Hou Huiqin: Marxism and Marxism Adapted to the Chinese Context and the Needs of the Times
For the Communist Party of China (CPC) and the cause of the great social revolution it leads, nothing is more important than a scientific perspective on Marxism and Sinicized and modernized Marxism. On this critically significant issue, struggles and challenges are inevitable. However, the CPC has always responded with composure by adhering to the two "unwaverings": unwaveringly upholding Marxism as its guide, while simultaneously and unwaveringly advancing the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. Xi Jinping has pointed out: "The choice of Marxism by history and the people is entirely correct. For the Communist Party of China to write Marxism on its own banner is entirely correct. Adhering to the combination of the basic principles of Marxism with China’s specific realities and continuously advancing the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism is entirely correct."
Nevertheless, today we still frequently hear skeptics questioning whether Marxism has become obsolete or whether the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism is correct. More often, we see a tendency to sever the connection between Marxism and Sinicized and modernized Marxism, with proponents dogmatically clinging to one side or the other. This indicates that regarding this paramount issue affecting the foundation of the Party and the country, there is still room for theoretical analysis and boundaries for ideological clarification that require deeper research.
I. Positioning the Relationship between Marxism and Sinicized and Modernized Marxism: Two Sides of One Body
Fundamentally, Marxism and Sinicized and modernized Marxism constitute an organic unity. This oneness originates from the tight community of shared future formed historically between Marxism and the Chinese pursuit of national rejuvenation in modern times. After the Opium War, China found itself in a state where the country was humiliated, the people were suffering, and its civilization was covered in dust [1]; subjected to unprecedented catastrophe, China experienced repeated failures in its uprisings to save the nation from peril. In a moment when the way forward seemed bleak, the salvos of the October Revolution brought us Marxism-Leninism, and from that point on, the fate of China underwent earth-shaking changes. China moved from ignorance and apathy to a Great Awakening, from being at the mercy of others to self-reliance and self-strengthening, and from nearly being expelled from "global membership" [2] to standing up, becoming prosperous, and becoming strong, increasingly approaching the center of the world stage. There is only one answer: it was Marxism and socialism that saved China.
Marxism and China constitute a genuine community of shared future. As the guiding ideology, Marxism has become the "soul of the founding of the Party," making the CPC the core political force leading the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. At the same time, it has integrated into Chinese society in a comprehensive manner, becoming the "foundation of the founding of the nation." By functioning as the Party’s guiding ideology and the state’s mainstream ideology, Marxism provides the "heart" for the state, casts the "soul" for the nation, and steers the rudder for the era. The ideological function is the primary function of Marxism; it plays a major role as the ideological lead for social revolution, the theoretical basis for constructing the state system, and the moral foundation for forming a social consensus on values. This leading role is comprehensively reflected in all aspects of national life through the Party’s guiding ideology and the state’s mainstream ideology, and it is irreplaceable.
Furthermore, as an element of advanced culture, Marxism has deeply integrated into all aspects of social life with profound influence. As a noble pursuit of human nature, it continuously cultivates character, purifies social atmosphere, and improves social customs. As a scientific academic thought, it has permeated the disciplinary, academic, and discourse systems of the philosophy and social sciences, becoming an important academic resource for our construction of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. Moreover, as a cultural element, it interacts and fuses with fine traditional Chinese culture, continuously activating the vital forces contained therein and striking the sparks of contemporary advanced human culture. "Practice has proved that the fate of Marxism has long been closely linked with the fate of the Communist Party of China, the fate of the Chinese people, and the fate of the Chinese nation. Its scientific and truthful nature has been fully tested in China, its people-oriented and practical nature has been fully implemented in China, and its open and contemporary nature has been fully demonstrated in China!"
The oneness of Marxism and Sinicized and modernized Marxism is manifested in the following two aspects:
First, both jointly constitute a unified scientific system of thought. The scientific nature of Marxism is established upon what Engels summarized as Marx’s "two great discoveries": the materialist conception of history and the theory of surplus value. It revealed the objective laws of human society and the laws of internal antagonism and self-negation within capitalism, elucidating the historical trend that capitalism must perish and communism must triumph, thereby transforming socialism from a utopia into a science. Its scientific nature and contemporary value have been fully proven today. As Xi Jinping pointed out: "In the history of human thought, in terms of scientific nature, truth, influence, and scope of dissemination, no single thought or theory has reached the heights of Marxism, nor has any doctrine exerted such a massive influence on the world as Marxism. This reflects the immense power of truth and the strong vitality of Marxism, indicating that Marxism still plays an irreplaceable role in mankind's understanding and transformation of the world and the promotion of social progress." It can be seen that the scientific and truthful nature of Marxism inherently includes influence and power of dissemination; it is the historical unity of conformity to laws and conformity to purpose. This requires it to be open to practice, to progress with the times, and to seek truth from facts in all things.
However, the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism has an even deeper historical background. This is the stage where capitalism developed into imperialism, and the focal point of contradictions and the "weak link" of the global capitalist chain shifted from developed capitalist regions to their periphery. It had become impossible for the socialist revolution to overthrow capitalist rule by being "launched simultaneously" in developed capitalist countries; rather, it could only achieve "victory first in one country" in underdeveloped capitalist regions. This major change in historical conditions indicated that a universally applicable revolutionary path no longer existed. The people of each country must choose a socialist road suited to their own national conditions; accordingly, Marxism must be nationalized. This historical change shows that although the historical trend of the "two inevitabilities" [3] and the era's theme of human liberation have not changed, the new situations and characteristics triggered by the (partial) qualitative change of real history at different stages mean that for Marxism to avoid losing touch with reality, it must be combined with the realities of each country and the characteristics of the new era. This "combination" is an inherent requirement of the scientific nature of Marxism, which the CPC summarizes as "seeking truth from facts." Clearly, as a "single body" of a scientific thought system, Marxism always includes "two sides": namely, its basic theory and its combination with reality. As Deng Xiaoping pointed out: "The combination of the universal truth of Marxism-Leninism with the concrete reality of one's own country is itself a universal truth. It contains two aspects: one is called universal truth, and the other is called combination with the country's reality. We have always maintained that discarding either side will not do."
Second, the two are the guiding ideologies of the CPC that exist in a continuous lineage. The realization of the scientific system of Marxist thought relies primarily on the guiding ideology of the advanced proletarian party. The guiding ideology of the Party is the concentrated expression of Marxist theory being linked to practice; it is the key to applying the Marxist worldview, methodology, and basic principles to solve a country’s problems, and is thus the hallmark of theoretical innovation. In the journey of leading the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, the CPC has achieved three Great Leaps in the Sinicization of Marxism, forming Mao Zedong Thought, the Theory System of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, and Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Economics for a New Era. These landmark achievements of the Sinicization of Marxism cover different periods—revolution, construction, reform, and the New Era—under the Party's leadership. All of them proposed new questions and made new judgments in response to changed historical stages, and thus have a more practical guiding role. Fundamentally, however, they do not "start a new stove" [4] separate from Marxism but exist in a continuous lineage; they are consistent not only in standpoint, viewpoint, and method, but also in the unity of theme, basic theory, and revolutionary program.
The continuous lineage (yī mài xiāng chéng) of the guiding ideology demonstrates the oneness of Marxism and Sinicized and modernized Marxism, which determines that the Party's guiding ideology must be monistic. History has proven that the reason some proletarian parties saw their party and state perish was that they engaged in pluralism regarding their guiding ideology, leading to the loss of the guiding position of Marxism. The secret of the CPC's success lies in its consistent adherence to the monism of the Party's guiding ideology and its unwavering faith in Marxism. Fundamentally, there is only one world, and there has been only one "world history" that mankind entered in modern times; therefore, there is only one scientific system for the cognitive understanding of the laws of human history. This is not a monopoly on truth, but rather the laying of a correct direction for the exploration of truth. As Mao Zedong pointed out: "There is only one truth, and as for who has discovered it, this depends not on subjective exaggeration but on objective practice." The overall grasp and scientific understanding of the world provided by Marxism have not been surpassed to this day.
The continuous lineage of the guiding ideology also shows that the oneness of Marxism and Sinicized and modernized Marxism dictates that "upholding the fundamentals and breaking new ground" (shǒu zhèng chuàng xīn) is the direction that theoretical innovation must follow. This concept highlights the unity of persistence and development, and of inheritance and innovation. It is a development through application rather than replacement in concrete practice; it is a partial rather than a total transcendence of the scientific theoretical system. Upholding the basic spirit of "upholding the fundamentals and breaking new ground" means using dialectical materialism and historical materialism, holding fast to the ideals and beliefs of communism, and—in the process of responding to major challenges under new historical conditions—expanding basic theory with new content, new judgments, and new programs to open up new frontiers for Marxism. It expresses the concept that the adherence to and development of Marxism are actually the same process, and no internal opposition exists between them. Ultimately, in the face of changed realities, that which can be maintained must be a developed theory; adherence to a theory that cannot solve practical problems is inevitably a "fake adherence" consisting of empty slogans. Truly innovative theory must be the result of advancing along Marx's theoretical direction; any trajectory of thought that deviates from basic theory is inevitably a "fake development" that drifts with the tide or "changes the flag and banner" [5]. "Upholding the fundamentals and breaking new ground" is the best annotation for the oneness of Sinicized and modernized Marxism and Marxism itself, revealing that the secret of Marxism’s ability to function in practice lies in the unity of innovative theory and innovative practice. History has proven that theory divorced from practice and practice that rejects theoretical guidance will both lead to Marxism encountering setbacks. Theoretical innovation in Marxism is innovation that can play a guiding role in practice.
As a scientific theory for changing the world, Marxism cannot remain at the level of objective knowledge; it must become a guide to action for the modern proletariat and its party. It cannot be an immutable dogma but must be a living thought that develops alongside practice, the era, and science and technology. On the other hand, a party without advanced guiding ideology cannot truly grasp changed realities and will inevitably lose its way in practice. Therefore, Sinicized and modernized Marxism is, in essence, Marxism that plays a guiding role in developing practice, embodying the unity of theoretical innovation and practical self-awareness. "Whether Marxism can play a role in practice depends on whether the basic principles of Marxism can be combined with China's reality and the characteristics of the times. Facing a rapidly changing world and China, if we stick to old ways, remain ideologically rigid, lack the courage for theoretical innovation, and cannot scientifically answer the Questions of China, the Questions of the World, the Questions of the People, and the Questions of the Era, not only will the cause of the Party and the country be unable to move forward, but Marxism will also lose its vitality and persuasiveness." This emphasizes not only the importance of innovating theory based on practical changes but also profoundly reveals the urgency and criticality of practice’s reliance on theoretical guidance.
The interweaving of the two facets of Marxism and Sinicized and modernized Marxism. It must be pointed out that the unity of Marxism and its Sinicized and modernized form is a unity of "two facets," and these "two facets" are the two sides of a single "unity"; they cannot be categorically separated. However, to discuss the relationship between the two in depth, it remains necessary to separate them for the purpose of narrative exposition. The reason we must view them from "two facets" is to demonstrate that Marxism and Sinicized and modernized Marxism each possess distinct characteristics and play significant roles in the unity of Marxism from different aspects. Specifically, the scientific system of Marxism is the totality and the commonality; it established the common laws and basic theories concerning the long-term, world-wide transition from capitalism to communism. Sinicized and modernized Marxism is the regional and the particular; it established the laws of China's journey toward the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation since modern times and laid the guiding ideology for the great social revolution led by the Communist Party of China. In essence, particularity and commonality are inseparable; there is no commonality divorced from the particular, nor is there particularity that has discarded commonality. Therefore, the distinction between commonality and particularity is only relative, based on the scope covered by their respective ideological systems; it does not mean that the former possesses only commonality, while the latter possesses only particularity.
Marxism has never been an abstract commonality existing in isolation from the realities of various countries; rather, it has always relied on the reality of the cause of working-class liberation. Undoubtedly, the specific forms it relies upon change with historical development. During the period of Marx and Engels, it mainly relied on the international workers' movement; after the October Revolution, it mainly relied on the world socialist movement (and the socialist camp after World War II); and after the drastic changes in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, it has mainly relied on a few countries that still persist in the socialist system, the most prominent of which is China. This change in the foundational reliance indicates the historical trend of the integration of Marxism and Sinicized and modernized Marxism, and also illustrates that the theoretical missions of the founders of Marxism and their successors differ. The former were primarily concerned with founding the theory and combining it with the realities of various countries through theoretical and practical verification, whereas the latter are primarily concerned with applying the theory and creating new theories based on specific practice. Therefore, taking China as the standing point, it is appropriate to view the "two facets" of Marxism and Sinicized and modernized Marxism.
These "two facets" primarily consist of: First, the two facets of mutual interaction and mutual promotion—that is, while Marxism has profoundly transformed China, China has also greatly innovated Marxism. In the process of the CPC leading the Chinese people to successfully blaze a path of Chinese-path modernization and creating a new form of human civilization [6], three obsolete concepts regarding the application of Marxism have been transformed. First, the preference for discussing Marxism as theory-for-theory’s sake was broken, and a practical standard centered on integrating theory with practice to solve practical problems was established. Using Marxism as a means of showing off or intimidating others originates from a "Eurocentrism" that worships foreign affectations and a dogmatism that worships books and formulas; the crux of the issue is how to measure the theoretical level of Marxism. Through long-term revolutionary struggle, the Communist Party of China formed the following consensus: "We must oppose empty talk about Marxism; Communist Party members living in China must study Marxism in connection with the reality of the Chinese revolution." "If you can apply the Marxist-Leninist viewpoint to explain one or two practical problems, you will be praised and credited with some achievement. The more things you explain, and the more universal and profound your explanation, the greater your achievement will be." This activated Marxism from its fundamental theoretical orientation, ensuring its perpetual youth. Second, the deviation of measuring Marxist innovation by the standard of unconventionality or "starting a new stove" [7] was broken, and the innovation principle of "upholding the fundamentals and breaking new ground" and the unity of persistence and development were established. This blocked, at the practical root, any excuse to negate or reject the guidance of Marxism based on changes in historical conditions. Third, the prejudice that Marxism is merely a theory of revolution and not a theory of modernization and modern state governance was broken, establishing the status of Marxism as the guiding ideology for the construction of a modern socialist country. This anchored the contemporary value of Marxism in the bedrock of civilization and revealed its irreplaceable guiding role.
Second, the two facets of difference and complementarity in the routes of understanding laws—namely, two routes of movement: from general laws to specific laws, and from specific laws to general laws—have perfected the scientific cognition of historical laws. The founders of Marxism recognized historical laws by starting with the creation of theory and then gradually going deep into social life for verification, enrichment, and development; thus, it manifested as a cognitive process moving from general laws to special and individual laws. In contrast, Sinicized and modernized Marxism utilizes the existing intellectual achievements of Marxism, starting with the recognition of the most urgent specific laws and then, as practice develops in depth, gradually rising to the recognition of universal and general laws. These are two interconnected yet distinct routes of understanding historical laws: the former is a gradual rollout under the premise of a total breakthrough, manifesting as moving from the surface to the point, from the one to the many; the latter is a gradual expansion based on a key breakthrough, manifesting as moving from the point to the surface, from the many to the one.
It is evident that only by starting with the most urgent and critical issues and making every effort to reveal the laws of the Communist Party's governance can socialism with Chinese characteristics achieve a breakthrough in the cognition of historical laws. With this as a standing point, we can continuously expand and deepen our understanding of the laws of socialist construction, which then continuously rises into the laws of development of human society. This is our Party's cognitive route of continuously deepening its understanding of the laws of the Communist Party's governance, the laws of socialist construction, and the laws of development of human society with a brand-new perspective—the intellectual trajectory of advancing the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism. The founders of Marxism, after creating scientific theory, dedicated themselves to verifying this theory through its integration with the working class, which determined their cognitive process of deepening from general laws toward specific laws. This is the difficult process of a great idea "hitting the ground." Therefore, when the European and American working classes first united to fight under the banner of Marxism, Engels could not contain his internal excitement. In the preface to the 1890 German edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party, he lamented: "If only Marx were still by my side to see this with his own eyes!" Undoubtedly, advancing the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism is an even more arduous and glorious process of actual history.
Discussing the difference between the two regarding the route of understanding laws is intended to show that the recognition of historical laws in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism possesses irreplaceable epochal significance. Although we have not surpassed Marx in a holistic sense, we have substantively enriched and developed Marx’s thought with the achievements of Sinicized and modernized Marxism. This not only proves but also revitalizes the vitality of Marxism. "The continuous success of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism has presented Marxism to the world with a brand-new image, and has caused a major shift in the historical evolution and competition between the two ideologies and two social systems of socialism and capitalism on a global scale, trending in favor of socialism." The two constitute a unity that shares a common fate and a common glory.
II. Analysis of the Theoretical Premise of the Unity of Marxism: Transcending the Dispute over "Substance" and "Utility"
In elucidating the unity of Marxism and Sinicized and modernized Marxism, few would disagree from the perspectives of the ideological system, practical function, or empirical facts. However, there is one unavoidable premise: is Marxism foreign or indigenous? If it is entirely foreign, can it truly be "one" with indigenous Marxism? In fact, treating Marxism as a "foreign culture" seems self-evident in the minds of many people. Precisely because of this, they interpret the integration of Marxism with China’s reality only from the need for indigenization, recognizing only the guiding role of Sinicized Marxism, and righteously regarding only Chinese traditional culture as "National Learning" (guoxue). This concept shakes the foundation of the unity of Marxism and its Sinicized and modernized form at the level of ideological premises. It must be pointed out that this situation is actually a continuation of the negative consequences of the "Substance-Utility Dispute" regarding culture in China since modern times.
The historical lessons of the "Substance-Utility Dispute" and the correct positioning of the unity of Marxism. After the Opium War, as China’s national crisis intensified, a "Substance-Utility Dispute" occurred, represented respectively by the "Westernization Faction" (yangwu pai) [8] and the "Reformist Faction" (weixin pai). The "Westernization Faction" advocated taking traditional Chinese moral and social codes as the foundation while absorbing and utilizing Western technical means to save the nation; this was called "Chinese substance, Western utility" (Zhongti Xiyong). Conversely, the "Reformist Faction" wanted to holistically introduce Western political, economic, and educational systems, while Chinese learning could only be retained and used selectively based on these; this was called "Western substance, Chinese utility" (Xiti Zhongyong). The significance of this debate in the process of the great awakening of the Chinese nation in modern times will not be evaluated here, but its limitations are obvious. Both are isolated, closed, and one-sided views of culture, belonging to cultural conservatism and Western cultural centrism, respectively. They fail to see that neither the measurement of a culture's superiority nor the improvement of a culture's current state can resort purely to culture itself. Whether it be Chinese learning or Western learning, it is impossible to achieve perfection through the dismemberment of "substance" and "utility." Substance and utility are inseparable, and culture and history are interdependent—this should already be a consensus.
What we must guard against today is the persistence of the trend of viewing contemporary Chinese cultural construction, or even viewing Marxism, through the lens of "substance and utility." Treating "National Learning"—traditional Chinese culture—as the substance and the "foreign culture" of Marxism as the utility; or conversely, treating Marxism, which is categorized as "Western culture," as the substance and indigenous traditional Chinese culture as the utility—this is the "Substance-Utility Dispute" that actually exists in the field of ideology and public opinion today. This is a major issue concerning the developmental direction of contemporary Chinese ideology and the guiding position of Marxism in the ideological field; it must be discussed seriously. Some Marxist scholars have also attempted to defend Marxism by transcending the "substance-utility" logic. For example, Mr. Fang Keli proposed the formula of "Marxism as the soul, China as the substance, the West as the utility" (Ma-hun, Zhong-ti, Xi-yong), attempting to thread Marxism through "substance and utility" while rising above them. But the problem does not seem to have been truly resolved. The key is that while Marxism being the "soul" is correct, is it the "substance"? If it is not, then what is the "substance"? If the "substance" refers to substantive entities like the Communist Party of China or the Chinese people, there is no controversy; however, the problem here is that "substance" is taken to be traditional Chinese culture, which, like Marxism, is a spiritual phenomenon. Thus, on the question of whether the spirit functioning as the "soul" or the spirit functioning as the "substance" is decisive or more important, serious confusion inevitably arises. Many disagreements regarding Marxism and traditional Chinese culture stem from this.
In reality, whether in the historical "Substance-Utility Dispute" or today's debate on the "Relationship between China, the West, and Marxism," there is a deficiency in the cognition of the core concept of "culture." They all grasp culture from the level of general spiritual life but seriously lack a correct understanding of its most specific form—ideology. According to the Marxist viewpoint, culture as an ideal form is a reflection of social-economic and political conditions, while simultaneously reacting upon the social economic base as a spiritual force. However, what centrally manifests this characteristic of culture is not general cultural forms like literature, art, painting, or music, but political ideology carried by doctrines, thoughts, and "isms." Its specificity lies in the fact that it not only determines the direction of culture (i.e., whom it serves and how it develops) but also determines the class consciousness and self-awareness of the corresponding class. Therefore, the crux of cultural disputes is not "substance and utility," but the relationship between ideology and culture, and between class character and humanity. One cannot avoid going astray if one talks grandly about the "substance and utility" of culture without understanding ideology as class consciousness. Mao Zedong's statement that "'Learning' refers to basic theory, which is consistent between China and abroad and should not be divided into Chinese and Western," emphasized that theoretical principles and "isms" have no East or West; it is not a matter of "substance and utility."
The duality of culture and its mutual relationship. All recorded history is a history of class struggle; therefore, specialized culture as a product of the division between mental and manual labor has possessed class character from the very beginning. On the other hand, as a product of human civilization's progress, the humanistic character of culture is also obvious—expressions like "music has no borders" and "art has no borders" convey this meaning. We first need to clarify how the duality of culture came about.
The duality of culture stems from the fact that culture, as a reflection of social existence, both directly reflects the requirements of the socio-economic formation and the system of state institutions—thereby possessing a class character—and indirectly reflects the universal requirements of the underlying social productive forces—thereby possessing a human character. Here, it is the class character that plays the decisive role. That is to say, in a class society, the human character of culture is refracted through its class character; pure "humanity" does not exist. It is precisely the exploiting classes, acting as the ruling class, that deliberately propagate a theory of human nature that allegedly transcends class. In reality, human society entered the era of civilization alongside the division of classes; history, therefore, always performs a duet of progress and regression, of civilization and barbarism, amidst class antagonism. This duality has become the norm of civilizational progress, further proving the decisive role of class character therein. Engels pointed out: "Since the benefit of the period of civilization is based on the exploitation of one class by another class, its whole development moves in a continuous contradiction. Every advance in production is at the same time a retrogression in the condition of the oppressed class, that is, of the great majority. What is a boon for the one is necessarily a misfortune for the other; each new emancipation of one class always means a new oppression of another class." As beneficiaries of class struggle, the ruling classes are generally unwilling to acknowledge this fact. Consequently, the social culture and the corresponding historical outlook they dominate always play up a theory of human nature that transcends class, deliberately exaggerating the human character of culture while doing their utmost to conceal and avoid its class character.
Marxism holds that in class societies, all human mental production [9], including culture—much like material production—is dominated by the ruling class and serves the needs of its rule. Material production is not only the production and reproduction of the means of life, providing the material support and "hard power" foundation for class rule; it is also the production and reproduction of the relations of production and material intercourse [10]. It is thus the process of maintaining existing socio-economic and dominant relations, the crafting of the social foundation for class rule. Likewise, mental production is not only the production and reproduction of social mental and cultural activities, providing cultural support and a "soft power" foundation for class rule; it is also the production and reproduction of social value consensus and ideological and moral norms. It builds the moral foundation for class rule and is thus the process of maintaining the relations of ideological dominance. Therefore, the class and ideological character of culture are its primary characteristics, while its human character is a secondary, dependent attribute. Certain moral concepts and pursuits of human nature that appear to transcend class or eras may exist as pure subjective aspirations, but their concrete reality must change along with historical shifts and cannot be separated from the history of class struggle.
Therefore, today it is not enough to merely acknowledge that culture has a dual nature; one must also recognize that class character remains the essential attribute of culture. Ideology determines the nature and developmental direction of culture. The primary criterion for judging the merits of a culture remains the political criterion, followed by the unification of political and artistic criteria. The view that takes "human character" (abstract human nature) as the inherent nature of current culture may appear noble and refined, but in reality, it is a grand exposure of the hypocrisy inherent in the thousands of years of ideological rule by the exploiting classes. There is surely nothing more shameless than making the most sublime and beautiful moral sentiments of humanity serve the most cruel and bloody vested interests. What deserves even greater vigilance is not merely this erroneous cognition of cultural attributes, but the attempt based upon it to "culturalize" (de-ideologize) Marxism. This approach is a typical case of "emasculating the content of the revolutionary doctrine, blunting its revolutionary edge, and vulgarizing it," and of "placing in the foreground and extolling what is, or seems, acceptable to the bourgeoisie." This is an ideological trend that warrants serious attention today.
The duality of Marxism and its essence. As a phenomenon of thought and culture, Marxism naturally possesses the two sides of class character and human character. However, its class character is a working-class character centered on the people; the two sides are internally unified and ultimately tend toward convergence along with the development of socialism. We must be clear that among existing classes, only the class consciousness of the working class aims to abolish classes, abolish exploitation, achieve common prosperity, and realize the free and well-rounded development of every individual. Among existing states, only by persisting in the developmental direction of socialism can the state power, which stands as a special power over society, be made to return to society. Therefore, in Marxism, its ideological character—as the essence of working-class consciousness—is entirely superior to other characteristics. To uphold Marxism, one must first uphold its ideological standpoint. We can see that Marxism is not a pure cultural phenomenon; it is not only a mental phenomenon but also possesses a dimension of substantive existence, as it is inseparable from a specific class and serves as a scientific worldview and an element of revolutionary practice integrated into the tide of human liberation. This is the fundamental difference between it and mental cultures such as religion.
Now we can directly answer the question of whether Marxism is an "alien culture." As the class consciousness and scientific worldview of the working class, Marxism belongs to the working class and the masses of the people throughout the world. It has no nationality or fixed geography; it is a "world-historical existence." Its scientific truth and universal significance dictate that the working class and its political parties in every country must take it as their banner; none can claim it is "alien" in a national sense. To call it "alien" can only have the following two meanings: First, relative to the working class and its parties when they are in a spontaneous state. The acceptance of Marxism by the working class and its parties involves an extremely difficult process of learning and application, a process of transcending one's own narrow living environment to stand at the height of world history. This is also the integration process of Marxism from an external thought into an internal, conscious awareness. For a working class and its parties that have not completed this process, Marxism is, as Lenin said, "instilled from the outside."
Second, relative to the linguistic forms used by the working class and its parties in non-Western European countries. The founders of Marxism lived in a Western European cultural environment, which determined that the linguistic forms through which they expressed their thoughts possessed the characteristics of European culture. For people in non-European linguistic environments, Marxism inevitably possesses a "foreign tone" [11] different from domestic linguistic habits and requires localization. It was for this reason that Mao Zedong, during the Yan'an Rectification Movement [12], proposed: "Foreign stereotypes [13] must be abolished, there must be less singing of empty, abstract tunes, and dogmatism must be laid to rest; they must be replaced by the fresh, lively Chinese style and Chinese spirit which the common people of China love to see and hear. To separate internationalist content from national form is the practice of those who understand nothing of internationalism; we, on the contrary, must link the two closely together." It is stated very clearly here: Chinese style and Chinese spirit do not negate the "internationalist content" of Marxism. It does not say that the whole of Marxism needs to be localized, but rather that the two must be closely integrated. Therefore, generally speaking, we do not agree with viewing Marxism as an alien culture, nor do we agree with equating the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism with the localization of alien religions. Instead, we are committed to promoting the integration of Marxism with Sinicized and modernized Marxism. This is a major issue of political principle.
In the vocabulary of the Communist Party of China, Marxism and Sinicized and modernized Marxism are absolutely inseparable; the two complement each other and form a single whole. When we say "Marxism works," it is oriented toward the continuous advancement of the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism: "The CPC has upheld the basic tenets of Marxism, sought truth from facts, proceeded from China’s realities, gained deep insight into the trends of the times, maintained the initiative in history, and engaged in painstaking exploration. In doing so, it has moved forward the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism and guided the Chinese people in advancing the great social revolution. Why the CPC is able, and why socialism with Chinese characteristics is good, is because, in the final analysis, Marxism works!" And when we say "Sinicized and modernized Marxism works," it is based on the fundamental premise of upholding Marxism: "Marxism is the fundamental guiding ideology upon which our Party and our country are founded and thrive. Practice has told us that why the CPC is able, and why socialism with Chinese characteristics is good, is because, in the final analysis, Marxism works, and Sinicized and modernized Marxism works. Having the guidance of the scientific theory of Marxism is the fundamental basis for our Party to strengthen its ideals and convictions and maintain the initiative in history." The guiding role of Marxism in practice establishes the internal unity of the two.
III. Deepening the Integrity of Marxism: Promoting the "Two Combinations"
To promote the integration of Marxism is to continuously open new frontiers in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, and to persist in the correct direction proposed at the 20th Party Congress: "combining the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with China’s fine traditional culture." The "First Combination" [14] has been discussed extensively in the past, and both the consensus and the debates regarding it are clear. The "Second Combination" was proposed not long ago, and the relevant issues that need discussion are not yet sufficiently clear; therefore, I will focus here on the issue of the combination with China’s fine traditional culture.
We must not confuse the two levels of combining Marxism with China’s fine traditional culture. It is not difficult to see that our Party has always emphasized combining Marxism with China’s specific realities; these "realities" already include China's fine traditional culture. This is what Mao Zedong emphasized during the Yan'an Rectification: not only using Marxism to answer the practical problems of the Chinese revolution but also forming a theoretical character with Chinese style and Chinese spirit. Today, it is very necessary to treat China's fine traditional culture as a relatively independent object of "combination." Objectively speaking, cultural self-confidence and self-strengthening are major tasks and focal points for the comprehensive building of a great modern socialist country and are key to persisting in and improving the system of Party leadership for socialism with Chinese characteristics. It concerns the invigoration of the national spirit and the spark of creativity; it concerns building a socialist ideology with strong cohesion and leading power; and it concerns the country's international image and international discourse power. Subjectively, there are certain blind spots in the understanding of the combination of Marxism and China's fine traditional culture that relate to upholding the guiding position of Marxism in the ideological field and require clarification.
In fact, the duality of Marxism has already determined that we should view the "combination" with China's fine traditional culture at two levels: the first is the ideological level—how Marxism, as the guiding ideology, combines with China’s fine traditional culture; the second is the level of conceptual culture—how Marxism, as a cultural element, combines with China’s fine traditional culture. These two levels must not be confused, and certainly not reversed. At the first level, the "combination" is primarily manifested in the scientific definition, excavation, and promotion of China’s fine traditional culture by Marxism, as well as the leading of its creative transformation and innovative development; in this process, Marxism continuously advances the Sinicization of its own discursive modes and theoretical style. At the second level, the "combination" is mainly manifested in the high degree of resonance, exchange, fusion, and mutual reinforcement between the major cultural concepts of Marxism and China's fine traditional culture. If one only speaks of the combination at the second level, that would be "neglecting the root to chase the branches" [15] and deviating from the correct direction.
The reason the "combination" at the first level is more fundamental is, first of all, that China's fine traditional culture is by no means "self-evident or self-existing." It was severely obscured and distorted by thousands of years of Chinese feudal history, and severely eroded and strangled by Western colonial culture since the Opium War. Consequently, it requires discernment, rescue, excavation, and clearing; otherwise, opinions on what constitutes the essence of Chinese culture will inevitably vary, and no consensus will be reached. Major ideological struggles converge on this issue. History has proven that only under the guidance of Marxism have we attained a scientific understanding of Chinese traditional culture, enabling us to discard its feudal dross, carry forward its democratic essence, and form a scientific concept of China's fine traditional culture.
Secondly, China's fine traditional culture is by no means "self-updating." As the outstanding achievement of what was primarily an agrarian civilization, it certainly possesses eternal cultural value, much as Marx praised ancient Greek art for its "eternal charm." Yet it is undeniable that it cannot automatically enter the contemporary era of globalization and informatization, much less automatically become an organic component of contemporary Chinese advanced socialist culture. To leap across industrial civilization and enter the contemporary era, it must undergo a transition of epochs under the guidance of Marxism to achieve creative transformation and innovative development. "New Confucianism" and similar trends that were once popular at home and abroad ultimately failed to gain traction. This proves that the idea that Chinese traditional culture can automatically enter the modern age—or even automatically become the savior of contemporary human civilization—is nothing more than the pipe dream of cultural revivalists.
Distinguishing between Marxism as a guiding ideology and Marxism as a cultural element aims to unwaveringly uphold the monistic guiding status of Marxism. Otherwise, treating the two as cultural phenomena of equal standing would inevitably open the door to pluralistic guiding ideologies; views such as "two ancestors" [16] would certainly endanger firm faith in Marxism. Therefore, when discussing the "Two Combinations," we must emphasize the struggle in the realm of ideology and public opinion, resolutely opposing cultural retrogressionism and historical nihilism [17]. Culture is the root, vein, and pedigree of a nation; it is the nation's historical foundation. If culture perishes, history perishes; if history perishes, the state and the nation perish. Historical nihilism is the arch-enemy of cultural self-confidence and self-strengthening and must be resisted. At the same time, we must recognize that one cannot have blind cultural self-confidence. The peril of the state, the peril of culture, and the peril of the nation are all realistic dangers we have experienced. Culture cannot save the country on its own; on the contrary, "historical accumulation" can fall into a deep slumber, and "historical memory" can be buried in dust. The history of the enslavement of colonial and semi-colonial peoples proves that culture can also be subverted and destroyed. Thus, the masses need awakening, the people need education, and culture needs innovation. This is the indispensability of Marxism, and it is precisely why historical retrogressionism is undesirable and untrustworthy.
The "combination" injects new vitality into the development of Marxism. Combining with the fine traditional Chinese culture has injected new vitality into the development of Marxism. First, Marxism has gained the support of the outstanding achievements of a five-thousand-year uninterrupted history of civilization, giving it greater confidence in leading the development of contemporary human civilization. The laws of the transmission of human civilization show that endogeneity is the basis of civilizational progress. The reason Marxism did not veer off the main road of human civilization is that it was catalyzed by the endogeneity of capitalist civilization. Marx, therefore, repeatedly pointed out that the transition to communism is the result of capitalism's self-negation, rather than the product of any artificial design or moral critique.
However, in today's world of civilizational diversity, more historical support is needed to open up a direction for civilizational development that transcends capitalism. Socialism with Chinese characteristics, which takes the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation as its mission, has not only fully stimulated its own vitality and successfully opened the path of Chinese-path modernization, but is also making increasingly significant contributions to the progress of contemporary human civilization. The reason for this is that it is the internal requirement for the continuous development of the five-thousand-year-unbroken Chinese civilization. "Socialism with Chinese characteristics... was derived from the historical process of more than 170 years during which the Chinese nation went from decline to prosperity in modern times; it was derived from the inheritance and development of Chinese civilization for over 5,000 years; and it is a precious achievement gained through the pains and costs borne by the Party and the people." This fully demonstrates that promoting the combination of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture conforms to the endogenous requirements of civilizational inheritance and is an important direction for the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism.
Second, the continuous pursuit of a Chinese style and Chinese flavor has become a powerful driving force for integrating theory with practice and for theoretical innovation in Marxism. Speaking of Marxism in Chinese terms is a fine tradition of the Party. For example, Mao Zedong used "seek truth from facts" and the "theory of two points" [18] to explain the scientific Marxist worldview and methodology; Deng Xiaoping used "moderately prosperous society" [19] to describe the Party's developmental goals for a specific stage; and Xi Jinping used the "Chinese Dream" to summarize the pursuit of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, and so on. However, Marxism with a Chinese discourse style is not merely a matter of external expression or linguistic habits; it is a matter of the mode of theoretical innovation, which is grounded in Chinese reality and takes the resolution of domestic problems as its starting point.
Theoretical expression in the Chinese style encompasses three major tasks: First, using simple and easy-to-understand discourse to clarify the basic principles of Marxism, especially the historical laws determined by the movement of basic social contradictions, the communist ideal, the persistence of working-class leadership (through the Communist Party), and the elimination of polarization to achieve common prosperity and the free and comprehensive development of every individual, thereby allowing Marxism to enter Chinese society. Second, proceeding from China’s most urgent problems to extract stage-specific tasks and slogans that inspire the whole society to strive with one heart and one mind—such as "anti-imperialism and anti-feudalism," the "Four Modernizations," "reform and opening up," and "entering the New Era"—thereby integrating Marxism into China's historical process. Third, realizing a great leap in the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism, forming a Sinicized and modernized Marxism that is in the same lineage as original Marxism while remaining at the forefront of China's historical development. Mao Zedong Thought, the theoretical system of socialism with Chinese characteristics, and Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era are the landmark achievements of this process.
It can be seen that the "two sides" of Marxism are the unity of upholding the fundamentals and breaking new ground, while the "oneness" of Marxism is a process realized in history and developed in practice. Therefore, continuously promoting the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism is the process of unifying Marxism.
The "combination" leads the direction of Marxist integration in the new historical stage. Today, the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism are at a new historical stage. On the one hand, the cause of socialism with Chinese characteristics already possesses more complete institutional guarantees, a more solid material foundation, and more proactive spiritual strength; on the other hand, it faces unprecedentedly arduous risks and challenges, requiring firm strategic confidence. Promoting the "Two Combinations," especially the "combination with fine traditional Chinese culture," reflects the characteristics of our times for Marxism in this new stage of historical development—namely, strengthening historical confidence and strategic initiative regarding the path of Chinese-path modernization.
Fine traditional Chinese culture promotes confidence in the path of Chinese-path modernization from three aspects: First, regarding the strengthening of conviction, it powerfully supports the Chinese Dream of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation with its profound cultural heritage, brilliant civilizational achievements, and continuous civilizational vitality. Among these, the ideal of "Great Unity" [20] where the Great Way prevails and the world belongs to all; the revolutionary patriotic tradition of favoring equal unions and resisting internal and external oppression; the philosophy of survival characterized by hard work, endurance, and self-strengthening; the way of national interaction based on being kind to neighbors and coordinating all nations; the peaceful stance of valuing harmony and believing that those who love war will perish; and the pursuit of democracy and justice—expressed as "the people are more important than the ruler," "government lies in nourishing the people," "the law does not favor the noble," and "the leveling line does not bend for the crooked"—constitute the spiritual core that has allowed Chinese civilization to survive for five thousand years. In the process of combining with these elements, Marxism has enabled a great type of civilization to be reborn through fire and to shine brilliantly in the contemporary era in a higher form. This not only makes the Chinese characteristics of the path of Chinese-path modernization more distinct but also provides strong historical and cultural support for the continuous creation of a new form of human civilization.
Second, regarding ideological content, fine traditional Chinese culture—with its unique and rational view of nature, rich and colorful dialectical thinking, and persevering pursuit of dreams—continuously deepens cultural connotations through its high degree of compatibility with the essential requirements of the path of Chinese-path modernization. We have fully absorbed the idea of "unity of heaven and humanity" [21] from fine traditional Chinese culture, elevating it from a simple analogical intuition to a scientific understanding of a "community of life for humanity and nature" characterized by harmony. We have fully drawn upon the scattered yet rich dialectical thinking in fine traditional Chinese culture, elevating it to the "systemic concept" of dialectical materialism, forming a complete scientific methodology that includes "strategic thinking, historical thinking, dialectical thinking, systemic thinking, innovative thinking, rule-of-law thinking, and bottom-line thinking." We organically link the ideal of Great Unity from fine traditional Chinese culture with the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and the communist ideal, which not only makes the communist ideal easy to understand, accessible, and respectable, but also achieves a perfect unity between the universal principles of Marxism and Chinese national forms. The cultural connotations and civilizational characteristics of the path of Chinese-path modernization are established in this process.
Third, regarding historical experience, fine traditional Chinese culture—with its incomparably complex historical twists, extremely arduous historical explorations, and unparalleled historical experience—highlights that the path of Chinese-path modernization did not come easily. The Chinese nation has always had dreams; from "Great Unity" to the national rejuvenation of modern times, the dream has never been interrupted, and the struggle to realize it has never eased. However, before the founding of the Communist Party of China, the future remained bleak. In the process of combining Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture, we feel even more deeply the importance of the path—the path determines our destiny. As Mao Zedong pointed out: "Kang Youwei wrote the Book of Great Unity, but he did not, and could not, find a way to reach the Great Unity." This path was found and opened under the leadership of the Communist Party of China. Thus, our sense of the path's importance must ultimately rest on firmly upholding the Party's leadership and the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics.
Upholding the Party's leadership is the soul of the path of Chinese-path modernization, and upholding Marxism is the soul of the Communist Party of China. On this primary and significant issue, we must take a firm stand and show our true colors. We must keep in mind General Secretary Xi Jinping's admonition to the whole Party: "Marxism is the fundamental guiding ideology upon which our Party and our country are founded. If we deviate from or abandon Marxism, our Party will lose its soul and its direction. On the fundamental issue of upholding the guiding status of Marxism, we must remain steadfast and never waver in the slightest at any time or under any circumstances."
(The author is a Senior Professor at Tianjin Normal University, Dean of the Institute of Marxism for the New Era, and President of the Chinese Society of Historical Materialism)
Network Editor: Xiaotian Source: Journal of Ideological and Theoretical Education (思想理论教育导刊), 2023, No. 3.