The recently held Sixth Plenary Session of the Nineteenth Chinese Communist Party (CPC) Central Committee is interesting for many reasons, and its materials are now discussed around the world. This is not surprising, given that the session spelled out the development strategy of the world’s largest power. But I would like to draw attention to the largely unnoticed fact that in these documents China claims to have created a new civilization that outshines all others.

Stated briefly in the communique adopted at the conclusion of the plenum, this curious idea reads as follows: “Under the leadership of the CPC, the people successfully paved the way for modernization with Chinese characteristics, created a new form of human civilization and expanded the ways for developing countries to achieve modernization.”

This idea was developed in more detail in the Resolution of the CPC Central Committee on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party over the Past Century that was published several days later. It reads:

Over the past one hundred years, the Party has struggled for both the happiness of the Chinese people and the revival of the Chinese nation, as well as for the progress of humanity and the Great Harmony in the world, and its tireless struggle has significantly changed the trends and patterns of global development. Party leaders have successfully paved the way for modernization with Chinese characteristics, created a new form of human civilization, expanded the ways that developing countries can modernize and provided completely new alternatives to countries and nations seeking to accelerate their development and wanting to preserve their independence.

Thus, the CPC views the creation of a new form of civilization as one of its main contributions, not only to the Chinese people, but also to the world as a whole—and especially to developing countries, to which it has given a new, more effective alternative for accelerating modernization.

What is the significance of China’s civilizational approach? In effect, it indicates that Chinese leaders accept the theory of a plurality of civilizations, each developing in different ways and arising throughout history as a criticism of Eurocentric models of development that emerged within the general Enlightenment paradigm.

The term “civilization” is quite young, having appeared in European languages as recently as the second half of the eighteenth century. It was used to denote the concept of a cultured and educated society or people that existed since the time of Ancient Greece where “tempered mores” prevailed, in contrast to barbaric, wild, and uncultured societies. The ideas of social progress that emerged during the Enlightenment placed civilization on a higher level than barbarism, such that civilization came to be considered a higher stage of societal development.

In this regard, Marxism was a fairly typical Enlightenment theory, although, perhaps, one of the most developed and convincing—and its founders were enlightened Eurocentrists. They believed in the world’s fundamental unity and that all societies go through the same stages of development, albeit at different times in history and, in some cases perhaps, by skipping over certain stages (as Karl Marx, for example, believed at the end of his life with regard to Russia). So, they used the term “civilized” in this traditional sense to denote a more developed society. Thus, in his 1947 work The Principles of Communism, Friedrich Engels, Marx’s closest associate, wrote that the communist revolution “must take place simultaneously in all civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and Germany.” Here “civilized” obviously means “more developed.”

It was in the nineteenth century that the theory arose of civilization as a certain body of spiritual and cultural features characteristic of different peoples and cultural centers that might differ from each other without necessarily representing a particular hierarchy of development—that is, without being located at a higher or lower level of development, but evolving in different directions. It appeared in the wake of the rise of romantic nationalism and conservatism that attempted to prove the value and uniqueness of the historical experience of each major nation. Whereas, traditionally, “civilization” had stood in opposition to “barbarism” as such, civilizations now began to oppose one another. 

It is no coincidence that the work of one of the founders of this theory, a Russian thinker Nikolai Danilevsky—who was the first to identify ten separate “cultural and historical” types or civilizations—is called Russia and Europe and is largely devoted to criticizing European civilization as opposed to a certain Slavic type that was yet to appear. For him, a single, unified humanity is an empty abstraction. This theory was advanced in works by such authors as Oswald Spengler and Arnold Toynbee, and more recently in rather simplified form by Samuel Huntington.

China itself also had supporters of the theory of civilizations, which was especially widespread in the first half of the twentieth century. Particularly famous at that time were the works of a philosopher and public figure Liang Shuming, according to whose teachings three world types of culture—the European, Chinese, and Indian—were examples of the development of three main groups of human needs: material, social and spiritual. After the CPC came to power, such theories were criticized from a Marxist standpoint; Mao Zedong personally condemned Liang Shuming and the philosopher fell into disgrace for a long time for not recognizing the theory of Marxism, and particularly the idea of class struggle.

Thus, by adopting the theory of the difference between civilizations, Chinese authorities are effectively adopting the tradition of Danilevsky, Spengler, Liang Shuming and Toynbee and rejecting that of Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Vladimir Lenin who believed in a single human civilization and a straight line of progress, the common goal of which is to build an ideal and uniform society of worldwide communism.

To be fair, it must be said that the Chinese approach does retain certain Marxist, or at least Enlightenment features. The plenum documents suggest that there are not only different forms of civilization, but also a kind of single “human civilization” to the development of which “the Chinese nation, as an ancient and great nation of the world” … “has made an unfading contribution” by creating a “brilliant civilization with more than 5,000 years of history.” Moreover, the term “civilization” is sometimes used in the original sense of the “level of development.” For example, the resolution credits the Communist Party with “assimilating all of the best achievements of civilization created by mankind.” According to the official theory, China’s brilliant traditional civilization was “covered with dust” due to the invasion of Western powers and feudal rule. The achievement of the CPC lies in having revived that civilization and continued its tradition, and in creating on its basis a kind of “new human civilization,” a new form of civilization. According to the Chinese view, this new form is one of several, or even many civilizations that currently make up mankind’s common civilization.

Nevertheless, the idea of the uniqueness of Chinese civilization is clear. First—very much in the tradition of Danilevsky and his followers—it is described as complex and consisting of numerous aspects. Chinese leader Xi Jinping himself spoke about this, noting this July in a speech devoted to the hundredth anniversary of the CPC that a new form of human civilization was created in China as a result of the construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics and the coordinated advancement of material civilization, political civilization, spiritual civilization, social civilization, and ecological civilization.

Immediately after China’s leader mentioned a new form of human civilization, the country’s social scientists began developing his ideas. One of them explained,

Material civilization determines man’s relationship with things and realizes the goal of the joint use of material achievements by all peoples on the basis of “a significant increase in the sum of productive forces.” Political civilization determines the relationship between the Party and the people, that consists in maintaining the leading role of the CPC, the understanding that the people are in charge, organic unity based on the rule of law and “the broadest representation of the interests of native peoples.” Spiritual civilization determines a person’s relationship with himself. It is necessary to be strictly guided by the patriotic feeling expressed in the saying, “Everyone is responsible for the prosperity or decline of the Celestial Empire,” observe the rule of decency, according to which words should not differ from deeds, the rule of benevolence, “Do not do to others what you do not wish for yourself,” the spirit of tolerance, expressed in the principle of “harmony, while maintaining differences” and the requirements of other values. Social civilization determines man’s relationship to other people, emphasizes peaceful and harmonious coexistence, ensuring and increasing the well-being of the nation and promoting the principle of social justice. Ecological civilization determines the relationship between man and nature, maintaining and improving the system and mode of ecological civilization and creating the conditions for man’s harmonious coexistence with nature. On the whole, the new Chinese path to modernization is not a single line, but a path for the comprehensive development of civilization. The Chinese project is offered to the states and nations of the world that are striving to find a better social system.

Like other theories on civilization, the distinctive features of the new Chinese civilization are defined in terms of how they differ from other civilizations. As one Chinese theorist concludes,

The new form of human civilization is a new creation of the Chinese people, created under the guidance of the Communist Party—that is led by Marxist teachings—and born on the basis of firm adherence to socialism with Chinese features and its development, the continuity and development of Chinese culture and the borrowing and assimilation of the achievements of human civilization. It differs from both the Western capitalist form of civilization that is open to vices and from the socialist form based on the Soviet model. It conforms to the demands of the universal laws of world civilization and goes beyond the assimilation of Western capitalist civilization. It has overcome the numerous flaws of capitalist modernization, freed itself from the vice of capitalist alienation and destroyed the West’s monopoly on so-called “universal values.” This form of civilization continues the best traditions of Chinese civilization on the basis of assimilating the advanced achievements of human civilization and possesses great vitality. It has enriched human knowledge about the laws of civilizational development and is of great value for the great revival of the Chinese nation and the future development of world civilization.

In theoretical terms, the adoption by Chinese communists of civilizational theory marks a new stage in the indigenization of Marxism on Chinese soil. This indicates that Sinicization is proceeding not by mixing Marxism with traditional Chinese thought, but with the Chinese thought of the first half of the twentieth century which had already largely absorbed the Western theories that were widespread at the time. This blending can be seen in the wording of the plenum resolution cited above. The term “Great unity” (Datong) is taken here from classic Chinese philosophy where it meant “an ideal society.” But it was not until the turn of the twentieth century that the philosopher and reformer Kang Youwei shifted its meaning from a past to a future society. It was in this sense that Chinese thinkers and politicians, including, for example, Chiang Kai-shek, began using it. The concept of “modernization” was taken from contemporary Western sociology and political science, with the result that only sentences about the Party and the people can somehow be attributed to Marxism in its Leninist interpretation.

If to disregard differences in terminology, we find that the line espoused by today’s CPC ideologists differs little from the theory of Liang Shuming who, by the way, began identifying the Chinese civilizational model with socialism towards the end of his life. The only difference is that, unlike Xi Jinping, Liang still believed that the highest civilization should be built on Hindu spiritual principles. Of course, the Beijing theoreticians can proclaim that the new form of civilization they have invented is communism itself—that is, the highest stage of human development to which all other civilizations will eventually come. This would put their theory back on the path of classical Marxism. However, they are unlikely to do this because it would force them to completely abandon the idea that other civilizations hold great value—the very argument on which they base their opposition to Western claims of exceptionalism.

In practical terms, it is obvious that the new civilizational ideology reflects the Chinese leadership’s growing pride and self-confidence due to the country’s tremendous economic success. It is no coincidence that in many countries—Germany, Russia, the United States (home, for example, to Frederick Turner’s “frontier thesis”), Japan and African countries—such ideologies arose when the growth of nationalism made it necessary to set their own traditions and culture against those that had previously dominated. This is a new step in the movement away from the modest foreign policy of Deng Xiaoping. Beijing began looking disparagingly at other countries, arguing that their political and economic systems were outdated and, unlike China’s, unable to adequately respond to the challenges of the modern world—such as the need to accelerate economic growth or effectively fight the Covid-19 pandemic. The Chinese leadership is telling the world (or rather, itself) that China has nothing more to learn from others; on the contrary, others should learn something from China.

Of course, unlike the United States or the Soviet Union, China does not yet impose its political or economic model on others. During his conversation with President Joe Biden on November 16, 2021, Xi bluntly stated, “China does not intend to spread its approach to the whole world. On the contrary, we always encourage other countries to search for the development path that meets the national conditions of their country.” However, the very idea that the new form of Chinese civilization is closer to perfection and surpasses all others in all respects might naturally elicit the desire to extend it to others, at the very least through more vigorous propaganda. After all, if your model is the closest to perfection, only stupidity or the intrigues of enemies might cause others not to accept it. Stupidity can be eliminated through reeducation as China does, for example, with its citizens who fail to understand the advantages of the Chinese political system. Enemies, on the other hand, must be fought.

The possibility that events might unfold in this way is seen by the idea, already generally accepted in China, that China has shown the world a new path to modernization that differs from the Western model. Thus, expressing it in Western political science terms, official Chinese propaganda is trying to undermine the very basis of the ideology of the United States and its allies—as expressed in the Western theory of modernization—according to which, on the one hand, prosperity can only be achieved by adopting the economic model of the West and, on the other, that economic development and the creation of a middle class inevitably leads to democratization and the adoption of the Western political model.

Different countries throughout history have put forward claims for successful alternatives to modernization, but none has yet succeeded. In this regard, the collapse of the Soviet Union is especially telling and important for China. This is precisely why China claims that the Chinese model has corrected not only Western, but also Soviet mistakes. Of course, proponents of modernization theory might argue that the time will yet come for the democratization of China, but China clearly does not think so. China believes that it has finally found another path that can attract others.

The argument that one’s own civilization is perfect calls to mind not so much the Soviet idea concerning “the advantages of socialism” (the Soviet Union never claimed to have a special civilization) as it does the classical China-centered model of world order in which the world was divided into one part that was culturally Chinese (hua) and one that was barbaric (yi) —although the job of the Chinese emperor was not to conquer the barbarians, but to convince them of the superiority of his “brilliant” civilization. His methods of persuasion ranged from trade and other privileges to military support for pro-Chinese forces in barbarian territories. This often caused neighboring states and tribes to fall into vassal-like dependence on China, even without a direct conquest, and to them paying tribute to the emperor of the Celestial Empire. At the same time, China sincerely believed that it was acting for the good of the barbarians. Modern China actively levels economic sanctions against neighboring countries (Mongolia, South Korea, Australia, etc.) that reject Beijing’s advice on how to view Chinese policy. Chinese diplomats around the world speak sharply and sometimes rudely, criticizing those who, in their view, misinterpret what they consider China’s humane and fair approach to those countries. This sometimes prompts such countries to change their position and even to apologize. And Chinese leaders sincerely do not understand why such actions—which they believe are aimed at these countries’ best interests—cause them irritation.

The new Chinese civilizational approach could create two problems for the Chinese leadership. First, the assertion that Chinese civilization is superior might raise red flags for many countries, especially neighbors who were already vassals of imperial China (Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Myanmar, etc.). Beijing’s assertive foreign policy and its pushy new style of diplomacy have already caused China’s popularity to decline in many countries. Any further decline would hardly contribute to an expansion of Chinese trade with the rest of the world—the very foundation of China’s economic development.

Second, most civilizational theorists, such as Spengler and Toynbee, argue that civilizations, like people, are born, reach maturity and die—that is, reach their natural end. Such a conclusion, however, is unlikely to satisfy Chinese ideologues, who will have to come up with arguments as to why the CPC’s new form of civilization will last forever.

Alexander Lukin is Head of the Department of International Relations at HSE University and Director of the Center for East Asian and Shanghai Cooperation Organization Studies at MGIMO University, Moscow, Russia.

Image: Reuters.