Sinicized Marxism as a Philosophy of Modernization

Khan' Ifen ORCID: 0009-0007-0642-5383 PhD in Philosophy Postgraduate student; Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences; P. Lumumba Peoples' Friendship University of Russia 19 Miklukho-Maklaya str., Obruchevsky district, Moscow, 117198, Russia ifenhan@yandex.com Other publications by this author

Introduction

The relevance of the study is due to the increasing importance of China as an independent center of global economic, technological and ideological development. The strengthening of the PRC's role in world politics and the formation of an alternative model of modernization require a philosophical understanding of the theoretical foundations of the Chinese way. In this context, Sinicized Marxism acts not only as an official ideology, but also as a conceptual framework through which reforms, technological strategy, and institutional transformations of the 21st century are interpreted.

Of particular importance is the analysis of the transformation of the classical categories of historical and dialectical materialism in the context of the digital economy, scientific and technological competition and the transition to a model of high-quality development. In modern scientific discussion, the PRC's reforms are often interpreted as a departure from Marxism, which necessitates clarifying their philosophical basis.

The study of Sinicized Marxism as a philosophy of modernization makes it possible to clarify the internal logic of the Chinese model of development, identify the specifics of the connection between the market and the state, traditions and innovations, and assess its significance for a comparative analysis of alternative ways of modernization in the 21st century.

Scientific elaboration of the topic: The problems of Sinicized Marxism and the philosophical foundations of the modernization of the PRC have been widely covered in Russian and foreign scientific literature. The research of O.N. Borokh and A.V. Lomanov ^[1], D.B. Kalashnikov, V.A. Skosyrev ^[7] analyzes the transformation of productive forces, the internationalization of the Chinese economy and the change in strategic development priorities in the context of global competition.

The collection "45 years of economic reforms in the PRC" ^[10] and the collective monograph "The People's Republic of China: politics, economics, culture" ^[3] reveal the institutional and economic aspects of the reform course.

The ideological and philosophical dimension of the Sinification of Marxism is considered in the works of A.V. Lukin ^[5], Li Xiaozhou ^[4], Yu Yuanjie ^[11], as well as in the collective monograph "Modern Ideology of the PRC" ^[8]. Foreign studies (J.-N. Ducange, N. Sperber ^[16]; G. Zhang, A. Zhang ^[28]; X. Hu ^[24] and others) focus on the synthesis of Marxist theory and Chinese tradition.

The concept of new qualitative productive forces is elaborated in detail in the works of B. Ren, H. Guo ^[26], H. Liang, W. Huang ^[19], Z. Liu ^[20] and others, where its economic and theoretical potential is analyzed. At the same time, the philosophical interpretation of Sinicized Marxism as an integral concept of modernization remains insufficiently systematized, which determines the research objective of this work.

Methodological basis. The methodological basis of the research is based on the principles of historical, philosophical and systemic analysis, which allow us to consider Sinicized Marxism in the dynamics of its formation and institutionalization.

The application of the historical and genetic approach makes it possible to trace the evolution of the Chinese interpretation of Marxism from the Maoist stage to the reform model and the modern discourse of the 21st century.

The comparative analysis is used to compare the classical version of dialectical and historical materialism with their Chinese interpretation in the context of economic reforms and technological modernization.

A discursive analysis of official policy documents, including materials from the 20th CPC Congress, reveals the normative and value foundations of the modern ideological structure.

The work also uses elements of political and economic analysis aimed at interpreting the concept of new qualitative productive forces, the role of the state and the instrumental understanding of the market.

The complex combination of these methods provides a holistic view of Sinicized Marxism as a philosophy of modernization and strategic development.

The research's source base consists of Russian and foreign scientific publications, collective monographs, materials from academic conferences, as well as official program documents of the PRC and analytical materials from international organizations.

The Russian segment is represented by the works of O.N. Borokh and A.V. Lomanov ^[1], D.B. Kalashnikov ^[2], V.A. Skosyrev ^[7], M.F. Tkachenko ^[9], V.A. Yasinsky and M.Yu. Kozhevnikov ^[12], as well as collective publications of the Institute of China and Modern Asia of the Russian Academy of Sciences ^{[3; 6]}. These works allow us to reveal the transformation of productive forces, the strategy of technological sovereignty and the institutional features of the Chinese development model.

The philosophical and ideological aspect is based on the research of A.V. Lukin ^[5], Li Xiaozhou ^[4], Yu Yuanjie ^[11], the materials of the journal Marxism & Reality ^{[21; 22]}, as well as the collective monograph "Modern Ideology of the PRC" ^[8]. The text of the report to the XX Congress of the CPC is used as the official source ^[17].

Foreign academic literature (B. Ren, H. Guo ^[26]; H. Liang, W. Huang ^[19]; Z. Liu et al. ^[20]; J.-N. Ducange, N. Sperber ^[16]; G. Zhang, A. Zhang ^[28]) provides a theoretical analysis of the concept of new qualitative productive forces, political the economics of reforms and the philosophical foundations of Chinese Marxism.

The combination of these sources makes it possible to comprehensively consider Sinicized Marxism as the ideological, economic and philosophical basis for the modernization of the PRC.

Results and discussion

The Dialectic of Tradition and Innovation in the Modern Chinese Interpretation of Marxism

The Sinification of Marxism is not limited to the transfer of Western theory to Chinese soil. This is a long historical and philosophical process in which Marxism was gradually integrated into the cultural and political fabric of China, reinterpreted depending on the specific tasks of the era and institutionalized as the ideological basis of the modernization project.

This process demonstrates a special form of dialectics, where tradition is not denied, but transformed, and innovation does not destroy historical heritage, but reworks it.

The Chinese reception of Marxism was not originally a mechanical borrowing. Already in the period of Mao Zedong, there was a radical shift in the emphasis of classical Marxism.

If in the European tradition the subject of historical action was the industrial proletariat, then in Chinese conditions the decisive role is assigned to the peasantry.

In his research, Hu Xiaoming notes that the transformation of classical Marxist categories in China was accompanied by a rethinking of the role of the agrarian stratum in the revolution and the adaptation of the theory of class struggle to the structure of a semi-colonial society ^{[24, p. 667]}.

This adaptation was not arbitrary. It followed from the historical conditions of China in the first half of the 20th century. Marxism in the Maoist interpretation retained its materialistic basis, but received a new sociological configuration. The dialectic of class contradiction began to be viewed not only as an economic process, but also as an instrument for mobilizing the national liberation movement.

The article by J.N. Ducange and N. Sperber emphasizes that Marxism in China from the very beginning acted as an "omnipresent" ideological landmark, which did not lose its status even during the period of subsequent reforms ^{[16, p. 11]}.

This indicates that the Maoist version of Marxism was not a temporary political rhetoric, but became part of an institutional structure.

At the same time, Chinese Marxism absorbs elements of traditional philosophy. In the work of G. Zhang and A. Zhang, it is noted that Confucian ideas about harmony and collective responsibility were integrated into the Marxist understanding of social relations ^{[28, pp. 1-2]}.

Consequently, already at the Mao stage, tradition is not being destroyed, but redefined in new categories.

The Maoist model demonstrates a special form of dialectics. Contradiction is understood not only as a struggle, but as a mechanism for the formation of a new person and a new social structure. In this sense, the Chinese interpretation retains its revolutionary character, but connects it with cultural transformation.

Deng Xiaoping's reform period is often interpreted as a departure from Marxism. However, the analysis shows a more complex picture. Dan did not abandon the socialist goal, but changed the methods of achieving it.

Xinwen Zhang's article notes that in the reform era, socialism began to be understood as a set of goals and means, where the market is seen as a tool rather than as a value in itself ^{[29, pp. 810-812]}.

The formula "socialism with Chinese characteristics" meant the recognition of market mechanisms within the framework of the strategic leadership of the state.

The World Economic Forum's material highlights the continuity between the Maoist stage and the reforms. It is noted that the economic breakthrough after 1978 was based on the infrastructural and industrial foundations created in the previous period ^[18].

Thus, the reforms appeared as a continuation rather than a negation of the previous stage.

The dialectic here becomes manageable. The contradiction between the plan and the market is not eliminated, but is integrated into a single system.

The study by Hu and co-authors emphasizes that the method of "crossing the river by groping for stones" expresses a pragmatic adaptation of Marxist theory to national conditions ^{[24, pp. 665-666]}.

This is not a rejection of dialectics, but its practical concretization.

It is especially important that the idea of social stability increases during this period. Unlike the classical Marxist model, where conflict is seen as the engine of history, the Chinese version focuses on the harmonization of contradictions.

The article by G. Zhang emphasizes that the collective good and social interconnectedness are interpreted as the basis of human nature ^{[28, p. 2]}.

To sum up, dialectics ceases to be exclusively conflictual and takes on the form of balancing.

The modern stage is characterized by the institutionalization of Sinicized Marxism. Zhongchen Zhang's research analyzes the evolution of political discourse from Mao to Xi. The author identifies three features: adaptation, popularization and continuation ^{[30, pp. 1-2]}.

This indicates that modern discourse does not break away from the historical line.

The report to the XX Congress of the CPC emphasizes the need to "adapt Marxism to the Chinese context and the demands of the time" ^[17].

The wording indicates a dual task: preserving the theoretical core and updating the content.

It is noteworthy that the report repeatedly mentions "socialism with Chinese characteristics" as a fundamental framework ^[17].

This demonstrates the consolidation of Marxism as the official philosophy of modernization.

The journal Marxism & Reality emphasizes that "Xi Jinping's thought about socialism with Chinese characteristics of the new era" is considered as an innovative development of Marxism ^[22].

Here Marxism does not act as a dogma, but as an evolving system.

In contrast to Mao's revolutionary emphasis and Deng's pragmatic approach, the modern stage focuses on technological and institutional renewal. In the study of G. Zhang, it is noted that Chinese Marxism seeks to link individual goals with the collective good in the context of globalization ^{[28, p. 3]}.

Consequently, Marxism is institutionalized as a philosophy of modernization, where innovation is understood as a part of the historical process, and not as a gap.

If we consider Sinicized Marxism through the prism of philosophy, it becomes noticeable that its dialectic differs from the classical Western version. The work of Hu and co-authors talks about the synthesis of Marxist theory and traditional philosophical methods ^{[24, p. 668]}.

This synthesis forms a special type of historical thinking.

Tradition in the Chinese model does not act as an obstacle to modernization. It is considered as a resource.

The Confucian idea of harmony is being transformed into the principle of social sustainability. Dialectics ceases to be exclusively the logic of negation and becomes the logic of integration.

The article by J.N. Ducange notes that in the 21st century, Marxism in China is experiencing a new upsurge, especially after 2012 ^{[17, p. 12]}.

This indicates a desire to strengthen the theoretical basis of modernization.

Dialectics in the Chinese version turns out to be not only a method of analyzing contradictions, but also a tool for managing them. The contradiction is not brought to the destruction of the system, but is included in the long-term development strategy.

One of the distinguishing features of the Chinese interpretation is the priority of stability. The report to the XX Congress emphasizes the need to "focus on internal political stability" ^[17].

This indicates the strategic nature of the dialectic.

If classical Marxism emphasized revolutionary overcoming, then the Chinese model relies on gradual transformation.

The World Economic Forum notes that China's modernization was accompanied by "state-directed modernization" ^[18].

This confirms the controllable nature of transformations.

The Chinese version of Marxism does not destroy tradition, but includes it in the structure of modernization. She does not reject contradictions, but strives to regulate them. Dialectics here means not only struggle, but also reconciliation. Modernization is understood as a historically continuous process where the past is not rejected, but recycled.

This is the philosophical feature of Sinicized Marxism: it transforms Marxism from a revolutionary theory of the gap into a strategy of civilizational development, where tradition and innovation are in a state of dynamic equilibrium.

Philosophical justification of economic reforms in China in the 21st century

China's economic reforms in the 21st century are often interpreted as a departure from the classical principles of Marxism. However, an analysis of the sources presented allows us to see a different logic: the reform is considered not as a revision of the socialist project, but as its theoretical deepening and practical adaptation to a new stage of development.

The key to understanding Chinese reforms lies in the theory of productive forces. The article by Haoguang Liang and Wei Huang emphasizes that the concept of "new-quality productive forces" represents a further development of Marxist political economy in relation to Chinese conditions ^{[19, p. 52]}.

The authors explicitly point out that the new concept deepens the Marxist understanding of the development of productive forces, shifting the focus from quantitative growth to qualitative transformation.

Here, the transition from an extensive model based on scaling production and using cheap labor to an innovative economy is fundamental, where scientific and technological progress becomes the core of development. The paper notes that "science and technology are the primary productive force" and that innovation is the "primary engine" of modernization ^{[19, pp. 50-51]}

The formula directly correlates with Marx's thesis about the development of productive forces as a historical condition for changing social relations.

One of the most controversial aspects of the reforms is the assumption of market mechanisms. However, the Chinese interpretation considers the market instrumentally.

The article by V.A. Yasinsky and M.Yu. Kozhevnikov emphasizes that China has managed to create an innovative environment "in which market mechanisms play the main role while maintaining the leadership role of the state" ^{[12, p. 196]}.

This combination indicates a philosophical attitude: the market is not autonomous, it is embedded in a strategic framework.

B. Ren captures a similar logic when analyzing China's "two wonders" - rapid economic growth and long-term social stability. The author associates them with "a combination of state ability and the scaling of markets under the leadership of the party" ^{[25, p. 17]}.

This approach corresponds to the concept of the "primary stage of socialism." Chinese economic thought proceeds from the recognition of the historical incompleteness of socialist construction. Market mechanisms are allowed as a means of accelerating the development of productive forces. Their value is determined not by their own profit logic, but by their contribution to social development.

The collection "45 years of economic reforms in the PRC" emphasizes that the reforms did not mean abandoning socialist guidelines, but became a form of economic modernization in new conditions ^{[10, p. 2-3]}.

Economic policy is interpreted as a tool for achieving long-term strategic goals.

The philosophical peculiarity of Chinese reforms is manifested in the understanding of the state. B. Ren notes that commitment to the party's leadership is a political guarantee of economic development ^{[25, p. 18]}.

Government capacity is considered as a condition for coordinating markets and ensuring social stability.

The article by D.B. Kalashnikov emphasizes that China has moved to a new model of development, where artificial intelligence and technological infrastructure become independent factors of production ^{[2, pp. 21-22]}.

However, this transformation is being carried out within the framework of industrial sovereignty and national strategy. Innovations are not left to chance, they are channeled through government programs.

The concept of "double circulation" analyzed by V.A. Skosyrev demonstrates the same logic. Economic policy combines internal development and external integration, while increasing the emphasis on domestic consumption and technological independence ^{[7, p. 115]}.

The economy is subordinated to the task of sustainability and independence.

An important philosophical point is evident here: the state in the Chinese model does not disappear as the market develops, but becomes more complex. It becomes a coordinator of technological modernization, a strategist in the field of innovation and a guarantor of social stability.

The 21st century marks the transition to a new type of development. Haoguang Liang and Wei Huang describe the productive forces of the new quality as a combination of digital, green and high-tech characteristics ^{[19, pp. 51-52]}.

The transition from quantitative to qualitative growth is emphasized.

M.F. Tkachenko's article notes that the previous model, based on cheap labor and external investments, led to dependence on foreign technologies and markets ^{[9, p. 24]}.

The current stage is focused on self-sufficiency and modernization.

The work of V.A. Yasinsky and M.Y. Kozhevnikov focuses on the struggle for technological sovereignty as a key task of the 21st century ^{[12, pp. 196-197]}.

Scientific and technological development is considered as a condition for overcoming dependence on Western technology markets.

Economic modernization thus acquires a philosophical dimension. It becomes not just a growth strategy, but a form of historical self-affirmation. The development of new-quality productive forces is thought of as a step towards national revival.

The philosophical framework of the reforms includes teleology, the idea of a purposeful historical movement. Li Xiaozhou's article analyzes the value system of socialism with Chinese characteristics, which combines traditional virtues and attitudes of the official socialist doctrine ^{[4, pp. 90-91]}.

Economic development is associated with social justice and collectivism.

The transition to the model of "high-quality development", which V.A. Skosyrev writes about, is accompanied by an emphasis on sustainability and coordination of interests ^{[7, p. 111]}.

The economy is subordinated to the broader goal of strengthening national potential and ensuring public welfare.

The concept of "two miracles" described by B. Rehn combines economic growth and social stability ^{[25, p. 18]}.

Stability becomes not a side effect of growth, but an equal goal. This corresponds to the idea of "shared prosperity", where economic efficiency and social harmony are interconnected.

Economic policy, therefore, is not autonomous. It is included in historical teleology - in the project of national revival and modernization.

The analysis shows that the reforms of the 21st century do not abandon Marxism. They are rethinking its key categories.:

- productive forces are interpreted through innovation and technology;

- the market is understood as a means of development;

- the state retains strategic leadership;

- modernization is considered as a historical stage of socialist construction.

The work on the Sinification of Marxism emphasizes that the philosophical principles of Marxism are taking on new forms that ensure social stability and technological progress ^[6].

This wording accurately reflects the nature of the reforms.

The Chinese economic model demonstrates a special form of dialectics. The contradiction between the plan and the market is not eliminated by negating one of the elements. It transforms into dynamic interaction. Productive forces are developing, and production relations are gradually adapting. The historical process is thought of as a controlled evolution.

The economy in the Chinese model is subordinated to the historical goal of modernization and strengthening national sovereignty. This is the philosophical rationale for the reforms. They do not depart from Marxism, but expand its horizons by combining the theory of productive forces, state strategizing and market instruments into a single concept of development.

Economic modernization appears as a condition of socialist construction. The market is a means. The coordinating State. Productive forces are the driving force. The historical goal is national revival. In this logic, the reforms of the 21st century turn out to be not a revision of Marxism, but its specific Chinese evolution.

Classical dialectical materialism was formed in the industrial age. His conceptual grid was built around factory production, material labor, class contradictions and the antagonism of capitalist relations. The contradiction unfolded in the sphere of ownership and distribution. Technology was a factor, but not an independent philosophical field.

Rethinking Dialectical Materialism in the Context of China's Technological Development

A shift is taking place in the Chinese discourse of the 21st century. Dialectics is moving into the space of technological modernization, digital platforms, scientific breakthroughs and global competition. This is not a rejection of dialectical materialism, but its reconfiguration. The productive forces are once again at the center of the analysis, but their content is changing.

The concept of "new qualitative productive forces" is formulated as a development of the Marxist theory of productive forces. B. Ren and H. Guo emphasizes that the theory of new qualitative productive forces "significantly develops the Marxist theory of productive forces" and opens up "new horizons" for building an independent economic knowledge system in China ^{[25, p. 20]}.

The authors associate the formation of new qualitative productive forces with the internal contradictory dynamics of the productive forces themselves ^{[26, p. 21]}.

The description of the logic "science – technology – industry – productive forces" is especially indicative, where scientific achievements are integrated into new industries, forming a qualitative leap in the structure of the economy ^{[26, p. 22]}.

Dialectics becomes a process of transformation of knowledge into material force.

At this point, a working hypothesis arises: Sinicized Marxism transforms dialectical materialism into a philosophy of controlled technological evolution. The contradiction does not disappear, but acquires a different character. It is regulated through strategic planning and institutional mechanisms.

The article by Bian Kabin and Guan Feng argues that digital civilization is a new form of practice for the development of productive forces and requires a rethink of their qualitative state ^{[13, pp. 146-147]}.

The authors turn to historical materialism, emphasizing the need to analyze the interaction of the civilizational form and productive forces ^{[13, p. 148]}

This is a crucial point. In the industrial paradigm, materiality was associated with physical production. In the digital paradigm, materiality includes algorithms, data infrastructures, and artificial intelligence.

The article by Hongmei Chen and Rui Su emphasizes that the Marxist view of science and technology considers scientific progress as the most important driving force for the development of society ^{[14, pp. 73-74]}.

In the Chinese interpretation, this position gets a strategic dimension. Independent innovation is declared to be the basis of national development.

Dialectics is being transferred to the field of science and technology. A contradiction is unfolding between technological dependence and technological sovereignty. This is no longer the antagonism of the capitalist and the worker, but the competition of scientific and technological systems.

A.V. Lukin analyzes the concept of "Sinification of Marxism" and emphasizes that the Chinese leadership openly recognizes the need to modernize Marxist theory, taking into account the specifics of the current stage ^{[5, pp. 71-72]}.

Dialectics acquires a civilizational dimension here. Chinese ideology considers its own model as a new form of civilization, formed on the basis of Marxism, but adapted to historical conditions.

Yu. Yuanjie shows that Xi Jinping's foreign policy ideas are based on historical and dialectical materialism, combining it with traditional culture ^{[11, pp. 77-78]}.

This connection gives dialectics a strategic character.

The contradiction is being transferred to the sphere of global technological rivalry. The monograph "Productive Forces and Chinese Relations" emphasizes that updating the reform strategy is associated with the need to respond to new challenges of the global economy ^{[1, pp. 120-121]}.

Dialectics is becoming a tool for analyzing the international environment. The material contradictions are expressed in technological sanctions, restrictions on market access, and the struggle for standards and innovations.

Therefore, the contradiction does not disappear. It changes shape. Class conflict is giving way to the competition of national productive forces.

Classical dialectical materialism contained a revolutionary impulse. The contradiction implied a qualitative leap through the destruction of old relationships.

In the Chinese version of the 21st century, dialectics retains the category of contradiction, but the emphasis shifts to the controllability of the process. The article on new qualitative productive forces emphasizes the need for a theoretical generalization of practical experience to guide "new development practices" ^{[26, p. 20]}.

Technological development is considered as a consistent, institutionally guided process. Liu Zhiqiang's article indicates that new high-quality productive forces contribute to high-quality development through coordination and management mechanisms ^{[20, p. 2]}.

Dialectics works here as a method of strategic management. The contradictions are not brought to the destructive phase, but are integrated into the modernization plan.

The working hypothesis about the transformation of dialectical materialism into a philosophy of guided technological evolution finds empirical confirmation. Chinese discourse does not reject materialism. He retains the thesis of the primacy of the material base, but fills it with new content.

Technology is becoming the main field of dialectics. Digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence, and biotechnology are all included in the category of productive forces. Materiality expands, dialectics becomes more complicated.

In the collection "The People's Republic of China: Politics, Economy, Culture. 2022" emphasizes the importance of the information and digital sphere for the development of the country ^{[3, p. 203]}.

The article by Tianyang Gao states that new high-quality productive forces are becoming a key factor in the transition to high-quality development ^{[15, pp. 491-492]}.

This allows us to interpret technological development as a historical necessity. Within the framework of dialectical materialism, the development of productive forces has always been a prerequisite for the transformation of society. The Chinese interpretation transfers this principle to the field of the digital economy and global competition.

Technological sovereignty is becoming a philosophical category. He expresses his desire to ensure the independence of the material base. The contradiction between dependence and autonomy is becoming the driving force behind modernization.

The material base is no longer limited to industrial production. It includes digital infrastructures, artificial intelligence, biotechnologies, and scientific platforms. Productive forces begin to think not only as a set of labor tools and labor force, but also as a network of knowledge, algorithms, and data. This change does not abolish materialism, but clarifies its subject matter.

The contradiction, which in the classical version unfolded mainly in the sphere of class relations, is shifting to the field of technological rivalry and global competition.

Historical dynamics are captured through the tension between dependence and sovereignty, innovation and lag, integration and autonomy. Dialectics still describes movement through contradiction, but the field of contradiction itself is being transformed. Dialectics acquires a strategic character.

In this context, dialectics acquires a strategic dimension. It does not disappear, does not soften, and is not replaced by management pragmatics. Rather, it is being integrated into a long-term modernization program.

Contradictions are not brought to a destructive limit, but become the object of conscious regulation.

The central category is new qualitative productive forces. They are described as the result of the internal contradictory dynamics of the development of science, technology and industry and at the same time as an object of strategic planning ^{[26, pp. 21-22]}. This dual status already contains an important shift: the contradiction is not only being stated, but also the trajectory of its resolution is being designed.

Dialectics ceases to be associated exclusively with the revolutionary break. It begins to function as a method of strategic development focused on innovation, technological independence and long-term modernization. Development is thought of not as a series of catastrophic fractures, but as a consistent restructuring of the structure of productive forces.

Conclusion

The analysis shows that Sinicized Marxism does not act as a rejection of the classical tradition, but as its consistent historical transformation in the context of modernization.

At different stages of development - from the Maoist mobilization model to Deng Xiaoping's reform pragmatics and to modern strategic discourse - Marxism retained the status of a theoretical core, while adapting to changing socio-economic challenges.

In the 21st century, this transformation takes on a technological dimension. The concept of new qualitative productive forces translates the Marxist theory of development into the space of digitalization, innovation and global competition.

Dialectics retains the category of contradiction, but its content is shifting from a revolutionary gap to a strategically guided evolution. Contradictions are considered not as the basis for the destruction of the system, but as a source of guided transformation.

Thus, Sinicized Marxism is formed as a philosophy of modernization, combining historical materialism, state strategizing and technological development. He transforms Marxism from a theory of the social gap into a concept of civilizational development, where tradition and innovation, market and plan, stability and transformation are integrated into a single logic of historical movement.

The article is published in the version approved by the reviewers (after receiving a positive review recommending the manuscript for publication) with corrections made by the author (after receiving the editor’s comments, if any).
Read all reviews on this article