Dong Jia, Wen Ruiqin: The Communist Party of China's Exploration of China's Independent Knowledge System During the Yan'an Period
On April 25, 2022, during an inspection of Renmin University of China, General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: "To accelerate the construction of a philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, the fundamental task is to construct China's independent knowledge system." Observing the development of Chinese philosophy and social sciences requires a broad perspective, situated within the "macro-history" [1] of the world. Therefore, examining this from a historical perspective is an inherent requirement for deepening the study of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics, especially the research on China's independent knowledge system. Viewed historically, the Communist Party of China (CPC) is not only the leading subject in the construction of China's independent knowledge system but also the primary constructing subject, having made historic contributions to this end. During the Yan'an period [2], the content of China's independent knowledge system included both the innovative development of Sinicized Marxist theory and the fruitful results of philosophy and social sciences produced under its guidance. This period gradually established certain key terminologies, core concepts, and important methods within China's independent knowledge system.
As a mirror for observing and understanding the transformations in modern Chinese academic thought, the philosophy and social sciences under the leadership of the CPC during the Yan'an period formed a set of cognitive methods with distinct Chinese characteristics, composing the "Yan'an Chapter" of the construction of China's independent knowledge system. How, then, did this exploration unfold during the Yan'an period? What changes did foreign and traditional ideologies and cultures undergo during the transformation of modern Chinese thought and culture? What impacts did these changes produce? This article attempts to explore the theory and practice of the CPC’s exploration of China's independent knowledge system during the Yan'an period from a macro-historical perspective, recreating the intellectual landscape of the "sprouting" of this system, deepening the understanding of "China in Academia," and providing historical inspiration for the current construction of China's independent knowledge system.
I. The Intellectual Genesis of the CPC's Advancement of China's Independent Knowledge System Construction during the Yan'an Period
Generally speaking, a knowledge system is produced within a specific historical and cultural ecology. The CPC's exploration of China's independent knowledge system during the Yan'an period had its own background of the times. This historical practice not only inherited the developmental threads of modern Chinese intellectual history but was also inherent in the historical process of the CPC’s continuous advancement of the Sinicization of Marxism, while simultaneously being closely linked to the shifts in the domestic and international situation in recent times.
(1) The CPC's Intellectual Inheritance of Modern Explorations of a Chinese Independent Knowledge System
In modern China, as the nation's doors were forced open, the intellectual community underwent a sudden and overwhelming baptism. This "new tide" produced two cultural consequences: first, it gradually shook the knowledge system inherent in Chinese feudal civilization; second, it allowed the knowledge system of Western industrial capitalist civilization to gradually saturate Chinese intellectual circles. Both posed a core issue for all intellectual subjects exploring an independent Chinese knowledge system in the modern era: how to handle the relationship between Chinese and Western cultures? Faced with this issue, on one hand, traditional Chinese culture fell into an "epistemological crisis" of "interpreting China through Western lenses" [3]; on the other hand, the influx of Western doctrines seemed to constitute a beautiful "totality." However, this "totalizing" perspective on Chinese and Western cultures inevitably resulted in an absolute mindset of either total negation or total affirmation of either side. This gave rise to two important extremes among modern intellectual forces: one was the extreme conservative force, originating with the diehard faction of the landlord class and occasionally resurfacing; the other was the "Total Westernization" school, which advocated that China should imitate capitalist civilization in everything. Most intellectual factions drifted between these two poles, attempting to explore a Chinese-path modern knowledge system through a reconciliation of Chinese and Western cultures.
The May Fourth New Culture Movement dealt the most fatal blow to the old knowledge system, causing traditional Chinese culture to rapidly lose its perceived value. Even Hu Shih, who suggested organizing the national heritage [4] with a so-called "scientific attitude," faced widespread criticism; because this advocacy to some extent "provided a pretext for extreme conservatives to blindly worship tradition," Chen Duxiu criticized Hu Shih for "trying to find perfume in the excrement." In short, no matter how extravagantly the knowledge and ideas of the feudal tradition were touted, their proponents could never explain the basic fact of China's failure in the modern era. However, properly handling the positioning of traditional Chinese culture within a modern knowledge system resonated to some degree with the emotional inclination toward the ideal of national rejuvenation among modern Chinese people—namely, the belief that "historical China" did not merely leave "a heap of chicken feathers" [5] for "modern China." This inclination flowed quietly through the development of modern thought, making the construction of a modern indigenous knowledge form a persistent pursuit of the intellectual community.
If the relationship between Chinese and Western cultures was a prerequisite problem that all modern Chinese knowledge system constructions had to handle, then the fundamental standard for testing a knowledge system was the extent to which it could answer the "question of the times" regarding national salvation. As Marx said: "Philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it." From the Westernization Movement of the landlord class advocating "Chinese learning as the essence, Western learning for application" [6], and the Hundred Days' Reform of the bourgeois reformists, to the Revolution of 1911 led by bourgeois revolutionaries—various forces "took their turn on the stage" only to fall one after another. Then, the salvos of the October Revolution brought Marxism-Leninism to China. Once the CPC was established as the political subject of Marxism in China, it completely transformed the face of the Chinese revolution. By the Yan'an period, the CPC, having gradually mastered the intellectual weapon of Marxism, correctly handled the relationship between Chinese and Western cultures and provided a way to break through the history of China being "backward and vulnerable to attack." At the level of intellectual history, the CPC answered the two major questions faced by the exploration of an independent knowledge system since modern times, thereby making the construction of China's independent knowledge system possible.
(2) The CPC's Early Understanding of the Construction of China's Independent Knowledge System
The idea that the CPC sought to Sinicize foreign theories had existed since its early founding period. Early Chinese Communists had an innate pursuit of an independent Chinese thought and culture, viewing "social science" as a sharp tool for saving the nation. In 1923, Yun Daiying proposed in his article Academia and National Salvation: "To destroy requires social science; to build still requires social science. Suppose society is a factory, social science is the factory management method... relying solely on technical science to save the nation is just delirious talk by those ignorant of the national condition." In effect, he raised the construction of China's "spiritual civilization" to a higher priority than "material civilization." The following year, Yun Daiying pointed out in Further Discussion on Academia and National Salvation: "We must break the fallacy that any kind of scholarship can save the nation." He believed the only way to cure the symptoms of Chinese society was through "social science"; although other fields of study were useful, "without the scholarship of national salvation... one can never achieve the effect of saving the nation." At that time, Chinese Communists actually held an attitude of "taking what is useful" [7] toward Western social science, because the traditional Chinese knowledge system had been "toppled" to some extent, and "social science inherently has no borders; it is only due to historical relations that isolated cultural units are created, making it seem that each country has its own 'national essence' [8], which is actually just a social illusion stuck in formal differences." Based on these two points, it became possible for foreign social science theories to be transplanted into China. And the "social science" they referred to had a clear target: Marxism, which had come from afar.
In fact, faced with a Western theory like Marxism, early Chinese Communists also held a spirit of skepticism and a critical attitude. Mao Zedong once suggested: "I see the Russian-style revolution as a desperate measure taken when all other paths were blocked... it wasn't that there were better methods available and ignored, but that this 'terrorist' method had to be adopted." In 1919, Li Dazhao published My View of Marxism in New Youth (Vol. 6, No. 5), systematically introducing Marxist theory for the first time. He stated: "To be fair, Marx's doctrine is truly a product of an era... We certainly cannot take a doctrine created in one era and one environment to explain all of history, or apply it as a whole to the society in which we live; yet we also cannot dismiss the value of his era and his particular discoveries." This indicates that intellectuals who had initially accepted Communist thought already possessed a conscious awareness of Sinicizing Marxism.
After the failure of the Great Revolution in 1927, the question of "whither the revolution" was realistically placed before the Chinese Communists. Mao Zedong and others began to reflect: Was copying the Russian experience the only choice? Was it possible to find a better path by taking a different approach? From 1928 to 1930, Mao Zedong wrote works such as Why Is It That Red Political Power Can Exist in China?, The Struggle in the Jinggang Mountains, and A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire, gradually sublimating temporary guerrilla tactics into a revolutionary strategy of "armed independent regime of workers and peasants." Later, during the Yan'an period, the Chinese Communists, with Mao Zedong as their representative, continuously promoted the integration of the basic principles of Marxism with China's concrete reality. They gradually answered a series of questions regarding the targets, tasks, driving forces, nature, and future of the Chinese revolution, and elevated many practical problems to the level of philosophy for analysis. From the perspective of constructing an independent knowledge system, it can be said that they formed a "revolutionary knowledge system" that was both theoretically sound and practically effective. The reason why the historical fate of Marxism was eventually completely different from other Western ideas introduced to the East lies largely in the fact that the CPC could Sinicize Marxism, while various Western learnings could only remain "in China."
(3) Practical Motivations for the CPC's Advancement of China’s Independent Knowledge System
On October 19, 1935, the CPC Central Committee arrived at Wuqi Town in Northern Shaanxi with the Central Red Army, beginning its thirteen-year history in Yan'an. During the Yan'an period, the CPC effectively responded to a series of major challenges, led and commanded the national revolutionary struggle, and also conducted preliminary explorations into advancing philosophy and social sciences rooted in China. Mao Zedong proposed: "For many years, we Communists have struggled not only for a political and economic revolution in China but also for a cultural revolution." During this period, the CPC enriched and developed Marxism, producing Mao Zedong Thought, a Sinicized Marxist theory. This theory not only provided scientific guidance for the Chinese revolution but was itself an important component of the construction of China's independent knowledge system. As Ai Siqi [9] put it: "The Party Central Committee and Comrade Mao Zedong are our brilliant models in this regard. To name the most significant examples: the theory of the New Democratic nature of the Chinese revolution, the knowledge of the laws of the protracted war against Japan, and the theory of the strategy and tactics of the United Front—these are many new things added by the Chinese Party to the entire treasury of Marxism." The formation of Mao Zedong Thought, on one hand, continued the intellectual understanding mentioned earlier of attempting to indigenize Marxism, and on the other hand, was closely related to the practical changes the CPC faced at the time.
In July-August 1935, Georgi Dimitrov proposed at the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern to "establish a broad anti-imperialist united front in colonies and semi-colonies," emphasizing that it should be applied flexibly and concretely "proceeding from the characteristics of each country." In December of the same year, the CPC Central Committee held an enlarged meeting of the Political Bureau in Wayaobu, clearly stating that the Party's basic strategy and task was to establish a broad national united front against Japanese aggression. Subsequently, the dissemination of the spirit of the Seventh World Congress of the Comintern provided certain external conditions for the CPC to propose the theoretical proposition of the "Sinicization of Marxism" during the Yan'an period. When discussing the "national bourgeoisie" at the Wayaobu Meeting, Mao Zedong made his stance clear against Bo Gu’s continued use of the dogma that "intermediate forces are the most dangerous": "I analyze Chinese problems and propose a united front with the national bourgeoisie against Japan based on the basic principles and basic standpoint of Marxism-Leninism." Zhang Wentian, in a later Political Bureau meeting discussing the resolutions of the Seventh World Congress, also proposed: "The resolutions talk more about issues in Europe; we should make them nationalized [10] and make them suit our concrete environment." This shows that the CPC’s theoretical understanding of the Sinicization of Marxism was continuously deepening; the proposition of "the Sinicization of Marxism" was already on the verge of emerging.
In 1938, at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth CPC Central Committee, Mao Zedong formally proposed the proposition of the "Sinicization of Marxism," explicitly emphasizing: "The Sinicization of Marxism—making it carry Chinese characteristics in its every manifestation, that is to say, applying it according to China's particularities—has become a problem that the whole Party urgently needs to understand and solve." During this period, integrating new changes in the Chinese situation during the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression with the new requirements of the CPC having become a party of significant domestic influence, Mao Zedong profoundly studied the characteristics and laws of the Chinese revolution. He successively published several important works, such as The Internal Publication of "The Communist", The Chinese Revolution and the Communist Party of China, and On New Democracy, systematically expounding the theory of New Democracy. On the basis of summarizing the experience of military struggle during the Land Revolutionary War period, Mao Zedong also wrote military works such as Problems of Strategy in China's Revolutionary War, Problems of Strategy in Guerrilla War Against Japan, On Protracted War, and Problems of War and Strategy, elevating guerrilla warfare to the strategic level and creatively developing Marxist military theory. At the level of ideological methodology, works such as On Practice, On Contradiction, the Preface and Postscript to "Rural Surveys", and Some Questions Concerning Methods of Leadership were also composed during this period. From the dimension of constructing an autonomous knowledge system, a "revolutionary knowledge system" built by Mao Zedong and other Chinese Communists was gradually taking shape. Facts demonstrate that in the process of promoting the construction of a Chinese autonomous knowledge system in the fields of philosophy and social science, the CPC not only performed the important function of political leadership but also played the subjective role in knowledge production. The CPC is both the leading subject and the constructive subject of China's autonomous knowledge system.
It should be pointed out that political changes in the CPC also profoundly influenced the fields of academic thought. After the Wayaobu Meeting [11] concluded, Liu Shaoqi was assigned by the CPC Central Committee to North China to establish the Anti-Japanese National United Front, where he "did a great amount of highly effective work regarding the cultural united front," vigorously promoting the development of the New Enlightenment Movement. The rise of the New Enlightenment Movement reflected the reflections of Chinese Communists and left-wing intellectuals on the May Fourth New Culture Movement. In 1937, Ai Siqi summarized: "The old enlightenment movement did not complete the work it set out to do," and "a new culture can hardly be said to have been established; all that exists are fragmentary and piecemeal achievements, and these are preserved only in the hands of a very small minority, unable to reach the level of universalization and popularization." The old enlightenment movement failed to complete the task of establishing China’s own culture in its entirety, "leaving behind only bits and pieces of results (such as the reorganization of national heritage [12]) and the introduction of various foreign cultures." Therefore, the task of the New Enlightenment Movement was to "give it a new synthesis." In 1936, the "New Enlightenment Movement" was first initiated by Chen Boda, then head of the Propaganda Department of the North Bureau of the CPC Central Committee. He issued a call by successively publishing articles such as The National Defense Mobilization of Philosophy—A Self-Critique of New Philosophers and Proposals Regarding the New Enlightenment Movement and On the New Enlightenment Movement. Under the leadership of the CPC, scholars including Ai Siqi, He Ganzhi, and Hu Sheng participated in this movement and conducted in-depth explorations of China's philosophy and social sciences. For example, He Ganzhi later summarized in his book A History of the Modern Chinese Enlightenment Movement: "The New Enlightenment Movement is a movement to establish a new culture for modern China." He emphasized the need to use Chinese empirical materials from reality to develop existing knowledge systems, noting: "The reappearance of Chinese history in the light of day can enrich the historical system, and the completion of Chinese economic theory can fill a particular blank space in broad-sense economics. All of these are the most precious elements for creating a new culture for modern China." He also encouraged economists to allow "the original face of Chinese society to reappear before the people's eyes and ears," thereby enriching "economic methodology and its system."
Changes in the situation of the War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression served as another important realistic driver for the CPC to promote the construction of China's autonomous knowledge system. Under the leadership of the CPC, the New Enlightenment Movement vigorously advanced theoretical discussions on the content of indigenous philosophy and science within academic circles. However, the comprehensive outbreak of the War of Resistance caused the standard-bearers of the New Enlightenment Movement to leave movement centers like Peiping (Beijing) and Shanghai for places such as Yan'an and Chongqing. Nevertheless, during this movement, the academic pursuit of establishing a Chinese paradigm for philosophy and social science gradually emerged, particularly laying a certain foundation for the subsequent "Sinicization of Academics" movement led by the CPC. Simultaneously, under the severe national crisis, the CPC’s construction of modern ideology and culture assumed a more national character. Japan implemented "slave education" in occupied areas, attempting to spiritually destroy the national consciousness of the Chinese people; "under the flag of the rising sun, every Chinese can only be a submissive subject, a beast of burden, not allowed even a shred of Chinese spirit." Therefore, at this time, it was particularly important for the CPC to re-evaluate the national cultural heritage and revitalize the national self-confidence of the people. In promoting the development of indigenous philosophical and scientific content, the CPC’s emphasis on characteristics such as "nationality," "autonomy," and "Sinicization" was, in fact, a powerful measure to boost national confidence.
II. Preliminary Attempts by the CPC to Promote the Construction of China's Autonomous Knowledge System during the Yan'an Period
During the Yan'an period, the CPC vigorously promoted the in-depth development of philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics. On the basis of studying and absorbing domestic and foreign intellectual resources—particularly the basic principles of Marxism—and integrating them with China’s concrete realities, the Party Sinicized foreign intellectual resources, writing the "Yan'an Chapter" in the construction of China's autonomous knowledge system. These attempts included: first, the CPC established and perfected the theoretical system of Mao Zedong Thought, a revolutionary theoretical system vital to the success or failure of the Chinese revolution, providing a series of ideological guidelines for building an autonomous knowledge system; second, CPC leaders, represented by Mao Zedong, personally participated in and encouraged academic innovation, creating favorable academic conditions and a good scholarly atmosphere for academic workers; third, the CPC consciously strengthened its leadership role in the academic movements aimed at constructing an autonomous knowledge system.
(i) Deepening Theoretical Innovation to Provide Ideological Guidance for the Construction of China's Autonomous Knowledge System
Starting from the May Fourth New Culture Movement, a new cultural force emerged in China. Mao Zedong pointed out: "This new force has made great strides in the fields of social science and literature and art, whether in philosophy, economics, politics, military science, history, or in literature and art (including drama, film, music, sculpture, and painting)." By the Yan'an period, the CPC not only led Chinese philosophy and social sciences to a series of achievements, but its own theoretical innovation also made breakthrough progress, using Mao Zedong Thought to guide the construction of China's autonomous knowledge system.
First, emphasizing the autonomy-oriented nature of knowledge. The autonomy of knowledge has two meanings: first, the source of knowledge should be based on China's own experience, or at least be proven by China's own experience. This is because any knowledge or theory only possesses clear meaning and guiding function when combined with indigenous experience; this is also the hallmark of whether it can form explanatory and practical significance. Mao Zedong believed that even if the knowledge in books is truthful, it still possesses inherent limitations: "In certain circumstances, this knowledge is still one-sided for them; it is something proven by others but not yet proven by themselves." To "always cite Greece" [13] and follow in others' footsteps makes it difficult to form original theoretical methods and fails to solve China's practical problems. In April 1938, Ai Siqi first proposed the proposition of "the Sinicization and realization of philosophical research" in The Current Situation and Tasks of Philosophy, advocating for philosophy to "speak Chinese" and "speak the language of the common people." As the pioneer who combined the basic principles of Marxism with China’s concrete reality and achieved significant results, Mao Zedong first proposed the "Sinicization of Marxism" at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee, becoming the first within the Party to explicitly oppose treating Marxism as dogma. Mao Zedong later summarized in the preface to the book Rural Surveys that only through investigation and research "can we possess the most fundamental knowledge of Chinese social problems," whereas "looking here and there and listening to hearsay will certainly not yield any complete knowledge." These theoretical reflections played an important guiding role in exploring China's autonomous knowledge system during the Yan'an period. Under his influence, Zhang Wentian, then president of the Academy of Central Research (中央研究院), specially organized the Yan'an Rural Investigation Team to go to North Shaanxi and Northwest Shanxi for field research and wrote a batch of investigation reports. In the report Notes on Returning from the Departure submitted to the Central Committee, Zhang Wentian further refined the theoretical methods of investigation and research, enriching China's sociological theory. Second, the application of knowledge should also face China's own problems and be capable of solving the specific problems facing China. Mao Zedong emphasized that only by transforming abstract foreign ideas into concrete reflections that conform to Chinese reality—by Sinicizing these foreign resources—could problems be solved; otherwise, "if not used for China's reality, they cannot strike the enemy." For those whose theories were detached from Chinese reality, Mao Zedong suggested revoking their title as "theoreticians," because he believed "only those who use the Marxist viewpoint to study practical problems and can solve them deserve to be called practical theoreticians." Ai Siqi also advocated for "establishing our own philosophy," proposing that the creation of a new philosophy should "be established targeting the important realistic problems at hand," and under the conditions of the time, "the most important problem is that of the national crisis." Under the Anti-Japanese National United Front, the realistic task of resisting Japan and saving the nation became a major issue facing the CPC. Therefore, the extent to which this problem could be solved became an important standard for testing the CPC's promotion of the development of China's autonomous knowledge system. As Hu Sheng put it: "The practice of the War of Resistance has become a touchstone for all ideological theories."
Second, emphasizing the systematized construction of knowledge. Realizing the systematization of knowledge is an inherent requirement for constructing an autonomous knowledge system. During the Yan'an period, the CPC also conducted much theoretical exploration in this regard. As the situation of the War of Resistance developed, Mao Zedong felt deeply that there was a lack of systematized knowledge construction within the Party at that time. For example, although Mao praised the Party's political work, he also noted the "deficiency in comprehensiveness and systematicness," particularly that the summary and distillation of experiences and achievements regarding the correct line in military struggle were insufficient. He proposed editing the Anti-Japanese War Series and appointed Luo Ruiqing to organize the writing of Political Work in the Anti-Japanese Army. Ai Siqi held the same view while promoting the establishment of the new philosophy, believing that "a philosopher is merely one who can make a philosophy systematic." Everyone has their own philosophy of life, but not everyone is a philosopher; a philosopher’s theory "is spoken more systematically and completely." He added, "The philosophy we want to establish is one that can guide our own lives and is closely integrated with our lives; it must be able to run consistently through our lives, so it can also become a set or a system, but it is not a system of empty theory or empty logic." At the Seventh National Congress of the CPC in 1945, as the War of Resistance approached its end, Mao Zedong emphasized: "Solving problems systematically is what is called science; that which is not systematic but fragmentary, even if correct, is not science." So-called theory "is systematic knowledge." Only organized and systematized theory can fully demonstrate the scientific nature of the Chinese revolutionary movement; therefore, knowledge of past revolutionary struggles must be systematically reorganized. As the crystallization of the collective wisdom of the Chinese Communists, the formation and perfection of Mao Zedong Thought during the Yan'an period was the most typical result of the realization of autonomy and systematization in Chinese knowledge, serving as the best model for other workers in philosophy and social sciences to explore China's autonomous knowledge system.
(ii) Valuing Academic Research to Create Favorable Conditions for the Construction of China's Autonomous Knowledge System
During the Yan'an period, the CPC had to oppose imperialist aggression while dealing with constant harassment from the Kuomintang; for social science workers in the base areas, conducting academic research in such a social environment was by no means easy. However, under these arduous wartime conditions, Chinese Communists represented by Mao Zedong attached great importance to research in philosophy and social sciences, creating a good academic atmosphere to promote the construction of China's autonomous knowledge system and personally participating in academic exchanges and discussions.
First...
First, promoting the construction of a Chinese independent knowledge system through academic contention. Mao Zedong possessed a profound foundation in both Chinese and Western learning and maintained a strong interest in the philosophy and social sciences. In 1936, during the American journalist Edgar Snow’s visit to Yan'an, Mao received several new philosophy books from a visitor; he subsequently consulted with Snow to reschedule their interviews and spent three or four nights concentrating exclusively on these books. During the Yan'an period, Mao frequently engaged in academic exchanges with workers in the philosophy and social sciences. On one hand, he offered his own insights into the research of academic workers, improving the quality of academic output through discussion. For example, in a 1939 letter to Zhang Wentian, Mao raised "several points for discussion" regarding Chen Boda’s article "The Philosophical Thought of Confucius," noting that "the piece lacks a general concept, which makes it seem unsystematic to a beginner." To some extent, this emphasized that academic research should focus on the extraction of "identifying concepts" (标识性概念). Indeed, while reading the Course on Dialectical Materialism, Mao once annotated: "Concepts are more profound than sensations; they are a step further." On the other hand, Mao was very eager for academic exchange and discussion with others. In 1939, he sent his own article, "New Democratic Politics and New Democratic Culture," to Wu Yuzhang, modestly stating: "I have written a theoretical piece, mainly for the purpose of refuting the diehards [14]; I send it to you and would be grateful for your corrections and instructions!" Under the leadership of the Communist Party of China (CPC), a large number of high-quality academic achievements were continuously produced, powerfully driving the formation of indigenous concepts, theories, discourses, and methods within China's independent knowledge system. Regarding academic research, a group of academic societies and research institutions were established, such as the Central Academy (中央研究院), the New Philosophy Society, the Resistance War Research Association, the Chinese Modern History Research Association, the Political Economy Research Association, and the Current Affairs Research Association. A cohort of Marxist theorists emerged, including Ai Siqi, Zhang Ruxin, Jian Bozan, Fan Wenlan, Wu Liping, Yang Song, Li Da, He Ganzhi, Deng Chumin, Wu Liangping, and Wang Xuewen. They produced fruitful results in disciplines such as philosophy, political science, economics, history, sociology, law, journalism, and literature, providing important theoretical support for solving practical problems. From today's perspective, while the "five major forces" [15] are the primary subjects for constructing the philosophy and social sciences, one should not overlook that the CPC itself is also an important subject in the construction of China's independent knowledge system. In particular, CPC leaders such as Mao Zedong, Liu Shaoqi, and Zhang Wentian contributed their own academic strength, effectively advancing the construction of this system.
Second, promoting the construction of a Chinese independent knowledge system through independent innovation. Theories in the philosophy and social sciences are high-level generalizations of concepts, ideas, and methods. During the Yan'an period, Mao Zedong brought his critical and practical spirit into the fields of philosophy and social science, placing special emphasis on constructing China's own theoretical framework—a vital conclusion he reached while opposing "dogmatism" [16]. In his 1941 report Reform Our Learning, Mao emphasized strengthening study and research using Marxist-Leninist methods, pointedly noting: "Hardly anyone has seriously started researching the economic, political, military, and cultural history of the last hundred years." To address this, he proposed that "we should gather talent, work with a division of labor and cooperation, and overcome the state of lack of organization." In September 1941, the Institute of Marxism-Leninism was reorganized into the Central Academy, becoming an important academic organ for using Marxist-Leninist methods to study historical and practical issues. This institution adopted the principle of dividing into specialized departments and offices, with Party experts serving as directors to guide the work. For instance, Zhang Ruxin directed the Chinese Politics Research Office, Wang Sihua directed the Chinese Economy Research Office, Ouyang Shan directed the Chinese Literature and Art Research Office, Ke Bainian directed the International Issues Research Office, and Li Weihan directed the Chinese Education and Chinese Journalism Research Offices. These practices strengthened the organization of academic research. In 1942, at the opening ceremony of the Central Party School, Mao further discussed the need to elevate "perceptual knowledge" to "rational knowledge." He argued that CPC theorists must not "merely memorize Marxist economics or philosophy," but must "be able to apply the Marxist-Leninist stand, viewpoint, and method to correctly explain the practical problems arising in history and the revolution, providing scientific explanations and theoretical accounts for China’s economic, political, military, and cultural issues." He did not merely issue these requirements in theory but also frequently encouraged the innovative research of academic workers. For example, when He Ganzhi, head of the China Problem Teaching and Research Office at North Shaanxi Public School (陕北公学), mentioned a desire to study ethnic history, Mao wrote back in encouragement: "Not many of our comrades have the interest and determination to study Chinese history... and now you wish to work on ethnic history; this is excellent, and I hope you do it in earnest." Furthermore, after reading an outline for a lecture on the brief history of Chinese classical studies (经学) by Fan Wenlan, then director of the History Research Office at the Institute of Marxism-Leninism, Mao praised it highly, saying: "This is the first time Marxist methods have been used to settle accounts with classical studies." After receiving this encouragement via Mao’s personal letter, Fan quickly organized the outline into an article titled "The Evolution of the History of Chinese Classical Studies," which was published serially in the magazine Chinese Culture. Additionally, Mao commissioned Fan Wenlan to compile the Simplified General History of China (中国通史简编). This work is recognized as the first general history of China written from a Marxist-Leninist perspective with a scientific system; it was highly pioneering in content and style and exerted a profound influence on later generations. In the field of economics, Wang Yanan, in response to the needs of Chinese social transformation, published articles such as "On the Possibility and Necessity of Establishing Chinese Economics" and "On the Research Objects and Methods of Chinese Economics," clearly putting forward the task of establishing "Chinese economics." In journalism, Lu Dingyi published "Our Basic Viewpoint on Journalism" in the Liberation Daily in 1943, which summarized previous debates and basic theoretical issues in journalism, enriching and developing China’s Marxist journalistic theory. Besides Mao Zedong, other CPC leaders also focused on creating favorable conditions for scholars. For instance, Zhou Enlai, who was then in Chongqing, showed great concern for academic workers. After the Southern Anhui Incident [17], when the political atmosphere in Chongqing was very stifling and many people both inside and outside the Party were evacuating, Zhou encouraged the remaining Hou Wailu, saying: "The situation is unfavorable for large-scale public activities, but this is also an opportunity. People with research capabilities should take advantage of this chance to sit down and do some research. Seize the time to improve yourselves, study a few problems deeply, and if you want to write a book, write it quickly." He particularly encouraged Hou to strengthen the pioneering and construction of a Marxist historiographical front. Zhou's encouragement inspired a group of scholars in Chongqing; many important works, such as Guo Moruo’s Ten Critiques, Hou Wailu’s On Chinese Social History, and Jian Bozan’s Outline of Chinese History, were started or completed during this period, making foundational and pioneering contributions to the independent development of disciplines like Chinese history.
(III) Leading academic movements to provide an organizational guarantee for the construction of a Chinese independent knowledge system
Mao Zedong’s 1938 proposal of the proposition of "the Sinicization of Marxism" stimulated the theoretical self-awareness of philosophy and social science workers in the base areas and opened a new historical starting point for the CPC’s leadership over the cause of philosophy and social sciences. Mao emphasized: "We must study our historical legacy and use the Marxist method to give it a critical summary," and "From Confucius to Sun Yat-sen, we should summarize and inherit this precious legacy. Inheriting the legacy turns into a method, which is of great help in guiding the great movement of today. Communists are internationalist Marxists, but Marxism must be realized through national forms." Mao’s call for "Sinicization" and his emphasis on "national forms" at this meeting had a significant impact on academia. Zhang Shenfu, a non-Party figure, believed: "From this passage, a great progress in China's recent intellectual insight can be symbolized," and "We believe that many imported things should be Sinicized when used in China." This idea proposed by Mao acted as a direct catalyst for the "Academic Sinicization" movement (学术中国化运动). A series of original viewpoints regarding Chinese philosophy and social sciences were elucidated in this movement, and a large number of academic workers moved the autonomy of Chinese philosophy and social sciences a big step forward through theoretical exploration and academic practice. The CPC played a core leadership role in this movement, providing a strong organizational guarantee for the construction of a Chinese independent knowledge system.
First, the CPC actively organized and carried out the "Academic Sinicization" movement. "Academic Sinicization" was proposed in response to the "Sinicization of Marxism." This movement first began among theoretical circles in Chongqing, but many of the magazines that actively promoted this slogan were actually led by the CPC. In April 1939, Volume 1, Issue 3 of the magazine Readers’ Monthly (读书月报), edited by Ai Hansong and Shi Mei, featured a special column on the "Problem of Academic Sinicization," publishing articles such as Pan Shu’s "The Origin of the Problem of Academic Sinicization," Liu Shi’s "On Sinicization," and Di’s reading notes "Talking about ‘Sinicization’." Later, this publication was managed and edited by Hu Sheng, further promoting the movement's development. In the same month, the magazine Theory and Reality (理论与现实), edited by CPC member Shen Zhiyuan, began publication, featuring articles like Pan Zinian’s "The Tasks of the Academic Movement in the New Stage," Hou Wailu’s "The Tradition of Chinese Scholarship and the Current Academic Movement," and Shen Zhiyuan’s "The Origin of My Writing Talks on Practical Materialism," further discussing the issue of "Academic Sinicization." Most of the scholars participating in the "Academic Sinicization" movement in Chongqing were CPC members or left-wing scholars influenced by the Party. A significant number of them, including Pan Zinian, Hu Sheng, Shen Zhiyuan, and Ai Hansong, were primary members of the "Chinese Academic Research Association," which was the Chongqing branch of the Yan'an New Philosophy Society led by the CPC. There were also extensive and in-depth discussions in Northern Shaanxi, Shanghai, and other regions; one researcher noted at the time: "In terms of social sciences, there is relatively more Sinicization work being done in Northern Shaanxi." The "Academic Sinicization" movement conducted a great deal of theoretical exploration into why and how to construct "Sinicized" scholarship, emphasizing that the central slogan of this academic movement was "Sinicization and Realization" (中国化和现实化). However, this was not intended to "affirm the narrowness of the academic nation-state, let alone focus exclusively on excessive praise of China's inherent culture and scholarship while blindly rejecting the study of foreign advanced academic thought." As the movement developed, these reflections became the intellectual consensus among philosophy and social science scholars exploring China's independent knowledge system. Regarding "Sinicization," Ji Wenfu once summarized it with a formula: "Neither Western nor old, yet both Western and old; both temporary and substantive; embedding the profound in the simple; all based on reality." As for the evaluation of "Academic Sinicization," the phrase "all based on reality" captures its essence. We must both affirm the active significance of the "Academic Sinicization" movement and recognize that many works at the time failed to handle the relationship between academia and politics well, over-emphasizing the phenomenon of academic research serving current politics, which consequently produced some negative impacts on the development of the philosophy and social sciences.
Second, ...
The CPC actively guided the transition of the "Sinicization of Scholarship" movement toward the "New Democratic Culture" movement. In 1940, the journal Chinese Culture (Zhongguo Wenhua), sponsored by the Cultural Association of the Shaanxi-Gansu-Ningxia Border Region, served as a vital front for discussing and advancing the "Sinicization of Scholarship" in Yan'an. Under Mao Zedong’s influence, a large number of scholars continued to conduct in-depth discussions on relevant issues within the "Sinicization of Scholarship" movement, gradually developing it into the "New Democratic Culture" movement. In the inaugural issue of Chinese Culture, Mao Zedong published "New Democratic Politics and New Democratic Culture," providing guidance for the further development of the "Sinicization of Scholarship." He pointed out: "To establish a new culture of the Chinese nation—this is our objective in the cultural sphere," and "the so-called new culture of the Chinese nation is the culture of New Democracy." Subsequently, Chinese Culture published a series of articles engaged in theoretical inquiry and academic practice regarding the "Sinicization" issue. For instance, Ai Siqi’s article "On China’s Particularity" applied the law of "the general and the particular" to counter Ye Qing’s [18] slanderous remarks against the "Sinicization of Scholarship," noting that his approach was a "sophistry that inverts right and wrong... characterized by the verbal misappropriation of progressive ideological terminology." Lü Zhenyu [19] followed by publishing the article "The Creation of a New National Culture and the Problem of Inheriting Cultural Heritage" in the journal Theory and Reality (Lilun yu Xianshi), pushing the "Sinicization of Scholarship" into the stage of "New Democratic Culture." In 1941, an article written under the pseudonym Wu Xie summarized: "If one says the basic slogan of the Chinese cultural sphere in the 28th year of the Republic (1939) was 'Sinicization of Scholarship,' then last year's (the 29th year) basic slogan was 'New Culture of New Democracy.'" He believed the directions of the two slogans were consistent, and thus "the Sinicization of Scholarship moved toward the new culture of New Democracy." Under the leadership of the CPC, the "Sinicization of Scholarship" and "New Democratic Culture" maintained a progressive relationship; if the former remained a vague academic appeal, the latter was a dominant framing scheme that supplemented and clarified the former. Consequently, academic research in the revolutionary base areas gained a clear direction under CPC leadership: first, to emphasize national cultural heritage and excavate the contemporary value of traditional scholarship while developing an independent knowledge system; second, to emphasize the localized transformation of foreign knowledge systems, making full use of the outstanding achievements of world civilizations so that foreign scholarship could solve Chinese problems based on Chinese practice. Through this dual consideration, the construction of a Chinese independent knowledge system led by the CPC achieved "plentiful and beautiful fruits."
Heine once said: "Germany was led onto the path of philosophy by Kant; therefore, philosophy became a national undertaking." During the Yan'an period, through the advocacy and promotion of Mao Zedong and other Communists, theoretical innovation became a vital undertaking of the CPC. At this stage, the CPC’s exploration of a Chinese independent knowledge system fully exerted the political function of Marxist scholarship, provided rich theoretical resources for Sinicized Marxism, and formed a "theoretical system" with distinct local characteristics. On a practical level, it promoted the development of Sinicized Marxist theory, facilitated the popularization of philosophy and social science theories among the masses, heightened the political awareness and revolutionary consciousness of the people, and powerfully advanced the historical process of making Marxism Chinese, contemporary, and popular.
III. Experiences and Enlightenments from the CPC’s Advancement of the Construction of a Chinese Independent Knowledge System during the Yan'an Period
During the Yan'an period, the CPC conducted preliminary explorations into the construction of a Chinese independent knowledge system. On one hand, it deepened the construction of a revolutionary "knowledge system," continuously advancing the Sinicization of Marxism—most notably with the incorporation of Mao Zedong Thought into the Party Constitution at the Seventh National Congress of the CPC. On the other hand, the CPC exercised strong leadership over the academic undertaking of building a Chinese independent knowledge system, resulting in the birth of a batch of outstanding achievements in the philosophy and social sciences. These early explorations by the CPC during the Yan'an period laid the historical foundation for the People's Republic of China to promote the further development of philosophy and social sciences and offer enlightening significance for the further construction of a Chinese independent knowledge system today.
(1) Adhering to Marxism as Guidance to Strengthen the Scientific Nature of the Independent Knowledge System
Huang Zongxi, a thinker from the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, once said: "In general, every school of learning has a core tenet (zongzhi); this is where the practitioner gains strength and where the scholar finds their entrance." For the Chinese independent knowledge system, Marxism is the "tenet" that must be followed. During the Yan'an period, a prominent feature of the CPC’s promotion of an independent knowledge system was its consistent adherence to the guidance of Marxism. Regarding this, Mao Zedong compared Marxism-Leninism to the "arrow" and the actual movement of the Chinese revolution to the "target" (de); the CPC’s task was to find this "arrow" to shoot the "target" of the Chinese and Eastern revolutions. However, adhering to the guidance of Marxism never meant treating it as a static dogma [20], but rather emphasizing the mastery of its standpoint and methods for observing and solving problems. Therefore, Mao Zedong stated: "If our Party had one or two hundred comrades who had learned Marxism-Leninism systematically and not fragmentarily, practically and not abstractly, the combat effectiveness of our Party would be greatly increased." In the "Sinicization of Scholarship" movement, Ji Wenfu [21] proposed that "as long as the apricot-yellow flag [22] is unfurled, one need not fear falling into the Ten Absolute Formations." This "apricot-yellow flag" referred to modern, progressive scientific thought—dialectical materialism. Pan Zinian [23] also emphasized using dialectical materialism to "study Chinese history, China’s social formations, and the various changes occurring in Chinese society during the War of Resistance, so as to make these changes move toward a progressive direction and develop more rapidly," thereby "establishing China’s social sciences." History has proven that contemporary Chinese philosophy and social sciences took the entry of Marxism into our country as their starting point and developed step-by-step under the guidance of Marxism. In constructing a Chinese independent knowledge system, we need to continue exerting the guiding role of Marxism. On one hand, we must continue to promote the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism; on the other hand, we must persist in using Marxism to lead the in-depth development of philosophy and social sciences, consciously integrating Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era throughout the entire process of teaching and research, and learning to use scientific thinking methods to promote the construction of a Chinese independent knowledge system.
(2) Carrying Forward Fine Traditional Chinese Culture to Strengthen the National Character of the Independent Knowledge System
Culture is the root of a nation’s survival. The CPC’s emphasis on the revival of fine traditional Chinese culture is neither a cultural archaism that stubbornly clings to national cultural traditions, nor a Chinese cultural centrism with "cultural determinist" tendencies. Rather, it is about finding the points of convergence and integration between fine traditional Chinese culture and Marxist theoretical research. Mao Zedong pointed out: "Today’s China is a development of historical China; we are Marxist historicists, and we should not sever history. From Confucius to Sun Yat-sen, we should summarize and inherit this precious legacy." On one hand, the entry of Marxism into China was inherently meant to merge with local Chinese thought and culture, giving Marxism not only the "clothing" of a modern discourse system but also a composite "body" integrated with China’s own reflections on thought and culture. On the other hand, traditional culture constitutes an important part of modern knowledge resources; many essences within traditional Chinese culture have not become obsolete. The CPC’s promotion of the "national form" of modern knowledge was not intended to return to the past or persist in "Chinese cultural centrism," but to critically receive these elements to facilitate the promotion of a local "new culture." The unique spirit and charm of Chinese culture happen to create an exclusive cultural identity for the nationalization of the Chinese knowledge system, which both distinguishes it from Western philosophy and social sciences and breaks free from dependence on Western discourse and theory. Therefore, in the current process of building a Chinese independent knowledge system, we should treat fine traditional Chinese culture as an important intellectual resource for achieving contemporary China’s spiritual independence and autonomy. We should earnestly excavate academic resources therein, continuously promoting the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture in the Sinicized study of specific issues, and constructing a new knowledge system on the basis of the Sinicization of specific principles.
(3) Serving the Practical Needs of National Rejuvenation to Strengthen the Practicality of the Independent Knowledge System
The era is the mother of thought, and practice is the source of theory. The materialist conception of history maintains: "It does not explain practice from ideas but explains the formation of ideas from material practice." Intellectual innovation requires not only "ideological reflection" but even more so "reflection on reality." By combining "reflection on reality" with "ideological reflection" and elevating practical experience into theory, an ideological leap is achieved. In fact, "reflection on reality" is the foundation and driving force of "ideological reflection." All knowledge systems in history have, consciously or unconsciously, conducted "ideological reflection" based on "reflection on reality" to establish corresponding theoretical systems. The construction of a Chinese independent knowledge system is not a pursuit for the ivory tower; in the final analysis, it must take China as its focus and the era as its reference. Regarding this point, the CPC during the Yan'an period paid high attention to the application of theoretical knowledge in practice, emphasizing that scholarship must serve the central tasks. Focusing on, reflecting upon, immersing oneself in, and transforming reality became important characteristics of the CPC’s promotion of philosophy and social sciences during the Yan'an period. When Huo Ganzhi [24] was at North China United University, he originally planned to study Chinese national history, cultural history, and modern history, but to solve the actual economic difficulties existing in the Border Region, he pivoted to research "financial and economic issues of the Shanxi-Chahar-Hebei Anti-Japanese Base Area." The facts are exactly as Mao Zedong stated in On Practice and "How to Study the History of the CPC": "If you want knowledge, you must take part in the practice of changing reality. If you want to know the taste of a pear, you must change the pear by eating it yourself"; "In studying China, we must take China as the center. We must sit on the body of China to study things of the world... If we do not study the characteristics of China but merely transport foreign things, we cannot solve China’s problems." The history of the philosophy and social sciences led by the CPC during the Yan'an period proves that the great practice of the Chinese revolution is the driving force for the development of philosophy and social sciences, and the immense achievements of the Chinese revolution are the source of progress for these fields. Rooted in the New Era, the construction of a Chinese independent knowledge system must also focus on answering the questions of China, the world, the people, and the times. It must serve the cause of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and construct a disciplinary system, academic system, and discourse system that takes Chinese reality as its starting point. As General Secretary Xi Jinping emphasized during his inspection of Renmin University of China: "We must take China as our focus and the era as our focus, root ourselves in Chinese reality, and solve Chinese problems... We should take the manifestation of the Chinese path, Chinese governance, and Chinese logic as our intellectual pursuit, demonstrating real ability and achieving good results in researching and solving major issues concerning the overall, fundamental, and key interests of the Party and the state."
(4) Improving the International Influence of Chinese Scholarship to Strengthen the Professionalism of the Independent Knowledge System
During the Yan'an period...
In advancing the construction of an independent knowledge system, the Communist Party of China (CPC) placed great emphasis on improving the level of academic professionalism. During this period, the development of the philosophy and social sciences led by the CPC was neither a helpless, forced acceptance of the colonial impact of Western culture on modern China, nor a parrot-like imitation of the West; rather, it represented a cultural self-awareness [25] characterized by the courage to speak out and the confidence to act. Knowledge itself knows no national borders. Since ancient times, the knowledge systems of China and the West have gradually formed through cultural exchange. In 1944, Ji Wenfu wrote in the article "China's Culture and World Culture": "In my opinion, world culture is a grand confluence formed by the intricate interweaving, integration, and blending of many national cultures... and what is called Chinese culture or Western culture are both bobbing and rolling within this great current; no one can exclude the other." However, the political and military failures of modern China caused the Chinese people to remain skeptical of their own knowledge system and their ability to construct a new, independent one. During the Yan'an period, the CPC promoted the in-depth development of Chinese philosophy and social sciences, achieving fruitful results in fields such as philosophy, history, economics, and sociology. This greatly enhanced the level of professionalism in the construction of an independent knowledge system and fundamentally reversed the previous mentality of "academic inferiority." In 1946, Hou Wailu stated in the "Preface to the Second Edition of the History of Ancient Chinese Thought and Doctrine": "Chinese scholars have already moved beyond the stage of merely imitating Western European languages; they are now able to flexibly use their own language to explain their own history and trends of thought. Previously, when they wrote about problems, they always first looked for the footprints of Europe, America, and Japan, but now it is different. On their own soil and without apprehension, they are able to use new methods themselves to unearth the cultural traditions of their own nation. I believe the straying into side roads is temporary, and in the near future, it will be clear what is correct and what is biased. At the same time, I believe that research from one side will present its achievements to the world's literary circles; although it cannot be said to have shed its legal infancy, a steady gait can always be discerned from the time one learns to walk." This passage can be regarded as a summary of the period when China’s independent knowledge system was initially established. The so-called "using new methods to unearth the cultural traditions of one’s own nation" refers to applying Marxist theory to guide Chinese research in philosophy and social sciences. This was undoubtedly a great transformation in the history of the development of Chinese philosophy and social sciences. Coincidentally, Hu Sheng also summarized in 1948: "By now, China's culture and scholarship are no longer like 'clearing brambles and thorns to open up the mountain forests' [26] in the early May Fourth period, nor are they mumbling imitations of Western languages; they have begun to have their own achievements." From these sincere and confident words, we can perhaps see that Chinese philosophy and social sciences were moving from "learning to walk" toward maturity. At present, we must not only let the world know of "China on the tongue" (its culinary culture), but also "China in academia," "China in theory," and "China in philosophy and social sciences." Therefore, we must further strengthen the systematic and professional construction of China's independent knowledge system, continuously promote the innovative development of the disciplinary system, academic system, and discourse system, and enhance our country’s right to speak and influence in the international academic community.
Since the dawn of the modern era, Eastern culture was at a loss and suffered defeat when facing the offensive from the West. Western civilization "ascended the hall and entered the inner chamber" [27], occupying the Chinese intellectual world. After Western culture invaded China in the 20th century, traditional society disintegrated day by day. Against this background, Chinese intellectuals felt a stronger sense of mission concerning how to handle the relationship between Chinese and Western cultures. This is because intellectuals are more sensitive to China’s "peril and ruin," and the consciousness that "Heaven is about to confer a great responsibility on such a person" [28] naturally grew accordingly. Although the sense of mission among Chinese intellectuals originated from tradition—especially Confucianism—in an era of great social upheaval and intellectual transformation, it dissociated from tradition and acquired new life. It could combine with any foreign thought to form a force seeking change and innovation for China. However, in the modern period, whether it was the scholars of the late Qing Dynasty or the great masters of the Republican era, none truly constructed an independent Chinese knowledge system due to historical limitations. Holding high the great banner of Marxism, the CPC during the Yan'an period—through powerful leadership, critical absorption, creative reflection, and egalitarian exchange—skillfully handled the relationship between Chinese and Western cultures. It found a way for a backward and bullied China to break through civilizational barriers, changed the flow of Western learning spreading to the East [29], and reshaped and configured China's domestic intellectual landscape. It must be pointed out that in the process of creating and transforming a new culture, the CPC did not merely "sit and discuss" but focused on "rising to act." Bidding farewell to abstract theoretical concepts, they summarized the "logic of practice" from reflections on concrete problems, evoking a more national, independent, and Sinicized style of philosophy and social science, and endowing it with Chinese thinking, Chinese wisdom, and Chinese character. Driven by a strong sense of self-awareness and responsibility, the CPC took the "braid" of contextualized theory that had previously been tied up with Western theories, shook it loose back to its original "disheveled" state, and re-interpreted it using new Sinicized academic theories. They retied the "braid" of Chinese culture, promoting the development of Chinese philosophy and social sciences in a direction that is localized, independent, scientific, and autonomous, facilitating the transformation of China's independent knowledge system from ontology to epistemology and methodology. This shift not only reflects the historical trend of the Sinicization of philosophy and social sciences but also achieved historical success, produced a historical impact, and wrote the "Yan'an Chapter" of Chinese academic development. Currently, as the changes unseen in a century accelerate their evolution and the world enters a new period of turbulence and transformation, the "Questions of China," the "Questions of the World," the "Questions of the People," and the "Questions of the Times" all urgently require answers. This requires that, under the leadership of the CPC, we continue to promote the Sinicization and modernization of Marxism and constantly explore the construction of China's independent knowledge system. This will ensure that as China increasingly moves toward the center of the world stage, philosophy and social sciences with Chinese characteristics will truly stand tall among the world's academic forests.
About the Authors: Dong Jia, Vice Dean of the Institute of the Thirteen Years in Yan'an and Chinese-path Modernization, Professor at the School of CPC History and Party Building, Renmin University of China. Wen Ruiqin, Doctoral candidate at the School of Marxism, Renmin University of China. Source: Journal of Renmin University of China, Issue 6, 2025. Editor: Huihui.