Marxism Research Network
Unofficial English Translation

Xin Xiangyang: Grasping the Four Dimensions of Marxism in the 21st Century

Key Research

At the 2015 National Conference on Party Schools, Xi Jinping proposed the important proposition of "21st-century Marxism." He pointed out: "It is my hope that the Party schools, in light of the changing times and the development of practice, will strengthen theoretical synthesis and innovation, making efforts to develop 21st-century Marxism and contemporary Chinese Marxism." 21st-century Marxism is both a grand theoretical proposition and an extremely important practical proposition, requiring in-depth research and exploration by the theoretical community.

I. The Theoretical Dimension: 21st-Century Marxism is the Crystallization of Marxist Development over the Past 200 Years

21st-century Marxism is rich in meaning, and it is first and foremost a historical concept. While 21st-century Marxism is a Marxism that emerged and developed in the 21st century, it also condenses the entire essence of the development of Marxism since its founding. From 19th-century Marxism to 20th-century Marxism and then to 21st-century Marxism, these stages do not merely belong to the centuries in which they arose; they are necessarily and closely linked to the history that preceded them and the vast future ahead. Among these, 21st-century Marxism must open up even brighter prospects for humanity. Therefore, it is necessary to theoretically dispel various delusions [1] to correctly understand and fully interpret 21st-century Marxism.

(1) 21st-century Marxism must clear away the various delusions attached to 19th- and 20th-century Marxism

The further back history goes, the more delusions shroud thought; the history of the development of Marxism is no exception. Clearing away the thick dust of history is an important historical responsibility of 21st-century Marxism.

First, due to insufficient practical experience in socialist construction, some delusions were created by people in the course of practice. For example, the occurrence of the "Cultural Revolution" was related to our misunderstanding and dogmatization of Marxist principles. The Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party since the Founding of the People's Republic of China [2] clearly pointed out: "The reason the 'Cultural Revolution' could occur and last for ten years... had complex social and historical causes... Certain hypotheses and arguments in the works of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin were misunderstood or dogmatized, which instead gave them a semblance of 'theoretical basis.' For example: the view that the equal right of exchanging equal amounts of labor prevailing in the distribution of means of consumption in socialist society—what Marx called 'bourgeois right' [3]—should be restricted and criticized, and thus the principle of distribution according to work and the principle of material interest should be restricted and criticized; the view that after the basic completion of socialist transformation, small production would still engender capitalism and the bourgeoisie on a massive scale daily and hourly, thus forming a series of 'Left'ist urban and rural economic policies and class struggle policies; the view that ideological differences within the Party are all reflections of social class struggle, thus forming frequent and intense intra-Party struggles, and so on. This led us to treat delusions regarding the expansion of class struggle as the defense of the purity of Marxism." Mao Zedong spoke many times about the issue of "bourgeois right," believing that there would still be revolutions 100 or even 1,000 years later. This became one of his theoretical bases for "continuing the revolution." He always wanted to resolve the problem of "bourgeois right" in China. On October 20, 1974, meeting with the then-Prime Minister of Denmark, Poul Hartling, he said: "In short, China now belongs to the socialist countries. Before, it was much like capitalism. The eight-grade wage system, distribution according to work, and exchange through money—these differ little from the old society."

Second, some delusions were manufactured under the banner of Marxism by those who seek to revise, subvert, or oppose it. Lenin once pointed out: "The dialectics of history were such that the theoretical victory of Marxism compelled its enemies to disguise themselves as Marxists." Some Western scholars, under the banner of "Marxology" [4], manufacture an alleged antithesis between the "Young Marx" and the "Late Marx," between a humanistic Marx and a revolutionary Marx, or between Marx and Engels. Other Western scholars, under the banner of "Leninology," manufacture alleged "ruptures" in Leninism or an opposition between Marxism and Leninism, and so on.

Third, some delusions were manufactured by those who claim to improve, reconstruct, or reflect upon Marxism. The British scholar Terrell Carver pointed out in his book Marx [5] that as a great thinker and revolutionary, Marx "was criticized in the 1950s, revived in the 1960s, reconstructed in the 1970s, and began to be reinterpreted by post-Marxists in the late 1980s. Since the 1990s and the 21st century, some have come to believe that Marx is the primary theorist of globalization, occupying an important position in global studies and international political economy." Such scholars have reinterpreted many of Marx’s concepts and assertions, but some of their interpretations not only manufacture an "intellectual chasm" between Marx and Engels but also distort Marx's original intent. For example, Marx proposed the method of the consistency of the logical and the historical. Engels provided a systematic and comprehensive exposition of this method, in accordance with Marx’s original intent, in his August 1859 review of Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, Part One. However, some Western scholars believe Engels distorted Marx’s original meaning. For example, the well-known Canadian "Marxology" expert Marcello Musto holds this view. In Another Marx, he states that "Engels had clearly not read the 1857 'Introduction' [6]; in his 1859 review of the Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy, he wrote that the critique of political economy could be conducted in 'two ways: historically or logically,'" and "in short, Engels believed there was a parallelism between the historical and the logical, which Marx had categorically denied in the 'Introduction'." Musto's view is open to debate: First, Engels’ review was written based on a mastery of Marx’s 1857 "Introduction" to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy; without a full understanding of that essay, he could not have written a piece with such profound ideological content. Second, if one reads Engels’ discourse carefully, one can see that the thoughts of Marx and Engels are consistent. Engels expressed it this way: "The critique of economics could be handled in two ways, even according to the method already attained: historically or logically... Taken as a whole, the order in which economic categories appear is the same as the order in which they occur in their logical development... Thus, the logical method is the only applicable one. But this method is in fact nothing but the historical method, only stripped of its historical form and of interfering contingencies." Engels’ exposition is generally consistent with Marx’s thesis on the unity of the logical and the historical. Third, Engels repeatedly emphasized in this article that this was "the method we employ"—meaning this method was not just one summarized by Engels himself, but one mutually endorsed by him and Marx. We know that Engels wrote this book review at Marx's request, and Marx even suggested that Engels "briefly discuss the question of method and what is new in the content." After finishing the first part of the article, Engels sent it to Marx, asking him for revisions. From their correspondence, it is clear that Engels’ views received Marx’s affirmation.

(2) The task of truly elucidating the basic principles of Marxism is arduous

Due to various complex reasons, the further back history goes, the easier it becomes for the understanding of basic principles to grow blurred. From this perspective, the task of upholding the fundamentals [7] for 21st-century Marxism is extremely heavy.

The British Marxist researcher David McLellan states in Karl Marx: A Biography: "To understand Marx’s own thought, it is necessary to strip away many historical husks. For Marx’s thought has been obscured by many different interpretations and used to justify many different types of politics." Many people modify, reinterpret, or even distort and tamper with Marxism. For example, some scholars speak only of "practical materialism" instead of dialectical materialism and historical materialism; some scholars deny the three component parts of Marxism—philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism; some scholars do not acknowledge Marx's "five-stage" theory of social evolution, even claiming it was Stalin’s "fabrication" and invention [8]; and so on. In response to these doubts, Xi Jinping pointed out at the conference marking the 200th anniversary of Marx's birth: "Marxism is primarily composed of three parts: philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism," and "Marx scientifically revealed the inevitable trend of human society ultimately moving toward communism."

Particular attention must be paid to the fact that since the beginning of reform and opening up, because we support, encourage, and guide the rational development of the non-public sector of the economy, some people in China have come to believe that upholding public ownership is not a basic principle of scientific socialism. Because we have established, improved, and developed the socialist market economy system, some have proposed that the basic principle of scientific socialism regarding organized production is outdated. Furthermore, some foreign scholars have characterized socialism with Chinese characteristics as "capital-socialism," "state capitalism," or "neo-bureaucratic capitalism." Facing various domestic and foreign views questioning socialism with Chinese characteristics, Xi Jinping emphasized that socialism with Chinese characteristics is, in its essence, scientific socialism. The main contents of the basic principles of scientific socialism are: organizing social production on the basis of public ownership of the means of production, creating more abundant social products by exerting the efficiency of socialized production to continuously meet the needs of the masses; carrying out organized and purposeful regulation of social production to prevent the anarchy of production; implementing a distribution system that meets the requirements of future socialized production, practicing distribution according to work in the first stage of communism and distribution according to need in the higher stage; transforming and utilizing nature in accordance with natural laws; transitioning to the higher stage of communism—classless, exploitation-free, and stateless—through a state of the dictatorship of the proletariat; and so on.

II. The Historical Dimension: 21st-Century Marxism is a Marxism Rooted in the Development of Humanity in the 21st Century

The 21st century has already entered its third decade. Using the Marxist "Great View of History" [9] to grasp the major trends of human development in the 21st century is a vital method for correctly understanding this century.

(1) Grasping the future and destiny of humanity in the 21st century requires grasping the Marxist "View of the Century"

The founders of Marxism and their successors have always been able to view historical shifts on the scale of "Great History," searching for the laws of social development within the changing of centuries.

What kind of century was the 17th century? The famous British political scientist Harold Joseph Laski, in his The Dangers of Obedience and Other Essays (translated as An Interpretation of Thought), devoted a specific chapter to the "Seventeenth Century" to elaborate on its characteristics. He pointed out that the 17th century was considered an age of genius, where Newton, Descartes, Hobbes, Locke, Pascal, and others brilliantly developed the thoughts of their predecessors. From a Marxist perspective, the 17th century was the century when the capitalist system began to replace feudalism. The British bourgeoisie carried out a bourgeois revolution in the 17th century; this political revolution transformed into a more profound social revolution in the 18th century and drove the development of the American Revolution and the occurrence of the French Revolution. Engels pointed out: "The 17th-century English Revolution was precisely the precursor to the 1789 French Revolution. In the 'Long Parliament,' it is easy to recognize the three stages corresponding to the French Constituent Assembly, Legislative Assembly, and National Convention. The process of transition from constitutional monarchy to democracy, military despotism, restoration, and the moderate revolution is also clearly visible in the English Revolution. Cromwell combines Robespierre and Napoleon; the Presbyterians correspond to the Girondins, the Independents to the Mountain, and the Levellers to the Hébertists and Babouvists." Here, Engels emphasized the far-reaching influence of the 17th-century British bourgeois revolution. Marx also clearly stated: "The victory of the bourgeoisie meant the victory of a new social order, the victory of bourgeois ownership over feudal ownership."

What kind of century was the 18th century? Engels, in The Condition of England: The Eighteenth Century, wrote about the 18th...

He provided a scientific exposition on the characteristics of each century. He believed that the 18th century was the century in which humanity transitioned from a state of relative isolation and dispersion toward a state of regional integration and even certain global conditions. In the 18th century, the Germans carried out a philosophical revolution, the French carried out a political revolution, and the British carried out a revolution deeper than both—a social revolution. The 18th century was the century in which capital interests began to become prominent and further rose to become the dominant subject and ruling force; the American War of Independence and the French Revolution were both revolutions carried out for the sake of capital interests. All of this originated from the Industrial Revolution that unfolded deeply in 18th-century Britain. The "first result" of this revolution "was that interest was elevated to lordship over man. Interest took possession of the newly created industrial forces and exploited them for its own ends; as a result of private property, these forces, which by right belong to all of mankind, became the monopoly of a few rich capitalists and the means for the enslavement of the masses. Commerce swallowed up industry and thereby became omnipotent, became the bond of mankind; all intercourse, individual or national, was dissolved into commercial intercourse, which is the same as saying that property, things, were elevated to the lordship of the world." This was a century in which bourgeois rule was increasingly consolidated, and the productive forces created by the bourgeoisie were more and greater than those created by humanity in all preceding centuries combined.

What kind of century was the 19th century? Harold Laski stated in The Dangers of Obedience and Other Essays [10] that the 19th century was an era of the total triumph of liberalism. Since the Battle of Waterloo before the outbreak of World War I, no other doctrine in history had spoken with such an authoritative voice or exerted such a broad influence. Its victory was undoubtedly an extremely complex phenomenon—complex because, from the day of their birth, these phenomena intended to design themselves into a theory that could be worshiped at different altars. Plekhanov, on the other hand, pointed out: "Just as the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries were marked by the bourgeois liberation movement, the 19th century was the century of the working-class liberation movement. This is the most important characteristic of its cultural history and the most precious legacy it handed over to the 20th century." He added, "Due to this ferocious and short-sighted egoism... in the 19th century, the workers shed a lot of blood, and probably will shed much more in the 20th century. To oppose this egoism, the proletariat has only one means: to unite its own strength to seize political power." It can be said that the 19th century was the era of free-competition capitalism, a century of capitalist development and the continuous growth of proletarian strength.

What kind of century was the 20th century? Lenin emphasized in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism that starting from the end of the 19th century, capitalism moved from free competition toward the stage of monopoly, namely the stage of imperialism. "This book proves that the war of 1914–1918 was, on both sides, an imperialist (i.e., aggressive, predatory, brigand) war, a war for the division of the world, for the partition and repartition of colonies and 'spheres of influence' of finance capital, etc." Imperialism was not only the eve of the proletarian revolution but also the eve of national revolutionary movements in colonial and semi-colonial countries. Lenin pointed out: "Precisely as a result of the first imperialist war, the East has finally joined the revolutionary movement and has been finally drawn into the general maelstrom of the world revolutionary movement." It can be said that the first half of the 20th century was the era of imperialism and proletarian revolution; Lenin profoundly grasped this essence, leading the great victory of the October Revolution and opening a new era in human history. The second half of the 20th century was an era of coexistence and competition between two systems—capitalism and socialism—and two major camps, as well as the disintegration of the socialist camp and the falling of the socialist movement into a low ebb.

(2) The 21st century is an era of long-term cooperation and coexistence, as well as fierce competition, between militarized capitalism characterized by transnational monopolies in finance and information technology and Chinese-path socialism in the New Era

Surveying the 400-year history from the 17th to the 20th century, one can see that capitalism has progressed from the stage of free competition to the stage of monopoly capitalism, while monopoly capitalism has progressed from private monopoly to state monopoly, to transnational monopoly, and now toward the 21st-century trend of developing transnational monopolies in finance and information technology and militarization. This trend indicates that a new type of imperialism is taking shape.

Transnational monopoly in finance and information technology is an extremely important characteristic of contemporary capitalism. It uses finance overlaid with information technology to extract super-monopoly profits from most countries in the world, prompting its own continuous expansion and launching finance and information technology wars against other countries at critical moments. First, the capital of transnational finance and information technology companies is a type of capital that transcends time, space, and national borders, blending finance and information technology, and its expansion speed is extremely fast. Several finance and information technology companies in the United States have a market value of over 1.5 trillion USD. For example, on August 31, 2020, the market value of the American tech giant Tesla reached 470 billion USD; by May 6, 2022, its market value exceeded 8900 billion USD, far exceeding the annual GDP of many countries. That a company founded less than 20 years ago could develop to such a scale is the result of information technology overlaid with financial assets. Second, the capacity for transnational monopoly in finance and information technology has been greatly strengthened and exhibits borderless characteristics—namely, it has no temporal, spatial, industrial, national, or even moral boundaries. Transnational finance and information technology companies are fused with state power to exert powerful control over the world economic order and high-tech fields; once a conflict between states occurs, these companies become lethal weapons for certain countries. For instance, after the outbreak of the Russia-Ukraine war, the United States, along with the European Commission, Germany, France, the UK, Italy, and Canada, decided to exclude some Russian banks from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT) payment system. SWIFT has previously served as a tool for financial sanctions many times; financial institutions subjected to its sanctions are unable to participate in international capital flows. Excluding many Russian banks from this payment system effectively cuts off Russia's ties with the external economy and affects the long-term development of the Russian economy. Third, the barbarity of transnational monopoly in finance and information technology has intensified. This form of capitalism can weaponize many things: information technology is weaponized, financial tools are weaponized, and Facebook and various propaganda media are weaponized. This is a degenerated capitalism, a capitalism returning to the cave, a capitalism with greatly intensified barbarity.

Capitalist countries with transnational monopolies in finance and information technology engage not only in Cold War thinking but also in "Frigid War" thinking. They not only create "Iron Curtains" but also build "Bronze Walls." They practice not only unilateralism but also bloc politics and camp confrontation, basing their own security on the insecurity of other countries. Concepts such as the "Asia-Pacificization of NATO," the "League of Democracies," "Value-based Diplomatic Partners," and the "Five Eyes Alliance" constantly emerge. They aggressively apply double standards, abuse unilateral sanctions and "long-arm jurisdiction," and use various means to restrict and sanction so-called "disobedient, uncooperative, and rule-breaking" countries. Meanwhile, Chinese-path socialism in the New Era is developing and growing stronger, dealing with this constantly mutating capitalism and coexisting with it over a long historical period.

III. The Practical Dimension: Major Issues that 21st-Century Marxism Should Study

The development of 21st-century Marxism must closely focus on major practical issues. On April 25, 2022, during an inspection of Renmin University of China, Xi Jinping pointed out: "At present, the theory and practice of upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics have raised a large number of new problems in urgent need of solution. Changes unseen in a century in the world are accelerating, and the world has entered a new period of turbulence and transformation. We urgently need to provide sound answers to the questions of our times: 'What is happening to the world?' and 'Where is humanity headed?'" 21st-century Marxism should conduct in-depth research and provide profound answers to the many new problems raised in the process of upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics.

(1) Providing sound answers to the questions of where humanity is headed and toward what goals it should advance

This is the question of the century that 21st-century Marxism must answer, and it is a question that Marxists are truly able to answer clearly. In the 20th century, humanity experienced two world wars and a Cold War lasting over 40 years, during which there were also the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Iran-Iraq War, the Indo-Pakistani wars, etc., with the flames of war spreading across several continents. After the end of the Cold War, wars such as the Kosovo War, the US invasion of Afghanistan, the Iraq War, the Syrian War, the Yemen War, and the Russia-Ukraine war occurred. 21st-century Marxism must be committed to clearly answering the question of the future and destiny of humanity. The answer to this question should be approached from three aspects.

First, from the perspective of the 500-plus-year history of world socialism, humanity in the 21st century is still in the historical process pointed out by Marxism—the process of socialism replacing capitalism, a process of the continuous spiral ascent of socialism and the spiral descent of capitalism. Second, from the perspective of the 500-plus-year history since the Age of Discovery, humanity in the 21st century is still in the process of transitioning from national histories to world history, and from national and regional economies expanding toward a global economy; world history in its holistic sense and economic globalization based on a rational and just foundation have not yet been truly realized. Third, from the perspective of the 400-plus-year history since the Peace of Westphalia established the first system of international relations in the modern sense, the goal for which humanity has diligently striven is the establishment of a just and reasonable international order; 21st-century sake, humanity still must struggle for this. The principles of independent and equal sovereignty between nations, non-interference in internal affairs, and the balance of power established by European states at Westphalia in 1648 are actually impossible to realize due to the inherent contradictions of capitalism. Meghnad Desai, a member of the British House of Lords and a scholar, stated in Marx's Revenge: The Resurgence of Capitalism and the Death of Statist Socialism: "Starting from the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, the European state system evolved in a Eurocentric manner over the next three centuries, but its outward expansion and universalization principles belong to the second half of the 20th century." The construction of a new, fair, and reasonable international economic and political order should be based on a better social system.

(2) Providing sound answers to the question of how to continuously improve the socialist market economy system and enhance the ability to govern it

On April 29, 2022, during the 38th collective study session of the Political Bureau of the 19th CPC Central Committee, Xi Jinping emphasized that how to regulate and guide the healthy development of capital under the socialist system is a major theoretical and practical issue that Marxist political economy in the New Era must study and resolve. The socialist market economy system is an important part of the basic socialist economic system; the market must be allowed to play a decisive role in resource allocation, while the government's role must be better utilized. 21st-century Marxism must maintain long-term focus on the improvement and development of the socialist market economy system.

First, one must answer whether the socialist market economy system and the capitalist market economy system will converge, or whether there are essential differences between the two. The profit-seeking nature is a common attribute of capital under all social systems; whether it plays a positive or negative role depends on the social system in which that capital resides. The socialist system is a people-centered system; in the final analysis, the profit-seeking of capital must serve the realization of the people’s interests. The capitalist system is capital-centered, where the profit-seeking of capital is to realize the interests of a tiny minority. Second, we must fully leverage the superiority of the socialist market economy system to enable it to drive high-quality development of the economy and society better and faster. The greatest superiority of the socialist market economy system is the persistence of the Party’s leadership. On one hand, the Communist Party of China (CPC) is able—through self-revolution and the constant maintenance of the Party’s advanced nature and purity—to overcome the influence of vested interest groups and create a market environment where various ownership entities use resource elements equally according to the law, participate in competition fairly, justly, and openly, and receive equal legal protection. On the other hand, the CPC can continuously advance the construction of institutional mechanisms so that officials "dare not, cannot, and do not want to be corrupt," preventing the principles of commodity exchange from penetrating Party life. While preventing leading cadres from being "hunted" [17] by private interests, the Party can ensure they maintain a powerful capacity to govern the market economy.

(3) It is necessary to provide a sound answer to the basic trends and developmental states of the continued evolution of capitalism in the 21st century.

On December 3, 2013, during the eleventh collective study session of the Political Bureau of the 18th CPC Central Committee, Xi Jinping spoke on the "Two Must-Nevers" [18]. He pointed out: "This important thesis of Marx can help us understand why capitalism has not completely perished to this day, why socialism experienced setbacks such as the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe, and why the communism foreseen by Marxism requires a long period of historical development to be realized. By mastering this scientific worldview and methodology for recognizing and researching social-historical development, we can firm up the 'backbone' of our ideals, solidify the 'ballast' of our convictions, and maintain strong strategic resolve." 21st-century Marxism should focus on answering the following questions.

First, in what manner will capitalism continue to survive in the 21st century? In the 21st century, all fields in capitalist countries have been capitalized, including public health fields such as the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, where capital interests dominate. Since the outbreak of the pandemic, the death toll caused by COVID-19 in the United States, the most developed capitalist country, has exceeded one million. An important reason for this situation is that capital pursues its own interests and is unwilling to provide free vaccinations, nucleic acid testing, and other services for ordinary people—especially the elderly, the poor, ethnic minorities, and other vulnerable groups—let alone implement "dynamic zero-COVID" at the cost of harming capital interests. This naked profit-seeking has escaped the shackles of morality and the constraints of freedom, democracy, equality, fraternity, and human rights. Second, what changes have occurred in the forms of expression of the basic contradictions of capitalism? The basic capitalist contradiction between the socialization of production and the private appropriation of the means of production has taken on new forms: first, the contradiction between the strengthening international control of financial and information technology multinational corporations and the declining ability of many sovereign states to maintain their own sovereign security; second, the contradiction between powerful capital-owning elite groups and ordinary people whose various rights and interests are being continuously weakened. In 2021, while the world was fighting the COVID-19 pandemic, the revenues of the five major tech giants—Meta (formerly Facebook), Google, Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft—surged, with their combined takings exceeding $1.2 trillion, nearly $2000 billion more than in 2020. These companies not only override the domestic populace of the United States but also constitute a great threat to many sovereign states.

IV. The Dimensionality of the Era: Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era is 21st-Century Marxism

The Resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party over the Past Century points out: "Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era is contemporary Chinese Marxism and 21st-century Marxism. It embodies the best of Chinese culture and the spirit of our times and represents a new breakthrough in the Sinicization of Marxism."

(1) Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era has sounded the strongest note for defending, upholding, and developing Marxism in the 21st century.

As 21st-century Marxism, Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era links the Marxism of the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries; integrates Marxist philosophy, political economy, and scientific socialism; and connects socialism with Chinese characteristics with world socialism. Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era not only unequivocally upholds the basic principles of Marxism but also eliminates certain theoretical traps and errors; it not only soberly defends the scientific system of Marxism but also endows it with distinct contemporary content.

First, Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era has truly inherited Marxism. In response to phenomena in practical work where Marxism was marginalized, hollowed out, or labeled, as well as its "aphasia" in certain disciplines, "disappearance" from textbooks, and "silence" in forums, it explicitly proposes that although Marxism was born more than a century and a half ago, both history and reality have proven it to be a scientific theory that remains vigorously alive to this day. On the fundamental issue of upholding the guiding status of Marxism, we must be unswerving and must not waver in the slightest at any time or under any circumstances. Why the CPC "can" [19] and why socialism with Chinese characteristics is "good" is, fundamentally, because Marxism "works." Marxism provided a powerful ideological weapon for China's revolution, construction, and reform, leading China to create development miracles unprecedented in human history. It was entirely correct for history and the people to choose Marxism, and it is entirely correct for the CPC to write Marxism on its own banner. Adhering to the guidance of Marxism is the fundamental hallmark distinguishing contemporary Chinese philosophy and social sciences from others, and it must be maintained with a clear-cut stand.

Second, Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era has firmly defended Marxism. Regarding various theories and viewpoints that negate Marxism, Xi Jinping has always offered explicit refutations. In response to erroneous ideas and statements at home and abroad in recent years claiming that socialism with Chinese characteristics is "capital-socialism," "state capitalism," or "new bureaucratic capitalism," Xi Jinping has explicitly pointed out that these are entirely wrong. Socialism with Chinese characteristics is scientific socialism rooted in Chinese soil, reflecting the will of the Chinese people, and adapting to the developmental requirements of China and the times. In response to erroneous ideas and statements claiming that Marxist political economy and Das Kapital are outdated, Xi Jinping has explicitly pointed out that such claims are arbitrary. Since the international financial crisis, many Western scholars have also been re-studying Marxist political economy and Das Kapital to reflect on the flaws of capitalism.

Third, Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era has comprehensively innovated Marxism. It persists in combining the basic principles of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with China’s fine traditional culture. It profoundly answers major questions of the era such as: what kind of socialism with Chinese characteristics should be upheld and developed in the New Era and how to uphold and develop it; what kind of great modern socialist country should be built and how to build it; and what kind of Marxist party that exercises long-term governance should be built and how to build it—realizing a new breakthrough in the Sinicization of Marxism. Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era includes theses on the principal contradiction in our society in the New Era, the essence of the era in Chinese culture and the Chinese spirit, a new form of human advancement, the general principle of seeking progress while maintaining stability, and a systems thinking approach, thereby developing Marxist philosophy in an original way. It puts forward new connotations for the basic socialist economic system, grasps the new development stage, implements the new development philosophy, constructs the dual circulation development pattern, implements supply-side structural reform, prevents the disorderly expansion of capital, solidly promotes common prosperity, and implements the rural revitalization strategy, thereby developing Marxist political economy in an original way. It proposes that the most defining feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics is the leadership of the CPC; promotes the modernization of the national governance system and governance capacity; advances the construction of a system of socialist rule of law with Chinese characteristics; builds a socialist country under the rule of law; builds the people’s military into a world-class force; promotes the building of a community with a shared future for humanity; prevents the formation of interest groups within the Party; and asserts that the courage for self-revolution is the distinctive mark distinguishing the CPC from other parties—thereby developing scientific socialism in an original way.

(2) Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era focuses on the deepest questions concerning the development of China, the world, humanity, and the era in the 21st century, thereby developing Marxism.

As 21st-century Marxism, Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era answers the "Questions of China," the "Questions of the World," the "Questions of the People," and the "Questions of the Era." These are fundamental questions concerning the long-term development of Marxism and will profoundly influence China, human society, and the development of world socialism throughout the 21st century.

First, as 21st-century Marxism, Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era keeps its eyes on the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation—the highest and most fundamental interest of the nation—answering the "Question of China": "What kind of great rejuvenation to realize and how to realize it?" It emphasizes that a very important aspect of the New Era of socialism with Chinese characteristics is that all sons and daughters of the Chinese nation work together with one heart and strive to realize the Chinese Dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. The main task facing the Party in the New Era is to achieve the First Centenary Goal, embark on the new journey toward the Second Centenary Goal, and continue advancing toward the grand goal of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. The great achievements created by the people under the leadership of the CPC in the New Era have provided more refined institutional guarantees, a more solid material foundation, a more stable social foundation, and a more proactive spiritual force for the realization of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

Second, as 21st-century Marxism, Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era not only has a global vision, answering the "Question of the World"—"What is wrong with the world, and what should we do?"—with the sentiment of "When the Great Way prevails, the world is for the common good" (dadao zhi xing, tianxia wei gong) [20], but also excels at reflecting on major issues of common concern to people all over the world, such as "how to defeat the pandemic and how to build the post-pandemic world," through comparative analysis over long historical cycles. Xi Jinping profoundly grasps the multi-millennial course of human social development and, standing at the height of the philosophy of history, emphasizes the need to clarify major issues such as where we came from, where we are now, and where we are going. The lessons of history are painful and profound; they tell us: "Those who crave war shall surely perish" [21]. Only by persisting in communication, dialogue, and consultation can we achieve lasting peace for humanity. The most fundamental path for communication is the construction of a community with a shared future for humanity. Building a community with a shared future for humanity is a Chinese concept, a Chinese solution, and Chinese wisdom proposed by Xi Jinping with an eye on human development and the future of the world. It has not only received high praise and a broad welcome from the international community but has also greatly promoted the resolution of contradictions and problems in international society.

Third, as 21st-century Marxism, Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era is a theory for seeking happiness for the people, answering the "Question of the People": "What is a beautiful life and how to realize it?" It emphasizes that the principal contradiction in our society has evolved into the contradiction between the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life and unbalanced and inadequate development. To realize a better life for the people, we must profoundly grasp that these needs include not only higher material and cultural requirements but also demands for democracy, rule of law, fairness, justice, security, and the environment. We must focus on solving the primary aspect of this principal contradiction—unbalanced and inadequate development. It further emphasizes that as we move toward the Second Centenary Goal, we must adhere to the people-centered development philosophy, taking the promotion of common prosperity for all as the focal point of seeking happiness for the people and continuously consolidating the foundation for the CPC's long-term governance. The people-centered development philosophy inherently contains the requirement for realizing common prosperity; the common demand of the people is to achieve common prosperity in the shortest possible time. Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasized that common prosperity is an essential requirement of socialism, the common aspiration of the masses, and an important manifestation of the CPC’s fundamental purpose of serving the people wholeheartedly.

Fourth, as 21st...

As twenty-first-century Marxism, Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era is the theoretical crystallization of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, answering the fundamental question of the age: "What kind of era should we lead, and how should we lead it?" It teaches us that this is an era in which the destiny of humanity is shared through thick and thin [22]. All nations of the world are passengers on a single great ship with a shared destiny. To navigate through the turbulent waves [23] and sail toward a bright future, we must act with solidarity and pull together in the same boat [24]. This is an era where peace, development, cooperation, and win-win outcomes have become the prevailing trend. The Cold War mentality that undermines the framework of global peace, the hegemonism and power politics that endanger world peace, and the bloc confrontation that exacerbates the security challenges of the twenty-first century are all actions that run counter to the trend of the times. This is an era that demands global governance: "International society has developed to the point where it has become a complex, delicate, and organic machine; removing a single component will cause the entire machine to face serious operational difficulties. Those whose parts are removed will suffer, and those who remove them will also suffer." Only by persisting in true multilateralism, firmly safeguarding the international system with the United Nations at its core and the international order based on international law, effectively practicing the global governance view of extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits, consciously promoting the common values of humanity, and advocating for exchange and mutual learning among different civilizations, can we ensure the sound operation of this machine.

(Author's affiliation: School of Marxism, University of Chinese Academy of Social Sciences; Institute of Marxism Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences) Online Editor: Zhang Jian Source: Contemporary World and Socialism, Issue 3, 2022