Because the socialist revolution did not, as Marx and Engels envisioned, launch simultaneously in developed capitalist countries, it first broke out and achieved success at the weak links of the imperialist world chain. As Lenin pointed out, socialism certainly needs a foundation of civilization, but "why could we not first create the prerequisites of that civilization in our country... and then begin the movement toward socialism?" However, this results in a question of how the nascent socialist state can become "up to the mark." The Communist Party of China has attached great importance to this historical task. While establishing the scientific judgment of the "primary stage of socialism," it formulated the basic line of "one center, two basic points" [13] and clarified the goal of comprehensively building a great modern socialist power that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful. That Chinese-path socialism has entered a New Era indicates that our country has entered the final sprint in solving the problem of socialism being "up to the mark." By properly grasping the dialectics between our country's principal contradiction and the socio-historical stage at the current phase, the superiority of socialism with Chinese characteristics will be fully manifested.
3. "Holism" and "Comprehensiveness" are the basic characteristics of the new developmental stage established by the "historical locus of the New Era"
The most important stage-specific characteristic of the New Era is the mutual intertwining and integrated development of various contradictions. Consequently, the basic approach to resolving these contradictions is the "holistic view" and the concept of "comprehensiveness."
First, it determines the strategic layout of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era—namely, the coordinated advancement of the "Five-Sphere Integrated Plan" and the "Four Comprehensives." The "Four Comprehensives" address the national development goals and governance methods in the New Era, while the "Five-Sphere Integrated Plan" addresses the forms of development in the specific implementation process; the two mirror each other.
Regarding national development goals, realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation through socialist modernization is the unswerving goal of the Communist Party of China, for which it has formulated the "Two Centenary Goals." The characteristic of the historical starting point of the New Era is: "We are closer, more confident, and more capable than at any other period in history of realizing the goal of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation." This characteristic dictates that we must prevent feelings of pride and laxity, remembering that "halfway on a hundred-mile journey is only the ninety-mile mark" [14]; even more, we must overcome the fear of difficulty and battle-fatigue, strengthening our resolve to "gnaw on hard bones" and meet unprecedented challenges. We must clearly recognize that "we are currently at a point where the boat is in mid-stream where the current is swiftest, and the walker is halfway up the mountain where the path is steepest; it is a time when the further we go, the harder and riskier it becomes, yet we cannot stop, and any retreat would be fatal." Therefore, the "comprehensiveness" of national development goals not only reveals the bright prospects for the rejuvenation of the Chinese nation but also stimulates the fighting vitality to forge ahead in the New Era.
Regarding the path of national governance, "comprehensiveness" is not coordination in the usual sense—it is not merely attending to other matters while grasping key points. Rather, it emphasizes the holistic nature of the manifestations of contradictions and their solutions. That is to say, "not one can be left behind," as the shortest board determines success or failure. This represents a deeper understanding of the relational nature of contradictions, building upon the distinction between principal and secondary contradictions, and between the principal and secondary aspects of a contradiction. As is well known, in any complex process where more than two contradictions exist, one must be the principal contradiction; among the two sides of any contradiction, "one must be principal and the other secondary." However, these roles are not fixed; they transform into one another under certain conditions. In the past, we were accustomed to understanding these "conditions" in terms of "process" (diachrony), arising from new changes in the developmental sequence. Today, however, the transformations of contradictions we face are fleeting and can occur at any moment, exhibiting the characteristics of "space" (synchrony). Therefore, to accurately grasp the actual requirements of the principal contradiction and the shifts in its principal aspect in a timely manner, one’s ideological method must be "comprehensive" and "holistic" to prevent simplification and partiality.
Second, this determines the strategic thinking for preventing and controlling major national risks at the current stage, namely, the Holistic Approach to National Security. Today, we live in a world characterized by a "period of turbulent change," where global uncertainty is rising. "Security" has become a core national interest of equal importance to "development," and the prevention and control of major risks has become a new challenge in safeguarding national security. Major risks are characterized by their integrated, concealed, and global nature, rather than being single, easily identifiable, or localized. Thus, they must be addressed through a Holistic Approach to National Security—that is, "coordinating development and security, enhancing awareness of potential dangers, and remaining vigilant against adversity in times of peace... upholding the supremacy of national interests, taking people's security as the purpose and political security as the fundamental, coordinating external and internal security, homeland and citizen security, traditional and non-traditional security, and own security and common security, improving the national security institutional system, strengthening national security capacity building, and resolutely safeguarding national sovereignty, security, and developmental interests." This is another example of grasping contradictions holistically across levels, natures, domains, and trends. Today, maintaining national security requires keen political judgment to identify various political risks and resist Western "color revolutions" [15]. It also requires superb political comprehension and firm political execution to resolve various risks politically and turn crises into opportunities.
Third, it determines the "new development philosophy" for the nation at a new historical starting point—namely, "innovation, coordination, green development, openness, and sharing." Resolving the principal contradiction at the current stage cannot be answered simply with "development"; we must innovate the philosophy of development. We cannot judge success simply by the growth rate of Gross Domestic Product; we must achieve high-quality development where innovation is the primary driver, coordination is an endogenous characteristic, green development is the universal form, openness is the required path, and sharing is the fundamental purpose. Insufficient and uncoordinated development is not only the main problem currently existing in our country, but also a major problem globally. Therefore, the new development philosophy is not only the key to resolving China's current principal contradiction but also a way forward for global development. It can be seen that the new development philosophy is the result of a "comprehensive" and "holistic" grasp of China's internal and external contradictions at the current stage, reflecting the leading role of socialism with Chinese characteristics in guiding the trend of global modernization and creating a new form of human civilization.
The new development philosophy is not only conceptual but, more importantly, practical. For some, many development concepts are not unthinkable, but rather unachievable. For the sake of narrow self-interest, some countries attempt to monopolize rule-making and technological innovation; some abuse unilateral "sanctions" and economic "decoupling"; and cases of blatant opposition to "green" and "shared" development, the extensive use of "long-arm jurisdiction" [16], and the application of double standards are common. Therefore, the implementation of the new development philosophy established by the "historical coordinate of the New Era" is also the process by which the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics takes shape and demonstrates its superiority. "Today, our Party stands at such a historical coordinate; a major historical task before us is to promote the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics to become more mature and more stable... This project is extremely grand; piecemeal adjustments will not work, nor will fragmented repairs. There must be comprehensive and systematic reform and improvement, the linkage and integration of reforms in various fields, to form a holistic effect and achieve holistic results in the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity." Implementing the "new-type whole-nation system" [17] for innovative development to ensure the solid grounding of the new development philosophy is an inherent requirement of this task.
III. Sublimating self-revolution through "remaining true to our original aspiration and founding mission" and strengthening confidence in the "exam-taking" journey
From the perspective of worldview and methodology, the people, with the Party as the political core, are the subjects of history; all cognitive achievements are inseparable from the subject’s own improvement and perfection. The key to upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics lies in the Party; the key to upholding and improving the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC) lies in comprehensively and strictly governing the Party. An important feature of the worldview of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era is that it takes "remaining true to our original aspiration and founding mission" as its foothold. It explores the purpose of the CPC's founding and its mission from the level of "self-revolution," ensuring that at a new historical starting point, a CPC is forged that can continue to lead the times, greatly enhancing confidence in Party building and consciousness in Party governance.
- "Remaining true to our original aspiration" provides the objective premise for correct self-cognition through "historical distance"
Whether for a political party or an individual, correctly recognizing oneself is the prerequisite for achieving consciousness. Only by correctly recognizing oneself can one accurately position oneself in history and realize one’s own value. "Remaining true to our original aspiration" lays the epistemological foundation for the CPC to correctly recognize itself.
First, the difficulty of self-knowledge lies in the lack of distance. "It is a rare thing to have self-knowledge." The famous quote of the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates is "Know thyself"; a famous line from Laozi’s Tao Te Ching is "He who knows others is wise; he who knows himself is enlightened" [18]. Self-knowledge is difficult because it lacks the necessary distance; one cannot treat oneself as an object of objective cognition from the perspective of a "bystander." Instead, one can only form subjective feelings through external evaluations, which are inevitably biased. "I do not know the true face of Mount Lu, only because I am in the midst of the mountain" [19].
From an epistemological perspective, creating distance from an object is the prerequisite for grasping it as an objective thing and thus for correct recognition. To establish the status of human moral "sympathy," Adam Smith presupposed the perspective of an "impartial spectator" as the epistemological basis for moral "conscience." Similarly, the Chinese Confucian "School of Mind" (xinxue) viewed the "extension of intuitive knowledge" (zhi liangzhi) as the objective moral ontology and the basis for the unity of knowledge and action. However, these forms of "objectivity" were actually subjective assertions, not scientific cognition. As an abstract theory of human nature, "intuitive knowledge" did not solve the problem of the objectivity of self-cognition. Therefore, in fact, people can generally only recognize themselves through others (their observations and evaluations). Although there is the wisdom that "listening to both sides makes one enlightened," whether this can be achieved depends entirely on an individual’s personal likes and dislikes; it does not truly solve the problem epistemologically.
"Remaining true to our original aspiration" provides an objective perspective for self-recognition—that is, looking back at the "original self" from the perspective of the "today’s self" to form self-knowledge. The "original self" is an objective existence, and a historical distance exists between it and the "today’s self." Thus, the "original self" becomes the "impartial spectator" observing "today’s self," capable of making an objective and fair observation and evaluation. It is clear that the "historical distance" formed by "remaining true to our original aspiration" provides our Party with the objective premise for accurately recognizing itself. Persevering in the theme education of "remaining true to our original aspiration and founding mission" enables the Party to continuously break through the barriers of fixed interests, transcend the narrowness of indulging in existing achievements, and maintain a fighting spirit characterized by hard work, modesty, and prudence.
Second, "historical distance" and the Party's "pure form." "Remaining true to our original aspiration" allows the CPC to obtain the possibility of accurately grasping the Party's "pure state," establishing a historical benchmark for the Party's advanced nature and purity. What the Party should be like might seem abstract; however, looking back at the original aspiration makes it clearly identifiable. What the CPC is, why it exists, and why it is needed are clear because "following the advent of modern times, the Chinese nation, which had created a splendid civilization, encountered a deep crisis of continuity, presenting a scene of decline and decay to the world." Therefore, "seeking happiness for the Chinese people, rejuvenation for the Chinese nation, and peace and development for humanity" is the original aspiration and mission of the CPC, armed with Marxism. By recognizing this foundation of the Party's founding, our Party has obtained a scientific scale to measure its own condition, established the requirements of advanced nature and purity for Party governance, and laid the historical foundation for the Party to always stand at the forefront of the times.
Based on "remaining true to our original aspiration," it is not difficult to see that the "original state" of the Party can be summarized as: the "essence," namely seeking happiness for the Chinese people, rejuvenation for the Chinese nation, and Great Harmony (datong) [20] for humanity; the "capability," namely taking Marxism as its ideological armament and insisting on ideological Party building and strengthening the Party through theory; and the "character," namely having the courage for self-revolution and maintaining the struggle of hard work. These components of the "original" aspiration of Chinese Communists are an integrated and inseparable whole, representing the concentrated expression of the Party's fundamental purpose and founding spirit. The essence reflects the pursuit and determines "why" and "what" to do; the capability reflects the ability and determines "how to see" and "how to act"; the character reflects the will and determines "why it can succeed" and "why it works." This "original state" determines the CPC's essence of being established for the public good, where everything is centered on the people without any private interest for the Party; it determines the CPC's capability to lead the trend of the times, leading the people forward with foresight; and it determines the CPC's character of not fearing sacrifice and working hard, becoming the source of the Party's self-revolution.
Third, practicing the "pure form" becomes the inexhaustible motive force for the Party’s self-revolution. The "pure state" established by the Party’s original aspiration sets up a mirror for the Party to "straighten the cap and distinguish right from wrong," providing a momentum for correct self-evaluation and never being self-satisfied, as well as an inexhaustible drive for the courage of self-revolution. The Party's "pure form" and "actual state" reflect and interact with each other throughout the Party's historical development. The "pure form" is not only realized but also increasingly enriched and perfected within the constantly changing "reality"; and by "remaining true to our original aspiration," the Party gains the inexhaustible drive to maintain its advanced nature and purity. Standing on "original aspiration," we can clarify our direction and strengthen our confidence in moving forward; using "original aspiration" as a mirror, we can always discover our own shortcomings and overcome feelings of complacency and slackness; practicing "original aspiration," we not only feel the sacred urgency of our mission but also deeply understand that the fundamental key to overcoming all external challenges lies in the courage to turn the blade inward—"it takes a good blacksmith to make good steel."
- "Remaining true to our original aspiration" provides road confidence for correctly recognizing history through "historical trajectory"
History is the foundation upon which a country or a political party stands. Occupying the high ground of history is the basis for possessing moral power; if one cannot grasp history, one will inevitably be subverted, as it is said, "to destroy a nation, one must first remove its history" [21]. "Remaining true to our original aspiration" deepens the Marxist cognitive understanding of historical laws and strengthens the Party's road confidence.
First, historical trajectory and objective, true history. The importance of studying history is centrally manifested in the opening of a road: "Using history as a mirror, one can know the rise and fall of dynasties." However, studying history is also difficult because there are always divergent opinions and no consensus on how to evaluate the path traveled and the path currently being taken; different views of history indeed reveal different "histories," making it difficult to distinguish the true from the false. Thus, grasping objective and true history is not only a difficult problem but even a question of whether it is possible. Although Marxism established the objective basis of historical laws through the movement of basic social contradictions, how to correctly grasp these objective laws is the key issue. How to look back at the road traveled, how to step out on the road beneath our feet, and how to open the road ahead all require a "front sight"—for "direction determines the road." "Remaining true to our original aspiration" is this front sight. With this front sight, the historical logic at the theoretical level becomes the reality of the "Chinese path."
By taking the "original aspiration" as the reference point and comparing it against the path traveled, a true historical trajectory can be formed, rendering successes, failures, gains, and losses clear at a glance. "Remaining true to the original aspiration" provides the Communist Party of China (CPC) with an objective basis for accurately identifying the roads the Party has traversed. The "original aspiration" establishes "direction," yet unlike an "ideal," it is not an unfulfilled future but rather a "point of origin" already established, and thus possesses objective reality. In this way, history is no longer an elusive illusion, much less a lump of dough to be kneaded at will [22], but an objective object that can be scientifically understood. The direct reality of the original aspiration’s role in identifying the path already traveled allows us to recognize exactly how this journey was made and to face historical truth correctly. Only through historical truth can there be true historical cognition, and only then can one truly possess history through the process of learning.
Second, the historical trajectory and the correct understanding of history. The historical trajectory established by the "original aspiration" provides a yardstick for evaluating history and a benchmark for self-correction. By constantly returning to this historical trajectory, the Party can resolve the question of which path to take while simultaneously strengthening "path confidence." This is the reason Marx emphasized that the revolutionary cause of the working class must "criticize itself constantly, interrupt itself continually in its own course, return to the apparently accomplished in order to begin it afresh." Only by having the courage to face history squarely can one stop, return to what has already been done, and do it over again; only by seeking the correct path can one sustain a historical trajectory characterized by direct reality. This is a historical attitude unique to the working class and its political party.
To understand history correctly, the key lies in the courage to face history, especially its setbacks and one’s own weaknesses. "Remaining true to the original aspiration" establishes the confidence to face history squarely from two perspectives. On one hand, "remaining true to our original aspiration and keeping our mission firmly in mind" determines the essence and mainstream of the Party's history, ensuring that recognizing historical truth does not lead to historical nihilism—which fundamentally negates one's own history. On the other hand, "remaining true to our original aspiration and keeping our mission firmly in mind" also dictates that only by having the courage to negate one's self, the bravery to discover problems, and a constant attitude of self-criticism and self-reflection can one truly make continuous progress through the study of history. Otherwise, one will inevitably drift further away from the original aspiration and founding mission.
Third, pioneering the future and letting history inform the future. Modern Western ideology negates objective laws on the grounds that the future is not a necessary extension of history, labeling such views as "historical determinism." As is well known, although Marxism recognizes historical necessity, it does not in the least deny historical contingency or certain unpredictable factors of the future. However, the future direction and grand goals of human history are determined, because they are not merely human value aspirations but are objective trends comprehensively prescribed by subjective and objective factors aimed at sweeping away historical malaise and resolving principal contradictions. Today, whether acknowledged or not, eliminating polarization, achieving common prosperity, and realizing the free and well-rounded development of individuals have become irresistible historical trends. Our innovation lies in regarding the "path" as the foundation for determining the fate of the nation and realizing the prospects of human civilization.
For history to inform the future, the prerequisite is a correct path. Continuously deepening the understanding of historical laws through the opening of a path is the CPC's way to success. Striving for the motherland, the nation, the people, and for world peace and progress is the inexhaustible motivation for Chinese Communists to "shed their blood and sacrifice their lives" [23], struggling and fighting without cease. The footprints left and the journeys made during this process form an indelible historical memory, construct the CPC's powerful historical confidence, and become the "historical initiative" [24] that inspires the whole Party toward continuous self-revolution and self-purification, internalizing into the conscious power of the Party's self-revolution. As Mao Zedong pointed out: "Countless revolutionary martyrs have laid down their lives in the interests of the people, and our hearts are filled with pain as we the living think of them; can there be any personal interest, then, that we would not sacrifice or any error that we would not discard?"
3. "Remaining true to the original aspiration" establishes the foundation for preventing power corruption through a "unified historical subject"
"Remaining true to the original aspiration" allows us to correctly pose the question of deepening the Party's self-revolution from the perspective of the historical subject. If we focus on the status quo in isolation, the Party and the people appear to be two separate groups, which frequently creates dilemmas regarding the consistency of "Party character" (党性 dǎngxìng) and "people-centered character" (人民性 rénmínxìng). Consequently, the Party's self-revolution might easily be seen merely as an external necessity to meet situational challenges. It might even seem "justifiable" to claim the Party has its own interests distinct from the people, completely conflating the Communist Party with modern Western political parties. "Remaining true to the original aspiration" proposes and resolves the relationship between the Party and the people from a new perspective: by incorporating it into the generative process of the "historical subject." From the perspective of the original aspiration and founding mission, the birth of the CPC was entirely a response to the needs of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and the liberation of the Chinese people; it has no special interests of its own. As a historical subject, the Party is completely integrated into the people as the subject; there is no issue of "two subjects." The unity of the Party and the people as the historical subject fundamentally establishes the political consciousness that the Party lacks its own special interests and that "everything is people-centered." The CPC emerged at the right moment because, without it, the people could not be truly organized to become an organic historical subject. The Communist Party is the political core that "instills" advanced ideology into the people and leads them forward through its own struggle and sacrifice. To manage China's affairs well, the key lies in the Party.
"Remaining true to the original aspiration" demonstrates that the formation of the people as the historical subject inherently includes two inseparable aspects: upholding Party leadership and preventing the Party from becoming detached from the people during the process of realizing the people's interests and will. Any attempt to sever the CPC from the Chinese people and the Chinese nation is a foolish plot. From this understanding, two basic viewpoints emerge: first, upholding Party leadership and the guiding role of Marxism in the ideological sphere is not merely a question of the CPC's governing power, but the more fundamental issue of safeguarding the people's status as the historical subject. Second, preventing the corruption and degeneration of the Communist Party is not just the Party's own business, but concerns the fundamental interests and will of the Chinese people and the Chinese nation. Therefore, the people's supervision of the Communist Party must, in the final analysis, be implemented through the Party's self-revolution. This is a deepening of the answer to how to "leapfrog the historical cycle" [25] of rise and fall through "people's supervision of the government"—it is the "second answer" [26] harvested by Chinese Communists to solve this historical conundrum.
The unity of the Party and the people as the historical subject greatly deepens our understanding of how to prevent the Party's corruption and degeneration.
First, it establishes the historical basis for the CPC’s "unwillingness to be corrupt." State power is a special public power formed in class societies that spontaneously tends to place itself above society. Using public power for private gain and detaching from the people is its inertia; hence the saying "power leads to corruption." Governing without corruption has thus become a major challenge for ruling parties in all countries. Western countries, believing in the inherent selfishness of human nature, reject the possibility of an "unwillingness to be corrupt." Instead, they use the "knave hypothesis" [27] as the value premise for anti-corruption design, attempting to solve the problem by strengthening institutional constraints and punishments. However, facts have proven that rigid institutions alone cannot completely control "living" people. Even if the problem of poor institutional implementation is excluded, at most a baseline can be maintained to prevent corruption from becoming a widespread trend; it is impossible to address both the symptoms and the root causes.
Marxism holds that the selfishness of human nature is the historical accumulation of private property relations, particularly the product of human "reification" in capitalist society. Like private property itself, it is bound to be transformed in the historical process of humanity moving toward the elimination of classes and exploitation. Thus, it is not human nature that creates history, but history that changes human nature. Regarding the selfishness of human nature as an eternal and unchanging law of nature is a fabrication of capitalist ideology. History proves that changing the human nature accumulated over the capitalist era—much like the disappearance of the capitalist system and class society—is not a spontaneous, gradual process, but a great leap forward that can only be achieved through conscious effort and many historical "qualitative changes."
Party character, based on class nature, embodies the historical progressiveness of the advanced class and is the leading force for historical advancement. The first to break through the condition and concepts of privatized human nature are the advanced social forces embodying the class nature of the modern proletariat, concentrated in the "Party character" of the proletarian party. The great founding spirit of the Party, including "practicing the original aspiration and shouldering the mission," has greatly advanced Marxist party-building theory and revealed the internal mechanism of human transformation under socialist revolution. It is precisely the political stance of the working class and the power of Marxist truth that ensure "serving the people whole-heartedly" is no longer a slogan or decoration, but the conscious action of millions of Communists. This establishes the advantage of the "unwillingness to be corrupt" theory—a core component of the anti-corruption theory with Chinese characteristics—and creates a path to address corruption at its root. The Party's "original aspiration and founding mission" show that Party character and people-centered character are highly consistent. Through the continuous mutual transformation of the two in specific historical developments, the state of human nature and its concepts in society are gradually changed, creating a clean and upright political atmosphere for anti-corruption. Facts prove that it is not abstract human nature that creates history, but Party character and people-centered character that lead history and change human nature.
Understanding oneself through the people to achieve consciousness and freedom is the CPC's magic weapon for victory. "Putting the people in the highest position in one’s heart" and living up to the people's choice and the nation's trust has become the Party's autonomous consciousness. Recognizing a gap between the Party and the people's expectations is no longer just an external comparison, but an internal need to "reflect on oneself three times a day" [28]. Governing for the people and perfecting the systems of "supervision by the people" and "self-supervision" to prevent corruption are no longer merely institutional constructions; they are the Party's self-revolution to prevent "two-faced persons" and "split personalities," embodying the unique advantage of the "unwillingness to be corrupt." Continuously deepening the correct understanding of the Party's "purest form" gives the Party a clear direction in strengthening its own development. This leap in understanding has shifted the focus of the Party's self-revolution from an external necessity of adapting to situational developments to an internal pursuit of maintaining the people's status as the historical subject.
Second, it bridges the gap between "self-supervision" and "supervision by the people," establishing an "all-encompassing" anti-corruption mechanism. Marxism holds that the state can only move toward withering away through the dictatorship of the proletariat because only once the proletariat has seized state power can the state be gradually returned from being a product of "irreconcilable class contradictions" to its original function as a social public entity that is "people-centered." Therefore, the process of preventing corruption is also the process of urging state power to serve the people and return to the people. The key lies in the ruling party transforming the people's supervision of power into a "blade turned inward" [29] self-revolution. To Western countries, this sounds like a fairy tale. The reason they regard the separation of powers and the rotation of parties as necessary conditions for checks and balances and the prevention of corruption is the belief that self-supervision is impossible. However, the practice of the CPC demonstrates that the unification of the people as the historical subject provides the historical basis for this transformation.
Primarily, the unification of the people as the historical subject establishes the realistic possibility for the Party to "put the people in the highest position in its heart." The process of the unification of the people as the subject is a two-way process in which the Party integrates into the people and the people unite and organize around the Party. Among these, "putting the people in the highest position in one’s heart" is fundamental. The Party's original aspiration and mission dictate that the people are the foundation of the historical subject; for the Party to become the "soul and backbone" of the people as the subject, this must be manifest in the establishment of the people's subjective status. The complete eradication of special interests distinct from those of the people is the objective basis for upholding the "people-first" principle. The consistent cultivation of Marxist ideals and beliefs and the transformation of worldviews are the ideological basis. Maintaining that Party discipline is stricter than state law and comprehensively and strictly governing the Party provide the institutional guarantee. Therefore, putting the people in the highest position in one’s heart is the process of unswervingly maintaining the people's status as the historical subject and preventing the Party from becoming detached from the people. Only when the people hold the subjective position can their voices be heard, remembered, and taken to heart. Only when the people become the "God" [30] in one’s heart will the people's supervision no longer be a mere external pressure, but an internal need of the Party transformed into self-supervision.
Secondly, the integration of the people as the subject lays the institutional foundation for the unification of self-supervision and oversight by the people [31]. This constitutes the system that integrates the leadership of the Party, the people being masters of the country, and the law-based governance of the country. On the eve of the founding of New China, Mao Zedong solemnly proposed: "Ours is a people’s democratic dictatorship; governments at all levels must add the word 'people' to their names, and all organs of state power must also add the word 'people.' For example, courts are called People's Courts and the army is called the People's Liberation Army, to demonstrate the difference between us and the Chiang Kai-shek regime." This established the subjective status of the people from the perspective of the state system [32] and fundamentally defined the relationship between state power and the people. Holding power on behalf of the people and serving the people became the fundamental attributes of state power, fundamentally distinguishing it from the so-called "modern state" of the West. "Remaining true to our original aspiration and keeping our mission firmly in mind" realizes the historical status of the people as masters of the country from the perspective of the state subject, achieving the unity of the ownership and the exercise of power.
The modern Western state system remains, in essence, a bureaucratic system. The fundamental nature of this system is that it reverses its relationship with the people, treating itself as the end and the people as a tool. Formalism and bureaucratism are its chronic institutional maladies. As Marx pointed out: "The bureaucracy takes itself to be the ultimate purpose of the state," so "it comes into conflict everywhere with 'real' purposes. It is therefore compelled to pass off what is formal as the content and what is content as something formal." Making a great fuss over forms such as the separation of powers, the rotation of political parties, and voting democracy, and flaunting these as true democracy, is not only a manipulation of public opinion but also an evasion of the people's supervision over state power. Fundamentally, the bureaucracy fears listening to the voice of the people and resents their criticism and oversight of state power. Therefore, no matter how much its institutional forms are refined, they cannot change the essence of state power standing above the people. Those in power are not enthusiastic about the people's political participation or political supervision; representing public opinion is always a pragmatic show for the sake of soliciting votes—the equivalent of hanging a sheep's head while selling dog meat [33].
This means that preventing the Party's corruption and degeneration is, at its root, a matter of maintaining the people’s status as the subjects of history. From the Party’s current state, there indeed exists the risk of deviating from the "original aspiration" and forming special interests that override the interests of the people. However, the integration of the Party and the people as historical subjects indicates that there is no opposition of interests between the two. By "remaining true to our original aspiration," the Party can solve the grave challenge of potential degeneration. Based precisely on this understanding, we dare to face the real dangers of "slacking in spirit, lack of ability, being detached from the masses, and passivity and corruption." With the spirit of "always being on the road to the exam" [34], we withstand the "test of governance, the test of reform and opening up, the test of the market economy, and the test of the external environment." Using the Party's self-revolution to lead the great social revolution led by the Party—this shift in emphasis fundamentally reveals the substance of the Party's self-revolution and self-supervision.
Finally, the integration of the people as the subject has initiated the great struggle of "anti-corruption is always on the road," laying the groundwork for the Party’s uncompromising resolve against corruption. Putting the people at the center is the source of the Party’s strength to carry out comprehensive, thorough, and continuous anti-corruption efforts. Corrupt elements are in complete opposition to the people. Whether corruption can be thoroughly eradicated is, in the final analysis, a contest between the position of upholding the supremacy of the people and the anti-people position. Our Party can tackle chronic ailments and chaos with the mission-driven responsibility of "offending thousands to avoid failing 1.4 billion," achieving an overwhelming victory in the anti-corruption struggle. The root of this lies in sticking to the supremacy of the people.
The interests of the people are the real interests of humanity; they are also the long-term interests that determine the prospects of human civilization. Being interests recognized by history, they are invincible. Whether one upholds or violates the interests of the people is the fundamental value scale for distinguishing right from wrong and good from evil. The unremitting fight against corruption has won the hearts and minds of the people and brought them great satisfaction; this is the source of our resolve to never be soft-handed in our anti-corruption efforts. Ultimately, no matter how many corrupt individuals there are, they are but a tiny minority; no matter how fierce their momentum, it is but a flash in the pan; no matter how many tricks they play, they cannot escape the net of the people's law. History has repeatedly proven that all reactionary and decadent forces standing on the opposite side of the people will eventually be eliminated by history.
The realization of the people as historical subjects means, on the one hand, that the people truly become masters in the state, and on the other, that state personnel truly become public servants. Therefore, developing whole-process people's democracy is a considerably long historical process. Correspondingly, anti-corruption must be a long-term task running through it, and we must not slacken because an overwhelming victory has already been achieved.
The basic logic of the new type of anti-corruption is: taking the firm ideal and belief in communism as the core; taking "remaining true to our original aspiration and keeping our mission firmly in mind" as an eternal theme; consciously accepting effective supervision by the people in the spirit of "taking the exam"; promoting the Party's self-purification, self-perfection, self-innovation, and self-improvement through ideological self-purification; and leading the great social revolution led by the Party through the Party’s self-revolution. It can be said that we have found the answer to always maintaining the Party's advanced nature and purity, withstood the test of long-term governance, and basically solved the world-class puzzle of how a governing party can resist corruption and promote integrity.
IV. Deepening Dialectical Thinking with "Community Consciousness" and Strengthening Moral Confidence
Dialectical thinking is the essence of the Marxist worldview and methodology; it is the substance of theoretical thinking. Engels said: "A nation that wants to stand on the highest peaks of science cannot survive for a moment without theoretical thinking." Dialectical thinking includes the scientific holistic thinking that grasps things from their universal connections and changes, the revolutionary critical thinking that observes reality and identifies history through the process of metabolism and "discarding the old to bring forth the new" [35], and the strategic artistic thinking of transforming negative factors into positive ones and passivity into initiative. Due to the imbalance of historical development, the dialectical thinking that reflects this process not only presents different characteristics under different historical conditions but also promotes its own development accordingly.
Changes in the times determine transformations in the mode of thinking. The world in the 21st century is, on the one hand, complex, volatile, and fraught with danger; on the other hand, the development of various countries is deeply integrated, such that no one can do without the others. The mode of thinking must adapt to and lead this state of "contention without collapse." Elevating Marxist dialectical thinking to the new perspective of community thinking is an important contribution of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era to philosophical thought. Since dialectical thinking is not an abstract form of thought but an intellectual horizon that reveals the change and development of things, it determines the moral foundation of historical activity.
It is not difficult to find that in all the major issues concerning the "questions of the times" and on all major occasions, "community" thinking is present in Xi Jinping's logic. In explaining the relationship between humans and nature, there are terms such as "a community of life for man and nature" and "a maritime community with a shared future"; in explaining international relations, there are "a community with a shared future for humanity," "an Asian (Asia-Pacific) community with a shared future," "a China-Africa community with a shared future," "a China-LAC (Latin American and Caribbean) community," "a China-Arab community with a shared future," "a community with a shared future for neighboring countries," and "a community with a shared future in cyberspace," etc. in explaining China’s own survival and development, there are "a community for the Chinese nation" [36], "a community of social governance," and "a community with a shared future across the Taiwan Strait," etc. In the explanation of the connotation of "community," there are "a community of interests," "a community of responsibility," and "a community with a shared future." However, the most fundamental, core, and influential is "a community with a shared future for humanity," which has been written into United Nations resolutions six consecutive times.
1. Community thinking is the need for the Sinicization and modernization of dialectical thinking
The irreversible trend of economic globalization shows that we are currently at a historical turning point—that is, the common interests of humanity outweigh the interests of division and confrontation, which is becoming a recognized fact. Because the past several thousand years of human civilization were written through contradictory confrontations, the role of humanity's common interests was severely obscured. As Engels said: "Since the foundation of civilization is the exploitation of one class by another, its whole development moves in a continuous contradiction. Every advance in production is at the same time a retrogression in the condition of the oppressed class, that is, of the great majority. What is a boon for the one is necessarily a misfortune for the other; each new emancipation of one class means a new oppression for another class." The results of historical progress were ultimately seized by a small number of exploiters, concealing the historical reality that human beings' real common interests (i.e., developing the productive forces) determine the direction of historical progress and that the masses are the subjects of historical activity. Meanwhile, selfish narrow interests seemed to naturally become the driving force and value standard of history. But today, the social productive forces led by economic globalization have continuously broken through the narrow profit-seeking vision of capital and expanded the world-historical horizon of contemporary humanity. The common requirement to develop globalized productive forces has caused the phenomenon and essence of history to converge within the powerful wave of economic globalization. Advocating for a community with a shared future for humanity is to reveal the historical truth hidden behind the phenomena. Its increasingly broad international recognition is a manifestation of this major historical change.
It must be pointed out that revealing this major turning point in historical development is not easy. Economic trends do not automatically point out the direction of history, and even the most obvious facts possess a contradictory nature and can be interpreted from different ideological perspectives. The reason bourgeois ideology can explain the common interest in developing socialized productive forces as a requirement of the nature of individual self-interest—transforming it into a common social pursuit of maximizing self-interest—is that the liberation of social productive forces against feudal dependence could be based on either abstract reified individuals or socialized humanity. Since capital had already gained a dominant position within feudal society, the capitalist mode of production and the Enlightenment thought centered on the abstract individual gradually came to dominate society. In this way, the development requirements of the socialized productive forces were pocketed by capitalism, and private property actually became the "natural system" most in line with human nature. Although the historical materialism founded by Marx has already shattered this capitalist myth, the absolute dominance of the capitalist mode of production means this myth has not yet been fundamentally shaken. Therefore, revealing the requirements of the contemporary common interests of humanity requires, on the one hand, a new type of discourse that can effectively break through the Western ideological discourse system, and on the other hand, it must be supported by a powerful practical foundation. The community with a shared future for humanity came into being from this.
The community with a shared future for humanity reveals the objective fact that economic links between countries are becoming increasingly close and no one can do without the others, as determined by the development of the productive forces under economic globalization. At the same time, it points out the common human values that adapt to this objective trend—namely, win-win cooperation based on peaceful development, openness and inclusiveness, and green and shared development. Facts speak louder than words. Although fierce interest confrontations still exist in the contemporary world, and there are even vested interest groups acting against the tide of history, none can deny that "humanity today is better equipped than ever before to move together toward the goals of peace and development." Therefore, once the community with a shared future for humanity was proposed, it immediately produced a major response and formed a broad consensus. The scientific grasp of the characteristic of the times—the major change in the power balance between common interests and narrow interests in the contemporary world—is the temporal basis for the deepening of dialectical thinking into community thinking.
More importantly, building a community with a shared future for humanity is the basic concept of China's opening up and the construction of a new type of international relations in the New Era. It is the strategic guidance to ensure that our country continuously expands its autonomous opening up, thereby possessing a profound practical foundation. The development of contemporary China has reached such a historical starting point: the path of Chinese-path modernization has been opened. It is not only consistent with the trend of world peace and development but also provides a Chinese solution for overcoming the clash of civilizations and creating a new form of human civilization. China needs peaceful development and win-win cooperation, and so does the world; China’s development cannot be separated from the world, and the world’s development also needs China. The mutual opening up, equality, and mutual benefit between China and all countries in the world are themselves the trend of the times. The objective trend of the synchronous intertwining of the strategic overall situation of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and the world’s great changes unseen in a century is the Chinese fulcrum for the deepening of dialectical thinking into community thinking.
2. The philosophical wisdom embedded in community thinking for resolving real-world risks
The once-in-a-century changes are accelerating, and the world today has entered a new period of turbulence and transformation, meaning that challenges and risks are increasing daily. This is manifested in the fact that "unilateralism, protectionism, and bullying are intensifying, and the governance deficit, trust deficit, development deficit, and peace deficit are increasing rather than decreasing." Although these are facts evident to all, they can still run rampant and are not easily curbed. In addition to the arrogance of some Western countries led by the United States relying on their advantageous positions to stubbornly cling to their own selfish interests, their beautification of extremely ugly behavior as defending the current international order and "universal values" is also quite inflammatory. "Community" thinking embodies the revolutionary critical spirit of dialectical thinking, but more importantly, it highlights the critical art of being good at struggle in the New Era.
First, community thinking counters the retrograde actions of Western "Cold War mentality," which obscures the actual crises of the current world, deliberately fabricates imaginary enemies, and even attempts to confuse public opinion by "shifting the blame." The greatest risk in the contemporary world is the massive pressure of a long-term economic downturn; the greatest threat is a "Cold War mentality" characterized by beggar-thy-neighbor policies, "zero-sum games," and unilateral sanctions; the greatest challenge is the increasing rampancy of hegemonism, unilateralism, and protectionism. Regarding the slanders of the West that turn black into white, we must, of course, respond appropriately and with full justification. However, dismantling today's "Cold War mentality" cannot mean returning to the Cold War era of ideological confrontation, for to deviate from the era's trend of peace and development would ultimately result only in a fruitless lose-lose situation.
The philosophical wisdom of "community thinking" lies in using the realistic common interests of human peace and development to shatter the false consciousness of Western ideology and to oppose the generalization of the "national security" concept, the abuse of state power to suppress others, and the politicization of economic and trade issues. No matter how the West continues to manufacture the myth of a "China threat," it cannot deny the basic fact that China is a builder of world peace, a contributor to global development, a defender of the international order, and a provider of public goods. Furthermore, the concept centered on a community with a shared future for humanity is being effectively advanced through China’s active advocacy and unremitting efforts, showing bright prospects. History will not allow itself to be dressed up by Western public opinion, nor will the trends of the times dance to Western desires. Facts fully prove Marx’s famous saying: "'The idea' always disgraced itself insofar as it detached itself from 'interest.'"
Second, community thinking unmasks the hypocrisy of the West’s high-profile formation of "value-based alliances," which beautify bullying cliques as "defenders of human justice." By virtue of its dominant power over the social production of the spirit, capitalism has long used terminal values common to humanity—such as freedom, equality, democracy, and human rights—as a halo to cover its bloody history of accumulation and its nature of brutal exploitation and oppression. Today, however, as it raises the banner of "defending values of freedom and democracy," it does so primarily to serve its small international cliques. Due to the decline of the United States, its attempt to maintain world hegemony with its own strength alone is clearly beyond its capacity; therefore, it needs to pull in accomplices. In today's world, where calls for the democratization of international relations are rising, this kind of ganging up is naturally unpopular and can only seek the halo of "value-based alliances" to bolster its courage. Yet, it must also be seen that this "alignment" based on narrow interests cannot be dismantled through the formation of exclusive counter-alliances. The method of forming alliances is contrary to the trend of a new type of international relations characterized by openness, inclusiveness, equality, and mutual benefit; there is no way forward through bloc confrontation.
The philosophical wisdom of "community thinking" lies in using realistic common interests as a bond to form an ever-expanding force for historical progress—not an alliance, yet superior to an alliance. In this process, it promotes the integrated development of all countries through extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits, continuously improving world industrial chains and expanding economic globalization, thereby laying the foundation for the establishment of a more fair and just new type of international relations. A community with a shared future for humanity possesses an openness that does not monopolize interests, a justice characterized by equality and mutual benefit, and a progressiveness that seeks peace, development, and the opening of the future. It does not possess the exclusivity targeted at specific countries, the bullying nature that manufactures confrontation and conflict, or the double standards used to maintain selfish interests.
Third, community thinking corrects the Western bias that distorts the common interests of contemporary humanity and misleads on global issues such as "climate change" and "environmental issues." Faced with the powerful trend of the times, Western countries cannot help but confront the common interests of humanity regarding global issues like climate and environment. However, instead of basing these common interests on the principle of "common but differentiated" responsibilities and the comprehensive implementation of green development, they shift the blame onto the rapid development of developing countries, especially China, ultimately aiming to restrict and suppress the development of these nations. Thus, the very fields where "common interests" are most recognized have become the most intractable real-world challenges, harboring significant risks. Developing countries are perfectly justified in seeking their own development based on the fact that environmental problems stem from the historical debts [37] of capitalism. Yet the United States and other Western countries one-sidedly focus on current GDP energy consumption and carbon emissions; they not only believe themselves to be leading the direction of contemporary global issues but also attempt to muddy the waters by classifying China and others as "developed countries" that should bear more responsibility.
The philosophical wisdom of community thinking lies in moving the base point for unifying history and reality onto realistic common points through the concept of "green production and lifestyles." In this way, statistics on GDP energy consumption shift from pure production to covering both production and daily life, and the "differentiated" principle based on historical debts is transformed into different target years for achieving "carbon peak" and "carbon neutrality," thereby providing new ideas for developing countries to lead on this global issue. "Green production and lifestyles" strikes at the heart of the West’s stance on global issues like climate. The so-called "freedom and human rights" they defend are not only political privileges for the few, but also an anti-green, unsustainable, high-energy-consumption lifestyle in terms of development, exposing their perennial double standards.
- Community Thinking Lays the Foundation for Our International Discourse Style and Power
As a dominant force for world hegemony, capitalism not only conducts exploitation and oppression politically and economically but also carries out cultural enslavement. Therefore, the Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation, which resists capitalist dominance, must necessarily undergo a historic leap from "standing up" and "becoming prosperous" to "becoming strong," solving the three major problems of being "attacked," "starved," and "scolded" [38]. That is to say, in addition to political and economic strength, we must also achieve cultural strength and dominance in international discourse power. Compared to the "trading of insults" during the revolutionary period, which only solved the problem of revolutionary legitimacy, this is an even more arduous and complex task. Standing at the historical starting point of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics in the New Era, community thinking occupies the contemporary moral high ground and lays the foundation for our international discourse power.
Community thinking establishes a discourse system based on the common values of all humanity, ensuring maximum recognition in international exchanges. The common values of all humanity are the basis for dialogue, exchange, and cooperation among all countries, as well as the moral foundation for our advocacy of building a community with a shared future for humanity. We base ourselves on "upholding the common human values of peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom, safeguarding human dignity and rights, promoting the formation of more just, reasonable, and inclusive global human rights governance, and jointly building a community with a shared future for humanity to create a better future for the world."
The common values of all humanity established by community thinking possess historical progressiveness and therefore have a bright future. These values echo the themes of the times—peace and development—conform to the requirements for global governance that is more just, reasonable, and inclusive, and embody the historical direction of creating a better future through the construction of a community with a shared future for humanity. It can be seen that the common values of all humanity are a product of theoretical thinking; their power is rooted in historical progress and cannot be one-sidedly reduced to the inclusiveness of "seeking common ground while reserving differences." While Western ideology still talks grandly today of freedom, democracy, and human rights, these have thoroughly degenerated into tools for seeking private gain and satisfying selfish desires; they are losing their discourse power. As Marx pointed out in Capital: "That brilliant theoretical capacity, which was considered the hereditary property of Germany, has completely disappeared from Germany's so-called educated classes, but it has been revived in the German working class." The instinctive resistance of declining historical forces toward historical laws and the historical future dooms the common values of all humanity to be a poor hand in their possession. Their essence—which is anti-freedom, anti-democracy, anti-human rights, and anti-human—will be fully exposed in the rolling torrent of history.
The guidance provided by the common values of all humanity is also driven by the Chinese-path modernization. Although the theoretical and value orientation of community thinking is to respect the diversity of civilizations and reflects the characteristics of seeking the "greatest common divisor" and drawing the "largest concentric circle" [39], this does not mean that history has no direction or that consensus is a "consensus without consensus." The greatest common divisor has prime factors, and the largest concentric circle has a "center," indicating that there are directions and bottom lines for the common values of all humanity. Diversity of civilizations is not in conflict with mutual learning between civilizations; it is precisely mutual learning that leads historical progress. The reason the Chinese-path modernization has such great appeal to many developing countries is that, from the perspective of values, it contains the essence of "people first," common prosperity, and the greatness of labor. "The people create history" and "labor creates history" are synonymous, and common prosperity is the historical necessity that reflects the people as the subject of history and labor as the source of progress. "The people create history, and labor opens the future. Labor is the fundamental force driving the progress of human society. Happiness does not drop from the sky, and dreams do not come true automatically. To achieve our goals and create a beautiful future, we must rely closely on the people, always serve the people, and rely on hard labor, honest labor, and creative labor. We say 'idle talk hurts the country, while solid work makes it flourish' [40]; solid work begins with down-to-earth labor." Therefore, the contemporary common values of humanity are both realistic and future-oriented.