The World Association for Political Economy (WAPE) is an international academic organization that was voluntarily founded by Marxist economists from around the globe. Using modern Marxist economics, WAPE aims to observe and study the world economy and the economies of various countries, to reveal the laws of development and mechanisms of operation of these economies, to explore measures for promoting economic civilization and social progress, and to build communities with a shared future for mankind in order to faster and better improve the well-being of people around the world. From 2006 to 2021, WAPE successfully held 15 international forums in Shanghai, Shimane, Beijing, Paris, Suzhou, Massachusetts, Mexico City, Florianopolis, Hanoi, Johannesburg, Patiala, Moscow, Berlin, Winnipeg, and Shanghai. The association enjoys great popularity and academic influence around the world.
Aimed at further promoting the development of the world political economy, the 16th WAPE forum, organized around the theme of “Chinese Modernization and the Prospects of World Modernization,” was hosted by WAPE itself and by Fujian Normal University (FJNU) in Pingtan, Fujian province, China, on September 25–27, 2023. The forum was strongly supported by the School of Marxism of FJNU, the School of Marxism of Nankai University, the National Key Research Base for Teaching Material Construction of Nankai University, the World Review of Political Economy, the Chinese Journal of Political Economics, the Journal of Economics of Shanghai School, the Studies on Mao-Zedong and Deng-Xiaoping Theories, the Southeast Academic Research, the Journal of Fujian Normal University, the Review of Economic Research, and other academic institutions and groups in China.
During the forum, the 2023 WAPE awards ceremony was held. Professor Heinz Dieterich, of the National Autonomous University of Mexico, and Professor Jianping Li, former principal of FJNU, were awarded the “Marxian Economics Award.” Professor Efe Can Gürcan of Istinye University in Turkey, Professor Junshan Zhang of Nankai University in China, Professor C. Saratchand of the University of Delhi in India, Professor Ganqiang He of Nanjing University of Finance and Economics in China, Professor David Matters, assistant to the general secretary of the Communist Party of Australia, Professor Xian Zhang of Sichuan University in China, Professor Francesco Macheda of Xi’an Jiaotong–Liverpool University in China, and Professor Shaoyong Sun of Northwestern Polytechnical University in China were honored with the “Distinguished Achievement Award of World Political Economy of the 21st Century.”
Professor Yuteng Pan—Chair of the Council of FJNU—delivered a welcome speech. He stated that Chinese modernization not only provides a new choice for humankind to realize modernization, but also raises a series of major topics that need to be further studied by WAPE. Focusing on the theme of “Chinese Modernization and the Prospects of World Modernization,” the forum hosted in-depth discussions, integrated ideas and wisdom, deepened exchanges and mutual understanding, and enhanced cooperation and consensus, which fully reflected the vision and mission of WAPE, based on “worldwide changes of a scale unseen in a century.” The forum examined the path of Chinese modernization and the prospects of world modernization from multidimensional perspectives, focusing on answering China’s questions, the world’s questions, and the questions of the times, while also having a positive and far-reaching impact on the research and development of the world political economy.
Professor Enfu Cheng—Chair of WAPE and Deputy Director of the Academic Committee of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences—pointed out in his opening speech that with the comprehensive and in-depth industrial transformation of the new round of artificial intelligence technology and the digital economy, as well as the drastic adjustment of the international balance of power, it is now necessary not only to see such problems and difficulties as the sharp slowdown in the growth of the world economy, the shrinking growth of international trade, the rising level of global debt, the continued intensification of financial market turbulence, and the obvious negative interactions of de-globalization, but also to remain deeply aware of the new pattern of development of the world economy and the changes in global economic governance. The new pattern of the world economy, in which the West descends and the East ascends, is determined by the many domestic and international contradictions of the United States as well as the mechanisms and laws of hegemonic decline and is the fruitful result of the active participation of many developing countries cooperating in global development, the active expansion of development channels, and an insistence on self-reliance and independence. The path of Chinese modernization and development is not one of “Westernization” or “monopoly capitalism.” The construction of a system of indicators for evaluating economic modernization suited to domestic and foreign realities and guided by modern Marxist economics is an important task for the scientific understanding and ultimate realization of the development of global socialist modernization as well as a new civilization of socialism and communism for humankind.
The forum was divided into two plenary sessions and eight parallel sessions. Through online or offline means, scholars from over 20 countries focused on the theme “Chinese Modernization and the Prospects of World Modernization,” conducting in-depth discussions on topics such as methods of political economy and theories of modernization research, Chinese modernization and global political and economic structures, the practices of Chinese modernization and the innovation and development of mesoeconomics, research on the political economy of socialism with Chinese characteristics, comparisons of Chinese modernization and capitalist modernization, ecological civilization and the practical path of Chinese modernization, the basic principles of Marxist economics, and the special characteristics of Chinese modernization.
Methods of Political Economy and Theories of Modernization Research
David Laibman—Professor Emeritus of the City University of New York and editor of Science and Society—pointed out that the vision of socialism is beautiful and true, with practical and concrete programs for issues relating to people as well as environmental protection. Socialism also requires constant change, but automatic innovation alone is not enough; institutional and systemic design is also needed, so he provided a socialist system of “Multi-level Democratic Iterative Coordination” (MDIC). Exploring different forms of socialist construction practices within a framework of “central–decentral” organization and “quantitative–qualitative” regulation, professor Laibman proceeded to explain the meaning of MDIC and emphasized that the core of a mature socialist society involves mutual reinforcement between the central government and local enterprises.
Heinz Dieterich—Vice Chair of WAPE—presented a feasibility study on the principle of democratic permanence, analyzing the global significance of Chinese modernization in terms of the democratization index of human social organization and class society. He first explored the five centers of order in the current world, then sketched the “thermal rose of democratibility in human societies” through the algorithmic construction of political, economic, cultural, and military parameters, concluding that the governance of the five centers of order in the twenty-first century would either prolong the current Western liberal dictatorships or move toward the fractal democracy of Chinese modernization. The decision-making center of the liberal dictatorships will be the elite groups of capitalism, while the decision-making center of the fractal democracy of Chinese modernization will be the Communist Party of China (CPC), which clearly has an institutional advantage in terms of representing the direction of humankind’s advancement.
Alan Freeman—Vice Chair of WAPE and Director of the Geopolitical Economy Research Group, University of Manitoba—stated that modernization must overcome war. The specific reasons for this are as follows. First, war is actually an unequal way of exploiting the labor of other countries through political and economic expansion. Second, through war, imperialism suppresses other economic sovereignty and seizes excess profits; imperial excess profits are much higher than those that can be achieved within a country, which is the fundamental reason why imperialist wars arise. Third, the United States is the most aggressive, ruthless, and destructive imperialist power in world history, while the European powers tolerate it, is because of rivalry (between capitalism and non-capitalism) and class struggle (between capitalists and non-capitalists). The system of imperialism requires cooperation to suppress the economic sovereignty of other nations, while at the same time competing for excess profits. In short, peace is an absolute prerequisite for the modernization of the world. The global working class must unite to defend peace and jointly advance the process of world modernization and development.
Lil María Pichs-Hernandez—specialist in international relations at the Office of the Jose Marti Program of the Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Cuba and member of the organizing committee of the International Conference for World Balance—stated that the transformation of knowledge into a major productive force is one of the most characteristic factors in the current development of world economy. Since the 1980s, the role of knowledge in social production has continued to be governed by the laws of the market and the development trends of capitalism. Despite the uniqueness of the way that capitalism accumulates at each stage, all are closely linked to the techno-economic paradigm and representative technological innovations. An analysis of the technological paradigms of the financial and techno-capitalist phases revealed that capital accumulation is increasingly dependent on the availability of advanced technologies and energy self-sufficiency. At the same time, she analyzed the five factors that characterize today’s world system and provided insights into the potential and limitations of the knowledge economy paradigm.
Peter Herrmann—researcher from the Human Rights Research Center at the School of Law of Central South University in China—explored questions of the subject and subjectivity, stating that a central social problem of modernization is the identification of the subject of the historical process. A human being is bound up with a process of historical development, while the clarification of human subjectivity is also a historical process. The essence of modernization is the modernization of the human being, and thus the process of clarifying the human being as a subject and understanding human subjectivity is a central challenge for a deeper apprehension of what modernization entails.
Efe Can Gürcan—Visiting Senior Fellow at the London School of Economics and Director of the Belt and Road Research Center at Istinye University—constructed a systematic analytical framework including both structural and subjective factors, finding that institutional crisis and collective agency were the two main drivers triggering the revolution in Turkey. The former, relating to structural factors, was characterized by administrative and socio-economic collapse, while the latter, relating to subjective factors, was mainly due to questions of leadership and cultural ideology.
Several scholars considered social change in the era of digital economy. Xiuli Zhao—a Professor in the School of Economics at FJNU—applied the analytical framework of political economy to analyze the changing roles of founders of digital platforms and the evolution of their relationships with capital owners during the course of the digital platform’s development and evolution, from the perspective of labor and creative labor. Beginning with a game of checks and balances between creative owners and capital owners at the launch of the digital platform, this evolves into a relationship between creative labor and venture capital, and with the maturity and monopoly of the digital platform, it then evolves again into a relationship between platform capital and venture capital, as creative labor is captured by capital and evolves into platform capital, resulting in the dividing of surplus value among the capitalists. Wenwei Shen—a Professor in the School of Marxism at Tianjin Normal University—believed that the rapid development of the digital economy has opened up a new space for employment and given rise to new employment groups. How to promote the healthy development of these new employment groups has become an important topic, then. He analyzed the sources, formations, natures, scales, and development prospects of these new employment groups in the era of digital economy using the basic principles of political economy, such as Marxist wage theory, the theory of the organic composition of capital, and the theory of the priority development of the means of production, proposing that the formation of new employment groups is conducive to the comprehensive development of human beings in the long run, so we should further improve the social security of these new employment groups in order to promote their healthy development.
Chinese Modernization and Global Political and Economic Structure
Jennifer Clegg—former Senior Lecturer at the School of Languages and International Studies, University of Central Lancashire—pointed out that international geopolitical tensions were currently rising and the world was at a turning point in terms of multipolarity. Against that backdrop, China had put forward three major initiatives: the Global Development Initiative, the Global Security Initiative, and the Global Civilization Initiative. China’s international practice mainly involves three elements: first, unleashing the momentum of change; second, participating in international standard-setting at global summits; and third, making breakthroughs from weak points. Overall, although China still faces many risks and challenges, it is nonetheless able to confidently lead the integration of developing countries into the international arena in a more open and confident manner.
Zili He—a Professor at Nankai University—pointed out that the current great change that has not been seen for a hundred years has five characteristics: first, a new round of technological revolution is on the rise and digital capitalization is strengthening the control and exploitation of labor; second, economic globalization is at a crossroads and Western modernization is losing the ability to dominate globalization; third, during the stage of global economic recovery, Western modernization lost its economic vitality, dragging down the global economy’s development; fourth, with the tendency of world pluralization, the hegemonic position of the United States is faltering and its global influence is rapidly declining; and fifth, global problems and contradictions are intensifying and the Western-led global governance system is failing. The Western modernization model is ultimately falling down from the altar and losing its former glory, then, while the new model represented by Chinese modernization is opening up a new realm of human practice, and the world’s political and economic pattern is showing a significant development trend of “the West descends and the East ascends.” The basic principles of the global economic governance system should be reconstructed on the basis of equality, with openness as the guide, cooperation as the driving force, and sharing as the goal.
Radhika Desai—a Professor in the Department of Political Studies and Director of the Geopolitical Economy Research Group, University of Manitoba—analyzed the issues of inequality, financialization, and dollar credit, showing that financialization and the dollar system have had destructive effects on the global economy. She first pointed out that the world financial system is currently in a state of disorder, with inequality stemming from a combination of factors, such as higher rates of return on capital than economic growth rates, the integration of trade, the integration of labor markets, automation, the regression of the welfare state under neoliberal policies, negative changes in taxation, and attacks on labor unions. Fundamentally, however, the disorder of the world monetary system—which is based on dollar credit, established after 1971—is a central aspect of the growing inequality within and between countries. Second, the dollar system has been the greatest catalyst for financialization; in order to maintain the value of the dollar, a range of financialization instruments are required. Third, financialization overwhelms, distorts, undermines, destroys, and even deteriorates labor, and the metabolic way of human society and nature, by robbing it of its rewards, wages, and profits. Fourth, financialization is not a naturally occurring or unavoidable consequence, but rather an artificial product of the state and regulators. Fifth, neoliberalism cannot save industrial capitalism, which has long been in decline, but only financialize it.
Zhan Shu—a Professor in the School of Marxism at Fuzhou University—also pointed out that the dollar loop currency system, which is characterized by high inflation and high indebtedness, has led to the long-term coexistence of consumer inflation, foreign trade deficits, and massive absorption of foreign capital in the United States. At the same time, in this special “dollar–oil–bond” pattern, the United States has become a profit-eating country. In the face of the unpredictable international financial situation—especially the possibility of Western countries, led by the United States, using their financial advantages to strike at China’s economic development—China needs to strengthen its own financial supervision and steadily promote the internationalization of RMB and the new payment and settlement system, in order to reduce the risk of being affected by systemic international financial crisis.
Ernst Herzog—Managing Director of WAPE— analyzed the changing role of Germany in the current international situation. Before the outbreak of war in Ukraine, German imperialism had gained hegemony, mainly by means of the “business model,” and attempted to transcend its position of second-class imperialism in the wake of American imperialism, so as to realize “equal status” with American imperialism. However, due to the pressures of American imperialism, German imperialism had to change its business model and constantly adjust its policy toward Russia and China. Currently, the vision of the monopolistic faction in German imperialism involves striving toward participating as a major military power in the redrawing of the world against China and the United States, within a few years. Herzog regarded this as a clear imperialist line.
Xi Wu—an Associate Professor in the School of Marxism at Xiamen University— elaborated the dialectical thinking of Marx’s theory of world history in terms of capitalist economic globalization, introduced the idea of “Chinese modernization on the road of peaceful development” under the predicament of capitalist globalization, then argued that the narrative theme of Marx’s theory of world history is from “false and inverted monetary community” to “association of free people,” so that Chinese modernization on the road of peaceful development opens up the way for the free association of free people.
Qiongqiu Chen—Vice Dean of the School of Marxism at Hangzhou Normal University—put forward the proposition of “the trap of the world’s second-largest economy,” based on the historical development trajectories of Spain, the Netherlands, Britain, Germany, the Soviet Union, and Japan, from rise to recession. Then he elaborated the specific connotations, generational logic, actual manifestations, and main risks of the “trap of the world’s second-largest economy,” arguing that China becoming the world’s second-largest economy has caused changes in the world’s economic power distribution and economic pattern; yet, the developed and conservative countries led by the United States continue to create “the trap of the world’s second largest economy,” with the result that the process of Chinese modernization faces exceptionally complicated internal and external environments. Finally, he put forward five basic requirements for beating the “trap of the world’s second-largest economy.”
Zuoyun Zhang—a Professor in the Institute of Contemporary Economics at Huaibei Normal University—pointed out that contemporary international relations of production are actually international relations of production with the participation of Western imperialist countries, discussing the mixed growth and mutual integration of state monopoly capitalism and international monopoly capitalism as well as the domination of international monopoly capitalism, then emphasizing that it is important to realize that the international relations of production in the world today have a class character. In the structure of contemporary international relations of production, the relations of production of Western imperialist countries and socialist countries, and their specific forms of social systems, both have different characteristics and fundamental differences, so the handling of relations between countries in the contemporary world needs to be premised on different social systems.
The Practice of Chinese Modernization and the Innovation and Development of Mesoeconomics
Xinhua Jian—a Professor in the School of Economics and Management at Wuhan University—put forward the basic content, system structure, and logical connections of Chinese modernization theory. He pointed out that the basic content of Chinese modernization theory includes modernization as well as its basic features, noting the existence of two essentially different types of contemporary modernization: capitalist modernization (i.e., Western modernization) and socialist modernization (i.e., Chinese modernization). He then explored the connotations, characteristics, and essential requirements of Chinese modernization, the fundamental tasks and strategic arrangements of Chinese modernization, the path to realizing Chinese modernization, including major principles, requirements, and strategic measures, and the great domestic and international significance of Chinese modernization. The road to realizing Chinese modernization involves major requirements and strategic measures, but Chinese modernization has great domestic and international significance. The construction of the theoretical system of Chinese modernization mainly focuses on the two major questions of “What is Chinese modernization?” and “How to realize Chinese modernization?” The theory of Chinese modernization is not a haphazard list of related items, but a scientific system with comprehensive contents, clear relations, and a reasonable structure, involving strict logic as well as practicality.
Alexander V. Buzgalin—Vice Chair of WAPE and Professor in the Department of Political Economy, Lomonosov Moscow State University—believed that the market and socialism cannot be separated, the relation between the two being like water and ice. With the development of modernization, the relation between the two will only become more and more integrated, but some negative problems and even deviations may occur. For example, Russia had deviations in its combination of the market and socialism, resulting in the market drowning out socialism. Therefore, how the market and socialism are combined is particularly important. China’s development has shown that socialism and the market can be well integrated.
Jiaxiang Li—a Professor in the School of Economics at Tianjin Normal University and former Secretary of the Party Group of the Tianjin Federation of Social Science—pointed out that realizing agricultural modernization and building a strong agricultural country are important tasks for the comprehensive construction of socialist modernization. Since the establishment of New China in 1949, the development of Chinese agricultural modernization, with the strategic goal of building a strong agricultural country, has been consistent and advanced with the times, showing the characteristics of stages. At present, facing great changes that the world has not seen for a hundred years, domestic development has entered a new stage of comprehensively constructing a modernized Chinese power, yet the shortcomings of agricultural modernization, with its many challenges and difficulties, mean it is necessary to emphasize the construction of a strong agricultural country, and to speed up the advancement of this construction using innovative theories and practices, in order to create a firm foundation for the construction of Chinese modernization, which will also be beneficial to increasing internal demand and constructing a new development paradigm featuring dual circulation, in which domestic and overseas markets reinforce each other, with the domestic market being the mainstay.
Nan Li—a Professor in the School of Marxism at Wuhan University—explained from the perspective of political economy the experience and significance of the CPC eliminating absolute poverty, revealing that the CPC’s historic eradication of absolute poverty in rural areas has been achieved by: adhering to the party’s overall leadership, which has been the core strength in terms of solving the problem of absolute poverty in rural areas; adhering to the socialist system, which has been the institutional cornerstone of solving the problem of absolute poverty in rural areas; realizing the free and comprehensive development of human beings, which has been the value goal of solving the problem of absolute poverty in rural areas; and contributing to global poverty governance, which will be the future direction of solving the problem of absolute poverty in rural areas. Realizing free and comprehensive human development is the value objective of solving the problem of absolute rural poverty, while contributing to global poverty governance is a future direction for solving the problem of rural poverty.
Jiangang Zhang—a Research Fellow at the Institute of Marxism, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, and deputy director of the editorial board of the journal Marxist Studies— analyzed the general laws of the world’s industrial modernization, based on the relations between the scientific and technological revolution and the industrial revolution, and summarized the characteristics of China’s industrialization at different historical stages, from the founding of New China, as well as the development strategy of industrial modernization.
Yangguang Chen—a Professor at the University of London—analyzed the drawbacks and consequences of the industrialization of higher education, arguing that the industrialization of higher education has spawned the stratification of education, contributing to the solidification of class, and is therefore contrary to the principles of fairness and public welfare in education. For this reason, she suggested that learnings can be drawn from some European welfare states and free higher education should be implemented, so as to curb the educational inequalities brought about by differences in social capital, to realize equal access to education, and to promote the healthy development of China’s socialist education.
Jiankun Gao—an Associate Professor in the School of Marxism at Fudan University—analyzed the role of property rights system in the construction of China’s modernized industrial system, modernized market system, modernized income distribution system, modernized urban–rural and regional development system, modernized green development system, comprehensive opening-up system, and modernized economic regulation system. He pointed out that in order to build a high-quality modernized economic system, China needs to strengthen the development of the public economic sector and it should also build upon the dominant role of the state-owned sector in the national economy, particularly by developing state-owned enterprises into world-class enterprises.
Yu Yao—a Professor of the School of International Business at Shaanxi Normal University—believes that the income distribution system widely adopted by public enterprises, in which wages are linked to corporate profits, can not only adapt to market competition, but also promote common prosperity. Thus, within the framework of the socialist market economy system, private enterprises can choose financial sharing systems, such as linking wages to enterprise profits and labor shareholding, and can gradually shift to collectively owned enterprises, which will not only be conducive to increasing the wealth of laborers and society, but also to increasing the earnings of private entrepreneurs. Thus, such a shift could be a viable path for “the first rich to bring wealth to the latter” and for advancing the common wealth of socialism in the new era.
Political Economy of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics
Here, the scholars discussed the discipline of socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics, the study of ownership, and Xi Jinping’s economic thought, as well as the new stage of development, the new development concept, and high-quality development.
Yongxiu Bai—a Professor in the School of Economics and Management at Northwest University—pointed out that in clarifying the disciplinary nature of a socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics, the positioning, research object, and main line of thought are the basic requirements and important conditions for constructing a scientific socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics, but academics are presently far from forming a consistent view on these basic issues. Based on a review of relevant literature, he answered these basic questions. As for the nature of the discipline, a socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics belongs to theoretical economics, which is a core subdiscipline of economics in China. For the object of research, a socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics should study the contradictory movements at the two levels of productive forces and the relations of the production of socialism with Chinese characteristics, as well as the superstructure that is compatible with the relations of the production of socialism with Chinese characteristics, being more reflective of people-centered thinking when considering the contradictory movements. For the main line of thought, a socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics should focus on the coordinated relationship between social equity and market efficiency in the development of a socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics.
Junshan Zhang—a Professor in the School of Economics of Nankai University—explained the doctrinal basis for leading high-quality development, with a new development concept from the perspective of political economy. He pointed out that the guiding ideology of economic construction put forward by the CPC Central Committee contains rich and profound principles of Marxist historical materialism and political economy, which must be understood in terms of the depth of the doctrine. High-quality development is a function of an economic organism, to better realize the need for material goods to satisfy the need for a better material and cultural life through a smooth cyclical process. Therefore, a new development pattern would involve establishing a nationally oriented economic system, while a new development concept would constitute a guiding idea embodying the economic laws of high-quality development. The socialist relations of production are the economic foundations of high-quality economic and social development, and every item in the new development concept must be guaranteed by the socialist system if it is to be truly implemented. Only when the material and cultural living needs of the entire population are constantly satisfied and the physical and mental health of people is realized can there truly be high-quality development. Therefore, consolidating and improving the socialist economic system is a fundamental task in realizing high-quality economic and social development.
Fengyi Liu—a Professor of Nankai University—also interpreted high-quality development from the perspective of political economy. High-quality development involves adherence to and innovation of the ideological approach of the Marxian system of laws. High-quality development can be understood in terms of three levels. The first level involves recognizing what quality development is from the dialectical unity of productive forces and relations of production. The second level involves recognizing what quality development is from the cyclical turnover of the economic organism. At the third level, quality development is understood in terms of the balance between supply and demand.
Jinzhao Wang—a Professor in the Economic Development Research Center at Wuhan University—discussed the dialectical relationship between the new stage of development and the primary stage, arguing that socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered a new stage of development, a transitional stage from the primary stage to the intermediate and advanced stages. Compared with the previous period of the primary stage, this stage has been qualitatively different. In the realm of ideological superstructure, the party is attaching greater importance to the ideal of communism in this new stage than it did in the two decades after the theory of the primary stage was put forward; in the realm of the relations of production, the new stage is placing qualitatively greater importance on public ownership than it did in the past period; and in the realm of productive forces, a series of concepts, guidelines, and strategies different from those of the past have again been put forward in this new stage, with great breakthroughs already being realized. Given the qualitative changes that have taken place at the primary stage, the end of the primary stage should not be delayed until after the middle of the twenty-first century but should instead be brought forward to 2035.
Yujie Han—a Professor from the School of Marxism at Nankai University—explained Xi Jinping’s important exposition on cooperative economy in terms of the three levels of theoretical logic, historical logic, and practical logic, suggested that Xi Jinping’s important exposition on cooperative economy both inherits from and innovates on Marx and Engels’ idea of cooperative economy, being the summary of China’s practice of long-term development of cooperative economy, and pointed out that Xi Jinping’s important exposition on cooperative economy points to the realization of the modernization of agriculture and rural areas and the common wealth in the countryside, meaning that the theoretical perfection of Xi Jinping’s important exposition on cooperative economy can only be achieved through modernizing agriculture and rural areas.
Professor Shiqiang Sun—a Professor of the School of Economics at Liaoning University—compared the supply of productivity, the supply of production relations, and the ability to unify the productivity and production relations between two major market players, state-owned enterprises and private enterprises, finding that there were differences in the field of factors, the scale of factors, the ability to use factors, the way factors were used, the intensity of factor use, and the synergistic capabilities of factors in the control of productivity by different market players. By pointing out that the current series of problems is the inevitable result of focusing on productivity at the expense of relations of production, he concluded that mankind must learn to regulate and enrich the strength of productivity through the continuous improvement of the quality of relations of production.
Comparison of Chinese Modernization and Capitalist Modernization
Adnan Akfirat—Chairman of the Turkish–Chinese Business Development and Friendship Association—argued that modernization does not mean Westernization and that there is a significant difference between Chinese modernization and Western modernization. Chinese modernization is a redefinition of modernization based on a full consideration of the country’s national conditions, making it a kind of sustainable modernization. It is capable of realizing harmony between human beings and nature, so it can create well-being for people all over the world, setting a positive example for global development.
Alfredo Sumi Arapa—a Professor of Sociology and Philosophy at the Universidad Nacional de Micaela Bastidas de Apurímac in Peru—discussed the numerous attempts made by Latin Americans over the past 500 years to modernize their countries, which have been unsuccessful for a variety of reasons, and proved that the Western model of modernization is not feasible in developing countries. The Chinese model and its international ideas and initiatives have made it possible to develop a model of modernization for developing countries. The Chinese model and its international propositions have given the people of Latin America an alternative political and economic paradigm to Western modernity.
Niemeyer Almeida Filho—former president of the Brazilian Society of Political Economy—also pointed out the significance of Chinese modernization as a model for Brazil and Latin America.
Professor Ganqiang He—a Professor of the School of Economics at Nanjing University of Finance and Economics—believes that capitalist modernization is capital-centered modernization. The capitalist mode of production includes the development of antagonistic contradictions in capitalist production relations, determining that capitalism cannot eliminate its cyclical economic crises. Chinese modernization is transcending the old road of capitalist modernization for the new road of socialist modernization. Only by unswervingly revitalizing the public sector economy can the strategic plan of General Secretary Xi Jinping and the CPC Central Committee be implemented and Chinese modernization be developed, truly putting a fundamental method of balancing all factors into practice, so as to promote the comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable development of the national economy and society.
Prof. Shengsheng Wang—Executive Vice-president of the Xi Jinping Institute for Socialist Thought with Chinese Characteristics in the New Era at Nankai University—analyzed historical changes in the form of capital movement as well as the corresponding changes in capitalism’s antagonistic contradictions, clarified the composition of capital in the socialist market economy, discussed the main features of the healthy development of capital in the socialist market economy, and proposed a mechanism for the governance of capital in the context of supply-side structural reform.
Weimin Hou—a Research Fellow of the Academy of Marxism at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences—explained Chinese modernization in terms of three levels: namely, the historical stage leap, the theoretical paradigm leap, and the development path leap. First, Chinese modernization has achieved the fastest, broadest, and most gigantic development leap in human history. Chinese modernization has shortened the historical process under the constraints of the traditional development path, demonstrated the comprehensive and catching-up nature of the development process, and transcended the logic of polluting first and then governing. Second, Chinese modernization has rewritten the traditional theoretical paradigm of modernization, broken through the shackles of Western modernization theory, and established a new paradigm of modernization for late-developing countries, characterized by autonomy and endogeneity. Third, Chinese modernization has achieved a leap in the path of development, transcending the logic of the people over the logic of capital, transforming the methodology guiding the development, and shifting from follow-and-catch-up development to high-quality development.
Yihuan Zhao—a Professor in the College of Arts and Law at Henan Agricultural University—compared Chinese modernization with that of Western capitalist countries in terms of the four dimensions of the main driving force, the efficiency of the driving force, the economic growth mechanism, and development prospects, thereby explaining the connotations of China’s socialist modernization and its advantages in depth.
Professor Linan Li—a Professor from the Department of Ideological and Political Theory at Xiamen University of Technology—discussed a number of questions: whether Chinese modernization will follow Western modernization or develop a new form of human civilization; what are the similarities and differences between Chinese modernization and Western modernization; what are the reasons for the similarities and differences between Chinese modernization and Western modernization; and what is the significance of Chinese modernization to the world? It was argued that Chinese modernization constitutes a major innovation in the theory and practice of modernization in the world, since it creates a new form of human civilization, opens up a new realm of socialist development, points out the future direction for building a community of human destiny, and provides a new option for developing countries to pursue modernization.
Ecological Civilization and the Practical Path of Chinese Modernization
Josef Baum—Geographer and Interdisciplinary Senior Researcher at the University of Vienna—emphasized the importance of climate justice and global climate governance in terms of the geographic distribution of pollution emissions and their impact on climate. He pointed out that of the many options available for addressing the global climate crisis, the most practical one is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. However, it has been difficult for countries around the world to reach a consensus on carbon emissions, thus complicating the issue of climate justice. Globally, developed countries were the “initiators” of the climate crisis, but it was the developing countries that bore the brunt of the damage. He strongly appealed to the developed countries to face up to their historical actions and take responsibility.
Francisco Macheda—an Associate Professor in the School of International Studies at Xi’an Jiaotong–Liverpool University—discussed the roles of industrial policy and state-owned enterprises in relation to China’s path to carbon reduction. He analyzed the structural characteristics of China’s energy model as well as the key role played by the government in facilitating the structural transformation of the energy system, arguing that the latter had boosted the innovative capacities of renewable energy firms. He pointed out that within the framework of green industrial policy, state-owned enterprises could play an important role in curbing the growth of the coal sector and improving the competitiveness of clean energy companies. Therefore, fully utilizing industrial policy and state-owned enterprises would be a viable path for China to achieve its “dual-carbon” goals in the future.
Weixiong Chen—an Associate Professor in the School of Economics at FJNU—first explained the theoretical logic, cultural logic, practical logic, realistic logic, and value logic of the modernization of harmony between human beings and nature, then discussed the core concepts and objectives of the modernization of harmony between human beings and nature, before finally proposing that the path to realize the modernization in harmony with nature involved five aspects, including perfecting the system guarantee, clarifying the strategic path, reinforcing the scientific and technological support, gathering the strength of society, and strengthening international cooperation.
Jing Yang—an Associate Professor in the School of Marxism at FJNU—pointed out that the international dissemination of discourse about ecological civilization in cyberspace has the common characteristics of the international dissemination of discourse, as well as Chinese characteristics of network dissemination, based on China’s ecological civilization theory and practice. At present, the effectiveness of the international communication of discourse about Chinese ecological civilization in cyberspace does not fully match the strength of the construction of ecological civilization. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the dialectical relations between eco-discourse and eco-discourse power as well as eco-discourse and international communication in cyberspace and, on this basis, develop a high-quality international discourse system of eco-civilization, by focusing on the convergence effect, matrix model, and authoritative leadership resulting from the organic unity of the communication direction and the practice direction, so as to enhance the centripetal force, dissemination power, speech power, and influence of China’s eco-civilization discourse in international communication, thereby comprehensively improving China’s eco-civilization theory and practice. This will not only enhance the centripetal force, dissemination power, speech power, and influence of China’s ecological civilization discourse in international communication via the internet, but will also comprehensively enhance the international discourse power of China’s ecological civilization.
According to Junjun Li—a Professor in the School of Economics at FJNU—Chinese modernization requires the integrated development of common wealth and green transformation. The green transformation of the development mode should not only make the economic system greener, more circular, and low-carbon, but also maintain sustained economic growth and solve the imbalance of income distribution in the transition process. He analyzed the positive impacts of green transformation on improving income distribution and promoting common prosperity as well as proposed giving full play to the roles of active government and an effective market, comprehensively implementing innovation-driven strategy, accelerating the research and development of green technology, developing and expanding emerging green industries, promoting the realization of the value of green products, promoting the regional integration and coordination of green transformation, narrowing the income gap between urban and rural areas, raising the proportion of labor distribution, and gradually realizing common prosperity.
Xiaoli Yi—an Associate Professor in the School of Economics at FJNU—linked environmental governance under the sustainable development goals with air pollution and discussed the use of National Sustainable Development Experimental Zones as spaces for natural experiments, testing the environmental effects of the construction of the experimental zone using the difference-in-differences method, before drawing the following conclusions: the establishment of the National Sustainable Development Experimental Zone significantly reduced the emission of air pollution from industrial enterprises, while small- and medium-sized, privately owned, high-profit, eastern, and high-pollution-density enterprises were more affected by the establishment of this zone, which affects the pollution emissions from industrial enterprises, mainly by reducing investment and output (with enterprises being closed down), reducing coal and oil consumption, and improving the efficiency of pollution control.
Basic Principles of Marxist Economics
Here, the participating scholars shared their perspectives on contemporary capitalism, the mathematization of Marxian economics, the analysis of classical texts, and the practical application of the basic principles of Marxist economics.
David Kotz—Vice Chair of WAPE and a Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Massachusetts Amherst—pointed out that one of the greatest strengths of Marxist economics is its ability to provide insight into the root causes of economic crises. The main reason for the existence of a prolonged crisis of capitalism lies in the contradiction between the process of capital accumulation and the economic, political, and cultural systems that support it. The COVID-19 and the Russia–Ukraine conflict, among other things, have resulted in large short-term ups and downs in global outputs, shortages, and rising inflation. Despite the fading of these effects, the crisis is expected to continue, which will adversely affect societies, and there is a great danger that authoritarian nationalist regimes in some major countries will likely rise in the form of fascism, a repressive regime that is too strong in the global system and has a high risk of triggering war. Neoliberal-dominated capitalism cannot resolve the contradictions of capital accumulation, solve the structural crisis, or bring a better life to the majority of the population, so the only direction of change that could bring a bright future to mankind involves moving beyond capitalism toward socialism.
David S. Pena—Director of the Learning Resources Centre at the Eissey Campus Library at Palm Beach State College—suggested that imperialism is a form of exploitation through which the capitalist system expands itself. The so-called “accumulation of dispossession” does not refer to the creation of bourgeois or capitalist relations, but rather to their flows and contradictions on a global and local scale.
Chandrasekaran Sarachand—a Professor in the Department of Economics at Sativati College, University of Delhi, India—argued that in the process of capital accumulation and diffusion, colonies provided wealth, export markets, cheap labor, and primary commodities to colonial powers. He constructed a two-sector model of agriculture and manufacturing to analyze the loss of wealth from the colonies and its economic consequences. He called for Marxists to make more use of Marxist economics to analyze colonial economies and to critique colonial behavior more systematically.
Hiroshi Onishi—Vice Chair of WAPE and Professor Emeritus of Kyoto University and Keio University, Japan—gave a revised proof of the labor theory of value based on the principle of marginalism. He pointed out that the labor theory of value is very important, but mainstream mathematicians are reluctant to accept it because they believe in diminishing marginal returns. Using productive activity as a logical starting point, Hiroshi Onishi proposed the idea that the marginal utility of labor is negative, while the marginal utility of the product is positive, and he used this as the basis for constructing a Cobb–Douglas utility function, optimizing it and obtaining an expression for labor, then dividing it with the output function to obtain an expression for the unit value of the product. After discussing various variations of the unit value, he concluded that labor time becomes the measure of value when the unit value expression is constant and the ratio of labor to output is guaranteed. Next, Onishi Hiroshi introduced and redefined the production function for the means of production and calculated the proportionality of labor to output under the introduction of machines—that is, constant returns to scale. This proportionality, Onishi argued, was consistent with the context of the labor theory of value and was established only after the Industrial Revolution. Based on this argument, Onishi Hiroshi pointed out that the labor theory of value is historical, in that machine production created unskilled labor, on the one hand, while the “economies of scale” social division of labor based on machine production created the universal exchange system, on the other hand.
By contrast, Xian Zhang—a Professor in the School of Economics at Sichuan University—made a mathematical analysis of the problem of fixed capital renewal in the theory of social capital reproduction in capitalism. Fixed capital renewal has an equilibrium condition, and the fixed capital renewal cycle is the material basis for causing cyclical crises. Although the periods of capital investment are extremely different and inconsistent, a crisis is always the starting point for large-scale new investment, therefore, as far as a whole society is concerned, the crisis is again more or less the new material basis of the next turnover cycle. Therefore, to alleviate China’s current economic downturn, when it comes to the choice of macroeconomic policy, we need to combine structural adjustment by accelerating the renewal of fixed capital, lease financing, and mergers and acquisitions, while also restructuring and implementing other policies, so that the renewal of fixed capital can become a starting point for updating the economy and promoting its growth.
Stavros Mavroudeas—Vice Chair of WAPE, Chair of the Greek Association for Political Economy, and Professor of Political Economy in the Department of Social Policy at Panteion University, Greece—responded to what appears to be a current tendency in the Western world of attempting to minimize Engels’ contribution to Marxism. The attacks on Engels have mainly come from the German “Neue Marx-Lektüre” and the Sraffists, the former playing a leading role and the latter supporting them. They have tried to create a division between volumes one and three of Das Kapital and accused Engels of having unreasonably edited Marx’s notes. They also rejected the revolutionary political views of Marxism and their call for the proletariat to take political action independent of bourgeois reformism. Those against Engels, who claim that the work of Engels did not conform to modern editorial principles, did not actually understand the historical, theoretical, and political character of Capital. Despite their efforts, the contribution of Engels to Marxism and the communist movement remains as a beacon that cannot be ignored.
Zhongbao Wang—a Research Fellow of the Academy of Marxism, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences—discussed the following issues: whether there is an economic crisis in capitalism, how to define an economic crisis, whether economic fluctuations constitute an economic crisis, and how to explain an economic crisis. He pointed out that capitalism’s history of development is the history of its economic crises; that the kernel, periphery, and nodes of the Marxist economic crisis theoretical system together constitute the rich Marxist economic crisis theoretical system; and that the Marxist crisis theoretical system is an open theoretical system—a scalpel for deeply analyzing the development of capitalism.
By contrast, Bin Xiao—an Associate Professor from the School of Marxism at Xiamen University—analyzed the relation between the theory of proletarian political parties and Marxist political economy. As an important part of the Marxist theoretical system, the Marxist theory of political economy is undoubtedly the theoretical basis for the formulation of the proletariat’s battle program and strategies and tactics. In terms of historical logic, the theory of proletarian political parties originates from the practical summaries of Marxist political economy in different periods; in terms of theoretical logic, the theory of proletarian political parties originates from the intrinsic stipulations of Marxist political economy that run through the whole process; and in terms of practical logic, the theory of proletarian political parties originates from the conformist innovations of Marxist political economy that keep abreast of the times.
Ruide Li—an Associate Professor in the School of Marxism, FJNU—discussed the two forms of Marx’s theory of the critique of capital fetishism, based on the Economic Manuscripts of 1861–1863. Marx’s critique of capital fetishism contains two forms: general nature and specific form. The general nature is the core and foundation of the specific form, and the specific form is the unfolding and concretization of the general nature, which constitutes an interconnected and logically rising “artistic whole.”
According to the structure system of Marxist political economy in the “six-volume plan,” Hua Gang—an Associate Professor in the Economics College at the Inner Mongolia University of Finance and Economics—used Marxist capital theory, national theory, and international economic theory to systematically analyze the new dual-circulation development paradigm, at the three levels of economic base, superstructure, and international economic relations, then put forward a proposal for a new dual-circulation development paradigm, which is the core and foundation of the general form, proposing that the aggregate and structural balance of the total social supply and the total demand is the macro condition for the construction of the new development paradigm.
Lin Yuan—a Lecturer in the School of Marxism at Nanchang University—analyzed the political economy turn in the young Marx’s critique of modernity. From Croznach to Paris, the perspective of this critique shifts from political history to economic history, to philosophy of law and political economy, which are significant shifts. These shifts not only reveal the extension and expansion of the research fields of the young Marx, but also reflect an integration of methodology (alienation view, practical view, as well as dialectic).
Weihua Gong—the Secretary of the School of Marxism at the Northern Polytechnic University—analyzed the problem of income distribution in society by applying the labor theory of value. Starting from the serious polarization of social distribution and the question of who creates value, Gong put forward the “orange peel form of the labor theory of value,” to intuitively expresses the theory in in two specific forms: the simple labor value theory of green peel and the complex labor value theory of orange peel. Gong believed that the category of labor force is the logical starting point for the “orange peel form of the labor theory of value,” the division of the simple labor force and the complex labor force, and the qualitative change of the structure and composition of social labor.
The Special Characteristics of Chinese Modernization
Here, the participating scholars discussed the Chinese characteristics of Chinese modernization from the perspectives of system, technology, and culture.
Jean-Claude Delaunay—Vice Chair of WAPE and Professor Emeritus of Université Paris-Est—pointed out the connotations of modernity and the uniqueness of Chinese modernization from a historical perspective. The connotations of modernization include the following aspects: first, modernization should be achieved technologically; second, modernity is humanistic, opposing exploitation and the domination of human beings and nature; third, the preliminary stage of modernization is a leap from one mode of production to another; and fourth, modernization is a continuous process, with each stage requiring appropriate tools and technologies. The process of Chinese modernization has mainly been supported by three aspects: first, adherence to the leadership of the CPC; second, the implementation of the socialist system; and third, the participation and support of the general public. To ensure the smooth progress of Chinese modernization, it is necessary to dare to fight against traditional disadvantages and imperialism, and to continue to promote the process of Chinese modernization.
Niemeyer Almeida Filho—Vice Chair of WAPE and former Chair of the Brazilian Association of Political Economy—pointed out that China’s rise has shifted the axis of global accumulation to Asia, which is more important than what Japan achieved in the 1970s, because it has led to the decentralization of the “organic core” of capitalism and opened up economic space for the development of neighboring countries and regions. China’s socialist market economy has developed gradually, maintaining the socialist logic of the primacy of collective over individual values, and its state structure is unique, in that it uses institutional innovations to realize its economic functions. Chinese modernization provides us with the most important element, that political rationality can transcend capitalism and individualism, and this political rationality is the logic of socialism.
Mike Robert—an economist at a City of London financial institution—pointed out that neoclassical, Keynesian, and Marxist economics have given different explanations for China’s economic growth miracle since its reform and opening up. Neoclassicists believe that the main reason is due to China giving full play to the comparative advantage of cheap and abundant labor. Keynesians attribute it to China’s high investment in machinery, equipment, and technology. Marxist scholars believe that it is mainly the law of value that plays a role. Faced with the current challenges relating to China’s economic development, such as declining returns on investment and a shrinking labor force, he argued that investment in technology was the key to China’s sustainable growth and that it was necessary to increase investment aimed at job creation, automation, and productivity growth.
Gang Liu—a Professor at and Vice Principal of Qufu Normal University—explored the cultural genes of Chinese modernization from the perspective of Ming and Qing Dynasty economic history. He believed that the economic “Smith growth” of the Ming and Qing Dynasty shows a Chinese “natural path,” from the increase of agricultural productivity to population growth and the transfer of labor to handicrafts and commerce, as well as the formation of large markets and new social reproduction, with the “labor-intensive and resource-saving” mode of production based on China’s “industrious gene” lowering the resource threshold of modernization. It is necessary to clarify the unity of opposites between “particularity” and “generality,” and to scientifically analyze the “steep slope” of the Western style, the “slow slope” of the Chinese style, and the possible traps. We should also focus on the dialectical view of history, so as to expand the “generality” of the laws of modernization with the “particularity” of Chinese modernization.
Zhaochang Peng—a Research Fellow in the School of Marxism at Fudan University—believed that Marxist political economy in the twenty-first century should combine the basic principles of Marxism with the excellence of traditional Chinese culture, interpret the classical roots of the excellence of traditional Chinese culture using Marxist political economy as the analytical perspective, and explain the contemporary value of the excellence of traditional Chinese culture as transcending the civilization of Western capitalism.
Xianming Lin—a Professor in and Dean of the School of Marxism at Fujian Agriculture and Forestry University—pointed out that Chinese modernization and the “second combination” complement each other and are mutually beneficial, with intrinsic grounds and principles. Chinese modernization adheres to the guidance of Marxism, activates the great civilization created by the Chinese nation over thousands of years with the power of Marxism, and realizes an organic combination of the excellence of Chinese traditional culture with modern civilization. The mutual achievements of Chinese modernization and the “second combination” have provided the rest of the world with new perspectives on traditional and modern civilization, as well as Chinese wisdom for the modernization of other countries.
Shaoyong Sun—a Professor in the School of Marxism at Northwestern Polytechnical University and Director of the Research Center for Innovation and Development of Marxism, a key research base for philosophy and social sciences, in Shaanxi Province—believed that the realization of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation is the logical main line for the advancement and expansion of Chinese modernization. The value concepts of promoting and expanding Chinese modernization should insist on a people-centered approach, to promote comprehensive modernization centered on human beings; insist on independence and autonomy, to highlight the characteristics and advantages of Chinese modernization; and insist on peaceful development, to deepen the understanding of the world’s modernization path. In terms of a practical path, it is necessary to further strengthen the guidance of Xi Jinping’s thought on socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era for Chinese modernization, ensure adherence to and the strengthening of the party’s comprehensive leadership throughout the whole process of Chinese modernization, promote high-quality economic and social development to strengthen the foundation for Chinese modernization, and actively seize strategic opportunities for Chinese modernization in the great changes that have not been seen for a century.
The participating scholars put forward many scientific theories and policy proposals, promoted cooperation and in-depth exchanges between scholars of political economy and academic societies around the world, consolidated the important status of Marxist political economics, and provided an important ideological weapon to support the pursuit of the independent modernization of working people around the world, to promote the process of modernization of the world, and to create a new form of human civilization.
On September 27, the 16th Forum of WAPE was successfully concluded in Pingtan, Fujian Province, China. Xiaoqin Ding, Secretary General of WAPE and Chair Professor at Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, read out the resolution of the 16th WAPE Forum. The resolution announced two decisions of the WAPE Council: one was the addition of five professors—including Patrick Bond, distinguished Professor in the Department of Sociology at the University of Johannesburg, South Africa—as Vice-presidents of WAPE; at the same time, Alan Freeman—the former Chief Economist of the City of Greater London of the United Kingdom, Vice Chair of WAPE, and Director of the Geopolitical Economy Research Group, University of Manitoba—was appointed as an advisor of the association. Second, it was announced that the 17th Forum of WAPE will be held at the end of July or the beginning of August 2024 at the University of Panteion, Greece.
Jin Huang—a Professor in and Dean of the School of Economics, FJNU—released the WAPE 2023 Forum Statement. This statement maintains that the forum, which convened at a critical juncture in world history, was to focus attention on the prospects for human progress through modernization. Chinese modernization contrasts with the Western concept of modernization, encompassing but extending two ideas: first, a model of development centered on human needs; and second, the provision of the means of production to satisfy human needs through the application of technologies that respect human beings and their social and ecological environments. The goal of Chinese modernization is to build a just and equal world by working together to replace the current world order dominated by hegemony and unilateralism. The speeches of the scholars at the forum once again demonstrated the vitality of Marxism and highlighted the depth and breadth of Marxist theory. The forum demonstrated that in order to unite working people around the world against the unjust capitalist system and the hegemonic practices of neo-imperialism, it is necessary to deepen exchanges and cooperation among scholars and political economy groups around the world, as an important tool for overcoming these obstacles, as well as to work to promote the building of a community with a shared future for mankind and the creation of a new form of human civilization.
Hiroshi Onishi—Vice Chair of WAPE and Professor Emeritus of Kyoto University and Keio University—delivered the closing remarks. On behalf of WAPE, Prof. Hiroshi Onishi expressed his thanks to all the partners of this forum. He pointed out that the organization of the forum allowed us to exchange ideas as well as friendship and emphasized our common wish that people from all countries live together in peace, unity, and friendship. He also proposed to promote academic exchanges and cooperation among countries and regions.
Finally, Marxist political economy scholars from more than 20 countries concluded the 16th Forum of WAPE by passionately singing The Internationale.
Funding
This article is co-sponsored by General Project No. 2023BKS032 and Major Project No. 22ZDA003 of the China National Social Science Fund, Shanghai Pujiang Program No. 21PJC047, and the National Major Project Cultivating Plan of Shanghai University of Finance and Economics.
(Translated by Professor Shan Tong at the East China University of Political Science and Law)
