4/5

The third and current era is usually treated as a distinct stage because it is not simply a continuation of the Deng or Jiang-Hu periods at the same level of emphasis. It is a new phase of socialist construction arising from the contradictions accumulated during the long reform period: corruption, widening inequality, ideological drift, regional imbalance, environmental damage, financial risk, the growing social power of capital, and intensified imperialist pressure from abroad. If the Deng era was about opening a path and the Jiang-Hu era was about expanding that path under conditions that generated both immense gains and serious excesses, then the Xi era is the period of rectification, recentralization, and strategic reassertion: a move to restore firmer Party leadership over all major dimensions of social life and ensure that the market remains subordinate to socialist and national goals rather than the reverse.

That leads us to the phrase “socialism with Chinese characteristics for a new era”. The “new era” does not merely mean a change in slogans or a new leader’s personal style. It refers to a judgment that China has entered a different stage of development from the one that prevailed in the earlier decades of reform and opening up. In the earlier period, the central contradiction was often framed in terms of how to overcome backwardness and develop the productive forces. In the new era, China is no longer simply a poor country trying to escape scarcity at any price. It is a large, industrialized, technologically advancing socialist country facing the problem of how to discipline the uneven results of earlier development, move from high-speed growth to higher-quality development, resist foreign containment, and prevent the contradictions generated by marketization from undermining the socialist orientation of the system.

The historical background to this shift is important also. By the time Comrade Xi Jinping came to leadership, China had already become one of the decisive economies in the world. It had vast manufacturing capacity, a major state sector, expanding scientific and technological capability, and greatly improved living standards compared to the beginning of reform. But this success came with major internal tensions. Corruption was not merely episodic misconduct; it had become serious enough to threaten Party legitimacy and state capacity. Certain private capitals had acquired significant social influence. Some local authorities had become too driven by debt-fueled and speculative development. Inequality and conspicuous wealth accumulation had become politically and morally corrosive. Environmental destruction had become too severe to treat as an unavoidable side effect. Ideologically, liberal and depoliticized tendencies had also spread, especially where economic success was treated as a substitute for socialist conviction. In short, the problem was no longer whether reform had generated growth. It clearly had. The problem was whether the Party could still command the direction of that growth in a way consistent with socialist construction.

This is the setting in which the Xi era has to be understood theoretically. Its core move is the insistence that Party leadership must be strengthened across the board. This is not just an administrative matter. In Marxist terms, it is a response to the recognition that if the superstructure is allowed to loosen while market forces expand, then the class character of the whole project can begin to shift in substance even if not in name. The answer given in the new era is that the Communist Party must lead everything not because of arbitrary preference, but because only that leadership can prevent capital, bureaucracy, regional fragmentation, or foreign influence from determining the country’s long-term direction. The Party is presented not as one institution among others, but as the decisive political instrument through which socialist strategy is maintained (very inline with the Leninist conception of the party).

This is why one of the signature features of the era has been the anti-corruption campaign (tigers and flies). To liberal observers it is often reduced to a factional matter, but in the Chinese theoretical framework it has a much broader significance. Corruption is not treated simply as an ethical failure of individuals. It is understood as a political and class problem: if cadres become tied to money, patronage, private accumulation, and informal networks of influence, then the Party risks degenerating from an instrument of socialist leadership into a vehicle for privilege and bourgeois penetration. The anti-corruption campaign, therefore, is a struggle over the political character of the Party itself. Its deeper purpose is to restore discipline, reassert central authority, and reduce the danger that economic reform produces a self-reproducing stratum of officials and capitalists fused together in practice.

A second defining feature of the new era is the renewed emphasis on the state sector and the commanding role of public power in strategic development. This does not mean abolition of all private capital or a return to a purely administratively commanded economy. China remains a mixed economy with a large private sector. But the Xi era makes far clearer than the preceding period that private capital does not have the right to set the overall direction of national development. State-owned enterprises in strategic sectors are treated not as temporary remnants, but as core instruments of socialist modernization, technological upgrading, energy security, infrastructure development, and national resilience. The message is that the commanding heights cannot be left to the blind logic of profit, because the goals of a socialist country include long-term development, sovereignty, social stability, and strategic autonomy, not simply immediate return on capital.

This connects directly to the shift from high-speed growth to what Chinese theory often calls high-quality development. Earlier phases of reform often privileged rapid expansion, export growth, construction, and industrial scale, sometimes at severe social and environmental cost. In the new era, the stated aim is to make development more balanced, more technologically advanced, more ecologically sustainable, and more rooted in domestic strength rather than excessive dependence on low-cost labor or external demand. The economy is still expected to grow, but growth is no longer supposed to be pursued as an end in itself. It is subordinated, at least in theory, to broader strategic goals: innovation, environmental repair, national cohesion, targeted poverty reduction, rural revitalization, and resistance to vulnerability in key sectors such as semiconductors, energy, logistics, and food security.

This is where concepts like common prosperity become especially important. Common prosperity does not mean immediate equalization of all income, nor does it imply that market-generated differences disappear overnight. Rather, it marks an effort to push back against the excesses of the earlier reform era, in which some regions, sectors, and classes pulled far ahead while social inequality became increasingly visible and politically sensitive. In the Xi-era framework, this kind of polarization is dangerous because it can hollow out the social basis of socialism and allow wealth to convert itself into power. Common prosperity is therefore presented as both a socialist and a political imperative: development must remain broad-based enough that the Party can continue to represent the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority rather than coming to preside over a stratification that increasingly resembles capitalist class hierarchy.

The poverty alleviation campaign is often treated as one of the clearest practical expressions of this line. In theoretical terms, it demonstrates that the Chinese state is not content to measure success only through aggregate output or urban wealth concentration. Instead, it asserts that the socialist state has a direct obligation to mobilize resources, cadre organization, planning capacity, and public institutions to eliminate deprivation and integrate previously marginalized populations into national development. That does not by itself settle all questions about class relations in China, but it does illustrate the difference between a state using development solely for capital accumulation and a state that also uses its organizational capacity to pursue mass social objectives on a national scale.

Another major characteristic of the new era is the reassertion of ideology. One of the core lessons drawn from both the Soviet collapse and from some tendencies within China’s own reform period is that if a communist party becomes ideologically hollow, technocratic, or merely growth-oriented, then it becomes vulnerable to liberalization, corruption, and eventual political decomposition. The Xi era therefore places much stronger emphasis on Party education, discipline, Marxist study, historical memory, and confidence in the socialist path. In one sense this is a return to political seriousness after a period in which developmental success sometimes encouraged the illusion that ideology no longer mattered. In another sense it is an acknowledgment that the struggle over China’s future is not purely economic. It is also a struggle over culture, political will, and whether socialism remains a living orientation rather than a ceremonial label attached to market development.