Building and strengthening the discourse dominance of Marxist ideology in the new era constitutes the fundamental task for enhancing its discourse power in this new era. Building the discourse dominance of Marxist ideology in the new era runs through the whole process of creating, expressing, spreading and practicing the discourse of Marxist ideology. The discourse dominance of Marxist ideology in the new era is reflected in the dominance in discourse creation, discourse articulation, dissemination influence, and practical guidance of Marxist ideology. Therefore, concentrated efforts must be directed towards systematically building the discourse dominance of Marxist ideology in the new era across these four dimensions: the dominance in discourse creation, discourse articulation, dissemination influence, and practical guidance.

In the materialist view of history and Marxist view of revolution, both social revolution and self-reform are essential components. Across different periods of social revolution, the agents, targets, methods, and pathways of social revolution vary significantly. Similarly, for different revolutionary agents, the objects, substance, approaches, and trajectories of selfreform also differ in their revolutionary activities. Precisely due to these variations in revolutionary objects, substance, methods, and pathways, selfreform manifests unique value and significance distinct from social revolution in promoting historical progress and advancing human civilization. The process of social revolution simultaneously embodies the continuous advancement and realization of selfreform by revolutionary agents. For revolutionary classes or political parties, their social revolution and selfreform exist in dialectical unity. Selfreform takes shape and is realized through social revolution, while simultaneously driving and guiding social revolution. In the new era and on the new journey, guiding social revolution through the Partys selfreform serves as the principal revolutionary approach of the Communist Party of China (CPC) in the new era, the innovative revolutionary philosophy of the CPC in the new era, and the primary driving force of sociohistorical development in our times.

As a fundamental tenet of General Secretary Xi Jinping's important thoughts on Party building, each component of “13 principles of upholding” embodies profound connotation, solid theoretical foundation, and explicit imperatives, coherently manifesting the tripartite analytical framework of “what, why, and how”. To deeply understand General Secretary Xi Jinping's important thoughts on Party building and the major theoretical innovation, it is necessary not only to grasp the core and fundamental requirements of “13 principles of upholding”, but also to take the general requirements for Party building in the new era as the basic analytical framework and deeply understand the structural framework and internal logic of “13 principles of upholding”. It is also necessary to adhere to the Marxist theory of party building and view of political parties, correctly recognize the differences among legacydriven innovation, integrationbased innovation, original innovation and compound innovation, and deeply understand the type and characteristics of “13 principles of upholding” in terms of theoretical innovation and the fundamental features of upholding fundamental principles and breaking new ground. It is even more necessary to establish a holistic, systematic and comprehensive view of Party building, generate a systematic understanding of “13 principles of upholding” within the framework of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, and deeply grasp the intrinsic relationship among the Partys leadership, Party building, full and rigorous Party selfgovernance, the Partys selfreform, and the Partys undertaking.

“Improving the systems for exercising full and rigorous Party selfgovernance” is a new idea, viewpoint and proposition first put forward in the Report to the 20th National Congress of the Communist Party of China. Advancing the new great project of Party building in the new era necessitates the systemic implementation of full and rigorous Party selfgovernance. Only through unifying the tripartite logic of theoretical origins, historical evolution, and practical imperatives can we holistically grasp the generative logic and systematic framework of the systems for exercising full and rigorous Party selfgovernance. The systems for exercising full and rigorous Party selfgovernance centers on the integration of organizational, educational, supervisory, institutional, and accountability mechanisms, establishing a scientifically coherent theoretical architecture encompassing three dimensions: basic categories, responsibility enforcement, and refinement approaches. As for the connotative significance, the introduction of the systems for exercising full and rigorous Party selfgovernance enriches and develops the Marxist theory of party building that is adapted to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, opens new horizons for advancing full and rigorous Party selfgovernance in the new era, and make original and theoretical contributions to global political party governance concerning its concepts, methodologies, and objectives. 

Building the system of ideological and political work in the new era is grounded in the essential attributes of ideological and political work and the inherent laws of its developmental evolution. It represents both an intrinsic requirement for advancing the modernization of ideological and political work and a contemporary necessity for realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. Composed of multiple subsystems including the objective system, operational system, support system, supervision system, and others alike, the system of ideological and political work operates in accordance with holistic, collaborative, and dynamic principles. To scientifically build this system in the new era, it is essential to profoundly grasp its key components, vigorously address existing challenges, and continuously stimulate its endogenous dynamics.

The definition and identification of research subjects not only pertain to the disciplinary attributes and position of the discipline of ideological and political education, but also profoundly influence the construction of its disciplinary system and development trajectory. In academic history, representative perspectives such as the “law-based perspective”, “phenomenon-based perspective”, “relationship-based perspective” and “activity-based perspective” have revealed certain attributes and characteristics of the research subjects in ideological and political education studies from different dimensions. However, they have consistently failed to fundamentally demonstrate their selfconsistency and uniqueness. Grounded in the disciplinary attributes and independence of the discipline of ideological and political education, its research subjects should be defined as issues of ideological and political education, iea perspective termed the “problemoriented perspective”. In addition, to meet the demands of deepening research and achieving highquality disciplinary development, we propose the necessity of further differentiating research subjects into material objects and formal objects, in order to clarify the disciplinary stance and boundary while making clear its irreplaceable academic identity and value in the production of disciplinary knowledge. Therefore, building on the clarification of the research subjects, we should highlight the disciplinary thinking and stance through differentiating material and formal objects, promote the production of disciplinary knowledge around the issues of ideological and political education, and facilitate the transformation of disciplinary construction from a systems paradigm to a practiceoriented paradigm.

The issue of local government debt is crucial to China's economic development and financial stability. As China transitions from an investment-driven economic growth model, fiscal expansion remains essential for its long-term economic growth and financial stability. In this context, local government debt faces a trilemma: the central government's fiscal balance, local governments fiscal equilibrium, and economic growth objectives are inherently difficult to reconcile simultaneously. Traditional fiscal theories and local debt governance approaches fail to recognize the disparity in institutional roles and fiscal policy space between central and local governments within a sovereign monetary system. This oversight has led to a paradoxical cycle where strict control causes stagnation while deregulation breeds disorder in local debt management. To resolve this trilemma in accordance with the operational logic of the sovereign monetary system, the fundamental approach should be: the central government adhere to functional finance principles and local governments follow balanced fiscal principles. Specifically, the central government should implement a largescale, onetime debt swap program to convert local government liabilities into central government obligations, leveraging this opportunity to advance fiscal system reform. Such reform should align with both the transformation of economic growth patterns and the imperative to constrain local government debt expansion.

With the continued deepening of economic globalization, nations worldwide have been incorporated into the logic of capital to varying degrees, resulting in the weakening of national sovereignty and obstacles to modernization. Developed capitalist countries adhering to neoliberal doctrines follow a developmental logic that prioritizes individual supremacy, grounds itself in market fundamentalism, and seeks to transcend national sovereignty. By fostering uneven geographical development across the globe to drive economic growth, they exemplify a neocolonial hegemonic approach. On the other hand, the socialist China has consistently emphasized the boundaries of national sovereignty and state subjectivity, and formulated the principles of its foreign relations. At the governmental level, we have put the people first, strived to build a proactive government and efficient market, pursued balanced and comprehensive development goals, and forged a path of peaceful development. As evidenced by Chinas experience of struggle over the past century, the independence of national sovereignty under the leadership of the Communist Party of China constitutes a fundamental prerequisite and safeguard for initiating and independently pursuing the Chinese path to modernization. 

Existing theoretical attempts to explain the growth of latedeveloping countries have generally evolved from explanations based on factor endowments and institutional environments to those on national capabilities and political incentives. This progression demonstrates an overall shift of research from structural determinism to political dynamism, specifically manifesting in the following three aspects: (1) transitioning from simple conceptual descriptions of phenomena to attributions grounded in structural factor endowments; (2) advancing beyond singular economic factors towards incorporating noneconomic elements such as institutional factors, policy choices and implementation, and nationspecific attributes; and (3) extending analytical focus from structural endowments to state dynamic elements and ultimately to political incentives for growth. Within this framework, incentive dynamism around political patronage and rent distribution have emerged as crucial perspectives for reexamining latedevelopment in the coming decade. Future scholarship should further extend and refine the political explanatory framework for latedevelopment, theoretically avoiding simple conceptualization and structural determinism while fully exploring political incentives and dynamic mechanisms behind changes in economic growth rates as potential breakthrough for theoretical innovation and paradigm shift. In practice, it should deepen the understanding of power relations within Global South nations and facilitate the implementation of the Global Development Initiative.

The theory of “Empire” proposed by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri transcends the nation-state sovereignty framework of Lenin's theory of imperialism and Marx's material productionoriented paradigm, offering a novel interpretation of capitalist evolution under globalization. As a new form of global sovereignty, the core of “Empire” lies in the immaterial transformation of dominant production modes and the decentralization of power mechanisms. In production terms, “Empire” reconstructs labor subjectivity and exploitation patterns through immaterial labor and biopolitical production, transforming the working “multitude” into subjects embodying both productivity and exploitability under capitals real subsumption. In power terms, imperial sovereignty dissolves traditional geopolitical boundaries through capital's deterritorialization and hybrid political regimes, replacing them with micro-level penetration and comprehensive control via power networks that forge collusion between economic power and extra-economic power. The implicit exploitation and digital control in digital capitalism precisely epitomize this “Empire” logic: capital converts users into unpaid digital laborers through data monopolies and algorithmic hegemony, eroding the boundary between labor time and leisure time, thereby achieving comprehensive human domination. However, the theorys explanatory power is constrained by its deviations from Marxs materialist approach to production and Lenins imperialism theory. It thus becomes imperative to reexamine its theoretical limitations through historical materialism, thereby revitalizing both Marxism and the “Empire” theory and ultimately advancing research on production mode transformation and imperialist evolution in the digital capitalist era.

Faced with the “crisis of democracy” manifested by the rise of right-wing populism in European and American societies since 2016, some Western liberal scholars have proposed an explanatory framework centered on the “double alienation of liberalism”. They attribute the crisis of liberal democracy to the “alienation” resulted from identity politics, and advocate eliminating its influence and restoring liberalism to its former state. However, a historical examination of the relationship between liberalism and identity politics reveals that identity politics did not emerge as a sudden “alienation” in the 1970s; rather, it resulted from the postwar Western left adopting the dominant liberal narrative reshaped by liberals during the Cold War. The subordination of identity politics to liberalism determines that identity politics is not the root cause of the “crisis of democracy” but a symptomatic manifestation of liberalism in crisis. Rather than seeking to “restore” liberalism, the fundamental way to change the status quo is to envision and practise a path of institutional innovation that fundamentally transcends liberalism.