Chen Peiyong and Li Ying: Rethinking the Relationship Between the Sinicization, Modernization, and Popularization of Marxism
[Abstract] The Sinicization and modernization of Marxism represent the unity of "transforming Marxism" with "transforming China" and the unity of "transforming Marxism" with "transforming the era," respectively. Their fundamental commonality lies in the fact that both entail the content of "transforming Marxism" and both emphasize a scientific methodology that unifies the persistence in and the development of Marxism. The expression "the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism" reflects that Sinicized Marxism upholds a global outlook and international perspective, leading the development of human society; it is a Marxism possessed of ERA-defining and world significance. The popularization of Marxism can be understood as the unity of "transforming Marxism" with "transforming the masses," primarily emphasizing the visualization and popularization of abstract theory. If this series of achievements in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism fails to achieve popularization, it will be difficult for their power to be exerted and for them to be transformed into practice.
[Keywords] Marxism; Sinicization; modernization; popularization
What are the respective profound connotations of the Sinicization, modernization, and popularization of Marxism, and how should we view the relationship between the three? These are fundamental questions that the academic community has long observed and explored. The report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC prominently used expressions such as "achieving a new leap in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism," "opening up new frontiers in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism," and "continually writing new chapters in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism." These provide us with new important evidence and basic compliance for reflecting on this fundamental issue. It is necessary for us to rethink and re-explore from a theoretical perspective the similarities and differences between the categories of the Sinicization of Marxism and the modernization of Marxism, why the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism must be emphatically highlighted in the New Era, and how to grasp its relationship with the popularization of Marxism.
I. From the "Sinicization of Marxism" to the "Sinicization and Modernization of Marxism"
From the day Marxism was introduced to China, it actually began the process of Sinicization and modernization. However, its proposal as a major proposition underwent a long period—one might even say a process of tortuous development. As a doctrine founded in 19th-century Europe, Marxism was introduced to China at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries and spread widely after the October Revolution. Early Chinese Marxists deeply realized that for Marxism to play a role in China, it must be combined with China's reality [1]. This actually signified the beginning and exploration of the path toward the Sinicization of Marxism, though it had not yet been explicitly proposed in the form of a major proposition. It is generally agreed that Mao Zedong first proposed this proposition at any the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth CPC Central Committee, noting that "the Sinicization of Marxism—that is to say, making sure that it is applied according to China's characteristics in every one of its manifestations—is a problem which the entire Party must understand and solve." [1] Since then, "the Sinicization of Marxism" began to be applied throughout the Party.
In the early period of the founding of the People's Republic of China, there was a hiatus in the use of the expression "the Sinicization of Marxism." One very important reason was that in 1948, the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, in conjunction with the Information Bureau of the Communist and Workers' Parties (Cominform), passed the "Resolution on the Situation in the Communist Party of Yugoslavia," criticizing the Yugoslav Party for committing errors of bourgeois nationalism, anti-Sovietism, and pro-capitalist tendencies. Considering the situation facing the new China—which needed to strive for Soviet support and assistance—the formulation "Sinicization of Marxism" could easily be misunderstood as a so-called nationalist tendency. In 1952, while reviewing the second volume of the Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Mao changed "the Sinicization of Marxism" in the article "The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War" to "making Marxism concrete in China." [2] Although this was merely a change in terminology, for roughly the next 30 years, few works, documents, or periodicals used the original formulation.
According to some recollections, at the Ninth Plenary Session of the Eighth CPC Central Committee in 1961, Mao Zedong proposed the expression "the Sinicization of Marxism-Leninism." He emphasized that the Sinicization of Marxism-Leninism is "nothing other than combining the universal truths of Marxism-Leninism with the reality of the Chinese revolution; this is a relationship between the trunk and the branches and leaves... every kind of tree is different; the willow and the pine are not the same." [3] The Chronological Biography of Mao Zedong (Mao Zedong nianpu) also contains the following record: "The Sinicization of Marxism is the unity of the universal truths of Marxism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution. There are some differences in the branches and leaves in different countries—there must be such differences—but the root is the same." [4] Therefore, "the Sinicization of Marxism" essentially refers to "combining the universal truths of Marxism with the concrete practice of China"; at the very least, the meanings expressed by these two formulations are consistent.
Deng Xiaoping rarely mentioned "the Sinicization of Marxism" directly, but his reports and speeches were always permeated with the fundamental principle of combining the universal truths of Marxism with the concrete reality of China. In 1982, at the 12th National Congress of the Party, he proposed the proposition: "Integrate the universal truth of Marxism with the concrete realities of China, blaze a path of our own and build socialism with Chinese characteristics." [5] Later, he further pointed out: "Only a Marxism that is integrated with Chinese reality is the true Marxism that we need." [6]
Entering the 21st century, the "Sinicization of Marxism" appeared more and more frequently in the speeches of Party and state leaders and the articles of theoretical workers, gradually becoming a primary task in advancing theoretical innovation. In 2001, the Sixth Plenary Session of the 15th CPC Central Committee explicitly proposed: "Continually advance the Sinicization of Marxism, and enrich and develop Marxism." [7] In 2003, Hu Jintao pointed out at a symposium commemorating the 110th anniversary of Mao Zedong's birth: "The Chinese Communists, with Comrade Mao Zedong as their chief representative, strived to advance the Sinicization of Marxism and formed a scientific guiding ideology with distinct Chinese characteristics." [8] In 2006, in a speech at a meeting to study the Selected Works of Jiang Zemin, he noted: "Continually advance the Sinicization of Marxism in the great practice of building socialism with Chinese characteristics." [9] In 2007, the 17th National Congress of the Party explicitly required: "Combine the persistence in the basic principles of Marxism with the advancement of the Sinicization of Marxism." [10]
The proposal and establishment of the theoretical proposition of "the modernization of Marxism" [2] can be said to be closely related to the continuous advancement of the Sinicization of Marxism. History shows that from the day the Sinicization of Marxism began, modernization was inherent within it, running through the entire developmental process. In 1992, the 14th National Congress of the Party pointed out that the theory of building socialism with Chinese characteristics "is the product of the combination of the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism with contemporary Chinese reality and the features of the era." [11] In 1997, the 15th National Congress emphasized: "Deng Xiaoping Theory is the product of the combination of the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism with contemporary Chinese practice and the features of the era." [12] In 2008, Hu Jintao spoke at a meeting commemorating the 30th anniversary of the Third Plenary Session of the 11th CPC Central Committee: "Only when Marxism is closely integrated with a country's national conditions and the features of the era, and continuously enriched and developed in practice, can it better play its role in guiding practice." [13] These various expressions of combining with practice and combining with the features of the era have already interpreted the concrete content of the modernization of Marxism.
The first time the proposition of the "modernization of Marxism" was raised in a Party document was at the Fourth Plenary Session of the 17th CPC Central Committee in 2009. The meeting used the discourse "continually advance the Sinicization, modernization, and popularization of Marxism," [14] which was also the earliest instance of explaining the three in a parallel manner. Since then, this expression has been widely used. The 18th National Congress emphasized "advancing the Sinicization, modernization, and popularization of Marxism"; [15] the 19th National Congress pointed out "we must advance the Sinicization, modernization, and popularization of Marxism"; [16] and the 20th National Congress formally proposed "continually writing new chapters in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism." [17]
From the formal proposal of the "Sinicization of Marxism" to the emphasized focus on the "Sinicization and modernization of Marxism," this evolutionary process demonstrates how Marxism has taken root, grown, and borne fruit in China. It can be seen that the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism are proposed based on Chinese reality and the development of the era; they reflect the deepening understanding of the Communist Party of China regarding the persistence in and development of Marxism, and the deepening understanding of how to use Marxism to guide practice and lead the era.
II. The Deep Significance of Emphasizing "the Sinicization and Modernization of Marxism" in the New Era
Reviewing the process by which these major propositions were raised helps us understand the profound respective connotations of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism and clarifies the internal connection between these two categories.
The Sinicization of Marxism can be understood as the combination of the basic principles of Marxism with China's concrete reality and with China's fine traditional culture [3], using changing practical experience to develop and innovate theory, and using Sinicized Marxism to respond to Chinese reality and solve development problems. Ultimately, it is not only a process of enriching and developing Marxist theory in China, but also a process of solving Chinese problems and promoting Chinese social progress. It can be described as the unity of "transforming Marxism" and "transforming China." Given that Marxism is a world-wide doctrine, an external culture, and an abstract theory, the Sinicization of Marxism embodies the localization (indigenization) of a world-wide doctrine, the fusion of external and national cultures, the transformation from abstraction to concreteness, and the unity of theory and practice.
The modernization of Marxism can be understood as the combination of the basic principles of Marxism with China's concrete practice and the features of the era, perfecting and creating theory through new practical exploration and era-defining characteristics, and using a developing Marxism to respond to the needs of the era and lead its development. In its essence, it is both a process of achieving theoretical innovation and creation amidst the cycles of generational change and a process of using developed theory to resolve the "questions of the world" [4] and lead the direction of the era. It can be described as the unity of "transforming Marxism" and "transforming the era." The modernization of Marxism can refer to modernization within a specific country, or to modernization with an eye toward human society as a whole. The "era" (or "times") here does not usually refer to a specific point in time, but rather stands in opposition to stagnation and fixation.
In summary, the former is the unity of "transforming Marxism" and "transforming China," while the latter is the unity of "transforming Marxism" and "transforming the era." There are both commonalities and differences between the two. Their fundamental commonality lies in the fact that both entail "transforming Marxism," both maintain a critical attitude toward a dogmatic or rigid treatment of Marxism, and both emphasize a scientific methodology that unites the persistence in and the development of Marxism. From the day of its birth, Marxism was intended to understand and change the world, to respond to and lead the era. Once it is decoupled from concrete reality and the history and culture of various countries—ignoring the world situation and the changes in the development of the era—it cannot play its role in changing the world or leading the era. If one always clings to the "words and phrases" [5] of classical authors, disregarding vivid concrete reality and ignoring the rapidly changing developments of the world, it might appear to be a firm belief in theoretical conclusions and a steadfast adherence to Marxism, but in reality, it is a blatant distortion of Marxism that will lead one further and further away from it. Advancing the innovation and creation of Marxist theory is, in the final analysis, a process of continuous exploration of the combination with the national conditions of various countries and the development of the era. Whether it is the Sinicization of Marxism or the modernization of Marxism, both pursue the combination of persisting in Marxism and developing Marxism, viewing the development of Marxism as an endless process.
Furthermore, it should be seen that the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism are inseparable. This is fundamentally reflected in the "concrete reality of China" emphasized in the Sinicization of Marxism, which includes China's basic national conditions, China's fine traditional culture, and China's level of economic and social development. It also includes Chinese practice and the features of the era. In reality, it is impossible and improper to decouple China from the world in which it exists and the era in which it is situated. Specifically, China's concrete reality is a reality in flux and a reality within the world. The Sinicization of Marxism is simultaneously the process of the modernization of Marxism. If one views China's concrete reality as a stagnant, eternal object, or understands it as something decoupled from the global situation (世情, shìqíng) and the era, then this is itself dogmatic and contrary to the spiritual essence of the Sinicization of Marxism.
Building on this foundation, we must continue to inquire: since the Sinicization of Marxism already implies "making it contemporaneous," why is it necessary to append "contemporization" after "Sinicization"? Upon careful reflection, one finds that this is analogous to how we maintain that China’s specific realities already encompass fine traditional Chinese culture, yet find it necessary to propose the "Two Combinations" [6] on the foundation of the "One Combination." This is done to highlight the contemporary importance of combining the basic tenets of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture; similarly, the addition emphasizes the vital importance of the proposition of the contemporization of Marxism.
It must be pointed out that the Sinicization of Marxism cannot and should not completely cover the meaning of the contemporization of Marxism. There are still differences between the two, and they may even exhibit aspects of opposition or conflict. The fundamental difference between them is primarily manifested in the fact that the Sinicization of Marxism emphasizes the spatial dimension, while the contemporization of Marxism emphasizes the temporal dimension. If "contemporization" in the contemporization of Marxism refers specifically to contemporization within China, then Sinicization and contemporization can be viewed as the same process, and the two do not conflict. However, if it refers to the contemporization of human society and world history, then inconsistencies or even conflicts may arise between the two.
Ultimately, the Sinicization of Marxism essentially belongs to the categories of indigenization and nationalization. Promoting the indigenization and nationalization of Marxism in practice requires combining it with the specific realities of different countries and nations. If a country or nation is not at the forefront of human society—if it is a country or nation that is lagging behind the world as a whole—then the indigenization of Marxism itself would actually "counter" contemporization; it would stand in opposition to contemporization. In this sense, a Marxism that conforms to a specific country's national conditions and solves its problems is not necessarily, from start to finish, a Marxism that represents the leading edge of the era or marches at the front of the times. Consequently, emphasizing the contemporization of Marxism in a backward country or nation—attempting to make the nation's Marxism consistent with countries at the world's forefront and consistent with the state of the cutting edge—might lead to a failure to thoroughly resolve that nation's specific problems.
For a long time, although the Sinicization of Marxism has been presented on the world stage as a successful model of the indigenization and nationalization of Marxism, providing a Chinese sample for other countries to reference, the process of Sinicization in the modern era has not always demanded contemporization. It must be understood that during the New Democratic Revolution [7], China faced a profound crisis characterized by internal troubles and external aggression. Its global orientation and international status were not at the forefront of the development of the era. Although Chinese Marxists at the time remained attentive to temporal trends and global shifts, they were limited by the national conditions of economic and cultural backwardness. At that time, China still had a long road to travel before reaching the tide of temporal development and the forefront of human society; thus, there was a distance between the requirements of the Sinicization of Marxism and its contemporization. One can imagine that if the trend of urban proletarian revolution had been blindly pursued at the time, rather than taking the path of encircling the cities from the countryside and conducting a democratic revolution by relying on the worker-peasant alliance, the Chinese Revolution would have found it difficult to succeed.
With the founding of New China, and particularly with the economic and social development since the Reform and Opening-up, China began to gradually integrate into the world. As a major developing country participating in international affairs, its comprehensive national strength and international influence have continuously increased, and to a certain extent, it is leading the development of world history and the progress of human civilization. Facts have proven that Marxism and scientific socialism have achieved substantial development in China, "presenting Marxism to the world with a brand-new image, and bringing about a major shift in the historical evolution and competition between the two ideologies and social systems of socialism and capitalism on a global scale, in favor of socialism." [23] From this perspective, the Sinicization and contemporization of Marxism have achieved and will continue to achieve success. This situation increasingly demonstrates that the Sinicization of Marxism not only conforms to Chinese reality but also conforms to the trends of the times and historical trajectories; it is also leading those trends and trajectories. It is thus evident that the requirements of Sinicization are increasingly aligning with the requirements of contemporization; the two are gradually converging, and the Sinicization of Marxism itself is simultaneously the contemporization of Marxism.
Clearly, the New Era's [8] emphasis on "the Sinicization and contemporization of Marxism" is by no means a simple new formulation. Rather, it accords with the unique and irreplaceable importance of the Sinicization of Marxism in the entire history of Marxist development, and it is inseparable from 21st-century China's status in the world and its position in the development of human society. For a long time, limited by the progress of the Sinicization of Marxism, we emphasized more the "Chinese" side of Marxism as a theory for the whole world and human society—that is, the profound change Marxism brought to China. We rarely mentioned the "world" side inherent in Sinicized Marxism itself, and even less did we discuss its "world-changing" side—that is, the significance of Sinicized Marxism for the rest of the world, exploring how Sinicized Marxism changes and leads the world, and how it creates and leads the era.
The expression "the Sinicization and contemporization of Marxism" not only reflects that Sinicized Marxism has always maintained a global perspective and international vision, conforming to the requirements of temporal development and changes in the global landscape, but also that it has led the development of human society. It has exerted the theoretical value of Marxism in perceiving and leading the era, providing Chinese solutions [9] for answering the questions of the era and the questions of the world.
Supplementing "Sinicization" with "contemporization" is clearly an affirmation that Sinicized Marxism is a Marxism of temporal and global significance. Using the formulation "the Sinicization and contemporization of Marxism" fundamentally emphasizes that Sinicization has not only changed China and possesses Chinese significance, but is also changing the world and possesses world significance; it possesses not only significance for its own time but also significance for the entire era. Especially today, perceiving the general trend of the times, grasping historical initiative, and leading the times forward have become inherent meanings of the Sinicization of Marxism. Sinicized Marxism is increasingly becoming a powerful ideological weapon for people to change the world. As a particularly important component of world Marxism, Sinicized Marxism demonstrates not only great significance for the Chinese nation but also a profound influence on the historical process of world socialism and the future fate of human society.
III. The Relationship between the Sinicization and Contemporization of Marxism and the Popularization of Marxism
Marxism is essentially not a body of knowledge confined to an ivory tower; it is a set of scientific principles oriented toward and serving the masses. Realizing the essential requirements and fundamental tasks of theoretical popularization can be said to have always been inherent and consistent within the Sinicization of Marxism. In fact, while proposing the Sinicization of Marxism, Mao Zedong emphasized that "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 and lively Chinese style and Chinese flavor which the common people of China love to see and hear." [24] This vividly reflects the idea of the popularization of Marxism. Subsequently, leaders of the Party and state have all emphasized requirements in this regard. In 2007, the 17th National Congress of the CPC formally proposed the proposition of the popularization of Marxism with the formulation "promoting the popularization of contemporary Chinese Marxism." [25] Following the Fourth Plenary Session of the 17th CPC Central Committee, which placed the Sinicization, contemporization, and popularization of Marxism side by side, for a period thereafter, the Party's political reports and important documents either used the term "Sinicization" alone or used the joint formulation of Sinicization, contemporization, and popularization. The 19th National Congress of the CPC emphasized that "we must promote the Sinicization, contemporization, and popularization of Marxism, and build a socialist ideology with strong cohesive and leadership power." [26] Since then, however, the formulation used has often been "the Sinicization and contemporization of Marxism," and it is rare to see popularization listed alongside them. The report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC used the formulation "the Sinicization and contemporization of Marxism" throughout.
Why is the popularization of Marxism no longer emphasized simultaneously? To answer this question, we must first clarify what the "popularization of Marxism" actually is. It is not difficult to understand that the popularization of Marxism can be defined as the combination of the basic tenets of Marxism with the social masses—the process of explaining weighty ideas in ways that the masses love to see and hear, and using Marxism to cohere the strength of the masses and solve their problems. Fundamentally, it can be viewed as the unity of "transforming Marxism" (into a popular form) and "transforming the masses" (through Marxist education). It emphasizes that Marxism—as the guiding ideology of the Party and state and as a profound and weighty theory—should be accepted and identified with by the social masses, rather than serving only as an object of academic research for a few intellectuals or scholars, or only as the governing thought used by a few Marxist politicians. This process involves the visualization and popularization of abstract theory, using vivid and simple popular discourse to speak of Marxism, and innovating the internal paradigms and external expressions of Marxist discourse so that it can be accepted and practiced by the social masses. It should be noted that the "masses" used here refers to the majority of people in society, primarily in contrast to Marxist politicians, thinkers, and scholars.
From the perspective of "transforming Marxism," the Sinicization and contemporization of Marxism indeed share commonalities with the popularization of Marxism. In terms of necessity, the Sinicization and contemporization of Marxism emphasize combination with specific realities and with the characteristics of the era. Here, both specific realities and temporal characteristics have the masses within them—it is impossible for them not to involve people. Therefore, they must contain the requirement of combining with the social masses. Specifically, the Sinicization of Marxism requires interpreting Marxism using language that the Chinese masses can understand and in ways they can easily comprehend, which inherently contains the meaning of popularization. The contemporization of Marxism requires explaining Marxism in simple terms using linguistic expressions adapted to the changes of the era, which reflects the requirements of popularization.
The difference lies in the fact that, in the direction of "transforming Marxism," the Sinicization and contemporization of Marxism on the one hand and the popularization of Marxism on the other can be said to be relatively independent with different emphases, while also being mutually reinforcing and organically unified. The former emphasizes innovation and development in terms of content, requiring theoretical weight and depth; the latter emphasizes transformation in terms of form of expression, requiring the popularization and vividness of theory. One places the focus on the development of theoretical content, while the other places the focus on the promotion and interpretation of theory. This means that in the specific aspects of principles followed, practical requirements, target orientations, and value implications, there are clear differences between the two. The popularization of Marxism aims to make Marxism—including the latest theoretical achievements of its Sinicization and contemporization—better accepted and applied by the masses through diverse, modern, and intelligent presentations and expressions.
Accordingly, it is indeed not strictly necessary to always speak of and emphasize Sinicization, contemporization, and popularization together. Of course, we cannot take for granted that as the cultural literacy and theoretical levels of the masses rise, the social masses will naturally have the ability to learn and understand Marxism on their own, or that the popularization of Marxism is no longer important or need not be emphasized. Nor can we say this task has already been completed. Seeking truth from facts, Marxism has numerous classic works and ideas with profound insights; its content is vast and deep. At the same time, the theoretical achievements of the Sinicization and contemporization of Marxism will continue to be innovated and developed in practice. We cannot ignore that the project of the popularization of Marxism still requires a great deal of arduous work. The present era still requires the continued promotion of the popularization of Marxism, so that Marxism is accepted by more people and the masses can hear it and take it to heart. The report to the 20th National Congress of the CPC emphasized the need to integrate the essence of Marxist thought "with the common values that the masses use daily without even noticing... and to continuously consolidate the historical and mass foundations for the Sinicization and contemporization of Marxism." [27] This is, in effect, a new and explicit requirement for the consistent and effective promotion of the popularization of Marxism.
It is precisely because of these differing pursuits that the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism are not always perfectly adapted to the popularization of Marxism; at times, conflicts may even arise between them. The Sinicization and modernization of Marxism require a movement from the concrete to the abstract—that is, the distillation of innovative theoretical achievements by Marxist politicians, intellectuals, or scholars. Such achievements are not always easily understood by the masses in their full depth. Conversely, the popularization of Marxism must achieve a movement from the abstract to the concrete—that is, transitioning from the mastery of a few to the application by the masses, thereby allowing Marxist theory to fully exert its role in guiding practice. We must remain vigilant that, during this process, the popularization of Marxism might fall into erroneous tendencies such as vulgarization [10] or "entertainmentization" [11], or lead to the misinterpretation of the theoretical fruits of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. In its essence, the most important aspects of Marxism remain its intellectual profundity and its theoretical foresight. Without these as a premise, the theoretical achievements of a Sinicized and modernized Marxism will be distorted or misread. This is not only contrary to the original intent of popularization but is also something we must strive to avoid.
Even if conflicts may exist between the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism and its popularization, we cannot ignore the unique status and significant value of the latter. On the contrary, we must fully recognize that popularization conforms to the theoretical characteristics and spiritual essence of Marxism and is indispensable. Under no circumstances should we underestimate or overlook the value and role of popularization. It must be understood that if the series of achievements in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism cannot achieve popularization—if they are not grasped by the masses—their power can hardly be exerted and they will not be transformed into practice. If Marxism departs from the understanding and identification of the masses, it cannot change the world or lead the era. Only when it is widely recognized and actively applied by the social masses can it generate the immense force necessary to transform society. We must consistently regard popularization as a direction worth pursuing and one that ought to be pursued in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, even viewing it as a criterion for judging and measuring whether the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism has been successful.