China's rural land system, as an integral part of the national governance system, serves not only as the cornerstone for ensuring national food security and agricultural stability but also as a key underpinning for maintaining rural social harmony, safeguarding farmers rights and interests, and promoting coordinated development between urban and rural areas. Grounded in Marx's theory of institutional change and guided fundamentally by General Secretary Xi Jinpings systems thinking, this paper systematically reviews and interprets the innovative pathways of China's rural land system reform. The study finds that, while adhering to the fundamental tenets of Marxism, China's rural land reform, rooted firmly in its national realities, has achieved major breakthroughs in four aspects: innovation of objectives from a growthoriented approach to coordinated development; innovation of subjects from sole dominance to multistakeholder collaboration; innovation of mechanisms from interest stimulation to benefit sharing; and innovation of pathways from holistic breakthroughs to steady progress. These institutional innovations vividly reflect the scientific guidance of Xi Jinping Thought on Economy and align closely with key policy imperatives of adhering to comprehensively deepening reforms, promoting highquality development, upholding the peoplecentered philosophy, advancing common prosperity for all, and adhering to the general principle of pursuing progress while ensuring stability during the 15th FiveYear Plan period. Looking ahead to the 15th FiveYear Plan period, a critical stage for basically achieving socialist modernization, carrying out the rural land system reform should further unleash the vitality of land as a factor of production, strengthen institutional safeguards for farmers rights, deepen mechanisms for urbanrural integration, enhance green development orientations, and reinforce theoretical innovation and international dialogue. These efforts will lay a solid institutional foundation for socialist modernization and offer Chinese wisdom and solutions to the global rural land system reform.

Since the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, the theoretical and practical connotations of Xi Jinping Thought on Diplomacy have been continuously enriched and developed. Foreign think tanks are important platforms for overseas research on Xi Jinping Thought on Diplomacy. Examining how scholars at these foreign think tanks perceive and interpret the conceptual system of Xi Jinping Thought on Diplomacy is of great significance for strengthening its external articulation and international communication. This paper selects the representative research outputs from 20 foreign think tanks as research samples, and employs methodological approaches such as conceptual analysis, literature analysis, and comparative analysis to map and assess the current situation and characteristics of foreign think tanks understanding of the conceptual system of Xi Jinping Thought on Diplomacy. The results show that influenced by factors such as Chinas rise, ideological predispositions, and pragmatic considerations, the analysis of the conceptual system of Xi Jinping Thought on Diplomacy by foreign think tanks has three main characteristics: nonequilibrium in conceptual categorization, complexity in the interpretation of conceptual interrelations, and instrumentalization of the analysis of concept functions. This paper suggests strengthening the research and interpretation of concepts, keeping up with the research of foreign think tanks in a timely manner, rationally assessing negative international perceptions and further enhancing the international communication capacity of Xi Jinping Thought on Diplomacy.

Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era plays a guiding and navigational role in constructing Chinas independent knowledge system. It establishes the fundamental orientation, provides core content, and clarifies the developmental trajectory for this endeavor. The construction of Chinas independent knowledge system enriches and strengthens the systematic and theoretical articulation of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. Grounded strategically in a discipline system, centered on an academic system, and expressed through a discursive system, this “threeinone” integrated framework, where discipline, academic, and discursive systems are mutually reinforcing, helps consolidate the intellectual and normative dimensions of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, as well as its originality and practicality, its national character and global relevance, and its holistic coherence and systemic integrity. Guiding the construction of Chinas independent knowledge system with the Partys innovative theories embodies an organic unity of purposefulness and conformity with objective laws. Following the logical approach of “tracing origins, absorbing external elements, and facing the future”, it is essential to accelerate the construction of Chinas independent knowledge system in the process of advancing the systematization and theorization of the Partys innovative theories for the new era.

As a signature concept in the discipline of the history and Party building of the Communist Party of China (CPC), “the Partys overall leadership” has evolved within the context of CPCs political discourse through a distinct historical trajectory: from “leadership by Party members”, “Party leadership”, “monolithic Party leadership”,through “the Party leads everything”, “upholding and improving Party leadership”， to “upholding and strengthening the Partys overall leadership”. This progression represents an innovative development of Marxist theories on proletarian Party leadership. The concept of “the Partys overall leadership” carries rich and multilayered meanings and should be understood through three interrelated dimensions: political principles, institutions and rules, and capacities of the Party. Moreover, this concept makes significant scholarly contributions: it further enriches and refines the conceptual framework of Party leadership, provides a foundational analytical category for research in the discipline of CPC history and Party building, and offers substantial theoretical value for constructing an independent knowledge system with Chinese characteristics.

Significant meetings of the Communist Party of China (CPC) constitute a fundamental topic that distinctly characterizes the studies of CPC history, among which the National Congresses hold the most representative significance. Since the earliest texts on the studies of CPC history, a narrative approach and historiographical model centered on significant meetings, particularly Party congresses, as chronological milestones in the Partys history, have been established. The resolutions adopted at these significant meetings, as well as the historical evaluations of the meetings themselves, have profoundly shaped and symbolically reflected the overall assessment of specific phases in CPC history. The prominent weight accorded to meetings in the writing of CPC history stems from the Partys organizational structure and the defining features of the studies of CPC history, thus possessing a certain degree of historical legitimacy. In this regard, rather than deliberate rejection, scholars should seek innovation, actively exploring new narrative frameworks for CPC history that are more analytically robust and capable of integrating meetings with broader societal transformations, individual experiences, local practices, and others alike.

Process thinking is an indispensable dimension for understanding and comprehending the independent knowledge system of the discipline of history and Party building of the Communist Party of China. Guided by the process theory of Marxist philosophy, the knowledge system of Party history is an aggregation of processes from the “production” to the “application” of knowledge of Party history. The production, accumulation, dissemination, and application of knowledge constitute the most critical and prevalent four processes within this “aggregation of processes”. Knowledge production focuses on exploring the production of new insights into Party history; knowledge accumulation involves examining the classification, coding, and storage of knowledge of Party history; knowledge dissemination delves into the impact of dissemination methods, spaces, and varying content on the effectiveness of dissemination; knowledge application emphasizes how, based on wellinformed knowledge selection, knowledge can be scientifically and timely transformed into practical use. Exploring the process system of knowledge of Party history helps address the gaps in the existing scholarship on the structural system of knowledge of Party history, enabling practitioners and researchers to develop a more comprehensive and profound understanding of the ontology of knowledge of Party history.

Traditional international relations theory has long been trapped in a predicament, and the deepseated structural changes in world politics brought about by “the profound changes unseen in a century” have further exposed its limitations in explanatory power. The advantage of world politics is fully demonstrated in explaining why ChinaUS relations have plummeted; that is, the dramatic changes in ChinaUS relations are the result of deepseated structural changes in the world order, rather than stemming from other factors. World politics, grounded on critical realism, has proposed a new research agenda with stratification: the world politics theory based on “domain of real/mechanism”, the world politics history based on “domain of actual/event”, and the international relations theory based on “domain of empirical/experience”. It also takes the world market and political thoughts as two major research units, thus surpassing the traditional international relations studies based on the research units of the status quo structure, Westerncentric historical view, and “power politics”. The enlightenment obtained from this is that the innovation of Chinese international relations theories cannot occur within the established framework of traditional international relations studies, but must instead be brought about by the “discovery” of the new discipline. Disciplines arising from their respective histories inevitably have different historical perspectives, and the view of global order in world politics is completely different from that in traditional international relations studies.

The issue of the logic and truth of thinking is both a scientific question that concerns all cognitive sciences and a foundational problem that underpins all scientific inquiry. To address this, Aristotle was the first to construct a metalogical system concerning inference and argumentation, thereby inaugurating the metaphysical construction of formal logic. Kant, recognizing the intrinsic connection between the function of formal logic and human cognitive capacities, advanced a “Copernican Revolution” in the relationship between thinking and truth within a framework of transcendental logic. In an effort to overcome the nonautonomous and nondialectical limitations of transcendental logic, later German classical philosophers undertook extraordinary explorations of the first principles of epistemology within the speculative system of transcendental idealism. Building on a critical reflection on the paradoxical identity of dialectics of thinking in logic and truth, Marx, in his interpretation and construction of practical dialectics, revealed the historical, developmental, and transformative dimensions of thinking, logic, and truth, which have been further developed in modern and contemporary philosophy. This issue of the logic and truth of thinking is thus not only a concrete and contemporary manifestation of the relationship between thinking and existence but also an enduringly relevant and foundational topic that continues to inspire new philosophical thought. 

The evolution of the ideological and political education process is an objective historical progression. Its development not only adheres to educational laws but also reflects the characteristics of the times. The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) and its continuous empowerment of ideological and political education have given rise to new forms and characteristics of this educational process. Examining this transformation from three dimensions, i.e. people, content, and methods, we can deepen our understanding of the “digital existence” of  human beings and the shifts in their cognitive patterns under the influence of AI technology, discerning what changes and what remains constant. We can gain a thorough insight into how AI technology promotes the precision, personalization, diversification, and dynamism of ideological and political education content, while also making the educational process more open and less controllable. Furthermore, we must fully grasp the opportunities AI technology brings for transforming ideological and political education methods, and skillfully foster the deep integration of AI technology with ideological and political education, which are essential paths to promoting innovation, reform, and highquality development of the ideological and political education process.

Within the theoretical genealogy of media studies, generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) has driven a threefold paradigm shift in the political economy of communication, ie. reconfiguring the understandings of communicative labor, subjectivity, and power. This shift has led information communication in Western capitalism to exhibit several interrelated effects: the “everythingasmedia” effect, the simulated reality effect, the automation effect, and the industrialized production effect. Together, these phenomena unfold amid the entanglement of technological logic and capital logic, generating multiple structural contradictions that are fundamentally reshaping media forms and communication ecosystems in practice. By probing the multifaceted factors underlying these contradictions and developing a Chinese governance approach that integrates technology, power, capital, and regulation, we can better address the communicative dilemmas in todays complex and rapidly evolving intelligent information environment.