The Historical Inception of the Integration of Marxism with Fine Traditional Chinese Culture

The integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with fine traditional Chinese culture is a profound summary by the Communist Party of China over the past century of the law-governed nature of theoretical innovation. In particular, the proposal of the “Second Integration” has embedded the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context in the soil of the Chinese nation’s more than five thousand years of civilization, pointing the way for the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture. The “Second Integration” is both theoretical and historical; it is both conceptual and practical. From the perspective of the grand historical process, the integration of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture has profoundly influenced the historical evolution of modern and contemporary Chinese thought and culture, as well as the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times. Only by exploring and studying the historical origins of the integration of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture from a historical perspective can we deeply understand the historical development, profound connotations, and integrative mechanisms of the “Second Integration.” At present, academic circles have rarely studied the question of the historical inception of the “Second Integration.” Therefore, this article intends to trace back the historical inception of the “Second Integration” from the perspective of the history of the early dissemination of Marxism in China, deepen the understanding of the historical genesis of the “Second Integration,” and further explore the experiences and insights from the stage of its historical inception.

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，是百年来中国共产党对理论创新规律性认识的深刻总结。特别是“第二个结合”的提出，将马克思主义中国化厚植于中华民族五千多年的文明土壤之上，为推动中华优秀传统文化的创造性转化和创新性发展指明了方向。“第二个结合”既是理论性的，也是历史性的；既是观念性的，也是实践性的。从大历史的角度来看，马克思主义与中华优秀传统文化的结合，深刻影响了中国近现代思想文化和马克思主义中国化时代化的历史演进。只有从历史角度探寻和研究马克思主义与中华优秀传统文化相结合的历史源头，才能深入理解“第二个结合”的历史发展、深刻内涵和结合机制。目前学术界对“第二个结合”的历史启程问题鲜有研究，故而本文拟基于马克思主义在中国早期传播史的角度回溯“第二个结合”的历史启程，深化对“第二个结合”历史发生学的认识，进而探索“第二个结合”历史启程阶段的经验和启示。

I. The High Compatibility and Advantageous Integration of Marxism with Fine Traditional Chinese Culture

一、马克思主义与中华优秀传统文化的高度契合与优势结合

After the Opium War of 1840, Chinese society underwent drastic changes. The old social relations of production and the ideological and cultural system with Confucianism as its orthodoxy were violently impacted. The reform and constitutional movement [1]1 The reform and constitutional movement (变法维新) refers to the Hundred Days’ Reform of 1898, a failed attempt by Emperor Guangxu and reformist intellectuals to modernize China’s political and educational systems. to save the nation from subjugation, the Xinhai Revolution [2]2 The Xinhai Revolution (辛亥革命) of 1911 overthrew the Qing dynasty and ended over two thousand years of imperial rule in China, establishing the Republic of China. that overthrew the Qing dynasty, and the influx of foreign new trends of thought promoted the transformation and innovation of ancient China’s political system and cultural structure. It was against this backdrop that Marxism was introduced into China through the translation of texts. “In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, during the process of the eastward transmission of Western learning, Chinese intellectual circles began to translate and introduce writings on various socialist ideas, and the Chinese people also began to understand and become acquainted with Marx’s thought and his socialist doctrine. This was the beginning of the early dissemination of Marxism in China.” [3]3 This is a quotation from a Chinese scholarly source on the early dissemination of Marxism. The introduction of Marxism into China was a gradual process. Initially, various socialist doctrines were introduced into China, mixed among a welter of ideological currents. After a process of sifting, scientific socialism ultimately emerged and stood at the forefront of the tide.

1840年鸦片战争以降，中国社会发生了剧烈变化，旧的社会生产关系和以儒家思想为正统的思想文化体系受到猛烈冲击。救亡图存的维新变法、推翻清王朝的辛亥革命和域外新思潮的涌入，推动了古老中国在政治制度和文化系统上的转型和革新。马克思主义就是在这一背景下通过文献的翻译传入中国的。“19世纪末20世纪初，在西学东渐过程中，中国知识界开始译介各种社会主义思想的著述，中国人也开始了解和认识马克思思想及其社会主义学说，这是马克思主义在中国早期传播的开端。”马克思主义传入中国是一个循序渐进的过程。起初，各种社会主义学说传入中国，混杂于纷繁的思想潮流之中，经过大浪淘沙，科学社会主义最终脱颖而出，立于涛头。

From the very beginning of its introduction into China, Marx’s doctrine and socialist theory faced the problem of how to handle the relationship with China’s indigenous culture. From the perspective of the introduction of foreign theories into China, Edward W. Said’s “traveling theory” provides a new way of understanding the early dissemination of Marxism in China. This theory holds that when an idea or theory moves from one spatiotemporal context to another, it must traverse a horizontal distance and pass through various contextual pressures. The transplanted idea or theory must confront various conditions of acceptance or resistance, which may allow it to be introduced or tolerated. An idea that is wholly (or partially) accommodated (or integrated) will undergo a certain degree of change in the new spatiotemporal context. To a certain extent, the “traveling theory” reflects the possible encounters and outcomes of the same idea or theory migrating and spreading under different spatiotemporal conditions. From this perspective, understanding the early dissemination of Marxism involves questions about what “acceptance-resistance” conditions Marxism would encounter during its “travel” from abroad to China, whether it would be accepted and integrated by, or resisted and rejected by, China’s indigenous culture, whether its connotation and extension would expand or contract, and whether its persuasiveness would increase or decrease. These questions point to the substantive issue of whether Marxism and traditional Chinese culture are compatible, and, further, whether they can be successfully “grafted” and organically integrated. The century-long historical development of Marxism in China shows that “after Marxism was introduced into China, the propositions of scientific socialism were warmly welcomed by the Chinese people and ultimately took root, blossomed, and bore fruit on Chinese soil. This was by no means accidental; it was due to the integration of Marxism with the fine historical culture that China has inherited over thousands of years and with the values that the broad masses of the people use daily without being fully conscious of them.” [4]4 This is a quotation from a Chinese Communist Party document or leader’s speech. “Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture have different origins, but there is a high degree of compatibility between them,” [5]5 This is a quotation from a Chinese Communist Party document or leader’s speech. and thus they can achieve organic integration and realize Sinicization. The early dissemination of Marxism in China initiated the historical process of its integration with fine traditional Chinese culture, that is, the historical inception of the integration of the two. Fine traditional Chinese culture played the role of a “medium” in this historical process.

马克思的学说和社会主义理论从传入中国开始，就面临着如何处理与中国本土文化之间关系的问题。从域外理论传入中国的角度来讲，萨义德（Edward W. Said）的“理论旅行”理论提供了理解马克思主义在中国早期传播的新思路。该理论认为，当观念或理论从一种时空境遇进入另一种时空境遇时，需要经过一段横向距离，穿过形形色色的语境压力。移植过来的观念或理论需要面对各种接受条件或者抵抗条件，使之可能引进或者得到容忍。全部（或部分）得到容纳（或融合）的观念在新的时空中会发生某种程度的改变。“理论旅行”理论在一定程度上反映出同一观念或理论在不同时空条件下迁移和传播的可能遭遇和结果。由此观之，对马克思主义早期传播的理解，就涉及马克思主义从域外到中国的“旅行”过程中会遭遇何种“接受—抵抗”条件，会受到中国本土文化的接纳、融合，还是抗拒、排斥，其内涵和外延是有所扩大还是有所减小，说服力有所增强还是有所减弱等问题，指向的就是马克思主义与中国传统文化能否相容，更进一步说就是能否成功“嫁接”，能否有机融合等实质性问题。马克思主义在中国的百年历史发展说明，“马克思主义传入中国后，科学社会主义的主张受到中国人民热烈欢迎，并最终扎根中国大地、开花结果，决不是偶然的，而是同我国传承了几千年的优秀历史文化和广大人民日用而不觉的价值观念融通的”。“马克思主义和中华优秀传统文化来源不同，但彼此存在高度的契合性”，因而能够实现有机结合，并实现中国化。马克思主义在中国的早期传播，开启了与中华优秀传统文化相结合的历史进程，也就是二者相结合的历史启程。中华优秀传统文化在这一历史过程中起到了“介质”作用。

Confucian thought, especially its ideal of a Great Harmony society, became the “medium” for understanding and interpreting Marxism. Chinese civilization is extensive, profound, and long-standing, shaping the unique spiritual world and values of the Chinese people, and providing rich cultural resources and deep cultural nourishment for Chinese intellectuals to understand Marxism. The intrinsic elements of fine traditional Chinese culture and the ideological spirit of Marxism share commonalities and complementarities. During the early dissemination of Marxism, the most common understanding among Chinese intellectuals regarding the relationship between Marxism and Chinese culture was that ancient China already possessed socialist thought, and that Confucian thought and its Great Harmony ideal were compatible with socialism. For example, *Looking Backward* [6]6 *Looking Backward* (《百年一觉》, literally “A Hundred Years’ Awakening”) is the Chinese translation of Edward Bellamy’s 1888 utopian novel *Looking Backward: 2000–1887*. was the best-selling and most influential utopian socialist novel in the late Qing and early Republican periods. In the form of a time-travel novel, it exposed the severe social contradictions caused by the rapid development of American capitalism, such as the wide gap between rich and poor, the rich reaping without labor, and the poor toiling all year without a place to stand. The novel replaced capitalist society with a free, equal, civilized, and highly productive new socialist society. When Chinese readers read this novel, they invariably used the Great Harmony thought from the *Book of Rites* [7]7 The *Book of Rites* (《礼记》) is a collection of texts describing the social forms, administration, and ceremonial rites of the Zhou dynasty, one of the Five Classics of Confucianism. to understand the main theme of this translated work. Tan Sitong said: “As for Western books like *Looking Backward*, they seem to resemble the image of the Great Harmony in the *Liyun* chapter.” [8]8 Tan Sitong (1865–1898) was a late Qing reformer and thinker executed after the failed Hundred Days’ Reform. The *Liyun* (《礼运》) is a chapter of the *Book of Rites* that describes the Confucian ideal of the Great Harmony (大同). From this perspective, this work appeared before the Chinese people like a “double-sided mirror”: on one side was socialist society, and on the other, the Great Harmony world. In Sun Yat-sen’s view, “the Principle of Livelihood,” “socialism,” “communism,” and “the Great Harmony doctrine” were equivalent: “The true Principle of Livelihood is precisely the Great Harmony world that Confucius hoped for.” [9]9 Sun Yat-sen (1866–1925) was the founding father of the Republic of China and the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party (Kuomintang). His “Three Principles of the People” are nationalism, democracy, and livelihood. *The Essence of Socialism* [10]10 *The Essence of Socialism* (《社会主义神髓》) is a 1903 book by Kōtoku Shūsui (1871–1911), a Japanese socialist and anarchist executed for his alleged role in a plot against the Emperor. was a work by the early 20th-century famous Japanese socialist theorist Kōtoku Shūsui that expounded socialist theory, and it exerted an important influence on some Chinese intellectuals. Proletarian revolutionary Wu Yuzhang also used Sun Yat-sen’s Three Principles of the People and the ancient Chinese Great Harmony doctrine to understand socialist theory. He recalled: “In 1903, I read Kōtoku Shūsui’s *The Essence of Socialism* in Tokyo, Japan, and found this doctrine very fresh… At this time (referring to the period from November 1913 to his stay in France in 1917—author’s note), I saw this doctrine again and felt it especially close. The lofty ideals of equality for all and the elimination of poverty depicted in socialist books greatly inspired me, reminding me of the Three Principles of the People advocated by Mr. Sun Yat-sen and the ancient Chinese doctrine of the Great Harmony. All these things interwove in my mind into a beautiful vision of future society.” [11]11 Wu Yuzhang (1878–1966) was a Chinese educator and revolutionary who joined the Chinese Communist Party in 1925. *A History of Socialism* [12]12 *A History of Socialism* (《社会主义史》) is a 1892 book by Thomas Kirkup (1844–1912), a British historian of socialism. by Thomas Kirkup, published by the New Youth Society in 1920, was one of the three books that led Mao Zedong to “establish his faith in Marxism.” [13]13 Mao Zedong (1893–1976) was the founding leader of the People’s Republic of China and the chairman of the Chinese Communist Party. In the preface he wrote for this book, Cai Yuanpei understood socialist doctrine from the perspective of Confucian thought and its Great Harmony ideal, proposing that ancient China already had socialist doctrine: “The *Liyun* records Confucius saying: ‘When the great Way prevails, the world is shared by all. They do not treat only their own parents as parents, nor only their own children as children. The elderly are cared for until the end of their lives, the able-bodied are employed, the young are nurtured, and the widowed, orphaned, childless, and disabled are all supported. Men have their roles, and women have their homes. They hate to see goods wasted, but do not hoard them for themselves; they hate to see strength unused, but do not use it for themselves.’ This is the meaning of ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,’ and it contains the principle of equality between men and women.” [14]14 Cai Yuanpei (1868–1940) was a Chinese educator and the president of Peking University, known for his liberal and progressive views. Li Dazhao also used the Great Harmony thought to interpret communist society. He proposed that the working classes of the world unite, “overthrow the capitalist classes of the world,” and “organize a union of all humanity, completely breaking down racial and national boundaries. This is the world Great Harmony that all of humanity devoutly prays for.” [15]15 Li Dazhao (1889–1927) was a Chinese intellectual and co-founder of the Chinese Communist Party, executed by the warlord Zhang Zuolin. In Qu Qiubai’s conception, “communism” and “Great Harmony” were also compatible and interconnected. In his 1923 article “The Red Tide Song” commemorating the October Revolution, he wrote: “The ancient Eastern nation, four hundred million compatriots, sing in unison, sacred labor”; “From now on, the gospel spreads everywhere, the world is civilized, only awaiting communism and Great Harmony.” [16]16 Qu Qiubai (1899–1935) was a Chinese writer and a leader of the Chinese Communist Party, executed by the Kuomintang. In 1926, Guo Moruo, in his article “Marx Enters the Confucian Temple,” vividly described the compatibility and interconnection between Marxism and Confucian thought. This article fabricated a story of Marx meeting Confucius to discuss learning: Marx introduced his ideal world as a communist society of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” while Confucius introduced his ideal of the Great Harmony world. Their proposals “coincided without prior consultation,” and their views were “completely consistent,” leading Marx to exclaim: “I never imagined that two thousand years ago, in the distant East, there was already an old comrade like you!” [17]17 Guo Moruo (1892–1978) was a Chinese author, poet, historian, and a prominent figure in the Chinese Communist Party’s cultural circles. Marxism and traditional Chinese culture originated in different places—one in Europe, the other in China—but their ideological horizons and core concerns were both the whole of human society. The purpose of Marxism is to “seek liberation for humanity” and to establish a communist society without exploitation or oppression, where each contributes according to ability and receives according to need; the ideal pursuit of traditional Chinese culture for future society is to realize the Great Harmony world of the Age of Great Peace. The Confucian Great Harmony thought provided a deep and suitable cultural soil for the dissemination of socialist doctrine in China, enabling Chinese intellectuals to use the ideological resources and value implications of Chinese culture to understand and grasp the theme and essence of socialist and communist theory. The ideals and beliefs of communism and socialism, along with the pursuit of a Great Harmony society under the principle of “the world is shared by all,” constitute the ideological foundation of the integration of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture at the level of ultimate concern and theoretical purpose. Ai Siqi once made a incisive comment on this: “Marxism is scientific communism, and communist society was the common ideal of all great thinkers in Chinese history. From Laozi, Mozi, Confucius and Mencius, to Mr. Sun Yat-sen, all hoped that a Great Harmony society of ‘the world is shared by all’ would appear in the world. Chinese Marxism, nourished by Marx’s scientific communist theory, grew out of the seeds of communism from the Chinese nation itself.” [18]18 Ai Siqi (1910–1966) was a Chinese Marxist philosopher and a leading propagandist for the Chinese Communist Party.

儒家思想特别是其大同社会理想成为理解和阐释马克思主义的“介质”。中华文明博大精深，源远流长，塑造了中国人独特的精神世界和价值观念，为中国知识分子理解马克思主义提供了丰富的文化资源和深厚的文化滋养。中华优秀传统文化的内在元素与马克思主义的思想精神存在相通和互补之处。在马克思主义早期传播过程中，中国知识分子在马克思主义与中国文化之间关系的问题上，最常见的理解是认为中国古代就有社会主义思想，儒家思想及其大同理想与社会主义是共通的。比如，《百年一觉》是清末民初销量最多、影响最大的空想社会主义小说，它以穿越小说的形式揭露了美国资本主义迅速发展所导致的严重社会矛盾，如贫富差距大、富者不劳而获、贫者终年劳作而无立锥之地等，小说中代替资本主义社会的是一个自由的、平等的、文明的、生产力高度发达的社会主义新社会。中国读者在阅读这本小说时，不约而同地会用《礼记》中的大同思想来理解这部译著的主旨。谭嗣同说：“若西书中《百年一觉》者，殆仿佛《礼运》大同之象焉。”由此来看，这部著作犹如“双面镜”呈现在中国人面前：一面是社会主义社会，一面是大同世界。在孙中山那里，“民生主义”“社会主义”“共产主义”“大同主义”的含义是等同的，“真正的民生主义，就是孔子所希望之大同世界”。《社会主义神髓》是20世纪初日本著名社会主义理论家幸德秋水阐发社会主义理论的著作，对一些中国知识分子产生过重要影响。无产阶级革命家吴玉章也以孙中山的三民主义和中国古代大同思想来理解社会主义理论，他曾回忆说：“1903年我在日本东京曾经读过幸德秋水的《社会主义神髓》，感到这种学说很新鲜，……这时（指1913年11月至1917年留法期间——引者注），又从新看到这种学说，感到格外亲切。社会主义书籍中所描绘的人人平等、消灭贫富的远大理想大大地鼓舞了我，使我联想起孙中山先生倡导的三民主义和中国古代世界大同的学说。所有这些东西，在我脑子里交织成一幅未来社会的美丽远景。”新青年社1920年出版的由克卡朴（Thomas Kirkup，也译作托马斯·柯卡普）所著的《社会主义史》是使毛泽东“树立起对马克思主义的信仰”的三本书之一。蔡元培在为这本书所撰写的序中，从儒家思想及其大同理想来理解社会主义学说，提出中国古代就有社会主义学说，“《礼运》记孔子说：‘人不独亲其亲；不独子其子。使老有所终；壮有所用；幼有所长；鳏寡孤独废疾者皆有所养。男有分；女有归。货恶其弃于地也，不必藏于己；力恶其不出于身也，不必为己。’就是‘各尽所能，各取所需’的意义；且含有男女平等主义”。李大钊也以大同思想来阐释共产主义社会。他提出，全世界劳工阶级联合起来，“打倒全世界资本的阶级”，“合世界人类组织一个人类的联合，把种界国界完全打破。这就是我们人类全体所馨香祷祝的世界大同”。在瞿秋白的观念中，“共产”和“大同”也是契合与相通的，他在1923年纪念十月革命的《赤潮曲》一文中写道：“远东古国，四万万同胞，同声歌颂，神圣的劳动”；“从今后，福音遍被，天下文明，只待共产大同”。而1926年郭沫若在《马克思进文庙》一文中更是生动地描述了马克思主义和孔子思想的相通与契合之处。这篇文章虚构了一个马克思与孔子见面论学的故事：马克思介绍自己的理想世界就是“各尽所能，各取所需”的共产社会，孔子则介绍了自己的大同世界理想，二人的主张“不谋而合”，见解“完全是一致的”，这使得马克思感叹：“我不想在两千年前，在远远的东方，已经有了你这样的一个老同志！”马克思主义与中国传统文化的诞生地不同，一个在欧洲，一个在中国，但二者的思想视野和核心关怀都是整个人类社会。马克思主义的宗旨在于“为人类求解放”，建立没有剥削和压迫，各尽所能、各取所需的共产主义社会；中国传统文化对未来社会的理想追求是实现太平世的大同世界。儒家大同思想为社会主义学说在中国传播提供了深厚而适宜的文化土壤，使得中国知识分子能够运用中国文化的思想资源和价值意蕴来理解、把握社会主义与共产主义理论的主题和精髓。共产主义、社会主义的理想信念与天下为公的大同社会追求是马克思主义与中华优秀传统文化的结合在终极关怀和理论宗旨层面的思想基础。艾思奇对此曾有精辟的评论：“马克思主义是科学的共产主义，而共产主义社会，曾是中国历史上一切伟大思想家所共有的理想。从老子、墨子、孔孟，以至于孙中山先生，都希望着世界上有‘天下为公’的大同社会能够出现。中国的马克思主义，就是以马克思的科学共产主义的理论为滋养料，而从中国民族自己的共产主义的种子中成长起来的。”

The rich intellectual reserves and discursive resources of fine traditional Chinese culture further strengthened the functional role of the “medium,” demonstrating that fine traditional Chinese culture possessed irreplaceable value in the early dissemination of Marxism. Chinese traditional culture is a cultural综合体 that takes Confucian culture as its main thread and absorbs the thought of other schools such as the Hundred Schools of Thought. Certain important ideas were all invoked by Chinese people to understand and interpret Marxist doctrine and socialist theory. First, Mohist thought was used to understand Marxist doctrine and socialism. The modern Chinese enlightenment thinker Yan Fu already used Mohist thought to understand socialism. He believed that, at the level of political philosophy, Zhuangzi’s thought could be called “individualism,” while “as for the Mohist way, it is what is called socialism.” [19]19 Yan Fu, “Political Commentary,” in *Collected Works of Yan Fu*, vol. 2 (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1986), p. 485. Liang Qichao even considered Mozi to be Marx, holding that the theoretical foundation of Marx’s doctrine was connected with Mozi’s thought: “Mozi is a little Christ. From another perspective, Mozi is also a great Marx”; “The modern Marxian school says that capitalists’ enjoyment all comes from plunder. The basis of this argument is exactly the same as that of Mozi two thousand years ago.” [20]20 Liang Qichao, “The Mohist School,” in *Collected Works of the Ice-Drinker’s Studio*, vol. 37 (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1989), p. 12; Liang Qichao, “The Mohist School,” in *Collected Works of the Ice-Drinker’s Studio*, vol. 37, p. 14. Mohist thought became a reference and intermediary for Chinese people to understand and interpret Marxist doctrine and socialist theory. Second, people-centered thought was used to understand socialism. The ancient Chinese people-centered thought and Marxism’s orientation of valuing the working people are connected in terms of values. Fine traditional Chinese culture contains rich people-centered thought, such as “The people are the foundation of the state; when the foundation is stable, the state is at peace,” “The rise of governance lies in following the people’s hearts; its decline lies in going against the people’s hearts,” and “Win the multitude and you win the state; lose the multitude and you lose the state.” [21]21 These are classical Chinese political maxims. “The people are the foundation of the state; when the foundation is stable, the state is at peace” is from the *Book of Documents* (“Song of the Five Sons”). “The rise of governance lies in following the people’s hearts; its decline lies in going against the people’s hearts” is from the *Guanzi* (“The Art of Ruling the People”). “Win the multitude and you win the state; lose the multitude and you lose the state” is from the *Book of Rites* (“The Great Learning”). Marxism holds that the masses of the people are the subject and creator of history, the main force driving historical development. In 1919, Mao Zedong discussed the historical role of the masses in his article “The Great Union of the Popular Masses,” pointing out that during the development of European capitalism, the aristocratic capitalists used knowledge, money, and military force to oppress and exploit the common people; the common people, seeing through the aristocrats’ and capitalists’ methods, began to awaken and unite. “Among the actions after uniting, one faction was very fierce, using the method of ‘deal with a man as he deals with you’ to fight desperately against them. The leader of this faction was born in Germany and is called Marx.” [22]22 Mao Zedong, “The Great Union of the Popular Masses,” *Xiangjiang Review*, no. 2–4 (July–August 1919). At the same time, from the perspective of people-centered thought, Mao Zedong praised the great energy inherent in the Chinese nation: “Originally, the Chinese nation, hundreds of millions of people, for thousands of years, had all lived the life of slaves, with only one non-slave being the ‘emperor.’ … But now it is different; liberation is needed in all aspects. … Our Chinese nation originally possessed great ability! The deeper the oppression, the greater the reaction; what has been accumulated for a long time will surely burst forth swiftly. I dare say a strange thing: in the future, the reform of the Chinese nation will be more thorough than that of any other nation. The society of the Chinese nation will be brighter than that of any other nation. The great union of the Chinese nation will succeed before that of any other region or any other nation.” [23]23 Mao Zedong, “The Great Union of the Popular Masses,” *Xiangjiang Review*, no. 2–4 (July–August 1919). Marxism’s view of the masses and the concept of “the people are the foundation of the state” achieved convergence and integration in the thought of the young Mao Zedong. Third, the well-field system was used to understand socialism. [24]24 The well-field system was an idealized land tenure system described in ancient Chinese texts, in which land was divided into nine squares like the character 井 (well), with the outer eight squares farmed by individual families and the central square farmed collectively for the lord. Liang Qichao called Marx the “great master of socialism,” holding that “socialism is a special product of the world in the last hundred years; summarizing its most essential meaning, it is nothing more than land belonging to the public, capital belonging to the public, and labor alone being the source of the value of all things,” and that “China has long had this.” “The ancient Chinese well-field system is exactly on the same footing as modern socialism; many people in recent times have been able to say this.” [25]25 Liang Qichao, “The History of Socialism in China,” in *Collected Works of the Ice-Drinker’s Studio*, vol. 12 (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1989), p. 2. Sun Yat-sen regarded the ancient Chinese well-field system and the practice of multiple generations living together as the origins of equal-property doctrine and communism: “Examining history, our country has always advocated socialism. The well-field system is the beginning of equal-property doctrine; and multiple generations living together is the herald of communism, showing that the minds of our people have long stored the spirit of socialism.” [26]26 Sun Yat-sen, “Speech on the Principle of People’s Livelihood,” in *Complete Works of Sun Yat-sen*, vol. 9 (Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company, 1986), p. 359. The single-tax socialist theory he highly praised became an important theoretical source for the idea of “equalization of land rights.” [27]27 The single-tax theory was an economic proposal by the American economist Henry George, advocating that the state should collect all economic rent from land as a single tax, replacing all other taxes. Sun Yat-sen was influenced by this idea in formulating his “equalization of land rights” policy. “The simple socialist elements in Chinese culture also provided the cultural foundation for China’s acceptance of Marxism.” [28]28 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Conference Commemorating the 200th Anniversary of Marx’s Birth,” *People’s Daily*, May 5, 2018. The various ideas of Chinese traditional culture contain elements of Marx’s doctrine and socialism, becoming the “pre-understanding” and intellectual foundation for Chinese people to understand and accept Marxism.

中华优秀传统文化的丰厚思想储备和话语资源进一步强化了“介质”的功能作用，显示出中华优秀传统文化在马克思主义早期传播过程中具有不可替代的价值。中华传统文化是以儒家文化为主线，并将诸子百家等其他流派思想吸纳其中的文化综合体，一些重要的思想均被中国人援引来理解和阐释马克思学说和社会主义理论。一是以墨家思想来理解马克思学说和社会主义。中国近代启蒙思想家严复即以墨家思想理解社会主义。他认为，在政治哲学层面，庄子思想可“谓之个人主义Individualism。至于墨道，则所谓社会主义Socialism”。梁启超甚至认为墨子就是马克思，马克思学说的理论基础与墨子思想是相通的：“墨子是个小基督。从别方面说，墨子又是个大马克思”；“近代马克思一派说，资本家的享用，都是从掠夺而来。这种立论根据，和二千年前的墨子正同”。墨家思想成了中国人理解和阐释马克思学说和社会主义理论的参照和中介。二是以民本思想来理解社会主义。中国古代的民本思想与马克思主义重视劳动人民的取向在价值观念上是相通的。中华优秀传统文化中具有丰富的民本思想，如“民惟邦本，本固邦宁”“政之所兴，在顺民心；政之所废，在逆民心”“得众则得国，失众则失国”等。马克思主义认为，人民群众是历史的主体和创造者，是推动历史发展的主要力量。1919年，毛泽东在《民众的大联合》一文中即论述了人民群众的历史作用，文中指出：欧洲资本主义在发展过程中，贵族资本家利用知识、金钱和武力来压迫和剥削平民，平民识破贵族资本家的手段后开始觉悟并联合起来，“联合以后的行动，有一派很激烈的，就用‘即以其人之道还治其人之身’的办法，同他们拼命的倒担。这一派的音〈首〉领，是一个生在德国的，叫做马克斯”；同时毛泽东又从民本思想的角度称颂中华民族所具有的伟大能量：“原来中华民族，几万万人，从几千年来，都是干着奴隶的生活，只有一个非奴隶的是‘皇帝’。……于今却不同了，种种方面都要解放了。……我们中华民族原有伟大的能力！压迫愈深，反动愈大，蓄之既久，其发必速。我敢说一怪话，他日中华民族的改革，将较任何民族为彻底。中华民族的社会，将较任何民族为光明。中华民族的大联合，将较任何地域任何民族而先告成功”。马克思主义的群众观点和“民惟邦本”的理念在青年毛泽东的思想中实现了会通和融合。三是以井田制来理解社会主义。梁启超把马克思称作“社会主义之泰斗”，认为“社会主义者，近百年来世界之特产物也，概括其最要之义，不过曰土地归公，资本归公，专以劳力为百物价值之原泉”，“吾中国固夙有之”，“中国古代井田制度，正与近世之社会主义同一立脚点，近人多能言之矣”。孙中山把中国古代的井田制和累世同居看作均产主义和共产主义的源头：“考诸历史，我国固素主张社会主义者。井田之制，即均产主义之滥觞；而累世同居，又共产主义之嚆矢，足见我国人民之脑际，久蕴蓄社会主义之精神。”他高度评价的单税社会主义理论成为“平均地权”思想的重要理论来源。“中国文化中朴素的社会主义元素也提供了中国接受马克思主义的文化基础。”中国传统文化的各种思想蕴藏着马克思的学说和社会主义的元素，成为中国人理解和接受马克思主义的“前理解”和思想基础。

The above discussion illustrates the following points. First, from the time Marxism was introduced into China, Chinese intellectuals realized that the values of Marxism and the worldview, view of the world, view of society, and view of knowledge and action formed by the Chinese people on the basis of long-term production and living practice had many commonalities in their internal logic. The French scholar Jacques Gernet once pointed out: “Among all Western philosophies, Marxism is undoubtedly the closest to the basic direction of Chinese thought.” [29]29 Jacques Gernet, *China and the Christian Impact: A Conflict of Cultures* (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), p. 247. The high degree of fit between Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture in their ideological core and value concepts promoted their organic integration, triggering an initial “chemical reaction.” The fusion and integration of the two enabled Marxism not only to possess the “outer garment” of the Chinese linguistic form but also to incorporate the discursive system and ideological content of fine traditional Chinese culture, becoming an indispensable and important component of modern Chinese culture. This integration reduced the difficulties and obstacles for Chinese people in learning and accepting Marxism, making it easier for Marxism to be embraced by the land of China. Second, “fine traditional Chinese culture enriched the cultural life of Marxism.” [30]30 Xi Jinping, “Speech at the Conference Commemorating the 200th Anniversary of Marx’s Birth,” *People’s Daily*, May 5, 2018. Fine traditional Chinese culture was not only an important “medium” on which the dissemination of Marxism in China relied but also the fertile soil, abundant resources, and sufficient nourishment for Marxism to take root. During the “travel” of Marxism from abroad to China, because it incorporated the “genes” of fine traditional Chinese culture and absorbed its nutrients, its thought became more substantial, its connotation richer, and its extension further expanded. The core content and ideological essence of Marxism were continued and developed within the Chinese cultural system; Marxism was stamped with the imprint of Chinese culture, gradually acquiring a distinct Chinese style and Chinese manner, progressively becoming the essence of the times of Chinese culture and Chinese spirit, and its cultural life was further enriched. Third, from the perspective of “theory travel” theory, when Marxism encountered Chinese traditional culture, the latter became the “prejudice” or “pre-understanding” for Chinese people to accept Marxism. However, there were significant differences between Chinese traditional culture, which emerged on the basis of an agricultural civilization, and Marxism, which emerged on the basis of an industrial civilization. When using the relevant ideas of Chinese traditional culture to interpret and explain Marxism in its original form, the essential characteristics and ideological features of Marxism were easily overlooked or even misunderstood, which also created certain obstacles to understanding. Of course, this was also an inevitable stage for Chinese people to understand and grasp Marxism in the early period of its dissemination in China. Fourth, when Chinese people came into contact with Marx’s doctrine and socialist theory, they often believed that socialist ideas had existed in ancient China, or that the modern socialist ideas transmitted from abroad actually originated in China. This is a relatively typical manifestation of the “Western learning originated in China” view of Chinese and Western culture. [31]31 “Western learning originated in China” (西学中源) was a theory popular among some late Qing intellectuals, who argued that modern Western science and ideas had their origins in ancient China, in order to reduce resistance to adopting Western knowledge. The theory that Western learning originated in China first emerged during the period of the Eastern spread of Western learning in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties, and was further developed in the late Qing. Its basic view is that Western learning originated in China and later spread to the West; therefore, Western learning is not a system of thought completely different from Chinese learning. The theory that Western learning originated in China is not correct, but intellectually open-minded intellectuals used it to spread Western learning. For example, Zhang Taiyan once advocated using the theory that Western learning originated in China to influence the people: “The people do not know change, and if you want them to change quickly, you must combine Chinese and Western teachings to enlighten them.” “Therefore, combining Chinese and Western teachings to enlighten the people is like a magnet attracting iron, or trees close together leaning on each other.” [32]32 Zhang Taiyan, “Preface to the *Collected Works of Qiu Shu*,” in *Complete Works of Zhang Taiyan*, vol. 3 (Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Publishing House, 1985), p. 160. The theory that Western learning originated in China thus became a booster for new-style intellectuals to spread Western learning, promote knowledge progress, and social reform.

以上论述说明了如下几点问题。其一，马克思主义传入中国，中国知识分子即体悟到马克思主义的价值观与中国人民在长期生产生活实践基础上所形成的宇宙观、天下观、社会观、知行观在内在理路上具有诸多相通之处。法国学者谢和耐（Jacques Gernet）曾指出：“在所有的西方哲学中，马克思主义无疑距中国思想之基本方向最近。”马克思主义与中华优秀传统文化在思想内核和价值理念上的高度契合，促进了二者的有机结合，引起了初步的“化学反应”。二者的融通融合使马克思主义不仅拥有了中国语言形式的“外衣”，而且熔铸了中华优秀传统文化的话语体系和思想内容，成为中国现代文化不可或缺的重要组成部分。二者的结合减少了中国人学习和接受马克思主义的困难和障碍，使马克思主义更易于为中华大地所接纳。其二，“中华优秀传统文化充实了马克思主义的文化生命”。中华优秀传统文化既是马克思主义在中国传播赖以凭借的重要“介质”，也是马克思主义得以植根的丰沃土壤、丰沛资源和丰足养料。马克思主义从域外到中国的“旅行”过程中，由于融入了中华优秀传统文化的“基因”，汲取了中华优秀传统文化的养分，思想更为厚重，内涵更为丰富，外延进一步扩大。马克思主义的核心内容和思想精髓在中国文化体系中得到延续和发展，马克思主义打上了中国文化的烙印，开始带有鲜明的中国风格与中国气派，逐步成为中国文化和中国精神的时代精华，文化生命得到进一步充实。其三，从“理论旅行”理论的角度来看，马克思主义与中国传统文化相遇时，中国传统文化成为中国人接受马克思主义的“前见”或“前理解”，而产生于农业文明基础上的中国传统文化与产生于工业文明基础上的马克思主义之间又存在着显著差异，用中国传统文化中的相关思想原汁原味地去解读和阐释马克思主义时，马克思主义的本质特征和思想特点也容易被忽略乃至误解，这也造成了一定的理解障碍。当然，这也是马克思主义在中国传播早期，中国人认识和理解马克思主义的必经阶段。其四，中国人在接触马克思的学说和社会主义理论时，常认为社会主义思想在中国古已有之，或认为域外传来的现代社会主义思想实际上发源于中国，这是较为典型的“西学中源”的中西文化观的体现。西学中源说最早产生于明末清初的西学东渐时期，在晚清得到进一步发展，其基本观点是，西学发源于中国，后来传到西方，因而西学并不是与中学完全相异的思想学说。西学中源说并不正确，但思想开明的知识分子却借此传播西学。比如，章太炎曾提倡以西学中源说来影响民众：“民不知变，而欲其速化，必合中西之言以喻之”“故合中西之言以喻民，斯犹慈石之引铁，与树之相近而靡也”。西学中源说遂成为新派知识分子传播西学、推动知识进步和社会革新的助推器。

II. Functional Complementarity and Mutual Achievement between Marxism and Fine Traditional Chinese Culture

二、马克思主义与中华优秀传统文化的功能互补与相互成就

Traditional Chinese culture is “a product reflecting the agricultural economic organization that remained unchanged in China for over two thousand years.” It once played a tremendous role in maintaining China’s millennia-old autocratic monarchy, preserving national unity, stabilizing social order, and promoting cultural development. However, in modern times, during the transformation of human history into world history and the transition from an agricultural to an industrial society, traditional Chinese culture could not provide sufficient and effective intellectual resources to resolve the overall crisis of modern Chinese society and its shift from tradition to modernity. This necessitated the introduction of new ideas and cultures from abroad for reference and the pursuit of a new path. Marxism is a doctrine founded by Marx and Engels on the basis of their reflection and critique of modern Western European social formations; it is a rational critique of capitalist modernization. Indigenous Chinese culture could not provide strong support for China’s modern development, which created an intellectual field for the rooting of foreign theories in China and their collision, exchange, and integration with local culture. It was under these spatiotemporal conditions that Marxism, dedicated to promoting social change through social revolution, was introduced into China. It can be said that the spread and rooting of Marxism in China provided new theoretical guidance for China’s modern transformation and injected a powerful modern gene into the continuation and renewal of Chinese civilization. This enriched and strengthened the core concepts of Marxism in China.

中国传统文化是“适应中国二千余年来未曾变动的农业经济组织反映出来的产物”，曾为维护中国数千年的君主专制统治、维系国家大一统、稳定社会秩序、促进文化发展发挥过巨大作用。但至近代，在人类历史向世界历史转变、由农业社会向工业社会转变的过程中，中国传统文化无法为解决近代中国社会的总体性危机和由传统向现代的转型提供充足而有效的思想资源，这就需要从域外引入新的思想文化以资借鉴，并谋求新路。马克思主义是马克思、恩格斯在对近代西欧社会形态的反思和批判的基础上所创立的学说，是对资本主义现代化的理性批判。中国本土文化无法为中国社会的现代发展提供有力支撑，这为域外理论在中国落地生根及其与中国本土文化的碰撞、交流和融合提供了思想场域，致力于以社会革命方式推动社会变革的马克思主义正是在此种时空条件下传入中国的。可以说，马克思主义在中国传播和落地生根，为中国社会的现代转型提供了新的理论指引，为中华文明的赓续和更新注入了强大的现代基因。这使得马克思主义的核心观念在中国得到了丰富和强化。

Marxist doctrine and socialist theory helped provide intellectual guidance for solving China’s political and social problems. The crisis of modern Chinese society was a systemic one; resolving its social problems had to advance from the stage of political revolution to that of social revolution. Marxism, committed to the liberation of the proletariat and humanity, offered a comprehensive solution to these problems. Consequently, Chinese intellectuals turned their attention to foreign socialist theories, using them to analyze and study China’s social contradictions and crises. Hisayoshi Yoshinori’s *Recent Socialist Commentary* expounded and commented on the history and schools of modern European socialism, mentioning Marx and his labor theory of value, regarding Marx as a representative of the “new socialist party.” [33]33 Hisayoshi Yoshinori (1864–1922) was a Japanese journalist and socialist writer. His *Recent Socialist Commentary* (1903) was one of the earliest works introducing European socialism to East Asia. In his “Reflections” written for this book, Du Shizhen argued that China’s social problems were then very severe—customs corrupted, morality declined, and the political system unequal. He “searched through ancient and modern books, traced the origins to the depths, and then turned back to seek the socialist theories of Eastern and Western political thinkers,” discovering that “the principles of Eastern and Western political scholars are profound and vast. The unprecedented great thoughts and great philosophies of our Confucian sages are all contained within them.” [34]34 Du Shizhen (dates unknown) was a late Qing dynasty Chinese scholar and translator active in introducing Western and Japanese socialist ideas. In Du’s view, foreign socialist doctrines were profound and grand, and the essential ideas of China’s Confucian sages were already included in them. However, he believed that, unlike traditional Chinese culture, modern socialist thought provided solutions to the serious social ills produced by modern social development and pointed the way to resolving problems of customs, morality, and political system. Thus, he welcomed socialism: “If the line of earthly civilization is to advance day by day, then this socialism will surely, first in the twentieth century, greatly develop among the white race—there is no doubt. I welcome it with repeated bows; I salute it with reverence.” [35]35 The phrase “I welcome it with repeated bows; I salute it with reverence” (吾再拜以迎之，吾顶礼以祝之) is a classical Chinese expression of profound respect and anticipation, here used to express Du’s enthusiastic endorsement of socialism.

马克思学说和社会主义理论有助于为解决中国的政治问题和社会问题提供思想指引。近代中国社会危机是一种系统性危机，解决近代中国的社会问题必须经由政治革命阶段推进到社会革命阶段，马克思主义致力于实现无产阶级和人类的解放，为解决上述问题提供了一套整体性方案。因而中国知识分子将目光转向域外的社会主义理论，运用社会主义理论分析和研究中国的社会矛盾与危机。久松义典所著的《近世社会主义评论》阐述和评论了近代欧洲社会主义发展的历史和流派，提到了马克思及其劳动价值理论，把马克思看作“新社会党”的代表人物。杜士珍在为这本书所撰写的“感言”中提出，当时中国社会问题十分严重，风俗败坏、道德衰落、政体不平等，他“徧阅古今书籍，探微穷源，返而求诸东西政治家社会主义之学说”，发现“东西政学家之言理也，精矣、宏矣。我先儒空前绝后之大思想大哲义尽于是矣”。在杜士珍看来，域外的社会主义学说精深、宏大，中国儒家先贤的思想精义已经包含于其中。但他认为，不同于中国传统文化，现代社会主义思想为现代社会发展所产生的严重社会弊病提供了解决方案，为解决风俗、道德、政体等问题指明了方向，因而他对社会主义持欢迎的态度，“倘地球文明之线，将日引而日进，则此社会主义者必先于二十世纪中，大发达于白皙人种无可疑也。吾再拜以迎之，吾顶礼以祝之”。

Traditional Chinese thought could not resolve the problem of modern social change; only by relying on socialist theory and the workers’ movement could social transformation be promoted. The social problems of modern China were, in the final analysis, the result of a chain reaction caused by the global movement of capital, which required a thorough theoretical critique of the logic of capital. This objectively made possible the powerful intervention of scientific socialist theory and the methods of the workers’ movement. In 1907, Arnold Roller’s book *The General Strike* was published. [36]36 Arnold Roller (pseudonym of Siegfried Nacht, 1873–1939) was a German anarchist writer and activist. His *The General Strike* (1905) was a key text in anarcho-syndicalist theory. This work discussed the historical evolution, contemporary development, and practical course of anarchism, arguing that to overthrow capitalism, a social revolution using the general strike as a means was necessary. The book mentioned Marx, Engels, and their doctrines five times, discussing Marx’s theory of economic crisis and arguing that the occurrence of economic crises could help the general strike succeed. In his preface to this book, Liu Shipei argued that the laboring people had made great contributions in China’s historical changes, but under the rapid development of industry and commerce, their situation was increasingly dire: “The people’s livelihood is full of hardships, truly rarely seen since ancient times,” leading to constant tax resistance and market closures. [37]37 Liu Shipei (1884–1919) was a Chinese philologist, revolutionary, and anarchist thinker who later turned to conservatism. He was active in introducing socialist and anarchist ideas to China in the early 1900s. Under these circumstances, relying on traditional Chinese outlaw-hero uprisings could not solve the problem; they would only “fail to pity the people’s toil,” and new solutions were needed. The “general strike” that emerged in the Western workers’ movement was one way out. Huang Kan also pointed out in his preface to the book that China needed to use the “general strike” to transform traditional Chinese secret-society organizations, overcoming the limitation that traditional secret societies lacked political goals. He argued that Chinese people should emulate the Western “labor associations,” carry out tax resistance and strikes, and advance social revolution. The text states: “If the plight of the peasants is not redressed, there is no better way than tax resistance; if the plight of the workers is not redressed, there is no better way than strikes. To redress the plight of peasants and workers and ensure they suffer no lasting hardship, there is no better way than to transform the current social system. This is truly called social revolution, and tax resistance and strikes are the revolution’s forerunners. Thus the scourge of poverty will be long suppressed.” [38]38 Huang Kan (1886–1935) was a Chinese philologist and revolutionary, a student of Zhang Binglin and a member of the anti-Manchu revolutionary circles. He briefly engaged with anarchist ideas in the early 1900s. It can be seen that, in the view of intellectuals like Liu Shipei and Huang Kan, to carry out social change, relying solely on traditional Chinese intellectual resources and practical methods could no longer resolve China’s comprehensive crisis. It was necessary to introduce new theoretical doctrines like socialism and new methods and practical experiences of struggle from the world workers’ movement as intellectual resources, to activate and supplement traditional Chinese thought, thereby leading social transformation.

中国传统思想无法解决近代的社会变革问题，只有借助社会主义理论与工人运动才能推动社会变革。近代中国的社会问题归根到底是资本的全球运动所导致的连锁反应的结果，需要在理论上对资本逻辑作出彻底批判，这在客观上就为科学社会主义理论和工人运动方法强有力的介入提供了可能。1907年，罗列（Arnold Roller）所著的《总同盟罢工》一书出版。这本书论述了无政府主义的历史演变、现实发展和实践历程，提出要推翻资本主义，必须进行以总同盟罢工为手段的社会革命。书中五次提及马克思、恩格斯及其学说，论述了马克思的经济危机理论，认为经济危机的发生能够助推总同盟罢工取得成功。刘师培在为这本书所作的序中提出，劳力之民在中国历史变革中厥功至伟，但在工商业迅速发展的形势下，劳力之民的处境却日益窘迫，“民生多艰，实振古所罕睹”，导致不断出现抗税休市的现象。在此种情况下，靠中国传统的绿林豪杰起义是无法解决问题的，只会“罔恤民劳”，需要新的解决方案。而西方工人运动中出现的“总同盟罢工”就是一条出路。黄侃也在为这本书所作的序中指出，中国需要以“总同盟罢工”改造中国传统的会党组织，克服传统会党缺乏政治目标的局限性，他认为国人应向西方的“劳民协会”看齐，进行抗税罢工，推进社会革命。文中称：“夫农困不伸，道莫良于抗税；工困不伸，道莫良于罢工。欲伸农工之困，而俾其永久无所苦焉，道又莫良于改造方今之群制。实曰社会革命，抗税罢工业之革命接之。而贫困之患，于以长戢。”由此可见，在刘师培、黄侃等知识分子看来，要进行社会变革，仅依靠中国传统的思想资源和实践方式已经无法解决中国的全面危机，必须引入社会主义等新的理论学说和世界工人运动的新的斗争方法和实践经验作为思想资源，激活和补充中国传统思想，以此引领社会变革。

In resolving the social crisis of modern China, Marxist doctrine gradually became the theoretical guide for the Chinese people to advance social transformation. In June 1912, the journal *New World* published an article titled “The Doctrine of Marx, the Great Socialist,” translated and narrated by Zhu Zhixin. He highly praised Marx and his thought, stating that “Marx (Marx — translator’s note) is none other than the world’s maker of the times, and the *Communist Manifesto* of the International Socialist Party is none other than the guiding line of the twentieth-century social revolution and the driving force of a new world of great harmony and peace,” and that it was necessary to “introduce Marx’s conduct and doctrine to our comrades and compatriots, so that they may know what to believe and follow, and what to emulate,” enabling the Chinese people to both believe in and practice Marxist doctrine. Of course, at this time, these early disseminators did not believe in Marxism; they still merely expounded it as a school of thought. By the time of the May Fourth New Culture Movement, the Chinese intellectual community, in response to the late-Qing concept of “Western learning as substance, Chinese learning as function” and the early Republican trend of revering Confucius and restoring antiquity, launched a systematic critique and reflection on traditional Chinese culture at the ideological and cultural level. They vigorously criticized the dregs of traditional Chinese culture, advocated learning from modern Western culture, and sought new ideas from foreign new cultures to save the nation and the people, making this a consensus among the intellectual community. On this basis, Li Dazhao, Chen Duxiu, and other Chinese Communists regarded Marxism as the ideological theory to solve China’s fundamental problems and thus systematically disseminated Marxism. While promoting China’s social transformation toward modernity, how to scientifically treat traditional Chinese culture became a question of the times facing the Chinese Communists. Li Dazhao proposed using Marxism to solve the practical problems of Chinese society and studying how to apply the doctrine “to the actual circumstances surrounding him.” In 1923, Qu Qiubai, in his new declaration for *New Youth*, proposed using Marxism to “study China’s actual political and economic conditions.” In 1927, he again proposed that “the work of applying Marxism to China’s national conditions cannot be delayed for a single day.” Mao Zedong was the pioneer and outstanding representative of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context. He explicitly stated, “We must apply the methods of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin to China and create something new out of them.” Using Marxism to examine and analyze traditional Chinese culture was an inherent part of applying Marxism to China. How to discard the dross and select the essence, to eliminate the false and retain the true, was an unavoidable major proposition in the process of China’s social transformation. In *On the New Stage*, Mao Zedong pointed out, “From Confucius to Sun Yat-sen, we should sum up and inherit this precious legacy.” On this basis, the Chinese people needed to use Marxism to propel traditional Chinese culture toward modernity, to use Marxism to solve the problem that traditional Chinese culture was insufficient to address the challenges of modern China’s social transformation, and to realize the modern transformation of traditional Chinese culture. At the same time, this was also a process of Marxism “traveling” from abroad to China, combining with China’s native environment, and ultimately achieving localization. In Mao’s words, “Marxism must be realized through its combination with China’s specific characteristics and through a certain national form,” and it was necessary to “make Marxism-Leninism, this revolutionary science, further and deeply combine with China’s revolutionary practice, Chinese history, and Chinese culture.” The introduction of Marxism into China promoted the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture, thereby providing ideological and theoretical guidance for China’s revolution, construction, and reform. Summarizing the process of China’s modern and contemporary historical evolution and development, it can be seen that: “Only by integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities and fine traditional culture, and by adhering to the use of dialectical materialism and historical materialism, can we correctly answer the major questions posed by the times and practice, and can we always maintain the vigorous vitality and strong vitality of Marxism.”

在解决近代中国社会危机面前，马克思学说逐渐成为中国人推进社会变革的理论指引。1912年6月，《新世界》杂志发表了朱执信译述的《社会主义大家马儿克之学说》一文，他高度评价马克思及其思想学说，提出“马儿克（马克思——引者注）者，不啻全世界之造时势者，而万国社会党之《共产宣言书》，又不啻二十世纪社会革命之引导线，大同太平新世界之原动力也”，要把“马儿克之行义、之学说绍介之于吾同党、吾同胞，知所信从而知所则效焉”，使国人对马克思学说能够信仰之且实行之。当然，这时的早期传播者并不信仰马克思主义，他们仍然只是将其作为一种思想学说予以阐介。至五四新文化运动时期，中国知识界为回应清末以来“西学为体、中学为用”的观念和民国初年尊孔复古的逆流，在思想文化层面对中国传统文化作出了系统性的批判与反思。他们大力批判中国传统文化中的糟粕，提倡学习西方现代文化，从域外新文化中寻求救国救民的新思想并使之成为知识界的共识。李大钊、陈独秀等中国共产党人在此基础上把马克思主义看作解决中国社会根本问题的思想理论，因而系统性地传播马克思主义。在推动中国社会向现代转型之时，如何科学对待中国传统文化，成为摆在中国共产党人面前的时代问题。李大钊提出，要运用马克思主义解决中国社会的现实问题，研究如何把主义“应用于环绕着他的实境”。1923年，瞿秋白在为《新青年》所撰写的新宣言中提出，要运用马克思主义“研究中国现实的政治经济状况”。1927年，他再次提出，“应用马克思主义于中国国情的工作，断不可一日或缓”。毛泽东是马克思主义中国化的开拓者和杰出代表。他明确提出“要把马、恩、列、斯的方法用到中国来，在中国创造出一些新的东西”。而用马克思主义来审视和分析中华传统文化是马克思主义应用于中国的题中应有之义，如何去粗取精、去伪存真，是中国社会转型过程中不可回避的重大命题。毛泽东在《论新阶段》中指出，“从孔夫子到孙中山，我们应当给以总结，承继这一份珍贵的遗产”。在此基础上，中国人需要以马克思主义推动中国传统文化走向现代，以马克思主义来解决中国传统文化不足以应对近代中国社会转型问题的难题，实现中国传统文化的现代转型，同时这也是域外的马克思主义“旅行”到中国，与中国本土环境相结合，最终实现本土化的过程。用毛泽东的话来说，即“马克思主义必须和我国的具体特点相结合并通过一定的民族形式才能实现”，同上。必须“使得马克思列宁主义这一革命科学更进一步地和中国革命实践、中国历史、中国文化深相结合起来”。马克思主义传入中国，推动了中国传统文化的创造性转化和创新性发展，由此为中国的革命、建设和改革事业提供了思想和理论指导。总结中国近现代历史演进与发展的进程可知：“只有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，坚持运用辩证唯物主义和历史唯物主义，才能正确回答时代和实践提出的重大问题，才能始终保持马克思主义的蓬勃生机和旺盛活力。”

In summary, Chinese intellectuals seeking a new spiritual home recognized that traditional Chinese culture could not fully and effectively solve the problem of “metabolism” in modern Chinese society, while Marxism provided a solution to the crisis of modern Chinese society and promoted the modern transformation and innovative development of traditional Chinese culture. This was a major advance in ideological understanding: on the basis of recognizing the commonalities between Marxism and traditional Chinese culture, it was proposed that Marxism needed to activate the vital elements of fine traditional Chinese culture, enabling Chinese civilization to once again burst forth with vigorous vitality and powerful spiritual strength. Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture moved from mutual compatibility to convergence and collision, mutual supplementation and mutual achievement. Under the guidance and influence of Marxism, Chinese culture adapted to the development of modern society, acquired new ideological connotations and characteristics of the times, achieved transformation and reconstruction, and promoted the rebirth of modern Chinese ideology and culture dominated by Marxism. As General Secretary Xi Jinping said: “Marxism brought advanced ideological theory to China, activated the genes of Chinese civilization with the light of truth, led China into the modern world, and promoted the life renewal and modern transformation of Chinese civilization.”

综上所述，试图寻找新的精神家园的中国知识分子认识到，中国传统文化并不能充分而有效地解决中国近代社会的“新陈代谢”问题，而马克思主义为解决中国近代社会的危机提供了方案，推动了中国传统文化的现代转型和创新发展。这是思想认识上的一大进步，即在认识到马克思主义与中国传统文化有相通之处的基础上，提出了需要以马克思主义激活中华优秀传统文化中富有生命力的元素，使中华文明再次迸发出蓬勃生机和强大精神力量。马克思主义与中华优秀传统文化从互相契合发展到交汇激荡、相济互补、相互成就，中国文化在马克思主义的引领和影响下，适应现代社会发展，具备了新的思想内涵和时代特征，实现了变革和再造，促进了以马克思主义为主导的现代中国思想文化的新生。正如习近平总书记所说：“马克思主义把先进的思想理论带到中国，以真理之光激活了中华文明的基因，引领中国走进现代世界，推动了中华文明的生命更新和现代转型。”

III. Translators of Marxist Literature as the “Bridge” and Promoters of the Integration of Marxism with Fine Traditional Chinese Culture

三、马克思主义文献译者是马克思主义与中华优秀传统文化相结合的“桥梁”和推动者

Marxist literature entered China through translation. Translators, as the subjects of translation, played a key role in the process of Marxism’s introduction into China. Mao Zedong once said: “Do not look down on comrades engaged in translation; if we did not bring in some foreign things, how would China know what Marxism-Leninism is?” From the perspective of the translator, translation is a creative act of transforming the “guest language” into the “host language.” “When concepts move from the guest language to the host language, meaning is not so much ‘changed’ as invented and created in the native environment of the host language”; this is a “cross-lingual practical process.” In the translation process, translators always consciously or unconsciously integrate their own understanding of the text into the translation, so the final translation is no longer merely a translation of the original work but contains the translator’s viewpoints, demands, and expectations. Translators are concrete individuals in reality, constrained and conditioned by established social, economic, and cultural structures. Translators in the late Qing and early Republican periods were deeply steeped in traditional Chinese culture and influenced by the social reality of national salvation and survival. In the translation process, they inevitably understood the content of the original works from the perspective of China’s historical culture and social reality, often combining the theories in the original works with traditional Chinese culture and social reality to form new cognitions, which were then presented in the text. The translation practice of translators of Marxist literature promoted the integrated development of Marxism and fine traditional Chinese culture.

马克思主义文献是通过翻译进入中国的。译者作为翻译的主体，在马克思主义传入中国的过程中发挥了关键作用。毛泽东曾说：“不要轻视搞翻译的同志，如果不搞一点外国的东西，中国哪晓得什么是马列主义？”从译者的角度来说，翻译是将“客方语言”转变为“主方语言”的一种创造行为，“当概念从客方语言走向主方语言时，意义与其说是发生了‘改变’，不如说是在主方语言的本土环境中发明创造出来的”，这是一种“跨语际的实践过程”。在翻译过程中，译者总是有意无意地将自己对文本的理解融入译本，因而最终产生的译本不再仅仅是对原著的翻译，而是包含了译者的观点、诉求和期待。译者是现实中的具体的人，受到既定的社会、经济、文化结构的制约和规定。清末民初的译者深受中国传统文化的浸润和救亡图存的社会现实的影响，在翻译过程中，总是不可避免地从中国的历史文化和社会现实出发来理解原著中的内容，常常将原著中的理论与中国传统文化和社会现实相结合而形成新的认知，并呈现于文本中。马克思主义文献译者的翻译实践促进了马克思主义与中华优秀传统文化的融合发展。

The channels through which Marxism entered China included the Japanese channel, the European and American channel, and the Soviet channel. Before the mid-1920s, the Japanese channel was the main channel. The vast majority of Marxist literature that entered China through the Japanese channel was first translated by Japanese translators from European and American languages into Japanese, and then translated by Chinese translators from Japanese into Chinese. Japanese translators served as the “setters” of Marxist literature from the West to China. Another part consisted of works written by Japanese socialists themselves.

马克思主义传入中国的途径有日本渠道、欧美渠道和苏联渠道。20世纪20年代中期以前，日本渠道是主渠道，从日本渠道传入中国的马克思主义文献的数量占据了绝大多数，其中一部分是日本译者从欧美国家的文字翻译为日文，继而由中国译者从日文译为中文，日本译者充当了马克思主义文献自西入中的“二传手”。另有一部分是日本社会主义者自己撰写的论著。

The attempts and practices of Japanese scholars to understand, translate, and interpret Marxism using traditional Chinese culture provided important mirrors for the Chinese introduction of Marxism.

日本学者运用中国传统文化理解、翻译和阐释马克思主义的尝试和实践，为中国人引介马克思主义提供了重要镜鉴。

“It was not until approximately 1919, the year of the ‘May Fourth Movement,’ that the Chinese people’s understanding of various European socialist currents, including the socialist doctrine founded by Marx and Engels, came almost entirely from the Japanese language, either through Japanese translations of original European works or through Japanese socialist writings.” The ideological and cultural concepts of Japanese translators and authors exerted a significant influence on Chinese translators and readers. Some of them, possessing a high level of Chinese cultural literacy themselves, often integrated traditional Chinese culture into their writings on socialism or their translations of Western scholars’ socialist works. When these works were translated into Chinese by Chinese translators, the strong Chinese cultural coloration they carried was preserved in the translated texts and recognized by Chinese readers. For example, Kōtoku Shūsui, who received a Confucian education in school from a young age, had a high level of Sinological literacy. He once explicitly stated, “I entered socialism from Confucianism.” In his work *The Broad Tongue* [Guangchang she], which expounds socialist theory, he quoted extensively from figures, events, sayings, and allusions in ancient Chinese history and culture. He did the same in another work, *The Essence of Socialism* [Shehui zhuyi shen sui]. In the “Introduction” of this book, he cited Guan Zhong’s saying, “When the granaries are full, the people know propriety and righteousness,” to illustrate the importance of the “problem of food and clothing”: “The first principle of human life is indeed the problem of food and clothing.” In the second chapter, he quoted the verse “Those clad in silk and satin are not the silkworm raisers” to explain that social wealth is created by laborers, but in a society based on private ownership, laborers, lacking the means of production, toil arduously yet still cannot solve the problem of subsistence. Furthermore, he also cited discussions from ancient texts such as *A New Account of the Tales of the World* [Shishuo xinyu], *Notes from a Small Window* [Xiaochuang youji], and *Tending the Roots of Wisdom* [Caigen tan] as evidence to elaborate his theories. From this, it can be seen that fine traditional Chinese culture exerted a tremendous radiating and influencing power over neighboring countries like Japan. Japanese scholars consciously used the discourse system and ideological content of Chinese traditional culture to expound socialist theory. This not only facilitated the large-scale translation of Marxist and socialist works by Chinese translators but also provided a mirror and reference for Chinese translators’ exploration and practice of integrating Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture. For instance, in August 1920, Chen Wangdao’s translation of *The Communist Manifesto* was published by New Youth Society; its base text was the 1906 Japanese translation of *The Communist Manifesto* co-translated by Kōtoku Shūsui and Sakai Toshihiko. The Japanese translation had a great influence on Chen Wangdao’s translation; Chen Wangdao’s version borrowed and drew upon a large number of Chinese-character terms from the Japanese translation. In these two translations, at least 70 terms are identical or similar, and many words with minor differences also appeared.

“大约直到1919年，即‘五四运动’那一年，中国人对欧洲各社会主义流派的了解，包括对马克思、恩格斯创立的社会主义学说的了解几乎全部来自日语，或是欧洲语言原著的日文翻译，或是日语的社会主义著作。”日本译者和作者的思想文化观念对中国译者和读者产生了重要影响，他们中的一些人本身就具备较高的中国文化素养，在写作社会主义论著或翻译西方学者的社会主义著作时常将中国传统文化融入其中，被中国人译为汉语后，其著作所带有的浓厚的中国文化色彩也延续在译著之中而为中国读者所识。例如，幸德秋水从小在学堂受到儒家文化的教育，具有较高的汉学素养。他曾明确说：“我是从儒家进入社会主义。”他在《广长舌》这部论述社会主义理论的著作中，引用了大量中国古代历史文化中的人物、事件、语录和典故。他在另一部著作《社会主义神髓》中也是如此。在这本书的“绪论”中，他引用管仲的“仓廪实而知礼节”来说明“衣食问题”的重要性：“人生之第一义者，固衣食问题也。”他在第二章中引用“满身罗绮者，匪是养蚕人”的诗句来说明社会财富本是劳动者创造的，但在私有制社会，劳动者因缺乏生产资料十分辛苦，却依旧无法解决温饱的问题。此外，他还引用了《世说新语》《小窗幽记》《菜根谭》等古籍中的论述作为依据来阐发理论。由此观之，中华优秀传统文化对日本等周边国家有着巨大的辐射力和影响力，日本学者自觉地运用中国传统文化的话语体系和思想内容来阐发社会主义理论。这既为中国译者大量翻译马克思主义、社会主义论著提供了便利，也为中国译者将马克思主义与中华优秀传统文化相结合的探索和实践提供了镜鉴。例如，1920年8月，陈望道所译的《共产党宣言》由新青年社出版，其底本即1906年幸德秋水和堺利彦合译的《共产党宣言》日译本。日译本对陈望道的翻译产生了很大影响，陈望道译本借用、借鉴了日译本中的大量汉字词术语。在这两个译本中，至少有70个术语相同或相近，同时还出现了很多大同小异的词。

Translators used the discourse and thought of Chinese traditional culture to understand and express Marxism, presenting readers with a new text that had integrated fine traditional Chinese culture through the translator’s work. In 1899, issues 121–124 of *The Review of the Times* [Wanguo gongbao] serialized chapters one through four of *Datongxue* [The Great Learning of Universal Harmony], orally translated by Timothy Richard and transcribed by Cai Erkang; the single-volume edition published the same year added chapters five through ten, making ten chapters in total. *Datongxue* used the translated name “Marx” for the first time, mentioned the name of Engels (rendered as “Engesi” in the text), and briefly touched upon discussions in *The Communist Manifesto* and Marx’s thought and doctrine. The base text of this translation was *Social Evolution*, a work by the British scholar Benjamin Kidd. In translating, the translators introduced concepts from Chinese traditional culture, rendering the book’s title as *Datongxue*. The translators also, starting from the traditional Chinese ideas of pacifying the people and nourishing the people, regarded Marx as a “scholar of the new learning for pacifying the people” and a “scholar of nourishing the people,” understanding Marx’s doctrine as a doctrine of saving the world, as a kind of “new learning for pacifying the people.” The translated text reads, “In Germany, there are famous scholars who study the nourishing of the people: one is called ‘Marx,’ and the other is called ‘Engels.’” In their translation, the translators also frequently integrated ideas from traditional Chinese classics into the translated text. For example, the line in chapter three of *Datongxue*, “Heaven gives birth to the multitudes of people; for everything there is a norm. The people hold to their constant nature; they love this excellent virtue,” comes from the “Greater Odes of the Kingdom” section of the *Book of Songs* [Shijing]. In 1899, the Christian Literature Society for China published *The Plan for Enriching the People* [Fumin ce], translated collaboratively by the British missionary W. E. Macklin and the Chinese Li Yushu. This book was an excerpted and paraphrased translation of *Progress and Poverty* by Henry George, a representative of single-tax socialism. The first chapter of *Fumin ce* introduced the disagreement between Henry George and Thomas Robert Malthus over the causes of popular poverty. George believed that the cause of poverty was not the excessively rapid population growth proposed by Malthus, but rather the insufficiency of food supplied by the land. Taking China, India, and other countries as examples, he pointed out that there was no necessary connection between poverty and population size; the main cause of poverty lay in unequal distribution, in the plunder of the poor by the rich, that is, “the usurpation by those above.” The translator used Confucius’s view on equalizing wealth and poverty to prove George’s point: “Therefore, I can sum it up with one saying of Confucius: ‘One is not concerned about scarcity but about inequality.’ How can it be determined by increases or decreases in population numbers or by the abundance or scarcity of food? This theory of Mr. Malthus, together with the rent theory of Mr. Ricardo… are equally erroneous.” In the translator’s view, the ancient Chinese idea of equalizing wealth and poverty was consistent with the socialist pursuit of equality for all people. The translator interpreted the West through China and narrated the West through China; Confucius’s idea of equalizing wealth and poverty became the argument for expounding George’s socialist doctrine. In 1912, the Christian Literature Society for China published Hu Yigu’s translation of *A History of Western Socialism* [Taixi minfa zhi], whose base text was Thomas Kirkup’s *A History of Socialism*, which systematically discussed European socialist thought and movements from the 19th to the early 20th century. The work praised Marx as “the epoch-making thinker of the nineteenth century” and provided focused introductions to the deeds and thoughts of Marx, Engels, and Ferdinand Lassalle. Starting from traditional Chinese thought, the translator also understood socialism as a doctrine of saving the world, and, believing that this book discussing socialism “was detailed on the governance of people’s livelihood,” translated socialism as “minfa” [the law of the people]. In summary, through the interpretation and re-creation of translators, “socialism was not, for Easterners, as ‘foreign’ as people sometimes thought it to be”; on the contrary, it shared common points and points of convergence with Chinese culture at various levels, such as discourse and thought. This provided an ideological and cultural foundation for Marxism to take root in the fertile soil of Chinese culture.

译者运用中国传统文化的话语和思想来理解和表述马克思主义，呈现在读者面前的是经过译者融入了中华优秀传统文化之后的新文本。1899年，《万国公报》第121~124期连载了李提摩太口译、蔡尔康笔述的《大同学》第一至四章，同年出版的单行本增加了第五至十章，共十章。《大同学》首次使用了“马克思”这一译名，提到了恩格斯（文中为“恩格思”）的名字，同时简要提及了《共产党宣言》中的论述和马克思的思想学说。该译本的底本是英国学者本杰明·基德（Benjamin Kidd）所著的《社会进化》。译者在翻译时引用中国传统文化中的概念，将书名译作“大同学”。译者还从中国传统文化中的安民、养民的思想出发，将马克思看作“安民新学者”和“养民学者”，将马克思学说理解为一种救世学说，看作“安民新学”的一种。译文写道，“德国讲求养民学者，有名人焉：一曰‘马克思’，一曰‘恩格思’”。译者在翻译中还常将中国传统典籍中的思想融入译本，如《大同学》第三章中的“天生蒸民，有物有则。民之秉彝，好是懿德”就出自《诗经·大雅·烝民》。1899年，广学会出版了英国传教士马林（W. E. Macklin）和中国人李玉书合作翻译的《富民策》，这本书节选、译述自单税社会主义的代表人物亨利·乔治（Henry George）所著的《进步与贫困》。《富民策》第一章介绍了亨利·乔治和马尔萨斯（Thomas Robert Malthus）关于民众致贫原因的分歧。乔治认为贫困的原因并不在于马尔萨斯所提出的人口增长过快，而在于土地所供应的食物不足。他以中国、印度等国为例指出，贫困与人口多寡没有必然联系，贫困的主要原因在于分配不均，在于富人对穷人的掠夺，即“在上者之霸占”。译者以孔子关于均贫富的观点来证明乔治的观点：“故吾得执孔子一言以蔽之曰‘不患贫而患不均’而已。岂人数增减，食物多寡，可得而定哉。此马氏之说，与黎氏（李嘉图，David Ricardo——引者注）田租论，……同属一谬。”在译者看来，中国古代的均贫富思想与社会主义追求人人平等的理念是相契合的。译者以中解西、以中述西，孔子均贫富的思想成为阐述乔治社会主义学说的论据。1912年，上海广学会出版了胡贻谷翻译的《泰西民法志》，该书底本是托马斯·柯卡普所著的《社会主义史》，系统论述了19世纪至20世纪初欧美社会主义思想和运动。该书称赞马克思是“十九期破天荒之思想家”，对马克思、恩格斯、拉萨尔（Ferdinand Lassalle）的事迹和思想都做了重点介绍。译者从中国传统思想出发，也将社会主义理解为一种救世学说，认为这本论述社会主义的书“详于民生治道”，因而将社会主义译为“民法”。综上所述，经过译者的演绎和再造，“社会主义对于东方人说来，并不像人们有时以为的那么‘外来’”，反而与中国文化在话语和思想等诸层面有着共同点和契合点，这为马克思主义植根于中国文化沃土提供了思想和文化基础。

In the process of translation, translators adhered to the traditional Chinese intellectual tradition and philosophical method of “statecraft” [jingshi zhiyong], often using the Marxist doctrines and socialist theories in the translated texts to observe and analyze the practical problems of Chinese society, expounding their insights on China’s social issues. In 1903, issues 2–6 of *New World Journal* [Xin shijie xuebao] serialized *A Review of Modern Socialism* [Jinshi shehui zhuyi pinglun], written by the Japanese scholar Hisamatsu Yoshinori and translated by Du Shizhen. In the text, the translator Du Shizhen, drawing on the social conditions in Europe, argued that the inequality between rich and poor in China was similar to the conditions in Europe three hundred years prior, but that Europe had evolved rapidly in the last hundred years, and this situation had already changed. Even so, “today, the socialist parties in Europe and America still vehemently decry the inequality of economic assets; yet farmers, workers, and merchants each enjoy their own freedom of rights. Workers and their masters each abide by contracts, not encroaching upon or insulting each other. If there is an imbalance, they close shops or go on strike. Even the government can do nothing about it. The disparity in power has already been reduced by seven or eight-tenths compared to China.” He lamented: “Our China, long reputed as a land of culture and refinement, is still at a level Europe was at three hundred years ago.” From this, he linked it to China’s history and culture, severely criticizing China’s autocratic system, believing that “From the Warring States period

译者在翻译过程中秉持中国传统经世致用的思想传统和哲学方法，常运用译本中的马克思学说和社会主义理论来观照和分析中国社会的现实问题，阐发对中国社会问题的见解。1903年《新世界学报》第2~6期连载了日本学者久松义典著、杜士珍翻译的《近世社会主义评论》，译者杜士珍在文中结合欧洲的社会状况，认为中国的贫富不平等状况与欧洲三百年前的状况相似，但欧洲近百年以来进化迅速，这种状况已经得到改变。即使如此，“今日欧美社会党，犹痛言经济资产之不平等者，然农工商各得其自由之权。为工者之与主人，各守条约，不相侵侮。一不能平，罢市、罢工。虽政府，莫如之何。高下之势，较中国已减去十之七八矣”。他慨叹道：“我中国夙称文物之邦，其程度犹在欧洲三百年以前也”，由此联系中国的历史文化，严厉批评中国的专制制度，认为“中国自列战至今，诸子百家，具有智力，具有思想者，累不乏人。虽以孔孟为后世之所信仰，庙堂威赫，乃与偶人等视，几何而奉其一言一行以为世法乎……我中国之人，虽经种种变迁、久久刺击，未有进步。岂吾种类固将去禽兽原人之状态无几乎？此吾所以痛恨于专制亡民之深也”。可见，译者的译述实践体现了以天下兴亡为己任的现实关怀。

Translators of Marxist texts often adopted the literary forms and formats of traditional Chinese books to reshape the narrative of the translated works and reorganize their structure. The narrative structure is not only the form of presentation of ideas and concepts but also the mode of development of the author’s logical thinking. Translators frequently used traditional Chinese literary forms and book-formatting methods to transform the original works, renaming the translated book titles and chapter headings, or reorganizing the structure of the original book. Bellamy’s utopian socialist novel *Looking Backward: 2000–1887* has 24 chapters, none of which have titles. In the classical Chinese translation *Bainian Yijue* [A Hundred Years’ Awakening], the translator summarized the main idea of each chapter and assigned each a neat four-character title, such as “Labor Contends for Value,” “Fairness in Wages,” “Labor-Saving and Low Cost,” “The Elderly Are Provided For,” “All People Read Books,” and “Men and Women Are Equally Valued.” In another translation of this book, *Huituo Kan* [Looking Back], the translator transformed the translation into a traditional Chinese vernacular *zhanghui* novel [46]46 A traditional Chinese novel genre with chapter divisions, each headed by a couplet summarizing the content, often used in vernacular fiction., merging the original 24 chapters into 12 and assigning each chapter an eight-character antithetical title, such as “Equalizing Wealth and Abolishing Capitalists, Setting Time Periods and Dividing Labor Teams,” “New Court System with Simple Governance and Clear Penalties, Past Traces in the Valley with People Gone and Things Remaining,” “Emphasizing Universal Assessment in the Education Sector, Esteeming Public Welfare and Uniting the Labor Field,” and so on. In 1902, the Japanese scholar Yano Fumio’s *New Society* was published by Tokyo’s Dai Nippon Tosho Kabushiki Kaisha, and the following year two Chinese translations appeared: *New Society*, translated and published by Shanghai Zuoxin Society, and *Ultimate Bliss World*, translated by Pixuedongzhu. The translator Pixuedongzhu also transformed *Ultimate Bliss World* into a vernacular *zhanghui* novel, rewriting each section’s title into a couplet-style heading, such as “Freely Competing, Each Seeking Rights and Interests, Opening Up Society, Private Discussions on Maintenance,” “New Life Roughly Divided into Three Types, Old Charity Not Worth Half a Penny,” “Opening Elections, Monarch and People Become One Body, Auditing Accounts, Both Large and Small Are Fully Funded,” and so on. He also adopted the form of traditional Chinese storytelling in this translation, appending at the end of each section the closing phrase “If you want to know what happens next, listen to the next installment,” which was engaging and left readers full of anticipation. It is evident that the translators reconstructed the narrative structure of the original works based on the characteristics of Chinese literary works, making the translations not seem like translations but like works written by Chinese themselves, thereby enhancing their appeal to readers.

马克思主义文献译者常采用中国传统书籍的文体和形式来改造译著的叙事，重新编排译著的结构。叙事结构既是思想观念的呈现形式，也是著者逻辑思维的展开方式。译者常用中国传统的文体形式和书籍编排形式对原著进行改造，重新拟定译作书名和章节标题，或重新编排原书结构。贝拉米的空想社会主义小说《回顾：公元2000—1887年》共24章，每章并无标题，而在这本书的文言译本《百年一觉》中，译者概括了每一章的主旨，并为每一章重新拟定了工整的四字标题，如“工争价值”“薪资平允”“工省价廉”“老有所养”“人皆读书”“男女并重”等。在这本书的另一个译本《回头看》中，译者将译本改造为中国传统的白话章回体小说，将原书24章合并为12章，并为每一章拟定了八言对仗的标题，如“均贫富尽废资本家、定年期分编工艺队”“讼庭新制政简刑清、壑谷前尘人亡物在”“重普及评衡教育界、尚公益通合工艺场”等。1902年，日本学者矢野文雄所著的《新社会》由东京大日本图书株式会社出版，次年便产生了两个汉译本，即上海作新社翻译、出版的《新社会》和披雪洞主翻译的《极乐世界》。译者披雪洞主也将译作《极乐世界》改造为白话章回体小说，将原著每一节的标题改拟为对联式的标题，如“随意竞争各谋权利，开通社会私议维持”“新生活概分三种类，旧慈善不值半文钱”“开选举君民成一体，核会计钜细尽兼资”等。他还在这本译作中采用中国传统说书的形式，于文末附有“欲知后事如何，且听下回分解”的结束语，引人入胜，令读者充满期待。可见，译者基于中国文学作品特点重构原著的叙述结构，使得译本不似译作，却似中国人自己撰写的著作，从而增强了译本对读者的吸引力。

Other translators of Marxist texts imitated the forms of “Taishigong says” in *Records of the Grand Historian* and “Yishishi says” in *Strange Tales from a Chinese Studio*, adding their own comments on the original content in the translation in the form of “Translator says.” The translator of *Commentary on Modern Socialism*, Du Shizhen, expressed his own views in the translation using the form “Translator says.” In this translation, there are 19 instances of “Translator says,” in addition to phrases like “Translator also says,” “Translator’s note,” “Translator’s additional note,” and “At this point, the translator cannot help but applaud,” all similar expressions of the translator’s commentary. These comments either provided popular explanations of basic terms and important viewpoints in the original work, deepened and expanded on the original viewpoints, applied the original viewpoints to analyze China’s social problems by linking them to Chinese history, culture, and social reality, or used the original content to articulate the translator’s independent insights. In Chapter 2, Du Shizhen highly praised the achievements of European socialist parties in promoting socialist ideals in Europe and America, advancing social reform, improving industrial economy and labor organization, and formulating various new proposals and laws. Linking this to Chinese history and culture, he argued that “Confucius was also a great socialist,” stating that Confucius “sought to open up wasteland in barren lands, spread culture and education in new states, and cast a ray of light between heaven and earth,” which was “the same painstaking effort” as that of European socialist parties settling in America. While European socialist parties succeeded, Confucius “had no material to work with and harbored resentment toward the world,” and Du believed the reason was that “Confucius was unable to teach.” As a form of commentary, “Translator says” represents the translator’s remarks based on the original text, linking it to Chinese history, culture, and social reality. This added a distinct Chinese flavor to the socialist translations, helping them adapt to the local Chinese environment and facilitating readers’ understanding of the translations.

还有的马克思主义文献译者模仿《史记》中“太史公曰”、《聊斋志异》中“异史氏曰”的形式，以“译者曰”的形式在译文中添加个人对原著内容的评论。《近世社会主义评论》的译者杜士珍，就以“译者曰”的形式在译文中表达了自己的观点。此译本中“译者曰”共19处，除此之外，还有“译者又曰”“译者案”“译者又案”“译者至此，不禁拍案叫绝”等类似抒发译者评论之语。这些评论或对原著中的基本术语和重要观点作普及性的解释，或对原著中的观点进行深化和扩展，或联系中国历史文化和社会现实运用原著中的观点分析中国的社会问题，或借助原著内容阐发个人的独立见解。在第二章中，杜士珍对欧洲社会党在欧美宣传社会主义理想、推进社会改革、改良产业经济和劳动组织、制定各种新案新法等方面所取得的成就予以高度评价。他联系中国的历史文化认为，“孔子亦一大社会党也”，孔子“冀以辟草莱于荒土，施文教于新国，为天地间放一光明之线”，这与欧洲社会党之辟居美洲，“同一苦心孤诣”。欧洲社会党取得了成功，孔子却“无所取材，抱愤来世”，他认为原因在于“孔子之不得以施教”。作为一种评论形式，“译者曰”是译者根据原著中的论述，联系中国历史文化和社会实际而抒发的评论，这为社会主义译著增添了鲜明的中国气息，有助于译著适应中国本土环境，便于读者对译著的理解。

The creative practices of early translators in rendering Marxist theory and socialist theory provided ideological groundwork and important reference for Chinese Communists to combine Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture. Take Qu Qiubai, an early leader of the CPC, as an example. His two works *Introduction to Social Philosophy* and *Modern Sociology* were both translated from Bukharin’s *Historical Materialism: A System of Sociology*. In the process of translation, Qu often used the theories from the original work to analyze China’s social phenomena and problems, and, based on the original theories, added cases, classical sayings, and colloquialisms suited to the Chinese context, replacing foreign cultural examples with ones imbued with Chinese history and culture, thereby constructing a world of meaning and local color consistent with the Chinese context. In *Modern Sociology*, Qu used terms and examples originating from Chinese soil, such as “Jade Emperor,” “City God and Earth God,” “Du Gongbu,” and “Confucius the Second,” to elucidate the philosophical theories in Bukharin’s original work. He employed sentences and words “that could be spoken by Chinese people” to express ideas, enabling the new theory “to be integrated into the broad masses’ lives,” giving the translations their own Chinese linguistic characteristics and cultural connotations. Through cross-linguistic re-creative practices such as selective retranslation, creative processing, technical avoidance, and specialized annotation, Qu achieved an initial integration of Marxism with Chinese culture in both content and form. It can be said that “the introduction of Marxism into China was not merely a process of translation into Chinese, but a continuous fusion with China’s indigenous thought and culture, becoming part of China’s indigenous culture.” The combination of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture is key to Marxism taking root and flourishing in China. Qu Qiubai’s creative translation of Marxist philosophy gave Marxist philosophy a new life form in China. Through the development of Ai Siqi’s *Popular Philosophy*, and culminating in Mao Zedong’s *On Contradiction* and *On Practice*, representative achievements of the sinicization of Marxist philosophy were finally formed. Mao Zedong was an outstanding representative among Chinese Communists in combining the basic principles of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture. The dialectics Mao expounded were “the product of the collision between two different cultures and modes of thinking—Chinese and Western.” Before Mao, Soviet textbooks, when discussing Marxist philosophy, distinguished between principal and secondary contradictions, as well as the principal and secondary aspects of a contradiction, but did not propose the idea of mutual transformation. Mao, combining the dialectics of the “image thinking” [47]47 A mode of thinking in traditional Chinese philosophy that relies on intuitive, holistic, and analogical imagery, as opposed to abstract logical analysis. tradition of Chinese philosophy, proposed the idea that principal and secondary contradictions, and the principal and secondary aspects of a contradiction, transform into each other under certain conditions. He also opposed regarding the negation of the negation as a basic law of dialectics and was the first to propose that the relationship between the universality and particularity of principal contradictions, and between commonality and individuality, is the essence of materialist dialectics.

早期译者翻译马克思学说和社会主义理论的创造性实践，为中国共产党人将马克思主义与中华优秀传统文化相结合提供了思想铺垫和重要借鉴。以中国共产党的早期领导人瞿秋白为例，他的《社会哲学概论》和《现代社会学》两本著作均转译自布哈林的《历史唯物主义理论》一书，在翻译过程中，瞿秋白常运用原著中的理论分析中国的社会现象和社会问题，并结合原著理论，增添符合中国语境的案例、古语和俚语，使用蕴含中国历史文化的事例取代外国文化案例，建构符合中国语境的意义世界和本土色彩。在《现代社会学》一书中，瞿秋白运用“玉皇大帝”“城隍土地”“杜工部”“孔老二”等产生于中国大地的词汇和事例来阐发布哈林原著中的哲学理论，使用“中国人嘴里可以说得出来的”的句子和字眼来表述思想，使新的理论“能够容纳到广大的群众生活里去”，使译作带有中国人自己的语言特色和文化内涵。瞿秋白采用选择性转译、创造性加工、技术性规避、专业性注释等跨语际的再造实践，实现了马克思主义与中国文化在内容和形式上的初步结合。可以说，“马克思主义传入中国不只是译为汉语的过程，而是与中国本土思想文化不断融合，成为中国本土文化的过程”。马克思主义与中华优秀传统文化相结合是马克思主义能够在中国落地生根并枝繁叶茂的关键。瞿秋白对马克思主义哲学的创造性翻译，使马克思主义哲学在中国获得了新的生命形式，经过艾思奇《大众哲学》的发展，至毛泽东的《矛盾论》《实践论》，终于形成了马克思主义哲学中国化的代表性成果。毛泽东是中国共产党人中把马克思主义基本原理与中华优秀传统文化相结合的杰出代表。毛泽东所阐发的辩证法即“中西两种不同文化和思维方式碰撞的产物”。在毛泽东之前，苏联教科书在论述马克思主义哲学时区分了主要矛盾和次要矛盾，以及矛盾的主要方面和次要方面，但并未提出相互转化的思想。而毛泽东结合中国哲学传统的“象思维”的辩证法，提出了主要矛盾和次要矛盾、矛盾主要方面和次要方面在一定条件下互相转化的思想，他还反对把否定之否定看作辩证法的基本规律，并首次提出主要矛盾的普遍性和特殊性、共性和个性的关系问题是唯物辩证法的精髓。

From the above it can be seen that the early dissemination of Marxism in China first addressed the problem of how to make Marx and Engels “speak Chinese.” “In the process of translation and introduction, nearly all intellectuals in the scholarly world followed the principle of ‘writing to convey the Way’ (wen yi zai dao), combining the national conditions and social realities of late Qing China, and with a strong desire to ‘convey the Way,’ consciously selected the ideological propositions and various ‘isms’ they admired, implemented the relevant texts, and strove to ‘awaken to the Way’ in ‘conveying the Way,’ and to ‘practice the Way’ in ‘awakening to the Way.’” [48]48 “Writing to convey the Way” (wen yi zai dao) is a traditional Chinese literary principle holding that writing should serve as a vehicle for moral and philosophical truth. To this end, translators searched within China’s indigenous discourse system for “synonymous expressions” and “approximate concepts” to understand and render Marxism, and used fine traditional Chinese culture to explain and express the ideological content and value purport of Marxism. This reduced the “rejection reaction” in transplanting Marxism into China, gave Marxism a Chinese cultural style and character, and promoted the return to the original and renewal of traditional Chinese culture as well as its modern transformation. This historical process demonstrates the initiative and creativity of modern Chinese intellectuals in the development of national culture. At the same time, it is worth noting that when Chinese people first encountered Marxism, they used China’s linguistic system and cultural spirit to understand it. While this enhanced Marxism’s appeal and affinity for Chinese people, it also to a certain extent obscured the essential differences between traditional Chinese culture and Marxism, leading to simplifications or even misunderstandings in comprehending Marxism, which had a certain negative impact on the Chinese people’s scientific understanding of Marxism.

综上可见，马克思主义在中国的早期传播，首先解决的是如何让马克思、恩格斯“说中国话”的问题。“在译介过程中，几乎所有知识界学人都依循‘文以载道’的理念，结合清末中国的国情及社会现状，以‘载道’的强烈愿望，有意识地选择自己所赞赏的思想主张和种种‘主义’，落实相关文本，力图在‘传道’中‘悟道’、在‘悟道’中‘行道’。”为此，译者在中国本土话语系统中寻找理解和表述马克思主义的“同义话语”和“近似概念”，并以中华优秀传统文化阐释和表达马克思主义的思想内涵和价值旨趣，减少了马克思主义向中国移植的“排异性”，使马克思主义获得了中国文化的风格和性格，促进了中国传统文化的返本开新和现代转型。这一历史过程体现出中国近代知识分子在民族文化发展中的主动性和创造性。同时值得注意的是，中国人在最初接触马克思主义时，运用中国的语言体系和文化精神来理解马克思主义，在增强马克思主义对中国人的吸引力和亲和性的同时，也在一定程度上遮蔽了中国传统文化与马克思主义之间的本质性差异，在理解马克思主义时出现了简单化甚至误解的现象，这对中国人科学理解马克思主义产生了一定的负面影响。

IV. Valuable Experience from the Historical Inception Stage of the Integration of Marxism with Fine Traditional Chinese Culture

四、马克思主义与中华优秀传统相结合的历史启程阶段的宝贵经验

In terms of content, research on the “Second Integration” should emphasize and advance the study of the history of the early dissemination of Marxism in China. The “Two Integrations” each have their own emphasis. The integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities emphasizes the guidance of theory over reality and the elevation of experience into theory; it unfolds along with the development of the Chinese revolutionary path and deepens with the deepening understanding of revolution, construction, and reform. The integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture emphasizes that Marxism becomes Chinese and fine traditional Chinese culture becomes modern. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Marx’s doctrines and socialist theory were introduced into China, beginning the historical process of integration with fine traditional Chinese culture. In this process, the group of translators transformed Marxism from foreign languages into the Chinese language, using the discourse system and ideological content of fine traditional Chinese culture to understand and explain Marxism, playing an important role in the integration of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture. Of course, from an individual perspective, a translator’s own translation practice may have been spontaneous rather than self-conscious, and their understanding of Marxism may have been fragmentary rather than holistic. But the collective efforts of the translator group converged into a surging torrent of Marxism’s dissemination in China, setting off wave after wave of cultural and ideological revolutions. Therefore, studying the “Second Integration” must emphasize research on the history of the early dissemination of Marxism in China, extending the timeline back to the late 19th and early 20th centuries, while not neglecting the historical role of the translator group.

对“第二个结合”的研究，在内容上应当重视和推进对马克思主义中国早期传播史的研究。“两个结合”各有侧重，马克思主义基本原理与中国具体实际相结合，强调的是理论对现实的指引性和经验对理论的提升性，它是随着中国革命道路的展开而展开的，随着对革命、建设和改革的认识深化而深化的；马克思主义基本原理同中华优秀传统文化相结合，强调的是马克思主义成为中国的，中华优秀传统文化成为现代的。19世纪末20世纪初，马克思的学说和社会主义理论传入中国，开始了与中华优秀传统文化相结合的历史进程。在这一过程中，译者群体将马克思主义从域外语言文字转变为中国语言文字，用中华优秀传统文化的话语体系和思想内容来理解和阐释马克思主义，对马克思主义与中华优秀传统文化的结合起到了重要作用。当然，从个体角度来讲，译者本人的翻译实践也许是自发而非自觉的，对马克思主义的理解可能是碎片而非整体的，但译者群体合力汇聚起马克思主义在中国传播的滔滔洪流，掀起了一浪高过一浪的文化和思想革命。因而，研究“第二个结合”，必须重视对马克思主义在中国早期传播史的研究，将时间线延长到19世纪末20世纪初，同时不能忽视译者群体的历史作用。

In terms of method, research on the “Second Integration” should adhere to the combination and unity of theory and history. The combination of theory and history appears to many as empty and abstract. However, through analysis of the early dissemination history of Marxism, it can be seen that theory and history are indeed highly unified. Marx pointed out: “All genuine philosophy is the quintessence of its age.” [49]49 This quotation is from Marx’s writings; the exact source is often cited as his early journalistic work, reflecting his view that philosophy is the intellectual expression of its historical epoch. That is to say, any genuine theory is the “offspring” of history and its era. The theory of the integration of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture was not proposed out of thin air; rather, it is an objective description of the historical process of Marxism’s dissemination and development in China, a summary of general laws, and a generalization of universal characteristics. This is precisely the reason for its powerful explanatory power and vigorous vitality. The process of refining the innovative theory of the “Second Integration” from historical development and historical research itself provides valuable inspiration for academic research. On the one hand, empty theorizing must be avoided; theory must be based on solid historical research, and attention must be paid to studying the historical basis, historical process, and especially the historical origins and historical inception of the theory. This requires us to establish a grand historical perspective, analyzing problems with the broad vision of grand history, and “grasping the essence and internal connections of the development of things with profound historical insight and a broad international perspective.” [50]50 This phrasing echoes standard formulations in official Chinese discourse, emphasizing the need for a broad historical perspective in analysis. For example, when General Secretary Xi Jinping discussed the theory of socialism with Chinese characteristics, he pointed out the need to understand “Chinese characteristics” from the perspective of Chinese cultural history: “Without the five thousand years of Chinese civilization, where would Chinese characteristics come from? Without Chinese characteristics, how could we have the successful path of socialism with Chinese characteristics that we have today?” [51]51 Xi Jinping made this remark in discussions on the cultural roots of socialism with Chinese characteristics, underscoring the indispensability of China’s long civilization. On the other hand, when studying history, one must not merely recount or pile up historical materials; one must be adept at summarizing and refining distinctive theoretical concepts on the basis of historical research, forming new viewpoints that accord with historical reality, advancing the intensity of theoretical innovation, and raising the level of historical research.

对“第二个结合”的研究，在方法上应当坚持理论与历史的结合与统一。理论和历史相结合，在许多人看来是空洞的、抽象的。然而，通过对马克思主义早期传播史的分析可以看出，理论和历史的确是高度统一的。马克思指出：“任何真正的哲学都是自己时代精神的精华。”也就是说，任何真正的理论都是历史和时代的“产儿”。马克思主义与中华优秀传统文化相结合的理论并非凭空提出的，而是对马克思主义在中国传播和发展历史过程的客观描述、一般性规律的总结和普遍性特点的概括，这也是其具有强大解释力和蓬勃生命力的原因所在。从历史发展和历史研究中提炼出“第二个结合”的创新理论，这一过程本身为学术研究提供了宝贵启示。一方面，要避免空谈理论，理论要以扎实的历史研究为基础，要注重研究理论的历史根据、历史过程特别是历史源头和历史启程的研究。这就要求我们要树立大历史观的思维，以大历史的宏大视野去分析问题，“用深邃的历史眼光、宽广的国际视野把握事物发展的本质和内在联系”。例如，习近平总书记在谈到中国特色社会主义理论时，就指出需要从中华文化史的角度来理解“中国特色”：“如果没有中华五千年文明，哪里有什么中国特色？如果不是中国特色，哪有我们今天这么成功的中国特色社会主义道路？”另一方面，研究历史时，不能只是复述或堆积史料，而要善于在历史研究的基础上概括和提炼富有标识性的理论，在历史研究的基础上形成符合历史实际的新观点，推进理论创新的力度，提升历史研究的水平。

In terms of direction, research on the “Second Integration” should continuously advance the discourse revolution and ideological innovation of the integration of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture. “Innovation means creating new ideas, new discourses, new mechanisms, and new forms; under the guidance of Marxism, we must truly make the past serve the present, make foreign things serve China, exercise dialectical selection, weed through the old to bring forth the new, and achieve an organic connection between tradition and modernity.” [52]52 This passage is drawn from official statements on cultural innovation, advocating a selective and creative approach to tradition and foreign influences. Regarding the “integration” in the “Second Integration,” we must not only delve deeply from the vertical dimension of historical origins but also utilize new methods from the humanities and social sciences, such as “theory travel” theory and “cross-lingual practice” theory, to deeply study how Marxism, which originated abroad, overcame the cultural resistance of cross-regional, cross-temporal, and cross-lingual barriers, successfully achieved integration with China’s indigenous culture, and gradually produced Sinicized Marxism. In the early process of Marxism’s dissemination in China, translators used the discourse system and ideological content of traditional Chinese culture to understand and express Marx’s doctrines and socialist theory, enabling Marxism to acquire the “outer garment” and “body” of Chinese culture on Chinese soil, successfully “naturalizing” in China and becoming an indispensable component of China’s indigenous culture. The organic integration of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture enabled the “root vein” of fine traditional Chinese culture to achieve a renewal of life, and enabled Marxism to cross vast oceans to become the “soul vein” and ideological guide of Chinese culture. “Upholding this soul and root well is the foundation and prerequisite for theoretical innovation.” [53]53 This is a key formulation from Xi Jinping, stressing that the “soul” (Marxism) and “root” (traditional culture) are the foundations of theoretical innovation. The “Second Integration” points to a new path for resolving the “dispute between the ancient and the modern, China and the West,” opens up vast space for theoretical and practical innovation, and produces a large number of new discourses and new ideas of Chinese Marxism. This provides new ideas for academic research and innovation in the New Era: adhere to the “integration” approach, “use Marxism to activate the vital and excellent factors in fine traditional Chinese culture and endow them with new contemporary connotations, and inject the great spirit and rich wisdom of the Chinese nation more deeply into Marxism,” [54]54 This directive calls for revitalizing traditional cultural elements through Marxism while infusing Marxism with Chinese wisdom. and “in a broader cultural space, fully utilize the precious resources of fine traditional Chinese culture to explore future-oriented theoretical and institutional innovation.” [55]55 This statement encourages exploring new theoretical and institutional possibilities by drawing on traditional cultural resources within a broader cultural framework. Academic research needs to promote the benign interaction and organic integration of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture, innovate the discursive concepts and ideological connotations of their integration, consolidate the historical and cultural foundations of the Sinicization of Marxism, promote the creative transformation and innovative development of fine traditional Chinese culture, and strive to build the modern civilization of the Chinese nation.

对“第二个结合”的研究，在方向上应当持续不断地推进马克思主义与中华优秀传统文化相结合的话语革命和思想创新。“创新，创的是新思路、新话语、新机制、新形式，要在马克思主义指导下真正做到古为今用、洋为中用、辩证取舍、推陈出新，实现传统与现代的有机衔接。”对“第二个结合”中的“结合”，既要从历史源头的纵向维度去深入，又要利用人文社会科学领域的新方法，如“理论旅行”理论、“跨语际实践”理论等，深入研究域外产生的马克思主义如何克服跨地域、跨时空、跨语际的文化阻力，而成功与中国本土文化实现结合并逐步产生中国化的马克思主义。马克思主义在中国早期传播的过程中，译者运用中国传统文化的话语体系和思想内容来理解和表述马克思学说和社会主义理论，使马克思主义在中国本土获得了中国文化的“外衣”和“身躯”，成功“入籍”中国，成为中国本土文化不可或缺的组成部分。马克思主义与中华优秀传统文化的有机结合，使中华优秀传统文化之“根脉”实现了生命更新，使马克思主义越过万里重洋而成为中国文化的“魂脉”和思想引领。“坚守好这个魂和根，是理论创新的基础和前提。”“第二个结合”指明了破解“古今中西之争”的新路，开拓了广阔的理论与实践创新空间，产生了大量中国马克思主义的新话语和新思想。这为新时代学术研究和创新提供了新思路，即坚持“结合”的思路，“用马克思主义激活中华优秀传统文化中富有生命力的优秀因子并赋予新的时代内涵，将中华民族的伟大精神和丰富智慧更深层次地注入马克思主义”，“在更广阔的文化空间中，充分运用中华优秀传统文化的宝贵资源，探索面向未来的理论和制度创新”。学术研究需要推进马克思主义与中华优秀传统文化的良性互动和有机结合，创新二者结合的话语概念和思想内涵，夯实马克思主义中国化的历史根基和文化根基，推动中华优秀传统文化的创造性转化和创新性发展，努力建设中华民族现代文明。

(Author’s bio: Lu Kuan, Researcher and Doctoral Supervisor at the Institute of Modern Chinese History, School of Marxism, Peking University)

（作者简介：路宽，北京大学马克思主义学院中国近现代史研究所研究员、博士生导师）

Online Editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心