Hou Huiqin: The Adherence and Application of a Scientific Worldview in the "Two Combinations"
The assertion regarding the "Two Combinations" is currently a subject of intense discussion in theoretical circles. While we see a continuous deepening of our understanding of the issue, it is necessary to examine the oversights present in this discussion. I believe the greatest deviation may be the neglect of foundational reflection on the "Two Combinations"—that is, treating "combination" as a predefined premise requiring no proof, and thus failing to explore "what is combination" and "how combination is possible," while focusing solely on "how to combine." In reality, whether it be "one combination" or the "Two Combinations," a basis for further discussion exists only after establishing the scientific connotation of "combination." Otherwise, not only will many issues remain unclear, but we may also be led astray by pseudo-propositions. In fact, the report to the 20th CPC National Congress contains a complete expression of the "Two Combinations": "Chinese Communists have come to realize deeply that only by combining the basic tenets of Marxism with China's specific realities and with its fine traditional culture, and only by persisting in the application of dialectical materialism and historical materialism, can we correctly answer the major questions posed by the times and practice, and consistently maintain the vigorous vitality of Marxism." "Combination" is the persistent application of a scientific worldview; this is the prerequisite for "combination," and only by proceeding from this can we truly grasp the theoretical value of the "Two Combinations."
I. Firm Faith in Marxism is the Soul of the "Two Combinations"
The "combination" we speak of is the application of Marxism to specific historical conditions, and a firm faith in Marxism is the prerequisite. Mao Zedong had a famous saying: "The Communist Party does not rely on intimidating people for its livelihood, but on the truth of Marxism-Leninism, on seeking truth from facts, and on science." [1] (pp. 835–836) This very clearly expresses that our firm faith in Marxism is not a "religious complex," much less blind worship, but rather the concentrated manifestation of pursuing, upholding, and defending the truth. However, the scientific truth of Marxism is a truth rooted in a scientific worldview, not the truth of empirical science. If it is conflated with empirical science, one cannot comprehend the scientific nature of this system of thought, which consequently subverts the foundation of firm faith in Marxism. Deng Xiaoping once pointed out: "To practice socialism, one must follow the dialectical materialism and historical materialism of Marxism, which is what Comrade Mao Zedong summarized as seeking truth from facts, or proceeding from reality in all things." [2] (p. 118) It is quite clear that "seeking truth from facts" is both an ideological line and a worldview; "proceeding from reality" is not a proposition of empirical judgment, but an adherence to dialectical materialism and historical materialism. It is on this fundamental issue that many ambiguities still exist, requiring serious discussion.
(1) The Scientific Worldview Establishes the Foundation of Marxist Faith
The scientific worldview is the theoretical foundation of scientific faith in Marxism. It scientifically resolves the so-called "metaphysical" questions of the religious domain—such as the "ultimate existence" of the world and the "ultimate concern" of human life—and establishes the basic principles for the cause of human liberation aimed at "changing the world." Therefore, the unity of theory and practice must take scientific faith as its premise, and the ideological line of "seeking truth from facts" must proceed from the "great reality" of revealing the trends of the times and recognizing objective laws. Evidently, one cannot conflate the scientific worldview with empirical science; otherwise, the relationship between theory and practice will be severed and faith in Marxism shaken. This leads to either limiting the role of theory to a "world of phenomena" [1] that does not exceed experience—merely drifting along behind ever-changing realities and essentially canceling the guiding role of theory for practice—or treating theory as empirical reality, fundamentally closing off theory and detaching it from practice, thereby turning theory into empty dogma. In this regard, the lessons of the Second International [2] deserve eternal remembrance.
In the history of Marxist development, the Second International is a phenomenon that warrants special attention. Among its representative figures, there existed both a "mainstream" dogmatism that clung to the literal words of Marxism and a Bernsteinian opportunism [3] that prominently discarded the ideological banner of Marxism. Although these two deviations "split" and led to the bankruptcy of the Second International during long and fierce quarrels, they still find a market today. It is thought-provoking that these two seemingly irreconcilable tendencies both waved the banner of empirical science to reject and negate the dialectical materialist worldview. The reason is that by turning the scientific nature of Marxism into empirical science, Marxism becomes either a "universal formula" because it is "proven" by experience (dogmatism) or it is doubted and discarded because it is "disproven" by experience (Bernsteinism). Therefore, comprehending the scientific nature of Marxism as a scientific faith is the key to the problem.
Mainstream scholars of the Second International, represented by Kautsky [4], did not truly understand the worldview significance of the philosophical revolution accomplished by Marx and Engels. They did not understand the true difference between Marxist philosophy and old philosophies, thus to varying degrees "empiricizing" the new materialism. To draw a clear line with old philosophy and avoid placing philosophy above science, they all—without exception—reduced Marxist philosophy solely to historical materialism and often equated it directly with a specific "empirical science" method. To draw a clear line with Hegel and avoid turning dialectics into an a priori universal formula, they all—without exception—limited the scope of application for dialectics, thereby actually negating its objective universality. For example, Mehring [5] almost never used the term "dialectical materialism" in his works, believing that dialectics applied only to the socio-historical field. He asserted: "We can say straightforwardly that in the field of natural sciences they [Marx and Engels] were also mechanical materialists, just as they were historical materialists in the social sciences." [3] (p. 257) Plekhanov [6] also only emphasized the application of dialectics to the socio-historical field while neglecting dialectics as a universal mode of existence and epistemology. Even Labriola [7] understood dialectics only as a mode of expressing thought rather than a general law of development. Kautsky was the most typical. He asserted that Marxism was not a philosophy but an "empirical science" similar to Darwinian evolution; it was not "metaphysical materialism" in the sense of "transcending the limits of experience," but "a materialist method" based on experience. This is the epistemological root of their dogmatization of Marxism.
Bernstein also excluded the "transcendental" from science, thereby slandering the dialectical materialist worldview—which reveals the objective laws of world development—as a "Hegelian heresy" within Marxist doctrine. In his view: "The ultimate basic law of the world, as a fact confirmed by experience, is unknown to us; therefore, we can only understand it conceptually as the product of those conclusions we draw from scientifically confirmed facts. In this sense, for all those who possess such a unified worldview—whether they are called Hegel or something else—the thinking process is the creator of reality." [4] (p. 233) As long as it is not fully "confirmed by experience," it is not science, or it is merely an abstract concept masquerading as science. By limiting scientificity to the scope of experience, the truth of Marxism is negated, and scientific faith becomes impossible.
It must be pointed out that Marxism is essentially consistent with any science; both are rooted in objective truth and can thus be integrated. However, this does not exclude the differences between them. Unlike empirical science, Marxist philosophy is not limited to descriptive explanations of existing things (phenomena or facts), nor does it pursue formulaic simplicity, precision, and applicability. Rather, it aims to "transform" the world—that is, guided by revealing the essence of things and discovering their future trends, it establishes the ideals and beliefs of the revolutionary class and the people under its leadership through "critique" of reality and forward-looking analysis, opening up revolutionary practice that "transcends" reality to build a better future. That is to say, the Marxist worldview does not evade the "metaphysical" or stop at the "world of phenomena"; instead, it incorporates so-called "transcendental" areas, such as the future and essential trends, into the scientific vision. It thus establishes the scientific worldview of dialectical materialism and historical materialism and secures the status of scientific faith. Precisely because it resolves the problem of scientific faith that empirical science cannot solve, it is necessary for everyone—including natural scientists—to arm their minds with a scientific worldview and study dialectical materialism and historical materialism.
Ultimately, conflating Marxist philosophy with empirical science fundamentally erases the revolutionary and critical nature of this philosophy, thereby canceling its guiding role for revolutionary practice. Inevitably, the reason revolutionary practice cannot do without the guidance of theory is that only theory possesses the foresight to transcend the status quo, and only theory can set the banner, define the direction, unite the people's hearts, and boost morale for revolutionary practice. Therefore, transcending the purely empirical horizon and grasping the trends of the times and historical laws are the inherent nature and unique advantages of a scientific worldview. It is easy to see that the greatest difference between Marxist scientific truth and empirical scientific truth is that the former must resolve the problem of faith—which the latter does not address—in order to organize and mobilize the masses. In other words, without scientific faith, there is no space for theory to guide practice. Clearly, scientific faith is the foothold for promoting theory's rooting in reality and the innovative development of practice; it is thus of decisive significance for the unity of theory and practice. If scientific faith is lost, theoretical innovation, practical development, and the unity of theory and practice are out of the question.
(2) Firm Faith in Marxism is the Prerequisite for Innovating and Developing Marxism
Integrating theory with practice is where the vitality of Marxism lies, and negating the scientific worldview means losing the foothold for upholding and developing Marxism. Only by persisting in using the scientific worldview to observe the world, study new situations, and solve new problems can what is developed be Marxism and not some other "-ism." Therefore, how to respond to constantly changing and developing new situations and challenges becomes an important yardstick for testing the integration of theory with practice. The focus lies in how to respond when certain things emerge that do not align with, or even conflict with, original theory. Dogmatism clings to theory and remains detached from new situations and changes, which inevitably leads to the loss of theoretical influence and self-marginalization on the stage of history. This logic is relatively clear. What needs to be discussed now is why, in the face of new problems and challenges, we cannot simply discard theory, and even less can we shake our ideals and beliefs.
Bernstein's view was that "the socialist movement does not depend on any theory." He believed: "What final judgment will history pass on the legacy of Marx and Engels? No one can say today. All we know is: no matter how much history discards it, the socialist movement will continue to exist, and the struggle of the working class for social liberation will continue. The movement does not depend on the fate of the theory presented to it." [4] (pp. 257, 248) His view is a typical theory of spontaneity [8] in the socialist movement, advocating that the working class can liberate itself and all of humanity without the guidance of advanced theory. In reality, since the working class in capitalist society consists merely of wage laborers selling their labor power—occupying a subordinate position across political, economic, and cultural fields—it would be fundamentally unable to organize into a unified class force without being armed with advanced theory, let alone lead the broad masses of the people. Furthermore, the liberation of the working class is not a replacement of interest groups within a class society, but the elimination of classes and exploitation, the ending of the old civilization of social antagonism, and the creation of a new form of civilization characterized by well-rounded human development. Without advanced ideas that transcend the horizon of capitalism, this would undoubtedly be a mere utopia. It must also be pointed out that no new situation or challenge will change the great trend of history or subvert the scientific worldview; only by firming up ideals and beliefs and adhering to the correct political direction can one truly meet the challenges. Therefore, the leadership of an advanced political party—armed with advanced theory and firm in its ideals and beliefs—is the destiny upon which the continuous development of the workers' movement depends, and is by no means an optional ornament. As Lenin said: "Any subservience to the spontaneity of the working-class movement, any belittling of the role of 'the conscious element,' of the role of Social-Democracy, means, quite independently of whether he who belittles that role desires it or not, a strengthening of the influence of bourgeois ideology upon the workers." [5] (p. 324)
It is also necessary to clarify why it is the Marxist scientific worldview that must be persistently applied. First, the world is a material existence characterized by "unity in diversity." Achieving a scientific and holistic grasp of this extremely complex, unified world possesses the uniqueness of objective truth. This scientific worldview—which can neither be overturned nor replaced—is dialectical materialism and historical materialism, founded by Marx. A scientific worldview must be continuously deepened through persistent application, yet its inherent standpoint, viewpoints, and methods must permeate it throughout. A monistic scientific worldview is the concentrated expression of Marxism’s scientific nature, and it serves as the theoretical basis for upholding the Party’s unified guiding ideology. Therefore, the Communist Party of China (CPC) has always maintained that "dialectical materialism is the worldview and methodology of Chinese Communists," and has always placed the starting point for developing Marxism upon the persistent application of this worldview. [14] (P124)
Based on establishing the material unity of the world, the dialectical materialist worldview reveals that the development of the world, including human society, is an objective process with its own laws. The highest pursuit in understanding the objective world is to recognize these objective laws, obtain objective truth, and move from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom. Therefore, to "seek truth from facts" [9] means proceeding from constantly changing objective conditions and situations to continuously study new circumstances, answer new questions, and respond to new challenges. It requires overcoming all sentiments of pride, complacency, and stagnation, as well as all styles of work characterized by a detachment from reality and empty talk. It requires continuously sublimating practical experience into an understanding of regularities (laws) and constantly innovating theory. Consequently, dialectical materialism is by no means an a priori "conceptual system," but a scientific method for seeing through phenomena to the essence, exploring laws within a complex and volatile empirical world, and grasping historical trends.
Dialectical materialism reveals that "metabolism is a universal and forever irresistible law of the universe." [10] Only by facing the future, standing at the commanding heights of history, and striving to promote revolutionary transformation and innovative development can a social force possess a grand future. The cause of communism is the greatest undertaking of humanity today, and the struggle for communism is the most powerful spiritual force for Communists. The communist ideal is the essence of Marxism and the dialectical materialist worldview. Therefore, if a Marxist party loses its communist ideals and convictions, it will immediately collapse. The shaking of ideals and convictions is rooted in a lack of firmness regarding the basic viewpoints of dialectical materialism and historical materialism. Fundamentally speaking, the "drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe" [11] occurred because they lost their communist ideals and convictions and discarded the worldview and methodology of dialectical materialism. Dialectical materialism is by no means an obsolete or hollow philosophical dogma, but rather the worldview basis for the CPC’s firm communist ideals and convictions.
Dialectical materialism is a highly conscious worldview that cannot arise spontaneously; it must pass through an arduous process of study, practice, and exploration. The difficulty in exploring objective laws and pursuing objective truth lies first in breaking free from the shackles of narrow interests and truly daring to face the historical trend of "metabolism" (the new replacing the old). The dense fog of social life originates from the ideological myths woven by dominant vested interest groups relying on their powerful economic rule. To break down the barriers of irrational existing interest patterns and seek benefits for the people facing unfair fates, it is not enough to simply lack ulterior motives; even mere compassion or kindness will not suffice. The spirit of revolutionary critique is the fundamental character of materialist dialectics. To recognize and grasp the ever-changing objective world and manage to proceed from reality in all things, one needs not only to "clear the clouds and see the sun" [12] to perceive the essence through phenomena, but also to "advance with the times" and never slacken. To recognize and grasp the great historical trends within complex social phenomena, one needs not only the "weapon of criticism" but also the "criticism of weapons," [13] truly throwing oneself into the revolutionary cause of the masses. Persisting in the dialectical materialist worldview and methodology is a process of continuously unifying the transformation of the objective world with the transformation of the subjective world—carrying out "self-revolution" while simultaneously promoting revolutionary changes in the world. The scientific worldview is the intellectual source of the proletarian party’s courage for self-revolution.
Therefore, in studying the issue of the "Two Combinations," one must first gain a thorough understanding and profound realization of the significant progress the CPC has made since the 18th National Congress [14] in an extremely complex historical landscape—strengthening ideals and convictions, leading the trends of the times, showing courage for self-revolution, and mastering historical initiative—so as to firm up one's faith in Marxism. This issue is important because the discussion of the "Two Combinations" naturally involves a series of major theoretical questions regarding worldviews, historical views, and value systems; it involves the persistence and development of Marxism and culminates in the issue of upholding the guiding position of Marxism in the ideological sphere. Without a firm and correct political stance, and without scientific and clear topics and methods of thought, one will miss the point, bicker with others, and even lapse into error without realizing it. Thus, "on the fundamental issue of upholding Marxism as our guide, we must be unshakable; we must not waver at any time or under any circumstances." [15] (P33) Whether or not the guiding position of Marxism is wavering is our important standard for discerning whether discussions related to the "Two Combinations" are correct.
II. Scientifically Grasping the Changing Reality is the Essence of the "Two Combinations"
Deng Xiaoping once pointed out that the combination of Marxism with reality "consists of two aspects: one is called universal truth, and the other is called combining with the country's reality. We have always believed that discarding either side will not do." [16] (P259) In fact, universal truth and concrete reality are inherently unified: universal truth takes root in specific historical processes through the experience and development of practice, while reality needs to enter the field of vision of practice through the analysis and grasp of scientific theory. That is to say, scientific theory and revolutionary practice can neither be separated from each other nor exist in isolation; grasping the unity of the two is the prerequisite for "combination." The reason why positivists like [Eduard] Bernstein believed that "combination" could discard Marxism is that they rejected dialectics and treated reality as an isolated, static, and objectively self-existent phenomenon that can be grasped by experience alone. In this way, theory becomes an ideological concept completely external to reality, rendered naturally dispensable. In fact, although "reality" is an objective condition, it is not a "self-evident" pure objective existence independent of any theory. Reality in social history is human historical activity; it is the unity of objective constraints and historical agency, and is itself a unity of the subjective and objective. To truly face reality and scientifically grasp it, one must integrate theory with practice; and to change the world, one must first truly face the world. Therefore, the essence of integrating theory with practice lies in using the scientific worldview and methodology to grasp a constantly changing reality, which is also the entry point for us to understand the theoretical achievements of the "Two Combinations."
(1) Reality in the 21st Century: "Great Changes Unseen in a Century"
History does not develop in a linear, single-track fashion, but proceeds through leaps and diversification, naturally filled with uncertainty. Whether one can make forward-looking predictions at major historical nodes is the key to facing reality and grasping the situation. Therefore, "reality" begins with a deepening scientific understanding of historical laws. General Secretary Xi Jinping first proposed in late 2017 that "we are facing great changes unseen in a century" [17] (P421), which is a new understanding of the great era of change, the new stage of historical development, and the "questions of the era." This significant judgment, endowed with scientific foresight, leads us to truly face the new problems and challenges of the 21st century.
The "New Reality" is a deepening of our understanding of historical laws. In the history of Marxism and the world socialist movement, the October Revolution of 1917 verified Lenin's scientific prediction regarding the "era of imperialism and proletarian revolution," deepening our understanding of historical laws from a state of general uniformity to a state of extreme unevenness. It was precisely the law of uneven development in the era of imperialism that provided the objective basis for the revolution to first explode and succeed at the weakest points and focal points of the imperialist chain, thereby ushering in a revolutionary era with the themes of "war and revolution." After World War II, the birth of a series of socialist countries and the surging national liberation movements once created a situation where the "East Wind prevailed over the West Wind." [15] Conversely, because the shift in the theme of the era—toward peace and development—was not grasped in a timely manner, the world socialist movement suffered a major setback. The occurrence of the "drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe" in the 1990s marked the point where the socialist movement fell to its lowest ebb.
China, by adhering to reform and opening up, did not get swept up in this "domino effect" but instead carved out its own path: socialism with Chinese characteristics. Consequently, the world socialist movement rose again because of socialism with Chinese characteristics. However, entering the 21st century, China must face a question of the era: Is it "realistic" to follow a path of modernization distinct from capitalism? Although the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics made significant progress in economic and social development through more than 20 years of reform and opening up, it had not yet broken the myth that "modernization equals Westernization." Proponents of "The End of History" [16] argued that whether you like capitalism or not, you must accept it; regardless of how many trends of thought clash or challenge reality now or in the future, they ultimately cannot bypass the institutional framework and development model of Western liberal democracy. That is to say, you can criticize capitalism, but you cannot transcend it. Slavoj Žižek described this dominant contemporary mindset thus: "As Fredric Jameson insightfully remarked, no one seriously considers alternatives to capitalism any longer, as if, even in the face of global ecological catastrophe, liberal capitalism remains the 'real' destined to exist." [18] (P1) Clearly, only by breaking the "reality" of capitalism's supposed irreplaceability can there be space for the development of socialism with Chinese characteristics and a true confrontation with the New Reality.
The "Great Changes Unseen in a Century" reveals the characteristics of an era in which capitalist modernization is in decline and socialist modernization is on the rise. It proposes a historical direction for advancing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation in terms of civilizational types and modes of modernization. Facts prove that capitalism will by no means lose its dominant position on the historical stage simply because of inferior performance in the development of productive forces alone, and socialism will by no means ascend to the historical commanding heights to lead the era for that reason alone. Socialism must expand the huge achievements of the development of productive forces into a comprehensive display of modes of production and lifestyles, focusing on the political advantages of the system and the prospects for human development, transforming these into confidence in our path, theory, system, and culture. This is the reality and its problem-orientation facing contemporary China. The new "century-scale changes" herald the arrival of a New Era. If the era of proletarian revolution opened by the October Revolution fundamentally shook the foundations of capitalist political rule, then today's world changes unseen in a century are set to truly create a type of modern civilization that transcends capitalism. This is a historical turning point that is not only equal to the revolutionary era but even more magnificent. The scientific grasp of this New Reality is a deepening of our Party's understanding of the historical law of the "Two Inevitabilities" [17] proposed by Marx, and it lays the historical foundation for the "Two Combinations."
(2) China's Reality in the 21st Century: Socialism with Chinese Characteristics Entering a New Era
the "New Reality" is a scientific and dynamic grasp of the national conditions (country's situation), and it is the Chinese reality we must face. National conditions are the basis upon which we handle major issues, but how to evaluate changes in these conditions and how to propose and solve problems based on these changes is a matter of varying opinions. Only the persistent application of a scientific worldview can grasp the true national conditions. Proceeding from changes in the "principal contradiction" [18] within the movement of the basic contradictions of society is the fundamental starting point for Marxism to grasp national conditions.
After decades of development under reform and opening up, China maintained continuous high-speed economic growth; its GDP surpassed Japan's in 2010, making it the world's second-largest economy. However, there also prominently existed some things that we had long wanted to do but had not done, and problems we had wanted to solve but had not solved. Most typically, the sense of identification with socialism did not grow in direct proportion to economic growth. Facts proved that today we must re-evaluate our understanding of the principal contradiction, which had focused on economic growth—namely, "the contradiction between the ever-growing material and cultural needs of the people and backward social production." The report of the 19th National Congress of the CPC [19] stating that "socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered a New Era, and the principal contradiction in our society has evolved into that between unbalanced and inadequate development and the people’s ever-growing needs for a better life" is the new conclusion of this re-evaluation.
It is not difficult to see that the people’s ever-growing "needs for a better life" is more comprehensive and appropriate than the previous phrasing of "material and cultural needs." A better life is not limited to the richness of people’s own material and spiritual lives; it also requires a sound natural environment—green mountains, lush water, blue skies, and white clouds. Looking at the means of satisfying these needs, the pursuit of balanced and sufficient development breaks out of the relatively singular development mode of "social production" and comprehensively reflects the developmental requirements of socialist modernization. It is precisely on the basis of correctly recognizing the shift in the primary contradiction of our country at the current stage that, since the 18th Party Congress, we have formed a series of innovative ideas to resolve this contradiction: we clarified the "Five-Sphere Integrated Plan" general layout and the "Four Comprehensives" strategic layout, and formed the general working idea of coordinating development and security; we took the elimination of absolute poverty as the main pursuit of the Party's First Centenary Goal, forming specific deployments to eliminate wealth polarization and achieve common prosperity; and we formed the new development philosophy of innovation, coordination, green development, openness, and sharing, taking high-quality development as the primary task of development in the new historical stage. In a word, we have formed the grand vision of advancing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation through Chinese-path modernization, while continuously enriching and advancing a new form of human civilization.
Recognizing the reality of this shift in the primary contradiction is based on an objective assessment of the overall development of our country today; it was by no means an easy task. Resolving the backwardness of social production was indeed the primary aspect of the contradiction that determined the country's fate in the past. Therefore, for a long period, our modernization construction was summarized as the "Four Modernizations (industry, agriculture, science and technology, and national defense)." It was highly necessary that the 8th Party Congress proposed, and the 13th Party Congress reiterated, "taking economic construction as the center." However, this scientific judgment, which once guided us by proceeding from reality, should not become a fixed mindset; otherwise, it will inevitably become detached from the changed reality of contemporary China. The 18th Party Congress pointed out: "Profound changes continue to take place in the world, the country, and the Party." The new situation is: how to ensure healthy and sustainable growth under conditions of sustained high-speed economic growth is a severe challenge; how to resolve the increasing pressure of the widening wealth gap on the basis of a significant increase in total economic volume and per capita income; and how to effectively promote the elevation of spiritual needs in a state where food and clothing [20] have been basically secured and people’s material pursuits remain vigorous is an urgent situation. In fact, issues of climate and ecological environment, the implementation of common prosperity, and the promotion of well-rounded human development cannot be solved simply by developing the economy. Scientifically recognizing these changed realities is the breakthrough point for integrating theory with practice.
(3) 21st-Century China and the World: "Two Overarching Situations Synchronously Intertwining and Stirring One Another"
The most significant change in the contemporary world is that the development of all countries is becoming increasingly interdependent. Openness is an irresistible trend. The historic convergence of the world’s changes unseen in a century and the strategic overall situation of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation is the most important factor in this trend.
The "synchronous intertwining" of the two overarching situations indicates both the deep integration of contemporary China with the world and contemporary China's enormous role in driving world trends. Fundamentally speaking, the Chinese-path modernization that promotes the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation conforms to the trends of the contemporary world: this is a modernization of peaceful development, win-win cooperation, common prosperity, and never seeking hegemony, which is completely consistent with the theme of the times—peace and development; this is a modernization of harmony between humanity and nature, adhering to the principles of prioritizing conservation, protection, and natural restoration, which is completely consistent with contemporary humanity's efforts to address global issues such as the climate and environment; this is a modernization that promotes the coordinated development of material and spiritual civilizations and promotes well-rounded human development, which is completely consistent with the direction of progress in contemporary human civilization. Because of this, the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation has entered an irreversible historical process, while the unipolar world of U.S. "sole superpower" status is heading toward disintegration, and the holistic decline of capitalist civilization is a historical necessity.
Furthermore, with capital-led economic globalization having developed to its present state, a qualitative change has occurred in social production—the foundation of human history—namely, a shift from focusing on whether or not to develop toward focusing on the coordination and balance of development. This means that development adhering to narrow interests such as "America First" has increasingly lost its rationality for existence, while taking the people as the center and realizing the maximization of the real interests of humanity has become the direction of historical progress. Chinese-path modernization completely conforms to this historical requirement. If China's development in the past still had many particular problems of its own, then the major problems we need to solve today are all challenges that determine the progress of contemporary human civilization. These not only require cooperation through various countries in an open environment to address, but also must be advanced toward the direction of building a community with a shared future for humanity to be truly resolved. Today, we must establish a community consciousness that "when the world is good, China will be good; when China is good, the world will be better." Only by truly understanding the questions of the era we face and profoundly grasping the logic and direction of world history can we crack the difficult problem of "whither humanity" and lead the trends of the times.
The fact that at the current stage the common interests of humanity are greater than conflicting interests is the objective basis for us to judge the trends of the times, grasp the period of strategic opportunity, and manage major international relationship conflicts. This is first of all because the contest between the two ideologies and two social systems of socialism and capitalism has undergone a major change today. Its center of gravity has expanded from a direct struggle for state power to a competition over modernization methods and forms of civilization. This shift indicates that although the question of state power remains the core of the struggle between socialism and capitalism, the focus is on demonstrating a nation’s innovative capacity, comprehensive strength, and civilizational vitality in responding to the questions of the era regarding peace and development, focusing on promoting real common interests and leading a consensus on contemporary human values. Therefore, although the struggle remains complex and sharp, and uncertain or unpredictable factors may increase during certain periods, a globally out-of-control confrontation is unlikely to appear, and the possibility of a new world war breaking out is low.
In short, scientifically grasping concrete reality is the first problem to be faced in integrating theory with practice. We must not only overcome the dogmatism that places theory on a pedestal, but also overcome the spontaneous tendency to "go with the flow." Facts have proven that dogmatism detached from reality not only fails to transform China and the world but also suffocates the vital energy of Marxism, making it a great enemy of the socialist cause. Conversely, abandoning scientific theory and blindly following trends or fashions leads into the "reality" traps created by the still-powerful Western ideology, turning one into a "junior lackey" of capitalism, which is likewise a great enemy of the socialist cause. In the process of emphasizing the integration of theory with practice, if we lead toward a direction of despising or even loathing theory, we have completely departed from the spirit of this proposition. Therefore, whether the vitality of scientific theory can be manifested in the expansion of new realities is another important criterion for us to judge whether the discussions regarding the "Two Combinations" are valuable.
III. Precisely Elucidating "Excellent Traditional Chinese Culture" is the Key to Understanding the "Two Combinations"
In the phrasing of the "Two Combinations," the second combination—"combining with excellent traditional Chinese culture"—requires extra attention. Unlike "China's concrete reality," "excellent traditional Chinese culture" is not an objective description but a summary carrying distinct value judgments. If China's concrete reality can only be established after applying Marxism to observe China and the world, then this is even more true for excellent traditional Chinese culture; it is by no means "self-evident." The summary of "excellent traditional Chinese culture" is itself a scientific abstraction obtained by adhering to the guiding position of Marxism. Therefore, interpreting the second combination as putting traditional Chinese culture and Marxism on "equal footing," or even as a disguised form of "Chinese learning as the substance, Western learning for application," [21] is naturally nonsense. We must proceed from such a theoretical starting point to deeply comprehend the theoretical innovation of the "Second Combination."
(1) Scientific Analysis of Cultural Complexity is the Foundation for Promoting Cultural Inheritance
Before the emergence of Marxism, the field of culture was always dominated by the idealist conception of history; even after the birth of the scientific worldview, the cultural horizon remained muddled by various erroneous viewpoints. Therefore, to comprehend the thought of New Era Marxism regarding the advancement of cultural inheritance, one must follow the broad logic of the scientific worldview's scientific analysis of cultural issues.
We must conduct a scientific analysis of culture as a complex totality. In a broad sense, culture is "humanization" (rènhuà), and the history of culture is the history of humanity; however, one cannot conclude from this that the worldview and methodology for correctly grasping human history is a "cultural conception of history." Ultimately, culture is an extremely complex structure. Horizontally, there are regional, national, and world cultures; vertically, there are cultural forms that constantly disappear or are newly born, as well as cultures that have continued for thousands or tens of thousands of years without interruption; in terms of form, there are types such as material culture, conceptual culture, and intangible cultural heritage situated between the two. Therefore, any scientific cognition of culture must face a question: is culture a scientific object of cognition that exists objectively, and does its change and development have objective laws? The idealist conception of history is unable to resolve the dialectical relationship between material culture and conceptual culture; instead, it one-sidedly exaggerates the role of ideological forms such as religion and morality, fundamentally inverting the relationship between economy, politics, and culture. Consequently, it fails to grasp the laws of human history as a "natural-historical process" and leads cultural issues into a dead end. Marx "achieved this by rounding off various fields of social life into the economic field, and rounding off all social relations into production relations, i.e., the basic, original relations that determine all other relations." [24] (P6) In this way, the "history of ideas," which had always been dominated by the motives of human historical activity, became for the first time a "natural-historical" process, and the materialist conception of history replaced the so-called "cultural conception of history."
It is evident that speaking vaguely of culture as humanization or human history as cultural history or the history of civilization is meaningless. One must view the historical activities of humanity using the materialist conception of history to make culture truly an object of scientific cognition. It must be pointed out that culture embodies the historical process of humanity moving toward freedom and self-consciousness, which has become a pretext for the idealist conception of history to advertise itself. However, denying objective laws and taking changes in ideas as the fundamental cause of historical and cultural change contributes nothing to the deepening of historical and cultural cognition. It must be emphasized that historical development and cultural evolution are thus left to be dominated by contingency, because when a new idea will be proposed and when it will be realized are both unpredictable. This exposes two flaws of the idealist conception of history: first, it is enamored with individual historical figures while completely ignoring the historical role of the masses, falling into the myth of "If heaven had not produced Zhongni, [22] the ages would be like a long night"; second, it completely aggrandizes the value of mental activity without seeing that interest-driven motives based on material production activities are the foundation of historical activity. As Marx said: "'Idea' always disgraced itself insofar as it differed from 'interest'." [30] (P286)
On the basis of criticizing the idealist conception of history, the materialist conception of history abstracts the broad concept of culture into scientific categories such as economy, politics, and culture. While elucidating their mutual relations, it reveals the basic laws of human historical development. Mao Zedong pointed out: "A given culture (as an ideological form) is a reflection of the politics and economy of a given society, and the former in turn has a tremendous influence and effect upon the latter; economy is the base and politics is the concentrated expression of economy. This is our fundamental view of the relation of culture to politics and the economy and of the relation of politics to the economy." [31] (P663–664) This fundamental view regulates the positioning of culture in the overall development of society: first, the "reflective" relationship toward the social economic base and political situation, a positioning which indicates that cultural development must be subordinated to and serve economic operation and political needs; second, the "counter-active" (fǎnzuòyòng) relationship toward the social economic base and political situation, a function which indicates that cultural development possesses a great influence on the overall development of society. These basic points are our entry points for comprehending the theoretical innovation of the "Second Combination." That is, we must strive to elucidate how the "Second Combination" reflects the new requirements of the economy, society, and political development of socialism with Chinese characteristics in the New Era; and strive to elucidate that the "Second Combination" is our Party's profound summary of the historical experience of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, indicating that our understanding of the Chinese path, theory, and system has reached a new height.
(2) Cultural Inheritance: The Historical Support of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics
Although conceptual culture is merely a reflection of socio-economic and political conditions, the transmission of culture is the trajectory of historical continuity. An interruption in culture implies an interruption in history. It is widely agreed that "to destroy a nation, one must first erase its history" [23]. In reality, however, it is well known that production and daily life never truly cease; they must always continue. As Marx pointed out: "Just as a society cannot cease to consume, so it cannot cease to produce" [24]. What can actually be interrupted is specifically the transmission of culture. Marx thus judged that: "From a conceptual point of view, the dissolution of a given form of consciousness is enough to bring down an entire era" [25]. Clearly, the fact that culture stands in a relationship of "reflection" to economy and politics does not affect its status as a bridge of historical continuity; cultural transmission is, in its essence, the continuation of history.
Culture is not only a recorded history in text; it is also a mode of historical identity and, consequently, of national identity. Through forms such as core values, collective memory, and national character, culture is internalized within lifestyles, modes of interaction, and modes of production, allowing common historical laws of humanity to take on distinct national characteristics. Thus, cultural transmission is a synthesis that reflects universal historical laws and condenses national features, manifesting an extremely rich dialectical relationship between history and culture (as a "reflection" of socio-economic development).
On one hand, as a "reflection" of socio-economic development, the vitality, influence, and cohesion of a culture depend fundamentally on its ability to grasp and conform to objective historical laws, as well as its capacity to resolve risks and challenges. All types of culture and civilization must be tested by the tides of history to determine what remains and what is discarded. Those civilizations and cultures that were interrupted in history ultimately failed because they could not adapt to these trends—as the saying goes, "great waves wash away the sand" [26]. This aspect fully demonstrates the subordinate nature of conceptual culture: it is not the foundation of historical activity, nor the source of social change and development. A cultural view of history (文化史观) that reduces history to culture has no historical basis.
On the other hand, culture is by no means insignificant in the face of the objective trends of socio-economic development. Although it belongs to the social superstructure, it is also an inseparable part of the organism of a social formation. More importantly, culture is the only universal form through which a nation can transcend pure experience to understand the world, history, and itself. Lenin once asserted that dialectical logic, as the quintessence of philosophy, is "the sum-total, the substance, the conclusion of the history of knowledge of the world" [27]. Therefore, culture is not only a component of the "concrete reality" but also the concrete form through which objective reality is grasped in its entirety. This also indicates that the work of fully grasping culture lies in a comprehensive and deep understanding of history, while the key to solving the riddle of history lies in the conception of history (历史观).
Evidently, proposing the "Second Combination" is not merely a quantitative expansion of what is being combined; rather, it signifies a new breakthrough in our persistent application of historical materialism. It represents a more thorough holistic exploration and precise grasping of fine traditional Chinese culture; a systematic understanding of the endogenous power and characteristics of Chinese civilization; a more profound and comprehensive observation of the reality of contemporary China; and a further development in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism promoted therein. The "Second Combination" possesses the dual significance of a theoretical distillation of experience and a combat mobilization for the new journey. It must be recognized that because of culture's special value for historical continuity—namely, that the historical accumulation formed through its "reflection" of historical processes is constantly transformed into an endogenous presence of history—it plays a role in consolidating the foundations of history. The conscious excavation of the cultural vitality hidden in the depths of history is the source of increasing historical confidence and gaining historical initiative.
(III) Civilizational Innovation: Chinese-path Modernization Creates a New Form of Human Civilization
The "Second Combination" demonstrates not only the new height our Party has reached in strengthening historical confidence, but also the Party's historical initiative in embarking on the new journey of building a great modern socialist country. Building a great modern socialist country is not only a requirement of comprehensive national strength; it is also a new type of modernization—including the modernization of people—that is fundamentally different from capitalist modernization. Chinese-path modernization does not depart from the broad road of human civilization in the traditional sense, but rather seeks to lead contemporary human civilization out of its predicament and create a new form of human civilization.
Under the guidance of Marxism, the cause of socialism—whether in revolution or construction—has never departed from the broad road of human civilization, and thus possesses powerful vitality. However, "not departing from the broad road of human civilization" includes two aspects. First, it means not severing history and absorbing as much as possible all the civilizational achievements created by previous societies, especially capitalism. Marx thus asserted that for communism, "the conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence" [28]. Lenin also cautioned: "You can become a Communist only when you enrich your mind with a knowledge of all the treasures created by mankind" [29]. During that period, in terms of civilizational forms, the new socialist civilization had not yet taken shape and was still largely governed by the inertial operation of capitalist civilization. Second, it means creating a new form of civilization and opening a process of modernization that transcends capitalist civilization. Unlike the first aspect, creating a new form of civilization distinct from capitalist civilization requires not only the support of civilizational achievements already created by humanity, but also reliance on a relatively complete historical type of civilizational form. From this, it is not difficult to understand why Marx and Engels attached such importance to the discovery of primitive society, as this provided the historical basis for the idea that humanity would eventually leap over the old civilizational forms characterized by class antagonism and enter a new stage of communist civilization. "It will be a revival, in a higher form, of the liberty, equality and fraternity of the ancient gentes" [30]. For the cause of socialism, the most important aspect of not departing from the broad road of human civilization is not just absorbing existing civilizational achievements, but fully activating an ancient civilization to establish a new form of human civilization.
The reason for this is that whether building a great modern socialist country or promoting the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, these are practical steps toward transcending the traditional civilizational form represented by capitalism. This cannot be achieved merely by absorbing existing results; it requires all-around innovation that fits the comprehensive characteristics of a civilization. Therefore, advancing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation through Chinese-path modernization must take Chinese civilization as its foundation and create a new form of human civilization. "That Chinese civilization has continued uninterrupted for several millennia and has endured through countless hardships is a miracle of human civilization and the source of our confidence" [31]. In this sense, the new form of human civilization created by Chinese-path modernization is the great contemporary revival of the ancient Chinese civilization; it is the building of the modern civilization of the Chinese nation.
The "Second Combination’s" requirement to deeply excavate, fully activate, and integrate Chinese civilization into the contemporary era has endowed the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism with a higher historical mission. On one hand, using the systematic understanding of the laws of Chinese civilization’s five-thousand-year uninterrupted history as an axis, there must be a major breakthrough in the holistic grasp of Chinese civilization. This does not mean merely distinguishing the dross from the essence in a general way, organizing it formally, or abstractly deducing contemporary value. Rather, it means conducting a deep excavation based on contemporary trends, activating excellent traditions based on innovative development, and transforming temporal connotations based on Socialist Core Values. On the other hand, taking the advancement of contemporary Chinese Marxism and 21st-century Marxism as the direction, there must be a major breakthrough in reflecting the essence of the era found in Chinese culture and the Chinese spirit. Fine traditional Chinese culture must not only become the grounded national form and the lively popular means of Marxism; it must also be perfectly integrated into the Marxist worldview and methodology, truly becoming an organic component of the essence of the spirit of the current era. This historical mission was summarized by Xi Jinping: "Under the guidance of Marxism, we must conduct a comprehensive excavation of the five-thousand-year-old treasure house of Chinese civilization, use Marxism to activate the vital factors within fine traditional Chinese culture and endow them with new era connotations, inject the great spirit and rich wisdom of the Chinese nation more deeply into Marxism, and effectively integrate the marrow of Marxist thought with the essence of fine traditional Chinese culture to create a nuclear fusion of new theoretical advantages" [32]. Clearly, any interpretation of the "Second Combination" that abandons the guidance of Marxism or deviates from the higher-level integration of Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture will inevitably fall into error. If one further develops this into so-called cultural conservatism or even revivalism (复古主义), it becomes an even more preposterous and malicious distortion.
(Author Biography: Hou Huiqin is the Dean of the School of Marxism and the Dean of the New Era Institute of Marxism at Tianjin Normal University, a Senior Professor at Tianjin Normal University, and President of the Chinese Society of Historical Materialism.)