Shared Future: How a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind Can Change the World?
Source: Journal of Marxism, Issue 2 , 2023
Author Chen Shuguang is Vice Dean and Professor of the School of Marxism, Party School of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (National School of Administration)
Building a community with a shared future for mankind is a “Chinese solution” proposed by China to address global governance challenges and promote the overall interests of mankind. This solution has innovated the thinking paradigm of global governance, paints a benign future picture of international order, marks the future direction of major power diplomacy. As well as creates a new form of human civilization, opens up the historical space for the coexistence of the two systems (socialism-capitalism), and corrects the struggle line at the current stage of world history. Building a community with a shared future for mankind is the narrative theme of international relations and international politics in the 21st century, and also constitutes the narrative theme of Marxist world history theory and world universal communication/intercourse theory in the 21st century. In our contemporary times historical materialism attains a new form and reaches a new theoretical height in the new context of economic globalization.
1. Paradigm shift in global governance thinking
The dilemma of global governance is a worldwide scenario that humanity is facing in the 21st century. The concept of a community with a shared future for mankind transcends the metaphysical thinking of global governance, the binary opposition between cosmopolitanism and nationalism, and the premise of “West and non-West division”, providing the world with a new way of thinking and opening up a new vision for optimizing global governance.
The concept of a community with a shared future for mankind is a meta-philosophical creation of Sinicized Marxism at the level of global governance, which promotes the historical transformation of global governance thinking from monolithic homogeneous thinking to pluralistic thinking, from linear thinking to complex thinking, and from subject-object binary thinking to intersubjective thinking.
With the opening of new sea and land routes, capital broke through the intercontinental boundaries, opened up the world market, and mankind entered world history. The general process of social production became organized globally, forming a global common market and universal world communication/intercourse, and producing a world market system and global governance system that match it.
Therefore, globalization can be divided into two levels: “globalization as a carrier of universal development of productive forces” and “globalization as a norm for universal human communication”, namely the “material content (global production system)” of globalization and the “social form (global governance system)” of globalization. Only when the two match each other can the world develop in an orderly manner. However, the capitalist global governance system adapts to the “material content” of capitalist globalization and serves the global proliferation strategy of Western big capital. Entering the 21st century, with the historic end of capitalist globalization and the decisive opening of a new type of economic globalization, the world market players are moving towards diversification, and reconstructing the global order and sharing the benefits of globalization have become the general expectations of all nation-states. The capitalist global governance system no longer adapts to the “material content” of globalization, and globalization has fallen into a general crisis of contradiction between “social form” and “material content”. Reforming the “social form” of globalization and promoting revolutionary changes in global governance thinking have become inevitable requirements in the era of globalization 2.0. Building a community with a shared future for mankind provides the world with a new way of thinking and promotes a historic transformation in global governance thinking.
First, shift from homogeneous thinking to pluralistic thinking. Most traditional communities are “homogeneous communities”. Community members are selected based on common values, ideologies or spiritual life, or based on common economic, political and military goals. “Exclusivity” is its basic characteristic. For example, NATO, the Warsaw Pact, the European Union and the G7 are all cooperation among “homogeneous” countries. In defending the legitimacy of NATO, Obama pointed out that NATO is a community of values on both sides of the North Atlantic. This “homogeneous” thinking is the basis of the Cold War thinking, an important source of ideological struggle, the culprit of many international disputes, and an important weapon for a few major powers to form cliques and “fight against dissidents”. Today, facing global issues, homogeneous communities cannot cope with complex cross-regional and cross-cultural situations alone. The international community needs to unite and act together to solve the problem of global governance.
The community of shared future for mankind is not an entity of single race or cultural homogeneity, nor is it a community of values. It does not draw boundaries based on ideology, does not engage in value diplomacy, does not target specific objects, does not form cliques, and does not form exclusive small circles. “Inclusiveness” is its basic characteristic. Xi Jinping pointed out: “In today’s world, human beings live in a world composed of different cultures, races, skin colors, religions and different social systems. The people of all countries have formed a community of shared future in which you are in me and I am in you.” This is “a community of a completely new concept, which is not based on the idea of common time, space or identity”; here, there is no “cultural exception”, no racial discrimination, no religious exclusion, no party-to-party confrontation, no gangs, and no ideological barriers. It can be seen that this is completely different from homogeneous communities such as NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Of course, the community of shared future for mankind does not form gangs, not to say that we do not want unity, but to say that we do not want alienated unity, the kind of “mechanical unity” that suppresses differences with identity and confronts particularity with universality; what we want is a new type of unity, a unity based on respect for differences and individuality, which Durkheim called “organic unity.” The community with a shared future for mankind replaces homogeneous subjects with diverse subjects, Western governance with global governance, and great power governance with joint governance, thus achieving a major shift in governance thinking.
Second, shift from linear thinking to complex thinking. The current international system presents us with a clear center-periphery world structure, and linear thinking dominates the operating mechanism of the international order. Global governance starts from the center and expands to the periphery, and the entire world is placed in a center-periphery structure sequence. The power distribution among community members is a “pyramid” structure, and the internal affairs of the community follow a vertical transmission mechanism from the center to the periphery. The core countries control the economic order, political order, security system and legal system of the entire world, and the peripheral countries have no choice but to obey the will of the center. Since the 16th century, this linear governance model designed based on the control of the world by major powers has always dominated. McLuhan wrote: “Until recently, our institutions and arrangements, including social, political, and economic institutions and arrangements, have only a one-way model… Indulging in the old-fashioned, mechanical, one-way model of expansion from the center to the periphery is no longer suitable for our world today.” After the end of World War II, the United States controlled the main world power through the United Nations in politics, the Bretton Woods system in economy, NATO and the alliance mechanism in security, and international conventions in rule of law. Obviously, this linear thinking that expands from the center to the periphery is contrary to the evolutionary trend of the global governance pattern in the 21st century.
The community of shared future for mankind means a major shift in the global governance model and power structure – from a vertical linear governance model to a “global co-governance” model, and from a linear thinking of center-periphery dichotomy to a multi-center, grid-based complex thinking. The concept of a community of shared future for mankind advocates understanding the international system from the perspective of complexity, which is a transcendence of one-way linear thinking. On the world stage today, “the relationship between major powers is constantly adjusting, and multiple power centers are forming.” From the perspective of complexity, there is no single center within the community of shared future for mankind, no hierarchical master-slave structure, and no solidified “center-periphery” pattern. The members form a complex, multi-center grid order, and each member is a “node” on the grid, playing an indispensable role. The handling of affairs within the community follows the principle of “equality” and the “democratic” mechanism, and follows the principle of multi-center autonomy. The power thinking of superpowers monopolizing world affairs and dominating the fate of other countries lacks the basis of international morality and is not feasible in reality. Xi Jinping pointed out that “all countries, big or small, strong or weak, rich or poor, are equal members of the international community. The affairs of a country are decided by its people, and international affairs are handled through consultation among all countries.” This is the action principle advocated by the community with a shared future for mankind.
Third, shift from subject-object dichotomy to inter-subjectivity. In the traditional world system, core countries are centered on “I” or “we”, accustomed to the “subject-object dichotomy” way of thinking, and accustomed to using the “I and him” and “we and them” methods to discuss, think and deal with international affairs. The world is stereotyped into two simple opposing poles of “center and periphery”, “advanced and backward”, “civilized and barbaric”, “allies and enemies”, “democracy and autocracy”, and “West and non-West”. The periphery and the center are in a state of tension. This is related to capitalist civilization. In the world system dominated by capital logic, the essence of relations between countries is “war of all against all”. Since the formation of the Westphalian system, due to the disparity in the power of the subjects, communities, international organizations, and transnational institutions have often become tools for manipulation by core countries. The harmony between the “small self” of the nation-state and the “big self” of the community is still an external and illusory harmony. The “small self” is annihilated in the “big self”, and the “big self” overrides the “small self”. Opposition and confrontation are the norm in the international community.
In the community of shared future for mankind, all countries are equal subjects of communication. Intersubjective thinking replaces subject-object dichotomy thinking. For the first time, community members use the “we” approach to discuss, think and handle international affairs. This is a historic leap in thinking. Different countries regard each other as “one of us, not “them”. Sovereign states form a community of shared future for mankind, not out of self-centeredness and the desire to objectify “others”, nor out of one-way dependence on “others” in the community, but out of the good wishes of mutual cooperation and common development among community members. The “small self” of the nation-state and the “big self” of the community are no longer an external opposition relationship, but an internal harmonious relationship. Here, “I am us, and we are me”, which is a negation of the old international order of subject-object dichotomy and master-slave dependence; here, the “small self” supports the “big self”, and the free development of each nation-state constitutes the condition for the development of the community; here, the “big self” achieves the “small self”, and the development of the community provides a broad stage and space for the development of the nation-state. Here, the community is not an abstract entity that is above the state and opposed to the “small self”, and the nation-state is not the “only one” that is isolated from the community and opposed to the “big self”. The “small self” and the “big self”, between order and autonomy, and between big countries and small countries are moving towards reconciliation, and human society is ushering in a new era of harmonious coexistence.
Please Download for Full Text