Zhang Runfeng and Liang Xiao: The Systematic Construction of the "Chinese Path" Narrative Discourse: Modernization, National Rejuvenation, Socialism, Reform and Opening Up, and Peaceful Development
The Communist Party of China (CPC) has now traversed a glorious century of history. The "Chinese road" is precisely the crystallization of the thought and practice of the Party leading the Chinese people in building the country by resolutely "taking our own path" on the foundation of the founding of the People's Republic of China. On November 11, 2021, the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee reviewed and adopted the Resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party's Centennial Struggle, which formally established and proposed the proposition of the "Chinese road" in the form of a historical resolution. Systematically studying the structural layout, evolution, and logic of the CPC's initiation, advancement, and expansion of the "Chinese road" is of great significance at both theoretical and practical levels. Currently, domestic academic circles have achieved several influential scholarly results in studying the "Chinese road" proposition from the perspective of the CPC. These are primarily concentrated in the following three areas: first, research and comparison of the thoughts of successive major leaders of the CPC regarding the initiation, advancement, and expansion of the "Chinese road"; second, research on the essential connotation, historical evolution, value, and significance of the "Chinese road"; third, research on the correlation between the "Chinese road" and similar concepts such as the "China model," "China experience," and "China solution." It must be pointed out that among these academic achievements, many equate the "Chinese road" with the "path of Chinese-path modernization" or the "path of socialism with Chinese characteristics," or both. However, research focusing on the "path of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation," the "path of China's reform and opening up," and the "path of China's peaceful development" is relatively rare. Even scarcer are achievements that integrate these five aspects into the structural layout of the "Chinese road" for systematic investigation. Therefore, it is necessary to attempt a theoretical study of the narrative and discourse expression of the "Chinese road" proposition from the narrative mainlines of modernization, national rejuvenation, socialism, reform and opening up, and peaceful development.
I. The Path of Chinese-path Modernization: Narrative Discourse Defining the Foundational Track of the "Chinese Road"
Modernization, "as a world-historical process, refers to a drastic transformation experienced by human society since the Industrial Revolution. This transformation, driven by industrialization, has led to a global transition from traditional agrarian society to modern industrial society. It has caused industrialism to permeate various fields—economic, political, cultural, and ideological—triggering profound corresponding changes." Generally, it is believed that this modernization movement originated in Western European countries around the 16th century. This is because during this period, a series of epoch-making changes—including the fall of the Eastern Roman Empire, the disintegration of the feudal system, the rise of nation-states, the birth of heliocentrism, the Great Geographical Discoveries, the emergence of the capitalist mode of production, the Reformation, the Renaissance, the opening of new maritime routes, and the scientific and technological revolution—laid a solid foundation for the rise of the Industrial Revolution in political, economic, ideological, cultural, geographical, and technological terms. Subsequently, the modernization movement began to spread widely among Western European countries, and every country, society, and nation in the world was inevitably affected. Initially, given that the capitalist mode of production and its institutions were inevitably embedded in the modernization movement, people for a long history regarded modernization and the capitalist movement as two sides of the same coin in the developmental process of human society. It is based on this logic of integration and cognitive perception that the modernization movement, from its inception, profoundly reflected the innate logical nature and value orientation of capitalism—greed, exploitation, conquest, and plunder. This is the reason why the cloak of "barbaric expansion" was draped over the modernization movement.
As an ancient country in the East with a long history and a splendid civilization, China's developmental level across political, economic, military, and cultural spheres lagged behind the developmental achievements of capitalist countries during their modernization process, due to the long-term constraints of the corrupt rule of the feudal autocratic regime and its rigid ideology. After the first wave of modernization was completed in the Western world, China could not resist the barbaric impact brought by the second wave of modernization and was forced into it, becoming a victim of plunder, expansion, and colonization carried out by capitalism under the guise of "human modernization." From then on, modernization was embedded in the process of Chinese social development and could not be severed from it. How to explore a path to successfully realize modernization in China, thereby rescuing it from peril and setbacks, naturally became the unswerving aspiration and pursuit of countless pioneers in modern China. Consequently, the realization of Chinese modernization became the foundational track of China's path of social development, intended to propel China's politics, economy, military, and culture away from their backward state, and further enable a successful progression from a backward country to an advanced or modern country. Before the founding of the CPC, due to the misleading nature of the resonance between capitalist development and the modernization movement, the foundational track of China's social development path was always narrated through the vision of capitalist modernization. As an "offspring" [1] of the historical process exploring the realization of Chinese modernization, the CPC, from its inception, has been inseparable from China's modernization construction, inheriting the historical task of shaping the direction, framework, and path of realization for China's modernization. At this point, like capitalist modernization, socialist modernization gradually became the narrative vision for the foundational track of Chinese social development. Before the founding of New China, given the social conditions and political environment of China's social development path, neither the capitalist modernization vision nor the socialist modernization vision could be effectively manifested within the applied field of modern China; the development of the entire society remained in the state of a traditional small-peasant economy.
From the 1950s to the late 1970s, socialist modernization constituted the sole vision for the narrative of the foundational track of China's social development path during the same period. However, during this period, the CPC still faced certain historical limitations in constructing the vision of socialist modernization: first, it had not yet escaped dogmatic thinking to truly handle the unified relationship between modernization and socialism; second, it limited the theoretical form of socialist modernization to the level of "instrumental modernization" such as the "Four Modernizations"; third, it set the time intervals for the "two-step" strategic plan [2]—the practical form of socialist modernization for national economic development—too short, and the goals too high. Coupled with the specific international and domestic environments, Chinese society at this time, especially in the economic field, was moving forward with difficulty on a tortuous path. It was only after the reform and opening up that China truly achieved the dialectical unity of modernization and socialism, systematically integrated and scientifically planned the theoretical and practical forms of socialist modernization, and creatively proposed the major concept of "Chinese-path modernization." In fact, it is in this sense that the successful initiation of the "Chinese road" was marked, completing the great transformation and brand-new summary of historical necessity—moving from following in the footsteps of the capitalist path to the traditional socialist path, and finally to firmly taking the "Chinese road." Chinese-path modernization thus became the brand-new vision for the narrative of the "Chinese road's" foundational track, which determined that the theoretical and practical forms of the "Chinese road" would deepen alongside the advancement and expansion of Chinese-path modernization.
As Chinese-path modernization has progressed and expanded to this day, its theoretical system and discourse expression have been preliminarily structured. From the perspective of salient features and manifestations, Chinese-path modernization is the modernization of a huge population, of common prosperity for all, of material and cultural-ethical advancement, of harmony between humanity and nature, and of peaceful development. From the perspective of the leading political force and political direction, Chinese-path modernization must uphold the leadership of the CPC and socialism with Chinese characteristics. From the perspective of the theoretical framework and unique significance, Chinese-path modernization must achieve high-quality development, develop whole-process people's democracy, enrich the people's cultural-ethical world, realize common prosperity for all, and promote harmony between humanity and nature. From the perspective of world political significance and the great mission, Chinese-path modernization must promote the building of a community with a shared future for humanity and create a new form of human civilization. The above collectively constitute the Chinese characteristics and essential requirements of Chinese-path modernization. At the same time, the CPC has continuously developed, refined, and perfected the practical form of Chinese-path modernization. The "two-step" strategic arrangement [3] of the New Era and the two major horizontal strategic plans (domestic and international) are the latest achievements of the CPC in laying out the practical form of Chinese-path modernization from the dimensions of time and space. This presents Chinese-path modernization as a concrete modernization that both conforms to the general characteristics of human modernization and is rooted in China's national conditions, possessing goals, plans, and strategies. For China to reach such a concrete modernization, it must explore and choose a modernization path with unique national characteristics within the modernization movement. This is because the universality and necessity of human modernization do not mean that the paths and models for realizing modernization are identical for all countries; this often depends on the socio-historical conditions, the chosen leading political force, and the ideological attributes of each country. As the choice of path and discourse expression for China to reach modernization, the path of Chinese-path modernization naturally becomes the narrative discourse defining the foundational track of the "Chinese road."
It should be noted that from the perspective of the historical evolution of modernization in China, the three concepts of "Chinese modernization," "socialist modernization," and "Chinese-path modernization" are not entirely equivalent, yet they are strongly correlated. Especially from today's perspective, there is no substantive or connotative difference between them on the new journey of building a modern socialist country in all respects. In other words, the Chinese modernization, socialist modernization, and Chinese-path modernization pointed out by Xi Jinping in the report to the 20th National Congress are not three different kinds of modernization, but the same modernization that is inherently unified and logically consistent—namely, they all point toward "building a great modern socialist country in all respects." This means that the path of Chinese modernization and the path of socialist modernization spoken of at this time, like the path of Chinese-path modernization, can all serve as narrative discourse defining the foundational track of the "Chinese road."
II. The Path of the Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation: Narrative Discourse Presenting the Civilizational Form of the "Chinese Road"
The Opium War of 1840 not only forced China into the wave of the modernization movement but also plunged the splendid civilization created by the Chinese nation over more than five thousand years into a catastrophe of "covered dust." This is precisely why the realization of a modernized state and national rejuvenation have always been the target mainlines for Chinese society's exploration and continuous improvement of a correct developmental path. This unique historical logic has, to a certain extent, granted a close intersection between the modernization narrative mainline and the national rejuvenation narrative mainline, of which the most symbolic are their shared origins, shared direction of goals, and shared journey of paths. Nevertheless, this does not mean that the modernization narrative mainline and the national rejuvenation narrative mainline are identical discourse expression systems; their focal perspectives and inclinations differ. Specifically, the modernization narrative mainline focuses on promoting the coordinated development of the productive forces and relations of production, and the economic base and the superstructure. Among these, the productive forces are the most active, revolutionary, and central component of this narrative mainline. Highly developed productive forces—and the profound adaptive changes they cause in the relations of production, the economic base, and the superstructure—lay solid foundational conditions for all civilizational development and for turning the grand blueprint of the free and well-rounded development of individuals into reality. The national rejuvenation narrative mainline, on the other hand, focuses on dusting off the "thick layers of dust" brought upon fine traditional Chinese culture and its civilizational achievements by the colonial oppression of capitalist countries, and constructing a brand-new form of Chinese civilization on this foundation. This means that the civilizational form of the "Chinese road" is the realization of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. If the narrative mainline of socialism with Chinese characteristics, discussed below, is placed within this logical reasoning, it can be said that the ultimate value goal of both socialism with Chinese characteristics and traditional socialism is the realization of the free and well-rounded development of individuals. In this way, the logic and reasons for taking the realization of Chinese-path modernization as the foundational track of the "Chinese road"—and using a uniquely Chinese socialist modernization as the narrative vision for this foundational track—are clearly presented.
Indeed, because the narrative thread of national rejuvenation emphasizes a different perspective, both its point of origin and its narrative logic differ from those of the narrative thread of modernization. In a general sense, the narrative of national rejuvenation can be traced back to the agrarian civilization created during the era of Yan Di and Huang Di [4] more than five thousand years ago. Throughout the long river of history that followed, particularly upon entering the period of feudal autocratic rule which lasted over two thousand years, China possessed an advanced agrarian economic base and a patriarchal socio-political structure defined by the "integration of family and state" [5]. This formed a situation where "the economy flourished continuously, culture prospered long-term, and society remained stable for long periods," a state that persisted until the late years of the Qianlong Emperor’s reign in the Qing Dynasty. The agrarian civilization—or traditional Chinese civilization—built upon this foundation naturally "occupied a leading position in the world for a long time." During this span, the civilizations of the Han, Tang, and Song dynasties, as well as the "Prosperous Age of Kangxi and Qianlong" [6], served as glorious archetypes of traditional Chinese civilization.
Undoubtedly, when the foundations of traditional Chinese civilization, especially its agrarian economic base, fell behind the West European capitalist countries, it was destined to lag behind the modern industrial civilization created by modernization in those capitalist states. Given the inherent logic and value orientation of capitalism, this was a case of "adding frost to snow" [7] for a traditional Chinese civilization that was already falling behind. That is to say, the Chinese nation had to face the established fact of traditional civilization shifting from a position of leading to lagging, while simultaneously being unable to extricate that civilization from the tragic fate of "civilizational obscurity" [8] brought about by the colonial oppression initiated by capitalist countries. Consequently, within the Chinese context, the starting points of the modernization narrative and the national rejuvenation narrative become clear: the former opens with the Opium War of 1840, while the latter begins with the agrarian civilization created in the era of Yan Di and Huang Di. This presents the logical reason and chain for the emergence of the national rejuvenation narrative: namely, that Chinese civilization held a leading position in ancient times, fell into the predicament of "obscurity" in the modern era [9], and is rebounding toward rejuvenation in the contemporary era.
At the same time, the characteristics of this logical chain confer a unique narrative trajectory upon the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation: namely, the rejuvenation outline of "standing up, becoming prosperous, and becoming strong" sketched by the Communist Party of China (CPC) for the Chinese nation. The reason the CPC takes "standing up" (zhàn qǐlái) as the first step is entirely consistent with the logical rationale of taking national independence and liberation as the starting point for opening the "Chinese path." For this reason, the goal of "standing up" was naturally realized when the foundational issues of national independence and ethnic liberation were truly resolved. The Chinese nation then moved toward the second step of the rejuvenation outline—"becoming prosperous" (fù qǐlái)—though the initial stage of this progress was exceptionally difficult and tortuous. In fact, the CPC’s leadership in truly propelling the Chinese nation onto the road of "becoming prosperous" began with the pulling back of the curtain on the great practice of reform and opening up. As pointed out in the Resolution of the CPC Central Committee on the Guiding Principles for Building a Socialist Spiritual Civilization, with the founding of New China, the Chinese nation "began the great rejuvenation of Chinese civilization on a socialist basis. Since our country entered a new historical period marked by the Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh CPC Central Committee [10], this rejuvenation has been endowed with new and powerful vigor and vitality." This continued until "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics entered a New Era, and the Chinese nation welcomed a great leap from standing up and becoming prosperous to becoming strong." In other words, the entire new period of reform, opening up, and socialist modernization profoundly reflects the historical process of gradually realizing the "becoming prosperous" stage of rejuvenation, a process perfectly in sync with the historical development of the successful creation of the "Chinese path."
Currently, the Chinese nation has successfully entered the third step of the rejuvenation outline: the "becoming strong" (qiáng qǐlái) stage. The day this stage is completed will be the moment the grand vision of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation is realized. Looking back, both the "standing up" and "becoming prosperous" stages were interval outlines with clear completion points and markers; these markers were closely linked to and resonated with the evolutionary logic and periodic achievements of modernization in China. Clearly, as the third step, "becoming strong" is no different. As for its completion point and markers, they can be predicted based on the practical form of China's modernization construction in the New Era—the "two-step" strategic arrangement [11]. One can thus infer that the answer lies in the middle of this century, upon the comprehensive buildup of a Great Modern Socialist Country. This constitutes the deep logic behind "using Chinese-path modernization to comprehensively promote the construction of a strong country and national rejuvenation" as the central task of the CPC moving forward. Generally speaking, the roads of "becoming prosperous" and "becoming strong" embarked upon by the Chinese nation are the "Chinese path," leading toward a Chinese civilization created in modern times that is capable of attaining a status of peak prosperity. This means that the path of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation naturally becomes a narrative discourse demonstrating the civilizational form of the "Chinese path." Notably, the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation is not a return to the Han, Tang, Song, or the Prosperous Age of Kangxi and Qianlong; it is not a simple repetition of traditional Chinese civilization. Rather, it is the construction of a brand-new Chinese civilization in a modern form—that is, the modern civilization of the Chinese nation. In turn, this brand-new civilizational achievement constitutes an important part of the new form of human civilization.
III. The Path of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: Narrative Discourse Highlighting the Distinctive Undertones of the "Chinese Path"
Whether following the narrative thread of modernization or that of national rejuvenation, under the leadership of the CPC, both narrate a direction toward socialism. Compared to the narrative direction prior to the founding of the CPC, this represents both a major breakthrough and a qualitative leap. Furthermore, the modern state the CPC leads the people to realize and the modern Chinese civilization they construct are socialist—not capitalist—in nature. This promotes a "virtuous cycle" interaction between the melody of the modernization movement and Chinese civilizational development on one hand, and the value orientations of the world socialist movement on the other. As previously mentioned, both the historical beginning of modernization in China and the predicament of Chinese civilization falling into "obscurity" were caused by the inherent logic and value orientation of capitalism. Consequently, the feudal autocratic regime of the Qing Dynasty and the various ruling regimes of the Republic of China era—including the Nanjing Provisional Government, the Beiyang Government, and the Nanjing Nationalist Government—all became "spokespersons" for Western capitalist countries to exploit, invade, and control China. As the classes and forces directly spawned by capitalism in China, the two most representative and socially dominant segments of the Chinese bourgeoisie—the bureaucratic bourgeoisie and the national bourgeoisie—inevitably contained two distinct attributes upon their formation: toward the Western capitalist countries and their cultivated forces in China, they presented a face of compromise and weakness; conversely, toward other internal classes and forces, they gave full expression to the inherent logic and value orientations of capitalism. This reflects, to some extent, that relying on capitalism and its class forces to save a semi-colonial China was entirely unfeasible.
A segment of China’s advanced intelligentsia recognized that only by choosing a value paradigm and class basis completely different from capitalism could China be saved from the perils of semi-colonialism. This value paradigm and class basis became gradually clearer starting from the victory of the Russian October Revolution, which promoted the introduction of Marxism into China. It was from this moment that advanced Chinese individuals turned to using the scientific "proletarian world outlook as a tool for observing the nation’s fate and reconsidering their own problems." Coupled with Lenin’s solemn declaration during this period—that "with the aid of the proletariat of the advanced countries, backward countries can go over to the Soviet system and, through certain stages of development, to communism, without having to pass through the capitalist stage"—they had no doubt that a colonized or backward China could obtain help from Soviet Russia and its proletarian forces. This constituted the external condition for Marxism to take root and bear fruit in China. This inevitably led the socialism chosen by China to be "suffused with the flavor of Soviet Russia" and stamped with the mark of "traditional socialism." It is evident that the CPC’s choice to "follow the path of the Russians" in its model of revolution and construction during a specific period had its historical reasons. Even though the ultimate value goals and ideological attributes of traditional socialism represented by the Soviet Union were essentially no different from the lifelong pursuits of Marx and Engels, this is an objective fact that cannot be erased or denied. That is to say, during the first two periods of the CPC [12], whether "following the path of the Russians" or "walking one's own path" to create the Chinese revolutionary road and the road of socialist modernization, the socialist ideology remained the unchanging base color.
After the start of reform and opening up, the CPC led the people to break through the shackles of the Soviet model by "walking one's own path," thereby proposing the important concept of "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" on the foundation of traditional socialism. In fact, the way the CPC organically combined "Chinese characteristics" and "Socialism" in its expressions has varied across different historical periods, generally transitioning from "socialism with Chinese characteristics" (yǒu Zhōngguó tèsè de shèhuìzhǔyì) to "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" (Zhōngguó tèsè shèhuìzhǔyì). Two points are particularly noteworthy: first, the removal of the word "with" (yǒu; literally "to have") was intended to demonstrate that the construction of "socialism with Chinese characteristics" had achieved initial results after years of effort; second, the removal of the possessive particle (de) was intended to highlight the meaning of "Chinese characteristics" while further promoting the tight connection between those characteristics and "Socialism." From the 17th National Congress to the 20th National Congress, "holding high the great banner of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" has been the distinct theme of every CPC report. On one hand, this solemnly declares to the world that China has not altered the socialist ideological base color in the slightest since the start of reform and opening up; on the other hand, it clearly signals to the world that the "socialism" China has adhered to is not the traditional socialism of the past, but is endowed with distinct "Chinese characteristics." One important reason for emphasizing this so strongly is to avoid falling into the trap of "ideological melee," such as debates over "whether socialism has ended" or "whether Marxism is obsolete." Although "some countries have experienced serious setbacks and socialism seems to have been weakened, the people have been tempered and have drawn lessons from this, which will prompt socialism to develop in a healthier direction. Therefore... do not think that Marxism has disappeared, become useless, or failed." In fact, looking at it today, Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is a prime example of socialism developing in a healthier direction.
So, compared to traditional socialism, wherein lies the "characteristic"? Domestic academic circles have conducted in-depth research and reflection on this. In summary, it can be understood through the aspects of ideology, economy, politics, and foreign strategy; the core essence is the transformation of the rigidity and high centralization of traditional socialism in those fields, as well as the closed-off state regarding the capitalist camp in foreign strategy. This means that the grand achievements following these transformations are the concrete manifestation of "Chinese characteristics." In reality, the method by which the CPC transformed traditional socialism and successfully opened the path of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics was "reform and opening up." In other words, Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is essentially the socialism of reform and opening up, thereby organically unifying the rejection of the "old path of closure and rigidity" with the refusal of the "evil path of changing banners" [13]. Thus, the relationship between Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and reform and opening up becomes clear: the two are highly consistent in connotation, and both are essentially aimed at realizing China’s modernization and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation along the "Chinese path." However, the brand-new civilizational form constructed by the "Chinese path" is prescribed a specific attribute and color by Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. It is based on this that Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasized that the path of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is the only way to realize the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, and has listed "adhering to Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" as one of the essential requirements of Chinese-path modernization. In summary, the "Chinese path" is neither the evil path of "changing banners" nor the old path of "closure and rigidity," but a socialist path with unique "Chinese characteristics"—namely, the "path of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics"—which constitutes the distinctive undertones of the "Chinese path."
IV. The Path of China's Reform and Opening Up: Narrative Discourse Interpreting the Driving Force of the "Chinese Path"
The path of China’s reform and opening up explains the developmental momentum of the "Chinese path." Furthermore, this is a composite developmental momentum formed by a combination of endogenous and exogenous forces. Here, "reform" lies in activating endogenous momentum, while "opening up" lies in introducing exogenous momentum; the two achieve an organic unity of internal and external drivers. That is to say, "reform" and "opening up" are essentially an organic whole that complements each other and allows for neither to be neglected. As Deng Xiaoping stated, "opening up to the outside world is also a content of reform; generally speaking, they are both called reform," and "reform, as China's second revolution, is the only way for China to develop its productive forces and the only way for China to achieve modernization." It is precisely based on this all-round domestic reform and opening up to the outside world that the endogenous and exogenous forces for the development of the "Chinese path" have strengthened together through mutual promotion, allowing the "Chinese path" to embark on a track of virtuous interaction, thereby driving "China to truly become active." The "active" [14] mentioned here, in terms of connotation, means "activating China’s modernization construction and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation"; in terms of essence, it means "activating socialism." Only in this way has China achieved the brilliant situation and magnificent achievements of today's power-building, national rejuvenation, and the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The above constitutes the fundamental purpose and requirements of reform and opening up.
The so-called "reform"—that is, domestic reform—is a comprehensive reform. It includes not only reform of the economic system, but also reform of the ideological and cultural systems as well as the political system. Admittedly, the most successful aspect and greatest result of China’s reform and opening up lies in the creation of an "economic development miracle" through economic system reform; this is an objective fact that cannot be concealed or refuted. However, the reform of the economic system and the achievement of the "economic development miracle" are inseparable from the reform of the rigid and highly centralized ideological and cultural systems, as well as the reform of the rigid and highly centralized political system. Regarding the former, this was the primary condition determining whether reform and opening up could take substantive steps; without "emancipating the mind and seeking truth from facts," all subsequent changes, developments, and magnificent achievements in China would have been out of the question. Taking "emancipating the mind and seeking truth from facts" as the starting point of reform and opening up is the best interpretation of its importance. Even today, Xi Jinping repeatedly emphasizes that "emancipating the mind and seeking truth from facts" occupies the prominent position of the "master switch" [15] in China's reform and opening up. Regarding the latter, this is the key to whether economic system reform can obtain substantive results. After all, "if we only carry out economic system reform without political system reform, the economic system reform will not work... whether all our reforms can ultimately succeed depends on the reform of the political system." Continuously improving the institutional systems of whole-process people's democracy and the people as masters of the country, and adhering to the comprehensive law-based governance of the country, are the core of the current deepening of political system reform.
From today’s perspective, the modernization of the socialist economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological fields is inseparable. Without any one of these, the construction of Chinese-path modernization would deviate from the development path of a virtuous cycle. This has theoretical genes to follow, developmental logic to pursue, and practical experience to draw upon. At the same time, to vigorously develop the socialist market economy, democratic politics, advanced culture, a harmonious society, and ecological civilization, we must perseveringly and coordinately promote institutional reforms in their respective fields, building a bridge for Chinese-path modernization from theory to practice, and injecting strong endogenous momentum into the comprehensive advancement of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation through Chinese-path modernization. Of course, it must also be recognized that knowing is easy but doing is difficult; there is always a certain distance between theory and practice. "Currently, our country is in the primary stage of socialism. In addition to the fact that productive forces are still underdeveloped, there are also problems such as the lack of coordination between social and economic development, and many aspects of the superstructure not adapting to the economic base." To this end, at the beginning of his administration, Xi Jinping firmly stated that "we must use greater political courage and wisdom to deepen reforms in important areas at the right time... dare to gnaw on hard bones and wade through dangerous shoals [16]... and aggregate the positive energy of the coordinated promotion of various related reforms."
The so-called "opening up"—that is, opening up to the outside world or external reform—is an all-round opening up. It includes opening up not only to countries in the socialist camp, but also to developing countries in the Third World, and even more so to countries in the capitalist camp. In a word, the object of "opening up" is all types of countries in the entire world. In fact, from the 1950s to the late 1970s, even after the rupture of relations with the Soviet Union, China's door to the socialist camp and Third World developing countries did not fully close. Instead, it was the case that "learning from countries in the capitalist camp" gradually became completely associated with "traitorism" and "blindly worshipping things foreign," causing the entire society to suffer from a psychological complex of "turning pale at the mere mention of capital." To a certain extent, this reflects that opening the door to exchanges with the "capitalist camp" was a particularly crucial element of "opening up." After all, looking at the actual results at that time, except in the military field, advanced science, technology, and management experience in other fields—especially in the field of economic development—were often held by countries in the capitalist camp, and these were precisely what China lacked and urgently needed to learn. As Deng Xiaoping said, China "must learn advanced science, technology, business management methods, and all other knowledge and culture beneficial to us from developed capitalist countries; to close the country to the outside world and be stuck in one's ways is foolish." However, such learning and introduction were not a matter of mechanical copying or blind borrowing, but were to be carried out based on national conditions and reality, in a conditional, planned, and selective manner. Socialism with Chinese characteristics, the primary stage of socialism, and their dialectical unity are the core contents of these national conditions and reality. Therefore, "we will never learn or introduce the capitalist system, nor will we ever learn or introduce various ugly and decadent things." This also proves from another angle that "opening up to the outside world"—or "learning from abroad"—is not mutually exclusive with "independence and self-reliance" but is an internally unified organic whole, reflecting the Marxist principle of the dialectical unity of internal and external causes. Based on this logical reasoning, "China's opening up is currently all-round and in all fields, and is accelerating the formation of a new pattern of comprehensive opening up."
In summary, reform and opening up—as the waves that vigorously launched China's modernization construction and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, and reignited the vitality and vigor of socialism—have a core essence. On the one hand, it is to break through the rigidity and high degree of centralization of traditional socialism in the ideological, cultural, economic, and political fields; on the other hand, it is to discard the closed state of traditional socialism toward countries in the capitalist camp. Promoting the latter through the former, and using the latter to pressure the former into change—realizing the organic unity and virtuous interaction between the two—is precisely the inexhaustible drive and important "magic weapon" for the Communist Party of China to lead the Chinese people to achieve magnificent successes one after another along the "Chinese path." As Xi Jinping stated, practical experience fully proves that "without reform and opening up, there would be no development and progress in contemporary China; reform and opening up is the powerful engine for developing China, developing socialism, and developing Marxism." This dictates that on the new journey, only by unswervingly following the path of reform and opening up, continuously promoting the comprehensive deepening of reform and expanding opening up, and organically unifying both with the acceleration of the construction of the dual circulation developmental pattern, can the "Chinese path" obtain a steady stream of endogenous and exogenous momentum.
V. China’s Path of Peaceful Development: A Narrative Discourse of the "Chinese Path" Embracing the World
For China to achieve the great cause of building a strong country and national rejuvenation, it needs reform and opening up to continuously inject strong endogenous and exogenous momentum, and reform and opening up was born precisely within the international environment of peaceful development. This means that the international environment of peaceful development plays a crucial role in China's development process. Therefore, reform and opening up, along with China's modernization construction and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, are logically destined to be inseparable from peaceful development. In fact, reform and opening up and its magnificent achievements in the fields of modernization and national rejuvenation are both a "product" of the international environment of peaceful development and a "practitioner" in maintaining world peace and promoting global development. As proclaimed in 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, China adheres to the "path of peaceful development, developing itself by maintaining world peace and maintaining world peace through its own development... and is able to continuously contribute wisdom and strength to the progress of human civilization." This reflects the pattern and spirit of the "Chinese path" in embracing the world—that is to say, China's path of peaceful development is the narrative discourse for writing the "Chinese path's" concern for the world. This is an important dimension for examining the "Chinese path" and helps to respond to and dissolve biased rhetoric such as the "China threat theory" and the "theory that a strong country must seek hegemony."
China's firm adherence to the path of peaceful development is "nourished" by cultural genes. The Western world experienced cultural prosperity in the ancient Greek and Roman periods and medieval civilization in its early stage, followed by the Renaissance and the Enlightenment in its later stage, which resulted in deeply rooted ideas of the survival of the fittest. Coupled with their religious fanaticism and intense pursuit of wealth, this inevitably formed cultural genes of colonialism and dictatorial hegemony. In stark contrast, China’s traditional culture is deeply influenced by Confucianism. Concepts such as "all within the four seas are one family" [17], "improving oneself while also benefiting the world" [18], "inclusivity and mutual benefit," and "harmony among all nations" [19] have become the lifeblood, foundation, and intellectual essence of Chinese civilization. This constitutes a major divergence in the cultural genes of China and the West, dictating that the development paths of China and the West follow fundamentally different directions. As Xi Jinping said: "The Chinese nation has always stressed that 'the whole world is one family,' advocated that 'all people are my brothers and all things are my companions' [20], 'harmony among all nations,' and 'universal harmony among all nations,' and yearned for a beautiful world where 'when the great Way prevails, the world is shared by all' [21]." In contrast, the rise and development of every major power in the Western world has been inseparable from the brutal plunder and conquest of colonies. Even though they also preach "cosmopolitanism," they are, after all, still "nourished" by the cultural genes of colonialism and dictatorial hegemony. Therefore, the "cosmopolitanism" they speak of is actually a doctrine of might over right, where "being able to fight" is considered being in the right, reflecting a way of life where capacity equals justice. Only the psychology of the Chinese nation, which regards "not fighting" as good morality, is the true spirit of "cosmopolitanism."
China's firm adherence to the path of peaceful development is "supported" by historical memory. For thousands of years, "nourished" by the aforementioned cultural genes, the Chinese nation has formed a spiritual quality of embracing the world regarding the relationship between self and other, making China a country that has always advocated peace and equality. As the Italian missionary Matteo Ricci explained, "If we stop to think about it, we would find it very remarkable that in such a country with almost countless people and infinite territory... although they have well-equipped armies and navies and could easily conquer neighboring countries, their Emperor and people have never thought of launching aggressive wars... I have carefully studied the history of China for more than 4,000 years, and I must admit that I have never seen records of such conquests, nor have I heard of them expanding their borders." However, as mentioned earlier, at the moment China was forced into the wave of modernization, the always peace-loving Chinese nation suffered the invasion and enslavement of imperialism, and was bullied and ravaged by power politics for more than a century thereafter. It is precisely these diametrically opposed historical memories that bidirectionally "support" the Chinese nation's yearning for peaceful development and its hatred of war and conflict.
China’s firm commitment to the path of peaceful development is "driven" by a guiding ideology. Within the cognitive logic of Marx and Engels, war was not present from the birth of human society; rather, it is a historical phenomenon derived from a specific stage of human social development—namely, "private property and class society." In their view, as long as private property and class society exist, and "as long as there are classes with opposing and conflicting interests and different social statuses," war will not be eliminated. This implies that the communist society created by the proletariat—through the proletarian revolution and its dictatorship to abolish private property, all classes, and class antagonisms—is destined to be a new society that takes peace as an international principle. Therefore, in the communist society envisioned by Marx and Engels, the problem of war undoubtedly does not exist. Although the victory of the October Revolution created the political conditions for establishing a socialist system in Russia, it could not push the world socialist revolution to the level hoped for by Lenin and others, thereby realizing the establishment of socialist systems worldwide. This meant that the spatiotemporal relationship between the socialist system and the capitalist system shifted from diachrony to synchrony. Consequently, the coexistence of the socialist system and the capitalist system became a major scenario in the developmental process of human society, which in turn prompted the emergence of the idea of peaceful coexistence between different social systems within Lenin’s practical horizon. For the concept of socialism and its constructive practice, this was both a bold breakthrough and a theoretical and practical paradigm for the future peaceful coexistence between socialist states and countries with different social systems.
It is precisely based on this that even in the early days of the founding of New China—when the opposition between the capitalist and socialist camps and the era's theme of "war and revolution" [22] were objective realities—China nonetheless proposed and actively advocated for the Five Principles of Peaceful Coexistence. It strove to develop friendly, cooperative, and mutually beneficial relations with all countries, particularly third-world developing nations, on the basis of equality and respect. It can be said that precisely because the people of the vast number of developing countries, including China, clamored for peace and pursued development, and joined with the people of other countries to form a powerful force for peace, "peace and development" gradually replaced "war and revolution" as the theme of the era. With the opening of the curtain of reform and opening up, the Communist Party of China (CPC) led the Chinese people to forge ahead unswervingly along the path of peaceful development, outlining a developmental trajectory of win-win cooperation in human political practice.
Entering the New Era, the CPC has focused on the future and destiny of humanity with profound historical reflection and a perspective of "caring for all under heaven" (huaiqiang tianxia) [23]. The proposal of the concept of "a community with a shared future for humanity," which explicitly identifies "following the path of peaceful development" as one of the Chinese characteristics of Chinese-path modernization, is a vivid interpretation of China’s firm commitment to that path. It can be said that the Chinese-path modernization pioneered by the CPC pays special attention to resolving the conflictual and antagonistic issues in social structures; a very important consideration therein is to inject the gene of "harmony" into the development of human society. In other words, the external concentrated expression of the path of Chinese-path modernization, the path of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and the path of China’s reform and opening up is the path of China’s peaceful development. This writes the "China Path’s" pattern and spirit of caring for the world. Even today, as the instability and uncertainty facing the world have significantly increased, this "China Path" pursuing world peace and development will certainly be upheld to the end, striving to open up even broader prospects for the peaceful development of human society.
VI. Conclusion
In summary, Chinese-path modernization, the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, socialism with Chinese characteristics, China’s reform and opening up, and China’s peaceful development are mutually inseparable and internally coupled entities. They constitute the multi-dimensional yet distinct narrative mainstays within the singular historical process of promoting China's long-term development through the "China Path." This determines that the "path discourses" serving as the various narrative mainstays—namely, the path of Chinese-path modernization, the path of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, the path of China's reform and opening up, and the path of China’s peaceful development—maintain an internal consistency with the "China Path" in the practice of building China. They merely differ in their respective narrative focus and core essentials, thus forming the "Chinese practice" and "Chinese logic" within the developmental paths of the modern world. In other words, the aforementioned paths are not "five paths," but rather the same path that is internally unified and logically consistent—one that points collectively to the "China Path." Entering the New Era, the Chinese communists, with Comrade Xi Jinping as their chief representative, have led the Chinese people to unswervingly "walk their own path" while continuously utilizing systems thinking to scientifically design the systemic architecture and theoretical connotations of the "China Path." Today, China is striding along the "China Path" at an unimaginable speed and scale toward the goal of building a great power and the great cause of national rejuvenation.