A Review of Research on Major Foundational Theoretical Issues since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China

Scientific theory is the product of its era; it inevitably responds to the concerns of the times and leads the development of the era. The Communist Party of China was born from the introduction of Marxism into China and its integration with the Chinese workers’ movement. In the process of learning, mastering, and applying the truth of Marxism, it combined with the concrete realities of the Chinese revolution, giving rise to Mao Zedong Thought, which then guided the Chinese revolution, achieved the great victory of the New Democratic Revolution, and established the People’s Republic of China. With the founding of New China, how to further consolidate the people’s democratic regime and explore the path of socialist revolution and construction became the epochal task facing the CPC and the Chinese people. At that time, various sectors of Chinese society, especially the theoretical circles, looked back on history, hoping under the guidance of Marxism to explore from history the stages, characteristics, nature, and developmental laws of Chinese social development. This gave rise to the upsurge of discussion in the 1950s and 1960s on the periodization of ancient Chinese history, the problem of feudal land ownership, the question of peasant wars, the sprouts of capitalism, and the formation of the Han nationality, historically known as the “Five Golden Flowers” [1]1 “Five Golden Flowers” (五朵金花): A term used in Chinese historiography to refer to five major historical debates that flourished in the 1950s and 1960s: the periodization of ancient Chinese history, the nature of feudal land ownership, the role of peasant wars, the sprouts of capitalism, and the formation of the Han nationality.. Around the “Five Golden Flowers” and issues such as the long-term persistence of Chinese feudal society, the evaluation of historical figures, the Asiatic mode of production, and the periodization of modern Chinese history, a series of discussions also took shape. In the early period of reform and opening up, these historical theoretical issues briefly returned to people’s view, but with the development of the times, attention to these issues continuously weakened, making it difficult to reproduce the former flourishing state of discussion. Viewed today, although the exploration and research on these major foundational theoretical issues had historical limitations, they actively responded to the theoretical concerns of the Party and the state regarding major historical and practical issues at the time, responded to the theoretical needs of the masses for socialist revolution and construction, greatly promoted the enrichment and development of Chinese Marxist historiography, produced a large number of far-reaching historical works, cultivated a cohort of young scholars, and constructed a historical research paradigm with Chinese characteristics. To this day, they provide intellectual nourishment and scholarly experience for the great cause of building a strong country and rejuvenating the nation on the new journey of the New Era, and they are worthy of continued exploration and in-depth study.

科学的理论是时代的产物，必然回应时代关切，引领时代发展。中国共产党就是马克思主义传入中国并同中国工人运动相结合而诞生的，且在学习、掌握、运用马克思主义真理的过程中同中国革命的具体实际相结合，产生了毛泽东思想，进而指导中国革命，取得了新民主主义革命的伟大胜利，成立了中华人民共和国。随着新中国成立，如何进一步巩固人民民主政权，探索社会主义革命和建设道路，就成为摆在中国共产党和中国人民面前的时代课题。当时，中国各界尤其是理论界回首历史，希望在马克思主义指导下从历史中探寻中国社会发展的阶段、特征、性质和发展规律，形成了20世纪五六十年代的中国古史分期问题、封建土地所有制问题、农民战争问题、资本主义萌芽问题、汉民族形成问题的讨论热潮，史称“五朵金花”。围绕“五朵金花”及中国封建社会长期延续、历史人物评价、亚细亚生产方式、中国近代史分期等问题也相继形成讨论局面。改革开放初期，这些历史理论问题曾一度重新回到人们的视野中，但随着时代发展，对这些问题的关注度不断减弱，以致难以再现曾经的讨论盛况。今天看来，这些重大基础理论问题的探讨与研究，虽存在历史局限性，但积极回应了当时党和国家的重大历史与现实问题的理论关切，回应了人民群众进行社会主义革命和建设的理论需求，大大推动了中国马克思主义史学的丰富和发展，推出了一大批影响深远的史学成果，培养了一批青年学人，建构了具有中国特色的史学研究范式，至今仍为新时代新征程的强国建设、民族复兴伟业提供思想养分和学理经验，值得继续探讨和深入研究。

I. Research on the Marxist Theory of Social Formations

一、马克思主义社会形态理论研究

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the Marxist materialist conception of history was introduced into China, and after the failure of the Great Revolution [2]2 Great Revolution (大革命): The first united front period of the CPC and the Kuomintang (1924–1927), aimed at overthrowing the warlords and foreign imperialism, which ended with the KMT’s violent split and suppression of the CPC., it became a theoretical weapon recognized by intellectual circles for exploring the question of “where is China going” and interpreting the nature of Chinese society. In 1930, Guo Moruo published *A Study of Ancient Chinese Society*, which for the first time applied the Marxist theory of social formations to explain the periodization of stages in Chinese historical development and their social nature, marking the initial formation of Chinese Marxist historiography. The subsequent debate on Chinese social history made the research model of using the Marxist theory of social formations to examine Chinese history more widely accepted and understood. In 1938, Stalin’s *On Dialectical and Historical Materialism* was translated into Chinese and introduced to China. Stalin refined and summarized the theory of social formations as the basic law of human society evolving through five stages: primitive society, slave society, feudal society, capitalist society, and communist society, abbreviated as the “theory of five social formations” or the “five-formations theory.” This theory was quickly widely accepted by Chinese Marxist historians. As some scholars have noted, for the Chinese Marxist historiography community before 1949, once the existence of slavery and feudalism in Chinese history was affirmed, the periodization between them became a problem. In fact, not only the periodization of ancient Chinese history, the problem of feudal land ownership, and the sprouts of capitalism were directly related to the Marxist theory of social formations, but also the discussions on the long-term persistence of Chinese feudal society and the Asiatic mode of production all originated from different understandings and interpretations formed in the process of combining the Marxist theory of social formations with Chinese history.

19世纪末20世纪初，马克思主义唯物史观传入中国，并在大革命失败后成为知识界公认的探讨中国向何处去、解读中国社会性质问题的理论武器。1930年，郭沫若出版《中国古代社会研究》，第一次运用唯物史观社会形态理论阐释中国历史发展阶段分期及其社会性质，标志中国马克思主义史学初步形成。随后展开的中国社会史论战，使运用马克思主义社会形态理论考察中国历史的研究模式为更多人接受和了解。1938年，斯大林的《论辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义》译成中文传入中国，斯大林将社会形态理论提炼、概括为人类社会沿着原始社会、奴隶社会、封建社会、资本主义社会、共产主义社会五个阶段演进的基本规律，简称“五种社会形态说”或“五形态说”。该说很快被中国马克思主义史学家普遍接受。诚如有学者所说，对于1949年前的中国马克思主义史学界而言，当奴隶制、封建制在中国历史上的存在被肯定之后，两者之间的分期就成了问题。其实，不仅中国古史分期问题、封建土地所有制问题、资本主义萌芽问题与马克思主义社会形态理论直接相关，而且中国封建社会长期延续和亚细亚生产方式的讨论，均源于对马克思主义社会形态理论与中国历史相结合过程中形成的不同认识与理解。

After the founding of New China, the “five-formations theory” became the guiding theory for all sectors of Chinese society to understand the laws of human social development. However, in the process of combining it with the actual conditions of Chinese history, differing views increased rather than decreased. For example, the periodization of ancient Chinese history gave rise to the famous “three theories and five views” [3]3 “Three theories and five views” (三论五说): A shorthand for the major competing positions in the debate on the periodization of ancient Chinese history, specifically regarding the transition from slave society to feudal society., and other issues also reached a climax of discussion. In addition, some dissenting voices emerged in academic circles. For instance, on June 2, 1957, Lei Haizong, in an academic lecture in Tianjin, argued that although slavery existed between primitive society and capitalist society, there was no slave society as such. In the same year, Li Hongzhe claimed that slave society was not a necessary stage for human society. Although the Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957 [4]4 Anti-Rightist Campaign (反右运动): A political campaign launched by the CPC in 1957 to suppress intellectuals and Party members who had criticized the Party during the “Hundred Flowers Campaign,” leading to the persecution of hundreds of thousands. and the “Historiography Revolution” of 1958 [5]5 “Historiography Revolution” (史学革命): A movement in 1958 that criticized traditional and bourgeois historiography, demanding that historical research serve proletarian politics, often leading to dogmatic and politicized scholarship. had a significant negative impact on the development of Chinese Marxist historiography, by the 1960s, academic discussions on the issue of social formations once again surged. After the outbreak of the “Cultural Revolution” [6]6 “Cultural Revolution” (文化大革命): A sociopolitical movement launched by Mao Zedong from 1966 to 1976, aimed at purging capitalist and traditional elements from Chinese society, resulting in widespread chaos, violence, and persecution., the academic community essentially lost the environment for normal research. After reform and opening up, with changes in the Cold War structure, the infiltration of various Western social trends, and the continued study of the issue of social formations, the academic community once again pondered whether the complex process of human social evolution contradicted the generalization of the “five-formations theory,” the opposition between unilinear and multilinear views in the division of social formations, whether Marx and Engels’ later thoughts on social formations differed from those of Lenin and Stalin, and how to view these differences. The discussion of the “Five Golden Flowers” briefly reappeared in the early period of reform and opening up and then subsided into silence, but the discussion on the Marxist theory of social formations has continued to the present day. For example, regarding the path of human historical development, in addition to the unilinear view of sequential evolution according to the “five-formations theory,” there have emerged multilinear views, the view of unilinear first then multilinear, the view of unitary multilinearity, the view of unity of generality and diversity, and the view of normality and variation. Regarding the types of social formations, there have appeared the “two-formations theory,” the “three-formations theory,” the “four-formations theory,” and the “six-formations theory,” with the focus being the debate between the “three-formations theory” and the “five-formations theory.”

新中国成立后，“五形态说”成为中国各界认识人类社会发展规律的指导理论，但在与中国历史实际相结合的过程中，不同观点不减反增，如中国古史分期问题形成了著名的“三论五说”，其他问题也形成讨论高潮。此外，学界还出现了一些不同声音，如1957年6月2日，雷海宗在天津的一次学术讲座上，认为人类社会从原始社会到资本主义社会之间虽然存在奴隶制，但是并不存在奴隶社会。同年，李鸿哲声称奴隶社会并非人类社会的必经阶段。尽管1957年反右运动及1958年“史学革命”对中国马克思主义史学的发展产生了较大的消极影响，但进入20世纪60年代，学界关于社会形态问题的讨论再度掀起热潮。“文化大革命”爆发后，学界基本失去了正常研究的环境。改革开放后，随着冷战格局变化、西方各种社会思潮的渗透和社会形态问题的接续研究，学界再次思考人类社会演进的复杂历程与“五形态说”的概括是否矛盾，社会形态划分中的单线论与多线论的对立，马克思、恩格斯晚年关于社会形态的思想与列宁、斯大林是否不同，以及如何看待这些不同？“五朵金花”的讨论在改革开放初期昙花一现后转向沉寂，但关于马克思主义社会形态理论的讨论却延续至今。例如，关于人类历史发展道路，除按照“五形态说”依次演进的单线论外，出现了多线论、先单线后多线论、一元多线论、一般性与多样性统一论、常规与变异说；关于社会形态的类型，出现了“两形态说”“三形态说”“四形态说”“六形态说”，重点是“三形态说”与“五形态说”之间的争论。

The discussion of the Marxist theory of social formations, following the debates on social nature and social history of the 1920s and 1930s and preceding the “Five Golden Flowers” research of the 1950s and 1960s, has continued through the new period of reform and opening up and into the New Era, persisting for a century without interruption. The fundamental reason is that this theory is not only a practical and theoretical need for modern and contemporary China but also the foundation and prerequisite for research on major theoretical and practical issues since the founding of New China. For example, understanding the nature of pre-industrial societies in Asia, Africa, and Latin America after World War II, and carrying out socialist construction on the basis of a clear understanding of China’s specific national conditions, Party conditions, social conditions, and popular conditions, both require the guidance of the Marxist theory of social formations. Therefore, the discussion on the Marxist theory of social formations continues. Scholars such as Wang Weiguang and Pang Zhuoleng emphasize the scientific nature of Marx’s theory of social formations and its guiding significance for historical research, pointing out that Marx’s theory of social formations has not lost its theoretical luster with the passage of time. Since the New Era, the continued discussion in academic circles on the Marxist theory of social formations is no longer merely a continuation of academic debate; it is a theoretical exploration based on the “changes unseen in a century” in which we find ourselves and the overall strategic situation of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, aimed at seeking a new historical orientation for advancing Chinese-path modernization.

马克思主义社会形态理论的讨论，前承20世纪二三十年代的社会性质和社会史大论战，后启20世纪五六十年代的“五朵金花”研究，延续至改革开放的新时期和新时代，赓续百年不绝，其根本原因在于这一理论不仅是近代中国和当今中国的现实需求与理论需要，而且是新中国成立以来重大理论与现实问题研究的基础和前提。例如，如何认识第二次世界大战后亚非拉地区前工业社会的性质，怎样在认清中国特色的国情、党情、社情、民情的基础上开展社会主义建设，都离不开马克思主义社会形态理论的指导。因此，关于马克思主义社会形态理论的讨论仍在持续，王伟光、庞卓恒等学者强调马克思社会形态理论的科学性及其对历史研究的指导意义，指出马克思的社会形态理论没有因时代变迁而丧失理论光彩。新时代以来，学界关于马克思主义社会形态理论的继续讨论，这已不仅仅是学术讨论的延续，更是基于我们所处的“百年未有之大变局”和中华民族伟大复兴的战略全局，为推进中国式现代化建设探寻新的历史方位而进行理论探索。

II. The Problem of Periodization of Ancient Chinese History

二、中国古史分期问题

Although there is an "understanding of periodization in ancient history," the issue of periodization in ancient Chinese history as it is commonly understood originated in the debates on the nature of Chinese society and the great social history debate of the 1920s and 1930s. Its purpose was to proceed from Chinese history, to clearly recognize the nature of Chinese society at that time, and to explore the direction and prospects for national independence and national liberation. In February 1930, in *A Study of Ancient Chinese Society*, Guo Moruo used the Marxist theory of social formations to divide the stages of development of ancient Chinese society, arguing that Chinese society before the Western Zhou was a primitive commune system, the Western Zhou was a slave system, after the Spring and Autumn period it was a feudal system, and the last hundred years were a capitalist system. This view not only provoked a strong reaction in academic circles at the time, but also became one of the core topics of the subsequent social history debate, thus opening the prelude to the discussion of the periodization of ancient history. Lü Zhenyu published *A Study of Prehistoric Chinese Society* in 1934 and *Chinese Society in the Yin and Zhou Periods* in 1936, establishing the "Yin-Shang slave society theory" and the "Western Zhou feudalism theory." During the War of Resistance against Japan, Fan Wenlan presided over the compilation of *A Concise General History of China* in Yan'an, adhering to the "Western Zhou feudalism theory," and due to his important position in Marxist historiography, he was regarded as the main representative of the "Western Zhou feudalism theory." Hou Wailu used the concept of the Asiatic mode of production to analyze ancient Chinese clans, property, political structures, class relations, and social thought, arguing that Chinese slave society began at the end of the Yin and the beginning of the Zhou and ended at the turn of the Qin and Han dynasties. Although these discussions did not reach a consensus on the nature of Chinese society, they laid the foundation for the discussion of the periodization of ancient Chinese history after the founding of New China.

中国古史分期虽有“古代的历史分期认识”，但通常意义上的中国古史分期问题源于20世纪二三十年代的中国社会性质认识和社会史大论战，目的是从中国历史出发，认清当时中国社会的性质，探寻国家独立、民族解放的前途和方向。1930年2月，郭沫若在《中国古代社会研究》中以马克思主义社会形态理论划分中国古代社会发展阶段，认为中国社会在西周之前是原始公社制，西周是奴隶制，春秋之后是封建制，最近百年是资本制。此说不仅在当时学界引发强烈反响，而且成为随后展开的中国社会史论战的核心论题之一，古史分期问题讨论的序幕就此拉开。吕振羽分别于1934年和1936年出版了《史前期中国社会研究》和《殷周时代的中国社会》，创立了“殷商奴隶社会说”和“西周封建说”。抗战时期，范文澜在延安主持编写《中国通史简编》，坚持“西周封建说”，且因其在马克思主义史学中的重要地位，被视为“西周封建说”的主要代表人物。侯外庐以亚细亚生产方式分析中国古代的氏族、财产、政治结构、阶级关系、社会思想等，认为中国奴隶社会始于殷末周初、终于秦汉之际。这些讨论虽未就中国社会性质问题达成共识，但奠定了新中国成立后中国古史分期讨论的基础。

After the founding of New China, the "theory of five social formations" was widely accepted as a universal truth of Marxism, but the issue of the periodization of ancient history—concerning the existence and end date of Chinese slave society, and when feudal society began—remained a hot topic of discussion. In June 1952, Guo Moruo published the book *The Age of the Slave System*, adjusting the "Spring and Autumn feudalism theory" to the "Warring States feudalism theory," thus initiating the discussion on the periodization of ancient history in New China. Marxist historians and "old historians" participated in the discussion one after another, and during the 1950s and 1960s, three major schools gradually formed—the Western Zhou feudalism theory, the Warring States feudalism theory, and the Wei-Jin feudalism theory—along with five viewpoints: the Spring and Autumn feudalism theory, the Qin feudalism theory, the Western Han feudalism theory, the Eastern Han feudalism theory, and the Eastern Jin feudalism theory, collectively known as the "three theories and five viewpoints." After the end of the "Cultural Revolution," the issue of the periodization of ancient Chinese history still received attention from academia. In October 1978, the editorial board of *Historical Research* and the editorial board of *Social Science Front* jointly held an academic symposium on the periodization of ancient Chinese history in Changchun, Jilin Province. Representatives of the "three theories and five viewpoints" and young scholars expressed their opinions in a lively discussion, leading to a "brief spring" in the discussion of the periodization of ancient Chinese history. With the resurgence of the theory that China had no slave society, i.e., the "theory of no slavery," and the discussion since the 1990s on the name and reality of "feudalism," "new theories" on the periodization of ancient Chinese history have continuously emerged. For example, replacing slave society and feudal society with ancient and medieval eras to avoid defining the nature of society; periodizing ancient history into prehistoric society, agricultural society, and industrial society; dividing ancient Chinese history into the era of chiefdoms, the era of feudal kingdoms, the transitional period, and the era of autocratic empire; and, from the perspective of lineage, dividing ancient Chinese history into four periods: clan society, aristocratic society, powerful clan society, and lineage society. Each of these theories has its strengths and weaknesses, but they have promoted deeper academic reflection on the issue of the periodization of ancient Chinese history.

新中国成立后，“五形态说”作为马克思主义普遍真理被广泛接受，但关于中国奴隶社会的有无及其结束时间、封建社会又始于何时的古史分期问题仍成为讨论热点。1952年6月，郭沫若出版《奴隶制时代》一书，将“春秋封建说”调整为“战国封建说”，开启了新中国的古史分期讨论。马克思主义史学家及“旧史家”纷纷参与讨论，在20世纪五六十年代逐渐形成了西周封建论、战国封建论、魏晋封建论三大派和春秋封建说、秦封建说、西汉封建说、东汉封建说、东晋封建说五种观点，统称“三论五说”。“文化大革命”结束后，中国古史分期问题仍受学界重视。《历史研究》杂志社与《社会科学战线》杂志社于1978年10月在吉林省长春市联合召开中国古代史分期问题学术研讨会，“三论五说”的代表和青年学者等各抒己见，热烈讨论，出现了中国古史分期讨论的一次“小阳春”。随着中国没有奴隶社会说，即“无奴论”的再次兴起，以及20世纪90年代以来关于“封建”名实问题的讨论，中国古史分期的“新说”不断涌现。例如，以上古、中古时代替代奴隶社会、封建社会，避免社会性质界定；以史前社会、农耕社会、工业社会进行古史分期；把中国古史分为酋邦时代、封建王国时代、转型时期、专制帝国时代；从宗族视角把中国古史分为氏族社会、贵族社会、豪族社会、宗族社会四个时期等。以上各说，或各有短长，但推动了学界关于中国古史分期问题的深入思考。

The discussion on the periodization of ancient Chinese history has not only deepened academia's understanding of the nature of Chinese society and China's national conditions, but has also promoted the enrichment and development of Chinese Marxist historiography. In 1992, Lin Ganguan, Tian Renlong, and Li Zude co-authored *Fifty Years of Discussion on the Periodization of Ancient Chinese History*, providing a comprehensive review and evaluation of the periodization of ancient Chinese history in the fifty years before and after the founding of New China. In recent years, Zhang Yue, based on the new characteristics of research and discussion on the periodization of ancient Chinese history over the more than forty years since reform and opening up, has emphasized: "Any theoretical analysis of the periodization of ancient Chinese history cannot be separated from the support of historical facts, the basis of historical materials, the guidance of theory, and the consideration of reality." Although research and discussion on the periodization of ancient Chinese history continue to this day, the research and discussion themselves have produced a series of high-quality academic achievements, raised the level of research on ancient Chinese history, driven the development of ancient Chinese history and related disciplines, promoted the progress of Marxist historiography, and provided intellectual nourishment and an academic foundation for understanding the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, the outstanding characteristics of Chinese civilization, and the inheritance and development of fine traditional Chinese culture. They possess distinct contemporary characteristics, practical significance, and theoretical value.

中国古史分期问题的讨论，不仅加深了学界对中国社会性质和中国国情的认识，而且推动了中国马克思主义史学的丰富和发展。1992年，林甘泉、田人隆、李祖德合著《中国古代史分期讨论五十年》，对新中国成立前后五十年间的中国古史分期进行了全面梳理和综合评价。近年，张越立足改革开放四十多年来中国古史分期研究和讨论的新特点，强调：“任何对中国古史分期问题的学理分析都离不开史实的支撑、史料的依据、理论的导引和现实的考量。”中国古史分期问题研究和讨论虽然至今仍在持续，但是其研究与讨论本身产出一批批高质量的学术成果，提升了中国古代史研究水平，带动了中国古代史及相关学科的发展，促进了马克思主义史学进步，为认识中国特色社会主义道路、中华文明突出特性和传承发展中华优秀传统文化提供了知识养分与学术基础，具有鲜明的时代特征、现实意义和理论价值。

III. The Issue of China's Land System

三、中国土地制度问题

Ancient China was predominantly agricultural for a long period, and it was only after the founding of New China, and especially after reform and opening up, that this gradually began to change. However, the issues of agriculture, rural areas, and farmers—the so-called "three rural issues"—remain important economic issues for China. The most basic means of production in an agricultural country is land, so the land system determines the economic structure, political structure, class relations, and social nature of ancient Chinese society. Most Chinese annalistic-biography style histories include a "Treatise on Food and Money," and the land system is an important part of it. Historians such as Jian Bozan, Hou Wailu, and Deng Tuo touched upon this issue to varying degrees in their works before the founding of New China, arguing that the feudal land ownership system was a land system dominated by landlord land ownership. During the Second Revolutionary Civil War period from 1927 to 1937, the Party led the workers' and peasants' Red Army and the revolutionary masses in carrying out a revolution in the revolutionary base areas to overthrow local tyrants, distribute land, abolish feudal exploitation and debt, and meet the land demands of the peasants. This formed a land revolution line of relying on the poor peasants and farm laborers, uniting with the middle peasants, restricting the rich peasants, protecting small and middle industrialists and merchants, eliminating the landlord class, and changing the feudal and semi-feudal land ownership system into peasant land ownership. Therefore, this period is also called the Agrarian Revolutionary War period.

中国古代长期以农耕为主，直到新中国成立，特别是改革开放后才逐渐有所改变，但农业、农村、农民即所谓“三农”问题仍是中国经济的重要问题，而农业大国最基本的生产资料是土地，故土地制度决定着中国古代社会的经济结构、政治结构、阶级关系和社会性质。中国纪传体史书中大多设“食货志”，土地制度就是其重要内容。翦伯赞、侯外庐、邓拓等史家在新中国成立前的论著中或多或少涉及这一问题，认为封建土地所有制是以地主土地所有制占主导地位的土地制度。1927—1937年的第二次国内革命战争时期，党领导工农红军和革命群众，在革命根据地开展打土豪、分田地、废除封建剥削和债务，满足农民土地要求的革命，形成了依靠贫农、雇农，联合中农，限制富农，保护中小工商业者，消灭地主阶级，变封建半封建的土地所有制为农民的土地所有制的土地革命路线，故这一时期也被称作土地革命战争时期。

With the implementation of land reform during the War of Liberation and the early years of New China, how to understand China's feudal land ownership system became a practical issue. In 1954, in the inaugural issue of *Historical Research*, Hou Wailu published "The Problem of the Form of Feudal Land Ownership in China: One of the Discussions on the Laws of Development of Chinese Feudal Society," proposing that China's feudal land ownership system was dominated by the imperial clan's monopoly on land, belonging to "imperial clan ownership." This sparked a heated academic debate on whether the dominant form of feudal land ownership was state land ownership or landlord land ownership. In the discussion on feudal land ownership from the mid-1950s to the early 1960s, in addition to Hou Wailu's "imperial clan ownership" theory, other theories emerged: the theory that state land ownership was dominant during the Wei, Jin, Sui, and Tang dynasties; the theory that landlord land ownership was dominant; the theory of evolution from lord land ownership to landlord land ownership; the theory of the coexistence of various forms of land ownership; and the theory that state ownership was dominant in the early period and private ownership in the later period. These academic discussions on China's land system, to a considerable extent, responded to the land reform movement at the time, the agricultural cooperation movement of the 1950s, and the people's commune movement of the 1960s, which involved the "land contracting on a household basis."

随着解放战争时期和新中国初期实施土地改革，如何认识中国封建土地所有制成为一个现实问题。侯外庐于1954年在《历史研究》创刊号发表《中国封建社会土地所有制形式的问题——中国封建社会发展规律商兑之一》，提出中国封建社会土地所有制是以皇族地主垄断土地为主，属于“皇族所有制”，引起学界关于封建社会土地所有制形式占支配地位的究竟是土地国有制还是地主土地所有制的热烈讨论。在20世纪50年代中期至60年代初的封建土地所有制的讨论中，除了侯外庐的“皇族所有制”说，还形成了魏晋隋唐时期土地国有制占支配地位说、地主土地所有制占支配地位说、从领主土地所有制到地主土地所有制演变说、各种土地所有制并存说、前期国有为主与后期私有为主说。这些关于中国土地制度的学术讨论，相当程度上回应了当时的土地改革运动和20世纪50年代的农业合作化运动、60年代“土地大包干”的人民公社化运动。

With reform and opening up and the implementation of the household contract responsibility system, China’s land system underwent a major adjustment, and research on the history of China’s land system also experienced a minor upsurge in the 1980s and 1990s. Among these works, comprehensive histories are represented by Zhao Lisheng’s *A History of China’s Land System*, while there are many representative works on specific periods, which need not be enumerated here. During this period, there were two main “new theories” concerning research on feudal land ownership: first, Tian Changwu, building on existing research results, proposed a theory of the cyclical alternation of state ownership and private ownership; second, Bai Shouyi and others established a theory of hierarchical land ownership. Both expanded the horizons and depth of research on China’s land system. Since the twenty-first century, research on China’s land system has focused more on the current land system of contemporary China and its reform, relatively neglecting the actual state and evolution of China’s historical land system. With the experimentation and expansion of land transfer, as well as the so-called separation of land ownership, use rights, and management rights, there is an urgent need to strengthen research on China’s land system issues in the New Era, to find wisdom and methods for solving practical problems from history, and to provide explanatory theories that adapt to the development of new quality productive forces and the construction of a new socialist countryside, in order to address how China’s land system can adapt to mechanized, large-scale rural economic development and break through the institutional and mechanistic problems constraining rural revitalization.

随着改革开放和实行家庭联产承包责任制，中国土地制度迎来一次大的调整，中国土地制度史研究在20世纪八九十年代也迎来一次小高潮。其中，通史性著作以赵俪生的《中国土地制度史》为代表，其他断代性的代表作较多，此处不再赘述。这一时期关于封建土地所有制研究的“新说”主要有二：一是田昌五在既有研究成果的基础上提出了国有私有循环论，二是白寿彝等创立了等级土地所有制说，两者均拓展了中国土地制度研究的视野和深度。21世纪以来，中国土地制度研究更多地着眼于当代中国的现行土地制度及其改革，相对忽视中国历史上土地制度的实态及其演变。随着土地流转的尝试与铺开，以及所谓土地所有权、使用权、经营权的分离，新时代中国土地制度如何适应机械化、大规模的农村经济发展，破除制约乡村振兴的体制机制问题等，迫切需要加强中国土地制度问题研究，从历史中寻找破解现实难题的智慧与方法，提供适应新质生产力发展和新农村建设的阐释理论。

IV. Research on the Question of the Sprouts of Capitalism

四、资本主义萌芽问题研究

The question of the sprouts of capitalism in China in fact reflects the continuous exploration by Marxists in using Marxist theory of social formations to analyze China’s social nature and guide the practice of the Chinese revolution. In an article published in 1935, “An Examination of the ‘Long-Term Stagnation’ of China’s Society and Economy,” Deng Tuo pointed out that long before the Western powers invaded China, “within the body of China’s feudal society, factors that negated its mother body already existed and were developing,” but their degree of development was limited. Lü Zhenyu believed that by the late Ming dynasty, “the embryonic form of capitalist handicraft workshops had already appeared,” and by the Qing dynasty, “capitalist factors were being nurtured.” In addition, scholars such as Hou Wailu and Fu Yiling also touched on related issues. In December 1939, Mao Zedong, in *The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party*, made a classic judgment on the question of the sprouts of capitalism: “The development of the commodity economy within China’s feudal society had already given birth to the sprouts of capitalism; without the influence of foreign capitalism, China would also have slowly developed into a capitalist society.” This judgment not only affirmed the existence of the sprouts of capitalism but also set the tone for the discussion of the question of the sprouts of capitalism in the 1950s and 1960s.

中国资本主义萌芽问题，其实体现了马克思主义者运用马克思主义社会形态理论分析中国社会性质和指导中国革命实践的不断探索。邓拓于1935年发表的《中国社会经济“长期停滞”的考察》一文中，指出早在西方列强侵华前，“中国封建社会的体内，已经存在和发展着否定它的母体的因素了”，但其发展程度是有限的。吕振羽认为明末已“出现了资本主义性的手工业工场的雏形”，到清朝则“培养着资本主义的因素”。此外，侯外庐、傅衣凌等学者也曾涉及相关问题研究。1939年12月，毛泽东在《中国革命和中国共产党》中就资本主义萌芽问题发表了经典性论断：“中国封建社会内的商品经济的发展，已经孕育着资本主义的萌芽，如果没有外国资本主义的影响，中国也将缓慢地发展到资本主义社会。”这一论断不仅肯定了资本主义萌芽的存在，而且定下了20世纪五六十年代资本主义萌芽问题讨论的基调。

After the founding of New China, in order to refute the so-called theory of “stagnation” of China’s feudal society, the academic community launched a major discussion on the question of the sprouts of capitalism, taking the 1954 discussion of the historical background of *Dream of the Red Chamber* as an opportunity. Li Xifan and Lan Ling published “On *A Brief Discussion of Dream of the Red Chamber* and Other Matters” in 1954, arguing that the novel obliquely revealed the historical demand for reforming the feudal system, a demand that was not yet mature in that era. On January 9, 1955, Deng Tuo published “On the Social Background and Historical Significance of *Dream of the Red Chamber*” in *People’s Daily*, arguing that the three reigns of Kangxi, Yongzheng, and Qianlong in the Qing dynasty were a period when China’s feudal society had begun to disintegrate and capitalist economic factors were sprouting. He explicitly raised the question of the sprouts of capitalism, actively supporting the views of Li Xifan and Lan Ling, and also eliciting responses from scholars such as Shang Yue, Wu Han, Fu Yiling, Hou Wailu, Jian Bozan, Wu Dakun, and Li Shu, forming the first wave of discussion in the 1950s and 1960s. The focus of the discussion included when the sprouts of capitalism appeared, to what extent they developed, the specific areas in which they manifested, and their far-reaching influence. For example, regarding the time of the appearance of the sprouts of capitalism, there were theories of the Tang dynasty, the Northern Song dynasty, the Yuan dynasty, the Ming and Qing dynasties, and even specific periods within the late Ming and early Qing. Some scholars delved into specific industries such as agriculture and handicrafts to analyze the degree of development of the sprouts of capitalism, reaching different conclusions of either a higher or lower degree of development. There were also differing views on the impact of the sprouts of capitalism on class structure. Most of these academic discussions echoed, from various levels, the existence of the sprouts of capitalism and the theoretical logic that, without the invasion of Western powers, China’s feudal society would eventually disintegrate and inevitably move toward a capitalist society.

新中国成立后，为破除所谓中国封建社会“停滞论”，学界以1954年讨论《红楼梦》的时代背景为契机展开资本主义萌芽问题大讨论。李希凡、蓝翎于1954年发表《关于〈红楼梦简论〉及其他》，认为该书曲折地透露了那个时代尚未成熟的变革封建制度的历史要求。1955年1月9日，邓拓在《人民日报》上发表《论〈红楼梦〉的社会背景和历史意义》，认为清代康雍乾三朝处于中国封建社会开始瓦解和资本主义经济因素正在萌芽的时期，明确提出资本主义萌芽问题，既积极支持李希凡、蓝翎的观点，又引起尚钺、吴晗、傅衣凌、侯外庐、翦伯赞、吴大琨、黎澍等学者的回应，在20世纪五六十年代形成第一次讨论热潮。其中，讨论的焦点包括资本主义萌芽出现于何时、发展程度如何、具体表现领域及其深远影响。例如，资本主义萌芽的出现时间，就有唐代说、北宋说、元代说、明清说，甚至具体至明末清初的某个时段说；有学者深入农业、手工业等具体行业中分析资本主义萌芽的发展程度，得出发展程度较高或较低的不同观点；至于资本主义萌芽对阶级结构的影响也有不同认识。这些学术讨论大多从各个层面呼应资本主义萌芽的存在，以及若没有西方列强入侵，中国封建社会也终将解体和必将走向资本主义社会的理论逻辑。

With reform and opening up and the increasing vitality of the socialist market economy, the 1980s saw another wave of discussion on the question of the sprouts of capitalism. Although this discussion continued and expanded on the unresolved issues of the previous one, it shifted more toward analyzing the reasons for the slow development of China’s capitalist sprouts. Specifically, there were three views. First, the stable economic structure of China’s feudal society made it difficult for the sprouts of capitalism to attract large amounts of monetary capital, thus leading to slow development. Second, the heavy taxation, exploitation, and plunder by the feudal autocratic regime during the Ming and Qing dynasties caused the sprouts of capitalism to develop only slowly. Third, the combined influence of factors such as China’s landlord economy, autocratic system, relatively low level of productive forces, uneven national economic development, and interference from Western colonial forces led to the slow development of the sprouts of capitalism. Chinese academia also advanced the study of socioeconomic history through Sino-Western comparisons, using Marxist historical materialism. After reform and opening up, the modernization theory introduced into China once again activated the academic vitality of research on the question of the sprouts of capitalism. In advancing Chinese-path modernization in the New Era, we need both to look back at the historical process of China’s early modernization and to break the so-called academic myth that “modernization equals Westernization,” providing a vivid theoretical explanation for the great practice of Chinese-path modernization.

随着改革开放和社会主义市场经济日渐活跃，20世纪80年代再次出现关于资本主义萌芽问题的讨论。这次讨论虽然还在延续和拓展上次讨论的未竟问题，但更多地转向分析中国资本主义萌芽发展缓慢的原因。具体而言，有三种观点。一是中国封建社会稳定的经济结构导致资本主义萌芽难以吸引大量的货币资本，因而发展缓慢；二是明清时期封建专制政权的重税剥削与掠夺，导致资本主义萌芽只能缓慢地发展；三是中国地主经济、专制制度、生产力水平较低、全国经济发展不平衡和西方殖民侵略势力的干涉等综合因素的影响，导致资本主义萌芽发展缓慢。中国学界还通过中西比较，以马克思主义唯物史观推进社会经济史研究。改革开放后，传入中国的现代化理论，再次激活了资本主义萌芽问题研究的学术生命力。新时代推进中国式现代化，我们既需要回望中国早期现代化的历史进程，也需要打破所谓“现代化=西方化”的学术迷思，为中国式现代化建设的伟大实践提供鲜活的理论阐释。

V. The Question of the Formation of the Han Nationality

五、汉民族形成问题

The question of the formation of the Han nationality can be traced back to theories of ethnic origins within China’s borders during the late Qing and early Republican periods. While refuting the “theory of the foreign origin of the Chinese people,” these theories gradually strengthened the view of the local formation and developmental trajectory of the Han nationality. With the introduction of Western ethnological theories and the study of the historical relations among China’s various ethnic groups, the concept of the Chinese nation (中华民族) became widely accepted. At its Second National Congress in 1922, the Chinese Communist Party proposed: “Overthrow the oppression of international imperialism and achieve the complete independence of the Chinese nation.” From then on, national independence became one of the core objectives of the New Democratic Revolution. From the 1920s to the 1940s, through the efforts of Chinese academia and the baptism of the anti-imperialist and anti-feudal movement, especially the Chinese People’s War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, China’s research on ethnic history achieved considerable development. In particular, early theorists of the Chinese Communist Party and Marxist historians, such as Cai Hesen, Li Da, Jian Bozan, Li Weihan, and Lü Zhenyu, used Marxist historical materialism to analyze and study the history of the formation and development of various ethnic groups in Chinese history, the history of ethnic life, and the history of ethnic relations, achieving outstanding research results. Among these, Lü Zhenyu’s *A Brief History of the Chinese Nation* is hailed as “China’s first Marxist monograph on ethnic history.” These achievements accumulated rich historical materials and laid a solid academic foundation for the discussion of the question of the formation of the Han nationality in New China.

汉民族形成问题可以追溯至清末民初中国境内的民族起源论，并在驳斥“中国人外来说”的同时，逐渐强化汉民族本土形成发展轨迹。随着西方民族学说的引进和中国历史上各民族关系的研究，中华民族的概念广为接受。中国共产党在1922年的第二次全国代表大会上提出：“推翻国际帝国主义的压迫，达到中华民族的完全独立。”从此，民族独立成为新民主主义革命的核心内容之一。20世纪20年代至40年代，经过中国学界的努力和反帝反封建运动特别是中国人民抗日战争的洗礼，中国的民族史研究获得较大发展。尤其是中国共产党早期理论家和马克思主义史学家，如蔡和森、李达、翦伯赞、李维汉、吕振羽等，运用马克思主义唯物史观分析与研究中国历史上的各民族形成发展史、民族生活史、民族关系史等，取得了突出的研究成果，其中吕振羽《中国民族简史》被誉为“中国第一部马克思主义的民族史专著”。这些成果为新中国的汉民族形成问题讨论积累了丰富的史料文献，奠定了坚实的学术基础。

After the founding of the People’s Republic of China, with the development of ethnic identification work and the influence of Stalin’s theory of the nation, academic circles engaged in heated discussions on how to define the nation and the question of the formation of the Han nationality. In the early 1950s, some scholars, following Stalin’s theory of the nation, held that a nation could not form before capitalism, while Liu Guiwu, Rong Mengyuan, and others argued that the Han nationality had already formed after Qin unified the six states. The internal discussions within Chinese academic circles did not attract much attention. However, the Soviet historian G. Efimov published “On the Formation of the Chinese Nation” in the second issue of the Chinese journal *Ethnic Issues Translations* in April 1954, proposing that the Chinese nation formed between the 19th and 20th centuries. This view clearly did not accord with the historical reality of the formation of the Han nationality, drawing the attention of Chinese academic circles. In June 1954, Fan Wenlan published “A Tentative Discussion on the Reasons Why China Became a Unified Country from the Qin and Han Dynasties” in *Historical Research*, explicitly stating that the Han nationality formed during the Qin and Han periods, sparking a debate in academic circles on the issue of the formation of the Han nationality. This discussion began first in the Third Institute of the Institute of History, Chinese Academy of Sciences, where Fan Wenlan worked, and then expanded to the broader academic community. Some supported the view that the Han nationality formed during the Qin and Han periods; others argued that although a centralized unified state emerged during the Qin and Han periods, this did not mean the Han nationality had formed, thus proposing that the Han nationality formed during the Ming dynasty; still others held that the Han nationality formed after the Opium War. As the influence of Stalin’s theory of the nation waned after the Sino-Soviet debate, the discussion on the formation of the Han nationality gradually shifted from the late 1950s toward discussions and evaluations of the definition of the nation, ethnic relations, ethnic wars, ethnic fusion, and ethnic policies. Around the time of the symposium on the unification of the translation of the term “nation” (民族) convened by the Department of Philosophy and Social Sciences of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Central Compilation and Translation Bureau in 1962, a new wave of enthusiasm for discussing the formation of the Han nationality emerged.

新中国成立后，随着民族识别工作的开展和斯大林民族理论的影响，学界围绕如何定义民族、汉民族形成问题等展开了热烈讨论。20世纪50年代初，有学者依据斯大林民族理论，认为在资本主义以前不可能形成民族，而刘桂五、荣孟源等认为秦统一六国后就形成了汉民族。中国学界内部的讨论并未引起太多关注。但是，苏联史学家格·叶菲莫夫于1954年4月在中国杂志《民族问题译丛》第2辑上发表《论中国民族的形成》，提出中国的民族形成于19世纪与20世纪之间。这种观点显然不符汉民族形成的历史实际，引起了中国学界的注意。1954年6月，范文澜在《历史研究》发表《试论中国自秦汉时成为统一国家的原因》，明确指出汉民族形成于秦汉时期，引发学界关于汉民族形成问题的讨论。这次讨论首先从范文澜所在的中国科学院历史研究所第三所开始，然后扩展至学界。有人支持汉民族形成于秦汉时期的观点；有人认为秦汉时期虽然出现了中央集权的统一国家，但不能因此就说形成了汉民族，故提出汉民族形成于明代的观点；还有人认为汉民族形成于鸦片战争后。随着中苏论战后斯大林民族理论的影响减弱，汉民族形成问题的讨论，从20世纪50年代末逐渐转向民族定义、民族关系、民族战争、民族融合、民族政策的讨论与评价，并在1962年中国科学院哲学社会科学学部和中央编译局召开关于“民族”译名统一问题讨论会前后，又形成了一次对汉民族形成问题讨论的热潮。

The view that the Han nationality formed during the Qin and Han periods gained increasing support, and even the developmental history of the Huaxia nationality before the Qin and Han periods and its evolution into the Han nationality received growing attention. So, when exactly did the Huaxia nationality form? Currently, there are three main views: the Zhou dynasty theory, the Xia dynasty theory, and the Spring and Autumn and Warring States period theory. Some scholars believe that the Han nationality did not form during the Qin and Han periods but rather was the development and expansion of the “Xia nationality” or “Huaxia nationality”; others argue that although the Huaxia nationality was the main body from which the Han nationality formed, the two were still distinct, especially since the structure of the Huaxia nationality during the Qin and Han periods had already undergone significant changes compared with the Three Dynasties period; still other scholars have proposed a new theory that the Han nationality was based on the southern Chu nationality and formed during the Han dynasty, breaking the traditional view that the Han nationality was based on the northern Huaxia nationality and formed during the Qin and Han periods. The issue of the formation of the Han nationality concerns not only the origins of Chinese civilization but also ethnic unity, social stability, and national unification. Therefore, the formation of the Huaxia nationality, the formation of the Han nationality, and the histories of various ethnic groups in Chinese history, as well as the history of their interactions, exchanges, and integration, are all important components of the disciplinary construction of ethnic history. These should all be incorporated into forging a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation in the New Era, thereby exposing the schemes of the United States and the West that use so-called “ethnic issues” and “religious issues” to incite ethnic relations and create division and conflict, and contributing academic strength to realizing the Chinese Dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

关于汉民族形成于秦汉时期的说法，获得越来越多的赞同，甚至秦汉之前的华夏民族发展史及其向汉民族的演变史也越来越受到重视。那么，华夏民族究竟形成于何时？目前主要有三种说法：周朝说、夏代说、春秋战国说。有学者认为汉族并非形成于秦汉，而是“夏族”“华夏族”的发展壮大；也有学者认为华夏民族虽是汉民族形成的主体，但两者毕竟有所区别，尤其是秦汉时期华夏族的结构与三代时期已经发生了较大变化；还有学者提出汉民族是以南方楚族为基础而于汉代形成的新说，打破了汉民族是以北方的华夏族为基础而形成于秦汉的传统说法。汉民族形成问题不仅事关中华文明起源，而且事关民族团结、社会稳定和国家统一。故而，关于华夏族形成、汉民族形成和中国历史上的各民族史、各民族之间的交往交流交融史，都是民族史学科建设的重要内容，都应纳入新时代铸牢中华民族共同体意识之中，从而揭露美西方借口所谓“民族问题”“宗教问题”挑唆民族关系、制造分裂冲突的阴谋，为实现中华民族伟大复兴的中国梦贡献学术力量。

VI. Research on the Evaluation of Historical Figures

六、历史人物评价问题研究

The evaluation of historical figures is “an old yet ever-new topic” and “an important aspect of historical research,” constituting a major theoretical issue that draws attention in Marxist historiography. Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, academic circles have engaged in heated discussions on the criteria, principles, methods, and significance of evaluating historical figures, leaving a rich academic legacy. For example, from Yuan Liangyi’s publication of “On Cao Cao” on November 1, 1953, affirming Cao Cao’s historical contributions, to the academic debate in 1959 on rehabilitating Cao Cao, and then to the publication of *Collected Essays on Cao Cao* by Shenghuo·Dushu·Xinzhi Sanlian Bookstore in 1960, this is a typical case. Different scholars proposed different criteria for evaluating historical figures, but given that in class society people belong to specific classes and all their activities reflect their class interests, adopting the method of class analysis made it easier to discern the essence of their activities and the historical roles they played. Consequently, academic circles took class analysis as the basic method for evaluating historical figures. However, during the era of “emphasis on class origin,” “theory of blood lineage,” and “taking class struggle as the key link,” applying the method of class analysis to evaluate historical figures could also lead to the deviation of completely negating figures from the exploiting classes. Since the 1960s, some scholars have proposed that in evaluating historical figures from the exploiting classes, attention should be paid to distinguishing the differences among such figures at different times, conducting concrete analysis of them, and objectively assessing their merits and demerits.

历史人物评价是“一个古老而常新的话题”“是历史研究的一个重要方面”，是马克思主义史学中引人注目的重大理论问题。新中国成立以来，学界对历史人物评价的标准、原则、方法、意义等展开了热烈讨论，留下了丰厚的学术遗产。例如，从1953年11月1日袁良义发表《曹操论》，肯定曹操的历史贡献，到1959年学界掀起为曹操翻案的讨论，再到1960年生活·读书·新知三联书店出版《曹操论集》，就是典型一例。不同学者提出评价历史人物的标准并不完全相同，但鉴于人在阶级社会中都属于特定的阶级，他们所从事的各种活动无不反映其阶级利益，因而采用阶级分析方法更容易看清其从事各种活动的本质和所发挥的历史作用。于是，学界把阶级分析方法作为评价历史人物的基本方法。但是，在“成分论”“血统论”和“以阶级斗争为纲”的年代，运用阶级分析方法评价历史人物，也可能导致对剥削阶级人物一概否定的偏差。20世纪60年代以来，有学者提出对剥削阶级历史人物的评价，要注意区分剥削阶级历史人物在不同时段的差别，针对剥削阶级历史人物进行具体分析，客观评价剥削阶级历史人物的功过是非。

Since reform and opening up, the method of class analysis has faced serious challenges. Under the banners of “theory of motive and effect” and “theory of multiple values,” some have attempted to “rehabilitate” individual historical figures, or, with “one-sided correctness” and trivial partial details obscuring the whole, have gradually bred or given rise to historical nihilism, seeking to disrupt mainstream values and attempting to deny the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. This is no longer a simple issue of evaluating historical figures. Su Shuangbi proposed that the evaluation of historical figures should adhere to the principle of historicism and the method of concrete analysis of concrete conditions, and should take as the standard whether it is conducive to national unification and ethnic unity. Xu Guoli and Li Tianxing, in summarizing the principles and methods of evaluating historical figures, proposed that these mainly include the principle of seeking truth from facts, the principle of historicism, the relationship between subjective motive and objective effect, and the method of class analysis. General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out that in observing issues in class society, one must adhere to the Marxist political stance, and “the Marxist political stance is, first of all, the class stance, carrying out class analysis.” [14]14 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the National Conference on Party Building Work for State Organs” (November 1, 2019), in *Selected Readings of Xi Jinping’s Works*, vol. 3 (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2023), p. 97. Regarding the evaluation of historical figures, he emphasized that historical figures should be “analyzed within the historical conditions of their time and society, and cannot be separated from a comprehensive understanding of historical conditions and historical processes and a scientific grasp of historical laws, nor can the relationship between historical inevitability and historical contingency be ignored. The successes in favorable historical circumstances cannot be simply attributed to individuals, nor can the setbacks in adverse historical circumstances be simply blamed on individuals.” [15]15 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Symposium Commemorating the 120th Anniversary of the Birth of Comrade Mao Zedong” (December 26, 2013), in *Selected Readings of Xi Jinping’s Works*, vol. 1 (Beijing: Foreign Languages Press, 2023), p. 50. This objective, fair, and truth-seeking stance and method for evaluating historical figures provides scientific standards and academic guidance for the evaluation of historical figures.

改革开放以来，阶级分析方法受到严重挑战，打着“动机效果论”“多元价值论”等旗号为个别历史人物“翻案”，或以“片面的正确”、琐碎的局部一叶障目，逐渐衍化或滋生历史虚无主义，企图扰乱主流价值观，妄图否定中国共产党的领导和中国特色社会主义道路，这已不是简单的历史人物评价问题。苏双碧提出历史人物评价要坚持历史主义原则和具体问题具体分析的方法，坚持以有利于国家统一和民族团结为标准。徐国利和李天星在总结历史人物评价的原则和方法时，提出主要包括实事求是原则、历史主义原则、主观动机与客观效果的关系和阶级分析方法。习近平总书记指出，观察阶级社会问题，要坚持马克思主义政治立场，而“马克思主义政治立场，首先是阶级立场，进行阶级分析”。关于历史人物评价，他强调要把历史人物“放在其所处时代和社会的历史条件下去分析，不能离开对历史条件、历史过程的全面认识和对历史规律的科学把握，不能忽略历史必然性和历史偶然性的关系。不能把历史顺境中的成功简单归功于个人，也不能把历史逆境中的挫折简单归咎于个人”。这种客观公允、实事求是评价历史人物的立场和方法，为历史人物评价提供了科学标准和学术指南。

Major foundational theoretical issues since the founding of the People’s Republic of China also include the prolonged continuation of Chinese feudal society, the theory of historical dynamics, and the clarification of key theoretical concepts such as productive forces, mode of production, class struggle, and class analysis. All of these deserve our in-depth reflection and research. This review has focused on the six major issues mentioned above. These six issues all belong to major foundational theoretical issues. Most of them originated in the great social history debate of the 1920s and 1930s, passed through the “Five Golden Flowers” [16]16 “Five Golden Flowers” (五朵金花) refers to five major historical debates that flourished in Chinese Marxist historiography during the 1950s and 1960s: the periodization of ancient Chinese history, the formation of the Han nationality, the nature of peasant wars, the sprouts of capitalism, and the evaluation of historical figures. discussions of the 1950s and 1960s and the sustained discussion and quiet reflection since reform and opening up, and continue to the present day. They have always been closely linked to the future and destiny of China in modern times, and are theoretical reflections of the great practices of China’s revolution, construction, reform and opening up, and the New Era. Through reflections on the nature of Chinese society, considerations of the future and destiny of the Chinese revolution, and explorations of socialist construction and the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, these issues have profoundly influenced the century-long, magnificent epic of rejuvenation in modern China. Confronting changes in the international and domestic situation, these issues have consistently adhered to the guidance of Marxist historical materialism, kept pace with the Party’s theoretical innovation, and advanced with the times.

新中国成立以来的重大基础理论问题，还包括中国封建社会长期延续、历史动力论，以及生产力、生产方式、阶级斗争、阶级分析等关键理论概念的梳理，都值得我们深入思考和研究，此次重点梳理了前述六大问题。这六大问题均属于重大基础理论问题，大多萌发于20世纪二三十年代的社会史大论战，中经20世纪五六十年代的“五朵金花”讨论和改革开放以来的持续讨论与沉寂反思，并延续至今，始终与近代以来中国的前途命运息息相关，是中国革命、建设、改革开放和新时代伟大实践在理论层面的反映。这些问题大多通过对中国社会性质认识、中国革命前途和命运的思考、社会主义建设和中国特色社会主义道路的探索，深刻影响着近代中国至今百年波澜壮阔的复兴史诗。这些问题面对国际国内形势变化而始终坚持以马克思主义唯物史观为指导、坚持紧跟党的理论创新步伐，与时俱进。

Although the exploration and debate over these major foundational theoretical issues had their epochal limitations in different historical periods, the academic achievements, theoretical value, and social contributions they yielded can be said to constitute a monument in the history of the development of Marxist historiography. Specifically, first, they provided theoretical guidance for the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese people to understand the social nature, characteristics, and laws of development of different periods in Chinese history, for the victory of the Chinese revolution, and for socialist construction and reform and opening up; they provided an ideological foundation for fully understanding the outstanding characteristics of Chinese civilization, the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, advancing Chinese-path modernization, and forging a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation. Second, they produced a batch of high-quality academic results, greatly elevating the level of Chinese historical research, forming new disciplinary fields such as socioeconomic history and ethnic history under the guidance of historical materialism, enriching and developing Chinese Marxist historiography, and laying a solid academic foundation for accelerating the construction of the “three systems” [17]17 The “three systems” (三大体系) refer to the disciplinary system, academic system, and discourse system of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, a framework promoted under Xi Jinping. of historiography with Chinese characteristics. Third, the practical consciousness of addressing the needs of the times and the in-depth and candid academic debates, which integrated major foundational theoretical issues into daily life, created a “theoretical fever” across the whole society, which still holds significant reference value today. The foundation of theoretical innovation lies in new great practice, and the prerequisite for theoretical innovation lies in academic reflection. In the New Era, Chinese academia must systematically sort through and review the research on major foundational theoretical issues since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, not only to provide historiographical resources, disciplinary foundations, and academic paradigms that can be drawn upon for constructing an independent knowledge system of historiography with Chinese characteristics, but also to provide historiographical wisdom and theoretical support for the great cause of building a strong country and the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation in the New Era.

这些重大基础理论问题的探讨与争论，虽然在不同历史时期有其时代局限性，但取得的学术成就、理论价值和社会贡献可以说是马克思主义史学发展史上的一座丰碑。具体而言，一是为中国共产党和中国人民认识中国历史上不同时段的社会性质、特征和发展规律，为中国革命的胜利和社会主义建设、改革开放提供了理论指导，为充分认识中华文明突出特性、中国特色社会主义道路和推进中国式现代化建设、铸牢中华民族共同体意识提供了思想基础；二是推出了一批高质量学术成果，极大地提升了中国历史研究水平，形成了唯物史观指导下的社会经济史、民族史等新的学科领域，丰富和发展了中国马克思主义史学，为加快构建中国特色历史学“三大体系”奠定了坚实的学术基础；三是紧跟时代步伐的经世致用意识和深入坦率的学术争鸣，将重大基础理论问题融入日常，形成全社会范围的“理论热”，至今仍有重要的借鉴意义。理论创新的基础源于新的伟大实践，理论创新的前提在于学术反思。新时代中国学界必须系统梳理和复盘新中国成立以来的重大基础理论问题研究，不仅为建构中国特色历史学自主知识体系提供可资借鉴的史学资源、学科基础和学术范式，而且为新时代强国建设、民族复兴伟业提供史学智慧和理论支持。

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心