Economic development strategy is a crucial component of Xi Jinpings economic thought on socialism with Chinese characteristics for the new era. Following a logical progression, which is from the abstract to the concrete and back to the abstract, we can construct a theoretical model for understanding Chinas economic development strategy in the new era, structured as follows: the “general guideline” of economic development strategy, important propositions on the economic development strategy, and the methodology of economic development strategy. The “general guideline” of Xi Jinpings economic development strategy under socialism with Chinese characteristics for the new era centers on upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics, continuing the pursuit of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, and taking the peoples aspiration for a better life as our goal. The important propositions on the economic development strategy can be conceptualized as an integrated triad of “time-space-subject”. The methodology underpinning this strategy is based on the creative application and development of Marxist materialist dialectics in the practice of economic development and strategic formulation under socialism with Chinese characteristics for the new era. This methodology is concretely manifested in strategic thinking, historical thinking, dialectical thinking, systems thinking, innovative thinking, ruleoflaw thinking, and bottomline thinking. The core intellectual elements of Xi Jinpings important propositions on the economic development strategy under socialism with Chinese characteristics for the new era can be summarized as follows: the profound changes unseen in a century, the new development stage, the new development philosophy, highquality development, and the vision of building a community with a shared future for humanity. These elements form an organic whole that is not only reshaping Chinas economic development paradigm but also redefining Chinas economic relations with the world and among nations globally.

Agricultural and rural modernization is pivotal to the overall success and quality of Chinese modernization. Against the backdrop of a new round of technological revolution, new quality productive forces, represented by Artificial Intelligence (AI), provide a crucial lever for accelerating this process. Grounded in the broad vision of Chinese modernization and transcending the purely technical lens of instrumental rationality, this paper follows the research framework of “opportunitieschallengespathways” to systematically explore the intrinsic logic of AI empowering agricultural and rural modernization. We find that the Chinese path to modernization creates multidimensional strategic opportunities for AI empowerment in this field, with concrete practices manifested in agricultural production, rural governance, and farmers livelihoods. However, this process also faces potential challenges, including technological alienation, ecological imbalance, cultural disruption, and the disorderly expansion of capital. Therefore, it is essential to adhere to a peoplecentered approach, safeguard the ecological bottom line, promote cultural heritage, and strengthen institutional guidance to explore a path of AIempowered agricultural and rural modernization with Chinese characteristics.

Guiding economic and social development through medium and longterm development plans is a distinctly Chinese approach to national governance. As an integral component of Chinas national planning system, cultural development plans consist primarily of statelevel specialized plans that lay out reforms and development initiatives in the cultural sector, providing strategic direction for cultural advancement across different stages of development. Centered on the strategic goal of building up Chinas cultural strength, cultural development plans delineate specific tasks across all areas of cultural construction. This clarifies the substantive content, evaluation criteria, and phased objectives of building up Chinas cultural strength, rendering the concept more multidimensional, concrete, and actionable. Building up Chinas cultural strength is guided by three core principles: strengthening ideological and value leadership, unleashing the productive forces of culture, and carrying forward Chinas cultural heritage. This reflects a profound understanding of the laws governing cultural development under socialism with Chinese characteristics. The formulation and implementation of cultural development plans ensure the consistent, sustained advancement of the Communist Party of Chinas leadership in building up Chinas cultural strength, facilitate a virtuous interaction between theoretical innovation and practical progress in cultural development, and promote the refinement and evolution of socialist cultural institutions with Chinese characteristics, thereby demonstrating the institutional advantages of socialism with Chinese characteristics. 

The growing international influence of the Communist Party of China (CPC) has prompted a cognitive reconfiguration within the overseas intellectual community, giving rise to the gradual emergence of “overseas CPC studies”. In the context of Chinas domestic political practice and academic research, while the term “overseas” is highly flexible and contextdependent, “overseas CPC studies” is an academic concept with dual directionality and subjectivity. The intertwining of these characteristics in overseas CPC studies not only shapes a dynamic landscape of knowledge reproduction in CPC studies but also represents a paradigm breakthrough in the ontology, epistemology, and axiology of studies on CPC history and Party building. In terms of disciplinary relationships, overseas CPC studies is both connected to and distinct from overseas sinology and overseas China studies. Moreover, overseas CPC studies, the firstlevel discipline of “CPC history and Party building”, and its secondlevel subdiscipline “theory of CPC history and Party building”, form a dialectically unified relationship. Yet, profound paradigmatic differences remain among them regarding the disciplinary essence, research orientation, and logic of knowledge production. Currently, scholarly research in overseas CPC studies within the domestic academic community faces several challenges, such as the ambiguous disciplinary positioning with overlapping boundaries, insufficient deepening and transformation of theoretical explanations, fragmented research efforts with a lack of integration platforms, and limited international discourse power and communication effectiveness. To strengthen the  development of overseas CPC studies, it is essential to clarify its functional positioning and establish research directions for a disciplinary classification system, construct an independent theoretical framework to enable critical dialogue and theoretical innovation, build collaborative research platforms to support dynamic discipline construction, and cultivate academic journals, talent communities, and institutional resources to enhance integrated development of the discipline.

Spenglers theory of the life cycle of cultures has made the issue of how to transcend or resolve the constraints of such a cycle a major intellectual challenge.  Relevant research, both in China and abroad, offers us ample insights for reference. The Marxist conception of culture, in essence, provides a transcendental interpretation that offers fundamental theoretical guidance for deciphering the life cycle of cultures. Centering on the concept of a “new cultural organism”, Xi Jinping Thought on Culture advances both theoretical and practical innovations, thereby providing a guiding framework and opening new pathways for fundamentally addressing the issue of the life cycle of cultures. It not only directs China in promoting its cultural prosperity, building up its cultural strength, and ensuring the enduring development of Chinese civilization, but also inaugurates a new paradigm in the history of human civilization for achieving the sustainable development of civilization through boosting our awareness of Chinese culture.

“Bringing out the full potential” represents a new trend and a new stage in the construction of ideological and political courses in higher education institutions. From the perspective of historical logic, the development of ideological and political courses in universities has undergone an evolutionary process: from laying the political foundation, through reconstructing the system, to consolidating the quality. This progression demonstrates the historical continuity of the curriculum system, the reflective and transcendent nature of its developmental approach, and the leadership in a time of mission and responsibility, thereby demonstrating that developing ideological and political education to its full potential is an inevitable response to the new conditions and tasks facing the discipline. From the perspective of systemic construction, the construction of ideological and political courses in higher education institutions has established a theoretical model for connotative development centered on three core dimensions: coordinated subject relationships, integrated key elements, and expanded educational spaces.This model clearly maps the structural evolution of ideological and political courses from lowlevel coordination to highlevel selfawareness, offering an analytical framework for practice and optimization. From the perspective of practical innovation, the development of ideological and political courses adheres to the “two integrations” to consolidate an independent knowledge system and drive its distinctive, highquality development. It advances precisionoriented education by accurately assessing students, addressing realworld challenges, and enabling a fully integrated “teachinglearningassessment” cycle. Furthermore, it achieves effective, holistic development by ensuring baseline guarantees with flexible resource allocation across all domains. These efforts clarify the direction and pathways for the highquality development of ideological and political courses. Together, these three dimensions form a dialectically unified and organic whole, jointly propelling the continuous improvement and enhanced efficacy of ideological and political courses by bringing out their full potential.

Global governance initiatives have emerged in response to the times, aiming to explore pathways towards improved governance through extensive consultation, joint contribution, and shared benefits. However, the traditional pattern of global governance, characterized by a strong North and a weak South, has long marginalized the Global South as a peripheral participant. The ongoing rise of the Global South is gradually overturning this conventional perception. This paper examines the evolving structure of the international system, with a focus on the interaction between the Global South and global governance and its transformative effects. Building on an extension and empirical testing of the traditional impact-response paradigm, it seeks to clarify how impacts and responses are transmitted through specific mechanisms to reshape global governance. We argue that, alongside the rise of both the Global South and global governance, the two sides mutually construct and communicate their perceptions through a series of impact-response interactions, reshaping the role of the Global South within the global governance system, from that of a passive recipient to an active structural shaper. Through institutionbuilding mechanisms, the Global South advances from marginal embedding to agendasetting and rulemaking. Through normshaping mechanisms, its core value commitments are progressively integrated into the discourse of global governance, challenging the Northerndominated, singular structure of legitimacy. Ultimately, this drives a structural transformation of global governance: from unipolar hegemony to multipolar consultation, and from passive adaptation to proactive remaking.

The existing security governance norms, predominantly shaped by Western countries, contain substantial deficiencies that have led to frequent conflicts, particularly leaving many developing nations unable to adequately safeguard their own security. These Westerncentric security governance norms are built on the assumption that wars and conflicts are inherent features of the international community. Consequently, two distinct issues arise in global security governance: first, security is treated as a scarce resource within the international system; and second, driven by this premise, Western countries vigorously promote new interventionism, selectively resorting to military interference in certain regions. The common, comprehensive, cooperative, and sustainable outlook on global security proposed by China emphasizes shared security among nations and advocates achieving lasting security through international cooperation. This outlook transcends the zerosum view of security, which considers security as a scarce resource accessible only to a few countries. It also overcomes the shortcomings of Western nations pursuing selfinterest through external intervention. As the promoter of this outlook on global security, China actively promotes its acceptance within international organizations and frameworks such as the United Nations, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, BRICS, and the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia. Based on discursive institutionalism, it becomes evident that members of these organizations and institutions have, to a certain extent, embraced this outlook on global security. They have internalized this outlook as background knowledge within their frameworks, thereby altering their behavioral patterns and fostering innovation in global security governance norms.

The evolution in the forms of financial capital serves as a crucial basis for assessing the development and transformation of financial capitalism. A defining feature of contemporary financial capitalism lies in the deep integration of financial capital with digital technology, where the two act as mutually reinforcing drivers and are profoundly advancing across institutional, corporate, and market domains. This process manifests in the digitization of financial institutions, the financialization of platform enterprises, and the collaborative expansion of financial capital and digital technology into broader financial markets. Using digital platforms as intermediaries, financial capital has established a complex rentseeking mechanism in nonmaterial production sectors, evolving from “monopolistic rentseeking” to “digital rentseeking”. The global exploitation of surplus value has intensified through financial hegemony and data hegemony. The deep integration of financial capital with digital technology has led to increased instability in the global financial system and further widened the global wealth gap, forming new mechanisms of accumulation and predation in contemporary financial capitalism.