Hou Huiqin: Marxism and Marxism Adapted to the Chinese Context and the Needs of the Times
For the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the great cause of social revolution under its leadership, the primary task is to maintain a scientific view toward Marxism and Sinicized and epochalized Marxism. On this exceptionally significant issue, struggles and challenges are inevitable. However, the CPC has always responded with composure by adhering to two "unswervings": unswervingly upholding Marxism as guidance, while simultaneously and unswervingly advancing the Sinicization and epochalization of Marxism. Xi Jinping has pointed out: "History and the people were entirely correct to choose Marxism. The CPC was entirely correct to write Marxism on its own banner. It is entirely correct to persist in combining the basic principles of Marxism with China’s specific realities and to continuously advance the Sinicization and epochalization of Marxism." 1
Nevertheless, today we still frequently hear skepticism regarding whether Marxism has become "outdated" or whether the Sinicization and epochalization of Marxism is correct. More often, we see a tendency to sever Marxism from Sinicized and epochalized Marxism, with adherents clinging to one side or the other. This indicates that on this paramount issue concerning the foundation of the Party and the state, there remains space for theoretical discernment and boundaries for ideological clarification that require deeper research.
I. Defining the Relationship Between Marxism and Sinicized and Epochalized Marxism: Two Sides of One Body
Fundamentally, Marxism and Sinicized and epochalized Marxism constitute an organic unity. This oneness stems from the close community of shared destiny formed historically between Marxism and China's pursuit of national rejuvenation in modern times. After the Opium War, China—facing a humiliated nation, suffering people, and a tarnished civilization [1]—endured unprecedented catastrophes and repeated failures in its resistance movements to save the nation from peril. In an era of dim prospects, the salvos of the October Revolution brought us Marxism-Leninism, and from that point, China’s destiny underwent earth-shaking changes. China moved from ignorance and apathy to a great awakening; from being at the mercy of others to self-reliance and self-strengthening; from almost having its "membership on Earth" [2] revoked to standing up, growing rich, and becoming strong, increasingly approaching the center of the world stage. There is only one answer: Marxism and socialism saved China.
Marxism and China constitute a genuine community of shared destiny. As the guiding ideology, Marxism has become the "soul of the Party's founding," making the CPC the core political force leading the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. Simultaneously, it has integrated into Chinese society in a comprehensive manner, becoming the "foundation of the state." Through the Party’s guiding ideology and the state’s mainstream ideology, Marxism establishes the heart for the country, forges the soul for the nation, and steers the course for the era. The ideological function is the primary function of Marxism; it plays a major role in providing ideological leadership for social revolution, the theoretical basis for constructing national institutions, and the moral foundation for forming a social value consensus. This leading role is comprehensively reflected in all aspects of national life through the Party's guiding ideology and the state's mainstream ideology, and it is irreplaceable.
Furthermore, as an element of advanced culture, Marxism has deeply integrated into all aspects of social life, exerting far-reaching influence. As a noble pursuit of human nature, it constantly cultivates temperament, purifies social atmosphere, and reforms social customs. As a scientific academic thought, it permeates the disciplinary, academic, and discourse systems of the philosophy and social sciences, becoming an important academic resource for our construction of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. Moreover, as a cultural element, it interacts and fuses with fine traditional Chinese culture, constantly activating the vital forces contained therein and striking sparks of advanced contemporary human culture. "Practice has proved that the fate of Marxism has long been closely linked with the fate of the Communist Party of China, the Chinese people, and the Chinese nation. Its scientific and truthful nature has been fully tested in China; its people-oriented and practical nature has been fully implemented in China; and its openness and epochal nature has been fully manifested in China!" 1
Next, let us consider the manifestations of the oneness of Marxism and Sinicized and epochalized Marxism. This unity is expressed in the following two aspects:
First, the two together constitute a unified system of scientific thought. The scientific nature of Marxism is built upon what Engels summarized as Marx's "two great discoveries": the materialist conception of history and the theory of surplus value. It revealed the objective laws of human society and the laws of internal antagonism and self-negation within capitalism, clarifying the historical trend that capitalism must perish and communism must triumph, thus transforming socialism from a utopia into a science. Its scientific nature and contemporary value have been fully proven today. As Xi Jinping pointed out: "In the history of human thought, in terms of scientific rigor, truth, influence, and scope of dissemination, no ideological theory has reached the height of Marxism, nor has any doctrine exerted such a massive influence on the world as Marxism. This reflects the immense power of truth and the robust vitality of Marxism, indicating that Marxism still plays an irreplaceable role in mankind's understanding and transformation of the world and in promoting social progress." 1 It is evident that the scientific and truthful nature of Marxism inherently includes its influence and power of dissemination; it is a historical unity of law-conformity and purpose-conformity. This requires it to be open to practice, to progress with the times, and to seek truth from facts in all things.
However, the Sinicization and epochalization of Marxism has an even deeper historical background: as capitalism developed into the stage of imperialism, the focal point of contradiction and the weak point of the global capitalist chain shifted from the developed capitalist regions to their periphery. It became impossible for the socialist revolution to overthrow capitalist rule by "simultaneous eruption" in developed capitalist countries; rather, it could only achieve "victory first in one country" among the under-developed capitalist regions. This major change in historical conditions indicated that a universally applicable revolutionary path no longer existed. The people of each nation had to choose a socialist path suited to their own national conditions. Correspondingly, Marxism had to be nationalized. This historical shift indicates that although the historical trend of the "two inevitabilities" [3] and the epochal theme of human liberation have not changed, the new situations and characteristics triggered by the staged (partial) qualitative changes in actual history mean that if Marxism is to avoid being detached from reality, it must be combined with the realities of various countries and the characteristics of the new era. This "combination" is an inherent requirement of the scientific nature of Marxism, which the CPC summarizes as "seeking truth from facts." Thus, the "one body" of Marxism as a scientific ideological system always includes "two sides": the basic theory and its combination with reality. As Deng Xiaoping pointed out: "The statement that the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism must be combined with the specific realities of one's own country is itself a universal truth. It contains two aspects: one is called universal truth, and the other is called combination with the country's reality. We have always maintained that discarding either side will not do." 2
Second, the two are the guiding ideologies of the CPC that exist in a single continuous line (一脉相承). The realization of the scientific system of Marxist thought relies primarily on the guiding ideology of an advanced working-class party. The Party’s guiding ideology is the concentrated expression of Marxist theory being linked to reality; it is the key to applying the Marxist worldview, methodology, and basic principles to solve national problems, and is thus the hallmark of theoretical innovation. In the journey of leading the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, the CPC has achieved three great leaps in the Sinicization of Marxism, forming Mao Zedong Thought, the Theory of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, and Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. These landmark achievements of Sinicized Marxism cover the different periods of revolution, construction, reform, and the New Era led by the Party. They all raise new questions and make new judgments in response to changed historical stages, and thus have a more direct guiding role for practice. However, fundamentally, they do not "set up a separate kitchen" [4] apart from Marxism; rather, they are in a single continuous line. They represent not only consistency in standpoint, viewpoint, and method, but also unity in theme, basic theory, and revolutionary program.
The fact that the guiding ideology follows a single continuous line demonstrates the oneness of Marxism and Sinicized and epochalized Marxism, and determines the monism of the Party's guiding ideology. History has proven that the reason some working-class parties saw the collapse of their party and state was that they engaged in pluralism in their guiding ideology, leading to the loss of the guiding position of Marxism. The secret to the CPC's success lies in its consistent adherence to the monism of the Party's guiding ideology and its unswerving faith in Marxism. Fundamentally, there is only one world, and since modern times, there has been only one world history that humanity has entered; therefore, there is only one scientific system for the regular understanding of human history. This is not a monopoly on truth, but rather establishing the correct direction for the exploration of truth. As Mao Zedong pointed out: "There is only one truth, and as for who discovered the truth, it depends not on subjective exaggeration but on objective practice." 3 The holistic grasp and scientific understanding of the world provided by Marxism has yet to be surpassed.
The fact that the guiding ideology follows a single continuous line also demonstrates the oneness of Marxism and Sinicized and epochalized Marxism, determining that upholding the fundamentals and breaking new ground is the direction that theoretical innovation must follow. This principle highlights the unity of persistence and development, and of inheritance and innovation. It is a development through application rather than replacement in specific practice; it is a partial rather than a comprehensive transcendence of the scientific theoretical system. Upholding the fundamental spirit of "upholding the fundamentals and breaking new ground" means applying dialectical and historical materialism, staying true to communist ideals and beliefs, and expanding basic theories with new content, new judgments, and new programs in the process of responding to major challenges under new historical conditions—thereby opening up a new frontier for Marxism. It expresses the concept that the adherence to and development of Marxism are actually the same process and there is no inherent opposition between them. Ultimately, in the face of changed realities, what can be sustained must be a developed theory. Adherence to a theory that cannot solve practical problems is bound to be a "fake adherence" characterized by empty slogans. Truly innovative theory must be the result of advancing along Marx's theoretical direction; any departure from the orbit of basic theory is bound to be a "fake development" that drifts with the tide and results in "changing the flag." [5] "Upholding the fundamentals and breaking new ground" is the best interpretation of the oneness of Sinicized and epochalized Marxism and Marxism itself, revealing that the secret of Marxism’s ability to function in practice lies in the unity of innovative theory and innovative practice. History has proven that theory detached from practice and practice that rejects theoretical guidance will both lead Marxism to suffer setbacks. The theoretical innovation of Marxism is an innovation capable of playing a guiding role in practice.
As a scientific theory for changing the world, Marxism cannot remain at the level of objective knowledge; it must become a guide to action for the modern proletariat and its party. It cannot be an immutable dogma but must be a living thought that develops alongside the progress of practice, the era, and science and technology. On the other hand, a party without advanced guiding ideology cannot truly grasp changed realities and will inevitably lose its way in practice. Therefore, Sinicized and epochalized Marxism is essentially Marxism playing a guiding role in changing and developing practice, embodying the unity of theoretical innovation and practical self-awareness. "Whether Marxism can play a role in practice depends on whether the basic principles of Marxism can be combined with China's reality and the characteristics of the era. Facing a rapidly changing world and China, if we stick to old ways, remain ideologically rigid, and lack the courage for theoretical innovation—failing to scientifically answer the Questions of China, the World, the People, and the Era—not only will the cause of the Party and the state be unable to move forward, but Marxism itself will lose its vitality and persuasiveness." 4 This not only emphasizes the importance of innovating theory based on changes in practice but also profoundly reveals the urgency and criticality of practice's reliance on theoretical guidance.
The intertwining of the two aspects of Marxism and the Sinicized and epochalized Marxism. It must be pointed out that the unity of Marxism and Sinicized and epochalized Marxism is a unity of "two aspects," and these "two aspects" are themselves the two sides of a single "unity"; they cannot be strictly separated. However, for the sake of an in-depth discussion of their relationship, a degree of separation in the narrative remains necessary. The reason for viewing them as "two aspects" is to demonstrate that Marxism and its Sinicized and epochalized forms each possess distinct characteristics and play significant roles in the unity of Marxism from different angles. Specifically, the scientific system of Marxism constitutes the totality and the generality, establishing the long-term and worldwide common laws and basic theories concerning the transition from capitalism to communism. Sinicized and epochalized Marxism constitutes the regional and the particular, establishing the laws by which China has moved toward the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation in modern times, and laying the guiding ideology for the great social revolution led by the Communist Party of China. The particular and the generality are inherently inseparable; there is no generality divorced from the particular, nor is there a particular that has been stripped of the generality. Therefore, the distinction between generality and particularity is only a relative one regarding the coverage of their respective systems of thought, rather than suggesting the former possesses only generality and the latter only particularity.
Marxism has never been an abstract generality existing independently of the realities of various countries; rather, it has always relied on the reality of the cause of working-class liberation. Doubtless, the specific forms on which it relies must change according to historical development. During the period of Marx and Engels, it relied primarily on the international workers' movement; after the October Revolution, it relied mainly on the world socialist movement (and the socialist camp after World War II); and after the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, it has relied mainly on those countries that still persist in the socialist system—of which the most important is China. This change in the foundational reliance both indicates the historical trend of the integration of Marxism with Sinicized and epochalized Marxism, and explains the difference in the theoretical missions of the founders of Marxism and their successors. The former primarily founded the theory and combined it with the realities of various countries through theoretical and practical verification, whereas the latter primarily apply the theory and innovate new theories on the basis of concrete practice. Thus, taking China as the standing point, it is appropriate to view the "two aspects" of Marxism and Sinicized and epochalized Marxism.
These "two aspects" consist primarily of the following: First, they are two aspects of mutual interaction and mutual promotion—that is, while Marxism has profoundly transformed China, China has also greatly innovated Marxism. In the process of leading the Chinese people to successfully blaze a path of Chinese-path modernization and create a new form of human civilization, the CPC has changed three stale concepts regarding the application of Marxism:
The first is the breaking of the preference for discussing Marxism as theory for theory's sake, and the establishment of the criterion of practice that integrates theory with reality and centers on solving practical problems. Regarding Marxism as a means of showing off or intimidating others originates from a worship of foreign-sounding "Western-centrism" and a dogmatism that worships books and rules; the core issue is how to measure the theoretical level of Marxism. Through long-term revolutionary struggle, the CPC formed the following consensus: "We must oppose empty talk about Marxism; Communists living in China must study Marxism in connection with the revolutionary reality of China." 10 "If you can apply the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint to explain one or two practical problems, you will be praised and credited with some achievement. The more things you explain, and the more universal and profound your explanations, the greater your achievement." 10 This activated Marxism from the perspective of its fundamental theoretical orientation, ensuring its eternal youth.
The second is the breaking of the deviation that regards "being original" or "starting a new stove" as the standard for Marxist innovation, and the establishment of the principle of innovation that upholds the fundamentals and breaks new ground while unifying persistence and development. This, from its practical roots, blocked excuses for negating or rejecting the guidance of Marxism on the grounds of changes in historical conditions.
The third is the breaking of the prejudice that Marxism is merely a theory of revolution rather than a theory of modernization and modern state governance, establishing the status of Marxism as the guiding ideology for the construction of a modern socialist country. This established the contemporary value of Marxism upon a civilizational foundation and revealed its irreplaceable guiding role.
Second, they are two aspects of complementary differences in the cognitive routes of historical laws—namely, the two routes of movement from general laws to specific laws and from specific laws to general laws respectively, which have perfected the scientific cognition of historical laws. The founders of Marxism began their cognition of historical laws with the creation of theory, then gradually deepened, verified, and enriched it by descending into social life; thus, it manifested as a cognitive process from general laws to particular and individual laws. Conversely, Sinicized and epochalized Marxism employs the existing intellectual fruits of Marxism, beginning with the cognition of the most urgent concrete laws, and then, as practice develops in depth, gradually ascending to the cognition of universal and general laws. These are two interconnected yet distinct cognitive routes of historical laws: the former is a gradual rollout under the premise of a comprehensive breakthrough, manifesting as moving from the plane to the point, from the one to the many; the latter is a gradual expansion based on key breakthroughs, manifesting as moving from the point to the plane, from the many to the one.
From this, it can be seen that only by starting with the most urgent and critical issues and making every effort to reveal the laws of the Communist Party's governance can socialism with Chinese characteristics achieve a breakthrough in the cognition of historical laws. Taking this as a standing point, we can continuously expand and deepen the laws of socialist construction, and further ascend to the laws of the development of human society. This is the cognitive route by which our Party continuously deepens its understanding of the laws of the Communist Party's governance, the laws of socialist construction, and the laws of the development of human society with a brand-new perspective, and it is the intellectual trajectory of advancing the Sinicization and epochalization of Marxism. The founders of Marxism, after creating scientific theory, dedicated themselves to verifying this theory through its integration with the working class, which determined their cognitive process of deepening from general laws to specific laws. This was a difficult process of bringing a great thought "down to earth." Therefore, when the European and American working classes first united to fight under the banner of Marxism, Engels could not contain his internal excitement and lamented in his preface to the 1890 German edition of the Communist Manifesto: "If only Marx were still by my side to see this with his own eyes!" 11 Without a doubt, the advancement of the Sinicization and epochalization of Marxism is an even more difficult and glorious real-historical process.
Discussing the differences between the two in their cognitive routes of laws is intended to demonstrate that the cognition of historical laws in the Sinicization and epochalization of Marxism possesses an irreplaceable epochal significance. Although we have not surpassed Marx in a holistic sense, we have substantively enriched and developed Marx’s thought with the fruits of Sinicized and epochalized Marxism. This not only proves but also rejuvenates the vitality of Marxism. "The continuous success of the Sinicization and epochalization of Marxism has allowed Marxism to present a brand-new image to the world, bringing about a major shift in favor of socialism in the historical evolution and contest between the two ideologies and two social systems of socialism and capitalism on a global scale." 12 The two are a unity sharing a common destiny and a common glory.
II. Analyzing the Theoretical Premise of the Unity of Marxism: Transcending the Dispute over "Substance" and "Utility"
In elucidating the unity of Marxism and Sinicized and epochalized Marxism, few would disagree from the perspectives of the system of thought, practical functions, or empirical facts. However, there is a premise that cannot be evaded: Is Marxism foreign or indigenous? If it is entirely foreign, can it truly be "one" with a localized Marxism? In fact, many people seemingly take it as self-evident that Marxism is a "foreign culture." Because of this, they interpret the integration of Marxism with China’s reality only from the perspective of the needs of localization; they recognize only the guiding role of Sinicized Marxism and righteously regard only traditional Chinese culture as "Guoxue" [6]. This concept shakes the foundation of the unity of Marxism and its Sinicized and epochalized forms from its intellectual premise. It must be pointed out that this situation is actually a continuation of the negative consequences of the "Substance-Utility Dispute" regarding culture in modern China.
Regarding the historical lessons of the "Substance-Utility Dispute" and the correct positioning of the unity of Marxism: after the Opium War, as the national crisis deepened, the "Substance-Utility Dispute" [7] broke out, represented by the "Westernization Faction" [8] and the "Reformers" [9] respectively. The "Westernization Faction" advocated taking traditional Chinese ethics and culture as the foundation while absorbing and utilizing Western technical means to save the country; this was termed "Middle [Chinese] Substance, Western Utility" (Zhongti Xiyong). Conversely, the "Reformers" sought to fully introduce Western political, economic, and educational systems, while Chinese learning could only be retained or selected based on this foundation; this was termed "Western Substance, Chinese Utility" (Xiti Zhongyong). The significance of this debate in the process of the great awakening of the Chinese nation in modern times will not be evaluated here, but its limitations are obvious. Both are isolated, closed, and one-sided views of culture, belonging respectively to cultural conservatism and Western-centrism. They fail to see that neither measuring the merits of culture nor improving the status quo of culture can be achieved by appealing purely to culture itself. Whether it be Chinese learning or Western learning, it is impossible to achieve perfection through the dismemberment of "substance and utility." That substance and utility are inseparable, and that culture and history coexist, should have already become a consensus.
What requires vigilance today is that the trend of viewing contemporary Chinese cultural construction—and even viewing Marxism—through the lens of "substance and utility" still exists. This involves taking traditional Chinese culture ("Guoxue") as the "substance" and the "foreign culture" of Marxism as the "utility"; or conversely, taking Marxism, which belongs to "Western culture," as the "substance" and indigenous traditional Chinese culture as the "utility." This is the "Substance-Utility Dispute" that realistically exists in the field of ideological public opinion today. This is a major issue concerning the developmental direction of contemporary Chinese ideology and the guiding position of Marxism in the ideological field; it must be discussed seriously. Some Marxist scholars have also attempted to defend Marxism by transcending "substance and utility" thinking. For example, Mr. Fang Keli proposed "Marxism as the Soul, Chinese as the Substance, and Western as the Utility" (Ma-hun, Zhong-ti, Xi-yong), attempting to integrate Marxism into the "substance and utility" framework while standing above it. But the problem does not seem truly solved. The key is that while Marxism is indeed the "soul," is it the "substance"? If it is not, then what is the "substance"? If the "substance" refers to substantive entities like the Communist Party of China or the Chinese people, there is no controversy; but the problem is that the "substance" here is traditional Chinese culture, which, like Marxism, is a spiritual phenomenon. Thus, on the question of whether the spirit functioning as the "soul" or the spirit functioning as the "substance" is decisive or more important, serious confusion inevitably arises. Many disagreements regarding Marxism and traditional Chinese culture stem from this.
In fact, whether in the historical "Substance-Utility Dispute" or today's debate on the "relationship between China, the West, and Marxism," there is a deficiency in the cognition of the core concept of "culture." Both grasp culture from the level of general spiritual life and seriously lack a correct understanding of its most specific form—ideology. According to the Marxist viewpoint, culture as a conceptual form is a reflection of socio-economic and political conditions, while simultaneously reacting upon the economic base of society as a spiritual force. However, what centrally manifests this characteristic of culture is not general cultural forms such as literature, art, painting, or music, but rather political ideology carried by doctrines, thoughts, and "isms." Its specificity lies in the fact that it not only determines the direction of culture (i.e., whom it serves and how it develops) but also determines the class consciousness and self-awareness of the corresponding class. Therefore, the core of cultural disputes is not "substance and utility," but the relationship between ideology and culture, and between class nature and humanity. Discussing the "substance and utility" of culture without understanding ideology as class consciousness inevitably leads one astray. When Mao Zedong said, "'Learning' refers to basic theory; this is consistent between China and the West and should not be divided into Chinese and Western," 13 he was emphasizing that theoretical logic and "isms" have no Chinese or Western distinction; it is not a matter of "substance and utility."
The duality of culture and its interrelationship: History since the beginning of written records has been a history of class struggle; therefore, specialized culture, as a product of the division of labor between mental and manual labor, has possessed class nature from the very beginning. On the other hand, as a product of the progress of human civilization, the "humanity" (universal) characteristic of culture is also obvious—as expressed by the phrases "music knows no borders" and "art knows no borders." We must first clarify how this duality of culture came to be.
The duality of culture stems from the fact that culture, as a conceptual reflection of social existence, both directly reflects the requirements of the socio-economic formation and the system of state institutions—thereby possessing a class nature—and indirectly reflects the universal requirements of the underlying social productive forces—thereby possessing a human nature. Here, the class nature plays the decisive role. That is to say, in class societies, the human nature of culture is always refracted through its class nature; there is no such thing as "pure" human nature. Furthermore, it is precisely the exploiting classes, in their role as ruling classes, who deliberately propagate theories of supra-class human nature. In reality, human society entered the era of civilization alongside the division of classes; consequently, history always plays a duet of progress and regression, civilization and barbarism, amidst class antagonism. This duality has become the norm of civilizational progress, which also proves the decisive role class nature plays within it. Engels pointed out: "Since the benefit of civilization is based on the exploitation of one class by another, its whole development moves in a continuous contradiction. Every advance in production is at the same time a retrogression in the condition of the oppressed class, that is, of the great majority. What is a boon for the one is necessarily a misfortune for the other; each new emancipation of one class means a new oppression for another." 18 As the beneficiaries of class struggle, ruling classes are generally unwilling to acknowledge this fact; thus, the social culture and corresponding historical outlook they dominate always play up supra-class theories of human nature, deliberately exaggerating the human nature of culture while doing their utmost to conceal and avoid its class nature.
Marxism holds that in a class society, the entire spiritual production of humanity, including culture, is—much like material production—governed by the ruling class and serves the needs of its rule. Material production is not only the production and reproduction of the means of subsistence, nor does it only provide the material support and "hard power" foundation for class rule; it is also the production and reproduction of the relations of production and material social intercourse. It is thus the maintenance process of the existing socio-economic and ruling relations, the forging of the social foundation for class rule. Similarly, spiritual production is not only the production and reproduction of social spiritual and cultural activities, providing the cultural support and "soft power" foundation for class rule; it is also the production and reproduction of social value consensus and ideological and ethical norms. It is the construction of the moral foundation for class rule and is therefore the process of maintaining the relations of ideological rule. Consequently, the class nature and ideological nature of culture are its primary characteristics, while its human nature is a secondary, subordinate attribute. Certain moral concepts and pursuits of human nature that transcend specific classes or eras may exist as pure subjective aspirations, but their concrete forms must change alongside historical shifts and cannot be separated from the history of class struggle.
Therefore, today it is not enough to merely recognize that culture has a dual nature; one must also recognize that class nature remains the essential attribute of culture. Ideology determines the nature and developmental direction of culture, and the criteria for judging cultural merit remain "politics first," followed by the unification of political and artistic standards. The view that treats human nature (abstract human nature) as the inherent quality of contemporary culture may appear noble and refined, but it is actually a massive exposure of the hypocrisy inherent in the ideological rule exercised by exploiting classes for millennia. There is perhaps nothing more shameless than making humanity's most sublime and beautiful moral sentiments serve the most cruel and bloody vested interests. What warrants even greater vigilance is not just this erroneous cognition of cultural attributes, but the attempt based upon it to "culturalize" (de-ideologize) Marxism. This practice is a typical instance of "emasculating the content of the revolutionary doctrine, blunting its revolutionary edge, and vulgarizing it," and of "placing in the forefront and extolling what is, or seems to be, acceptable to the bourgeoisie." 19 This is an ideological trend that deserves serious attention today.
The duality and essence of Marxism: As an ideological and cultural phenomenon, Marxism naturally possesses the two sides of class nature and human nature. However, its class nature is a working-class nature centered on the people; its two sides are internally unified and, with the development of socialism, will eventually converge. We must be clear that among existing classes, only the class consciousness of the working class seeks the abolition of classes, the abolition of exploitation, and the realization of common prosperity and the free and comprehensive development of every individual. Among existing states, only by adhering to the developmental direction of socialism can we prompt state power to return to society from its position as a "special power" standing above society. Therefore, in Marxism, its ideological nature—as the essence of working-class consciousness—is entirely superior to its other characteristics. To uphold Marxism, one must first uphold its ideological standpoint. Evidently, Marxism is not a pure cultural phenomenon. It is not only a spiritual phenomenon; because it is inseparable from a specific class and serves as a scientific worldview and an element of revolutionary practice integrated into the tide of human liberation, it also possesses an aspect of substantive existence. This is its fundamental difference from spiritual cultures such as religion.
Now, we can directly answer the question of whether Marxism is a "foreign culture." As the class consciousness and scientific worldview of the working class, Marxism belongs to the working class and the masses of the people worldwide. It has no nationality or fixed geography; it is a "world-historical existence." Its scientific truth and universal significance dictate that the working class and its political parties in every country must take it as their banner; none can claim it is "foreign" in a national sense. To call it "foreign" can only have the following two meanings: first, in relation to the working class and its parties when they are in a state of spontaneity [10]. The acceptance of Marxism by the working class and its parties involves an extremely arduous process of learning and application, a process of transcending their own narrow living environments to stand at the height of world history. This is also the process of integrating Marxism from an external idea into an internal, conscious awareness. For a working class and its parties that have not completed this process, Marxism is, as Lenin said, "instilled from without." [11]
Second, it may be "foreign" in relation to the linguistic forms used by the working class and its parties in non-Western European countries. The founders of Marxism lived in a Western European cultural environment, which determined that the linguistic forms through which they expressed their ideas possessed the characteristics of European culture. For people in non-European linguistic environments, Marxism inevitably possessed a "foreign flavor" (洋腔) [12] different from their own national linguistic habits, necessitating localization [13]. It was for this very reason that during the Yan'an Rectification Movement [14], Mao Zedong proposed: "Foreign stereotypes must be abolished, there must be less singing of empty, abstract tunes, and dogmatism must be laid to rest; they must be replaced by the fresh, lively Chinese style and Chinese appeal [15] which the common people of China love to see and hear. To separate internationalist content from national form is the practice of those who understand nothing of internationalism; we, on the contrary, must link the two closely together." 14 This makes it very clear: Chinese style and Chinese appeal do not negate the "internationalist content" of Marxism. It does not say that the whole of Marxism needs to be localized, but rather that the two must be closely integrated. Therefore, generally speaking, we do not agree with viewing Marxism as a foreign culture, nor do we agree with equating the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism with the localization of foreign religions. Instead, we are committed to promoting the integration of Marxism with Sinicized and modernized Marxism. This is a major issue of political principle.
In the lexicon of the Communist Party of China, Marxism and Sinicized and modernized Marxism are absolutely inseparable; they complement each other and form a single whole. When we say "Marxism works," it is oriented toward the continuous promotion of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism: "The Communist Party of China upholds the basic principles of Marxism, perseveres in seeking truth from facts, proceeds from China's actual conditions, gains insight into the general trends of the times, grasps historical initiative, conducts arduous explorations, and continuously promotes the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism to guide the Chinese people in continuously advancing the great social revolution. Why the Communist Party of China is capable and why socialism with Chinese characteristics is good is, in the final analysis, because Marxism works!" 20 And when we say "Sinicized and modernized Marxism works," it is based on the fundamental premise of upholding Marxism: "Marxism is the fundamental guiding ideology upon which our Party and country are founded and thrive. Practice tells us that why the Communist Party of China is capable and why socialism with Chinese characteristics is good is, in the final analysis, because Marxism works, and because Sinicized and modernized Marxism works. Possessing the guidance of scientific Marxist theory is the fundamental basis for our Party to solidify its faith and belief and to grasp historical initiative." 21 The guiding role of Marxism in practice establishes the internal unity of the two.
III. Deepening the Integrity of Marxism: Promoting the "Two Combinations"
Promoting the integration of Marxism means continuously opening up new frontiers in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism and adhering to the correct direction proposed at the 20th CPC National Congress: "combining the basic principles of Marxism with China's specific realities and with China's fine traditional culture." 21 Much has been said in the past about the "first combination," and both the consensus and the debates regarding it are clear. The "second combination" was proposed not long ago, and the relevant issues requiring discussion are not yet clear enough; therefore, I will focus here on the issue of combining Marxism with China's fine traditional culture.
One must not confuse the two levels of combining Marxism with China’s fine traditional culture. It is not difficult to see that our Party has always emphasized the combination of Marxism with China’s specific realities, and these "realities" (实际) [16] already included China’s fine traditional culture. This is what Mao Zedong emphasized during the Yan'an Rectification: not only must Marxism be applied to answer the practical problems of the Chinese revolution, but a theoretical character featuring Chinese style and Chinese appeal must also be formed. Today, it is highly necessary to treat China’s fine traditional culture as a relatively independent object of "combination." Objectively speaking, cultural self-confidence and self-strengthening are major tasks and focal points for comprehensively building a great modern socialist country; they are key to upholding and improving the system of Party leadership in socialism with Chinese characteristics. It concerns the invigoration of the national spirit and the spark of creativity, the building of a socialist ideology with strong cohesion and leadership, and the nation’s international image and international right to speak [17]. Subjectively speaking, there are some cognitive blind spots regarding the combination of Marxism with China’s fine traditional culture that concern upholding the guiding position of Marxism in the ideological field and require clarification.
In fact, the duality of Marxism has already dictated that the "combination" with China's fine traditional culture should be viewed from two levels: first, the ideological level—that is, how Marxism as the guiding ideology combines with China’s fine traditional culture; second, the level of conceptual culture—that is, how Marxism as a cultural element combines with China’s fine traditional culture. These two levels must not be confused, much less reversed. Regarding the first level, the "combination" is primarily manifested in the scientific definition, excavation, and promotion of China’s fine traditional culture by Marxism, as well as Marxism leading its creative transformation and innovative development. In this process, Marxism continuously promotes the Sinicization of its own discursive modes and theoretical style. Regarding the second level, the "combination" is primarily manifested in the high degree of resonance, exchange, fusion, and mutual reinforcement between the major cultural concepts of Marxism and those of China’s fine traditional culture. If one only speaks of the combination at the second level, it would be "forsaking the root for the branches" [18] and deviating from the correct direction.
The reason the "combination" at the first level is more fundamental is, firstly, because China's fine traditional culture is by no means "self-evident or self-existing." It was severely obscured and distorted by thousands of years of Chinese feudal history, and severely eroded and stifled by Western colonial culture since the Opium War. Therefore, it requires discernment, rescue, excavation, and clearing; otherwise, there would inevitably be a divergence of views and no consensus on what constitutes the essence of Chinese culture. Major ideological struggles converge on this very issue. History has proven that only under the guidance of Marxism have we attained a scientific understanding of Chinese traditional culture, enabling us to discard its feudal dross, carry forward its democratic essence, and form a scientific concept of China’s fine traditional culture.
Secondly, China’s fine traditional culture does not "modernize itself." As a brilliant achievement primarily of agrarian civilization, it certainly possesses eternal cultural value—much as Marx praised Ancient Greek art for its "eternal charm." Yet it is undeniable that it cannot automatically enter the contemporary era of globalization and informatization, nor can it automatically become an organic component of contemporary China's advanced socialist culture. To leap across industrial civilization into the contemporary era, it must undergo a transition of epochs under the leadership of Marxism to achieve creative transformation and innovative development. The "Neo-Confucianism" [19] once popular at home and abroad ultimately failed to gain traction, proving that the idea that Chinese traditional culture can automatically enter the contemporary era—or even automatically become the savior of contemporary human civilization—is nothing but the pipe dream of cultural revivalists.
Distinguishing between Marxism as a guiding ideology and Marxism as a cultural element aims to maintain the unwavering status of the monistic guiding ideology of Marxism. Otherwise, treating the two as cultural phenomena of equal standing would inevitably open the door to a pluralistic guiding ideology; viewpoints like "two ancestors" [20] would surely jeopardize firm faith in Marxism. Therefore, in discussing the "Two Combinations," we must emphasize the struggle in thought and public opinion, resolutely opposing cultural revivalism [21] and historical nihilism. Culture is the root and lineage of a nation; it is the national historical foundation. If culture perishes, history perishes; if history perishes, the state and the nation perish. Historical nihilism is the arch-enemy of cultural self-confidence and self-strengthening and must be resisted. At the same time, we must recognize that one cannot have blind cultural confidence. The peril of the state, of culture, and of the nation are all realistic dangers we have experienced. Culture cannot save the country on its own; on the contrary, "historical accumulation" can fall into a deep slumber, and "historical memory" can be buried in dust. The history of the enslavement of colonial and semi-colonial peoples proves that culture can also be subverted and destroyed. Thus, the masses need awakening, the people need education, and culture needs innovation. This is the irreplacability of Marxism, and it is where historical revivalism is undesirable and untrustworthy.
"Combination" injects new vitality into the development of Marxism. Combining with fine traditional Chinese culture has injected new vitality into the development of Marxism. First, Marxism has gained the support of the outstanding achievements of five thousand years of uninterrupted hearth-fire civilization, giving it greater confidence in leading the development of contemporary human civilization. The laws of the transmission of human civilization show that endogeneity is the basis of civilizational progress. The reason Marxism did not veer off the main road of human civilization is precisely because it was catalyzed by the endogeneity of capitalist civilization. Marx thus repeatedly pointed out that the transition to communism is the result of capitalism's self-negation, rather than the product of any artificial design or moral critique.
However, in today's world of civilizational diversity, more historical support is needed to explore the direction of civilizational development that transcends capitalism. Socialism with Chinese characteristics, which takes the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation as its mission, has not only fully stimulated its own vitality and successfully opened the path of Chinese-path modernization, but is also making increasingly significant contributions to the progress of contemporary human civilization. The reason lies in the fact that it is the internal requirement of the continuous development of the five-thousand-year-uninterrupted Chinese civilization. "Socialism with Chinese characteristics... was derived from the historical process of more than 170 years in which the Chinese nation went from decline to prosperity in modern times; it was derived from the inheritance and development of Chinese civilization for more than 5,000 years; and it is a precious achievement gained by the Party and the people through untold hardships and at various costs." [22] This fully demonstrates that promoting the combination of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture conforms to the endogenous requirements of civilizational transmission and is an important direction for the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism.
Second, the constant pursuit of Chinese style and Chinese flavor has become a powerful driving force for integrating theory with practice and for theoretical innovation in Marxism. Speaking Marxism in the Chinese language is a fine tradition of the Party. For example, Mao Zedong used "seek truth from facts" and the "theory of two points" [23] to explain the scientific Marxist worldview and methodology; Deng Xiaoping used "moderately prosperous society" [24] to speak of the Party's staged goals of struggle; and Xi Jinping used the "Chinese Dream" to summarize the pursuit of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, and so on. However, Marxism in the style of Chinese discourse is not merely a matter of external expression or linguistic habit; rather, it is a matter of the mode of theoretical innovation that is rooted in Chinese reality and takes the resolution of domestic problems as its starting point.
Theoretical expression in the Chinese style encompasses three major tasks: first, to clarify the basic principles of Marxism in simple and popular language, especially the historical laws determined by the movement of the basic contradictions of society, the communist ideal, the persistence of the leadership of the working class (through the Communist Party), the elimination of polarization, the realization of common prosperity, and the free and comprehensive development of every individual, so that Marxism enters Chinese society. Second, starting from the most urgent problems facing China, to refine the staged tasks and slogans that inspire the whole society to strive with one heart and one mind, such as "anti-imperialism and anti-feudalism," the "Four Modernizations," "reform and opening up," and "entering the New Era," so that Marxism melts into the Chinese historical process. Third, to realize a great leap in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, forming a Sinicized and modernized Marxism that follows the same lineage as Marxism while remaining at the forefront of Chinese historical development. Mao Zedong Thought, the theoretical system of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era are the landmark achievements of this process.
It can be seen that the "two sides" of Marxism are the unity of upholding the fundamentals and breaking new ground, while the "oneness" of Marxism is the process of realization in history and development in practice. Therefore, continuously promoting the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism is the process of the unification of Marxism.
"Combination" leads the direction of the unification of Marxism in the new historical stage. Today, the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism are at a new historical stage. On the one hand, the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics already possesses a relatively complete institutional guarantee, a more solid material foundation, and a more proactive spiritual force; on the other hand, it faces unprecedentedly arduous risks and challenges, necessitating firm strategic confidence. Promoting the "Two Combinations," especially the "combination with fine traditional Chinese culture," reflects the characteristics of the times for Marxism in this new stage of historical development—namely, strengthening historical confidence and strategic initiative regarding the path of Chinese-path modernization.
Fine traditional Chinese culture promotes road confidence [25] in Chinese-path modernization in three aspects: First, from the perspective of strengthening confidence, with its profound cultural heritage, brilliant civilizational achievements, and endless civilizational vitality, it powerfully supports the Chinese Dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. Among these, the ideal of "Great Unity" (Datong) where the "Great Way prevails and the world is for all"; [26] the revolutionary patriotic tradition of favoring equal union and resisting internal and external oppression; the philosophy of survival and life characterized by hard work, endurance, and self-strengthening; the way of national coexistence through "kindness to neighbors and harmony among all nations"; the peaceful position of "valuing harmony" and believing that "those who love war shall perish"; and the pursuit of democracy and justice such as "the people are more important than the ruler," "government lies in nourishing the people," and "the law does not favor the noble, the string does not bend for the crooked" [27]—these constitute the spiritual core of Chinese civilization that has survived for five thousand years. In the process of being combined with these, Marxism has allowed a great type of civilization to be reborn through fire, shining brilliantly in the contemporary era in a higher form. This not only makes the Chinese characteristics of the path of Chinese-path modernization more prominent but also provides strong historical and cultural support for the exploration of a new form of human civilization.
Second, from the perspective of ideological content, with its unique and rational view of nature, diverse dialectical thinking, and persevering pursuit of dreams, it continuously deepens cultural connotations through its high degree of compatibility with the essential requirements of the path of Chinese-path modernization. We fully absorb the idea of "unity of heaven and man" [28] from fine traditional Chinese culture, elevating it from a simple analogical intuition to a scientific understanding of a "community of life for man and nature" where man and nature coexist in harmony. We draw fully from the dialectical thinking that is scattered but rich in fine traditional Chinese culture, elevating it to the "systemic concept" of dialectical materialism, forming a complete scientific methodology including "strategic thinking, historical thinking, dialectical thinking, systemic thinking, innovative thinking, rule-of-law thinking, and bottom-line thinking." We organically link the Datong ideal of fine traditional Chinese culture with the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and the communist ideal, making the communist ideal not only easy to understand, approachable, and respectable, but also achieving a perfect unity between the universal principles of Marxism and Chinese national forms. The cultural connotations and civilizational characteristics of Chinese-path modernization are established in this process.
Third, from the perspective of historical experience, with its incomparably complex historical twists, extremely difficult historical explorations, and unparalleled historical experience, it highlights that the path of Chinese-path modernization was not easily won. The Chinese nation has always had dreams; from "Datong" to the national rejuvenation in modern times, the dream has never been interrupted, and the struggle to realize the dream has never stopped. However, before the founding of the Communist Party of China, the future always remained bleak. In the process of combining Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture, we feel all the more the importance of the path—the path determines destiny. As Mao Zedong pointed out: "Kang Youwei wrote The Book of Great Unity, but he did not and could not find a way to reach Great Unity." [29] This path was found and opened under the leadership of the Communist Party of China. Thus, feeling the immense importance of the path must ultimately ground itself in firmly upholding the Party's leadership and firmly following the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics.
Upholding the Party's leadership is the soul of the path of Chinese-path modernization, and upholding Marxism is the soul of the founding of the Communist Party of China. On this paramount issue, we must be firm in our stance and clear in our banner. We must keep in mind General Secretary Xi Jinping's admonition to the whole Party: "Marxism is the fundamental guiding ideology upon which our Party and country are founded. If we deviate from or abandon Marxism, our Party will lose its soul and lose its direction. On this fundamental issue of upholding the guiding status of Marxism, we must be unswerving and must not waver in the slightest at any time or under any circumstances."