Wang Yindan: Concept Evolution, Internal Logic, and Contemporary Expression of the Marxist Worldview and Methodology
A scientific worldview and methodology serve as the "master key" for researching and resolving problems, the "boat" or "bridge" [1] for crossing a river, and the linchpin for integrating the pursuit of knowledge with practical application. The report to the 20th CPC National Congress emphasized that "upholding Marxism as our guidance means applying its scientific worldview and methodology to solve China’s problems," and synthesized the primary content of the worldview and methodology of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era through the "Six Must-Upholdings" [2]. Only by deeply researching the conceptual evolution, internal logic, and contemporary expression of the Marxist worldview and methodology, and by accurately grasping the principles, academic logic, and philosophical underpinnings [3] contained therein, can we continuously advance the systematized and academic interpretation of the Party's innovative theories and compose new chapters in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism.
I. The Conceptual Evolution of the Marxist Worldview and Methodology
Worldview and methodology constitute the fundamental concepts of philosophical research. Regarding the continuity and inheritance of human thought and cognition, investigating the evolutionary process of these concepts in Marxism is particularly important. This can be unfolded in three aspects: first, reviewing the conceptual development of worldview and methodology in Western philosophy prior to the founding of Marxism; second, sorting through the important discourses of classical Marxist writers; and third, examining the process by which composite conceptual expressions were formed in the Soviet Union and China.
1. Philosophical Exploration Prior to the Founding of Marxism
The concept of "worldview" (世界观) was initially latent in ancient Western natural philosophy. Whether the world is composed of sensory perception or pure reason was one of the core issues explored by Ancient Greek thinkers. Protagoras advocated pure sensualism, firmly believing that sensory perception is the only true existence and the cornerstone of the world-picture. Conversely, Parmenides conceived a worldview in an extreme anti-sensory, a priori manner, holding that the essence of the world exists within the thought of the cognitive subject. Upon entering the modern era, "worldview" gradually became a major concept in philosophy, occupying a prominent position in German Classical Philosophy. Kant first utilized "worldview" (Weltanschauung) as a technical term in the Critique of Judgment, referring to things as "mere phenomena"—that is, the sensible intuition of the world. Subsequently, Fichte adopted Kant's concept in his Critique of All Revelation. Schelling transformed the primary meaning of the concept from a sensory grasp of the world to a rational one, viewing worldview as a conscious method capable of understanding and explaining all things in the universe. Hegel, in discussing the construction of moral consciousness, endowed the concept of worldview with a supra-realistic, purely spiritual quality. Since the modern era, the concept of worldview spread from Germany to other European countries and eventually the entire world, gradually becoming popular across disciplines such as linguistics, philosophy, art, and physics; the struggle between the sensory and the rational has permeated this entire process of dissemination.
The etymology of "methodology" (方法论) can be traced back to the Ancient Greek méthodos, which can be understood through a "path metaphor"—that is, "attaining a certain goal along a certain road." Some scholars believe the "path metaphor" is the core implication of this term, indicating that the criticality of method lies in enhancing efficiency in the process of achieving goals. Plato was the first to use this term to mean solid knowledge regarding an art and the ability to impart that knowledge. Aristotle systematically expounded on dialectical methods, founding the doctrine of the syllogism and the system of logical categories, and further explored the rational procedures for reaching conclusions, believing that rational procedures could help people reason and "avoid saying contradictory things." When Ancient Greek philosophers used this term, it carried connotations of means, procedures, and paths, all closely related to the "path metaphor." In the modern era, the concept of methodology received more extensive exploration. A significant feature of 17th-century Western philosophy was the "awakening of methodology." During this period, in Hegel’s words, the development of methodology was divided into the "Empirical school" and the "philosophy of thinking and proceeding from the interior." The former, represented by Bacon and Locke, built a set of experimental scientific methodologies including experimentation and induction based on sensory perception and individual experience. The latter, represented by Descartes and Leibniz, focused on mental reasoning and formed a rationalist methodology based on mathematical deduction. At this time, the birth of Newtonian mechanics signaled the emergence of scientific cognitive activity in its true sense. Subsequently, Hume, Kant, and Hegel took Newtonian mechanics as a research object to explore the cognitive capacity of human intellect. Hume proposed the law of causal connection and the problem of induction. Kant emphasized the conceptual contribution made by thinking to cognition. Building on Kant's ideas, Hegel established a complete system of dialectical logic and conceptual methodology. It is not difficult to see that modern philosophical methodology was, to a large extent, conflated with epistemology.
2. Scientific Elucidation by Classical Marxist Writers
Both worldview and methodology did not become widely scrutinized philosophical concepts until the modern era. Issues related to them essentially focus on the foundations and capacities of human cognition, and discussions remained inseparable from the dual elements of the senses and thought, or experience and reason. The birth of Marxist philosophy provided a new perspective—namely, discussing human cognition through the lens of practice [4] within social history and real life.
Marx stated in the Theses on Feuerbach: "Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it." Moving from "interpretation" to "change" reflects Marx’s emphasis on practice rather than pure speculation. Engels evaluated the Theses as "the first document in which is deposited the brilliant germ of the new worldview," and pointed out: "Marx’s whole worldview is not a doctrine but a method. It does not provide ready-made dogmas, but points of departure for further investigation and the method for such investigation." This expression highlights the practical character of the Marxist worldview through the contrast between "dogma" and "method." In Anti-Dühring, Engels directly expressed the reality of the Marxist worldview, arguing that it "has to be established and manifested in the real sciences." In The German Ideology, Marx and Engels pointed out: "It is not consciousness that determines life, but life that determines consciousness." They advocated a "method of approach in accordance with real life" that "sets out from real, active men," namely that "man must prove the truth... of his thinking in practice." Overall, Marxist philosophy is grounded in human activity and social history, and from the day of its birth, it has been closely linked to the practice of social transformation. In Marxist philosophy, while the formation of a worldview involves the subject's rational reflection, it primarily occurs within production and life; methodology, meanwhile, is the means or path for the subject to achieve specific goals of activity. The process of applying method is one of fully grasping the value orientations and knowledge guides contained within the principles of the scientific worldview, thereby approaching, grasping, and ultimately transforming the object. As some scholars have put it: "A worldview determines a person’s practical intentions and attitudes through its value connotations, and determines the ways and practical directions in which people pursue or realize value through its cognitive connotations." This process requires the participation of the subject's cognitive faculties, and even more so, the participation of practical activity.
A review of the literature reveals that Marx and Engels frequently used the word "method" (方法), while Lenin more often used the term "methodology" (方法论) and expounded in corresponding passages on how the Marxist materialist conception of history and materialist dialectics are used to analyze specific cases. In What the "Friends of the People" Are and How They Fight the Social-Democrats, the "new methodology" and "methodology of social science" he mentioned refer to Marx’s approach of "viewing society as a living organism in a state of constant development" and "objectively analyzing the relations of production that constitute the social formation and researching its laws of activity and development"—that is, the method of isolating relations of production for separate study and subsequently studying the superstructure. Lenin also criticized A. Potresov from a methodological perspective for surreptitiously substituting Marx with national-liberalism, noting that Potresov’s simplification of the "essence of Marx’s methodology" as merely "judging from an international rather than a national standpoint" was one-sided: "Marx’s method consists, first of all, in taking due account of the objective content of a historical process at a given moment, in given and concrete conditions." Furthermore, Lenin once said: "Marx’s philosophy is a finished philosophical materialism, which has provided mankind, and especially the working class, with powerful instruments of knowledge." This emphasis on Marxism as an "instrument of knowledge" (认识工具) for the working class reflects Lenin’s recognition of the methodological function of Marxist theory. For the working class, the purpose of knowing the world is to transform it and carry out social change, which resonates with the aforementioned practicality.
3. The Formation of Composite Expressions in the Soviet Union and China
Based on Marx’s emphasis on and use of "method," Engels’s interpretation of Marx’s "worldview," and Lenin’s use and elucidation of the term "methodology," composite expressions such as "worldview and methodology" (世界观和方法论), "worldview-methodology" (世界观方法论), and "worldview, methodology" (世界观、方法论) have become common in the current Marxist discourse system as the theory evolved.
These composite expressions originated in Soviet textbooks. Dialectical and Historical Materialism, edited by Mark Mitin, is considered the marker of the basic formation of the Soviet model of Marxist philosophy. In this book, expressions pairing "outlook on the universe" (宇宙观) and "method" appear in more than one place, such as: "Marxism arms the laboring groups with a complete outlook on the universe and a method for changing the world," and that Marx and Engels "thoroughly formed dialectical materialism as the outlook on the universe and method for the laboring groups." The Principles of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy, edited by Konstantinov, used "worldview and methodology" in multiple instances, such as: "The unity, integrity, and thoroughness of Marxism-Leninism... are organically linked to the fact that all its component parts possess a unified worldview and methodology," and "Mastering the worldview and methodology of Marxist-Leninist philosophy helps in understanding the law-governed connections between the development of natural science and concrete historical conditions."
Later, these composite expressions were widely used in China. Mao Zedong consistently attached great importance to the question of method; he likened the various tasks proposed in work to "crossing a river," and the methods for completing tasks to the "bridge or boat," emphasizing that "unless the bridge or boat problem is solved, crossing the river is just idle talk." In On Contradiction, he pointed out that materialism and dialectics are both a worldview and a method. In 1945, in his speech The Situation and Our Policy After the Victory in the War of Resistance Against Japan delivered at a meeting of cadres in Yan'an, he directly used the expression "worldview, methodology": "There are two worldviews and methodologies: the proletarian worldview and methodology, and the bourgeois worldview and methodology." In the 1930s, expressions like "worldview and method" and "worldview and methodology" were not uncommon in the works of Chinese Marxist thinkers and revolutionaries. Li Da pointed out in his Outline of Sociology that materialist dialectics could be seen as the "unity of worldview and method." Ai Siqi’s book On Methodology of Thought used "Worldview and Methodology" as a subheading in the first chapter. Hu Sheng, in The Outlook on Life of the New Philosophy, stated that neither social nor natural sciences can ignore the "basic worldview and methodology," further explaining that "the laws of materialist dialectics are themselves a worldview, a methodology, and even an epistemology," and that one cannot ignore "worldview, methodology, and epistemology" when establishing a correct outlook on life. Following a long period of discursive evolution, theoretical workers now broadly use "scientific worldview and methodology" to refer to Marxist philosophy—that is, dialectical materialism and historical materialism. In Marxist fundamental principles textbooks compiled in recent years, "Marxist worldview and methodology" is explicitly used to describe or refer to dialectical materialism and historical materialism.
II. The Internal Logic of the Marxist Worldview and Methodology
From the perspective of the history of philosophy, the founding of Marxism largely broke the dualistic opposition between modern rationalism and empiricism, endowing both worldview and methodology with a consistent content of reality and praxis. The composite formulations developed in the Soviet Union and China embody this internal consistency. However, this also conceals a theoretical risk—the reduction of the relationship between the two concepts to an undifferentiated identity, namely "worldview = methodology." While equating worldview and methodology in a general sense helped highlight the scientific nature of the Marxist worldview during certain historical stages and facilitated the propagation and interpretation of Marxist theory to the public, relying solely on this "identity" is insufficient as research deepens. The relationship between the Marxist worldview and methodology should be understood as a dialectical unity that maintains consistency while acknowledging difference.
1. Differences Between Worldview and Methodology
In Dialectical and Historical Materialism, Stalin made a simple distinction between worldview and methodology. He maintained that the materialistic "interpretation," "understanding," and "theory" of natural phenomena belong to the sphere of worldview, while the dialectical method of researching and cognizing such phenomena belongs to the sphere of methodology. Since the Reform and Opening-up [5], the Chinese academic community has conducted in-depth explorations into the differences between the Marxist worldview and methodology. Broadly speaking, the differences between the two can be understood across four dimensions.
Regarding the content of research: Worldview takes the external world as its object, primarily exploring the existential status, inherent attributes, and laws of motion of nature, society, and human thought; its fundamental point of departure is matter as objective reality. The direct object of methodology is "method" as a form of human social activity, primarily exploring how to acquire, master, and apply the principles of the unity of subject and object. Because method possesses both subjectivity and objectivity, the fundamental point of departure for methodology includes not only matter but also the state of human spirit and thought. Specifically, in the process of the subject cognizing and transforming the object, worldview focuses on the priority of matter or spirit and whether the subject can cognize the object; methodology focuses on how the subject cognizes and transforms the object.
Regarding theoretical form: The construction of a worldview is a gradual process from the particular to the general, and from practice to theory. Worldview exists as the intellectual result of people’s conscious or unconscious cognition of the world; it permeates the three major realms of nature, human society, and thought, covering multiple dimensions such as the conception of nature and history. It is a descriptive system of knowledge centered on "what" and "why" questions. Conversely, the formation of methodology begins with theory and points toward practice. As an applied theory, it is closer to realistic operation, focusing on inquiries into epistemology and praxeology. Generally speaking, methodology covers not only knowledge of the objective object but also the value relationship between subject and object. It requires the subject to formulate a series of scientific and rational norms and codes of conduct based on their level of cognition of the objective object. It is a normative system of knowledge centered on "how to act" and "whether one should act this way."
Regarding function and role: As the fundamental perspective of humanity toward the world, worldview provides us with the overall direction and principles for cognizing and transforming the world. These views quietly permeate people's daily thinking and behavior, profoundly shaping their ideals, beliefs, emotions, and goals of action. Methodology, however, emphasizes the subjective initiative [6] exerted by the subject; its core lies in how the subject utilizes their own spiritual and material power to actively transform the object to satisfy their needs. It contains various methods, providing people with specific and practical means and tools in fields such as scientific research and life practice.
Regarding evaluative standards: A scientific worldview seeks a faithful reflection of things as they are, emphasizing respect for and adherence to objectivity. On one hand, the criterion for judging a worldview is its truthfulness, with the inherent state of the world serving as the basis for evaluation. Although objective essence may be concealed and difficult to reach, "there is no insurmountable gulf between relative and absolute truth"; humanity can continuously advance on the path of seeking truth, striving to approach absolute truth through relative truth. On the other hand, methodology takes the guidance of human activity as its core goal; its evaluation often focuses on whether the functions of specific methods are strengthened and whether their efficiency is improved. Determining whether a method is effective requires considering the actual situations of both subject and object. In particular, influenced by the subject's level of cognition, value orientations, and actual needs, methodology may diverge from or even run counter to the scientific worldview. In such cases, one must prudently judge whether the methodology is truly consistent with the scientific worldview—that is, whether the methods it contains truly conform to objective reality and possess a correct value orientation.
As stated above, the Marxist worldview and methodology maintain a high degree of consistency in their spiritual essence of valuing practice, yet they possess certain differences in content, form, function, and evaluation. The purpose of discussing these differences is not to separate worldview from methodology, but to emphasize that the question of the relationship between the two should shift from a superficial, static cognition of "identity" to a deep-seated, dynamic understanding of "unity." Deeply grasping the internal mechanism of coordination and unity between worldview and methodology is a necessary prerequisite for mastering and applying them.
2. The Unity of Worldview and Methodology
Mao Zedong once criticized some comrades in the Party for being "able only to quote individual words and phrases from Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin one-sidedly, but unable to apply their stance, viewpoint, and method," and for "not paying attention to local conditions, not paying attention to the study of history, and not paying attention to the application of Marxism-Leninism." In practice, if one merely recites and repeats specific conclusions and phrases of the Marxist worldview and methodology so simplistically, one may fall into traps such as dogmatism, subjectivism, and mechanicalism. One must persist in seeking truth from facts, starting from reality in all things, and continuously promote the mutual integration and organic unity of worldview and methodology, so as to "provide correct answers that meet the requirements of China’s reality and the times, reach scientific understandings that conform to objective laws, and form theoretical achievements that advance with the times."
The unity of worldview and methodology is a two-way, multi-layered process. The first layer is the transformation of the basic viewpoints of Marxist philosophy into general methods of thinking; this is the primary step in achieving unity. Basic viewpoints are descriptive knowledge that requires a cognitive transformation in the subject's mind to become normative guiding concepts, thereby forming proficient methods of thinking. For example, based on the viewpoint of the universality of contradictions, one forms dialectical thinking to analyze and explore the primary contradictions and key factors affecting the development of things. Based on the viewpoint of the regularity of historical development, one forms historical thinking to fully recognize the historical process, grasp historical trends, and act in accordance with them. Of course, basic philosophical viewpoints and general methods of thinking do not have a one-to-one correspondence; sometimes one viewpoint can correspond to multiple methods of thinking—for instance, the viewpoint of universal connection can derive strategic thinking, systems thinking, and dialectical thinking. Similarly, one method of thinking can be supported by multiple basic philosophical viewpoints; for example, historical thinking takes historical materialism as its primary philosophical foundation, but also contains the viewpoints of dialectical materialism. As some scholars have pointed out: "Worldview forms specific methods of thought and action through the establishment and change of modes of thinking, influencing people's concepts and behaviors, and in turn influencing social development." General methods of thinking serve as the intermediate link connecting basic Marxist viewpoints and specific measures, imperceptibly influencing the subject’s thoughts and actions.
The second layer is the transformation of general methods of thinking into specific practical measures; this is the key link in achieving unity. General methods of thinking are still relatively abstract and remain at a distance from guiding specific work; therefore, abstract methods of thinking must be further implemented in practice, with specific and targeted practical plans formulated for different problems. The third layer is the reverse transformation of specific practical measures into principled understandings; this is an important manifestation of genuine unity. The link of moving from the concrete to the abstract to form principled understanding is vital. The reason is that principled understandings within a certain period are relatively stable, and a series of basic principles approaching the truth constitute a worldview. However, in essence, basic principles can develop and change—meaning the worldview can develop and change—and this development reflects the results of people's practice and feedback regarding specific measures. Engels said: "In fact, all real, exhaustive cognition consists only in this: that we raise the individual thing in thought from individuality to particularity, and then from particularity to universality." Based on the above, the direction of transformation in the first and second layers is from worldview to methodology, while the third layer moves from methodology to worldview, thereby forming a two-way cycle of mutual promotion that drives theoretical innovation and development.
However, the diversity and complexity of reality cause the process of unifying worldview and methodology to be tortuous. On one hand, the objective world is in motion and change while specific practical measures are relatively static; a contradiction exists between the two. On the other hand, due to the limitations of the subject’s capacity, specific practical measures may not always be implemented. Therefore, the aforementioned process of unity must undergo the repeated cycle of "practice, knowledge, again practice, and again knowledge." In this process, in addition to valuing the subject's practical power, one must place special emphasis on their spiritual power, such as value orientation, faith, curiosity, and the desire for truth. Among these, a correct value orientation must permeate the entire process of transformation between worldview and methodology to ensure its rationality and scientificity. Furthermore, faith plays a significant role in the first and second layers of transformation. History has proven that faith often becomes a powerful spiritual force; while it may not necessarily improve the subject's ability to complete a task, it can strengthen their will to persist, thereby driving activities to change the world toward success. Curiosity also enhances innovation in the second layer of transformation, driving the subject to actively utilize laws to serve their goals and strengthening the exercise of their creativity. The desire for truth drives the third layer of transformation. Lenin said: "There has never been, nor can there be, any human search for truth without 'human emotions'." With such emotions, the subject will more actively apply their capacity for theoretical thinking to summarize and generalize basic principles.
III. The Expression of the Marxist Worldview and Methodology for the Times
As contemporary Chinese Marxism and 21st-century Marxism, Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era inherits, enriches, and develops Marxism. It achieves the unity of the Marxist worldview and methodology through the interaction of new practice and cognition, distilling the "Six Must-Persists" [7], which provide a powerful ideological weapon for our Party to solve China's practical problems and respond to the multiple challenges of the era.
1. Rooted in the Essence of Marxist Thought and the Great Practice of the New Era
"Any true philosophy is the spiritual quintessence of its time," and true philosophy "not only internally through its content, but also externally through its manifestation, comes into contact and interaction with the real world of its day." The expression of the Marxist worldview and methodology for the times is rooted in the essence of Marxist thought, sharing the same lineage as dialectical and historical materialism. At the same time, it is rooted in the great practice of the New Era, representing an innovative expression formed on the basis of a new temporal background, historical conditions, and social practice.
Marxist philosophy, born in the 19th century, revealed the general laws of the development of the objective world and especially human society; its status as truth and its scientific nature have been proven by history and practice. In the 21st century today, it remains a powerful ideological weapon guiding our work and life. Why the Communist Party of China "can," and why socialism with Chinese characteristics is "good," ultimately comes down to the fact that Marxism "works." [8] The expression of the Marxist worldview and methodology for our times must, first and foremost, persist in Marxism. This is not a persistence in certain specific conclusions or viewpoints of classical Marxist authors, but rather a persistence in the ideological core of the Marxist worldview and methodology. In the Preface to the 1872 German Edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx and Engels pointed out: "However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever." Lukács argued that Marxist "orthodoxy" does not lie in "the 'belief' in this or that thesis, nor the exegesis of a 'sacred' book," but in the persistence of the total method—the dialectical method. At the same time, the expression of the Marxist worldview and methodology for our times is a fruit of theoretical innovation that advances with the times. Of course, development does not mean starting from scratch; it must be based on the truth and the righteous path of Marxism. The process of upholding and developing dialectical materialism and historical materialism is a process of realizing the unity of the Marxist worldview and methodology—that is, the process of using the stands, viewpoints, and methods therein to guide practice, and in turn, promote theoretical innovation. Since the beginning of the New Era, world multipolarity, economic globalization, social informatization, and cultural diversification have developed deeply. Domestic and international situations have undergone tremendous changes: "Contemporary China is undergoing the most extensive and profound social transformation in our country's history, and is also engaged in the most grand and unique practical innovation in human history." New social conditions, world patterns, and new practices have provided the space and impetus for the formation of an "expression for our times" that reflects the characteristics of the era and the requirements of practice.
In short, the expression of the Marxist worldview and methodology for our times is the result of theoretical innovation. In its fundamental characteristics, spiritual core, and internal logic, it is in the same line of succession as Marxism, whereas in its mode of discourse and expression, it must reflect the deepening and expansion of Marxism, as well as the results of creative transformation and development. Upholding and developing dialectical materialism and historical materialism means "adding new categories, proposing new viewpoints, making new interpretations, and imbuing new connotations in the process of exploration." In the great practice of the New Era, the Chinese Communists, with Comrade Xi Jinping as their chief representative, have invigorated the spirit of historical initiative, applied the Marxist worldview and methodology to solve China's real-world problems, and promoted the mutual unity of worldview and methodology, forming the major theoretical innovation of the "Six Must-Upholds." [9]
2. Concentrated Expression in the "Six Must-Upholds"
The expression of the Marxist worldview and methodology for our times is concentrated in the "Six Must-Upholds." The "Six Must-Upholds" condense the ideological essence of dialectical materialism and historical materialism, inheriting and applying the Marxist historical materialist view of the masses, epistemology, theory of truth, theory of contradiction, and the world-historical outlook. The innovative and contemporary nature of the "Six Must-Upholds" is reflected in the following aspects:
First, the "Six Must-Upholds" point out the overarching methodological principles for upholding and developing Marxism and promoting theoretical innovation based on practice. Upholding the fundamentals and breaking new ground directly answers the question of "how theory develops." Theoretical development is the realization of the dialectical unity between upholding the fundamentals and innovation in practice. Upholding the fundamentals means sticking to the correct path and direction, emphasizing both the extraction of historical wisdom and experience while also focusing on grasping the internal laws of the development of things. Innovation, on the premise of upholding the fundamentals, takes practice as its basis, accumulating new experience in practice, exerting creativity, improving methods, and expanding theory. This aligns with the third level of transformation mentioned above—the leap from specific practical measures to (new) principled understanding—which is essentially the innovative development of theory. Maintaining a problem-oriented approach reflects the contemporary nature of theory and provides a focal point for upholding the fundamentals and breaking new ground. Maintaining a problem-oriented approach emphasizes the need to answer the questions of China, the world, the people, and the times [10], and to solve practical problems in the process of Chinese-path modernization—this is the basis of formation and the realistic foundation for contemporary Chinese Marxist theoretical innovation. Specifically, this principle points the way for the transformation of the second level (mental methods into practical measures), indicating what kind of problems mental methods should be applied to and what effects should be achieved. This principle also provides the starting point and impetus for the transformation of the third level (practical measures into new principled understanding). Problems are the contradictions of things, and contradictions are the driving force of theoretical innovation. Mao Zedong pointed out: "The discovery of a contradiction is initially perceptual; only through analysis does it reach the rational stage." Specifically, the third-level transformation process involves first using "perception" in practice to discover contradictions, and then using these contradictions as entry points, applying "rational" analysis to elevate the results of reflection to the theoretical level, thereby achieving theoretical innovation.
Second, the "Six Must-Upholds" contain the rich connotations of the Marxist view of the people and elevate it to the level of worldview and methodology. General Secretary Xi Jinping has pointed out that "the people-centered nature is the most distinctive character of Marxism," and "to study Marx, one must study and practice Marxist thought on adhering to the standpoint of the people." Putting the people first, maintaining self-confidence and self-reliance, and maintaining a global vision highlight the importance of the subjecthood of the people from multiple angles, running through the entire process of the unity of worldview and methodology. Putting the people first primarily requires us to stand firmly on the side of the people and grasp their aspirations. "The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority." We must stay close to the life of the people, listen to their voices, and formulate policies and promote work based on solving the "urgent, difficult, and anxious" problems of the people, ensuring that every decision conforms to their interests. This ensures that the transformation processes between various levels of worldview and methodology possess the correct value orientation. Secondly, it requires respecting the creativity of the people and concentrating their wisdom. "Historical activity is the work of the masses; along with the thoroughness of the historical action, the size of the mass whose action it is will therefore increase." The people are not only witnesses to history but its creators; they can apply Marxist positions, viewpoints, and methods to understand and transform the world, contribute experience, participate in decision-making, and promote theoretical innovation. The creativity and wisdom of the people are the realistic forces that drive the mutual transformation between worldview and methodology. Maintaining self-confidence and self-reliance establishes the spiritual character of Chinese people solving Chinese problems themselves. In the process of solving problems, the Chinese people "must maintain firm faith in Marxism and firm conviction in socialism with Chinese characteristics, and strengthen confidence in our path, theory, system, and culture," [11] while respecting objective laws and accurately grasping actual conditions. This clarifies the responsible subject for promoting the unity of contemporary Chinese Marxist worldview and methodology. Maintaining a global vision demonstrates a broad world perspective and a deep concern for humanity. We must examine problems with a global eye, contributing Chinese wisdom and strength to global sustainable development and the prosperity of world civilizations, and committing ourselves to building a community with a shared future for humanity.
Third, the "Six Must-Upholds" make the fusion of worldview and methodology tighter, showing more prominent methodological qualities and systemic characteristics. According to the specific differences between worldview and methodology mentioned above, the theoretical system of worldview is composed of basic philosophical principles, while the theoretical system of methodology is composed of a series of relatively independent guiding principles and norms. The process of achieving the unity of worldview and methodology includes both the transformation of philosophical principles and the feedback from practice. The "Six Must-Upholds" is the theoretical system formed in this process; it has a clear hierarchical structure and possesses both profound scholarly depth and effective guidance. Regarding the foundational level of theory, it condenses the spiritual core of Marxist philosophy. Regarding the transitional level, it contains scientific thinking methods that can realize the transition from descriptive theory to normative theory. Adhering to a systemic concept can be said to be an important innovation in the history of the CPC's ideological theory; it includes a series of scientific thinking methods such as strategic thinking, historical thinking, dialectical thinking, systemic thinking, innovative thinking, rule-of-law thinking, and bottom-line thinking. These scientific thinking methods are indispensable in the process of unifying worldview and methodology, serving particularly as a link in the transformation process of the first and second levels: "basic viewpoints—thinking methods—practical measures." Regarding the operational level, the "Six Must-Upholds" cover all fields of governance in the New Era and have broad applicability. The principles for further comprehensively deepening reform emphasized by the Third Plenary Session of the 20th CPC Central Committee include three of these contents: sticking to a people-centered approach, upholding the fundamentals and breaking new ground, and adhering to a systemic concept. Furthermore, it can be transformed into practical and targeted methods of thought, work, and leadership across various issues. At the same time, the "Six Must-Upholds" can form a closely linked theoretical whole around a single theme.
In the philosophical explorations prior to the creation of Marxism, the conceptual evolution of worldview and methodology implied the problem of dualistic opposition between rationalism and empiricism. Marxist philosophy introduced a new perspective of practice, injecting a consistent realism and practicality into the connotations of worldview and methodology. With the development of theory, compound expressions such as "worldview and methodology" (世界观和方法论) and "worldview-methodology" (世界观方法论) appeared in the Marxist discourse system. Deeply understanding the scholarly and philosophical logic contained in worldview and methodology likewise requires clarifying the specific differences between the two, which are reflected in research content, theoretical form, functional roles, and evaluation criteria. The key to the problem lies in how to achieve a dialectical unity based on grasping their differences. The unity of worldview and methodology is a two-way, multi-level process. First, the basic viewpoints of Marxist philosophy must be transformed into general thinking methods; second, general thinking methods must be transformed into specific practical measures; finally, specific practical measures must, in turn, be transformed into (new) principled understanding. Throughout this transformation process, the practical and spiritual power of the people as the subject plays an important role. Since entering the New Era, the Chinese Communists, with Comrade Xi Jinping as their chief representative, have promoted the deep fusion and unity of the Marxist worldview and methodology on the road of pursuing, revealing, and practicing truth, creatively forming the theoretical achievement of the "Six Must-Upholds"—the Marxist worldview and methodology of contemporary China. The "Six Must-Upholds" inherit and apply the basic principles of Marxist philosophy, point out the overarching methodological principles for the CPC to promote theoretical innovation, contain the rich connotations of the Marxist view of the people, and demonstrate distinct methodological qualities and holistic, systemic characteristics. They are the concentrated expression of the Marxist worldview and methodology for our times.
(Author's affiliation: School of Marxism, Peking University) Source: Ideological and Theoretical Education, Issue 7, 2025 Online Editor: Jing Mu