The CPC’s Exploration of “Chinese Experience” and “Chinese Theory” during the New Democratic Revolution Period

Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, China has, through unremitting struggle, achieved a historic leap from lagging behind the times to catching up with the times and then to leading the times, becoming a builder of world peace, a contributor to global development, and a defender of the international order, profoundly influencing the direction of the world. As General Secretary Xi Jinping has stated, “To develop Marxism for the 21st century and Marxism for contemporary China, we must base ourselves on China, look to the world, and maintain a theoretical character that advances with the times.” [1]1 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Symposium on the Centenary of the Founding of the Communist Party of China,” July 1, 2021. As the relationship between China and the world undergoes historic changes, China bears the dual mission, in thought and theory, of answering the questions of China and the people from a “Chinese dimension” and responding to the questions of the world and the times from a “world dimension.” In this regard, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core attaches great importance to the summarization, generalization, and dissemination of “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory.” General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasizes, “Use Chinese principles to summarize Chinese experience well, and elevate Chinese experience into Chinese theory.” [2]2 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Symposium on Philosophy and Social Sciences,” May 17, 2016. “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” must both take root in Chinese soil, studying and resolving the major issues facing China’s development, and also actively respond to the common concerns of people of all countries, contributing to solving the common problems facing humanity. At present, academic research on “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” mainly focuses on the “Chinese dimension,” with relatively little research involving the “world dimension.” Most studies primarily interpret “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” from the perspective of cultural construction of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era, especially the construction of China’s independent knowledge system. Research starting from the “world dimension” mainly focuses on practical issues, centering on Chinese-path modernization and fields such as economic development, cultural dissemination, poverty alleviation, ecological and environmental protection, and global governance, interpreting the formation process of “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” in the New Era and their impact on the world from theoretical, policy, and practical perspectives. Our current understanding of the relationship between China and the world, and our emphasis on “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory,” are not water without a source or a tree without roots, but have gradually formed in the process of historical development. Starting from the New Democratic Revolution period, which serves as a historical source, studying the CPC’s understanding of the relationship between China and the world, and its exploration of “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” based on the “world dimension,” is conducive to a deeper understanding of the historical inevitability of proposing “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” in the New Era. Overall, the CPC’s exploration of “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” during the New Democratic Revolution period went through five stages: germination (1921–1922), initiation (1922–1928), development (1928–1935), maturation (1935–1945), and deepening (1945–1949).

在中国共产党领导下，中国经过不懈奋斗，实现了从落后时代到赶上时代再到引领时代的历史性跨越，成为世界和平的建设者、全球发展的贡献者、国际秩序的维护者，深刻影响着世界前进的方向。正如习近平总书记所言，“发展二十一世纪马克思主义、当代中国马克思主义，必须立足中国、放眼世界，保持与时俱进的理论品格”。随着中国与世界的关系发生历史性变化，中国在思想上、理论上肩负着从“中国向度”回答中国之问、人民之问，以及从“世界向度”回应世界之问、时代之问的双重使命。对此，以习近平同志为核心的党中央高度重视“中国经验”和“中国理论”的总结、概括和传播。习近平总书记强调，“用中国道理总结好中国经验，把中国经验提升为中国理论”。“中国经验”和“中国理论”既要扎根中国大地，研究和解决中国发展面临的重大问题，也要积极回应各国人民普遍关切，为解决人类面临的共同问题作出贡献。目前，学术界关于“中国经验”和“中国理论”的研究主要关注“中国向度”,涉及“世界向度”的研究相对较少。大部分研究主要从新时代中国特色社会主义文化建设，尤其是中国自主知识体系的角度阐释“中国经验”和“中国理论”。从“世界向度”切入的研究主要着眼于现实问题，围绕中国式现代化以及经济发展、文化传播、脱贫攻坚、生态环境保护、全球治理等领域，从理论、政策和实践等角度阐释新时代“中国经验”和“中国理论”的形成过程及其对世界的影响。我们今天对中国与世界关系的认识，以及对“中国经验”和“中国理论”的重视，不是无源之水、无本之木，而是在历史发展的过程中逐步形成的。从作为历史源头的新民主主义革命时期入手，研究中国共产党对中国与世界关系的认识，以及立足于“世界向度”对“中国经验”和“中国理论”的探索，有利于我们更加深刻地理解新时代提出“中国经验”和“中国理论”的历史必然性。总的来看，新民主主义革命时期中国共产党对“中国经验”和“中国理论”的探索经历了萌芽(1921—1922年)、起步(1922—1928年)、发展(1928—1935年)、成熟(1935—1945年)、深化(1945—1949年)等五个阶段。

I. Germination Stage: Individual Party Members Propose “Chinese Experience”

一、萌芽阶段：党员个人提出“中国经验”

From the founding of the Communist Party of China in 1921 to the Fourth Congress of the Communist International in 1922, this was the germination stage of the CPC’s exploration of “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory.” The CPC clarified that the Chinese revolution was part of the world proletarian socialist revolution after the October Revolution, specifically a colonial and semi-colonial revolution, and, based on its own experience, promoted the development of the Communist International’s theory on the types and strategies of colonial and semi-colonial revolutions. However, at this time, the summarization of “Chinese experience” was individual in nature, with the subjects being individual Party members closely connected to the Communist International, and there was not yet a conscious awareness of this process.

从1921年中国共产党成立至1922年共产国际四大，是中国共产党探索“中国经验”和“中国理论”的萌芽阶段。中国共产党明确了中国革命是十月革命后世界无产阶级社会主义革命中的殖民地半殖民地革命的一部分，并从自身经验出发推动了共产国际有关殖民地半殖民地革命类型和策略理论的发展。但此时对“中国经验”的概括是个体性的，主体是与共产国际联系密切的党员个人，并且对这个过程还没有形成自觉的认识。

For a considerable period, the international communist movement was mainly the proletarian revolution in capitalist countries, and colonial and semi-colonial revolutions were not incorporated into it. The First International basically did not discuss colonial and semi-colonial issues in detail. The Second International, at the London Congress, Paris Congress, Amsterdam Congress, and Stuttgart Congress held between 1896 and 1907, only limitedly discussed some topics related to colonies and semi-colonies, but did not seriously consider incorporating colonial and semi-colonial revolutions into the international communist movement. In fact, it was Lenin and the Third International under his leadership, i.e., the Communist International, that systematically studied and elaborated on colonial and semi-colonial revolutions and formally incorporated them into the international communist movement. Although the First Congress of the Communist International incorporated colonial and semi-colonial revolutions into the international communist movement, it did not form a corresponding revolutionary program. This task was only completed at the Second Congress of the Communist International. The “Resolution on the National and Colonial Questions” drafted by Lenin and the “Supplementary Theses on the National and Colonial Questions” (hereinafter referred to as the “Supplementary Theses”) drafted by M. N. Roy, adopted at the Second Congress of the Communist International, were the first programmatic documents in the history of the international communist movement to systematically elaborate on colonial and semi-colonial revolutions. These two documents divided colonial and semi-colonial countries into two categories: one was “backward countries and nations where feudal or patriarchal and patriarchal-peasant relations predominate,” and the other was “countries that are politically oppressed and where the capitalist system is dominant.” [3]3 See “Resolution on the National and Colonial Questions” and “Supplementary Theses on the National and Colonial Questions,” adopted at the Second Congress of the Communist International, July–August 1920. The “Supplementary Theses” classified China into the latter category, formulating a strategy for the Chinese revolution of simultaneously opposing imperialism and the domestic national bourgeoisie.

在相当长的一段时期内，国际共产主义运动主要是资本主义国家的无产阶级革命，殖民地半殖民地革命并未被纳入国际共产主义运动。第一国际基本没有详细讨论过殖民地半殖民地问题，第二国际在从1896年到1907年间召开的伦敦大会、巴黎大会、阿姆斯特丹大会和斯图加特大会上才有限地讨论了与殖民地半殖民地相关的部分议题，但并未认真地考虑把殖民地半殖民地革命纳入国际共产主义运动的问题。实际上，系统研究和阐述殖民地半殖民地革命，并将其正式纳入国际共产主义运动的，是列宁及其领导下的第三国际，即共产国际。共产国际一大虽然把殖民地半殖民地革命纳入了国际共产主义运动，但没有形成相应的革命纲领。这个任务到共产国际二大才得以完成。共产国际二大通过的列宁起草的《关于民族和殖民地问题的决议》和罗易起草的《关于民族和殖民地问题的补充提纲》(以下简称《补充提纲》),是国际共产主义运动史上最早系统阐述殖民地半殖民地革命的纲领性文件。这两个文件把殖民地半殖民地国家分为两类，一类是“封建关系或宗法关系、宗法农民关系占优势的比较落后的国家和民族”,另一类是“政治上被压迫而且资本主义制度占统治地位的国家”。《补充提纲》把中国归入后一类国家，为中国革命制定了同时反对帝国主义和本国民族资产阶级的斗争策略。

Clearly, the Second Congress of the Comintern’s judgment on the Chinese revolution did not accord with China’s actual conditions. However, because the CPC had not yet been formally established when the congress convened, the overseas Chinese Liu Zerong, who attended on China’s behalf, was not a CPC representative and could not offer correct opinions. It was not until the Third Congress of the Comintern was held in 1921 that the Chinese Communists truly sent their own representative, Zhang Tailei. Drawing on his own experience, Zhang Tailei raised a dissenting view on the judgment of the Second Comintern Congress. He argued that China was gradually being absorbed into the world capitalist system, but its original agriculture and handicraft industry were progressively disintegrating under the impact of capitalist economy, without having built up large-scale industry in the course of modernization as the capitalist countries of Europe and America had done. “In China, apart from a few factories mainly concentrated in the large port cities, so-called modern industrial enterprises are extremely rare. China is undoubtedly still in the primitive stage of economic development.” Based on Chinese experience, he further divided the colonial and semi-colonial countries into three categories on the basis of the Second Comintern Congress: “countries that are already industrially developed,” “countries that have just entered international trade (in its form, still preliminary),” and “countries that are still completely independent of the imperialist world capitalist relations, i.e., uncivilized countries.” Among them, “countries that are already industrially developed” corresponded to the “countries that are politically oppressed and where the capitalist system dominates” proposed by the Second Comintern Congress; “countries that have just entered international trade (in its form, still preliminary)” were mainly countries like China; and “countries that are still completely independent of the imperialist world capitalist relations, i.e., uncivilized countries” corresponded to “relatively backward countries and nationalities where feudal or patriarchal, patriarchal-peasant relations predominate.” The Comintern gradually accepted Zhang Tailei’s views. In 1922, Safarov, then head of the Eastern Department of the Comintern Executive Committee, stated at the Far Eastern Congress: “The majority of the Far Eastern countries are industrially backward, having only taken the most preliminary steps on the path of capitalist development.” At the Fourth Comintern Congress held that same year, Roy, who had originally drafted the “Supplementary Theses,” had to admit that Zhang Tailei’s “threefold classification” was more reasonable. He stated, “The Eastern countries can be divided into three categories”: “first, countries where capitalism is fairly developed,” “in these countries, not only has capital imported from the large centers developed industry, but domestic capitalism has also developed”; “second, countries where capitalist development has begun but is still at a low level, and feudalism remains the main pillar of society”; and third, countries “where primitive relations still dominate and the social system is feudal and patriarchal.” The “General Theses on the Eastern Question” adopted by the congress confirmed the “diversity” of colonial and semi-colonial countries, holding that different countries “reflect the fact that the colonies are in different stages of transition from feudal relations and feudal-patriarchal relations to capitalism.”

显然，共产国际二大对中国革命的判断不符合中国的实际情况。但由于会议召开时，中国共产党还没有正式成立，代表中国出席的华侨刘泽荣并非中共代表，也没能提出正确的意见。直到1921年共产国际三大召开的时候，中国共产党人才真正派出了自己的代表张太雷。张太雷根据自身的经验，对共产国际二大的判断提出了不同的意见，他认为，中国逐步被吸纳进入世界资本主义体系，但原有的农业和手工业在资本主义经济冲击下逐步解体，没能像欧美资本主义国家那样在近代化的过程中逐步建立起大规模的工业。“在中国，除了主要集中在大港埠的少数工厂外，所谓的现代工业企业寥寥无几。中国无疑还处在经济发展的原始阶段。”根据中国的经验，他在共产国际二大的基础上进而把殖民地半殖民地国家分成三类，即“已经是工业发达的国家”“刚刚参加国际性贸易(按其形式来说，尚为初步的)的国家”和“目前还完全不依附于帝国主义世界资本主义关系的即尚未开化的国家”。其中，“已经是工业发达的国家”对应共产国际二大提出的“政治上被压迫而且资本主义制度占统治地位的国家”,“刚刚参加国际性贸易(按其形式来说，尚为初步的)的国家”主要是中国这一类国家，“目前还完全不依附于帝国主义世界资本主义关系的即尚未开化的国家”对应“封建关系或宗法关系、宗法农民关系占优势的比较落后的国家和民族”。共产国际逐步接受了张太雷的观点。1922年，时任共产国际执委东方部部长的萨法罗夫在远东大会上提出：“远东各国，大多数是工业后进国，在资本主义发展的路上不过才走最初步。”在当年召开的共产国际四大上，原先起草《补充提纲》的罗易也不得不承认张太雷的“三分法”更合理。他表示，“东方国家可以划分为三类”,“第一类是资本主义相当发达的国家”,“在这些国家中，不仅从大的资本中心输入的资本发展了工业，而且本国的资本主义也已经发展起来”;“第二类是资本主义发展已经开始，但还处在低水平阶段上，封建主义仍然是社会主要支柱的国家”;第三类国家，“在那里原始关系还占统治地位，社会制度还是封建的宗法制”。会议通过的《东方问题指导原则》确认了殖民地半殖民地国家的“多样性”,认为不同国家“反映着殖民地正处在从封建关系和封建宗法关系向资本主义过渡的不同阶段”。

From the above process, it can be seen that from the very beginning of its founding, the CPC began to integrate the basic principles of Marxism with China’s specific realities, summarizing “Chinese experience” from Chinese practice, and, by influencing the Comintern, enabled “Chinese experience” to exert influence worldwide. The reason this was possible is mainly that colonial and semi-colonial revolutions entered the international communist movement relatively late, and the relevant theory was not yet mature. The international communist movement began in the 1840s, while China’s New Democratic Revolution began in the early 20th century, starting more than 70 years after the development of the international communist movement. However, with regard to the Chinese revolution, or more precisely, the colonial and semi-colonial revolutions represented by the Chinese revolution, the CPC did not start later than other communist party organizations, including the CPSU(b), or even the Comintern itself. In terms of accumulating and summarizing the experience of colonial and semi-colonial revolutions, the CPC and the Comintern can be said to have started roughly at the same time.

从上述过程可以看出，中国共产党从创建之初就开始把马克思主义基本原理同中国具体实际相结合，从中国实践总结“中国经验”,并通过影响共产国际使“中国经验”在世界发挥影响。之所以能够这样，主要是因为殖民地半殖民地革命进入国际共产主义运动的时间较晚，相关理论还不成熟。国际共产主义运动始于19世纪40年代，中国的新民主主义革命始于20世纪初，在国际共产主义运动发展70多年后才开始。但就中国革命，或者说以中国革命为代表的殖民地半殖民地革命而言，中国共产党与包括联共(布)在内的其他国家共产党组织相比，甚至与共产国际相比，起步并不算晚。就积累和总结殖民地半殖民地革命经验而言，中国共产党与共产国际可以说大致是同时起步的。

Of course, at this time the CPC’s exploration of “Chinese experience” was still in its embryonic stage. Zhang Tailei’s summary of “Chinese experience” was not an organizational act of the CPC, but purely an individual act. Although Zhang Tailei put forward new views, he had not yet developed the ideological self-awareness of “Chinese experience.” He believed that the views he proposed were “to strengthen, with new arguments, the conclusions on the colonial question made by Vladimir Ilyich at the Second Comintern Congress.”

当然，此时中国共产党对“中国经验”的探索还处于萌芽阶段。张太雷对“中国经验”的总结不是中国共产党的组织行为，纯粹是个人行为。虽然张太雷提出了新的观点，但他还没有提出“中国经验”的思想自觉。他认为自己提出的观点，是“以新的论证来加强弗拉基米尔·伊里奇在共产国际‘二大’上所作的关于殖民地问题的结论”。

II. Initial Stage: Generalizing “Chinese Experience” Becomes an Organizational Act

二、起步阶段：概括“中国经验”成为组织行为

From the Fourth Comintern Congress in 1922 to the Sixth Comintern Congress in 1928, this was the initial stage of the CPC’s exploration of “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory.” As the CPC proposed and, in the May Thirtieth Movement [4]4 The May Thirtieth Movement (1925) was a nationwide anti-imperialist protest in China, sparked by the shooting of Chinese workers by British police in Shanghai’s International Settlement. It marked a major escalation in the revolutionary mass movement., put into practice the proletarian leadership of the colonial and semi-colonial revolution, the status of the Chinese revolution in the world revolution rapidly rose. The CPC’s experience regarding the leadership of the revolution, united front work, and military struggle also promoted the development of relevant Comintern theories. During this stage, the generalization of “Chinese experience” developed from an individual act of Party members into an organizational act of the CPC.

从1922年共产国际四大到1928年共产国际六大，是中国共产党探索“中国经验”和“中国理论”的起步阶段。随着中国共产党提出并在五卅运动中践行殖民地半殖民地革命无产阶级领导权，中国革命在世界革命中的地位迅速上升。中国革命关于无产阶级领导权的经验、统一战线工作的经验、军事斗争的经验等还推动了共产国际相关理论的发展。这一阶段，对“中国经验”的概括从党员的个人行为发展为中国共产党的组织行为。

Overall, the Fourth Comintern Congress theoretically dealt with the issue of revolutionary leadership in a vague manner. Although the Comintern emphasized that the leadership of revolutions in various countries would ultimately belong to the proletariat, it also believed that the proletarian forces in many countries were still very weak. Therefore, it only demanded that communist parties in colonial and semi-colonial countries “achieve the status of an independent revolutionary factor,” emphasizing that at the present stage they were only doing “preparatory work” for gaining revolutionary leadership rather than immediately seizing it, and even recognized in practice the leadership of the bourgeoisie in the national liberation movement. In January 1923, the joint declaration signed by Sun Yat-sen and Joffe directly reflected this thinking. In the “Sun-Joffe Manifesto,” the Soviet representative Joffe acknowledged that “the Communist organization, or even the Soviet system, cannot actually be applied in China,” effectively recognizing that the Chinese revolution would be led by the national bourgeoisie and the Kuomintang.

总的来看，共产国际四大在理论上对革命领导权问题进行了模糊化的处理。共产国际虽然强调各国革命的领导权终将归无产阶级所有，但也认为许多国家无产阶级力量还很弱小，因而仅要求殖民地半殖民地国家的共产党“取得一种独立的革命因素的地位”,强调现阶段还只是为获得革命领导权做“准备工作”而不是立即获得领导权，甚至在实践中承认资产阶级在民族解放运动中的领导权。1923年1月，孙中山与越飞签订的联合宣言直接体现了这一思想。在《孙文越飞联合宣言》中，苏俄代表越飞认可“共产组织，甚至苏维埃制度，事实均不能引用于中国”,实际上承认了中国革命由民族资产阶级和国民党来领导。

With the development of the Great Revolution [5]5 The Great Revolution (1925–1927) refers to the first period of the CPC-Kuomintang united front, culminating in the Northern Expedition against warlords, before the KMT’s turn against the CPC., Chinese Communists recognized the compromising nature of the bourgeoisie. In January 1925, the Fourth National Congress of the CPC adopted the “Resolution on the National Revolutionary Movement,” proposing that “the higher the class, the more compromising it is,” creatively raising the issue of proletarian leadership and demanding that the proletariat “attain a leading position.” Shortly after the conclusion of the Fourth National Congress, the May Thirtieth Movement erupted. The outbreak of the May Thirtieth Movement and the subsequent Canton-Hong Kong Strike [6]6 The Canton-Hong Kong Strike (1925–1926) was a massive anti-imperialist labor strike and boycott centered in Guangzhou and Hong Kong, supporting the May Thirtieth Movement and demonstrating working-class power. precisely proved from practice the correctness of the theory of proletarian leadership, transforming the CPC’s idea of striving for proletarian leadership from theory into practice. As Luo Yinong pointed out: “Before the May Thirtieth Movement broke out, we did not see it clearly; after its outbreak, we reached the conclusion that the Chinese workers can indeed lead the national revolution.” Even Chen Duxiu, who had once proposed the “theory of two-stage revolution” [7]7 The “theory of two-stage revolution” (二次革命论), associated with Chen Duxiu, held that the Chinese revolution must first complete a bourgeois-democratic stage under bourgeois leadership before a later socialist stage, a view later criticized by the CPC as underestimating proletarian leadership., believed that after the May Thirtieth Movement, the national revolution “might be led by the revolutionary working class, moving straight toward revolution, even to the completion of the national liberation of all China; or it might be influenced by the compromising big merchant class, affecting all the people, gradually returning to the former ‘compradorized’ Shanghai.”

随着大革命的开展，中国共产党人认识到了资产阶级的妥协性。1925年1月，中共四大通过《对于民族革命运动之议决案》,提出“越是上层阶级越富于妥协性”,创造性地提出无产阶级领导权问题，要求无产阶级“取得领导的地位”。中共四大闭幕后不久，五卅运动爆发。五卅运动及随后省港大罢工的爆发恰好从实践上证明了无产阶级领导权理论的正确性，使得中国共产党争取无产阶级领导权的想法由理论转化为实践。如罗亦农指出的：“在五卅运动尚未爆发前，我们未看清，爆发后得到结论，是中国工人确能领导民族革命。”就连曾提出“二次革命论”的陈独秀也认为，五卅运动后的国民革命“或者由革命的工人阶级领导此运动，一直行向革命，以至完成全中国的民族解放；或者由妥协的大商阶级势力影响一切民众，渐渐回复到从前‘洋奴化’的上海”。

The outbreak of the May Thirtieth Movement [8]8 The May Thirtieth Movement (1925) was a nationwide anti-imperialist movement in China sparked by the shooting of Chinese rapidly elevated the status of the Chinese revolution, leading some within the CPC to begin regarding China as the center of the world revolution. The May Thirtieth Movement occurred precisely in a phase designated by the Comintern as the capitalist counteroffensive; amid the “ebb tide” of various revolutionary movements across Eurasia, China’s May Thirtieth Movement blazed like brilliant fireworks in the dark night, drawing the attention of the Comintern and communist parties worldwide, and igniting the revolutionary fervor of colonial and semi-colonial peoples. On June 7, 1925, the Executive Committee of the Communist International, the Executive Bureau of the Red International of Labor Unions, and the Executive Committee of the Young Communist International issued an “Appeal to Workers, Peasants, and All Working People Concerning the Massacres in Qingdao and Shanghai,” calling on workers, peasants, and soldiers of all countries to “support the struggle of the Chinese workers with all their strength.” That same month, the Presidium of the Executive Committee of the Comintern cabled the central committees of the communist parties of France, Italy, the United States, and other countries, demanding that these parties take all necessary measures to support the May Thirtieth Movement. The Comintern placed a very high evaluation on the Chinese revolution. In February 1926, Lozovsky, Chairman of the Red International of Labor Unions, pointed out at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Executive Committee of the Comintern that “the rise of the Chinese proletariat is the most important event since the October Revolution.” [9]9 “Armed independent regime of the workers and peasants” (工农武装割据) refers to the strategy of establishing revolutionary base areas in the countryside, relying on the Red Army and peasant support, to encircle the cities and eventually seize national power. It was a key concept in Mao Zedong’s early revolutionary theory. This formulation, “the most important event since the October Revolution,” was subsequently written into the session’s resolution, “The Immediate Tasks of Communists in the Trade Union Movement,” becoming the Comintern’s official assessment of China’s May Thirtieth Movement. The Comintern also established a Far Eastern Bureau in China in 1926 and convened the Pacific Labor Conference in 1927, using China as a hub to liaise and coordinate communist organizations in Eastern countries, making China the revolutionary center of the Far East. The CPC gained a new understanding of the status of the Chinese revolution within the world revolution. For instance, Qu Qiubai proposed that the world history of 1925 “must place the ‘Chinese revolutionary movement’ in the foremost and most important position.” [10]10 The Agrarian Revolutionary War (土地革命战争, 1927–1937) is the official CPC term for the period of civil war against the Kuomintang, also known as the Ten-Year Civil War or the First Chinese Civil War. It was precisely because of the significance of the May Thirtieth Movement that CPC members during the New Democratic Revolution period commonly regarded it as the starting point of the Great Revolution. Today, when we speak of the Great Revolution period, in CPC history it generally refers to the historical period from the Third National Congress of the CPC to the Nanchang Uprising. As an event, the Great Revolution generally refers to the series of revolutionary events from the establishment of the Kuomintang-CPC cooperation in 1924 to the Nanchang Uprising. However, before the founding of New China, when referring to the Great Revolution, it meant precisely the historical period from the May Thirtieth Movement in 1925 to the failure of the Great Revolution.

五卅运动的爆发使得中国革命地位迅速提升，这使得中国共产党内有人开始把中国作为世界革命的中心。五卅运动恰好发生于共产国际认定的资本主义反攻的阶段，在亚欧大陆各类革命运动的“退潮”中，中国的五卅运动宛如黑夜里璀璨的烟火，引起了共产国际和各国共产党的关注，点燃了殖民地半殖民地革命的激情。1925年6月7日，共产国际执行委员会、赤色工会国际执行局、青年共产国际执行委员会发出《关于青岛和上海惨案告工人、农民和全体劳动人民书》,号召世界各国工人农民士兵“全力支持中国工人的斗争”。当月，共产国际执行委员会主席团就致电法国、意大利、美国和其他国家共产党中央委员会，要求这些国家的共产党采取一切必要措施支持五卅运动。共产国际对中国革命给予了很高的评价。1926年2月，赤色工会国际主席洛佐夫斯基在共产国际执委第六次全会上指出，“中国无产阶级的崛起是继十月革命后最重要的事件”。“十月革命后最重要的事件”这个提法随后被写入会议决议《共产党人在工会运动中的当前任务》,成为共产国际对中国五卅运动的正式评价。共产国际还于1926年在中国设立远东局，1927年召开太平洋劳动会议，以中国为中心联络和协调东方各国共产主义组织，中国成为远东地区的革命中心。对中国革命在世界革命中的地位，中国共产党有了新的认识。如瞿秋白提出，1925年的世界史“要以‘中国革命运动’占第一等重要的位置”。也正是因为五卅运动的重要意义，在新民主主义革命时期中国共产党人普遍把五卅运动视为大革命的起点。今天我们讲大革命时期，在中共党史上一般是指中共三大至南昌起义的这个历史时期。作为事件的大革命，一般是指从1924年国共合作建立到南昌起义发生的一系列革命事件。但在新中国成立前，说到大革命，指的就是1925年五卅运动至大革命失败这段历史时期。

On the basis of the elevated status of the Chinese revolution, the CPC began actively promoting to the Comintern the new “Chinese experience” of proletarian leadership. In 1925, Deng Zhongxia, on multiple occasions with international attendees, including talks with Vaksov, editor of the Soviet All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions newspaper, stated: “Our working class has in fact become the main force and leader in the national revolution.” [11]11 The Nanchang Uprising (August 1, 1927), the Autumn Harvest Uprising (September 1927), and the Guangzhou Uprising (December 1927) were early armed insurrections led by the CPC after the Kuomintang’s purge of communists. August 1 is now celebrated as the founding day of the People’s Liberation Army. In 1926, at the Seventh Enlarged Plenary Session of the Executive Committee of the Comintern, Tan Pingshan, on behalf of the CPC, submitted a written report to the Comintern, further introducing the CPC’s understanding of proletarian leadership. He pointed out that during the May Thirtieth Movement, the proletariat “powerfully propelled the national revolutionary movement and wrested the leadership of the movement from the bourgeoisie.” The session adopted a “Resolution on the Situation in China,” emphasizing that “the proletariat is increasingly clearly becoming the leader of the movement.” [12]12 The Sixth National Congress of the CPC was held in Moscow from June to July 1928, due to the security situation in China. It was heavily influenced by the Communist International. That is to say, the Comintern acknowledged that the May Thirtieth Movement had already demonstrated the strength of the Chinese proletariat, but unlike the CPC’s emphasis that the proletariat had already exercised revolutionary leadership, the Comintern believed that its practice of contending for leadership had only just begun. After the failure of the Great Revolution, in 1928 the Sixth National Congress of the CPC and the Sixth Congress of the Comintern conducted a more systematic summation of the Chinese revolutionary experience. Qu Qiubai and others summarized experiences concerning proletarian leadership, the united front, and military struggle in the Chinese revolution, and actively promoted the “Chinese experience” to the Comintern, stressing that “the experience of the Chinese revolution can serve as a reference not only for all colonial countries but for the communist parties of all countries.” [13]13 This quotation from Bukharin is cited from historical records of the Sixth National Congress. The dismissive tone (“eat chicken, drink chicken soup”) reflects the Communist International’s initial skepticism toward the viability of rural base areas. Based on the Chinese experience, the Sixth Congress of the Comintern explicitly stated that “without the leadership of the proletariat (of which the leading role of the communist party is an organic component), the bourgeois-democratic revolution cannot be carried through to completion, let alone any socialist revolution,” and made the realization of proletarian leadership a basic task of the entire colonial and semi-colonial revolution. Other aspects of the experience were also largely recognized by the Comintern. After the congress, the “Chinese experience” was promoted in practice. For example, in accordance with the resolutions of the Sixth Congress of the Comintern, the Japanese Communist Party also abandoned its previous practice of establishing a legal workers’ and peasants’ party, and in principle negated the establishment of any political party other than the communist party.

在中国革命地位提升的基础上，中国共产党开始积极地向共产国际宣传无产阶级领导权这一新的“中国经验”。1925年，邓中夏在与苏联全总机关报编辑瓦克索夫会谈等多个有国际人士出席的场合提出：“我们工人阶级在国民革命中事实上已成了主力军、领导者了。”1926年，在共产国际执委第七次全会上，谭平山代表中共向共产国际提交了一份书面报告，进一步向共产国际介绍了中共对无产阶级领导权的认识。他指出，在五卅运动中，无产阶级“有力地推动了民族革命运动，并从资产阶级手中夺得了运动的领导权”。全会通过《关于中国形势问题的决议》,强调“无产阶级越来越明显地成为运动的领导者”。也就是说，共产国际认可五卅运动已经展现出中国无产阶级的力量，但与中共强调无产阶级已经实践革命领导权不同，共产国际认为它争夺领导权的实践才刚刚开始。大革命失败后，1928年中共六大和共产国际六大对中国革命经验进行了更为系统的总结。瞿秋白等人对中国革命中有关无产阶级领导权、统一战线、军事斗争等方面的经验进行了总结，并且积极地向共产国际推广“中国经验”,强调“中国革命的经验不仅可以让各殖民地国家引以为鉴，所有国家的共产党都可以引以为鉴”。根据中国经验，共产国际六大明确提出，“没有无产阶级的领导(共产党的领导地位是它的有机组成部分),资产阶级民主革命就不能进行到底，更不用说什么社会主义革命了”,并将实现无产阶级领导权作为整个殖民地半殖民革命的基本任务。其他方面的经验也大多得到了共产国际的认可。会后，“中国经验”在实践中得到了推广。例如，根据共产国际六大的决议，日本共产党也放弃了之前一直采取的建立合法的工农政党的做法，从原则上否定了建立除共产党以外的其他政党。

During this phase, the CPC’s exploration of the “Chinese experience” saw new developments. First, the CPC’s consciousness of internationalizing the Chinese experience gradually increased. The CPC had already realized that the Chinese revolution could provide new experience for the world revolution. Some within the CPC even initially proposed elevating the “Chinese experience” into “Chinese theory.” For instance, Cai Hesen proposed “acquiring the rich experience and lessons of the eight years since the revolution, and establishing the Chinese proletariat’s own theory of Lenin’s party.” [14]14 Zhou Enlai’s criticism is a standard reference in CPC historiography, used to illustrate the early Party’s deviation from Mao’s correct line. Second, the internationalization of the Chinese experience began to shift from individual behavior to organizational behavior. From Tan Pingshan introducing the issue of proletarian leadership in the Chinese revolution on behalf of the CPC at the Seventh Enlarged Plenary Session of the Executive Committee of the Comintern, to Qu Qiubai and other CPC representatives introducing the Chinese revolutionary experience at the Sixth Congress of the Comintern, internationalizing the Chinese experience had become an organizational act of the CPC. Finally, the internationalization of the Chinese experience began to receive explicit recognition from the Comintern and the CPSU(B). For example, the Sixth Congress of the Comintern not only summed up the Chinese revolutionary experience but also promoted it to other colonial and semi-colonial revolutions, emphasizing that “the past experience of the Chinese revolution should undoubtedly be utilized by the revolutionary movement in India and other similar colonial countries.” [15]15 The “February Letter” (二月来信) was a directive from the CPC Central Committee in February 1929, influenced by the Communist International, ordering the dispersal of the Red Army and the removal of Mao Zedong and Zhu De from their commands. Beyond the Comintern, communist party members in some countries also began to actively study the Chinese revolutionary experience. For instance, at the Seventh Enlarged Plenary Session of the Executive Committee of the Comintern, the Argentine representative Codovilla proposed studying “the experience gained in the revolutionary movement of the colonial countries (China, Indonesia, etc.).” [16]16 Mao’s reply is contained in his letter of April 5, 1929, later collected in his Selected Works.

这一阶段，中国共产党对“中国经验”的探索有了新的发展。首先，中国共产党推动中国经验国际化的自觉性逐步上升。中国共产党已经意识到，中国革命能够为世界革命提供新的经验。中国共产党内甚至还有人初步提出把“中国经验”上升为“中国理论”。如蔡和森提出，“获得八年以来中国革命之丰富的经验与教训，建立中国无产阶级列宁党的自己的理论”。其次，中国经验国际化开始从个体行为转变为组织行为。从谭平山代表中国共产党在共产国际执委第七次扩大全会介绍中国革命中的无产阶级领导权问题，到瞿秋白等中共代表在共产国际六大上介绍中国革命经验，将中国经验国际化已经成为中国共产党的组织行为。最后，中国经验国际化开始获得共产国际和联共(布)的明确认可。例如，共产国际六大不仅总结了中国革命经验，还将之推广到其他殖民地半殖民地革命中，强调“中国革命以往的经验无疑应当为印度和其他类似殖民地国家的革命运动所利用”。除了共产国际之外，部分国家的共产党人也开始主动学习中国革命经验。例如在共产国际执委第七次全会上，阿根廷代表柯都维亚就提出学习“各殖民地国家(中国、印度尼西亚等)的革命运动中所取得的经验”。

III. Development Phase: Summing Up “Chinese Experience” Becomes a Conscious Action

三、发展阶段：总结“中国经验”变为自觉行动

From the Sixth Congress of the Comintern in 1928 to the Zunyi Conference in 1935 [17]17 The Second Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee was held in Shanghai in June 1929. It marked a partial shift away from the line of the Sixth National Congress., this was the development phase of the CPC’s exploration of “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory.” The Chinese revolution underwent a transformation from the failure of the Great Revolution to the rise of the Agrarian Revolutionary War, and the status of the Chinese revolution in the world revolution correspondingly first declined and then rose. At the same time, the Chinese revolution, with armed independent regimes [18]18 This resolution is cited from the official documents of the Second Plenary Session. as its main form of struggle, blazed a new revolutionary path different from the October Revolution, which had taken armed insurrection as its main form of struggle. The CPC impelled the Comintern to gradually accept this new “Chinese experience” of armed independent regimes.

从1928年共产国际六大至1935年遵义会议召开，是中国共产党探索“中国经验”和“中国理论”的发展阶段。中国革命经历了从大革命失败到土地革命战争兴起的转变，中国革命在世界革命中的地位也随之先降后升。与此同时，以武装割据为主要斗争形式的中国革命，开辟了一条不同于十月革命的以武装暴动为主要斗争形式的革命新道路，中国共产党推动共产国际逐步接受了武装割据这一新的“中国经验”。

The Sixth National Congress of the CPC and the Sixth Congress of the Comintern in 1928 judged that the high tide of the Chinese revolution had passed, and the Comintern turned its attention once again to the Indian revolution. Affected by this, the status of the Chinese revolution temporarily declined. However, as China unleashed the storm of the Agrarian Revolutionary War, the Chinese revolution once again developed unexpectedly. The Chinese Soviet Republic, established in 1931, became the second long-lasting Soviet regime in the world after the Soviet Union, which led the Comintern to place the Chinese revolution at the very forefront of colonial and semi-colonial revolutions, and even the entire world revolution, stating that “China ranks first among the national revolutionary movements in the colonial world.” [19]19 The Sino-Soviet conflict of 1929 (中东路事件) was a military clash between the Republic of China and the Soviet Union over the Chinese Eastern Railway in Manchuria. It temporarily heightened the strategic importance of the CPC’s armed forces in the eyes of the Communist International.

1928年中共六大和共产国际六大判断中国革命高潮已经过去，共产国际把目光又投向印度革命。受此影响，中国革命地位一度下降。但随着中国掀起土地革命战争的风暴，中国革命又一次出乎意料地发展起来。1931年建立的中华苏维埃共和国成为苏联之后世界上第二个长期存在的苏维埃政权，这使得共产国际把中国革命摆在殖民地半殖民地革命乃至整个世界革命的最前列，提出“中国在殖民地世界的民族革命运动中名列前茅”。

During this period, in the process of exploring the armed independent regime of the workers and peasants [9]9 “Armed independent regime of the workers and peasants” (工农武装割据) refers to the strategy of establishing revolutionary base areas in the countryside, relying on the Red Army and peasant support, to encircle the cities and eventually seize national power. It was a key concept in Mao Zedong’s early revolutionary theory., China gradually forged a revolutionary path in practice that differed from the October Revolution. The October Revolution pioneered the precedent of a proletarian party seizing power through armed insurrection. With the establishment of the Communist International, this form of revolution was extended to the entire international communist movement. In the early days of the Agrarian Revolutionary War [10]10 The Agrarian Revolutionary War (土地革命战争, 1927–1937) is the official CPC term for the period of civil war against the Kuomintang, also known as the Ten-Year Civil War or the First Chinese Civil War., the CPC also attempted to learn from the experience of the October Revolution, launching a series of armed insurrections such as the Nanchang Uprising, the Autumn Harvest Uprising, and the Guangzhou Uprising [11]11 The Nanchang Uprising (August 1, 1927), the Autumn Harvest Uprising (September 1927), and the Guangzhou Uprising (December 1927) were early armed insurrections led by the CPC after the Kuomintang’s purge of communists. August 1 is now celebrated as the founding day of the People’s Liberation Army.. However, none of these armed insurrections achieved their intended goals. History proved that the experience of the Russian revolution, especially the experience of armed insurrection, was not entirely applicable to the Chinese revolution. It is worth affirming that, although the armed insurrections did not achieve a single decisive victory like the October Revolution, they gave birth to the spark of the armed independent regime. Armed insurrection is a form of revolution aimed at seizing political power, with sudden armed action as its primary means; it erupts violently but lasts for a short duration. Compared with armed insurrection, the armed independent regime is a form of revolution that lasts longer and relies more heavily on professional soldiers. Its characteristic is to gradually expand the scope of revolution by relying on certain base areas, ultimately achieving total victory. Influenced by the traditional thinking of armed insurrection, the Communist International initially held a negative attitude toward this new “Chinese experience” of the armed independent regime. Bukharin personally attended the Sixth National Congress of the CPC [12]12 The Sixth National Congress of the CPC was held in Moscow from June to July 1928, due to the security situation in China. It was heavily influenced by the Communist International. and proposed, “Do not concentrate the Red Army in one place; it is better to divide it into several parts, three parts, four parts,” and “after a certain period of time, move to another place, stay in this place for a while, kill some local tyrants and evil gentry, eat some food, drink some chicken soup, and then go to another place. In another area, still kill local tyrants and eat chicken in the same way, and after a certain period of time, advance again.” [13]13 This quotation from Bukharin is cited from historical records of the Sixth National Congress. The dismissive tone (“eat chicken, drink chicken soup”) reflects the Communist International’s initial skepticism toward the viability of rural base areas. Influenced by the Communist International, the Sixth National Congress of the CPC still regarded armed insurrection as the main form of revolution and subsequently adopted a series of restrictive measures against the armed independent regime. It was precisely for this reason that Zhou Enlai later criticized the Sixth National Congress for “not attaching importance to the rural armed independent regime.” [14]14 Zhou Enlai’s criticism is a standard reference in CPC historiography, used to illustrate the early Party’s deviation from Mao’s correct line. In February 1929, the Central Committee of the CPC wrote to Mao Zedong and others, proposing to “divide our armed forces and disperse them into the villages” according to a scale of no more than 500 men per unit, and instructed Mao Zedong and Zhu De that “there is a need for Comrades Zhu and Mao to leave the troops and come to the Central Committee,” believing that “the departure of Comrades Zhu and Mao from the troops would not only cause no greater loss but would also facilitate the implementation of the plan for dividing the troops.” [15]15 The “February Letter” (二月来信) was a directive from the CPC Central Committee in February 1929, influenced by the Communist International, ordering the dispersal of the Red Army and the removal of Mao Zedong and Zhu De from their commands. This is the famous “February Letter” in history. Provinces with armed independent regimes, such as Hunan, Guangdong, Hubei, and Fujian, also received similar instructions. In a letter replying to the Central Committee in the name of the Front Committee, Mao Zedong tactfully criticized the “February Letter” for being “too pessimistic in its assessment of both the objective situation and subjective forces,” [16]16 Mao’s reply is contained in his letter of April 5, 1929, later collected in his Selected Works. and in fact adhered to the correct opinion, refusing to carry out the erroneous instruction to disperse the troops. In contrast, many other places ultimately implemented the relevant instructions. After Bukharin’s fall from power, the Second Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of the CPC [17]17 The Second Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee was held in Shanghai in June 1929. It marked a partial shift away from the line of the Sixth National Congress. in June 1929 attempted to withstand the pressure from the Communist International and suspend the implementation of the strategy of dispersing the troops determined by the Sixth National Congress. The session resolved: “The strategy of concentrating or dispersing the Red Army’s actions should be determined by all objective and subjective conditions, such as the situation of warlord wars, the state of the peasant struggle, and the composition of the Red Army and geographical conditions. One should not mechanically and generally instruct on the strategy of concentration or dispersion.” [18]18 This resolution is cited from the official documents of the Second Plenary Session. After the Sino-Soviet conflict of 1929 [19]19 The Sino-Soviet conflict of 1929 (中东路事件) was a military clash between the Republic of China and the Soviet Union over the Chinese Eastern Railway in Manchuria. It temporarily heightened the strategic importance of the CPC’s armed forces in the eyes of the Communist International., due to the increased importance of armed struggle, Stalin and the Communist International turned to recognize China’s armed independent regime, demanding that the CPC concentrate resources to develop the armed independent regime. In 1930, they issued an instruction on establishing a “Soviet Area Central (Provisional) Revolutionary Government,” pushing the CPC to establish the Provisional Central Government of the Chinese Soviet Republic. [20]20 The Chinese Soviet Republic (中华苏维埃共和国) was proclaimed in Ruijin, Jiangxi, in November 1931, with Mao Zedong as its first chairman. It was a proto-state structure parallel to the Kuomintang government. The major revolutionary base areas we are now familiar with, such as the Central Soviet Area and the Hubei-Henan-Anhui Soviet Area, were all established after the Sino-Soviet conflict of 1929.

这一时期，在探索工农武装割据的过程中，中国在实践中逐步走出了一条与十月革命不同的革命道路。十月革命开创了无产阶级政党通过武装暴动夺取政权的先河，随着共产国际的建立，这一革命形式被推向整个国际共运。土地革命战争初期，中国共产党也试图学习十月革命的经验，相继发动南昌起义、秋收起义、广州起义等一系列武装暴动，但这些武装暴动都没能实现预期目标。历史证明，俄国革命经验尤其是武装暴动的经验并不完全适用于中国革命。值得肯定的是，武装暴动虽然没能像十月革命一样一击而胜，却孕育了武装割据的星星之火。武装暴动是一种以夺取政权为目的、以突发性武装行动为主要手段的革命形式，爆发时猛烈但持续时间较短。相比武装暴动，武装割据是一种持续时间更长、更加依赖职业军人的革命形式，其特点为依托一定的根据地逐步扩大革命范围，最终取得全部胜利。受到传统武装暴动思维的影响，共产国际最初对武装割据这一新的“中国经验”抱消极的态度。布哈林还亲临中共六大，提出“不要将红军聚到一个地方，最好将他分成几个部分，三部分，四部分”,并且“经相当的时间再转到一个地方，到这个地方住一些时，杀一杀土豪劣绅，吃一吃饭，喝一喝鸡汤，再到另外一个地方。到另外的区域中，还是照样的杀土豪，吃鸡，过了相当时间之后再前进”。受共产国际的影响，中共六大依旧把武装暴动作为主要的革命形式，并随后对武装割据采取了一系列的限制措施。也正是如此，周恩来后来才批评中共六大“不重视农村武装割据”。1929年2月，中共中央致信毛泽东等人，提出将红四军按照每队不超过500人的规模，“分编我们的武装力量散入各乡村去”,并指示毛泽东、朱德“有离开部队来中央的需要”,认为“朱毛两同志离开部队不仅不会有更大的损失，且更利便于部队分编计划的进行”。这就是历史上著名的“二月来信”。湖南、广东、湖北、福建等存在武装割据的省份也都收到了类似的指示。在以前委名义回复中共中央的信中，毛泽东委婉地批评“二月来信”“对客观形势和主观力量的估量，都太悲观了”,实际上坚持了正确的意见，拒绝执行分散武装的错误指示。相比之下，其他很多地方最终还是执行了相关指示。布哈林下台后，1929年6月中共六届二中全会尝试顶着共产国际的压力，暂停执行中共六大确定的分散武装的策略。会议决定：“红军行动的策略集中或分散，是要决定于一切客观和主观的条件，如军阀战争的形势，农民斗争的状况，以及红军组织的成分与地理的条件等，不应机械的一般的来指示集中或分散的策略。”中东路事件后，由于武装斗争重要性的上升，斯大林和共产国际又转而认可中国的武装割据，要求中国共产党集中资源发展武装割据，并于1930年发出关于建立“苏区中央(临时)革命政府”的指示，推动中国共产党建立中华苏维埃共和国临时中央政府。我们现在所熟知的中央苏区、鄂豫皖等几个大的革命根据地均是在中东路事件后组建的。

Constrained by subjective and objective conditions, neither the CPC nor the Communist International was able to systematically summarize this new revolutionary path at this stage. Nevertheless, around the issues of Soviet power, especially the democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants, and armed struggle, especially guerrilla warfare, the CPC summarized a series of “Chinese experiences.” These experiences promoted the development of the Communist International’s relevant understanding. On the issue of Soviet power, the Communist International had long regarded the Soviet as a form of political power and an important symbol of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Soviet power established in China was clearly not a dictatorship of the proletariat but a democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants. As early as 1931, the Communist International had already noted that the “Chinese experience” of the Soviet differed from the Russian experience. Kuusinen, then head of the Eastern Department of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, proposed: “China’s bourgeois-democratic revolution is also different from the bourgeois-democratic revolution anywhere else. We have Soviet areas there. But if we carefully study the basic characteristics of development there, then the situation there is also completely different from what should be the case according to European standards.” [21]21 Otto Kuusinen (1881–1964) was a Finnish-born Soviet politician and a leading figure in the Communist International. He served as head of its Eastern Department. The October Revolution first seized power and then established the Red Army and Soviets. But the steps of the Chinese revolution were exactly the opposite: “First, individual Communists formed Red Army detachments, and these detachments established a new proletarian political power,” [22]22 This quotation is from a speech by a CPC representative at the Communist International, as recorded in the proceedings. that is, first establish the army and Soviets and then gradually seize national political power. In 1932, the representative of the CPC at the Twelfth Plenary Session of the Executive Committee of the Communist International proposed that the development of China’s armed independent regime and the establishment of Soviet power “proved in practice to the whole world a truth, namely, that the Soviet system is entirely feasible in colonial and semi-colonial countries.” [23]23 The Twelfth Plenary Session of the Executive Committee of the Communist International was held in Moscow in September 1932. In 1933, the representative of the CPC at the Thirteenth Plenary Session of the Executive Committee of the Communist International further systematized the theses on “Soviets” from the Twelfth Plenary Session, proposing that the Chinese revolution “proved in practice that the Soviet is not only the sole form of the dictatorship of the proletariat” but also the “best form” of the democratic dictatorship of the workers and peasants. [24]24 The Thirteenth Plenary Session was held in Moscow in December 1933. Regarding the international significance of the “Chinese experience,” he believed that China’s armed independent regime and Soviet power construction “enriched Lenin’s theoretical guidelines on the great role and significance of the provisional revolutionary government, the revolutionary army, and the establishment of revolutionary base areas (even if initially small in scale),” and “became not only the most precious treasure of the Chinese Communist Party, not only an effective example for the liberation struggle of the entire colonial world, but also a rich lesson for the Communists of various capitalist countries, first of all our comrades in Japan, Spain, and other countries.” [25]25 This passage is from the speech of the CPC representative at the Thirteenth Plenary Session. During the formation stage of the resolution, the speech of the CPC representative changed the content of Kuusinen’s report “On Fascism, the Danger of War, and the Tasks of the Communist Parties.” Kuusinen’s initial report still emphasized that the “Soviet” was a form of political power of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The report adopted after the plenary session incorporated the new formulation of the CPC, affirming that “Soviet power is a state form of the dictatorship of the proletariat” and also “a state form of the revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.” [26]26 The final text of the resolution adopted at the Thirteenth Plenary Session incorporated this dual formulation, reflecting the CPC’s influence. The experience of military struggle in the Chinese revolution was also gradually promoted by the Communist International. For example, on October 28, 1934, the Eastern Secretariat of the Executive Committee of the Communist International suggested publishing works on some campaigns of the Chinese Red Army, the history of the CPC’s armed struggle, the theory of guerrilla warfare, the theory of small-scale mountain warfare, and the art of combat of the Chinese revolutionary army, demanding that the CPC “regularly and extensively inform brother parties of developments in China, thereby propagating the issue of armed struggle.” [27]27 This directive from the Eastern Secretariat is cited from the archives of the Communist International. On the same day, the Eastern Secretariat of the Executive Committee of the Communist International also proposed establishing an “Eastern Combat Center,” “taking the experience of the Chinese Red Army as the basis” to study the armed struggle issues of Eastern countries. [28]28 The proposed “Eastern Combat Center” was intended to study and disseminate the military experience of the Chinese Red Army to other communist parties in Asia and beyond. The “Chinese experience” once again promoted the development of the world revolution.

受主客观条件的限制，无论是中国共产党还是共产国际在这一阶段都没能对这条新的革命道路进行系统的总结。虽然如此，但围绕苏维埃政权尤其是工农民主专政问题，以及武装斗争尤其是游击战问题，中国共产党总结了一系列“中国经验”,这些经验推动了共产国际相关认识的发展。在苏维埃政权问题上，共产国际长期把苏维埃视为无产阶级专政的政权形式和重要象征。而在中国建立的苏维埃政权显然不是无产阶级专政，而是工农民主专政。早在1931年，共产国际就已经注意到苏维埃的“中国经验”与俄国经验有所不同。时任共产国际执委东方部部长的库西宁提出：“中国的资产阶级民主革命也跟其他任何地方的资产阶级民主革命不同。我们在那里有苏区。但如果我们仔细研究一下那里发展的基本特征，那么那里的情形也跟欧洲标准所应有的完全不同。”十月革命是先夺取政权然后建立红军和苏维埃。但中国革命的步骤恰好相反，“先是个别共产党人组建红军支队，而这些支队建立起新的无产阶级政权”,即先建立军队和苏维埃然后逐步夺取全国政权。1932年，中国共产党代表在共产国际执委第十二次全会上提出，中国武装割据的发展和苏维埃政权的建立“在实践上向全世界指出和证明了一条真理，即苏维埃制度在殖民地和半殖民地国家中完全可行”。1933年，中国共产党代表又在共产国际执委会第十三次全会上将十二次全会上有关“苏维埃”的论断进一步系统化，提出中国革命“在实践上证明了，苏维埃不仅是无产阶级专政的唯一形式”,而且是工农民主专政的“最好形式”。对于“中国经验”的国际意义，他认为，中国的武装割据和苏维埃政权建设“丰富了列宁关于临时革命政府、革命军队和建立革命根据地(即使一开始规模不大)的巨大作用和意义的理论方针”,“不仅成了中国共产党最宝贵的财富，不仅成了对……整个殖民地世界人民解放斗争有效的榜样，而且成了对各资本主义国家共产党人，首先是我们日本、西班牙等国同志丰富的教训”。在决议的形成阶段，中国共产党代表的发言改变了库西宁《关于法西斯主义、战争危险和各共产党任务》报告的内容。库西宁最初的报告仍强调“苏维埃”是无产阶级专政的政权形式，经全会审议通过的报告将中国共产党的新提法加入，肯定“苏维埃政权是无产阶级专政的国家形式”,也是“无产阶级和农民革命民主专政的国家形式”。中国革命中的军事斗争经验也被共产国际逐步推广。例如，1934年10月28日，共产国际执行委员会东方书记处建议出版有关中国红军部分战役、中共武装斗争史、游击战争理论、山区小规模战争理论和中国革命军队的作战艺术问题的著作，要求中共“向兄弟党经常广泛通报中国事态发展，以此来宣传武装斗争问题”。同日，共产国际执行委员会东方书记处还提议建立“东方作战中心”,“把中国红军的经验作为基础”来研究东方各国的武装斗争问题。“中国经验”再一次推动了世界革命的发展。

During this stage, the CPC’s exploration of “Chinese experience” underwent new developments. First, the CPC gained a clearer and more self-conscious understanding of the international significance of “Chinese experience.” Second, “Chinese experience” shifted from applied innovation to original innovation. In the initial stage, the CPC’s exploration of proletarian leadership was essentially a successful application of proletarian leadership in colonial and semi-colonial revolutions. By this stage, however, the armed separatist rule [29]29 “Armed separatist rule” (武装割据) refers to the strategy of establishing independent revolutionary base areas in the countryside, relying on armed force to create and defend them, a key feature of the Chinese Communist revolution during the Agrarian Revolutionary War (1927–1937). nurtured by the Chinese revolution represented a completely new revolutionary form within the international communist movement. This was no longer an applied innovation of existing theories or practical experiences from the international communist movement in colonial and semi-colonial revolutions, but an innovation of original significance formed on the basis of the Chinese revolution. Finally, the Comintern placed greater importance on Chinese experience. In the initial stage, it was only after the failure of the Great Revolution in China, at the Sixth Congress of the Comintern, that the Comintern truly recognized the importance of proletarian leadership in colonial and semi-colonial revolutions and promoted it. In this stage, however, the Comintern as early as 1931—that is, in the early to middle period of the Agrarian Revolutionary War—had already recognized the uniqueness of China’s experience of armed separatist rule and proposed using the Chinese revolutionary experience as the basis “to formulate basic programs for other countries.”

这一阶段，中国共产党对“中国经验”的探索又有了新的发展。首先，中国共产党对“中国经验”的国际意义有了更加清晰和自觉的认知。其次，“中国经验”从应用性创新转向原创性创新。起步阶段，中国共产党关于无产阶级领导权的探索，本质上还是无产阶级领导权在殖民地半殖民地革命中的成功应用。而到这一阶段，中国革命孕育的武装割据是国际共产主义运动中的一种全新的革命形式。这就不再是国际共产主义运动中既有理论或实践经验在殖民地半殖民地革命中的应用性创新，而是基于中国革命形成的具有原创性意义的创新。最后，共产国际对中国经验的重视程度有所提高。起步阶段，共产国际真正认识到殖民地半殖民地革命中无产阶级领导权的重要性并将之推广，是在中国大革命失败之后的共产国际六大。而这一阶段，共产国际在1931年，也就是土地革命战争的前中期，就已经认识到中国武装割据经验的独特性，提出以中国革命经验为基础“为其他各国制定基本方案”。

IV. Maturation Stage: “Chinese Experience” Develops into “Chinese Theory”

四、成熟阶段：“中国经验”发展为“中国理论”

From the convening of the Zunyi Conference in 1935 to the victory of the War of Resistance Against Japan in 1945, this was the maturation stage of the CPC’s exploration of “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory.” The CPC gained a completely new understanding of the relationship between the Chinese revolution and the world revolution, establishing a new concept centered on the Chinese revolution. On this basis, the Chinese Communists, with Comrade Mao Zedong as their chief representative, creatively put forward the major proposition of “adapting Marxism to the Chinese context,” established Mao Zedong Thought as the guiding ideology of the Party, and propelled the development of “Chinese experience” into “Chinese theory.”

从1935年遵义会议召开至1945年抗日战争胜利，是中国共产党探索“中国经验”和“中国理论”的成熟阶段。中国共产党对中国革命与世界革命的关系有了全新的认识，确立了以中国革命为中心的新理念。在此基础上，以毛泽东同志为主要代表的中国共产党人创造性地提出了“马克思主义中国化”的重大命题，确立了毛泽东思想为党的指导思想，推动“中国经验”发展为“中国理论”。

After the Zunyi Conference, on the basis of reflecting on both the positive and negative experiences of the Chinese revolution, the Chinese Communists, with Comrade Mao Zedong as their chief representative, formed a distinct consciousness of the subjectivity of the Chinese revolution. First, they gained a deeper understanding of the endogenous nature of the Chinese revolution. In 1936, during a conversation with Edgar Snow, Mao Zedong stated: “Stalin said in a conversation with an American correspondent: ‘Revolutions cannot be exported.’ It is equally true that revolutions cannot be imported.” This indicates that the Chinese Communists, with Comrade Mao Zedong as their chief representative, had already recognized that the Chinese revolution was the result of the complex evolution of Chinese society since modern times, deeply rooted in the soil of China. Second, they developed a new understanding of the relationship between the Chinese revolution and the world revolution. The new central leadership re-examined the relationship between the Chinese revolution and the world revolution from the perspective of the Chinese revolution’s own developmental trajectory and practical needs, gradually forming a basic stance centered on the Chinese revolution. On this point, Mao Zedong pointed out: “When we study China, we must take China as the center; we must sit on the body of China to study the things of the world.” Third, they maintained a more conscious adherence to the independence of the Chinese revolution. Previously, in many important theoretical and practical explorations, the CPC had also demonstrated considerable independence, but when its own views conflicted with those of the Comintern and under certain pressure from the Comintern, it often chose to compromise and accept the Comintern’s views. After the formation of the new central leadership, the CPC adhered more consciously to major principled issues of the Chinese revolution. For example, on the issue of the Anti-Japanese National United Front, the Secretariat of the Executive Committee of the Comintern cabled the CPC Central Committee, demanding that “the Communists should not raise the issue of their leadership in the national front.” Within the CPC, Wang Ming echoed this, stating that “now we cannot empty talk about the bourgeoisie leading the proletariat or the proletariat leading the bourgeoisie,” and that “the central issue today is everything for the War of Resistance, everything through the Anti-Japanese National United Front, everything obeying the War of Resistance,” emphasizing that “the Eighth Route Army must also be unified under Chiang’s command.” [30]30 Wang Ming (1904–1974) was a senior CPC leader who, during the early War of Resistance, advocated subordinating the Party’s independence to the Nationalist (Kuomintang) government led by Chiang Kai-shek, a line opposed by Mao Zedong. Facing pressure from both within the Party and from the Comintern, the Party’s first generation of central leadership, with Comrade Mao Zedong at its core, adhered to the correct political direction, consistently treating the issue of leadership as the fundamental question for the success or failure of the War of Resistance and even the Chinese revolution as a whole. Fourth, they more clearly elucidated the basic foothold of the Chinese revolution. On the issue of handling the relationship between their own struggle and international assistance, the CPC had taken detours. After the Zunyi Conference, proceeding from the subjectivity of the Chinese revolution, the Chinese Communists, with Comrade Mao Zedong as their chief representative, realized that “international assistance is necessary for the revolutionary struggles of all modern states and all nations,” but “China must, at all times, take self-reliance as its basic foothold.”

遵义会议后，在反思中国革命正反两方面经验的基础上，以毛泽东同志为主要代表的中国共产党人形成鲜明的中国革命主体性意识。一是对中国革命的内生性有了更加深刻的理解。1936年，毛泽东在同斯诺谈话时提出：“斯大林在同一个美国记者的一次谈话中说：‘革命不能输出。’同样正确的是，革命也不能输入。”这表明，以毛泽东同志为主要代表的中国共产党人已经认识到中国革命是近代以来中国社会经历复杂演变后的结果，深深扎根于中国大地。二是对中国革命与世界革命的关系有了新的认识。新的中央领导集体从中国革命自身的发展脉络和现实需要出发重新考量了中国革命与世界革命的关系，逐步形成以中国革命为中心的基本立场。对此，毛泽东指出：“我们研究中国就要拿中国做中心，要坐在中国的身上研究世界的东西。”三是对中国革命的独立性有了更加自觉的坚守。此前，在许多重要的理论和实践探索中，中国共产党也表现出了相当的独立性，但当自身观点与共产国际观点发生冲突，并且在共产国际施加一定的压力后，往往又会选择妥协，接受共产国际的观点。在新的中央领导集体形成后，中国共产党对中国革命的重大原则性问题有了更加自觉的坚守。例如，在抗日民族统一战线问题上，共产国际执行委员会书记处曾致电中共中央，要求“共产党人不要提出他们在民族阵线中的领导权问题”。中国共产党党内还有王明与之呼应，提出“现在不能空喊资产阶级领导无产阶级或无产阶级领导资产阶级问题”,“今天的中心问题是一切为了抗日，一切经过抗日民族统一战线，一切服从抗日”,强调“八路军也要统一受蒋指挥”。面对来自党内和共产国际的压力，以毛泽东同志为核心的党的第一代中央领导集体坚持了正确的政治方向，始终把领导权问题作为抗日战争乃至中国革命成败的根本问题。四是更加清晰地阐明中国革命的基本立足点。在处理自身奋斗和国际援助关系的问题上，中国共产党走过弯路。遵义会议后，从中国革命的主体性出发，以毛泽东同志为主要代表的中国共产党人意识到，“国际援助对于现代一切国家一切民族的革命斗争都是必要的”,但“中国无论何时也应以自力更生为基本立脚点”。

On the basis of the complete awakening of the consciousness of the subjectivity of the Chinese revolution, Mao Zedong formally put forward the major proposition of “adapting Marxism to the Chinese context” at the Enlarged Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of the Party. [31]31 The Enlarged Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee was held in Yan’an from September to November 1938. It was a key meeting where Mao’s leadership and the line of “adapting Marxism to the Chinese context” were consolidated. Regarding the connotation of “adapting Marxism to the Chinese context,” Mao Zedong mainly elaborated on three aspects: “solving China’s problems,” “creating something new,” and endowing it with “Chinese style and Chinese manner.” Among these, “solving China’s problems” means applying Marxism to solve the practical problems of the Chinese revolution; “creating something new” means continuously summarizing “Chinese experience” and elevating it into “Chinese theory”; endowing it with “Chinese style and Chinese manner” means rooting Marxism in the excellent traditional Chinese culture. For a time, some interpreted adapting Marxism to the Chinese context as the combination of Marxist theory with China’s actual conditions, producing experience and theory applicable only to China. Mao Zedong pointed out: “How are Marxist-Leninist theory and China’s actual practice to be linked? To use a common expression, it is ‘shooting the arrow at the target.’ The ‘arrow’ is the arrow, the ‘target’ is the target, and you must aim the arrow at the target. The relationship between Marxism-Leninism and the Chinese revolution is the relationship between the arrow and the target.” So, which is the “target” and which is the “arrow”? Mao Zedong emphasized: “The ‘target’ is the Chinese revolution, and the ‘arrow’ is Marxism-Leninism. The reason we Chinese Communists seek this ‘arrow’ is precisely to shoot it at the ‘target’ of the Chinese revolution and the Eastern revolution.” In Mao Zedong’s view, the “arrow” of Marxism-Leninism was to be shot at two “targets.” These two “targets” included not only the “Chinese revolution” but also the “Eastern revolution.” That is to say, the Chinese Communists were not only to explore the laws of the Chinese revolution but also, on the basis of the Chinese revolution, to explore the general laws of the “Eastern revolution,” i.e., colonial and semi-colonial revolutions. The proposal of the proposition “adapting Marxism to the Chinese context” marked the CPC’s attainment of a high degree of theoretical self-consciousness regarding “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory.”

在中国革命主体性意识彻底觉醒的基础上，毛泽东在党的扩大的六届六中全会上正式提出“马克思主义中国化”这个重大命题。关于“马克思主义中国化”的内涵，毛泽东主要阐述了三个方面的内容，即“解决中国问题”,“创造些新的东西”,赋予“中国作风和中国气派”。其中，“解决中国问题”,即运用马克思主义解决中国革命中的实际问题；“创造些新的东西”,即不断总结“中国经验”并将之提升为“中国理论”;赋予“中国作风和中国气派”,即把马克思主义植根于中华优秀传统文化。在一段时间里，有人把马克思主义中国化解读为马克思主义理论与中国实际相结合并产生只适用于中国的经验和理论。毛泽东指出：“马克思列宁主义理论和中国革命实际，怎样互相联系呢?拿一句通俗的话来讲，就是‘有的放矢’。‘矢’就是箭，‘的’就是靶，放箭要对准靶。马克思列宁主义和中国革命的关系，就是箭和靶的关系。”那么，哪个是“的”,哪个是“矢”呢?毛泽东强调：“‘的’就是中国革命，‘矢’就是马克思列宁主义。我们中国共产党人所以要找这根‘矢’,就是为了要射中国革命和东方革命这个‘的’的。”在毛泽东眼中，马克思列宁主义这个“矢”要射的是两个“的”。这两个“的”,不仅有“中国革命”,还有“东方革命”。也就是说，中国共产党人不仅要探索中国革命的规律，还要以中国革命为基础探索“东方革命”,即殖民地半殖民地革命的一般规律。“马克思主义中国化”命题的提出，标志着中国共产党对“中国经验”和“中国理论”形成了高度的理论自觉。

During this period, the Chinese Communists, with Comrade Mao Zedong as their chief representative, placed the Chinese revolution within the entire context of colonial and semi-colonial revolutions for consideration and study, forming the theory of the new democratic revolution. The theory of the new democratic revolution was not a theory specifically targeting China, but a “Chinese theory” elucidated on the basis of “Chinese experience” and applicable to the entire colonial and semi-colonial revolution. Mao Zedong stated: “This kind of revolution is developing in China and in all colonial and semi-colonial countries; we call this kind of revolution the new-democratic revolution.” He elaborated in detail on the general characteristics of the new democratic revolution in terms of its nature, targets, motive forces, prerequisites, and program. Mao Zedong emphasized: “The revolutions in various colonial and semi-colonial countries will inevitably have certain different characteristics, but these are minor differences within a major similarity.” That is to say, these contents of China’s new democratic revolution were also generally applicable to colonial and semi-colonial revolutions. On this basis, the Chinese Communists further systematically summarized the experience of the Chinese revolution, promoting the theorization and systematization of scattered experiences, and developing “Chinese experience” into “Chinese theory”—that is, the sinicized Marxism—Mao Zedong Thought.

这一时期以毛泽东同志为主要代表的中国共产党人把中国革命置于整个殖民地半殖民地革命中加以思考和研究，形成了新民主主义革命理论。新民主主义革命理论不是专门针对中国的理论，而是以“中国经验”为基础阐发的适用于整个殖民地半殖民地革命的“中国理论”。毛泽东提出：“这种革命正在中国和一切殖民地半殖民地国家发展起来，我们称这种革命为新民主主义的革命。”他从性质、对象、动力、前提和纲领等方面详细论述了新民主主义革命的一般性特点。毛泽东强调：“各个殖民地半殖民地国家的革命必然会有某些不同特点，但这是大同中的小异。”也就是说，中国新民主主义革命的这些内容，也一般适用于殖民地半殖民地革命。在此基础上，中国共产党人进一步系统地总结中国革命经验，推动零散的经验走向理论化、体系化，把“中国经验”发展为“中国理论”,即中国化的马克思主义——毛泽东思想。

Of course, the formation of Mao Zedong Thought was not accomplished overnight. During the Great Revolution period, Mao Zedong Thought had already sprouted. From the outbreak of the Agrarian Revolutionary War in 1927 to the convening of the Zunyi Conference in 1935, Mao Zedong Thought gradually took shape. In the stages of sprouting and formation, Chinese Communists had already attempted to summarize “Chinese theory” on the basis of “Chinese experience.” For example, Mao Zedong put forward the idea of “armed independent regimes of workers and peasants” in texts such as *The Struggle in the Jinggang Mountains*, and initially expounded the theory of the Chinese revolutionary path in *A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire*. [32]32 “New journey” (新征程) refers to the new stage of comprehensively building a modern socialist country that began after the 20th National Congress of the CPC in 2022. However, at this stage the relevant ideas had not yet been systematically elaborated, nor had they been established as the guiding ideology of the entire Party. Only after the Zunyi Conference was the “Chinese theory,” including the theory of the Chinese revolutionary path, systematically expounded and integrated into the system of Mao Zedong Thought, becoming the guiding ideology of the entire Party. Only then was the world significance of “Chinese theory” systematically studied and explained.

当然，毛泽东思想的形成不是一蹴而就的。大革命时期，毛泽东思想就已经萌芽。从1927年土地革命战争爆发到1935年遵义会议召开，毛泽东思想逐步形成。在萌芽和形成阶段，中国共产党人就已经尝试在总结“中国经验”的基础上概括“中国理论”。例如，毛泽东在《井冈山的斗争》等文中提出“工农武装割据”思想，在《星星之火，可以燎原》中初步阐释中国革命道路理论。然而，在此阶段相关思想还没有得到系统阐发，也还没有被确立为全党的指导思想。遵义会议后，包括中国革命道路理论在内“中国理论”才得到系统阐述并被整合到毛泽东思想体系之中，成为全党的指导思想。直到此时，“中国理论”的世界意义才得到系统的研究和阐释。

In 1945, the Seventh National Congress of the CPC expounded the world significance of Mao Zedong Thought, holding that “Mao Zedong Thought is the continued development of Marxism in the national-democratic revolution of colonial, semi-colonial, and semi-feudal countries in the present era, and is the outstanding model of the nationalization of Marxism,” emphasizing that this important thought “has guided and is guiding the Chinese people toward thorough liberation, and has made beneficial contributions to the liberation cause of the peoples of various countries, especially the liberation cause of the Eastern nations.” [33]33 This quotation is from Mao Zedong’s 1941 essay “Reform Our Study,” in which he criticized dogmatic Marxism and called for the Sinicization of Marxist theory through practical investigation. The Congress also established Mao Zedong Thought as the guiding ideology of the Party and enshrined it in the Party Constitution, realizing the first historic leap in adapting Marxism to the Chinese context.

1945年，中共七大对毛泽东思想的世界意义作出了阐述，认为“毛泽东思想，就是马克思主义在目前时代的殖民地、半殖民地、半封建国家民族民主革命中的继续发展，就是马克思主义民族化的优秀典型”,强调这一重要思想“指导了与正在指导着中国人民去获得彻底的解放，并对各国人民的解放事业，特别是东方各民族的解放事业，作了有益的贡献”。大会还把毛泽东思想确立为党的指导思想并载入党章，实现了马克思主义中国化的第一次历史性飞跃。

At the same time, the status of the Chinese revolution was further elevated. After the outbreak of the Second World War, the Soviet Union and the Comintern focused their main energy on Europe, and China played an increasingly large role in the Asian revolution. On February 8, 1940, the Secretariat of the Executive Committee of the Comintern adopted the “Decision on the CPC Providing International Assistance to the Communist Parties of the Far East and Southeast Asia,” proposing that “the Chinese Communist Party should establish contact with the Communist Parties of Japan, India, and Indochina, and organize assistance to them.” [34]34 The Agrarian Revolutionary War period (土地革命战争时期, 1927–1937) refers to the decade of civil war between the CPC and the Kuomintang, during which the CPC established rural base areas and carried out land reform. In the same year, Japanese Communist Party leader Sanzō Nosaka and Indonesian Communist Party leader Alimin [35]35 The All-Out War of Resistance against Japan (全民族抗战时期, 1937–1945) refers to the period of the Second Sino-Japanese War, during which the CPC and the Kuomintang formed a united front against Japanese invasion. came to Yan’an together with Zhou Enlai. In June 1941, Germany invaded the Soviet Union, and the Comintern demanded the establishment of an international anti-fascist united front. The Chinese Communist Party undertook the mission of promoting and organizing the Eastern anti-fascist united front. On October 26, the Congress of the Eastern Peoples Against Fascism officially opened in Yan’an, with more than 130 delegates from 18 nations and peoples, including Japan, India, the Dutch East Indies (present-day Indonesia), the Philippines, Malaya, Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, and Korea, as well as more than 2,000 representatives from all walks of life in Yan’an attending the meeting. The Congress decided to establish the League of Eastern Peoples Against Fascism, with its headquarters in Yan’an and branches in various localities. Around the time of the dissolution of the Comintern, the Chinese Communist Party gradually established direct ties with communist organizations in Asia, especially East and Southeast Asia, and the influence of the Chinese revolution in these regions continued to rise.

与此同时，中国革命地位进一步提升。第二次世界大战爆发后，苏联和共产国际把主要精力放在了欧洲，中国在亚洲革命中发挥越来越大的作用。1940年2月8日，共产国际执行委员会书记处通过《关于中共向远东和东南亚国家共产党提供国际援助的决定》,提出“中国共产党应同日本、印度，印度支那共产党建立联系，并组织对它们的援助”。同年，日本共产党领导人野坂参三和印度尼西亚共产党领导人阿里阿罕等随周恩来一起来到延安。1941年6月，德国入侵苏联，共产国际要求建立国际反法西斯统一战线，中国共产党承担起推动和组织东方反法西斯统一战线的使命。10月26日，东方各民族反法西斯代表大会在延安正式开幕，来自日本、印度、荷属印度(今印度尼西亚)、菲律宾、马来亚、缅甸、泰国、越南、朝鲜等18个国家和民族的130多个代表以及延安各界代表2000余人参加了会议。会议决定成立东方各民族反法西斯大同盟，同盟总部设在延安，各地设分盟。共产国际解散前后，中国共产党与亚洲尤其是东亚和东南亚地区的共产主义组织逐步建立起直接的联系，中国革命在这些地区的影响力继续上升。

During this period, the CPC’s exploration of “Chinese experience” entered a stage of theorization and systematization, and “Chinese theory” was formally proposed. Before the birth of Mao Zedong Thought, the content of Chinese experience was relatively scattered. After Mao Zedong Thought emerged, “Chinese experience” developed into a systematic “Chinese theory”; Mao Zedong Thought was the theorized and systematized “Chinese experience.” This “Chinese theory” of Mao Zedong Thought had a major impact in the world, and communist organizations in many countries gave it high praise. For example, Japanese Communist Party leader Okano [36] proposed: “Comrade Mao Zedong’s theory and policy not only guide China’s liberation but also become a precious compass for the liberation of the Eastern nations.” In the 1950s, the Vietnam Workers’ Party even considered adopting Mao Zedong Thought as its guiding ideology and planned to write into its Party Constitution “taking the combination of Marxism, Engelsism, Leninism, Stalinism, and Mao Zedong Thought with the practice of the Vietnamese revolution as the ideological foundation and compass for all actions of the Party.” Only at Mao Zedong’s insistence did the Vietnam Workers’ Party delete this sentence. [37]

这一时期，中国共产党关于“中国经验”的探索走向理论化、体系化的阶段，正式提出了“中国理论”。毛泽东思想诞生前，中国经验的内容比较零散。毛泽东思想出现后，“中国经验”发展为一套系统的“中国理论”,毛泽东思想就是理论化、体系化的“中国经验”。毛泽东思想这一“中国理论”在世界上产生了重大影响，很多国家的共产主义组织给予了高度评价。如日本共产党领导人冈野进提出：“毛泽东同志的理论和方针，不仅指导着中国的解放，而且成为东方各民族解放的宝贵的指南针。”20世纪50年代，越南劳动党还曾设想把毛泽东思想列为自己的指导思想，并在党章中计划写入“以马克思、恩格斯、列宁、斯大林主义及毛泽东思想与越南革命实践的结合作为党的一切行动的思想基础和指南针”,最终在毛泽东的坚持下越南劳动党才删去了这句话。

V. Deepening Stage: Further Enriching and Promoting “Chinese Theory”

五、深化阶段：进一步丰富和推广“中国理论”

From the victory of the War of Resistance Against Japan in 1945 to the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949, this was the deepening stage of the CPC’s exploration of “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory.” The victory of the New Democratic Revolution elevated the status of the Chinese revolution to an unprecedented level. At the same time, the Chinese Communist Party summarized the Chinese revolutionary path into a “formula” of four aspects—Party leadership, Party building, the united front, and armed struggle—and emphasized the universal applicability of this path to colonial and semi-colonial revolutions. The content of “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” became richer, and their appeal and influence were further enhanced.

从1945年抗日战争胜利到1949年新中国成立，是中国共产党探索“中国经验”和“中国理论”的深化阶段。新民主主义革命的胜利使得中国革命地位空前提高。与此同时，中国共产党把中国革命道路概括为党的领导、党的建设、统一战线和武装斗争四个方面的“公式”,并强调这个道路对殖民地半殖民地革命的普遍适用性。“中国经验”和“中国理论”内容更加丰富，吸引力、影响力进一步提升。

The status of the Chinese revolution in the world revolution reached an unprecedented height. After the establishment of the Information Bureau of the Communist and Workers’ Parties in Europe in 1947, Stalin and the Soviet Communist Party envisioned the Chinese Communist Party taking the lead in forming an Asian Communist Information Bureau, assuming the role of leader of the Asian international communist movement. In February 1949, during talks with Mao Zedong and others, Mikoyan proposed that “a Bureau of Communist Parties of East Asian countries with the Chinese Communist Party at its head should be established.” [38] The Chinese Communist Party did not immediately agree to this. In July 1949, Liu Shaoqi led a CPC delegation to visit the Soviet Union. During the talks, Stalin fully affirmed the status and role of the Chinese revolution in the entire international communist movement, stating that “the center of revolution has moved from the West to the East, and now has moved to China and East Asia.” He emphasized: “In the international revolutionary movement, both China and the Soviet Union should bear more obligations, and there should be a certain division of labor, that is, cooperation through division of labor. It is hoped that China will in the future take on more responsibility for helping

中国革命在世界革命中的地位达到空前的高度。1947年在欧洲成立共产党和工人党情报局之后，斯大林和苏联共产党曾设想由中国共产党牵头组建亚洲共产党情报局，承担亚洲国际共产主义运动领导者的角色。1949年2月，米高扬在与毛泽东等人的谈话中提出，“应建立以中国共产党为首的共产党东亚国家局”。对此，中国共产党没有立即同意。1949年7月，刘少奇率领中共代表团访问苏联。在会谈中，斯大林充分肯定了中国革命在整个国际共产主义运动中的地位和作用，提出“革命的中心由西方移到了东方，现在又移到了中国和东亚”。他强调：“在国际革命运动中，中苏两家都应多承担些义务，而且应该有某种分工，就是说要分工合作。希望中国今后多担负些对殖民地、半殖民地、附属国家的民族民主革命运动方面的帮助，因为中国革命本身和革命经验会对它们产生较大的影响，会被它们参考和吸取。苏联在这方面起不到像中国那样的影响和作用。”斯大林的谈话表明，苏联共产党不仅认可了中国共产党在亚洲革命乃至整个殖民地半殖民地革命的重要地位，而且希望在实践中对国际共产主义运动作出分工，形成一东一西两个中心。虽然亚洲共产党情报局最终没有建立，但中国共产党对自身地位以及自己在殖民地半殖民地革命中的定位和责任有了全新的认识。关于这个问题，刘少奇指出：“中国工人阶级除开在国内要担负恢复经济、提高生产的繁重的领导责任之外，在国际上还要担负援助世界各资本主义国家特别是亚洲、澳洲各殖民地半殖民地国家的工人阶级和劳动人民的繁重的责任。”从上述认识出发，新中国举办了亚洲、澳洲工会代表会议，参与组建了世界工联亚洲联络局，与许多国家的共产主义组织建立了直接联系并对一些国家的革命进行了大力援助。

At the same time, under the guidance of Mao Zedong Thought, the Communist Party of China led the Chinese people in bloody struggles, overthrew the rule of the Kuomintang, won a nationwide victory, and established a new China under the people’s democratic dictatorship. The victory of the Chinese revolution was the first successful practice of a revolution independently led by a local Communist Party in a colony or semi-colony. The Chinese Communists, with Comrade Mao Zedong as their chief representative, continued to advance the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context, further enriched the experience of the Chinese revolution, developed Mao Zedong Thought, and put forward the general line of the New Democratic Revolution, elucidated the “Ten Military Principles” [32]32 “New journey” (新征程) refers to the new stage of comprehensively building a modern socialist country that began after the 20th National Congress of the CPC in 2022., expounded the theory and policy of the people’s democratic dictatorship, strategic and tactical thinking, the people’s democratic united front, and a series of other new “Chinese experiences,” thereby further enriching and developing Mao Zedong Thought as “Chinese theory.” From November to December 1949, the Asian and Australasian Trade Union Conference was held in Beijing, the first major international conference convened by New China. At the conference, Liu Shaoqi summarized the Chinese revolutionary path into a “formula” of four aspects: Party leadership, Party building, the united front, and armed struggle. This summary derived from the three magic weapons of the Chinese revolution proposed by Mao Zedong in “Introducing The Communist.” [33]33 This quotation is from Mao Zedong’s 1941 essay “Reform Our Study,” in which he criticized dogmatic Marxism and called for the Sinicization of Marxist theory through practical investigation. The difference was that Liu Shaoqi split Party building into the two parts of “Party leadership” and “Party building,” whereas in “Introducing The Communist” both were integrated under “Party building.” Regarding the path of the Chinese revolution, Liu Shaoqi proposed that other countries should learn from the Chinese revolution. He emphasized, “The great victory of the Chinese people is their best example,” and “The path by which the Chinese people defeated imperialism and its running dogs and established the People’s Republic of China is the path that the people of many colonial and semi-colonial countries should take to win national independence and people’s democracy.” Liu Shaoqi’s summary of the four-aspect “formula” was a further refinement of “Chinese theory” by the CPC and also a proactive effort at external outreach. Before this, although the CPC had put forward “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory,” it had not actively propagated or promoted them directly to other countries. These new ideas had a significant impact on revolutions in colonies and semi-colonies and even on the contemporary world. For example, in September 1949, the Communist Party of Thailand cabled Mao Zedong to congratulate the founding of New China and stated, “The experience and lessons of the Chinese revolution are also the experience and lessons of our Thai revolution,” and “The Communist Party of Thailand will resolutely learn from your precious experience and lessons.” The influence of “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” on the world was profound and long-lasting; even into the 21st century, many countries and regions continue to study them.

与此同时，在毛泽东思想的指导下，中国共产党领导中国人民浴血奋战，推翻国民党统治，赢得全国性胜利，建立人民民主专政的新中国。中国革命的胜利，是殖民地半殖民地革命中由本国共产党独立领导的第一次胜利实践。以毛泽东同志为主要代表的中国共产党人继续推进马克思主义中国化，进一步丰富中国革命经验，发展了毛泽东思想并提出了新民主主义革命的总路线，阐明了“十大军事原则”,阐述了人民民主专政理论政策和策略思想、人民民主统一战线等一系列新的“中国经验”,进一步丰富和发展了毛泽东思想这个“中国理论”。1949年11月至12月，亚洲、澳洲工会代表会议在北京召开，这是新中国举行的第一个大型国际会议。刘少奇在会上把中国革命道路概括为四个方面的“公式”,即党的领导、党的建设、统一战线和武装斗争。这个概括来源于毛泽东在《〈共产党人〉发刊词》中提出的中国革命的三大法宝。不同的是，刘少奇把党的建设拆分为“党的领导”和“党的建设”两个部分，而在《〈共产党人〉发刊词》里这两块都统合在“党的建设”中。关于中国革命道路，刘少奇提出各国应向中国革命学习。他强调，“中国人民的伟大胜利，就是它们的最好的榜样”,“中国人民战胜帝国主义及其走狗、建立中华人民共和国的道路，是许多殖民地半殖民地国家的人民争取民族独立和人民民主所应该走的道路”。刘少奇对四个方面“公式”的概括，是中国共产党对“中国理论”的进一步精炼，也是一次积极主动的对外宣介。在此之前，虽然中国共产党提出了“中国经验”和“中国理论”,但没有主动向其他国家直接进行宣传和推广。这些新思想对殖民地半殖民地革命乃至当代世界产生了重要影响。例如，1949年9月，泰国共产党致电毛泽东，祝贺新中国成立并提出，“中国革命的经验教训，也就是我们泰国革命的经验教训”,“泰国共产党决汲取你们这宝贵的经验教训”。“中国经验”和“中国理论”对世界影响是深刻而长远的，到了21世纪，很多国家和地区还在继续学习。

During this stage, the CPC gained a new understanding of “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory,” beginning to regard summarizing, refining, and promoting “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” as its important responsibility to the world. The content of “Chinese theory” became richer, and the CPC further refined it, proposing a Chinese revolutionary path composed of a four-aspect “formula.” The dissemination channels for “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” further developed. On the one hand, the direct links between communist organizations of various countries that had formed since the War of Resistance Against Japan were further strengthened. By the 1950s, Beijing had gathered representatives of all Asian communist parties except the Communist Party of India, and “all communist parties in Asian countries demanded advice and assistance from them.” [34]34 The Agrarian Revolutionary War period (土地革命战争时期, 1927–1937) refers to the decade of civil war between the CPC and the Kuomintang, during which the CPC established rural base areas and carried out land reform. On the other hand, with the establishment of international organizations such as the Asian Liaison Bureau of the World Federation of Trade Unions, “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” began to be disseminated through new international platforms after the dissolution of the Comintern.

这一阶段，中国共产党对“中国经验”和“中国理论”有了新的认识，开始把总结、概括和宣介“中国经验”和“中国理论”作为自己对世界的重要责任。“中国理论”的内容更加丰富，中国共产党对其进行了进一步概括，提出由四个方面“公式”构成的中国革命道路。“中国经验”和“中国理论”的传播路径进一步发展，一方面，从抗战时期开始形成的各国共产主义组织之间的直接联系进一步加强。到20世纪50年代，北京已经聚集了除印度共产党以外的所有亚洲共产党的代表，“亚洲国家的所有共产党都要求给他们以建议和帮助”。另一方面，随着世界工联亚洲联络局等国际组织的建立，“中国经验”和“中国理论”在共产国际解散后开始通过新的国际平台加以传播。

Conclusion

结 语

The relevant explorations of the CPC during the New Democratic Revolution period hold important historical significance for our understanding of “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” today.

新民主主义革命时期中国共产党的相关探索，对于我们今天认识“中国经验”和“中国理论”具有重要的历史借鉴意义。

First, the summarization, refinement, and dissemination of “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” is an inevitable rather than accidental process, and attention must be paid to grasping its historical inevitability. From a historical perspective, from the very moment of its founding, the CPC had already begun to form “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” on the basis of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context, thereby promoting the development of the world revolution. Looking at the entire history of the New Democratic Revolution period, the CPC’s exploration of “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” ran through it from beginning to end. From a practical perspective, forming “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” was an objective need for the development of the international communist movement. Because revolutions in colonies and semi-colonies had long not been incorporated into the international communist movement, when the Comintern began to actively promote such revolutions, it lacked relevant experience in carrying them out. Both the communist organizations of various nation-states, including the CPC, and the Comintern itself urgently needed a set of practice-tested experiences and theories; this was the practical driving force behind the emergence of “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory.” The Comintern had a clear understanding of the importance of “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory.” For example, the Sixth Congress of the Comintern actively summarized and promoted Chinese experience, believing that “the past experience of the Chinese revolution should undoubtedly be utilized by the revolutionary movements in India and other similar colonial countries.” [35]35 The All-Out War of Resistance against Japan (全民族抗战时期, 1937–1945) refers to the period of the Second Sino-Japanese War, during which the CPC and the Kuomintang formed a united front against Japanese invasion. Furthermore, the Vietnamese resistance against France and the United States, the democratic revolutionary movement in Nepal, and others achieved victories by referencing Chinese experience, which in turn proved from practice the scientific nature and effectiveness of “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory.” From a theoretical perspective, forming “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” is an inherent requirement of Marxist theory. Engels once pointed out, “Marx’s entire world outlook is not a doctrine, but a method.” [36] Marxism emphasizes the unity of the national and the international, the unity of the universal and the particular, and the unity of upholding fundamental principles and breaking new ground. It advocates achieving a high degree of unity between universal truth and the specific national conditions and diverse national practices of each country, and it demands the continuous advancement of theory through rich practice. Colonies and semi-colonies served as sources of raw materials, commodity markets, and outlets for capital investment for imperialist countries. Although the specific national conditions of each country differed, they shared commonalities on fundamental issues such as the nature, targets, objectives, and driving forces of revolution. The “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” generated by integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities not only answered questions related to the Chinese revolution but also revealed the general laws of revolution in colonial and semi-colonial countries with conditions similar to China’s. These achievements not only provided practical references for other countries but also enriched and developed the treasure trove of Marxist thought. On the new journey, we must deeply understand through history the importance and inevitability of the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jin

首先，对“中国经验”和“中国理论”的总结、概括和传播，是一个必然的而非偶然的过程，要注意把握其历史必然性。从历史维度来看，中国共产党自诞生之初就已经开始在马克思主义中国化的基础上形成“中国经验”和“中国理论”,以此推动世界革命的发展。纵观新民主主义革命时期的历史，中国共产党对“中国经验”和“中国理论”的探索贯穿始终。从实践维度来看，形成“中国经验”和“中国理论”是国际共产主义运动发展的客观需要。由于殖民地半殖民地革命长期没有被纳入国际共产主义运动，共产国际开始积极推动此类革命时，缺乏开展革命的相关经验。无论是包括中国共产党在内的各民族国家共产主义组织还是共产国际，都迫切需要一套经过实践检验的经验和理论，这是“中国经验”和“中国理论”产生的实践动力。共产国际对“中国经验”和“中国理论”的重要性有着清晰的认识，例如共产国际六大就曾积极总结和推广中国经验，认为“中国革命以往的经验无疑应当为印度和其他类似殖民地国家的革命运动所利用”。此外，越南的抗法斗争和抗美斗争、尼泊尔的民主革命运动等在参考中国经验的基础上取得了胜利，这又从实践上证明了“中国经验”和“中国理论”的科学性和有效性。从理论维度来看，形成“中国经验”和“中国理论”是马克思主义理论的内在要求。恩格斯曾指出，“马克思的整个世界观不是教义，而是方法”。马克思主义强调民族性与国际性的统一、普遍性与特殊性的统一、守正与创新的统一，主张实现普遍真理与各国具体国情和多样民族实践的高度统一，要求在丰富的实践中不断推动理论的发展。殖民地半殖民地作为帝国主义国家的原料产地、商品市场和资本输出场所，虽然各国具体国情存在差异，但在革命的性质、对象、目标、动力等根本问题上具有共通性。马克思主义基本原理同中国具体实际相结合后产生的“中国经验”和“中国理论”,不仅回答了中国革命的相关问题，同时也揭示了与中国情况类似的殖民地半殖民地国家开展革命的一般规律。这些成果既为其他国家提供了实践参照，也丰富和发展了马克思主义的思想宝库。新征程上，我们要透过历史深刻认识以习近平同志为核心的党中央提出“中国经验”和“中国理论”的重要性和必然性，坚定历史自信、文化自信，把握历史主动。

Secondly, the formation of “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” is a long-term rather than a short-term process, and attention must be paid to grasping the unity of continuity and stages. The CPC’s exploration of “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” ran through the entire period of the New Democratic Revolution, but displayed different characteristics at different stages. In the embryonic stage, the CPC’s exploration of “Chinese experience” was still an individual act. Its subjects were individual Party members with close ties to the Comintern, and the subjects had not yet formed a conscious understanding of this process. In the initial stage, the CPC’s exploration of “Chinese experience” developed from individual behavior into organizational behavior. In the developmental stage, the CPC gained a more conscious understanding of “Chinese experience,” and the content of “Chinese experience” shifted from applied innovation to original innovation. In the mature stage, “Chinese experience” moved toward a theorized and systematized “Chinese theory,” forming a Sinicized Marxism, namely Mao Zedong Thought. In the deepening stage, “Chinese theory” continuously enriched itself in content and greatly enhanced its appeal and influence. Moreover, the CPC’s consciousness in promoting the internationalization of “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” was further elevated. On the new journey [32]32 “New journey” (新征程) refers to the new stage of comprehensively building a modern socialist country that began after the 20th National Congress of the CPC in 2022., when we explore “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory,” we must maintain continuity in development direction and core objectives, while also adapting to changes in objective circumstances and specific tasks at different stages to suit local conditions and times, properly handling the dialectical relationships between upholding fundamental principles and breaking new ground, between inheritance and development, and between quantitative change and qualitative change.

其次，“中国经验”和“中国理论”的形成是一个长期的而非短期的过程，要注意把握连续性与阶段性的统一。中国共产党对“中国经验”和“中国理论”的探索贯穿了整个新民主主义革命时期，但在不同阶段呈现出不同的特点。在萌芽阶段，中国共产党对“中国经验”探索还是个体性的行为。其主体是与共产国际联系密切的党员个人，并且主体对这个过程还没有形成自觉的认识。在起步阶段，中国共产党对“中国经验”的探索从个人行为发展为组织行为。在发展阶段，中国共产党对“中国经验”有了更加自觉的认识，“中国经验”的内容从应用性创新转向原创性创新。在成熟阶段，“中国经验”走向理论化、体系化的“中国理论”,形成中国化的马克思主义，即毛泽东思想。在深化阶段，“中国理论”在内容上不断丰富，在吸引力和影响力上有极大的提升。并且，中国共产党在推动“中国经验”和“中国理论”国际化上的自觉性进一步提升。新征程上，当我们探索“中国经验”和“中国理论”时，既要在发展方向与核心目标上保持连贯性，也要根据不同阶段客观形势与具体任务的变化实现因时因地制宜，处理好守正与创新、继承与发展、量变与质变的辩证关系。

Finally, “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” are both connected and distinct, and attention must be paid to grasping their relationship. “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” are unified in the historical process of the CPC’s exploration and advancement of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times; the two constitute a relationship of source and flow, root and crown. In terms of content composition, “Chinese experience” mainly consists of specific, scattered ideological understandings and practical experiences, while “Chinese theory” is a systematized ideological system. As Mao Zedong stated: “We oppose subjectivism in order to raise theory, not to lower Marxism. We must make the rich practice of the Chinese revolution Marxist.” [33]33 This quotation is from Mao Zedong’s 1941 essay “Reform Our Study,” in which he criticized dogmatic Marxism and called for the Sinicization of Marxist theory through practical investigation. “Chinese experience” is the prerequisite and foundation for the formation of “Chinese theory,” and “Chinese theory” is the basic direction and inevitable result of the development of “Chinese experience.” From the perspective of the development process, “Chinese experience” emerged earlier than “Chinese theory”; “Chinese theory” is the systematized and theorized stage of “Chinese experience.” The CPC began exploring “Chinese experience” from the moment of its founding, and “Chinese experience” gradually gave birth to much of the content of “Chinese theory” in its development. But it was not until the maturation of Mao Zedong Thought that “Chinese experience” truly developed into “Chinese theory.” As described in the text, during the Agrarian Revolutionary War period [34]34 The Agrarian Revolutionary War period (土地革命战争时期, 1927–1937) refers to the decade of civil war between the CPC and the Kuomintang, during which the CPC established rural base areas and carried out land reform., Mao Zedong had already begun preliminary expositions on issues such as the Chinese revolutionary path, but the relevant understandings were not yet systematic and had not yet become the guiding ideology of the entire Party. It was not until the period of the All-Out War of Resistance against Japan [35]35 The All-Out War of Resistance against Japan (全民族抗战时期, 1937–1945) refers to the period of the Second Sino-Japanese War, during which the CPC and the Kuomintang formed a united front against Japanese invasion. that the theory of the Chinese revolutionary path was systematically expounded and incorporated into Mao Zedong Thought, becoming the guiding ideology of the entire Party. On the new journey, we must deeply excavate “Chinese experience” from Chinese practice, refine “Chinese theory” from Chinese experience, continuously advance adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, and use “Chinese experience” and “Chinese theory” to guide the development of China and the world.

最后，“中国经验”和“中国理论”既有联系又有区别，要注意把握二者的关系。“中国经验”和“中国理论”统一于中国共产党探索和推进马克思主义中国化时代化的历史进程中，二者构成了源与流、根与冠的关系。从内容构成来看，“中国经验”主要是一些具体的零散的思想认识与实践经验，而“中国理论”则是系统化的思想体系。正如毛泽东所言：“我们反对主观主义，是为着提高理论，不是降低马克思主义。我们要使中国革命丰富的实际马克思主义化。”“中国经验”是“中国理论”形成的前提和基础，“中国理论”是“中国经验”发展的基本方向和必然结果。从发展历程来看，“中国经验”的出现早于“中国理论”,“中国理论”是系统化、理论化阶段的“中国经验”。中国共产党从成立伊始就开始探索“中国经验”,“中国经验”在发展中逐步孕育了“中国理论”的许多内容。但直到毛泽东思想的成熟，“中国经验”才真正发展为“中国理论”。如文中所述，土地革命战争时期，毛泽东已经就中国革命道路等问题展开初步阐述，但相关认识还不系统，且尚未成为全党的指导思想。直到全民族抗战时期，中国革命道路理论才得到系统阐述并被纳入毛泽东思想，成为全党的指导思想。新征程上，我们要在中国实践中深挖“中国经验”,于中国经验上淬炼“中国理论”,持续推进马克思主义中国化时代化，以“中国经验”和“中国理论”引领中国和世界的发展。