An Exploration of Several Theoretical Issues in Studying and Understanding the “Second Integration” of Adapting Marxism to the Chinese Context

In the process of continuously deepening the study and research of the important proposition of the “Second Integration” of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context, some related theoretical issues have aroused widespread research interest in academic circles. A brief analysis of the relevant theoretical issues is now attempted, in order to facilitate discussion and exchange, and to advance the deepening of study and research.

I. The “Two Integrations” of Adapting Marxism to the Chinese Context and Their Historical Evolution

In the history of the Party, Mao Zedong was the first to explicitly propose “adapting Marxism to the Chinese context” and “integrating Marxism with China’s concrete reality.” This occurred in the report “On the New Stage” delivered at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of the Party [1]1 Lei Haizong (1902–1962) was a Chinese historian. The quotation is from his *Lectures on Ancient World History*., held from September to November 1938. This report was published in issue No. 57 of the journal *Liberation* on November 25 of that year. Subsequently, articles published by Ai Siqi in the Yan’an theoretical circles, such as “On the Particularity of China” (February 15, 1940) and “A Review of Several Important Philosophical Trends of Thought Since the War of Resistance” (August 20, 1941), provided philosophical elaborations on the issue of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context. In his articles, Ai Siqi refuted the distortions of “adapting Marxism to the Chinese context” by the reactionary literatus Ye Qing in the Kuomintang-controlled areas. Ye Qing, exploiting the notions of “Chinese particularity” and “special methods,” attempted to replace “adapting Marxism to the Chinese context” with “Chinese learning as the foundation, Western learning for practical use.” [2]2 Leften Stavrianos (1913–2004) was a Canadian-born American historian. The reference is to his *A Global History: From Prehistory to the 21st Century*. Ai Siqi refuted this, listing Mao Zedong’s exemplary works that solved China’s problems, such as “On Protracted War,” “On the New Stage,” and “On New Democracy,” and pointed out: “These works prove that adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the application of dialectical materialism can most correctly solve China’s revolutionary problems; Marxism and dialectical materialism are entirely suited to China’s national conditions.” This shows that adapting Marxism to the Chinese context advanced amidst debates in the ideological and theoretical circles from the very beginning.

The Party Constitution adopted at the Seventh National Congress of the Party [3]3 The “Project to Trace the Origins of Chinese Civilization” (中华文明探源工程) is a major state-funded archaeological research initiative launched in the early 2000s to scientifically establish the origins and early development of Chinese civilization. held in 1945 formally enshrined Mao Zedong Thought, the theoretical crystallization of integrating Marxism with China’s concrete reality, as the guiding ideology of the Party. The Party Constitution states: “The Communist Party of China takes Mao Zedong Thought, the ideology that unifies the theory of Marxism-Leninism with the practice of the Chinese revolution, as the guide for all its work, and opposes any dogmatist or empiricist deviation. The Communist Party of China, based on Marxist dialectical materialism and historical materialism, critically accepts the historical heritage of China and foreign countries, and opposes any idealist or mechanical materialist worldview.” The above content stipulated and elucidated the guiding ideology of the Party, and also stipulated and elucidated the Party’s basic attitude towards domestic and foreign historical and cultural heritage.

After the founding of New China, in 1952, when Mao Zedong was reviewing the manuscripts for the *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, he deleted the phrase “adapting Marxism to the Chinese context” from the seventh part, “The Role of the Communist Party of China in the National War,” of “On the New Stage,” and changed it to “making Marxism concrete in China.” [4]4 “A sky full of stars” (满天星斗) is a metaphor coined by Chinese archaeologist Su Bingqi (1909–1997) to describe the multiple, regionally distinct centers of early Chinese civilization. Consequently, in public propaganda, the formulation “adapting Marxism to the Chinese context” was largely absent for a considerable period thereafter. However, there was one special occasion later. On January 13, 1961, Mao Zedong proposed “making this year a year of seeking truth from facts.” On the 18th, he spoke at the Ninth Plenary Session of the Eighth Central Committee of the Party, saying: “Adapting Marxism to the Chinese context is the unity of the universal truth of Marxism with the concrete practice of the Chinese revolution. There are some differences in the branches of various countries; there must be some differences in the branches, but the root is the same.”

Regarding the reasons why our Party did not vigorously promote “adapting Marxism to the Chinese context” during this period, some scholars engaged in the study of Party history and the history of the international communist movement believe that this was due to the rupture in Sino-Soviet relations at the time. Soviet leaders such as Stalin were relatively sensitive to socialist country leaders like Tito [5]5 “Five-zone belt” (五服地带) refers to the ancient Chinese concept of concentric hierarchical zones of political and cultural influence radiating from the royal domain, as described in texts like the *Tribute of Yu* (禹贡)., who emphasized building socialism with strong independence. Under the circumstances at the time, in order to take the overall international political situation into account and maintain the unity of the socialist camp, the CPC avoided promoting slogans with a strong “independent” character. This is understandable, and the facts have proven the effect to be good.

With the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the drastic changes in Eastern Europe in the 1980s and 1990s, the international landscape underwent tremendous changes, and the previous considerations were no longer necessary. In October 2007, the official documents of the 17th National Congress of the Party began to include formulations such as “continuously advancing the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context,” the theoretical system of socialism with Chinese characteristics is “the latest achievement in adapting Marxism to the Chinese context,” and “unremittingly arming the whole Party and educating the people with the latest achievements in adapting Marxism to the Chinese context.” The Party Constitution revised and adopted at the 17th National Congress also included the expression “adapting Marxism to the Chinese context.” On July 1, 2021, in his speech at the ceremony marking the centenary of the CPC, General Secretary Xi Jinping not only proposed that “to learn from history and create the future, we must continue to advance the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context,” but also explicitly put forward the proposition of the “Two Integrations” of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context for the first time. The “Resolution of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party over the Past Century” (hereinafter referred to as the “Party’s centenary historical resolution”), reviewed and adopted at the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the Party on November 11, 2021, pointed out: “The fundamental reason why the Party has been able to lead the people to accomplish the arduous tasks that no other political force in China could accomplish amidst repeated explorations, setbacks, and pioneering efforts lies in its adherence to emancipating the mind, seeking truth from facts, keeping pace with the times, and being pragmatic and truthful; its adherence to integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s concrete reality and with the best of traditional Chinese culture; its adherence to the principle that practice is the sole criterion for testing truth; its adherence to proceeding from reality in everything; its timely response to the questions of the times and the people; and its continuous advancement of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times.” On October 16, 2022, General Secretary Xi Jinping, in his report to the 20th National Congress of the

"From the 'First Integration' to the 'Second Integration,' from 'one integration' to 'two integrations,' this reflects our Party's continuously deepening understanding of the basic laws of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times, reveals the inevitable path for our Party to promote theoretical innovation and cultural prosperity, and marks a new sublimation of the Party's theoretical creativity, cultural subjectivity, and spiritual independence."

II. The New Historical Conditions Under Which the "Second Integration" of Adapting Marxism to the Chinese Context Was Proposed in the New Era

The proposal of the "Second Integration" of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context in the New Era is the result of the combined effect of multiple factors. Among them, the profound insight and mature understanding in theory of the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core laid a solid ideological foundation for the formation of this proposition. In addition, the vigorous development of China's archaeological and historical research endeavors in the New Era has also provided more sufficient and more favorable objective conditions for the proposal of the "Second Integration" proposition. This is mainly manifested in the following aspects:

First, the conclusion that Chinese civilization is an independently grown civilization of the Eastern world has been fully affirmed. Historically, some in the West spread the claim that “Chinese civilization originated in the West,” but an increasing amount of historical evidence proves that this claim is unfounded. China’s ancient myths, legends, and historical records from remote antiquity contain no trace whatsoever of the “Western origin of Chinese civilization.” Archaeological discoveries and historical research over the past century, both in China and abroad, have also found no evidence for the “Western origin of Chinese civilization.” Moreover, in ancient times, “the Han people are the only ones among all the world’s important races who do not consume animal milk.” [1]1 Lei Haizong (1902–1962) was a Chinese historian. The quotation is from his *Lectures on Ancient World History*. On this point, Lei Haizong, in his *Lectures on Ancient World History*, speculated on two possible reasons: “One is that before humans knew how to domesticate animals, or had just begun domestication and did not yet know that animal milk was drinkable, a branch of people had already separated and developed independently; this early separated branch was the ancestor of the Han people. The other is that a branch of people separated before humans knew to drink animal milk, and later, elsewhere, they discovered that animal milk was drinkable, while the people who remained in the original place—the ancestors of the Han people—never learned of this. From the above facts, it can be proven that the theory of the ‘Western origin of the Chinese race and culture’ is entirely a fallacy deliberately fabricated by imperialist academic hirelings to facilitate their aggression.” [2]2 Leften Stavrianos (1913–2004) was a Canadian-born American historian. The reference is to his *A Global History: From Prehistory to the 21st Century*. Not coincidentally, the American historian Leften Stavrianos, in his *A Global History: From Prehistory to the 21st Century*, finalized in 2004, also advanced this view. He pointed out that Chinese civilization is not only the oldest civilization but also the most unique, being “the only major civilization that does not consume animal milk and dairy products,” and provided evidence that Chinese civilization is “the most unique civilization,” such as “the first civilization to produce fine silk,” “unique ancestor worship,” and “a civilized country that maintains the architectural style of carved beams and painted rafters.” This constitutes a powerful refutation of the “Western origin of Chinese civilization” theory.

On May 28, 2018, the “Project to Trace the Origins of Chinese Civilization” [3]3 The “Project to Trace the Origins of Chinese Civilization” (中华文明探源工程) is a major state-funded archaeological research initiative launched in the early 2000s to scientifically establish the origins and early development of Chinese civilization. released its research findings. “The Project to Trace the Origins of Chinese Civilization, using abundant evidence and scientific research, has revealed the objective fact of the independent origin of Chinese civilization, causing fallacies such as the ‘Western origin of Chinese civilization’ to collapse without being refuted. The tracing project has proven with detailed archaeological data that, as early as over 5,800 years ago, the Yellow River, Yangtze River, and West Liao River basins had already entered an initial stage of civilization. The agricultural techniques, pottery, jade, bronze ware, and architecture created by the Chinese ancestors during this period were not only highly skilled and grand in scale but also displayed distinct characteristics. Later Chinese civilization is a direct continuation of this period’s civilization.”

Second, the specific structure of Chinese civilization as “pluralistic and integrated” has been more clearly recognized. A large number of new archaeological and historical research findings prove that the origins of Chinese civilization were like “a sky full of stars.” [4]4 “A sky full of stars” (满天星斗) is a metaphor coined by Chinese archaeologist Su Bingqi (1909–1997) to describe the multiple, regionally distinct centers of early Chinese civilization. These places of origin each occupied their own regions, each with its own characteristics, yet they maintained, in different forms, a centripetal force toward the central area of civilization. Initially, in the era of Yu the Great’s flood control, Chinese civilization formed a system with the “five-zone belt” [5]5 “Five-zone belt” (五服地带) refers to the ancient Chinese concept of concentric hierarchical zones of political and cultural influence radiating from the royal domain, as described in texts like the *Tribute of Yu* (禹贡). as its hierarchy. Later, it was reorganized through large-scale migrations or achieved interaction and integration through localized conflicts.

The 2018 press conference on the “Project to Trace the Origins of Chinese Civilization” pointed out: “In the process of competing with each other and developing relatively independently, local civilizations also exchanged and learned from one another, gradually showing a trend toward ‘integration,’ and a core that absorbed everything emerged in the Central Plains region. We summarize this as the ‘pluralistic and integrated nature of Chinese civilization.’” This indicates that the Chinese nation has been a multi-ethnic unity since ancient times, and the People’s Republic of China becoming a unified multi-ethnic country is a historical inevitability. All under heaven, China is one family; “the Chinese nation” is our most appropriate collective designation.

Third, the competition, interaction, and integration between the “Central Plains core” of the Chinese nation and the surrounding regions generated the “endogenous driving force” for Chinese civilization’s self-metabolism. This is the internal cause of Chinese civilization’s five-thousand-year continuity and “unbroken flow.” The research findings of the “Project to Trace the Origins of Chinese Civilization” show: “The pattern of the unified, multi-ethnic modern Chinese state has its roots deeply planted in the distant prehistoric period. As early as the Neolithic Age, a pluralistic and integrated pattern had already formed on this land of China, with the Central Plains as the core and including different economic and cultural types. … From the early stages of Chinese civilization, frequent exchanges, collisions, and integrations occurred among groups from different regions, cultural traditions, and economic models. The trend toward unity had already emerged during this period, became magnificent through the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties and the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, and finally achieved actual unification in the Qin and Han dynasties. From then on, unity became the mainstream of Chinese civilization. As Mr. Fei Xiaotong pointed out, the characteristic of ‘pluralistic integration’ is the source of Chinese civilization’s powerful vitality and continuous vitality.” [6]6 Fei Xiaotong (1910–2005) was a pioneering Chinese sociologist and anthropologist. He coined the phrase “pluralistic and integrated pattern of the Chinese nation” (中华民族多元一体格局). General Secretary Xi Jinping summarized this vitality as “endogenous driving force,” and this “endogenous driving force” is the root cause of Chinese civilization’s “unbroken flow” over five thousand years.

Ren Jiyu pointed out, “Over these five thousand years, the Chinese nation has walked the entire path together. … This has become an unshakable consciousness: that the unity of the Chinese nation is normal, disunity is abnormal; unity is proper, disunity is improper. … Looking at the actual situation in Chinese history, it is also the case. I have made a preliminary calculation of the time of division and unity: from the Qin and Han dynasties onward, the time of division accounts for one-seventh of Chinese history, and six-sevenths is the era of unity.” “Only such a unified, multi-ethnic great power could withstand heavy tribulations and not be crushed.”

Fourth, the advantages of Chinese civilization and the laws of the “Two Integrations” have been newly summarized and synthesized. At the Symposium on Cultural Heritage Development, General Secretary Xi Jinping systematically summarized the prominent characteristics of Chinese civilization: Chinese civilization possesses five prominent characteristics—outstanding continuity, innovativeness, unity, inclusiveness, and peacefulness. At the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China, General Secretary Xi Jinping first proposed the “Second Integration” of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context. This is an ideological emancipation for the Party to open up new horizons for adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times in the New Era. It allows us to fully utilize the precious resources of fine traditional Chinese culture in a broader cultural space and with a broader vision, to explore theoretical and institutional innovations oriented toward the future. This has immense theoretical and practical significance. It shows that in the New Era, our understanding of many phenomena and laws of Chinese civilization and Chinese history has become deeper and more systematic.

General Secretary Xi Jinping comprehensively and systematically summarized the characteristics and value of fine traditional Chinese culture: “From a historical perspective, the excellent components of traditional Chinese thought and culture, including Confucian thought, have played a very important role in the formation and continuous development of Chinese civilization over several millennia without interruption, in the formation and maintenance of China’s united and unified political situation, in the formation and consolidation of China’s multi-ethnic integrated family, in the formation and enrichment of the Chinese national spirit, in inspiring Chinese sons and daughters to maintain national independence and resist foreign aggression, and in promoting China’s social development and progress and balancing social interests and social relations.”

The Party’s understanding of the laws of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context has reached a new height: the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture is premised on their mutual compatibility; the result of integration is mutual achievement; the effect of integration is to consolidate the foundation of the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics; it fully utilizes the precious resources of fine traditional Chinese culture to enrich and develop institutional and theoretical innovations; and it more forcefully embodies the cultural subjectivity and cultural confidence of Chinese civilization.

Fifth, new achievements in archaeology and historical research in the New Era have proven that the history of the Xia dynasty has become verified history. The status of the Erlitou site in Yanshi, Henan, as one of the Xia dynasty capitals has been confirmed, and the image of the Xia dynasty as a state has emerged. The Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project [15]15 The Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project was a major multidisciplinary research initiative launched by the Chinese government in 1996 to establish a reliable chronological framework for early Chinese history, particularly the Xia, Shang, and Zhou dynasties. concentrated efforts from various quarters to tackle key problems, and “has generally reached a consensus on the chronology of the early period of Chinese civilization history. The Xia dynasty’s date is 2070 BCE, a conclusion reached on the basis of scientific research.” [16]16 Source citation omitted in original. “Through large-scale archaeological surveys and excavations of capital-level sites such as Liangzhu in Zhejiang, Shijiahe in Hubei, Taosi in Shanxi, Shimao in Shaanxi, and Erlitou in Henan… a series of important archaeological discoveries have been obtained, proving that during the period from 5300 to 4000 years ago, the civilization processes in various regions all underwent great development. On the basis of the development of agriculture and handicraft production, social division of labor and the differentiation between rich and poor and noble and base intensified, giving rise to rulers who held military command and the power to sacrifice to the gods, standing above society—kings—and the bureaucratic stratum serving their rule, forming relatively stable, centripetal regional polities—states—which successively entered early civilized society.” [17]17 Source citation omitted in original. The confirmation and excavation of the Erlitou site and other archaeological projects and their research results further verify the credibility of previous historical materials related to the Xia dynasty.

In the New Era, Chinese civilization has displayed new charm, and at the same time, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has gained a more comprehensive and systematic understanding of traditional Chinese culture. Conditions on both the subjective and objective sides have powerfully propelled the opening up of a new realm for adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and propelled Chinese civilization to re-enter a new historical stage of leading world civilization development. Our Party’s current advocacy and emphasis on the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with the best of traditional Chinese culture comes at exactly the right time.

III. Grasping the Dialectics of Critique and Absorption in Cultural Inheritance

As the ideological superstructure under a given social formation, like the political superstructure, it is determined by the economic base of society and changes along with changes in the economic base. However, the laws of change for the ideological superstructure differ from those for the political superstructure. In the process of the replacement of social formations, changes in the political superstructure (including the government, military, courts, and other parts of the state apparatus) are relatively obvious; it undergoes fundamental transformation with the disintegration of the old economic base. The ideological superstructure, on the other hand, possesses relative independence; part of it may change immediately with changes in the economic base, while another part does not immediately disappear or perish; it may gradually die out, or it may continue to function after being transformed and innovated. Whether the ideological superstructure under a given social formation undergoes gradual or abrupt change, there is in fact a process of critique and absorption with respect to it. Through sublation, absorbing its reasonable and usable parts and discarding its outdated and decadent parts, the requirements of social development and progress are thereby achieved. At present, in the process of realizing the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with the best of traditional Chinese culture, we equally need to properly handle the dialectical relationship between critique and absorption.

Fifth, new achievements in archaeology and historical research in the New Era have proven that the history of the Xia dynasty has become verified history. The status of the Erlitou site in Yanshi, Henan, as one of the Xia dynasty capitals has been confirmed, and the image of a Xia state has already emerged. The Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project [7]7 The Xia-Shang-Zhou Chronology Project was a large-scale multidisciplinary research project sponsored by the Chinese government in the 1990s and early 2000s to establish a reliable chronological framework for the earliest dynasties in Chinese history. concentrated efforts from all sides to tackle key problems, and “a general consensus has been reached on the chronology of the early period of Chinese civilization. The Xia dynasty dates to 2070 BCE; this is a conclusion reached on the basis of scientific research.” [8]8 Citation from a Chinese archaeological source. “Through large-scale archaeological surveys and excavations of capital-level sites such as Liangzhu in Zhejiang, Shijiahe in Hubei, Taosi in Shanxi, Shimao in Shaanxi, and Erlitou in Henan… a series of important archaeological discoveries have been obtained, proving that during the period from 5300 to 4000 years ago, the civilization process in various regions had already developed considerably. On the basis of the development of agriculture and handicraft production, social division of labor and the differentiation between rich and poor, noble and base, intensified, giving rise to rulers who wielded military command and the power to offer sacrifices to the gods, standing above society—kings—and the bureaucratic stratum serving their rule, forming relatively stable, centripetal regional polities—states—which successively entered early civilized society.” [9]9 Citation from a Chinese archaeological source. The identification and excavation of the Erlitou site and other archaeological projects and their research results have further confirmed the credibility of previous historical materials related to the Xia dynasty.

In the New Era, Chinese civilization has displayed new charm, and at the same time, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has gained a more comprehensive and systematic understanding of traditional Chinese culture. Conditions on both the subjective and objective sides have powerfully propelled the opening of a new realm in adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and propelled Chinese civilization to re-enter a new historical stage of leading the development of world civilization. The advocacy and emphasis by our Party today on the integration of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture comes at exactly the right time.

III. Grasping the Dialectics of Critique and Absorption in Cultural Inheritance

As the ideological superstructure of a given social formation, just like the political superstructure, it is determined by the economic base of society and changes along with changes in the economic base. However, the laws of change for the ideological superstructure differ from those for the political superstructure. In the process of the replacement of social formations, changes in the political superstructure (including the government, military, courts, etc., of the state apparatus) are relatively obvious; it undergoes fundamental transformation with the disintegration of the old socioeconomic base. The ideological superstructure, on the other hand, possesses relative independence; part of it may change immediately with changes in the economic base, while another part does not immediately disappear or perish; it may gradually die out, or it may, after being reformed and innovated, continue to function. Whether the ideological superstructure under a given social formation undergoes gradual or sudden change, there is in fact a process of critique and absorption with respect to it. Through sublation, absorbing its reasonable and usable parts and discarding its outdated and decadent parts, the requirements of social development and progress are thereby achieved. At present, in the process of realizing the integration of the fundamental tenets of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture, we likewise need to properly handle the dialectical relationship between critique and absorption.

Our Party’s basic attitude toward traditional culture is scientific, consistent, and stable; it is only that in different periods of revolution and construction, according to the different principal contradictions at the time, the focus of the approach to traditional culture has differed. To put it briefly: during the revolutionary period, the emphasis was on critiquing and negating the decadent aspects of traditional culture; during the period of peaceful construction, the emphasis was on absorbing and drawing on the excellent aspects of traditional culture. Whether in the revolutionary period or the construction period, attention has been paid to absorbing fine traditional culture, while simultaneously conducting scientific analysis and critique of the decadent and outdated elements within traditional culture.

In his article “The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War” (October 14, 1938), Mao Zedong set forth the basic principles and attitude of Chinese Communists toward traditional culture: “To study our historical heritage and to give it a critical summation using Marxist methods is another task for our study. Our nation has several thousand years of history, has its own characteristics, and has many precious treasures. In these respects, we are still schoolchildren. Today’s China is a development of historical China; we are Marxist historicists, and we should not cut off history. From Confucius to Sun Yat-sen, we should give a summation and inherit this precious legacy. This is of great help in guiding the great current movement.” [10]10 Mao Zedong, “The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War,” Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol. II. This is the Marxist principle and attitude toward cultural heritage.

During the new period of reform and opening up and socialist modernization, no matter how greatly the environment changed, the Party did not abandon the critique of all hostile and erroneous ideological trends in the ideological sphere. Since 1982, “opposing capitalist, feudal, and other decadent ideas” has been written into Article 24 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China. As the Party’s centenary historical resolution [18]18 The “Party’s centenary historical resolution” refers to the *Resolution on the Major Achievements and Historical Experience of the Party over the Past Century*, adopted at the Sixth Plenary Session of the 19th Central Committee of the CPC in November 2021. points out: after reform and opening up, “erroneous ideological trends such as money worship, hedonism, extreme individualism, and historical nihilism emerged from time to time, online public opinion fell into chaos, and some leading cadres had vague political stances and lacked a fighting spirit, seriously affecting people’s thinking and the social opinion environment.” This shows that when we absorb outstanding achievements from the domestic and international ideological and cultural spheres, we have no reason whatsoever to abandon the use of the weapon of critique.

In the New Era, the Party Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping at its core has proposed the “Second Integration” of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context, highlighting the important task of absorbing fine traditional Chinese culture while also responding to the challenges of various hostile ideologies at home and abroad. In realizing the integration of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture, it insists on critiquing all decadent culture and its ideological content. The Party’s centenary historical resolution states: “We must be vigilant against and guard against the corrosive influence of political ideological trends such as the Western so-called ‘constitutionalism,’ multi-party rotation in power, and ‘separation of the three powers.’” [19]19 “Separation of the three powers” is the standard Chinese rendering of the Western principle of separation of powers into executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Only by carrying out resolute and sustained critique of these erroneous ideological trends can the common ideological foundation for the united struggle of the entire Party and the people of all ethnic groups in the country be consolidated. As General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out at the symposium for teachers of ideological and political theory courses in schools regarding the requirements for building such courses, we must “uphold the unity of constructiveness and criticalness. The task of ideological and political courses is to transmit mainstream ideology, and constructiveness is their foundation. At the same time, thorough critical spirit is the essential feature of Marxism; Marxism opens up its path forward precisely through continuous struggle against various erroneous ideological trends. Ideological and political courses must, on the basis of disseminating the Marxist stance, viewpoint, and method, make good use of the weapon of critique, directly confront various erroneous views and ideological trends, and conduct analysis and critique with a clear-cut stance.”

Thus, since the founding of New China, under the historical conditions where the Party has mainly absorbed the achievements of fine traditional culture and foreign culture, it has also insisted on not discarding the weapon of critique with regard to the negative aspects of traditional culture and foreign culture. During the revolutionary period, the focus was on critiquing decadent traditional culture; this was a necessary measure for revolutionary progress. Today, because we are in a period of peaceful construction and mainly absorb fine traditional culture, we must not turn back to negate or blame the history of revolutionary critique of decadent culture in the past. For example, during the May Fourth Movement period, [20]20 The May Fourth Movement (1919) was an anti-imperialist, anti-feudal cultural and political movement triggered by the Treaty of Versailles decision to transfer German concessions in Shandong to Japan. It is regarded by the CPC as the starting point of the New Democratic Revolution. some advanced youth with Marxist ideological consciousness and other progressive elements devoted themselves to critiquing old culture and old morality. This mainstream was good, but there were also tributaries. For instance, some people proposed “abolishing Chinese characters,” which was an extremely one-sided view. They did not see that “Chinese writing has played a very great positive role in developing national culture, exchanging information across regions, and enhancing national unity.” Later, people came to recognize this and learned from the experience, which was sufficient. If anyone still advocates launching a campaign of denunciation and investigation against those who proposed abolishing Chinese characters at that time, that would not only be unnecessary but also improper.

Lenin once proposed: “The absolute requirement of Marxist theory in analyzing any social problem is to place it within a definite historical scope.” [21]21 This quotation is from V. I. Lenin, “On the Question of the Nationalities or ‘Autonomization’” (1922). This is the basic requirement for analyzing social and historical problems; only by analyzing them within their historical environment can we correctly judge right and wrong.

During the May Fourth Movement period, revolutionary youth raised the slogan “Down with the Confucian shop.” [22]22 “Down with the Confucian shop” (打倒孔家店) was a slogan of the May Fourth New Culture Movement, calling for the overthrow of the authority of Confucianism as the state ideology. This had historical necessity, revolutionary character, and rationality at that time. Because at that time, Confucian doctrine was the official, decadent ideology of the Qing dynasty, the old ideological superstructure maintaining the feudal system, which severely fettered the people’s minds. To save the nation from peril and avoid degenerating into a Western colony or colonial appendage, it was first necessary to unswervingly down with the Confucian shop and liberate the people’s thinking, so as to advance the thorough anti-imperialist and anti-feudal revolution and strive for the country’s independence and sovereignty. On July 21, 1919, Mao Zedong published an article titled “The Establishment and Progress of the Jianhui Society” in the *Xiangjiang Review*, [23]23 The *Xiangjiang Review* (湘江评论) was a weekly newspaper founded and edited by Mao Zedong in Changsha in 1919. clearly stating: “As for our opposition to Confucius, there are many other reasons. Just the fact that he has dominated China alone, preventing our ideological circles from being free and making us slaves to an idol for two thousand years, is reason enough to oppose him.” Mao Zedong’s commentary very accurately pointed out the necessity of critiquing Confucius during the May Fourth Movement period.

Lu Xun was a vanguard in critiquing Confucian doctrine during the May Fourth Movement. [24]24 Lu Xun (1881–1936) was a leading Chinese writer, essayist, and critic, widely regarded as the founder of modern Chinese literature and a key figure in the New Culture Movement. His critique of Confucian doctrine represented the pioneer and direction of China’s new-democratic cultural revolution. In his novel *Diary of a Madman*, written in April 1918, Lu Xun wrote: “I opened the history to check, but this history had no dates, and on every page were scrawled the words ‘benevolence, righteousness, and morality’ in a crooked hand. I could not sleep soundly no matter how I tried, and after carefully reading for half the night, I could make out from between the lines that the whole book was filled with two words: ‘Eat people!’” [25]25 *Diary of a Madman* (1918) was Lu Xun’s first short story in the vernacular, modeled on Gogol’s story of the same name, and is a satirical attack on traditional Confucian social order. Lu Xun’s words were the most profound exposure and critique of feudal ritual teaching, enlightening the consciousness of progressive people of lofty ideals, and were necessary for social progress and national salvation at that time. However, if anyone today were to accuse Lu Xun of “throwing out the baby with the bathwater,” that would completely depart from the historical conditions for analyzing the problem. Today, our emphasis on drawing on the intellectual wealth of fine traditional culture by no means implies that we can conduct a “re-critique” of the revolutionary critique of the decadent parts of traditional culture during the historical revolutionary period. Lu Xun was correct; he was the soul of the nation. “Lu Xun was the most correct, bravest, most resolute, most loyal, and most ardent unprecedented national hero on the cultural front, representing the majority of the entire nation, charging and shattering the enemy. Lu Xun’s direction was the direction of the new culture of the Chinese nation.” [26]26 This assessment of Lu Xun is from Mao Zedong’s essay “On New Democracy” (1940).

The specific approaches of Chinese Communists toward traditional culture in different historical periods of revolution and construction have differed, with some periods emphasizing critique and others emphasizing absorption. This is determined by the differences in the principal contradiction and principal task at each stage of revolution and construction. On this point, Chen Xianda [27]27 Chen Xianda (1930–2023) was a prominent Chinese Marxist philosopher and professor at Renmin University of China. once pointed out: “For humanity to develop, it must re-examine tradition with the yardstick of social progress in each era. Therefore, during intense periods of historical transformation, it often manifests as anti-tradition in its approach to tradition. For example, the intense attitude toward tradition during China’s May Fourth Movement is a regular phenomenon in the treatment of tradition when any revolutionary transformation storm arrives. … When the revolution is victorious, the people who have seized power have the conditions and strength to re-examine tradition in order to establish a cultural form suited to the new system. This is not an all-round affirmation of past tradition, nor a critique of past critique.”

We should also see that our past critique of the decadent and backward aspects of traditional culture during the revolutionary years did not mean negating all traditional culture. What was needed for the revolutionary cause at that time was also actively drawn upon, absorbed, and utilized. Today, our emphasis on the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture is not about copying everything mechanically, “taking whatever one wants,” and even less about “reviving” any ancient school of thought. Rather, it is about achieving creative transformation and innovative development under the guidance of Marxism. Whether in the revolutionary period or the period of peaceful construction, the approach has shifted according to the needs of the tasks of the times: sometimes critique is primary, with absorption as secondary; sometimes absorption is primary, with critique as secondary. Moreover, the specific objects involved in critique and absorption are by no means identical. As General Secretary Xi Jinping pointed out: “In the process of its formation and development, traditional culture was inevitably constrained and influenced by the limitations of the cognitive levels, historical conditions, and social systems of the people of that time, and therefore inevitably contains things that are outdated or have become dross. This requires that when studying, researching, and applying traditional culture, we adhere to the principle of making the past serve the present and weeding through the old to bring forth the new, making correct choices in light of new practice and the requirements of the times, rather than mechanically applying everything to today without discrimination.” [28]28 This quotation is from Xi Jinping’s speech at a forum on cultural work, as recorded in official Party documents.

IV. The Relationship between the "Second Integration" and the Study and Drawing on the Achievements of Civilizations from around the World

A great nation possesses a great breadth of vision. "Civilizations become richer and more colorful through exchanges and mutual learning. Such exchanges and mutual learning are an important driving force for human progress and global peace and development." [38]38 Xi Jinping, "Jointly Shouldering the Responsibility for Human Development and Advancing the Great Cause of Peace and Development," speech at the United Nations Office at Geneva, January 18, 2017. "Equal-footed exchanges and mutual learning between different civilizations will provide strong intellectual guidance for humanity to solve the difficult issues of the times and achieve common development." [39]39 Xi Jinping, "Working Together to Build a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind," speech at the United Nations Headquarters, September 28, 2015. The great breadth of vision of the contemporary Chinese nation is highly compatible with the Marxist perspective of world history.

According to historical records, the Chinese nation was one of the earliest countries in the world to actively engage in exchanges with foreign states. From ancient times, our ancestors opened up the Northern Tianshan Road and the Southern Tianshan Road leading to Central Asia and Babylon, as well as the Southern Road leading to Burma and India; in the late ancient period, China's Silk Road extended to West Asia and Europe; Indian Buddhism was introduced to China and developed into a major world religion; in the Han Dynasty, Zhang Qian was sent as an envoy to the Western Regions, [40]40 Zhang Qian (c. 164–114 BCE) was a Han dynasty diplomat and explorer who undertook two major missions to the Western Regions (Central Asia), opening the Silk Road and establishing diplomatic and trade relations with various kingdoms. introducing Western vegetables, melons, and other plants to China.

IV. The Relationship between the “Second Integration” and Learning from and Drawing on the Civilizational Achievements of Countries around the World

A great nation has a great mind. “Civilizations become richer and more colorful through exchange and mutual learning. Such exchange and mutual learning form an important driver for human progress and global peace and development.” [29]29 Xi Jinping, “Jointly Shoulder the Responsibility of Promoting Peace and Development for Mankind,” *Qiushi*, 2023, no. 2. [Translator’s note: This is a speech delivered at the United Nations Office at Geneva on January 18, 2017.] “Equal-footed exchanges and mutual learning between different civilizations will provide strong intellectual guidance for mankind to solve the challenges of our times and achieve common development.” [30]30 Xi Jinping, “Deepening Exchanges and Mutual Learning among Civilizations to Build an Asian Community with a Shared Future,” *Qiushi*, 2019, no. 11. [Translator’s note: This is a keynote speech at the Conference on Dialogue of Asian Civilizations on May 15, 2019.] The great mind of the contemporary Chinese nation is highly compatible with the Marxist world-historical perspective.

According to historical records, the Chinese nation was one of the earliest countries in the world to actively engage in exchanges with foreign states. Since ancient times, our ancestors opened up the Northern Tianshan Road and Southern Tianshan Road leading to Central Asia and Babylon, and the Southern Road leading to Myanmar and India; in the late ancient period, China’s Silk Road extended to West Asia and Europe; Indian Buddhism was introduced into China and developed into a major world religion; in the Han Dynasty, Zhang Qian [31]31 Zhang Qian (164–114 BCE) was a Han Dynasty diplomat and explorer who was sent on missions to the Western Regions (Central Asia), opening up the Silk Road. was sent as an envoy to the Western Regions, introducing Western vegetables, fruits, and other plants.

On the premise that national sovereignty is not threatened by foreign invasion, our country has a tradition of actively engaging in external exchanges and absorbing foreign cultures. Our traditional culture holds that every country has its own strengths and merits, all worthy of study and emulation. Anything useful and beneficial to our country’s development and progress should be boldly studied and absorbed. General Secretary Xi Jinping points out: “Mankind has a history of several thousand years of civilization. Any country or nation has reached where it is today by carrying forward its heritage and breaking new ground. The world has become what it is today through the exchange and integration of various human civilizations. Promoting the exchange, integration, and mutual learning of various human civilizations is the only way to make the world more beautiful and the lives of people in all countries better.” [32]32 Xi Jinping, “Exchanges and Mutual Learning among Civilizations: An Important Driver for Human Progress,” *Qiushi*, 2019, no. 9. [Translator’s note: This is a speech at the UNESCO Headquarters on March 27, 2014.] “Correctly approaching the civilizations of different countries and nations, and correctly approaching traditional culture and contemporary culture, is a major issue we must handle well. I believe we should focus on adhering to the following principles.” “First, maintain the diversity of world civilizations.” “Second, respect the civilizations of all countries and nations.” “Third, correctly engage in learning from and drawing on civilizations.” “Fourth, treat cultural traditions scientifically.” [33]33 Xi Jinping, “Exchanges and Mutual Learning among Civilizations: An Important Driver for Human Progress,” *Qiushi*, 2019, no. 9. It is evident that the contemporary Chinese Communists’ understanding of the necessity of civilizational exchange and mutual learning stands at the forefront of the world. The course of learning from and drawing on the civilizational achievements of countries around the world since the founding of New China over 70 years ago has steadily advanced in this manner.

In the history of New China, the diplomatic struggle to “break the blockade,” the struggle to restore China’s legitimate seat in the United Nations, the promotion of the détente in Sino-US relations, the policy of reform and opening up in the new period, accession to the World Trade Organization, and in the New Era the Belt and Road Initiative, building a community with a shared future for mankind, creating a new form of human civilization, large-scale gatherings and exchanges of world political parties, and advocating the common values of all mankind of peace, development, fairness, justice, democracy, and freedom—all these are postures, measures, and channels for active external exchanges and absorption of outstanding cultural achievements from the world. Our country not only actively engages in exchanges and interactions with developing countries but also pays close attention to absorbing the long-accumulated civilizational achievements of developed capitalist countries. China is a socialist country under the rule of the Communist Party, independent and sovereign. In the New Era, we have the initiative to absorb and draw on anything progressive, with a people-oriented character, and useful and beneficial to the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, regardless of which country it comes from.

In a period after the 1980s, some people one-sidedly criticized the Chinese nation for lacking a sense of openness in history, claiming that the Chinese nation grew up at the foot of the Great Wall, generation after generation growing up under a wall symbolizing closure, lacking a sense of openness to the outside world. This statement is clearly inconsistent with the facts. They failed to see that, under different historical conditions, whether the Chinese nation chose to open up to the outside world was always premised on ensuring the country’s security, development, and the independence of national sovereignty. The Great Wall of China has never been an obstacle to opening up to the outside world; rather, it was a “route indicator” for land-based opening up. Since ancient times, the continuous transport stations established along the Great Wall were not only hubs for military and postal communication lines but also service areas for traveling merchants and personnel. In the New Era, under the guidance of the open-minded approach of the Belt and Road Initiative, the increasing number of China-Europe Railway Express lines roughly follow the course of the Great Wall and the Silk Road, extending and connecting to Central Asia and Europe. The operation of the China-Europe Railway Express reveals the essence of economic, cultural exchange and interaction along this route.

At the same time, it should also be noted that modern China experienced nearly a century of semi-colonial history, suffering long-term aggression and bullying by colonialism and imperialism. We endured nearly a century of forced, undignified opening up to the outside world, akin to blood transfusion, precisely because our motherland was kidnapped by colonialism and imperialism in modern times, effectively losing its complete sovereignty and its basic capacity to safeguard national fundamental interests. The invasion of colonialism did not aim to create conditions for our development and modernization. Marx believed that colonialism had a dual role of destruction and construction for India, but “the Indians will not reap the fruits of the new social elements sown among them by the British bourgeoisie until the present ruling class in Great Britain has been replaced by the industrial proletariat, or until the Indians themselves have grown strong enough to throw off the English yoke altogether.” [34]34 Karl Marx, “The Future Results of British Rule in India,” *New-York Daily Tribune*, August 8, 1853. Although we drove out colonial forces over 70 years ago, due to history and the structure of the world, our country’s security is still threatened by hegemonism and unilateralism. Therefore, in absorbing foreign civilizational achievements, we must pay attention to clearing out cultural prejudices spread by the West, such as the “superiority of Western civilization” and the “centrality of Western civilization,” while resolutely opposing the promotion of hegemonism, “universal values,” and historical nihilism by Western developed countries, and resolutely opposing acts of “Westernization” and “division” in exchanges. Those who hold the “centrality of Western civilization” view often only see the backwardness and tarnished side of traditional Chinese culture in modern times, while ignoring the historical fact that Chinese civilization once led world civilization for a long period. In the West, there are also historians like Arnold J. Toynbee who, after reflection, broke through the bias of Western centrism and recognized the important role and trends of the Chinese nation in the development of the contemporary world.

The construction of socialist culture must inherit and utilize the excellent traditional Chinese culture, which also includes the revolutionary traditional culture since the May Fourth Movement [41]41 The May Fourth Movement (1919) was an anti-imperialist, anti-feudal cultural and political movement in China, often seen as marking the transition from the old democratic to the new democratic revolution. and the advanced socialist culture. Cultural tradition is like a never-ending river that originates in the past, flows through the present, and rushes toward the future. Traditional culture is not only a historical heritage but also a cultural element that continues to exist in reality. As early as the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods [42]42 The Spring and Autumn (770–476 BCE) and Warring States (475–221 BCE) periods were eras of fragmentation and intense intellectual ferment in ancient China., Chinese traditional culture witnessed a flourishing scene of a hundred schools of thought contending, a phenomenon rare among other ancient civilizations of the world. To a certain extent, over ten schools, including Confucianism, Buddhism, Daoism, and Mohism, still influence the spiritual life of people in real society today. Our current absorption and utilization of excellent traditional Chinese culture to serve the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation is by no means a discussion of “rejuvenation” from the perspective of any single school or faction, nor is it about reinstating certain decadent ideologies and cultures that once brought the Chinese nation to the brink of national subjugation and extinction to a position of “sole veneration.” Rather, it is about taking an overall view, treating excellent traditional Chinese culture as a composite whole, focusing on comprehensively excavating it from the overall perspective, and deeply integrating it with Marxism at points of convergence, thereby making contemporary Chinese Marxism more substantial and its national characteristics more distinct.

Chen Xianda once said: “Chinese traditional culture is a composite whole, not just the Confucian school. When discussing philosophy, one should prioritize the Daoist school; when discussing logic, the Mohist school; when discussing warfare, the Military school; when discussing farming, the Agricultural school; when discussing rule of law, the Legalist school; of course, when discussing ethics and morality, the Confucian school should be given top priority.” [43]43 Chen Xianda (1930–) is a prominent Chinese Marxist philosopher and professor at Renmin University of China. This statement is relatively objective.

Just as it is difficult to find a Han Chinese person of pure bloodline in the history of national development, in the five-thousand-year history of Chinese civilization that has “never been interrupted,” it is also impossible to find a “pure” culture of any single school. In its original sense, Confucianism represented by Confucius and Mencius did not speak of “strange phenomena, feats of strength, disorder, or spirits.” [44]44 A phrase from the Analects of Confucius (7.21), indicating Confucius’s avoidance of irrational topics. Yet by the Western Han dynasty [45]45 The Western Han dynasty ruled China from 206 BCE to 9 CE., Dong Zhongshu, a representative figure of Confucianism, became the leader of the system of prophetic and apocryphal theology in feudal society, performing as a shaman in the ghostly plays of “praying for rain” and “stopping rain.” This phenomenon is well worth pondering. Ren Jiyu profoundly revealed the essence of Zhu Xi, a great Confucian of the Song dynasty [46]46 The Song dynasty (960–1279 CE) was a period of cultural and economic flourishing in China., who was “full of Buddhist thought”: “The academic community unanimously agrees that Zhu Xi (Zhu) is close to Daoism, Lu Jiuyuan (Lu) is close to Chan Buddhism, and Wang Shouren (Wang Yangming) is close to wild Chan. In fact, without Buddhism, there would be no Confucian religion. The Song and Ming Confucians, who styled themselves as opponents of Buddhism, were all baptized by Buddhism and were, in essence, the direct descendants of Buddhism.” [47]47 Ren Jiyu (1916–2009) was a Chinese historian of philosophy and a specialist in Buddhist and Chinese intellectual history. It can be seen that over thousands of years, the interaction and integration of Chinese traditional culture have been very profound, and there has never been any academic school that has maintained a pure belief and its ideological form.

Regarding the foundation of the main body of Chinese traditional culture, General Secretary Xi Jinping has made a comprehensive summary: “The formation and development of Chinese traditional culture, especially its core ideological culture, has generally gone through several historical periods: the contending of a hundred schools of thought in the pre-Qin period, the flourishing of classical studies in the Han dynasties, the prevalence of metaphysics in the Wei, Jin, and Southern and Northern Dynasties, the coexistence of Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism in the Sui and Tang dynasties, and the development of Neo-Confucianism in the Song and Ming dynasties.” [48]48 Xi Jinping, “Speech at a Symposium on Cultural and Philosophical Work,” 2014. “Confucian thought and other doctrines that existed in Chinese history were both opposed and unified, both competing and learning from each other. Although Confucian thought has long held a dominant position, it has always been in a situation of harmony in diversity with other doctrines.” [49]49 Xi Jinping, “Speech at a Symposium on the 2,565th Anniversary of Confucius’s Birth,” 2014.

In addition, regarding the overall grasp of Chinese traditional culture, there are three aspects worth considering.

First, before the emergence of the various schools of thought in the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, the oldest cultural traditions of the Chinese nation had already appeared, possessing a relatively rich knowledge system, which at that time was called the “Six Classics” [50]50 The “Six Classics” are a group of ancient Chinese texts that formed the core of classical education before the Qin dynasty.: the Book of Songs, the Book of Documents, the Book of Rites, the Book of Music, the Book of Changes, and the Spring and Autumn Annals. These cultural achievements all predated Confucius. Their foundations were largely historiography, which was neither Confucian, nor Daoist, nor Buddhist. The contemporary historian Ding Shan summarized that historiography is the foundation of the “Six Classics”: “In ancient times, the left scribe recorded words, and the right scribe recorded events. Events were recorded in the Spring and Autumn Annals, and words in the Book of Documents. Liu Zhiji’s ‘General Treatise on Historiography’ [51]51 Liu Zhiji (661–721 CE) was a Tang dynasty historian; his Shitong is a foundational work of Chinese historiography. thus expanded this into the ‘Six Schools,’ and Wang Shouren’s ‘Instructions for Practical Living’ [52]52 Wang Shouren (1472–1529), also known as Wang Yangming, was a Ming dynasty Neo-Confucian philosopher; his Chuanxi Lu is a collection of his teachings. evolved it into the grand theory that ‘the Six Classics are all history.’ However, Chinese historiography has always regarded the ‘Records of the Grand Historian’ [53]53 The Shiji, or Records of the Grand Historian, by Sima Qian (c. 145–86 BCE), is the first comprehensive history of China. as its eternal ancestor. The ‘Records of the Grand Historian’ was first placed by Liu Xin in the ‘Seven Summaries’ under the ‘Six Arts Summary – Spring and Autumn Annals School,’ and the ‘Han Shu Yi Wen Zhi’ [54]54 The “Yi Wen Zhi” (Treatise on Literature) is the bibliographic section of the Book of Han (Hanshu), the official history of the Western Han dynasty. followed suit. Consequently, those who discuss the history of historiography only know the Spring and Autumn Annals or annalistic histories like the ‘Bamboo Annals’ as the origin. In reality, besides the Spring and Autumn Annals and the Book of Documents schools, the ‘Novelists’ school was also a major branch of ancient historiography. The ‘Yi Wen Zhi’ records fifteen works of the ‘Novelists’ school, including the ‘History of the Green Historian’ in fifty-seven chapters, stating: ‘Records of ancient official historians.’” [55]55 Ding Shan (1901–1992) was a Chinese historian and paleographer. The “Novelists” here refers to authors of a certain type of work, not a “school.” This rich foundation in historiography is probably something that neither Confucianism nor any single school can represent alone.

Emperor Wu of the Han dynasty [56]56 Emperor Wu of the Han (r. 141–87 BCE) was a powerful ruler who expanded the empire and promoted Confucianism. adopted Dong Zhongshu’s suggestion and issued an edict to “dismiss the hundred schools and honor only the Six Classics.” [57]57 This policy is often misremembered as “dismiss the hundred schools, revere only Confucianism”; the original edict referred to the Six Classics, not Confucianism alone. This means that since the state was already unified, the various schools in thought and culture should not constantly quarrel with each other, and there was no need for the imperial court to establish doctoral chairs for over a hundred schools separately; it was enough to preserve the “Six Classics.” Since the Book of Music had been lost, Emperor Wu of the Han ultimately established doctoral chairs only for the “Five Classics.” Emperor Wu of the Han’s efforts at that time did not include the notion of “sole veneration of Confucianism.” Even Qian Mu shared this sentiment: Emperor Wu of the Han had no intention of venerating Confucianism; the “dismissal of the hundred schools” also implicated Confucianism, and the imperial court first abolished the originally established “Doctoral Chair for Mencius.” His implication is clear: if Emperor Wu of the Han had intended to “solely venerate Confucianism,” the doctoral chair specifically dedicated to studying Mencius in the imperial palace would never have been abolished. Adhering to the holistic view of Chinese traditional culture can prevent factional disputes and promote unity among different branches based on each maintaining its own position.

Second, besides the “Six Classics” and the “various schools of thought,” Chinese traditional culture also includes content that was not systematically recorded in the classics and commentaries but has even greater influence. For example, the wars and cooperation between the revered Yellow Emperor and Yan Emperor [58]58 The Yellow Emperor (Huangdi) and Yan Emperor (Yandi) are legendary ancestral figures in Chinese mythology, often associated with the origin of the Chinese nation., the abdication rules among the legendary leaders Yao, Shun, and Yu [59]59 Yao, Shun, and Yu are legendary sage-kings in ancient Chinese tradition, known for their virtuous rule and the practice of abdication., the achievements and influence of Yu the Great in controlling floods [60]60 Yu the Great is a legendary figure credited with controlling the Great Flood and founding the Xia dynasty., and the invention and spread of the Four Great Inventions [61]61 The Four Great Inventions are papermaking, printing, gunpowder, and the compass. all lack systematic records. There are also the production conditions of copper smelting and iron smelting in those times, which are not found in the classics. However, these matters, which lack accurate historical records and verification, have been respected by our ancestors for generations, because they are also elements that exist in our cultural tradition.

Third, concerning the evaluation of Xunzi [62]62 Xunzi (c. 310–235 BCE) was a Confucian philosopher whose works emphasized human nature as evil and the need for ritual and law.. In the history of Chinese culture, overemphasizing the orthodox status of a single school easily leads to internal strife and disunity, and Xunzi’s long-term exclusion is a case in point. Xunzi originally rose to prominence during a period when Confucian doctrines were in decline, supporting the revival of Confucianism for a time. He served three times as the “libationer” [63]63 “Libationer” (jijiu) was the title of the head of the Jixia Academy, a prestigious scholarly institution. of the Jixia Academy in the state of Qi [64]64 The Jixia Academy was a famous center of learning in the state of Qi during the Warring States period., presiding over the grand scene of the “contention of a hundred schools of thought.” Moreover, in many aspects, such as pursuing social ideals, improving the system of the ruling class, understanding human nature, and cultivating talents suitable for the needs of new social development, he untied the dead knots of Confucianism and opened up a new situation. However, under the shadow of a narrow concept of orthodoxy, he was long excluded from the Confucian school, causing historical internal strife and division within Confucianism.

During internal disputes, there were also those who objectively and fairly evaluated Xunzi. Sima Qian wrote in the *Records of the Grand Historian*: “When the world was contending in the Warring States period, Confucian learning was already eclipsed; yet among the states of Qi and Lu, scholars alone did not abandon it. At the time of Kings Wei and Xuan, men such as Mencius and Xun Qing [Xunzi] all followed the Master’s enterprise and embellished it, becoming renowned in their age through learning.” [65]65 Sima Qian (c. 145–86 BCE) was a Han dynasty historian and author of the *Records of the Grand Historian* (*Shiji*). Xunzi (c. 310–235 BCE) was a Confucian philosopher of the Warring States period. Kings Wei (r. 356–320 BCE) and Xuan (r. 319–301 BCE) were rulers of the state of Qi. Sima Qian’s evaluation of Xunzi was relatively objective, revealing Xunzi’s prominent influence. Liu Xiang, a great scholar of the Han dynasty honored as the “Ultimate Sage and Foremost Worthy,” also regarded Xunzi as the main transmitter of the Confucian classics and commentaries. [66]66 Liu Xiang (77–6 BCE) was a Han dynasty scholar, bibliographer, and editor of classical texts. By the mid-Qing dynasty, with the flourishing of “evidential scholarship,” a large number of scholars emerged who rehabilitated Xunzi, such as Xie Yong and Wang Zhong. [67]67 Xie Yong (1719–1795) and Wang Zhong (1745–1794) were Qing dynasty scholars associated with the evidential research (*kaozheng*) movement, which emphasized textual criticism and historical verification. In the late Qing dynasty, Xunzi’s thought and propositions also won the admiration of bourgeois revolutionary thinkers such as Zhang Binglin, who said: “Surveying all previous histories, I alone find the theories of Xun Qing and Han Fei to be unalterable.” [68]68 Zhang Binglin (1868–1936), also known as Zhang Taiyan, was a late Qing and early Republican-era scholar and revolutionary thinker. Han Fei (c. 280–233 BCE) was a Legalist philosopher and a student of Xunzi. Our study and inheritance of fine traditional Chinese culture today is not about re-ranking the various schools of thought in a “heroic order of precedence.” Rather, we should liberate ourselves from the narrow factionalism of the past, adopt a broader vision and mind, take the fine traditional Chinese culture as a whole, and, under the guidance of the Marxist worldview and methodology, develop and utilize all positive elements of fine traditional Chinese culture that possess historical progressiveness, affinity with the people, and usefulness for contemporary development, so as to serve the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation.

Online editor: Paul