“Rereading Marx” has become a major global event since the turn of the 21st century. This is not a purely academic phenomenon; rather, it has profound socio-historical roots and reflects the inherent demands of theoretical development. Rereading Karl Marx’s writings in our new contemporary context requires a return to authoritative editions and source documents. Such an approach must be grounded in textual and historical analysis, integrating his basic tenets with the needs of the times. It is essential to clarify his inheritance and transcendence of the Western intellectual tradition and to analyze his critique of modern society alongside his exploration of a future one. This approach allows for a more comprehensive, objective, and accurate understanding of his thought. Simultaneously, this endeavor is conducive to the contemporary development of Marx’s thought and the advancement of socialism with Chinese characteristics.

The proposition “changing the world” inherently encompasses the value appeal that “the world ought to be changed” and the scientific cognition that “the world can be changed.” Together, they embody a practice-grounded methodological principle that integrates fact and value. Retracing the argument from “changing the world” back to “the world ought to be changed” illuminates both Karl Marx’s theory of justice and the distinctive methodology he employed in addressing justice. Marx did not begin from an abstract notion of “natural rights”; instead, he derived the principles of justice from an investigation of real human needs. The theory of the mode of production and its evolution provides the most appropriate instrument for analyzing those needs and their transformations. Accordingly, the historical materialism pioneered by Marx does not exclude normative theories of justice; rather, it inaugurates a new theoretical paradigm for thinking about justice. Marx’s assertion—what corresponds to the mode of production is just—must be read within this paradigm.

Viewed from the century-long endeavors of the Communist Party of China (CPC), the great achievements of China’s revolution, construction, and reform cannot be separated from the guidance of the Marxist worldview and methodology, and at the same time, it is also the process of adapting the Marxist worldview and methodology to the Chinese context and the needs of the times. In this process, the worldview and methodology of Mao Zedong Thought, the theory of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a new era have been formed in succession. The “six musts” is a concentrated manifestation of the worldview and methodology of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a new era, and a scientific guide to the great practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the new era. In the course of the great endeavors, the CPC has adhered to, utilized, and developed the Marxist worldview and methodology, and has formed such theoretical continuity, advancing with the times, “two integrations,” and flexible application.

This article explores, from a philosophical perspective, the theoretical construction and practical promotion of fairness and justice within the framework of the common values of humanity. This framework integrates concepts of fairness and justice from diverse philosophical contexts, employing the wisdom of harmony in diversity and inclusiveness to forge a consensus on values of humanity while leveraging the creative wisdom of upholding fundamental principles and breaking new ground, and advancing with the times to guide relevant transformation. It thereby transcends and reframes the conception of justice found in so-called Western “universal values,” constructing a vision of fairness and justice with a unique theoretical core and distinct characteristics. The articulation of fairness and justice within the common values of humanity demonstrates the profound philosophical wisdom and theoretical insight of the Communist Party of China in addressing the crucial questions of our world, history, and era.

Reflecting on the development of artificial intelligence (AI) from the perspective of Marxist philosophy and addressing the complexities of the “human-machine relationship” necessitates confirming the essence of AI. This confirmation should be grounded in the materialist conception of history, referencing Marx’s assertions about human essence to grasp AI’s unique attributes as a “human-like” entity. Marx’s exploration of human essence evolved from abstract comparisons of the “generic” differences between humans and animals to a historical understanding of the “species-specific” distinctions in human essence and further to a concrete comprehension of differences among real individuals. Drawing on Marx’s reasoning about human essence, reflections on the essence of AI must organically integrate the dual perspectives of the developmental logic of productive forces and the logic of capital. This entails grasping AI’s three core essences—as the “externalization of human knowledge and rational capacity,” an “automated tool for mental labor,” and a “human-like entity lacking perceptual capacity and practical purpose”—through its general distinctions from humans and other entities, while also situating AI within the productive relations of “real individuals” to understand its transcendence and non-transcendence. Confirming the essence of AI facilitates a dialectical view of its alienating effects and emancipatory potential. Moving beyond the ideological impasse between radical progressivist instrumental rationality and conservative romanticist value rationality, this approach promotes the practical advancement of historical human emancipation.

The Marxist view of nature emerged in the mid-19th century against the backdrop of rapid capitalist development in Europe. Built on the latest advances of natural science, it formed a theoretical system integrating four dimensions: the theory of priority of nature, the theory of humanized nature, the theory of unity of nature and history, and the theory of reconciliation and construction. This system effected a fundamental revolution in the traditional philosophical view of nature. The revolution in the Marxist view of nature functions as a theoretical foundation within Marxist philosophy, serving as a logical premise, a scientific cornerstone, and a theoretical guide. In the new era, a thorough understanding and grasp of the connotations of this revolution is of practical importance for consolidating the foundations of the faith in Marxism, for continuously adapting Marxism to the Chinese context by upholding fundamental principles and breaking new ground, and for better advancing ecological development under the socialist system.

The “two integrations” dissolve disputes over time and space, resolve the ti‒yong debate, bridge the gap between knowledge and action, clarify the relationship between things and humans, and reflect the progressive logic of “can use—know how to use—truly use— effectively use.” This approach realizes the internal unity of objectivity and subjectivity, process and goal, attitude and behavior, and position and value. As an original methodology for adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times in the new era, the “two integrations” possess strong macro-level, exemplary, and safeguarding functions. They are an integral part of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era and have, in concrete application, enriched and developed this thought, thus providing robust support for the development and innovation of Marxism in contemporary China and for its dissemination and innovation in the East in the 21st century.