Huang Xianzhong: Mao Zedong's "Four-Dimensional" Positioning of the Sinicization of Marxism
Mao Zedong was the great pioneer of the Sinicization of Marxism. He not only creatively proposed the scientific thesis and major tasks of Sinicizing Marxism, but also provided it with a clear orientation throughout its advancement. For a long time, however, the academic community’s focus and discussion on this theoretical issue have either centered on the subordinate concept of "combining" [the two] without grasping the orientation of Sinicization itself, or have been confined to the "history" and "results" of Sinicization while failing to provide a scientific positioning based on the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC). In fact, Mao Zedong consistently placed the thesis of the "Sinicization of Marxism" under the rubric of "Party leadership" and answered the major questions of "what kind of Marxist party to build and how to build it" from four dimensions. This constitutes Mao Zedong’s pioneering contribution to the Sinicization of Marxism and points the way for continuously opening new realms in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism on the new journey of the New Era.
I. As the Party’s Fine Study Style: The Soul-Forging Position of the Sinicization of Marxism
In the process of pioneering the Sinicization of Marxism, Mao Zedong treated it as the Party’s fine study style [1]. This not only prevented the Sinicization of Marxism from being divorced from the Party’s conduct building [2], but also established the dimension of conduct building within Sinicization, occupying a fundamental "soul-forging" position in the construction of a Chinese Marxist party.
The Party’s study style is a vital dimension of Party building, concerning the Party’s very nature and soul. "The Party’s study style" (党的学风) is a modifier-noun phrase where the headword is "study style," referring to the ethos, flavor, and style of learning; it addresses the question of how to learn. The modifier "the Party’s" defines the subject, object, and requirements of this learning. In 1942, in his speech Rectify the Party's Style of Work, Mao Zedong explicitly pointed out: "The study style is a matter of the style of learning not only in our schools but throughout the whole Party." Therefore, "the Party's study style" possesses not only the general characteristics of a study style but also the specific prescriptions of Party conduct (党风); it cannot be simplified or diluted into a general academic style. As the atmosphere of internal Party learning, the "Party’s study style" stands alongside internal "work style" (作风) and "writing style" (文风) as a concrete manifestation and essential component of "Party conduct," yet it remains distinct from it. Mao pointed out in that speech: "The style of study and the style of writing are also the Party's style of work; they are both Party conduct." In 1943, he further noted: "The study style is a question of the method of thinking; Party conduct is a question of practice." It can be said that in the history of the international communist movement and the CPC, Mao Zedong was the "first person" to focus on and research the Party's study style. In 1941, at an enlarged meeting of the CPC Central Committee Political Bureau, Mao pointed out: "At present, the study style in Yan'an is characterized by subjectivism." In the process of forming and implementing the Party's ideological line, the Party’s study style is a foundational and fundamental issue—"it is an extremely important problem, the very first important problem." The status of the Party’s study style is determined by its nature. Specifically: first, it is a question of the method of thinking for every organ, every cadre, and every member of the Party; second, it is a question of the attitude of Chinese Communists toward Marxism-Leninism; third, it is a question of the working attitude of Chinese Communists.
Since the day of its founding, the CPC has established Marxism-Leninism as its guiding ideology and stipulated that there must be a proper attitude and style for studying it within the Party. How one studies Marxism-Leninism determines the efficacy of one's knowledge, belief, and practice regarding it. One must treat Marxism-Leninism with a Marxist-Leninist attitude; otherwise, a subjectivist study style toward Marxism-Leninism will emerge. In Rectify the Party's Style of Work, Mao criticized subjectivism as "an improper study style" because it is "anti-Marxist-Leninist" and incompatible with the nature of the CPC. In 1941, Mao delivered the report Reform Our Study, contrasting the subjectivist attitude with the Marxist-Leninist attitude, though here Mao referred to it as "conduct" (作风) rather than "study style" (学风). During the Yan'an Rectification Movement [3], the reason Mao classified subjectivism as a problem of the "Party's study style" was that subjectivism had shifted its field of expression. In 1929, Mao drafted the resolution for the Ninth Party Congress of the Fourth Army of the Red Army [4], criticizing the subjectivism within the party of the Fourth Army; however, that was primarily subjectivism in situational analysis, work execution, and inner-Party criticism—making it primarily a problem of the "Party's work style" (事风). Of course, this subjectivist "work style" was equally improper and had to be overcome and replaced with Marxist-Leninist methods. In Mao’s view, subjectivism is mainly a question of attitude and method, existing specifically in the methods of thinking, leadership, and work of Party members and cadres. In On Contradiction, Mao provided a deep analysis of two subjectivist methods: dogmatism and empiricism. In 1943, in Some Questions Concerning Methods of Leadership, Mao highlighted his criticism of "subjectivist and bureaucratic methods of leadership," proposing that they "must be overcome by the scientific Marxist method of leadership."
Subjectivism in the study of Marxism-Leninism takes subjective consciousness as its root, orientation, and essence. This renders the study of Marxism-Leninism subjective and arbitrary rather than serving the objective need of the proletariat to transform the "two worlds" [5], thereby potentially harming Party building and the revolutionary cause. In 1941, Mao noted: "For a long time in the past, our Party was dominated by subjectivism." Subjectivists do not understand China's realities, conditions, history, culture, opportunities, or challenges; they proceed from the subjective, take the subjective as the standard, and act according to the subjective. Subjectivism does not truly admit Marxism-Leninism and is divorced from the concrete realities of the Chinese revolution; it is an idealism that leads to the separation of theory from practice. Regarding the study of Marxism-Leninism, they study "theory for theory's sake" without problems or goals in mind, causing the study of Marxism-Leninism to "miss the target" (无的放矢) [6]. Furthermore, they cannot guide correct action through the study of Marxism-Leninism; thus, it is a bad study style that violates Marxism-Leninism and lacks Party spirit. Regarding the study of the concrete realities of the Chinese revolution, while the classical Marxist-Leninist authors created theory based on their actual conditions, the subjectivists failed to study Chinese history and revolutionary reality based on the basic principles of Marxism. They "failed to elevate rich reality to the proper theoretical level," making them unable to provide a correct explanation of the practical problems in history and the revolution. It is evident that whether it is dogmatism (theory divorced from practice) or empiricism (practice divorced from theory), both are forms of subjectivism that must be overcome and replaced by Marxism-Leninism.
Advocating for a Marxist-Leninist study style is not merely about opposing a subjectivist style; essentially, it is about treating Marxism-Leninism with a Marxist-Leninist attitude. Regarding the question of how to treat Marxism, Engels explicitly stated that it should be taken as the "point of departure for further research and the method used for such research"; Lenin further pointed out that its application must vary by nation and country. Mao Zedong emphasized that discussing and solving problems "should proceed from reality, not from definitions." Therefore, as the Yan'an Rectification forged and united the whole Party with Marxism-Leninism, it first had to solve this fundamental problem of the whole Party's study style. A 1942 document titled Propaganda Outlines of the Central Propaganda Department noted that since the Zunyi Conference [7], the remnants of subjectivism "had not been cleared away, or still existed quite seriously." Mao's reports and speeches, such as Reform Our Study and Rectify the Party's Style of Work, not only directly established a scientific Marxist-Leninist attitude but also theoretically advanced the Marxist-Leninist study style by a large step. The question of what constitutes a scientific attitude toward Marxism-Leninism is not a question of what Marxism-Leninism is, but rather how Marxism-Leninism is possible. Unlike the classical Marxist-Leninist authors who looked at the former from a perspective of "universalization," Mao looked at the latter from the perspective of "Sinicization," transforming the discourses of the classical authors from the abstract to the concrete and from the universal to the particular. Mao’s "attitude of shooting the arrow at the target" (有的放矢的态度), proposed through the metaphor of the "arrow" and the "target," is in fact the study style of the Sinicization of Marxism regarding how to treat Marxism-Leninism. Although Mao did not use the term "Sinicization of Marxism" [in every instance], he profoundly expressed its essence through this study style.
In the study and research of Marxism-Leninism, adhering to the study style of the Sinicization of Marxism means that in the revolutionary cause of the Party leading the people in tireless struggle, one must combine Marxism-Leninism with China’s concrete realities, causing the two to "inter-transform" (互化) "thoroughly and completely, inside and out." The study style of the Sinicization of Marxism stands in opposition to the subjectivist style; it involves a systematic and comprehensive understanding of the history and current situation of the Chinese revolution, a deep and accurate grasp of the essence of Marxism-Leninism, and the unification of the two for the purpose of seizing victory in the Chinese revolution. In Reform Our Study, Mao called this the "Marxist-Leninist style of the unity of theory and practice." The key to the unity of theory and practice lies in their connection, the prerequisite of which is the actual mastery of both sides of that connection. This requires that those who have mastered book knowledge must not stop at books but move toward reality to avoid dogmatic errors; those with work experience must not neglect serious study but must elevate their experience to universal theory to avoid empirical errors. In Rectify the Party’s Style of Work, Mao further noted that both ready-made book knowledge and ready-made work experience are one-sided: "Only by combining the two will a good and relatively complete knowledge be produced." The connection between theory and practice is not a one-way connection from one side to the other, but a process of reciprocal objectification (对象化) where they depend on and promote each other. To solve the practical problems facing the Chinese revolution, one must use Marxism-Leninism to "transform" (化) China, identifying the inherent laws of the development of China’s concrete revolutionary reality to serve as a guide for action. To consolidate the Marxist-Leninist study style, one must use China to "Sinicize" (化) Marxism-Leninism, identifying the points of integration and resonance between the two to solidify the historical and cultural foundations of Marxism-Leninism in guiding the Chinese revolution. Therefore, establishing a study style of the Sinicization of Marxism is both a resistance to and overcoming of subjectivism, and an encore of the methodology of historical materialism.
As the Party’s fine study style, the "Sinicization of Marxism" not only established the fundamental direction of the Party's learning but also achieved an innovative development of the Marxist-Leninist study style, playing a major role in forging the soul and consolidating the foundation of the Party. Xi Jinping has repeatedly emphasized the need to correct and improve the study style and resolve study-related problems, requiring cadres at all levels to "carry forward the Marxist study style of integrating theory with practice" and establish a fine study style for the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. Precisely because the problem of the study style for Party members and cadres was solved at its root, our Party has been able to consciously combine the basic principles of Marxism with China’s concrete realities, thereby continuously opening new realms for the Sinicization of Marxism as a dimension of the revolutionary cause.
II. As the Party’s Revolutionary Cause: The Pioneering Position of the Sinicization of Marxism
In the process of promoting the Sinicization of Marxism, Mao Zedong treated it as the Party’s revolutionary cause. This prevented the Sinicization of Marxism from being separated from the Party's revolutionary cause and established the dimension of scientific guidance within Sinicization, playing a crucial pioneering role in continuously seizing victory for the Party's cause. Mao Zedong struggled throughout his life for the revolutionary cause of the Party and the people...
The term "revolutionary cause" permeates the entirety of Mao Zedong Thought literature. "Revolutionary cause" (革命事业) is a modifier-head phrase in which "cause" (事业) is the central term, referring to "regular activities engaged in by people that possess certain goals, scale, and systematicity, and which influence social development." "Revolutionary" is the qualifier, defining the direction, nature, content, and subject of the "cause." The Chinese Communist Party leads the people in carrying out revolution; the revolution itself is the great cause of the Party and the people. In 1925, Mao Zedong published "The Reasons for the Split in the Kuomintang Right Wing and Its Influence on the Future of the Revolution," criticizing most of those who had participated in the Revolution of 1911 [8] because they "abandoned the revolutionary cause out of fear of the current revolution." This was Mao Zedong's first use of the term "revolutionary cause," as he understood the National Revolution [9] of that time as a revolutionary cause—a formulation more concrete and clear than Chen Duxiu’s [10] use of "revolutionary cause" in his 1923 article "Revolution and Counter-Revolution." Thus, rather than saying the revolutionary cause shares the common characteristics of general undertakings, it is more accurate to say that the revolutionary cause is a revolution that advances and promotes all other undertakings. Marx, Engels, and especially Lenin not only used the term "revolutionary cause" frequently but devoted their entire lives to the revolutionary cause of human liberation. The Chinese Communists, with Mao Zedong as their chief representative, carried forward the Marxist-Leninist revolutionary cause based on the national conditions of modern China, fully demonstrating the dimension of the Sinicization of Marxism as the guiding ideology for the revolutionary cause.
From his youth, Mao Zedong possessed a consciousness of liberation aimed at saving the nation and the people. In his 1919 article "The Great Union of the Popular Masses," he formally used the term "liberation" (解放), noting that today "liberation is required in every aspect." After transforming into a Marxist, Mao threw himself heart and soul into the revolutionary cause of the Chinese people's quest for liberation, aiming to thoroughly overthrow the cruel rule of the "three great mountains" [11] over the Chinese people. Based on positive goal-seeking, the Second National Congress of the CPC held in 1922 established the maximum program of "gradually reaching a communist society" and the minimum program of "establishing a true democratic republic." The minimum program was a struggle for national survival to break free from the dominance of imperialism and feudalism, yet the establishment of a democratic republic was not a revolutionary cause with a pre-drawn blueprint; the maximum program was an ideal pursued tirelessly by humanity for millennia, yet it was not a social model pre-designed by Marx and Engels for future generations. The Party's maximum and minimum programs anchored the Chinese Communists' lofty ideals and realistic goals, situating the Party's revolutionary cause within a spatiotemporal domain that moves from the distant to the near and from the near to the distant. Consequently, the revolutionary cause of the Chinese Communists is located nowhere else but in the temporal flow between the realization of the Party's maximum and minimum programs; only by closely combining the two can it be scientifically established, avoiding the two extremes of "excess" and "shortfall." "Excess" manifests as "Leftism," while "shortfall" manifests as Rightism. The Party's revolutionary cause is neither the "shortfall" of the Right nor the "excess" of the "Left," but rather the "consistent holding of the center" [12]—being neither "Left" nor Right—within the revolutionary process.
In establishing the revolutionary cause of the people's liberation under the Party's leadership, Mao Zedong fully leveraged the scientific guiding role of Marxism-Leninism, whereby the Sinicization of Marxism became the pointer for action for the revolutionary cause. The revolutionary cause involves the relationship between theory and practice, with theory occupying the leading position. In "Rectify the Party's Style of Work," Mao Zedong explained the reason for studying Marxism-Leninism: "it is the science that leads the revolutionary cause of the proletariat to victory." The victory of the Russian October Revolution fully proved Lenin's dictum: "Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement." Marxism-Leninism was the revolutionary theory sent to the Chinese people, providing them henceforth with an ideological weapon to guide the revolution. Mao Zedong vividly stated that this weapon was not a "machine gun," but a "worldview" (宇宙观) for the Chinese proletariat to observe the fate of the nation. Mao Zedong quoted this famous line from Lenin five times, yet he placed even greater emphasis on the foundational status of practice over theory, stressing that without a revolutionary movement, there would be no revolutionary theory. In 1934, Mao Zedong pointed out that to solve the task of "crossing the river," one must first "solve the problem of the bridge or the boat." Marxism-Leninism proposed the need to create the "bridge or boat" for "crossing the river," but to construct that "bridge or boat" to complete the task of "crossing the river," one must Sinicize Marxism-Leninism from the perspective of the ideological line [13]. Mao Zedong’s proposal of the scientific proposition of the Sinicization of Marxism was itself an ideological revolution in how Chinese Communists treated Marxism-Leninism. Through the revolutionary cause of the Sinicization of Marxism, the Chinese proletarian revolutionary cause continuously achieved victories, finding the only possible path of "reaching socialism and communism through a people's republic," and opening the Marxist revolutionary prospect of human freedom and liberation. Thus, without mastering the ideological method of the Sinicization of Marxism, the success of the Chinese proletarian revolutionary cause would have been impossible.
The leadership of the Sinicization of Marxism over the Chinese proletarian revolutionary cause indicates that it is an essential component of said cause and occupies a pioneering position within it. The Chinese proletarian revolutionary cause is systematic, complete, and comprehensive, and ideological and theoretical construction is its paramount content. In 1905, in "Party Organization and Party Literature," Lenin likened the entire proletarian cause to a giant revolutionary machine, and proletarian writing to its "gears and screws," arguing that the writing cause must be viewed as part of the overall proletarian cause and cannot be mechanically equated with other parts of the Party's work. The proletarian writing cause is, in essence, the cause of Marxist-Leninist research. Mao Zedong not only affirmed Lenin's theoretical views on the writing cause but used them to grasp the political nature of revolutionary literature and art. In 1942, while delivering his speeches at the Yan'an Forum on Literature and Art, Mao Zedong viewed revolutionary literature and art as the "gears and screws" of the entire revolutionary cause of the Chinese proletariat, considering them indispensable to the whole revolutionary machine. Mao Zedong opposed erroneous views that overemphasized literature and art, arguing that their revolutionary and political direction must be led, because "in aesthetics we are Marxists, not art-for-art's-sake-ists." Mao's positioning of artists established the ideological guiding role of Marxism over literature and art, thereby opening up the Sinicization of Marxist literary and artistic theory. In short, while Lenin elevated Marxism to "the primary position in the entire life of the Party" but placed it alongside other revolutionary undertakings, Mao Zedong saw the Sinicization of Marxism as the pointer for action for the entire revolutionary cause of the Chinese proletariat. In his opening address to the Eighth National Congress of the CPC, Mao pointed out: "To integrate the theory of Marxism-Leninism closely with the practice of the Chinese revolution has been the consistent ideological principle of our Party." While Lenin provided an objective exposition of the theoretical sources, content, and characteristics of Marxism, Mao Zedong placed greater emphasis on the source of power found in its integration with the concrete realities of the Chinese revolution.
The significant status of the Sinicization of Marxism relative to the Chinese proletarian revolutionary cause indicates that the Sinicization of Marxism both serves the cause and is itself an important revolutionary cause. For the Sinicization of Marxism to play a pioneering role, it must grasp the times, lead the times, come from the people, and be for the people, becoming a powerful force guiding the people in transforming the "two worlds" [14]. Advancing the revolutionary cause of the Sinicization of Marxism requires both mastery of Marxist theory and familiarity with the concrete realities of the Chinese revolution. Mao Zedong emphasized: "To do the revolutionary cause well, it will not do without relatively complete knowledge." Complete knowledge usually includes both theoretical and experiential knowledge, but these two types sometimes become separated and fail to merge. Education is the primary channel for learning and mastering knowledge, which relies on the backbone role played by intellectuals. For example, the dissemination of Marxism in China was first completed among intellectuals. Mao Zedong criticized some cadres for not understanding the importance of mastering knowledge and not knowing that "without the participation of revolutionary intellectuals," the Chinese revolutionary cause could not succeed. Of course, if intellectuals do not form close ties with workers and peasants, they cannot form an invincible force. In particular, intellectuals who dogmatized Marxism were unable to use the Marxist-Leninist standpoint, viewpoint, and method to analyze and solve Chinese problems; this not only resulted in a theoretical level inadequate for guiding the Chinese revolutionary cause but also created "those dogmatic ideas detrimental to our revolutionary cause." Therefore, unlike Lenin’s advocacy of attracting old intellectuals to build the socialist cause, Mao Zedong emphasized that intellectuals must undergo self-transformation within the proletarian revolutionary cause, thereby strengthening the subjective forces of the Sinicized Marxist revolutionary cause and rooting the proletarian revolutionary cause in the juncture where Marxism-Leninism meets the concrete realities of the Chinese revolution.
The Chinese proletarian revolutionary cause promotes the Sinicization of Marxism, while the Sinicization of Marxism in turn constitutes the Chinese proletarian revolutionary cause and is a long-term undertaking. In 1939, when discussing the issue of the Sinicization of Marxism, Mao Zedong pointed out that "it cannot be fully Sinicized all at once." In his speech at the ceremony marking the 100th anniversary of the founding of the CPC, Xi Jinping noted the need to "continually advance the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism and guide the Chinese people in continually advancing the great social revolution." This also demonstrates that the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism is not merely a tool for achieving the Chinese proletarian revolutionary cause, but is itself an important revolutionary cause that, as an innovative theory, continuously opens up new revolutionary vistas.
III. As the Party's Innovative Theory: The Provenance and Orientation of the Sinicization of Marxism
In pioneering the process of the Sinicization of Marxism, Mao Zedong treated it as the Party's innovative theory. This not only prevented a rupture between Sinicized Marxism and Marxism itself but also established the dimension of the provenance of Sinicized Marxist theory, placing the persistence and development of Marxism in a prominent position.
The ideological dimension of the Sinicization of Marxism as an "innovative theory" (创新理论) does not refer to the specific innovative theoretical results of Sinicization. "Innovative theory" is a modifier-head phrase, not a verb-object structure; within it, "theory" is the central term, indicating the form in which Sinicized Marxism is presented, while "innovative" is the qualifier, indicating the theoretical character of Sinicized Marxism. In 1938, when Mao Zedong proposed the scientific proposition of the Sinicization of Marxism, he emphasized its dimension as an innovative theory, proposing the theoretical mission of replacing dogmatism with "Chinese style and Chinese flavor." This was because dogmatism lacked vitality, was disliked by the people, failed to provide scientific guidance to the Chinese revolutionary cause, "and was extremely liable to stifle the revolutionary spirit"; consequently, it became one of the three major targets of the Yan'an Rectification Movement [15]. Mao Zedong also critiqued this in his 1942 speech "Oppose Stereotyped Party Writing." The proposal of the scientific proposition of the Sinicization of Marxism confirmed the historical fact of Sinicization as a dimension of innovative theory. In 1940, Yang Song, editor-in-chief of the Libertion Daily, pointed out that the achievements of the Sinicization of Marxism since the May Fourth Movement [16] were significant: "Marxism-Leninism has been Sinicized and is being Sinicized." In 1943, Wang Jiaxiang published the article "The Chinese Communist Party and the Path of Chinese National Liberation" in the Liberation Daily, using the term "Mao Zedong Thought" for the first time to summarize the Party's innovative theory, calling it "creative Marxism-Leninism." The Seventh National Congress of the CPC formally established the guiding status of Mao Zedong Thought for the whole Party, making the dimension of the Sinicization of Marxism as an innovative theory a matter of consensus.
The dimension of the Sinicization of Marxism as an innovative theory highlights the theoretical self-consciousness of the CPC in leading the revolutionary cause. Since the day of its founding, the CPC has been firm in its Marxist faith, consciously shoulder the heavy responsibility of theoretical innovation in the Sinicization of Marxism, and achieving a theoretical leap from Marxism-Leninism to Sinicized Marxism. That the CPC is the subject of the Sinicization of Marxism is beyond doubt, whether in terms of Party history or academic theory. The convening of the First National Congress of the CPC was an epoch-making event that established the subject and object of the Sinicization of Marxism. In his report "Reform Our Study," Mao Zedong summarized the twenty-year history of the CPC’s struggle through the connotation of "integration" (结合) [17] inherent in the Sinicization of Marxism. In 1945, in his report on the revision of the Party Constitution at the Seventh National Congress, Liu Shaoqi pointed out that as Chinese Marxism, the growth, development, and maturation of Mao Zedong Thought "already has a history of twenty-four years."
Sinicization of Marxism, as the Party's innovative theory, functions as both a continued development of Marxism-Leninism and a system with characteristics distinct from original Marxism. Marx dedicated his life to studying capitalism; by discovering the historical materialist conception of history, he revealed the laws of human social development, and by discovering surplus value, he revealed the laws of motion of capitalist society, which is why he was "above all else a revolutionist." Marx’s doctrine possesses universal theoretical significance, providing a worldview and methodology for the workers' movements in all countries; the key lies in "finding the realistic basis for one's own agitation within the actual elements of the class movement." Mao Zedong proposed and relentlessly promoted the Sinicization of Marxism, established the theoretical achievements of Chinese Marxism, and led the Chinese people to revolutionary victory and the founding of the New Era. Liu Shaoqi praised him as the "greatest revolutionist and statesman" and the "greatest theorist and scientist" in Chinese history. Mao Zedong Thought is the guide to action for leading the Chinese people in revolution and construction, and is the product of the combination of Marxism with China’s concrete realities. "Marxism is something universal"—it is a universal theory suited to human society; the Sinicization of Marxism is based on China's specific circumstances—it is a particular theory suited to Chinese society. Both possess a certain "abstractness"; the distinction between them is not one of theoretical "insubstantiality" versus practical "substantiality," nor "theoretical thinking" versus "engineering thinking," nor "single perspective" versus "non-single perspective." On the contrary, the successful practice of the Sinicization of Marxism proves that the universalization of Marxism cannot spontaneously grow the fruits of nationalization, whereas the nationalization of Marxism can open up a future for universalization.
Regarding the Sinicization of Marxism as the Party’s innovative theory, Mao Zedong maintained a very clear understanding of its relationship with Marxism-Leninism even as he continuously promoted its formation, development, and maturation. For the Communist Party of China to lead the cause of the Chinese revolution to continuous victory, it must adhere to Marxism-Leninism as its guiding ideology. Since the Sinicization of Marxism is the product of the combination of the universal truths of Marxism-Leninism with the realities of the Chinese revolution, then the relationship between Marxism-Leninism and Sinicized Marxism is one of "source" and "stream" [18]. In 1945, when Liu Shaoqi delivered the report on the revision of the Party Constitution, he pointed out that Mao Zedong Thought was created by Comrade Mao Zedong "as a student of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin." Mao Zedong believed that Marxism-Leninism is the theoretical basis guiding our thinking, and that our innovative theories cannot simply be mentioned in the same breath as Marxism-Leninism. In 1948, regarding Wu Yuzhang’s proposal to "change Mao Zedong Thought to Maoism," Mao Zedong replied by telegram stating "we cannot say 'Maoism'" and must resolutely oppose such a formulation; he later emphasized that one should not "rank my name alongside Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin," considering it erroneous and useless. At the Second Plenary Session of the Seventh CPC Central Committee, Mao Zedong profoundly explained why Chinese Communists cannot be ranked alongside Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin: first, our theoretical level is not high and cannot be compared with theirs; second, we did not "invite Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin to be accompanying guests" but rather "to be teachers, while we are students"; third, if our Chinese revolutionary thought were turned into an "-ism," there would be several different Marxism-Leninisms in the world. In 1952, Mao Zedong again proposed: "Do not mention the term 'Mao Zedong Thought' alongside Marxism-Leninism." Mao Zedong’s clear understanding of the theoretical nature and positioning of Mao Zedong Thought was always situated at the height of the nationalization and universalization of Marxism, reflecting his strategic thinking on the Sinicization of Marxism as the Party’s innovative theory.
The reason the Sinicization of Marxism belongs to Marxism-Leninism is that it consistently adheres to Marxism-Leninism while continuously creating new theories of Chinese Marxism. Regarding the relationship between Chinese Marxism and original Marxism, Mao Zedong emphasized that "it is better for us to remain a branch store of Marxism-Leninism" [19]. While affirming its own theoretical origins, it did not lose its own theoretical status, and it regarded its own revolutionary cause as an important component of the international communist movement. Chinese Marxism was produced within the cause of the Chinese revolution; it "has guided and is guiding the Chinese people to achieve thorough liberation," solving Chinese revolutionary problems that Marxism-Leninism could not or failed to solve. In 1945, Liu Shaoqi pointed out in his report on the revision of the Party Constitution that Mao Zedong Thought is an "independent and brilliant supplement to Marxism-Leninism." The word "supplement" highlights the theoretical creativity of Mao Zedong Thought; Liu Shaoqi summarized it into nine major aspects to specifically elucidate its theoretical contributions. The "supplement theory" implies that Mao Zedong Thought takes Marxism-Leninism as its subject, foundation, and yardstick, aiming to demonstrate that it is "one of the greatest achievements" in the world Marxist movement; however, it did not yet fully emphasize its status as the guiding ideology for the cause of the Chinese revolution, nor did it easily demonstrate its independent theoretical status relative to Marxism-Leninism. The "supplement theory" took the "branch store theory" as its premise and foundation; therefore, Liu Shaoqi emphasized that Mao Zedong Thought is "Chinese Marxism," thereby distinguishing it from the Marxisms of other countries. The "branch store theory" is both an affirmation of and adherence to the Sinicization of Marxism as an innovative theory, a commitment to the responsibility of continuously creating new theory, and an affirmation and support for the nationalization of Marxism, because "the forms of expression of the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism in practice should differ in each country." As an innovative theory, the Sinicization of Marxism is not only a specific issue concerning the creation of Chinese Marxism but also a universal issue concerning the nationalization of Marxism on the journey toward communism.
As the Party’s innovative theory, the Sinicization of Marxism has both enriched and developed the treasure house of Marxist-Leninist thought and promoted the nationalization and universalization of Marxism. The Report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC pointed out: "To keep writing new chapters in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism is the solemn historical responsibility of today's Chinese Communists." Opening new horizons for the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism on a new journey requires our Party to use extraordinary practical wisdom to continuously create new ideas, new concepts, and new assessments, continuously promote the systematic and academic development of the Party's innovative theories, and lead Marxism to display new vitality in the 21st century.
IV. As the Party's Practical Wisdom: The Core Dimension of the Sinicization of Marxism
In the process of pioneering the Sinicization of Marxism, Mao Zedong consistently treated it as practical wisdom, preventing it from becoming detached from its subject, and establishing the virtue-dimension [20] of the Sinicization of Marxism, which plays a core role in continuously improving the Party's level of leadership.
The understanding of the Sinicization of Marxism as practical wisdom is an objective definition of the subject of Sinicization. "Practical wisdom" is a modifier-noun phrase where "wisdom" is the central word, referring to the "ability to analyze, judge, invent, and create"; "practical" is the qualifier, limiting the field and scope of "wisdom" to distinguish it from "theoretical wisdom." Mao Zedong did not use the specific term "practical wisdom" in his writings, but he frequently used the concepts of "practice" and "wisdom." Mao Zedong pointed out that Marx was "a complete intellectual representing the highest wisdom of humanity." The Chinese nation is a hardworking, courageous, and wise nation, whose wisdom is primarily reflected in the practical realm of "self-cultivation, family regulation, state governance, and bringing peace to the world" [21]. Mao Zedong used the old Chinese saying "a knit of the brow brings a scheme to mind" [22] to vividly explain what "wisdom" is; he used Mencius’s "the office of the heart is to think" [23] to encourage the people to "start the machinery" (think) to seize revolutionary victory. Mao Zedong drew upon the practical wisdom of the Chinese nation and the practical wisdom of Marxism, adhered to the combination of individual and collective wisdom, and successfully pioneered and advanced the historical process of the Sinicization of Marxism. This is a precious asset for continuously opening new horizons in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism.
Understanding the Sinicization of Marxism as practical wisdom reflects a scientific attitude toward it. The prerequisite for proposing and advancing Sinicization is a correct understanding of it. The history before and after the proposal of the scientific proposition of the Sinicization of Marxism proves that when it is regarded as a creative practical activity of Chinese Communists, they can successfully advance and realize it through their practical wisdom; conversely, when it is regarded as a mechanical production, it encounters setbacks and failures. This law of development involves the fundamental academic distinction between "practice" (praxis) and "production" (poiesis). "Practice" is an ancient and long-standing philosophical concept; ancient Chinese philosophy called it xing (行), meaning to act according to the time and circumstances within the horizon of life, requiring the practical wisdom of one who is "timely like a sage" [24]. "Practice" was also a core category in ancient Greek philosophy. Aristotle pointed out in the Nicomachean Ethics that "action (praxis) is not production (poiesis), and production is not action." Productive activity takes skill as its excellence, originating in sensory desire; practical activity takes prudence as its virtue, originating in practical wisdom. Marx inherited and developed the concept of "practice" from Western classical philosophy, understanding it as the communist movement of the "reality which abolishes the present state of things." Mao Zedong’s famous 1945 work On Practice achieved a philosophical fusion and innovation of Marxist, Chinese, and Western traditions in the field of orthopraxy, providing a new perspective for advancing the Sinicization of Marxism. In its practical form, the Sinicization of Marxism belongs to productive activity—it is a creative activity of the spiritual production of Chinese Communists. There are no ready-made standards or answers to follow; rather, it is a process of continuously opening a path toward the ideal shore. Regarding the sensory objective activity of Sinicization, Mao Zedong repeatedly emphasized the combination of the universal truths of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete realities of the Chinese revolution. This contains the internal logic of realizing the ideal of scientific socialism based on Chinese reality and highlights the practical wisdom of the subject of the Sinicization of Marxism.
The Sinicization of Marxism as practical wisdom is specifically embodied in the subject of Sinicization. Regarding the relationship between Sinicization and the cause of the Chinese proletarian revolution, the latter relies on the Party leader using practical wisdom to establish fundamental goals and purposes, while the former relies on the Party leader using practical wisdom to select the correct means to achieve them. Mao Zedong pointed out at the Second Plenary Session of the Seventh CPC Central Committee that "there were once some people in the Party who wanted to remold the Party according to their own tastes"; "if they had achieved their goal, things would have gone badly." This "badly" stems from the lack of legitimacy in their goals, intending to use the Party's organizational power to realize narrow personal interests, which would close off the path between Marxism-Leninism and the cause of the Chinese revolution. Fundamentally, this was because they lacked the political character and practical wisdom to advance the Sinicization of Marxism. Party leaders should be elected to the most important positions because they are the "most authoritative, influential, and experienced"—an important viewpoint from Lenin's 'Left-Wing' Communism: An Infantile Disorder, a book Mao Zedong read repeatedly. As the leader of the Party, Mao Zedong not only possessed the practical wisdom to solve Chinese problems through the Sinicization of Marxism but also spent his entire life practicing the fundamental purpose of wholeheartedly serving the people.
Whether the two ends of the Sinicization of Marxism can reach one another directly reflects the practical wisdom of the subject of Sinicization. The essence of the Sinicization of Marxism belongs to sensory objective activity, inherently including two aspects that serve as objects for each other: Marxism-Leninism and the concrete reality of the Chinese revolution. The connection between these two ends does not lie in what they respectively are or include, but in how they accept one another, or how...
Integrating by "using the Mean" (yongzhong [25]). Wang Fuzhi [26] glossed the character "Mean" (zhong) by stating: "The character follows the 'mouth' (kou), with a vertical stroke penetrating through the top and bottom; it represents harmony without the dominance of one side, reaching a state of appropriateness." Within the Sinicization of Marxism, Marxism-Leninism belongs to the realm of ideological theory—the universal, "metaphysical" (xing'ershang) [27] part; the concrete realities of the Chinese revolution belong to the realm of real life—the particular, "physical" (xing'erxia) part. In his 1937 essay "On Contradiction," Mao Zedong proceeded from the unity of opposites between the universality and particularity of contradiction to create a dialectical system that organically combined Marxist philosophy with the essence of traditional Chinese philosophy. Dogmatism regards the two ends of this "combination" as independent "entities" but fails to grasp them through practical wisdom (shijian zhihui). This inevitably leads to a problem where both ends of the "combination" remain closed off, unable to achieve a breakthrough that connects the upper and lower levels. Mao Zedong emphasized that dogmatism must be discarded and that one "must not stop at the words and sentences in existing books." This is because "words and sentences" are not the living soul of Marxism-Leninism; on the contrary, they enclose and stifle that living soul, preventing it from becoming a "specter of communism" that reaches the whole Party and the people of the whole country. Lenin summarized the living soul of Marxism as "the concrete analysis of concrete conditions." After Mao Zedong first cited this assertion by Lenin in his 1936 article "Problems of Strategy in China's Revolutionary War," he repeatedly educated the whole Party and criticized dogmatism precisely to realize the "interpenetration of the upper and lower" regarding the concrete realities of the Chinese revolution through the spirit of Marxism-Leninism.
The fact that the Sinicization of Marxism reached the entire Party during the cause of the Chinese revolution depended on the practical wisdom of the whole Party, with the Party leader at its core. The key to modern China's ability to overthrow the "three big mountains" [28] lay in the fact that the masses, under the leadership of the Communist Party of China, formed an invincible force. This first required the Party leader to use collective wisdom to achieve sincere unity across the whole Party. Shortly after the outbreak of the full-scale War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression, Mao Zedong pointed out: "Unity within the Party is the prerequisite for defeating the Japanese aggressors." Unity within the Party is unity based on Marxism-Leninism; it must be unified under the banner of the Sinicization of Marxism. Therefore, while the critique of the ideological errors of dogmatism required ending its dominant position through the Sinicization of Marxism, it also necessitated the removal of its organizational dominance in the form of sectarianism, thereby building our Party into a mass-based, nationwide, great proletarian party. Lenin pointed out: "The laboring masses support us. Our strength lies here." As the primary founder of the Communist Party of China, Mao Zedong developed Lenin's theory of party building with superb practical wisdom and achieved an unprecedented grand unity of the whole Party and the people of the whole country. In 1949, Zhou Enlai pointed out in his article "Learn from Mao Zedong" [29] that Mao's fundamental focus "was not to shrink himself into the smallest possible circle to talk idly about revolution," but rather to unite the broadest masses of the people around the proletariat, thereby achieving the revolutionary victory of transforming China with Marxism.
The reason why the "Second Combination" [30] is "not a simple 'physical reaction' but a profound 'chemical reaction'" is that, like the "First Combination," it places subjective requirements of practical wisdom upon the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. In the process of promoting the Sinicization of Marxism, Mao Zedong both grasped practical wisdom on the basis of understanding its historical significance and opened a new historical journey by enhancing his own practical wisdom, fully demonstrating the historic contribution of Mao Zedong Thought to the Sinicization of Marxism.
In short, by focusing on the leadership of the Communist Party of China and the practice of revolution and construction, Mao Zedong formed a "four-dimensional" positioning of the Sinicization of Marxism, allowing Marxism to demonstrate powerful vitality throughout the CPC’s journey of struggle. This "four-dimensional positioning" not only provides theoretical guidance for our comprehensive grasp of the Sinicization of Marxism but also directs the focus for continuously opening new realms in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism on the new journey in the New Era. The 20th National Congress of the CPC emphasized continuing to promote theoretical innovation on the basis of "practice," pushing Mao Zedong’s "four-dimensional" positioning of the Sinicization of Marxism onto a new journey. This highlights the extreme importance of grasping the scientific positioning of the Sinicization of Marxism for the construction of a Marxist party.