Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is a Unique and New Social Formation in the World History

Analyzing China’s Social Formation by Marxist Social Formation Theory

Original Article Title: The Conception of “A New Form of Human Civilization” by CPC and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics

February 2022

Authors: Xie Fusheng, Deputy Director of the National Research Center for the Political Economy of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics at Renmin University of China, and Professor at the School of Economics, Renmin University of China; Kuang Xiaolu, Assistant Professor at the School of Marxism, Tsinghua University.

Abstract

Civilization is created through human material practice and depends on social formations for its existence. The evolution of these social formations follows a monistic yet multi-linear path. The capitalist social formation initiated modern society, bearing progressive significance while harboring inherent contradictions. Marx and Engels proposed communism as a new social formation, and the Communist Party of the Soviet Union established the world’s first socialist state, though it eventually regressed toward capitalism. Based on Marxist theory, the Communist Party of China has drawn lessons from socialist practice, critically absorbed the achievements of Western capitalist civilization, and forged a new path of Chinese modernization. On the centenary of the Communist Party of China’s founding (2021), Comrade Xi Jinping proposed that Socialism with Chinese Characteristics has created a “New Form of Human Civilization,” which defined that Socialism with Chinese Characteristics as a new social formation. The concept of a “New Form of Human Civilization” addresses the historical challenge of enabling economically and culturally backward nations to absorb all the achievements of capitalist civilization while avoiding the catastrophic consequences of capitalist development.

The concept of a “New Form of Human Civilization” by the CPC represents an original contribution to Marxist political economy. This concept breaks through the traditional single-linear evolutionary theory of the “Five Forms of Social Formation,” synthesizes the Communist exploration of socialism, solves a series of dilemmas in socialist modernization, and serves as a pivotal framework for constructing a 21st-century Marxist economic theory system. “Xi Jinping Economic Thought” marks a new leap in Marxist theory, following Marx’s political economy, Lenin’s Theory of Imperialism, and Mao Zedong’s Theory of New Democracy, representing the economics of 21st-century Marxism.

Keywords: New Form of Human Civilization; Social Formation; Socialism with Chinese Characteristics; Xi Jinping Economic Thought; 21st-Century Marxist Economics

I. Introduction

At the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the Communist Party of China’s founding, the opening ceremonies of the 11th National Congress of the China Federation of Literary and Art Circles and the 10th National Congress of the China Writers Association, and the second plenary session of the 19th Central Committee of the Party, Xi Jinping proposed on three occasions that under the Party’s leadership, the people have persisted in and developed Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, creating a “New Form of Human Civilization.” This new form of civilization, rooted in Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, is not only the fundamental achievement of the Party and the people’s century-long struggle, creativity, and accumulation—it guides China’s progress, enhances people’s well-being, and realizes national rejuvenation—but it also profoundly impacts the course of world history and broadens the pathways for developing countries toward modernization.

Since its proposal, scholars have conducted extensive research, generally agreeing that the practice of China’s “new path of modernization” has pioneered this “New Form of Human Civilization,” with coordinated development of material, political, spiritual, social, and ecological civilizations forming its core content.

These studies attribute the “newness” of the “New Form of Human Civilization” to either Chinese civilization itself and socialism, or their combination. However, both Chinese civilization and socialist practice have long histories and have experienced setbacks, making it difficult to label them as inherently “new.” While the combination of Chinese civilization and socialism is novel in the context of socialist construction in individual countries, this perspective would imply that any nation building socialism could claim to have created a “New Form of Human Civilization.” Thus, what exactly is “new” about the “New Form of Human Civilization” created by China? Why is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics considered a “New Form of Human Civilization”?

Comrade Xi Jinping’s important proposition of a “New Form of Human Civilization” represents an original historical judgment. As China stands on the brink of a new journey toward comprehensively building a modern socialist nation, correctly understanding this concept is crucial for guiding the Party and state’s future direction and formulating sound policies. This article argues that the starting point and focus for understanding the “New Form of Human Civilization” lies in “social formation”—specifically, the “civilizational form of social formations.” The “New Form of Human Civilization” refers to the social formation of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics constructed by the Communist Party of China and the Chinese people in practice.

Its “newness” manifests in three aspects: first, it is a new social formation guided by scientific socialism and belonging to the “stage of dependence on things”; second, it represents a critical transcendence of capitalist social formation; third, it dismantles Eurocentric historical shema and opens a new model for social formation evolution.

The concept of the “New Form of Human Civilization” is an original contribution by Comrade Xi Jinping to Marxism and its political economy, carrying profound significance. First, it transcends the traditional single-linear evolutionary theory of the “Five Forms of Social Formation,” addressing the question of the nature of post-revolution socialist societies in backward countries. Second, akin to Marx’s integration of classical Marxist political economy to establish the labor theory of value and reveal the laws of capitalist motion, Comrade Xi Jinping synthesizes scientific assertions by Communist leaders such as Mao Zedong and Deng Xiaoping, proposing the “New Form of Human Civilization” to clarify institutional specifications for the economic foundations of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, elevating its practice into a theoretical economic system. Third, by defining Socialism with Chinese Characteristics as a new social formation, it resolves major theoretical and practical challenges in China’s socialist modernization. Fourth, the “New Form of Human Civilization” serves as a cornerstone for constructing 21st-century Marxist economics, forming a multi-layered theoretical framework with “grasping the new development stage” and “building a new development paradigm” to address overarching, foundational, and critical issues for the Party and state, providing a theoretical framework for advancing the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism.

II. The Concepts of Civilization and Social Formation

Civilization is invariably intertwined with social formations, existing dependently upon them while being concretely manifested across economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological dimensions—thus forming the civilizational form of social formations. The historical evolution of social formations exhibits a monistic yet multi-linear characteristic: each nation, while adhering to the general laws of human social development, may choose distinct developmental paths. The capitalist social formation pioneered modern civilization, bearing progressive significance, yet its inherent contradictions intensify with capitalist development.

(1) Civilization and Social Formation

Classical Marxist theorists, employing historical materialism, examined civilization through the lens of material practice: “Civilization is a matter of practice, a quality of society,” and “the entire so-called world history is nothing but the process by which man, through his labor, creates the object-world, the process by which nature becomes for man.” [Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 3, People’s Publishing House, 2002, p. 536, 310.]

Civilization arises from material life practice. When human practice develops to a certain stage—“creating an object-world through practice, transforming the inorganic world” [ibid., p. 273]—and “produces the means of subsistence required for life, thereby indirectly producing their material life itself,” humanity transcends barbarism and primitiveness, “distinguishing itself from animals,” and thereby creates human civilization. [Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 2012, p. 147.]

The term “civilization” appears repeatedly in classical Marxist texts, bearing distinct meanings in varying contexts: First, it denotes historical stages of human development. Engels adopted Morgan’s concept of the “civilizational era,” identifying commodity production as its essential feature: “The civilizational era is a stage of societal development in which division of labor, exchange between individuals arising from division of labor, and commodity production combining both, have developed fully, completely transforming the entire prior society.” [ibid., Vol. 4, p. 190–191.] This era comprises distinct phases—ancient slavery, medieval serfdom, and modern wage labor—as “the three forms of servitude characteristic of the three major periods of the civilizational era.” [ibid., Vol. 4, p. 193.]

Second, it signifies distinct civilizations of nations (e.g., “German civilization,” “French civilization,” “Indian civilization”). Even civilizations sharing the same economic base exhibit “infinite variations and colorful differences” due to “countless differing empirical conditions, natural environments, racial relations, and external historical influences.” [Marx, Capital, Vol. 3, People’s Publishing House, 2004, p. 894.]

 Third, it represents a society’s level of advancement. Regions, nations, and societies exhibit varying civilizational degrees—e.g., classical Marxist texts contrast “Western civilization” with “Eastern barbarism,” [Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 12, People’s Publishing House, 1998, p. 263] while describing communist and capitalist societies as “civilization on one hand, barbarism on the other.” [ibid., Vol. 43, p. 169.] Fourth, in narrower usage, it specifically denotes the capitalist society. Capitalism embodied the pinnacle of civilization in the classical Marxist authors’ era; texts frequently refer to it as “civilized nations,” “civilized world,” or “modern civilization,” while critiquing “all progress of civilization” as “never enriching the worker, but only the capitalist,” “only increasing the power of the object dominating labor.” [Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 267.]

Despite contextual variations, civilization is unequivocally the product of material practice, existing in concrete forms and enriching them across specific dimensions. Its foundation lies in a particular mode of production, its relations of production, and the superstructure built upon these—i.e., a specific social formation. For instance, the civilizational era distinguishes itself from earlier communal societies through private ownership, spawning corresponding institutions like monogamous families, states, urban-rural divisions, and inheritance systems. A given social formation corresponds to a specific civilization (e.g., slave, feudal, or capitalist civilizations), while the unique historical trajectories of nations and civilizations concretize social formations across economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological realms—thus forming the civilizational form of social formations.

(2) The Monistic and Multi-Linear Character of Social Formations’ Evolution

The evolution of social formations is a natural-historical process, progressing from lower to higher stages through their fundamental social contradictions. Marx categorized major historical epochs of social formations based on human development: “the dependence of man on man,” “the dependence on things,” and “the full development of the individual and free personality.” [Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 107–108. Grundrisse)

Although Marx used “social form” here, context confirms it is equivalent to the concept of “social formation.”] Based on the specific nature of the mode of production, “the particular ways and methods by which laborers combine with the means of production” divide societies into distinct economic eras. [Marx, Capital, Vol. 2, p. 44.] Marx identified “the Asiatic, ancient Greek-Roman, feudal, and modern bourgeois modes of production as the several epochs in the evolution of economic social formations.” [Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 2, p. 3.]

Engels proposed five social formations: primitive clan society, ancient slave society, medieval serfdom, modern wage labor society, and the future communist society. [ibid., Vol. 4, pp. 12–195. Engels implied communism as the higher stage via Morgan’s conclusion.]

Social formation evolution exhibits both historical unity (common universal laws) and spatial diversity (distinctive paths), embodying “the world’s multi-dimensional development—world history is by no means a single-line progression.” [Xi Jinping, Speech at the College of Europe in Bruges, People’s Daily, April 2, 2014; Let Multilateralism Illuminate Humanity’s Path Forward, People’s Daily, January 26, 2021.]

Historical unity means that, viewed globally, social formations universally progress through three stages—“dependence on man,” “dependence on things,” and “full development of the individual.” This is an unbridgeable historical law. Spatial diversity signifies that: Nations within the same historical stage may develop distinct forms (e.g., post-primitive society: Greek-Roman, Germanic communal paths). [Wu Dakun, Several Issues in the Study of the Asiatic Mode of Production, Academic Research, No. 1, 1980.]

Uneven geographical development allows civilizations at different stages to coexist (e.g., while Western Europe entered capitalism, most nations remained feudal). “The general laws of world historical development do not exclude, but rather presuppose, special forms or sequences in individual developmental stages.” [Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 43, p. 374.]

The Western European model of social formation evolution reflects the practical outcome of specific historical conditions in Europe—a special path among many, not a universal law for all nations.

(3) Modern Civilization and the Capitalist Social Formation

At certain historical junctures, one social formation dominates globally, shaping human history. The capitalist social formation—rooted in capitalist production—pioneered modern civilization, “to a greater or lesser extent free from medieval impurities, modified to varying degrees by the special historical development of each nation, and developed to varying extents.” [Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 3, p. 373.]

It propelled humanity from a society based on “dependence on man” into one based on “dependence on things.” For an extended period, capitalism was the sole carrier of modern civilization, distinguishing itself from traditional formations through:

First, establishing large-scale social labor systems that transcend individual physiological limits, developing productive forces and socializing production. With technological evolution, labor tools evolved toward the “automated machine system,” enabling “machine cooperation” and granting large-scale industry “a technical foundation commensurate with itself” for self-sufficiency. [Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, p. 441.]

Second, universalizing of commodity relations, causing “the patriarchal, ancient (and feudal) state to decline alongside the development of commerce, luxury, money, and exchange value, while modern society develops in tandem.” [Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 30, p. 108.]

Third, Initiating the formation of world history. The openness of industrial capital enabled compatibility with other commodity economies, “making the satisfaction of needs for each civilization and each individual in these nations dependent on the entire world,” “abolishing the natural isolation of nations,” and “for the first time creating world history.” [Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 1, p. 194.]

Though capitalism “is more favorable to the development of the productive forces, to the development of social relations, and to the creation of all the elements of a higher new form than any previous form,” [Marx, Capital, Vol. 3, p. 927–928] it harbors “inherent contradictions” that intensify with development. In capitalism: “Production has become a social activity,” yet “the surplus product is produced, but exchange and possession remain individual, private acts: society’s products are appropriated by individual capitalists.” [Marx and Engels, Selected Works, Vol. 3, p. 816.]

The “fundamental condition for the survival and rule of the bourgeoisie” is “the accumulation of wealth in private hands, the formation and growth of capital,” “the basic contradiction underlying all contradictions in modern society.” [ibid., Vol. 1, p. 412.] This contradiction manifests as “the opposition between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie” and “the opposition between the organization of production in individual factories and the anarchy of production in society as a whole,” [ibid., Vol. 3, p. 659, 661] leading to “total alienation of man,” intensified anarchy, and “accumulation of wealth at one pole and poverty, labor torment, servitude, ignorance, brutality, and moral decay at the other.” [Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, p. 743–744.] As capital expands, monopolies, financialization, and globalization deepen, exacerbating wealth gaps, economic crises, and climate/environmental emergencies.

(4) Marx and Engels’ Vision of Future Social Formations and Their Limitations

Guided by historical materialism and based on the logical foundation of revealing the laws of capitalist economic movement, Marx and Engels elucidated the inevitability of human society’s passing from capitalism to socialism and communism. Marx and Engels examined what socialism is and how to carry out the socialist revolution based on the practical conditions and basic national circumstances of developed capitalist countries, transforming socialism from utopia into a scientific doctrine. Marx and Engels theoretically clarified the general characteristics of the future communist society, pointing out the fundamental direction of future social development. The communist society is “a social form based on the principle of the comprehensive and free development of every individual,” [Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 2004, p. 683.] and “will be a community in which the free development of each individual is the condition for the free development of all.” [Marx and Engels, The Complete Works, Vol. 2, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 53. The Communist Manifest (1848)]

With highly socialized production, “the commonality of production has from the outset made products common and general,” and “the labor of the individual is from the outset set as social labor.” Production no longer depends on exchange, “there is no division of labor that arises from exchange in the exchange without exchange value, but rather a labor organization that results in the individual’s participation in common consumption.” This collective production follows the planned control of society. [Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 30, People’s Publishing House, 1995, pp. 121-122.] Unlike capitalism, which liberates productive forces but creates human alienation, the communist society represents the “positive sublation” of “self-alienation” in capitalist society, enabling “man to appropriate his entire essence in a comprehensive manner.” [Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 3, People’s Publishing House, 2002, pp. 297, 303.]

 Individuals’ abilities, needs, and social relations develop comprehensively, allowing for the full development of personal freedom and autonomy, thereby achieving the complete liberation of individuals and the liberation of human society.

The full development of capitalism is the historical prerequisite for the emergence of communist society. Thus, Marx and Engels believed that the socialist revolution led by the proletariat would first succeed in developed capitalist countries, and only through simultaneous revolution in several major developed capitalist countries could victory be achieved. The enormous development of productive forces brought by capitalism “created the material and other conditions, making workers able and compelled to eradicate this historical calamity.” [Marx and Engels, The Complete Works, Vol. 3, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 430.]

 These conditions are more fully developed in advanced capitalist countries. “The thorough social revolution is linked to certain historical conditions of economic development; … only where the industrial proletariat, with the development of capitalist production, occupies an important position among the people, can a social revolution be possible.” [Marx and Engels, The Complete Works, Vol. 3, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 404.] Without “the enormous growth and high development of productive forces,” “there would only be universal poverty and extreme poverty; and in extreme poverty, it would be necessary to start the struggle for necessities again, and all the old and filthy things would come back to life.” [Marx and Engels, The Complete Works, Vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 538.]

Furthermore, the global expansion of capitalist production methods makes the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie international in nature, meaning “the liberation of the proletariat can only be an international undertaking.” [Marx and Engels, The Complete Works, Vol. 10, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 656.] Engels explicitly stated, “The communist revolution will not be a revolution of a single country alone, but will occur simultaneously in all civilized countries, at least in Britain, America, France, and Germany.” [Marx and Engels, The Complete Works, Vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 687.]

The degree of industrial and productive forces development in different countries determines the pace of the revolution. When Marx summarized the lessons of the Paris Commune’s failure, he noted, “Revolution should be united,” and “the Paris Commune failed because no great revolutionary movement of the same high level as that of Parisian workers occurred simultaneously in all major centers, such as Berlin and Madrid.” [Marx and Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 18, People’s Publishing House, 1964, p. 180.]

The establishment of communist society represents a unified trend in world historical development, but it does not exclude the possibility of passing to communism from other social formations outside of capitalism. Marx and Engels, on the basis of the unity of world historical development, analyzed the particularity of historical development in Eastern societies. In his later years, Marx first discussed whether economically backward countries could “avoid the terrible upheavals of capitalist production while appropriating all its positive achievements.” [Marx and Engels, The Complete Works, Vol. 3, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 571.]

An underdeveloped mode of production “can exist simultaneously with capitalist production, providing ready-made material conditions for large-scale cooperative labor. Therefore, it can bypass the Caudine Gorge of the capitalist system and appropriate all the positive achievements created by the capitalist system,” [ibid., Vol. 3, p. 587.] thereby shortening the historical development process of backward countries and forging a path different from capitalist development but coexisting in the same historical space. [Gu Hailiang, Preliminary Exploration of the Political Economy of a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind, Teaching and Research, No. 4, 2022.]

However, Marx and Engels believed that for backward countries to carry out socialist revolution and construction, “an essential condition is that the West, still capitalist, must set an example and provide active support.” [Marx and Engels, The Complete Works, Vol. 4, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 459.] Marx stated, “If the Russian revolution becomes a signal for the proletarian revolution in the West, and the two complement each other, then the current Russian land commune could become the starting point for the development of communism.” [Marx and Engels, The Complete Works, Vol. 2, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 8.] Engels also proposed that only when “capitalist economy is overcome in its homeland and in the countries where it has flourished” could “backward countries begin this shortened development process.” [Marx and Engels, The Complete Works, Vol. 4, People’s Publishing House, 2009, p. 459.]

However, as capitalism entered the monopoly stage, world socialist practice diverged significantly from Marx and Engels’ expectations. Socialist states were first established in Russia, a relatively backward country with weak capitalist development. Due to historical and practical limitations, Marx and Engels did not anticipate or theoretically address the question of how to recognize the social nature and build socialism after a backward country established a proletarian government. This gap in their theory became particularly evident when the Soviet Union, as the first socialist state, eventually regressed toward capitalism, highlighting the limitations of Marx and Engels’ vision in addressing the specific challenges of socialist construction in economically and culturally backward countries.

III. Exploration of Socialist Revolution and Construction by the Communists of the Backward Countries

Lenin, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and other communists clarified that socialist revolutions could succeed not only in backward capitalist countries but even in semi-colonial and semi-feudal societies that had not experienced capitalist development. They pioneered a new path of “revolution first, construction later.” However, overthrowing the old social formation differs from creating a new one; the latter requires a profound understanding of the new society’s nature. Due to limited socialist practical experience and insufficient exploration of socialist development laws, determining the social nature of post-revolutionary backward countries remained an unresolved question for communists. Socialist construction in such nations was destined to be a tortuous and winding path.

The “Inverted Revolution” and the Gradual Retreat of Soviet Socialism

By the late 19th and early 20th centuries, capitalism entered the imperialist stage characterized by monopolization as production and capital became highly concentrated. Lenin correctly analyzed this new phase of capitalism within the global capitalist system, elucidating its essential features: “monopolistic organizations and financial capital have established dominance, capital exports hold particular significance, international trusts begin to partition the world, and several major capitalist nations have fully divided the globe.” [Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 27, Renmin Publishing House, 2017, p. 401.]

Capitalism increasingly shifted from isolation to openness, intensifying global imbalances in development. This created relatively weak links in capitalist development, enabling socialism to “achieve victory first in a few or even a single capitalist country.” [Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 26, Renmin Publishing House, 2017, p. 367.]

Lenin viewed imperialism as the eve of proletarian socialist revolution. Russia, leveraging war-induced revolutionary conditions, mobilized the masses of workers and peasants to seize state power. He creatively proposed and practiced the idea that backward countries could carry out socialist revolutions. He argued that “under capitalism, the development of enterprises, industrial sectors, and nations is inevitably uneven and leapfrogging.” By the imperialist stage, “capitalist development became even more imbalanced.” [Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 27, Renmin Publishing House, 2017, p. 436.]

Advanced capitalist nations exploited backward colonies, extracting massive monopoly profits. “Economically, this made it possible to temporarily, and even for a significant minority, bribe certain sections of workers, drawing them to the side of their bourgeoisie against all other sectors or nations.” This not only globalized contradictions between capitalists and workers but also temporarily postponed proletarian revolutions in advanced nations due to “imperialism dividing workers and strengthening opportunism within the labor movement.” [Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 27, Renmin Publishing House, 2017, p. 418.]

Russia, as a backward capitalist country, possessed a degree of capitalist economic foundation. The war-induced political crisis intensified contradictions between the proletariat and bourgeoisie, creating conditions for socialist revolution. Under objective revolutionary circumstances, “revolutionary classes must launch powerful mass actions capable of dismantling (or defeating) the old government” for success. [Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 26, Renmin Publishing House, 2017, p. 230.]

The October Revolution’s victory saw Lenin lead Russia in establishing the first socialist state, proving socialism could triumph in a single country—even a backward one—in seizing power. However, this faced criticism for transcending developmental stages. Figures like Sukhanov and Kautsky, adhering to economic determinism, argued Russia lacked objective prerequisites for socialism. They viewed Russian socialist revolution and construction as violating historical laws by leaping over social stages. Gramsci praised the October Revolution’s positive significance, noting human agency broke free from economic determinism’s rigid formulas, calling it a “revolution against Capital.” [Gramsci Writings (1916–1935), Renmin Publishing House, 1992, p. 9.]

Yet this indirectly acknowledged contradictions between the revolution and historical materialism. Faced with domestic and foreign criticism, Lenin proposed in his later years the “revolution first, construction later” approach. [Zhang Guangming, “On the ‘Inverted Revolution’—Lenin’s ‘On Our Revolution’,” Socialist Studies, No. 5, 2009.]

Lenin emphasized Russia’s unique historical conditions: “Since building socialism requires a certain level of cultural development… why can’t we first use revolutionary means to attain the prerequisites for this level and then, on the foundation of workers’ and peasants’ governance and the Soviet system, catch up with other nations?” [Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 43, Renmin Publishing House, 2017, p. 375.]

 Lenin’s “revolution first, construction later” theory indicated that after seizing power, the proletariat’s main task shifted from transforming the old social formation to constructing a new one—from abolishing old economic forms to creating new ones.

However, surrounded by advanced capitalist nations and facing backward economic and cultural conditions, how to build socialism in backward countries remained an unresolved challenge. Before and after the October Revolution, Lenin advocated passing to socialism through guided state capitalism for Russia. However, due to historical conditions, Lenin implemented the “direct transition” (War Communism) policy and later he shifted to the “indirect transition” (New Economic Policy). The War Communism policy, centered on grain requisitioning, centralized all human and material resources to win the civil war, repel foreign intervention, and consolidate the nascent Soviet regime. As domestic and international tensions eased, Lenin noted that War Communism “was not and could not be a policy suitable for the proletariat’s economic tasks,” and shifted to the NEP policy. [Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 41, Renmin Publishing House, 2017, pp. 208–209.]

The NEP sought a new socialist construction path, breaking free from dogmas of single public ownership, planned economy, and rejected the abolition of commodity-money relations. While upholding socialism, NEP allowed market economy within certain limits and periods, boosting enthusiasm for socialist construction by harnessing capitalism’s positive aspects to promote economic development.

The NEP lasted less than seven years. After Lenin’s death, NEP was gradually abolished, replaced by Stalin’s highly centralized “Soviet model.” Stalin emphasized the NEP’s transitional nature, underestimated the market economy’s positive role, and argued that continuing the NEP under eased wartime conditions would strengthen the bourgeoisie: “Given small-scale production’s prevalence, especially under the NEP, which constantly and extensively generates capitalism and the bourgeoisie, conditions exist for capitalism’s restoration.” [Collected Works of Stalin, Vol. 11, Renmin Publishing House, 1955, p. 158.]

Stalin advocated policy shifts: “consolidating proletarian dictatorship, strengthening the worker-peasant alliance, developing the national economic lifeline through industrialization… restricting and defeating urban and rural capitalist elements.” [Collected Works of Stalin, Vol. 11, Renmin Publishing House, 1955, p. 158.]

Aligning with socialist industrialization and agricultural collectivization, the “Soviet model” developed a highly centralized political system, established socialist public ownership of productive assets, implemented the principle of distribution according to work, and enforced a highly centralized planned economy. However, under low productivity, this rigid system soon constrained economic development. As the “Soviet model” ossified, Soviet economic growth stalled, and successive leaders’ understanding of socialism regressed. Stalin declared socialism built in 1936, proposing to “advance toward communism” by 1939. Khrushchev further envisioned “basically building communism within 20 years” at the 20th CPSU Congress. By Brezhnev’s later rule, official rhetoric shifted from “building communism within 20 years” to declaring the USSR a “developed socialist society.” Andropov later argued the USSR had not achieved “developed socialism” but was at the “starting point” of this prolonged historical stage. Gorbachev later characterized the USSR as a “developing socialist society,” prioritizing systemic reform. During the 1990s transition to a market economy failed, the Soviet Union disintegrated, and Eastern Europe underwent upheaval, ending Soviet socialist construction. Soviet experience shows that proletarian revolutions in backward countries can successfully seize power and establish proletarian rule. However, without a proper objective economic foundation, how to gradually build socialism, develop socialist productive forces, and achieve true human and societal liberation has remained an unresolved question for communists—which has been a complex, arduous, and long-term task.

Overstepping Historical Stages in the New Democratic Revolution and Socialist Construction

As Lenin stated: “In those Eastern countries with immeasurably large populations and immeasurably complex social conditions, the future revolution will undoubtedly be more distinctive than the Russian Revolution.” [Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 43, p. 376, Progress Publishers, 1965.]

By the mid-to-late 19th century, capitalism expanded globally through colonial aggression, “swallowing all countries it encountered and combining with local conditions and the general laws of capitalism,” creating a “social amalgamation” where advanced capitalist formations coexisted with backward ones. [Trotsky, 1905, Marxists Internet Archive.]

Modern China existed as a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society—a hybrid social formation where both agrarian peasant production and capitalist production coexisted under imperialist domination. Due to historical and practical limitations, Marx and Engels could neither foresee nor address how to build socialism in such a society.

China’s reality diverged significantly from both classical Marxist theory and Soviet experience. The nature of China’s social formation and the form of its revolution were major questions that needed urgent answers, concerning the fate of China. Long-term historical experience of revolution and movement has shown that only communism can save China. However, the Communist Party of China (CPC), newly founded in 1921, had not yet matured and could not deeply understand the nature of Chinese society and the character of the revolution. Within the Comintern, Bukharin and Stalin argued that feudal relations dominated in China, while Trotsky contended that capitalist relations were dominant. Some Chinese intellectuals developed Trotsky’s view, claiming that Western imperialist invasions had propelled Chinese capitalist development, and Chiang Kai-shek’s rise marked China’s entry into capitalism, leading to erroneous calls to abandon the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal revolution.

In 1928, the Sixth National Congress of the CPC adopted Stalin’s position: affirming China as “semi-colonial” but stating “the current economic and political system is undoubtedly semi-feudal,” [Central Archives of China, Selected Documents of the CPC, Vol. 4, p. 336, CCP Central Party School Press, 1989.] identifying China’s revolution as a “bourgeois democratic revolution,” but without using the term “semi-colonial and semi-feudal.” Some Chinese intellectuals, through social investigations and analysis of rural economic nature, clarified China’s reality: first, imperialism had damaged the development of China’s independent national industry, “Chinese infantile industry is everywhere restricted and exploited, unable to compete with imperialist machine production,” [Qu Qiubai, Selected Works, People’s Publishing House, 1985, p. 299.] second, “imperialism had to maintain feudal forces to sustain its rule in China,” [Central Archives of China, Selected Documents of the CPC, Vol. 5, p. 630, CCP Central Party School Press, 1990.] and third, feudal exploitation still prevailed in rural China, “because here the opposition is not between capitalists who invest capital on land to obtain average profit and workers who receive wages, but between landlords who rent land to peasants and extract rent from them and peasants.” [Zhang Wentian, Selected Works, People’s Publishing House, 1985, p. 6.]

Mao Zedong’s creation of New Democratic Theory laid the theoretical foundation for the CPC to form strategic consensus and to form a broad united front across all social strata. “On Contradiction” marked the establishment of the CPC’s method of analyzing “basic contradictions” (to define the nature of social formation) and “principal contradictions” (to define developmental stages within a formation), providing the theoretical basis for analyzing the nature of mixed social formations. Works such as “China’s Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party” and “On New Democracy” definitively identified China as a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society, stating: “Foreign capitalism transformed China into a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society… feudal exploitation remains dominant, combined with comprador capital and usury. National capitalism developed slightly but never became the main economic form… The imperialist regime ruled China politically, economically, and militarily… China’s economic, political, and cultural development is extremely uneven.” [Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Vol. 2, pp. 630–631, People’s Publishing House, 1991.]

The fundamental contradictions of modern Chinese society are “the contradiction between imperialism and the Chinese nation, and between feudalism and the people.” [Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Vol. 2, p. 631, People’s Publishing House, 1991.] “The struggle and sharpening of these contradictions cannot but lead to increasingly developing revolutionary movements.”

Based on the judgment of China’s social formation, Mao proposed that China’s revolutionary process should proceed in two stages: the first stage was the New Democratic Revolution to change the semi-colonial and semi-feudal social formation, and the second stage was the establishment of a socialist society. The basic program of the New Democratic Revolution, based on which the CPC led the Chinese revolution to victory and established the People’s Republic of China, defined the nature of the new society in political, economic, and cultural terms. Politically, the new China was a democratic republic with the proletariat as the leader and the worker-peasant alliance as the foundation, under the people’s democratic dictatorship. Economically, it involved confiscating the big banks, industries, and commerce that controlled the national economy, establishing state-owned economy, confiscating landlord land for peasants, guiding peasants to develop cooperative economy, and allowing the development of national capitalist economy and the existence of rich peasant economy. Culturally, it involved abolishing feudal-bourgeois culture and developing national, scientific, and mass culture.

After the victory of the New Democratic Revolution, facing the new socialist society and the nationwide socialist construction, the CPC experienced a tortuous and arduous exploration. In the early years of the founding of the People’s Republic of China, under the guidance of correct policies, China achieved a smooth transition from New Democratic to socialist society through New Democratic economic construction and socialist transformation, restored the national economy, and gradually established an independent industrial system under the guarantee of a planned economy. The majority of regions in China completed the socialist transformation of private ownership of the means of production, achieving glorious victory. In 1956 Eighth Congress of the CPC declared that China had basically established the socialist social system. Mao Zedong profoundly recognized that “our socialist system is newly established, not yet fully built or consolidated,” “there is still a process of continuing to build and consolidate,” and “it is premature to speak of completing socialism.” [Mao Zedong, “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People (Part II),” People’s Daily, June 19, 1957.]

After the basic level of completion of socialist transformation, the Party and the people turned their efforts to comprehensive large-scale socialist construction, achieving significant achievements in industry, agriculture, science and technology, and education. However, in 1958, the Second Plenary Session of the Eighth Congress of the CPC proposed that “the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, between socialism and capitalism, remains the principal contradiction in our country until socialism is fully built.” [Central Document Research Office, Selected Documents of Important Documents Since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China, Vol. 11, pp. 249–250, Central Literature Press, 2011.]

This “exaggerated and absolutized the class struggle within socialist society,” ignoring objective economic laws, and later phenomena appeared such as opposition to developing productive forces, “advocating that the consolidation and development of the socialist system do not require a material foundation,” and “advocating false socialism based on universal poverty.” [Central Document Research Office, Selected Documents of Important Documents Since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China (Vol. 1), pp. 193, 65, 33, Central Literature Press, 2008.]

All these represented errors of not following social and economic development laws and attempting to leap over historical stages. Due to the short history of socialist movements and limited experience of socialist countries’ construction, the laws of socialist social development were still a rich mine to be explored. The Party and the people lacked sufficient ideological preparation and scientific research on major issues such as “what kind of society is China” and “what kind of society should be built,” leading to confusion and serious mistakes in basic strategy, line, policy, and guidelines, and “taking some ‘left’ methods that leave reality and exceed the stage,” causing continuous problems and setbacks. [Deng Xiaoping, Selected Works, Vol. 2, p. 312, People’s Publishing House, 1994.]

The Primary Stage of Socialism and Its Theoretical Dilemmas

The Third Plenary Session of the Eleventh CPC Central Committee was a historic turning point with profound significance for China’s socialist construction. The Chinese Communist Party, represented by Deng Xiaoping, resolutely corrected the mistakes in the Party’s previous work, stopped the slogan of “class struggle as the central task” that was not applicable to China’s actual conditions, and made the major decision to shift the focus of work to socialist modernization. Deng Xiaoping stated, “To build socialism, we must develop productive forces. Poverty is not socialism,” “Though we are also building socialism, we are not yet qualified,” only “when we reach the level of a middle-developed country can we truly say we are building socialism, and can we speak with confidence that socialism is superior to capitalism.” [Deng Xiaoping, Selected Works, Vol. 3, p. 225, People’s Publishing House, 1993.]

So what kind of society was China, a backward country, in the process of developing productive forces, getting rid of poverty, and building socialism?

Deng Xiaoping and other Chinese Communist Party members creatively proposed the theory of the Primary Stage of Socialism, believing that China was in and would remain in the Primary Stage of Socialism for a long time. The experience of socialist construction since the founding of the People’s Republic of China shows that building socialism in a backward country is not only a long historical process but also a process that needs to be divided into different historical stages. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, in response to some within the Party who hoped China could immediately enter communism, Mao Zedong pointed out, “Socialism as a stage may have two phases: the first is underdeveloped socialism, the second is relatively developed socialism. The latter may take longer.” [Mao Zedong, Collected Works, Vol. 8, p. 116, People’s Publishing House, 1991.] This provided a useful enlightenment for the proposal of the Primary Stage of Socialism.

In 1979, party leader Ye Jianying stated in his speech at the celebration of the 13th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China that China’s “socialist system is still in its infancy.” The 1981 Resolution on Certain Historical Issues of the Party since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China stated, “Our socialist system is still in its primary stage.” The 1986 Resolution on the Guidelines for the Construction of Socialist Spiritual Civilization specified the economic characteristics of the Primary Stage of Socialism, “Our country is still in the primary stage of socialism, and we must implement distribution according to work, develop socialist commodity economy and competition, and in the foreseeable future, we must develop multiple economic forms under public ownership, encouraging some people to become rich first under the goal of common prosperity.” The 1987 Thirteenth Congress Report systematically expounded the meaning of the Primary Stage of Socialism: First, our society is already a socialist society. We must uphold socialism and not deviate. Second, our socialist society is still in its primary stage. We must proceed from reality and not leap over this stage. [Central Document Research Office, Selected Documents of Important Documents Since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China (Vol. 1), pp. 63, 212, 434, 474, Central Literature Press, 2008.]

China’s being in and remaining in the Primary Stage of Socialism is determined by China’s objective historical conditions, “not a general stage that any country entering socialism will experience,” China’s socialism “was born from a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society, and the level of productive forces lags far behind that of developed capitalist countries, which determines that we must undergo a long primary stage to achieve industrialization, commodification, socialization, and modernization—things other nations achieved under capitalism.” [Central Document Research Office, Selected Documents of Important Documents Since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China (Vol. 1), pp. 474–475, Central Literature Press, 2008.]

Based on the historical judgment of the Primary Stage of Socialism, Deng Xiaoping realized that “planned economy does not equal socialism; capitalism also has planning. Market economy does not equal capitalism; socialism also has markets. Planning and markets are economic tools.” “Socialism can also implement a market economy. This is socialism using this method to develop productive forces. Using it as a tool will not affect the whole socialist system.” [Deng Xiaoping, Selected Works, Vol. 3, p. 373, People’s Publishing House, 1993; Vol. 2, p. 236, People’s Publishing House, 1994.]

China’s socialist economic system was no longer confined to the traditional “public ownership + planned economy” standard of socialism. By combining socialism with the market economy, China selectively introduced and learned “advanced management methods, management methods, and scientific development methods” from “capitalist countries,” greatly developing productive forces, improving people’s living standards, and opening up the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. [Deng Xiaoping, Selected Works, Vol. 2, p. 235, People’s Publishing House, 1994.]

The proposal of the Primary Stage of Socialism overcame to some extent the erroneous tendency of dogmatizing Marxism and sanctifying Soviet experience. However, it still did not fundamentally break through the limitations of the traditional “Five Social Formations” theory. The theory of the Primary Stage of Socialism recognized that China could not bypass the capitalist system but could not avoid the great development of productive forces under the market economy, and therefore must draw on the positive achievements of developed countries for socialist economic construction. At the same time, China “must not copy the practices of Western capitalist countries or other socialist countries,” but we must forge a path suited to China’s reality, which is a scientific judgment in line with the objective laws of economic development. [Central Document Research Office, Selected Documents of Important Documents Since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China (Vol. 1), p. 470, Central Literature Press, 2008.]

However, constrained by the traditional “Five Social Formations” theory, the concept of the Primary Stage of Socialism did not clarify the nature of Chinese society at the level of social formation, but adopted a compromise approach, believing that China was in an underdeveloped stage within the socialist social formation, and shifted the focus of building the socialist social formation from production relations to productive forces. Therefore, it encouraged, supported, and guided the existence and development of certain components that adapted to the level of productive forces in the Primary Stage of Socialism but did not belong to socialist production relations (e.g., non-public ownership economy), but this brought new theoretical problems. First, Deng Xiaoping stated that “consolidating and developing the socialist system requires a long historical stage, needing the unremitting efforts of several generations, even dozens of generations of people,” indicating that the time required to consolidate and develop the socialist system exceeded the scope covered by the “Primary Stage.” [Deng Xiaoping, Selected Works, Vol. 3, pp. 379–380, People’s Publishing House, 1993.]

Second, the Primary Stage of Socialism is dynamic and continuously changing, divided into different stages. The “New Development Stage” proposed by President Xi Jinping is a new stage within the Primary Stage of Socialism. The higher stage after the New Development Stage will face new expression difficulties. Third, China aims to become a modern socialist power by 2050. Does this mean the end of the Primary Stage of Socialism? If so, should the components that do not belong to socialist production relations under the Primary Stage of Socialism continue to be persisted and developed? These issues remain unsolved in theoretical research.

IV. Socialism with Chinese Characteristics Represents a New Social Formation

On the centenary of the founding of the Communist Party of China, Comrade Xi Jinping solemnly declared: “By adhering to and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics, we have promoted coordinated progress in material, political, spiritual, social, and ecological civilizations, thereby forging a new path toward Chinese-style modernization and creating a new form of human civilization.” [Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Celebration of the 100th Anniversary of the Founding of the Communist Party of China,” Qiushi, No. 14, 2021.]

This important evaluation defines socialism with Chinese characteristics as a “new form of human civilization”—in other words, a new social formation.

The formation and development of socialism with Chinese characteristics constitute a dynamic process that unifies rational construction with spontaneous evolution. Institutional construction is endogenous to the historical evolution of China’s social practice, while simultaneously acting upon that practice; their interaction continuously propels socialism with Chinese characteristics forward, giving rise to a new social formation situated within the stage of “dependence on things,” guided by scientific socialism yet imbued with distinct Chinese features. This new formation represents a positive transcendence of the capitalist social formation and opens up a new pathway for the evolution of human social formations.

(1) From Semi-Colonial, Semi-Feudal Society to Socialism with Chinese Characteristics

Although bearing traces of deliberate design, the emergence and development of the capitalist social formation was largely a spontaneous process lacking prior theoretical guidance or planning. By contrast, the emergence and development of the socialist social formation has always been a party-led process that integrates conscious construction with historical evolution. [Wei Xinghua, “Conscious, Planned Development Under Leadership Is an Objective Requirement and Key Feature of Socialism,” Economic Review, No. 10, 2017.]

Based on China’s fundamental national conditions and principal contradictions at different historical stages, the Communist Party of China has exercised its subjective initiative to transform the superstructure from the top down through revolution, construction, and reform, thereby pioneering the Chinese path to modernization and achieving the great leap from a semi-colonial, semi-feudal society to socialism with Chinese characteristics.

In the mid-to-late 19th century, the expansion and aggression of Western capitalism interrupted the developmental trajectory of backward countries. Within the hybrid formation of semi-colonialism and semi-feudalism, the capitalist mode of production accelerated the disintegration of pre-capitalist modes while simultaneously exploiting the hierarchical relationships inherent in those older systems to consolidate its own rule. This hybrid formation, absent external intervention, could persist indefinitely without spontaneously transiting to a modern social formation, thereby altering the historical course of development in backward countries. To break free from this hybrid structure, backward countries had no choice but to adopt revolutionary means to fundamentally transform their social character, reshape the conditions of production from the top down, and gradually explore and establish new institutional frameworks. China’s long history of revolutionary struggle demonstrated conclusively that only communism could save China.

In 1949, the Communist Party of China united and led the Chinese people to victory in the new-democratic revolution, bringing a definitive end to China’s semi-colonial, semi-feudal past and “creating the possibility for a society based on human exploitation to develop toward a socialist society.” [Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Vol. 4, People’s Publishing House, 1991, p. 1375.]

This laid the fundamental social conditions for establishing a new social formation. Socialist society must be built upon the foundation of modern production. Mao Zedong and other central Party leaders proposed the task of “Four Modernizations,” emphasizing that to “shake off backwardness and poverty,” China must “build a powerful modern industry, modern agriculture, modern transportation, and modern national defense,” beginning with the establishment of “an independent and relatively complete industrial system and national economic system.” [Selected Works of Zhou Enlai (Vol. 2), People’s Publishing House, 1984, pp. 132, 439.]

At the founding of the People’s Republic, China remained an agrarian nation with underdeveloped productive forces. Traditional small-scale peasant production “presupposes the dispersion of land and other means of production. Traditional small-scale peasant production excludes both the concentration of means of production and cooperation; Traditional small-scale peasant production excludes the division of labor within the same production process, the domination and mastery of nature by society, and the free development of social productive forces. It is compatible only with the narrow, naturally evolved limits of production and society.” [Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 2004, p. 872.]

To transit to modern production, China had to build, under state leadership, an independent industrial system. This required first making “socialist ownership of the means of production the sole economic foundation of our state and society,” because only then would it become possible “to carry out a technological revolution that transforms the prevailing use of simple, backward tools and implements across most of China’s socioeconomic sectors into the use of all kinds of machinery—up to the most advanced.” [Chronology of Mao Zedong (1949–1976), Vol. 2, Central Party Literature Press, 2013, p. 200.]

Following three years of socialist transformation, the Party Central Committee announced in 1956 that the socialist social system had been basically established, providing the fundamental political premise and institutional foundation for creating a new social formation. Under this socialist system, the Communist Party of China employed a planned economy, prioritized heavy industry, relied on state and governmental intervention as the primary instrument, and implemented a mechanism whereby agriculture supported industry. With Soviet assistance through the 156 key projects, China established an independent industrial system. Beyond a complete industrial system, another hallmark of modern production is a developed commodity economy. As Marx noted, such conditions “initially appear as prerequisites for the emergence of capital and cannot yet arise from capital’s activity as capital itself.” But once these conditions are in place, “capital, in order to reproduce itself, no longer proceeds from external prerequisites; capital itself becomes the prerequisite and creates from within itself the conditions necessary for its own preservation and expansion.” [Marx-Engels Collected Works, Vol. 30, People’s Publishing House, 1995, p. 452.]

Reflecting on China’s basic national conditions, Comrade Deng Xiaoping and other central CPC leaders pointed out: “Our socialism emerged from a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society, and our level of productive forces lags far behind that of developed capitalist countries. This reality means that, in terms of relations of production, the degree of socialization required for socialist public ownership remains very low; commodity economy and the domestic market are underdeveloped; and natural and semi-natural economies still account for a significant share.” Therefore, “we must undergo a long primary stage during which we achieve industrialization and the commodification, socialization, and modernization of production—objectives that many other countries accomplished under capitalism.” [Party Literature Research Office of the CPC Central Committee (ed.), Selected Important Documents on 30 Years of Reform and Opening Up (Vol. 1), Central Party Literature Press, 2008, pp. 474–475.]

Accordingly, Deng Xiaoping creatively broke the binary opposition between market economy and socialism, establishing the socialist market economy and introducing for the first time the concept of “Chinese-style modernization,” concretely defined as “building a moderately prosperous society in China by the end of this century.” [Selected Works of Deng Xiaoping, Vol. 3, People’s Publishing House, 1993, p. 54.]

The creation and development of the socialist market economy provided a vibrant institutional guarantee and rapid material foundation for the Chinese path to modernization. Since the 18th National Congress of the CPC, socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered a new era. Following the achievement of a moderately prosperous society in all respects by 2020, the Party Central Committee, with Xi Jinping at its core, has continuously refined and improved the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics based on the fundamental conditions of this new era, placing greater emphasis on high-quality development and organic, systemic coordination across economic and social domains. Specific strategic objectives include modernizing China’s national governance system and capacity, building a modernized economic system, and comprehensively constructing a modern socialist country. Comrade Xi Jinping profoundly observed: “Economic development is a spiral upward process—not linear. Once quantitative accumulation reaches a certain stage, it must shift toward qualitative improvement. China’s economic development must also follow this law.” [Xi Jinping, The Governance of China, Vol. III, Foreign Languages Press, 2020, p. 238.]

Grounded in the new era, Xi Jinping has advocated supply-side structural reform as the main thread, set the construction of a modernized economic system as the strategic goal, implemented the new development philosophy, and accelerated the creation of a new development paradigm.

At its core, this approach seeks to enhance the quality and efficiency of the supply system to better meet the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life, improve livelihoods, and advance toward the free and comprehensive development of individuals and common prosperity. Concrete strategic measures include the innovation-driven development strategy, regional coordinated development strategy, green development strategy, targeted poverty alleviation strategy, rural revitalization strategy, and the Belt and Road Initiative.

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics Constitutes a unique and new Social Formation

Through decades of exploration and practice, socialism with Chinese characteristics has matured into a new social formation belonging to the stage of “dependence on things.”

First, socialism with Chinese characteristics “adheres firmly to the fundamental principles of scientific socialism while endowing them with distinctive Chinese characteristics in light of contemporary conditions.” [Xi Jinping, “Several Issues Concerning Upholding and Developing Socialism with Chinese Characteristics,” Qiushi, No. 7, 2019.]

 It has been concretized across economic, political, cultural, social, and ecological domains as the “Five Civilizations”: In material civilization, China upholds and improves its basic socialist economic system, maintains the dominant role of public ownership while promoting mutual learning, mutual promotion, and common development among diverse forms of ownership, and ensures the market plays a decisive role in resource allocation while the government performs its functions better. In political civilization, China adheres to and improves the Party leadership system and the system ensuring the people’s status as masters of the country, develops socialist democratic politics—fully practicing democracy while effectively exercising centralization—and strengthens the Party and state supervision system to reinforce checks on and oversight of power. In spiritual civilization, China upholds and improves institutions for flourishing and advancing advanced socialist culture, guided by Marxism, rooted in Chinese cultural identity, and responsive to China’s realities and contemporary conditions, thereby fostering a socialist culture that is national, scientific, and popular, oriented toward modernization, the world, and the future. In social civilization, China adheres to and improves systems for integrated urban-rural social welfare, meeting the people’s growing needs for a better life, and promotes co-construction, co-governance, and shared benefits in social governance to advance common prosperity and social harmony. In ecological civilization, China adheres to and improves its ecological institutional framework, practices the principle that “lucid waters and lush mountains are invaluable assets,” and pursues a civilized development path featuring productive growth, prosperous living, and sound ecology, fostering harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature. “All these elements embody the fundamental principles of scientific socialism under new historical conditions. Without them, socialism would cease to be socialism.” [Xi Jinping, “Several Issues Concerning Upholding and Developing Socialism with Chinese Characteristics,” Qiushi Journal, No. 7, 2019.]

Second, socialism with Chinese characteristics is a developmental path that must be upheld over the long term and thus constitutes a social formation in terms of duration. Comrade Xi Jinping has repeatedly cited Deng Xiaoping’s assertion that “upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics is a long-term, arduous historical task” [Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Commemoration of the 80th Anniversary of the Victory of the Long March,” People’s Daily, October 22, 2016], Xi Jinping emphasized that “this great cause requires sustained efforts by several, dozens, or even scores of generations” [Xi Jinping, “Speech at the 2018 Spring Festival Gathering,” People’s Daily, February 15, 2018] and that “even after achieving modernization, we must persistently uphold our socialist system generation after generation, consistently addressing the task of consolidating and developing socialism—there can be no one-time solution.” [Xi Jinping, “Grasping the New Development Stage, Implementing the New Development Philosophy, and Building a New Development Paradigm,” Qiushi, No. 9, 2021.]

Consequently, the economic and social structures of socialism with Chinese characteristics will remain stable and undergo minimal change over an extended historical period— “a relatively long period of time” spanning centuries—which qualifies it as a social formation. [Fernand Braudel, “History and the Social Sciences: The Longue Durée,” in Cai Shaoqing (ed.), Recreating the Past: Theoretical Perspectives on Social History, Zhejiang People’s Publishing House, 1988; Jacques Le Goff, “New History,” in Jacques Le Goff et al. (eds.), New History, Shanghai Translation Publishing House, 1989.]

Third, as a socialism practiced in single-country, socialism with Chinese characteristics remains within the stage of underdeveloped socialism. Practice has shown that socialism can succeed as a program for proletarian parties to seize state power within a single country, but it is far more difficult to demonstrate that socialism can succeed as a program for human emancipation within a single country alone. Marx explicitly stated: “Universal intercourse… makes every nation dependent on the transformations of others,” and “communism is empirically possible only as the simultaneous action of the dominant nations ‘all at once,’ which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world-historical intercourse associated with it.” [Marx-Engels Selected Works, Vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 2012, p. 166.]

Thus, as long as the world capitalist system persists, socialist countries will engage in universal intercourse with the capitalist world, drawing on capitalist civilizational achievements to carry out socialist revolution and construction within their borders. However, regardless of how advanced their productive forces become, so long as socialism remains a geographically confined, national phenomenon, it will remain in the stage of underdeveloped socialism. Only when several advanced countries pass to socialism can this stage be transcended.

Fourth, from the perspective of humanity’s historical trajectory, socialism with Chinese characteristics remains in the stage grounded in “dependence on things,” which is progressing towards the communist society envisioned by Marx and Engels. According to Marx, “the independence of the individual based on dependence on things” constitutes the second major social form, breaking through the fundamental limitation of the initial form of “personal dependence,” where “human productive capacities develop only within narrow confines and isolated localities.” [Marx, Grundrisse]

 In this second major social form (capitalism), exchange mediated by exchange-value and money, “the comprehensive interdependence of producers,” and “the universal pressure of reciprocal demand and supply that links utterly unrelated individuals” give rise to “a universal system of social material metabolism, comprehensive social relations, multifaceted needs, and a system of comprehensive capabilities.” [Marx]

Only on this basis can society transit to the third major form characterized by “the full development of the individual and free individuality.” [Marx-Engels Collected Works, Vol. 30, People’s Publishing House, 1995, pp. 107–108.]

Emerging from a backward small-peasant economy, socialism with Chinese characteristics must fully leverage the roles of non-public ownership and the market economy to overcome the constraints of “personal dependence” and establish universal connections among individuals. Therefore, although “socialist relations of production compatible with the development of productive forces have already been established,” they nonetheless “contradict the development of productive forces in certain respects.” [Mao Zedong, “On Correctly Handling Contradictions Among the People (Part II),” People’s Daily, June 19, 1957.]

The basic economic system—public ownership as the mainstay alongside the common development of diverse forms of ownership—indicates that the fundamental contradiction in socialism with Chinese characteristics remains that between the partial appropriation of means of production and the socialized nature of production. Only when the essential character of this contradiction undergoes a fundamental transformation will China’s social character truly change.

Socialism with Chinese Characteristics: A New Form of Human Civilization which Positively Transcends Capitalism

Socialism with Chinese characteristics positively transcends the civilizational achievements of Western capitalism, serving as a new carrier of modern civilization and enriching new forms of human historical development. Marx defines “Communism as the positive transcendence of private property, or human self-estrangement [alienation], and therefore as the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man,” or “as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human being—a return become conscious, and accomplished within the entire wealth of previous development.” [Marx’s Paris Manuscripts of 1844] As Lenin stated, “All culture, knowledge, and technology accumulated by capitalism that are historically necessary for us should be transformed from tools of capitalism into instruments of socialism.” [Collected Works of Lenin, Vol. 34, People’s Publishing House, 2017, p. 357.]

Theoretically, both socialism with Chinese characteristics and capitalism belong to the stage of “dependence on things,” with capitalist social formation being the starting point of this stage and representing the form of modern civilization. It is essential to recognize the dual nature of capital and draw upon the advanced achievements of capitalist countries to build socialism with Chinese characteristics. In practice, the Chinese Communists deeply understand the universal interconnection and mutual dependence among nations, breaking down ideological opposition between capitalism and socialism. Chinese Communists are positively absorbing the advanced civilizational achievements of capitalism through means such as attracting Western investment, talent, and technology, as well as integrating into the global production network, thereby promoting economic development under socialism with Chinese characteristics and advancing from traditional to modern civilization. Marx pointed out that although a society “cannot skip or cancel natural developmental stages by decree,” but it can “shorten and alleviate the pains of birth.” [Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. 1, People’s Publishing House, 2004, p. 10.]

Always representing the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of people, the Chinese Communist Party has determined that while absorbing the civilizational achievements of capitalism, socialism with Chinese characteristics can leverage its institutional advantages to overcome the drawbacks of capitalism centered around the logic of “capital supremacy.” In material civilization, China’s basic socialist economic system mitigates the contradictions between private ownership and large-scale socialized production. Public ownership plays a dominant role, with state-owned enterprises concentrated in strategic, security, and foundational areas, undertaking significant technological innovations and acting as stabilizers for the economy. Additionally, socialism with Chinese characteristics combines an “effective market” with an “active government,” overcoming the anarchic nature of social production and the disorderly expansion of capital. The socialist market economy system itself was shaped top-down through reform and opening up. Under this system, the government leads market economic development through medium- to long-term planning and central economic work conferences and participates in and compensates for the deficiencies of market operations through strategic public investments and social expenditures. [Weber & Qi (2022) refer to this as a “state-constituted market economy.” See Weber, I., and Qi, H. 2022. “The State-Constituted Market Economy: A Conceptual Framework for China’s State–Market Relations,” Economics Department’s Working Paper Series, No. 319.]

Politically, socialism with Chinese characteristics adheres to developing whole-process people’s democracy, where citizens participate in and manage governance. This approach places great emphasis on responding to public opinion and consultative democracy to genuinely improve livelihoods, surpassing Western-style “elite democracy,” which centers on competition among social elites for public power based on capital interests. Spiritually, Western-promoted “universal values” regard capitalist systems as ahistorical and naturally reasonable, emphasizing the maintenance of bourgeois interests and exhibiting aggressive and expansionary imperialist traits. Conversely, socialism with Chinese characteristics firmly establishes socialist core values grounded in historical materialism, embodying a people-centered value system that integrates national, societal, and citizen value requirements, rooted in Chinese soil and characterized by ethnicity and contemporaneity.

Socially, unlike the inherent tendency toward wealth disparity under capitalist modes of production, socialism with Chinese characteristics sets the lofty goal of common prosperity, ending exploitative relationships, ensuring livelihood improvements during economic development, resolving regional overall poverty, eliminating absolute poverty, resolutely preventing polarization, and promoting social harmony and stability. Ecologically, socialism with Chinese characteristics prioritizes ecological protection, green, and low-carbon development, earnestly advancing carbon peak and carbon neutrality efforts, and striving to overcome the excessive exploitation of nature driven by the profit-seeking nature of capital, making good ecological environments a growth point for people’s livelihoods.

……..

The Theory of a “New Form of Human Civilization” Breaks Through the Dogma of Unilinear Development through Five Socio-Economic Formations

“As man creates circumstances, so circumstances create man.” [Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 1 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009), p. 545.]

A country’s socio-economic formation is a complex system shaped jointly by rational constructivist forces and spontaneous evolutionary dynamics. [Huang Kainan, “A Comparison and Integration of Institutional Rational Constructivism and Spontaneous Institutional Evolution,” Journal of Literature, History & Philosophy, No. 5 (2021).]

A country’s socio-economic formation varies according to each nation’s objective historical-cultural background and socio-economic conditions. While the “five socio-economic formations” theory originally summarized and predicted transformations specific to Western Europe—progressing sequentially from primitive communism, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, to communism—“five socio-economic formations” theory  later ossified into a rigid formula asserting that all human societies must follow this single linear path. This overlooks the “unilinear and multilinear” nature of socio-economic evolution. The model of socio-economic transformation discovered by Marx and Engels reflected the concrete historical conditions of Western Europe; it was not intended as a universal “historical-philosophical theory of general development,” nor did it imply that “all nations, regardless of their historical circumstances, are destined to tread this same path.” [Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 3 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2009), p. 466.]

Unlike Western Europe’s “five-stage” trajectory, China has experienced four socio-economic formations: primitive society, slave society, feudal society, and semi-colonial, semi-feudal society. Today, under the leadership of the CPC, China is building a socialist socio-economic formation with Chinese characteristics—an underdeveloped socialist society—advancing toward a future communist socio-economic formation. In contrast, developed capitalist countries would transit simultaneously to socialism, constituting a developed socialist society or the initial stage of communism, eventually progressing to the higher phase of communism. As a representative of ancient Eastern civilization, Chinese civilization historically led the world during traditional times. However, after the West entered modern capitalist socio-economic formations through the Industrial Revolution, China’s relative backwardness rendered it vulnerable to imperialist aggression, resulting in what President Xi Jinping described as “national humiliation, people’s suffering, and civilizational decline.” [Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Celebration of the 100th Anniversary of the Founding of the Communist Party of China,” Qiushi, No. 14 (2021).]

Communist Party of China fundamentally transformed China’s semi-colonial, semi-feudal social character through revolutionary means. At different historical junctures, guided by analyses of China’s basic national conditions and principal contradictions, the Party proactively restructured the superstructure and reshaped production conditions from the top down. Starting from scratch, Communist Party of China established an independent industrial system, innovatively proposed a socialist market economy, laid the material and institutional foundations for modern production, successfully forged a new path of Chinese-style modernization, and constructed a distinct socialist socio-economic formation with Chinese characteristics. Nevertheless, as Comrade Xi Jinping noted, “While economically backward countries may leap over the ‘Caudine Forks’ in terms of social institutions, this does not mean they can necessarily bypass the ‘Caudine Forks’ of commodity economy in economic development.” [Xi Jinping, “Re-examining the Development of Socialist Market Economy,” Southeast Academic Research, No. 4 (2001).]

According to general laws of human societal development, socialism with Chinese characteristics remains a nationally specific phenomenon occurring within a single country and still resides within a society based on “dependence on things.” Thus, it must fully leverage the market to transcend fundamental limitations rooted in “personal dependence,” using commodity exchange as a medium to establish universal social relations among individuals.

Socialism with Chinese characteristics represents a dialectical transcendence of capitalism, demonstrating that economically and culturally backward countries can absorb the achievements of capitalist civilization while avoiding its disastrous consequences. As Trotsky observed, “A backward country certainly absorbs the material and spiritual achievements of advanced countries, but this does not mean blindly imitating or replicating all prior developmental stages of the latter. Instead, by absorbing ready-made civilizational achievements, it can skip a series of transitional phases, leading to a unique overlapping of historical stages—resulting in a trajectory that is overall disordered, complex, and hybrid.” [Trotsky, History of the Russian Revolution (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2004), pp. 15–16.]

Socialism with Chinese characteristics has positively absorbed Western capitalist civilizational achievements, dramatically compressing the temporal-spatial trajectory from traditional to modern society—a compression of developmental stages characteristic of advanced capitalist countries. Yet, as it remains within a society of “dependence on things,” various forms of capital inevitably emerge in economic development, bringing attendant problems inherent to capital and its mode of production. This necessitates a correct understanding of capital’s characteristics and behavioral patterns, exploring how to harness capital’s positive roles under socialist market economy conditions while effectively curbing its negative effects. More broadly, the construction of this new socio-economic formation transcends Eurocentric limitations, offering a novel option for other nations and peoples who aspire to accelerate development while preserving their independence.

VI. Conclusion

The proposition of a “new form of human civilization” by the CPC signifies the preliminary explanation of socialism with Chinese characteristics as a socio-economic formation. By abstracting its general determinants, it resolves the question of “what socialism is”; strategic policies formulated on this basis further answer “how to build socialism,” thereby addressing major theoretical challenges facing the Party and the state in socialist modernization. This concept greatly advances the CPC’s understanding of socialism with Chinese characteristics’ historical positioning, deepens comprehension of socialist and human societal development laws, and marks a cognitive leap from developmental stages to a new socio-economic formation.

First, Mao Zedong’s concept of an “underdeveloped socialism” stage constitutes the “primary stage” of socialist socio-economic formation. Just as Lenin designated communism’s first initial phase as socialist socio-economic formation, the underdeveloped socialist stage can itself constitute a new socio-economic formation. China’s socialist practice belongs to this underdeveloped stage, forming socialism with Chinese characteristics as a distinct socio-economic formation.

Second, this formation will include different developmental stages. Deng Xiaoping’s “primary stage of socialism” refers to the nearly century-long period “from the basic completion of socialist transformation of private ownership of means of production in the 1950s to the basic realization of socialist modernization,” constituting the primary stage of socialism with Chinese characteristics. [Party Literature Research Office of CPC Central Committee, Important Documents on 30 Years of Reform and Opening-Up (Vol. 1) (Beijing: Central Party Literature Press, 2008), p. 476.]

Comrade Xi Jinping further deepened this understanding, noting it is “not a static, unchanging, or stagnant phase, nor a spontaneous, passive stage that can be crossed effortlessly. Instead, it is a dynamic, proactive, vibrant process—a stair-step progression of continuous advancement and accumulating quantitative changes approaching qualitative leaps.” [Xi Jinping, “Grasping the New Development Stage, Implementing the New Development Philosophy, and Building a New Development Paradigm,” Qiushi, No. 9 (2021).]

Xi Jinping introduced the “new development stage”—spanning from 2035 (basic socialist modernization) to 2050 (a prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful modern socialist country)—expanding the connotation and extension of Deng’s “primary stage.” Xi Jinping also noted that building a modern socialist country is “a requirement for China’s socialism to advance from the primary to a higher stage,” implying that post-mid-century, socialism with Chinese characteristics will enter a higher phase.

Third, the basic systems stipulated by the Fourth Plenum of the 19th CPC Central Committee (2018) constitute the pillars of this socio-economic formation and must be upheld long-term, changing only if the formation’s fundamental nature transforms. The “new form of human civilization” represents a “terminological revolution” in scientific socialism, bridging the gap between classical Marxist socialist theory and the concrete practice of building socialism in a single country. According to Marx and Engels, fully realized communism requires two conditions: material abundance and international support. Neither the Soviet Union nor China theoretically met these conditions; in practice, Soviet socialism ultimately abandoned public ownership for privatization and liberalization, posing a theoretical dilemma: Can China’s socialist practice succeed? Can future communist society be built? For decades, the Party partially answered this through the theory of the primary stage of socialism, positioning China’s practice as a preliminary phase toward communism—but it left unresolved when and under what conditions this stage might be transcended.

The new term “new form of human civilization” systematically addresses this question, by advancing scientific socialism theory: First, backward countries can build socialism as a new socio-economic formation—which can be a society based on “dependence on things”—absorbing capitalism’s all achievements while overcoming its flaws/disasters and while they can uphold fundamentals of socialism.

Second, this formation inherently contains contradictions between partial ownership of means of production and socialized production, defining its fundamental nature. Insisting solely on public ownership assumes communism can be entered without massive productive development—a utopian view representing the “old, closed, ossified path.” Insisting solely on private ownership and market economy assumes socialism requires full capitalist development—a mechanistic view representing the “erroneous path of changing banners.” Either path alters the formation’s nature. Third, building socialism in a single country constitutes a crucial phase toward global communism—an underdeveloped socialism. However, no matter how developed its productive forces become, this formation’s fundamental nature cannot change through our unilateral efforts alone; only when several developed countries transit to socialism can the developed socialism be realized thus ultimately communism can be realized.