Zhuang Wencheng: An Analysis of the Roots of the Transformation of Karl Kautsky's View of Marxism
The late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries constituted a period of peaceful development for capitalism, as well as a transitional phase from free competition to monopoly capitalism. During this era, imperialist powers expanded their armaments and prepared for war in order to redivide the global market and seize colonies. Contradictions and conflicts intensified daily, and the historical background underwent a profound shift from peaceful development toward revolutionary war. As a primary leader and theorist of the Second International and the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD), Kautsky once made significant contributions to the development of Marxist theory. However, as the era changed, Kautsky’s ideological views underwent a continuous evolution, gradually moving from a Marxist position until he finally stood in opposition to Marxism. Deeply exploring Kautsky’s understanding of the essential attributes of Marxism and its inherent problems—and recognizing the reasons for the degeneration of his Marxist outlook amidst the changing winds of the era—holds great significance for us in the New Era. It assists us in better adhering to and developing Marxism, continuously advancing the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, effectively "opening new vistas amidst changes," and achieving the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation through Chinese-path modernization.
I. The Theoretical Roots of the Degeneration of Karl Kautsky’s Marxist Outlook
The Positivization of the Scientific Nature of Marxism
Throughout his life, Kautsky wrote many works explaining and defending the Marxism, critiquing bourgeois scholars and revisionists who questioned its scientific nature. Yet, while defending and disseminating the scientificity of Marxism, he also positivized it. He equated Marxism with general empirical science, positive science, and specific sciences, regarding this as a sign of Marxism’s development from philosophy toward science. This was manifested in two main aspects: First, he excised the core soul of Marxist dialectics, reducing philosophy to positivism and subsequently arguing that Marxism consisted only of economics and a historical outlook. In a letter responding to the Russian worker Bandianidze, Kautsky pointed out: "I do not believe Marxism is a philosophy, but rather an empirical science—a specific social outlook"; "Marx did not proclaim a philosophy, but announced the end of all philosophy." In his view, philosophy "strives to establish the unity of thought within the world process, a unity that science cannot verify." The root of Kautsky’s one-sided understanding lay in his failure to correctly grasp the relationship between the dialectical materialism founded by Marx and Engels and the old philosophy they critiqued. That is, he failed to correctly understand the true meaning of Marx and Engels' statements regarding the "abolition of philosophy," the "end of classical philosophy," or the "announcement of the end of all philosophy." The philosophy Marx and Engels critiqued referred to idealistic and dualistic philosophy, which represented bourgeois ideology. The "abolition of philosophy" they spoke of referred to the practical activity of critiquing and transforming capitalist reality; the critique of old philosophy was also a process of constructing new philosophy—an indispensable link in critiquing the old world to establish a new one. Second, he understood the materialist conception of history merely as a method, denying its significance as a worldview. In his book The Materialist Conception of History, Kautsky discussed the materialist conception of history as a method, while its significance as a worldview was essentially excluded from his discourse, arguing that for Marx and Engels, materialism was embedded within their method. Simultaneously, Kautsky provided a positivist interpretation of the materialist method, noting that it is "a method based on experience—based on the study of various necessary causal relationships within our experience."
Philosophy is a systematized and theorized worldview and methodology; it consists of the spiritual qualities, ideological methods, and thinking habits formed by people in practical activities and daily life. Different philosophies have different guiding significance for people’s understanding and transformation of the world. By denying the worldview significance of philosophy, Kautsky turned Marxism into an empirical and positive science. This was not an affirmation of the scientific nature of Marxism, but rather an attempt to set its scientific nature against its revolutionary nature, and its class nature against its people-centered nature. This effectively equated Marxism with specific sciences and denied its universal guiding significance.
The Abstraction of the Revolutionary Nature of Marxism
The dialectical unity of revolutionary nature and scientific nature is the fundamental characteristic of Marxism, and Kautsky did not outwardly oppose this. He once noted: "The reason the influence of Marxist doctrine increases daily is that profound scientificity and revolutionary nature are integrated within this doctrine." However, Kautsky distorted the Marxist concept of revolution. In attempting to "scientize" Marxism, he also abstracted its revolutionary characteristics, effectively denying them.
Kautsky's ideological trajectory throughout his life followed a parabolic path. When Kautsky was moving toward Marxism, his revolutionary character could also develop in a concrete direction. The period from the 1905 Russian Revolution to the 1909 publication of The Road to Power was the time when Kautsky’s revolutionary views were most distinct and concrete. As his ideological views began to waver and eventually move toward the opposite of Marxism, he successively entered stages of delaying, obstructing, opposing, attacking, and slandering the revolution. Interestingly, during the "peaceful" development stage of capitalism, Kautsky proposed revolutionary tactics adapted to it that reflected the characteristics of proletarian revolution; however, as the imperialist war and the revolutionary situation continuously developed, Kautsky’s thoughts and views gradually pushed parliamentary struggle and "pure democracy" to extremes.
While Kautsky was still a Marxist, he set strict "scientific" obstacles for the proletarian revolution, upholding a passive and pessimistic revolutionary attitude. During this period, when discussing the possibility and necessity of proletarian revolution and strikes, Kautsky would list several extremely "scientific" and "rigorous" conditions, which in fact denied the subjective initiative of the proletarian party. As Kautsky moved toward the opposite of Marxism, he set "democratic" and "humanitarian" obstacles for the proletarian revolution, upholding concepts basically identical to democratic socialism, effectively becoming a fellow traveler of capitalism. Before the outbreak of World War I, Kautsky began to explain his concept of "ultra-imperialism," publicizing the illusion of peace to deceive the masses and delay the proletarian revolution. After the war broke out, Kautsky ignored the imperialist essence of the war, actively defended "national defense," and vigorously advocated for conditional cooperation with bourgeois governments. He completely abandoned proletarian revolutionary tactics, believing the task of the Second International was "to struggle for peace and to carry out class struggle during peace." After World War I ended, driven by the October Revolution, Germany welcomed a golden opportunity for socialist revolution. However, Kautsky at this time displayed his side that opposed socialist revolution, proposing the "transitional economy" theory of peaceful transition in an attempt to hinder the progress of the proletarian revolution. Following the establishment of the Soviet regime in Russia, Kautsky turned to openly opposing and attacking the socialist revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat; he vigorously advocated for "pure democracy" and denied the class essence of democracy. In Lenin’s view, Kautsky at this time was "actually no different from a counter-revolutionary bourgeois." In his later years, Kautsky went further, using terms like "terrorism" and "counter-revolution" to slander the proletarian revolution and the Soviet regime, arguing that the world revolution "will not be realized by destroying its own political and social enemies, but through democracy and humanity." He even called on counter-revolutionaries such as the Mensheviks within the Soviet Union to overthrow the Soviet regime, moving completely to the opposite of Marxism.
The Vulgarization of the Marxist Concept of Development
At the turn of the century, capitalism was in a stage of peaceful development. In a relatively peaceful and stable environment, Darwin’s theory of evolution had a profound impact on everyday thinking. Kautsky’s concept of development also bore this temporal mark. Before turning to Marxism, he had been a believer in Darwinism. Looking at Kautsky’s theoretical activities throughout his life, he never truly escaped the influence of Darwinism. This developmental view, colored by Darwinian evolution, was the root of why he lagged behind the times on the question of development. At the 1899 Hanover Congress, the remarks of the revisionist Konrad Schmidt resonated with Kautsky: "In our agitation work, we would rather replace 'dialectics' with the much more accurate and richer concept of 'evolution.' For workers, the concept of 'evolution' is more understandable. Bebel appealed to the spirit of the great Darwin; we are closer to Darwin than to Hegel."
Under the influence of this vulgar developmental view shaped by evolution, Kautsky failed to truly grasp the essence of the unity of opposites in the process of material motion. He failed to comprehend the "internal contradictions" of things and the mechanism of "self-movement," thus reducing development to a process of adaptation to the environment. Therefore, it is not difficult to understand why the discourse of "naturalness" or "of its own accord" occurs frequently in Kautsky’s writings. This frequent mantra actually reveals his passive attitude in the face of objective laws. Kautsky wrote: "The starting point of each process of adaptation is an organism, namely the 'self.' This is affirmation, the 'thesis.' The world around the self comes out to oppose the self; this is the 'non-self,' the negation of the organism, the 'antithesis.' The final result... is the reaffirmation of the organism through adaptation, the 'synthesis.'" Although Kautsky saw the contradictory movement within things regarding development, he believed the process of sublation of "thesis" and "antithesis" to reach a "synthesis" was a process of "adaptation." He viewed development simply as quantitative growth and gradual evolution, failing to see the qualitative leaps and breaks in continuity that inevitably occur with quantitative accumulation.
Kautsky’s vision of democratic development and social progress was filled with this tendency toward vulgar evolutionism. He tended to understand social progress from a techno-economic perspective, believing that as productive forces improved, advanced technology would inevitably replace backward technology, thereby increasing production efficiency and promoting economic development. He believed this process would inevitably promote the democratization of social life and the overall progress of social relations. This understanding of human social development was filled with fatalism and technological determinism. Kautsky believed that in a society of class opposition, the development of democracy was not a process of a qualitative leap where proletarian democracy replaced bourgeois democracy, but rather an expansion of the existing democratic system’s participants and scope, allowing more people to participate in the democratic life of the state.
Dissolving the Class Nature of Marxism
When Kautsky was still a Marxist, despite some deficiencies in dialectics, he could still adhere to the Marxist class viewpoint and class analysis method. It was only after reading Kautsky’s The Class Struggle that Mao Zedong began to practically study class struggle. However, after the divergence between the right and left wings within the Second International and the SPD emerged, Kautsky’s ideological views began to waver, and he acted as a mediator between the two. After the outbreak of World War I, although Kautsky still paid lip service to Marxism and declared his firm belief in the final realization of socialism, these had long since degenerated into empty slogans to mask his true position. In his actual advocacy and concrete actions, he deliberately glossed over the inherent class antagonism of capitalist society and avoided the essential conflict of class contradictions, instead enshrining "pacifism" and "pure democracy" as theoretical appraisal standards. He preached a supra-class "universal interest," blurring the distinct class stance of Marxism. His doctrine ultimately degenerated completely into a sermon detached from social reality and devoid of practical significance for human social development, entirely betraying the revolutionary essence and practical character of Marxism.
After the outbreak of World War I, Kautsky comprehensively expounded his—
The theory of "ultra-imperialism" whitewashed the imperialist nature of the war and called upon the Social Democratic parties and the working class to lay down the "weapons of criticism" to cooperate with bourgeois governments in participating in imperialist warfare, which constituted an utter betrayal of the tenets of proletarian revolution and internationalism. Kautsky argued that all countries participating in World War I were "dragged in more or less against their will." Therefore, no one should be held responsible for the war, as "every nation has only fought to maintain its own integrity." He further claimed that international workers' organizations were merely instruments of peacetime and could hardly function under a state of war; thus, "Social Democrats of all countries have an equal right or an equal duty to participate in this defense, and the Social Democrats of no country can blame those of another for doing so."
The essence of this rhetoric was to deliberately distort the contradictions among the bourgeoisies of different countries—vying for hegemony and the division of the world—into existential conflicts between nations. These words and deeds of Kautsky, saturated with the colors of class reconciliation, deluded the simple-minded working class. By transforming the class contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie into confrontations and wars between different states and nations, he allowed the proletariats of various countries to weaken each other's strength in mutual combat, severely hindering the development of the proletarian revolution.
As World War I neared its end, Kautsky exerted every effort to obstruct the revolutionary movement of the proletariat against imperialism. He hoped Germany could end the war under the rule of the Junker-bourgeois government, fantasizing that this would facilitate a transition to a "state of peace" [6] under capitalism, completely disregarding the historical necessity of proletarian revolution. Following the victory of the October Revolution, Kautsky trumpeted a "pure democracy" that supposedly "transcended class," erasing the class nature of democracy and placing democracy and dictatorship in absolute opposition. He slandered dictatorship as "individual autocracy" and the "abolition of democracy," while asserting that "democracy means the rule of the majority, but democracy equally means the protection of the minority." The essence of this rhetoric was to use the superficial phenomenon of headcount to mask the class attributes of democracy, deliberately evading the fact that under the capitalist "democratic" system, power is always controlled by a minority of exploiters. As Lenin profoundly noted: "We should be very grateful to any Western European Marxist who, after examining the most important documents, offered a criticism of our policy, for such a criticism would be a great help to us, and a help to the revolution maturing throughout the world. But instead of criticism Kautsky offers a muddle of theoretical confusion, turns Marxism into liberalism, and in practice, carries out unfounded, malicious, and vulgar attacks on the Bolsheviks." In his later years, Kautsky thoroughly abandoned the Marxist method of class analysis, replacing it with abstract standards of "peace," and became even more fanatical in preaching class-transcending democracy, ultimately degenerating into a renegade of Marxism and an apologist for the bourgeoisie.
II. Subjective Factors in the Metamorphosis of Karl Kautsky's Marxist Outlook
The formation of Kautsky's opportunist thought possessed a certain degree of objectivity, being an inevitable product of the era of transition from capitalism to imperialism. However, certain personality traits and political weaknesses were also crucial factors driving the formation of his opportunist ideas.
Lack of Strong Theoretical Independence The trajectory of Kautsky’s lifelong thought always bore the heavy imprint of external influences, evolving continuously under the sway of outside forces and other individuals. His father, Johann Kautsky, "always held Czech national sentiments"; influenced by his father, the young Kautsky became a nationalist and a democrat. A series of major historical events and various schools of thought in the latter half of the 19th century continuously reshaped his theoretical position. The outbreak of the Paris Commune in 1871 ignited his passion for the socialist movement, prompting him to join the Social Democratic Party of Austria in 1875. Darwin’s theory of evolution, along with the mechanical materialism of Ludwig Büchner and Ernst Haeckel, shifted his thinking toward a scientistic framework, turning him into a Darwinist. After meeting Marx and Engels in London in 1881, he officially embarked on the path of Marxist research and propaganda, at one point becoming the recognized "orthodox" theorist of the Second International. From 1883, he served for a long period as the editor-in-chief of Die Neue Zeit (The New Era [7]), the central theoretical journal of the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). Relying on his erudition and prolific writing, he became a core theorist of the Second International, and his theoretical interpretations were once regarded as authoritative readings of Marxism. However, in the process of interpreting and disseminating the thoughts of Marx and Engels, Kautsky failed to construct an independent theoretical system characterized by a distinct stance, firm conviction, and unique style. He lacked the theoretical courage and judgment to uphold principles amidst complex situations. Consequently, when the opposition between the revisionists and the revolutionaries within the Second International became increasingly sharp, Kautsky failed to make an independent judgment based on Marxist theoretical positions. Instead, he chose a "middle road" [8] in the gambling between the two factions and ultimately, under the influence of his close friend Bernstein, slid into the abyss of opportunism, colluding with revisionism.
Failure to Keep Pace with the Changes and Developments of the Era At the turn of the 20th century, capitalism transitioned from the stage of free competition to monopoly capitalism, with imperialism becoming the most prominent characteristic of the era. Simultaneously, the monopoly bourgeoisie of the imperialist stage extracted superprofits through colonial rule and plunder, obtaining the material basis to bribe the labor aristocracy and divide the working class. Consequently, the revisionism that germinated within the labor aristocracy developed into an international phenomenon.
Kautsky failed to correctly perceive these two new products of the era. On the question of imperialism, he failed to gain insight into its essence, viewing it merely as a contingent policy that industrial capital "preferred to adopt" based on its strength, and proposed that these problems could be overcome through "ultra-imperialism." He ignored the core fact that imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, which left him ideologically unprepared as imperialist war loomed, unable to become a pioneer or leader of a new path. On the question of revisionism, although Kautsky played a decisive role in the struggle against Bernstein, he failed to recognize that revisionism was an inevitable product of the imperialist stage. He treated it merely as a general infiltration of bourgeois ideology, believing it to be "ephemeral" and without substantial impact. This insufficient recognition of the hazards of revisionism made it impossible for him to transcend this obstacle, and he failed to become a thorough Marxist. His one-sided perception of imperialism and revisionism determined that Kautsky could not stand at the new height of the era, ultimately appearing passive and powerless amidst the tides of history.
Insufficient Ability to Apply Theory to Practice While the historical conditions Kautsky faced were indeed difficult and complex, his failure to open a new path for the development of Marxism while serving as a primary leader and theoretical authority of the Second International exposed the limitations of his practical abilities. In a social environment of sharp class antagonism, a theoretical system composed of eclecticism and evolutionism inherently carries a submissive quality of compromise. A core logic of "left-right reconciliation" ran through Kautsky's entire theoretical system. The policy proposals he put forward had as their primary goal the maintenance of the superficial unity of the Second International and the SPD. This unprincipled "unity above all else" allowed him to formally claim to represent the interests of the proletariat and crown himself as a Marxist orthodoxist, while in reality, during a historical stage where the bourgeoisie was strong and socialism weak, he facilitated the spread of revisionist trends. He possessed neither the blunt theoretical courage of Marx and Engels nor the practical boldness to struggle directly against the bourgeoisie, and he lacked the decisiveness to seize power when revolutionary opportunities arose. The series of principles and policies he proposed were mostly abstract imaginings detached from reality; they lacked specific focus and were difficult to transform into effective practical plans, ultimately degenerating into empty preaching that masked class contradictions and paralyzed the revolutionary will of the proletariat.
III. Advancing the Party’s Theoretical Innovation Must Take Adherence to the Basic Principles of Marxism as the Fundamental Premise
The root of the metamorphosis of Kautsky’s Marxist outlook lay in his incomplete and wavering understanding of the basic principles of Marxism. This holds profound theoretical value and important practical significance for us to better adhere to and develop Marxism in the New Era, to deepen our scientific understanding of the laws governing the development of Marxism, and thereby to open new horizons for the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism.
Unwaveringly Adhering to Dialectical Materialism and Historical Materialism Dialectical materialism and historical materialism are the core contents of Marxist philosophy and constitute the Marxist worldview and methodology. During this crucial period of the great development and prosperity of Marxism, it is all the more necessary to fortify our philosophical foundations and unwaveringly adhere to dialectical materialism and historical materialism. Only then can we ensure that theoretical and practical innovation move steadily and far along the correct direction and path. General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: "The scientific and revolutionary nature of Marxist theory originates from the scientific worldview and methodology of dialectical materialism and historical materialism; it provides us with a powerful ideological weapon for understanding and transforming the world, and points out the correct direction forward for world socialism." Only by truly understanding and applying the basic principles and methods of dialectical materialism and historical materialism—by unifying the scientific and revolutionary nature of Marxism, its class nature and people-centered nature, its classic status and contemporary relevance, its outlook on truth and values, and theory and practice—can we accurately grasp the pulse of the era and recognize the essence of problems and contradictions. By focusing on the themes, principal contradictions, major tasks, and challenges of different historical periods, we can continuously formulate new measures, adopt new methods, and thereby summarize new experiences, generalize new viewpoints, and refine new discourses. This will allow us to better interpret the characteristics, spirit, major tasks, and goals of the new period, solve the puzzles of the times, and further enrich and develop Marxism.
Unwaveringly Adhering to the Unity of Scientific and Revolutionary Nature The unity of scientific and revolutionary nature is the essential characteristic of Marxism. Marxism reveals the essence and general laws of nature, human society, and human thought; it is the science regarding the liberation of humanity and the realization of socialism and communism. This scientific nature takes criticality as its premise. The criticality of Marxism is manifested not only in its critique of idealist philosophy and the old materialist worldview but also in the spiritual substance of Marxist philosophy itself. "Dialectics adores nothing; it is by its very nature critical and revolutionary."
Adhering to and developing Marxism in the New Era requires firmly holding onto the essential requirement of the unity of scientific and revolutionary nature. We must both safeguard the scientific core of Marxism—deeply studying and mastering its basic principles and methodology to accurately grasp the objective laws of historical development—and maintain a permanent revolutionary spirit. We must dare to face the new changes and contradictions of capitalism, have the courage to criticize various erroneous trends of thought, and firm up our position of struggle while innovating methods of struggle in the practice of promoting Chinese-path modernization. Only in this way can Marxism maintain its scientific theoretical character and distinct revolutionary color, continuously opening new realms and radiating new vitality in the great practice of the New Era.
Unwaveringly Adhering to the Unity of Thorough Theory and Conscious Practice Thorough theory and conscious practice are products of human society reaching a certain historical stage. Without thorough theory as a guide, practice will descend into vulgarity and decadence due to the expansion of spontaneity [9]; even if a theory is thorough, if it is divorced from the testing, enrichment, and development provided by conscious practice, it will become rigid dogma. Marxism is a thorough theoretical system, and conscious proletarian practice is the highest form of human social practice. The two are unified in the communist movement, jointly promoting the cause of the liberation of all humanity.
Marxism is a thorough theoretical system. The emergence of Marxism was the greatest and most profound transformation in the history of human thought; it is a thorough materialism. Lenin believed that it...
"Complete philosophical materialism" is the "greatest achievement of scientific thought." In terms of breadth, Marxism depicts a scientific picture of the entire material world, covering all fields of nature, human society, and human thought, and organically linking them together. In terms of depth, Marxism grasps the root of things, seizing the essence and laws of the material world; it provides answers to the fundamental questions of what the essence of the world is, how the world exists, and how to correctly perceive and transform the world. In terms of process, Marxism focuses on the movement, change, and development of reality and practice; it deepens the understanding of laws through human practical activities, continuously opening new paths and providing a rational explanation for the relationships between ideal and reality, tradition and modernity, and interpreting the world and transforming the world. In terms of the subject, Marxism represents the fundamental interests of the proletariat and the broad masses of the people. Its foothold is not a "civil society" [10] representing the interests of a few, but a "human society or social humanity" [11] representing the interests of all mankind.
Marxist practice is conscious proletarian practice. Distinct from speculative or intuitive views of practice, the Marxist view of practice is not individual-based or spontaneous; rather, it is human social practice—objective, collective, and universal. This practice "contains within it a demand for theory and is therefore conscious, aiming for the pursuit of lofty ideals; it contains a value orientation toward the real universal interest—the interest of the masses—and is therefore revolutionary and critical; it contains a life orientation of committing the finitude of the individual to the infinite cause of human liberation, thereby attaining the eternal value of life, and is therefore active and upward-looking." Since the proletariat possesses no means of production and is a "class with radical chains" [12], a class that can only liberate itself by liberating all of humanity, only practice rooted in the interests of the proletariat can represent the future of human society. Only such practice can closely integrate individual exercise with the practice of human society, finding a common goal and a core soul for condensing strength and forging consensus amidst the trivial, fragmented, and concrete practices of daily life.
The thoroughness of theory is inseparable from the nourishment and testing of practice, just as the consciousness of practice is inseparable from the guidance and regulation of theory. This dialectical unity requires that the Party’s theoretical innovation must persist in the fundamental standpoint, basic principles, and scientific methods of Marxism to ensure that innovation does not deviate or lose its shape. Simultaneously, it must embrace a pioneering spirit of innovation, continuously enriching and developing theory according to the changes in practice, discarding individual obsolete conclusions and breaking through the barriers of mental fossilization. We must adhere to the organic unity of upholding the fundamentals and breaking new ground—upholding the "fundamentals" of Marxism, the Party’s original aspiration and founding mission, and the fundamental interests of the people, while "breaking new ground" in practical development, problem-solving, and the progress of civilization. This ensures that theoretical innovation is both a direct inheritance and an act of advancing with the times, thereby maintaining a powerful vitality and leading force to provide solid theoretical support for the development of the Party and state undertakings in the New Era.
Unwavering Adherence to the Unity of Proletarian Class Character and People-Centered Character
The intrinsic unity of class character and people-centered character is a vital feature of Marxism. On one hand, Marxism is the worldview and methodology of the proletariat, scientifically explaining the nature, goals, and conditions for the liberation of the proletarian struggle; thus, it possesses a distinct class character. The class essence and class standpoint of Marxism must never be abandoned. It is an error to deny the class character of Marxism or to interpret Marxism through a "supra-class" [13] perspective. On the other hand, Marxism takes the realization of the complete liberation of all humanity as its value pursuit, possessing a broad people-centered character. All Marxist theory starts from and returns to the fundamental interests of the broad masses, taking the realization, maintenance, and development of the fundamental interests of the widest possible range of people—and the realization of human liberation and the free and comprehensive development of every individual—as its highest value pursuit. Marx and Engels explicitly pointed out: "All previous movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority." Consistently standing on the side of the masses and serving the people is the political standpoint and value pursuit of Marxism.
The intrinsic unity of class character and people-centered character constitutes the distinct hallmark of the Communist Party of China's century of struggle. As a Marxist governing party, the CPC has since its inception engraved this principle on its banner. Throughout the different historical periods of revolution, construction, and reform, it has always guarded the people’s interests with a firm class standpoint and practiced its class mission with deep sentiment for the people, never wavering. Entering the New Era, the unity of class character and people-centered character has been endowed with richer contemporary connotations and distinct practical characteristics. From a theoretical dimension, it inherits the core concepts of Marxism regarding the nature and purpose of a proletarian party, adhering to the proletarian standpoint; meanwhile, it is rooted in the reality of developing socialism with Chinese characteristics, deeply integrating the people-centered value philosophy into the entire process of theoretical innovation. This ensures that the fruits of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism maintain both a clear class standpoint and a deep sentiment for the people. From a practical dimension, this unity is manifested in the various tasks and actions of the Party. Adhering to the unity of class character and people-centered character provides us with a fundamental standpoint and clear value guidance for resolving development challenges and navigating national rejuvenation in the New Era. It ensures that the Party’s theoretical innovation never deviates from the correct direction, laying a solid foundation for continuously opening new frontiers in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism and realizing the Chinese Dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.
Conclusion
The reason Marxism can survive the storms of the times and maintain perpetual vitality lies in its ability to consistently walk with the times and resonate with practice. The degeneration of Kautsky’s thought serves as a warning: once theoretical innovation deviates from the essential attributes and basic principles of Marxism or detaches itself from the practical needs of the era, it will lose its vitality. Presently, as changes unseen in a century accelerate globally and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation enters a critical period, theoretical innovation faces new challenges from epochal shifts. The task of theoretical innovation is more arduous and urgent than ever before. We must unwaveringly adhere to the basic principles of Marxism and the "Two Combinations" [14], fortifying the foundation of theoretical innovation. We must allow Marxism to shine with even more brilliant light of truth in New Era China, providing solid theoretical support for the comprehensive building of a modern socialist country and the realization of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.
Source: World Socialism Studies (Issue 1, 2026) Editor: Huihui