Liu Shulin: An Analysis of Several Theoretical Issues in Studying and Understanding the "Second Integration" of Marxism's Adaptation to the Chinese Context
In the process of continuously deepening the study and research of the important proposition of the "second combination" of the Sinicization of Marxism, several related theoretical issues have aroused extensive research interest in academic circles. This article attempts a brief analysis of these issues to facilitate discussion and exchange, thereby advancing the depth of study and research.
I. The "Two Combinations" of the Sinicization of Marxism and Their Historical Evolution
In the history of the Party, Mao Zedong was the first to explicitly propose "the Sinicization of Marxism" and "combining Marxism with Chinese reality." This occurred in the report On the New Stage, delivered at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth CPC Central Committee held from September to November 1938. This report was published on November 25 of that year in the 57th issue of Liberation (Jiefang) magazine. Subsequently, Ai Siqi [1], a figure in the Yan'an theoretical circles, published the articles "On China's Specificity" (February 15, 1940) and "A Review of Several Important Philosophical Ideas Since the War of Resistance" (August 20, 1941), which provided philosophical expositions on the Sinicization of Marxism. In these articles, Ai Siqi refuted the distortions of the "Sinicization of Marxism" made by Ye Qing [2], a reactionary man of letters in the Kuomintang-controlled areas. At that time, Ye Qing utilized "Chinese specificity" and "special methods" in a vain attempt to substitute the Sinicization of Marxism with "Chinese learning as the essence, Western learning for utility" (Zhongxue wei ben, Xixue wei yong). Ai Siqi refuted this by citing Mao Zedong’s works such as On Protracted War, On the New Stage, and On New Democracy as exemplary models for solving Chinese problems, noting: "These works prove that the Sinicization of Marxism and the application of dialectical materialism are capable of most correctly solving the problems of the Chinese revolution; Marxism and dialectical materialism are perfectly suited to China's national conditions." This demonstrates that from the very beginning, the Sinicization of Marxism advanced through debates within ideological and theoretical circles.
The Party Constitution adopted by the Seventh National Congress of the Party in 1945 officially enshrined Mao Zedong Thought—the theoretical crystallization of the combination of Marxism with Chinese reality—as the Party's guiding ideology. The Constitution stated: "The Communist Party of China takes Mao Zedong Thought—the thought that unites Marxist-Leninist theory with the practice of the Chinese revolution—as its guide for all its work, and opposes any dogmatic or empiricist deviations. The Communist Party of China, based on Marx’s dialectical materialism and historical materialism, critically accepts Chinese and foreign historical legacies and opposes any idealistic or mechanical materialistic worldviews." The above content defined and clarified the Party's guiding ideology, as well as the Party's fundamental attitude toward domestic and foreign historical and cultural heritage.
After the founding of New China, in 1952, while reviewing the manuscripts for the Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Mao Zedong deleted the phrase "the Sinicization of Marxism" from the seventh part of On the New Stage ("The Position of the Communist Party of China in the National War"), changing it to "making Marxism concrete in China." Consequently, in public propaganda, the formulation "Sinicization of Marxism" was largely absent for a long time thereafter. However, there was one exceptional instance later. On January 13, 1961, Mao Zedong proposed "making this year a year of seeking truth from facts." On the 18th, in a speech at the Ninth Plenary Session of the Eighth CPC Central Committee, he said: "The Sinicization of Marxism is the unity of the universal truths of Marxism with the specific practice of the Chinese revolution. There must be some differences in the branches and leaves among different countries—there must be such differences—but the root is the same."
Regarding the reasons why our Party did not promote the "Sinicization of Marxism" with great fanfare during this period, some scholars researching Party history and the history of the international communist movement believe it was due to the rupture of Soviet-Yugoslav relations at the time. Soviet leaders like Stalin were sensitive to "Tito-style" [3] socialist national leaders who possessed "strong independence" and emphasized building socialism independently. Under the circumstances of that time, to consider the overall international political situation and maintain the unity of the socialist camp, the CPC avoided promoting slogans with a strong "independent" coloring. This is understandable, and facts have proven the effect was positive.
With the collapse of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe in the 1980s and 90s, the international landscape underwent immense shifts, rendering previous considerations unnecessary. In October 2007, the official documents of the 17th National Congress began to feature formulations such as "continuously advancing the Sinicization of Marxism," stating that the system of theories of socialism with Chinese characteristics "is the latest achievement of the Sinicization of Marxism," and "unswervingly arming the whole Party and educating the people with the latest achievements of the Sinicization of Marxism." The expression "Sinicization of Marxism" also appeared in the Party Constitution revised and adopted by the 17th National Congress. On July 1, 2021, in his speech at the ceremony marking the centenary of the founding of the Communist Party of China, General Secretary Xi Jinping not only proposed that "to learn from history and create the future, we must continue to advance the Sinicization of Marxism," but also for the first time explicitly proposed the proposition of the "two combinations" of the Sinicization of Marxism. The "Resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party over the Past Century" (hereafter referred to as the "Centenary History Resolution"), adopted at the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th CPC Central Committee on November 11, 2021, pointed out: "The reason why the Party has been able to lead the people in completing arduous tasks that no other political force in China could have accomplished through repeated explorations, setbacks, and pioneering efforts lies fundamentally in its persistence in liberating the mind, seeking truth from facts, advancing with the times, and being realistic and pragmatic; in its persistence in combining the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with China’s fine traditional culture; in its persistence that practice is the sole criterion for testing truth; and in its persistence in starting from reality in all matters, timely answering the questions of the times and of the people, and continuously advancing the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism." On October 16, 2022, General Secretary Xi Jinping highlighted the theoretical innovation proposition of the "two combinations" of the Sinicization of Marxism and the tasks for its study and research in the report to the 20th National Congress. On June 2, 2023, at the Symposium on Cultural Inheritance and Development, General Secretary Xi Jinping profoundly pointed out: "Opening up and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics on the deep foundation of five thousand years of Chinese civilization, and combining the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and China’s fine traditional culture, is the path we must take. This is a law-based understanding we have reached in exploring the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics." He added, "The 'two combinations' are our greatest magic weapon for achieving success." At this meeting, General Secretary Xi Jinping also emphasized: "The 'second combination' is a profound summation of our Party's historical experience in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism and a profound grasp of the developmental laws of Chinese civilization. It indicates that our Party's understanding of the Chinese path, theory, and system has reached a new height; it indicates that our Party's historical confidence and cultural confidence have reached a new height; and it indicates that our Party's consciousness in promoting cultural innovation while inheriting China’s fine traditional culture has reached a new height." The judgment of these three "new heights" reflects the maturity of the understanding of the theoretical issues of the "second combination" by the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core.
"From the 'first combination' to the 'second combination,' and from 'one combination' to 'two combinations,' it reflects the continuous deepening of our Party's understanding of the basic laws of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, reveals the path our Party must take to promote theoretical innovation and cultural prosperity, and marks a new sublimation of the Party's theoretical creativity, cultural subjectivity, and spiritual independence."
II. New Historical Conditions Under Which the "Second Combination" of the Sinicization of Marxism Was Proposed in the New Era
The proposal of the "second combination" of the Sinicization of Marxism in the New Era is the result of the combined action of many factors. Among them, the profound theoretical insight and mature understanding of the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core laid a solid ideological foundation for the formation of this proposition. Furthermore, the vigorous development of China’s archaeological and historical research in the New Era has provided more sufficient and superior objective conditions for the proposal of the "second combination." This is mainly manifested in the following aspects:
First, the conclusion that Chinese civilization is a branch of civilization that grew independently in the East has been fully affirmed. Historically, some in the West spread the "theory of the Western origin of Chinese civilization" (Zhonghua wenming xilai shuo). However, an increasing number of historical facts prove this claim is groundless. In China's ancient myths, legends, and remote historical documents, there is absolutely no trace of the "theory of Western origin." Archaeological excavations and historical research in China and across the world over the past century have likewise found no evidence for it. Moreover, in the upper ancient period, "the Han people were the only major race in the world that did not consume animal milk." Regarding this, Lei Haizong [4] speculated on two possibilities in his Lectures on Upper Ancient World History: "First, when humans did not yet know how to domesticate livestock or were just starting to do so and did not know animal milk was edible, a group of people had already separated to develop independently; this early separated group were the ancestors of the Han people. Second, a group separated before humans knew animal milk was edible, and later, people elsewhere discovered it was edible, while those who remained—the ancestors of the Han—consistently remained ignorant of this. The facts above prove that the theory of the Western origin of the Chinese race and culture is entirely a fallacy deliberately manufactured by the imperialists’ hired scholars to facilitate their aggression." Coincidentally, the American historian L.S. Stavrianos also proposed this view in his book A Global History: From Prehistory to the 21st Century, finalized in 2004. He pointed out that Chinese civilization is not only the oldest but also the most unique, being the "only major civilization that does not consume animal milk and dairy products." He also provided evidence for Chinese civilization being the "most unique," such as being the "first civilization of exquisite silk," having "unique ancestor worship," and being a "civilized country that maintains the architectural pattern of carved beams and painted rafters." This is a powerful refutation of the "theory of Western origin."
On May 28, 2018, the "Project to Trace the Origins of Chinese civilization" [5] released its research results. "The project revealed, through abundant evidence and scientific research, the objective fact of the independent origin of Chinese civilization, causing fallacies such as the 'theory of the Western origin' to collapse of their own accord. With detailed archaeological data, the project proved that as early as 5,800 years ago, the Yellow River, Yangtze River, and West Liao River basins had already entered the stage of early civilization. The agricultural technology, pottery, jade, bronze, and architecture created by ancient Chinese people during this period were not only high in craftsmanship and grand in scale but also exhibited distinct individuality. Subsequent Chinese civilization is a direct continuation of the civilization from this period."
Second, the specific structure of "diversity in unity" (duoyuan yiti) of Chinese civilization has been better recognized. A large number of new archaeological and historical discoveries prove that the places of origin for Chinese civilization are like a "starry sky" (mantian xingdou); these origins are located in various regions with their own characteristics, yet they maintain a centripetal force toward the central area of civilization in different forms. Initially, during the era when Yu the Great controlled the floods [6], Chinese civilization formed a system based on the layers of the "Five Zones" (wufu); later, it was repositioned through large-scale migration or achieved interaction and integration through local conflicts.
The 2018 press conference for the "Project to Trace the Origins of Chinese Civilization" pointed out: "In the process of competing and developing relatively independently, various local civilizations interacted and learned from each other, gradually showing a trend toward 'unification' and forming an inclusive core in the Central Plains. We summarize this as 'the diversity in unity of Chinese civilization.'" This shows that the Chinese nation [7] has been a unified entity of multiple ethnic groups since history began, and it was a historical necessity for the People's Republic of China to become a unified multi-ethnic state. All of China is one family; "the Chinese nation" (Zhonghua minzu) is our most appropriate collective name.
Third, the competition, interaction, and integration between the "Central Plains core" [8] of the Chinese nation and its surrounding areas generated an "endogenous momentum" for the self-renewal of Chinese civilization. This is the internal cause for why Chinese civilization has possessed five thousand years of continuity and "has never been broken" (bu duan liu). Research results from the "Project to Trace the Origins of Chinese Civilization" indicate: "The modern pattern of a unified multi-ethnic China is deeply rooted in the remote prehistoric period. As early as the Neolithic Age, a pattern of diversity in unity, centered on the Central Plains and including different economic and cultural types, had already formed on this land. ... From the early stages of Chinese civilization, frequent exchanges, collisions, and integrations occurred between groups from different regions, cultural traditions, and economic models. The trend toward unification appeared during this period, became magnificent through the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties to the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, and finally achieved actual unification during the Qin and Han dynasties. Since then, unification has been the mainstream of Chinese civilization. As Mr. Fei Xiaotong [9] pointed out, the characteristic of 'diversity in unity' is where the powerful vitality and continuous life force of Chinese civilization reside." This life force is what General Secretary Xi Jinping summarizes as "endogenous momentum," which is the very root of why Chinese civilization has "not been broken" for five thousand years.
Ren Jiyu [10] pointed out: "Over these five millennia, the Chinese nation has walked this entire path together... It has become an unbreakable consciousness—the belief that the unity of the Chinese nation is normal and disunity is abnormal; that unity is as it should be, and disunity is not... If we look at the actual historical situation of China, this is indeed the case. I have made a preliminary calculation of the eras of division and unity: since the Qin and Han dynasties, periods of division account for only one-seventh of Chinese history, while six-sevenths comprise eras of unity." "Only such a unified, multi-ethnic major country could withstand such heavy tribulations without being crushed."
Fourth, the advantages of Chinese civilization and the laws governing the "Two Combinations" [11] have received a new summarization and synthesis. At the Cultural Inheritance and Development Symposium, General Secretary Xi Jinping provided a systematic summary of the prominent characteristics of Chinese civilization: it possesses five prominent characteristics—continuity, innovativeness, unity, inclusiveness, and peacefulness. At the ceremony marking the centenary of the founding of the Communist Party of China, General Secretary Xi Jinping first proposed the "second combination" of the Sinicization of Marxism. This represents a liberation of the mind by the Party in the New Era to open up a new realm in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. It allows us to fully utilize the precious resources of fine traditional Chinese culture within a broader cultural space and from a more expansive perspective, exploring theoretical and institutional innovations oriented toward the future, which holds immense theoretical and practical significance. This demonstrates that in the New Era, our understanding of many phenomena and laws of Chinese civilization and history has become more profound and systematic.
General Secretary Xi Jinping has comprehensively and systematically summarized the characteristics and value of fine traditional Chinese culture: "From a historical perspective, the excellent components of traditional Chinese ideological culture, including Confucianism, have played a vital role: in the formation and continuous development of Chinese civilization over millennia without interruption; in the formation and maintenance of China's unified political situation; in the formation and consolidation of the great family of China's multi-ethnic harmony; in the formation and enrichment of the national spirit; in inspiring the sons and daughters of China to safeguard national independence and resist foreign aggression; and in promoting social development and progress while balancing social interests and relations."
The Party’s understanding of the patterns of the Sinicization of Marxism has reached a new height: the combination of the basic tenets of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture is predicated on mutual compatibility; the result of this combination is mutual achievement; and the effect of the combination is the solidification of the foundation of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics. The full utilization of the precious resources of fine traditional Chinese culture has enriched and developed institutional and theoretical innovation, more powerfully embodying the cultural subjectivity and cultural confidence of Chinese civilization.
Fifth, new achievements in New Era archaeology and historical research have proven that the history of the Xia Dynasty is authentic history [12]. The status of the Erlitou site in Yanshi, Henan, as one of the capitals of the Xia Dynasty has been confirmed, and the state image of the Xia Dynasty has emerged. The "Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project," which concentrated the efforts of various sectors, has "reached a general consensus on the chronology of the early period of Chinese civilization. The date of the Xia has been concluded to be 2070 BC based on scientific research." "Through large-scale archaeological surveys and excavations at urban sites such as Liangzhu in Zhejiang, Shijiahe in Hubei, Taosi in Shanxi, Shimao in Shaanxi, and Erlitou in Henan... a series of important discoveries have been made, proving that during the period from 5,300 to 4,000 years ago, the process of civilization in various regions saw significant development. Based on the development of agricultural and handicraft production, the social division of labor and the stratification of wealth and status intensified. There emerged rulers—Kings—who held military command and priestly power and stood above society, along with a bureaucratic class serving their rule. Stable, centripetal regional polities—States—were formed, successively entering early civilized society." The identification and excavation of the Erlitou site and other archaeological projects have further verified the reliability of historical materials related to the Xia Dynasty.
In the New Era, Chinese civilization has displayed a new charm. Simultaneously, the CPC Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has gained a more comprehensive and systematic understanding of traditional Chinese culture. These subjective and objective conditions have powerfully propelled the opening of new realms for the Sinicization of Marxism and helped Chinese civilization step back onto a new historical stage of leading the development of world civilizations. For our Party to advocate and emphasize the combination of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture today is precisely the right time.
III. Mastering the Dialectics of Critique and Absorption in Cultural Inheritance
As an ideological superstructure within a given social formation, culture—much like the political superstructure—is determined by the social economic base and changes as the economic base changes. However, the laws of change for the ideological superstructure and the political superstructure differ. In the process of the replacement of social formations, the change in the political superstructure (including the state apparatus such as the government, military, and courts) is relatively distinct; it undergoes fundamental transformation following the disintegration of the old socio-economic base. The ideological superstructure, however, possesses relative independence. One part may change immediately with the economic base, while another part does not vanish or perish immediately; it may gradually fade away, or it may continue to play a role through transformation and innovation. Whether the ideological superstructure of a certain social formation changes gradually or abruptly, there actually exists a process of critique and absorption. Through Aufhebung (扬弃) [13], its rational and usable parts are absorbed while its outdated and decadent parts are discarded, thereby meeting the requirements of social development and progress. Currently, in the process of realizing the combination of the basic tenets of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture, we likewise need to properly handle the dialectical relationship between critique and absorption.
Our Party’s basic attitude toward traditional culture is scientific, consistent, and stable; it is only that in different periods of revolution and construction, the emphasis on how to handle traditional culture has varied according to the different primary contradictions at the time. Briefly stated, during the revolutionary period, the focus was on the critique and negation of the decadent aspects of traditional culture; during the period of peaceful construction, the focus is on the absorption and utilization of the excellent aspects of traditional culture. Whether in the revolutionary or construction periods, attention has been paid to absorbing fine traditional culture while conducting scientific analysis and critique of its decadent and obsolete elements.
In his article "The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War" (October 14, 1938), Mao Zedong expounded on the basic principles and attitude of Chinese Communists toward traditional culture: "Another of our tasks is to study our historical legacy and sum it up critically by the use of the Marxist method. Our nation has a history spanning several thousand years; it has its own characteristics and many treasures. In this matter we are mere schoolboys. Today’s China is an outgrowth of historical China; we are Marxist historicists; we must not cut off our history. We should sum up our history from Confucius to Sun Yat-sen and take over this valuable legacy. This is important for guiding the great movement of today." This is the basic principle and attitude of Marxists toward cultural heritage.
During the New Democratic Revolution period, the primary task of the Chinese Communists was to overthrow the semi-colonial and semi-feudal old state power, which included overthrowing the old ideology that served the old state apparatus and held a dominant position in the old state system. During this period, the attitude toward traditional culture focused mainly on criticizing its dross. During the May Fourth Movement and the subsequent revolutionary stages, the main aspect of the Party's cultural work was to criticize old culture, old morality, and the Way of Confucius and Mencius. Only revolutionary leaders who had mastered dialectics could, while focusing on critique, also pay attention to absorbing the useful and excellent elements within traditional culture to serve the current struggle.
In his report at the closing of the Party’s Seventh National Congress, Mao Zedong endowed the fable of "The Foolish Old Man Who Removed the Mountains" [14] with brand-new connotations, using the spirit of the Foolish Old Man to inspire the whole Party to win the final victory in the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression. During the years of the War of Resistance, Mao Zedong also used the "donkey" from the fable "The Guizhou Donkey’s Skill" [15] as a metaphor for the Japanese invaders, and the vigorous "young tiger" as a metaphor for the fighting spirit of the military and civilians in the base areas. Mao used these classical fables, familiar to the Chinese people, to unite and encourage the people to rise up in struggle. This shows that the Party’s treatment of traditional culture during the revolutionary war was not merely one-dimensional critique without absorption.
During the period of socialist revolution and construction, as the governing party, the Chinese Communist Party's primary task was to lead socialist construction. In terms of cultural work, it was necessary to focus on absorbing fine traditional culture to build and perfect the new socialist culture of New China. However, because the new social system had just been established and was not yet firm—and given that hostile forces at home and abroad were still plotting "disintegration" and "Westernization"—focusing on the absorption of fine traditional culture by no means meant abandoning the analysis and critique of decadent cultural content. New China absorbed fine traditional culture on the premise of criticizing and weeding out decadent culture; it did not indiscriminately embrace all traditional culture without analysis.
Mao Zedong pointed out: "As for China's cultural heritage, we should make full use of it, but use it critically. China's culture of several thousand years is mainly the culture of the feudal era, but it is not entirely feudalistic; it contains elements of the people and anti-feudal elements. We must distinguish between what is feudalistic and what is non-feudalistic. Even feudalistic things are not all bad. We should take care to distinguish between things from the different periods of feudalism’s emergence, development, and decline. When feudalism was still in its emerging and developing stages, many of its elements were quite good. Nor can anti-feudal culture be used entirely without critique. Folk works from the feudal era also more or less carry the influence of the feudal ruling class. We should be good at analyzing and should utilize feudal culture critically rather than unthinkingly." Here, so-called "critique" means using the Marxist worldview and methodology for analysis and differentiation—distinguishing between feudal culture at different stages of development. Even for content that is largely "people’s culture," one must note the influence of the feudal ruling class it carries. Such sorting and analysis allow for more accurate identification of content that can be learned from and absorbed, while discarding useless or negative dross, thus achieving the goal of "making the past serve the present."
During the new period of reform, opening up, and socialist modernization, no matter how much the environment changed, the Party did not abandon its critique of all hostile and erroneous trends in the ideological field. Since 1982, "combating capitalist, feudal, and other decadent ideas" has been written into Article 24 of the Constitution of the People's Republic of China. As the Resolution on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party over the Past Century [16] pointed out: After the start of reform and opening up, "erroneous trends of thought such as money worship, hedonism, ultra-individualism, and historical nihilism [17] appeared from time to time, public opinion on the internet was in chaos, and some leading officials were vague in their political stance and lacked the spirit of struggle, seriously affecting people's thinking and the social opinion environment." This shows that when absorbing the excellent achievements of domestic and foreign ideological and cultural fields, we have no reason to abandon the use of the weapon of critique.
In the New Era, the CPC Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core proposed the "second combination" of the Sinicization of Marxism, highlighting the important task of absorbing fine traditional Chinese culture while simultaneously responding to the challenges of various hostile ideologies at home and abroad. While realizing the combination of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture, the Party persists in criticizing all decadent culture and its ideological content. The Party's centenary historical resolution states: "We must be alert to and guard against the erosive influence of Western political trends such as so-called 'constitutionalism,' the multi-party rotating system of government, and the 'separation of powers.'" Resolute and sustained critique of these erroneous trends is necessary to consolidate the common ideological foundation for the united struggle of the whole Party and the people of all ethnic groups. As General Secretary Xi Jinping required regarding the construction of ideological and political theory courses in his speech at the Symposium for Teachers of Ideological and Political Theory: we must "persist in the unity of constructiveness and criticality. The task of ideological and political courses is to transmit the mainstream ideology; constructiveness is the fundamental requirement. At the same time, a thorough spirit of critique is an essential characteristic of Marxism; Marxism has opened its path forward through continuous struggle against various erroneous trends of thought. Ideological and political courses must make good use of the weapon of critique on the basis of disseminating Marxist positions, viewpoints, and methods, facing various erroneous viewpoints and trends head-on, and analyzing and criticizing them with 旗帜鲜明 (clear-cut) [18] conviction."
It is evident that since the founding of New China, while the Party has operated under historical conditions primarily defined by the absorption of achievements from excellent traditional culture and foreign cultures, it has also persisted in not discarding the "weapon of criticism" against the negative aspects of both. During the revolutionary period, the emphasis was on criticizing decadent traditional culture, which was a necessary measure for revolutionary progress. Today, simply because we are in a period of peaceful construction and primarily focused on absorbing excellent traditional culture, we cannot turn back to negate or reproach the history of the past revolutionary criticism of decadent culture. For example, during the May Fourth Movement [19], a segment of advanced youth with Marxist ideological consciousness and other progressive elements devoted themselves to criticizing old culture and old morality. This mainstream was positive, though there were collateral currents. For instance, some proposed the "abolition of Chinese characters," which was an extremely one-sided understanding. They failed to see that "the Chinese script has played a massive positive role in developing the nation's culture, communicating conditions across different regions, and strengthening national unity." Once people recognized this later and summarized the experience, that was sufficient. If anyone were to advocate for a campaign of denunciation or accountability against those who proposed the abolition of characters at that time, it would be not only unnecessary but improper.
Lenin once proposed: "The absolute demand of Marxist theory in investigating any social question is that it be examined within definite historical limits." This is a fundamental requirement for analyzing socio-historical issues; only by conducting analysis within the specific historical environment can one correctly judge the rights and wrongs of a matter.
During the May Fourth Movement, revolutionary youth shouted the slogan "Down with Confucius and Sons" [20]. This possessed historical necessity, revolutionary spirit, and rationality at the time. This was because, then, the Way of Confucius and Mencius was the official, decadent ideology of the Qing Dynasty—an old conceptual superstructure maintaining the feudal system—which severely fettered the minds of the people. To save the nation from peril and avoid falling into the status of a Western colony or vassal, it was first necessary to unswervingly "strike down Confucius and Sons" and liberate the people's thinking. Only thus could a thorough anti-imperialist and anti-feudal revolution be advanced to strive for national independence. On July 21, 1919, Mao Zedong published the article "The Establishment and Progress of the Jianxue Society" in the Xiangjiang Review, clearly stating: "There are many other reasons why we oppose Confucius. Just the fact that it has monopolized China, preventing freedom in our intellectual circles and making us slaves to an idol for two thousand years, makes it something we must oppose." Mao’s commentary accurately identified the necessity of criticizing Confucius during the May Fourth period.
Lu Xun was the vanguard of criticizing the Way of Confucius and Mencius during the May Fourth Movement. His criticism represented the precursor and direction of China's New Democratic cultural revolution. In his short story A Madman’s Diary, written in April 1918, Lu Xun wrote: "I tried to look this up in history, but this history has no dates. Scrawled all over each page are the words 'Benevolence, Righteousness, and Morality.' I couldn't sleep anyway, so I read intently for half the night until I began to see words between the lines. The whole book was filled with two words: 'Eat people!'" Lu Xun’s writing was the most profound exposure and critique of feudal ritual teachings [21]; it awakened progressive and high-minded people and met the needs of social progress and national salvation at the time. However, if someone today were to reproach Lu Xun for "throwing the baby out with the bathwater," they would be completely detached from the historical conditions of the problem. Our current emphasis on absorbing the intellectual wealth of excellent traditional culture by no means implies a "re-criticism" of the critiques leveled against the decadent parts of traditional culture during the revolutionary period. Lu Xun was correct; he is the soul of the nation. "Representing the great majority of the nation, Lu Xun was an unprecedented national hero, the most correct, the bravest, the firmest, the most loyal and the most ardent counselor who stormed the enemy's positions on the cultural front. The road he took was the very road of China's new national culture."
In different historical periods of revolution and construction, the specific approach of Chinese Communists toward traditional culture has shifted between an emphasis on criticism and an emphasis on absorption. This is determined by the different primary contradictions and tasks at each stage of revolution and construction. Regarding this, Chen Xianda [22] once pointed out: "For humanity to develop, it must re-examine tradition using the social progress of each era as a yardstick. Therefore, during periods of intense historical change, the approach toward tradition often manifests as anti-traditionalism. For example, the intense attitude of China's May Fourth Movement toward tradition was a regular phenomenon seen when any revolutionary storm arrives... Once the revolution is victorious, the people who have seized power have the conditions and strength to re-examine tradition in order to establish a cultural form compatible with the new system. This is neither a total affirmation of the past tradition nor a 'criticism of the previous criticism.'"
We should also recognize that when we criticized the backward and decadent aspects of traditional culture during the revolutionary years, we were not negating all of traditional culture. We actively drew upon, absorbed, and utilized things needed for the revolutionary cause at the time. Our emphasis today on the "combination" of the basic tenets of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture is not a matter of indiscriminate copying or "Taking-ism" [23], much less a "revival" of any particular ancient school of thought. Rather, it is the achievement of creative transformation and innovative development under the guidance of Marxism. Whether in the revolutionary period or the period of peaceful construction, the focus shifts according to the needs of the era’s tasks—either primarily criticizing while partially absorbing, or primarily absorbing while partially criticizing. Moreover, the content involved in criticism and absorption never targets the exact same specific objects. As General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out: "In its formation and development, traditional culture was inevitably constrained and influenced by the level of understanding, era conditions, and social systems of the people at the time; thus, it inevitably contains things that are obsolete, outdated, or have become dross. This requires that when learning, researching, and applying traditional culture, we must persist in 'making the past serve the present' and 'weeding through the old to bring forth the new,' making correct choices based on new practices and the requirements of the era, rather than taking everything and applying it mechanically today."
IV. The Relationship between the "Second Combination" and Learning from the Civilizational Achievements of Other Countries
A great nation possesses a great breadth of mind. "Civilizations become colorful through exchange and rich through mutual learning. Civilizational exchange and mutual learning are important drivers for the progress of human civilization and the peaceful development of the world." "Equal exchange and mutual learning between different civilizations will provide powerful spiritual guidance for humanity to solve the problems of the era and achieve common development." The great breadth of mind of the contemporary Chinese nation is highly consistent with the Marxist perspective of "world history."
Historical records show that the Chinese nation was among the earliest in the world to actively engage in exchanges with foreign states. Since ancient times, our ancestors opened the Northern and Southern Tianshan routes leading to Central Asia and Babylon, as well as the Southern Great Road leading to Burma and India. In late antiquity, China's Silk Road already reached Western Asia and Europe; Indian Buddhism entered China and developed into a major world religion; Zhang Qian of the Han Dynasty ventured to the Western Regions, introducing Western vegetables, melons, and fruits.
Provided that national sovereignty is not threatened by foreign aggression, our country has a tradition of active external exchange and the absorption of foreign culture. Our traditional culture holds that all countries have their own strengths and merits, all of which are worth learning from and referencing. Whatever is useful and beneficial to our country's development and progress should be boldly learned and absorbed. General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "Humanity has a civilizational history of several thousand years. Every country and every nation has arrived at the present by succeeding those who came before and opening paths for those who follow. The world has become what it is today through the exchange and integration of various human civilizations. Promoting the exchange, integration, and mutual learning of various human civilizations is the only way to make the world more beautiful and the lives of people in all countries better." "Correctly treating the civilizations of different countries and nations, and correctly treating traditional and realistic culture, is a major subject we must grasp well. I believe we should focus on adhering to the following principles: First, maintain the diversity of world civilizations. Second, respect the civilizations of all countries and nations. Third, correctly conduct civilizational learning and referencing. Fourth, treat cultural traditions scientifically." It is clear that the contemporary Chinese Communists' understanding of the necessity of civilizational exchange and mutual learning stands at the forefront of the world. This is how the journey of learning from and referencing the civilizational achievements of all countries has steadily advanced over the 70-plus years since the founding of New China.
The diplomatic struggle against the "blockade" in the history of New China, the struggle to restore the lawful seat in the United Nations, the promotion of the relaxation of China-US relations, the Reform and Opening-up policy in the New Period, and joining the World Trade Organization—together with the Belt and Road Initiative, the building of a community with a shared future for humanity, the construction of a new form of human civilization, the great gatherings and exchanges of world political parties, and the advocacy of the common values of all humanity (peace, development, equity, justice, democracy, and freedom) in the New Era—are all postures, measures, and channels for actively engaging in external exchange and absorbing the world's excellent cultural achievements. Our country not only actively interacts and exchanges with developing countries but also pays great attention to absorbing the civilizational achievements accumulated over the long term by developed capitalist countries. Ours is an independent socialist country governed by the Communist Party. In the New Era, whatever is progressive, possesses a "people-oriented" character [24], and is beneficial or useful to the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation—regardless of which country it comes from—we have the motivation to absorb and learn from it.
For a period after the 1980s, some people one-sidedly criticized the Chinese nation for lacking an "open consciousness" in its history, claiming the Chinese nation grew up at the foot of the Great Wall, raised under a massive wall symbolizing closure, and lacked awareness of opening to the outside world. This claim is clearly inconsistent with reality. They failed to see that whether the Chinese nation chose to open up under different historical conditions was always predicated on whether it could ensure safe development and national sovereign independence. Our Great Wall was never an obstacle to opening up, but rather a "route guide" for overland opening. Since ancient times, the constant stream of courier stations established along the Great Wall served as hubs for military and postal transport lines while also serving as service areas for merchants and travelers. In the New Era, under the guidance of the broad thinking of the Belt and Road Initiative, the increasing number of China-Europe Railway Express lines stretch and connect toward Central Asia and Europe, largely following the orientation of the Great Wall and the Silk Road. The operation of the China-Europe Railway Express reveals the essence of economic and cultural exchange and interaction along this route.
At the same time, it should be noted that China experienced nearly a century of semi-colonial history in modern times, suffering long-term aggression and bullying by colonialism and imperialism. We endured nearly a century of forced, "blood-transfusion" style, and undignified opening. This was because our motherland was kidnapped by colonialism and imperialism in the modern era, effectively losing its complete sovereignty and its basic ability to safeguard the fundamental interests of the state. The colonial intrusion was not intended to create conditions for our modernization. Marx believed that colonialism had a dual role of destruction and construction in India, but "the Indians will not reap the fruits of the new elements of society scattered among them by the British bourgeoisie, till in Great Britain itself the now ruling classes shall have been supplanted by the industrial proletariat, or till the Hindoos themselves shall have grown strong enough to throw off the English yoke altogether." Although we drove out colonial forces over 70 years ago, due to historical reasons and the global landscape, our national security is still threatened by hegemonism and unilateralism today. Therefore, in absorbing foreign civilizational achievements, we must be careful to clear away the cultural prejudices spread by the West, such as "Western civilizational superiority" and "Western-centrism." Simultaneously, we must resolutely oppose the promotion of hegemonism, "universal values," and historical nihilism by developed Western countries, and resolutely oppose acts of "Westernization" and "differentiation" [25] in our interactions. Those who hold to "Western-centrism" often only see the backward and dust-covered side of modern Chinese traditional culture while ignoring the historical fact that Chinese civilization once led world civilization for a long period. In the West, there have also been historians like Arnold Toynbee who, through reflection, broke through the prejudices of Western-centrism and saw the important role and trend of the Chinese nation in contemporary world development.
The Party’s third "historical resolution" [26] pointed out: "The Party Central Committee is keenly aware that, in the face of various external attempts to contain, suppress, disrupt, and subvert China, we must carry forward the spirit of not being afraid of the 'unholy' or the 'ghostly.' We must fight to the end against all forces that attempt to subvert the leadership of the CPC and our country's socialist system, and all those who attempt to delay or even disrupt the process of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. Blindly yielding will only invite further bullying, and seeking peace through compromise will only lead to more humiliating circumstances." Regarding this reality, we cannot be careless, nor can we allow ourselves to get carried away. Instead, we follow the habitual logic of our Chinese nation: think from the "worst-case scenario" while never forgetting to strive for the "best-case result."
Our view of other countries and civilizations in the world is as follows: we respect the diversity of civilizations, and we must draw upon and absorb all the good things from all nations and countries to serve the construction of a great modern socialist power. As General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out in the report to the 20th CPC National Congress: "We sincerely call upon all countries to promote the common values of humanity—peace, development, equity, justice, democracy, and freedom—to facilitate mutual understanding and affinity among all peoples, to respect the diversity of world civilizations, and to let cultural exchanges transcend cultural barriers, mutual learning transcend cultural clashes, and coexistence transcend cultural superiority, so as to jointly address various global challenges." This constitutes our country’s fundamental attitude toward absorbing and drawing upon all excellent foreign cultural and civilizational achievements.
V. Utilizing and Inheriting Fine Traditional Chinese Culture Must Focus on the Totality
The construction of socialist culture must inherit and utilize fine traditional Chinese culture, which also includes the revolutionary traditional culture since the May Fourth Movement [27] and advanced socialist culture. Cultural tradition is like a ceaseless river that originates in the past, flows through the present, and rushes toward the future. Traditional culture is not only a historical legacy but also a cultural element that continues to exist in reality. As early as the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods [28], traditional Chinese culture witnessed the flourishing scene of the "Contention of a Hundred Schools of Thought" [29], a phenomenon rare among other ancient civilizations in the world. To a certain extent, more than ten schools of thought, including Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Mohism, still exert an influence on the spiritual life of people in contemporary society. Our absorption and utilization of fine traditional Chinese culture today to serve the great cause of national rejuvenation is by no means a "revival" argued from the perspective of any single school or sect. Still less is it a matter of restoring to a position of "exclusive supremacy" [30] those decadent ideologies and cultures that once brought the Chinese nation to the brink of national subjugation and racial extinction. Rather, we must focus on the totality, regarding fine traditional Chinese culture as a complex whole. We must emphasize comprehensive excavation from the totality of fine traditional Chinese culture and seek deep integration with Marxism at points of fit [31], thereby making contemporary Chinese Marxism more substantial and its national characteristics more distinct.
Chen Xianda [32] once said: "Traditional Chinese culture is a complex, not just Confucianism alone. For philosophy, one should look to the Taoists; for logic, the Mohists; for warfare, the School of the Military; for farming, the School of Tillers; for the rule of law, the Legalists; and of course, for ethics and morality, one must first look to the Confucians." This formulation is relatively objective.
Just as it is difficult to find a Han person of "pure blood" in the history of national development, one cannot find a "pure" culture of any single school in the five thousand years of "uninterrupted" Chinese civilizational history. In its original sense, the Confucianism represented by Confucius and Mencius did not speak of "prodigies, force, disorder, or gods" [33]. However, by the time of Dong Zhongshu [34], a representative Confucian figure of the Western Han, he became the leader of the theological system of chenwei [35] (prognostication and apocrypha) in feudal society—a shaman performing ghost plays to "pray for rain" or "stop rain." This phenomenon is worth deep reflection. Ren Jiyu [36] profoundly revealed the essence of Zhu Xi, the great Confucian of the Song Dynasty who was "full of Buddhist ideas": "The academic community unanimously agrees that Master Zhu (Xi) was close to Taoism, Master Lu (Jiuyuan) was close to Chan (Buddhism), and Wang Shouren (Yangming) was close to 'wild' Chan. In fact, without Buddhism, there would be no Confucianism (as an organized ideology). The Song and Ming Confucians, who claimed to be anti-Buddhist, were all baptized by Buddhism and were, in their core, the direct descendants of Buddhism." It is evident that over thousands of years, the interaction and fusion of traditional Chinese culture have been profound; no academic sect has maintained a purely singular belief or ideological form throughout.
Regarding the foundation of the main body of traditional Chinese culture, General Secretary Xi Jinping provided a comprehensive summary: "The formation and development of traditional Chinese culture, especially its core ideology and culture, roughly went through several historical periods: the contention of a hundred schools of thought among the pre-Qin masters, the prosperity of Classical Studies [37] in the Han dynasties, the prevalence of 'Mysterious Learning' [38] in the Wei, Jin, Southern and Northern Dynasties, the coexistence of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism in the Sui and Tang Dynasties, and the development of Neo-Confucianism [39] in the Song and Ming Dynasties." "Confucianism and other doctrines existing in Chinese history were both opposites and unities, competing with and learning from each other. Although Confucianism occupied a dominant position for a long time, it always remained in a state of 'harmony without uniformity' [40] with other doctrines."
Furthermore, regarding the grasp of the totality of traditional Chinese culture, three aspects are worth considering.
First, before the emergence of the "Hundred Schools of Thought" in the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, the oldest cultural traditions of the Chinese nation had already appeared and possessed a relatively full system of knowledge, known at the time as the "Six Classics" (Six Jing): Poetry, History, Rites, Music, Changes, and Annals. The Classic of Poetry, the Book of Documents, the Record of Ritual, the Classic of Music, the I Ching (Classic of Changes), and the Spring and Autumn Annals were all cultural achievements published earlier than Confucius. Their foundation was mostly historiography that was neither Confucian, Taoist, nor Buddhist. The contemporary historian Ding Shan summarized that historiography is the root of the "Six Classics": "In antiquity, the Scribe of the Left recorded speech and the Scribe of the Right recorded events; events became the Spring and Autumn Annals and speech became the Book of Documents. Liu Zhiji’s Shitong [41] expanded this into the 'Six Schools,' and Wang Shouren’s Instructions for Practical Living developed it into the grand thesis that 'all Six Classics are history.' However, our country’s historiography has always revered the Records of the Grand Historian [42] as its ultimate ancestor. It was only when Liu Xin’s Seven Summaries classified it under the 'Spring and Autumn School' within the 'Six Arts' section, followed by the Book of Han, that those discussing the history of historiography only recognized annals like the Spring and Autumn or the Bamboo Annals as the progenitors. In reality, outside the two schools of Spring and Autumn and the Book of Documents, the 'School of Storytellers' (xiaoshuojia) was also a main stream of ancient historiography. The 'Bibliographic Treatise' of the Book of Han lists fifteen storyteller schools, including fifty-seven chapters of Qingshi Zi, noting: 'This records the events of ancient court historians.'" Here, "storyteller" refers to a category of authors, not a partisan "sect." This rich historiographical foundation is likely not something Confucianism or any single school can represent alone.
Emperor Wu of the Han adopted Dong Zhongshu's suggestion and issued the decree to "dismiss the hundred schools and revere the Six Classics." This meant that since the state was unified, various schools of thought should not constantly bicker, and there was no need for the imperial court to establish separate "Erudite" (boshi) official ranks for over a hundred schools; preserving the "Six Classics" was enough. Because the Classic of Music had already been lost, Emperor Wu eventually only established Erudite ranks for the "Five Classics." Emperor Wu's efforts at the time did not involve a theory of "exclusively venerating Confucianism." On this point, even Qian Mu [43] agreed: Emperor Wu had no intention of exalting Confucianism; in "dismissing the hundred schools," the Confucians were also adversely affected, as the court first abolished the previously established "Erudite of Mencius." His implication is clear: if Emperor Wu had intended "exclusive veneration of Confucianism," the Erudite rank specifically for the study of Mencius could never have been abolished. Adhering to a holistic view of traditional Chinese culture can prevent sectarian disputes and promote unity among different branches based on maintaining their respective positions.
Second, in addition to the "Six Classics" and the "Hundred Schools of Thought," traditional Chinese culture contains even more influential content that was not systematically recorded in the classics and commentaries. For example, the wars and cooperation between the Yan and Yellow Emperors revered by the Chinese nation, the rules of "abdication" (shanrang) between leaders like Yao, Shun, and Yu, the achievements and influence of Great Yu's water control, and the invention and spread of the Four Great Inventions—none of these have systematic records. Furthermore, the production conditions of copper and iron smelting in those days are not found in the classics. However, we respect these matters that lack accurate historical records and demonstrations just the same, for they are also things that exist in our cultural tradition.
Third, regarding the evaluation of Xunzi [44]. In Chinese cultural history, excessively emphasizing the "orthodoxy" (daotong) of a single school easily causes internal strife and disunity; the long-term marginalization of Xunzi is a case in point. Xunzi originally rose at a time when the teachings of Confucius and Mencius were at a low ebb, sustaining the temporary revival of Confucianism. He served as the "Libationer" (head) of the Jixia Academy in the State of Qi for three terms, tasked with presiding over the grand scene of the "Contention of a Hundred Schools." Moreover, in many aspects—such as pursuing social ideals, improving the systems of the ruling class, understanding human nature, and cultivating talents suited to new social development needs—he untied the "dead knots" of Confucianism and opened up new possibilities. However, under the cloud of a narrow concept of orthodoxy, he was long excluded from the Confucian fold, causing historical internal strife and division within Confucianism.
Amidst this internal strife, there have been many who evaluated Xunzi objectively and fairly. Sima Qian wrote in the Records of the Grand Historian: "When the world struggled during the Warring States period, the Confucian arts were dismissed; however, between Qi and Lu, scholars alone did not abandon them. During the reigns of Kings Wei and Xuan, the likes of Mencius and Xun Qing (Xunzi) all followed the profession of the Master (Confucius) and polished it, becoming prominent in their generation through their learning." Sima Qian's evaluation of Xunzi was relatively objective, showcasing Xunzi's prominent influence. Liu Xiang, the great scholar of the Han Dynasty known as a "Great Sage and Former Worthy," also regarded Xunzi as a primary inheritor of the Confucian classics. By the mid-Qing Dynasty, with the flourishing of "evidential scholarship" (kaojuxue), a large number of scholars emerged to rectify Xunzi's name, such as Xie Yong and Wang Zhong. In the late Qing, Xunzi's thoughts and propositions were also appreciated by bourgeois revolutionary thinkers like Zhang Binglin: "Looking through previous histories, I only find the theories of Xun Qing and Han Fei to be unchangeable." Our research and inheritance of fine traditional Chinese culture today is not about "ranking the heroes" of the hundred schools once again. Rather, we should liberate ourselves from the narrow sectarianism of the past and, with a broader vision and mind, focus on the totality of fine traditional Chinese culture. Under the guidance of the Marxist worldview and methodology, we should develop and utilize all positive elements of fine traditional Chinese culture that possess historical progressiveness, a people-centered character, and utility for contemporary development, so as to serve the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.
(The author’s affiliations: School of Marxism, Tsinghua University; Beijing Research Center for Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era)
Source: Journal of Ideological and Theoretical Education, 2025, No. 4 Web Editor: Paul