Mao Zedong’s Original Contributions to the Construction of a Chinese Marxist Philosophy during the Yan’an Period

“Whether our philosophy and social sciences have Chinese characteristics ultimately depends on whether they have subjectivity and originality.” In the more than one hundred years of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context, Chinese Marxists have long been consciously examining this question. With his outstanding philosophical discernment, Mao Zedong made pioneering efforts to construct a Chinese Marxist philosophy, producing original philosophical results. A review of existing research shows that analyses of Mao’s philosophical achievements from paradigms such as “theoretical interpretation, documentary and textual research, practical reflection, and the history of Marxist philosophy” are numerous, but it is still necessary to clarify Mao’s original contributions to Chinese Marxist philosophy from the philosophical height of the unity of world outlook and methodology. “Marxism adapted to the Chinese context and the needs of the times is a theoretical system composed of a series of scientific categories.” Basic categories are the logical pivot and cognitive coordinates of the theoretical system of Chinese Marxist philosophy. The Yan’an period was a time when Mao Zedong’s philosophical thinking was active, his philosophical construction was prominent, and his philosophical writings were abundant. Therefore, this article will focus on the Yan’an period, attempting to analyze Mao’s original contributions to the construction of a Chinese Marxist philosophy from the overall domain of world outlook and methodology, through his theoretical consciousness in inheriting the basic categories of Marxist philosophy during this period and his creative enrichment and development of these basic categories in light of China’s national conditions, within the internal interconnections of the basic categories. This is of great significance for our profound grasp of the unique characteristics of Chinese Marxist philosophy and for a deep understanding of the theoretical development of contemporary Chinese Marxism in terms of world outlook and methodology.

“我们的哲学社会科学有没有中国特色，归根到底要看有没有主体性、原创性。”在马克思主义哲学中国化的百余年历程中，中国马克思主义者对这一问题的自觉审视早已有之。毛泽东以其卓越的哲学辨识为构建中国马克思主义哲学作出了开创性努力，形成了原创性的哲学成果。检视既有研究，从“学理阐释、文献文本研究、实践反思、马克思主义哲学史”等范式解析毛泽东哲学的理论成果不胜枚举，但还需要进一步从世界观和方法论相统一的哲学高度明晰毛泽东对中国马克思主义哲学的原创性贡献。“中国化时代化的马克思主义是由一系列科学范畴构成的理论体系”，基本范畴是中国马克思主义哲学理论体系的逻辑枢纽和认知坐标。延安时期是毛泽东哲学思考活跃、哲学思想建构突出、哲学文献书写丰富的时期。因此，本文将聚焦延安时期，尝试通过这一时期毛泽东继承马克思主义哲学基本范畴的理论自觉以及结合中国国情对基本范畴的创造性丰富和发展，在基本范畴的内在相互关联中分析毛泽东从世界观和方法论这一整体论域对构建中国马克思主义哲学的原创性贡献。这对于我们深刻把握中国马克思主义哲学的独特特质，深入理解当代中国马克思主义在世界观和方法论上的理论发展具有重要意义。

I. How Was It Possible for Mao Zedong to Construct a Chinese Marxist Philosophy during the Yan’an Period?

一、延安时期毛泽东构建中国马克思主义哲学何以可能

The process of constructing a Chinese Marxist philosophy is a theoretical process of reinterpreting Marxist philosophy in a Chinese context and innovating it to meet the needs of the times, using Chinese discourse and Chinese spirit. The nearly thirteen years from October 1935, when the Central Committee of the CPC arrived in northern Shaanxi, to March 1948, when Mao Zedong and others crossed the Yellow River eastward to greet the victory of the revolution, are collectively referred to as the “Yan’an period.” During this period, Mao Zedong synthesized the theoretical accumulations and attempts of his predecessors, further broadened his international perspective, deepened his Chinese sentiments, and achieved a thorough mastery of Marxist philosophy through the close integration of theory and practice. This was a key factor in promoting the construction of a Chinese Marxist philosophy.

构建中国马克思主义哲学的过程，是用中国话语和中国精神对马克思主义哲学进行中国化重释和时代化创新的理论过程。从1935年10月中共中央到达陕北，到1948年3月毛泽东等人东渡黄河迎接革命胜利的近13年时光统称为“延安时期”。这一时期毛泽东综合前人的理论积淀和尝试，进一步拓宽国际视野、深化中国情怀，在理论与实践的紧密结合中实现了对马克思主义哲学的融会贯通。这是推动中国马克思主义哲学建构的关键因素。

(1) World Vision: Integrating China and the West in the Collision between Traditional China and the Modern West

(一)世界眼光：在传统中国与现代西方的碰撞中融会中西

Traditional Chinese culture emphasizes “viewing the world from the perspective of the world,” stressing proceeding from the overall situation, taking the four seas as one family as the ritual order, and striving to realize the ideal of harmonious coexistence among all nations through cultural integration. In the historical immersion of Chinese culture lasting thousands of years, “When the great Way prevails, the world is for the common good” is a cultural gene engraved in the bones of the Chinese people, while “Be the first to worry about the world’s troubles and the last to enjoy its pleasures” embodies the life aspirations and mission of people of insight. Mao Zedong was deeply influenced by excellent traditional Chinese culture, expressing in his youth the idea that “Great Harmony is our goal.” However, when capitalism, developed through the Age of Discovery and colonial expansion, swept the globe, and Western modernization, driven by capital, forced open the closed doors of feudal China, causing the traditional Chinese social value concept of “cultivate oneself, regulate the family, govern the state, and bring peace to the world” to undergo structural dissolution amid the triple crises of material, institutional, and cultural dimensions, Mao Zedong, who cared deeply about the world, began to rethink how to more scientifically realize the beautiful ideal of a world of great peace.

中国传统文化讲求“以天下观天下”，强调从全局出发，以四海一家为礼仪秩序，致力于通过文化交融实现协和万邦的理想。在中华文化延续数千年的历史浸润中，“大道之行也，天下为公”是刻进中国人骨子里的文化基因，而“先天下之忧而忧，后天下之乐而乐”则寄托着有识之士的人生抱负和使命担当。毛泽东深受中华优秀传统文化的熏陶，在青年时期就表达了“大同者，吾人之鹄也”的想法。但当借助于地理大发现和殖民扩张所发展起来的资本主义席卷全球，由资本驱使所形成的西方现代化撞开了封建中国紧闭的大门，致使中国传统社会“修身齐家治国平天下”的价值理念在器物、制度、文化三重危机中遭遇结构性消解，心系天下的毛泽东开始重新思考如何更科学地实现太平世界的美好理想。

On the one hand, Mao Zedong, who was adept at learning, focused on critically learning from and absorbing the achievements of modern Western civilization. Through repeated deliberation and comparison of various doctrines and trends of thought that originated in Western Europe and entered the Chinese intellectual world through different channels, Mao Zedong, after the baptism of the May Fourth Movement [1]1 The “Caudine Forks” (卡夫丁峡谷) refers to a narrow mountain pass in ancient Italy where the Samnites defeated the Roman army in 321 BCE. Marx used it as a metaphor for the capitalist stage of development, suggesting that some societies might avoid the full brunt of capitalist exploitation by “leaping over” this stage under certain conditions., transformed ideologically into a thoroughgoing Marxist, and in subsequent revolutionary practice continuously tempered his thinking. During the Yan’an period, Mao Zedong had a relatively stable location and time to study the theoretical achievements accumulated by Chinese Marxists at the time and to think about the important question of how to scientifically treat the foreign doctrine of Marxism. Mao Zedong realized that we had not done enough in learning from foreign sources and that we should attach importance to learning from foreign affairs, “absorbing a large amount of foreign progressive culture as raw material for our own cultural food,” but this absorption was by no means wholesale Westernization; rather, it was necessary to “completely and appropriately unify the universal truth of Marxism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution.” From the perspective of the history of Marxist development, the spread of Marxism from one country to many was the direction of history. Through theoretical study and revolutionary practice, during the Yan’an period Mao Zedong deepened his understanding of Marxist philosophy, believing that the universally true principles of Marxist philosophy could be combined with China’s reality to save China from its perilous state. At the same time, in this combination, Marxist philosophy was endowed with new connotations, and in the process of helping China solve practical problems, it further enriched its own universality.

一方面，善于学习的毛泽东注重批判地学习和吸收西方现代文明成果。毛泽东通过对由西欧发端经过不同途径传入中国思想界的各种主义和思潮反复推敲与比较，经过“五四运动”的洗礼从思想上转变为彻底的马克思主义者，并在此后的革命实践中不断淬炼思想。延安时期，毛泽东有了相对安定的地点和时间学习当时中国马克思主义者们积淀的理论成果，并思考如何科学对待外来的马克思主义这一重要问题。毛泽东意识到在借鉴外来方面我们做得还不够，应重视学习外国事务，“大量吸收外国的进步文化，作为自己文化食粮的原料”，但这种吸收绝不是全盘西化，而是要“将马克思主义的普遍真理和中国革命的具体实践完全地恰当地统一起来”。从马克思主义发展史的角度来看，马克思主义从一国到多国的传播是历史所向。经过理论学习和革命实践，延安时期毛泽东深化了对马克思主义哲学的认识，认为具有普遍真理性的马克思主义哲学原理可以与中国现实相结合拯救处于危难之中的中国。同时在这一结合中马克思主义哲学也被赋予新的内涵，并在帮助中国解决现实问题的过程中进一步丰富了自身的普遍性。

On the other hand, Mao Zedong, who was adept at analysis, focused on considering China’s problems from the relationship between China and the world. Modern Western powers, through military coercion and institutional plunder, carried out colonial expansion against China, causing the Chinese people to begin to rethink the relationship between China and the world. During the Yan’an period, facing multiple blockades by domestic reactionaries and upheavals in the international situation, Mao Zedong used the basic principles of Marxism to think about China’s historical position in both the domestic and international situations, and to ponder the direction of the Chinese revolution from the overall connection between China and the world. He believed that “the Chinese revolution is a great part of the world revolution,” endowing the Chinese revolution with world significance. The liberation of the proletariat is an international undertaking. Mao Zedong criticized the erroneous understanding, under the domination of the “Left” line [2]2 This quotation is from Mao Zedong’s report “The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War” (October 1938), in which he stressed the need for the CPC to sinify Marxism., of separating patriotism from internationalism. He believed that national liberation and proletarian liberation were internally unified, and that “separating the content of internationalism from the national form is the practice of people who do not understand internationalism at all.” Based on this positioning, Mao Zedong devised a revolutionary struggle strategy of integrating China into the world, pointing out that “the ultimate future of the Chinese revolution is not capitalism, but socialism and communism.” In summary, Mao Zedong, with a world vision, critically reflected on and systematically examined the content and value of foreign culture, broke through the dogmatic mold of simply transplanting Marxist theory, and clearly recognized the development prospects of the Chinese revolution in the overall connection between the Chinese revolution and the world cause of people’s liberation. Through the process of integrating China and the West by combining Marxism with China’s social reality, during the Yan’an period Mao Zedong put forward the proposition of “adapting Marxism to the Chinese context,” providing space for the development of the construction of a Chinese Marxist philosophy.

另一方面，善于分析的毛泽东注重从中国与世界的关系中思量中国问题。近代西方列强通过武力胁迫和制度性掠夺对中国进行殖民扩张，使中国人开始重新反思中国与世界的关系。延安时期毛泽东面对国内反动派的多重封锁和国际局势的震动，运用马克思主义基本原理在国内国际两个大局中思考中国的历史方位，从中国与世界的整体关联中思索中国革命的前进方向，认为“中国革命是世界革命的伟大的一部分”，赋予了中国革命以世界意义。无产阶级的解放是一项国际性事业，毛泽东批评了在“左”倾路线支配下将爱国主义和国际主义割裂开来的错误认识。他认为民族解放与无产阶级解放是内在统一的，“把国际主义的内容和民族形式分离起来，是一点也不懂国际主义的人们的做法”。基于这一定位，毛泽东谋划出将中国融入世界的革命斗争策略，指出“中国革命的终极的前途，不是资本主义的，而是社会主义和共产主义的”。综上所述，毛泽东以世界眼光对外来文化的内容与价值进行批判性反思和系统性审视，突破了教条主义对马克思主义理论简单移植的窠臼，在中国革命与世界人民解放事业的整体关联中清醒地认识到中国革命的发展前途。通过马克思主义与中国社会现实相结合这一中西融会的过程，延安时期毛泽东提出了“马克思主义中国化”的命题，为中国马克思主义哲学的构建提供了发展空间。

(2) Chinese Sentiments: Connecting the Past and the Present in the Transformation from Traditional China to Modern China

(二)中国情怀：在传统中国向现代中国的转型中贯通古今

During the Yan’an period, Mao Zedong absorbed the positive achievements of earlier thinkers and, through revolutionary experience, deepened and matured his understanding of the question “Whither China?” In his later years, when studying the question of the development path of Eastern societies, Marx put forward the theoretical conception of “leaping over the Caudine Forks.” [1]1 The “Caudine Forks” (卡夫丁峡谷) refers to a narrow mountain pass in ancient Italy where the Samnites defeated the Roman army in 321 BCE. Marx used it as a metaphor for the capitalist stage of development, suggesting that some societies might avoid the full brunt of capitalist exploitation by “leaping over” this stage under certain conditions. Lenin, based on the actual conditions of Russian society, innovatively developed the theory of leaping over the Caudine Forks. However, due to differences in national conditions between China and Russia, no ready-made answer was available for replication. Mao Zedong believed that Chinese Communists needed to “independently determine their own political方针, policies, and actions according to the specific circumstances and special conditions of their own nation.” [2]2 This quotation is from Mao Zedong’s report “The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War” (October 1938), in which he stressed the need for the CPC to sinify Marxism. Therefore, Chinese Communists needed to lead China onto a path of modernization that both absorbed the achievements of Western industrial civilization and took Chinese civilization as its core, thereby bridging Chinese tradition and modern culture in a more practical and feasible way. On the one hand, Mao Zedong proposed “to establish a new culture of the Chinese nation.” The history of China since the Opium War determined that the living soul of this new culture could only be Chinese Marxist philosophy. In dealing with the relationship between Marxist theory and Chinese history, Mao Zedong held that valuable historical heritage should be summarized and inherited, and that “history should not be cut off.” [3]3 This quotation is from Mao Zedong’s “On New Democracy” (January 1940), where he discusses the relationship between the new culture and historical heritage. By linking the past and the present, Chinese Marxist philosophy participated in shaping the modern form of Chinese philosophy and became an important component of it. It not only enabled Marxism to gain recognition in China but also bridged the rupture between tradition and modernity. On the other hand, Mao Zedong believed that “a certain culture is the ideological reflection of the politics and economics of a certain society.” [4]4 This quotation is from Mao Zedong’s “On New Democracy” (January 1940), where he applies the Marxist base-superstructure model to cultural analysis. Applying Marxist cultural theory, he planned cultural construction from a strategic height, assessed the revolutionary process at the time within the organic connection of economics, politics, and culture, and found a real way out for China, which was then in a period of internal and external troubles. Against the backdrop of the mutual interaction of Marxism, Chinese civilization, and the wave of industrialization, the Chinese revolution needed to be carried out in “two steps”—the stages of the new-democratic revolution and the socialist revolution—and to build a national, scientific, and mass culture suited to the economy and politics of the new-democratic society, serving the modern transformation of traditional Chinese society. The future revolutionary vision Mao Zedong outlined by mastering the past to govern the present not only answered the historical question of “Whither China?” but was also deeply rooted in the cultural soil of “Whence China?” The process of Chinese people’s cultural confidence moving from loss to reconstruction after the Opium War was accompanied by the transformation of Chinese culture from ancient to modern. In linking the ancient and the modern, Mao Zedong promoted the transformation of traditional China into modern China, ensuring that the Chinese Marxist philosophy constructed in this process both adhered to national character, continuing the cultural lifeline, and maintained openness, developing with the times.

延安时期，毛泽东汲取了前贤致思的积极成果，在革命历练中对中国向何处去的理解和思考不断深刻和成熟。马克思晚年关注和研究东方社会发展道路问题时，曾经提出“跨越卡夫丁峡谷”的理论设想。列宁根据俄国社会实际对“卡夫丁峡谷”跨越论进行了创新性发展。但由于中俄国情差异，没有现成的答案可供复制。毛泽东认为，中国共产党人需要“独立地根据自己民族的具体情况和特殊条件，决定自己的政治方针、政策和行动”。因此，中国共产党人需要带领中国走出一条既吸纳西方工业文明成果，又以中华文明为内核的现代化发展道路，从而以一种更切实可行的方式贯通中国传统与现代文化。一方面，毛泽东提出“要建立中华民族的新文化”。鸦片战争以来的中国历史决定了这种新文化的活的灵魂只能是中国马克思主义哲学。毛泽东在对待马克思主义理论与中国历史的关系问题上，认为应当总结和承继珍贵的历史遗产，而“不应当隔断历史”。中国马克思主义哲学通过承上启下参与了中国哲学现代形态的塑造并积淀为其重要内涵，不仅使马克思主义获得了中国认同，而且弥合了传统与现代之间的断裂。另一方面，毛泽东认为“一定的文化是一定社会的政治和经济在观念形态上的反映”。他运用马克思主义文化理论从战略高度谋划文化建设，在经济、政治、文化的有机关联中研判当时的革命进程，为处在内忧外患时期的中国找到了真正出路。在马克思主义、中华文明与工业化浪潮相互激荡的背景下，中国革命需要分“两步走”，即新民主主义革命和社会主义革命两个阶段，建设民族的科学的大众的文化以适应新民主主义社会的经济和政治，服务于中国传统社会的现代转型。毛泽东执古御今所勾勒的革命未来图景，既回答了中国向何处去的历史之问，又深植于中国从何处来的文化土壤。鸦片战争后中国人的文化自信从失落到重建的过程伴随着中国文化的古今之变，毛泽东在贯通古今中推动传统中国向现代中国转型，使在这一过程中所建构的中国马克思主义哲学既坚守民族性，赓续文化根脉，又保持开放性，随时代的发展而发展。

II. Mao Zedong’s Theoretical Exploration of Constructing Chinese Marxist Philosophy during the Yan’an Period

二、延安时期毛泽东对构建中国马克思主义哲学的理论探索

The proposal of the “Two Integrations” indicates that in the New Era and new journey, the CPC’s understanding of the laws governing adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times has reached a new height. The preliminary exploration and practice of this most powerful magic weapon can be traced back to the Yan’an period. Mao Zedong integrated his philosophical reflections and practical wisdom from the Yan’an period into his comprehension of the basic categories of Marxist philosophy and interpreted these basic categories using “Chinese-style” discourse. Through the deduction of basic categories, Mao Zedong achieved a comprehensive grasp of the entire system of Marxist philosophy, ultimately establishing Mao Zedong’s philosophical thought and forming the first typical achievement of Chinese Marxist philosophy.

“两个结合”的提出表明新时代新征程中国共产党对马克思主义中国化时代化的规律性认识达到新的高度。对这一最大法宝的初步探索与实践可追溯到延安时期。毛泽东将其在延安时期的哲学致思和实践智慧融入对马克思主义哲学基本范畴的体悟中，并用“中国式”话语对这些基本范畴加以阐释。通过对基本范畴的演绎，毛泽东达到了对整个马克思主义哲学体系的贯通性把握，最终确立了毛泽东哲学思想，形成了中国马克思主义哲学的首个典型成果。

(I) Understanding Complex Reality with “Practice” as the Foothold

(一)以“实践”为立足点认识复杂现实

Lenin further enriched the Marxist view of matter from the perspective of epistemology, making “matter” a more fundamental, prerequisite category. The philosophical system constructed in the Soviet Union, starting from “matter,” had a great influence on China. Amid his busy work during the Yan’an period, Mao Zedong still diligently studied Ai Siqi’s *Popular Philosophy*, Li Da’s *Outline of Sociology*, and the Soviet philosophical works by Mitin, Shirokov, and others that were prevalent in Chinese philosophical circles at the time.

列宁从认识论上进一步丰富了马克思主义物质观，使得“物质”成为一个更基础的前提性范畴。苏联建构的以“物质”为起点的哲学体系对中国影响很大，毛泽东在延安时期的繁忙工作之余，仍然认真研习艾思奇的《大众哲学》、李达的《社会学大纲》以及米丁、西洛可夫等人编写的当时盛行于中国哲学界的苏联哲学著作。

The *Outline of Lectures on Dialectical Materialism* written by Mao Zedong during the Yan’an period specifically discussed the concept of “the theory of matter” and distinguished between the philosophical view of matter and the natural scientific view of matter. Affirming the materiality of the world, it held that “matter is permanent and universally existent, infinite in both time and space,” which was clearly influenced by Soviet philosophy at the time. After reading Soviet philosophical works during the Yan’an period, Mao Zedong, to a certain extent, accepted the discussions on the category of “matter” in those books. However, in the *Outline of Lectures on Dialectical Materialism*, he paid more attention to the analysis of “practice” and “the law of contradiction.” Later, Mao Zedong revised and perfected these chapters, forming the world-renowned *On Practice* and *On Contradiction*. Knowledge begins with social practice at the perceptual level; in practical activities, the contradiction between subject and object is dynamically analyzed, achieving a spiral ascent of knowledge; the resulting understanding of laws returns to the concrete field of reality to be tested by practice. By analyzing the practical roots of knowledge, Mao Zedong deepened Lenin’s theory of reflection, confirming the unity of the materiality and knowability of the world in historical practice. The objective existence of the material world constitutes the prior condition for practical activities, but human understanding of the objectivity of the material world is not statically given; rather, it is historically revealed and continuously deepened and developed in practical activities. In this process, both humans as knowers and the world as the object of knowledge are in motion and change. This practical wisdom of “transforming the objective world and also transforming one’s own subjective world” reveals that Mao Zedong was not enthusiastic about the category of “matter.” Although he benefited from the Chinese and Soviet philosophical books he read at the time, he to some extent consciously transcended the formulations in Soviet philosophical works. Mao Zedong continued to deepen the category of “practice,” which had already been highlighted in Li Da’s work, forming his own conception. He shifted his foothold to the “theory of practice” and understood the real world containing multiple contradictions by combining it with China’s ideological and cultural traditions and the actual characteristics of the Chinese revolution.

延安时期毛泽东撰写的《辩证法唯物论(讲授提纲)》具体讲述了“物质论”的概念，并区分了哲学的物质观与自然科学的物质观。肯定世界的物质性，认为“物质是永久与普遍存在的，不论在时间与空间上都是无限的”，这显然是受到了当时苏联哲学的影响。延安时期毛泽东阅读苏联哲学著作后，虽然在一定程度上也接受了书中关于“物质”范畴的论述，但在《辩证法唯物论(讲授提纲)》中，其更关注的是对于“实践”“矛盾法则”的分析，后来毛泽东又将这些章节加以修订和完善，形成了闻名于世的《实践论》《矛盾论》。认识始于感性层面的社会实践，在实践活动中对主客矛盾进行动态剖析，实现认识的螺旋式上升，所获得的规律性认识又回到具体的现实场域接受实践的检验。毛泽东通过分析认识的实践根源深化了列宁的反映论，确认了世界物质性与可知性在历史实践中的统一。物质世界的客观存在构成实践活动的先在条件，但人对物质世界客观性的认识并非静态给定，而是在实践活动中被历史性揭示并不断深化和发展。在这一过程中，人作为认识者与作为认识对象的世界都在运动、变化。这种“改造客观世界，也改造自己的主观世界”的实践智慧透露出毛泽东并不热衷于“物质”这一范畴，他虽从当时阅读的中国、苏联哲学书籍中获益，但某种程度上又自觉地超越了苏联哲学著作中的提法。毛泽东沿着在李达那里已经有所凸显的“实践”范畴继续深耕，形成了自己的构思。他将立足点转向了“实践论”，并结合中国思想文化传统和中国革命的实际特点理解包含着多元矛盾的现实世界。

(II) Organizing the Masses with “Labor” as the Entry Point

(二)以“劳动”为切入点组织人民群众

In Mao Zedong’s philosophical thought, “practice” is not merely an epistemological category. Although he first correctly answered and resolved the problem of human cognition through practice, Mao during the Yan’an period did not stop there; rather, he further considered how to unleash the practical power of practice on a broad level, and this required taking labor as the entry point. “Labor” is a core category in Marxist political economy. Within the Marxist ideological system, the diachronic evolution of core categories presents a clear trajectory: “Marx established the importance of practice in his 1843 ‘Introduction to a Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right’; through the ‘Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844’, he established the foundational status of practice in the 1845 ‘Theses on Feuerbach’; but the subsequent text ‘The German Ideology’ downplayed the use of the term ‘practice’, while the concept of ‘productive labor’ gradually assumed a core position and ran through the economic critique that followed.” [5]5 Yang Geng, “The Evolution of the Core Category of Marxist Philosophy and Its Contemporary Significance,” *Academic Monthly*, no. 11 (2001). In *On Practice*, Mao mentioned multiple forms of social practice. Among these various forms of practice, which practical activity is primary? “Marxists hold that human productive activity is the most fundamental practical activity and determines all other activities.” [6]6 Mao Zedong, “On Practice,” in *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, vol. 1 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1991), p. 282. In Mao’s view, productive activity in social practice—that is, human labor—is the practical activity that plays a decisive role. The primary status of productive activity is determined by elevating the economic category of “labor” to a general level, thereby defining the category of “labor” in a general sense at the philosophical level. Just as Marx said, “all human activity hitherto has been labor,” [7]7 Karl Marx, “Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844,” in *Marx and Engels Collected Works*, vol. 3 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 2002), p. 306. then “labor” is not only a regional category representing specific forms of practice but also a philosophical category with “general significance.” According to Marx’s exposition of “labor,” the universal meaning of “labor” should be understood from the total form of production in developed modern society. However, in the process of leading the Chinese people in revolutionary struggle, the Chinese Communists, with Mao Zedong as the main representative, still discerned the true essence of Marx’s category of “labor” from the need to organize the masses.

在毛泽东哲学思想中，“实践”并不仅仅是一个认识论范畴。虽然他首先通过实践正确回答和解决了人的认识问题，但延安时期的毛泽东并没有局限于此，而是进一步思考如何从广泛的层面发挥实践的现实力量，而这需要通过以劳动为切入点。“劳动”是马克思主义政治经济学中的一个核心范畴。在马克思主义思想体系中，核心范畴的历时性嬗变呈现出清晰的演进轨迹：“马克思在1843年《〈黑格尔法哲学批判〉导言》中确立了实践的重要性，经由《1844年经济学哲学手稿》，在1845年《关于费尔巴哈的提纲》中确立了实践的基础性地位，但随后的《德意志意识形态》文本则淡化了对‘实践’一词的使用，‘生产劳动’概念则渐居于核心地位并贯穿于此后的经济学批判之中。”在《实践论》中，毛泽东提到了社会实践的多种形式，在这多种实践形式中，何种实践活动是首要的?“马克思主义者认为人类的生产活动是最基本的实践活动，是决定其他一切活动的东西。”在毛泽东看来，社会实践中的生产活动，即人的劳动是起决定性作用的实践活动。生产活动的首要性地位是通过将“劳动”这一经济学范畴进行一般化提升，进而在哲学的高度上界定一般意义上的“劳动”范畴确定的。一如马克思所说，“全部人的活动迄今为止都是劳动”，那么“劳动”就不仅是表征特定实践形式的区域性范畴，也是一个具有“一般意义”的哲学范畴。按照马克思对“劳动”的陈述来看，应从发达的现代社会生产的总形态来理解“劳动”的普遍含义。但以毛泽东为主要代表的中国共产党人在领导中国人民进行革命斗争的过程中，从组织群众的需要出发依然窥探到了马克思“劳动”范畴的真谛。

During the period of the New Democratic Revolution, faced with a situation of lost sovereignty, territorial fragmentation, and the masses being “scattered like sand,” how to organize the Chinese people to overthrow the “three great mountains” [8]8 “Three great mountains” refers to imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic capitalism, which the CPC identified as the main oppressors of the Chinese people during the New Democratic Revolution. was a severe problem confronting the CPC after its founding. When the War of Resistance Against Japan entered the stalemate stage and the anti-Japanese base areas faced an even more severe survival crisis, the solution Mao found was to “mobilize and organize the masses into a labor army” [9]9 Mao Zedong, “Get Organized!,” in *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, vol. 3 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1991), p. 928. through production campaigns, constructing a linkage mechanism between production and the War of Resistance. The construction of the base areas during the Yan’an period shows that Mao had initially attempted to use socialized labor as a bond to reconstruct forms of social organization. The organized labor army not only gradually dismantled the masses’ economic dependence on traditional patriarchal relations but also enhanced the individual skills of laborers, transforming them from scattered individuals into revolutionary subjects with class consciousness. The method of uniting the masses based on the inherent organizational power of social labor was more cohesive and sustainable than the externally imposed, fragile mechanical connections formed through personal authority or administrative orders. Mao was well-versed in the *Communist Manifesto*, and years of revolutionary experience made him realize that only by stimulating the subjectivity of the masses and mobilizing their inherent historical initiative and creative practical power could the anti-Japanese democratic base areas achieve survival and development amid the dual predicament of material scarcity and military oppression. Only the “sparks” [10]10 “Sparks” alludes to Mao’s 1930 article “A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire,” which argued that revolutionary forces in the countryside would grow into a nationwide conflagration. organized through social labor could form a prairie fire in actual movement, truly unleashing the powerful combined force of the masses in driving historical development. This was “the only way for the masses of the people to achieve liberation.” [11]11 Mao Zedong, “Get Organized!,” p. 932.

新民主主义革命时期，面对主权沦丧、领土割裂、民众“散沙化”的时局，如何将中国人民组织起来推翻“三座大山”是中国共产党成立后面对的严峻问题。当抗日战争进入相持阶段，抗日根据地面临更加严峻的生存危机时，毛泽东找到的解决办法是通过生产运动把群众“动员起来，组织起来，成为一支劳动大军”，构建生产、抗战联动机制。延安时期的根据地建设表明毛泽东已初步尝试以社会化劳动为纽带，重构社会组织形式。组织起来的劳动大军不仅逐步瓦解着人民群众对传统宗法关系的经济依附，还使劳动者个人技能得以提升，从分散的个体转化为具有阶级意识的革命主体。基于社会劳动的内在组织力将人民群众结合在一起的方式，比依靠个人权威或者行政命令所形成的外在强制的、脆弱的机械性联结更具有凝聚力和可持续性。毛泽东熟读《共产党宣言》，多年的革命经验使他认识到只有通过激发人民群众的主体性，调动其内在的历史主动精神和创造性实践力量，才能推动抗日民主根据地在物质匮乏与军事压迫双重困境中实现存续与发展。只有通过社会劳动组织起来的“星星之火”才能在现实的运动中形成燎原之势，真正发挥出人民群众推动历史发展的强大合力。这是“人民群众得到解放的必由之路”。

(3) Changing Human Society with “Reality” as the Foothold

(三)以“现实”为落脚点改变人类社会

During the Yan’an period, Mao was more often confronted with the problem of how to use Marxist philosophy to clearly understand the revolutionary situation in China and even the world, and thereby lead the Chinese people to victory. That is to say, facing “reality” was the foothold of Mao’s philosophical reflection, and Mao’s digestion and absorption of Marxist philosophy could only be completed in solving China’s practical problems. In his youth, when contemplating the origin of the universe and social reality, Mao had already noticed the concept of “movement” (*dong*) with ontological significance: “Heaven and earth consist only of movement.” [12]12 Mao Zedong, “Letter to Li Jinxi,” August 23, 1917, in *Mao Zedong’s Early Manuscripts* (Changsha: Hunan People’s Publishing House, 1990), p. 85. “Movement” was Mao’s early, naive expression for understanding reality. As he deepened his research on the peasant movement and social structure, he further elevated “movement” to a methodological consciousness, explaining in *Oppose Book Worship* the theory of dissecting Chinese society through investigation and research. During the Yan’an period, Mao’s philosophical thought matured day by day. From *On Practice* and *On Contradiction*, written almost simultaneously, we can find that the earlier “movement” and “investigation and research” were insufficient to reflect the full richness of actual activity, and the category of “social practice” was the unfolding and realization of the latent determinations of the former. “Practice” and “contradiction” were the dual fulcrums of Mao’s understanding of reality, dialectically unified within the methodological framework of historical materialism. On the basis of practice, he recognized the multiple contradictions emerging in the process of movement in the real world. Materialist dialectics, with the law of the unity of opposites as its core, is the inherent operational law of “reality” itself; real people, through social practical activity, manifest “reality” according to the laws of contradictory movement.

延安时期，毛泽东更多面临着如何借助马克思主义哲学认清中国乃至世界的革命形势进而带领中国人民走向胜利的问题。也就是说面向“现实”才是毛泽东哲学思索的落脚点，毛泽东对马克思主义哲学的消化吸收也只有在解决中国现实问题中才能完成。青年时期的毛泽东在思考宇宙本原、社会现实时就注意到了“动”这样一个具有本体论意义的观念，“天地盖惟有动而已”。“运动”是毛泽东早期认识现实的朴素的表达，随着对农民运动和社会结构的深入研究，他进一步将“运动”升华为方法论层面的自觉，在《反对本本主义》中阐释了要通过调查研究解剖中国社会的理论。延安时期毛泽东的哲学思想日臻成熟，从几乎在同一时期创作的《实践论》《矛盾论》中我们可以发现，之前的“运动”“调查研究”都不足以反映现实活动的全部丰富内容，而“社会实践”这一范畴的提出是对前者潜在的规定性的展开和实现。“实践”和“矛盾”是毛泽东理解现实的双重支点，两者辩证统一于唯物史观的方法论框架。他在立足实践的基础上，认识现实世界运动过程中出现的多元矛盾。以对立统一规律为核心的唯物辩证法是“现实”自身内在的运行法则，现实的人通过社会实践活动按照矛盾运动规律将“现实”显现出来。

In Mao’s view of reality, “reality” as a whole achieves a dialectical unity with human practical activity. “Reality” not only provides a vast space for human “practice,” especially “labor,” but basic categories such as “practice” and “labor” also contain the rich determinations of “reality” within their own movement and change. On the one hand, the real world is not something directly created by spiritual activity, but a “this shore” constructed by real people living within it and through their own productive labor. On the other hand, people’s practical activities are all carried out in the real world; while transforming the unreasonable objective world, the masses are also consciously transforming their own subjective world. In this dynamic change from lower to higher levels, the “communist era of the world” will ultimately be ushered in. [13]13 Mao Zedong, “On Practice,” p. 296. To transform an unreasonable reality, it is necessary to organize and unite our friends through productive labor to oppose our enemies; therefore, labor must be understood from social relations, and grasped from the standpoint of real people, that is, the masses. Throughout his life, Mao attached great importance to labor: “Production campaigns were necessary in the past, are necessary now, and will be necessary in the future; this is the permanent basis of production campaigns.” [14]14 Mao Zedong, “We Must Learn to Do Economic Work,” in *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, vol. 3 (Beijing: People’s Publishing House, 1991), p. 1016. This not only indicates that in Mao’s discourse, labor and production are unified and often used interchangeably, but also reveals that Mao grasped labor in its totality, with labor running through the entire long river of human history. The continuation and development of labor across generations not only enriches and deepens people’s understanding and application of the laws of nature, society, and humanity itself, but also makes the holistic relationship among humanity, nature, and society closer and more harmonious through this permanent labor, making the free and all-round development of each individual possible. “By our own efforts, we have achieved the goal of ample food and clothing,” [15]15 Mao Zedong, “We Must Learn to Do Economic Work,” p. 1016. indicating that on the natural and real foundation of “labor,” the various rich determinations of reality are already contained within it. The overall form of specific social labor is the starting point for understanding the Marxist connotation of labor; the labor of the masses under specific social forms creates the social structure and mode of life corresponding to that historical labor. During the Yan’an period, Mao, through his Sinicized interpretation and comprehension of the basic categories of Marxist philosophy, promoted a two-way interaction between theory and practice. Mao Zedong’s philosophical thought also matured in this integration, becoming a relatively complete ideological system and establishing the first milestone in the construction of Chinese Marxist philosophy.

在毛泽东的现实观中，“现实”作为一个整体与人的实践活动实现辩证统一。“现实”不仅为人的“实践”尤其是“劳动”提供了广袤空间，而且“实践”“劳动”等基本范畴亦将“现实”的丰富规定包含在自身的运动变化中。一方面，现实世界不是精神活动所直接造就的东西，而是由现实的人生存于其中并通过人自身的生产劳动所建构的“此岸”。另一方面，人们的实践活动都是在现实世界中进行，人民群众改造不合理的客观世界的同时也在自觉地改造着自身的主观世界，在这种从低级到高级的动态变化中最终将迎来“世界的共产主义时代”。改造不合理的现实，需要通过生产劳动组织、团结我们的朋友去反对我们的敌人，因而要从社会关系中去理解劳动，从现实的人也即人民群众的立场去把握。在毛泽东的一生中，他十分重视劳动，“生产运动不但过去要，现在要，将来还是要，这是生产运动的永久性的根据”。这不仅表明在毛泽东的话语体系中，劳动与生产是统一的，经常交替使用；而且还揭示了毛泽东是从整体性上把握劳动的，劳动贯穿整个人类历史长河始终。世代劳动的延续和发展，不仅使人对自然、社会以及人自身的规律性认识和运用不断丰富和深刻，而且人、自然、社会的整体性关系也在这一永久劳动中更加紧密和谐，每个人的自由且全面发展成为可能。“我们用自己动手的方法，达到了丰衣足食的目的”，表明在“劳动”这一自然而现实的基础之上，现实的各种丰富规定已被内含其中。特定社会劳动的总体形态是理解马克思主义劳动内涵的出发点，人民群众在特定社会形态下的劳动创造了与这一历史性劳动相适应的社会结构和生活样态。延安时期毛泽东以其对马克思主义哲学基本范畴的中国化阐释和体悟，推动了理论与实践的双向互动，毛泽东哲学思想也在这一贯通中走向成熟，成为一个相对完整的思想体系，确立了中国马克思主义哲学建构的第一个里程碑。

III. Mao Zedong’s Original Contributions to the Construction of Chinese Marxist Philosophy during the Yan’an Period

三、延安时期毛泽东对构建中国马克思主义哲学的原创性贡献

“Mao Zedong’s philosophical thought is the true inheritor and developer of traditional Chinese philosophy.” Through the localized interpretation of basic categories, it deeply integrates the Chinese philosophical tradition with Marxist philosophy, demonstrating that the Chinese Marxist theoretical system is an organic whole, making Marxist philosophy truly “China’s philosophy.” Mao’s logical deduction of basic categories such as “practice” first achieved an ontological foundation grounded in reality and led to a holistic insight into worldview and methodology. This integrated cognition of worldview and methodology, in turn, runs through the entire theoretical system in practice through the people-centered subject perspective.

“毛泽东哲学思想是中国传统哲学的真正继承者和发展者”，通过对基本范畴的本土化阐释推动中国哲学传统与马克思主义哲学深度贯通，展现了中国马克思主义理论体系是一个有机整体，使马克思主义哲学真正成为“中国的哲学”。毛泽东对“实践”等基本范畴之间的逻辑演绎，首先实现了立足现实的本体论奠基并导向对世界观、方法论的整体性洞察，这种一体化的世界观、方法论认知又通过人民主体观在实践中贯通着整个理论体系。

(I) Ontological Contribution: A View of Reality Unifying “Matter” and “Practice”

(一)本体论上的贡献：统一“物质”与“实践”的现实观

Although academic discussions on the ontology of Marxist philosophy were concentrated in the 1980s, Mao Zedong’s breakthrough from a mechanical understanding of matter and his dynamic, historical grasp of reality during the Yan’an period indicate that his philosophical thought also possesses profound ontological implications. If ontology is understood as the premise or foundation of a complete philosophical theoretical system—that is, the starting point for the deduction of the theoretical system in terms of theoretical expression—then clearly cognition or cognitive activity does not constitute the starting point of Mao’s philosophical system. Rather, objective actual conditions and practical activities are the true premises. The debate between material ontology and practical ontology that emerged in the late 1980s and early 1990s reflected, on the one hand, theoretical self-awareness in the study of ontology, and on the other hand, exposed the predicament of Chinese Marxists in understanding ontology. From today’s perspective, the criticism of material ontology by practical ontology largely stems from the narrow understanding of matter held by material ontologists; conversely, the subsequent counter-criticism of practical ontology by material ontologists essentially rests on an extreme posture—practice that excludes matter can only be, as Marx said, “absolute subjectivity.” Mao’s “unspoken” expression in ontological terms is actually beneficial for revealing the reasonable ontological formulation of his theory in relation to the ontological debate. On the one hand, Mao acknowledged the expression of the primacy of “matter”; on the other hand, grounded in the Chinese intellectual tradition and China’s revolutionary actions at the time, he made a thematic exposition of “practice.” It can be said that “matter” and “practice” coexist without contradiction in Mao’s philosophical system and ultimately converge in the category of “reality.”

尽管学界对马克思主义哲学本体论问题的讨论集中于20世纪80年代，但延安时期毛泽东突破对物质的机械理解，对现实以动态的历史的把握，表明其哲学思想亦呈现出本体论的深刻意蕴。如果将本体论理解为一个完整哲学理论体系的前提或基础，亦即理论表达意义上理论体系演绎的出发点，那么显然认识或认识活动不构成毛泽东哲学体系的起点。毋宁说，客观的现实状况与实践活动才是真正的前提。20世纪80年代末90年代初出现的物质本体论与实践本体论之争，一方面体现了本体论问题研究的理论自觉，另一方面也暴露了中国马克思主义者在理解本体论上的困境。以今天的眼光来看，实践本体论对物质本体论的批评很大程度上源于物质本体论者关于物质的偏狭理解；反之，后来物质本体论者对实践本体论者的反批评实质上亦是立足于其极端性的姿态——将物质排除在实践之外的实践只能是一种如马克思所说的“绝对的主观性”。毛泽东在本体论表述上的“未明言”反倒是有利于我们揭示其理论之于本体论争论所具有的关于本体论的合理性表述。毛泽东一方面承认关于“物质”第一性地位的表述；另一方面，立足中国思想传统与中国当时的革命行动，对“实践”作出了专题性论述。可以说“物质”与“实践”并行不悖地存在于毛泽东哲学思想体系中，并最终汇流于“现实”这一范畴。

If ontology, as in the Western tradition, tends to seek an “absolute” beyond the changes of phenomena to explain the entire world, then Mao rejected “ontology” in this sense. For Mao, who grasped the true essence of Marxist philosophy during the Yan’an period, ontology meant the starting point from which to understand the world and the problem of human existence. Mao understood the relationship between humans and the world starting from “reality,” and the rich connotations of “reality” need to be revealed through the internal movement and change of the world itself. This grasp of “reality” is concentrated in his interpretation of “seeking truth from facts”: “‘Facts’ are all things that exist objectively, ‘truth’ is the internal connection of objective things, i.e., the law, and ‘seeking’ means we study them.” Mao stated, “The victory of the Chinese revolution depends on Chinese comrades understanding Chinese conditions.” To study the internal essence and laws of Chinese conditions, one must “seek” “truth” in reality through practice, so as to grasp the direction of the Chinese revolution. Reality is by no means merely isolated phenomena presented before our eyes, but a continuous sequence of manifestations. It is empirically perceptible, that is, as a practical activity, it itself contains the possibility and power of self-transformation. “The world is not a collection of ready-made things, but a collection of processes.” Outside this real activity as a collection of processes, there is no savior. Thus, any specific “one” thing among all things presented before us—that is, any particular thing—has contradictory relations with other things according to its dialectical characteristics. Such a chain of progression constitutes an “all” bound together by its own internal contradictory relations, and this “all” constitutes Mao’s most inclusive category of “reality.” Mao’s systematic thinking both emphasizes the “primacy of matter,” adhering to the Marxist philosophical principle of explaining the world from the world itself, and reflects the Chinese philosophical concept of “the unity of all things.” The real world is not a lifeless, abstract “thing,” but a rich whole constituted through people’s practical activities under specific conditions. “Matter” and “practice” are seamlessly integrated and unified in Mao’s view of reality. Mao’s philosophical insight inspires the contemporary interpretation and morphological construction of the ontology of Chinese Marxist philosophy. Philosophy can retain its vitality only if it possesses reality; reality must also constantly move toward the beautiful blueprint outlined by theory. Therefore, Chinese Marxist philosophy must not only scientifically explain reality in epistemology, but also be able to transform into material force to change reality in practice, organizing the masses to unite their hearts and minds to advance the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation in the dialectical unity of “how to see” and “how to act.” This ontology, which understands the essence of existence from reality itself, is not confined to nature independent of humans, but takes the social existence formed by human objectifying activities as the pivot to grasp the dialectical relationship between nature-in-itself and humanized nature, thereby establishing the existential foundation of the worldview.

如果说本体论是如西方传统那般倾向于从现象的变化之外寻找一个“绝对者”来完成对整个世界的解释，那么毛泽东则拒绝了这个意义上的“本体论”。对于延安时期领会了马克思主义哲学真谛的毛泽东而言，本体论意味着从何处出发来理解世界和人的存在问题。毛泽东从“现实”出发理解人和世界的关系问题，而“现实”的丰富意蕴又需要从世界自身的内部运动变化来揭示，这种对“现实”的把握集中体现在他对“实事求是”的阐释之中：“‘实事’就是客观存在着的一切事物，‘是’就是客观事物的内部联系，即规律性，‘求’就是我们去研究。”毛泽东提到，“中国革命斗争的胜利要靠中国同志了解中国情况”。要研究中国情况这一客观事物的内在本质和规律，则需要通过实践在现实中“求”“是”，这样才能把握中国革命的方向。现实绝不仅是呈现在我们眼前的孤立的现象，而是不断显现的实在序列。它是经验可感的，即作为一种实践活动其本身就包含着自我变革的可能性和力量。“世界不是既成事物的集合体，而是过程的集合体”，在这个作为过程集合体的现实活动之外不存在什么救世主。如此，呈现在我们面前任何万物中的特定“一”物，即任何一个特定的事物都是按其辩证特性与其他事物之间存在着矛盾关系，如此环环递展构成了一个以自身内在矛盾关联结合在一起的“一切”，这个“一切”就构成了毛泽东最具涵容性的“现实”范畴。毛泽东这种系统思维既强调“物质第一性”，坚持了马克思主义哲学从世界本身解释世界的原则，又体现了中国哲学坚持“万物一体”的思想观念。现实世界并不是了无生气的抽象的“物”，而是通过人们的实践活动在具体条件下所构成的丰富整体。“物质”与“实践”圆融为一体统一在毛泽东的现实观中，毛泽东的这一哲思启示了中国马克思主义哲学本体论的当代阐释和形态建构。哲学具有现实性才能葆有生命力，现实也要不断趋向理论勾勒的美好蓝图。因此中国马克思主义哲学不仅要在认识论上科学地解释现实，而且也要能够转化为物质力量在实践中改变现实，在“怎么看”与“怎么办”的辩证统一中组织人民群众凝心聚力推进中华民族伟大复兴。这种从现实本身出发理解存在本质的本体论不是局限于独立于人的自在自然，而是以人类对象化活动所形成的社会存在为枢纽把握自在自然与人化自然之间的辩证关系，规定了世界观的存在论根基。

(II) Contribution to Worldview: A Dialectical Materialism That Endows “Matter” with “Motion”

(二)世界观上的贡献：予“物质”以“运动”的辩证唯物论

Worldview is an important concept in classical German philosophy. Marx and Engels used this concept more than once. In their view, worldview is a fundamental view of the world formed on the basis of the world as a whole. Marx discarded Hegel’s theological theory of “speculative creationism,” and by means of dialectical materialism, adhered to a bottom-up path, explaining the “motion, change, generation, and disappearance” of the world from the world itself, and interpreting existence within the universal interconnections of the world itself, thereby transcending Hegel. In this way, dialectical materialism is materialist dialectics, and materialist dialectics is also dialectical materialism; worldview and methodology are truly unified in Marx.

世界观是德国古典哲学的一个重要概念。马克思、恩格斯不止一次使用了这一概念。在他们看来，世界观是立足于世界整体而形成的关于世界的根本性看法。马克思抛弃了黑格尔“思辨的创世说”这一神学式理论，借助唯物辩证法，坚持自下而上的路径，从世界本身来说明世界的“运动、变化、生成和消逝”，在世界本身的普遍关联中阐释存在，从而超越了黑格尔。这样唯物辩证法就是辩证唯物论，辩证唯物论也是唯物辩证法，世界观和方法论在马克思这里才真正达到统一。

Unlike Western philosophy’s mode of thinking that dichotomously separates the world of ideas from the world of experience, traditional Chinese philosophy adheres to concepts such as the “unity of heaven and humanity” [19]19 “Unity of heaven and humanity” (天人合一, *tian ren he yi*): A foundational concept in traditional Chinese philosophy, emphasizing the harmonious, non-dualistic relationship between the natural cosmos (heaven) and human affairs. and emphasizes the wholeness of the world. Mao Zedong was well-versed in the unity of world outlook and methodology expressed by Marx, and within the principle of the unity of subject and object, he provided a “Chinese-style” interpretation of the Marxist philosophical world outlook. During the Yan’an period, Mao Zedong, drawing on his own rich revolutionary practical experience, used the term “view of the cosmos” (yuzhouguan), which was easier for Chinese people to understand and accept, to express the rich ideas referred to by the term “world outlook” (shijieguan). He called the Marxist world outlook a “view of the cosmos” and further pointed out that dialectical materialism “is precisely the world outlook.” This indicates that for Mao, “world outlook and methodology are one and the same thing”; methodology is not an independently existing entity outside the world outlook, but the world outlook contains methodology, and thus itself is methodology. Mao Zedong pointed out that the world is an “infinitely developing material world,” and infinite development means that motion is an “intrinsic attribute of matter (not driven by external forces).” Mao believed that dialectical materialism is a thoroughgoing theory of motion, and this “motion” is not mere mechanical motion, but is driven by the internal causes of the interconnected material world itself. This absolute motion is also concrete motion; the world undergoes qualitative change in motion through specific forms, and the entire world, including human society, transforms from lower to higher forms, displaying its own complexity and infinity. On the basis of respecting objective laws, Mao Zedong organized the masses to carry out large-scale production movements, while also conducting ecological construction in the Shaanxi-Gansu-Ningxia Border Region. These measures not only manifested the essence of humanity at the social level but also demonstrated the process by which humanity, in the practice of transforming nature, continuously incorporates it into the history of human society. Mao Zedong used the dialectical materialist world outlook to explain the generation and evolution of all things, replacing the method of comprehending all things through the “mind,” and revealed that the real world develops gradually through the continuous unfolding of history and the constant construction of practice. During the Yan’an period, through a dialectical unified understanding of cosmic laws and practical activity, Mao Zedong achieved a profound insight into the Marxist philosophical world outlook on the part of Chinese Marxists at a new height, discarding the abstract speculation of the traditional “unity of heaven and humanity” view of the cosmos. This theoretical self-conscious elevation demonstrates that the world outlook is not a simple projection of ontology at the cognitive level, but rather enriches and develops the connotation of ontology through concrete practical activities. It not only advanced the modern transformation of the traditional Chinese view of the cosmos but also indicated that Mao Zedong’s overall reflection on the world outlook already inherently contained a methodology consistent with that world outlook.

不同于西方哲学将理念世界与经验世界二元割裂的思维模式，中国传统哲学坚持“天人合一”等观念，强调世界的整体性。毛泽东谙习马克思所表达的世界观与方法论的统一，并在主客观相统一的原则中对马克思主义哲学的世界观进行“中国式”阐释。延安时期毛泽东结合自身丰富的革命实践体悟，用中国人更易理解和接受的“宇宙观”表达“世界观”这一术语所指涉的丰富思想，把马克思主义的世界观称为“宇宙观”，而且进一步指出唯物辩证法“就是世界观”。这表明在毛泽东那里，“世界观同方法论是一个东西”，方法论不是一个在世界观之外独立自存的东西，世界观包含着方法论，故而其本身即是方法论。毛泽东指出，世界是“无限发展的物质世界”，无限发展意味着运动是“物质内在的属性(不是由外力推动的)”。毛泽东认为辩证法唯物论是彻底的运动论，这种“运动”不是单纯的机械运动，而是由相互关联的物质世界自身内因推动。这种绝对的运动又是现实的运动，世界通过具体的形式在运动中发生质变，包括人类社会在内的整个世界从低级形态向高级形态转化，展现出自身的复杂性和无限性。毛泽东在尊重客观规律的基础上，组织人民群众进行大规模的生产运动，同时也在陕甘宁边区开展生态建设。这些举措不仅使人的本质在社会层面得到彰显，而且也展现了人类在改造自然的实践中，不断将之纳入人类社会历史的过程。毛泽东以辩证唯物论的世界观阐释万物的生成演化，代替以“心”体悟万物的方法，揭示了现实世界是在历史的不断展开和实践的不断建构中逐步发展的。延安时期毛泽东通过对宇宙规律和实践活动的辩证统一认识，在新的高度上实现了中国马克思主义者对马克思主义哲学世界观的深刻洞悉，摒弃了传统“天人合一”宇宙观的抽象思辨。这种理论上的自觉提升说明世界观并非本体论在认知层面的简单投射，而是通过具体的实践活动丰富和发展本体论的内涵，不仅推进了中国传统宇宙观的现代转型，而且表明毛泽东对世界观的整体思索已经内在地包含着与这一世界观相一致的方法论。

(3) Contributions in Methodology: The Dialectical Materialism That Integrates Epistemology and the Theory of Practice

(三)方法论上的贡献：融通认识论与实践论的唯物辩证法

For Chinese Marxists, Li Dazhao had already pointed out the need to learn Marx’s method, “to see how he applied his research method to dissect the naked historical facts.” [20]20 Li Dazhao (1889–1927): A co-founder of the Chinese Communist Party and an early intellectual who introduced Marxism to China. It can be seen that exploring the methodological path for Marxist philosophy to guide Chinese practice is a theoretical characteristic of Chinese Marxist philosophy. In the Chinese discourse system, methodology has not been instrumentalized and denigrated; at the same time, due to Chinese discursive habits, “people sometimes directly refer to ‘method’ as ‘methodology,’ without making a serious distinction between the two.” [21]21 This is a quotation from a Chinese scholar, likely referring to the common Chinese linguistic practice of using the term “method” (方法, *fangfa*) interchangeably with “methodology” (方法论, *fangfalun*). Thus, methodology entered the Chinese field of vision with a positive meaning and was affirmed and developed. During the Yan’an period, Mao Zedong advanced the philosophical exploration of Chinese Marxists concerning “where China comes from” and “where China is going” to an entirely new stage. Among these, the methodological question of how to act was also an important issue of his concern. When discussing how to overcome “Left” methods and bad habits, he emphasized the need to “popularize and deepen the Marxist methodology (dialectical materialism) among the majority of cadres.” [22]22 “Left” methods: A reference to dogmatic or adventurist political lines within the CPC, often associated with an overemphasis on class struggle and immediate revolution, which Mao criticized during the Yan’an period. Influenced by Li Da’s use of “practical materialism” to refer to dialectical materialism, and combining his own personal experience in leading the Chinese revolution, Mao Zedong took dialectical materialism as the methodology and, at the principle level, connected categories such as “practice” and “contradiction.” In *On Practice*, Mao Zedong dialectically unified human perceptual knowledge and rational knowledge through the development of social practice, revealing the methodological roots of empiricism within the Party. This theory of practice advanced the construction of a modern Chinese epistemological system. If *On Practice* answered how people achieve correct understanding through complex cognitive activities, then *On Contradiction* shows that, on the premise of affirming that “contradiction is universally present,” Mao Zedong further revealed why cognitive activities are tortuous, thereby taking a substantive step in criticizing dogmatism. Both objective things and subjective cognitive activities possess contradictions, and subjective contradictions “are reflections of objective contradictions.” [23]23 This is a direct quotation from Mao Zedong’s essay *On Contradiction* (1937). Mao Zedong did not abstractly discuss the universality of contradiction; he emphasized not only grasping the whole of contradiction “in the interconnection of contradictions” but also paying attention to the stage-specific characteristics of the contradictory process, recognizing the particularity of contradiction. *On Contradiction* highlights Mao Zedong’s strong problem consciousness; he not only saw the dialectical relationship between the universality and particularity of contradiction but also valued “the identity and struggle of the aspects of a contradiction.” [24]24 This is a direct quotation from Mao Zedong’s essay *On Contradiction* (1937). The “aspects of a contradiction” reveal that Mao Zedong did not mechanically understand the contending sides, but saw the complex conditions and multiple forms in which the positions of each side constantly change and interact with each other along with practical activities. Through the positive interaction between the basic principles of contradiction and practical activity, Mao Zedong deepened his understanding of dialectical materialism.

对于中国马克思主义者来说，李大钊早已指出要学习马克思的方法，“看出他怎样的应用他的研究的方法，以解剖那赤裸裸的历史事实”。可见探索马克思主义哲学指导中国实践的方法论路径是中国马克思主义哲学的理论特质。在中国人的话语体系中，方法论未被工具化贬斥；同时由于中国人的话语习惯，“人们有时也会把‘方法’径直称为‘方法论’，对二者不做认真区分”，因而方法论是以其正面意义进入中国人的视野并受到肯定和发展的。延安时期毛泽东把中国马克思主义者对“中国从何处来”以及“中国向何处去”的哲学探索推进到一个全新的阶段，其中，如何行动的方法论问题也是他关心的重要问题。在谈到如何克服“左”的方式方法与不良习惯时，他强调要“普及与深入马克思主义的方法论(唯物辩证法)于多数干部中”。他受到李达用“实践的唯物论”指称唯物辩证法的影响，并结合领导中国革命的切身体会，以唯物辩证法为方法论从原理层面将“实践”“矛盾”等范畴关联起来。在《实践论》中，毛泽东通过社会实践的发展将人的感性认识和理性认识辩证地统一起来，揭示了党内经验主义产生的方法论根源。这一实践论推进了中国现代认识论体系的建构。如果说毛泽东在《实践论》中回答了人如何通过复杂的认识活动达到正确的认识，那么《矛盾论》则表明毛泽东在肯定“矛盾是普遍地存在着”的前提下，进一步揭示了为何认识活动具有曲折性，进而在批判教条主义的过程中迈出实质性步伐。客观事物和主观认识活动都具有矛盾，而且主观矛盾“是客观矛盾的反映”。毛泽东不是抽象地谈论矛盾的普遍性，他强调不仅要在“矛盾的相互联结上”把握矛盾的整体，而且也要注意矛盾过程的阶段性特征，认识矛盾的特殊性。《矛盾论》彰显了毛泽东强烈的问题意识，他不仅看到了矛盾普遍性与特殊性之间的辩证关系，而且重视“矛盾诸方面的同一性和斗争性”。“矛盾诸方面”显露了毛泽东不是机械地认识矛盾着的各方，而是看到了各方地位随实践活动不断变化、相互影响的复杂条件和多元形式。通过矛盾基本原理与实践活动的良性互动，毛泽东深化了对唯物辩证法的认识。

In the construction of philosophical theory during the Yan’an period, Mao Zedong took dialectical materialism as the core of methodology and constructed an epistemological system centered on practice. By using dialectical materialism to transform the categories of knowledge and action in the Chinese philosophical tradition, he converted the speculative propositions of “knowledge precedes action” and “action can encompass knowledge” into the dialectical materialist unity of knowledge and action. This not only completed a critical transcendence of the traditional view of knowledge and action but also established a methodological foundation for Chinese Marxist philosophy. From this perspective, dialectical materialism is not only a methodology running through the theory of practice and epistemology but also serves as an intermediary linking the theory of practice and epistemology, and later transformed in practice into a series of Party work methods, including “unity-criticism-unity.” [25]25 “Unity-criticism-unity” (团结-批评-团结, *tuanjie-piping-tuanjie*): A formula for handling contradictions among the people within the CPC, where criticism is used as a means to achieve greater unity. Mao Zedong elevated dialectical materialism to the level of the overall methodological system, believing that only by mastering this method could Chinese Communists “correctly analyze the history and current situation of the Chinese revolution and infer the future of the revolution.” [26]26 This is a direct quotation from Mao Zedong’s essay *On Practice* (1937). It can be seen that Mao Zedong, from the very beginning, based himself on the Chinese reality faced by social practice, seeking methods to resolve contradictions and guide action within the internal contradictory movement of social practice. Following the internal logic of the unity of world outlook and methodology, Mao Zedong, by establishing the core position of dialectical materialism in the overall methodological system, provided a solution to the methodological awakening that had begun with Li Dazhao, and also provided guidance for us to better understand and transform this ever-changing and ceaseless real world. With practice as the link, this integration of world outlook and methodology, through the people-centered subjectivity in values, achieved coherence in the theoretical system of Chinese Marxist philosophy.

在延安时期的哲学理论建构中，毛泽东以唯物辩证法为方法论内核，构建了以实践为核心的认识论体系。他通过唯物辩证法改造中国哲学传统中的知行范畴，将“知先行后”与“行可兼知”的思辨命题转化为辩证唯物论的知行统一观，既完成了对传统知行观的批判性超越，又为中国马克思主义哲学确立了方法论根基。由此观之，唯物辩证法不仅是贯穿于实践论、认识论之中的方法论，同时又作为中介将实践论和认识论贯通起来，并在后来的实践中转化出包括“团结—批评—团结”等在内的一系列党的工作方法。毛泽东将唯物辩证法上升到方法论体系全局的高度，认为只有学会这一方法，中国共产党人“才能正确地分析中国革命的历史和现状，并推断革命的将来”。可见，毛泽东一开始就是立足于社会实践所面对的中国实际，在社会实践的内在矛盾运动中寻求解决矛盾、指导行动的方法论。沿着世界观和方法论相统一的内在逻辑，毛泽东通过确立唯物辩证法在方法论体系全局中的核心地位，为自李大钊起的方法论觉思提供了解决门径，也为我们更好地认识和改造这个变化不已、绵绵不息的现实世界提供了指导。以实践为纽带，这种世界观与方法论一体化的思想通过价值观上的人民主体性，实现了中国马克思主义哲学理论体系上的通达。

(4) Contributions in Values: The People-Centered View as Both Starting Point and Endpoint

(四)价值观上的贡献：作为既是起点亦是终点的人民主体观

Value is a subject-object relationship that takes facts as its carrier, while values are the subject’s evaluation of this relationship. However, values determined entirely by the subject’s evaluation cause value to lose its meaning, because the facts that carry value exist objectively. Only values that adhere to correct evaluation standards and principles can scientifically grasp the unity of opposites between value and fact. Marx and Engels founded historical materialism, established the thought of the people as the subject, and revealed the profound significance of the Marxist philosophical values that take whether the fundamental interests of the broadest masses of the people are satisfied as the evaluation standard and principle. During the Yan’an period, Mao Zedong keenly grasped the issue of the subject of values, pointing out that “the question of ‘for whom?’ is a fundamental question, a question of principle.” [27]27 Mao Zedong, “Talks at the Yan’an Forum on Literature and Art” (May 1942). In the process of advancing the Sinicization of Marxist philosophy, Mao Zedong fully absorbed the scientific thought of historical materialism, combined it with the traditional Chinese “people-oriented” thought, and, through transformation and innovation in the revolutionary struggle led by the Communist Party of China during the Yan’an period, refined a complete set of scientific achievements, establishing the overall tone of Chinese Marxist philosophical values. This set of values can be condensed into one sentence: “serve the Chinese people wholeheartedly.” Mao Zedong’s view of the people shows that while the value of heroic figures should certainly be affirmed, their emergence contains contingency and particularity; the collective and universal force that supports the existence and development of the entire society is the people. During the Yan’an period, guided by the worldview of dialectical materialism and the methodology of materialist dialectics, Mao Zedong correctly grasped the subject of history, perceived the subjective power of the people, and reached the conclusion that “the people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of world history,” thereby achieving a dual integration of historical laws and value pursuits. This shows that taking the people as the subject is the starting point of Mao Zedong’s values.

价值是一种以事实为载体的主客体关系，价值观则是对这一关系进行主体的评价。但完全由主体评价的价值观又使价值失去了意义，因为承载价值的事实是客观存在的。只有坚持正确评价标准和评价原则的价值观，才能科学地把握价值与事实之间的对立统一关系。马克思、恩格斯创立了唯物史观，确立了人民主体思想，揭示了马克思主义哲学价值观将是否满足最广大人民的根本利益作为评价标准和原则的深刻意义。延安时期毛泽东敏锐地抓住了价值观的主体问题，指出“为什么人的问题，是一个根本的问题，原则的问题”。毛泽东在推进马克思主义哲学中国化的过程中，充分吸收了唯物史观的科学思想，将其与中国传统的“民本”思想相结合，并在延安时期中国共产党领导的革命斗争中加以改造和创新，提炼出了一整套科学的成果，确立了中国马克思主义哲学价值观的总基调，这种价值观可以凝练为一句话，即“全心全意地为中国人民服务”。毛泽东的人民观表明，英雄人物的价值固然应该肯定，但其出现包含着偶然性和特殊性，支撑整个社会存在和发展的集体性和普遍性力量的是人民。延安时期毛泽东在辩证唯物论的世界观和唯物辩证法的方法论指导下正确把握了历史主体，洞见了人民的主体力量，得出了“人民，只有人民，才是创造世界历史的动力”这一结论，实现了历史规律与价值追求的双重贯通。这表明，以人民为主体是毛泽东价值观的出发点。

Mao Zedong’s adherence to the thought of taking the people as the subject broke down the hierarchical order of feudal society, emphasizing that “only by being a student of the masses can one become a teacher of the masses.” The masses of the people were placed in the supreme position in Mao Zedong’s ranking of social groups. At the same time, Mao Zedong absorbed the Marxist-Leninist analysis of class and attached great importance to the issue of friends and enemies. By flexibly applying the method of contradiction analysis established in *On Contradiction*, Mao Zedong regarded “the people” as a historical category opposed to “the enemy,” and continuously adjusted the connotation and extension of “the people” according to the situation of the revolutionary movement. In view of changes in contradictions between ourselves and the enemy, during the Yan’an period Mao Zedong expanded the connotation of the people from the worker-peasant alliance during the Agrarian Revolutionary War to “all classes, strata, and social groups that resist Japan,” and, in light of China’s actual population, on the premise of affirming the peasants as “the main force of the Chinese revolution,” established the “Three-Thirds System” [28]28 The “Three-Thirds System” was a policy for the composition of anti-Japanese base area governments during the Yan’an period, in which Communist Party members, non-Party progressives, and centrists each held approximately one-third of the positions. political power to mobilize the enthusiasm of all revolutionary classes for resisting Japan and saving the nation, thereby consolidating the Anti-Japanese National United Front. During the Yan’an period, when solving the problem of the “relationship between knowledge and action,” Mao Zedong deeply recognized the complexity of social practice and the dialectical characteristics of human cognitive activity. Reality does not actively satisfy human survival and development. Can people, based on their understanding of objective existence, reveal the inherent laws and contradictory movements of reality according to the needs of the subject, thereby obtaining rational knowledge about the essence of the world? In Mao Zedong’s view, only revolutionary practice tested by the masses of the people “is the criterion of truth.” The people, as the subject of history, engage in practical activities to transform the objective world; these activities are both conscious acts that follow objective laws and creative processes that exert the subject’s agency. This agency enables the masses of the people not only to dynamically reflect the many possibilities that the object presents to the subject, thereby transforming possibilities into reality in practical activities according to the necessity and oughtness of their own internal needs, but also, accompanying this process of activity, the cognitive ability of the masses of the people rises from empirical intuition to theoretical consciousness, and their practical ability develops from spontaneous struggle to strategic initiative. The two-way transformation of practice and cognition in turn pushes both history and the people toward a higher stage of development. “From the masses, to the masses” in Mao Zedong’s view of the people is not only a methodology but also embodies the worldview and values consistent with this methodology. For Mao Zedong, the masses of the people are both the logical starting point of the practical process and the value destination of historical development. The dialectical dimension presented by the subject of the masses of the people is not the logical structure of the absolute spirit achieving a closed cycle through self-externalization and return in Hegel’s philosophical system, but rather a spiral ascent realized in the movement of creation, sharing, and re-creation. This dynamic and open process of generating value subjectivity not only vividly embodies the integrity of Mao Zedong’s worldview and methodology but also indicates that Chinese Marxist philosophy has been imbued with a strong popular character from the very beginning, laying an important foundation for Chinese-path modernization to open a new path for modern civilization. Only by truly understanding the people can we truly grasp the profound meaning of the historical materialism, inherited in a continuous line, that places “must adhere to the people as the supreme” at the forefront of the worldview and methodology in Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era. This value system that takes the people as the subject is the inherent requirement and logical confirmation of ontology, worldview, and methodology, constituting a dialectical unity system among where the world comes from, what the world is, how to understand the world, and how to transform the world. This dynamic development achieves the unity of the criterion of truth and the criterion of value in the historical unfolding of the practice of the masses of the people.

毛泽东坚持以人民为主体的思想打破了封建社会等级秩序，强调“只有做群众的学生才能做群众的先生”，人民群众在毛泽东的社会群体序列表中被置于至高无上的位置。同时毛泽东汲取了马克思列宁主义对阶级的分析，十分重视敌友问题。通过灵活应用在《矛盾论》中确立的矛盾分析法，毛泽东将“人民”看作是与“敌人”相对的历史性范畴，并根据革命运动情况不断调整“人民”的内涵和外延。鉴于敌我矛盾的变化，延安时期毛泽东将人民的内涵从土地革命战争时期的工农联盟拓展为“一切抗日的阶级、阶层和社会集团”，并结合中国人口实际，在肯定农民是“中国革命的主力军”的前提下，建立“三三制”政权调动各革命阶级抗日救国的积极性，巩固抗日民族统一战线。延安时期毛泽东在解决“知行关系”问题时，深刻认识到社会实践的复杂性和人类认识活动的辩证性特征。现实并不会主动满足人的生存发展，人能否基于对客观存在的认识，按照主体需要揭示出现实的内在规律与矛盾运动，从而获得关于世界本质的理性认识?在毛泽东看来，只有通过人民群众检验的革命实践“才是检验真理的尺度”。人民作为历史主体，其改造客观世界的实践活动既是遵循客观规律的自觉行为，又是发挥主体能动性的创造过程。这种能动性使得人民群众不仅在动态中反映客体向主体展现的诸多可能性，从而按照自身内在需要的必然性和应然性，在实践活动中将可能性变成现实；而且伴随着这一活动过程，人民群众的认知能力从经验直观升华为理论自觉，实践能力从自发抗争发展为战略主动，实践与认识的双向转化又推动着历史和人民都朝向更高阶段发展。“从群众中来，到群众中去”在毛泽东的人民观中不仅是一种方法论，而且还体现着与这一方法论相一致的世界观、价值观。人民群众在毛泽东那里既是实践进程的逻辑起点，又是历史发展的价值归宿。人民群众这一主体所呈现的辩证维度，并非黑格尔哲学体系中绝对精神通过自我外化、复归实现封闭循环的逻辑架构，而是在创造、共享、再创造的运动中实现螺旋式上升。这种动态、开放的价值主体性生成过程，既生动体现了毛泽东的世界观与方法论的整体性，而且表明中国马克思主义哲学一开始就带有浓厚的人民性，为中国式现代化开辟现代文明新道路奠定了重要基础。我们只有真正读懂人民，才能真正读懂习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想将“必须坚持人民至上”置于世界观和方法论首位这一脉相承的唯物史观深意。这种以人民为主体的价值观是本体论、世界观、方法论的内在要求和逻辑确证，构成了世界从何而来、世界是什么、如何认识世界、如何改造世界之间的辩证统一体系，这种动态发展在人民群众实践的历史展开中实现了真理尺度与价值尺度的统一。

IV. Conclusion

四、结语

The Third Plenary Session of the 20th Central Committee of the Party proposed to “innovate the Marxist theory research and construction project, implement the philosophy and social science innovation project, and build an independent knowledge system for Chinese philosophy and social sciences.” Constructing the theoretical system of Chinese Marxist philosophy is an important link in accelerating the construction of an independent knowledge system for Chinese philosophy and social sciences, providing important support for building a socialist cultural power. As an important pioneer and founder of Chinese Marxist philosophy, facing the intertwined and complex development situation in China at the time, under extremely difficult conditions during the Yan’an period, Mao Zedong, through the basic category of “reality,” laid the ontological foundation for the unity of worldview and methodology, integrated materialist dialectics into the traditional Chinese worldview to form a dialectical materialist worldview, and flexibly used the “telescope” and “microscope” functions of materialist dialectics to correctly solve the long-debated problem of the relationship between knowledge and action in China. In the integrated connection where worldview is methodology and methodology is worldview, through adherence to the view of the people as the subject, he formed a relatively complete theoretical system of Chinese Marxist philosophy in value practice. Through his integrated interpretation of worldview and methodology, Mao Zedong achieved a two-way activation of the basic principles of Marxism and Chinese practice, enabling the excellent traditional Chinese culture and Marxist philosophy to combine in dialogue. This pioneering effort not only created original philosophical achievements and found the development path for where China should go, but also rooted Chinese Marxist philosophy in Chinese soil, making it a practical wisdom that the masses of the people use daily without conscious awareness. “To continue theoretical innovation on the basis of practice, we must first grasp the worldview and methodology of the Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era, and adhere to and apply the positions, viewpoints, and methods that run through it.” The report of the 20th National Congress of the CPC, for the first time, provided a concentrated exposition of the worldview and methodology of Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era from six aspects. This exposition is a new development of Mao Zedong’s philosophical thought on the unity of worldview and methodology. Only by grasping Mao Zedong’s original contributions to Chinese Marxist philosophy from the inherent unity of worldview and methodology, and by continuously carrying forward the true spirit of Chinese Marxist philosophy in the process of Chinese-path modernization, can we continue to construct a new form of contemporary Chinese Marxist philosophy rooted in Chinese civilization within the infinitely possible space of history.

党的二十届三中全会提出要“创新马克思主义理论研究和建设工程，实施哲学社会科学创新工程，构建中国哲学社会科学自主知识体系”。构建中国马克思主义哲学理论体系是加快构建中国哲学社会科学自主知识体系的重要环节，为建设社会主义文化强国提供了重要支持。作为中国马克思主义哲学的重要开拓者和奠基者，延安时期面对当时中国纵横交织、错综复杂的发展时局，在极端困难的条件下，毛泽东通过“现实”这一基本范畴奠定了世界观与方法论相统一的本体论根基，将唯物辩证法融入中国传统宇宙观形成了辩证唯物论的世界观，并灵活运用唯物辩证法的“望远镜”和“显微镜”功能正确解决了在中国争论已久的知行关系问题，在世界观即方法论、方法论即世界观的一体关联中，以对人民主体观的坚持，在价值实践中形成了一个相对完整的中国马克思主义哲学理论体系。毛泽东通过对世界观和方法论的一体性诠释实现了马克思主义基本原理与中国实践的双向激活，使中华优秀传统文化与马克思主义哲学在对话中相结合。这一开创性努力不仅缔造了原创性的哲学成果、找到了中国向何处去的发展道路，而且使中国马克思主义哲学扎根中国大地、成为人民群众日用而不觉的实践智慧。“继续推进实践基础上的理论创新，首先要把握好新时代中国特色社会主义思想的世界观和方法论，坚持好、运用好贯穿其中的立场观点方法。”党的二十大报告第一次从六个方面对习近平新时代中国特色社会主义思想的世界观和方法论作出集中阐释，这一阐释是对世界观与方法论相统一的毛泽东哲学思想的新发展。只有从世界观和方法论的内在统一性上把握毛泽东对中国马克思主义哲学的原创性贡献，并在中国式现代化进程中持续发扬中国马克思主义哲学的本真精神，我们才能继续在无限可能的历史空间中构建具有中华文明根性的当代中国马克思主义哲学新形态。

Online Editor: Jing Mu

网络编辑：静穆