A Century of Debate on the Relationship between Marxism and Chinese Traditional Culture

At the ceremony marking the centenary of the founding of the Communist Party of China, General Secretary Xi Jinping put forward the major proposition of "integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China's specific realities and with the best of traditional Chinese culture." This is an important judgment that both inherits historical tradition and points toward the future, endowing research on the relationship between Marxism and Chinese traditional culture with even greater significance. A review of the century-long academic history clearly reveals that discussion and debate over the relationship between Marxism and Chinese traditional culture has been a constant and uninterrupted major topic in intellectual circles. In 1899, the publication of the article "The Great Commonwealth" (大同学) in issue 121 of *The Review of the Times* (万国公报) marked the formal arrival of Marxism in China. Almost from the very beginning, Marxism encountered resistance and rejection from indigenous culture. During the May Fourth Movement period, the relationship between Marxism and traditional culture even became a focal point of the New Culture debates. To this day, the dispute over their relationship has lasted a full century; although "it has risen and fallen, appeared and disappeared, waxed and waned with changing times, it has never ceased." [1]1 Zhang Dongsun (1886–1973) was a Chinese philosopher and political figure who was critical of Marxism and advocated for a form of socialist thought influenced by Western philosophy. Especially now that socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered a New Era, and in the context where the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation calls for the revival of excellent traditional culture, this old question of the relationship between Marxism and Chinese traditional culture — "which road China should take, where it should go" — has once again attracted attention from different value dimensions, directly concerning the security of the national ideology. Therefore, systematically reviewing and deeply reflecting on the century-long academic debates over this relationship, and exploring the basic propositions, internal logic, and spiritual essence of the "theory of heterogeneous conflict," the "theory of limited symbiosis," the "theory of absorption and integration," and the "theory of two-dimensional development" formed in academia, will not only help us understand "how history has come to us" and answer the question "where is China going," but also help the New Era better uphold and practice the "Second Integration." [2]2 The “Cultural Revolution” (1966–1976) was a sociopolitical movement launched by Mao Zedong, characterized by intense class struggle, the purging of perceived capitalist-roaders, and widespread destruction of cultural heritage.

在庆祝中国共产党成立100周年大会上，习近平总书记提出了“坚持把马克思主义基本原理同中国具体实际相结合、同中华优秀传统文化相结合”的重大命题，这是既继承了历史传统又指向未来的重要论断，赋予了马克思主义与中国传统文化关系研究更为重要的价值。回顾百年学术史可以清晰发现，马克思主义与中国传统文化二者关系的讨论与争论，一直是知识界的重要话题，从未间断。1899年，《万国公报》第121期刊载《大同学》一文标志着马克思主义正式登陆中国。几乎从一开始，马克思主义便遭遇了本土文化的抵制与排斥。在“五四运动”时期，马克思主义与传统文化的关系甚至成为新文化论争的焦点。时至今日，二者关系之争已达百年之久，虽“由于时代条件变换，时起时伏，时隐时显，时高时低，但从未断绝”。尤其中国特色社会主义进入新时代，在中华民族伟大复兴呼唤优秀传统文化复兴的语境中，马克思主义与中国传统文化关系这一“中国走什么路、向何处去”的老问题，再度引发了不同价值维度的关注，直接关涉国家意识形态安全。因此，系统回顾与深度反思学术史上二者关系的百年论争，探究学术界所形成的“异质冲突论”“有限共生论”“吸纳融合论”与“二维发展论”的基本主张、内在逻辑与精神实质，不仅有助于认识“历史如何向我们走来”，回答“中国向何处去”的问题，而且有助于新时代更好地坚持与践行“第二个结合”。

I. The "Theory of Heterogeneous Conflict": The Struggle over Which Is the Orthodox Ideology — Marxism or Chinese Traditional Culture

一、“异质冲突论”：马克思主义与中国传统文化何者为正统意识形态之争

In the context of modern China's struggle against imperialism and feudalism, Chinese traditional culture, which had long served as the official ideology, came under fierce assault. The intertwining and mutual influence of the Chinese-Western "substance-function debate" (体用之争) and the "science-metaphysics debate" (科玄之争) gradually eroded the political and social authority of traditional culture. [3]3 The phrase “from Confucius to Sun Yat-sen” (从孔夫子到孙中山) is a standard formulation in Chinese Marxist discourse, used by Mao Zedong to define the scope of China’s historical heritage that should be critically summarized, spanning from the ancient sage (551–479 BCE) to the founding father of the Republic of China (1866–1925). Amid the confrontation between China and the West and multidimensional conflicts, Marxism, which emerged from the soil of Western culture yet radiated boundless vitality, was introduced into China at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries in a critical posture of anti-tradition. Upon its initial entry into China, Marxism encountered Chinese traditional culture, which was hostile to all foreign ideas, and a historical drama of intellectual collision ensued. Conservative Confucians criticized Marxism as "heresy," while radical Marxists denounced traditional culture as a "burden" on China's progress. Each side clung to its own position, taking as its basic judgment that the other lacked the homogenizing value needed to promote China's modernization, and thus criticized and negated the other. This "theory of heterogeneous conflict" regarding their relationship began in the 1920s and continued into the early 21st century; it was not until 2004, with the publication of the "Declaration on Chinese Culture" (甲申文化宣言) by Chinese cultural scholars, that a certain "reconciliation" appeared. [4]4 “Abstract inheritance” (抽象继承法) is a method proposed by Feng Youlan in the 1950s for dealing with traditional Chinese philosophy under Marxism, arguing that the abstract, general meaning of classical propositions could be inherited while their concrete, historically specific meanings were discarded. Marxist scholars began to comprehensively study the revival of traditional culture while adhering to the guiding position of Marxism, while the former "revere Confucianism and oppose Marxism" camp shifted to a line of "only revere Confucianism, do not mention Marxism." One major camp of the "theory of heterogeneous conflict" was composed of Marxist scholars, represented by Chen Duxiu, Li Dazhao, Qu Qiubai, Li Yimeng, Cai Shangsi, Sima Ru, and Yu Ren. Their fierce criticism of traditional culture ran through the entire 20th century, a century that can be divided into two periods.

在中国近代反帝反封建的斗争语境下，长期以来作为官方意识形态的中国传统文化遭到了强烈冲击。中西“体用之争”与“科玄之争”相互交错与影响，逐渐削弱传统文化的政治与社会威权。在中西对峙与多维冲突中，产生于西方文化土壤但焕发无限生机的马克思主义，在19世纪末20世纪初以反传统的批判姿态传入中国。初入中国之际，马克思主义遭遇的即是敌视诸般外来思想的中国传统文化，思想碰撞的历史剧随之上演。守旧的儒者批判马克思主义为“异端”，激进的马克思主义者反斥传统文化为中国前进的“负累”，二者各执一端，均以对方不具有助推中国现代化转型的同质化价值为基本判断，批判与否定对方。这种关于二者关系的“异质冲突论”，始于20世纪20年代，并一直延续到21世纪初期；直至2004年，中华文化学者们《甲申文化宣言》的发表，标志着某种“和解”的出现。马克思主义学者开始在坚持马克思主义指导地位的前提下全面复兴传统文化的研究，而原来的“尊儒（儒学）反马（马克思主义）”者转向了“只尊儒不言马”的理路。“异质冲突论”的一大阵营是马克思主义学者，以陈独秀、李大钊、瞿秋白、李一氓、蔡尚思、司马孺、余仁为代表，他们对传统文化的激烈批判贯穿了整个20世纪，这百年又分为两个时段。

Early 20th-century Marxists linked China's miserable situation of poverty, weakness, and passive beating to traditional culture, especially Confucian culture. They believed that the patriarchal system, political concepts, and economic ethics within the Confucian tradition were non-negligible reasons for China's backwardness, while Marxist theory represented the trend of the entire society's progress. For example, Chen Duxiu criticized "China's inherent ethics, laws, scholarship, and customs" as "remnants of the feudal system," arguing that the old morality was built on the foundation of a patriarchal society, and its "illness lies in distinguishing between superior and inferior, imposing one-sided obligations on the inferior." [5]5 The period 1966–1976 refers to the Cultural Revolution (文化大革命), a decade-long socio-political movement initiated by Mao Zedong that involved intense ideological struggle, widespread persecution of intellectuals, and the destruction of traditional culture, during which Marxism was treated as the sole legitimate ideology and traditional culture was largely condemned as feudal reaction. In contrast, Marxism was a system of thought for the liberation of humanity, representing a new direction for the development of human civilization. In this sense, there was no space for mutual accommodation, coexistence, or symbiosis between Marxism and Chinese traditional culture. Li Dazhao asserted that Chinese civilization suffered from serious ills and that the fate of the Chinese nation was precarious; China had to adapt to the new currents of the world, from which he derived the necessity and inevitability of introducing Marxism into China.

20世纪早期的马克思主义者将中国积贫积弱、被动挨打的悲惨局面与传统文化尤其是儒家文化挂钩，认为儒家传统中的宗法制度、政治观念与经济伦理是中国落后不可忽视的原因，而马克思主义理论则代表了整个社会前进的趋势。例如，陈独秀批判“中国固有的伦理、法律、学术、礼俗”是“封建制度之遗”，认为旧道德建立在宗法社会基础上，其“病在分别尊卑，课卑者以片面之义务”；反观马克思主义，它是为人类求解放的思想体系，代表了人类文明发展新的方向。在此意义上，马克思主义与中国传统文化之间并不存在彼此调和、并存共生的空间。李大钊则断言中国文明存在严重的弊病、中华民族的命运岌岌可危，中国必须适应世界新的潮流，由此得出中国引入马克思主义的必要性与必然性。

Continuing into the late 20th century, this kind of heterogeneous conflict thinking still existed among a small number of Marxist scholars. In December 1990, *Wenhui Daily* (文汇报) published a letter written by Li Yimeng to Cai Shangsi before his death. In response to the intensifying "Confucius fever" of the time, he clearly expressed his worry and concern in the letter, pointing out that "Marxism and the teachings of Confucius are, in any case, two opposing ideological systems as incompatible as fire and water, not systems that can be reconciled (eclecticism) or coexist without conflict (dualism)." His view quickly received a response from academia. In 1991, Sima Ru published an article endorsing the above view, arguing that the issue Li Yimeng raised about Marxism and the teachings of Confucius was essentially a question of whether to uphold or abandon the Marxist theoretical position in the ideological sphere; Marxism and Chinese traditional culture could not be reconciled or confused at all, because Chinese traditional culture was a system opposed to the proletarian ideology. Following closely, Yu Ren wrote an article pointing out that Chinese traditional culture, represented by the ideological system of Confucius and Mencius, was itself a backward ideological system that had long since gone bankrupt and been eliminated by history

持续至20世纪末，此种异质冲突思维在少部分马克思主义学者中仍然存在。1990年12月，《文汇报》发表了李一氓生前写给蔡尚思的一封信。针对当时“尊孔热”愈演愈烈之势，他在信中明确表达了自己的忧虑和关切，指出“马克思主义和孔子的教义无论如何都是水火难容的两种对立的思想体系，而不是可以调和的体系（折衷主义），或者并行不悖的体系（二元论）”。他的观点很快得到了学界的回应。1991年，司马孺发文赞同上述观点，认为李一氓提出的马克思主义和孔子教义的问题，实质是意识形态领域坚持或者放弃马克思主义理论阵地的问题；马克思主义与中国传统文化之间根本无法调和混同，因为中国传统文化是同无产阶级思想相对立的体系。紧随其后，余仁撰文指出，以孔孟思想体系为代表的中国传统文化本身是一种落后的思想体系，早已宣告破产，为历史所淘汰，中国只能依靠比资本主义还要先进的思想体系——马克思主义。

The other camp within the “heterogeneous conflict theory” is that of the “venerate Confucianism, oppose Marxism” faction, including earlier figures such as Liang Shuming, Xiong Shili, Zhang Junmai, Tang Junyi, Mou Zongsan, and Xu Fuguan, and later figures such as Jiang Qing, Kang Xiaoguang, Chen Ming, Sheng Hong, Yu Donghai, and Qiufeng. Although the intensity of their expressions varied across different periods, this group consistently adhered to the orthodox status of Confucianism and rejected the foreign Marxism.

“异质冲突论”的另一阵营是“尊儒反马”者，包括前期的梁漱溟、熊十力、张君劢、唐君毅、牟宗三、徐复观等，后期的蒋庆、康晓光、陈明、盛洪、余东海、秋风等。这一群体在不同时期表现的激烈程度虽然不同，但都固守儒学的正统地位，拒斥外来的马克思主义。

The changes in attitude within this camp can be discussed in two stages. The first stage spans from the early 1920s to the late 1980s. The “venerate Confucianism, oppose Marxism” faction fiercely criticized Marxism, arguing that Marxism belonged to “Western learning” or “foreign, alien culture,” that it was disconnected from the life of Chinese culture and could not be integrated with it, and that Confucianizing politics was the correct path. Zhang Dongsun severely refuted Marxist dialectical materialism, claiming it was “nothing but a mess of nonsense and chaos.”[1]1 Zhang Dongsun (1886–1973) was a Chinese philosopher and political figure who was critical of Marxism and advocated for a form of socialist thought influenced by Western philosophy. Mou Zongsan said radically: “Marx sees history as a history of class struggle; historical materialism takes class as its standard, so he only recognizes that people have class nature, not human nature, not universal human nature,” and therefore “Marxism is a demonic path.”

这一阵营的态度变化可以分为两个阶段来论述。第一阶段为20世纪20年代初到20世纪80年代末。“尊儒反马”者猛烈批判马克思主义，认为马克思主义属于“西学”或“外来的异族文化”，与中华文化生命隔而不通，两者无法融合，儒化政治才是正途。张东荪严厉批驳马克思主义的唯物辩证法，认为其“只是一场胡扯乱闹而已”。牟宗三激进地说：“马克思看历史是个阶级斗争史，唯物史观是以阶级作标准，所以他只承认人有阶级性，没有人性，没有普遍的人性”，因而“马克思主义是个魔道。”

During the period 1966–1976, research on the relationship between Marxism and Chinese traditional culture in mainland China was, on the whole, characterized by a one-sided condemnation and negation of traditional culture. The “venerate Marxism, oppose Confucianism” version of the “heterogeneous conflict theory” spread into the realm of social thought and culture. Of course, the research of this period lacked a prudent and scientific attitude, being deeply influenced by class struggle thinking and the special historical circumstances of the “Cultural Revolution,”[2]2 The “Cultural Revolution” (1966–1976) was a sociopolitical movement launched by Mao Zedong, characterized by intense class struggle, the purging of perceived capitalist-roaders, and widespread destruction of cultural heritage. and its academic significance was limited.

1966—1976年间，中国大陆关于马克思主义和中国传统文化关系的研究，总体上呈现一边倒地批判与否定传统文化的状态，“尊马反儒”的“异质冲突论”扩散至社会思想与文化领域。当然，这一时期的研究缺少审慎的科学态度，深受阶级斗争思维与“文革”特殊历史时期的影响，学术意义有限。

The second phase runs from the end of the 1980s to the present. Relying on the reality of social and cultural diversification after reform and opening up, and drawing on the wave of the “national studies fever” (国学热) under the rise of nationalism, the New Confucians have devoted themselves to contending for the dominant position in the national ideology. Besides the overseas New Confucians, a mainland New Confucian school also emerged during this period. The origins of the mainland New Confucian school can be traced back to 1989, marked by Jiang Qing’s long article “The Practical Significance of Reviving Confucianism in Mainland China and the Problems It Faces” (中国大陆复兴儒学的现实意义及其面临的问题) published in Taiwan’s *Ehu* (鹅湖) journal; its formal debut came with the Guiyang Confucian Studies Conference in July 2004. The core idea of this school is to replace the dominant ideological position of Marxism with Confucianism and Confucian religion, reviving Confucianism and Confucian religion, and methodologically it exhibits an either-or, absolutely incompatible, single-track character. As early as 1989, Jiang Qing proposed that “Confucianism ought to replace Marxism-Leninism … to become the orthodox thought representing the life and national spirit of the Chinese nation in today’s mainland China”; in 2006 he stated, “If you want the Marxist orthodoxy, you cannot have the Confucian orthodoxy; if you want the Confucian orthodoxy, you cannot have the Marxist orthodoxy — the two cannot be had together”; and in 2010 he even advocated “using the political faith of Confucianism as China’s constitutional principle,” thereby forming a series of conceptions of “de-Marxification” (去马化) and “Confucianizing China” (儒化中国). Kang Xiaoguang publicly advanced the thesis of “Confucianizing China” in 2004 and proposed a “two-pronged” implementation strategy — Confucianize the Communist Party, turning it into a Confucian scholar community; and Confucianize society, “incorporating Confucianism into the national education system” and “establishing Confucian religion as the state religion.” In the same year, Chen Ming put forward the saying of “a magpie occupying a dove’s nest” (鹊巢鸠占) [3]3 The phrase “from Confucius to Sun Yat-sen” (从孔夫子到孙中山) is a standard formulation in Chinese Marxist discourse, used by Mao Zedong to define the scope of China’s historical heritage that should be critically summarized, spanning from the ancient sage (551–479 BCE) to the founding father of the Republic of China (1866–1925)., arguing that the dominant ideology in China ought to be Confucianism, but that it has been occupied by Marxism.

第二阶段是20世纪80年代末至今。新儒家依托改革开放后社会文化多元化发展的现实，借力民族主义勃兴下“国学热”的浪潮，致力于争夺国家意识形态的主导地位。除了海外新儒家，这一时期还出现了大陆新儒家学派。大陆新儒家学派的发端可追溯至1989年，以蒋庆在台湾《鹅湖》杂志上发表《中国大陆复兴儒学的现实意义及其面临的问题》长文为标志，正式出场则是2004年7月的贵阳儒学会讲。该学派的核心理念是以儒学、儒教取代马克思主义的意识形态主导地位，复兴儒学、儒教，在方法论上具有非此即彼、绝不相容的单线特征。蒋庆在1989年就提出“儒学理应取代马列主义……成为当今中国大陆代表中华民族生命与民族精神的正统思想”，2006年表示“要马统则不能有儒统，要儒统则不能有马统，二者不可得兼”，2010年甚至主张“以儒学的政治信仰来作为中国的宪法性原则”，由此形成了“去马化”与“儒化中国”的系列构想。康晓光于2004年公开提出“儒化中国”论，并提出了“双管齐下”实施策略——儒化共产党，使其成为儒士共同体；儒化社会，“把儒学纳入国民教育体系”“把儒教确立为国教”。同年，陈明提出了“鹊巢鸠占”说，认为中国主导的意识形态本应该是儒学，现在却被马克思主义占据。

Beyond these two major camps in domestic academia, many foreign scholars have also articulated the view that Marxism and Chinese traditional culture are essentially mutually exclusive and conflicting. In the view of the American sinologist Joseph Levenson, the anti-professional value orientation of Chinese Confucianism blocked China’s path to modernization; Confucianism, representing Chinese traditional culture, had already come to an end and could only exist as a historical collection in a museum, and its terminator was Marxism. The German sociologist Max Weber held that Chinese traditional culture hindered the emergence and development of capitalism in China and obstructed China’s progress toward modernization.

在国内学界这两大阵营之外，还有很多国外学者阐述了马克思主义与中国传统文化二者在本质上相斥冲突的观点。在美国汉学家约瑟夫·列文森看来，中国儒教的反职业化价值取向阻滞了中国走向现代化，代表中国传统文化的儒学已经终结，只能作为博物馆的历史收藏物而存在，而其终结者是马克思主义。德国社会学家马克斯·韦伯认为，中国传统文化妨碍了中国资本主义的出现和发展，阻碍了中国走向现代化。

Viewed overall, those who “revere Marxism and oppose Confucianism” responded to the needs of the times and recognized the progressive nature and significance of Marxism for China, but they overlooked the traditional elements necessary for the continuation of social-historical development, asserted that Chinese traditional culture, as a product of over two thousand years of feudal society, had lost its value for contemporary China’s development, and adopted an absolutist attitude of wholesale rejection toward it. While blurring national subjectivity and even falling into national cultural nihilism, they also fell into the trap of mechanical historical determinism. Those who “revere Confucianism and oppose Marxism” clung to a strong consciousness of Chinese cultural subjectivity, yet they ignored the universal truth and moral value of Marxism, as well as the practical achievements of the theoretical results of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context, simplistically reduced Marxism to “an alien culture that invaded China,” overlooked the transformation of China’s narrative context from tradition to modernity, and ultimately stepped into narrow cultural conservatism, stubbornly constructing themselves as “utopian traditional culturalists.” The binary opposition and confrontational conflict between these two views politically and clearly manifests “the historical relationship of succession between a rising modern party-state ideology and a declining classical Chinese ideology.”

总体观之，“尊马反儒”者顺应时代需要，认识到了马克思主义的进步性与中国意义，但忽视了延续社会历史发展所必需的传统要素，断言作为两千多年封建社会产物的中国传统文化已丧失对于当代中国发展的价值，对其采取全盘抛弃的绝对主义态度，在模糊民族主体性甚至陷入民族文化虚无主义的同时，掉入了机械历史决定论的陷阱。“尊儒反马”者抱持强烈的中华文化主体性意识，却无视马克思主义的普遍真理性和道义性价值，以及马克思主义中国化理论成果的现实功绩，简单地把马克思主义化约为“侵入中国的异族文化”，忽略中国从传统至现代叙事语境的变迁，最终步入狭隘的文化保守主义，一意孤行地将自身建构成“传统文化乌托邦论者”。两种观念的二元对立与对峙冲突，在政治上鲜明地呈现了“一个崛起的现代政党—国家意识形态与衰颓的中国古典意识形态之间的历史交替关系”。

II. The “Theory of Limited Coexistence”: Excavating the Resources of Chinese Traditional Culture under the Guidance of Marxism

二、“有限共生论”：马克思主义主导下中国传统文化的资源挖掘

The conceptual or intellectual thread of the “theory of heterogeneous conflict” has never been interrupted, but in terms of its actual momentum it has shown a pattern of waxing and waning. This pattern forms an embedded, complementary relationship with another view: that is, when Marxism, as the guiding ideology of the Communist Party of China — which has continuously expanded its momentum along with the Party’s growth and strengthening — gradually rose to become the national ideology, the discussion of the relationship between the two gradually shifted toward the “theory of limited coexistence”: based on the need to construct Marxist ideology, under the leadership of Marxism, Chinese traditional culture was no longer negated in a revolutionary manner; instead, following the value orientation of “taking its essence and discarding its dross” (取其精华、去其糟粕) and adhering to the principle of “making the past serve the present” (古为今用), a critical analysis, screening, and selection of traditional culture was carried out within a “relationship of serving the self” (为我关系), seeking what could be used by Marxism. This expresses a limited recognition of the value of Chinese traditional culture.

“异质冲突论”的观念或思想脉络从未中断，但在现实势能表现上却呈现时强时弱的态势。这种态势与另一种观点形成一种嵌入式的互补特征，即当马克思主义作为中国共产党的指导思想——其伴随中国共产党的发展壮大而不断扩大自己的势能——逐渐上升为国家意识形态时，对二者关系的讨论逐渐转向了“有限共生论”：立足马克思主义意识形态建设的需要，在马克思主义的统领下，不再用一种革命化的方式否定中国传统文化，而是遵循“取其精华、去其糟粕”的价值取向，秉承“古为今用”原则，在“为我关系”之中对传统文化作批判性分析、甄别与挑选，从中寻找可为马克思主义所用之处，表达的是对中国传统文化价值的有限承认。

The “theory of limited coexistence” has long occupied a dominant position in intellectual history; its time frame can be extended from the 1930s to the present, with “critical inheritance” (批判继承) becoming the core discourse running through it. “Criticism” and “inheritance” have shown different degrees of dominance in different periods, but even when the weight of criticism was heaviest at a particular stage, traditional culture was still not wholly negated; its limited valuable resources were still mentioned and discussed. To this day, with the establishment of General Secretary Xi

“有限共生论”在学术史上长期占据主导地位，其时间节点可以从20世纪30年代延至当下，批判继承成为贯穿其中的核心话语。“批判”与“继承”在不同时期呈现不同的主导性，但即使在特定阶段批判所占的分量再重，传统文化仍然不是被全盘否定的，其中有限的价值资源依然被提及并被讨论。时至今日，随着习近平总书记“有鉴别地加以对待，有扬弃地予以继承”文化继承方针的确立，批判继承的话语仍在不同语境中频繁出场。

In the process of the continuous expansion of Marxism’s discursive power, figures represented by Mao Zedong and Hou Wailu recognized the resource value of traditional culture, arguing that its essence and dross should be distinguished and critically inherited. In the course of raising the proposition of “adapting Marxism to the Chinese context,” Mao Zedong emphatically pointed out that “we must study our historical heritage and give it a critical summation using Marxist methods… We are Marxist historicists. We must not cut off history. From Confucius to Sun Yat-sen, we must give it a summation,” and proposed that the treatment of traditional culture should always adhere to the critical policy of “discarding its feudal dross and absorbing its democratic essence.” This advocacy of developing democratic essence to serve contemporary society essentially adhered to the historical materialist stance of judging the essence and dross of traditional culture from two aspects: political standpoint and social development. Although broad and cautious, it corrected the modern bias of one-sidedly negating traditional Chinese culture and, to a certain extent, affirmed and validated the value of traditional Chinese culture. Hou Wailu used the Marxist historical materialist paradigm to study the history of Chinese thought, attempting to excavate the endogenous modernizing factors within traditional Chinese culture.

在马克思主义话语权不断扩大的过程中，以毛泽东、侯外庐等为代表，他们认同传统文化的资源价值，认为应该区分其精华与糟粕，并加以批判继承。毛泽东在“马克思主义中国化”命题提出的过程中，着重指出“学习我们的历史遗产，用马克思主义的方法给以批判的总结……我们是马克思主义的历史主义者。我们不应当割断历史，从孔夫子到孙中山，我们应当给以总结”，提出对待传统文化应该始终坚持“剔除其封建性的糟粕，吸收其民主性的精华”的批判性方针。这种发扬民主性精华为当代社会服务的主张，本质上坚持了从政治立场与社会发展两个方面评判传统文化精华与糟粕的唯物史观立场，尽管较为宏阔且审慎，但改变了近代以来片面否定中国传统文化的思想偏蔽，在一定程度上是对中国传统文化价值的确认与肯定。侯外庐运用马克思主义唯物史观范式研究中国思想史，试图挖掘中国传统文化内生的现代性因素。

From 1949 to 1966, academic research on how traditional culture should serve Marxism gradually increased. Feng Youlan was an early scholar to address this issue. He proposed the method of abstract inheritance to handle the relationship between Marxism and traditional culture, that is, using the criterion of inheritability to clearly distinguish the general meaning from the specific meaning of philosophical propositions. Specifically, we should inherit those elements of traditional culture that are scientific, popular, and progressive, but in the process of inheritance, we cannot ignore their historical limitations. This implies a dialectical sublation of traditional culture and contains a recognition of its value. He Lin put forward the view of “combining professional work with politics, and scientific research with revolutionary practice,” clarifying how traditional culture could move toward socialism and serve it. Wu Han also, from the perspective of transformation and absorption, argued that feudal moral concepts such as loyalty, filial piety, honesty, and diligence in traditional Chinese culture could serve the politics and economy of the proletariat.

1949年至1966年，学术界关于传统文化应为马克思主义所用的研究逐渐增多。冯友兰较早关注这一问题，他提出以抽象继承的方法来处理马克思主义与传统文化的关系，即以继承性为标准明确区分哲学命题的一般意义与特殊意义。具体而言，我们要继承传统文化中带有科学性、人民性和进步性的成分，但继承过程中不能忽视其时代局限性。这就包含了对传统文化辩证性的扬弃，蕴含着对传统文化价值的认可。贺麟提出“业务与政治相结合、科学研究与革命实践相结合”的观点，明确传统文化如何走向社会主义并为其所用。吴晗也从转化吸收的角度，提出了中国传统文化中的忠、孝、诚实、勤劳等封建道德为无产阶级的政治、经济所用的观点。

From 1966 to 1976, the domestic intellectual sphere was dominated by the “heterogeneous conflict theory” that exclusively revered Marxism. However, during the same period, foreign scholars opened up new vistas on this issue, examining the value of traditional Chinese culture for adapting Marxism to the Chinese context from within a Marxist perspective. The renowned British historian of science Joseph Needham believed that Chinese intellectuals accepted dialectical materialism because it was a native Chinese product: “Dialectical materialism originated in China, was introduced to Western Europe by Jesuit missionaries, underwent a process of scientization by Marxists, and then returned to China.” The prominent German sinologist Peter Opitz held a similar view, concluding that “the transformation of early Chinese Marxists from Confucianism to communism involved a natural process of cultural psychology.”

1966年至1976年，国内思想界受独尊马克思主义的“异质冲突论”支配。不过，同期的国外学者在此议题上却另开新貌，他们在马克思主义视野中审视中国传统文化对于马克思主义中国化的价值。英国著名科学史家李约瑟认为，中国知识分子之所以接受辩证唯物主义，在于它是中国本土的产物，“辩证唯物主义渊源于中国，由耶稣会传教士介绍到西欧，经过马克思主义者们一番科学化后，又回到了中国”。德国著名汉学家皮特·奥皮茨持类似观点，得出了“中国早期马克思主义者从儒学到共产主义的转变有一个自然的文化心理过程”这一结论。

After reform and opening up, academic research on traditional culture returned to rationality, focusing on exploring the significance of traditional culture in adapting Marxism to the Chinese context. Dou Zongyi [6]6 Dou Zongyi (1926-2016), a Chinese-American scholar of comparative philosophy and religion. concentrated on the theory of human nature, pointing out that certain inappropriate studies of human nature transmitted by Marx and Engels created difficulties for Marxism in the transformation of humanity, while ancient Confucianism, by maintaining the golden mean between extreme individualism and extreme collectivism, supplemented Marxism in the theory of human nature. Joseph Gregory Mahoney [7]7 Joseph Gregory Mahoney (b. 1971), an American political scientist specializing in Chinese political thought and the theory of the Chinese Communist Party. focused on the theory of governance of the Chinese Communist Party, arguing that although Marxism remains the spiritual source of the CPC, in recent years Confucian thought, concepts and discourse have been integrated into the CPC's governing philosophy. Frederic Wakeman [8]8 Frederic Wakeman (1937-2006), an American historian of China, known for his work on late imperial and modern Chinese history. emphasized historical materialism, stressing the purity of historical materialism in China during the Ming and Qing dynasties. Beyond affirming that traditional culture has three kinds of value for the overall process of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context — symbolic value as a cultural carrier, complementary value for achieving modernization, and developmental value for innovating Marxism — domestic scholars have also proposed that the role of Chinese traditional culture in adapting Marxism to the Chinese context is more fundamentally reflected in the fact that, as an important component of China's actual conditions, it can shape social reality and ultimately, in the practical movement of changing reality, complete the "transformation of theory" itself.

改革开放后，学界对传统文化的研究重新回归理性，着重探寻传统文化在马克思主义中国化中的意义。窦宗仪聚焦人性论，指出由于马克思、恩格斯传导下来的对人性的某些不恰当的研究，造成了马克思主义在人的改造方面存在困难，而古代儒家维护了处于极端个人主义和极端集体主义之间的中庸之道，在人性论上对马克思主义作了补充。约瑟夫·格利高里·迈哈内专注中国共产党治国理政理论，认为虽然马克思主义仍是中国共产党的精神之源，但近年来儒学思想、观念与话语已经融入中国共产党的执政理念。魏斐德侧重历史唯物主义，强调中国明清之际历史唯物主义的纯粹性。国内学者在肯定传统文化之于马克思主义中国化整体进程具有三种价值——作为文化载体的符号价值、实现现代化的互补价值、创新马克思主义的发展价值——之外，还提出中国传统文化对马克思主义中国化的作用更体现在它作为中国实际的重要组成部分，能够形塑社会现实，最终在改变现实的实践运动过程中完成“改造理论”本身。

The "theory of limited symbiosis," while adhering to the guidance of Marxism, gives relatively full consideration to the intrinsic value of Chinese traditional culture, provides theoretical support for the realization of its modern value, embodies a reflection on and sublation of the "theory of heterogeneous conflict," and at the same time expresses a certain stance of national culture. However, this "symbiosis theory" does not completely discard the opposition between the two major social ideologies of Marxism and traditional culture; rather, it employs the method of dialectical unity, and on the basis of the political need to uphold the primacy of Marxism, focuses on discussing the use of traditional culture from the level of "the form of national culture." It holds fast to the "basic foundation" of Marxism, and under the tendency and stance of "criticism first," uses Marxism as a yardstick to examine, cut, and screen Chinese traditional culture, inheriting its essence. In essence, this does not regard Chinese traditional culture as an independent cultural or ideological system, but only as an intellectual resource that can be drawn upon for the innovative development of Marxism.

“有限共生论”在坚持马克思主义指导的前提下，对中国传统文化的内在价值作了相对充分的思考，为其现代价值的发挥提供了理论支撑，体现了对“异质冲突论”的反思与扬弃，同时表达了一定的民族文化立场。不过，这种“共生论”并非完全抛弃马克思主义与传统文化两大社会意识形态之间的对立，而是运用辩证统一的方法，在坚持马克思主义本位的政治需要基础上，重点从“民族文化的形式”层面对援引传统文化为其所用进行了讨论。它坚守马克思主义的“基本盘”，在“以批判为先”的倾向和立场下，以马克思主义为标尺审视、切割、甄别中国传统文化并对其精华加以继承。实质上，这并未将中国传统文化视为具有独立价值的文化体系或思想体系，只是将其作为马克思主义创新发展可以汲取的思想资源。

III. The "Theory of Absorption and Integration": Adapting Marxism to the Chinese Context and the Fusion and Rebirth of Chinese Traditional Culture

三、“吸纳融合论”：马克思主义中国化与中国传统文化融合新生

After reform and opening up, the vitality of Chinese society itself was released, giving rise to an urgent demand to re-understand and re-evaluate one's own national cultural tradition. Academic research on traditional culture became more rational and self-conscious. Especially in the context of continuously advancing the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context, research on the relationship between Marxism and Chinese traditional culture has shown a trend of ideological integration and comprehensive innovation at both the theoretical and practical levels. Almost simultaneously with the "theory of limited symbiosis," the "theory of absorption and integration" emerged — a view that both emphasizes the guiding position of Marxism and acknowledges the subjectivity of traditional culture, then seeks mutual absorption and integration between the two, ultimately moving toward a new socialist culture with Chinese characteristics.

改革开放以后，中国社会自身的活力得以释放，产生了重新认识和评估自身民族文化传统的迫切诉求，学术界对传统文化的研究更趋于理性和自觉。尤其是在持续推进马克思主义中国化的语境下，马克思主义与中国传统文化关系的研究在理论与实践层面呈现思想融通与综合创新之势。与“有限共生论”几乎同步，出现了“吸纳融合论”——既强调马克思主义的指导地位，又承认传统文化的主体性，继而寻求二者互相吸纳融合，最终走向中国特色社会主义新文化的观点。

Although the theory of similarity or correspondence between Marxism and Chinese traditional culture was recognized by scholars such as Zhang Shenfu and Guo Moruo as early as around the 1930s, and after reform and opening up was further advanced by Zhang Dainian, Fang Keli, Tang Yijie, Cheng Yishan, Zhang Yunyi and others, it still remains highly controversial. Overall, research has concentrated on similarities or identities between the two at the level of concepts, categories, propositions, content, and even higher-level spirit. Specifically: first, materialism — for example, both traditional culture and Marxism recognize the foundational role of social material conditions in people's spiritual life. Second, dialectics — for instance, both hold that internal contradictions within things are the driving force of development. Third, epistemology — the traditional concept of "unity of knowledge and action" [9]9 "Unity of knowledge and action" (知行合一) is a key concept in the philosophy of the Ming-dynasty Neo-Confucian Wang Yangming. and Marxism's "linking theory with practice" are highly similar. Fourth, the view of practice — both recognize practice as the source, pathway, and purpose of knowledge. Fifth, the view of humanity — both value the significance and meaning of human beings, emphasizing the social-historical process of human self-realization. Sixth, the view of the ideal — the social vision of "moderate prosperity and great harmony" [10]10 "Moderate prosperity and great harmony" (小康大同) refers to two stages of ideal society in classical Confucian political thought, as described in the *Book of Rites*. bears a certain resemblance to the communist social ideal. Of course, within the theory of absorption and integration, some scholars have maintained a sufficiently clear awareness of the differences in the essential determinations of the two. They oppose mechanical comparisons and far-fetched analogies of consistency between the two, pointing out that neither should be absent nor overstep its bounds — this is clearly a more prudent view of "absorption and integration." Qian Xun [11]11 Qian Xun (1933-2018), a Chinese scholar of Confucian classics and traditional culture. argues that there are indeed fundamental oppositions between Marxism and Chinese traditional culture, whether in terms of the content of the era or the ideological system. Ye Xianming [12]12 Ye Xianming (b. 1954), a Chinese Marxist philosopher and professor at Capital Normal University. points out that although the early widespread dissemination of Marxism in China was indeed related to traditional culture to a certain extent, there is no necessary consistency between Marxism and traditional culture; the former is essentially a transcendence of the latter. Wu Dongsheng and others emphasize that there are clear differences and even certain oppositions between Marxism and traditional culture, but these differences precisely provide the opportunity for dialogue and exchange between the two.

虽然马克思主义与中国传统文化相似说或相通说早在20世纪30年代前后就得到了张申府、郭沫若等学者的认同，改革开放后，张岱年、方克立、汤一介、程宜山、张允熠等又有新的推进，但仍存在较多争议。总体来看，研究集中在二者概念、范畴、命题、内容以及更高层面精神上的相似或相同。具体而言，一是唯物论，比如传统文化和马克思主义都承认社会物质条件对人们精神生活的基础作用。二是辩证法，例如二者都认为事物内部矛盾是事物发展的动力。三是认识论，传统文化的“知行合一”与马克思主义的“理论联系实际”具有极大的相似性。四是实践观，二者都承认实践是认识的源泉、途径、目的。五是人学观，二者都看重人的价值和意义，强调人的自我实现的社会历史过程。六是理想观，“小康大同”的社会愿景与共产主义的社会理想具有某种相似性。当然，在吸纳融合论中，有学者对二者本质规定性的差异仍然保持了足够清醒的认知。他们反对二者一致性的机械比附、牵强附会，指出二者既不能缺位，又不能越位，这显然是一种更为审慎的“吸纳融合”观。钱逊认为，马克思主义与中国传统文化之间无论时代内容还是思想体系，确有根本对立的一面。叶险明指出，虽然马克思主义在中国早期广泛传播的确与传统文化有一定的关系，但是马克思主义与传统文化之间并不存在一定的一致性，前者实质是对后者的超越。武东生等强调，马克思主义与传统文化存在明显的差别甚至某些对立之处，不过差异恰恰提供了二者对话交流的机缘。

Most scholars, however, affirm the necessity, possibility, and reality of absorbing Chinese traditional culture in the process of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context. In this process, the primary difficulty is how to handle the guiding position of Marxism. Most scholars explicitly emphasize that, under the premise of taking Marxism as the guiding ideology, the modern ideological components of Chinese traditional culture should be integrated. Tang Yijie's concept of "Confucianization of Marxism" [13]13 Tang Yijie (1927-2014), a prominent Chinese philosopher and historian of Chinese thought. rather implicitly points to the idea of combining the two under the guidance of Marxism. In comparison, Fang Keli [14]14 Fang Keli (1938-2020), a Chinese Marxist philosopher and advocate of synthesizing Marxism with Chinese traditional culture. clearly proposes that the relationship between Marxism and traditional culture is one of "dominant consciousness" and "supporting consciousness," emphasizing that the clearer and more consolidated the unitary guiding position of Marxism, the more traditional culture can be made to serve our purposes. While confirming the guiding position of Marxism, some scholars believe that the core meaning of the relationship between Marxism and traditional culture lies in addressing the many challenges and difficulties facing contemporary humanity. Therefore, the focus should shift to creatively elaborating and revealing new points of integration between Marxism and traditional culture, thereby forging a logical path of "new integration — new synthesis — new transcendence."

大多数学者则肯定了马克思主义中国化吸收中国传统文化的必要性、可能性与现实性。在此过程中，首要的难题就是如何处理马克思主义的指导地位问题。多数学者明确强调，要在以马克思主义为指导思想的前提下，融合中国传统文化的现代思想成分。汤一介提出的“儒学马克思主义化”概念，较为隐晦地指向了在马克思主义指导下进行二者结合的思路。与之相较，方克立则鲜明地提出马克思主义与传统文化是“主导意识”与“支援意识”的关系，强调马克思主义的一元主导地位越明确、越巩固，就越能使传统文化为我所用。在确认马克思主义指导地位的前提下，部分学者认为，马克思主义与传统文化关系的核心要义是着眼于当代人类面临的诸多挑战和难题，所以，应该将重点转向创造性地阐发与揭示马克思主义与传统文化新的结合点，从而走出一条“新的结合—新的会通—新的超越”的逻辑进路。

While exploring how the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context absorbs the essence of Chinese traditional culture, many scholars point out that it is necessary to achieve the common development of both the modernization of Chinese traditional culture and the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context, ultimately forming a new socialist culture with Chinese characteristics, in order to solve current problems in moral ethics and belief. By examining Marxism's theory and practice regarding traditional culture, Qian Xun concludes that one should correctly understand the true meaning of a "thorough break" with traditional culture — that is, one must adopt an attitude of rupture toward traditional thought and culture, but even more so, develop it through inheritance. This, to a certain extent, clarifies some erroneous tendencies in the construction of socialist culture with Chinese characteristics. Huang Shunji [15]15 Huang Shunji (b. 1935), a Chinese Marxist philosopher and professor at Renmin University of China. advocates integrating Confucius's thought with Marxism to address the crisis of faith and the decline of social mores that have emerged in the process of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

在探寻马克思主义中国化吸纳中国传统文化精华的同时，不少学者指出要实现中国传统文化现代化与马克思主义中国化二者的共同发展，并最终形成中国特色社会主义新文化，以解决当前道德伦理与信仰方面存在的问题。钱逊通过考察马克思主义对待传统文化的理论与实践，得出应该正确理解与传统文化“彻底决裂”的真实意蕴——对待传统思想和文化要有决裂的态度，但更要在继承中对其加以发展。这就在一定程度上澄清了中国特色社会主义文化建设中的一些错误倾向。黄顺基主张把孔子思想与马克思主义融合起来，以应对中华民族伟大复兴进程中出现的信仰危机、世风日下等问题。

The "theory of absorption and integration," or "theory of absorption, integration and rebirth," is the mainstream current in contemporary academic research on the relationship between Marxism and Chinese traditional culture. It highlights the internal consistency between traditional culture and Marxism in the great practice of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context, attempts to use the light of Marxist truth to promote the modern transformation of Chinese traditional culture, thereby deeply injecting the great spirit and rich wisdom of traditional culture into Marxism, and generating a new cultural life-form through the fusion of the essence of Marxist thought and the cream of fine traditional Chinese culture. This, to a certain extent, dilutes the ideological coloration of socio-cultural construction, expresses a turn toward intellectual synthesis between the two, and thereby meets the practical demands of advancing the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context in the New Era. However, the "theory of absorption and integration" has not yet fully responded at the scholarly level to the following issues: what are the internal logic, basic characteristics, and specific mechanisms by which the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context absorbs and integrates Chinese traditional culture?

“吸纳融合论”或曰“吸纳融合新生论”，是当前学界关于马克思主义与中国传统文化关系研究的主流思潮。它突出了在马克思主义中国化的伟大实践中传统文化与马克思主义的内在一致性，试图以马克思主义的真理之光推动中国传统文化的现代转型，从而将传统文化中伟大的精神和丰富的智慧深层次地注入马克思主义，在马克思主义思想精髓和中华优秀传统文化精华化合中生成新的文化生命体。这在一定程度上淡化了社会文化建构的意识形态色彩，表达了二者思想上会通的转向，从而满足新时代推进马克思主义中国化的实践要求。不过，“吸纳融合论”并未在学理层面充分回应如下议题：马克思主义中国化吸纳融合中国传统文化的内在理路、基本特性和具体机制是什么。

IV. “Two-Dimensional Development Theory”: Marxism and Chinese Traditional Culture Advancing in Parallel

四、“二维发展论”：马克思主义与中国传统文化并行推进

Against the backdrop of globalization, the status of culture in the competition of comprehensive national power is increasingly prominent. Cultural soft power and cultural security have become important considerations on the modernization journey of contemporary China as it transitions from wealth to strength. Guided by the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, with the goal of building a socialist cultural power, based on establishing the cultural subjectivity of the Chinese nation, and oriented toward meeting the people’s growing spiritual and cultural needs, Chinese traditional culture’s inherent, self-existing independent significance, as well as its autonomous and leading role, have been affirmed at the level of national strategy. Research on the relationship between Marxism and Chinese traditional culture has thus entered a discussion of “two-dimensional development”—the dimension of traditional culture and the dimension of Marxism. This kind of research places Marxism and its cultural soil, Chinese traditional culture, in a relatively independent discursive system and field, exploring their respective independent values, spheres of function, and paths of development, with the aim of achieving synergy in their value functions.

在全球化背景下，文化在综合国力竞争中的地位不断凸显，文化软实力和文化安全性成为当代中国由富变强现代化征程中重要的考量因素。以实现中华民族伟大复兴为引领，以建设社会主义文化强国为目标，以确立中华民族文化主体性为基点，以满足人民日益增长的精神文化需求为导向，中国传统文化本身具有的自在、自为的独立意义以及自主性、引领性作用在国家战略层面得以确认。马克思主义与中国传统文化关系的研究由此进入“二维发展”——传统文化之维与马克思主义之维——的讨论之中。这种研究将马克思主义与其生存的文化土壤——中国传统文化，置于一个相对独立的话语体系与场域中，探讨二者各自的独立价值、作用空间与发展之道，旨在使二者实现价值功能上的协同。

The scholarly groups encompassed by the “two-dimensional development theory” clearly fall into two major camps. Unlike the two camps in the “heterogeneous conflict theory,” [16]16 The “heterogeneous conflict theory” (异质冲突论) is a position in the same century-long debate, arguing that Marxism and Chinese traditional culture are fundamentally incompatible and in conflict. their respective discussions do not generate contradictions or conflicts; rather, each cultivates its own disciplinary field, aiming to perfect itself, adhere to itself, and achieve coexistence with the other through tolerance of difference. From the perspective of disciplinary affiliation, one camp belongs to Marxist theory and related disciplines, while the other belongs to Chinese history, Chinese philosophy, Chinese culture, and similar disciplines. The confirmation of the independent value and social space of existence of Chinese traditional culture is the premise for establishing the two-dimensional development theory. While it is undeniable that Chinese traditional culture contains dross, its essences—such as “advocating benevolence, valuing the people, upholding integrity, promoting justice, esteeming harmony, and seeking common ground” [17]17 This is a classical formulation summarizing core Confucian values, often cited by Xi Jinping.—“transcend time and space, surpass national boundaries, possess eternal charm, and have contemporary value.” Many scholars, drawing on General Secretary Xi Jinping’s high appraisal and systematic exposition of excellent traditional culture, have continuously endowed traditional culture with independent modern significance. Jiang Hui’s discussion of “Marxism (guiding and leading status) and Chinese culture (civilizational subject status) unified in the practice of socialism with Chinese characteristics,” and Han Qingxiang’s emphasis on achieving “the combination of the strengths of both sides” and “the functional complementarity of both sides,” both represent the relative independence of traditional culture in relation to modern society. Precisely because of this, under the long-standing demand for “absorption and integration,” Marxism and traditional culture have gradually begun to generate their own independent meanings and values, highlighting the necessity of independent development from different perspectives.

“二维发展论”所涵括的学者群体是明显的两大阵营，这两大阵营与“异质冲突论”中的两大阵营不同，他们各自的讨论并不发生矛盾冲突，而是各自耕耘于自己的学科领域，以期完善自身、坚持自我，在包容差异中实现与对方的共存。从学科归属上看，一方属于马克思主义理论及相关学科，一方归属中国历史、中国哲学与中国文化等学科。对中国传统文化独立价值与社会存在空间的确认是二维发展论的立论前提。中国传统文化不可否认存在糟粕的部分，但其“讲仁爱、重民本、守诚信、崇正义、尚和合、求大同”等精华“跨越时空、超越国度、富有永恒魅力、具有当代价值”。不少学者从习近平总书记对优秀传统文化的高度评价和系统梳理出发，不断赋予传统文化独立的现代意义。姜辉论述的“马克思主义（指导和主导地位）和中华文化（文明主体地位）统一于中国特色社会主义的实践之中”，韩庆祥强调的实现“双方优势结合”和“双方功能互补”，都是传统文化之于现代社会相对独立化的表现。也正因如此，马克思主义与传统文化二者在多年的“吸纳与融合”诉求之下，开始逐渐生发出各自独立的意义与价值，凸显了不同视野下独立发展的必要。

Specifically, one dimension of the “two-dimensional development theory” places the study of Chinese traditional culture within the horizon of modern society, activating the vitality of excellent Chinese traditional culture with the spirit of the times, and forging new brilliance for Chinese culture in the cultural subjectivity consciousness of “creative transformation and innovative development.” [18]18 “Creative transformation and innovative development” (创造性转化和创新性发展) is a key policy principle for handling traditional culture, often abbreviated as “two creations” (两创). First is the discussion of the field of development. Confucianism cannot and should not be revived at the political (or state) level; it can and should only be transmitted at the social and individual levels, and be incorporated into the core socialist values. In this regard, the development of Chinese traditional culture should be based on the context of the loss of human value and the meaning of life in modern society, highlighting its moral value in terms of life norms and the meaning of human existence. Second is the discussion of the direction of development. From a global perspective, the direction of Confucian development is to regulate, moderate, and reconcile a society dominated by modern instrumental rationality, to play a role in rectifying people’s hearts and educating them morally, and to contribute its self-revised values of “benevolence,” “righteousness,” and “ritual propriety” to the creation of a common human civilization. In contemporary Chinese society, Confucianism regulates ethics and morality, protects customs and habits, supports spiritual beliefs, and sustains national identity; its main role is manifested at the cultural level. Finally is the discussion of development strategies, methods, and approaches. Overall, in the revival of traditional culture, the intellectual community is key, social culture is the foundation, and the rejuvenation and re-emergence of the Chinese nation is fundamental. Specifically, for traditional culture to achieve its own flourishing development, it should “construct an environment that promotes frequent self-contact and repetition of culture, rather than simply providing intervening institutional resource support.”

具体而言，“二维发展论”的一维，是把中国传统文化研究放置于现代社会的视域之中，以时代精神激活中华优秀传统文化生命力，在“创造性转化和创新性发展”的文化主体性自觉中熔铸中华文化新辉煌。首先是发展场域的探讨。儒学不能够、也不应当在政治（或国家）层面去复兴，而只能够和应当在社会和个人的层面上传承，并将之纳入社会主义核心价值体系。就此而言，中国传统文化的发展应该立足于现代社会人的价值和人生意义失落的语境，凸显其在生活规范与人生意义上的德性价值。其次是发展方向的探讨。在全球视域下，儒学的发展方向是对现代工具理性主导的社会加以规范、节制、调和，发挥人心匡正、人心教化的功能，并在人类共同文明创造中贡献其经过自我损益的“仁”“义”“礼”等价值观。在当代中国社会，儒学规范着伦理道德、护持着风俗习惯、支撑着精神信仰、维系着民族认同，主要作用体现在文化层面。最后是发展策略、方式与方法的探讨。总体而言，在传统文化的复兴中，知识群体是关键，社会文化是基础，中华民族的复兴和重新崛起是根本。具体来说，传统文化要实现自身的繁荣发展，应该“构建一个促进文化自我频繁接触和重复的环境，而非单纯提供介入性的制度性资源支持”。

The other dimension of the “two-dimensional development theory” strengthens research on Marxist construction from the perspective of the international communist movement and international relations. Against the backdrop of the Party Central Committee emphasizing the need to uphold the guiding position of Marxism in philosophy and social sciences, promoting the organization and implementation of the large-scale Marxist Theory Research and Construction Project, [19]19 The Marxist Theory Research and Construction Project (马克思主义理论研究和建设工程) is a major state-led initiative launched in 2004 to strengthen the study and teaching of Marxism in China. and General Secretary Xi Jinping’s proposal to “continuously open up new realms for contemporary Chinese Marxism and Marxism in the 21st century” and “promote the integration of the fundamental tenets of Marxism with China’s excellent traditional culture,” scholars have continuously strengthened research on Marxist construction. This includes arguments for consolidating the guiding position of Marxism in the ideological sphere, reflecting on the Soviet experience, and holding that glasnost and the pluralization of guiding ideology not only led to a fundamental change in the nature of the CPSU but also brought about the proliferation of historical nihilism, ultimately burying the Soviet Union. This serves as a negative warning for us to firmly grasp the discursive power of the Marxist ideology and unswervingly uphold the guiding position of Marxism. It also includes suggestions based on current Marxist education, arguing that the content of Marxist education should increase the components of the history of the international communist movement and the lofty ideal of communism, and that these should be clearly elaborated in relevant Marxist theoretical textbooks on the fundamental tenets of Marxism, political economy, and scientific socialism. This kind of research in the context of the international communist movement actually points the way for each nation to seek its own development path based on its own national characteristics and cultural lineage.

“二维发展论”的另一维，是在国际共产主义运动与国际关系视野中加强马克思主义建设研究。党中央强调必须坚持马克思主义在哲学社会科学中的指导地位，推动组织实施规模宏大的马克思主义理论研究和建设工程，以及习近平总书记提出“不断开辟当代中国马克思主义、21世纪马克思主义新境界”、“推进马克思主义基本原理与中华优秀传统文化相结合”的背景下，广大学者不断加强马克思主义建设的研究。其中既有巩固意识形态领域马克思主义指导地位的主张，反思苏联经验，认为公开性与指导思想的多元化不仅导致了苏共性质发生根本变化，而且带来了历史虚无主义的泛滥，最终葬送了苏联，这就从反面警示我们要牢牢掌握马克思主义意识形态话语权，坚定不移地坚持马克思主义的指导地位；也有立足当前马克思主义教育的建议，认为在马克思主义教育内容上应该增大国际共产主义运动史和共产主义远大理想的成分，并且在马克思主义基本原理、政治经济学、科学社会主义等相关马克思主义理论教材中予以明确阐述。这种国际共运语境中的研究，实际上也为每一民族依托自己民族特质与文化谱系寻求自身发展道路指明了方向。

The “two-dimensional development theory” is not confined to the struggle for dominance between Marxism and Chinese traditional culture; rather, it deepens its own research by adhering to a line of thought that is confident, open, inclusive, respectful, and acknowledges the value of both sides. It emphasizes both the status of Marxism as the “soul vein” [20]20 “Soul vein” (魂脉) is a metaphorical term used in Chinese political discourse to describe Marxism as the guiding spiritual essence of the Party and state. and its function as mainstream ideology—particularly highlighting the core role of Marxism in the political and public spheres—and it attaches importance to the significance of excellent Chinese traditional culture as the “root vein” [21]21 “Root vein” (根脉) is a complementary metaphor, describing Chinese traditional culture as the foundational cultural root of the Chinese nation. for the development of contemporary China, exploring the important roles of its rich philosophical thought, humanistic spirit, educational ideas, and moral concepts in our understanding and transformation of the world, in governance, and especially in moral construction, thereby demonstrating a development path where different roads lead to the same destination. However, the “two-dimensional development theory” still has weaknesses in its differentiated research on the internal logic and external functions of Marxism and Chinese traditional culture, and research on their coordinated promotion strategies, methods, and approaches in concrete practice also needs to be expanded.

“二维发展论”并未囿于马克思主义与中国传统文化二者的主导地位之争，而是秉持自信、开放、包容、尊重与承认双方价值的思路来深化自身研究。它既强调马克思主义的“魂脉”地位及主流意识形态功能——尤其突出马克思主义在政治领域与公共领域的核心作用；又重视中华优秀传统文化之于当代中国发展的“根脉”意义，探讨其丰富的哲学思想、人文精神、教化思想、道德理念等对我们认识和改造世界、治国理政尤其是道德建设层面的重要作用，表现出二者殊途同归的发展进路。不过，“二维发展论”对马克思主义与中国传统文化内在逻辑和外在功能的区分研究仍显薄弱，二者在具体实践中的协同推进策略、方式与方法等研究也有待拓展。

V. Reflection and Prospect: Expansion and Pathways for Research on Marxism and Chinese Traditional Culture

五、反思与前瞻：马克思主义与中国传统文化研究的拓展及进路

From the review of academic history, it can be seen that the debates and discussions presented in research on the relationship between Marxism and Chinese traditional culture—such as the “limited symbiosis theory,” the “absorption and integration theory,” and the “two-dimensional development theory”—all place Marxism and Chinese traditional culture under the practical concern of China’s development, all emphasize the importance of ideology and spiritual culture for China, and all possess a strong “capacity to accommodate the times” and a conscious awareness of national rejuvenation. Compared with the situation of Marxist theory researchers who are inclusive and respectful toward traditional culture and actively explore paths for “creative transformation and innovative development,” the “Confucianize China theory” advocated by mainland New Confucians, which negates Marxism as its premise, is clearly at a disadvantage in both theoretical character and breadth of vision. In particular, their disregard for the fact that China’s tremendous progress “is ultimately due to the fact that Marxism works” makes their research a “utopia” divorced from China’s reality. Meanwhile, Marxist researchers have basically shed the thorough revolutionary thinking that negated the value of traditional culture and have reached a basic consensus on the modern value of excellent traditional culture. Overall, the academic community has formed a model of “a new cultural life form that is an organic unity,” emphasizing the establishment of the subjective spirit of Chinese culture under the guidance of Marxism, achieving the mutual achievement of the two.

从学术史的梳理中可以看出，马克思主义与中国传统文化关系研究所呈现的“有限共生论”“吸纳融合论”与“二维发展论”等论争与探讨，都将马克思主义与中国传统文化放置于中国发展这一现实关照之下，都强调了意识形态和精神文化对于中国的重要意义，都具有强烈的“时代容涵性”和民族复兴的自觉意识。与马克思主义理论研究者对传统文化的包容、尊重与积极探索“两创”路径的状况相比，大陆新儒家主张的“儒化中国论”以否定马克思主义为前提，无论在理论品格还是胸襟上都已明显处于下风。尤其是他们无视中国所取得的巨大进步“归根到底是因为马克思主义行”，更使其研究成为脱离中国实际的“乌托邦”。而马克思主义研究者已经基本摆脱了否定传统文化价值的彻底革命思维，对优秀传统文化的现代价值达成了基本共识。在总体上，学界形成了“一个有机统一的新的文化生命体”模型，强调在马克思主义指导下挺立中华文化的主体精神，达成二者的互相成就。

At the same time, it can also be found that academic discussions of the relationship between the two have mostly concentrated on the metaphysical level of "what ought to be," such as the "debate over substance and function," the "debate over orthodoxy," and "calls to inherit and carry forward tradition." They have placed greater emphasis on expounding the necessity and possibility of Marxism critically absorbing traditional culture, or of combining the two, while research on countermeasures for handling the relationship between the two in practice has been relatively weak—of course, this is closely related to the insufficiency of theoretical research on the relationship between the two, especially the scarcity of research on the tensions and conflicts between the two at the practical level and on how to coordinate their advancement. Added to this are problems such as utilitarianism and superficiality that have emerged in the recent upsurge of research on traditional Chinese culture, which further highlight the inadequacies of this research. Consequently, academia and government decision-making departments face a common task: how, while strengthening the construction of Marxist ideology, to distinguish the essence of traditional Chinese culture from its dross and realize the goal of the "Two Creations"[22]22 The "Two Creations" (两创) refers to the creative transformation and innovative development of China's excellent traditional culture, a policy direction promoted by the CPC. for excellent traditional culture in the New Era? How to study the foundational value functions of excellent traditional culture from the perspective of Marxist ideological security? How to differentiate and create interaction between the two in terms of their value functions in the political and social spheres? These remain important unresolved issues. In view of this, the authors believe that the following four aspects will become the focus of future research expansion on the relationship between the two.

同时还可以发现，学术界对二者关系的探讨更多集中于应然层面的“体用之争”“正统之争”以及“呼吁继承与发扬传统”等形而上学层面，更多偏重阐述马克思主义批判吸收传统文化或二者相结合的必要性与可能性，对于在实践中如何处理二者关系的对策研究相对薄弱——当然，这与对二者关系的理论研究不充分密切相关，尤其是对二者在实践层面的张力与冲突以及二者如何协同推进的对策研究更不多见。加上近年来中国传统文化研究热潮中出现的功利化与浅表化等问题，更是凸显了这些研究的不足。由此，学术界与政府决策部门面临着一个共同课题：如何在加强马克思主义意识形态建设的同时，区分中国传统文化的精华与糟粕，实现新时代优秀传统文化“两创”目标？如何从马克思主义意识形态安全这一视角去研究优秀传统文化的基础性价值功能？如何在政治领域与社会领域价值功能上对二者作区分与互动？这些仍是悬而未决的重要问题。有鉴于此，论者认为以下四个方面将成为二者关系未来研究拓展的重点。

First, the research theme of the relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture will be to continuously promote the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China's excellent traditional culture, writing a new chapter in adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times. Reflecting on the four types of debate on the relationship between the two, under the guidance of the theme of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, and with the clear articulation and continuous deepening of the "Second Integration,"[23]23 The "Second Integration" (第二个结合) refers to the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China's excellent traditional culture, as distinct from the first integration of Marxism with China's concrete realities. future research will inevitably, within the process of Chinese-path modernization, reflect on the major trends of the Communist Party of China's theoretical innovation in the New Era and the continuous development of socialism with Chinese characteristics. It will focus not only on the flourishing development of socialist culture with Chinese characteristics and the building of a socialist cultural power, but also on major theoretical and practical issues such as forging a strong sense of community for the Chinese nation, building a shared spiritual home for all ethnic groups, casting the cultural form of Chinese-path modernization, and creating a new form of human civilization. It will present research characteristics marked by a strong sense of problem awareness, a distinct spirit of the times, profound historical thinking, a broad international perspective, and alignment with the common development needs of the Chinese nation and humanity.

第一，马克思主义与中国传统文化关系的研究主题，将是持续推进马克思主义基本原理同中华优秀传统文化相结合，谱写马克思主义中国化时代化新篇章。观照二者关系的四种论争，在中华民族伟大复兴主题引领下，伴随“第二个结合”的明确提出和持续深化，未来研究必然在中国式现代化进程中观照新时代中国共产党理论创新与中国特色社会主义不断发展的大势，既专注于中国特色社会主义文化的繁荣发展与社会主义文化强国建设，又着力于铸牢中华民族共同体意识、构建各民族共有精神家园、铸造中国式现代化的文化形态、创造人类文明新形态等重大理论与现实问题，呈现问题意识强烈、时代精神鲜明、历史思维深远、国际视野宏阔、契合中华民族与人类共同发展需要的研究特色。

Second, the character of research on the relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture will increasingly manifest a theoretical atmosphere of mutual tolerance, respect, and dialogue. In the four types of debate on the relationship between the two, it can be seen that although some New Confucian scholars in the "heterogeneous conflict theory" revere Confucianism and reject Marxism, this is merely an individual case within the study of traditional Chinese culture. Most researchers of traditional culture are able to view Marxism with a more objective perspective and face up to the actual influence Marxism has had in China. For researchers of Marxist theory, with changes in the tasks of the times, they have basically shaken off the cultural revolutionary consciousness of the "New Culture Movement" period that resolutely negated traditional culture. They have reached a basic consensus on the important value of traditional culture for the development of modern China and, in their work on theoretical research, cultural development, and ideological construction, treat traditional culture as an important object, striving to explore the methods and paths of the "Two Creations." Under these circumstances, research on the relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture will inevitably shift from mutual negation to a state of dialogue characterized by mutual respect. This can be said to be the result of people's deepening understanding of the relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture.

第二，马克思主义与中国传统文化关系研究的品格，将呈现更多彼此包容、尊重与对话的理论氛围。在二者关系的四种论争中可以看到，虽然“异质冲突论”中部分新儒家学者崇尚儒学、排斥马克思主义，但那仅仅是中国传统文化研究中的个例，多数传统文化研究者能够以更客观的眼光来看待马克思主义，并正视马克思主义在中国产生的实际影响。而对马克思主义理论研究者而言，围绕时代任务的变迁，他们已经基本摆脱了“新文化运动”时期决绝否定传统文化的文化革命意识，对传统文化之于现代中国发展的重要价值已达成基本共识，并在理论研究、文化发展以及意识形态建构等工作中将传统文化作为重要的对象，努力探索“两创”的方法与路径。在此情势下，马克思主义与中国传统文化的关系研究，必然从相互否定逐渐趋向相互尊重的对话状态，这可以说是人们对马克思主义与中国传统文化关系认识不断深化的结果。

Third, the key to research on the relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture will be to take ensuring ideological security as one of the basic purposes of flourishing and developing excellent traditional culture. Guided by Marxism, absorbing and drawing on excellent traditional culture in the process of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context has become the consensus of most contemporary Chinese intellectuals. At the same time, "ideological work is work that establishes the heart for the nation and establishes the soul for the people." Ideological security is the basic guarantee and prerequisite for building a modern socialist power. No matter how much we emphasize the important value of excellent traditional culture, we must maintain political resolve and adhere to the premise of upholding the guiding position of Marxism and the direction of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context. The flourishing development of excellent traditional culture must not only be guided by the Marxist worldview and methodology but also contribute to strengthening ideological security in the New Era. In the future, this research field must receive sufficient attention to prevent phenomena that, under the guise of flourishing excellent traditional culture, intentionally or unintentionally neglect, belittle, Confucianize, or replace Marxism, thereby weakening or even negating the guiding position of Marxism.

第三，马克思主义与中国传统文化关系研究的关键，将是以确保意识形态安全作为繁荣发展优秀传统文化的基本目的之一。以马克思主义为指导，在马克思主义中国化过程中吸收借鉴优秀传统文化，已经成为当代中国大多数知识分子的共识。同时，“意识形态工作是为国家立心、为民族立魂的工作”，意识形态安全是建设社会主义现代化强国的基本保障和前提条件，无论我们怎样强调优秀传统文化的重要价值，都必须保持政治定力，以坚持马克思主义指导地位与马克思主义中国化方向为前提。优秀传统文化的繁荣发展必须既受到马克思主义世界观与方法论的指导，又为加强新时代意识形态安全贡献力量。未来这一研究领域必须受到足够的重视，防止假借繁荣优秀传统文化之名有意无意忽视、贬低、儒化、取代马克思主义等弱化甚至否定马克思主义指导地位之实的现象发生。

Fourth, the research focus on the relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture will shift toward the construction of institutional and policy systems for adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the flourishing development of China's excellent traditional culture. With the deepening of the debate on the relationship between the two, the status and role of China's excellent traditional culture have been comprehensively evaluated and highly recognized by academia. Therefore, future research will inevitably break through the current approaches of "critical absorption" and "absorption and integration," deepening the exploration of the independent modes of operation, operational logics, and cultivation mechanisms of Marxism and traditional Chinese culture. While adhering to the premise of upholding the guiding position of Marxist ideology, and based on the essentially irreconcilable differences between the two value systems of Marxism and traditional Chinese culture, future research will focus on strengthening political belief at the level of the national mainstream ideology and enhancing the moral quality of the Chinese nation at the level of social ethics and morality. It will clarify the respective fields of value realization for the two and formulate feasible public policies, thereby jointly completing the task of renewing the life of Chinese civilization. Of course, research results on the above issues are currently extremely rare. This cannot be ignored or evaded, because the relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture is by no means a simple relationship of integration and absorption, nor can it be confined to affirmative thinking that infinitely exaggerates the consistency between the two while ignoring their essential differences and irreplaceability. It should be more clearly recognized that it is precisely their differences and irreplaceability that generate the need for integration in theory and practice, and the possibility of division of labor and coordinated advancement in terms of fields and functions. Therefore, rigorously examining the relationship between the two from the disciplinary perspectives of cultural philosophy, the history of the Communist Party of China, Marxist theory, public management, and public policy, clarifying their functional complementarity in specific social practices, their continuity in the process of cultivating social values, and the policy system support for their mutual coordination in practice, will be another important approach to research on the relationship between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture.

第四，马克思主义与中国传统文化关系的研究重点，将会转向马克思主义中国化与中华优秀传统文化繁荣发展的制度与政策体系建构。随着二者关系论争的深入，中华优秀传统文化的地位和作用受到学界全面评价与高度认可。因此，未来研究必然突破目前所遵循的“批判吸收”“吸纳融合”思路，深化对马克思主义与中国传统文化二者各自独立的运行方式、运作逻辑与育化机制的探讨；在持守马克思主义意识形态指导地位立场的前提下，立足马克思主义与中国传统文化两种价值体系本质上不可调和的差异性，着眼于国家主流意识形态层面政治信仰的加强、社会伦理道德层面中华民族道德素养的提升，明晰二者各自价值实现的场域，制定切实可行的公共政策，从而共同完成中华文明生命更新的任务。当然，关于上述问题的研究成果在当下还极为少见。这是不容忽视与回避的，因为马克思主义与中国传统文化之间绝非简单的融合与吸收的关系，更不能囿于肯定性思维无限夸大二者之间的一致性，忽视二者本质的差异性与不可取代性。更应该清醒认识到，正是二者的差异性与不可取代性，使得两种理论体系产生理论与实践上的融合需求、领域与功能上的分工和协同推进的可能性。所以，从文化哲学、中共党史、马克思主义理论、公共管理与公共政策等学科视域，严谨审视二者的关系，明确二者在具体社会实践中功能上的互补性、在社会价值观养成过程中的连续性，以及实践中相互协同推进的政策体系依托，将是马克思主义与中国传统文化关系研究的又一重要进路。

Online editor: Paul

网络编辑：保罗