A Review of Recent Overseas Theoretical Hotspots on Common Prosperity

In August 2021, General Secretary Xi Jinping delivered an important speech at the Tenth Meeting of the Central Committee for Financial and Economic Affairs, stating: "Common prosperity is the essential requirement of socialism and an important feature of Chinese-path modernization." In October, the journal *Qiushi* published this important speech under the title "Solidly Promoting Common Prosperity." In his speech, General Secretary Xi emphasized that "the historical stage of solidly promoting common prosperity has now arrived" and pointed out the principles that need to be grasped for promoting common prosperity.

2021年8月，习近平总书记在中央财经委员会第十次会议上发表重要讲话提出：“共同富裕是社会主义的本质要求，是中国式现代化的重要特征。”10月，《求是》杂志以《扎实推进共同富裕》为题发表了这篇重要讲话。习近平总书记在讲话中强调“现在已经到了扎实推动共同富裕的历史阶段”，并指明了促进共同富裕需要把握的原则。

As keen overseas observers have noted, with the increase in economic size and political influence, China's major political and economic decisions are also global issues — "when China sneezes, the world catches a cold." The important discourse of Chinese leaders on common prosperity quickly resonated widely around the world. Over the past few months, common prosperity has frequently appeared on the front pages of world news media and has repeatedly become the theme of discussions in overseas research institutions: What kind of concept is common prosperity? What connotations has it been endowed with? How will China adjust its wealth distribution mechanism under this framework? How will this change China, and what impact will it have on the world? This article traces recent discussions in the English-speaking world surrounding the topic of common prosperity and finds the following key points worthy of attention: First, researchers are considering common prosperity, which has historical connotations, as a new Chinese concept. Second, differing opinions raised by neoliberals further reveal their cognitive biases toward China. Third, achieving common prosperity is seen as an important response by China to the worsening problem of global inequality, which the world's leftist forces regard as progress in the practice of the socialist movement.

正如敏锐的海外观察者所言，随着经济体量与政治影响力的提升，中国的重大政治经济决策同时也是世界性议题——“中国打喷嚏，世界就感冒”，中国领导人关于共同富裕的重要论述迅速在世界范围引起广泛回响。过去几个月，共同富裕频繁出现在世界新闻媒体的头条，亦屡次成为海外研究机构研讨的主题：共同富裕是什么样的概念？它被赋予了何种内涵？中国将如何在这一框架下调整财富分配机制？这会如何改变中国，又将在世界范围内产生何种影响？本文追踪了近期英文世界围绕共同富裕议题展开的相关讨论，发现以下关键点值得关注：其一，研究者正在将具有历史内涵的共同富裕作为一个新的中国概念加以考量；其二，新自由主义者提出的不同意见，进一步显露其对中国的认知偏差；其三，实现共同富裕被视作中国对日益恶化的全球不平等问题作出的重要回应，而这被世界左翼力量认为是社会主义运动在实践中的进展。

I. Discussion on the Concept of "Common Prosperity"

一、关于“共同富裕”概念的探讨

Marx wrote in the *Grundrisse* (1857–1858) that in the future socialist system, "the development of social productive forces will be so rapid... that production will be for the abundance of all." Deng Xiaoping stated in his 1992 Southern Tour talks: "The essence of socialism is to liberate and develop the productive forces, eliminate exploitation and polarization, and ultimately achieve common prosperity." Common prosperity is the conception of a socialist society by classical Marxist writers, a scientific expression of the traditional Chinese ideal of the Great Harmony (datong), and an important topic of discussion in Chinese theoretical circles. However, in-depth discussion of this concept by overseas academia has long been lacking. Recently, as common prosperity has received increasing attention in China, overseas academia has paid great attention to it. Researchers have conducted multi-dimensional discussions on this concept from the perspectives of its historical connotations, contemporary significance, and possible pathways.

马克思在《1857—1858年经济学手稿》中写道，在未来的社会主义制度中，“社会生产力的发展将如此迅速，……生产将以所有人的富裕为目的”。邓小平在1992年的南方谈话中提出：“社会主义的本质，是解放生产力，发展生产力，消灭剥削，消除两极分化，最终达到共同富裕。”共同富裕是马克思主义经典作家对社会主义社会的构想，是中国传统大同思想的科学表述，亦是中国理论界讨论的重要议题，而海外学界对此的深入探讨却长期付之阙如。近期，随着共同富裕在中国受到越来越多的重视，海外学界对此给予了极大关注，研究者从历史内涵、时代意义及可能路径对这一概念展开了多维度的讨论。

(1) Historical Connotations

（一）历史内涵

Recently, "common prosperity" has entered the field of vision of the international academic community as a Chinese expression. Overseas scholars are more often examining the generation and development of this concept within the course of China's development. For example, David Bandurski, a researcher at the University of Hong Kong's China Media Project, traced the timeline of China's proposal of common prosperity using official Chinese documents, and then analyzed the evolution of the concept of common prosperity in the history of CPC discourse: The term common prosperity first appeared as a slogan commemorating the fourth anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China in the *People's Daily* on September 25, 1953. Subsequently, on December 12, the *People's Daily* published an article titled "The Socialist Road Is the Road to Common Prosperity," arguing that capitalism is "the road for a minority to get rich" and would cause the vast majority of people to be impoverished, and that only the socialist road could achieve common prosperity. Four days later, the CPC Central Committee adopted the "Resolution on the Development of Agricultural Producers' Cooperatives," formally proposing the concept of common prosperity. In Bandurski's view, the concept of common prosperity as articulated in China in the 1950s was redefined in the late 1970s. He pointed out that after the Third Plenary Session of the 11th CPC Central Committee, the key phrases appearing with high frequency in reports by China's official media were more often approximate expressions of the phrase "let some people get rich first," rather than the collective property rights system. Bandurski further argues that Deng Xiaoping further elaborated common prosperity as "the first to get rich driving the later to get rich," which stimulated the vitality and dynamism of Chinese society, led China into an unprecedented period of growth, and created substantial wealth in most regions. Currently, whether "the concept of common prosperity will be redefined" and "to what extent the expression 'get rich first' will be adjusted" remain topics that easily attract the attention of overseas scholars.

近期以来，“共同富裕”作为中国表述进入国际学术界的视野，海外学者更多的是在中国的发展历程中考察这一概念的生成与发展。例如，香港大学中国传媒研究计划研究员班志远（David Bandurski）借助中国官方文献追溯了中国提出共同富裕的时间线，进而分析共同富裕概念在中国共产党话语史中的演变：共同富裕一词首次是作为新中国成立四周年的纪念口号出现在1953年9月25日的《人民日报》上，其后《人民日报》于12月12日刊发《社会主义的路是共同富裕的路》一文，论称资本主义是“少数人致富的路”，会使绝大多数人穷困潦倒，只有社会主义道路才能实现共同富裕。4天后，中共中央通过《关于发展农业生产合作社的决议》，正式提出共同富裕概念。在班志远看来，1950年代中国所阐述的共同富裕概念在1970年代后期已被重新定义。他指出，中共十一届三中全会以后，中国官方媒体的报道中高频出现的重点词更多是“让一部分人先富起来”这一短语的近似表述，而不再是集体产权制度。班志远进而认为，邓小平将共同富裕进一步阐释为“先富带动后富”，激发了中国社会的生机和活力，带领中国进入了前所未有的增长时期，并在大部分地区创造了大量财富。目前，关于“共同富裕概念是否会被重新定义”以及“‘先富起来’这一表述会在多大程度上作出调整”迄今仍是一个容易引起海外学者关注的话题。

Differently, Bert Hofman, Director of the East Asian Institute at the National University of Singapore, offered an interpretation from another line of reasoning. Hofman believes that a review of official Chinese documents and texts of Chinese leaders' speeches over the years reveals that "'common prosperity' did not come out of nowhere," but rather was a reform plan formulated since the Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee to address the "increasingly aggravated income inequality problem" in Chinese society. In his article "China's Road to Common Prosperity," Hofman points out that in 2013, the Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee adopted the "Decision of the CPC Central Committee on Several Major Issues Concerning Comprehensively Deepening Reforms," which proposed: "Improve the income redistribution regulation mechanism with taxation, social security, and transfer payments as the main means, strengthen the regulatory role of taxation..., regulate excessively high incomes, redefine and clean up hidden incomes, ban illegal incomes, increase the incomes of low-income groups, and raise the proportion of middle-income groups in the whole society." This policy is consistent with the policy orientation at the beginning of reform and opening up. In 1986, when Deng Xiaoping implemented the coastal development strategy, he pointed out: "Our policy is to let some people and some regions get rich first, to drive and help backward regions. It is an obligation for advanced regions to help backward regions." Perhaps most people have forgotten the latter part of this statement, but the CPC will not forget its original aspiration.

与此不同，新加坡东亚研究所所长郝福满（Bert Hofman）则从另一理路提出解读。郝福满认为，对历年中国官方文件和中国领导人讲话文本的梳理发现，“‘共同富裕’并非凭空而来”，而是中共十八届三中全会以来为解决中国社会“不断加剧的收入不平等问题”制定的改革计划。在《中国的共同富裕之路》一文中，郝福满指出，2013年中共十八届三中全会通过《中共中央关于全面深化改革若干重大问题的决定》提出：“完善以税收、社会保障、转移支付为主要手段的收入再分配调控机制，增强税收调控作用……，调节过高收入，重新界定和清理隐性收入，取缔非法收入，增加低收入群体收入，提高中等收入群体在全社会的比重。”这一政策与改革开放之初的政策取向是一致的。1986年邓小平实施沿海发展战略时指出：“我们的政策是让一部分人、一部分地区先富起来，以带动和帮助落后的地区，先进地区帮助落后地区是一个义务。”或许大多数人都遗忘了这一阐述的后半部分，但中国共产党却不会忘记其初心。

(2) Contemporary Significance

（二）时代意义

At present, Bandurski's simple combing of the conceptual history of "common prosperity" has become the knowledge background for many overseas researchers to further discuss related topics. This makes common prosperity, as a classical concept, more often considered as a new, open-ended Chinese declaration. Ryan Hass, a researcher at the John L. Thornton China Center at the Brookings Institution in the United States, pointed out in his analysis report that common prosperity is a historical concept of the CPC, but it has also been endowed with contemporary connotations. In terms of contemporary significance, "gradually realizing the socialist transformation of the entire agriculture, that is, implementing cooperation, eliminating the rich peasant economy and the individual economy in the countryside, and making all rural people prosper together" initiated China's path of agricultural collectivization; "some regions and some people can get rich first, driving and helping other regions and other people, gradually achieving common prosperity" brought vitality and dynamism to reform and opening up; "common prosperity is the common prosperity of all the people, the prosperity of both the material and spiritual life of the people, not the prosperity of a few, nor uniform egalitarianism" reflects the policy objectives of China entering a new stage of development.

就目前而言，班志远对“共同富裕”概念史的简单耙梳已成为许多海外研究者进一步展开相关讨论的知识背景，这使得作为经典概念的共同富裕更多被作为一项新的、开放性的中国宣言来考量。美国布鲁金斯学会约翰·桑顿中国中心研究员何瑞恩（Ryan Hass）在其分析报告中指出，共同富裕是中国共产党的历史概念，同时也被赋予了时代内涵。从时代意义上说，“逐步地实现对于整个农业的社会主义的改造，即实行合作化，在农村中消灭富农经济制度和个体经济制度，使全体农村人民共同富裕起来”开启了中国的农业集体化之路；“一部分地区、一部分人可以先富起来，带动和帮助其他地区、其他的人，逐步达到共同富裕”带来了改革开放的生机与活力；“共同富裕是全体人民共同富裕，是人民群众物质生活和精神生活都富裕，不是少数人的富裕，也不是整齐划一的平均主义”体现了中国进入新发展阶段的政策目标。

It is in this sense that common prosperity, as a policy agenda of China, has increasingly become a key topic of concern for international research institutions. At a roundtable convened by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in the United States, Joyce Chang, Global Head of Research at JPMorgan Chase, John L. Holden, Head of China Affairs at McLarty Associates, and Scott Rozelle, a researcher at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies at Stanford University, discussed the reasons for China's "solidly advancing common prosperity" and its potential impacts. The issues they focused on included: what are the main driving forces pushing China in this direction? Can "common prosperity" reduce inequality and lay the foundation for long-term inclusive growth? Multiple expert briefings from Oxford Analytica have also taken "common prosperity" as their theme. These reports analyze that "addressing China's inequality will be a slow and complex process," and while the specific measures of the common prosperity policy are not yet known, the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the CPC and the 20th National Congress of the CPC will undoubtedly be more firmly committed to addressing inequality. [1]1 The "Gilded Age" and "Progressive Era" are terms from U.S. history, referring respectively to the late 19th century period of rapid industrialization and vast inequality, and the early 20th century reform movement that sought to address those problems. The author uses them as analogies for China's development trajectory. In the view of overseas researchers, China has become an economic power by taking the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, but this process has also led to social imbalances and income inequality, bringing many new challenges to China. "Apart from reducing poverty, few national leaders have explicitly set income distribution as a national goal," but China has made a responsible choice, and Chinese leaders have revived the concept of "common prosperity" to make Chinese society fairer. "China's achievements in drastically reducing poverty over the past few decades are brilliant. In the next stage of economic development, China's greater focus on common prosperity is admirable."

正是在这一意义上，共同富裕作为中国的政策议程，日益成为国际研究机构关注的重点议题。在美国战略与国际研究中心召集的圆桌会议上，摩根大通全球研究主席张愉珍（Joyce Chang）、麦克拉迪公司中国事务主任何立强（John L.Holden）、斯坦福大学国际研究所研究员罗斯高（Scott Rozelle）等人探讨了中国“扎实推进共同富裕”的原因以及可能产生的影响，他们关注的问题包括：中国朝着这个方向前进的主要驱动力是什么？“共同富裕”能否降低不平等并为长期包容性增长打下基础？牛津分析公司的多期专家简报则均以“共同富裕”为主题，这些报告分析认为，“解决中国的不平等问题将是一个缓慢而复杂的过程”，目前尚不能知晓共同富裕政策的具体措施，但中共十九届六中全会和二十大无疑会更加坚定地致力于解决不平等问题。在海外研究者的视野中，中国通过走中国特色社会主义道路而成为经济强国，但这一进程也导致了社会不均衡与收入不平等，这给中国带来许多新的挑战。“除了减少贫困，很少有国家领导人明确地将收入分配也作为国家目标”，但中国做出了负责任的选择，中国领导人重提“共同富裕”的目的是让中国社会更加公平。“中国过去几十年在大幅度减少贫困方面的成就是辉煌的，在下一经济发展阶段，中国更加关注共同富裕是令人敬佩的”。

Taken together, overseas researchers analyze that the common prosperity currently proposed by Chinese leaders is at least committed to addressing three epochal propositions: First, disciplining "the disorderly expansion and speculation of capital": "The CPC has become increasingly wary of unconstrained market mechanisms," especially the "excessively high real estate prices," "rising education costs," "unfair industry monopolies," and even "suspected violations of national security" brought about by entrepreneurs' one-sided pursuit of profit. Second, "making the olive fatter": [2]2 The author is summarizing a common narrative of the Mao era (1949-1976) and the Deng era (post-1978 reform and opening up) in CPC historiography. responding to the widespread public anxiety about inequality, alleviating the problem of unbalanced development, regulating the trend of wealth polarization to expand the size of the middle-income group, so as to meet the people's growing needs for a better life. Third, emphasizing the leadership of the Party in the reform process: "Common prosperity" is "another ideology for the CPC to consolidate its ruling foundation" in response to new contradictions and challenges in the international and domestic environment. A basic consensus is: "China's reforms have created high growth, high employment, and high income, lifting hundreds of millions of Chinese people out of poverty, which is an extraordinary achievement of global significance. However, the intensifying income inequality has been a source of controversy and an urgent problem to be solved. With the realization of the 'moderately prosperous society,' China's overall goals are changing." [3]3 The original Chinese text of this quotation is not provided in the source paragraph. Bert Hofman cited Xi Jinping's speech at a study session for leading officials at the provincial and ministerial level in January 2021 to discuss the new goals after the transformation: "Achieving common prosperity is not only an economic issue but also a major political issue concerning the Party's ruling foundation... We must never allow the gap between the rich and the poor to widen, the poor to become poorer and the rich to become richer, and we must never allow an insurmountable chasm to appear between the rich and the poor." [4]4 This speech was delivered at a study session for provincial- and ministerial-level leading cadres on studying and implementing the spirit of the Fifth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the CPC, held in January 2021. Ryan Hass stated that as China's economy shifts from high-speed growth to stable development, the Chinese leadership is shifting its focus to improving the quality of life for the people and using this as a breakthrough to modernize governance capacity.

综合起来看，海外研究者们分析认为，中国领导者当下提出的共同富裕至少致力于回答三个时代命题：其一，规训“资本的无序扩张和投机”：“中国共产党对不受约束的市场机制越来越警惕”，尤其是企业家片面追求利润带来的“过高的房地产价格”、“不断上涨的教育成本”、“不正当的行业垄断”甚至“涉嫌侵犯国家安全”。其二，“让橄榄更丰满”：回应人民对不平等的普遍焦虑，缓解发展不均衡问题，调节财富两极分化趋势而扩大中等收入群体的规模，以满足人民日益增长的改善生活的需求。其三，在改革过程中强调党的领导：“共同富裕”是中国共产党应对国际国内环境中的新矛盾、新挑战，“巩固执政基础的另一种意识形态”。一个基本的共识是：“中国改革创造了高增长、高就业和高收入，使得数亿中国人成功摆脱贫困，这是具有全球意义的非凡成就。然而不断加剧的收入不平等一直引发争议，成为亟需解决的问题。随着‘小康社会’的实现，中国的整体性目标正在改变。”郝福满援引习近平在2021年1月省部级主要领导干部学习贯彻党的十九届五中全会精神专题研讨班的讲话来探讨转变后的新目标：“实现共同富裕不仅是经济问题，而且是关系党的执政基础的重大政治问题，……绝不能允许贫富差距越来越大、穷者愈穷富者愈富，绝不能在富的人和穷的人之间出现一道不可逾越的鸿沟。”何瑞恩表示，随着中国经济从高速增长进入稳定发展，中国领导层正在将工作重点转向改善民众生活质量，并将其作为实现治理能力现代化的突破口。

(III) Possible Paths

（三）可能路径

Common prosperity has attracted attention worldwide. Although overseas researchers have gradually clarified the historical connotations and contemporary significance of common prosperity, there is still no consensus on the possible paths to achieve this goal. In the eyes of these observers, various signs indicate that China is seeking ways to reconstruct the relationship among the Party, society, and the market, but without wanting such adjustments to undermine the vitality of high-quality development. How to adjust income disparities and share economic dividends in the course of high-quality development to achieve "common prosperity"? The answer to this question needs to be sought in its further action paths rather than in theoretical presuppositions.

共同富裕在世界范围内引发关注，尽管海外研究者虽已逐步明晰了共同富裕的历史内涵和时代意义，但对实现这一目标的可能路径尚莫衷一是。在这些观察者眼中，种种迹象表明中国正在寻找方法重构党、社会与市场之间的关系，但又不希望这样的调整破坏高质量增长的活力。如何在高质量的发展中调节收入差距、共享经济红利从而实现“共同富裕”？这一问题的答案需要在其进一步的行动路径而非理论预设中来继续寻找。

In the English-speaking world, there is no shortage of researchers linking the concept of common prosperity with China's recent domestic regulatory policies. For example, Yogesh Gupta, former Indian Ambassador to Denmark, wrote that the new concept of "common prosperity" means that income distribution across all social strata in China must become more equitable, thereby triggering a major shift in the national development model. In the past few months, the CPC has been "guiding and supervising Chinese enterprises with clear rules, effective laws, and greater policy transparency," attempting to narrow the income gap and shift towards higher-quality development. Kevin Yao, a senior correspondent for Reuters, analyzed in an article titled "Explainer: The driving force behind China's 'common prosperity' and its importance" that China is "promising to use taxes and other income redistribution levers to expand the proportion of the middle-income population and increase the income of the poor," and "encouraging high-income enterprises and individuals to contribute more to society through 'third distribution,' i.e., charity and donations." At the same time, "long-discussed reforms, such as implementing property taxes and inheritance taxes to address the wealth gap, have also gained new momentum." In addition, policies to promote common prosperity include "curbing tax evasion, shortening working hours for high-tech enterprise employees, banning for-profit academic tutoring, and limiting the time minors spend playing electronic games." Many researchers believe that most of the regulatory policies adopted by the Chinese government over the past year fall within the conceptual scope of common prosperity.

在英文世界中，不乏研究者将共同富裕理念与中国国内近期的调节政策联系在一起。如前印度驻丹麦大使约格什·古普塔（Yogesh Gupta）撰文表示，“共同富裕”的新概念意味着中国社会各阶层的收入分配须更加平等，从而引发国家发展模式的重大转变。过去几个月，中国共产党正“以明确的规则、有效的法律和更大的政策透明度来指导和监督中国的企业”，试图缩小收入差距和转向更高质量的发展。路透社高级记者姚凯文（Kevin Yao）在《解读：中国提出“共同富裕”的驱动力及其重要性》一文中分析指出，中国正在“承诺利用税收和其他收入再分配杠杆扩大中等收入人口比例并增加贫困人口收入”，“鼓励高收入企业和个人通过‘第三次分配’，即慈善和捐赠为社会做出更多贡献”，与此同时，“讨论已久的改革，如实施财产税和遗产税以解决贫富差距问题，也获得新的动力”。除此之外，推动实现共同富裕的政策还包括“遏制逃税、缩短高科技企业员工的工作时间、禁止营利性的学科辅导以及限制未成年人玩电子游戏时间”。许多研究者认为，过去一年中国政府采取的大部分调节政策或都属于共同富裕的概念范畴。

Other researchers have combined existing research results to analyze possible paths to achieving common prosperity. Bert Hofman mentioned that if the government tries to correct some inequalities, there are generally two options: The first option is a higher degree of redistribution of market outcomes. This is the route taken by European countries. The Gini coefficient of market income, i.e., primary distribution, for residents in these countries is more or less higher than that of China, and the Gini coefficient after redistribution is lower than that of China, but their growth rates are much lower than China's. Therefore, this European model often also brings a "welfare trap." If China considers redistribution through taxes and transfer payments, it must consider whether it will affect the incentives for workers and entrepreneurs, as these are the drivers of China's growth in the coming decades. The second option is to use policy tools to ensure that market outcomes become more equal. This is milder than the European model but can also regulate outcome inequality. It is essentially the approach chosen by South Korea, the Taiwan region of China, and Japan in recent years. For China, in addition to stricter market regulation of monopolistic enterprises, more equal market outcomes can be achieved at least through policies such as investing in education, reforming the household registration system, and increasing farmers' land rights. [5]5 The household registration system (hukou) is a system of residency permits that restricts access to social services based on one's registered place of residence, often cited as a source of rural-urban inequality. Hofman believes that regardless of the direction of China's policies, it is important that its action path be supported by scientific analysis.

另一些研究者则结合现有研究成果，对实现共同富裕的可能路径展开了分析。郝福满提到，如果政府试图纠正一些不平等现象，一般而言有两种选择：第一种选择是对市场结果进行更高程度的再分配。这是欧洲国家采取的路线。这些国家居民的市场收入即初次分配的基尼系数或多或少高于中国，再分配后的基尼系数则低于中国，但是它们的增长速度比中国低得多，因此这种欧洲模式往往同时也会带来“福利陷阱”。若中国考虑通过税收和转移支付来进行再分配，则须考虑其是否会影响对工人和企业家的激励，因为这是中国未来几十年增长的动力。第二种选择则是运用政策工具，确保市场结果变得更加平等。这相对于欧洲模式更温和，但亦能调节结果不平等，基本上是韩国、中国台湾地区和日本近几年选择的方式。就中国而言，除对垄断企业进行更严格的市场监管外，至少还可通过投资教育、改革户籍制度、增加农民的土地权利等政策来实现更平等的市场结果。郝福满认为，无论中国的政策走向如何，重要的是其行动路径必须得到科学分析的支持。

The Berggruen Institute’s Nicolas Berggruen and Nathan Gardels argue that China should promote common prosperity within the framework of a socialist market economy with Chinese characteristics. They write: “To achieve common prosperity and the goal of ‘basically realizing socialist modernization by 2035,’ China has initiated ‘three distributions.’[1]1 The "Gilded Age" and "Progressive Era" are terms from U.S. history, referring respectively to the late 19th century period of rapid industrialization and vast inequality, and the early 20th century reform movement that sought to address those problems. The author uses them as analogies for China's development trajectory. In this process, pre-distribution through ‘universal basic capital’ is a concept worth considering.” They state that pre-distribution targets the mechanisms that generate inequality in all market-oriented economies, namely that the income of holders of capital assets accounts for an increasingly higher share of national income compared to those who rely solely on labor income. China need not follow the traditional model of Western welfare states, which, after creating wealth, imposes heavy taxes on the so-called “excessive” incomes of the most successful entrepreneurs and then redistributes the tax revenue to low-income groups. Instead, it can start at the source, requiring all startups to hand over 30% of their shares to a “common prosperity fund,” allowing all families to benefit from the wealth creation process. These two researchers believe that, compared with Western capitalist countries, China, which adheres to the socialist market economy system, has greater policy space to practice this new path. The “three distributions” policy will enable all Chinese people to make solid progress toward the goal of common prosperity, and “universal basic capital” may be a new pathway to “common prosperity.”

美国博古睿研究院的博古睿（Nicolas Berggruen）和内森·加德尔斯（Nathan Gardens）则认为，中国应在中国特色的社会主义市场经济这一框架下促进共同富裕。他们撰文指出：“为了实现共同富裕和‘2035年基本实现社会主义现代化’的目标，中国启动了‘三次分配’，在这一过程中，以‘全民基本资本’（universal basic capital）为手段的预分配（pre-distribution）应是一个值得考虑的概念。”他们表示，预分配指向一切市场导向的经济体中导致不平等的机制，即相对于只有以劳动收入为生计来源的人，资本资产持有者的收入在国民收入中的占比越来越高。中国不需要沿袭西方福利国家的传统模式，即在创造出财富之后，对最成功的企业家的所谓“过高”收入征收重税，然后将税款再分配给低收入人群，而是可以从源头做起，即要求所有初创企业将30%的股份交给“共同富裕基金”，让所有家庭从财富创造过程中获得收益。这两位研究者认为，与西方资本主义国家相比，坚持社会主义市场经济体制的中国有更大的政策空间来践行这条新的道路。“三次分配”政策将使全体中国人民朝着共同富裕目标扎实迈进，而“全民基本资本”或许正是通往“共同富裕”的一条新的路径。

II. Common Prosperity in the Neoliberal Perspective

二、新自由主义视界中的共同富裕

Overseas researchers have paid unprecedented attention to China’s proposed common prosperity agenda and are cautiously exploring its theory and practice. However, as Martin Jacques, a researcher in politics and international studies at the University of Cambridge, says, Western neoliberals are still somewhat confused by this Chinese move — “they are not yet clear what to make of it” — and “many views are based on a gut opposition, an ideological belief that it is ‘negative.’” Analyzing current overseas researchers’ interpretations of common prosperity helps us understand the cognitive biases toward China in the Western world under the influence of neoliberal ideas.

对于中国提出的共同富裕议程，海外研究者给予了前所未有的关注，并就其理论与实践展开审慎探讨。然而，正如剑桥大学政治学与国际问题研究员马丁·雅克（Martin Jacques）所说，西方的新自由主义者对中国这一做法尚有些迷茫——“他们还不清楚应借此作些什么文章”，“很多观点是基于一种本能的反对，出于意识形态而认为这是‘负面的’”。分析当下海外研究者对共同富裕的解读，有助于我们了解新自由主义观念下的西方世界对中国的认知偏差。

(I) Opposition Based on “Preconceived Positions”

（一）“立场先行”的反对

Wall Street financier and Open Society Foundations Chairman George Soros was among the first to express instinctive opposition to “common prosperity.” In September 2021, Soros wrote in the Wall Street Journal calling on U.S. investment institutions such as BlackRock to stop investing in the Chinese market, arguing: “China’s recently announced ‘common prosperity’ plan, aimed at reducing inequality by redistributing wealth from the rich to ordinary people, does not bode well for foreign investors.” Soros argued that the United States and China are now locked in a fundamental confrontation between two governance systems, and investing in the Chinese market amounts to “jeopardizing the national security interests of the United States and other democratic countries.”

华尔街金融家、开放社会研究所主席乔治·索罗斯（George Soros）对“共同富裕”首先表达了本能的反对。索罗斯2021年9月即在《华尔街日报》撰文呼吁贝莱德集团（Black Rock）等美国投资机构不可再投资中国市场，其理由是：“中国近期提出的‘共同富裕’计划，旨在通过将富人的财富分配给普通民众来减少不平等，这对外国投资者来说不是好兆头”。索罗斯论称，如今美国和中国已卷入两种治理体系的根本对立之中，投资中国市场即为“危及美国和其他民主国家的国家安全利益”。

Examining recent overseas discussions on common prosperity, we find that the neoliberal narrative still exerts a significant influence on mainstream Western thought. Rational analysis of China remains scarce, while irrational commentary is quite common. For example, some “Soros-style” market fundamentalists claim: “China’s attempt to control the market is unprecedented,” and “China is trying to restructure Chinese society by redistributing wealth more evenly among its 1.4 billion people.” There are also concerns about state interventionism: “China is undergoing a policy shift to strengthen state control over the economy and society,” and “the common prosperity goal may accelerate China’s economic rebalancing, shifting the economy toward consumption-driven growth to reduce reliance on exports and investment, but the policies could harm private-sector-driven growth.” Clearly, these views represent serious misunderstandings of China’s relevant policies.

审思海外近期有关共同富裕的讨论，我们发现，新自由主义叙事仍对西方主流思想场域产生着重要影响，对中国的理性分析仍是稀缺的，非理性的言论还比较多见，例如有“索罗斯”式市场原教旨主义者提出：“中国控制市场的企图是史无前例的”，“中国试图在 14 亿人口中更平均地重新分配财富来重组中国社会”；亦有对国家干预主义的担忧：“中国正在进行一场加强国家对经济与社会控制的政策转向”，“共同富裕目标或会加速中国经济再平衡，使得中国经济转向消费驱动型增长，以减少对出口和投资的依赖，但政策可能会损害由私营部门推动的增长”。显然，这些观点是对中国相关政策的严重误解。

Stance and methodology profoundly shape the worldview of overseas researchers. As Sergio Rodriguez Gelfenstein, former National Security Advisor of Venezuela and a left-wing scholar, states in his article “Towards Common Prosperity”: “Western analysts were quick to react to these measures, expressing concern about their potential impact on capital owners, even as they acknowledged that achieving a fairer distribution of wealth would benefit more families.” In fact, “these views reveal that they are no longer able to understand China’s economic model and have once again fallen into the Western myth of considering its effectiveness only within the individual-market framework.”

立场、方法深刻影响着海外研究者的世界观。正如委内瑞拉前国家安全顾问、左翼学者塞尔吉奥·罗德里格斯·盖尔费斯坦（Sergio Rodriguez Gelfenstein）在《走向共同富裕》一文中所言：“西方分析人士很快就对这些措施作出反应，他们对这些措施可能对资本所有者造成的影响表示担忧，尽管他们也承认，实现更公平的财富分配对更多家庭有益。”事实上，“这些观点暴露出他们已无法理解中国的经济模式，而再次陷入了西方仅在个人—市场的思维模式下考虑其有效性的迷思。”

(II) “Clever” Criticisms

（二）“自作聪明”的批评

Theoretically, the spontaneous order defended by neoliberals is constructed as the ideal model for healthy economic and social development. In practice, however, within an unequal social structure, liberalization and marketization often amount to “robbing the poor to give to the rich.” In fact, on the one hand, “unregulated free markets naturally favor the rich and the fortunate,” and neoliberalism is essentially “a financial dynamic of exponential expansion that seeks to concentrate the world’s most profitable and rent-yielding resources in the hands of financial managers, who are the oligarchic agents of the United States and its overseas economies.” Neoliberalism points toward a path of prosperity for the few, where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. On the other hand, in the observable time series since 2008, financial crises, debt crises, and post-pandemic crises have followed one after another. Maintaining high-quality, and also more equitable, development — promoting “common prosperity for all,” “prosperity in both material and cultural-ethical terms for the people” — has become a deep-seated need in Western societies after 40 years of neoliberal dominance. Neoliberal adherents selectively ignore these two points. Therefore, their fierce attacks on the so-called “socialist utopia,” “interventionist state,” and “political movement to kill the rich to help the poor” are more of a self-righteous performance art.

理论上，新自由主义者所捍卫的自发秩序被建构为经济社会良性发展的理想模式，而实践中，在一个不平等的社会结构中，自由化、市场化往往是“劫贫济富”的。事实上，一方面，“没有监管的自由市场天然地有利于富人和幸运者”，新自由主义本质上始终“是一种呈指数级扩张的金融动力学，它寻求将世界上最赚钱、租金收益最高的资源集中在金融管理者手中，而这些管理者正是美国及其海外经济体中的寡头代理人”。新自由主义所指向的是一条富者愈富、贫者愈贫的少数人繁荣之路。另一方面，在可观察到的时间序列中，2008年以来，金融危机、债务危机、后疫情危机接踵而至，保持高质量、同时也是更平等的发展——促进“全体人民共同富裕”、“人民群众物质生活和精神生活都富裕”——亦成为新自由主义流行40年后西方社会的深切需要。而新自由主义的拥趸选择性地忽视上述两点，故其对所谓“社会主义的乌托邦”、“干预主义的国家”与“杀富济贫的政治运动”的猛烈抨击，更多的是一场自作聪明的行为艺术。

In fact, the neoliberal opposition to “common prosperity” first faces opposition to itself. British scholar John Ross points out, “Obviously, Soros believes that wealth should be concentrated in the hands of the rich,” which is objectionable from a social welfare perspective, economically inefficient, and will inevitably lead to social unrest — the recent instability in the United States being clear evidence. Michael Hudson, Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, states that China follows socialist policies, wishing to retain its economic surplus domestically to benefit its own citizens rather than U.S. financial investors. Soros and others are merely angry that China has not followed the neoliberal policies that the United States is pursuing. After all, for them, this is a “clash of civilizations.” He argues that neoliberalism has always portrayed all public actions aimed at ensuring common prosperity as interference with property rights, while its “mass media, academia, think tank lobbying organizations, policy foundations, and non-governmental organizations use a set of neoliberal rhetoric to create excuses for capital flight, money laundering, tax evasion, deregulation, and privatization.”

事实上，新自由主义者对“共同富裕”的反对首先即面临对其本身的反对。英国学者罗思义（John Ross）指出，“显然，索罗斯认为财富应该集中在富人身上”，而这从社会福利的角度来看令人反感，在经济上是低效的，并将不可避免地引发社会动荡——美国近期的动荡不稳就是明证。美国密苏里大学经济学教授迈克尔·哈德森（Michael Hudson）表示，中国遵循社会主义政策，希望将其经济盈余留在国内以造福本国公民而非美国金融投资者，索罗斯等人不过是对中国没有遵循美国正在遵循的新自由主义政策感到愤怒。毕竟这对其来说是一场“文明的冲突”。他认为，新自由主义向来把所有旨在确保共同富裕的公共行动描述为干预产权的行为，而其“大众媒体、学术界、智库游说机构、政策基金会和非政府组织则用一套新自由主义的说辞，为资本外逃、洗钱、逃税、放松管制和私有化制造借口”。

Some research points out that opposition based on “taking a stance first” and “clever” criticism reflect their cognitive bias: “Stuffing every development agenda in today’s China into the black box of the natural behavior of an authoritarian state is a daily pastime for political commentators and experts of all colors around the world. This sophistry is passed off as academic analysis, but in reality it does little to help understand what is happening in China and why.” So what are the facts? Some researchers believe the facts are that the modern world, reshaped by neoliberals since the 1980s, has produced a worsening and nearly out-of-control gap between rich and poor. “Today China is busily correcting its own shortcomings and is also dealing with the neoliberal wave that has swept in with globalization. China has begun to emphasize common prosperity, tertiary distribution, rural revitalization, and lifting the entire population out of poverty, solving problems at their root and avoiding being overwhelmed by market forces. But the United States remains mired in the dominance of neoliberal ideology, allowing the power of capital to override the power of politics. In the name of market freedom, it has enabled about 1% of the U.S. population to possess 99% of the country’s wealth, entering the most severe period of wealth disparity in history.”

有研究指出，“立场先行”的反对和“自作聪明”的批评体现了他们的认知偏差：“将当今中国的每一项发展议程都塞进威权国家的自然行为这一黑匣子中，是世界各地政治评论员和不同肤色的专家的日常消遣。这种诡辩被当作一种学术分析，但实际上对理解中国正在发生的事情及其原因没有多大帮助。”那么，事实是什么呢？有研究者认为，事实在于，1980年代以来为新自由主义者所重塑的现代世界，已经产生了日益恶化、濒于失控的贫富差距，“今天中国正在紧锣密鼓地改正其自身的缺点，也正在应对随着全球化浪潮扑面而来的新自由主义浪潮。中国开始强调共同富裕、第三次分配、乡村振兴、全民脱贫，从根源上解决问题，避免被市场力量淹没。但美国仍然沉溺于新自由主义理念的主导地位，让资本的权力凌驾于政治的权力之上，以市场自由的名义，使得美国99%的财富被约1%的人所占有，步入历史上贫富悬殊最严重的时期。”

III. Common Prosperity as a Chinese Solution

三、作为中国方案的共同富裕

In his essay “The Order of Discourse,” Michel Foucault said that history often teaches us that discourse is a force that must be controlled. Examining the global resonance of “common prosperity” as a Chinese concept and the prismatic effects it triggers across different ideological spectra, we should perhaps reconsider the classic proposition that “discourse is power.” On the one hand, neoliberals vehemently oppose common prosperity within their narrative framework; on the other hand, common prosperity is regarded as an important action taken by “China in its competition with the West for global narrative discourse power.” In reality, the power of discourse is not equivalent to discursive domination. In serious academic discussions, achieving common prosperity is increasingly seen by overseas researchers as a “Chinese solution” that China, with a sense of responsibility, offers to address inequality.

在《话语的秩序》一文中，米歇尔·福柯（Michel Foucault）说，历史经常教导我们，话语乃是必须控制的力量。考察作为中国概念的“共同富裕”在全球范围激起的回响及其在不同观念光谱中引发的棱镜效应，我们或应重思“话语即权力”这一经典命题。一方面，新自由主义者在其叙事框架中极力反对共同富裕，另一方面，共同富裕却被视作“中国在与西方争夺全球叙事话语权”中采取的重要行动。实际上，话语的权力并不等同于话语的宰制，在严肃的学术探讨中，实现共同富裕越来越多地被海外研究者视作中国以负责任的态度为解决不平等问题提供的“中国方案”。

(I) Global Inequality

（一）全球不平等

Many overseas researchers believe that widening income inequality has become “the defining challenge of our time.” As French economist Gabriel Zucman points out, the wealth share of the top 1% in wealth distribution increased from 28% in 1980 to 33% today, while the share of the bottom 75% hovers around 10%. Because financial globalization makes it increasingly difficult to measure wealth at the top, current research may underestimate the extent of the increase in inequality. In fact, the economic shocks and policy adjustments brought by the pandemic have further exacerbated global wealth polarization. The wealth gap in developed economies has reached its highest level in decades, and the inequality situation in emerging markets and developing countries is even more complex. Yet the “trickle-down effect” envisioned by neoliberalism has completely failed.

许多海外研究者认为，不断扩大的收入不平等已是“我们这个时代决定性的挑战”。正如法国经济学家加布·扎克曼（Gabriel Zucman）指出的，在财富分析中排前1%的群体的财富份额从 1980年的28%增加到今天的33%，而排后75%的群体的份额徘徊在10%左右。由于金融全球化使得衡量顶层的财富变得越来越困难，当下的研究可能低估了不平等的加剧程度。事实上，大流行病带来的经济冲击和政策调整进一步加剧了全球贫富分化，发达经济体的贫富差距达到数十年来最高水平，新兴市场和发展中国家的不平等态势更加错综复杂，但新自由主义构想的“涓滴效应”却完全失灵。

In the view of some overseas researchers, inequality and a collapsing capitalism mean that the idea of embracing socialism is gaining momentum, and “common prosperity” is precisely the call of the times. As French scholar Thomas Piketty argues in his book *Capital and Ideology*, “Inequality is not the result of economic or technological change; it is rooted in politics and ideology.” American scholar Stephanie Kelton believes that as the philosophical catalyst for opposing “big government” and promoting deregulation, neoliberalism has brought a period of deregulation to the world. It has caused private debt to soar, social safety nets to be destroyed, and governments to attack workers and unions. “The state, which should exist as a protector of the public, has moved toward non-interventionist individualism. Governance is seen not as the responsibility of the state but as the responsibility of the individual, and government has become an institution that undermines economic efficiency.” “This is a structural problem. The neoliberal variant of capitalism no longer serves anyone’s long-term interests, not even those of the capitalists themselves.”

在有的海外研究者看来，不平等和崩溃的资本主义意味着拥抱社会主义的想法正在蓄势待发，“共同富裕”正是时代的呼唤。正如法国学者托马斯·皮凯蒂（Thomas Piketty）在《资本与意识形态》一书中提出的，“不平等并非经济或技术变革的结果，而是植根于政治和意识形态之中”。美国学者斯蒂芬妮·凯尔顿（Stephanie Kelton）认为，作为反对“大政府”和推动放松监管的哲学催化剂，新自由主义给世界带来一段放松管制的时期，它使得私人债务飙升，社会安全网遭到破坏，政府攻击工人和工会。“国家本应作为社会大众的保护者而存在，却走向不干预的个人主义。治理被认为不是国家的责任而是个人的责任，政府成了损害经济效率的机构”，“这是一个结构性问题，资本主义的新自由主义变体已不符合任何人的长期利益，甚至包括资本家自己”。

Kelton states: “The vision of human society should be broad, shared prosperity. The economy should serve everyone, not just a few at the top of the pyramid.” The goal of policymakers should be to demonstrate a balanced economy that achieves widely shared prosperity and flourishing, rather than pursuing a superficially balanced budget while allowing income and wealth to flow to the very top.

凯尔顿表示：“人类社会之愿景本是广泛的、共同的富裕，经济应为每一个人而非少数几个金字塔尖的人服务”，政策制定者的目标应展示一种平衡的经济，实现为人们普遍分享的繁荣与兴盛，而非追求表面平衡的预算，却让收入和财富都流向最顶层。

(II) China’s New Solution

（二）中国新方案

As mentioned above, since the 1980s, the prevalence of neoliberalism has caused the problem of wealth inequality to spread continuously. And as Jacques [6]6 Martin Jacques, British scholar and author of *When China Rules the World*. has noted, although there are strong voices within the United States calling for action, the U.S. government has taken no action to eliminate severe inequality, and the same is true in Europe. Today, China is actively promoting the achievement of common prosperity, while Western countries clearly lack the same sense of responsibility. Common prosperity, as a Chinese concept, is thus regarded by overseas left-wing forces as a responsible Chinese solution.

如上所述，1980年代以来，新自由主义的盛行造成了财富不平等问题持续蔓延，而正如雅克所言，尽管美国国内存在着很强烈的呼声，但美国政府未采取任何行动以消除严重的不平等问题，欧洲亦然。如今中国正积极推进实现共同富裕，西方国家显然没有同样的责任感。作为中国概念的共同富裕由此被海外左翼力量视作一项负责任的中国方案。

First, while discussing the concept of common prosperity, left-wing scholars are also deconstructing the “American narrative” from a comparative perspective. For example, in Hudson’s [7]7 Michael Hudson, American economist and professor at the University of Missouri–Kansas City, known for his work on financial capitalism and rentier economies. exposition, “‘Free trade’ means using force to maintain and expand a ‘free market’ centered on the United States”; “‘Democracy’ has become a label for pro-American regimes,” whose essence is merely “a hierarchical system that uses ‘rule of law’ to guarantee ‘property rights’—since creditors’ claims sit at the top of the legal pyramid, democratic states often end up evolving into oligarchies”; and “using state power to regulate monopolies or tax rentier income,” “protecting the interests of one’s own people by resisting financial acquisitions of their natural resources, infrastructure, and most profitable monopolies by the United States, yet this is condemned.” By analyzing economic history, Hudson points out that Western civilization is built on the legal system and property rights regime formed during the period of Roman oligarchy. To avoid failure, the polarized Western economy has always had to rely on new plunder and new conquests to relieve pressure. But China “insists on regulating the economy—guiding it to promote overall prosperity rather than seeking benefits for foreign investors or oligarchic groups.” Over the past 20 years, “it is precisely the development of socialist China that has driven the development of the world economy and maintained Western prosperity.” Now China is condemned as a threat, simply because it wants to take the socialist path rather than support neoliberal rentiers.

首先，在探讨共同富裕概念的同时，左翼学者也在比较视野下解构着“美国叙事”。如在哈德森的论述中，“‘自由贸易’就是用武力维持和扩展以美国为中心的‘自由市场’”；“‘民主’已是亲美政权的标签”，其实质不过是“以‘法治’保证‘财产权’的等级制度——既然债权人的债权位于法律金字塔的顶端，民主国家往往最终演变为寡头政治”；而“使用国家权力来监管垄断或对食利者收入征税”，“通过抵制美国对其自然资源、基础设施和最有利可图的垄断企业的金融收购来保护本国人民的利益，却遭受谴责”。哈德森通过分析经济史指出，西方文明筑基于罗马寡头政治时期形成的法治体系和产权制度，两极分化的西方经济为避免其失败，向来只能靠新掠夺和新征服来缓解压力。但中国“坚持对经济的调控——引导它促进整体繁荣而非为外国投资者或寡头集团谋取利益”。在过去的20年里，“正是社会主义中国的发展带动着世界经济的发展并维持着西方的繁荣”，现在中国却被谴责为一种威胁，只因中国要走社会主义道路，而非支持新自由主义的食利者。

Secondly, in the view of overseas researchers, common prosperity, regarded as an important feature of Chinese-path modernization, is both contemporary and historical. It is a policy shift in China's direct response to complex practical problems, a new stage in the development of socialism, potentially offering a viable model for the world, or an alternative after the failure of the neoliberal economy. Common prosperity is contemporary, as Yuen Yuen Ang, Professor of Political Science at the University of Michigan, points out: "In China, the definition of development is changing." "In the past few decades, the model was simple and clear: putting growth speed above all else," but now Chinese leaders want to "end the 'Gilded Age' and move toward a Chinese version of the Progressive Era, achieving fairer, less corrupt growth." [1]1 The "Gilded Age" and "Progressive Era" are terms from U.S. history, referring respectively to the late 19th century period of rapid industrialization and vast inequality, and the early 20th century reform movement that sought to address those problems. The author uses them as analogies for China's development trajectory. Even in the eyes of neoliberals, China's "goal is also to address institutional problems such as excessive debt and inequality, achieving more balanced growth." Common prosperity is also historical. Reviewing the history of the People's Republic of China since 1949, it can be seen that China's exploration of establishing a socialist system in pursuit of modernization has undergone a complex process. For modern China, "Mao Zedong set the tone for socialism with Chinese 'characteristics,'" while in the 1970s, when advanced technology was still controlled by the West and other capitalist countries, "Deng Xiaoping adjusted policies according to the actual situation, introducing productive forces to solve the problems of poverty and development." [2]2 The author is summarizing a common narrative of the Mao era (1949-1976) and the Deng era (post-1978 reform and opening up) in CPC historiography. Now, Xi Jinping is committed to "resolving the problems that have emerged in the socialist market economy," promoting socialism "toward more balanced and harmonious development," that is, "taking the path of common prosperity."

其次，在海外研究者看来，被视作中国式现代化的重要特征的共同富裕是当下的，亦是历史的，是中国直面复杂现实问题的一次政策转变，也是发展社会主义的一个新阶段，或为世界贡献一个可行模式，抑或成为新自由主义经济失败后的替代方案。共同富裕是当下的，就如美国密歇根大学政治学教授洪源远（Yuen Yuen Ang）的分析所指出的，“在中国，发展的定义正在发生变化”，“在过去几十年里，这种模式是简单明了的：将增长速度置于所有其他事务之上”，但现在中国领导者想“结束‘镀金时代’，走向中国版本的进步时代，实现更公平、更少腐败的增长”。即便在新自由主义者眼中，中国的“目标也是要解决制度性问题，如过度债务和不平等，实现更加平衡的增长”。共同富裕也是历史的，回顾1949年以来中华人民共和国的历史，可以看出中国为追求现代化而探索建立社会主义制度，这经历了复杂的过程。就现代中国而言，“毛泽东定下了具有中国‘特点’的社会主义的基调”，而在先进技术还是被西方和其他一些资本主义国家所把持的1970年代，“邓小平根据现实形势调整了政策，引入生产力以解决贫困和发展问题”。如今，习近平将致力于“化解社会主义市场经济中业已出现的问题”，推动社会主义“走向更加平衡和谐的发展”，即“走共同富裕之路”。

In the scrutiny of left-wing researchers, common prosperity carries the original aspiration of the CPC's governance and is increasingly becoming a viable new development plan in the world. Bikrum Gill, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Virginia Tech, believes that from 1949 to the present, China has overthrown the rules of imperialism, more so through land reform based on collective ownership of rural land; since reform and opening up, although the CPC has introduced the market, it has not abandoned the above path. On the contrary, the process of transitioning to the market after 1979 has always been constructed on this foundation. The CPC has never changed its socialist conviction. "Common prosperity will be an important part of China's national and social governance. China is promising to build a fairer society, a larger and wealthier middle class, and enterprises that bring returns rather than just take." [3]3 The original Chinese text of this quotation is not provided in the source paragraph.

在左翼研究者的审视中，共同富裕承载着中国共产党执政的初心，并日益成为世界上一个具有可行性的新发展方案。美国弗吉尼亚理工大学政治学助理教授比克鲁姆·吉尔（Bikrum Gill）认为，从1949年到现在，中国已推翻了帝国主义的规则，这更多是通过农村土地集体所有制基础上的土地改革而实现的；改革开放以来，中国共产党虽然引入了市场，但并未放弃上述道路，相反，1979年后向市场转型的过程始终建构在这一基础之上。中国共产党从未改变其社会主义信念，“共同富裕将是中国国家和社会治理的重要部分，中国正在承诺构建一个更加公平的社会，一个更大、更富有的中产阶级，以及会带来回报而不仅仅是索取的企业”

(Author: Zhang Xiaoshuang, School of International Relations and Diplomacy, Beijing Foreign Studies University)

（作者：张潇爽，北京外国语大学国际关系学院）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心