The core promise of Xi Jinping Thought — formally added to the Chinese constitution in 2018 as 'Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era' — is deceptively simple. It is that Xi and the Communist Party of China will deliver 'the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation' by the centenary of the People's Republic in 2049. In that phrase everything else is contained: return China to the centre of world affairs where, in the party's telling, it belonged for most of recorded history until the humiliations of the nineteenth century. Every major policy move — the militarisation of the South China Sea, the Belt and Road Initiative, the pressure on Taiwan, the semiconductor subsidy programmes, the crackdown on Hong Kong, the 'wolf warrior' diplomatic style — flows from this single organising sentence. Xi is not, in his own frame, doing anything strange. He is delivering a promise the Communist Party made to itself in 1921 and to the Chinese people in 1949.
From the First Opium War in 1839 to Mao Zedong's victory in 1949, China spent a century being carved up. British opium and gunboats forced open coastal trade and took Hong Kong. Russia annexed a million square kilometres of the north-east. Japan defeated China in 1895 (taking Taiwan) and again in 1937–45 (occupying much of the eastern seaboard, killing an estimated 15–20 million people, and committing the atrocities of Nanjing). France took Indochina; Germany took Qingdao; the eight-power alliance sacked Beijing in 1900. Internal warlords fought over what remained. In the official ideology of the People's Republic, this is not history — it is the founding wound, taught in every school, commemorated in every museum. 'Never again' is not a slogan. It is the operating premise of the entire foreign-policy establishment. Every subsequent decision — from the 1962 border war with India to the 1979 punitive war against Vietnam to today's posture in the South China Sea — is measured against a hard constraint: China will never again permit foreign powers to dictate to it on its own territory.
Xi's second major move was to end the reformist consensus, running roughly from Deng Xiaoping through Hu Jintao (1978–2012), that the Communist Party should progressively retreat from private life and business decisions in exchange for economic growth and social stability. The classic slogan of the Xi era, delivered in his 2016 address to the Party plenum, is: 'Party, government, military, civilian, and academic; east, west, south, north, and centre — the Party leads everything.' In practice this means Party committees inside every private company above a certain size, direct Party oversight of universities and research institutes, tighter ideological control of media and film, the reintegration of the People's Liberation Army under direct central command, and the elimination of the informal ten-year term limit that had constrained his predecessors. Xi is now, formally and functionally, the most powerful Chinese leader since Mao. This is not incidental to the ideology. It is the ideology: rejuvenation requires unity, and unity requires the Party, and the Party requires a core leader.
Deng Xiaoping is remembered for the line 'to get rich is glorious'. Xi has quietly amended it: to get rich is acceptable, but not too rich, and not too visibly. The 'common prosperity' campaign launched in 2021 signals a return to a more explicitly socialist frame — growth is still the tool, but income equality, social discipline and the primacy of the Party are the goals. The concrete manifestations have been striking. Jack Ma, then Asia's richest man, effectively disappeared from public life for months after criticising financial regulators; Alibaba's Ant Group IPO — set to be the largest in history — was cancelled overnight. The private tutoring industry, previously a $120 billion market, was regulated into effective non-existence in 2021 on the grounds that it fuelled inequality. Property developers were forced to deleverage, triggering the ongoing Evergrande crisis. Gaming, celebrity culture, cryptocurrency and 'sissy' male aesthetics have all been targeted. The message to Chinese capitalism is unambiguous: you exist to serve the national project, not to become a rival centre of power. This is a fundamental departure from the Deng-era bargain.
In Xi Jinping Thought, Taiwan occupies a special conceptual category that Western analysts often miss. It is not a foreign policy problem to be traded off against other interests. It is a domestic matter — an unfinished chapter of the Chinese civil war — and it is the final piece of the great rejuvenation. Xi has stated publicly that reunification 'must be fulfilled and can be fulfilled' and has instructed the PLA to be ready to take Taiwan by force by 2027. This is why almost any Western move on Taiwan — arms sales, ministerial visits, presidential phone calls — triggers a response disproportionate to the immediate stimulus: from within the ideological frame, Western interference on Taiwan is not diplomacy, it is aggression against Chinese sovereignty on Chinese soil. It also explains why serious compromise, of the kind that resolved analogous problems elsewhere (a two-Germanies model, a Finlandisation arrangement, a permanent neutral status), is nearly impossible to imagine. 'Reunification' is not one policy option among many. It is a definitional part of who China, under the current ideology, understands itself to be.
The Belt and Road Initiative, launched in 2013, is often described in Western commentary as a Chinese Marshall Plan. That comparison is misleading. The Marshall Plan was ideological — it aimed to consolidate a specific political and economic model (liberal capitalism) in Europe. Belt and Road is infrastructural — it aims to weave a large chunk of the developing world (over 150 countries have signed on) into a Beijing-centred economic order through ports, railways, telecoms, energy grids, digital infrastructure, and a growing suite of Chinese technical standards. Beijing does not particularly care whether recipient governments are democracies, autocracies, monarchies or theocracies, provided they are open to Chinese contractors and, increasingly, to Chinese payment systems and digital platforms. The goal is not conversion to communism; it is integration into a set of dependencies — physical, financial, technological, and, quietly, diplomatic — that make it costly for those countries to line up against China on issues Beijing considers core. This is a much subtler and more durable form of influence than direct alliance-building, and it is proving harder for Western democracies to counter than expected.
Xi has repeatedly quoted a Mao-era phrase in official settings: 'the East is rising, the West is declining.' This is not a statement of certainty. It is a wager — a bet that American political polarisation, European demographic and economic stagnation, and the general fatigue of the liberal international order have opened a window in which China can consolidate a genuinely competitive position at the technological, military, and economic frontier before that window closes. Hence the urgency of everything: the state-directed acceleration of semiconductor investment (with the Big Fund pouring hundreds of billions into indigenous chipmaking), the crash programme on artificial intelligence, the fastest naval modernisation of any major power since Wilhelmine Germany, the build-out of a blue-water fleet with three aircraft carriers and a fourth on the way, the deep-space and lunar programmes. The wager may pay off. It may not. But the urgency in every Chinese policy document from 2020 onward is best read as reflecting a genuine belief that time is not unlimited, and that the window has to be used.
There is a serious tension at the heart of Xi Jinping Thought that even sympathetic analysts recognise. The same discipline and centralisation that allow Xi to move fast, allocate capital ruthlessly, and suppress internal dissent also remove the feedback mechanisms — free media, competitive elections, independent judiciary, dissenting expert advice — that in the long run help large states catch and correct their own mistakes. A leader-for-life system with no institutional dissent will eventually make a very large mistake, and the historical parallels — from the late Roman emperors, through Louis XIV, through Stalin, through Mao himself, through Putin — are not comforting. The property-sector deleveraging, the zero-COVID policy that dragged on for two years past its usefulness, the demographic collapse (China's fertility rate is now around 1.0, well below Japan's) that decades of one-child policy set up and current pro-natalist campaigns cannot reverse — all point to a system that is very good at execution and increasingly bad at strategic correction. This is the fragile core of a project that from the outside otherwise looks unstoppable.
Pass 2/3 to mark this module complete.