Mao Zedong and the Construction of the New Democratic System

Xi Jinping pointed out: “Institutions are fundamental, overarching, stable, and long-term issues concerning the development of the Party and the state.” In its century-long exploration of institutions, the Communist Party of China constructed the New Democratic system and the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics. As the “preamble” and “preceding chapter” of the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics, the New Democratic system is the crystallization of Mao Zedong’s wisdom in contemplating and resolving the transformation of modern China’s semi-colonial and semi-feudal society. Its successful construction laid a solid foundation for winning the New Democratic Revolution and achieving construction achievements during the transition period, and also provided important inspiration for third-world countries that were once colonies or semi-colonies in resolving their modernity dilemmas. Moreover, since reform and opening up, the New Democratic system has repeatedly become a political symbol contested by various forces and a discursive object spoken of in competition, demonstrating historical value that transcends time and space. As the main constructor of the New Democratic system, Mao Zedong not only established its historical prerequisites and erected its four beams and eight pillars [1]1 “Four beams and eight pillars” (四梁八柱) is a Chinese architectural metaphor for the main structural framework of a building, used here to refer to the fundamental components or mainstays of the New Democratic system., but also pointed out the direction for the transformation from the New Democratic system to the socialist system. On the new journey of the New Era, exploring Mao Zedong’s historical contributions to the construction of the New Democratic system helps deepen the understanding of what form the New Democratic system took and where the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics came from, and is also of great significance for upholding and developing the system of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era.

习近平指出：“制度是关系党和国家事业发展的根本性、全局性、稳定性、长期性问题。”中国共产党在百年制度探索中建构了新民主主义制度和中国特色社会主义制度，作为中国特色社会主义制度的“序言”与“前篇”，新民主主义制度是毛泽东思考和探索近代中国半殖民地半封建社会变革问题的智慧结晶，它的成功建构为夺取新民主主义革命胜利、取得过渡时期建设成就奠定坚实基础，也为曾为殖民地、半殖民地的第三世界国家解决现代性困境给予重要启示。不仅如此，新民主主义制度在改革开放以来多次成为各方力量争夺的政治符号和竞相言说的话语对象，展现出超越时空的历史价值。毛泽东作为新民主主义制度的主要建构者，不仅为新民主主义制度确立了历史前提、构筑起新民主主义制度的四梁八柱，并且指明了由新民主主义制度向社会主义制度转变的方向。新时代新征程上，探究毛泽东为建构新民主主义制度所作出的历史贡献，有助于深化对新民主主义制度是何形态、中国特色社会主义制度从何而来等问题的理解，对于新时代坚持和发展中国特色社会主义制度也具有十分重要的意义。

I. Establishing the Historical Prerequisites of the New Democratic System

一、确立新民主主义制度的历史前提

Every system has its own immutable internal logic. With the collision of Eastern and Western civilizations in the mid-19th century, China encountered “changes unseen in millennia” [2]2 “Changes unseen in millennia” (数千年未有之大变局) is a phrase often attributed to the late Qing official Li Hongzhang, describing the profound transformation China faced due to Western imperialism in the 19th century. It is distinct from Xi. This transformation was not only a change in the times but also a change in institutions. The institutions of China’s feudal society gradually degenerated into the institutional system of a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society. The original state institutions could not cope with the new crisis, and the authority of institutions suffered unprecedented erosion, thus falling into a systemic institutional predicament. This also made exploring new institutions and establishing a new China the mission shouldered by people of lofty ideals since modern times. After long and arduous exploration, the Chinese Communists, with Mao Zedong as their main representative, promoted the Sinicization of the Marxist theory of state institutions and summarized the experience of New Democratic political power construction, thereby laying the historical prerequisites for creating the New Democratic system as an institutional form to resolve the institutional predicament of modern China.

任何制度的生成都有其不可移易的内在逻辑。伴随十九世纪中叶东西方文明的碰撞，中国迎来了“数千年未有之大变局”，这一变局不仅是时势之易，更是制度之变，中国封建社会的制度逐步沦为半殖民地半封建社会的制度体系，原有的国家制度无法应对新的危机，制度的权威性遭受前所未有的消解，由此陷入系统性的制度困境，也让探寻新制度、建立新中国成为近代以来仁人志士所肩负的使命。经过长期的艰辛探索，以毛泽东为主要代表的中国共产党人推动马克思主义国家制度学说中国化、总结新民主主义政权建设经验，为创立新民主主义制度这一破解近代中国制度之困的制度形式奠定历史前提。

(1) Promoting the Sinicization of the Marxist Theory of State Institutions to Lay the Theoretical Foundation for Institutional Construction

（一）推动马克思主义国家制度学说中国化为制度建构奠定理论基础

The Marxist theory of state institutions is an important theoretical basis for Communists of various countries in carrying out political power construction. In the ideological context of Marx and Engels, for the working class to achieve its own liberation, it must inevitably create an association that eliminates classes and class antagonisms to replace the old civil society. At the level of ownership, this means “first turning the means of production into state property” and implementing complete public ownership. Thus, the dictatorship of the proletariat at the political institutional level and public ownership at the economic institutional level became two prescriptive principles that Communists needed to uphold when carrying out institutional practice in their own countries. Consequently, the First National Congress of the CPC [3]3 “One country with three rulers” (一国三公) is a Chinese idiom from the Zuo Commentary (Zuozhuan), referring to a situation where multiple authorities issue conflicting orders, leading to chaos and indecision. clearly included “recognizing the dictatorship of the proletariat” and “abolishing capitalist private ownership” in the Party’s program.

马克思主义国家制度学说是各国共产党人进行政权建设的重要理论依凭，在马克思恩格斯的思想语境中，工人阶级要实现自身解放，就必然要创造一个消除阶级和阶级对立的联合体，以其代替旧的市民社会。在所有制层面，则是“首先把生产资料变为国家财产”，实行彻底的公有制。由此，政治制度层面的无产阶级专政与经济制度层面的公有化成为共产党人在本国开展制度实践时需要秉持的两条规定性原则，因而中共一大就明确将“承认无产阶级专政”和“消灭资本家私有制”写入党的纲领。

Admittedly, Marxism is a universal truth of eternal value, but its theory of state institutions was after all based on the model of advanced Western European capitalist industrial countries. At that time, however, the country Mao Zedong was in was a backward semi-colonial and semi-feudal agricultural country. Differences in historical era and actual national conditions inevitably led to discrepancies between institutional theory and institutional practice, and also compelled the Chinese Communists to promote theoretical innovation in light of China’s national conditions. However, in the infancy of the Communist Party of China, “Left” dogmatism was prevalent within the Party for a time. Some Party cadres and members blindly worshipped Marxist-Leninist “textbooks” and failed to integrate the basic principles of Marxism with China’s specific realities, leading to the erroneous tendency within the Party of dogmatizing Marxism and sanctifying the resolutions of the Communist International and the experience of the Soviet Union. This erroneous tendency was concentrated at the institutional level in the proposals of the “theory of one revolution” and the “theory of two revolutions” [4]4 The War of Resistance Against Japan (1937–1945) was the Chinese theater of World War II, in which the Chinese Communist Party and the Kuomintang formed a nominal united front against Japanese invasion. — some Party cadres and members believed that the task of the Chinese revolution was to directly establish a socialist system, achieving “the completion of the task in one stroke,” or believed that a capitalist system should first be established and then a socialist system built through a second revolution. These erroneous perceptions caused great losses to the Chinese revolution. To eliminate the influence of this unhealthy trend within the Party, Mao Zedong criticized “book worship”: “Marxist ‘textbooks’ must be studied, but they must be combined with China’s actual conditions. We need ‘textbooks,’ but we must correct the book worship that divorces itself from reality.” [5]5 Mao Zedong, “On New Democracy” (January 1940). The original Chinese phrase is “有多少阶级就有多少主义.” He put forward the basic attitude towards correctly handling the relationship between the basic principles of Marxism and China’s specific problems. At the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee [6]6 Huang Yanpei (1878–1965) was a prominent Chinese educator and political figure who served as Vice Premier of the State Council. The First Five-Year Plan (1953–1957) was China’s first comprehensive economic development plan., Mao Zedong for the first time proposed the concept of “Sinicization of Marxism.” He pointed out: “Therefore, the Sinicization of Marxism, making it in every manifestation bear Chinese characteristics, that is, applying it according to China’s characteristics, has become a problem that the whole Party urgently needs to understand and solve.” [7]7 The General Line for the Transition Period (1953) was a policy that called for the simultaneous development of socialist industrialization and the socialist transformation of agriculture, handicrafts, and capitalist industry and commerce. This preliminarily elaborated the connotation and tasks of the Sinicization of Marxism, clearly indicating that the “Sinicization of Marxism” means applying, developing, and innovating Marxism according to “China’s characteristics.”

诚然马克思主义是具有永恒价值的普遍真理，但其国家制度学说毕竟是以西欧发达资本主义工业国为蓝本，而彼时毛泽东身处的国度却是半殖民地半封建的落后农业国，历史时代与现实国情的差异必然导致制度理论与制度实践之间产生龃龉，也迫使中国共产党人必须结合中国国情推动理论创新。然而，在中国共产党的幼年时期，党内“左”倾教条主义盛行一时，部分党员干部盲目崇信马列“本本”，没能将马克思主义基本原理与中国具体实际相结合，致使党内一度出现把马克思主义教条化、共产国际决议和苏联经验神圣化的错误倾向。这种错误倾向在制度层面集中表现为“一次革命论”与“二次革命论”的提出——部分党员干部认为中国革命的任务是直接建立社会主义制度，实现“毕其功于一役”，或认为应当在建立资本主义制度后再通过二次革命建立起社会主义制度，这些错误认知让中国革命遭受巨大损失。为清除党内这股不良风气的影响，毛泽东对“本本主义”进行了批评：“马克思主义的‘本本’是要学习的，但是必须同我国的实际情况相结合。我们需要‘本本’，但是一定要纠正脱离实际情况的本本主义。”提出了正确处理马克思主义基本原理与中国具体问题之间关系的基本态度，在六届六中全会上，毛泽东首次提出“马克思主义中国化”概念，他指出：“因此，马克思主义的中国化，使之在其每一表现中带着中国的特性，即是说，按照中国的特点去应用它，成为全党亟待了解并亟须解决的问题。”初步阐述了马克思主义中国化的内涵与任务，清晰地指出“马克思主义的中国化”就是要根据“中国的特点”应用马克思主义、发展马克思主义、创新马克思主义。

The proposal of the Sinicization of Marxism was a symbol of the Chinese revolution’s ideological independence. It not only promoted the ideological emancipation of the whole Party and broke the dogmatic superstition in institutional construction, but also laid the theoretical foundation for establishing the New Democratic system. Thus, Mao Zedong was able to break free from the shackles of intra-Party dogmatism and rationally analyze China’s actual national conditions and the problems faced in institutional construction. After sufficient investigation and research, Mao Zedong clearly pointed out: “The first stage of our revolution, the democratic revolution stage, is by no means short-lived. We are not utopian socialists; we cannot depart from current actual conditions… China’s arrival at the stage of socialism and communism” will be “a fairly long time later” than in economically highly developed Western countries. [8]8 Edgar Snow (1905–1972) was an American journalist who interviewed Mao in 1936 and wrote *Red Star Over China*. The “essay” metaphor is from Mao’s “The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party” (1939). Mao Zedong did not hesitate to state that the future of the New Democratic system was “to advance China into socialist society and communist society,” but he also soberly recognized that the extremely backward social conditions of China at that time were not yet sufficient to establish a communist system, and that “imperialism still exists, domestic reactionaries still exist, and domestic classes still exist.” [9]9 Mao Zedong, “Report to the Second Plenary Session of the Seventh Central Committee of the Communist Party of China” (March 1949). At this stage, on the one hand, the forces of various revolutionary classes within the country should be actively gathered, with “the democratic dictatorship of several revolutionary classes united against traitors and reactionaries” as the form of realization of the dictatorship of the proletariat during the New Democratic Revolution period. On the other hand, state power should be used to integrate “big banks, big industries, and big commerce,” promote the formation of a state-owned economy, and protect “the private property of other capitalists,” not prohibiting “the development of capitalist production that ‘does not dominate the livelihood of the people,’” [10]10 The Secretariat of the CPC Central Committee was the top executive body of the Party at the time. This statement was made in a meeting in 1952. thereby utilizing the endogenous momentum of private capitalism to achieve an increase in social productive forces. Thus, in the theoretical context of New Democracy, the opposing classes that classical Marxist writers believed were in conflict due to economic interest contradictions achieved united political construction and shared power. The public ownership economy and private ownership economy, considered irreconcilable in classical theory, also coexisted harmoniously and each found its proper place under the New Democratic system. This successfully resolved the problem of adapting the Marxist theory of state institutions to modern China’s national conditions and achieved the innovative development of the Marxist theory of state institutions in China.

马克思主义中国化的提出是中国革命在意识形态领域走向独立的象征，不仅促进了全党的思想解放，破除了制度建构中的教条主义迷信，也为建立新民主主义制度奠定理论基础。由此，毛泽东能够挣脱党内教条主义束缚，理性分析中国的实际国情与制度建构所面临的问题。在经过充分的调查研究后，毛泽东明确指出：“我们革命的第一阶段即民主革命阶段，决不是短暂的。我们不是空想家，我们不能离开当前的实际条件……中国到达社会主义和共产主义阶段”要比经济高度发达的西方国家“晚相当长的时间”。毛泽东毫不讳言新民主主义制度的前途就是“要将中国推进到社会主义社会和共产主义社会”，但他也清醒地认识到当时中国极端落后的社会条件还不足以建立共产主义制度，“帝国主义还存在，国内反动派还存在，国内阶级还存在”，在这一阶段，应当一方面积极汇聚国内各革命阶级的力量，以“几个革命阶级联合起来对于汉奸和反动派的民主专政”作为新民主主义革命时期无产阶级专政的实现形式，另一方面还要以国家力量整合“大银行、大工业、大商业”，推动国营经济的生成，并且保护“其他资本主义的私有财产”，不禁止“‘不能操纵国民生计’的资本主义生产的发展”，借助私人资本主义的内生动能实现社会生产力的提高。由此，在新民主主义的理论语境中，马克思主义经典作家所认为的因经济利益矛盾而彼此冲突的对立阶级实现了联合建政、共同掌权，在经典理论中被认为不可调和的公有制经济与私有制经济也在新民主主义制度下和谐共生、各得其所，由此成功解决马克思主义国家制度学说与近代中国国情相适应的问题，实现了马克思主义国家制度学说在中国的创新发展。

(2) Summarizing the Experience of New Democratic Political Power Construction to Lay the Practical Foundation for Institutional Construction

（二）总结新民主主义政权建设经验为制度建构奠定实践基础

The adaptation of the Marxist theory of state institutions to the Chinese context removed the theoretical shackles for the "emergence" of the New Democratic system. However, as Marx said: "All social life is essentially practical." The ultimate establishment of a system can never be accomplished through pure theoretical speculation alone; it must be realized through multiple cycles of "practice, cognition, re-practice, and re-cognition." [1]1 “Four beams and eight pillars” (四梁八柱) is a Chinese architectural metaphor for the main structural framework of a building, used here to refer to the fundamental components or mainstays of the New Democratic system. In the course of the New Democratic Revolution, the Communist Party of China, with Mao Zedong as its main representative, systematically transformed the politics, economy, and culture of old China, accumulating rich experience in regime building, which included both painful lessons of failure and advanced experiences of success. To codify these mature historical experiences and use them as the basis and guide for subsequent regime building, Mao Zedong, with his creative wisdom, condensed and standardized the experience of New Democratic regime building, laying the practical foundation for the construction of the New Democratic system.

马克思主义国家制度学说的中国化为新民主主义制度“出场”解除了理论桎梏，但诚如马克思所言：“全部社会生活在本质上是实践的。”制度的最终确立绝对无法通过单纯的理论思辨完成，而需要在“实践、认识、再实践、再认识”的多次循环中得到实现。在新民主主义革命的历程中，以毛泽东为主要代表的中国共产党人对旧中国的政治、经济、文化进行了系统性改造，积累了丰富的政权建设经验，其中既有惨痛的失败教训，也有先进的成功经验。为了将这些成熟的历史经验固定下来，并以之作为此后政权建设的依据与指南，毛泽东以其创造性的智慧将新民主主义政权建设经验进行凝练与规范，奠定了新民主主义制度建构的实践基础。

The first was reflecting on erroneous lessons. The harsh political environment during the later period of the Agrarian Revolutionary War led to many regrettable mistakes in the construction of the Soviet system under the leadership of the CPC. These lessons, still fresh in memory, became important material for Mao Zedong's self-examination. First, Mao Zedong deeply reflected on the practice of excessively pursuing a purely proletarian composition. He believed this practice "did not even want the petty bourgeoisie or the middle bourgeoisie, resulting in oneself becoming an air force commander, with the ranks getting smaller and smaller," [2]2 “Changes unseen in millennia” (数千年未有之大变局) is a phrase often attributed to the late Qing official Li Hongzhang, describing the profound transformation China faced due to Western imperialism in the 19th century. It is distinct from Xi and "drove the majority of the petty bourgeoisie to the side of the gentry and local tyrants, making them hang up white belts and oppose us," [3]3 “One country with three rulers” (一国三公) is a Chinese idiom from the Zuo Commentary (Zuozhuan), referring to a situation where multiple authorities issue conflicting orders, leading to chaos and indecision. ultimately leaving the CPC with no room for maneuver on class relations and isolating itself. Regarding the extreme tendency in class struggle to eliminate the landlord class at every turn and infringe upon the interests of the middle and rich peasants, Mao Zedong also offered sharp criticism, stating that "the tendency to infringe upon the middle peasants is the most serious danger" and is a "'Left' opportunist tendency." [4]4 The War of Resistance Against Japan (1937–1945) was the Chinese theater of World War II, in which the Chinese Communist Party and the Kuomintang formed a nominal united front against Japanese invasion. He pointed out that the middle and rich peasants, merchants, and the petty bourgeoisie should be united as much as possible, with special attention to correctly treating intellectuals, repeatedly emphasizing that "the incorrect attitude of our Party towards intellectuals in many places and many armies during the Agrarian Revolution must never be repeated in the future." [5]5 Mao Zedong, “On New Democracy” (January 1940). The original Chinese phrase is “有多少阶级就有多少主义.” Second, in terms of the economic system, Mao Zedong concentrated on drawing lessons from the treatment of the land issue and labor-capital relations during the Agrarian Revolutionary War. He proposed: "On the land issue, the problem of the middle peasants must be handled well; on the urban issue, the problem of the petty and middle bourgeoisie must be handled well. ... One-sidedly emphasizing the interests of the workers is wrong." [6]6 Huang Yanpei (1878–1965) was a prominent Chinese educator and political figure who served as Vice Premier of the State Council. The First Five-Year Plan (1953–1957) was China’s first comprehensive economic development plan. He sublated the practice of "giving no land to landlords and giving poor land to rich peasants," emphasizing that "land reform should adopt the policy of equal distribution of land; landlords should not get more, but they cannot get none." [7]7 The General Line for the Transition Period (1953) was a policy that called for the simultaneous development of socialist industrialization and the socialist transformation of agriculture, handicrafts, and capitalist industry and commerce. He also pointed out that the development of capitalism in accordance with Soviet laws should be advocated and encouraged, promoting the coordinated progress of the public and private sectors of the economy.

其一是反思错误教训。土地革命战争后期严酷的政治环境导致中共领导下的苏维埃制度建构出现了诸多令人扼腕痛惜的失误，这些殷鉴不远的教训成为毛泽东反躬自省的重要素材。首先，毛泽东对过分追求清一色无产阶级成分的做法进行了深刻反省，他认为这种做法“连小资产阶级、中产阶级也不要，结果自己变成了空军司令，队伍越打越小”，“把小资产阶级大部驱到豪绅一边，使他们挂起白带子反对我们”，最终导致中共在阶级关系问题上缺少回旋余地，使自己陷入孤立。针对动辄消灭地主阶级、侵犯中富农利益的阶级斗争极端化倾向，毛泽东也提出尖锐批评，认为“侵犯中农的倾向是最严重的危险”，是“‘左’的机会主义倾向”，他指出应当尽可能地团结中农富农、商人、小资产阶级，尤其要注重正确对待知识分子，多次强调“我们党在土地革命时期，许多地方许多军队对于知识分子的不正确态度，今后决不应重复”；其次，在经济制度方面，毛泽东集中汲取土地革命战争时期对待土地问题与劳资关系时的教训，他提出：“在土地问题上一定要把中农问题处理好，在城市问题上一定要把中小资产阶级问题处理好。……片面强调工人利益是错误的。”对“地主不分田、富农分坏田”的做法进行了扬弃，强调“土地改革应该采取平分土地的方针，地主不要多分，但不能不分”。并且指出应当提倡和奖励符合苏维埃法律的资本主义的发展，推动公营经济与私营经济协同并进。

The second was summarizing successful experiences. During the period of the War of Resistance Against Japan and the War of Liberation, the CPC achieved great successes in regime building in various base areas, which also provided important experience for Mao Zedong's thinking on how to establish a nationwide democratic regime. After the outbreak of the full-scale War of Resistance, the CPC implemented the "Three-Thirds System" [8]8 Edgar Snow (1905–1972) was an American journalist who interviewed Mao in 1936 and wrote *Red Star Over China*. The “essay” metaphor is from Mao’s “The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party” (1939). in the base areas, meaning that in the anti-Japanese democratic regimes, Communists, non-Party leftist progressives, and middle-of-the-roaders each accounted for one-third. After the outbreak of the War of Liberation, the CPC transformed the anti-Japanese democratic regime that implemented the "Three-Thirds System" into an anti-imperialist and anti-feudal people's democratic regime, encompassing various class groups such as workers, peasants, the urban petty bourgeoisie, the national bourgeoisie, enlightened gentry, other patriots, ethnic minorities, and overseas Chinese. This practice not only consolidated the democratic rights of the worker and peasant masses, united the non-proletariat, and stimulated the masses' enthusiasm for political participation, but also made the CPC's base areas a model of democracy in the hearts of the people nationwide at that time. It also made Mao Zedong understand that in China during the New Democratic Revolution, the joint dictatorship of the working class and various revolutionary classes was highly beneficial. Therefore, he summarized: "To sum up our experience and concentrate it into one point, it is the people's democratic dictatorship led by the working class (through the Communist Party) and based on the worker-peasant alliance." [9]9 Mao Zedong, “Report to the Second Plenary Session of the Seventh Central Committee of the Communist Party of China” (March 1949). At the same time, Mao Zedong also promptly summarized the good practices formed in economic construction. During the full-scale War of Resistance, the policy of "reducing rent and interest" [10]10 The Secretariat of the CPC Central Committee was the top executive body of the Party at the time. This statement was made in a meeting in 1952. implemented in the border areas successfully mobilized the enthusiasm of both peasants and landlords. The policy of "land to the tiller" [11]11 The figure of 3.62 million bales (件) is a standard unit for cotton yarn in Chinese industrial statistics of the period. implemented after the outbreak of the War of Liberation created enormous productive forces. This made Mao Zedong deeply realize once again that the key to the Chinese revolution lay in the land issue, and to solve the land issue, it was necessary to carry out land reform and eliminate the feudal land system. "Only by eliminating the feudal system can conditions be created for developing agricultural production." [12]12 The War of Resistance Against Japan (1937–1945) is the Chinese term for the Second Sino-Japanese War. Moreover, because Mao Zedong proposed the idea of "taking care of both public and private interests" [13]13 The Northeast region (Manchuria) was the first major area to be fully liberated by the CPC in 1948–1949. during the War of Resistance, which released the momentum of both the public and private sectors of the economy and achieved a significant increase in productive forces in the border areas, freeing them from the economic predicament of "relying on imports for all daily necessities except grain and wool, from cotton cloth to needles and thread, and even the bowls for eating," [14]14 “Communized” (共产) here refers to the peasant fear that their property would be forcibly taken and redistributed under communism, a misunderstanding of socialist policy prevalent during the land reform period. Mao Zedong also saw the importance of the common development of different forms of ownership. That is, on the one hand, making the state-owned economy the leading component of the entire national economy, and on the other hand, not restricting the private capitalist economy too tightly. "It must be allowed room for existence and development within the orbit of the economic policies and plans of the People's Republic," [15]15 Mao Zedong, “On the Question of Agricultural Cooperation” (1955), in *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, Vol. 5. giving play to the initiative of various ownership components to serve the economic development of New China.

其二是总结成功经验。全面抗战时期和解放战争时期，中共在各根据地开展政权建设取得巨大成就，也为毛泽东思考如何创立全国性民主政权提供了重要经验。全面抗战爆发后，中共在各根据地开展“三三制”实践，亦即在抗日民主政权中，使得共产党员、非党的左派进步分子、不左不右的中间派各占三分之一，解放战争爆发后，中共又将实行“三三制”的抗日民主政权转变为反帝反封建的人民民主政权，使之囊括工人、农民、城市小资产阶级、民族资产阶级、开明绅士、其他爱国分子、少数民族和海外华侨等各个阶级群体，这种做法不仅巩固了工农群众的民主权利，团结了非无产阶级，激发了民众的参政热情，更让中共根据地成为彼时全国人民心中的民主典范，也让毛泽东明白了在新民主主义革命时期的中国，实行工人阶级领导的各革命阶级联合大有裨益，因此他总结道：“总结我们的经验，集中到一点，就是工人阶级（经过共产党）领导的以工农联盟为基础的人民民主专政。”与此同时，毛泽东也及时总结经济建设中形成的好做法。全面抗战时期边区推行“减租减息”政策成功调动起农民与地主两方面的积极性，解放战争爆发后实行的“耕者有其田”政策又创造了巨大的生产力，这让毛泽东再次深刻认识到中国革命的关键在于土地问题，而要解决土地问题，就必须开展土地改革、消灭封建土地制度，“只有消灭封建制度，才能取得发展农业生产的条件”。不仅如此，由于抗战时期毛泽东提出“公私兼顾”的主张，释放了公营经济与民营经济两方面的动能，实现了边区生产力的显著提高，使边区摆脱“除粮食、羊毛外，其他一切日用所需，从棉布到针线，甚至吃饭的碗，均靠外来”的经济困境，因而也让毛泽东看到了不同所有制经济共同发展的重要性，亦即一方面使国营经济成为整个国民经济的领导成分，另一方面又不能将私人资本主义经济限制太死，“必须容许它们在人民共和国的经济政策和经济计划的轨道内有存在和发展的余地”，发挥各种所有制成分的积极性，使之服务于新中国的经济发展。

II. Constructing the Four Pillars and Eight Beams of the New Democratic System [16]16 Mao Zedong, “Instructions on the Document of the United Front Work Department of the CPC Central Committee” (June 1952), in *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, Vol. 5.

二、构筑新民主主义制度的四梁八柱

"We are not only good at destroying the old world, we are also good at building a new world." [17]17 Mao Zedong, “Critique of Stalin’s *Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR*” (1958), in *Mao Zedong’s Manuscripts Since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China*, Vol. 7. Mao Zedong created the prerequisite conditions for the establishment of the New Democratic system. The ensuing question was how to design the framework of the New Democratic system on this basis, making it an institutional form suitable for China's national conditions and capable of promoting China's development. In fact, from the 1930s to the 1950s, Mao Zedong was constantly thinking about how to turn the New Democratic system from theory into reality. He closely centered on the three dimensions of politics, economy, and culture in his institutional design, ultimately constructing the New Democratic system with the political system, economic system, and cultural system as its four pillars and eight beams.

“我们不但善于破坏一个旧世界，我们还将善于建设一个新世界。”毛泽东为新民主主义制度的确立创造了前提性条件，那么接踵而至的问题在于，应当如何在此基础上设计新民主主义制度的架构，使其成为适宜中国国情、推动中国发展的制度形态？事实上，自二十世纪三十年代到五十年代，毛泽东始终思考着新民主主义制度怎样由理论变为现实的问题，并紧密围绕政治、经济、文化三重维度进行制度设计，最终构筑起以政治制度、经济制度与文化制度为四梁八柱的新民主主义制度。

(I) A Political System Unifying Party Leadership and the Realization of People's Democracy

（一）坚持党的领导与实现人民民主相统一的政治制度

Establishing a fine political system and achieving political liberation had been a consistent theme in the exploration of institutions since the late Qing Dynasty. Several generations of Chinese intellectuals, including Mao Zedong, had devoted great efforts to this. However, in Mao Zedong's view, the institutional plans proposed by his predecessors—whether constitutional monarchy, parliamentary system, multi-party system, or presidential system—were merely simple transplants of foreign political systems and failed to solve the problems of China's lack of democracy and political chaos. Moreover

建立优良政治制度，实现政治解放是清末以来制度探索一以贯之的课题，包括毛泽东在内的几代中国知识群体都为此付出了极大心力，然而在毛泽东看来，前人提出的制度方案——不论是君主立宪制、议会制，又或是多党制、总统制，都仅仅只是对外国政治制度的简单移植，未能解决中国民主缺乏、政治混乱的问题，不仅如此，辛亥鼎革后的历届政府也仅仅只是装点了民主制度的景观，绝大多数底层民众仍未能享有民主权利，甚至不知民主为何物，“任何人都没有选举权被选举权及一切政治的自由，只有地主、豪绅、资本家、军阀、官僚——中国人民中万分之十的，有任意侵略、支配、鞭打以至任意屠杀的自由权。……即便是‘最民权主义的’——国民会议也绝对不能给工农群众以平等自由”。因此，毛泽东在建构新民主主义政治制度时尤为注重民主价值的真正实现，他在《新民主主义论》中简明扼要地指出，新民主主义政治制度就是建立各革命阶级联合专政的国体和民主集中制的政体。

In terms of the form of the state, the joint dictatorship of all revolutionary classes means not only that the working class and the peasantry, which had never before held ruling status, can enjoy full democratic rights, but also that the national bourgeoisie and the petty bourgeoisie, which had been deprived of political rights under the Soviet system, can occupy important positions in political life and play a decisive role. Mao Zedong particularly emphasized that the CPC should consult with non-Party democratic figures representing non-proletarian classes on government affairs, divide labor and cooperate with them, and even actively help them achieve results. He especially pointed out that after destroying the dictatorship of the comprador big bourgeoisie and the big landlord class, it must never be replaced by a “one-party dictatorship of the Communist Party”; instead, all revolutionary classes should be able to make their own contributions to the New Democratic political power. The form of government of the New Democratic system adopts the form of democratic centralism, that is, establishing people’s congresses at all levels as institutions for the people to exercise their democratic rights. Mao Zedong believed: “Only this system can both express broad democracy, giving people’s congresses at all levels high authority, and concentrate on handling state affairs, enabling governments at all levels to concentrate on handling all affairs entrusted to them by people’s congresses at all levels, and to guarantee all necessary democratic activities of the people.” After the founding of New China, because the conditions for convening people’s congresses at all levels did not yet exist domestically, the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference exercised the functions of the National People’s Congress at the central level, while the system of people’s representative conferences was established at the local level. Mao Zedong particularly emphasized the substantive exercise of the rights of people’s representatives. He pointed out: “All important work of the people’s government should be discussed by the people’s representative conferences… It is necessary to ensure that the representatives attending the people’s representative conferences have full right to speak; any action that suppresses the speech of people’s representatives is wrong.” The joint creation of these democratic institutions established the “political conditions of New Democracy,” laying the political foundation for the development of various undertakings in New China.

就国体而论，各革命阶级联合专政不仅意味着过去从未获得统治地位的工人阶级与农民阶级能够享有充分的民主权利，而且在苏维埃制度下被剥夺政治权利的民族资产阶级、小资产阶级也都能够在政治生活中占据要津，发挥举足轻重的作用，毛泽东格外强调中共应当同作为非无产阶级代表的党外民主人士商量政务、分工协作，甚至主动帮助党外人士做出成绩，尤其指出绝不能在破坏买办大资产阶级和大地主阶级的专政后代之以“共产党的一党专政”，而是让各革命阶级都能在新民主主义政权做出自己的贡献；新民主主义制度的政体则采用民主集中制的形式，亦即建立各级人民代表大会作为人民行使民主权利的机构，毛泽东认为：“只有这个制度，才既能表现广泛的民主，使各级人民代表大会有高度的权力；又能集中处理国事，使各级政府能集中地处理被各级人民代表大会所委托的一切事务，并保障人民的一切必要的民主活动。”新中国成立后，由于国内尚未具备召开各级人民代表大会的条件，因此在中央由中国人民政治协商会议代行全国人大职能，在地方则建立人民代表会议制度。毛泽东尤为强调人民代表权利的切实发挥，他指出：“人民政府的一切重要工作都应交人民代表会议讨论……必须使出席人民代表会议的代表们有充分的发言权，任何压制人民代表发言的行动都是错误的。”这些民主制度的建立共同创造了“新民主主义的政治条件”，为新中国各项事业的开展奠定政治基础。

Admittedly, the New Democratic system possesses the pluralistic characteristic of a joint dictatorship of all revolutionary classes, but this does not negate the unified leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. In Mao Zedong’s institutional conception, the Chinese Communist Party is the intermediary for the realization of people’s democracy. “Without a revolutionary party like the Communist Party, it would be simply impossible for the people to overthrow the oppression of their enemies.” Therefore, the Chinese Communist Party should play a leading role in the New Democratic political power and become the pillar of the New Democratic system. In 1943, Mao Zedong, in “The Ten Policies for the Anti-Japanese Base Areas,” expounded on the importance of adhering to the unified and centralized leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. He pointed out: “Implementing centralized leadership is very important; a leading core must be established, and ‘one country with three rulers’ must be opposed.” [3]3 “One country with three rulers” (一国三公) is a Chinese idiom from the Zuo Commentary (Zuozhuan), referring to a situation where multiple authorities issue conflicting orders, leading to chaos and indecision. After the founding of New China, Party leadership was further legalized and systematized. In December 1952, Mao Zedong proposed: “All major and important policies, guidelines, and plans must be uniformly stipulated by the Party Central Committee, formulating Party resolutions and directives, or reviewing and approving proposals from responsible comrades of relevant organs and Party groups.” This once again clarified the leading position of the Chinese Communist Party in the political system of New China. Mao Zedong also emphasized that this leading position does not mean “arrogantly forcing others to obey us,” but rather “persuading and educating non-Party figures through the Party’s correct policies and its own exemplary work, so that they are willing to accept our suggestions.” In fact, adhering to the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party is also the main characteristic distinguishing the New Democratic system from general democratic republic systems. It is precisely under the leadership of the advanced proletarian party that the New Democratic system can function well, avoiding the risk of extreme democratization while preventing the New Democratic political power from falling into the rut of bourgeois old democracy, thereby bringing genuine well-being to the masses.

诚然，新民主主义制度具有各革命阶级联合专政的多元性特征，但并不否认中国共产党的一元化领导。在毛泽东的制度构想中，中国共产党是人民民主实现的中介，“如果没有共产党这样的革命党，人民要想推翻敌人的压迫，简直是不可能的”，因而中国共产党更应当在新民主主义政权中发挥领导作用，成为新民主主义制度的顶梁柱。1943年，毛泽东在《抗日根据地的十大政策》中阐述了坚持中国共产党统一的一元化领导的重要性，他指出：“实行一元化的领导很重要，要建立领导核心，反对‘一国三公’。”新中国成立后，党的领导进一步法制化、体系化，毛泽东在1952年12月提出：“一切主要的和重要的方针、政策、计划都必须统一由党中央规定，制定党的决议、指示，或对各有关机关负责同志及党组的建议予以审查批准。”再一次明确了中国共产党在新中国政治体系中的领导地位，毛泽东也强调这种领导地位并非“盛气凌人地要人家服从我们”，“而是以党的正确政策和自己的模范工作，说服和教育党外人士，使他们愿意接受我们的建议”。事实上，坚持中国共产党领导也是新民主主义制度区别于一般民主共和制度的主要特征，正是在先进的无产阶级政党领导下，新民主主义制度才能良好运行，既规避极端民主化的风险，又使新民主主义政权不落于资产阶级旧民主的窠臼，为人民群众带来真正福祉。

(2) An Economic System Unifying the Elimination of the Exploitation System and the Liberation of Social Productive Forces

（二）消灭剥削制度与解放社会生产力相统一的经济制度

Material backwardness was an important characteristic of modern China and also the root of the modernity anxiety of modern Chinese intellectual groups. However, from the “Hundred Days’ Reform” to the “May Fourth Movement,” most political factions understood institutional construction as a mere change of political system, reducing economic liberation to a matter of implements or policies. Sun Yat-sen was one of the few pioneers who regarded economic development as an institutional issue. After recognizing the maladies of the feudal land system and the capitalist system, he put forward the propositions of “equalization of land rights” and “regulation of capital,” treating economic issues institutionally. Coincidentally, the core concept of Mao Zedong’s design of the New Democratic economic system happened to coincide with Sun Yat-sen’s. Specifically, at the level of ownership, Mao Zedong intended to create a form of ownership characterized by “one mainstay with multiple coexistences,” that is, on the basis of recognizing the corresponding status of the state-owned economy, the cooperative economy, the individual economy, the national capitalist economy, and the state capitalist economy, promoting the “division of labor and cooperation, each getting its due, to promote the development of the entire social economy” under the leadership of the state-owned economy. At the level of the economic system, Mao Zedong advocated establishing an economic system where planning and the market coexisted. In 1942, Mao Zedong put forward the institutional concept of “unified leadership and decentralized management,” pointing out that from the central government down to the county level, “strong leading organs should be established to unify all production undertakings, uniformly stipulating enterprise management policies by system and level, uniformly adjusting the mutual relations among enterprises, and uniformly inspecting the management methods of enterprises.” That is, on the one hand, the Chinese Communist Party guides and coordinates the macroeconomy, establishes relevant economic planning units, compiles a series of national economic plans, and establishes the Party’s and the state’s leadership over economic work. On the other hand, because the state-owned economy had not yet occupied a dominant position under the conditions of the New Democratic system, Mao Zedong advocated allowing the market mechanism to play a substantially leading role, granting the private economy full operational rights and autonomy. This kind of New Democratic ownership and economic system also achieved a transcendence of classical Marxism and the traditional Soviet model.

物质落后是近代中国的重要特征，也是近代中国知识群体现代性焦虑的根源。但从“戊戌”到“五四”，多数政治派别都把制度建构理解为单纯的政治制度改易，将经济解放归结为器物或政策层面的问题。孙中山是少有的将经济发展视作制度问题的先行者，他在体认封建土地制度和资本主义制度弊病后，提出“平均地权”与“节制资本”的主张，将经济问题进行了制度化处理。无独有偶，毛泽东设计新民主主义经济制度的核心理念恰与孙中山相暗合。具体言之，毛泽东在所有制层面意图创造一种“一主多存”的所有制形式，亦即在承认国营经济、合作社经济、个体经济、民族资本主义经济、国家资本主义经济相应地位的基础上，推动各种社会经济成分在国营经济领导下“分工合作，各得其所，以促进整个社会经济的发展”。在经济体制层面，毛泽东则主张建立计划与市场并存的经济体制。1942年，毛泽东提出了“统一领导、分散经营”的制度理念，指出从中央到县署“均应建立关于统一一切生产事业的强有力的领导机关，按系统按级统一企业经营方针、统一调整各企业相互间的关系，统一检查各企业的经营方法。”亦即一方面由中国共产党对宏观经济进行引导与统筹，设立相关经济计划单位，编制一系列国民经济计划，确立党和国家对经济工作的领导权。另一方面，又由于国营经济在新民主主义制度条件下尚未占据主体地位，因此毛泽东主张让市场机制在实质上发挥主导作用，给予私营经济充分的经营权与自主权。这样一种新民主主义的所有制和经济体制也实现了对经典马克思主义和传统苏联模式的超越。

In practice, Mao Zedong’s design of the New Democratic economic system focused primarily on the development of agriculture and industry and commerce: in the countryside, the New Democratic system was established on the basis of abolishing the feudal land system. For a long time, the feudal land system constituted a deep-seated hidden danger underlying the cycles of order and chaos, rise and fall, of ancient Chinese dynasties. Even though the feudal economy had been battered by imperialist economic aggression in modern times, “the foundation of the feudal exploitative system—the exploitation of peasants by the landlord class” still held “an obvious advantage.” Therefore, to break free from the shackles of feudalism, it was necessary to discard the feudal land system. As Mao Zedong pointed out: “Abolishing the feudal system and developing agricultural production lays the foundation for the task of developing industrial production and transforming an agricultural country into an industrial country—this is the ultimate goal of the New Democratic Revolution.” From the period of the War of Resistance Against Japan [4]4 The War of Resistance Against Japan (1937–1945) was the Chinese theater of World War II, in which the Chinese Communist Party and the Kuomintang formed a nominal united front against Japanese invasion. through to the founding of New China, the New Democratic economic system underwent a developmental process from “reducing rent and interest” to “land to the tiller,” ultimately completely dismantling the feudal land system that had imprisoned peasants for millennia, and the landlord class was entirely eliminated as a class. After the abolition of the feudal land system, the CPC did not immediately “strike while the iron was hot” to push for agricultural collectivization. Instead, in accordance with the principles of the New Democratic system, it required all localities to protect peasants’ land ownership rights and land disposal rights, encouraging peasants to actively produce, “produce more grain, produce more industrial raw materials, produce more goods for export, accumulate capital, enable the country to move toward industrialization, and then in turn raise agricultural production and improve peasants’ livelihoods.” In the cities, the core issue was how to eliminate backward economic components in order to develop advanced economic forms. As Mao Zedong also said: “In the entire process of the economic enterprise shifting from the old track to the New Democratic track, there will inevitably be a large number of commercial firms and handicraft industries that need to change their line of business and undergo reorganization.” Consequently, a large amount of the original bureaucratic capitalist economy and imperialist economy was confiscated, and new economic components gradually took shape. However, overall, compared with private capitalism and the individual economy, under the conditions of the New Democratic system, the state-owned economy with a socialist nature and the state capitalist economy with a semi-socialist nature accounted for a much smaller proportion of the national economy. Therefore, Mao Zedong repeatedly emphasized not to “strike out in all directions,” but rather, while gradually strengthening the leading role of the state-owned economy, to support and assist private capitalism, thereby accelerating the development of social productive forces and the recovery of the national economy.

实际上，毛泽东对新民主主义经济制度的设计主要着眼于农业与工商业经济的发展：在农村，新民主主义制度是在废除封建土地制度的基础上确立起来的。长期以来，封建土地制度构成了中国古代王朝治乱兴衰的深层隐患，即使近代以降封建经济饱受帝国主义经济侵略的冲击，但“封建剥削制度的根基——地主阶级对农民的剥削”依然占尽“显然的优势”，因此，若要摆脱封建主义桎梏，就必然要摈弃封建土地制度，正如毛泽东指出：“消灭封建制度，发展农业生产，就给发展工业生产，变农业国为工业国的任务奠定了基础，这就是新民主主义革命的最后目的。”自全面抗战时期到新中国成立后，新民主主义经济制度经过了一个从“减租减息”到“耕者有其田”的发展过程，最终彻底瓦解了禁锢农民数千年的封建土地制度，地主作为一个阶级被完全消灭。在封建土地制度被废除后，中共也并没有马上“趁热打铁”推动农业集体化，而是根据新民主主义的制度原则，要求各地保护农民的土地所有权和土地处置权，鼓励农民积极生产，“多打粮食，多生产工业原料，多生产外销物资，积累资本，使国家走向工业化，然后反转过来再提高农业生产，再改善农民生活”；在城市，核心问题在于如何消灭落后的经济成分以发展先进的经济形态，亦如毛泽东所说：“在整个经济事业由旧的轨道转入新民主主义轨道中，当有一大批商行和手工业需要转业和改组，这是不可避免的。”因此，大量原有的官僚资本主义经济和帝国主义经济被没收，新的经济成分逐步形成，但总体而言，较之私人资本主义与个体经济，新民主主义制度条件下具有社会主义性质和半社会主义性质的国营经济与国家资本主义在国民经济中所占的比重要小得多，所以毛泽东也反复强调不要“四面出击”，而是在逐步增强国营经济领导作用的同时扶持、帮助私人资本主义，以此加快社会生产力发展和国民经济恢复。

As mentioned above, acknowledging and utilizing urban and rural private capitalism was a distinctive feature of the New Democratic economic system, but transcending the capitalist mode of production and its operational logic was also the historical mission entrusted to the New Democratic economic system. It is undeniable that the development of private capitalism played a role in promoting the liberation of social productive forces, but it also inevitably led to the emergence of exploitation. Admittedly, Mao Zedong recognized that the development of capitalism was “an unavoidable result of the victory of the democratic revolution in economically backward China,” but the ultimate ideal of abolishing the exploitative system and achieving communism still stood in a tense contradictory relationship with the social reality under the New Democratic system. Therefore, Mao Zedong paid particular attention to guiding and regulating private capitalism. He constantly emphasized that “restricting and counter-restricting private capitalism will be the main form of class struggle within the New Democratic state.” He not only called on peasants to “organize themselves” and gradually achieve collectivization through cooperatives, thereby overcoming the “eternal poverty” caused by individual production, but also remained vigilant against private capital in the industrial and commercial sectors that might “manipulate the national economy and people’s livelihoods.” He harbored doubts about industrialists and businessmen who, without leadership and restrictions, sought free development, blind production, and excessive profits, requiring private capitalism to abide by national policies and laws, submit to the leadership of the state-owned economy and the national production plan, thereby stimulating the vitality of private capitalism while guarding against its potential to corrode the political power.

如前所述，承认与利用城乡私人资本主义是新民主主义经济制度的鲜明特色，但超越资本主义生产方式及其运行逻辑也同样是新民主主义经济制度所肩负的历史使命。不可否认，私人资本主义发展对社会生产力解放起到了促进作用，但也无可避免地导致剥削现象产生。诚然，毛泽东承认资本主义发展“是经济落后的中国在民主革命胜利之后不可避免的结果”，但消灭剥削制度，实现共产主义的最高理想仍同新民主主义制度下的社会现实存在着紧张的矛盾关系。因此，毛泽东尤为注重引导与规范私人资本主义，他不断强调对私人资本主义经济的“限制和反限制，将是新民主主义国家内部阶级斗争的主要形式”，不仅号召农民“组织起来”，通过合作社逐渐实现集体化，以此克服个体生产所导致的“永远的穷苦”，而且也始终警惕工商业领域可能“操纵国计民生”的私人资本，对不受领导和限制而想自由发展、盲目生产、贪图暴利的工商业家心怀疑虑，要求私人资本主义遵守国家政策法令、服从国营经济和国家生产计划的领导，在激发私人资本主义活力的同时又防范其对政权的反噬。

(3) A Cultural System Unifying National Form, Scientific Content, and Mass Orientation

（三）民族的形式、科学的内容、大众的方向相统一的文化制度

Although modern China was not lacking in explorers of cultural issues, Mao Zedong was one of the few practitioners who successfully shaped and institutionalized a new culture. His attention to and emphasis on the cultural system also became a hallmark distinguishing him from other contemporary institutional explorers. In Mao Zedong’s understanding, the cultural system was a reflection of the political and economic systems, but the former also “exerts a great influence and effect on” the latter. Therefore, the institutional construction of the new political power required not only “smashing the old state machinery” and replacing it with a completely new political and economic system, but also, more importantly, matching it with a corresponding set of ideological systems.

近代中国虽然不乏文化议题的探讨者，但毛泽东是少有的成功将一套新文化定型化、制度化的实践者，对文化制度的关注与重视也成为毛泽东区别于其他同时代制度探索者的标志所在。在毛泽东的认知中，文化制度是政治制度、经济制度的反映，但前者同时也“给予伟大影响和作用于”后者。因此，新政权的制度建设除了要“打碎旧有的国家机器”，代之以全新的政治经济体制外，更需要匹配一套与之相适应的意识形态体系。

As Mao Zedong pointed out, the semi-colonial and semi-feudal nature of modern China brought unprecedented cultural disasters to the Chinese nation. Not only were “extensive feudal remnants” preserved—ninety percent of the people were unable to receive cultural education, and “superstitious ideas still influenced the broad masses”—but imperialism also, through cultural aggression, spiritually “shattered the national consciousness of the Chinese people,” making “every Chinese person can only be a docile subject, a beast of burden, without the slightest trace of Chinese spirit,” thereby impacting and even disintegrating the original cultural system and values of the Chinese people. Moreover, with the development of the modern economy, the urban bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie also gave rise to a bourgeois culture that despised workers and peasants and was lax and undisciplined. This cultural trend, as the CPC’s ranks grew, flooded into the Party, negatively affecting the ideological understanding of Party cadres and the shaping of the Party’s mainstream culture. Therefore, Mao Zedong proposed using a national culture to oppose imperialist culture, a scientific culture to replace feudalist culture, and a mass culture to eliminate bourgeois culture. Under the guidance of Marxism, the unification of national form, scientific content, and mass orientation was to be achieved. In summary, it was to replace the old culture with a New Democratic culture and establish it in an institutional form, so that it would ultimately fill the spiritual world of the Chinese people. In his view, if the New Democratic ideology could not be institutionalized, then the “reactionary alliance” formed by the “very close brothers” of imperialist culture and feudalist culture might stage a comeback, once again dominate people’s minds, and consequently shake the New Democratic political and economic systems.

诚如毛泽东指出，近代中国的半殖民地半封建属性给中华民族带来了前所未有的文化灾难，不仅“广大的封建遗迹”得到保留——百分之九十的人民未能受到文化教育，“迷信思想还在影响广大的群众”，而且帝国主义也通过文化侵略在精神上“摧残中国人民的民族意识”，使得“每个中国人只能当顺民，做牛马，不许有一丝一毫的中国气”，冲击乃至瓦解中国人原有的文化系统和价值观念。不仅如此，随着现代经济的发展，城市资产阶级与小资产阶级也滋生出轻视工农、自由散漫的资产阶级文化，这股文化风气伴随中国共产党队伍的壮大而涌入党内，对党员干部的思想认识和党内主流文化的塑造造成了消极影响。因此毛泽东提出，要以民族的文化反对帝国主义文化，以科学的文化置换封建主义文化，以大众的文化消弭资产阶级文化，在马克思主义的指导下，实现民族的形式、科学的内容、大众的方向相统一，概言之，就是以新民主主义文化取代旧文化，并以制度的形式将其确立下来，使其最终充盈中国人民的精神世界。在他看来，如若不能将新民主主义的意识形态加以制度化，那么帝国主义文化、封建主义文化这对“非常亲热的两兄弟”所组成的“反动同盟”就有可能卷土重来，重新统治人们的头脑，继而动摇新民主主义的政治制度与经济制度。

Of course, developing New Democratic culture does not mean that the ideology of the Chinese people should be fixed in one mold, but rather that consensus among different ideologies should be sought as far as possible. Mao Zedong profoundly recognized that “under conditions where classes exist, there are as many isms as there are classes, and even within a single class, different groups have their own isms.” [5]5 Mao Zedong, “On New Democracy” (January 1940). The original Chinese phrase is “有多少阶级就有多少主义.” Since the New Democratic regime implements a joint dictatorship of all revolutionary classes, the bourgeoisie, the urban petty bourgeoisie, the working class, and the peasant class not only exist within the New Democratic Republic but also, from their respective class standpoints, form different ideologies. The New Democratic cultural system does not aim to eliminate the cultural barriers between classes and unify them under the thought of the working class (i.e., Marxism). Rather, while acknowledging the objective existence of class cultural differences, it strengthens the influence of working-class thought, purges feudalist and imperialist thought that does not conform to New Democratic principles, and criticizes the ideological systems of the bourgeoisie, the petty bourgeoisie, and the peasant class. In this way, it promotes a national, scientific, and mass New Democratic culture that takes root among the people and establishes the leading position of Marxism among the masses. In a 1952 letter to Huang Yanpei, Mao also frankly stated: “To demand that the bourgeoisie accept the basic ideas of the working class... is to demand that the bourgeoisie accept socialism. This may be possible for a few progressive individuals, but it is inappropriate to demand it of them as a class, at least not during the period of the First Five-Year Plan.” [6]6 Huang Yanpei (1878–1965) was a prominent Chinese educator and political figure who served as Vice Premier of the State Council. The First Five-Year Plan (1953–1957) was China’s first comprehensive economic development plan. Thus, the New Democratic cultural system seeks a “greatest common divisor” of ideology among the revolutionary classes. It does not expect the non-proletarian classes to quickly accept Marxism. It even criticizes the slogans raised by some universities to “smash all non-proletarian thought” and the behavior of forcing non-proletarian classes to accept Marxism, regarding such attempts to deny the existence of non-proletarian thought as both contrary to objective reality and inconsistent with the spirit of the New Democratic system, confusing the propaganda of Marxism with that of New Democracy.

当然，发展新民主主义文化并不意味着要让中国人民的意识形态就此定于一尊，而是尽可能地谋求不同意识形态间的共识。毛泽东深刻地认识到，“在阶级存在的条件之下，有多少阶级就有多少主义，甚至一个阶级的各集团中还各有各的主义。”由于新民主主义政权实行各革命阶级联合专政，因此，资产阶级、城市小资产阶级、工人阶级、农民阶级不仅存在于新民主主义共和国之中，而且出于各自的阶级立场会形成不同的意识形态。新民主主义文化制度不是要消除各个阶级之间的文化壁垒，将其统一于工人阶级的思想（亦即马克思主义），而是在承认阶级文化差异客观存在的同时，强化工人阶级思想影响力，并对不符合新民主主义原则的封建主义思想、帝国主义思想进行肃清，对于资产阶级、小资产阶级、农民阶级的思想体系进行批评，由此促进民族的、科学的、大众的新民主主义文化深入人心，并在人民群众中树立马克思主义的领导地位。毛泽东在1952年致黄炎培的信中也坦言：“要求资产阶级接受工人阶级的基本思想，……这就是要求资产阶级接受社会主义。这些对于少数进步分子说来是可能的，当作一个阶级，则不宜这样要求，至少在第一个五年计划时期不宜如此宣传。”由此可见，新民主主义文化制度是要在各革命阶级之间谋求一个意识形态的“最大公约数”，并不奢求非无产阶级能够迅速接受马克思主义，甚至对一些高校提出“打垮一切非无产阶级思想”的口号、强迫非无产阶级接受马克思主义的行为提出批评，认为这种企图否认非无产阶级思想存在的想法既违背客观情况，也不符合新民主主义制度精神，是将马克思主义宣传和新民主主义宣传混为一谈。

III. Exploring the Direction of Transformation of the New Democratic System

三、探索新民主主义制度的转变方向

The New Democratic system was an important intermediary spanning the historical fate of two major social systems in 20th-century China—its formation accompanied the end of the system of semi-colonial and semi-feudal society, and its transformation witnessed the birth of the socialist system. In particular, the transformation from New Democracy to socialism “achieved the most extensive and profound social change in the history of the Chinese nation,” shaping the basic social form of contemporary China and leaving an even more brilliant mark on the history of the Party and the state. However, this historic transformation occurred with remarkable speed and suddenness. Less than three years after the New Democratic system was fully established, Mao Zedong put forward the strategic policy of the “General Line for the Transition Period,” [7]7 The General Line for the Transition Period (1953) was a policy that called for the simultaneous development of socialist industrialization and the socialist transformation of agriculture, handicrafts, and capitalist industry and commerce. setting in motion the specific matters of the transformation of the New Democratic system. He not only clarified the “timeline” for the system’s transformation but also meticulously depicted the “roadmap” for it, driving China’s transition from a New Democratic state to a socialist state.

新民主主义制度是横贯20世纪中国两大社会制度历史命运的重要中介——其生成史伴随着半殖民地半封建社会制度体系的终结，其转变史见证了社会主义制度的诞生。尤其是从新民主主义向社会主义的转变“实现了中华民族有史以来最为广泛而深刻的社会变革”，塑造了当代中国的基本社会形态，使其在党和国家的历史上留下了更为浓墨重彩的一笔。然而，这场历史巨变的发生又显得尤为迅速且突然，在新民主主义制度完全确立后不到三年，毛泽东就提出了“过渡时期总路线”的战略方针，着手新民主主义制度转变的具体事宜，不仅明确了制度转变的“时间表”，更详尽描绘了制度转变的“路线图”，推动中国由新民主主义国家转变为社会主义国家。

(I) Clarifying the “Timeline” for the Transformation of the New Democratic System

（一）明确新民主主义制度转变的“时间表”

“The fundamental issue is the system issue; the system determines the direction a country takes. ... When the social system changes, the direction the country takes will change accordingly.” Where was the New Democratic system to go? On this question, Mao Zedong had already determined its future and destination—the transition to socialism—as early as the initial construction of the New Democratic system. In 1939, in a conversation with Edgar Snow, Mao compared the New Democratic revolution and the socialist revolution to the first and second parts of an essay: “If the first part of the essay is not done well, the second part cannot be started.” [8]8 Edgar Snow (1905–1972) was an American journalist who interviewed Mao in 1936 and wrote *Red Star Over China*. The “essay” metaphor is from Mao’s “The Chinese Revolution and the Chinese Communist Party” (1939). In Mao’s view, doing the “first part” of the essay well was essentially to prepare for writing the “second part”; the New Democratic system fundamentally served the socialist system. In short, establishing the New Democratic system was only the Communist Party of China’s (CPC) stage-specific goal or “minimum program,” while the Party’s fundamental purpose, fundamental program, and fundamental task had always been to establish a socialist system and, when conditions were ripe, to transition to a communist system. On the eve of the founding of New China, Mao also pointed out: “Do not think that the New Democratic economy is developing toward capitalism, that it is free trade and free competition. That would be extremely mistaken.” [9]9 Mao Zedong, “Report to the Second Plenary Session of the Seventh Central Committee of the Communist Party of China” (March 1949). In other words, as a system form that did not exist independently, the New Democratic system would sooner or later transition to a socialist system and could never be completely fixed. However, in the early days of New China, Mao believed that this transition period would require “at least several decades.” Within the Party, it was also generally believed that it would take ten years of planned economic construction, until industry had achieved great development, the proportion of agriculture and individual economy had declined, and the proportion of the socialist and semi-socialist economy had completely overwhelmed private capitalist economy, before the transition to socialism could be considered. Yet by 1952, at a meeting of the Secretariat of the CPC Central Committee, Mao stated: “We must now begin to basically complete the transition to socialism within ten to fifteen years, rather than starting the transition in ten years or later.” [10]10 The Secretariat of the CPC Central Committee was the top executive body of the Party at the time. This statement was made in a meeting in 1952. He proposed an immediate transition to socialism, significantly advancing the timeline for the transformation of the New Democratic system.

“根本的问题是制度问题，制度决定一个国家走什么方向。……社会制度变了，这个国家走的方向就要随着改变。”新民主主义制度要向何处去？对于这一问题，毛泽东早在建构新民主主义制度之初即已确定了它的前途与归宿——向社会主义过渡。1939年，毛泽东在与斯诺的谈话中将新民主主义革命与社会主义革命分别比作文章的上篇与下篇，“文章的上篇如果不做好，下篇是没有法子着手做的”，在毛泽东看来，作好文章“上篇”本质上是为书写文章“下篇”，新民主主义制度根本上是服务于社会主义制度。概言之，建立新民主主义制度只是中国共产党的阶段性目标或“最低纲领”，而中共的根本目的、根本纲领、根本任务从来都是建立社会主义制度，并在条件成熟时向共产主义制度过渡。新中国成立前夕，毛泽东也指出：“不要以为新民主主义经济不是向社会主义发展，而认为是自由贸易、自由竞争，向资本主义发展，那是极其错误的。”易言之，新民主主义制度作为一种并非独立存在的制度形态迟早要向社会主义制度过渡，绝不能够被彻底固定下来，只是在新中国成立初期，毛泽东认为这个过渡期限至少“要几十年工夫”，党内也普遍认为需要经过十年的计划经济建设，待工业取得极大发展、农业与个体经济比重下降、社会主义与半社会主义性质经济比重彻底压倒私人资本主义经济后，才可以考虑向社会主义过渡的事宜，然而到了1952年，毛泽东在中共中央书记处会议上却指出：“我们现在就要开始用十年到十五年的时间基本上完成到社会主义的过渡，而不是十年或者以后才开始过渡。”提出立即向社会主义过渡的主张，将新民主主义制度转变的时间节点大大提前。

Although Mao Zedong’s judgment on the timeline for the transformation of the New Democratic system underwent considerable change, we can still understand it from the internal logic of the New Democratic system’s own development. Overall, Mao’s judgment to immediately transition to a socialist system stemmed from two considerations:

虽然毛泽东对新民主主义制度转变时间节点的判断发生了较大变化，但我们仍能从新民主主义制度自身发展的内在逻辑出发进行理解，总体来看，毛泽东作出立即向社会主义制度转变的判断源自两方面的考量：

The first was that the successful practice of the New Democratic system had already laid the foundation for the socialist transition. After the founding of New China, driven by the New Democratic system, China’s industrial production achieved breakthrough accomplishments. Taking the textile industry as an example, in 1952, cotton yarn output reached 3.62 million bales, double that of 1949 and exceeding the highest historical annual output by 48%. [11]11 The figure of 3.62 million bales (件) is a standard unit for cotton yarn in Chinese industrial statistics of the period. The total value of agricultural output also repeatedly reached new highs: “In 1951, the national grain output increased by 28% compared to 1949, and this year (referring to 1952) it can increase by about 40% compared to 1949, exceeding the highest annual output before the War of Resistance Against Japan.” [12]12 The War of Resistance Against Japan (1937–1945) is the Chinese term for the Second Sino-Japanese War. The output of many industrial raw material crops, such as cotton, also exceeded historical highs. At the same time, the people’s living standards also improved accordingly. In 1952, peasants’ monetary and grain income increased by 79.8% and 24% respectively compared to 1949, and their average purchasing power increased by over 70%, with their lives becoming increasingly prosperous. The working class also transformed from the exploited class in old China to the ruling class in New China, with their material life fundamentally improved. Taking the earliest fully liberated Northeast region as an example, the real wages of workers and staff in the Northeast increased by 27% in 1949 compared to the previous year, 12.5% in 1950, and 15% in 1951. In 1952, the average wages of workers across the country increased by 60% to 120% compared to 1949, and they also enjoyed labor insurance, medical care, and cultural and educational welfare paid for by the state. [13]13 The Northeast region (Manchuria) was the first major area to be fully liberated by the CPC in 1948–1949. The development of the national economy and the improvement of the people’s lives created material conditions for establishing a socialist system and strengthened Mao’s conviction to advance to a higher stage of society. More importantly, by the time the work of restoring the national economy was basically completed in 1952, the output value of state-owned industry had risen to 56% of the total national industrial output value, becoming the main source of state fiscal revenue and significantly enhancing its leading role in the national economy. Coupled with the armistice in the Korean War and the conclusion of land reform, Mao realized that the focus of domestic work could be shifted to socialist transformation and socialist construction.

其一是新民主主义制度的成功实践已经为社会主义过渡奠定基础。新中国成立后，在新民主主义制度的推动下，我国工业生产取得了突破性的成就，以轻纺工业为例，1952年棉纱产量达到362万件，相较1949年增长了一倍，超过历史上最高年产量48％。农业生产总值更屡创新高，“一九五一年全国粮食生产量较一九四九年增加百分之二十八，今年（指1952年）可较一九四九年增加百分之四十左右，可超过抗日战争以前最高年产量百分之九”，棉花等诸多工业原料作物的产量也超过了历史最高水平。与此同时，人民生活水平也得到相应改善，1952年农民的货币和粮食收入相较1949年增长了79.8％和24％，平均购买力增长超过70％，生活日渐富裕。工人阶级也由旧中国的被剥削者转变为新中国的统治阶级，物质生活取得根本改观，以最早完全解放的东北地区为例，东北职工的实际工资1949年较前一年增加27％，1950年这一数字为12.5％，1951年为15％，1952年全国各地区工人的平均工资相较1949年则增加了60％—120％不等，并且还享受公家支出的劳保、医药和文教福利。国家经济的发展和人民生活的改善为建立社会主义制度创造了物质条件，也坚定了毛泽东向更高社会阶段进发的信念。更为重要的是，到1952年国民经济恢复工作基本完成时，国营工业产值占全国工业总产值的比例上升至56％，成为国家财政收入的主要力量，在国民经济中的领导作用显著增强。再加之朝鲜战争议和、土地改革结束，毛泽东意识到国内工作的重点可以转到社会主义改造和社会主义建设上来了。

Second, the limitations of the New Democratic system increased the necessity of the transition to socialism. For a long time, Mao Zedong attached great importance to industry, regarding it as the main economic base of the New Democratic system. However, to truly realize industrialization and complete the transformation from an agricultural country to an industrial country, it was necessary to invest massive amounts of funds and means of production in economic construction. The large number of non-socialist economic components in the New Democratic system were clearly unable to fulfill this mission. Especially after the land reform, the per capita arable land of peasants was small and their production tools were insufficient. Some peasants even developed the idea that wealth was useless and would eventually be “communized” [14]14 “Communized” (共产) here refers to the peasant fear that their property would be forcibly taken and redistributed under communism, a misunderstanding of socialist policy prevalent during the land reform period., so they did not actively expand production but instead invested funds in lavish eating and drinking and extravagant enjoyment, making it difficult for them to provide surplus products for industrialization. This further made Mao Zedong recognize the predicament of industrial and agricultural development under the conditions of the New Democratic economic system. Therefore, Mao Zedong pointed out: “If we do not rely on socialism, but try to make a fuss over the small peasant economy, dispensing small favors on the basis of the individual economy, hoping to greatly increase grain output, solve the grain problem, and solve the great issues of national welfare and the people’s livelihood, that would indeed be extremely difficult!” [15]15 Mao Zedong, “On the Question of Agricultural Cooperation” (1955), in *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, Vol. 5. Moreover, the spontaneous capitalist tendencies among peasants and the illegal operations and disorderly expansion of private capitalism in the industrial and commercial fields constantly challenged Mao Zedong’s bottom line. In his view, if no intervention were made, the prospect of capitalism might overcome the prospect of socialism, and the achievements of the New Democratic Revolution risked being gained only to be lost again. Therefore, by June 1952, Mao Zedong, in his instructions on a document from the United Front Work Department of the CPC Central Committee, pointed out that the principal contradiction in Chinese society was already “the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie,” and said that “the national bourgeoisie should no longer be called the intermediate class.” [16]16 Mao Zedong, “Instructions on the Document of the United Front Work Department of the CPC Central Committee” (June 1952), in *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, Vol. 5. In 1953, Mao Zedong stated even more bluntly in a conversation: “As for the rural front, if socialism does not occupy it, capitalism will inevitably occupy it. Can it be said that we should take neither the capitalist road nor the socialist road?” From then on, the transition to socialism was already a matter of course and an irresistible trend.

其二是新民主主义制度的局限增强了向社会主义过渡的必要性。长期以来，毛泽东都高度重视工业，把工业视作新民主主义制度的主要经济基础，但要真正实现工业化，完成由农业国向工业国的转变，就需要在经济建设中倾注海量的资金和生产资料，而新民主主义制度中大量的非社会主义经济成分显然无法完成这一使命。尤其是在土改后，农民人均可耕面积小、生产用具不足，部分农民甚至产生富裕无用、最后都会“共产”的思想，因此不积极扩大生产，反倒将资金投入到大吃大喝、奢侈享受之中，使其难以为工业化提供剩余产品，更让毛泽东认识到新民主主义经济制度条件下工农业发展的困境所在。因此，毛泽东指出：“不靠社会主义，想从小农经济做文章，靠在个体经济基础上行小惠，而希望大增产粮食，解决粮食问题，解决国计民生的大计，那真是难矣哉！”不仅如此，农民中自发的资本主义倾向与工商业领域私人资本主义违法经营、无序扩张更不断挑战着毛泽东的底线，在他看来，如若不进行干涉，资本主义的前途有可能会战胜社会主义的前途，新民主主义革命的成果存在得而复失的风险。因此，到1952年6月，毛泽东在批示中央统战部文件时指出中国社会的主要矛盾已经是“工人阶级与民族资产阶级的矛盾”，并且说“不应再将民族资产阶级称为中间阶级”。1953年，毛泽东在谈话中更直白地指出：“对于农村的阵地，社会主义如果不去占领，资本主义就必然会去占领。难道可以说既不走资本主义的道路，又不走社会主义的道路吗？”自此，向社会主义过渡已然是水到渠成、大势所趋。

(2) Outlining the “Roadmap” for the Transformation of the New Democratic System

（二）描绘新民主主义制度转变的“路线图”

How should the New Democratic system transform into the socialist system? There was no precedent for this in the history of the international communist movement. As Mao Zedong said, the birth of any new social system “is always accompanied by a great uproar,” and the generation of the socialist system was no exception. As a complete systematic project, Mao Zedong outlined a clear “roadmap” for the transformation of the New Democratic system — taking the economic system as the starting point, the political system as the bearing, and the cultural system as the key, establishing the socialist system amidst the drastic changes in the material world and the spiritual world, and the thorough transformation of the economic base and the superstructure.

新民主主义制度应当如何向社会主义制度转变？这在国际共产主义运动史上并无先例可循。如毛泽东所言，任何一个新的社会制度的诞生“总是要伴随一场大喊大叫的”，社会主义制度的生成也概莫能外。作为一个完整的系统工程，毛泽东为新民主主义制度转变描绘了明确的“路线图”——以经济制度为起点、以政治制度为轴承、以文化制度为关键，在物质世界与精神世界的剧烈变动、经济基础与上层建筑的彻底改造中建立起社会主义制度。

First, at the level of the economic system, it transformed from “one mainstay with multiple coexistences” to a single public ownership economy. Mao Zedong believed that the only correct path to the socialist system was “to transition from the current society with a complex economic structure to a society with a single socialist economic structure,” [17]17 Mao Zedong, “Critique of Stalin’s *Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR*” (1958), in *Mao Zedong’s Manuscripts Since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China*, Vol. 7. regarding the transformation of the economic system as the precursor and foundation for the transition to socialism. Therefore, in the agricultural field, Mao Zedong proposed that, following the principles of voluntariness and mutual benefit, mutual aid and cooperation movements should be carried out step by step from lower to higher levels, establishing “large-scale, fully socialist agricultural producers’ cooperatives.” [18]18 Mao Zedong, “On the Question of Agricultural Cooperation” (1955), in *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, Vol. 5. In the industrial and commercial fields, the gradual implementation of public-private joint management in various industries was carried out through the form of state capitalism. After three years of socialist transformation, by the end of 1956, “whether in industry, agriculture, transportation, or commerce, the socialist economic component had already achieved absolute dominance,” [19]19 Zhou Enlai, “Report on the Work of the Government” (1957), in *Selected Works of Zhou Enlai*, Vol. 2. thereby establishing single public ownership. At the same time, the change in ownership also drove changes in the economic system. After the completion of the Three Great Transformations [20]20 The Three Great Transformations (三大改造) refer to the socialist transformation of agriculture, handicraft industry, and capitalist industry and commerce in China from 1953 to 1956., the private ownership economy was completely eliminated, the market regulation lost its economic basis for existence, and planned regulation became the sole means of resource allocation. The New Democratic economic system, which had coexisted with planned management and market regulation in the early days of the founding of New China, also transformed into a highly centralized planned economic system.

首先，经济制度层面由“一主多存”转变为单一公有制经济。毛泽东认为，通往社会主义制度唯一正确的道路就是“由目前复杂的经济结构的社会过渡到单一的社会主义经济结构的社会”，将经济制度变革视作向社会主义过渡的先导和基础。因而在农业领域，毛泽东提出应当按照自愿和互利的原则，由低级到高级分步骤开展互助合作运动，建立起“大型的完全社会主义性质的农业生产合作社”。在工商业领域，则通过国家资本主义形式逐步实现各行业的公私合营。经过三年的社会主义改造，到1956年底，“无论在工业、农业、运输业和商业中，社会主义的经济成分都已经处于绝对统治的地位”，由此确立了单一公有制。与此同时，所有制转变也推动了经济体制变迁，在三大改造完成后，私有制经济被彻底消灭，市场调节失去存在的经济基础，也让计划调控成为资源调配的唯一手段，新中国成立初期计划管理与市场调节并存的新民主主义经济体制也转变为高度集中的计划经济体制。

Second, at the level of the political system, it transformed from the joint dictatorship of all revolutionary classes to the people’s democratic dictatorship, which was essentially the dictatorship of the proletariat. When the economic structure changed from pluralistic to unitary, the political system, as the superstructure, was bound to change as well. After the General Line for the Transition Period [21]21 The General Line for the Transition Period (过渡时期总路线) was the CPC’s policy from 1953 to 1956, aiming to achieve socialist industrialization and the socialist transformation of agriculture, handicrafts, and capitalist industry and commerce. was proposed, the CPC Central Committee still repeatedly emphasized the united front nature of the people’s democratic dictatorship and pointed out: “Our political power is the joint dictatorship of all revolutionary classes under the leadership of the proletariat. It is the people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class (through the Communist Party) and based on the worker-peasant alliance. This explanation is suitable for the leadership position of the Chinese working class at present and for a period to come, and there is no inconvenience in leaving it unamended.” [22]22 CPC Central Committee, “Resolution on the Political Report of the Eighth National Congress of the CPC” (1956). By the time the Three Great Transformations were completed, the bourgeoisie as a class had been completely eliminated, and the class basis for the joint dictatorship of all revolutionary classes no longer existed. At this point, Mao Zedong began to publicly emphasize the nature of the dictatorship of the proletariat inherent in the people’s democratic dictatorship. The joint dictatorship of all revolutionary classes thus gradually gave way to the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the leadership of the Communist Party of China was further strengthened. As pointed out in the political report adopted by the Eighth National Congress of the CPC: “The people’s democratic dictatorship in our country at the present stage is essentially a form of the dictatorship of the proletariat.” [23]23 Liu Shaoqi, “Political Report of the Eighth National Congress of the CPC” (1956), in *Selected Works of Liu Shaoqi*, Vol. 2.

其次，政治制度层面由各革命阶级联合专政向实质为无产阶级专政的人民民主专政转变。当经济结构由多元归于一元，作为上层建筑的政治制度也必然发生变化。过渡时期总路线提出后，中共中央仍然反复强调人民民主专政的统一战线属性，并指出：“我们的政权是无产阶级领导下的各革命阶级的联合专政，是工人阶级（经过共产党）领导的以工农联盟为基础的人民民主专政，这个说明对于中国工人阶级在目前和今后一个时期中的领导地位是适合的，不加修改并无不便。”而到三大改造完成，资产阶级作为一个阶级整体已经被完全消灭，各革命阶级联合专政的阶级基础不复存在，此时毛泽东开始公开强调人民民主专政所具有的无产阶级专政性质，各革命阶级联合专政自此逐步让位于无产阶级专政，中国共产党的领导权进一步增强，亦如党的八大通过的政治报告中所指出：“我国现阶段的人民民主专政实质上是无产阶级专政的一种形式”。

Third, at the level of the cultural system, it transformed from New Democratic culture to socialist culture. “The system is not just ownership, but also includes the superstructure, mainly the organs of state power and ideology. All ideologies reflect class relations.” [24]24 Mao Zedong, “Talk on the Question of the Four Cleanups Movement” (1964), in *Mao Zedong’s Manuscripts Since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China*, Vol. 11. The transformation of the economic and political systems from New Democracy to socialism also triggered changes in the cultural system. Socialist culture, with Marxism at its core, thus became the mainstream ideology of the entire society. When discussing the transformation of the cultural system, Mao Zedong pointed out: “Because our social system has already changed, the economic base of bourgeois ideology has been basically eliminated, which makes it not only necessary but also possible for the world outlook of a large number of intellectuals to change.” [25]25 Mao Zedong, “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People” (1957), in *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, Vol. 5. This judgment, based on historical materialism, was the starting point for Mao Zedong’s determination to promote the transformation of the New Democratic cultural system and to struggle with people’s concepts and thoughts. He firmly believed that due to the thorough change in relations of production, the ideological viewpoints of the proletariat would inevitably occupy the high ground in the people’s minds. However, he also realized that, unlike the transformation of the economic and political systems, the transformation of the cultural system had the characteristics of being long-term and repetitive. Therefore, in his 1957 article “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People,” he emphasized that a thorough change in world outlook requires a long time, and that ideological work must not be rushed or advanced rashly. He also pointed out: “The socio-economic system has changed, but the reactionary ideas left over from the old era, that is, bourgeois ideas and the ideas of the upper petty bourgeoisie, which still exist in the minds of a considerable number of people, cannot change overnight. Change requires time, and a very long time at that.” [26]26 Mao Zedong, “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People” (1957), in *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, Vol. 5. But this did not mean that Mao Zedong believed the transformation of the cultural system could be continuously postponed. On the contrary, Mao Zedong pointed out that the transformation of ideology was a task that brooked no delay. He emphasized that various erroneous ideas should be vigorously criticized. “It is certainly not permissible to refrain from criticism, to watch erroneous ideas spread unchecked and allow them to occupy the market. Where there are mistakes, they must be criticized; where there are poisonous weeds, they must be struggled against.” [27]27 Mao Zedong, “On the Correct Handling of Contradictions Among the People” (1957), in *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, Vol. 5. The transformation of the cultural system towards socialism must be promoted through the interaction of mainstream cultural propaganda and criticism of erroneous ideas.

再次，文化制度层面由新民主主义文化转变为社会主义文化。“制度不单是所有制，而且有上层建筑，主要是政权机关、意识形态。各种意识形态都是要反映阶级关系的。”经济制度、政治制度由新民主主义向社会主义的转变也引发了文化制度的变革，以马克思主义为核心的社会主义文化自此成为全社会的主流意识形态。毛泽东在谈及文化制度转变时指出：“由于我国的社会制度已经起了变化，资产阶级思想的经济基础已经基本上消灭了，这就使大量知识分子的世界观不但有了改变的必要，而且有了改变的可能。”这种基于历史唯物主义的判断是毛泽东决意推动新民主主义文化制度转变，决心与人的观念和思想做斗争的出发点，他坚信由于生产关系的彻底改变，无产阶级的思想观点也必定会占据人民群众思想的高地。但他也意识到，与经济制度、政治制度的改造不同，文化制度变革具有长期性与反复性的特点，因此在1957年《关于正确处理人民内部矛盾》一文中，他强调世界观的彻底改变需要较长的时间，思想工作急躁不得、冒进不得。他还指出：“社会经济制度变了，旧时代遗留下来残存于相当大的一部分人们头脑里的反动思想，亦即资产阶级思想和上层小资产阶级思想，一下子变不过来。要变须要时间，并且须要很长的时间。”但这并不意味着毛泽东认为文化制度的转变可以被不断向后推迟，相反，毛泽东指出意识形态的改造刻不容缓。他强调，应当对各种各样的错误思想进行有力批评，“不加批评，看着错误思想到处泛滥，任凭它们去占领市场，当然不行。有错误就得批判，有毒草就得进行斗争。”必须在主流文化宣传与错误思想批判的交互作用中推动文化制度向社会主义转变。

Conclusion

结语

In April 1945, when delivering the political report to the Seventh National Congress of the CPC, Mao Zedong stated: “Without a new-democratic united and unified state, without the development of the new-democratic state economy, without the development of private capitalist economy and cooperative economy, without the development of a national, scientific, and popular culture—that is, new-democratic culture—without the liberation of the individuality and the development of the individuality of hundreds of millions of people, in a word, without a new-type bourgeois-democratic revolution of a thorough nature led by the Communist Party, it would be sheer utopian socialism to attempt to build a socialist society on the ruins of a colonial, semi-colonial, and semi-feudal society.” [28]28 Mao Zedong, “On Coalition Government,” Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Vol. 3. The original Chinese text uses the term “空想社会主义” (utopian socialism), which is rendered here as “utopian socialism” in line with the standard English translation of Mao’s works. The new democratic system was the inevitable choice after modern China degenerated into a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society and after multiple attempts at other systems proved fruitless; it was the great creation of the Chinese Communists represented by Mao Zedong. Overall, the construction of the new democratic system was a top-down systematic project, and in the construction and operation of specific institutions, the entire society underwent a revolutionary remolding.

1945年4月，毛泽东在作中共七大政治报告时说道：“没有一个新民主主义的联合统一的国家，没有新民主主义的国家经济的发展，没有私人资本主义经济和合作社经济的发展，没有民族的科学的大众的文化即新民主主义文化的发展，没有几万万人民的个性的解放和个性的发展，一句话，没有一个由共产党领导的新式的资产阶级性质的彻底的民主革命，要想在殖民地半殖民地半封建的废墟上建立起社会主义社会来，那只是完全的空想。”新民主主义制度是近代中国沦为半殖民地半封建社会，多种制度尝试无果后的必然选择，是以毛泽东为代表的中国共产党人的伟大创造。总体来看，新民主主义制度建构是一个自上而下的系统性工程，在具体制度的建设与运行中，整个社会都得到了革命性再造。

Furthermore, the construction of the new democratic system historically resolved the question of how to establish a socialist system in a semi-colonial and semi-feudal country. As a basic tenet of scientific socialism, the “two inevitables” [29]29 The “two inevitables” (两个必然) refers to the Marxist thesis that capitalism will inevitably perish and communism will inevitably triumph. is a theoretical creed followed by all Marxists. Marx predictively pointed out the historical trend that capitalism will inevitably perish and communism will inevitably triumph, but he also discerned that the capitalist system would not disappear all at once in a short period: “Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other.” [30]30 Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Program (1875). The English translation follows the standard version. However, Marx did not clearly specify what system should be concretely implemented during this “period of transformation.” In particular, for backward Eastern countries, how could they obtain all the fruits of the capitalist system without suffering its torments, leap over the “Caudine Forks” [31]31 “Leap over the Caudine Forks” (跨越卡夫丁峡谷) is a metaphor derived from an ancient Roman military defeat; Marx and Engels used it to describe the possibility of a backward society bypassing the capitalist stage of development. and establish a socialist system? Due to historical limitations, the classical Marxist writers were unable to provide a complete answer to these questions. It was the Chinese Communists represented by Mao Zedong who made a forceful response in practice, writing a new chapter of Marxism on Chinese soil.

此外，新民主主义制度的建构也历史性地解决了如何在半殖民地半封建社会国家建立社会主义制度的问题。作为科学社会主义的基本论断，“两个必然”是所有马克思主义者共同遵循的理论信条，马克思预见性地指出资本主义必然灭亡、共产主义必然胜利的历史趋势，但他也洞察到资本主义制度不会在短时间一次性消亡，“在资本主义社会和共产主义社会之间，有一个从前者变为后者的革命转变时期”，只是马克思并未清晰地指明在“转变时期”应当具体实行何种制度，尤其对于落后东方国家而言，如何能够不经受资本主义制度的苦难而又取得资本主义制度的全部成果，跨越“卡夫丁峡谷”建立起社会主义制度。这些问题由于历史的局限，经典马克思主义作家未能给予完备的答案，而由毛泽东为代表的中国共产党人在实践中作出了有力回应，在中华大地上续写了马克思主义的新篇。

Admittedly, with the completion of the socialist transformation, the new democratic system has become a historical concept. However, the important role it played in propelling China toward independence, freedom, democracy, unity, and prosperity will not be erased by the passage of time. At present, socialism with Chinese characteristics has embarked on a new historical journey. We have successfully promoted the socialist system with Chinese characteristics to become more mature and more complete, but at the same time we also face entirely new opportunities and challenges. In this regard, we should draw nourishment from Mao Zedong’s ideological legacy, establish a high degree of historical consciousness and historical confidence, actively sublimate our own experience in institutional exploration, rationally summarize the gains and losses of various countries’ institutional construction, promote the further development of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics, which takes fundamental systems, basic systems, and important systems as its four beams and eight pillars, [32]32 “Four beams and eight pillars” (四梁八柱) is a Chinese architectural metaphor for the main supporting framework of a system, here referring to the fundamental, basic, and important systems that constitute the socialist system with Chinese characteristics. and contribute a mighty institutional force to realizing the Chinese Dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

诚然，伴随社会主义改造的完成，新民主主义制度已经成为一个历史概念，但其在推动中国迈向独立、自由、民主、统一和富强之境的过程中所发挥的重要作用并不会因为时间流逝而被抹杀。当前，中国特色社会主义已经踏上了新的历史征程，我们成功推进中国特色社会主义制度更加成熟、更加完善，但同时也面临着全新的机遇与挑战。对此，我们应当从毛泽东的思想遗产中汲取养分，树立高度的历史自觉和历史自信，积极扬弃自身制度探索经验，理性总结各国制度建设得失，推动以根本制度、基本制度、重要制度为四梁八柱的中国特色社会主义制度体系进一步发展，为实现中华民族伟大复兴的中国梦贡献磅礴的制度力量。

(Author’s bio: Zhang Jianzhou, doctoral student at the School of Marxism, Tsinghua University)

（作者简介：张鉴洲，清华大学马克思主义学院博士研究生）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心