From Mao Zedong’s Philosophy to the Principles and Direction of the “Two Integrations” in Adapting Marxism to the Chinese Context

The adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context is an old topic that has existed for more than 80 years. On October 14, 1938, Mao Zedong, in his report “On the New Stage” at the Sixth Plenary Session of the Sixth Central Committee of the CPC, proposed “the Sinicization of Marxism.” Later, the article “The Role of the Chinese Communist Party in the National War,” included in Volume 2 of the *Selected Works of Mao Zedong*, used the phrase “making Marxism concrete in China.” This was an adjustment made in response to the circumstances of the time. At the same time, the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context is also a new topic. Because “Sinicization” once again became a focus of theoretical circles in the mid-1990s, and since then it has been continuously emphasized and promoted for research and propaganda by intellectual circles, theoretical circles, academic circles, and even our Party. The integration of the fundamental tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities involves not only the two aspects of the fundamental tenets of Marxism and China’s specific realities, but also the question of how the two are integrated, as well as the further direction of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context. This article will delve into several related issues from the perspective of Mao Zedong’s philosophy.

I. Accurately Interpreting the “Two Integrations”

In his speech at the celebration of the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China, Xi Jinping clearly

1. Correctly Understanding “China’s Specific Realities”

Marxism must be integrated with China’s specific realities, that is, it must be grounded in China as it is at the time, grounded in the various actual conditions existing in China at present, including all social factors—traditional and contemporary, indigenous and foreign—that still exist and influence China’s actual development.

The given nature of China’s social structure includes the political, economic, cultural, and social conditions, as well as the material and natural conditions—such as mountains, rivers, mineral resources, local customs, and folkways—on which the Chinese people rely for their survival. Among these, culture, especially traditional Chinese culture, exerts an influence that cannot be ignored; it radiates into every sphere of Chinese society and permeates all activities of every social member. This is something that no theory seeking to solve China’s problems can evade.

Generally speaking, China’s specific realities inherently include traditional Chinese culture. But insofar as Marxism serves as the theoretical foundation guiding our thought, the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context should pay greater attention to the actual practice of the masses, which influences the development of Chinese society.

What is called “China’s specific realities” is essentially characterized by active demand. This active demand is determined by the principal contradiction in Chinese society. Because the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context is meant to resolve the questions of the path, goals, and direction of Chinese social development, the foundation for resolving these questions lies in understanding and resolving the principal contradiction in Chinese society.

The integration of the fundamental tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities should, at every stage of Chinese social development, focus on and be grounded in understanding and resolving the principal contradiction in Chinese society. At different stages of Chinese social development and in different periods of the Chinese revolution and construction, the realities we face include aspects that are unchanging and relatively stable, but more often they include aspects that change as society develops.

Since the founding of the People’s Republic of China, after decades of adjustment and development, the people’s economy has become increasingly mature. Its basic core is that economic achievements are created by and enjoyed by all the people. The basic structure of Chinese society is also adapted to this. For example, in the political structure, the mechanism of “people’s democratic dictatorship” is adopted; in culture, it is the culture of the masses of the people; in the economy, a structure with public ownership as the mainstay and diverse forms of ownership developing together is adopted. In daily social life, one can see everywhere the People’s Bank, the People’s Post, the People’s Public Security, the People’s Government, and so on. Therefore, the integration of the fundamental tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities must proceed from such realities and must stand on such a foundation.

Neoliberal economics, however, hopes to reconstruct the Chinese economy with Western economics, completely negating China’s existing economic base—its economic structure (model) and economic operation mechanism. Such reconstruction would inevitably cause a redistribution of social resources, inevitably negate and cause the loss of the interests of the existing social subjects, thereby forming new special interest groups. Undoubtedly, “neoliberal economics” is completely divorced from the actual conditions of Chinese society and also deviates from the fundamental goals of our reform and opening up.

2. Correctly Understanding “Outstanding Traditional Chinese Culture”

Since the Opium War of 1840, the path to the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation has unfolded following the logic of political liberation, economic takeoff, and cultural reconstruction. In the New Era, the task of cultural reconstruction for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation is presented before us with extreme urgency.

In fact, when we speak of the integration of the fundamental tenets of Marxism with China’s specific realities, these specific realities also include traditional Chinese philosophy and culture. The proposal of the “Second Integration” in the New Era—that is, the integration of the fundamental tenets of Marxism with outstanding traditional Chinese culture—has its special practical significance.

Regarding how to correctly understand outstanding traditional Chinese culture, Mao Zedong once gave an extremely incisive explanation: first, from Confucius to Sun Yat-sen, a comprehensive, systematic, and profound sorting out must be done; second, absorb its essence and discard its dross. So, what is essence? What is dross? Mao Zedong profoundly pointed out, “Discarding its feudal dross and absorbing its democratic essence is a necessary condition for developing a new national culture and enhancing national self-confidence.” [1]1 “Seeking truth from facts” (实事求是, shishi qiushi) is a classical Chinese idiom that Mao Zedong reinterpreted through the lens of dialectical materialism, transforming it into a core principle of the CPC’s ideological method. The “feudal dross” mentioned here refers to those feudal superstitions, decadent and degenerate, evil and reactionary cultures that poison young people and the people. The “democratic essence” mainly refers to those cultures that belong to the “true, the good, and the beautiful,” that promote the people’s upward progress, and that endow positive energy. The “new national culture” to be developed today is the advanced culture of socialism with Chinese characteristics, formed by integrating the fundamental tenets of Marxism with outstanding traditional Chinese culture. Such a new culture is undoubtedly a necessary condition for “enhancing national self-confidence” and enabling the Chinese nation to stand proudly among the advanced nations of the world.

To correctly understand outstanding traditional Chinese culture, it is also necessary to clarify the distinction between “essence” and “quintessence.” [2]2 The 18th National Congress of the CPC was held in November 2012, marking the beginning of Xi Jinping’s leadership and the official introduction of the “Chinese Dream” concept. What is called the “quintessence” of traditional culture refers to those things that represent the basic spirit of traditional culture. It is a factual judgment people make about traditional culture. It constitutes the most fundamental characteristic of the culture, is the core of the culture, is the mark that distinguishes one culture from another, and is the basis on which that culture can be established.

What is called the “essence” of traditional culture refers to a value judgment, an evaluation people make about traditional culture. This value judgment and evaluation must be grounded in actual society and is established concerning the question of inheriting the cultural tradition.

The quintessence and essence of traditional Chinese culture differ, first, in terms of their existence, in that they have the distinction between eternity and temporality; second, in terms of their nature, in that they have the distinction between stability and changeability; third, in terms of their connotation, in that they exhibit a relationship between absoluteness and relativity. In the study of traditional Chinese culture, people often overlook or fail to realize the distinction between the quintessence and the essence of culture, and often confuse the fundamental difference between quintessence and essence.

The essence of traditional Chinese culture should be sought in the emergence and development of traditional Chinese philosophy. Traditional Chinese philosophy arose during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods, but its earliest origins lie in the transition from the Shang to the Zhou dynasties. Although the situation at that time was one of “a hundred schools of thought contending,” in subsequent development Confucianism and Daoism gradually occupied the mainstream. From the *Book of Changes* to the *Commentary on the Book of Changes*, the basic spirit of traditional Chinese philosophy had already been essentially established. This spirit was fully unfolded in the course of the development of Chinese philosophy. Song-dynasty Neo-Confucians once proposed the famous “sixteen-character heart-mind transmission” as the orthodox tradition and core spirit of Chinese culture, namely: “The human mind is precarious; the Dao mind is subtle; be refined, be single-minded, hold fast to the Mean” (*Book of Documents*, “Counsels of the Great Yu”). [3]3 The “sixteen-character heart-mind transmission” (十六字心传) is a phrase from the *Book of Documents* that Song Neo-Confucians elevated as the core of the Confucian orthodoxy, linking it to the legendary sage-kings Yao, Shun, and Yu. Although they, proceeding from the need to construct their Neo-Confucian system, took it out of context and lavishly praised it, regarding it as the principle of governing the state and cultivating the person handed down from heart to heart by Yao, Shun, and Yu, from these sixteen characters we can also extract the concept of “the Mean.”

I believe that this “Mean” should be regarded as the essence of traditional Chinese philosophy. The “Mean” is harmony, is oneness, is greatness, and is also correctness. The “Mean” is not “the doctrine of the mean,” which is often interpreted as compromise; compromise is not harmony, not correctness, not oneness. The “Mean” is a philosophical category, also an ethical and aesthetic category, and also a category of social, political, economic, and cultural life. The “Mean” possesses the characteristics of harmony, oneness, correctness, and greatness.

The “Mean” as “harmony” speaks to the relations among things: each obtains its proper place, all is orderly, and the method of handling is to coordinate all sides and strive for a win-win outcome.

The “Mean” is also “oneness,” bearing the implication of origin and destination; it is the core, the center, that toward which all things in the universe tend. The myriad things in the world are each different, but in the final analysis they are unified.

The “Mean” is also “correctness,” what is called “holding fast to the Mean and guarding oneness.” It represents fairness, justice, and uprightness; it adheres to principle and opposes extremes; it is the highest value pursuit in the ethical sense.

The “Mean” is also “greatness”: ritual propriety under heaven; “all under heaven is the king’s land; all within the borders are the king’s subjects.” What is called the Central Kingdom, the Central Land, seeks not only centrality but also greatness, and greatness is majestic and lofty.

The “Mean,” as the essence of traditional Chinese philosophy, is embodied at different levels of traditional Chinese philosophy and simultaneously permeates all aspects of ancient Chinese society. The “Mean,” as the essence of traditional Chinese culture, was annotated in feudal society by the ethical code of “ruler, minister, father, son,” [4]4 “Ruler, minister, father, son” (君君臣臣父父子子) is a Confucian formulation from the *Analects* (12:11) that prescribes hierarchical social roles and duties, often criticized as the basis of feudal patriarchal ideology. while in a socialist society it should become the purpose followed by “serving the people.”

Since reform and opening up, there has been a saying in the theory of socialist economic system reform: the “hypothesis of economic man.” It first assumes that people are all selfish, then determines the personification of ownership on this basis, and then argues for the legitimacy and rationality of private ownership. This has vigorously attempted to steer the voyage of reform and opening up onto a wrong course. But the basic principles of Marxism tell us that the essence of the human being is the ensemble of social relations. It is not innate but acquired, gradually formed in the practical social activities of later life. We also know that traditional Chinese culture emphasizes: “At birth, human nature is good; natures are similar, habits diverge. If not taught, nature deteriorates.” [5]5 This is the opening of the *Three Character Classic* (三字经), a traditional Chinese primer for children, which asserts the innate goodness of human nature and the importance of education. Today, when we speak of the “Mean,” we proceed from the foundation of harmony, oneness, correctness, greatness, and beauty that it nurtures. Of course, the expression of the essence of traditional Chinese culture as the “Mean” or “seeking the Mean” is also revealed in contrast with the expression of the essence of Western culture as “difference” or “seeking difference.”

Thus, it is very important to understand and grasp the essence and quintessence of traditional culture, and how to correctly treat traditional culture is even more important. The compatibility and integrability of fine traditional Chinese culture with Marxism do exist, but of course we still need to grasp them deeply.

II. Several Basic Principles for Correctly Implementing the “Two Integrations”

Correctly handling the “Two Integrations” faces a series of complex situations. The “Two Integrations” are not a slogan; they must be implemented in practice through feasible and concrete methods.

1. Several Basic Principles and Focal Points for Integrating the Basic Principles of Marxism with China’s Specific Realities

First, the integration of the basic principles of Marxism with China’s specific realities must clarify the basic principles of “integration,” namely, seeking truth from facts, integrating theory with practice, and practice as the criterion of truth.

First of all, all truth is concrete truth. Because all knowledge is concrete knowledge, similarly, all correct knowledge is correct knowledge of concrete things. Marxism correctly reveals the laws of development of human society; it is a vast system of thought constructed from individual concrete truths.

Secondly, what is called universal truth means that knowledge correctly reflects the true face of objective things, that is, the subjective correctly reflects the objective. Such knowledge, whenever and wherever it addresses that thing, is correct and should be regarded as truth. This is also considered the absoluteness of truth, also called absolute truth.

However, the application of truth is time-sensitive. Lenin said that truth, if taken one step further, becomes error. No truth can provide correct guidance at all times or for all things.

Therefore, the integration of the universal truth of Marxism with China’s specific realities first requires clarifying that it is not a matter of indiscriminately taking all truths of Marxism and applying them to China’s specific realities, nor is it possible to indiscriminately apply any one truth of Marxism to China’s specific realities at different periods.

Second, it must be recognized that Marxism, as a scientific worldview and methodology, has a clear question of standpoint. The most fundamental aspect of the universal truth of Marxism is its basic standpoints, viewpoints, and methods, that is, the Marxist worldview and methodology. This worldview and methodology is to understand and transform the world with a materialist and dialectical viewpoint and method.

Although we say that Marxism is a scientific worldview and methodology, today, globally, there are many who oppose Marxism, and non-Marxists are even the majority. Originally, Marxism was a doctrine seeking the interests and liberation of the vast majority of working people, yet today the majority of people in the world have not accepted Marxism. This situation will change with the development and transformation of the world. But it is worth noting that Marxism must keep pace with the times in order to guide the development of the world.

One of the basic contents of Marxism is the revelation of the principal contradiction of the current society; the other is the revelation of the fundamental laws of the development of human society.

The former revelation is mainly embodied in Marx’s revelation of the phenomena of the development of Western European society from early to middle capitalism, in which he lived. On the basis of extensive analysis and research, Marx’s *Capital*, from the duality of the commodity to the duality of labor to the revelation of the essence of capital, reflected the highly dualistic characteristics of the social ecology of that time. At that time, Marxism gained great recognition among the working masses in Western society and showed a trend of rapid development. It moved from theory to practice, from one country to many countries. However, because of the enormous changes in the world situation that followed and the mistakes and deviations in the theory and practice of actually existing socialist countries, this opportunity was lost and missed. Thus, Marxism today has begun a new exploration to solve the new problems raised by the times.

The latter revelation is mainly embodied in Marxism’s revelation of the long-term future of human society, that is, the fundamental mode of existence of human society, exploring how human beings should actually survive and live. But achieving this distant goal lies in an extremely remote future, thereby weakening the sense of urgency and participation of people in the present era.

We believe that these two phenomena above may be the main factors leading to non-Marxists being the majority today.

As for anti-Marxism, or even hostility toward Marxism, it mostly involves distorting Marxism; fundamentally, it stems from having a different standpoint. Those who hold such a standpoint are either members of the ruling class (vested interest groups) or people who hope to become part of the ruling class. For example, a recent post on the internet, written by a Chinese person working at Deutsche Bank, discussed *Capital*. The author argued that Marx, in *Capital*, correctly analyzed the process of the market economy, starting from capital accumulation, the production process, the circulation process, capital re-accumulation, surplus value, and then financial redistribution. But where was Marx’s mistake? The mistake, the author claimed, was that Marx began from fair distribution, rather than, like Keynes, beginning from maximizing resource utilization and resource efficiency. Therefore, the author believed that socialism and the Chinese revolution’s rebellion of the poor against the rich were wrong, because the wealth of the rich was permitted by the system and laws of that time. Another post argued that the fairness we should pursue is fairness of starting point, not fairness of final outcome. It claimed that with fairness of starting point, the subsequent gaps and unfairness in outcomes result from some people being diligent and others lazy. Therefore, fairness of outcome should not be the goal we pursue.

What they overlook is the most fundamental issue: Marxism holds that it is precisely the capitalist social system that protects a society where people exploit people, and to regard social development, especially capitalist development, as starting-point fairness not only does not conform to historical truth but also obscures the conscience of human society. Because the accumulation of wealth under capitalism began with “sheep eating men.” [6]6 “Sheep eating men” refers to the English historical phenomenon of the enclosure movement, in which common lands were privatized for sheep farming, displacing peasants. Marx used this phrase in *Capital* to illustrate primitive accumulation.

We say that practice is the sole criterion for testing truth. Although this includes both the process and the outcome of practice, ultimately it is the outcome of practice that tests it. Therefore, whether society is fair or not requires both fairness of starting point and, even more, fairness of outcome. Fairness of starting point alone, in a certain sense, is actually a kind of hypocritical fairness. Hence, holding a different standpoint inevitably leads to a different understanding of Marxism.

Third, we must fully understand the changes in the nature of Chinese society and the shifts in its principal contradiction. How to understand China’s concrete reality? To understand the fundamental nature of Chinese society’s existence and the principal contradiction it faces, only by proceeding from the fundamental nature of society, grasping the principal contradiction, and resolving it can we truly recognize and understand China’s concrete reality and thus form the “Two Integrations.”

Therefore, in the integration of the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s concrete reality, the “China’s concrete reality” referred to means the concrete conditions of society as determined by the principal contradiction currently existing in Chinese society and the nature of that society.

If one proceeds only from a one-sided or partial level, one cannot truly and comprehensively understand China’s social reality, still less grasp Chinese society’s history, present, and future. Only by deeply understanding and correctly grasping the nature and principal contradiction of Chinese society can one truly understand and grasp the reality of Chinese society.

Regarding the achievements and setbacks of the 70 years of New China, how to understand the differences among GDP, gross national product, and gross industrial and agricultural output? How to understand changes in the average national income level? During the commemoration of 70 years of New China, CCTV’s “Figures Tell China” program, in its chart on the scale of economic development over 70 years of New China, set the growth rate for 1952–1979 to zero, which stirred up huge waves online. Also, comparing the total economic output of the three years 1949, 1979, and 2018 was used to show the leap and superiority of the latter 40 years. But where do these data come from? What is the difference between GDP and gross industrial and agricultural output? What is the relationship between the price rise index and the level of inflation? Especially changes in purchasing power—these are all factors that cannot be ignored.

If one cannot fully understand these things, it is impossible to have an accurate grasp of China’s concrete reality. How, then, can one talk about integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s concrete reality? Therefore, we must use the method of historical materialism to understand the development and change of the principal contradiction in Chinese society.

Fourth, the positioning of socialism with Chinese characteristics (including the political and economic levels). Socialism with Chinese characteristics encompasses two concepts: Chinese characteristics and socialism. On the one hand, we must handle the relationship between the universal and the particular in dialectical materialism, which is also the relationship between commonality and individuality, and between the general and the individual. On the other hand, we must handle the “characteristics” of Chinese characteristics. We must also handle the relationship between the essence and attributes of socialism.

Generally speaking, Chinese characteristics are treated as the particular, the individual, and the distinctive, while socialism is treated as the universal, the general, and the common. However, both Chinese characteristics and socialism each have their own relationships of universal and particular, general and individual, commonality and individuality. Moreover, how the “characteristics” of China correspond to the commonality of socialism—that is, the problem of how to integrate them—is an even more difficult issue.

At the same time, Chinese characteristics actually refer to characteristics in contrast to those of other countries. Therefore, how to both uphold the generality, universality, and commonality of socialism and adhere to socialist principles that fit China’s reality requires a choice of Chinese characteristics. Hence, socialism with Chinese characteristics is precisely the problem of how to integrate the two.

The Sinicization of Marxism is the product of integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s concrete reality. Or, to put it another way, it is the use of the basic standpoints, viewpoints, and methods of Marxism to study and explore the concrete reality of China’s revolution, construction, and reform, and to theoretically elevate the experience generated in this exploration, thereby forming a relatively systematic and systemized ideological theory. Only then can it be called a great achievement of the Sinicization of Marxism.

2. The Basic Principles of Integrating the Basic Tenets of Marxism with China’s Excellent Traditional Culture and Several Tendencies to Be Avoided

First, the basic principles and methods of integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s excellent traditional culture.

One is to take its essence and discard its dregs. There is no doubt that the first step in integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with China’s excellent traditional culture is to face the problem of how to distinguish the “essence” from the “dregs” in traditional Chinese culture. Mao Zedong’s attitude was “take its essence, discard its dregs.” The “dregs” and “essence” of traditional culture are mainly judged by whether they have a positive promoting effect on China’s current development. Therefore, when Chinese society was in the process of transitioning from a feudal society to a new-democratic society and then to a socialist society, Mao proposed discarding its feudal dregs and absorbing its democratic essence. In the New Era, taking the essence and discarding the dregs of traditional Chinese culture still depends on whether it is beneficial to the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and to the well-being of the broadest masses of the people—that is, it must be based on the most fundamental concept of “people-centered.”

Second, critical inheritance and bringing forth the new through the old. Traditional Chinese culture, in the final analysis, served the political and economic base of feudalism, and therefore is fundamentally no longer suited to modern society. Yet traditional Chinese culture is also the wisdom distilled by the Chinese nation in its struggle for survival and development; consequently, it must undergo critical transformation to discard its dross and select its essence, thereby achieving the inheritance of fine traditional Chinese culture. This critical transformation means using the Marxist stance, viewpoint, and method to transform the excellent and essential parts of traditional Chinese culture, rather than simply and directly adopting an approach of indiscriminate appropriation. For example, Mao Zedong's dialectical materialist transformation of the idiom "seeking truth from facts" [7]7 "Seeking truth from facts" (实事求是, shi shi qiu shi) is a classical Chinese idiom originally referring to a scholarly attitude of seeking evidence from concrete facts. Mao Zedong redefined it in dialectical materialist terms as a core principle of the CPC's ideological method, emphasizing the investigation of objective realities as the basis for policy and action.. Of course, the "essence" of traditional Chinese culture can also be subjected to critical transformation, extracting its beneficial components, carrying out creative development and innovative transformation, achieving the bringing forth of the new through the old, and thereby realizing its inheritance and development as fine traditional Chinese culture. For instance, the essence of traditional Chinese culture mentioned earlier, "the Mean" (zhong), although possessing characteristics such as "harmony, oneness, correctness, and greatness," was annotated in feudal society by the ethical code of "the ruler rules, the minister serves; the father guides, the son obeys," whereas in socialist society it can be followed in accordance with the tenet of "serving the people."

Third, valuing the present over the past, and making the past serve the present. Chinese traditional culture has been continuously vibrant, stretching for thousands of years, and the excellent factors it has precipitated form a brilliant river of civilization. Some of these excellent achievements have lost their practical influence due to changes in the times. For example, the Daoist thought of "governing by non-action" (wu wei er zhi) played a positive role many times in history, but that was under conditions of relatively backward productive forces in feudal society, where it had a positive and effective effect on restoring agricultural production. Today's development of agricultural productive forces no longer requires such a method of state governance. Some require critical transformation before they can play a positive role in real society, such as the critical transformation of "benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and trustworthiness" (ren, yi, li, zhi, xin). Of course, some still possess enormous and effective guiding value today, such as "continuous self-renewal" (zi qiang bu xi) and "embracing all things with virtue" (hou de zai wu). How to correctly view fine traditional Chinese culture and concretely and effectively apply it to the development of the present era requires adhering to the principle of valuing the present over the past and making the past serve the present.

Fourth, letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend. On April 28, 1956, Mao Zedong said at an enlarged meeting of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee that "letting a hundred flowers bloom" in matters of art and "letting a hundred schools of thought contend" in matters of academia should become the guiding principles for developing science and flourishing literature and art in our country. On May 2 of the same year, Mao Zedong formally announced the policy of "letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend" at the Supreme State Conference [8]8 The "Hundred Flowers" policy (百花齐放, 百家争鸣) was formally announced by Mao Zedong in 1956 to encourage diversity and debate in the arts and sciences. It was initially intended to promote intellectual and cultural vitality under socialist guidance, though its implementation was later curtailed during the Anti-Rightist Campaign of 1957..

"Letting a hundred flowers bloom" and "letting a hundred schools of thought contend" are usually used to describe diversity and competition in the fields of art and science. Mao Zedong, however, placed greater emphasis on the idea that, within a pluralistic environment, competition and exchange can stimulate more innovation and progress. In the process of integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture, it is also necessary to encourage the basic tenets of Marxism to critically draw on and absorb Western culture, especially modern and contemporary Western culture, and to obtain new momentum for cultural development from the new achievements of science and technology. At the same time, it is also anticipated that through the "Two Integrations," the excellent factors of traditional Chinese culture can be manifested in more forms, with more layered characteristics, and in a broader range of fields, thereby continuing the historical river of Chinese civilization.

Fifth, adhering to the Marxist stance, viewpoint, and method. This is also the most important principle: that the Marxist stance, viewpoint, and method must be adhered to in every link of the "Two Integrations." This is also the most fundamental principle of the "Two Integrations." The preceding four are the general principles of "integration," and also the basic methods for realizing the "Two Integrations."

Integrating the basic tenets of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture means using the basic tenets of Marxism to distinguish essence from dross, and to criticize and transform Chinese traditional culture. On the one hand, this enables Marxism to truly take root, sprout, and grow on Chinese soil; on the other hand, it enables Chinese culture to gain new life and create new brilliance, thereby continuing the brilliant historical river of Chinese civilization.

Second, critical inheritance and innovation through discarding the old. Traditional Chinese culture, in the final analysis, served the political and economic base of feudalism, and therefore is fundamentally no longer suited to modern society. Yet traditional Chinese culture is also the wisdom distilled by the Chinese nation in its struggle for survival and development. Hence, it must undergo critical transformation to discard its dross and extract its essence, thereby achieving the inheritance of fine traditional Chinese culture. This critical transformation means using the Marxist stance, viewpoint, and method to transform the excellent and essential parts of traditional Chinese culture, rather than simply and directly adopting a “take-it-as-it-is” approach. For example, Mao Zedong’s dialectical materialist transformation of the idiom “seeking truth from facts” [1]1 “Seeking truth from facts” (实事求是, shishi qiushi) is a classical Chinese idiom that Mao Zedong reinterpreted through the lens of dialectical materialism, transforming it into a core principle of the CPC’s ideological method.. Of course, even the “quintessence” of traditional Chinese culture can undergo critical transformation to extract beneficial components, carry out creative development and innovative transformation, achieve innovation through discarding the old, and thereby realize the inheritance and development of fine traditional Chinese culture. For instance, the “zhong” (the mean) as the quintessence of traditional Chinese culture mentioned earlier, despite having characteristics such as “harmony, oneness, correctness, and greatness,” was annotated in feudal society by the ethical code of “ruler and subject, father and son,” whereas in a socialist society it can be followed by the principle of “serving the people.”

Third, valuing the present over the past and making the past serve the present. Traditional Chinese culture has been continuously vibrant for millennia, and the excellent elements it has precipitated form a brilliant river of civilization. Some of these excellent achievements have lost their practical influence due to changes in the times. For instance, the Daoist idea of “governing by non-action” played a positive role in history on multiple occasions, but that was under conditions of relatively backward productive forces in feudal society, when it effectively helped restore agricultural production. Today’s agricultural productive forces have developed to a point where such a governing principle is no longer needed. Some require critical transformation before they can play a positive role in contemporary society, such as the critical transformation of “benevolence, righteousness, propriety, wisdom, and trustworthiness.” Of course, some still possess enormous and effective guiding value today, such as “unceasing self-improvement” and “great virtue carries all things.” How to correctly view fine traditional Chinese culture and apply it concretely and effectively to the development of the present era requires adhering to the principle of valuing the present over the past and making the past serve the present.

Fourth, letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend. On April 28, 1956, at an enlarged meeting of the Political Bureau of the CPC Central Committee, Mao Zedong stated that “letting a hundred flowers bloom” in artistic matters and “letting a hundred schools of thought contend” in academic matters should become the policy for developing science and enriching literature and art in our country. On May 2 of the same year, Mao Zedong formally announced the policy of “letting a hundred flowers bloom and a hundred schools of thought contend” at the Supreme State Conference.

“Letting a hundred flowers bloom” and “letting a hundred schools of thought contend” are usually used to describe diversity and competition in the fields of art and science. Mao Zedong, however, placed greater emphasis on stimulating more innovation and progress through competition and exchange in a pluralistic environment. In the process of integrating the basic principles of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture, it is also necessary to encourage the basic principles of Marxism to critically draw on and absorb Western culture, especially modern and contemporary Western culture, and to gain new momentum for cultural development from the new achievements of science and technology. At the same time, it is expected that through the “Two Integrations,” the excellent elements of traditional Chinese culture can be manifested in more forms, at more levels, and in broader fields, thereby continuing the historical river of Chinese civilization.

Fifth, adhering to the Marxist stance, viewpoint, and method. This is also the most important principle: at every link of the “Two Integrations,” the Marxist stance, viewpoint, and method must be upheld. This is also the most fundamental principle of the “Two Integrations.” The preceding four are general principles of “integration” and also the basic methods for realizing the “Two Integrations.”

Integrating the basic principles of Marxism with fine traditional Chinese culture means using the basic principles of Marxism to identify essence or dross, criticize and transform traditional Chinese culture. On the one hand, this enables Marxism to truly take root, sprout, and grow on Chinese soil; on the other hand, it allows Chinese culture to gain new life and achieve renewed brilliance, thereby continuing the splendid historical river of Chinese civilization.

The basic principles of Marxism constitute a rigorous and complete ideological system. In practical application, they must be selected and handled in a targeted manner according to different times, places, and conditions. As Marx and Engels stated in the 1872 German edition preface to the *Communist Manifesto*, “the general principles set forth in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever... the practical application of these principles... will, at all times, depend on the historical conditions existing at the moment.”

The basic principles of Marxism manifest themselves at different theoretical levels: principles that reveal the most general laws of the entire objective world, i.e., those basic principles usually encompassed by dialectical materialism; principles that reveal the laws of development of human society, including both class societies and classless social formations. Since we are discussing Marxism based on China’s concrete reality, we must also study the basic principles of Marxism adapted to the Chinese context, i.e., the basic principles and fundamental tenets of socialism with Chinese characteristics. These principles emerged under China’s specific historical conditions and are applicable to China’s reality, but they also have significant reference value for socialist revolution and construction in economically and culturally backward countries.

Without adhering to the basic positions, viewpoints, and methods of Marxism to analyze, critique, and transform traditional Chinese culture, and without distinguishing the clear from the muddled, the true from the false, or the urgent from the less urgent in dealing with traditional Chinese culture, one will inevitably provide an atmosphere and create conditions for the revival of the feudal dregs within traditional Chinese culture.

Therefore, it is necessary to have a conscious awareness of the entire history of Chinese culture, a clear understanding, self-knowledge, and confidence, as well as the autonomous capacity for cultural transformation and the autonomous position for cultural choice.

Issue Three: It is necessary to avoid interpreting Xi Jinping Thought on Culture merely as related to the “Second Integration” and linking traditional culture with the orthodox Confucian tradition (daotong).

Since the National Conference on Propaganda and Thought Work in October 2023 proposed the concept of Xi Jinping Thought on Culture, studying, propagating, researching, and interpreting Xi Jinping Thought on Culture has become a hot topic and focus in theoretical circles. What is Xi Jinping Thought on Culture? What are its connotations? What content does it include? Among these, most articles focus on the “Second Integration,” concentrating on exploring and explaining its great significance, to the point that it seems only through the “Second Integration” can one grasp the true essence of Xi Jinping Thought on Culture, and some even believe that Xi

Among these discussions and explorations, there is a positive side, but there also exists a concern that they deviate from Xi

Clearly, this is a misinterpretation of Xi

That is to say, although there are new features in the form of expression, the essence of this theory remains that of Marxist philosophy; its most basic standpoints, viewpoints, and methods cannot be changed, and this soul-lineage cannot be changed. The theoretical starting point discussed here refers primarily to its logical starting point rather than the foundation of the theory itself. At the fundamental foundation, it remains objective social practice—the practice of human beings engaged in material production—which is entirely consistent with the Marxist philosophical theory constructed by Marx and Engels. However, the logical starting point of a theoretical system can differ. This difference is primarily based, of course, on the particularity of objective practice itself—that is, the practical experience it summarizes and generalizes is the practice of a developed era in Chinese society. For example, Mao Zedong’s philosophical thought summarizes and generalizes the practical experience of how to carry out a proletarian revolution in a country like China, which was semi-colonial and semi-feudal. Deng Xiaoping Theory summarizes and generalizes the practical experience of how to carry out socialist construction in a country like China, which was relatively backward economically and culturally. Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era is a great achievement of theoretical exploration and theoretical innovation regarding the great practice of the entire Party and the entire people in realizing the “two centenary goals” [9]9 The “two centenary goals” (两个一百年奋斗目标) refer to the goals of completing the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects by the centenary of the CPC in 2021 and building China into a modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, and harmonious by the centenary of the People’s Republic of China in 2049. as socialism with Chinese characteristics enters the New Era and faces changes unseen in a century.

3. From China’s Marxist Philosophy to a New Chinese Philosophy

China’s Marxist philosophy is primarily understood from the perspective of a relatively systematic and uniquely theoretical form. This philosophy has established a relatively complete mechanism for its own development; it has thoroughly comprehended and integrated the most fundamental spirit of Marxist philosophy, making it its own lifeline. However, it remains a part of the main edifice of Marxist philosophy, a stage in the development of Marxist philosophy, a form of expression of Marxist philosophy, and, moreover, one among many philosophical schools.

In a country like China, which has a long history and cultural tradition, its traditional philosophy has existed in the world through its unique mode of expression. This Chinese traditional philosophy not only has its own special forms of expression in general categories and concepts but also differs from the Western philosophical tradition in the forms of philosophical thinking and the methods of argumentation and exposition.

Furthermore, from the perspective of observing things, the standpoint for understanding things and the methods for solving problems related to things also differ greatly from other philosophies. Due to these differences, people often conclude that Chinese traditional philosophy is deficient in rationality and emphasizes only intuitive insight, while at the same time being amazed by its profound grasp of the principles of things. In fact, this amazement stems from the results of different thinking structures. Chinese traditional philosophy is not only a unique way for the Chinese nation to understand and transform the world but also an organic component of real Chinese society. Therefore, it cannot be ignored, whether from a critical or an appreciative perspective.

Since the founding of New China, Marxist philosophy has occupied a dominant position in China’s social sciences and philosophy. However, a dominant position cannot replace the existence or even the development of other philosophies and social sciences. For a long time, the lack of a scientific and serious attitude toward Chinese traditional philosophy has meant that criticism has not reached a deep level, resulting in a feeling that criticism has not succeeded in toppling it, while absorption has failed to grasp the essence, often remaining at the level of empty and abstract forms. Consequently, the so-called integration of the basic principles of Marxist philosophy with the excellent essence of Chinese traditional philosophy has only been manifested in form and has not truly unfolded in substance. This has led people, when the overall world situation undergoes drastic changes and Marxist philosophy faces severe challenges, to seek explanations from outside Marxist philosophy. This is probably one reason why modern New Confucianism [10]10 Modern New Confucianism (现代新儒学) is a 20th-century intellectual movement that sought to revive Confucian thought as a response to modernity and Western philosophy, often in dialogue with Marxism. not only survives overseas but also evokes a strong response domestically.

Of course, there are other interpretations as well, all attempting to launch attacks of varying degrees and intensity against the dominant Marxist philosophy. This objective situation determines that Marxist philosophy should, with an even broader magnanimity, integrate the essence of Chinese traditional philosophy and absorb the excellent and rational achievements of the entire process of human cognition. The new Chinese philosophy we speak of is precisely this kind of Marxist philosophy that has integrated the excellent essence of all human spiritual achievements, especially the essence of Chinese traditional philosophy. It not only reaches a relatively perfect level in theory but also truly becomes a philosophy believed in by the vast majority of Chinese people in actual reality.

Clearly, there is still a long way to go and much work to be done to achieve the goal of moving from China’s Marxist philosophy to a new Chinese philosophy. Yet this should be the inevitable trend and goal of the process of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context. It is a necessary link in finding the ultimate answer to the historical question of “Where is China going?” since modern times. In brief, the development of China’s Marxist philosophy and the direction of Chinese philosophy will inevitably converge and merge into one. Mao Zedong’s philosophical thought made a pioneering contribution. Xi Jinping Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era has advanced the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context toward a new era.

During his inspection of Renmin University of China, Xi Jinping pointed out that currently, the theory and practice of upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics have raised a large number of new problems urgently awaiting solutions. Changes unseen in a century are accelerating, and the world has entered a new period of turbulence and transformation. There is an urgent need to answer the questions of the times: “What is wrong with the world?” and “Where is humanity heading?”

We must adhere to integrating the basic principles of Marxism with China’s specific realities and with the fine traditional Chinese culture, base ourselves on the overall strategic situation of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation and changes unseen in a century, and continuously advance the adaptation of Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of the times. Therefore, the direction of adapting Marxism to the Chinese context must first follow Xi Jinping’s requirement to construct an independent knowledge system for China, and be committed to the goals of continuing Chinese civilization, creating the modern civilization of the Chinese nation, and developing Marxism.

(Author: Xue Guangzhou, Professor and Doctoral Supervisor at the Party School of the Central Committee of the CPC [National Academy of Governance], Specially Appointed Professor of the “Tianchi Talent” Program of the Xinjiang Autonomous Region, Specially Appointed Professor of the Key Research Base for Humanities and Social Sciences of the Ministry of Education, the Mao Zedong Thought Research Center of Xiangtan University)

Online Editor: You Heng