Issues in the Development of China's Communist Struggle in the 21st Century – English

The 21st century, the era we inhabit, is an unprecedented age of globalization and technological explosion, whose complexity far exceeds that of the 19th and early 20th centuries when Marx and Lenin lived. Therefore, we must discard the mindset that regards Marxism as a rigid dogma.

1 . The Perils of Dogmatism and the Principle of Practical Verification

Marxism-Leninism is a scientific theoretical system concerning the complete liberation of the proletariat and all humanity, yet it must continuously evolve with the advancements of the times, practice, and science; it is by no means immutable. As Comrade Mao Zedong emphasized, "The correctness or incorrectness of a line is not a matter of theory but a matter of practice." Comrade Deng Xiaoping also clearly stated that integrating the universal truth of Marxism with the concrete realities of our country, forging our own path, and building socialism with Chinese characteristics constitute the fundamental conclusion we have drawn from summarizing our long historical experience.

However, many critics are precisely mechanistic fundamentalists who "cling stubbornly to dogmatism." They one-sidedly believe that the economic form of socialism can only be a highly centralized planned economy, even considering market economy as synonymous with capitalism. Comrade Deng Xiaoping vehemently criticized this absurd theory in the early 1980s: "Poverty is not socialism." He pointed out that the fundamental principle of Marxism is to develop productive forces, and the primary task of socialism is also to develop productive forces, gradually improving the material and cultural living standards of the people. In long-term practice, China once suffered from prolonged poverty and stagnation due to "leftist" erroneous policies. Therefore, the idea of wishing for China to return to "poor socialism" and "poor communism" is a complete betrayal of the people's interests and historical experience.

2. Planning and Market: Clarifying the Essential Differences

Is market economy equivalent to capitalism？ Comrade Deng Xiaoping provided an extremely profound dialectical answer to this core question: "Whether there is more planning or more market is not the essential difference between socialism and capitalism." He further clarified: "A planned economy is not equivalent to socialism, as capitalism also has planning; a market economy is not equivalent to capitalism, as socialism also has markets." Both planning and market are merely means to regulate economic activities.

Those who rigidly adhere to a planned economy fail to recognize the essence of reform: reform itself is about liberating productive forces. China's previously inflexible economic system was precisely the fundamental cause hindering the development of productive forces, and it must be reformed to establish a vibrant and dynamic socialist economic system. Through reform and opening up, the enthusiasm of the entire population has been mobilized. In particular, the continuous development of township enterprises in rural reforms has demonstrated the success of these economic revitalization policies. If we "hesitate to take steps and dare not venture" due to fears of introducing capitalist elements, we will only miss opportunities and neglect the imperative of development.

If rigid planning models are not the essence of socialism, how should the true path of socialism be defined in the 21st century？ Comrade Deng Xiaoping and our Party have pointed to two fundamental principles, serving as a beacon for contemporary China.

1. Common Prosperity and the Dominant Position of Public Ownership

The superiority of socialism ultimately lies in its ability to genuinely eliminate exploitation, achieve fairness and justice, and ultimately realize common prosperity. Comrade Deng Xiaoping repeatedly emphasized that upholding socialism rests on two fundamental principles: "public ownership as the mainstay and common prosperity.

We allow some individuals and regions to prosper first, but this absolutely does not mean polarization. The purpose of allowing some to prosper first is to incentivize and drive other regions and people, ultimately achieving common prosperity. We impose restrictions on individuals who have prospered first through means such as taxation and resolutely demand that the fruits of development "benefit all people more extensively and fairly." If polarization occurs, social conflicts will intensify and may eventually lead to turmoil.

In terms of economic entities, China's public ownership，including ownership by the whole people and collective ownership, still holds an absolute dominant position in the overall economy. Even the absorption of foreign capital and technology and the development of "three types of foreign-invested enterprises" are regarded as supplements to developing productive forces, constrained by national political and economic conditions, and ultimately beneficial to the socialist economy.

2. Upholding the Dominant Position of the Proletariat and the Masses

The dictatorship of the proletariat and the political rule of the proletariat are the highest manifestations of achieving communism. In contemporary China, this is reflected in upholding the leadership of the Party, safeguarding the fundamental interests of workers and peasants, and ensuring the political participation of grassroots people.

We adhere to wholeheartedly relying on the working class, which serves as the main force and leading class in national construction. At the same time, we also attach great importance to the people's political awareness and initiative. As Marx stated, the proletariat needs state power not only to suppress the resistance of the exploiters but also to lead the broad masses in "adjusting" the socialist economy.

At present, we emphasize deliberative democracy in political construction, which is a unique form and distinctive advantage of China's socialist democratic politics. Its purpose is to improve the orderly political participation of the people, maintain the close ties between the Party and the masses, and ensure that the interests and demands of grassroots people are heard and fairly addressed. The greatest political strength of our Party lies in its close ties with the masses, while the greatest danger after assuming power is becoming detached from the masses. Therefore, through anti-corruption efforts and strengthening work style construction, we ensure that we always represent the interests of the people, which is key to maintaining the advanced nature and purity of a proletarian party. This is far more profound than simply applying Western multi-party systems and separation of powers models.

Dismissing China's current exploratory path as "revisionism" is typically based on a misunderstanding of "traditional" socialist models such as the Soviet Union and North Korea. We must clearly distinguish these failed cases from China.

1. Lessons from the Soviet Union: The Formation and Rigidity of the Bureaucratic Privileged Class

By the 1970s, the Soviet system had become severely rigid, with a bureaucratic privileged class monopolizing state capital and political power. The formation of this "revisionist bureaucratic empire" occurred precisely because its leadership implemented erroneous ideological and political lines, ultimately betraying socialism.

As Comrade Mao Zedongand other veteran revolutionaries,regarding the Soviet Unionreflected on the path and developmentafter revisionismpointed out in their summary of experiences，The Soviet Union committed a series of shortcomings and errors during its construction process, particularly by one-sidedly emphasizing heavy industry while neglecting agriculture and light industry, leading to market shortages and monetary instability. More importantly, the policies adopted by the Soviet Union exploited peasants, severely damaging their production enthusiasm. Deng Xiaoping vividly criticized this, saying: "You want the hen to lay more eggs but don’t feed it, and you want the horse to run fast without letting it graze. What kind of logic is that in the world!

This economic imbalance and excessive exploitation of peasants were essentially the result of its bureaucratic system being detached from the masses and lacking democratic oversight. The degeneration of the Soviet leadership group caused it to lose the foundation of its legitimacy and justice. We have learned from this lesson and emphasized that in handling the relationships between the state, production units, and individual producers, the interests of all three parties must be balanced. The Soviet experience demonstrates that rigid systems and the formation of privileged classes are the true revisionism, the consequence of which is the collapse of the party and the country.

2. North Korea’s Alienation: Juche Ideology and Militaristic Tendencies

Similarly,modern North Korea has transformed into a state guided by Juche ideology,，based onKim Il-sungism，as its guiding principle. The Juche Idea emphasizes that the masses are the masters of revolution and construction, and that individuals are the masters of their own destiny. Its "fundamental ideological stance" even critiques "vulgar realism," advocating for ideological transformation to take precedence in order to prevent the state from deviating from the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism.

However, although North Korea emphasizes economic self-reliance, this model is widely regarded as unsustainable due to its lack of resources. More alarmingly, the political manifestation of the Juche Idea is a highly centralized single-leadership system and an "absolute" definition of the leader, giving its politics a strong religious essence.

In practice, North Korea excessively prioritizes military strength, emphasizing "Military-First Politics." This approach of rapidly concentrating resources and power in the military, while emphasizing self-defense in national security, intensifies military competition between North and South, leads to irrational resource allocation, and ultimately results in low national productivity, relegating the country to a backward position in the global competitive system.

This system, characterized by the absolutization of ideology, militarization of resources, and economic isolation, cannot be considered socialism in the true sense, even if it formally adheres to public ownership. It fundamentally differs from the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics advocated by Comrade Deng Xiaoping, which prioritizes developing productive forces and improving people's livelihoods. Therefore, labeling the Soviet Union and North Korea as "models" of socialism is merelya WesternCritics employ simplistic methods and conceptual substitution to attack China's path.

We have rejected the rigid dogmas of planned economy while learning from the painful lessons of the Soviet and North Korean models. The path we have chosen is grounded inthe 21st century,the realities of China's primary stage of socialism, driven by reform and opening up, and centered on the people as a self-directed exploratory path.

1. Reform and Opening Up: The Second Revolution to Liberate Productive Forces

Comrade Deng Xiaoping clearly stated: "Reform is China's second revolution." It dismantled the egalitarian "big pot" system and greatly mobilized the people's enthusiasm. Through reform and opening up, China broke free from long-term isolation and backwardness, leveraging the international peaceful environment to absorb useful advanced experiences, technologies, and capital.

We must firmly believe that the policy of reform and opening up is unwavering. The continuity of this policy is reliable because it aligns with the fundamental interests of the vast majority. It is precisely based on the achievements of a decade of reform and opening up that the living standards of the Chinese people have significantly improved, winning their support.

Of course, mistakes and risks are inevitable during the reform process, such as inflation and corruption. However, this requires us to pay even greater attention to "grasping with both hands": one hand focusing on reform and opening up, and the other on combating crime and strengthening spiritual civilization. As long as we promptly summarize experiences, decisively correct errors, and resolutely move forward, bad situations can be turned into positive outcomes.

2. Avoiding the Abyss of Bureaucratic Capitalism

Many critics claim that China is heading toward bureaucratic capitalism. However, the core leadership of our Party has remained highly vigilant and taken sustained actions, which is precisely the key achievement that distinguishes China's path from that of the Soviet Union in the 1970s.

First, we uphold the dominant position of public ownership, which serves as the economic foundation for resisting capitalist erosion.

Second, we are committed to reforming the political structure, with the core objective of overcoming bureaucracy, improving efficiency, and mobilizing the enthusiasm of the masses. Although political restructuring is a complex and challenging issue, it is essential to safeguard the achievements of economic reforms and prevent rigidity. We must streamline administration, delegate power, and overcome the drawbacks of the "fusion of Party and government.

Most importantly, our ongoing anti-corruption campaign is a direct declaration of war against bureaucracy and bourgeois decadence. Corruption and graft pose the greatest danger of losing public support. By "exerting great efforts to address prominent intra-Party issues" and tackling these problems with determination, seriousness, and earnestness, we can ensure that state power consistently maintains its proletarian character and avoid the dangerous scenario of a bureaucratic privileged class monopolizing national resources.

3. Stability and Development: China's Supreme Interests

Whether it involves continuing to deepen reforms or resistingBourgeois color revolution and revisionism” accusations,as well as development and socialstability have always been China's supreme interests that must be upheld. Without a stable political environment, all construction would become empty talk. Precisely in light of the painful lessons fromthe late Cultural Revolution period, when the Cultural Revolution was exploited by the bourgeoisie and bureaucratic class,we must never again allow the disorderlyexpansion of bureaucratismandsocialunresttooccur.

Stability serves development, and development is the "hard truth" for solving all problems. Comrade Deng Xiaoping clearly stated that to judge whether a country's political system is correct, three key criteria must be examined: whether the national political situation is stable, whether it can enhance people's unity and improve their lives, and whether productive forces can achieve sustained development. China's practice over manyyearshas proven that our path is correct and has achieved remarkable results in these aspects.

We firmly believe that China's development must be based on its own reality, adhering to the principles of independence and self-reliance. We value international cooperation but will never swallow the bitter fruit of harming national interests, nor become a vassal of any country. This independent foreign policy of not playing others' cards is more conducive to world peace.

Today's Chinese society is in a new historical stage of socialist construction, facing unprecedented challenges and opportunities. The rigid accusations labeling China as "revisionist" essentially reflect a lack of understanding of Marxism's vitality and a fear of epochal changes.

We must hold high the great banner of socialism with Chinese characteristics, firm in our belief in Marxism and communism. Our theory is the product of combining the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution.

Looking back at history, neither the rigid bureaucratic system of the Soviet Union in the 1970s nor the ideological absolutism and resource militarization of modern North Korea can serve as models for socialist development. Critics attempt to impose these failed examples on us in vain efforts to negate China'sreform and opening-upremarkable achievements over the years.

China has not taken the wrong path of bureaucratic capitalism, thanks to our adherence to the fundamental socialist principles of common prosperity and public ownership as the mainstay, our guiding ideology centered on liberating and developing productive forces, and our persistent commitment to people's welfare and grassroots democracy as our ultimate goals.

Lenin and Marx have passed away, and the legacy they left behind requires us to inherit and develop creatively. Contemporary China is steadfastly advancing along the socialist path it has chosen, demonstrating through facts that only by integrating Marxism with China's actual conditions can the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation truly be achieved—this is not only a responsibility to the Chinese people but also a contribution to the progress of human civilization. We are full of confidence in the future, firmly believing that China can overcome all difficulties and handle its own affairs even better.

Challenges and Path Choices Facing Contemporary Chinese Socialist Economy: The Dialectical Unity Between the Dominant Position of Public Ownership and Market Vitality

As we resolutely embark on the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics and successfully avoid sliding into the abyss of rigid dogma and bureaucratic capitalism, we must confront the profound contradictions accumulating within the current economic structure. These challenges not only concern fluctuations in economic data but also touch upon the essence of the socialist system and the sustainability of the dominant position of the public sector economy. We must remain vigilant against the drawbacks already exposed in capitalist countries, which are attempting to breed and spread in new forms within the fabric of China's economy.

The primary challenge currently facing China's socialist economic construction lies in how to correct the potential erosion of socialist core advantages during the marketization process, particularly in the realms of enterprise vitality and employment security, while maintaining rapid economic development.

1. The "Vitality Paradox" of Enterprises and the Warning of High Unemployment Rates

Currently, we observe a worrying "vitality paradox": on one hand, the government continues to emphasize and encourage the development of the private economy, which is undoubtedly the correct direction in liberating and developing productive forces; but on the other hand, excessive reliance and praise for the private sector are invisibly neglecting or even weakening the inherent advantages of our socialism.

Private enterprises play an important supplementary role in introducing advanced technology, management experience, and promoting economic activities. However, we cannot ignore that private capital, in its pursuit of profit maximization, naturally tends to create widespread unemployment. This "creative destruction" is a common issue in capitalist economic systems, and it is now emerging in China as well. WithChina'sprivate enterprises gaining increasing influence on the international stage, and many even surpassing state-owned enterprises in certain fields, we must face the potential social consequences of this expansion of power.

The fundamental principle of socialism is to ensure common prosperity, not polarization. If the rapid development of the private sector comes at the cost of sacrificing the stable employment of the working class and exacerbating the wealth gap, then it fundamentally deviates from our goal of building socialism.，This does not align with the requirements of the proletarian democratic dictatorship.. As the wealth gap widens, social conflicts may develop, ultimately potentially triggeringa series of socio-economic issues.As Comrade Deng Xiaoping emphasized, the ultimate goal of developing productive forces is to gradually improve the people’s material and cultural living standards, not to plunge them into hardship, because poverty is absolutely not socialism.

Amid this critical situation, some argue that the best solution to the current high unemployment rate and the preservation of social fairness may be re-publicization, correcting the excessive privatization since the 1990s. I believe that the core of this call for a return to public ownership lies in upholding the dominant position of public ownership, which is one of the fundamental socialist principles we must adhere to.

However, this return must not be a simple, dogmatic regression. If we simply revert to the rigid, non-competitive state-owned system of the past, we will only repeat the mistakes of history. Historical lessons have clearly shown that the long-standing "leftist" erroneous line and the egalitarian "iron rice bowl" system severely constrained the development of productive forces. We cannot sacrifice efficiency and vitality to solve the employment problem, ultimately falling into the absurd predicament of "poor socialism.

Therefore, the urgent task is to maintain a dialectical balance between state-owned and private enterprises. If decisive measures are not taken to sustain this balance—allowing the private sector to generate profits while simultaneously creating widespread unemployment, and permitting its influence to comprehensively surpass that of the public economy both domestically and internationally—then the ensuing economic issues in China could very well lead to the loss of the dominant position of our public ownership economy. Once public ownership no longer holds the principal status, the economic foundation for resisting capitalist corrosion and safeguarding the interests of the working class will be undermined, constituting a genuine directional error.

2. Safeguarding the Dominant Position of Public Ownership: Avoiding Bureaucratic Capitalism and the Lack of Market Vitality

We must recognize that the challenges facing the public ownership economy stem not only from external competition with private capital but also from internal inefficiencies and bureaucratic practices. The historical experience of the Soviet Union teaches us that even a superpower can degenerate and lose its legitimacy due to the erroneous ideological and political lines implemented by its leadership.

Under the Soviet model, the rigidity of the economic system, with its one-sided emphasis on heavy industry while neglecting agriculture and light industry, led to shortages of goods in the market and monetary instability. More critically, the policies it adopted exploited peasants, severely damaging their production enthusiasm and leaving the economy devoid of internal dynamism. This inefficient and detached system is precisely what we refer to as the manifestation of bureaucracy.

Therefore, the "dominance of public ownership" we speak of must be a vibrant and dynamic form of public ownership. To uphold the primary position of state-owned enterprises, it is essential to ensure their efficiency and competitiveness while maintaining their scale.

To address the lack of vitality in state-owned enterprises, we cannot rely solely on administrative orders or monopolies; instead, we must leverage the positive role of market competition mechanisms, treating "competition" as a necessary means for the self-development and refinement of public ownership.

1. Competition: The Only Path to Eliminating the "Iron Rice Bowl" and Developing Productive Forces

As our reflection on the Soviet model reveals, the greatest flaw of its public-owned economy lay in its lack of competitiveness. The rigid planned system and the "iron rice bowl" institution fostered a "wait-and-see" mentality, severely stifling the initiative and creativity of the workforce.

Therefore, I firmly believe that private enterprises need a fair environment to compete with state-owned enterprises; only through mutual competition can vitality be maintained. We must not "hesitate to take steps or dare not explore" due to fear of the risks brought by competition. This fear stems from the influence of "Leftist" thinking, which equates market economy with the label of capitalism.

However, Comrade Deng Xiaoping clearly stated: "Whether there is more planning or more market is not the essential difference between socialism and capitalism." Both planning and market are means of regulating the economy; if used effectively, they can promote the development of socialism.